Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4370732" data-attributes="member: 94">In short: No.Cheiromancer (the ENworld poster) has been working with me a bit behind the scenes on Trailblazer.I have come to the conclusion that the existing CR system is &quot;reasonably predictive&quot; as long as you keep the combats within the proper parameters. Yes, it breaks down more and more at high level, and with widely divergent combatants (you can pretty much tell when a conflict is going asymmetric-- no number of orcs is going to challenge a colossal red dragon, etc.). Even with the Chi/Rho system that I championed, I think if you read the intent behind the work, it was more to handle mixed-CR and odd-sized groups anyway. The system presented here does that faster and better as far as I am concerned.Again, with the caveat that CR is, for typical play, &quot;good enough.&quot;Rebuilding CR would be outside the scope of Trailblazer, and largely useless to boot. What's the sense in sticking with 3.5 at all if you have to recalculate your extensive 3.5 library? The economy of actions is ALL. It's fundamental.It's why 4e Elite and Solo monsters have &quot;interrupt&quot; actions. If you adhere to Lanchester's Law, a Solo creature would have to be x16 or even x25 as powerful as a typical party, and that's just not workable. Give him extra actions instead. Trailblazer has some thoughts in this regard.This concern is common, and has been addressed a few times, so it is very easy for me to STRONGLY recommend that you divide the XP up evenly &quot;per capita&quot; and not &quot;pro rata.&quot; This will enable the lower level characters to catch up.As long as your players aren't abusing the rule to &quot;power-level&quot; low level characters alongside high level guys who are doing all the work, of course-- but you can implement your own controls on that without worrying about &quot;system.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4370732, member: 94"] In short: No. Cheiromancer (the ENworld poster) has been working with me a bit behind the scenes on Trailblazer. I have come to the conclusion that the existing CR system is "reasonably predictive" as long as you keep the combats within the proper parameters. Yes, it breaks down more and more at high level, and with widely divergent combatants (you can pretty much tell when a conflict is going asymmetric-- no number of orcs is going to challenge a colossal red dragon, etc.). Even with the Chi/Rho system that I championed, I think if you read the intent behind the work, it was more to handle mixed-CR and odd-sized groups anyway. The system presented here does that faster and better as far as I am concerned. Again, with the caveat that CR is, for typical play, "good enough." Rebuilding CR would be outside the scope of Trailblazer, and largely useless to boot. What's the sense in sticking with 3.5 at all if you have to recalculate your extensive 3.5 library? The economy of actions is ALL. It's fundamental. It's why 4e Elite and Solo monsters have "interrupt" actions. If you adhere to Lanchester's Law, a Solo creature would have to be x16 or even x25 as powerful as a typical party, and that's just not workable. Give him extra actions instead. Trailblazer has some thoughts in this regard. This concern is common, and has been addressed a few times, so it is very easy for me to STRONGLY recommend that you divide the XP up evenly "per capita" and not "pro rata." This will enable the lower level characters to catch up. As long as your players aren't abusing the rule to "power-level" low level characters alongside high level guys who are doing all the work, of course-- but you can implement your own controls on that without worrying about "system." [/QUOTE]

Verification