Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Baby Samurai]

Which is, perhaps, why the 4e designers decided to scrap the CR system, no? What looks good in theory sometimes proves to suck donkey after about a year of solid play (when the shiny newness wears off).

maybe we could just say "The CR System sucks" and be done with it.

True, and from what I've seen it looks like there is now only "level", instead of the CR/HD/LA/ECL/EL conundrum of madness.

 

[Remathilis]

maybe we could just say "The CR System sucks" and be done with it.

True, CR doesn't do what it was set out to do, since there are as many exceptions as there are "the rules" However, that is partially because CR is flawed, partially because some of those sub-systems are, and where they meet is a holy chaotic (flaming burst) mess...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

One thing 3E will probably go down in D&D history as is the "great unifying attempt". All mosters were categorized with one number, all skills in one skill system, all classes got one XP chart, bonuses got a unified stacking system, etc.

I think one thing showed...not everything works well when you try to unify its properties. Monsters in older editions were a very diverse lot, with plenty of different abilities and focuses, and usually each monster got an individual treatment, especially if it was a "special" monster. 2E had that for nearly every monster (even those who didn't need a 2-page write-up ). Same went for magical items. 3E swung too far into the "unification" direction. I'm curious if 4E is going to find more of a middle ground...from what I've read, it looks good. On the other hand, it also looks like save-or-die effects will be out of the game, which is kinda funny, since they seem to go in a direction where those encounters could be more easily handled again.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am sure that there are many things in D&D that are only enjoyed by 1/3 of the players. If we removed all of them on that basis, I wonder if there would be anything left.

RC

The question is, why didn't 1/3 or 2/3 or any other arbitrary number of players not like a rule, and can we change it without alienating the rest?

I have seen occassions where people just didn't have problems with a rule because they ignored them or never needed them, or used them very differently then others (specifically those who do have problems with the rule)

The SOD example:
Many SoD proponents appear to not use Save or Die randomly, but only with some kind of forewarning (designing parts of the adventure involving them to ensure that the PCs can be aware of the risks). This is certainly a viable solution (maybe indicating a good common sense ), and probably ensures that the group doesn't suffer from the rule.

But what does this tell us about the rule itself? If it works best with a special treatment, maybe it should just not be a standard rule? Maybe the special treatment needs to be part of the rules?

The Grapple example:
My group never had problems adjucating the rules. It might sometimes be a bit clumsy, but we managed that. I personally only had the problem that it was way too much in favour of larger monsters and thus imbalance things.
Other people failed at adjucating the rules in on themselves.

The underlying problem of the Grapple rules are probably that they are a combat subsystem that doesn't ingrate well with the other rules. It's based on BAB, but it uses different size modifiers. You have a totally different set of actions available once inside a Grapple situation. Attacking or Spellcasting in Grapple follows unusual direction (Light Weapons only, still at a penalty, Material Components not easily available, Somatic components make things differently, Concentration Check different). The set of actions was different enough to confuse some players, and the specific rules favoured larger creatures in ways the regular combat system did not, imbalancing it further.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

On the other hand, it also looks like save-or-die effects will be out of the game, which is kinda funny, since they seem to go in a direction where those encounters could be more easily handled again.

It is possible that the new system will sometimes over-compensate when trying to remove an old flaw.

(But if Save or Die turns out to be manageable by the new system, it's possible that later supplements from WotC or 3rd parties add it back in with special monsters or spells. But anyway, I will probably miss it less then others... )

 

[Hussar]

People have a funny definition of a "glass cannon" nowadays. And somehow it seems to be okay if a combat encounter is over quickly because the combat monsters did their work efficiently, but it's not okay if a combat encounter ends quickly because the information masters did their work efficiently.

Umm, what? A glass cannon doesn't mean what you think it means. If the creature either kills a PC or dies without being any real threat to the party, that's a glass cannon. It has nothing to do with the PC's.

Again, what CR is a group of 5 creatures that has a 66% chance of killing one 20th level PC?

Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work. Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine. I've found that CR does work. Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations. I'm not saying CR is perfect. Far from it. A CR 13 encounter of stock goblins is a joke. Of course, the CR system SPECIFICALLY STATES that it can't calculate this as well. Pretty hard to talk about a failing when the failing is deliberately called out in the rules.

But, Mustrum Ridcully has hit it nicely on the head. If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule? Is a monster that requires all sorts of fiddly bits in order to bring it back in line with its expected challenge well designed?

IMO, no. A monster should be usable out of the box. I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to use a monster. If the monster has a specific location requirement (like a shark for instance), I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use it.

Now, if I want to add in the extra effort and reward players for being smart, that should be up to me. The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics. Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good. Like in the demon cult example I posted a bit back. If I drop hints that there really is a demon up there and the party prepares for that, by all means they should be rewarded.

However, I don't believe that the reward should be an anticlimactic encounter where the party slaps the monster around like a rag doll. Even the party armed with cold iron weapons and a Dimensional Lock spell still has to deal with that Glabrezu - no mean feat. The party that slaps on slow poison and protection from petrification walks up to the medusa and noogies her for fun.

Wow, great encounter.

 

[Celebrim]

The underlying problem of the Grapple rules are probably that they are a combat subsystem that doesn't ingrate well with the other rules.

