I hope I'm wrong about this

[Rel]

_That_ is a cool system.

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

I hope it enhances your game, Arkham. If you don't mind, how about letting me know how it worked out for you, either in this thread, my Story Hour thread or by sending me an e-mail? I am always open to tweaking it if other people have suggestions.

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

Don't sweat it. You didn't think I gave you the ONLY copy did you?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Re: Re: Solars are cool

Beyond 10HD, you, the DM, need to (OMFG...the heresy!) _THINK_ about the actual CR.

For me: I use I actually(*gasp*) still have to look at the monster's capabilities and determine if it is really appropriate or not.

Are you actually implying that those of us who don't pretend the system works don't want to think about it?

The absurdity of this line of thinking is that if you DON'T think, the CR system works moderately well. It is when you try to do anything interesting with the encounters that the system completely collapses.

For advanced DMs thinking of new ways to present challenges is routine. So, it turns out that doing your own thinking and the CR system being a failure are completely compatible concepts.

On the other side of the coin, newbie DMs need something simple to help them learn. Forcing them to think of ways to deal with the failures of the system defeats the purpose.

Do you claim that adding 1 level of fighter to a creature is the same as increasing its hit dice by 50%? This is the CR system.

If you are using the CR system as written, your 7th level PCs should have around 19,000 gp of gear each. Do you claim that a single fighter 7 with 7,200 gp of gear is going to drain 25% of the resources from your party?

 

[Uller]

Re: Re: Re: Solars are cool

Are you actually implying that those of us who don't pretend the system works don't want to think about it?

No. I'm saying you guys seem to think the the intention of the CR system is to make it so you don't have to think about it. You imply that the only way you'd be happy with the CR system is if all CRs assigned to all creatures, characters and challenges were perfect for all a parties at all times and the DM could just plug in the monsters/challenges and award XP from the table everytime, no muss, no fuss...

The fact is, that's impossible. The idea of the CR system is not to give you some perfect system for guaging challenges and awarding XP. It is intended to be a rough guide not a perfect measure.

Are some of they methods of determining CR "broken"? You bet.
Are some of the CRs for the monsters off? Surely.

No way, no how is a 7th level NPC fighter a CR 7. However, 4 7th level NPCs of varied PC classes would indeed be, IMO, an EL 11 encounter and present a serious challenge to a 7th level party, It would force an 11th level expend some spells and magic items...about the same as 4 hill giants(also EL 11).

The CR calculations at low levels work very well, IMO. An Ogre/Brb3 is definately CR 4 or 5(I ran one against my party when they were fifth level and it was an appropriate challenge, IMO). Obviously at high levels they break down. Big deal...do you really think that adding a single level of Rogue to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon would impact it's CR _at all_? Are you kidding? Would you have been happier if they wrote a 10 page algorithm for calculating CRs?...

So yes...if it makes you happy: The CR calculations are "broken" in that the DM can't just use them exactly as written once you get past 5th level or so...by that time, even a newbie DM should have a clue about how the game works and the capabilities of his party. He must think about the CRs...

IMO, this doesn't warrant the notion that the whole system should be thrown out. I have yet to see a system for guaging challenges and awarding XP in any game that didn't require some thought on the DM's part. In fact, in 1e and OD&D, there was NO system for guaging challenges, IIRC. All you had to go on was HD and your own common sense.

 

[HeavyG]

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.

Yes, I know that. And a 19th level wizard is clearly much easier to defeat than a Solar. Are you saying a 19th level wizard would be harder to defeat than a 20th level cleric for a 4 character party ?

(A 19th level cleric is much tougher to defeat than a 19th level wizard, for a party of 4 characters, IMO. Because of all the defensive spells and healing, I mean.)

Besides, I started comparing the Solar to a 19th level cleric anyway. I don't know who brought up a wizard. Of course, a Solar can't turn undead and has no domain ability. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Solar is in all points better than this cleric.

Of course, if the rule of 1 character level = 1 CR works, then they (the wizard and the cleric) are both an exact equivalent challenge for a party.

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

I didn't want to start figuring out how to price it. And you seemed to put such importance on gear value giving the advantage to the wizard over the Solar.

However, I must say that a vorpal sword offers no saving throw while slaying arrows aren't tough to save against at 19th level.

 

[Henry]

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.

