Why do we have such different experiences?

[S'mon]

Anybody who thinks they can kill one of four 5th level fighters with a standard troll, and wants to put some money on it, let me know.

Put it this way: I am not saying I could kill 'your' 5th level Fighters. But I am quite certain that if were running a standard troll against 4 5th level Fighters run by any 4 of my current player gtroup, I could kill one of them. Most likely I would TPK the lot of them. Their actual PCs are 4th level, I use Mentzer Basic or Castles & Crusades statted monsters rather than my 3e Monster Manual in an effort to avoid killing them, and thus have more fun.

Now, they're mostly pretty inexperienced players. With some of my previous player groups I'd likely only kill 1 Fighter, maybe none if the dice favoured them.

 

[Noumenon]

I never realized the benefit of fighting defensively until I went home and did a practice combat to see if my 1st level paladin could have survived against two krenshars until his mount came back. It was amazing how the little +2 bonus lowered the krenshar's average damage per round till I could survive about six rounds instead of two against them. There are so many ways to get a +2 I don't know how it can be that good, and it probably only works at lower levels, but sometimes it is. I still don't understand it in theory.

 

[Beginning of the End]

But could you imagine what would happen if someone stated that 4e was designed for a single style of play? Both sides of the line would be choking on their chicken bones.

I'm not sure I understand you. The 4th Edition designers have pretty stated outright that 4th Edition is designed to support one style of play. Why would 4th Edition players be upset that people are agreeing with the designers?

3rd Edition supports multiple styles of play just fine. It just requires you to be smart enough to recognize when you're not having fun and to stop doing the thing that's not fun for you.

I've played in groups that thrived on the "one major, life-or-death encounter per day" dynamic. And I've played in groups where encounters were chewed up. And I like the flexibility of being able to do both.

Similarly I've played in groups where the opponents are always perfectly balanced vis-a-vis the PCs and I've played in groups where the PCs will fight absurdly weak opponents or risk running into opponents that completely outclass them.

None of these are right or wrong. But when you play in a certain style, there are consequences. And if you don't like those consequences, then you should find the style of play that you do like.

4E chose one style of play, labelled the levels where it worked best as the "sweet spot", and then designed the whole game around it. Which, if that was your sweet spot, is fantastic. But if it wasn't -- or if you enjoy a variety of styles -- then you're screwed.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Now, they're mostly pretty inexperienced players. With some of my previous player groups I'd likely only kill 1 Fighter, maybe none if the dice favoured them.

LIke you said in an earlier post, this is the difference.

If your players (and by extension their characters) don't understand the basic rules of the game with regard to tactics and how to use them, you are going to have a much, much different experience. This says nothing, however, about the weaknesses or strengths of the CR/EL system, though.

The tactics involved in a troll-on-fighters fight, BTW, are very basic. (They have to be, because there's no magic, no rogue abilities, no nothin' but hittin' stuff and movin' around.) If a player doesn't understand why it's (often, but obviously situationally) better to provoke an AoO from a troll than let it swing at you with two claws and a bite, that player is operating his fighter at least a level or two below the fighter's actual level.

Noumenon, the reason a seemingly small AC boost makes such a big difference is due to the multiplicative aspects of probability.

Assume a creature with two claw attacks. Both claw attacks do respectable damage, but the real damage is if both claw attacks hit. Assume that normally the creature has a 50/50 chance at hitting a fighter with each claw. The chance for it to land its serious damage is thus 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.25. 1 time in 4, it will clobber the fighter.

But if the fighter can bump his AC just a little, to the point where the monster only hits on 1 claw attack in 4, the chance of it landing its big damage goes down drastically, to 0.25 x 0.25, or 1 time in 16!

So each claw attack probability was only halved, but the rend probability was quartered! That's a game changer. And the basic principle holds for normal attacks, just to a lesser extent.

 

[resistor]

If your players (and by extension their characters) don't understand the basic rules of the game with regard to tactics and how to use them, you are going to have a much, much different experience.

Or they could just not CARE about the tactics of the game. Shockingly, there are gamers out there (myself one of them) who aren't interested in the tactical aspects of the game, and play it for other reasons.

