# SKR's problem with certain high level encounters



## greymarch (Aug 26, 2002)

On the front page of this website is posted a link to an article Sean K Reynolds wrote about how certain high level encounters can be problematic for D&D.  There might be problems with certain high level encounters, but the example Sean posted is not one of them.  Here is why:

1. The Effigy only has an AC 20.  That is very low for a CR 17 creature.  A group of adventurers cannot critical hit it because it is undead, but they could certainly use power attack to do more damage, or combat expertise to avoid being hit by it.

2.  The Effigy has 27 hit die, but it doesnt get constitution added to each hit die (since it is undead) so its hit points are fairly low for a CR 17.

3. Any spellcaster worth his wait will take spell penetration and greater spell penetration.  A 16th level spellcaster with those 2 feats needs only to roll an 8 or higher, and his spell will work on the Effigy.

A rogue cannot sneak attack it, and a fighter cannot critical hit it, but thats not because of its high level, its because its undead.  It seems that Sean's real problem, unbeknownst to him, is with undead, and not certain high level encounters.

Should a cleric have the potential to turn every undead he encounters?  Should there be certain undead that have a high enough hit die to avoid turning?  Most clerics have wonderful buff spells they can use during a combat, instead of healing or turning.  There are many ways for a cleric to stay busy during a combat, and I am not just referring to healing.


----------



## Ristamar (Aug 26, 2002)

I read the 'rant', and he did overestimate the creature, IMO.  The piece seemed to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction which is a shame because I enjoyed most of his other D&D related rants.  It's hard to make a solid case against high level play by isolating a single creature.

On the other hand, his points in the final paragraph were far more interesting and far more worthy of a rant (save for the jab at the creature's name, which I don't think is a big deal).  Someone should forward that passage to the Monster Manual II designers.


----------



## Darkness (Aug 26, 2002)

Here's a link to Sean's article, BTW.


----------



## Squire James (Aug 26, 2002)

I think Sean underestimates the abilities of most parties of 17th level.  First of all, Wizards and Clerics would have 9th level spells, which is a major break-point in caster power.  Fighters can dish out 90-100 points of damage per round.  Rogues are almost useless because the target's undead, true.  Maybe Sean was playtesting with a group of 4 rogues?

In my campaign, the Wizard would likely try something like Quickened Haste, Disintegrate, and if that didn't work move up to it and try an Imprisonment.  This tactic would succeed in disintegrating or imprisoning the Effigy (or just about ANYTHING with SR 28, for that matter!) 75% of the time, and those 3 spells are hardly 25% of the party's daily expendable resources.  There's still that Cleric who can try to Heal it most of the way to destruction!


----------



## Darkness (Aug 26, 2002)

greymarch said:
			
		

> *...
> 
> A rogue cannot sneak attack it, and a fighter cannot critical hit it, but thats not because of its high level, its because its undead.  It seems that Sean's real problem, unbeknownst to him, is with undead, and not certain high level encounters.
> 
> ... *



Hmm... There aren't any (epic?) feats yet that allow one's Sneak Attacks to affect undead, eh?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Aug 26, 2002)

Ristamar,

I think you boys missed the point of his rant.  The specific things he pointed out were places where the creature far outstripped the capabilities of characters at the level of the creature. I think that high-level D&D breaks down in far more ways than he said, even, so I'm sympathetic to his arguments.


----------



## Synicism (Aug 26, 2002)

I don't know about this. I read SKR's article and I have to agree that he makes a valid point if you pare the rant down to its core.

It's hard to design high level encounters. The one that immediately springs to my mind was the experience I had playing through "The Bastion of Broken Souls," the WotC 18th level published adventure.

Generally speaking, most of the encounters were more or less on par. The fiend summoning, scrying kyton/marilith crossbreed was pretty damn scary, and the big monster at the end of the session was cool.

It's sad that the two unique villains in the module were probably the easiest encounters in the game.

The most irritating things were the "special" denizens of the bastion. Nothing needs to be incorporeal, have a 30something AC, a high attack bonus (and make touch attacks), SR, and dish out like 2d6 con damage with every shot.

Were the monsters effective? Sure thing.

Were they well designed? No, I don't think so. I don't believe that the design philosophy behind a monster should be "let's give it everything it needs to completely ignore all the benefits PC's get from being high level."


----------



## Ristamar (Aug 26, 2002)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *Ristamar,
> 
> I think you boys missed the point of his rant.  The specific things he pointed out were places where the creature far outstripped the capabilities of characters at the level of the creature. I think that high-level D&D breaks down in far more ways than he said, even, so I'm sympathetic to his arguments. *




I think he makes some good points, but I still find it lacking.

I won't argue that the potential for 'breakdown' at high level play is far greater than at low levels.  However, pointing out one (arguably) poorly designed monster isn't a very good basis for the argument considering the intimidating number of contingencies and variables the DM must consider during high level play.

I also don't think this creature vastly outstrips character abilities of equal level.  Granted, it won't be easily defeated using the usual tactics, but that's part of the fun of high level play, isn't it?  Now if every high level creature the DM threw at the players was as wonky as the Effigy, I'd agree that there is a problem.  But isolating a single encounter as a crux in a rant against high level play is silly, IMO.  

Of course, if the whole point was to say, 'Use monsters/encounters that utterly neutralize character abilities sparingly, at best,' then I wholeheartedly agree with him.  Still, that advice is in the DMG, and applies to all levels of play, not just the high levels.  Maybe that's why the rant threw me off a bit....  or maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night. *shrug* 

BTW, Wil, sorry I missed you guys at GenCon this year.  I was talking with Lem a few days ago, discussing the possibility of hooking up at Winter Fantasy in Indiana.  Any chance you might be there?


----------



## Uller (Aug 26, 2002)

I agree with what Synicism and others are saying...he's not ranting against high-level play, just pointing out one of its foibles.  

I'm running Lord of the Iron Fortress and so many of the creatures have SR and cold, fire and electricity resistance and immunity (and even sonic and acid resistance and immunity) and some outright spell immunity, the party wizard is having a hard time of it when trying to use offensive spells.  This is partially a result of the fact that no one in my group has ever played in a high level game, but it also appears to simply be a general problem.

So...what SKR is saying is that DMs and designers need to think about their encounters and realize what types of characters they are castrating with each.  You don't want to run an adventure where a particular character's favorite abilities never get to be used (at least not very often).


----------



## RyanD (Aug 26, 2002)

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

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.

Then the *DM* would use those CR factors to determine which were relevant to *his or her* gaming group.  The Undead CR Factor is a much bigger deal if the party doesn't have any Clerics, for example.  Using CR Factors, the DM can calculate the correct CR for an individual Party.

Something similar to this was tried by TSR in 2nd Edition near the end of the development cycle.  By then, the factors used to calculate a monster's XP award consisted of several hundred discrete options - so many that it became virtually impossible to figure out a correct XP award without computerized assistance.  The problem with the old 2E XP system of course was that the XP awards didn't change vs. character (or party) level.

The beauty of "CR Factors" is that while you could have a pretty long list of defined Factors, designers would just check them off when listing the CR Factors for any given opponent.  The process could be reduced to a simple web form or excel spreadsheet macro.

Of course, the problem with this system is that it makes creating one-size-fits-all dungeon encounters for printed modules very difficult(*).  Since no two parties will likely face any given encounter at the same CR, a designer would need to include explicit instructions for scaling the CR of each monster up or down as necessary to hit the target EL.  (Or the EL target could be abandoned, and the DM could recalculate the "true" EL based on the "true" CRs of the opponents faced - allowing the EL/XP system to flex the reward up or down as the challenge level goes up or down).

Ryan

(*) Actually, it reveals something that DMs with higher level PCs already know - D&D's stock XP award system breaks down and stops being useful at about 10th level, and from that point onward requires constant hand-adjustment by the DM to keep the game running smoothly.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 26, 2002)

The CR system is one of those things in 3rd Ed that I, personally, have had the most trouble adjusting to, I guess.

I'd love to be able to find out from designers why they went to the present XP system.

Maybe it's just the old schooler in me, but it just made more sense for all creatures/challenges/traps/ what have you to have a non-adjustable XP reward and have the XP per level rates go up almost geometrically. It certainly made XP tallies easier to deal with...


----------



## Blacksad (Aug 26, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

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




The commoner is supposed to be CR 19, and some people tend to think that the Tarrasque CR is too low.

IMO it is a problem of assigning CR to NPC, the monster CR is supposed to be playtested when it is assigned.

and the EL adjustement system works for me, I think it was meant to do what you ask for.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 26, 2002)

I think this critter is probably a reasonable CR.  Mass haste and mass fly allow characters to take it out pretty easily -- shoot it once, run back.  These two spells are very likely to be in the arsenal of a 17th-level party.

Magic missiles cast by a 17th-level PC will hit 50% of the time; each spell will do an average of 8.75 points of damage, therefore.  Of course, these could be heightened heightened MMs, doing 17.5 points of damage on average; or they could be quickened; or they could be cast with spell penetration.  In any case, they'll do a good job of whittling away at the poor thing.

Gating in a solar is always a possibility.

Magic circle against evil will completely negate the infusion ability.

Making it retreat will be easy.  The major problem will be cornering it.

Daniel


----------



## Monte At Home (Aug 26, 2002)

Maybe I misread Sean's article, but I didn't think he was complaining that the monster was too tough. I think he was complaining that it took away all the PC's cool abilities. Basically, that it wasn't a very fun monster to have in your game. 

I think that's a valid point.

On the topic of CRs, though, remember that the whole point of a CR is to provide a baseline, so that you can then have someplace to start. Your own group of, say, level 4 characters might be approapriate for CR 5 encounters. Or CR 3. The goal is to be consistent.

The goal does indeed break down when mixing and matching with NPCs or monsters with classes. I don't, however, think that makes the whole system flawed.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 26, 2002)

I guess I don't see it as such a problem that rogues nor clerics will be especially effective against this baddie:

-Rogues are always nigh-useless against undead.
-The cleric has lots of other cool toys besides turning undead that can work against this (magic circle vs. evil, gate, etc.)

Although I've not played a game at higher levels, I've watched games like Piratecat's, and seen how incredibly difficult it is to challenge high-level PCs.  A lovingly-created unique enemy with all sorts of nasty powers can easily find itself taken out in a single round by 17th-level PCs.

The way I see it, the effigy has decent defenses against some of the more basic dweep that you get at high levels:  no sneak-attacks, no turning, no crits.  That doesn't mean it's unkillable:  it just means that you have to use other tools in your kit.

-Use one of several spells to fight it on the ethereal plane (I think this'll work)
-Pull out all the force-based spells you can think of
-When it's possessed someone, open a gate to the plane of positive energy and bull-rush the possessed victim through the gate.
-Use spells like holy aura on its possessed victims.

These are all things that a cleric can do.  As usual, the rogue should put that Hide skill to good use until the nasty ghostthing goes away.

Because of the huge number of save-or-die tricks at the disposal of high-level characters, I think it's appropriate to have the occasional critter that negates some of the options.

This creature is vulnerable to any spellcaster and to any fighter with a magical weapon (although it's extremely nasty against an unprotected fighter, whose low Will save will doom her to burning from the inside out).  The fact that it's not vulnerable to three particular tricks, two of which are invulnerabilities shared by your average zombie, doesn't make it poor design, IMHO.

However, I agree that "Effigy" is a fairly stupid name.  Get it?  "Burned in effigy"?  A-hurk.  A-hurk.  A-hurk.

Daniel


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 26, 2002)

Uller said:
			
		

> *
> I'm running Lord of the Iron Fortress and so many of the creatures have SR and cold, fire and electricity resistance and immunity (and even sonic and acid resistance and immunity) and some outright spell immunity, the party wizard is having a hard time of it when trying to use offensive spells.  This is partially a result of the fact that no one in my group has ever played in a high level game, but it also appears to simply be a general problem.*




D&D has always had that problem once you start squaring off against magical creatures.  For some reason D&D creatures tend to stack up defenses willy-nilly, while _vulnerabilities_ somehow get forgotten about.  I guess a non-immunity counts for a vulnerability in this game system.  It is common for combat to devolve into a fighter chipping away with a +_n_ weapon, all other means of attack having failed.

IMO, creatures should have _natures_ that give both strengths and weaknesses.  It is the norm in mythology, but rarely shows up in D&D.


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 26, 2002)

This seems like it's only a problem if you plan on having the party face off against an army of effigies.  I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption or not.  From the description, the creature sounds like a one-shot type creature.

If that's the case, so what?  As pointed out earlier, rogues don't get their sneak attacks against any undead (not to mention oozes and constructs).  So the cleric can't turn it.....all that means is that the party will actually have to fight it instead of having a single die roll end to the encounter.  The cleric is far from helpless: He turns to his comrades and begins to cast protective spells to counter the effigies abilities and give them a better chance at hitting, or doing damage, or avoiding damage, etc.

The problem isn't the monster.  It's how the monster is going to be used in the module.  As a single encounter, it could be perfectly fine.  Overused, and it becomes a drag.  But then again, any monster has this same problem.


----------



## Kugar (Aug 26, 2002)

I agree with SKR on this one.

Most of the best DMs I have ever talked to always come back to the point:  Let the characters play!
A lot of focus seems to be with challenge by stripping off PC abilities.  Then you get to monsters like the effigy that reduce combat to "I swing", "I hit", ... by taking out all the cool stuff.  The guy is immune to the turning attempts by the cleric.  A fully tweaked mage has a 12/20 shot of affecting him. The rouge can't sneak attack, but its HPs are low.  Is the creature balanced, probably.  Is he fun to fight?  No, probably not.   Challenging monsters should also be hard because of abilities, tactics, and skill - not because they only present one way to defeat them and force the combat in one direction.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 26, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> (*) Actually, it reveals something that DMs with higher level PCs already know - D&D's stock XP award system breaks down and stops being useful at about 10th level, and from that point onward requires constant hand-adjustment by the DM to keep the game running smoothly. *




That is to be expected.  As the power level goes up a given party is more and more likely to deviate from a theorectical standard power level.  And party make up makes a bigger and bigger difference in how they will handle specific challenges.

In a weird way, this unpredictability is the whole point of levelling up.  Why level at all if you are only graduating from kobolds to orcs to gnolls to ogres?  Boring.  That is just running faster and faster to stay in the same place.  The fun of levelling to face _qualitatively_ different challenges and solve them with _qualitatively_ different tactics.  It is the unknowns that make this fun.  It is the unknowns that make it impossible to have a perfect CR system.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 27, 2002)

Kugar said:
			
		

> *I agree with SKR on this one.
> 
> Most of the best DMs I have ever talked to always come back to the point:  Let the characters play!
> A lot of focus seems to be with challenge by stripping off PC abilities.  Then you get to monsters like the effigy that reduce combat to "I swing", "I hit", ... by taking out all the cool stuff.   *




??  As I posted above, there are several tactics that wizards and clerics can use against this thing.  The fighter is gonna be in serious trouble if she goes against it without backup:  most fighters aren't gonna make the will save necessary to prevent possession, and once they're possessed, they'll start attacking their allies.  "I swing, I hit" is a very bad tactical approach to this critter.

I think it could lead to a cinematic fight and would force the PCs to use some tactics they've not given much thought to.

In fact, my major problem with it is a problem it shares with many critters:  flying archers will have a very easy time against it, considering its relatively slow speed and its lack of any ranged attack.  Its best bet against flying archers is to sink into the ground and come back later in an ambush.

I'll also point out that if this thing were a construct or a plant, it would have exactly the same invulnerablities as it currently has.  Does SKR have the same problems with Iron Golems as he has with this critter?

Daniel


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 27, 2002)

Although I was able to take the party to 17th using the charts explicitly.

Oh, and Synicism, et al, thanks for noting spoilers to Bastion so that my players wouldn't accidentally read that stuff.  Good show.