If you like the system, you might want to try it anyway. In my experience with 22 years of D&D and 4 separate gaming groups, I have found that players are generally "pavlovian" with respect to experience points: they will do those actions which net them more experience points. If you only award it for fighting for example, then they will take that route, combatting anything they can get away with. Do you currently award substantial XP (equivalent to comabt awards) for solving puzzles, making diplomatic progress, etc.

If you reward combat less than other skills, or if they find that other players are getting more XP than them because of the way XP is assigned, they will generally gravitate towards those things that net them a goal.

The 2nd edition DMG had an interesting goal in that direction with individualized XP awards, but it was flawed in its execution. Rel's system does sound interesting, but its only real downside is the amount of bookkeeping involved.

Lately our group has not worried about XP awards, but rather the group advances when the DM says they do. We don't mind, and we enjoy ourselves during the session!

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Fine.

I will point out AGAIN that I never said the whole system SHOULD be thrown out, only that it CAN be thrown out.

I have never called for any of your claims.

You are right that a real CR system is impossible. So it is to bad that WoTC tried to over reach themselves.
You defend the CR system by pointing out that it can be worked around. But the CR system claims to have a formula for everything. I am not asking for them to publish a perfect formula, just that I wish they did not publish such clearly flawed formulas.

Simple enough to say: Base experience equals class level times 300 XP.

If the party faces a reasonable challenge give each character that
many experience points. If they face a harder challenge, increase the experience by 50 to 100% If they face an easier challenge reduce it by 25 to 50%. They party should gain no experience for an encounter which presents no real challenge. A reasonable challenge is defined as a challenge the DM expects would drain 25% of the party's resources. The degree of challenge should not consider good or bad planning on the players part, nor shoudl it consider good or bad luck. Only the expected degree of challenge should be considered.

There, a simple formula based on the CR system, but with no CRs. As a nice side bonus I have completely removed the CR system's lame assumption that the party has 4 members.

Now you will have to think about it every time. But what is new there? The CR system already has the whole back door circumstance adjustment. So you have to think about the real challenge every time anyway.

BTW, how was I supposed to interpret "(OMFG...the heresy!) _THINK_ " and "... actually(*gasp*) still have to look ... " if I wasn't supposed to think your were implying that we don't think? Seemed quite clear to me. Don't say it unless you mean it. I don't care what you want to accuse me of, but I want to understand where you are coming from.

 

[Rel]

If you like the system, you might want to try it anyway. In my experience with 22 years of D&D and 4 separate gaming groups, I have found that players are generally "pavlovian" with respect to experience points: they will do those actions which net them more experience points. If you only award it for fighting for example, then they will take that route, combatting anything they can get away with. Do you currently award substantial XP (equivalent to comabt awards) for solving puzzles, making diplomatic progress, etc.

If you reward combat less than other skills, or if they find that other players are getting more XP than them because of the way XP is assigned, they will generally gravitate towards those things that net them a goal.

I wrote up a big long post yesterday but my connection kept timing out and by today, it was largely irrelevant. One of the key points I made was precisely what Henry just said here. In fact I think he said it much better than I would have.

Rel's system does sound interesting, but its only real downside is the amount of bookkeeping involved.

I can't speak to how much bookkeeping is considered acceptable in the average group but I can assure you that my tolerance for it is rather low and I find this system to be great in that regard. One of the best things about this system is that it shifts the bookkeeping off of me and onto the players. At first that sounds kind of nasty to the players but it really isn't. It is actually a great method of feedback for both the player and the GM.

When the players hand me their sheets, I can see at a glance what parts are filled in and what parts are left blank. That instantly tells me whether that player has been able to apply his character to the adventure. It tells me whether I am putting too much emphasis on the kinds of adventures the party is poorly suited to tackle.

It also provides feedback to the players. If one of the characters spent a significant amount of time flirting with the barmaid and I award a point in the "Social" category for it, that player knows that I felt it added to the game and is the kind of thing I wouldn't mind seeing in the future. If, on the other hand, I felt that the encounter just took game time away from more important matters, I wouldn't award a point for that category. That way, the player would know that I place little value on NPC interactions that don't forward the plot. The player can use that information to mold the actions of his character in the future.

I am not trying to stump for my system because I want to see everyone using it (well, that would be a little flattering). I just want to make sure that anyone who is considering using it or some variation of it understands its strengths and weaknesses.

I don't consider increased bookkeeping to be among its weaknesses.

 

[ashockney]

I'm a little surprised that four pages later, I don't think anybody has said...the CR, EL, and XP system works for them.

