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

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Sure, if you accept that "PCs are funneled toward the encounter, have no alternate route, have serious obstacles to ranged weaponry, etc."

I call bull-hooey.

The PCs faced a situation in which direct frontal assault was suicidal, but in which several other, obvious options could have easily negated the terrain. The PCs could do something stupid (attack the ogre in its lair) or do something intelligent (get the ogre out of its lair). The PCs choose to do something stupid, and the EL goes up (and therefore the XP goes up).

The PCs are funneled toward the ogre; they are not forced into its lair.

They have alternatives.

Those alternatives remove the obstacles.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

That would be the in relation to part.

But, let us be reminded that "None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying Challenge Ratings, (. . .)

The system begs to differ. Refer to the DMG or any number of posts by others in this thread who point out how that works in more detail.

You said nothing of the kind directly, no. But altering CR/EL as you suggest is effectively saying the same thing.

Nope.

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.

Nope. The EL is meant to be determined for the encounter as it is designed and can be altered by the DM based on how it is presented situationally (such as having the ogre charge out of the cave and losing the distinct advantage it has when within the cave). The EL should be adjusted downward by the DM when determining XP in such a particular instance. If the PCs lure the ogre out, they should get full credit for the original EL and XP.

If the party is optimized, the EL stays the same, but if the party has made poor choices for survival, the EL goes up.

Nope. If the party is created as less optimized than a standard four person party with one from each of the primary character classes, the DM needs to keep that in mind when reading an adventure (or writing one) and adjust ELs upward where that would be a concern.

 

[Mark CMG]

The PCs faced a situation in which direct frontal assault was suicidal

Everyone seems to agree on this point. I think on the rest we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, let me just say that I have no doubt that my players would have flushed the ogre out and defeated it, unless there is something serious left out of the OP's encounter description. The ogre probably wouldn't have had a chance to even damage them.

As a result, I don't think this is an example where the CR system is off (although it does have problems). Instead, this is an example where PC tactics were off.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, if you accept that "PCs are funneled toward the encounter, have no alternate route, have serious obstacles to ranged weaponry, etc."

I call bull-hooey.

The PCs faced a situation in which direct frontal assault was suicidal, but in which several other, obvious options could have easily negated the terrain. The PCs could do something stupid (attack the ogre in its lair) or do something intelligent (get the ogre out of its lair). The PCs choose to do something stupid, and the EL goes up (and therefore the XP goes up).

The PCs are funneled toward the ogre; they are not forced into its lair.

They have alternatives.

Those alternatives remove the obstacles.

You are assuming the ogre WOULD fall for a trick like leaving its well-defended lair to go out into the open. Ogres (even with Int 6) aren't totally stupid. The ogre could very well throw rocks/ammo, or simply hang out in its fortified lair and declare a stalemate. Ogre-siege warfare, I guess.

Reverse the situation; if the ogre was lured into a trap and the four PCs can snipe it to death with it unable to escape or retaliate (such as being led into a pit), is the ogre the same challenge it was in ITS lair? In the open? Forget whether its worth the same amount of XP, is it as challenging?

 

[Raven Crowking]

TThe system begs to differ. Refer to the DMG or any number of posts by others in this thread who point out how that works in more detail.

I was quoting the 3.5 DMG.

Nope. The EL is meant to be determined for the encounter as it is designed and can be altered by the DM based on how it is presented situationally (such as having the ogre charge out of the cave and losing the distinct advantage it has when within the cave). The EL should be adjusted downward by the DM when determining XP in such a particular instance. If the PCs lure the ogre out, they should get full credit for the original EL and XP.

Can you quote that section of the DMG for me?

What I get from this is that if I have an encounter where it has some obvious advantage that the PCs can obviously remove, the PCs should get more XP for doing the obvious? Which is what happens if I up the EL in this case.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that philosophy. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Nope. If the party is created as less optimized than a standard four person party with one from each of the primary character classes, the DM needs to keep that in mind when reading an adventure (or writing one) and adjust ELs upward where that would be a concern.