----------



## Bauglir (Aug 27, 2002)

I agree too.  Generally speaking each class in the game has strengths and weaknesses.

For example (to state the obvious )the fighter's masses of hitpoints, good fortitude, good AC, and good damage dealing ability is offset by a lack of mobility and a weakness to will saves.

At the lower levels, monsters seem to follow this philosophy too (ogres for example following much the same pattern as fighters)

This is good, as the party can learn about their opponents (be they monsters, or perhaps an evil party) and develop strategies that take advantage of their own strengths vs any weak points in the enemies.

At higher levels however this is typically not the case.  Monsters are designed strong in every area, then typically given spell resistance into the bargain (I dislike SR personally) so strategy tends to go out the window (what kind of strategy can you employ against an enemy that is strong in every way?)

Take the epic level handbook for an example.  While not every monster in there has SR, the vast majority do.  On top of this their HD, being well in excess of their CR, often combined with very high stats lead to extremely high saving throws.

Very roughly speaking:

Typically, SR is calibrated so that about half the spells thrown at it fail.
TYPICAL saves mean that the spellcaster's highest spells will be saved against around half the time.
With HD beyond CR, the enhanced saves will give say a 3/4 likelihood of saving.  (I don't have the ELH on hand so this is something of a guesstimate)

Now, a PC spellcaster casting a spell on this (hypothetical) monster has a 1/8 chance of their spell actually affecting it.  Given that the spell may be an instant-win effect this may seem like a way to get combat to last beyond the first round.  The problem is that spellcasters (especially wizards) can't really afford to waste their high level spells bouncing them off such effective defences, so most likely they will buff up the fighters and send them in, then sit back and watch.

Not much fun for any involved doing that again and again and again.

Note:  The figures used here are only approximations, attempting to illustrate the point, they're probably a little (or even more than a little ) off, but the end effect is something I've felt when playing in high level games..


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 27, 2002)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *Maybe I misread Sean's article, but I didn't think he was complaining that the monster was too tough. I think he was complaining that it took away all the PC's cool abilities. Basically, that it wasn't a very fun monster to have in your game.
> 
> I think that's a valid point. *




Hey, Monte! Why didn't you plug your own essay on this topic? It's definitely worth adding to the discussion.

   -The Gneech


----------



## RyanD (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *That is to be expected.*




I don't accept that as a suitable response.

There's a technology out there waiting to be developed that will help DMs select challenges for their parties which are fun, require strategy and tactics, and reward the party for overcoming the challenge in an appropriately scaled way.

The current CR/EL/XP system in 3E isn't it.  That doesn't mean that such a system shouldn't be worked on - it just means that the system in the existing 3E rules stops being "a system" at about 10th level and instead becomes "a guideline".  Guidelines are fine, but one of the overall design objectives for 3E was, where possible, to provide a standardized system (a "tool" if you will) so that the game's consistency across multiple scenarios and even multiple DMs would be enhanced.

The EL/XP system in 3E is good.  It creates a sliding system for calculating the reward that takes into account both the quality of the party as well as the quality of the challenges.  (Although I believe another "system" (as opposed to a guideline) is required to correctly calculate the true "Party Level" to make the EL/XP system work as designed, and to cope with situations where the party consists of PCs of highly variable level.)  The problem is that the input to the EL calculations (the CRs of the monsters, and the tables that generate EL values for mutliple opponents) just doesn't work above a certain level of complexity.  It's also a problem that CR values, in general, aren't derived from a system - they're derived from estimations and guesses - and the higher level the challenge (monster) is, it becomes increasingly less likely that those estimations and guesses will apply across a diverse universe of parties (in other words, the system becomes less valuable over time).

It's an interesting design problem, and it would be a worthwhile effort to find long term, scalable solutions.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't accept that as a suitable response.
> 
> ...




I think the first step will be to rate the party competence on multiple axes.  Off the cuff, possible axes might be: Offense, Defense, Muscle, Magic, Healing, Adventuring skils, Social skills.  The monsters would have a CR entry for each variable; a large discrepancy indicates a high risk combat, for either the monster or the PCs, and warns the DM to be careful.

The system will only be truly predictive if it has a variable that takes into account every qualitative aspect of the party, e.g. rogues vs. undead or oozes.  It will only be practical if a DM can use it easily, e.g. if Bob brings a 5th level Ranger to a 6th level party of 4, how do all the factors change?


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 27, 2002)

This problem is not new to 3rd edition, and I think it a credit to 3rd edition that it only begins becoming serious only at 15th level (or so depending on how you min/max).  These sort of problems could easily be talked about at 9th level in 1st edition. One of the reasons I initially moved away from AD&D is that D&D has always had the problem of combats being too short and too often won in the first round.  Third edition hasn't fixed this problem, but it did control it (got rid of 20d6 fireballs, gave monsters con bonuses, etc.)

I personally don't think the problem is with the CR system.  One of the biggest problems is that high level monsters don't have nearly enough h.p., but do often have way too powerful of attack forms (particularly of the save or essentially die variety).  A given party typically has 2-4 times as many h.p. as a typical 'boss' monster that they face, and can do several times as much damage per round. The monster doesn't really have a chance without serious protections that negate thier abilities.  However, because ther h.p. of the party is spread out amongst the whole party, a monster with attacks equivalent to its defences is going to kill party members quick if they don't kill it first.  The situation is analogous to 1st edition poison.  Probably your AC was high enough to protect you from most attacks, but if you got unlucky, probably you would die.  I'd much prefer scaling back a monsters damage output a little (the way poison was scaled back generally) and scaling up its ability to survive attacks, such that, a combat tended to go multiple rounds and be memorable.  Would this be hard on high level spell casters?  Probably.

And my hats off to anyone that has gotten the PC's involved in a hotly contested tense 12 or 20 round fight (as opposed to just merely dice rolling to kill the next wave of goblins).  From experience I know how much work that takes, and my frustration with how difficult it is to 'show a monster off' (especially one with a deep array of abilities) may lead to me becoming disgusted with D&D again.


----------



## Grazzt (Aug 27, 2002)

Ristamar said:
			
		

> *I
> 
> On the other hand, his points in the final paragraph were far more interesting and far more worthy of a rant (save for the jab at the creature's name, which I don't think is a big deal).  Someone should forward that passage to the Monster Manual II designers. *




I had noticed some errors in the monster before I saw Sean's rant (Clark P pointed it out to me) and I fired off an email to the peeps at WotC telling them of the errors.


----------



## Monte At Home (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem is that the input to the EL calculations (the CRs of the monsters, and the tables that generate EL values for mutliple opponents) just doesn't work above a certain level of complexity.*




You stated this twice in your post, but you never state why.



> *It's also a problem that CR values, in general, aren't derived from a system - they're derived from estimations and guesses - and the higher level the challenge (monster) is, it becomes increasingly less likely that those estimations and guesses will apply across a diverse universe of parties (in other words, the system becomes less valuable over time).
> *




It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement. In fact, I think CRs (and, for what it's worth, magic item pricing) serve as proof that design judgement is often superior to systems.

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.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 27, 2002)

Excellent points, Celebrim.

There is a generic issue with combat and spells.  The save or die stuff is vastly more effective than 1e/2e because of the saving throw mechanics.  (I've seen a number of 1e/2e character that make all their saves on a 3 or 4.)

That, plus the offensive tilt of monsters, makes combats faster and more unpredicatable at higher level.  If any PC has a 50/50 chance of being knocked out of the combat on round 1 from a spell, then luck will always be a big factor.

With the boost in HPs of monsters, wearing them down with Fireballs isn't all that effective.  Look at the 3e Hill Giant --102 HPs.  Look at the 1e Hill Giant -- 41 HPs.  

I am not sure what the point of all the grab bags of immunities.  Maybe it is just me, but I find them more tiresome then interesting.  Why are devils immune to electricity?  Or resistant to so much else?  The _real_ question is how do these features make fighting devils more interesting?  They already have SR for goodness sake.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *
> 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. *



The problem is that some of us don't have as good a judgement as others. For instance, all prestige classes depend on design judgements. There are certainly a number of prestige classes in WoTC's "splatbooks" that demonstrate that the judgement of the author is flawed. Unfortunately, by the time you discover such a flaw, it might be too late to save your campaign (i.e., the prestige class has already been introduced).

The nice thing about paper and pencil RPGs is that you can depend on the judgement of the DM behind the screen to some extent (something you can't ever do with a computer), but as a game designer, you should strive to rely on his judgement as little as possible, since his judgement is better used towards other things (such as setting up adventures, drawing up a campaign, planning, role-playing NPCs, etc, etc).

So far, in a campaign with 9th level PCs, the CR system has been spot on. It would be nice if it didn't break at higher levels.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 27, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *I guess I don't see it as such a problem that rogues nor clerics will be especially effective against this baddie:
> 
> -Rogues are always nigh-useless against undead.
> -The cleric has lots of other cool toys besides turning undead that can work against this (magic circle vs. evil, gate, etc.)
> *




That depends on the rogue.  While they're not going to do nearly as much as a fighter, the rogue can still use quite a few tactics to their advantage.  The loss of sneak attack is not a killer.

First of all, assuming your fighter is a classic 'tank', he's not going to like the fact that the thing is incorporeal - all the benefit of that magic armor goes away, leaving him with his Dex bonus - which is limited by that armor.  The rogue is going to be far better off here.

Second, even though flanking won't let the rogue sneak attack, it _will_ give him and his flanking partner a +2 to hit.  That is nothing to sneeze at, especially because it'll let the both of them land more blows.

So, the rogue isn't going to be king vs. the effigy, but he can still make a contribution.

Some other points that haven't been brought up yet:

Stupid names are a D&D tradition dating way back.  C'mon...nilbogs?

A simple _magic circle_ or _protection against evil_ will keep the effigy from controlling anyone with its infusion ability.  If you cast it before the effigy infuses anyone, it can't even do that.

Oh, and the reason it has the Jump and Tumble and other physical skills is pretty obvious to me: so it can use them when it's infused a character.

J


----------



## rounser (Aug 27, 2002)

> 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.



Isn't it just that it's very difficult to get a system that accounts for synergy?  It's easy to eyeball an enhanced troll with tacked on fire and acid resistance and say, "Houston, we may have a problem here", but to develop a system that was smart enough to do the same...well, that would probably require an expert system.  In other words, software would be needed to cover it, the complexity level being that high...hmmmm....


----------



## EOL (Aug 27, 2002)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> *Typically, SR is calibrated so that about half the spells thrown at it fail.
> TYPICAL saves mean that the spellcaster's highest spells will be saved against around half the time.
> With HD beyond CR, the enhanced saves will give say a 3/4 likelihood of saving.  (I don't have the ELH on hand so this is something of a guesstimate)
> 
> ...



I think the biggest problem in high level combat is a lack of granularity.  In the example above (assuming the numbers are correct  ) 7/8th's of the time the wizard/sorcerer does nothing to the monster.  1/8th of the time the incapacitate it or outright kill it.  With respect to magic and SR (and to a lesser extent with other mechanics) it's an all or nothing proposition.

What the system needs is granularity, much like the normal attack/hp/DR system.  Generally even with high DR there are ways to get around it or ways to at least do some damage almost every round.  This makes the fighters useful all the time.  the same can not be said of the casters. (Iron Golem anyone?) 

Now as to how to add granularity, that I leave to better minds than mine, but I think it's one of the key problems with how high-level defenses are structured.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 27, 2002)

Change everything so it goes off hitpoints? So that each and every spell in the book does damage, and the full effect of a spell only takes place when the target is out of hit points? Then instant kill spells are transmuted into pure save-for-half damage spells, and you need to beat the crap out of monsters in order to charm or hold person them anyway... Hitpoints gain value (which increases the power of high-level fighter-types), and instant-kill combats become more difficult. Furthermore the balance of the game could be adjusted across the board by scaling hitpoints.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 27, 2002)

> What the system needs is granularity, much like the normal attack/hp/DR system.



I agree with what I think you mean: many high-level spells (and abilities) are Save-or-Die, with no middle ground.  The game goes out of its way to grant characters outrageous Hit Point totals and amazing spells -- then it backpedals and tries to circumvent them.

Instant-death spells and ability-damaging poisons are examples of this, game mechanics designed to get around high-level characters' strengths.  A 6th-level Flesh to Stone spell or a Black Adder's venomous bite is actually _less_ threatening to the average peasant than a single sword stroke or a 1st-level Magic Missile spell.


----------



## Graf (Aug 27, 2002)

*'*

When I read the Effigy when they first released the stats I had to agree that it sounded a bit powerful and a bit lame.

However I think that attitude was probably wrong. I've been DMing a lot and I think what makes a good encounter is "something interesting". It can be threatening and powerful or it can just be thought provoking but that's what makes for cool encounters. 
The premise of the monster (the effigy) is good, it does numerious interesting things to people and (despite what people seem to think) can be handled in numerous ways. Many of which have been mentioned and ignored on this very thread.

SKR is almost certainly right about the monster stats being out of whack with the WotC system. While it being a WotC product doesn't make it immune it would be nice to see these unwritten rules written down somewhere; both SKR and MC refer to stuff like this frequently but the original monster creation article in Dragon didn't touch on this stuff and while it trickles through comments on message boards it would be nice to see a concrete version.
[edit: I think the short names thing was definitely in the article but a lot of the other unwriteen rules that, mostly 3rd party, publishers have been criticized for note adhering to during monster creation aren't written out anywhere.]

A more complex xp system probably sounds nice in theory but its not really. As soon as something changes (the poison from a previous encounter takes effect and knocks out the barbarian, a wandering monster steal's the sword of ghost touch, etc) the ssytem suddenly falls out of wack.
I'm not saying that some effort on this front shouldn't be made, just that making up a bunch of categories and trying to squeeze things in is wierd.

The Law of Large Numbers
With regard to lack of equality with CRs I think its fairly obvious that the system isn't correct.  As an example: in the Banewarrens the first chapter culminates in a fight with a CR 7 monster. Another CR 7 monster related to a troll shows up two chapters later. Both creatures have good reasons for being CR7 but the second one is much more dangerous to just about any party. 
I don't think this is a big deal. Over the course of their character's adventuring careers, the adventuring careers of all their characters, of all the characters of people on these boards this will even out.

Roleplaying games where a group of people face off against a single individual will always have a problem of the party killing off foes quickly. If a 6th level (or a 16th level) party had CRs they would each be X CR. Putting something of CR X against a group of well organized (not all parties but most are) CR X creatures is guaranteed to make for a short fight.
Why is it strange that four ogres can beat the stuffing out of a single ogre fairly quickly?


----------



## RyanD (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *You stated this twice in your post, but you never state why.*




My opinion is that the design problem can be compared to a tree with many branches and subbranches.  [To restate: The design problem is that the inputs to the CR/EL/XP calculation break down above a certain average party character level and cease being useful to DMs in creating effective and fun challenges.]

At low levels, there are only a few branches (powers, abilities, etc.) available.  Coming up with a "one size fits all" CR value for challenges is relatively easy at this point in the game; its even easier if you constrain the problem by saying "we're generating values based on an assumption that the party is 4 PCs; a Figher, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue."

As game time progresses (and thus powers, abilities, etc. expand in number and complexity), the system of one-size-fits-all CRs becomes less and less valuable to the DM, and the DM has to spend more and more time "adjusting" each CR to fit the needs of the specific characters in the party.  However, since the CR values are not calculated according to any kind of system, there's no obvious or easy way for the DM to do that.  In a sense, the DM must become a game designer, deconstruct the creature into all its component parts, determine a relative weighting of those parts, then reconstruct a game-specific CR value.

Obvious problems:  Most DMs aren't capable of doing that work (mostly due to lack of experience and mentoring, not due to intelligence or raw ability).  And the DM probably has a significantly impacted understanding of the scope of the powers and abilities possessed by the PCs - _especially_ if that DM is dealing with "portable" PCs that are not organic and exclusively played in the DM's only campaign.  That impacted understanding will in turn translate into errors in the re-weighting process, so CRs will often turn out either too high (or far more commonly) too low.

