SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Adso]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

It is a system, for example, which says that adding 3 levels of druid to a troll and adding 3 levels of fighter to a troll accomplish the same thing (which, I believe, is the biggest problem with the CR system). If we relied more on design judgement, we'd get better accuracy.

I don't know if we’d get better accuracy. I think we’d get better consensus. And I think that's really the issue at hand.

Currently, there is a system. That system is a loose system. Something Ryan might call a guideline, but I don't thing that's really what it is; guidelines are just potential rules we are uncertain about, either because they lack practical application, or they only work an unacceptable percentage of the time.

Anyhow, this system comes with it a couple of key assumptions: the size, the power, and the rule-set shared by a group of fresh D&D characters played by groups of reasonable to game-savvy folk that could take care of the bad guys, not unscathed, but not limping either.

When you see a CR 5, that small string of code tells you that the 5th-level versions of Tordek, Jozan, Mialee and Lidda (or whatever four iconics are on plate that day) kicked this challenge's butt. And then asks, “How do you think your party will do?” To a group of four 5th-level characters in a game centered on the delicate court politics in Rel Mord, it might be more of a fight than its Challenge Rating lets on. To the Saturday Night Dungeon Marauders, it might be little more than a road bump.

I guess you could create a system that gave more information—something that told you less than the statistics, but more than the CR. But that would be contingent on the same system featuring the reprinting information from the character’s statistics and codified in a way to give it the airs of something more scientific and precise.

It’s like printing Cliffs Notes in the front of a book.

We could create a totally new system, something that was more precise and scientific. But that suggestion seems hinged on the desire to give the constituents of whole challenges some form of rating. Just how it is derived must be by the judgment of those who create it (or by playtesting to see how a group of characters fares against each single attack, power, or even spell and then assigning it a number properly proportionate to all other things in the system, which is absurd), in the end creating a more abstract system than the one already there.

And, you know, if you’re in to that sort of thing, the CR system has it. It was featured in Dragon Magazine a while back, titled “How to Create a Monster.” But even those guidelines (and I think they are guidelines) warn that the system is abstract and that you are going to want to playtest your creation before you do settle on the CR, along with the hidden statement, “best if you use the iconics (see or derive from their statistics in Enemies and Allies).”

The call for a “technology” to solve the problem is frustration that the system has number but fails to be mathematically perfect. Well you aren’t going to get mathematically perfect with a system that is making a judgment a specific type about two things—one is a group of adventurer and the other is a challenge—tested in an arena swayed by two (each to its own degree) unpredictable factors: skill and chance. Instead the system is a value statement about a set group of circumstances. Simply, the system is there to make a simple and intelligible value statement based on its predetermined standards. Which, interestingly enough, is exactly what a rating is.

 

[Frosty]

We used CR/XP for both AdvP and RttToEE but now we trust the DM to award XP arbitrarily instead. We are still a bit stuck in the CR/XP-thinking (charges all comers) but I suspect we will learn to avoid combat when it's not absolutely necessary.

If this works out the way we hope the next step will be to introduce some sort of morale-system where the opposition can break and flee instead of fighting to the death.

 

[dcollins]

This is one rant of Sean's which I think is nearly spot-on. He's definitely picked on an excellent example in the "Effigy" to beat up on some identifiable problems.

The one thing I don't think anyone's mentioned, that I found the most jarring of all, is that the Effigy is a 27 Hit Dice, Medium-sized creature. This sort of design in expanded-level play always crops up (as in Basic D&D Companion+ rules), and it's always hard for me to swallow. A wildly powerful creature, as big as a man, breaks the versimilitude of fantasy physics which the core rules did a very good job of establishing (in which, powerful creatures tend to be larger and more identifiably intimidating).

Skip's "How to Create a Monster" gave standard guidelines for monster hit dice, and, as an example, Medium-size undead max out at a suggested 2 Hit Dice (that's right: two Hit Dice). Not that that system was a perfect reflection of the Monster Manual (see here: www.superdan.net/dndmisc/monster_hit_dice.html ), but clearly a 27 HD monster blows that system, and those assumptions, completely away.

I guess not every Epic monster can be Colossal, because that would get pretty dry. But clearly the need to extend the system runs into a ceiling of the sizing assumptions in the core rules. It breaks the quasi-physics assumptions of players of the core rules. It makes you wonder why you never saw a 27 HD undead floating through any of the 1st-level dungeons you adventured in, and they could have easily entered and taken over. It makes nightshades look cartoonish in comparison, to say nothing of liches or supposedly-fearsome vampires.

