I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[I'm A Banana]

Three tactics used were 1st... to blunder into its lair and confront it in a water mineral laden cave fulll of 'mites that inhibited any large weapon used (the Orges club, the Rangers Greatsword) and all missile weapons. This resulted in specacular modern art on the already wet walls using the PC's innards as media.

So...they were forced into melee with sub-optimal weapons and little room to maneuver, against a giant melee-damage monster? The ogre seems to have things stacked in his favor, here...

Second they hid the rouge in some roots near the entrance and called it out, cast entagle its save was an 18 (all rolls were open as this was a test of the system) and fortunatly the rouge saved as well. It them charged out and dined on the PC's buffet style.

There's room for the 20' run to charge, but no room for ranged weapons? Ehhh?

Third tactic, after the group had been remade into 1st level killing machines was to again cast entangle on it (again it saved with an 18) and then to missile it with bows why a spell buffed ranger (prot from evil and sheild) fought it up front. They had a hard time with the 16 AC (the rolls were unimpressive to say the least) and after three rounds the Ogre managed to hit the Ranger. As observed by the previous posts, the ogre one hit killed any PC in the party.

....and then they had some bad luck?

Seriously, CR is not an exact science. If the ogre was rolling in the 10-20 range but no PC beat a 12, I think blaming the system used to approximate challenge is off base to say the least.

 

[Wolfwood2]

That would be the exact opposite assumption based on my posts. I have repeatedly pushed toward avoiding melee combat with a creature designed specifically to excel at melee combat. The point made in my posts in regard to EL is that the terrain and conditions favor a melee monster should melee combat ensue, thus raising the EL.

I had a very exciting combat last week with such a melee monster. Girallon (CR 6 melee monster) vs. a party of four 4th level PCs. In the PCs favor, the girallon wasn't hiding and started the combat over 50 feet away. Against the PCs, they also had to contend with four or five hostile apes. (Not nearly as nasty as a girallon, but still hit pretty hard when they land a slam attack.)

The party wizard (my PC) concentrated on keeping the Girallon away with a Web (made its save and started to slowly plow through), a Glitterdust (made its save), and a couple of Summoned creatures (each lasting one round each). Meanwhile the other party members finished off the apes and started missile attacks on the Girallon. It just sucked them up and kept coming.

Very exciting ending where two PCs climbed a rope trick as a last ditch escape, a third turned tail and rode off on his riding dog, and the last took one final attack from five feet away, knowing that if she failed to finish it off its full attack would take her 8 remaining hitpoints down to a dead PC.

Lucky for her it had one hitpoint left.

So yeah, you do not fight melee monsters up close. Bad, bad idea. I wouldn't want to fight a girallon in melee with a 14th level character, much less a 4th level.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the similarlity ends at the task they are generally meant to accomplish.

(1) Both are the determinant of XP.

(2) Both are the general determinant of a monster's toughness.

(3) ML is transparent as to how it is determined; CR opaque. Because CR is opaqe, we can't know if it was determined in a manner similar to ML or not (though I suspect it was, if only because I can think of no other way to determine CR than by looking at the monster's general toughness and abilities -- which is how 1e XP, and by extension ML, is determined).

That would be the exact opposite assumption based on my posts. I have repeatedly pushed toward avoiding melee combat with a creature designed specifically to excel at melee combat. The point made in my posts in regard to EL is that the terrain and conditions favor a melee monster should melee combat ensue, thus raising the EL.

There is nothing in the encounter as described that forces the PCs to battle the ogre in its cave. Ogre's are not renowned for their smarts or their wisdom, and all sorts of other possibilities exist (some of which are described by myself and others upthread).

I don't accept that the EL of an encounter goes up just because the players do something stupid. That would, conversely, mean that the EL goes down (and with it XP) when they do something smart.

RC

 

[jolt]

The Monster Level system was okay back when the 'dungeon' was considered the default (and by far the most common) adventure type. There, what dungeon level a monster was typically encountered on was a useful piece of information. Not so much anymore though.

Outdoor and urban adventures are much more common than they used to be. And even where you have dungeons, they're not often the sprawling affairs you had back in 1E. Also, the idea of a dungeon level being flat with no vertical movement is a thing of the past making the idea of a "dungeon level" at least partly obsolete.. I think it's very difficult, in a city for example, for players to decide for themselves what they're capable of facing. Except for the semi-ubiquitous graveyard, one section of a city is rarely more "dangerous" than another.

One problem, and you see this even in published adventures, is the assumption that CR=EL. CR is only the base point, not the end result.

jolt

 

[jolt]

I don't accept that the EL of an encounter goes up just because the players do something stupid. That would, conversely, mean that the EL goes down (and with it XP) when they do something smart.

RC

I don't know why, but the idea that my players should get more XP because they're blithering idiots is very amusing.

jolt

 

[Mark CMG]

(1) Both are the determinant of XP.

(2) Both are the general determinant of a monster's toughness.

I think the similarlity ends at the task they are generally meant to accomplish.

Although since you put things into other words it is worth noting that the current system is meant to be a "general determinant of a monster's toughness" in relation to a standard party of four adventurers, one from each of the four primary classes.

((3) ML is transparent as to how it is determined; CR opaque. Because CR is opaqe, we can't know if it was determined in a manner similar to ML or not (though I suspect it was, if only because I can think of no other way to determine CR than by looking at the monster's general toughness and abilities -- which is how 1e XP, and by extension ML, is determined).

CR is somewhat determined by playtesting, hence many of the CR changes from 3.0 to 3.5 but there are ways to ballpark using the HD, AC, number of special abilities, etc. Still, you are trying to make direct comparisons between two sub-systems of other whole systems that, while they share a great deal of terminology, are fundamentally different.

(There is nothing in the encounter as described that forces the PCs to battle the ogre in its cave. Ogre's are not renowned for their smarts or their wisdom, and all sorts of other possibilities exist (some of which are described by myself and others upthread).

PCs are funneled toward the encounter, have no alternate route, have serious obstacles to ranged weaponry, etc. The PCs might be able to make alternate choices and use tactics that do not include melee combat but that does not mean the restictions on melee combat designed into the encounter simply do not exist.

That would be the exact opposite assumption based on my posts. I have repeatedly pushed toward avoiding melee combat with a creature designed specifically to excel at melee combat. The point made in my posts in regard to EL is that the terrain and conditions favor a melee monster should melee combat ensue, thus raising the EL.

(I don't accept that the EL of an encounter goes up just because the players do something stupid. That would, conversely, mean that the EL goes down (and with it XP) when they do something smart.

I said nothing of the kind. My quote is right above yours.

 

[Remathilis]

Difficulty Factors
You have several options for making an encounter more or less difficult by changing the circumstances of the encounter to account for some feature of the PCs’ surroundings or the makeup of the party. For instance:
• Tight quarters make things more difficult for rogues, since it’s harder to skulk about and gain a sneak attack.
• A spread-out force makes things more difficult for spellcasters, since the area affected by most spells is small.
• Many lesser foes are harder for a character to engage in melee than one powerful foe.
• Undead are much more difficult to fight without a cleric.
• Encounters involving animals or plants are much more difficult without a druid or a ranger in the party.
• Encounters involving evil outsiders are much more difficult without a paladin or cleric (and perhaps a wizard or sorcerer) in the party.
• A large force is much more difficult to fight without a wizard or sorcerer in the party.
• Locked doors and traps are much more difficult to overcome without a rogue in the party.
• Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to win without a fighter, a barbarian, a ranger, or a paladin in the party.
• Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to survive without a cleric in the party.
• The bard and the cleric make good group support characters. Their presence makes practically every encounter easier.

Consider the sorts of factors, related to location or situation, that make an encounter more difficult, such as the following.
• Enemy has cover (for example, behind a low wall).
• Enemy is at higher elevation or is hard to get at (on a ledge or atop a defensible wall).
• Enemy has guaranteed surprise (PCs are asleep).
• Conditions make it difficult to see or hear (mist, darkness,rumbling machinery all around).
• Conditions make movement difficult (underwater, heavy gravity, very narrow passage).
• Conditions require delicate maneuvering (climbing down a sheer cliff, hanging from the ceiling).
• Conditions deal damage (in the icy cold, in a burning building, over a pit of acid).

Conversely, the first three conditions given above make encounters easier from the PCs’ point of view if they are the ones benefiting from the cover, elevation, or surprise.

None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying Challenge Ratings, but you should keep them in mind when designing encounters.

Thats three strikes against an under-CRed opponent. No wonder the combatants were mincemeat.

