Uller said:
Maybe...from my POV, the glass is half full...(now that we're using metaphors)
I think we are in total agreement: CRs are messed up. But we look at it from different angles.
I can accept that.
I look at it as CRs are messed up, but by making some simple judgement calls a DM can make it work. And I'm obviously not the only one as there are plenty of people around here who seem to use the system or some variation. And I definately DO NOT limit things to simple encounters. I stick character classes on my monsters all the time and have even had fights with THREE sides. Maybe I don't see it because I stick with low level campaigns. None of us are that interested in playing above 12th level or so, so seeing the CRs for dragons and solars doesn't really matter to us.
You seem to come at it from more critical view...nothing wrong with criticism...criticize away.
And I'm sorry...but you do come across as having some sort of WotC axe to grind on this issue. And if you recall, I wasn't the only one to say that(and I wasn't attacking you...an attack would have been more like "Stop sounding so hostile you bitter little man(or woman)!" All I said was: "You seem to hold some sort of hostility toward the CR system...strange." Meaning I don't find your criticism of the CR system to be strange(because it certainly has its flaws)...merely your tone(which, as you said, is hard to convey in ASCII)
I certainly have no WoTC axe to grind. If you look back through my posts you will find that I have not slammed WoTC anywhere. I have been critical of people who, IMO blindly, get their back up when I point out a flaw. I have specifically stated that I think 3E is a great system. I am a former GURPS player and I think 3E is the best fantasy game to come around yet.
Attack may be a strong word, but I think it is fairly accurate. You have not attacked me on a personal level, but that is not what I mean. If you review this thread you will see that my involvement in it started as a civil conversation with CRGreathouse and Kreynolds, primarily. Later the posters addressing me (not CRGreathouse or Kreynolds) would start out of the gate with generic "It works fine." comments without even addressing my points or making the slightest attempt to show that it works. Again, they may as well be dripping wet and trying to tell me it is not raining. The simple minded "no it isn't" debate style is irritating. I should learn to ignore it as one of the prices of the wonderful freedom of speech. But so far I have not mastered that ability. I will plead guilty to this being on my list of flaws.
Your first post was not aimed at me, but the "gasp" and "heresy" comments struck me as attacking, and as I saw it, you still did not really address the concerns. You just said that they can be worked around.
Seriously, though, when did I ever say anything bad about WoTC?
Was that you in the old thread? I did not remember that.
Oh...and as for the circumstance modifier thing...I fail to see your arguement. If modifying EL and XP awards based on circumstances is a cop out for the EL system(which it clearly is not...even the system you suggested requires the DM to look at the circumstances and adjust) then why is it not a cop out for skills checks(or any other time that circumstance adjustments might come into play)? I don't see how you could do any XP system that awards PCs for overcoming challenges with out taking into the circumstances surrounding those challenges. For instance...if a party faces 10 encounters with no chance for rest, I would increase the XP for the last 5 or so encounters. If they face 10 and rest between each, then clearly they deserve less XP.
I think this issue is well off on a tangent. But here goes.
In the skills rules circumstance modifiers are only used to modifer the DC because of circustances. If the CR circumstance modifiers were only used to modify exp because of circumstances, then I would have no problem with it.
But when I read the CR rules, I get the clear understanding that circumstance modifiers should be used any time the CR just ins't really right.
For example, if you are climbing a wall with a DC 10 and it is raining, you may add +5 to the DC. No problem everything works fine.
Fighting orcs who have the high ground may deserve a circumstance modifier for determining exp, and that is fine.
But adding one level of fighter to a frost giant would increase his CR by +1. Using a modifier to fix this, whatever you want to call the modifier, is nothing but a cover up. And please, anyone, don't jump on this one example. Look at the first post in this thread and tell me if the two cases deserve the same CR. Which one needs to be fixed and what "circumstance" is that?
Bottom line, using a modifier to "fix" a busted CR does not compare to using a modifier to legitimately adjust a DC for conditions.
Actually, this is a good point. You will note that the DC lists are generally very short, example lists and it is left to the DM to interpolate DCs. If a page or two list of CRs had been provided as reference, I would not have any room for complaint. On the other hand, if they had developed a bunch of DC formulas that frequently gave the wrong answer, I would complain about the skills system.
) 