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.

So what we get in actual practice is a large community of DMs who "cheat" by simply adding HP to monsters after the fight begins, or fudging saves or other die rolls to keep the beasties in the fight longer, or any number of other variations, which (due to their ad hoc nature) often create more problems in the long run than they solve.  [ There's also a community of DMs who reach a point of diminishing returns as they try to play the game "by the book" who eventually give up and either cap the power level of their games arbitrarily, engage in serial restarts, or abandon the game due to frustrations at not being able to make it work as advertised - none of which does the player network any good long term! ]



> *It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement.*




That's not exactly the argument I'm making.

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.

I'm all for simple systems - when those simple systems work most of the time.  And for D&D, the CR system works across a larger range of character level values than the old 2E system did.  But 3E also scales up much better than 2E ever did, and so the 3E CR system is being forced to operate past the point of its maximum utility.  And after that point, it gets less and less useful (and thus creates negative utility) at a rate proportional to how for the PCs levels are from that inflection point.

I think that what can be done is that a sizable number of "best practices" in challenge design can be codified and then quantified on a per monster basis to enable DMs to reduce the level of "game design" we expect them to engage in, and increase the amount of "informed judgement" they can leverage to maximize the fun level in the game.

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


----------



## Staffan (Aug 27, 2002)

Another option is to ignore the XP part of Challenge Ratings. Star Wars, for example, doesn't even use CRs. Instead, it asks the DM to eyeball the length of an adventure and hand out a total of 1000-4000 XP multiplied by the average party level (and divided by the number of party members), leading to pretty much the same "1 level per 4 sessions" that D&D's "13.33 encounters per level" does. As a side effect, this discourages the hack-and-slash mentality often seen in D&D - I know there are guidelines in the DMG for giving out non-combat XP, but it doesn't exactly encourage it.

I wouldn't abandon CR entirely, because it's still a useful tool for estimating the difficulty of an encounter. I would just disconnect it from XP.


----------



## greymarch (Aug 27, 2002)

Holy cow!  When I started this message thread, I expected to get violently flamed for speaking out against SKR, so I avoided reading the thread for most of the day.  I am glad to see that it has grown into a serious discussion of the validity of high level monsters and high level play.

I will post my complete thoughts in the morning.  Its now 12:30am here in Phoenix, and late night thought processes usually do not provide useful wisdom or insight


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2002)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *Another option is to ignore the XP part of Challenge Ratings. Star Wars, for example, doesn't even use CRs. Instead, it asks the DM to eyeball the length of an adventure and hand out a total of 1000-4000 XP multiplied by the average party level (and divided by the number of party members), leading to pretty much the same "1 level per 4 sessions" that D&D's "13.33 encounters per level" does. As a side effect, this discourages the hack-and-slash mentality often seen in D&D - I know there are guidelines in the DMG for giving out non-combat XP, but it doesn't exactly encourage it.
> 
> I wouldn't abandon CR entirely, because it's still a useful tool for estimating the difficulty of an encounter. I would just disconnect it from XP. *




This is similar to what I've done--and, in fact, what I've been doing (to an extent) since second edition.

I give XP based on story awards, role-playing, length of adventure, etc.  I use the CR system only as a general estimate to answer one question.  "Is this encounter going to provide an appropriate challenge without wiping out the party?"

I can appreciate the need for a more complete system like the one Ryan's discussing, but I think such a system could very quickly and easily grow so complex as to be worse than useless.  As it stands now, giving XP "by the book" in 3E borders on more math than I like doing in my games.  (That's one of many reasons I kept my story-awards-only system when I switched to 3E.)  I think anything that requires the DM to do more figuring than "compare this number to that number" is going to slow things down and makes things difficult.

If DMing becomes more of a chore and less of a fun pasttime, people aren't going to do it.  I know that I'd DM a lot less if I was forced to give XP by the book--not because the calculations are particularly difficult, but because that's not why I DM.  As soon as it becomes a task rather than a hobby, something's gone wrong.

And Ryan, please note that I'm not saying your idea must _automatically_ become ponderous and unwieldy--just that I fear it very easily could.


----------



## Adso (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (Aug 27, 2002)

*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 (Aug 27, 2002)

*It brakes down sooner than that . . .*



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 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<sup>th</sup> 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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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

Hi Ryan! 



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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 (Aug 27, 2002)

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...


----------



## Numion (Aug 27, 2002)

> _From Sean's Rant:_*
> (And I have to mention that as an incorporeal creature it shouldn't have any natural armor, and naming a new creature after a one-word common term is a no-no, and to kick the monster out of your body you're making an opposed Wisdom check instead of a Will save which means that 17th-level characters are not much better than 5th-level characters, and I'm not sure why it needs Balance and Tumble when it's incorporeal and can fly, but those are issues with this specific monster rather than with high-level play).
> *





Hope they're still working on the book, a lot has to be done 

My beef with CRs is this:

My players encountered a Night Hag / level 16 Sorcerer, which makes it CR 22. they were 19th level, and it was an overkill. They slaughtered it in 1.5 rounds. Now, had that been a 22nd level human Sorcerer  (also CR 22), I would've slaughtered half the group easily! (The sick puppy DM that I am )

So, multiclassing and CR don't mix in regards to spellcasting classes. (Here the other part of multi"class" was the Night Hag "levels".)

So UK, does that system of yours address this? (Balance multiclass casters vs. caster level = char level characters, that is)

Hope I made my point clear.

EDIT: Me not posting correct


----------



## Fenes 2 (Aug 27, 2002)

IMC, we do not bother with cr/xp. XP is not used at all, we just level up from time to time, when the group thinks it fits. As a DM, I use CRm as a criteria when selecting a monster - which I use rarely, I prefer NPCs as adversaries - but I normally tailor it for my group.

What is wrong with adjusting monster stats on the fly anyway? I'd rather have an interesting battle as a player than a walkover or TPK, and I could not care less if the monster was used straight out of the book, or winged by the DM. If your DM has not that much time to prepare any and all mosnters, why not let him adjust it during combat? Or do you consider that cheating? (As if a DM could cheat - his word is law in game...)

As a caveat, we do not have many fights during our sessions, normally one fight, and almost nil "random encounter slaughterfests", so I do not have to resort to monsters and CR that often at all, but still... why the fuss about CRs? I'd rather worry about save or die spells at higher level ruining the combats and battles.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 27, 2002)

Hi there! 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> *Hope they're still working on the book, a lot has to be done
> 
> My beef with CRs is this:
> 
> ...




Looking at the character you mentioned on paper it seems ECL 25/CR22. However did you give it the NPC wealth of a 25th-level character?


----------



## Malik Doom (Aug 27, 2002)

Well I agree with SKR mostly.

IMO an encounter can and will negate a few abilities of the PC's, as encounters are variable. But you should not always out your PC's up against things that negate most if not all of their cool abilities, as they will lose interest.

Now in encounters where some of the PC's are at reduced effectiveness they must find ways to become effective, ie a Cleric goes to power up mode for other pc's, or the Wizard does the same, or the Rogue goes to sniper mode. Things like this make everyone useful, but not as much as they would normally be.

In otherwords, you are as effective as you make yourself, just don't take away the abilities of the PC's all the time or you might be looking for more people to play in your game.

Have fun.


----------



## Junkheap (Aug 27, 2002)

I think he is talking about the hag in bastion of broken souls.  in our party my cleric beat it in iniative and destructioned it.  It didnt even MOVE.  An example of really insane monsters - Monte's demon gods fane.  Fiendish fire giants.  Now that is min maxing LARGE.  The party got WIPED out so fast from the amount of damage that it wasn't even funny.  Major weakenss nullified by the fiendish template while adding SR and smiting.  Now if that doesn't end up ripping many a party to smitherines i don't know what will.


----------



## Numion (Aug 27, 2002)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi there!
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the character you mentioned on paper it seems ECL 25/CR22. However did you give it the NPC wealth of a 25th-level character? *




It was from the Bastion of Broken Souls. Shouldn't a CR 22 creature have an EL treasure? Actually the creature would've died sooner but they spent time dispelling it's spells.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 27, 2002)

Numion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My beef with CRs is this:
> 
> ...




I agree. While adding fighter-type levels to creatures makes them tougher in an easy to understand way, bolstering their strengths, spell casting levels are only tangentially effective. The NightHag/16th Sorcerer was probably LESS effective than a Nighthag fighting alongside a 16th Sorcerer! Half the output, half the number of targets, no support... As someone else has mentioned, one bad init roll and a single monster that has everyone gunning for it tends not to last long!

When adding caster level to monsters (or monster level to casters) I'm normally use the EL chart in the DMG and figure out what it would be if the two levels were working in conjunction. It is always much less than simply adding the levels together.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 27, 2002)

*CR isn't the end all, be all.*

In some ways, this argument reminds me of a thread at the WotC site on Demiliches.

When I read SKR's "rant" yesterday, I was of two minds on the issue.  On one hand, I agreed that the CR may have been off by a bit and that the Effigy, as printed, would cosume more than 20% of a four party group of 20-whatevers facing it.  Almost.

It struck me that CR is at its best only a guideline for the DM.  A DM looking at the Effigy needs to decide two things.  Does he want this to be a "regular run-of-the-mill" monster, or does she intend on doing something special with this entity?  Secondly, are we talking about a 20% expenditure for all involved characters across the board or a total expenditure for the entire party.  A Wizard casting a whole-bunch of spells, half of which make it through, may well spend more than 20%.  But an epic level Fighter, with all of the armor benefits and bonuses she should have may not suffer an excessive amount of damage. 

The reason this reminds me of the Demilich is because I wonder if most DMs will use an Effigy as a standard monster.  The Demilich presented in the ELH is a CR 29... which means it casts as a 21st level Wizard.  Thus, the Wizard in a party attacking it should be 29th level, effectively eight levels higher than the entity.  But, I've never seen a party of equivelent encounter levels fighting a Demilich because I don't see such a contest as being inherently a fair fight.  By itself, the EL will be off the roof if the PCs, after fighting their way through all manner of traps and guardians, reach the prepared Demilich who will have more traps and guardians.  Further, a Demilich is a campaign boss/mastermind, IMO.  It's not meant to be an average challenge in the first place.  Is the Effigy in the same boat?  Should it be expected to be an average challenge or is it something greater, and is its CR only a general guideline similar to that of Dragons?

What this boils down to is how you see your monster and how you use CR.  CR is a guideline and a very effective one at lower levels.  I'd dare say effective until 20th level at the least.  However, any DM of any significant degree of creativity and imagination will not allow CR to limit his/her campaign and may well put four 13th level PCs facing a CR 13 Iron Golem in a small room with an copper piping that will conduct any electricity across the room, harming everyone.  The CR may be accurate, but the EL will challenge the PCs beyond 20%.


----------



## mkletch (Aug 27, 2002)

*Up the ante...*



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *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).
> 
> *




This would be a beautiful addition to the game, either in future products, future errata and/or as an addition to the SRD.

My problem with high-level encounters is with the ELH.  Whether throwing a low-level epic monster against a high level non-epic party, or playing in an epic campaign, the monster attacks and defenses are just outrageous.

There are so many creatures with multi-die and multi-ability ability drain, who cares if your character has 300 hit points?  You have 25 Dex, and are taking 2d4 Dex damage per (touch usually) attack, twice a round.  It's simply like you have 4th level, 25 hit points and bad armor all over again and are facing a creature with a falchion.  Except now, your combat ability decreases as you take damage.  You almost need a ring that casts restoration on you every round or something.

The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR.  There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters.  Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table.   Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play.  How disappointing.  The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.

A single epic monster of any sort is just too much for most parties to handle, up to even low level epic play.  And considering that these things are wandering all over the place, and epic level characters and epic weapons are rare at best, how did they not wipe out all life ages ago.  And don't tell me the gods could do a thing, since they only can hit +4 or +5 DR creatures and hardly do 5-20 points of damage per attack after the DR, except for Thor or on critical hits.  Good thing deities are immune to ability loss....

Hey, don't get me wrong.  I love the 'feel' of the epic book, but the implementation requires just silly-stupid power levels, both in magic items and character abilities.  How one makes the transition from non-epic to epic level play is a mystery to me.  It would be like skipping seven grades in school, and going right from 3rd grade to 11th grade - completely blown away unless your party is dripping with artifacts.  I bought it as a DM resource, to make custom high-level opponents, but the utility is limited even for that.  And you thought the CR system broke down at 10th-15th level.  Try 25th.

Fletch!


----------



## The Serge (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Up the ante...*



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> There are so many creatures with multi-die and multi-ability ability drain, who cares if your character has 300 hit points?  You have 25 Dex, and are taking 2d4 Dex damage per (touch usually) attack, twice a round.  It's simply like you have 4th level, 25 hit points and bad armor all over again and are facing a creature with a falchion.  Except now, your combat ability decreases as you take damage.  You almost need a ring that casts restoration on you every round or something.*



I see what you're saying here, but I wonder if that's part of the point.  I don't think the goal was for epic level monsters to be treated in the same vein as "traditional" monsters.  I think that even when epic-level characters face these things, they are supposed to be worried.

At this point (and the more I think about it, the more I think I may be a little off in my initial post), perhaps CRs need to be changed a little to reflect the fact that epic monsters are never expected to be base challenges.  Or, perhaps CRs for epic monsters better reflect them being a reasonable campaign threat for epic PCs... you know, a reasonable adversary/archvillain/boss encounter...



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *  The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR.  There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters.  Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table.   Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play.  How disappointing.  The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.*



I don't think that most epic characters are going to be fighting a lot of epic monsters.  I think an epic monster encounter ideally occurs rarely for characters in the early levels of epic play.  Ideally, epic PCs should be facing high CR traditional monsters and NPCs as they make their way to those first few epic encounters.  

And even for epic PCs, I think an epic monster should be a big deal that requires that they put out all of their energy and resources.  Yes, a +6 weapon is expensive, but I don't see why it should be expected that an epic PC automatically expect to have it to use against an epic monster with a */+6.  Frankly, I think that at the lower end of epic play, PCs should expect to really be challenged and have to fight to beat lower level epic monsters.  They should also be required to get involved in some real role-playing research when preparing to deal with such beings.  



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *  A single epic monster of any sort is just too much for most parties to handle, up to even low level epic play.  And considering that these things are wandering all over the place, and epic level characters and epic weapons are rare at best, how did they not wipe out all life ages ago.  And don't tell me the gods could do a thing, since they only can hit +4 or +5 DR creatures and hardly do 5-20 points of damage per attack after the DR, except for Thor or on critical hits.  Good thing deities are immune to ability loss....*



I think this (and it could be argued that everything I've said is) a campaign driven issue.  IMC, there are epic level monsters.  Most, if not all of them, are either trapped somewhere, dead, or not interested in conflict.  When my PCs get to the point when they can confront the lowest level ones, they will never deal with more than two within a four to five game period... and that's if they really spend time getting ready for such encounters.  

Again, I don't think that epic encounters are intended to be similar to non-epic, so it doesn't bother me that one low-level epic encounter may prove difficult.  I do think, though, that perhaps the use of CR should be reevaluated for epic levels as either ideal levels for "boss-type" monsters or increased by four or five.



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> Hey, don't get me wrong.  I love the 'feel' of the epic book, but the implementation requires just silly-stupid power levels, both in magic items and character abilities.  How one makes the transition from non-epic to epic level play is a mystery to me.  It would be like skipping seven grades in school, and going right from 3rd grade to 11th grade - completely blown away unless your party is dripping with artifacts.  I bought it as a DM resource, to make custom high-level opponents, but the utility is limited even for that.  And you thought the CR system broke down at 10th-15th level.  Try 25th.
> 
> Fletch! *



IMC, the transition begins at around 17th level.  The PCs begin to learn more about what's out there, have a lot of time and resources to create magic items, research current and possibly new spells, and look into acquiring lost minor artifacts.  They have the means to acquire vast amounts of information and reasonably dependable allies.  