Or, the DM might decide that the PCs can't handle the encounters as presented, and present easier encounters with lower ELs. Or, the DM might decide that it is up to the PCs to ensure that they have what they need to survive and not make adjustments. If the PCs know that they have no fighter-types, they should consider NPC help, for example.

 

[Felix]

XP for all standard monsters were already predetermined.

XP for standard encounters is already predetermined in 3e.

If the encounter is only the one monster, as it was here with the ogre, you only get XP for the ogre. Based off the challenge the monster presents, you get a predetermined amount of XP.

I am unfamiliar with XP levels in 1e, but in 2e the XP required to gain for the next level was not linear. This was done to avoid killing the same fixed-XP creatures over and over again, who present less and less of a challenge but render constant gains to XP. So instead of making the XP that creatures give change as the characters go up levels, the system made the amount of XP required increase.

This had the nasty side-affect of making multiclassing rather wonky; a PC couldn't take 5 levels of ranger and then a level of rogue, because that 1st level XP requirement for rogue was miniscule compared to the XP the charater was reaping from defeating challenges appropriate for the 5th level ranger. Then you had the issue of different classes requiring different amounts of XP to make up for the inherent inequalities between the classes.

In balance here are the PCs, the monster, the danger and the reward. If the monster remains the same and the PCs encounter it multiple times as they increase in level, what happens? The danger decreases: the reward should as well.

If the constant-level PCs encounter the monster several times, each time souped up by some degree, what happens? The danger increases: the reward should as well.

Both 2e and the 3e CR system model for this. The 2e system decreased the reward by devaluing every additional XP as the characters went up in levels. 1000XP means a lot at low levels, but means absolutely squat at high ones. The 3e system decreases the reward by awarding XP not on a constant "ogres-give-Y-amount-XP", but rather on a relative basis comparing the power of the PCs to the challenge of the monster.

This change allows character XP levels to grow at a linear rate rather than an exponential one; it allows easier multiclassing; the differentiation between character levels and class levels; a built-in incentive to stick with one class is that class' special abilities improve as class levels do.

---

That being said, the CRs of individual monsters must be pegged properly. The ogre was too much for a CR 2, but the revision already changed that. The CR system is much more flexible in that it allows for a change in encounter difficulty that arises not from individual monsters, but from synergy between grouped monsters and the benefits environment provides. This is all done before considering the PCs, and is generally unreliant on what they can or cannot do.

ML is transparent as to how it is determined

Would you please transparentify the monster level system to those of us who only know it by your reference. Thanks.

Because the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities, the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games.

Break this statement down.

the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities​

As long as we're listing assumptions, remark upon how you put aside the guidelines given for DMs that describe how challenging an EL -2 encounter will be, an EL --, an EL +1, and an EL +4, and what they expect the effect on party resources will be. The CR system provides the DM the tool to set a range of challenges in front of the PCs and be reasonably sure how well the party is equipped to survive.

the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games.​

Listing assumptions part 2: assume the DM does not adjust the challenge rating of an encounter in which he adjusts the components.

If you run the PCs against critters with blindsight and DM fiat that neither darkvision nor illumination of any kind work, then the CR goes up.

If you run critters against the PCs armed with "+5 may-only-be-used-by-critter PC-Bane weapons", then the CR goes up.

If you run a campaign where chaotic characters are forced to always act in combat as if affected by Confusion, then every combat is going to be more difficult for them to survive because they will not be able to act tactically: the challenge of fights will go up.

If you run a campaign where every level Lawful characters are granted a feat by the lawful society they live in, then the challenge of things will go down because they have more resources to fall back on to overcome the challenge.

If you have less equipment than standard (wealth-by-level tables, DMG), then CRs should go up.

If you have more than 4 party members, then CR should go down.

