I hope I'm wrong about this

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Rel,

I also like your system. But I agree with CRGreathouse that it would not be a good replacement for general use.

I wish it would work in my game, but it would not. Most of my players are very combat oriented. I would like to have more roleplaying, sacrifice, crafting, etc... But I don't. So the system would not work as well for me as it does for you. I think it is a safe assumption that the majority of newbie games would be more like mine in focus.

I do agree with you regarding the CR system and newbies.

And I do really like your system.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I rather like the CR chart.

Sometime I use it as such. Recently, my PCs killed a Kraken. That's CR 12? Fair enough, let's just distribute XP.

Sometime I use CR for the whole encounter. I look at the encounter and compare it to the party, evaluate how hard the fight will be and assign a CR based on that, following the 25% of the ressources guideline.

Sometime I use a CR for the whole encounter, especially for mystery stories and other non-combat heavy session. In these case I assign a CR based on the degree of success.

What I especially like is the FRCS variant of XP distribution, especially since I used it before they published it . Basically It grants more XP to PC of lower levels, allowing them to catch up.

All in all, I find the CR concept useful.

 

[kreynolds]

As Ryan Dancey recently stated in an interview with Morrus, challenge ratings are an ART, not a SCIENCE. I use CRs as a starting point, as a guide. I largely base XP on the encounter itself, not just the monster.

 

[HeavyG]

Getting back to the solar, a 19th level NPC wizard can be assumed to have magic items worth 170,000gp, which would go at least some way to evening the balance. Would this make the wizard equally dangerous as the solar? Maybe, maybe not; it would be a tossup, I think.

Not even close.

First of all, assuming the Solar's 20th level clerical spellcasting and the 19th level wizard's spellcastings cancel themselves out.

Gearwise, the wizard has 170,000gp of stuff. The Solar has, on average, 61000gp as treasure, plus a sword worth more than 200,000 gp (in fact, it's equivalent to a +14 weapon which should be worth about 392,000 gp).

It has spell-like abilities out the wazoo and some very good celestial qualities too (some good immunities, an ungodly AC and natural flight).

I don't even know why I'm arguing about this since the difference is pretty obvious.

 

[hong]

Not even close.

First of all, assuming the Solar's 20th level clerical spellcasting and the 19th level wizard's spellcastings cancel themselves out.

That's a bad argument. CRs are not calculated on the basis of who would win a one-on-one contest. The point is that, for a _party_ of 4 characters, a 19th level wizard should be about as hard to defeat as a solar.

Gearwise, the wizard has 170,000gp of stuff. The Solar has, on average, 61000gp as treasure, plus a sword worth more than 200,000 gp (in fact, it's equivalent to a +14 weapon which should be worth about 392,000 gp).

That dancing vorpal greatsword is a lot less terrifying than its +2 longbow that shoots slaying arrows.

 

[Junkheap]

Solars are cool

Speaking of solars, here's a question.

Is the solar treated as classless, so in other words that is a "base" solar??? If that's so, how can you say a 19th level whatever the hell you want, can even come close to him????
Btw someone forgot the nice bow of slaying he has too. Juicy juicy stuff.

And yes, i think CR is totally crap. I play in 3 campaigns and i DM one. Many a time where a creature of equal CR as the PC's has given the PC's a MUCH harder time than a fight where the CR was 3 higher. And if you need examples, i will provide LOTS, and i am sure others here can too.

 

[Darkness]

I usually use the CR system.

I dislike it, though, for the following reasons, among others:

1. The idea that getting better at what you do - no matter what your class is - is primarily keyed to defeating monsters is silly. Other RPGs handle this much more reasonably; even some level-based ones do despite that fact that it's usually level-based systems that depend on "killing stuff."

2. The CR system is keyed to a theoretical "average" party that doesn't often exist IMC andit's not a reliable guide for how difficult a challenge a given creature is in any case (dragon CRs, anyone? Didn't think so. ).

3. It doesn't work in many parts - e.g., 20th-level commoner being equal to 19th-level NPC wizard being equal to 19th-level PC wizard.

Me, I'm a perfectionist. And this system is too simple, I'm afraid, and so fails despite trying to achieve so much. A more complicated system would be better for what it tries, but it would also be too unwieldy for most people. Thus, replacing it with a fundementally different system might be worthwhile.

 

[Deadguy]

Challenge

Darkness:
1. The idea that getting better at what you do - no matter what your class is - is primarily keyed to defeating monsters is silly. Other RPGs handle this much more reasonably; even some level-based ones do despite that fact that it's usually level-based systems that depend on "killing stuff."

I wanted to call you on this one, Darkness, not persoanlly but because I keep seeing this repeated over and over. D&D3e does not give you experience for killing things! This is made absolutely clear in the DMG. The party is rewarded for overcoming challenges. That might include killing monsters to get their possessions or to stop the doing things, or (insert various reasons for fighting "monsters"). You can earn the same XPs if you manage to avoid the monsters or otherwise meet your objectives in a clever fashion. You can also earn XPs for overcoming other challenges in the game - defeating traps is specifically mentioned, but then so might negotiationg a trade treaty, or resolving a war between to groups of people.

It's up to the DM to reward players for overcoming challenges. A greater effort is made to try and balance combat encounters, because those encounters can be the most dangerous to the party as a whole. But this doesn't mean that they are the only challenges you reward as a DM.

Where you can justly criticise is that too many adventures fail to deliver on this promise and indicate apropriate CRs for non-combat encounters. Sometimes this is left to the DM to decide, but too often they forget to mention it at all. But I assure you this is doable, as I try and include such elements all time: identifying the murderer and handng her over to the Guard is as valuable as defeating her in combat. Overcoming an NPC bard's smear campaign and persuading the Count that you are his ally and not a threat is worth XPs. Heck, I have even awarded XPs for finding a reluctant Wizard and persuading him to Craft something for the PCs!

The game reasoning is mentioned and the tools are there to use. It's up to all of us as DMs to run with this and exploit the tools we have been given!

 

[Arkham]

XP system used by Rel

_That_ is a cool system.

I hope you don't mind my borrowing it for the game I've got
starting up tomorrow...

<joke>Don't worry, I'll give it back when I'm done.</joke>

 

[Uller]

Re: Solars are cool

Speaking of solars, here's a question.

And yes, i think CR is totally crap. I play in 3 campaigns and i DM one. Many a time where a creature of equal CR as the PC's has given the PC's a MUCH harder time than a fight where the CR was 3 higher. And if you need examples, i will provide LOTS, and i am sure others here can too.

You know...pointing out that individual CRs are off does not mean the CR system itself is broken. It means that individual CRs were often not that well thought out and breaks down when the numbers start getting higher. For instance, an increase in 1 CR for every 50% increase in HD works pretty darn well for most monsters below 5HD. From 6-10, it is more like 1 CR for every 33%. Beyond 10HD, you, the DM, need to (OMFG...the heresy!) _THINK_ about the actual CR.

The system itself is quite sound for your average D&D game. I've been using it and rarely do I find that I miss judged the challenge my party had to face or that they've got too much or too little XP. It just requires that the DM put some thought into the actual CRs he assigns to the various challenges the party must over come.

So...maybe a Solar has too low a CR. I don't know...I've not run one against a 20th level party...Although it has been my experience that beyond even 6th or 7th level, PCs can pull quite a few surprises out of their collective hats. At 20th level, they are capable of some serious stuff.

Obviously a 20th level commoner is not equal to a 19th level wizard. That's silly. IMO, 20th level commoners are silly anyway...so who cares? You just need to realize that the "rules" for XP awarding are, in fact, suggested guidelines. I think that is made pretty clear in the DMG.

For me: I use the CRs of creatures as a rough guideline on what kind of opponents my party can face. If they're 7th level, I figure appropriate encounters would be groups of CR3 creatures up through individual CR 10 and 11 creatures. I actually(*gasp*) still have to look at the monster's capabilities and determine if it is really appropriate or not. This is no different than what I used to do in 1e, 2e and OD&D...only now I use CRs rather than HD as my starting point.