The PCs (they are equivalent to a 20th level party since there are six of them and one is slightly lower level than the others) IMC have already faced two low level epic NPCs, a CR 24 Death Knight and a 21st level Cleric.  The Wizard in the party cast _maze_ on the Death Knight, taking him out of combat.  The fact that the cleric suspected an attack is the ONLY thing that kept her alive and allowed her to escape.  When the Death Knight returned, the PCs beat the tar out of it quickly.  Unfortunately, the Cleric had two prepared _miracles_ and resurrection and brought the Death Knight back (spending loads of xp to do so).  

It can be done, but I think it requires a degree of real involved preparation by the DM and an understanding of the DM's world and what s/he hopes to accomplish with the PCs.


----------



## Mortaneus (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Up the ante...*



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR.  There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters.  Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table.   Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play.  How disappointing.  The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.
> *




IMC, the PC's have one option available to them that makes defeating an epic creature possible.  I changed the Sure Strike enhancement from making the weapon an auto +5 for penetrating DR, to increasing the weapon's enhancement bonus by +2 for the purposes of penetrating DR.  That means a +5 (effective +7 for DR) weapon would cost 72kgp.  Well within the reach of a high, but not epic, level character.



I think one of the central problems to the CR/EL system is that it doesn't account for the fact that, while a monster's CR accounts for having only one of them, the party usually consists of multiple combatants.

The effective encounter level system doesn't work very well for accounting for this, either.  Consider, 12+ Adult Red dragons should consume 1/4 of a 20th level party's resources?  I think not.

Multiple combatants on a side has a HUGE impact on it's effectiveness.  The average per/round damage output of a mid-to-high level party is so high that it can usually wipe out even a great wyrm in a couple of rounds of combat.  

I think a better way of balancing the scales is to work on a tally system.  Each combatant adds a certain number to the value of their side.  The totals are added up, and compared, to see if it's an even fight, or if one side has an advantage over another.

Off the top of my head, let's try this one.  PT (power tally) for a combatant equals (HD or Lvl)^2.  When figuring level, add together classes and HD that stack for effectiveness (for example, the troll w/ fighter levels).  The others are calculated as a seperate tally and added to the total for that combatant.  Example:

Human Fighter 14 = 196
Tarrasque (HD 48) = 2,304
Troll Fighter 3/Druid 2 = (6+3)^2 + 2^2 = 81 + 4 = 85

This means that a party of four 20th level characters (not weakened by multiclassing into non-additive classes), has four characters with PT 400 (20^2), for a total PT of 1600.  Still quite a bit less than the Tarrasque's 2304, meaning this is going probably be one heck of a nasty fight.

This also gives you a decent figure of what multiclassing costs you.

Monk 10 = 100 PT
Druid 5/Ranger 5 = 25+25 = 50 PT

Of course, this still requires some eyeballing.  For instance,

Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 2 = (3+2)^2 + (5+2)^2 = 25+49 = 74

Since the arcane trickster levels help both classes, I added it to both to determine the effective level of each.


This is just an idea off the top of my head.  I'm sure it breaks if you poke it too hard, but it might be a good start.


edit:  Another idea.  Since the base classes (ignoring quite a few discussions here) are relatively balanced, maybe you can figure CR from them.  Consider, since an encounter of a CR should use up 1/4 the resources of a party of 4, shouldn't it use up 100% of the resources of a single one of the party's characters, if encountered singly?

Then, I think, a good judge of CR for a monster is to compare it to whatever class best matches it's capabilities, and figure out what level in power it would have compared to an average PC of that level.  For instance, fighting a troll is like fighting a barbarian (the closest class to it's capabilities) of lvl 5, making it CR 5.

The tarrasque, being neigh indistructable, I would match with a monk (generally invulnerable against everything) of 25th level, giving you a better idea of it's CR.


----------



## mearls (Aug 27, 2002)

*Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain*

This touches on a problem I have with RPG design in general.

Back when I programmed computers for a living, there would be times when I would use code I found in a book or off the Internet. For instance, if I had to build a script that would check email addresses to make sure they were properly formatted, I might refer to a sample given in a book I owned like The Perl Cookbook.

Never, ever, would I have ever used a chunk of code that didn't include an explanation as to why it worked the way the designer claimed it would. That's just common sense. If my code didn't work, I'd lose my job. I couldn't just slap other people's code into my work and hope it worked fine. If the code was buggy or I had to make future modifications to it, I needed to understand what was going on throughout the process.

Now, apply that logic to an RPG.

I find a CR 7 monster I want to use in my campaign. Fine, but what makes that creature CR 7? What made the designer look over its stats and say "OK, this is a CR 7 critter." There's an implicit trust relationship there that the designer had very good reasons for making that creature CR 7, reasons so good that he doesn't need to let me know about them.

He's a professional after all. I can trust him, right?

What I'd like to see is more openness in designs. If I see a new monster, I'd love to see a short paragraph explaining why it's CR 7. I'd like to see more talk about how I'm supposed to use that monster in my game, not more information about its mating habits.

By applying a few basic metrics to a creature, like "How can a wizard, cleric, fighter, or rogue handle this monster?" I think a lot of these problems clear themselves up. Instead of being handed an edict from up on high, the designer opens a dialogue with the DM. The more data a DM has, the more likely he is to hit upon a combination in his own designs that works for him.

There seems to be this implicit assumption in RPG writing that it's bad to ever slip into pure game mechanics, mathematics, or design talk. A monster description that goes something like "The astral strider's spells and melee ability make it effective against a wide range of parties and at both close quarters and long range. With its dimension door ability, it can pick its enemies in battle. Use it to allow the strider to escape from the party's fighter types and target wizards and rogues. Its vulnerability to fire is a key weakness that balances the creature. Give it spells or items that mask that weakness only against parties at least 2 levels above its CR."

Since DMs are game designers with a smaller audience, I think it makes far more sense for articles and game material aimed at them to treat them as fellow designers who need to be given sound reasons and advice on using a monster. There needs to be an increased focus on addressing the DM in terms of his role in the game, as scenario designer and rules arbiter. Pull back the magic curtain and show him the guts behind a system, or the design decisions, or whatever thinking yielded a process.

It isn't enough to show a DM how to do something. We need to show him WHY he should do it (or use it).

I think something like that would help clear up a lot of the trepidation and dissatisfaction that high level play can cause.


----------



## Blacksad (Aug 27, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *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).
> 
> *




This would allow to make easy on the fly EL adjustement.

It is great!

I think that if you come with such a break down for the monster in the SRD, you could try to sell it to a publisher, I'm thinking of the one who produced "GM Mastery: NPC essential" This would be really helpful advice!


----------



## buzzard (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Up the ante...*



			
				mkletch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR.  There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters.  Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table.   Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play.  How disappointing.  The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.
> 
> *




I do agree on the DR. What I found particularly annoying though is there is no way around it. I carefully went through all the spell seeds, and there is none which will allow for creation of an epic magic weapon spell. That is what is really called for here after all. The fighter doesn't need to be toting around a +10 hackmaster all the time, he just needs to be able to have it when chopping away at the mithril golem. I found the lack of this possibility a glaring oversight. 

Buzzard


----------



## Rhianni (Aug 27, 2002)

Lot of good points being made and I would like to add in my 2 coppers worth...

The CR system is IMO designed for standard stock players on what is predicted characters will be at a certain level.
At low levels it is easy to balance out.  All the players can do is fire off a few magic missiles, swing a non magic sword etc.
At higher levels this becomes a problem.  With each level new choices are made to the players that skew the CR system.  

Someone posted that any wizard should take spell penetration and other feats to beat SR.  Well if you are wanting to go that route then you can but that is coming from one direction of the game.  I have a wizard in my campaign that has NO offensive spells.  He wants to be a total utility wizard.  That obviously will skew the CR setting as it takes into account wziards having fireballs, lightning bolts etc.

Things like that though happen all the time.  I have found that the CR system is a good GUIDE but cannot be used hard and fast and I doubt any GM sees it as an absolute.  I have had CR monsters 5 steps above that have gotten wiped out in 3 rounds to a group of characters.  There have also been times when 3/4ths of the party has been killed by a single creature of 3 CR levels less then the party.
The best thing to do is look at the monster and see its special abilities and think how the PCs will react and overcome it.  There really isnt a way to take a number system from 1-20 and match a good fight to the party.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 27, 2002)

But DR in 3ed is far more effective than a flat enhancement requirement because there's always the chance, howerver, slim, that the protected creature will take damage. 

In the past, if a character didn't carry a weapon with the appropriate enhancement, the weapon would never, ever do any damage.

The current option offers a better change, sometimes, slightly, sometimes signficant, that the entity will be harmed.


----------



## eris404 (Aug 27, 2002)

Plane Sailing wrote: "I agree. While adding fighter-type levels to creatures makes them tougher in an easy to understand way, bolstering their strengths, spell casting levels are only tangentially effective. The NightHag/16th Sorcerer was probably LESS effective than a Nighthag fighting alongside a 16th Sorcerer! Half the output, half the number of targets, no support... As someone else has mentioned, one bad init roll and a single monster that has everyone gunning for it tends not to last long!"

I agree, too. This was something I learned the hard way, especially when I have 8 players in my group. Assigning them challenges based on a CR that's meant for 4 characters was the first problem and giving them only 1 creatures of the "appropriate" challenge level was even worse. I will never have the party enounter only a single creature/character again, unless the encounter is meant to be easy.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 27, 2002)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *Another option is to ignore the XP part of Challenge Ratings. Star Wars, for example, doesn't even use CRs. Instead, it asks the DM to eyeball the length of an adventure and hand out a total of 1000-4000 XP multiplied by the average party level (and divided by the number of party members), leading to pretty much the same "1 level per 4 sessions" that D&D's "13.33 encounters per level" does. As a side effect, this discourages the hack-and-slash mentality often seen in D&D - I know there are guidelines in the DMG for giving out non-combat XP, but it doesn't exactly encourage it.
> 
> I wouldn't abandon CR entirely, because it's still a useful tool for estimating the difficulty of an encounter. I would just disconnect it from XP. *




As a player, I would have a serious problem if I got as much XP for killing the Tarrasque as I did for mowing down goblins in the last session. An extreme comparison to be sure, but one that illustrates my point. Rewards should be commensurate with challenges.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 27, 2002)

eris404 said:
			
		

> *I agree, too. This was something I learned the hard way, especially when I have 8 players in my group. Assigning them challenges based on a CR that's meant for 4 characters was the first problem and giving them only 1 creatures of the "appropriate" challenge level was even worse. I will never have the party enounter only a single creature/character again, unless the encounter is meant to be easy. *




I think for parties with more than four PCs, you're supposed to add two to the PC group level per PC... assuming that they're all the same level.

Thus, if you have eight 10th level characters, they are to be treated as an 18th level party.


----------



## Word (Aug 27, 2002)

I agree with Mearls, that every DM sooner or later takes on the tasks of a gamer designer anyway. As characters rise in level, they diversify and become more and more personalized. Likewise, they drift further away from the statistical "norm." A DM will always be called on to make some judgement calls in their campaign, at the design level as well as the play level.  

What the CR system does well is act as a set of training wheels. It's reliable early on, and implies certain design concepts which a DM can keep in mind when designing higher-level encounters. These high-level encounters will almost always need to be more closely tailored to an individual party than low-level ones. So DMs will be deviating from a rigid system at high levels regardless of the system's quality, I think. 

The problem I see is one of DM education, which stems from quantifying current CRs. Or rather, not quantifying CRs. Ryan's "CR Factors" are not a bad idea, but any system which suggests a technological solution would be ideal is already too complicated for our purposes, in my opinion. Besides, the flags are already in place for factors such as undead and SR, clearly spelled out in the stat block. Yes, DMs will have to reference that sort of information well in advance of gameplay in order to  check a monster against their party. That's the nature of adventure design. 

Many gamers are (actively or passively) under the impression that there is some in-house secret at WotC for determining CRs correctly. If there is, it might be time to share it with us. If not (more likely?), how about getting Monte, SKR and others to write a batch of short essays for Dragon magazine explaining the impact they think the existing game elements have on CR. If this means creating CR Factors as a shorthand, that's fine, isn't it? 

A rigid system will have to be carefully expanded to stay rigid. A system of thought, an understanding of the purpose and method of Challenge Ratings, will be much more flexible and practically self-maintaining. The design judgements of DMs are integral to the game, but they could be made more reliable and better-informed. Thus, more compatible. 

Methinks. 

word,
Will Hindmarch
will@atlas-games.com


----------



## Dextra (Aug 27, 2002)

*Oh Bela... undead undead undead*



			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> *Hmm... There aren't any (epic?) feats yet that allow one's Sneak Attacks to affect undead, eh? *




ASIDE:
Don't know about feats, but I wrote up a prestige class in one of our books that has a psion-roguesque class that strikes at the very anima and/or negative energy that keeps constructs and undead and the like going and allows sneak attack damage.  And my partner wrote up a monk version thereof.


----------



## Galfridus (Aug 27, 2002)

While fixing the CR system, it might be a good idea to take into account a couple of related problems:

-- Hit Die based rules in 3E should be related to CR instead. (Why create a zombie when you can make multiple skeletons?)

-- Monster Summoning should be related to CR/ECL/something, so the lists have some chance of being expanded by individual DMs

My campaign is just reaching 9th level, so I guess I'll be seeing how the CR system works or breaks down in the next few months.


----------



## JadeLyon (Aug 27, 2002)

I generally agree that the rules don't really do the trick at higher levels.  The generalized CR system just doesn't take into account the extreme variations you can get under the general blanket label of "party level X".

I haven't read all the posts, but I'm thinking the idea of a multi-category CR rating would be the best.  I'd be happy to know off hand how powerful a creature is vs. various types of party strengths/weaknesses.

In the end, the only way I can challenge my higher level PCs is with NPCs.  Monsters.... well, they just aren't fun.  These guys can play video games if they want to hack-n-slash with monsters all day.  So, mostly I don't care about how the monsters stack up.

Its when the plot can really benefit from a really cool, really difficult monster that I get frustrated.  PCs inevitably end up hacking and slashing it, because I try to make sure to get a creature that won't die in a round.  And that IS BORING.

-Jakob the Cat


----------



## d20Dwarf (Aug 27, 2002)

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



			
				Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement. In fact, I think CRs (and, for what it's worth, magic item pricing) serve as proof that design judgement is often superior to systems.
> 
> 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'm really glad to hear Monte say this. 

I've long criticized the "systemization" of D&D, which is as I see it the trend of official products adhering to systems when obvious flaws exist. It disheartens me even more to see designers (presumably either because they don't see it or can't admit it) defending something that is obviously incorrect. Although crafting systems is in itself a creative endeavor, I think too often it makes for stale design on the front end of things.

I wish there were more design decisions being made at WotC on the front end, rather than trying to mold everything into a backend design system that outputs boring, uncreative content.


----------



## Junkheap (Aug 27, 2002)

Maybe i am wrong here, but isnt the cr or a creature based entirely on how the iconics(mialee, tordek)do against them?  I thought they were. So the break down is

Jozan - Cleric
Lidda - Rogue
Mialee - Wizard
Tordek - Fighter

So.....the CR's correspond to these 4 characters, who do not multiclass.  So we should compare our party makeup to these guys to see what sort of chance we have?  Ugh, the more i read what i typed the less sense it makes.


----------



## der_kluge (Aug 27, 2002)

Personally, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say :

Our group threw out XP a LONG time ago.

Really, it makes no sense.  For as long as I can remember, at the end of a game, the DM (be it me, or someone else) would just look up at the group and say "You each get 500 XP".  Period.