Just because people play the game differently than doesn't mean they're doing it wrong, or that they don't understand it, or that they're stupid. Some people simply prefer to play to play it in other manners.

 

[S'mon]

LIke you said in an earlier post, this is the difference.

If your players (and by extension their characters) don't understand the basic rules of the game with regard to tactics and how to use them, you are going to have a much, much different experience. This says nothing, however, about the weaknesses or strengths of the CR/EL system, though.

The tactics involved in a troll-on-fighters fight, BTW, are very basic. (They have to be, because there's no magic, no rogue abilities, no nothin' but hittin' stuff and movin' around.) If a player doesn't understand why it's (often, but obviously situationally) better to provoke an AoO from a troll than let it swing at you with two claws and a bite, that player is operating his fighter at least a level or two below the fighter's actual level.

Well, to me 'the basics' is "d20 rolls high". My current group, they vaguely understand attacks of opportunity, though several struggle with the way Withdrawal negates the first threatened square as well as with the concept of monsters with 10' reach. They don't seem to understand Power Attack; I introduced a 4th level Warrior accompanying them who uses greatsword + power attack and they were dumbfounded by his damage output, many comments along the lines of him being much more powerful than their 4th level PC-class PCs.

I have a huge amount of fun GMing for these guys and my impression is that they're not that atypical. They're there to play a roleplaying game after all, not a tactical minis combat game.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just because people play the game differently than doesn't mean they're doing it wrong, or that they don't understand it, or that they're stupid. Some people simply prefer to play to play it in other manners.

Of course. But what it does mean is when they choose not to use tactical options that exist in the game, when the existence of those options are factored into the CR/EL system in the same game, they are not going to find the CR/EL system working properly for them, as it often will for people who do use the rules available in the game.

But that's not reflective of a problem with the CR/EL system. It's a choice of the players.

And it goes the other way, too. My players and I don't optimize characters until they squeak. There's nothing wrong with such power-gaming, but playgroups that do it will find the CR/EL system breaking down in the opposite direction from S'mon.

And again, it's not reflective of the CR/EL system, which was created with a default middle-of-the-road character-building and tactical combat style in mind. It's a choice of the players, and of course it's going to lead to a different experience.

 

[S'mon]

And again, it's not reflective of the CR/EL system, which was created with a default middle-of-the-road character-building and tactical combat style in mind. It's a choice of the players, and of course it's going to lead to a different experience.

For my prior, more 'middle of the road' groups, some monsters are over-CR'd, notably NPCs except possibly full progression casters, and in 3.0 the demons were horribly over-CR'd. Trolls by contrast still seem under-CR'd since they will often kill a PC in the first full melee round (surprise round: Troll jumps out and moves to melee range, round 1: Troll full attacks, rends & kills PC).

To a lesser extent the same problem applies to all melee brute monsters at least up to CR 6. For 7th+ level parties they often have the magical resources to scout out and discover the monsters and pre-buff before combat.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

For my prior, more 'middle of the road' groups, some monsters are over-CR'd

And some are under-CRed (dragons being the most notable example, though there's a widely held belief they were under-CRed deliberately). It's not systemic, though, not even in relatively narrow classes like "melee brutes." For the most part, I've found the CR system to work very well. The areas in which I've had trouble with it have been fairly esoteric, such as using the associated/nonassociated class rules.

The troll example you gave is an example of letting circumstances and DM choices inform how you feel about the creature's CR, when they really don't have anything to do with it.

Yes, if a 9-foot tall, 600 pound troll hides well enough to not be perceived, is close enough to cover the distance to a group in a single move action, wins initiative with its mediocre +2, and hits with lots of attacks, it will inflict some damage. But all of those circumstances apply to any creature, including the PCs, and have nothing to do with CR.

The equivalent the other way would be assuming the party sorcerer had just cast levitate on everyone, they're all great with missile weapons, and they win initiative on the troll. Does that make the troll over-CRed?

Since showing you the numbers just didn't do it, I dunno what will, but trolls are just not that tough to bring down. It should be rare for a 5th level group to lose a member in a fight with one.

 

[S'mon]

Since showing you the numbers just didn't do it...

Actual play experience beats number crunching in my book.