Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5315564" data-attributes="member: 5143">I disagree entirely.&nbsp; The entire point of having this tool was so that you could make encounters and know what effect they'd have on the players.One of the major frustrations for me (and many DMs) prior to 3e was that you'd pick monsters entirely for story reasons and simply HOPE that they didn't kill off your PCs and have to start a new game.&nbsp; Often, due to experience, you were right.&nbsp; But other times, you'd miss your guess and an enemy's AC would be so good that no one in the party could hit it, and it'd TPK your party.But very few DMs WANTED a TPK.&nbsp; They wanted to have a fun time fighting a combat that was challenging, but not TOO challenging.&nbsp; So, that's what the system in 3e was designed to do...to tell you which encounters would be in that range(i.e. appropriate challenges).It's the exact thing that 2e did so badly.&nbsp; Each encounter had the possibility of killing your PCs, whether that was your intention or not.&nbsp; So most DMs erred on the side of caution and would purposefully use very weak enemies.Having a system that could accurately predict how much of a challenge a particular enemy or group of enemies would be for your players is pretty much the holy grail of DMing.&nbsp; That was, YOU get to choose if you want a weak or strong encounter instead of allowing randomness to do so.&nbsp; That's the entire idea of balance.&nbsp; In theory, if each class were perfectly balanced and the system of rating challenges worked perfectly then the DM would be completely in charge of their own game and it's difficulty.Too bad there isn't any game that has achieved perfect balance and perfect challenge rating ability.&nbsp; Although, IMHO, 4e has come closest to this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5315564, member: 5143"] I disagree entirely. The entire point of having this tool was so that you could make encounters and know what effect they'd have on the players. One of the major frustrations for me (and many DMs) prior to 3e was that you'd pick monsters entirely for story reasons and simply HOPE that they didn't kill off your PCs and have to start a new game. Often, due to experience, you were right. But other times, you'd miss your guess and an enemy's AC would be so good that no one in the party could hit it, and it'd TPK your party. But very few DMs WANTED a TPK. They wanted to have a fun time fighting a combat that was challenging, but not TOO challenging. So, that's what the system in 3e was designed to do...to tell you which encounters would be in that range(i.e. appropriate challenges). It's the exact thing that 2e did so badly. Each encounter had the possibility of killing your PCs, whether that was your intention or not. So most DMs erred on the side of caution and would purposefully use very weak enemies. Having a system that could accurately predict how much of a challenge a particular enemy or group of enemies would be for your players is pretty much the holy grail of DMing. That was, YOU get to choose if you want a weak or strong encounter instead of allowing randomness to do so. That's the entire idea of balance. In theory, if each class were perfectly balanced and the system of rating challenges worked perfectly then the DM would be completely in charge of their own game and it's difficulty. Too bad there isn't any game that has achieved perfect balance and perfect challenge rating ability. Although, IMHO, 4e has come closest to this. [/QUOTE]

Verification