Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6050142" data-attributes="member: 87792">No.  You were making statements about the usefulness of certain tools.  And then making statements that are true about bad versions of those tools (like the 3e CR ratings) and false about the 4e version.  The problems you outline are with the instance not the principle.  It's nothing more than an argument that runs "Someone failed to scale Everest so no one should try ever again" while there are people waving at you from the top.Except that 3e is in many ways an aberration in the history of D&D.  Like every other edition.  Saying "3e does something badly therefore it can't be done well" is silly when 4e does it well.Minor correction accepted.XP budgets are more worthwhile than CR and EL because they work.  They are also simpler because the complex and exponential maths was given to the XP chart rather than to the DM.When arguing against a concept you do not pick the worst examples of that concept to argue against.  You pick the best.  3e's version didn't work.  4e's does.  And it's been explained to you why - that the 4e level is based on outcomes, the 3e one is based on fudged inputs.You are trying to argue against it by using an implementation that is conceptually flawed.  All you are demonstrating is flaws in 3e.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />The idea is to get a strategy that works.  There are plenty of others that also work.  But the idea that one straight forward method can work is not a fallacy.And with all due respect how would you even know?  Your entire argument is based on the 3e CR system.  Which, as we can agree does not work.  You have not used a system that most of its adherents think does work.  So you are simply ignorant of how one feels when working well.  Your entire argument is based on the flaws of a flawed implementation  which means that very simply you do not know what you are talking about.Of course.  Try thinking of encounter balance as training wheels.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />And once more you are posting irrelevancies.  Encounter balance does not say "You must do things this way".  It says "If you do things this way, the results are likely to be good.  If you don't, you do so at your own risk".  Your man is made of straw.I'm saying, just to take one example, that in my third session of DMing 4e I was able to cope with a completely off the wall improvised plan that involved disguising a turncoat enemy wyrmling dragon as a plague cart to take it through a city being bombarded from the air by dragons, and that I was able to do this almost effortlessly and in a way that made for an engaging scene that wasn't overlong, overdetailed, or trivial thanks to the tools 4e provides me with.  I'm equally saying I'd have been struggling badly without some sort of encounter framing technique in the rules.  So yes, for me it did replace those bumpy early sessions and gave me a pattern to reach for when I don't know what the hell to do (with a key DMing skill being to never be at a loss).It doesn't replace all the skills you need.  But certainly helps with some - especially the ones involving dealing with creative players whose idea of sticking to the session plan involves something weird involving a paper shredder, glue, and a fan.</blockquote>

Verification