Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3566139" data-attributes="member: 18280">The change that allowed easier multiclassing was that 3.X makes character level independent of class level in terms of XP.&nbsp; Multiclassing is unaffected by changing the 3e XP chart to an exponential one (as many have done).(1)&nbsp; Determine XP.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Examples are given.(2)&nbsp; Cross-reference XP with the Monster Level chart in the DMG.&nbsp; 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).the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilitiesRemembering, 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.Sure, you can alter the CR system for a non-standard game.&nbsp; However, the ML system doesn't require alteration for a non-standard game.&nbsp; This is a superiority of the ML system over the CR system.No.&nbsp; Rather &quot;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&quot;.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; He must instead make his best guess on top of a system that is seemingly a &quot;designer's best guess&quot; system.And he best know, because the CR system isn't going to tell him what &quot;vorpal claws&quot; should be worth.&nbsp; Unlike the ML system, which is, IMHO, better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3566139, member: 18280"] 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). (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). [indent]the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities[/indent] 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. [indent]the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games.[/indent] Any variations on those standards perforce causes the DM to alter the CR system accordingly. 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. No. Rather "CR challenges PC's abilities [i]according to a set standard[/i], therefore CR will not adequately portray the level of challenge for PCs with non-standard abilities [i]without modifications, and potentially substantial modifications, based upon each point at which the PCs diverge from the standard[/i]". 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification