In AD&D, what was the precursor to Challenge Ratings (CR)?

[Devall2000]

In 1e and 2e AD&D, what were you supposed to use in order to find an adequate challenge for the party? As near as I can tell, it was based off of the number of hit dice the monster(s) had in comparison to the party. However, I'm not certain.

What were the equivalents of challenge ratings in AD&D?

thanks,
Jamie

 

[Skarp Hedin]

In both 1st and 2nd edition, the DM had to do rather more work to determine an adequate challenge*.
What I always did was read up on various sorts of foes, and then you just.. decide if it's an adequate challenge. Sometimes you were right, sometimes you were wrong. Determining challenges, then, were much more dependant on how much experience the DM had at doing it. Of course, there are lots of great big signs to help you.. for example, hit dice are good, special abilities of the foe in question, etc. It's easy to tell that a beholder requires a higher level party, etc. You could also check out and see how much XP a given foe was worth, too. As an example, checking out my 2nd edition Monstrous Manual I happen to have here... you get 2000 XP for killing a lurker -- so 1 lurker would put just about anyone to level 2 after 1 fight. Without even checking the HD (which happens to be 10), I would guess that most lurkers would kill off most 1st level parties real easy-like, but a good 5th level party wouldn't have too much trouble. On the other hand, a kobold is worth 7 xp. So you can tell just from the xp value that you'd need a good number of 'em to challenge a first level party.

In some ways, I preferred this system -- Life isn't very mathematical or cut and dried, and sometimes bad things do happen to good people.. On the other hand, killing the party because you misjudged how tough was some monster is no fun at times. Depends a lot on the campaign, of course. Mighty save-the-world quest campaigns go nowhere fast if everyone gets killed by a manticore at level 1.

*Sometimes you have to do a good deal of work with the CR system too, but in the main it's easier, since it's a nice formula.

 

[The Dungeon Nazi]

In both 1st and 2nd edition, the DM had to do rather more work to determine an adequate challenge*.
What I always did was read up on various sorts of foes, and then you just.. decide if it's an adequate challenge. Sometimes you were right, sometimes you were wrong. Determining challenges, then, were much more dependant on how much experience the DM had at doing it. Of course, there are lots of great big signs to help you.. for example, hit dice are good, special abilities of the foe in question, etc. It's easy to tell that a beholder requires a higher level party, etc. You could also check out and see how much XP a given foe was worth, too. As an example, checking out my 2nd edition Monstrous Manual I happen to have here... you get 2000 XP for killing a lurker -- so 1 lurker would put just about anyone to level 2 after 1 fight. Without even checking the HD (which happens to be 10), I would guess that most lurkers would kill off most 1st level parties real easy-like, but a good 5th level party wouldn't have too much trouble. On the other hand, a kobold is worth 7 xp. So you can tell just from the xp value that you'd need a good number of 'em to challenge a first level party.

In some ways, I preferred this system -- Life isn't very mathematical or cut and dried, and sometimes bad things do happen to good people.. On the other hand, killing the party because you misjudged how tough was some monster is no fun at times. Depends a lot on the campaign, of course. Mighty save-the-world quest campaigns go nowhere fast if everyone gets killed by a manticore at level 1.

*Sometimes you have to do a good deal of work with the CR system too, but in the main it's easier, since it's a nice formula.

Things seem so cut-and-dry with the CR system, and I don't like it.

Avoiding a party-kill was as easy as remembering that you were the DM and what you said and did was all that mattered. Nowadays, I get a much stronger feeling that PCs are reckless, because "The DM knows our party level and so we'll be able to defeat all the monsters he sends at us because they all have the same CR." There's a lot of suspense removed.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

Things seem so cut-and-dry with the CR system, and I don't like it.

Avoiding a party-kill was as easy as remembering that you were the DM and what you said and did was all that mattered. Nowadays, I get a much stronger feeling that PCs are reckless, because "The DM knows our party level and so we'll be able to defeat all the monsters he sends at us because they all have the same CR." There's a lot of suspense removed.

Well, nothing (aside of player mutiny, of course) really stops you from chucking a CR 4 encounter at a pack of 1st level types. The only thing is, you have a pretty reasonable assurance before the fight even starts that they'll lose. And probably die, since I've never seen any players actually think to run away, heh. With older editions, you might be sorta wrong about how tough the monster is, etc. The CR system, while I do think that it's a bit "better" than the old way (and certainly easier), sure does remind me of turning a crank and some XP comes out at the end.. you don't have to do near as much research into the strengths of the foes to determine if they're even suitable -- you can tell that from the CR and then just learn how to play the foe.

I'm also lucky in that none of my players owns anything beyond the PH, and some of 'em don't even own that. So they don't know anything about how all this stuff works and haven't developed the 3e-Player-Attitude that a number of threads have mentioned lately. They just have their old 1e/2e attitudes, heh.

 

[hong]

Nowadays, I get a much stronger feeling that PCs are reckless, because "The DM knows our party level and so we'll be able to defeat all the monsters he sends at us because they all have the same CR." There's a lot of suspense removed.

Throw a TPK at them, and they'll never think that way again.

(I'm serious! The _best_ way to deal with metagaming is to talk to your players out of game. However, at some stage, you'll probably have to show that you're willing to go all the way if you want your OOC discussions to be taken seriously. The best bluffs are those that can be backed up.)

 

[Archibald Theocliste]

Sniff, my third post, I no longer feel special...

Anyway, back to the subject, I am not sure a TPK is really necessary in 3rd Ed. when your players are getting to secure.
The CR are supposed to be a "not really challenging" fight for a group of PC of equivalent lv. Not a problem when you are throwing at them a lot of encounters. But if encounters are not so frequent in your games you can easily use higher CR. A group of five lv7 characters can take down a CR 9 monster and survive, but it will be challenging and can lead to one player death. I must admit that my players are used to hard fights and expect some losses every time they rush into a big one.
But the CR system has one weakness that has to be taken into account by a DM, the special abilities of monsters play a great role for equivalent CR, something that will be very important depending of your group. If your players mainly play fighter-like characters, a monster of appropriate CR whose main power is pure strenght will be slaughtered (hmm... ok, I know I am not learning anything to anybody here), while a monster of same CR with a few spell-like abilities resisted with WILL (fear anyone?) will really enjoy the fight and probably gain a few xp too.

But at least we now have a good support with CR when we want to prepare our encounters. In 2nd Ed., if you barely know the xp of your players and not what they are playing or like to play, you're dead meat, thanks to the different xp advancement tables and multiclassing rules. You won't be happy when you'll see a lv12 Fighter with a lv9 Rogue/Lv10 Human Wizard at his side...
I think 2nd Ed. recquire you to really know your players when preparing your games, or you'll probably use monsters they won't be able to understand how to handle or monsters that looks fine but will be a cakewalk for them.

 

[the Jester]

Monster Level (1e)

In 1e monsters were rated with a "level" from I-X, with X being the highest. The determining factor was the critter's xp value; a level X monster was worth over 10000 xp, a level IX was worth 5001-10000 iirc, etc... all the way down to the lowly level I monster, worth 20 or less xp.

 

[Orcus]

"since I've never seen any players actually think to run away"

Kill them and then see what happens.

There is nothing worse for D&D than the computer game/Diablo mentality that the DM will only sick level appropriate monsters on you.

Guess what, you arent supposed to beat everything. D&D isnt a game of "clearing the level." Thats a computer game.

Your game world should have some versimilitude. Monsters dont organize themselves into 1st level parts of the world and 3rd level parts and 9th level parts. If you players wander into the forest of death at 1st level, they shouldnt be surprised to be attacked by 5 trolls. Just like if they stroll into the Hall of the Specter King at 1st level they shouldnt complain when the hordes of undead descend on them.

Give your players an encounter they cant handle. Dont be unfair, be realistic. If they go in the evil forest, hit them with 4 owl bears even if they are first level. They will learn to run or die.

This is not unfair. In fact, it is the best thing you can do for your game. Believe me.

Your players will learn that the world is dangerous. They will also find something they cant beat right away. Nothing motivates characters more than a loss. "I cant wait to go back to that dungeon and get that XXXX monster." Plus, it makes for great stories. Death is D&D is far from permanent and is often a great story focus. PC dies, PC group wants him raised, PCs go to priest but dont have the $$$, PC gets raised and geased to go on a quest, etc.

Part of the problem is published modules. Modules are generally written for a specific level range. So DM says "hey, I have a group of 3rd level characters, I'll run module X since it is for that level." This progresses on, so that the charcaters never have an adventure they dont have a chance at beating. They learn that the DM will never overly challenge them. The game becomes boring.