If you want to test the ability of the CR system, try this Experiment.
• Replace the natural cavern with a 30' x 30' dungeon room. If you want, spread light rubble on the ground to prevent charging.
• Make the PC's 2nd level.
• Replace the Ranger or the Druid with a fighter or cleric. Someone with scale-mail + heavy shield. Alternately, a paladin or a barbarian could work.

Try the combat now. It should work without a TPK. Now, try it with same team, one-level-lower. Or try it in the same room, but with 2nd level PCs.

You'll see the Pcs have a bit more survival chance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Although since you put things into other words it is worth noting that the current system is meant to be a "general determinant of a monster's toughness" in relation to a standard party of four adventurers, one from each of the four primary classes.

If that is the case, why would the CR/EL change when the party is not so composed? I would say, it doesn't. The monster's toughness hasn't changed.

CR is somewhat determined by playtesting, hence many of the CR changes from 3.0 to 3.5 but there are ways to ballpark using the HD, AC, number of special abilities, etc. Still, you are trying to make direct comparisons between two sub-systems of other whole systems that, while they share a great deal of terminology, are fundamentally different.

I think that 3.X is fundamentally more similar to earlier editions than most people realize. As a simple example, the new "Attack Roll + Modifiers = AC Hit" is essentially THAC0 with the math reversed.

Monster Level doesn't have the overt granularity CR does for determining monster toughness (every monster was, essentially, ranked from 1 to 10). However, 1e had a far greater granularity of XP rewards, and if you understood how those XPs were generated (and you should, because you were told how they were generated), the effective granularity was greater than that of CR.

CR is more intuitive, like "Attack Roll + Modifiers = AC Hit" is more intuitive than THAC0. That can be a big bonus, especially if you are only using the creatures already created for the system. A breakdown of how CR is ballparked, though, would be a real boon for DMs who are not satisfied with using only what is presented.

PCs are funneled toward the encounter, have no alternate route, have serious obstacles to ranged weaponry, etc. The PCs might be able to make alternate choices and use tactics that do not include melee combat but that does not mean the restictions on melee combat designed into the encounter simply do not exist.

Not at all.

But, let us be reminded that "None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying Challenge Ratings, but you should keep them in mind when designing encounters."

I said nothing of the kind. My quote is right above yours.

You said nothing of the kind directly, no. But altering CR/EL as you suggest is effectively saying the same thing. If the monster is in a cave where it has cover, and the PCs charge into the cave, the EL goes up because of the cover. If they instead lure it out, there is no cover, and the EL stays the same. If the party is optimized, the EL stays the same, but if the party has made poor choices for survival, the EL goes up.

Please tell me how that differs from "the EL of an encounter goes up just because the players do something stupid", because, frankly, I can't see it.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Please tell me how that differs from "the EL of an encounter goes up just because the players do something stupid", because, frankly, I can't see it.

Read my post above (from the DMG) Stupidity is NOT listed as a modifier, but several others based on party composition, monster type, and location are.

 

[Nail]

PCs are funneled toward the encounter, have no alternate route, have serious obstacles to ranged weaponry, etc. The PCs might be able to make alternate choices and use tactics that do not include melee combat but that does not mean the restictions on melee combat designed into the encounter simply do not exist.

Yup.

As a data point:

• IME, I'd bump the EL of the given encounter up by +1 (so EL 4) because of the terrain. The terrain (large weapons -2 atk, cover versus ranged weapons, charges allowed) doesn't limit the ogre as much as it limits the PCs.
• An EL 4 against 1st level PCs is asking for trouble, regardless of DM experience.
• As is often the case, Mark CMG is spot on in his analysis.

Addressing the party tactics:

• The wizard was remiss in not having sleep, grease, color spray, ray of enfeeblement, or silent image prepared. Heck, even Summon Monster I could have been handy, depending on tactics. (Magic Missile?????)
• The ranger should have used his bow, then switched to his melee weapons after it closed with him.
• The rogue is pretty much screwed, regardless. His best hope is to win init and land one or more ranged sneak attacks. Having the rogue close for melee is probably asking for a dead rogue.
• Druid might have wanted to Summon Nature's Ally if he's in the cave, otherwise Entangle outside the cave. Meanwhile have the animal companion provide flanking for the other PCs after the ogre has closed toe-to-toe.
• Hope you get lucky rolls.