That's because the action being simulated itself has many unique features - the chief of which is that it immediately imposes a condition 'grappled' on the target. Describing that condition is not trivial and increases linearly in complexity as a system allows more freedom to the players. The vast majority of the grappling rules are describing what happens when you attempt to make some other action under the rules when the 'grappled' condition is imposed on you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work. Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine. I've found that CR does work. Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations.

If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule? Is a system that requires all sorts of fiddling in order to bring it back in line with its expected results well designed?

IMO, no. A system should be usable out of the box. I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to determine a monster's CR, or an encounter's EL. If the encounter is to be with a group of monsters, I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use CR/EL.

The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics. Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good.

Wow, great system. :\

EDIT: BTW, what does "Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work" mean, Hussar? What do you mean by "Now"? People have been saying CR doesn't work since the shiny newness of 3.0 wore off. People have been comparing CR/EL to a steaming pile of bantha poodoo for years. How many threads have you posted in defending CR already? Over how many years?

"Now" we have claims that CR doesn't work?

For shame.

RC

 

[Hussar]

For shame yerself. Now, in this context, since you are all about reading things in the proper context, refers to this thread, not this point in time. Wow, RC, you've spent so much time decrying other people's abilities not to be able to read plain English.

The CR system does work as advertised. If you use a standard party, you will get the results predicted by the CR/EL system. The further you deviate from that standard party (4 PC's, 25 point buy value) the less able it is to predict results. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

But, there's nothing baseline about SoD effects. Ok, never mind CR for the moment. Is an encounter where the PC's have a 66% chance of PC death a good encounter?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Umm, what? A glass cannon doesn't mean what you think it means. If the creature either kills a PC or dies without being any real threat to the party, that's a glass cannon. It has nothing to do with the PC's.

Sure. Apparently, if the creature doesn't get to kill a PC because the melee specialists dispatch with it in 2 rounds because they are pimped out with ability buffs, damage buffs and AC buffs, that's different from a creature that doesn't get to kill a PC because the knowledge specialists have determined its weakness beforehand, prepared the melee specialists accordingly, and they get to dispatch with the creature in 2 rounds. The latter, according to you, is a glass cannon. What's the former called again?

Again, what CR is a group of 5 creatures that has a 66% chance of killing one 20th level PC?

Now, we have claims that CR doesn't work. Well, that might be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine. I've found that CR does work. Not all the time, certainly, but, it does work when you realize its limitations. I'm not saying CR is perfect. Far from it. A CR 13 encounter of stock goblins is a joke. Of course, the CR system SPECIFICALLY STATES that it can't calculate this as well. Pretty hard to talk about a failing when the failing is deliberately called out in the rules.

You know, that's two completely different failures we're talking here. Me, I'm simply claiming that CR as the sole arbiter of a creature's difficulty in an encounter is insufficient. That has nothing to do with the designers noting that "Hey, this CR for one creature is fine, but it might get very wonky if you scale the CR of them up through sheer numbers." Apples and oranges, you know.

But, Mustrum Ridcully has hit it nicely on the head. If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule? Is a monster that requires all sorts of fiddly bits in order to bring it back in line with its expected challenge well designed?

IMO, no. A monster should be usable out of the box. I shouldn't have to do all sorts of extra work in order to use a monster. If the monster has a specific location requirement (like a shark for instance), I shouldn't also have to make sure that the water is 72 degrees, there is a slight chop and overcast sky as well in order to use it.

Agreed...this simply means that there should be a better system in place to adjudicate monsters. CR is simply not enough. It probably works well with straight melee monsters, but as soon as the monster in question has more than one special ability that doesn't directly map to combat damage (hit points), CR goes down the drain more often than not.

But hey, we could of course simply start cutting away all abilities that do not map directly to combat.

Now, if I want to add in the extra effort and reward players for being smart, that should be up to me. The rules shouldn't force me to do all this extra work, just to make up for faulty mechanics. Fix the mechanics in the first place and we're good. Like in the demon cult example I posted a bit back. If I drop hints that there really is a demon up there and the party prepares for that, by all means they should be rewarded.

However, I don't believe that the reward should be an anticlimactic encounter where the party slaps the monster around like a rag doll. Even the party armed with cold iron weapons and a Dimensional Lock spell still has to deal with that Glabrezu - no mean feat. The party that slaps on slow poison and protection from petrification walks up to the medusa and noogies her for fun.

Wow, great encounter.

Yeah...and a 13th level group that confronts a Glabrezu with nothing but cold iron weapons and a Dimensional Lock either has a very stingy DM, doesn't have a clue about what a Glabrezu really can do, or is desperately looking for a TPK. If you have a "standard" 13th level group with standard equipment with proper preparations, they will turn your Glabrezu example into a 2-round battle. I can only refer to the Tales of Wyre story hour to illustrate what a really high-level group that prepares for an encounter does to the monster in question.
At some level, preparation turns every monster into a cakewalk. Which is why people prepare for encounters, if they can. To minimize, or negate, losses while maximizing their kill probability.
The bigger problem is that CR is simply not the be-all end-all of monster classification. It's good at giving pointers, but designing everything around it, or demanding everything should fit it is a bit short-sighted, and shows in many cases. RC already said it...CR discussions are nearly as old as 3E itself.