Nothing brings joy like the fear of death; because when that fear is real all adventures are exciting and all accomplishments mean something.

As for the original post, prior to 3E's CR system (which, frankly is a good idea and well intentioned, but doesnt really work well) we used what you should still use: common sense. How hard is it to compare hit dice and take into account special attacks and abilities? You tell me, what is tougher: a 4 HD humanoid that has one attack with a short sword or a 2HD humanoid with claw, claw bite, all poisoned, and DR 5/silver? How hard was that?

You act as if the CR system is a good one so what did people do before that. I say the CR system needs major work.

For example, a troll is what CR? How many orcs (according to the rules) is the same CR? You find me one party of 6 first level characters that wouldnt clean up the orcs and get greased by the troll.

And that doesnt even take into account the specifics of the party. Lets say you play in a low magic world where none of the PCs has a +1 weapon. Now you tell me, what is harder for them, fighting 4 shadows (CR 3 each) or 4 evil centaurs (also CR 3 each).

CRs are at best a rough guide that is alone incomplete. You still need to factor in things like:

Special equipment: what is the CR of an Ogre with +2 chain and a +2 weapon wearing boots of speed?

Situational advantages: do 4 orcs walking down the forest path that you get the drop on have the same CR/EL as 4 orcs behind a spiked wall providing full cover armed with bows, flasks of flaming oil and a small ballista?

Numbers: CR/EL really breaks down when you have a number of foes. Lots of smaller CR creatures will always be more difficult than one big CR monster. No matter what the CR rules say. Why? Because the single monster can rarely focus on more than one or two PCs while the PCs can all focus on it; numbers allow one or two monsters to engage each PC, preventing them from working together properly.

Intelligence: 4 2HD humans will present much different threats if they charge mindlessly or if they use good battle tactics. That is not factored into CR.

Reach: in my opinion the CR system does not truly take into account the extra danger that a creature with reach has. Ogres got a big boost in 3E.

In short, we do the same thing now that we did then: use experience and common sense.

You just need to learn how tough monsters are. I have been playing for 20+ years so I have a bit better of a guage (DMing many PCs fighting lots of different monsters) then perhaps a newbie.

But even with my experience, when the 3E rules came out I called my group together and did an experiment. I suggest you try this.

Pull some maps from WotC's online site. Draw them out. Then have your group make 1st level PCs.

have them fight:

an equal number of goblins w/melee weapons
an equal number of orcs w/melee weapons
one ogre
double the number of goblins, half with melee half with missile
same with orcs
now an ogre with 4 goblins with swords
now an ogre with 4 goblins with bows

Just do it over and over until you start to see what makes the difference. No one dies for real. Bring them back to life and do it again.

Your players will like learning the rules too and frankly will probably enjoy the break from roleplaying for some head bashing.

Do it again with PCs at the relevent power change levels (3rd, 5th, 7th--the levels when good things happen: spell casters get access to higher level spells, etc)

Nothing beats experience. Not even CRs. CRs are no better of a guage than hit dice coupled with common sense.

Clark

 

[Ashtal]

All I know is that no matter how much I may cackle at my bold, even arrogant party, even with a large two-digit CR in my grubby DM paws, they almost always beat it without breaking a sweat.

But I put them up against a troupe of goblins with the Precise Shot feat, and I can turn them into swiss cheese.

As neat as the ELs and CRs are, I find that they often do little to help me adequately judge or anticipate the encounters between my group and my antagonists. But they are still more helpful than not having them at all. Now I can kind of get a ballpark instead of lighting a candle and praying to the four cardinal directions that I won't have killed them tonight in a TPK.

 

[Tonguez]

In 1e (didn't like/play 2e) I always used xp value as a guide to level.

In 3e I use the CR =Level+3 rule or that a 1st-level Party will get anything up to a CR 4 monster in a planned encounter. So an owlbear, giant spider or sea hag is quite possible (and as most in this thread have argued quite legitimate)

I'll even do sneaky tricks like give a goblin class levels so that the scummy goblins become a major challenge,

and present High CR monsters who just happen to be weak members of their species. Afterall with all the Adventurers around Manticores do get injured, diasabled or sick even and perhaps the hill giant your PC have just encountered is a malnourished slave to a Fire giant who weakened by abuse only has HP 60 Con 12 Dex 6 Str 18 and no feats.