Let me be the first.

I've bent this thing over backward, twisted, morphed, and re-worked it several different ways, and it has held up in all circumstances for over two 3rd Ed campaigns!

I will admit that there are some things that could be improved upon, based on my gameplay experience. However, for the most part, it works very well.

One issue is around a four on one fight against a single character or creature, especially when the character only has class levels (ie, a 7th level fighter). Ok, this one is the toughest to swallow. HOWEVER, this CAN be a good challenge to a 7th level party of four. It certainly is not the challenge that other, better balanced CR 7 creatures can be, though. I think this is a function of the "versatile" nature of the character classes, particularly in light of the fact that you can use these class abilities in so many other circumstances beyond a 4 on 1 fight. The second issue is the simple fact that the laws of numbers outweigh the CR ratings everytime. The monster manual works hard to address this with things like improved grab, swallow whole, EXTREMELY HIGH BAB's, SR, and AC, but it 4 on 1 is almost always going to be less challenging than 4 on 4 or 4 on 8.

The second issue I've seen is that supplemental material (outside of the original PH) often has issues with some of the CR ratings (too high and too low). I think this is attributable to a lack of playtesting, statistical analysis, or simply D&D knowledge(for non-WOTC products).

Having addressed these two concerns, however, they have hardly held me back in the use of the CR and EL system. To the contrary, I have found this system FAR more versatile (although somewhat complex) in awarding XP's than other 1st and 2nd Ed counterparts. This is to say nothing of the fact that you don't have to flip through the MM for an hour to calc XP's! Woo hoo!

Having said all that, I also want to complement Rel on his excellent system. Out of frustration in the past (editions) I've used this kind of system and found it very effective. Instead, today, I am sure to include traps, puzzles, roleplaying encounters, and specific goals in each module I develop and award appropriate (CR) XP values for each accordingly. This seems to work very well also. If anything, it may speed up the XP system to be even faster than I would like to see it go!

Lastly, as it regards certain creatures in the MM like Solars, Dragons, and the Tarrasque, I've heard straight from the Wizards designers that they've made some creatures a little "tougher for their level" in hopes of building or maintaining a sense of "awe" that may already exist around some of the key brand personas.

Are there others out there who've used the system successfully?

 

[Uller]

BTW, how was I supposed to interpret "(OMFG...the heresy!) _THINK_ " and "... actually(*gasp*) still have to look ... " if I wasn't supposed to think your were implying that we don't think? Seemed quite clear to me. Don't say it unless you mean it. I don't care what you want to accuse me of, but I want to understand where you are coming from.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry if you took it personally.

However...when you call the circumstance modifier a "back door" and a "cop out" it implies that you do indeed want some perfect formula. I suppose you think circumstance modifiers to Skill Checks are some sort of cop out then, too. Since there is no perfect system for determining check DCs, I guess the skill system is broken.

When you call the CR system "disposable", it infers you think it is so utterly worthless that a DM is best served to find some other means of guaging challenges and awarding XP. Many of us disagree because we use the CR system pretty much as it was intended with little or no problems. Sure...we have to "dance around" some of the poorly thought out formulae and assigned CRs...but we make it work with little effort. In fact, I spend far less time calculating XP and guaging challenges in 3e than I ever did in 2e...I call that a good thing.

As I said before: The CR system is certainly not for every DM and every game...if it doesn't work for you, great. Use something else and feel free to share your system with the rest of us. If you have advice for people who DO want to use it, then it would be more helpful to provide some ways around the broken CRs rather than just saying it is horribly horribly broken(because we already know that much of it is "broken").

My guess is that they didn't want to dedicate the pages and/or the time necessary to really get the CRs right and left us with some half-assed formulas and some CRs that are obviously not quite right. I believe that Monte commented on the Dragon CRs saying that Dragons are supposed to be tougher than the CR implies because they are supposed to be the "mother" of all monsters...I disagree with this...but at least we have a clue into their thinking: CRs are rather subjective.

It could have been done better...but IMO, it is a great leap ahead from 2e and a tremendous leap from 1e where XP basically only came from how much treasure you found(and a little from the monsters you slew).

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I was being sarcastic. Sorry if you took it personally.

No problem. Clear intent may can be hard to express on a board at times.

Now back to the issue.