I would be perfectly happy if post-20th level were simply deity-level power, but then that would be one less book to sell.

 

[Knight_Errant]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

It would be more acurate to say that due to the simplistic nature of the CR system, as presented in the DMG, DMs are not given enough information to make informed, effective judgements on how to alter the CRs of challenges to best fit the party who will confront them.

Does that make any sense, or have I obfuscated myself past the point of coherence?

No, I think this makes perfect sense.

I too feel that the CR/EL system is fairly worthless. Yes, it can be used as a guide, but it takes a very skilled DM to tailor each encounter to fit the PC's abilities_as intended_ by using the current system.

Are DM's capable of this? Yes, many are. But that isnt the point.

The point is that you shouldnt have to reinvent the wheel to determine xp awards for every encounter thrown the PC's way. Dont get me wrong, the CR system is leaps and bounds better than any previous edition of D&D and is better than many other RPG's xp awards systems, but it needs work.

Is it impossible to derive a system that could account for factors that would raise or lower CR's for each monster based on its abilities and the composition of the party? No, it isnt. Is it difficult? Yes, to some degree it is.

However, I think it is something that is worth examining. Perhaps something along the lines of what you suggested in a previous post, a "CR Factor," etc. that would allow for the DM to make intelligent decisions based on what the monster is capable of versus what the party is capable of handling.

A system that only works part of the time isnt a system. Worse yet, the current CR system isnt a very effective "guide" because it ceases to function at high-level play. This leaves DMs scratching their heads and devising their own system of xp awards, which is precisely what 3E claimed to prevent.

That is the point.

But, what do I know, I dont design games for a living and I'm terribly lazy to boot.

 

[dren]

high level encounters

The problem, or perhaps the chalenge is, as new books appear, it makes the older books and spells, monsters, "outdated." As previously stated, the effigy makes a vampire or lich pale in comparison, yet, these are supposed to be the legendary undead... Likewise, we have new rules in the ELH that make mince meat out of the previous rules and characters. That's one of the reasons, it sometimes doesn't fit right.

This will always happen. Theoretically DMs should update the monsters, feats, rules, etc to match the new criteria. Otherwise, the whole D20 mechanic no longer seem like a coherent rule system for high level characters.

My MM is crammed full of sidenotes with feats or spells replacing core with splatbook. Then this leads to questions like: Am I being "fair"? is it too strong or too weak? I don't know the answers to this, I try my best to be reasonable.

In the end, if my players have fun, and they feel the monsters weren't too hard or too easy, they don't care, because they have either killed it, escaped from it, captured it or bargained with it and they don't even know what the creatures CR is anyway.

 

[Tanis Half-Munchken]

It brakes down sooner than that . . .

Now, factor in the effects of multiclassing and prestige classes, and you take a situation that is already fundamentally flawed (definition: less fun than it should be for a given amount of work), and the whole system degrades even further.
. . .
Does that make any sense, or have I obfuscated myself past the point of coherence?

Hey; Someone said the `M' word! The party I'm in has long had a bad time of published adventures 'couse everybody is multiclassed. Sometimes 'couse it fit or `made' the character, or to line up for a prestige class. Or maybe they wanted more feat or skills.

What we are finding out is that the DM has to pre-read adventures to see if anybody can meet the class level needed to cast the one key spell, turn that certen undead, or just have enough search to to deal with the pivital secret door. It's not going smoothly for him . . . It'd be nice to see such requirements on the back cover.

Anywho; The party that just got to 15^th is having these problems, and has had them for some time. The High-Level group had just gone thru the thing in Dungeon with all the hopped up flying giants; The only reason anybody made it out alive was that we tend to pump anybody who's willing to talk, and we could get away with `ordering' someone to `take it like a [man].'

Nope; The best trick for a DM to play on the PCs is to let them multiclass as much as they want.

<font size=1>Sorcerer/ Cleric or Eilistraee? What the hell was I thinking?</font>

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree that some simple help in guestimating CR adjustments would probably be beneficial.

One of the issues that comes up in my campaign a lot is the CR of undead, which are typically undervalued for my party which doesn't have a cleric. With turning available a group of 12 shadows is a nuisance, without turning available they are a fearsome challenge to a 7th level party.