Lately, we use XP even LESS.  And after 3 games or so, whenever the DM feels appropriate, at the end of the game, he looks up and says "You're all 4th level now."  Simple.  Easy.

I can't remember the last time my character had XP that wasn't easily divisible by 100 or even 1000.

Of course, this complicates things that cost XP, but that's a whole other rant, and one that we've managed to side-step as well.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Up the ante...*



			
				Mortaneus said:
			
		

> *IMC, the PC's have one option available to them that makes defeating an epic creature possible.  I changed the Sure Strike enhancement from making the weapon an auto +5 for penetrating DR, to increasing the weapon's enhancement bonus by +2 for the purposes of penetrating DR.  That means a +5 (effective +7 for DR) weapon would cost 72kgp.  Well within the reach of a high, but not epic, level character. *




Erm...in any campaign using the ELH as written, the PCs have the option of picking up the 'Penetrate Damage Reduction' feat - which does the same thing.

The DR thing in the ELH seems to be a big sticking point for people, but remember:

1) Just because the PCs are epic level doesn't mean they can only fight the things in the ELH.  There are monsters in the MM who have CRs > 20, and there's always the option of adding templates or classes - or even just more monsters.  So you're not "doomed" if you don't instantly get a +6 sword.

2) If your DM goes crazy and starts throwing stuff with DR X/+7 at you immediately, you can take Penetrate Damage Reduction at 21st level.  (It's on the Fighter bonus feat list, too.)  Combined with a +5 weapon (which you're likely to have by then) you're OK until around 30th level (by which time you should have a better weapon...)

Damage Reduction would be worthless if every party member at that level could bypass it.

J


----------



## Orco42 (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Up the ante...*



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Erm...in any campaign using the ELH as written, the PCs have the option of picking up the 'Penetrate Damage Reduction' feat - which does the same thing.
> 
> J *




Edit- Never mind I am a retard. 

But if you do use Sure Strike the way Mortaneus does it would stack with Penetrate DR. Which would help quite a bit.

Sure Strike as it is written is almost useless at epic levels.


----------



## Al (Aug 27, 2002)

I found Sean K Reynolds’ rant on high-level play both inaccurate and fatuous.

Inaccurate because he continues to make assertions without backing them up with anything than vague allusions.  He repeatedly cites that the fighter is the only one who can make a significant impact on the effigy.  However, it is quite clear from a more objective standpoint that it would not be as difficult to defeat as he makes out, even without a party of hackers.  A 17th level wizard could easily use a Quickened Haste, followed by Ghostform (to negate the benefits of the effigy’s Incorporeality) and then a Time Stop followed by a barrage of metamagicked Cones of Cold.  Taking double damage from cold on a failed save, it is perfectly possible to dispatch the creature in one round with, say, three Maximised Cones of Cold.  Similarly, he assumes that the cleric is useless simply because he is unable to turn it.  Surely by this logic the cleric is useless in any battle against non-undead creatures?  Quite incorrect: a Holy Aura provides more than ample defence against it (short-circuiting its most powerful ability) and a simple Heal spell which all but slay it.  The only character archetype that really is substantially damaged is the rogue, but this hardly makes ample fare for a rant.

More significantly, though, it is utterly fatuous.  Although it professes to be a criticism of high-level play, it is none such.  It is a criticism of one (admittedly poorly-designed) creature, and even his generic points are not characteristic of, or even specific to, high-level play.  His points about circumventing character abilities is tiresome: the simplest skeleton is immune to critical hits and sneak attacks.  His point about SR he himself concedes is a criticism of the way SR is designed (and hence not specific to high level play) and is thus too generic to be a substantial point.  His only salient point, that of DMs being careful to avoid creatures which short-circuit characters’ abilities (though the extent to which this does so he grossly exaggerates) is not a feature of high-level play, but is a wise word to DMs at any campaign level.  Ironically, his concluding sentence he brackets for fear that it is too specific to this creature, whilst failing to realise that his entire rant is based around one (inaccurate) encounter with one specific creature.

I was disappointed to have had to read such a poor analysis from such a lofty source.  My image of Sean Reynolds’ is forever tarnished: for what he professes as a critique of high-level play is a badly worded, ill-conceived, half-baked and factually inaccurate dig at one creature in one supplementary book.


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 27, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> I was disappointed to have had to read such a poor analysis from such a lofty source.  My image of Sean Reynolds’ is forever tarnished: for what he professes as a critique of high-level play is a badly worded, ill-conceived, half-baked and factually inaccurate dig at one creature in one supplementary book. *




You tarnish a tad too easily.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 27, 2002)

While the discussion over CR is interesting in itself, I think it misses the point of the rant.  SKR was not arguing that the problem with the Effigy was that we could not easily assign a CR rating to it, or that the CR rating assigned to it was wrong.  In essence, I heard SKR have two things to say in the rant, albiet not quite as clearly as is usual for him.

1) The design team at WotC - particularly with regards to the MMII - is not making great decisions with making high level monsters.  Either they are making monsters which seem to break thier own rules to a certain extent (like giving DR to an incorporeal creature), or more importantly they are relying too heavily on 'gosh wow' and taking away character abilities (generally regarded as poor design practice) when designing monsters.  He was picking on the Effigy, but the problem is more widespread.  In fact, the problem is not just a problem of WotC.  IMO, no one is designing really good high level monsters.  Maybe this is a limitation of D20, maybe this is a relative lack of experience with high level D20 by the better minds in the business, I don't know.  But its not being done.  People all over the thread are commenting on limitations and bad choices in design that result in a majority of characters having limited contributions to the action.   I think we could take it further.  Once we get up to the epic levels, 99% of the monsters are designed to be defeated by one of two character types: high damage output 'fighters' (usually fighter but occassionally barbarians, psionic warriors, and even the occasional buffed wildshaping druid) or instant kill arcane spell casters (wizards and sorcerers).  The problem isn't as bad as it was in 1st edition, but it is still there.

Part of this problem could be solved by making a concerted effort to design monsters that make the other classes (Bards, Rogues, Monks, etc.) shine by choosing a subset of abilities that did not negate some classes strengths.  For instance, if we choose a 'ambushing monster' to play up the rogues strengths, we should avoiding making all of them immune to criticals to negate this.  Instead, maybe we should have them provoke reflex saves, and maybe even will saves or be slowed/staggered so as to mitigate the party tanks special abilities.  Maybe we create a monster that ONLY takes damage on a critical.  Suddenly, the rouge's keen rapier is the parties best (but not only) bet.  Not every high level undead needs turn resistance.  Some of them might be allowed to be 'easy' challenges for parties with clerics, and maybe we have something with a touch attack that provokes hindering (but not devasting saves) so that the Monk in the party can shine.

But that is only part of the problem.  The other problem is the escallation of violence that D&D has always experienced.  The problem can be simply stated, "The higher level the combatants, on average the shorter the combat."  AND THAT TO ME IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM.  Because, it is exactly the opposite of what we want.  We want, the more 'epic' (a synonym for cool) our characters become for the challenges to become more intence, more interesting, and 'better stories' both to experience and to tell.   I find that doesn't happen, which brings us to what I percieved as the second point.

2) After some point, high level challenges are less fun for everyone involved.

I should qualify that by saying that there has always been a subclass of power gamer in D&D that enjoys defeating powerful foes easily, and the more easily that they defeat them and the more powerful the foe the more that they enjoy the game.  So, there are probably some parties out there having a good time defeating Tiamat before she even gets an action, and rinse/repeat for every monster in the game.  More power to them.  They are important customers.   

But they ain't everybody, and the converse to the above is that when Tiamat does get an action, probably someone in the party dies before they can get their action.

Imagine I'm running a campaign when the players are only 1st level, and I want to have a series of interesting combats punctuating the story I want to tell (just like any good action movie or adventure novel).  At first level I might design an encounter in which the party faced a series of kobold combat teams carefully parcelled in waves so as to not overwhelm the party.  I can assume that each player can kill a Kobold on average every 3 rounds (some less often some more), and that Kobolds won't seriously threaten anyone in the party in any given round without extraordinary luck provided I design them right (for instance avoiding for now x3 critical weapons).  I can then 'story board' a fight with tence 'scenes' and expect to get to every scene (on average).  I can expect to keep the players attention, and I can expect that they will imagine the encounter, play it in there head, and maybe even 'rewind' and reminense.  I can keep doing this without a problem through probably the first 4 levels with no problem, simply by slowly incrimenting the challenge - goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres.  BUT, eventually, this is going to stop working.  Eventually, I'm going to get to the point that players can do so much damage that monsters die before I get a chance to fully 'display' them.   For example, barring extraordinary 'scripting', I think it highly unlikely that an Androsphinx will EVER roar three times in a single combat with a party of 9th level characters.  It might as well not even have the huge and interesting list of powers it has, because against the average tricked out 9th level party, its toast in 1.5 rounds.  The only way around this is to completely buff the monster up before the players get there, which relies on the silliness of all tough monsters are always maximally ready for combat.  No matter how well I script this, it is going to get trite.

So in order to get to 'display' the monster you have to rely on increasingly flashy abilities, and as those progress the ability of the monster to challenge the existance of any given monster on any given round increases to the point that the combat becomes 'who goes first'.   Since typically I roll one initiative for the monster(s) and one initiative for each PC - it is the PC's.

One particularly bad example of this I experienced as a player (even at a fairly low level) occured against a T-Rex, when the combat degenerated into 'who the DM selects to bite will die' but the T-Rex will definately get beat down before he can eat all of us.  T-Rex went down in like 3.5 rounds.  Three player deaths occured.  Bad DMing?  DM inexperience?  Yes and yes, but that wasn't the basic problem.  The basic problem was kill or be killed. And from the opposite direction, feats like Multishot and classes like frenzied beserker and other 'cewlness' only contribute to the problem.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Aug 27, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *
> 
> One particularly bad example of this I experienced as a player (even at a fairly low level) occured against a T-Rex, when the combat degenerated into 'who the DM selects to bite will die' but the T-Rex will definately get beat down before he can eat all of us.  T-Rex went down in like 3.5 rounds.  Three player deaths occured.  Bad DMing?  DM inexperience?  Yes and yes, but that wasn't the basic problem.  The basic problem was kill or be killed. And from the opposite direction, feats like Multishot and classes like frenzied beserker and other 'cewlness' only contribute to the problem. *




This example is the most salient point of all regarding high-level play. With the options available to the PCs and monsters, it will always be a kill or be killed, save or *radio edit* situation. Either challenges outstrip capabilities, or capabilities outstrip challenges. This is not just a case of limited imagination....you give me a challenge, I give you Wail of the Banshee, oh, you have a High SR, guess i'm screwed now. There are more, don't make me whip 'em out.


----------



## drakhe (Aug 27, 2002)

*less maths more play*

I like the idea of having epic progression. It means a character can go on and grow instead of just stopping in its tracks while hitting 20th level. But I'm getting the impression that people are looking at epic characters from a mathematical standpoint: calculate EL's and CR's and you should have an encounter to chalenge your epic character. The idea that some or other creature/encounter negates the players capabilities is in my view the driving force behind player tatics and strategies. If players get too comfortable with their epic abilities, they'll be very badly suprised when somthing simple occurs to them. Example: Imagine a band of players that have just returned from their last dungeon, loaded with loot. The vilage they started from is happy at their return and wants to feast. There even is a gypsy fair in town. People from the village and the fair run up to great our hero's. Close up to the sorcerer who's not feeling to good. A magic thief has stolen his powers (idea taken from the Realms of Magic collection of short stories) and lo and behold, though they've been in a tight spot before, they go to the gypsy camp since a witness spotted the thief there. And believe it or not: they run into my nice trap with their eyes wide open: the gypsies talk them into taken a meal with them, they never ask a question and find themselves drugged! Some days later they wake up butt-nacked in a closed wagon thats  moving. The rest of the session was realy great, they had to do some serious lateral thinking !! What I mean with this example is: you can chalenge epic characters and it is not only in the numbers. Imagine a 22nd level party that stumbles into a kobold stronghold with thousands of kobolds storming at them... That would at least stretch the party resources to the limit would it not ...


----------



## greymarch (Aug 27, 2002)

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I absolutely love high level D&D, and especially epic level D&D!  I have been playing D&D for roughly 15 years with the same group of friends, but we couldnt play our post 20th level characters until the 3rd edition epic book was released.  Now that it is out, we can finally play our favorite characters again.  Thank you WOTC for publishing the Epic Level Handbook!

High level D&D does have its problems though, and the CR system is one of the main culprits.  I feel that the CR assigned to each creature seems to be related to the relative strength of a 4 man party, and said party is assumed to be created from the rules expressed in the PHB, DMG, and perhaps the epic level book if you are using epic level monsters.  The problem with this is that most people dont stick to just those three books.  They use many, if not all of  the class related books, and also the campaign related books.  With all the different feats, items, prestige classes and special abilities from these books, it makes it extremely difficult to fit a CR to a certain group of characters.  A CR of 15 may fit nicely to 4 characters created using the PHB, but when you put the same CR 15 creature against characters made using all the WOTC books, those characters will be significantly tougher than standard PHB characters, and will easily defeat a CR 15 monster.  To be more specific, here is an example of what I am talking about:

Virtually all the monsters in the epic level book, and a good portion of high level monsters in the other books, have spell resistance.  Upon first examination, these creatures seem to have a good chance to stop many of the spells cast at them.  If you played a straight-up high level wizard; for example a 25th level wizard, and only used the rules from the PHB, DMG and epic level book, then it seems reasonable that a given creature of 25 CR might be able to stop the spells of a 25th level wizard.  But, as I said earlier, very few people only stick to these few books.  Many arcane spellcasters will have several levels of classes, from various books, to help them defeat spell resistance, or will take feats from various books to help them beat spell resistance.

A character in my gaming group is a 25th level arcane spellcaster.  He has several levels of the Archmage prestige class, and even more levels of Red Wizard of Thay prestige class.  The SR of a 25 CR creature is a joke to him.  In fact, he can beat the SR of every creature in the epic level book that is below a CR of 31!  The writers of the epic level book simply could not account for all the ways of making a character super-powerful, and so the CRs of creatures do not fit with the actual power of the party.

The above paragraph is just one example of how a player can use rules from the various books to make his character much more powerful than his actual level would lead you to believe.  There are lots of other examples that allow you accomplish the same imbalance.

When four 18th level fighters take on a tarrasque, should the tarrasque be the same CR to them as say a group of four 18th level wizards?  Or how about a group of four 18th level arcane spellcasters who have taken levels of archmage, dragon disciple, and Witch of Rashemen (to name a few.)  Even though all characters use the same experience point table, not all characters are created equal.  Some classes are more powerful than others, and it throws off the CR scale in the DMG (and epic level book.)

There should be some way to scale the CR of a creature relative to the actual power of a party, not the average level of the party.  If your party is mostly composed of melee characters, then fighting a monster with a super-high AC should be worth more than fighting a monster with a pathetic AC.  If your party is heavy on spellcasting, then fighting a creature with an extremely high SR should be worth more than fighting a creature without SR, or has a low SR.   Of course, this really complicates matters, because there are many ways of defeating creatures, and you would have to create a scale or system to measure the power of your party.  It would be a mess.  You would have to figure out each creature's weaknesses and strengths relative to the weaknesses and strengths of your party.  I dont claim to have the answer, but I would certainly like to see a change.  Some type of system for scaling the CR of a creature to the actual power of the party would be a welcome addition to 3rd edition D&D.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 27, 2002)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *This example is the most salient point of all regarding high-level play. With the options available to the PCs and monsters, it will always be a kill or be killed, save or *radio edit* situation. *




On the one hand I agree with you; it seems like the higher level you get, when ALL the guns are big guns, it just comes down to who has the _fastest_ gun.