If you have gestalt characters, then CR should go down.

If you have house-ruled innate magical fairy powers, then CR should go down.

If every monster you run accross has house-ruled innate magical fairy powers, then CR should go up.

Raven Crowking, it would be as silly for me to say that the CR system does not assume a standard as it is for you to say that the CR system cannot be adjusted for games that are not standard.

Now combine the two halves of the statement:

CR challenges PC's abilities, therefore CR will not challenge PCs with non-standard abilities​

This is the logical equivalent of "If A, then not A".

The CR system is flexible so as to allow DMs to challenge standard and non-standard parties alike; it does exactly what you said you assumed it to do: it challenges the PCs according to their powers. If they have unusual powers, then they will be unusually challenged.

However, much like how a well-built automobile is only as safe as the driver behind the wheel, the CR system depends upon a DM who can wield it and one who can make CR adjustments for whatever hairbrained ideas may come into his head; it requires the DM to know what kind of effect his changes may have upon his world. A DM who doesn't know that giving monsterous centepedes vorpal claws is going to make things harder is going to be suprised with the results of the fight, and likely upset that the CR system let him down.

Argue that the CR system takes time to learn all you like. So does bridge. But simply because bridge can be played poorly does not make it a bad game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This change allows character XP levels to grow at a linear rate rather than an exponential one; it allows easier multiclassing; the differentiation between character levels and class levels; a built-in incentive to stick with one class is that class' special abilities improve as class levels do.

The change that allowed easier multiclassing was that 3.X makes character level independent of class level in terms of XP. Multiclassing is unaffected by changing the 3e XP chart to an exponential one (as many have done).

Would you please transparentify the monster level system to those of us who only know it by your reference. Thanks.

(1) Determine XP. You do this by a chart in the DMG, which lists a base XP amount based upon Hit Dice, and then factors that increase that base amount (extraordinary and special abilities). Examples are given.

(2) Cross-reference XP with the Monster Level chart in the DMG. Each XP range falls within a particular ML.

That's pretty much it.

The Monster Level of a monster is always the same, regardless of PC abilities (or lack thereof).

Break this statement down.

the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities​

Remembering, of course, that the CR system is devised for a standard party of 4 core character classes, each character of which has the standard wealth for its level, and each of which has optimized its build to some degree.

the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games.​

Any variations on those standards perforce causes the DM to alter the CR system accordingly.

Raven Crowking, it would be as silly for me to say that the CR system does not assume a standard as it is for you to say that the CR system cannot be adjusted for games that are not standard.

Sure, you can alter the CR system for a non-standard game. However, the ML system doesn't require alteration for a non-standard game. This is a superiority of the ML system over the CR system.

Now combine the two halves of the statement:

CR challenges PC's abilities, therefore CR will not challenge PCs with non-standard abilities​

This is the logical equivalent of "If A, then not A".

No. Rather "CR challenges PC's abilities according to a set standard, therefore CR will not adequately portray the level of challenge for PCs with non-standard abilities without modifications, and potentially substantial modifications, based upon each point at which the PCs diverge from the standard".

The CR system is flexible so as to allow DMs to challenge standard and non-standard parties alike; however, it requires for more work than its 1e equivilent to deal with non-standard parties. Moreover, since the CR formula isn't transparent (as was the ML formula), the DM cannot as easily determine how changes are to be made. He must instead make his best guess on top of a system that is seemingly a "designer's best guess" system.

A DM who doesn't know that giving monsterous centepedes vorpal claws is going to make things harder is going to be suprised with the results of the fight, and likely upset that the CR system let him down.

And he best know, because the CR system isn't going to tell him what "vorpal claws" should be worth. Unlike the ML system, which is, IMHO, better.

 

[Mark CMG]

I was quoting the 3.5 DMG.

Yes, and the system, in this case, begs to differ because of the preponderance of factors you'd have to ignore. Ignoring one, maybe two, factors when deciding whether or not to make an EL adjustment is one thing, but once you get upwards of that you are really risking PC death.

