Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3565734" data-attributes="member: 18280">The CR/EL system is a direct descendent of the "Monster Level" system from the 1st Edition DMG.  While I would agree that the CR/EL system is, in many ways, an improvement on that system, there are other ways in which it is not.  IMHO, of course.The Monster Level system worked by determining XP first, and gave you a fairly clear system by which XP were determined.  XP for all standard monsters were already predetermined.  It then placed the monster in a "level" category based upon its XP.  The "Monster Level" roughly corresponded to the "dungeon level" or equivilent where the creature was likely to be encountered.The CR/EL system fails to make clear the standard on which it is based.  Unlike the old Monster Level system, you cannot look at a creature, do a little math, and slot it into the appropriate category.  The reason that the 3.0 ogre problem exists is that CR has a higher "guesswork" component than ML.The CR system is written based upon a standard to which the PCs must adhere; the ML system was written based upon a standard to which the monsters must adhere.  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.  The paradigm behind the ML system is that the players decide how far into the dungeon they are willing to venture, and thus choose their level of opponent based upon their own perceptions of their abilities.The ML system is more flexable, IMHO, because changes you make to the game world (such as the prevelance of magic weaponry) can be quickly mapped into the XP calculation or some monsters can simply be avoided because the DM knows that the player characters don't have the means to defeat it.  The factors in the CR system are more nebulous, and require greater adjudication on the part of the DM in order to make them work with changes to the game environment.Of course, as module series show, the paradigm that spawned the ML system wasn't always strictly adhered to (or there wouldn't be modules "suitable" for any particular character levels), and DMs would often end up "eyeballing" encounters to determine if the PCs would survive.  However, survivability itself was less important in 1e than in 3e, and it was easier to use some types of resources (especially spells) in unusual ways before they were codified to preclude such a high level of versitility.In any event, there is absolutely no problem in using the CR/EL system with the assumption that EL is a function of creature(s) and special circumstances, regardless of character abilities.  It is better, IMHO, that an EL 2 encounter means the same thing to all games than that an EL 2 encounter is defined by the makeup of the PC party facing it.Also, in regards to your other points, the assumption is that the only way to "beat" the ogre is in melee combat.  This is simply untrue.  Because the ogre isn't easily beaten in a straight-out fight doesn't mean that the PCs can't "win" the encounter through other means.  A party that isn't optimized for combat is, presumably, optimized for some other means to deal with problems.RC</blockquote>

Verification