But I am not sure this problem doesn't exist at low levels, too. Your standard orc with a great-axe stands a pretty good chance of killing one 1st level character per swing.

And his adept buddy in the back, the one ready with the _Sleep_ spell...


Wulf


----------



## Khur (Aug 27, 2002)

*Fun, Fun!*

Just some quick comments on my methods of gaming in relation to this topic:

I don't need a system for everything. I think I read Clark Peterson somewhere saying that that was a problem with 3E, or something he liked better about 2E. I'm not necessarily in that boat, because I'm generally impressed with the amount and quality of work that obviously went into 3E. What is strange to me is how abstract some things can be (like attacks of opportunity or lack of facing in combat – that is, you have to have an ally on the opposite side threatening an opponent to get a flanking bonus), while other things are much more concrete (grappling or trip attacks).

I use CRs as guides, and they work mostly. Then again, I've seen a 10th-level character at ful hit points go down in one blow from a lone CR 12 creature.

My opinion of high-level play is mixed. I like epic scale, but it's darned hard to keep everything balanced and under control, especially with so many options available. 

A major factor in my mind is keeping the players challenged without making it the same old stuff. What I mean is, if characters constantly face challenges that are only suited to their levels, it gets boring really quickly. "We're 25th-level and no matter what we face, it still takes us five rounds to kill it." This is bad. Powerful PCs should be given the chance to feel utterly legendary, not consistently face monsters that should have taken over the world long ago given their power levels and despite the Mordenkainens of the universe.

I just created an adventure for 10th-level heroes that uses 2nd-level opponents as the majority of the challenges. The PCs can't use some of their more devastating attacks (fireball) due to space restrictions and close combat. The mobs of 2nd-level guys were easy to defeat, but slowly pecked away at the PC's resources. Still, the players had a blast mopping up the floor with these villains and feeling like real champs. Of course, the villainous leaders weren't so easy. It's good and fun design if every encounter isn't tough, but challenges the heroes in differing ways and makes them feel as powerful as they are sometimes.

As an aside, referring to Mr. Dancey's comments earlier, I fudge results behind the screen at various times during the game both for and against the PCs, but only if it makes the game *more* dramatic and *more* fun. I think if one asked around, one would find that most "good" DMs do this, crafting a scenario that their players enjoy more because there's thought behind everything on the part of the adjudicator.

This game is about fun. That’s the most important thing. Are you having fun?


----------



## mkletch (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: less maths more play*



			
				drakhe said:
			
		

> *...you can chalenge epic characters and it is not only in the numbers. Imagine a 22nd level party that stumbles into a kobold stronghold with thousands of kobolds storming at them... That would at least stretch the party resources to the limit would it not*




And for this, I have a simple idea.  Flanking can and should be used to allow low-level critters a better chance of putting the hurt on higher level PCs.

For each *other* creature that flanks a creature, a flanking creature gets a +2 to hit.  So if four critters flank a PC, they all get +6 to hit.  You could escalate if necessary; for more than two flankers, you get the number of *other* flankers squared.  Then four creatures flanking all get +9 to attack.  That way, the kobolds actually have a remote chance of hitting and/or confirming criticals.

Flanking and superior numbers is the tactic of the weak against the strong, but it not viable in 3E.  Who cares if the PCs get a +9 vs. a kobold grunt?  But the other way, it matters.  A 10th level dwarf fighter with average equipment for his level and power attack, cleave, great cleave, etc. should not be able to wade through 50 orcs all by his lonesome, but the game supports this.  How can characters of medium to high level be made to fear getting caught in a mass combat?  Either with the rules, or with mods?  No, grappling/disarm/trip is not the answer.  Useful as a surprise tactic, but not enough to bring him down.

-Fletch!


----------



## greymarch (Aug 27, 2002)

Two more points to add to this discussion:

1.  When all things are equal, the person who goes first wins.  Initiative really is the most important factor in almost any combat.  I think that is my biggest complaint about 3rd edition D&D, but that is also an extremely complicated discussion, and doesnt belong on this thread.  I would like to see creatures with a high intiative modifer be worth more towards the total CR calculation than a creature with a low initiative.

2.  Adding levels of a class increases the CR by the number of levels you give the creature, but it should not work this way.  Once again, not all classes are created equal.  Adding 3 levels of fighter to a an orc helps the orc quite a bit, but adding 3 levels of bard is a waste of time.  The scale for adjusting CR when you add class levels to a monster is FAR TOO simplistic.


----------



## derverdammte (Aug 27, 2002)

(insulting post deleted upon second consideration--I wasn't adding any more to the forum than the "sterling gentleman" I was criticizing)


----------



## Mortaneus (Aug 27, 2002)

JadeLyon said:
			
		

> *
> In the end, the only way I can challenge my higher level PCs is with NPCs.  Monsters.... well, they just aren't fun.  These guys can play video games if they want to hack-n-slash with monsters all day.  So, mostly I don't care about how the monsters stack up.
> 
> Its when the plot can really benefit from a really cool, really difficult monster that I get frustrated.  PCs inevitably end up hacking and slashing it, because I try to make sure to get a creature that won't die in a round.  And that IS BORING.
> *




This past weekend, my players had a long, drawn-out fight with a single major combatant.

They fought a shadowdancer, at night, in an unlit warehouse.

The shadowdancer sicked his shadow companion on the party spellsword (an elf, so he could at least see SOMETHING), and jumped the fighter (a human).

Needless to say, the party had a SEVERE problem on their hands.  The shadowdancer was using hit-and-run tactics, darting out of the shadows and striking, then vanishing before they could mount an effective defense. If he had stayed in one spot and fought it out, he would have gotten squished in the first round.

The point is that, at high levels your standard adventuring party can deal out truly horrendous amounts of damage.  Provided they can focus their power.

You don't have to throw them up against foes that  are immune to all of their attacks, or jack up their hp's to give them survivability.  Just play the bad guys intelligently. 

Have the baddies use every advantage they can get.  Have them lead with a barrage of tanglefoot bags.  Throw some webs around.  Use darkness.  Silence spells are wonderful, as are walls of force.  Break the party up, make them counter the foes tactics, rather than lay the smack down on the foes during the first round of combat.

Sure, a high level party will be able to cope with these challenges, but it disrupts their assault, and makes it much more difficult for them to pile the hurting on the enemy, thus prolonging the combat, and making things much more exciting, because they won't know what's coming next.

Additionally, allow foes to pull back and re-group.  Give them access to healing magic on the order of what the party has. 

A single foe against the entire party is probably going to get annihilated in short order.  The trick is to make sure that it's not going up against the entire party all at once.


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Fun, Fun!*



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> *Just some quick comments on my methods of gaming in relation to this topic:
> 
> I don't need a system for everything. I think I read Clark Peterson somewhere saying that that was a problem with 3E, or something he liked better about 2E. I'm not necessarily in that boat, because I'm generally impressed with the amount and quality of work that obviously went into 3E. What is strange to me is how abstract some things can be (like attacks of opportunity or lack of facing in combat – that is, you have to have an ally on the opposite side threatening an opponent to get a flanking bonus), while other things are much more concrete (grappling or trip attacks).
> 
> ...




I agree, Khur.  While I appreciate and understand Sean, Monte and Ryan's various points of view, they're game designers/business people who are interested in seeing a cohesive system for 3rd edition.  As a player, I'm perfectly willing to take a system that works awesome 80% (or more) and work around the remaining 20%....as long as the game is entertaining, neither myself or my players have a problem with it.  The others are approaching this from a more functional point of view.


----------



## radferth (Aug 27, 2002)

I would agree the rules do break down a bit at high levels, but this is delayed much longer in 3rd ed than in earlier editions.  I would offer the following 2 bits of advice:

I'm sure the 3rd ed xp system works as well or better than earlier systems, but I would agree with some earlier posters that a free form system is the best.  I tried using the 2nd ed xp system for 2 sessions back in the late 80's, and then went freeform and never looked back.  None of the players complained, and I had much less bookkeeping.  I highly recomend this just for the decrease in paperwork, and you get more control of the exact rate of advancement to boot.

Having trouble with the PC fights with your boss baddies going to quick?  Try out some underlings.  Unless a creature is a melee combat machine, like a troll, it won't last long with all the party members wailing on it in melee unless it is way more powerful than them.  If the androsphinx won't lost long against your group, give him some lion or gryphon servants (with fiated roar immunity) to keep the pcs off of him while he complets his special attacks.


----------



## seankreynolds (Aug 27, 2002)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *Maybe I misread Sean's article, but I didn't think he was complaining that the monster was too tough. I think he was complaining that it took away all the PC's cool abilities. Basically, that it wasn't a very fun monster to have in your game.*




Yes, that is my point.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 27, 2002)

I just want to point out that any 20th-level party that has a hard time with several thousand kobolds:

1) hasn't ever heard of the spell Elemental Swarm; and
2) must look incredibly wussy, if several thousand kobolds are willing to attack them.

Daniel


----------



## TiQuinn (Aug 27, 2002)

Sean -

I think this depends on how the creature is going to be used in an adventure.  If I'm presenting this creature at the climax of an adventure, ya know what....I don't want the cleric to turn him.  As for the rogues, their sneak attacks don't work on any undead.  The magic resistance is tough...but I see this as just meaning the characters need to come up with an alternate method of defeating the monster.  However, it does depend on how you use the creature.  Having a module filled with monsters like this would be a problem...but as a one shot encounter I don't see it being that big an issue.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2002)

Can you build a system that would do it better than the DMGs CRs?  Possibly.  Probably.  That begs the question - _Should_ you do so?

There's an old maxim in the writing biz - for every equation, you lose half your audience.  While not strictly true, it is demonstrative - the more complicated the system, the less people will want to use it.  For each user, you reach a point where the added accuracy isn't worth the trouble.

When you note that there seem to be a significant number of people who feel the current CR/XP system is _already_ too complex, then this becomes even more of an issue.  You don't gain anything by giving more accurare CRs if you lose the DMs who might use it.

Then, there's simple gaming philosophy to consider - should XP awards ever be more than a guideline?  In a _roll_-playing game, then perhaps yes, it could be doen by formulae.  If the only consideration is the tactics and mechanics of combat, then fully mechanized and accurate XP awards might make sense.  

However, D&D is billed as a _role_-playing game.  I'm not yet convinced that a system that forces the DM to think is at all inappropriate, given the number of subjective factors involved.  

Imagine, for example, the effect of having a certain personality type in a party - a paladin who refuses to use stealth.  How much harder does that make your encounter?  Can you put a number on it? 

We're talking, effectively, about measuring the relative power of a creature to the party.  The science of measurement is pretty clear on one thing - there comes a point where increasing the precision of your ruler ceases to be helpful, as other sources of error prevent accurate use of said ruler.


----------



## takyris (Aug 27, 2002)

Frankly, if you want your incredibly powerful people to be threatened by an army of straight-from-the-book kobolds, play GURPS. Past a certain point, 1000 kobolds in a featureless field are toast.  No contest.

This isn't that big a deal for me as a player or as a DM.  I can always roleplay it.

This is the tough part of high-level play.  Convincing your players to be scared when faced with ten guardsmen with crossbows trained on them.

As for high-level stuff, my players have brought it up, too.  Too many save or die things, too many powerful monsters dead in one round, after killing two people.  It seems like less offense and more defense is the answer for monsters, but the only way to have defense is to take away what the players can do -- SR, DR, energy resistance, uncrittability. 

Or can you think of other powers a creature could have that would make it stay standing longer, but that don't directly nerf player power?  I mean, the basic idea of defense is nerfing offense.  AC versus BAB, right there...

At work, can't type any longer, boss coming (sigh)...

-Tacky


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 27, 2002)

*Re: Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain*



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There seems to be this implicit assumption in RPG writing that it's bad to ever slip into pure game mechanics, mathematics, or design talk. A monster description that goes something like "The astral strider's spells and melee ability make it effective against a wide range of parties and at both close quarters and long range. With its dimension door ability, it can pick its enemies in battle. Use it to allow the strider to escape from the party's fighter types and target wizards and rogues. Its vulnerability to fire is a key weakness that balances the creature. Give it spells or items that mask that weakness only against parties at least 2 levels above its CR."
> *




I just wanted to bring this up again, in case anyone missed it in the middle of a large chunk of writing.

I think mearls makes an excellent point here. The Monster Manual would have been immeasurably enhanced by providing basic tactical information for each critter, and notes about its vulnerabilities and the impact of masking them.

In fact I think a supplement which gave this treatment to all the OGL monsters would probably make an excellent netbook (or even product). Any takers?

Cheers


----------



## seankreynolds (Aug 27, 2002)

Junkheap said:
			
		

> *So.....the CR's correspond to these 4 characters, who do not multiclass.  So we should compare our party makeup to these guys to see what sort of chance we have?*




Well, the D&D iconics are designed to be sub-optimal. In other words, they're not tweaked to maximize power, because we don't expect every PC to be perfectly built. For example, Nebin (the iconic illusionist) has Skill Focus (Concentration) instead of just Combat Casting (which he picks up later). So if we assume the average party isn't hyper-tweaked, CRs should work out fine. More optimized characters will have an easier time than the iconics.


----------



## Monte At Home (Aug 27, 2002)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, the D&D iconics are designed to be sub-optimal. In other words, they're not tweaked to maximize power, because we don't expect every PC to be perfectly built. For example, Nebin (the iconic illusionist) has Skill Focus (Concentration) instead of just Combat Casting (which he picks up later). So if we assume the average party isn't hyper-tweaked, CRs should work out fine. More optimized characters will have an easier time than the iconics. *




So then, as long as all CRs are based on those same iconics, you'll get a consistent baseline. If your group has optimized characters with all the feats from the splatbooks, the CR to party level won't be 1 = 1, but it will be consistent. 1 = 1.5 or whatever. That's the whole point of the system.

Since the iconics stats are publicly available, there's no reason why every publisher can't adhere to this baseline if they want to (obviously, it's their choice).


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Aug 27, 2002)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, the D&D iconics are designed to be sub-optimal. In other words, they're not tweaked to maximize power, because we don't expect every PC to be perfectly built. For example, Nebin (the iconic illusionist) has Skill Focus (Concentration) instead of just Combat Casting (which he picks up later). So if we assume the average party isn't hyper-tweaked, CRs should work out fine. More optimized characters will have an easier time than the iconics. *




Which I think is the way it should be.

Mostly. 

I suspect that most groups are made up of "sub-optimal" characters, with players taking feats, spells, skills and items that are cool, rather than ultra-math-streamlined. 

I think most do this for two reasons:

1) They are attracted to "neat" stuff.
2) They don't want to pore over and cross reference every single WotC supplement. 

The problem for me is, as a player, DM and writer, that there's always that 1 guy who grabs up every bit of optimized power that he can.  That guy can skew the whole balance of things. 

Writing stuff to be "neat" means that a small, but very vocal group of people says that your stuff is "weak", or "useless", or whatever variation of sucks you want to insert here. 

Writing stuff to be super-effective means that another group will cry "overpowered", or "broken", or whatever variation of munchkin you want to insert here. 

Personally, I'd like to see 2 versions of the iconics. One, the standard, should be as they are now. The second set should be optimized to maximum power, so that DMs get an idea of the difference between the baseline level 10 character (for example) and an optimized level 10 character. 


All that, of course, is sideline to the original issue. 

I agree with Sean K. 

I dislike the default insto-lethality of high level play and worse, I dislike the lengths DMs (and writers and players) must go to to defend against it. 

I simply don't like the convoluted chains of defensive combos and jumbles of special defenses that the DM must plan for. The "power up suites" described in the Bastion of Broken Souls leave a bad taste in my mouth.  

Want the party to fight a great dragon? Better make sure the dragon has a half dozen different defensive spells already cast, or he dies in one, maybe two rounds. Worse, said dragon is likely to either die without having done ANYTHING, or die after having killed 1/2 the party.  

