Really good things in theory, but in practice...

[Shades of Green]

An all rogue campaign is pretty far outfield for core rules to be covering anyway. I'm unsure why people would want rules that covered such corner issues. CR is what it is - a shorthand baseline for picking creatures.

You may have a point about rogue-centric campaigns, but (regardless of me getting carried off with my rogue-rant) my main issues with CR/EL are:

1) It might be a bit deceiving if your party has a different composition than normal (i.e. 2 paladins and a cleric on a holy mission, or a ranger, a barbarian, a rogue and a druid fighting threats to the Forest); lacking one or more of the four basic D&D components (fighting, divine magic, arcane magic, thievery) would make certain monsters harder to defeat and more taxing on the party's resources than the CR would suggest.

2) It assumes a 4-PC party; while this could be solved by adjusting it to the number of players, that is calculating the party's effective level by dividing the sum of all levels in the party by 4 (for example, you have 3 party members, all at level 4, you'd have and effective level of 3: 3x4/4=3), is this an accurate adjustment? Would a 8-member party, for example, be exactly twice as powerful against monsters than a 4-member party of the same avarage level? This seems to me as more of a problem at smaller-than-4 parties than with bigger-than-four parties, as the smaller ones would usually be less diverse.

3) It assumes a 3.xE magic-level and amount of magical items; it is far less accurate on higher-magic settings and, even more so, in lower-magic setting (including ones with 2E assumptions, read the High Level Campaigns 2E sourcebook to see what I'm talking about).

All in all, it is still a good "eyeballing" method for balancing encounters, but it has several pitfalls in practice that the DM should be aware of to use this successfully.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I just started using the 'each + overcome 5/DR magic' thing and it is working out great definately a much needed change to the DR system.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Turn Undead is one for me. Undead dont get a con bonus, and have sucky attack values, so tend to have a lot of hit dice. So the ability to turn meaningful undead decreases as you level. It also bogs down the game more than other actions. Roll your turn check, roll damage4 dice, factor in whats in range, etc.

CR is another irritant, particularly when it comes to class levels (and even worse with non-associated levels). No one in their right mind is going to claim that a 10th level fighter, an 11th level featless warrior is as tough to fight as a Juvenile red dragon. The whole CR 16 planetar that casts spells as a 17th level cleric vs. the CR 16 16th level human cleric is just icing on the cake.

 

[Kormydigar]

I think having seperate DR and defense/AC mechanics in a purely abstract damage system (like the hit point system in D&D) is silly, and having the right type of weapon should just give you a bonus to hit.

Of course, I also think SR is completely absurd; it's making a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw. If the designers want a monster to be unusually resistant to magic, it should just have unusually good saves.

That would work just fine as long as you assigned EVERY spell a save. SR is a lot easier than coming up with save/effects for all the spells that don't allow a save.

 

[Kormydigar]

Another point about CR/EL: it assumes a "balanced" party (fighter/ranger/paladin, rogue, wizard/sorcerer and cleric/druid), it assumes a focus on combat (rather than stealth) and it assumes a relatively specific gameplay style. Would a thief-heavy campaign, in which the point is to avoid foes (using planning, stealth and and getting into combat is (relatively) bad news, work well with the published CRs/ELs?

It really depends on what the DM rules as "overcoming" an encounter. If you HAVE to kill/beat up everything to earn any xp then without a balanced party you are pretty SOL. If the DM sees a clever use of abilities and skills to overcome/ avoid combat situations as a legitimate victory ( which I do BTW) then an all rogue party would work fine.

 

[drothgery]

That would work just fine as long as you assigned EVERY spell a save. SR is a lot easier than coming up with save/effects for all the spells that don't allow a save.

Well, there's two parts to this. The first is that ranged touch spells should really be reflex saves, as wizards put a lot more effort into increasing spell DCs than into BAB. And the second part is that no, a monster shouldn't get a chance to completely ignore a spell that no one else gets a save against.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The Classes and Feats

Herzog

To your left you'll find the lovely classless/featless system Hero, now currently in it's 5th edition, revised and expanded.

To your right, you'll see the equally impressive GURPS, now in a full color hardback duo set in it's 4th edition, also revised and expanded and class free since 1st edition.

 

[Lanefan]

1. CR/EL, as others have stated.

2. Stacking. A fine idea in theory, but bogs down in practice whenever there's more than 2 or 3 things that can stack together, particularly if those things can change from round to round or even from encounter to encounter.

3. Wealth-by-level table, and wealth-by-town guidelines. Good in theory...but does anyone actually *use* them?

4. ExP calculations, where different-level PC's in the same party get different ExP amounts for the same encounter. The theory, that a given encounter is more of an experience for a lower-level PC and should be rewarded accordingly, is solid...but the practice - actually doing all the calculations - is a nightmare. Older editions solved the same problem by having the advancement talbes on more of a j-curve; with everyone getting the same ExP amount for a given encounter, the "experience" difference was reflected by having it just take more of those encounters to bump at higher levels...*way* easier on the math side!

5. Sorcerors. Nice in theory; in practice, given either good luck or good management in spell acquisition, just an overpowered wizard variant.

Lanefan

 

[Kormydigar]

Well, there's two parts to this. The first is that ranged touch spells should really be reflex saves, as wizards put a lot more effort into increasing spell DCs than into BAB. And the second part is that no, a monster shouldn't get a chance to completely ignore a spell that no one else gets a save against.

Magic Resistance/ Spell Resistance has been a part of the game since 1st edition. Its ok if some DM's don't want to use it but I like having some mechanic in the game that allows spellcaster level to really mean something ( since it doesn't affect the save at all) and as a side note, SR isn't just for monsters anymore.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Turn Undead is one for me. Undead dont get a con bonus, and have sucky attack values, so tend to have a lot of hit dice. So the ability to turn meaningful undead decreases as you level. It also bogs down the game more than other actions. Roll your turn check, roll damage4 dice, factor in whats in range, etc.

That is the one that bugs me the most (and I was having a hard time thinking of one honestly). It is just irritating having undead 'flee'. I've toyed with the idea of having Turning do 1d6/level damage to undead but it seems way too powerful. Fortunately I intoduced a lot of feats from Scarred Lands and other sources that use turn attempts to power them. Rarely do my PC clerics waste time attempting to turn undead - they'd rather activate Cleansing Flames and do 2d6 holy damage with each melee hit!