It would be interesting to break down CR in the same way that AC is broken down... AC 19 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +3 natural, +5 chainmail). Of course it isn't that simple, since CR is a multi-variant thing, but taking an example that gets mentioned a lot:

Remorhaz. CR 7 (base 6*, +1 damage, +1 ambush, -1 no ranged).

People have commented on how a remorhaz is very likely to kill at least one party member, especially if it ambushes (which is its modus operandii). Others have counter-commented that it is slow and can't respond to ranged attacks. This kind of breakdown for the Remorhaz might allow a DM deciding whether to use it what the relative threat is for his party. "Ah, they can all fly, so I can use it as-is" or "hmmm, nobody flies, it is a party of dwarfs with no missile weapons, so knock out that mitigating factor and recognise that it is as risky as a CR8 creature for my players".

Off the top of my head I can't think of a complete list of suitable modifiers, but ones which I might want to include (since they dramatically affect the chance of killing party members)

+1 Undead (to allow for easy adjustments when Clerics present)
+1 Mobility (flying/incorporeal creatures are tougher)
+1 Massive damage/death (creatures that could kill someone in one round with their attacks, or creatures with death attacks)
+1 Area attack ability

-1 well-known vulnerabilities
-1 no ranged attacks or mitigating mobility

Some undead may be tougher than others and rate a higher bonus; please bear in mind that I'm not proposing an *actual* system, but thinking aloud about the way that I could envisage a system working.

Cheers

* HD/2 or whatever, I don't care for this example)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

Hi Ryan!

Fundamentally, the problem with higher level D&D play is that the one-size-fits-all CR system doesn't work.

Example: A 20th level Commonor, a 20th level Wizard and the Terrasque are all the same CR. Which would you rather fight?

My suggestion: The CR system needs to be reworked from the ground up to provide "CR Factors". A "CR Factor" might be something like "Undead +2CR". Each monster would list all the "CR Factors" that apply to it. Common CR Factors might include a function based on hit dice, Flying, Incorporeality, various levels of spellcasting power, extraordinary equipment, etc.

This already exists. I designed it months ago.

There is a preliminary version of the system in Asgard Magazine Issue #6 (the article is called "Challenging Challenge Ratings"), you can download it for free here (Unfortunately I am not at home right now so I can't just post the article; I am in London getting ready for GenconUK):

http://www.d20reviews.com/Natural20/asgard.html

I would be very interested to hear what you thought?

Like I said there have been a few updates since the article was published:
- few minor changes to how divinity is equated (Quasi-deity power now +14 ECL; Divine Rank 1 now +24 ECL; all subsequent Divine Ranks still +4 ECL*)
- undead and shapechangers should have been under the +1/2 ECL/HD category
- NPC class levels (adept; aristocrat; expert; warrior) should rate at +3/4 ECL/Class Level
- Commoners at +1/2 ECL/Class Level.

I have also determined an additional rule for how increasing ability scores and increasing size affects ECL.

*The term Divine Rank wasn't used in the article since D&Dg has not yet entered into the SRD.

One aspect of the article that some people have commented isn't as clear is the idea of Integrated Levels.

ie. Monsters that have class levels (generally spellcaster levels) integrated into their Hit Dice.

eg. A Great Wyrm Red Dragon has 40 HD and 19 Integrated Class Levels. So essentially that works as:

+19 ECL (19 Integrated Class Levels)
+15 ECL (21 Dragon Hit Dice)
+4 ECL (9 Special Abilities/Qualities)
Total +38 ECL = CR29 (all CRs above 20 are modified as explained in the article)

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Plane Sailing, that sounds like just the sort of system I would be looking for. I'd want something simple no big complicated calculations taking loads of precious time, but something that could be looked at and adjusted easily. It would be nice if everyone could chip in with their ideas regarding modifiers and how to calculate base CR.

 

[Johno]

What really gets up my nose isn't Mr SKR's rant about the effigy; Its the way he insults the memory of the poor teenager killed in Hawaii. Publicly.

Seriously, Mr Reynolds didn't you do anything stupid when you were young and discovering the world? Underestimating the forces at work in Nature hardly qualifies one for the title of "dumb". Sure, in retrospect it wasn't a clever thing to do, but doesn't really say much about the guys intelligence.

But writing an unclear rant about the effigy and high level play, sure, that is real intelligence for you...