I really dislike seeing monsters that are written up to have every defense in the book, but I don't see another option in default D&D. 

Extra HP doesn't cut it. If you have a cleric with Harm prepared, it doesn't matter if the beastie has 10,000 HP. So you have to give him SR. But an optimized mage with access to all the WotC books can blow through SR like a bullet through tissue paper, so you need spell immunities and elemental resistances. Well, then you have a fighter with a +4 keen sword, so you need etherealness, or crit immunity and high DR. Skimp on any of these things, and your cool monster dies before it uses any of its good powers.  

Which leads to this: Monsters aren't expected to live long, so firebreath that does 4d6 every round isn't good enough. Instead, you need plasma/acid breath that does 10d6 with an extraordinarily high save DC. A weakness ray can't do 1d2 ability damage, it must do 2d6 or the characters won't even feel it 2 rounds after the fight is over.  

In other words, its a vicious cycle of escalation. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 27, 2002)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> *
> Personally, I'd like to see 2 versions of the iconics. One, the standard, should be as they are now. The second set should be optimized to maximum power, so that DMs get an idea of the difference between the baseline level 10 character (for example) and an optimized level 10 character.
> *




I like this idea.



> *
> I dislike the default insto-lethality of high level play and worse, I dislike the lengths DMs (and writers and players) must go to to defend against it.
> 
> I simply don't like the convoluted chains of defensive combos and jumbles of special defenses that the DM must plan for. The "power up suites" described in the Bastion of Broken Souls leave a bad taste in my mouth.
> ...




It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with high-level play as with overly combat-oriented play. After all, put yourself in the place of a high-level opponent such as a dragon (or, for that matter, in the place of a high-level character about to fight one). You want to survive, and you want to kill your opponent. Wouldn't you do exactly those things that are referred to above? I.e., buff yourself up with defenses against the other guy's likely attacks, and try to use attacks that will be as quickly lethal as possible? And if you know that your opponent is thinking this way, wouldn't you try to set up some kind of layered defense, a "convoluted chain" that the other guy must penetrate to hurt you, instead of being able to win with a single instant-kill attack? If you were really facing such a combat, all these things would be common sense, so it's only reasonable to expect them to be common sense to characters and monsters in the game.

The solution is to make success in the game less dependent on combat. There's lots of advice out there already on how to do this, so I won't belabor the point (which is certainly not a new one), but I think it's important to keep in mind to avoid having your campaign focused around the "arms race".

Peter Donis


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 27, 2002)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> *In other words, its a vicious cycle of escalation.
> *




The way out of the vicious cycle is to create monsters that are puzzles to solve rather than arbitrary collections of immunities to muscle through.  Like the old Star Trek episode with the UV vulnerable pizza bats.  Corny?  Yup.  Entertaining?  Definitely.

I figured out a decade ago that the optimal way of dealing with weird & unknown creatures is to buff/protect/heal the fighters with the biggest plus swords and stand back.  Bor-ring.  3e hasn't changed that one whit.

Take a look a the MM.  If you listed out every entry for a resistance/immunity and listed out every entry for a vulnerability, I bet the first list will be more than 20 times as long as the second.  And these aren't usally small "flavor adding" defenses like Electrical Resistance 5 , DR 5/+5 (slashing weapons) or +6 bonus to enchantment saves, but often outright immunities or big number resistances.  The trend for high CR monsters seems to be to keep scooping these on.

The powerful arbitrary defenses should be toned down.  Interesting vulnerabilities should be added in.  SR should be scrapped altogether.  Hit points boosted.

I think that would add to the fun.  YMMV.


----------



## greymarch (Aug 27, 2002)

I would prefer if the CR for creatures was determined by comparing them with characters who are severely tweaked out and min/maxxed.  Lets be honest, a majority of people who play this game (including me) tweak their characters as much as they can.  Using standard characters to create reasonable CRs just doesnt provide good experience point ratios for most high level roleplaying groups.  Lets have CRs rated upon a group of 4 characters that are uber-tweaked using the rules from all the WOTC published material at the time.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 27, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *I just want to point out that any 20th-level party that has a hard time with several thousand kobolds:
> 
> 1) hasn't ever heard of the spell Elemental Swarm; and
> 2) must look incredibly wussy, if several thousand kobolds are willing to attack them.
> ...




I'd be willing to bet that a conversion of the 2E module "Dragon Mountain" would seriously inconvenience a 20th level party.

Then again, that module has several fiat rules like "divinations don't work here" and "no teleporting" that don't really have a reason other than just kneecaping the PCs, so that may not be a great example.


----------



## conor (Aug 28, 2002)

I have always viewed the CR system as basically two parts.  

The first part is a "system", that is the tables in the DMG that say that a CR "X" and a CR "Y" is an EL "Z", and that say that an EL "Z" defeated by 4 characters of  ECL N is worth so many EXPs.  

The second half is the "guidelines" in the PHB that a X th level Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard make an EL X party, and the information in the MM that says that a particular monster has a particular CR.

So, to agree and disagree with Sean, the "system" is not flawed, unless you take the "guildlines" as absolutes.  First off, I don't know about most of the games out there, but not a single D20 game I have been in or ran has had 4 players, they almost all have 6, some have 8.  So right there you have to rethink EL interaction with the party.  Plus, my current game is uniquly talented at killing undead (they are Vampire hunters after all).  This means they could carve up the effigy without too much trouble, but a behoilder would eat them for breakfast.  

To make a long story short, DMing is not just picking a random monster out of the MM that has a CR rating the same as your four member party.  You start with a baseline estimate of what the party is worth, through a monster against them, fudge it based on how they play, then determine it's CR based on how the game went and how much you had to tweak it, then use the system to determine the EXP award.

What it all comes down to is that as a GM your job is to make sure that everyone has fun both in combat, and feel good afterwards based on the rewards they received.  No published system could get this right automatically becuase that's what a GM is for.


----------



## conor (Aug 28, 2002)

*The role of combat in RPGs.*

I wanted to post this as a seporate entry because it is on a different subject, but one that was raised on this thread.

As far as I can view it, there are three types of combat in RPGs, space filler (random encounters), storyline advancement (the hated enemy at the end of the dungeon), and the "you screwed up and went the wrong way".

The first type space filler, is usually on the whole an easier fight for the party, after all you are not trying to kill them, just either soften them up, or fluff them for the eventual storyline combat.  The second, storyline advancement should be at eactly the parties level, or just barely above it.  Maybe they have to get an item that is particuarly useful in that combat, or strategize a bit more, but basically it is a fair fight.  

The third is what I want to talk about.  There are many times that you want the party to NOT fight something, to not go down a certain road.  I did not quote the text, but there have been several posts (including the opriginal by Sean) that talks about what happens when fighting a monster that has abilities that negate all the special abilities of the party.  Whether it be how the effigy negates the iconic characters abilities, or how an epic monster has */+6 DR without the party having a +6 weapon.  

The party realizing that they can't hurt the creature, and having the cleric blow through all the healing in the first few rounds, they have to do something that most parties don't think of, RETREAT.  Some encounters were just not made to be beaten.  This either fprces the party to go down a different path avoiding the menace, or they have to make a quest to find that item that can help them out, that +6 sword, or whatever.  Thus they make the roadblock encounter the end of a storyline set of encounters.  

Sometimes the side adventure for the party to get passed your roadblock can be more fun the originally planned encounter.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 28, 2002)

Here's how I use the CR system:

First off, IMC, I assign CRs AFTER the fact. At the end of each session, I'll go through what happened and ask myself, "How tough was that?" I know from the DMG that a CR of equal level as the party ought to consume about one quarter of their resources, which makes for a pretty good way to judge things. If I can't decide, I'll flip through the Monster Manual and see how tough, say, a CR 6 is.

Of course, if the encounter or problem was a simple combat with a particular beastie then it's very straightforward -- just lift it out of the MM. If it's something more complicated, like "Get Marques to reveal who he's working for," then I have to get a little creative and lay out some numbers.

I total everything up and see how much XP that provides. It's almost always more or less than I'm 100% comfortable with so I toy with things about, or just say, "Heck with it," and pull a final value out of my Dungeon Master's Read End.

The players get as much XP as I decide they should have. I decide how much they should have by walking the line between what the rules say and what my campaign needs.

So all I need from the CR system is a _reasonable_ baseline. I don't think it's remotely possible to get much accuracy out of this system, or to be able to take the creativity and personal thought out of it. Why would you want to? Guidelines, that's what we need. That's what we got. My campaign is showing no signs of decay due to power levels or unbalanced XP awards.


----------



## takyris (Aug 28, 2002)

As someone noted in a different thread, you also have to differentiate between what advantages merit an effective CR change, and what advantages don't.

Examples:

Party was formed as a theme party, all fighters and rogues.  They run into a bunch of shadows.  This should affect CR -- those shadows are much nastier against a fighter and rogue group than against a bunch of clerics.

Party is normal, but the cleric and paladin used all their turn-times per day a few battles back. They run into a bunch of shadows.  This should not affect CR, unless you as the DM planned it specifically as a "down to the end of their resources" fight -- a fight when the party is out of spells, smites, stunning fists, and so forth.  The tough thing about those fights is that they aren't really any more tough -- the party is just so far down that the 20% of the resources that get taken might be the last 20% they had.

Party is normal, but cleric and paladin decide to hold back their turning attempts in case they need them later. Party is all but wiped out because of this. This does NOT affect CR.  Environmental factors (ambushes, default party makeup, favorable environment for enemy) change the CR.  Player choice does not.  The players CHOSE to not use their turning powers.  So they get normal xp only.

Party is normal, but the paladin blows his turn check, and the cleric gets hit by a pair of shadows in the first round of combat and, due to really good enemy rolls, is shadowized. The party barely survives, due mostly to really bad rolls.  This does not affect the CR.  Bad rolls do not mean more experience, any more than good rolls should get you less.

That all ought to be taken into account.

-Tacky


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 28, 2002)

"If you have a cleric with Harm prepared, it doesn't matter if the beastie has 10,000 HP."

Yeah, assuming you are one of the three DM's in the country that haven't rule 0'd Harm as the most obviously broken spell in the game.  I don't think I'd allow Harm as a 9th level spell, much less a 5th.  The default solution arrived at independently by at least half the DM's in the country is to rule that harm gets a save, with the results of a successful save being a cause critical wounds that never leaves the foe with less than 4 h.p.  The other 49% cap the damage in some fashion.

RC: I agree, but once you publish a puzzle monster - its no longer a puzzle.

Peter Donis said: "It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with high-level play as with overly combat-oriented play. After all, put yourself in the place of a high-level opponent such as a dragon (or, for that matter, in the place of a high-level character about to fight one). You want to survive, and you want to kill your opponent. Wouldn't you do exactly those things that are referred to above? I.e., buff yourself up with defenses against the other guy's likely attacks, and try to use attacks that will be as quickly lethal as possible? And if you know that your opponent is thinking this way, wouldn't you try to set up some kind of layered defense, a "convoluted chain" that the other guy must penetrate to hurt you, instead of being able to win with a single instant-kill attack? If you were really facing such a combat, all these things would be common sense, so it's only reasonable to expect them to be common sense to characters and monsters in the game."

I think you are dealing with a classic case of confusing cause and effect.  It doesn't matter whether you run a story based game or a hack and slash game, the mechanics of high level combat remain the same.  Either you kill or be killed.  And that harsh standard forces everyone (whether the PC's or the DM) to always be ready for combat and when in doubt attack on sight.  I have already written extensively about defusing the attack on sight attitude of the PC's, but at some point the system is going to force it on the PC's if you as a DM ever plan on having monsters that seriously challenge them at high level.  As a PC waiting or holding your action is highly unattractive if the monsters first action could quite probably kill one or more members of the party.  So the reason that everyone is buffing up isn't that the game is combat oriented, the game is combat oriented because everyone is so buff.  Failure to be ready and willing for combat puts you out of the game if the other side was ready and willing for combat.  How many DM's have been caught unprepared for NPC death because the NPC wasn't supposed to be attacked but died in the first round?

The solution isn't merely changing playing style, it is limiting the destructiveness of PC's and NPC's so that they have time to interact memorably violently or otherwise and feel that they can afford to give up the advantage of going first in order to see if some sort of non-violent interaction is possible.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 28, 2002)

With regards to the CR issue, I think it is irrelevant.  As a system, CR/EL works as well as anything that wouldn't be too complex to use, and where it doesn't work it provides a 'fudge factor' for providing lesser or greater experience if in the opinion of the DM special circumstances make the encounter more or less difficult.  In published products of better quality, this is already done to a certain extent.  We could probably go a bit further by suggesting things like 'If the party does not have a cleric of at least X level, award 150% the normal experience for this encounter.' or 'If at least one member of the party does not have a +X weapon, award 200% of the normal experience for this encounter'.  

No big deal.

Could interesting advice be written on it? Sure, but I don't think you'd ever be able to get away from XP _ guidelines _.

Speaking of DR, I think it might be interesting to rule that it was proportional.  That is, suppose I only have a +1 weapon, and the monster has 20/+2 DR.  It might help things to rule that the +1 weapon halved the DR of the critter to 10, therefore allowing greater interaction.  For that matter, I don't know what the point of ever increasing numbers is anyway, since a monster with 15/+5 DR is far more interesting to me than one with 50/+5 DR.  

For 4th ed. if either monsters usually had smaller numbers before the slash or if having a portion of the second quality fulfilled proportionally reduced the first number it would be better IMNSHO.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Aug 28, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *"If you have a cleric with Harm prepared, it doesn't matter if the beastie has 10,000 HP."
> 
> Yeah, assuming you are one of the three DM's in the country that haven't rule 0'd Harm as the most obviously broken spell in the game.  I don't think I'd allow Harm as a 9th level spell, much less a 5th.  The default solution arrived at independently by at least half the DM's in the country is to rule that harm gets a save, with the results of a successful save being a cause critical wounds that never leaves the foe with less than 4 h.p.  The other 49% cap the damage in some fashion.
> 
> *




Oh, I agree with you. I'm just talking from a non-rule 0 perspective. 

Besides, Harm is only the most obvious example. There are plenty of other spells (and spell affecting feats) that make big HP somewhat irrelevant at high levels. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## JadeLyon (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain*



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I just wanted to bring this up again, in case anyone missed it in the middle of a large chunk of writing.
> 
> ...




Here! Here!

I'd pay 100 bucks for a supplement that gave good DM tactics on how to run DMG monsters.  

I'm serious!  

I can't count how many times I've gotten into an encounter with my PCs and they mince me.  I spend the time and energy trying to play a Monster to the best of my ability, but I have either never played this monster, or only used it a few times.  My players have the benefit of playing their character for 2 years, or better yet, playing a similar character for 15 or 20 years.  In order to really challenge a high level player, you have to either use a monster or NPC that you know how to play VERY well, or fudge things behind the screen.

Also, I can't count how many times I've browsed the forums and noticed an off-hand way to play a creature.  Something I never would have though of.  

I have 18 years as a DM under my belt.  But, I also have a job and a family.  I look for every little thing that can help.  Something like that would be fantastic.

Oh My.

Can someone please do this soon?  By next Sunday?  That's when we play next.  



Anyway, concerning SKR's rant, I think this could be a possible solution.  When writing high level creatures, put SERIOUS role-playing and combat tactics in the description.  Then we'll get an idea of what the creature is like.

You'll either get a great description with all kinds of tactics, or something more like "This guy is just a baddie.  Don't put him in your campaign unless you want a serious hack fest.  Flavor = 1 (out of 10)"

If the industry moved to this standard, then nobody would write up a monster with the above notes.  They'd go back to the drawing board and come up with a Flavor = 10 creature!


----------



## Bragg Battleaxe (Aug 28, 2002)

I have a couple of problems with High-Level play. 

