Why do people pretend CR makes sense?

[Stalker0]

Its ok as a guideline, I just dont think it should impact mechanics since its shaky. The knight's challenge could have easily been re-written to use something else, and the truenamer mechanics were screwed up to begin with. I'm not saying get rid of it, just dont have player abilities incorporate it.

What would you prefer? HD was used in turning mechanics, and god knows how many house rules have been used on turning. HD as a measuring stick doesn't work. CR is the basic measuring stick of a PC, NPC, AND monster...making it the most logical choice for abilities when discerning power levels.

 

[WizarDru]

I think the last point is probably the most important. In 1 E we sometimes planned elaborate schemes to steal treasure from monsters without having to fight all the time. The combat XP was so trivial compared to treasure. Does anyone else remember the days of sneaking a peek at the critter's lair to see if it had treasure before deciding to fight?

No, actually, I don't. Especially since I didn't give xp for treasure, back in the day. I do recall the phrase "them orcs ain't gonna kill themselves!", though.

It seems to me as though the designers took the 1e system, gussied it up, and then called it something new. There are a lot of improvements in 3.X. CR isn't one of them....more a re-packaging than a new product.

I'd disagree pretty strongly on that one. The CR system, while uneven, is far superior to the old 'get a feel for it' style of the AD&D, IMHO. WotC actually applied some degree of mathematical rigor to the system, which you can't really say for the original system. The original system was more of a result of guesswork, while the CR system is reverse-engineerable (see Upper Krust's revised version of the CR system, for example). You can't reverse-engineer the math on the designer's gut feeling. This isn't to say that the AD&D was unbearably bad...just that the new system is much more than just a slap of paint on an exisiting system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My point was twofold:

(1) The CR system works as well as the 1e system. In many ways, the changes are cosmetic. (The changes to the XP system are, OTOH, more dramatic, including how that then impacts CR/monster level.) Therefore, no one has to "pretend" that CR works. Instead, DMs should remember that CR is a tool, and not always the best tool in the bag.

(2) That people must pretend that the 1e system didn't work in order to "support" the current edition is the really weird thing.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The original system was more of a result of guesswork, while the CR system is reverse-engineerable (see Upper Krust's revised version of the CR system, for example). You can't reverse-engineer the math on the designer's gut feeling. This isn't to say that the AD&D was unbearably bad...just that the new system is much more than just a slap of paint on an exisiting system.

The 1e DMG supplied the math. It supplied specific math, with examples. No reverse-engineering required.

RC

 

[Psion]

It seems to me as though the designers took the 1e system, gussied it up, and then called it something new. There are a lot of improvements in 3.X. CR isn't one of them....more a re-packaging than a new product.

I think they operate in a similar fashion. I just think that the CR version is a more user friendly and functional. Basing a number around "a typical challenge for party level X" is a lot more meaningful and useful an end metric for challenge than an XP number. I have no notion off the top of my head what challenge a given XP number represents for a given level of party.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That people must pretend that the 1e system didn't work in order to "support" the current edition is the really weird thing.

That you think people having to put down the 1E Monster Manual, flip to a specific page in the 1E DMG, do some math, and then go back to the 1E Monster Manual is equivalent to having a single number in the 3E Monster Manual entry is the really, really weird thing.

 

[Brimshack]

I don't think there is anything wrong with CR. I do think that a lot of people take the question of balance way too seriously. To me this is an extension of the whole problem with 3.5, which for me isn't in the technical nature of the rules so much as the culture that seems to go with it.

The illusion of precise balance lends a lot of credence to the rules fundamentalists and leads a lot of people to imagine the creative side of the game in terms of number crunching. I have dealt with far too many players who object on principle to anything besides standard rules, and it drives me nuts. Concerns over balance seem to pre-empt a lot of creativity, and that's a shame. But it isn't necessary. You can tinker with 3.5 just like any other version of the game. All you have to do is get past the worry that you might be off by a level or 2 on the CR. As someone already said, it's as much art as science. And if a monster is over-under-rated a bit, then deal with it.

I must say, I don't much see the point in trying to munchkin a CR as the GM. There are too many other variables that you can use to control x.p., and I just don't see any reason to begrudge the players a little extra x.p. If on the other hand, a GM is working to justify sending a monster against a party by hitting a magically acceptible CR, then, ...well that's what I mean by Rules Fundamentalism. The game is an instrument to help me and a bunch of people enjoy the afternoon. It isn't a series of commandments delivered from on high.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That you think people having to put down the 1E Monster Manual, flip to a specific page in the 1E DMG, do some math, and then go back to the 1E Monster Manual is equivalent to having a single number in the 3E Monster Manual entry is the really, really weird thing.

Dunno. I never had to do that.

In any event, it is true that CR is better presented. However, that is not synonomous with being a better system. In other words, if they had printed the "Monster Level" in the 1e MM (rather than requiring you to cross-reference with the DMG) then how would it be any different than CR?

That you think people having to put down the Monster Manual, flip to a specific page in the DMG, and doing some math before even knowing how many XP a creature is worth is equivalent to or better than having a single number in the 1E Monster Manual entry is the really, really weird thing.

They seem pretty much the same to me. YMMV.

RC

EDIT: I agree entirely with Brimshack's post, above.

 

[Khairn]

CR/EL makes about as much sense as any other system I've seen for balancing encounters. D&D is as much of an art as a science in this area.

Word.

Is it perfect? Hell no!
But I have yet to see a better system for handling "abstract potential threat" versus a party's abilities.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In any event, it is true that CR is better presented. However, that is not synonomous with being a better system. In other words, if they had printed the "Monster Level" in the 1e MM (rather than requiring you to cross-reference with the DMG) then how would it be any different than CR?

That you think people having to put down the Monster Manual, flip to a specific page in the DMG, and doing some math before even knowing how many XP a creature is worth is equivalent to or better than having a single number in the 1E Monster Manual entry is the really, really weird thing.

They seem pretty much the same to me. YMMV.

Bizarre.

Pop quiz:

(1) You are DMing 4 7th level PCs. You want too give them 2 separate combats today -- something not too taxing but not a complete walkover either. How much XP worth of monster do you throw at them?

(2) You are DMing 4 7th level PCs. You want too give them 2 separate combats today -- something not too taxing but not a complete walkover either. How much CR worth of monster do you throw at them?

One of these questions I bet everyone here on ENWorld can answer without even cracking open a single book. A number of us could rattle off some reasonable encounters off the top of their heads.

The other of these questions would probably require even an expert in the system to crack open two books.

By one reasonable standard, that constitutes proof that one system is superior to the other.