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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6155771" data-attributes="member: 5143">Only because it doesn't work.  If it performed its stated goal well enough it would be excellent.This is correct.  Which is precisely why I don't like 3.5e anymore.  I don't like so much unpredictability.Here's where I have to disagree immensely.  In 2e, when ACs when from 10 to -10 and went down to no lower than -2 or -3 the vast majority of the time, it was extremely easy to predict how often enemies with one or two attacks could hit your PCs and vice versa.  You knew that with a THAC0 of 16, someone with Full Plate and Shield would get hit 25% of the time and someone with AC 10 would get hit 75% of the time and that was your range.In 3.5e, characters could have nearly any number as their AC.  Their ACs could also change dramatically based on the current buffs up on the party and the actions they took in combat.  Same thing with Hitpoints and Saving Throws.  Also, the same thing applies to monster stats.You could have a 30 hitdice creature whose AC was -2 in 3.5e.  Who wins that battle?  No idea.  The PCs have a good chance of killing it outright if they go first because they'll all hit.  Then again, the monster likely has a lot of hitpoints and bonuses to hit.  Which might not matter if that same creature had a 3 strength.  And it might completely murder them if it has a 40 strength.  That's assuming the PCs attack its AC and don't try to use spells that target its Reflex.  In which case, it might have bonuses so high they can't possibly hit.There's so much unpredictability in the numbers that there's no way to make an accurate estimate of anything.  Which is precisely why CR failed as a mechanic.That's true.  But say I only give you the names of monsters that I've made up and you've never seen before.  Monster A and Monster B.  Which one will kill the PCs and which one will be a cake walk for them?  That's why we need a mechanic that says "Monster A is 100% likely to kill a group of 5 level 4 PCs, 80% likely to kill level 5 PCs, 50% likely to kill level 6 PCs, 30% likely to kill level 7 PCs, etc".  Then, as a DM you can look at a monster and easily say "Alright, my PCs are level 6 and I want this battle to be fairly hard.  This monster seems appropriate.  It's a toss up as to whether someone will die.I didn't write the system.  I'm just repeating what the system says.  A CR 5 creature is designed to take 20% of the resources from a group of four level 5 PCs.  That means 20% of their spells, hitpoints, magic items, etc.  So, they might just use 2 or 3 spells to defeat the monster without taking damage or they might use no spells and each take 20% of their hp in damage.They are supposed to be easily defeatable.  In fact, the idea is that you can fight 5 such monsters a day before you need to rest for the night.Although, often a CR5 creature failed to use ANY resources from four level 5 PCs...which is precisely why I say the system failed.Once again, if the designers did their job properly, it WOULD mean that.  If it was a valid estimate(and even if it's an invalid estimate...it is often better than no estimate at all), then a monster of CR15 should basically have a 95% chance of wiping out four adventurers of level 10.As it is, you can often use monsters of CR15 or 16 against 10th level adventurers without worrying so much.  Against PCs built using only the PHB, it might be closer to the correct estimate.The system especially falls apart when you use multiples of the same monsters.  It's estimates become worse and worse the more enemies there are.Yeah, NPCs were the worst estimates out of anything in the system.  A NPC Wizard of level 15 was supposed to be a CR15 encounter.  That was NEVER the case.  A CR 15 monster often had double this NPCs hit points and damage per round.I'm just stating that there were definitely people at WOTC who believed that the EL/CR system was in fact a rule.  They made us use the rule explicitly because they wanted Living Greyhawk to be a campaign that felt like "baseline" D&D.  Which means the rules as designed.My point wasn't that you should care what Living Greyhawk did.  My point was that the rules were definitely printed to be used and followed.  The XP chart didn't even let you give out XP if you used encounters that much higher than the recommended guidelines since they assumed no one would be insane enough to try it.As always, you can play whatever you want.  The rules don't need to be followed.  But they WERE rules.There were meaningful risks.  I played a LOT of Living Greyhawk over 3 years.  I've seen probably at least 30 or 40 PC deaths during that time.  That was following the EL/CR guidelines.  Most of the time APL+4 encounters are extremely tough.  That's in addition to things like Bodak encounters that killed 3 people in one battle.Authors of adventures quickly realized which monsters were overpowered for their CR and used those monsters.  They realized tricks for making monsters tougher by doing things like adding templates that added too much for their CR increase.  Plus tricks like adding one level of Warrior(which doesn't add anything to the CR of the monster, but does give them a feat and some hitpoints).It's not trying to replace it.  It's trying to enhance it.  At least, I consider it an enhancement.If it's part of my job to pour over monster statistics with copies of the PCs in my hands comparing their Reflex saves to the DCs of the monsters while simultaneously figuring our the number of rounds a monster can survive on average based on probability and likely tactics the PCs will use in order to find appropriate monsters to use....well, I'm happy to have someone else do that work for me.I'd prefer my job be much easier.  I'd like to look in a book 2 minutes before the game starts, find a monster of the correct level/CR/whatever and say alright, this should be a fun fight with some danger, and say "Let's do this".</blockquote>

Verification