Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4202889" data-attributes="member: 94">I like what I see of 4e better than what I know of 3e. So far that's indisputably true. But I don't know that I will like what I know of 4e (when we all finally know it) better than what I know of 3e. Remember, CR/EL was very well received when 3e debuted, and it wasn't until well into the process of "mastery" on the part of the playerbase that its flaws (both minor and deep) were revealed.4e has a huge leg up on 3e because we know that 3e is both flawed, and difficult to use. 4e looks VERY easy to use. But if 4e's ease of use comes at the price of... well, the math not actually working out... that's not a plus."Mathematical posturing and gobilidigook." Look, the easiest thing in the world is for a designer to just throw up his hands and say, "<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> it, good enough." And in all honesty, I may yet do that. (I would like to think that I am at least doing due diligence AND setting the "good enough" bar pretty high.) Certainly it is true that all the precision in the world isn't necessarily going to gain us any accuracy. But it's not "posturing" to want to understand "the math behind the system."Honestly, having studied this for a while, I don't think CR is that far off. Yes, there's a lot of variance inside a single measurement of CR. A CR8 creature such as the mind flayer feels very different in combat than a CR8 stone giant. But I think it still has considerable value in the system as a benchmark. That's good thinking, and exactly what I am looking at right now. It's very interesting to look back at the 1e XP tables. 1e did a much better job of breaking out "normal" creatures from creatures with loads of extraordinary abilities.Take a creature of a given CR = X. Now give it X "choices" from the Defense column, and X "choices" from the Offense column. The Defense column includes Hit Dice, high AC, DR, SR. The Offense column includes size increases, multiple attacks, spellcasting and other extraordinary asymmetric abilities. You can also just give a creature 2X choices from one big list of Defense and Offense.If I were a designer inclined towards the TLAR method, one disinclined towards mathematical posturing and all that gobildigook, that's how I'd determine CR.</blockquote>

Verification