Can you quote that section of the DMG for me?

I wasn't quoting.

What I get from this is that if I have an encounter where it has some obvious advantage that the PCs can obviously remove, the PCs should get more XP for doing the obvious? Which is what happens if I up the EL in this case.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that philosophy. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think you are disagreeing with enough of what I am actually saying so there is no need to create strawmen. You must be unaware of what an obviously poor debate tactic that is.

Or, the DM might decide that the PCs can't handle the encounters as presented, and present easier encounters with lower ELs. Or, the DM might decide that it is up to the PCs to ensure that they have what they need to survive and not make adjustments. If the PCs know that they have no fighter-types, they should consider NPC help, for example.

Those are not matters being debated.

 

[Felix]

I perhaps should begin by apologising for muddying the water between CR and EL in my last post, but since your disgust is for the system, I doubt the difference in terms is anything meaningful in this discussion.

The change that allowed easier multiclassing was that 3.X makes character level independent of class level in terms of XP. Multiclassing is unaffected by changing the 3e XP chart to an exponential one (as many have done).

If critters always award the same amount of XP and the XP scale is linear, then the benefit recieved does not decrease nearly as much as the danger decreases. Linear XP tables and a relativistic XP awards system go hand in hand, if the object is to keep the risk-reward relationship constant.

(1) Determine XP. You do this by a chart in the DMG, which lists a base XP amount based upon Hit Dice, and then factors that increase that base amount (extraordinary and special abilities). Examples are given.

(2) Cross-reference XP with the Monster Level chart in the DMG. Each XP range falls within a particular ML.

That's pretty much it.

So look in the DMG, then account for HD and abilities. Sounds remarkably like CR.

The Monster Level of a monster is always the same, regardless of PC abilities (or lack thereof).

Ok. And the CR of a standard orge is always 3. It's the EL that changes. And if the XP for your critter is constant, is the value of that XP constant as well?

the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities​

Remembering, of course, that the CR system is devised for a standard party of 4 core character classes, each character of which has the standard wealth for its level, and each of which has optimized its build to some degree.

You would rather that the DMG not worked from a set and published standard?

the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games.​

Any variations on those standards perforce causes the DM to alter the CR system accordingly.

If the DM wants to reward his players for the challenge he presents them, yes.

Sure, you can alter the CR system for a non-standard game. However, the ML system doesn't require alteration for a non-standard game. This is a superiority of the ML system over the CR system.

If you alter the challenges presented the PCs but do not alter the reward, then regardless of the system you use you have changed the relationship of risk and reward.

No. Rather "CR challenges PC's abilities according to a set standard, therefore CR will not adequately portray the level of challenge for PCs with non-standard abilities without modifications, and potentially substantial modifications, based upon each point at which the PCs diverge from the standard".

If the ML system provieds a fiat amount of XP for your critter, then how is that anything but the same kind of standard you seem to revile in the CR system? Unless you accept a major change in the risk-reward relationship?

The CR system is flexible so as to allow DMs to challenge standard and non-standard parties alike; however, it requires for more work than its 1e equivilent to deal with non-standard parties. Moreover, since the CR formula isn't transparent (as was the ML formula), the DM cannot as easily determine how changes are to be made. He must instead make his best guess on top of a system that is seemingly a "designer's best guess" system.

So you suspect that your disenjoyment of the CR system stems from the facts that it runs easier with PCs closer to the assumed 4-PC party, and that you eschew "standard" games.

Why do I feel that you type "standard" with the same feeling that I do when I type "botulism"?

And he best know, because the CR system isn't going to tell him what "vorpal claws" should be worth. Unlike the ML system, which is, IMHO, better.

If a DM doesn't know that running 1st level characters against the vorpal ability is a bad idea, then no amount of pre-calculatedness is going to help his players survive his game.