However...when you call the circumstance modifier a "back door" and a "cop out" it implies that you do indeed want some perfect formula. I suppose you think circumstance modifiers to Skill Checks are some sort of cop out then, too. Since there is no perfect system for determining check DCs, I guess the skill system is broken.

AGAIN, no. I do not want a perfect system , I simply don't want them to present a system that does not work. The existing system claims to provide a formula for adding HD and/or levels. It does not provide valueable results. Often the starting CRs are just plain way off. The entire concpet of a base CR for a monster requires that you assume the party is balanced and has 4 characters. Restraining the game this way is a detraction.

The skill system is total apples and oranges. Do you really think that just because they both use the word "circumstance" that they can be compared? Because they have nothing else in common.

Many examples of total screwed up CRs have been presented in this thread. Ashockney commented on one narrow one and basically blew it off, then blamed the rest on 3rd parties. Ignoring many other concerns.

Can you name for me an example where the circumstance modifiers in skill checks makes the system not work right? I can not.

Skills work / CRs don't. How is the use of the word "circumstance" in both systems in any way relevant?

When you call the CR system "disposable", it infers you think it is so utterly worthless that a DM is best served to find some other means of guaging challenges and awarding XP. Many of us disagree because we use the CR system pretty much as it was intended with little or no problems. Sure...we have to "dance around" some of the poorly thought out formulae and assigned CRs...but we make it work with little effort. In fact, I spend far less time calculating XP and guaging challenges in 3e than I ever did in 2e...I call that a good thing.

Infers? I think you need a dictionary. I have explained this at least twice in this thread. I have clearly stated that the disposal nature of the CR system is its redeeming factor. The 3E/D20 system works fine without it. To be clear, I DO think the CR system "is so utterly worthless that a DM is best served to find some other means of guaging challenges and awarding XP." But that is in no way tied to my use of the word disposable.

As to your use of the CR system, I obviously can not directly comment on it. Your statement may as well be that you walk in the rain all the time and never get wet.

On the one hand you just may not be mentioning that you use an umbrella, which for the CR system would be only using simple monsters and fairly basic encounters. On the other hand you may be oblivious of how wet you are, which for the CR system would mean you are using the exp points the system states and often giving players high experience for easy challenges or low experience for hard challenges. The remaining possibility is that you are making adjustments to the experience provided on a very frequent basis. If this is the case, you are really using the CR system yourself.

You can say you are not wet, but I can still see the rain.

As I said before: The CR system is certainly not for every DM and every game...if it doesn't work for you, great. Use something else and feel free to share your system with the rest of us. If you have advice for people who DO want to use it, then it would be more helpful to provide some ways around the broken CRs rather than just saying it is horribly horribly broken(because we already know that much of it is "broken").

????

I made a casual comment in a previous thread that I think the CR system does not work. I got attacked for daring to make that claim. I joked about it in this thread and got attacked again. It is worth noting that in neither thread has anyone made any significant effort to show that the system DOES work. In general, they just claim, in vague terms, that it works for them and attack me for being critical.

You make it sound like I jumped in here calling everyone idiots and screaming for the head of Monte Cook. I did no such thing.
As you said, a perfect system is impossible, so I don't see why I should be required to post one, just to gain the privlige of being critical. I would be happy to be part of that debate, but the people who are content with the existing system are to busy bashing my comments.

I did present a greatly simplified version above, what is wrong with that?

My guess is that they didn't want to dedicate the pages and/or the time necessary to really get the CRs right and left us with some half-assed formulas and some CRs that are obviously not quite right. I believe that Monte commented on the Dragon CRs saying that Dragons are supposed to be tougher than the CR implies because they are supposed to be the "mother" of all monsters...I disagree with this...but at least we have a clue into their thinking: CRs are rather subjective.

I totally agree with you. Especially regarding dragons. Yes dragons should often be the "boss" encounter in an adventure. So why make the CR low, providing an unfairly low amount of experience???? Or some newbie DM intentionally chooses a high CR for the final battle monster, not realizing that the Dragon CRs have that built in, so the party gets slaughtered.

It could have been done better...but IMO, it is a great leap ahead from 2e and a tremendous leap from 1e where XP basically only came from how much treasure you found(and a little from the monsters you slew).

I will give 1e a pass because the entire concept was so much different back then.

The concept of providing exp based on the actual challenge is certainly a great advance. I have not criticized that. The CR system that is supposed to measure the degree of challenge is a failure. At least for anything beyond the most basic of encounters.