1. It seems that the higher the character level, the higher the reliance is on magic items rather than class features. Obviously the Wizard and Sorcerer are exceptions.

2. At high levels, it seems much more likely that either the DM or the PCs are going to lose badly by miscalculating "something". This "something" might be a CR or memorizing the wrong spells. I guess what I am saying is that the game gets so complicated at these levels that there is just too much to keep up with to expect someone not to make a mistake. It just plain sucks when your character dies because of something YOU forgot but THEY never would have, if that makes any sense.


----------



## mearls (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain*



			
				JadeLyon said:
			
		

> *
> Here! Here!
> 
> I'd pay 100 bucks for a supplement that gave good DM tactics on how to run DMG monsters.
> *




FWIW, I wrote a book for Fantasy Flight called The Monsters Handbook which addresses monster tactics. It doesn't cover each creature in detail, but it does cover each basic monster type.

It's due out this fall.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 28, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Speaking of DR, I think it might be interesting to rule that it was proportional.  That is, suppose I only have a +1 weapon, and the monster has 20/+2 DR.  It might help things to rule that the +1 weapon halved the DR of the critter to 10, therefore allowing greater interaction.  For that matter, I don't know what the point of ever increasing numbers is anyway, since a monster with 15/+5 DR is far more interesting to me than one with 50/+5 DR. *




There is a simple way of doing this with the existing rules. Give a creature multiple DRs. Example:

20/+1, 10/+2, 5/+3, and 2/+4

Then the creature gets the best DR it can. 

If you have no magic weapon, that's 20 points. 
A +1 weapon, that's 10 points.
+2 gives DR 5, +3 DR 2, and a +4 weapon, no reduction.

Pretty sweet! 
PS


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 28, 2002)

Storminator: Excellent suggestion.


----------



## wyrdrune_wolf (Aug 28, 2002)

I've had problems with save-or-die (or taken out of the fight) spells since many years ago in 2e. I've tried many variations on solutions and am still working on such today.

High level play is inherently harder to balance if for no other reason than your players can take many different routes, one player might be a hardcore powergamer and another might just want to be a courtier and if you're trying to keep them both happy and having fun you have to tailor encounters very carefully.

The effigy for example may not work best for a generic fight, or for even some parties, but perhaps there is a party whose composition leaves one particular player is a good position to defeat the enemy for whatever reason, so the gm can use that for to let that player shine.

Just a few random thoughts.


----------



## Numion (Aug 28, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This isn't that big a deal for me as a player or as a DM.  I can always roleplay it.
> 
> This is the tough part of high-level play.  Convincing your players to be scared when faced with ten guardsmen with crossbows trained on them.-Tacky *




Why should they be scared? IMHO the _point_ of high-level playing is that the characters are more powerful than the mooks of the world. They shouldn't take crap from guards with crossbows any more than Trinity is arrested at the beginning of the movie Matrix.


----------



## vsper (Aug 28, 2002)

*SKR's porblem*

Shortly after 3e came out a bunch of us sat down and began to play. We wanted to test the system, and see its merits and its flaws. CR’s were one of the problems. I believe it stems from the problem there are too many variable in the problem to work well. Its not that I see CR’s as being incorrect, but being a poor choice to base the encounter, as a lone criteria. The GM must weigh in all of the PC’s special abilities and the monsters special abilities. For example, a Fire using monster might b a challenge if the party has little protection from fire, but easy for one heavily protected. In the end I eyeball it, and custom make each encounter for the party.

I tend to run long campaigns and have found the experience and treasure to be a problem. I believe Monte Cook once said the game mechanic was to have the party increase in level every three or four game sessions based on a six month campaign. Since I run multi year campaign I have to look differently at XP. I  generally want them to go up every (1+level) game sessions. What I did was modified the first edition xp chart, lowering the rate at which the xp increases and then divide by the character level. Its kind of complicated, but gives them better xp for creatures with special abilities. They of coarse then get a good chunk of xp from role playing.

The problem with slowing down progression in this manner is that the standard treasure drop is too much. By level 7 you could have PC’s with way too much gear and money. So this too needs to be lowered. When you factor in these two changes it runs pretty well


----------



## Bragg Battleaxe (Aug 28, 2002)

Save or die situations exist at the lowest levels of play as well as the highest. I am running the Adventure Path series and the party's barbarian has been failing Will saves for spells such as Sleep and Cause Fear since 1st level. These may not kill him, but they certainly take him out of the fight. At first level, when the party's tank is out of the fight, someone is probably going to die.


----------



## Frosty (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: SKR's porblem*



			
				vsper said:
			
		

> *Shortly after 3e came out a bunch of us sat down and began to play. We wanted to test the system, and see its merits and its flaws. CR’s were one of the problems. I believe it stems from the problem there are too many variable in the problem to work well. Its not that I see CR’s as being incorrect, but being a poor choice to base the encounter, as a lone criteria. The GM must weigh in all of the PC’s special abilities and the monsters special abilities. For example, a Fire using monster might b a challenge if the party has little protection from fire, but easy for one heavily protected. In the end I eyeball it, and custom make each encounter for the party.
> 
> I tend to run long campaigns and have found the experience and treasure to be a problem. I believe Monte Cook once said the game mechanic was to have the party increase in level every three or four game sessions based on a six month campaign. Since I run multi year campaign I have to look differently at XP. I  generally want them to go up every (1+level) game sessions. What I did was modified the first edition xp chart, lowering the rate at which the xp increases and then divide by the character level. Its kind of complicated, but gives them better xp for creatures with special abilities. They of coarse then get a good chunk of xp from role playing.
> 
> The problem with slowing down progression in this manner is that the standard treasure drop is too much. By level 7 you could have PC’s with way too much gear and money. So this too needs to be lowered. When you factor in these two changes it runs pretty well *




Welcome to the EN-Boards vsper. I agree that the game can be run with a lot of rules disregarded or exchanged for other rules but I think that the level of ambition at WoTC is higher than so. I suspect WoTC wants D&D to be the Coke or the MacDonalds of role-playing games. If they are to succeed in this mission in the long term there is a certain need that all players run the game in the same way. At least it should be possible to run the game per the core rules. (Of course there is little to be done about the people who persist in adding rum to their Coke and by the same token many gamers will twink the game to their tastes.)

If D&D is going to an institution (again like MacDonalds and Coke) you need a set set of rules that are indisputable. I can't remember seeing the rule of zero anywhere in a d20 product. The rule zero is a remnant of an old perspective from the days when D&D was a "product of your imagination". It's no longer that. Now it's a product of WoTC, no more and no less. The DMG specifically warns you from making changes to the system. I can see why, as the rules are interconnected and carefully balanced.

People feel a need to share their hobby with other people, with people who they don't even game with. Therefore it is necessary to some extent that we all play by the same rules. If everybody creates there own custom set of rules we will soon have too little in common to bother with buying stuff with the same label (d20) or even visit this particular place on the web.

The up side of this is WoTC can produce beautifully rendered books and the downside is that your input is less.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: SKR's porblem*



			
				Frosty said:
			
		

> *I can't remember seeing the rule of zero anywhere in a d20 product. *



Player's Handbook, page 4:


> 0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
> Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campain standards that vary from the standard rules.



Dungeon Master's Guide, page 11:


> CHANGING THE RULES
> Beyond simple adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That's okay.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: SKR's porblem*



			
				Frosty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If they are to succeed in this mission in the long term there is a certain need that all players run the game in the same way. *




With respect, I think you are 100% wrong here. 3e is the first time that everyone has been *encouraged* to tinker with the rules! it is there all through the core rule books (Steffan has pointed out the biggest examples).

I believe the goal of Monte Cook and others was to encourage people to tweak things for their own games (and to give advice about how, when and why to tweak stuff)

It was 1e that said "don't tamper with these rules! it will destroy your game and you will have NO FUN if you do!!!!". Very histrionic. 3e says "be aware of what your changes will do. Some things will have more impact than others" etc.

Cheers


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: SKR's porblem*



			
				Frosty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Welcome to the EN-Boards vsper. I agree that the game can be run with a lot of rules disregarded or exchanged for other rules but I think that the level of ambition at WoTC is higher than so. I suspect WoTC wants D&D to be the Coke or the MacDonalds of role-playing games. If they are to succeed in this mission in the long term there is a certain need that all players run the game in the same way. At least it should be possible to run the game per the core rules. (Of course there is little to be done about the people who persist in adding rum to their Coke and by the same token many gamers will twink the game to their tastes.)
> 
> ...




D&D is an institution, been that way for a long time.   I don't know why everyone is so uptight about everyone playing the same rules?  This isn't a competitive game that you will be battling against others in tournaments.   I've never ran a game, or played in a game that wasn't houseruled, that includes every system we've ever run since 1984.   For me 3e needs modification to get it to run as quick and smooth as I want it to.


----------



## easterndiode (Aug 28, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ??  As I posted above, there are several tactics that wizards and clerics can use against this thing.  The fighter is gonna be in serious trouble if she goes against it without backup:  most fighters aren't gonna make the will save necessary to prevent possession, and once they're possessed, they'll start attacking their allies.  "I swing, I hit" is a very bad tactical approach to this critter.
> 
> ...




Yes, that's exactly the thing I like about these kinds of monsters.  Some of the its numbers seem to indicate that it's overpowered for its CR, but it just forces the players to think and use tactics that they're not used to.  It doesn't mean they're going to get wiped out just because the cleric can't go "Undead?  Oh, I turn it."  It just means they're going to have to do something new and hopefully exciting.  Maybe they'll discover something about their character that they've overlooked, or maybe they'll get wasted.  But that's part of the game too.


----------



## Katerek (Aug 28, 2002)

WOW

I just finished ready all the posts for this thread!  Good stuff.

I agree with several separate points stated previously that the CR system breaks down at higher levels, and I also have noted that it is in some way related to the fact that it was based on sub-optimally designed iconic characters, this is a good thing.

I run a game for around 8 folks, who apparently have nothing to do but game.  Their characters are far from sub-optimal.  Between the nine of us we have everything published practically for d20, much of it in spades.  I know that well over half of the players have character progression spreadsheets that chart the upcoming levels, usually about twenty levels in advance.

All this said, the CR system hasn't given me any major problems, but of course I have had to tweak it.  I am a math dork so I took a numerical approach.

I will not bore you with the why, I will just tell you the what.

For my party of eight players, their AVERAGE PARTY LEVEL is around 17.

When designing encounters, I use the CR charts as if they were a 19th level party. (add 2)

Then I double the amount of creatures required, UNLESS this would be more than 3 creatures per party member.

I have been doing this since they were about 15th level, and it has worked really well.

Whenever I want and extremely challenging encounter, I take half of the Average Party Level, add that back (17 + 8 in this instance) and then design an encounter that is challenging for that CR using Multiple Creatures.

Of course, the players in my game have super streamline characters and we munchkin like madmen, so this may not work for everyone.

BTW Seans point was a valid one, sometimes though it IS fun to throw a creature at the party that renders some of their 'pie' useless.  The one thing I have seen is that oftentimes, the fighters are the least effective in combat.  So I will deliberately jack up SR and other resistances just so that everyone at the table gets a chance to shine.

The other thing I do, which has been rewarding, is to throw the occasional cake walk encounter at the party.  When they were all around 12th level or so, I had sixteen or seventeen standard Gnolls try to road-jack the party.  Of course the party mopped up, but it was nice for them, because they were able to see that just because they had leveled, the rest of the world hadn't leveled along with them.  It is a way to make those higher levels seem more special, especially if the next session or so you take ou tthe party thief with a simple disintigration field.


----------



## domsalvia (Aug 28, 2002)

I'm digressing a little from the original meaning of this thread but what I have to say relates to follow ups to the original message so please go easy on me (I'm new )

Reading through these posts I've noticed quite a common theme.  Lots of people are noticing that the challenge rating system breaks down at higher levels and are correctly (IMO) analysing the problem to be that as PCs grow in stature and ability it becomes much harder to build a system that can take into account all the variables and create a monster with the correct challenge rating.  Also, people are asking how to make this (very general) system work.  My question to these people is, where does the writer of the source material's responsibility for giving the monster a reasonable CR end and where does DM's responsibility to manage his game start? 

Over to you guys...

Dom

P.S.  thanks for listening to the newb.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Aug 28, 2002)

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

Howdy folks.

Putting the effigy aside, I think this thread generated far more interest when it began to reevaluate how "Challenge Ratings" work.

Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds both speak of the "iconic" characters (the statistics of the exampled characters from the Player's Handbook). They tell us that the Challenge Ratings of monsters are based on the "non-tweaked" (read: non-optimized) statistics of these iconic characters. Monte Cook even goes on to admit that when "optimized" characters *are* played by people, which clearly outshine the iconic characters, then Challenge Ratings become less effective, scaling down proportionately.


			
				Monte at Home said:
			
		

> *So then, as long as all CRs are based on those same iconics, you'll get a consistent baseline. If your group has optimized characters with all the feats from the splatbooks, the CR to party level won't be 1 = 1, but it will be consistent. 1 = 1.5 or whatever. That's the whole point of the system.
> 
> Since the iconics statistics are publicly available, there's no reason why every publisher can't adhere to this baseline if they want to (obviously, it's their choice).*



First of all, you don't need the "splatbooks", as Monte puts it, to make characters that are more optimized than the iconic characters.

Second of all... I have to ask Monte a serious question.

Did you (and all the other designers) really think that player's "wouldn't" optimize their characters? I mean come on, I love role-playing and make a point of not *tweaking out* my characters, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being guilty of it now and then. And if I'm only "a little" guilty of optimizing my characters, then obviously some people are going to be much more guilty of it than me (the majority of people, I suspect, who play Dungeons and Dragons to become truly heroic characters worthy of the fantasy genre, rather than a realistic character in a fantasy book, as I tend to play).

If you're going to design a game system with maximum appeal and functionality, you have to design it with *everybody* in mind.

That said, rather than defending a system based on arbitrarily designed "iconic" characters, which makes the game designer's job infinitely easier, ignoring the potential complexity of different role-playing styles (tweaked-out versus non-tweaked characters), why not suck up their game designing pride and admit that the current Challenge Rating system lacks the same diversity that defines the rest of Dungeons and Dragons?

To explain, I strongly suspect that Monte Cook (and all the other designers) based the Challenge Rating system on a group of "iconic" characters to create a "point of reference" for themselves. That's great. I can even understand why they did it. By creating a point of reference for themselves they eliminated the random element of individual role-playing styles (tweaked-out versus non-tweaked characters), and made their job far more manageable.

The problem is, while they were busy creating a simple Challenge Rating system, based on "singular archetypes" (the iconic characters) they were diversifying the rest of 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons to account for diverse role-playing styles. These two approaches to game design are clearly incongruous with each other.

I think RyanD has the right idea.

By creating "Challenge Rating Factors" (a significant list of abilities with their appropriate Challenge Rating modifiers) you can create a Challenge Rating system that scales with "individual" parties (rather than just the "iconics"). This will involve more design work, but once that work is done, such a system will be a snap to implement.

Alternatively I even think Upper_Krust had some really good suggestions too.

To see Upper Krust's idea for yourself, use the link he provided (below) and download issue #6 of Asgard. The article is called "Challenging Challenge Ratings" on page 29.

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

Here is Ryan S. Dancey's original post as well. It bears reading again if you overlooked it the first time.



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *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?
> 
> ...


----------



## Monte At Home (Aug 28, 2002)

"Did you (and all the other designers) really think that player's "wouldn't" optimize their characters?"

Of course we did. Please read my previous posts. The idea was to create a baseline. Not an average, an optimal point, or even a median. A baseline.


----------



## (contact) (Aug 28, 2002)

This is a great thread.  Thanks, everyone.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 28, 2002)

One issue that I think would be easy to address is the volatile nature of high-level encounters.  Combats whose outcomes depend on who gets the highest initiative.

Maybe some judicious fiddling to try to keep combats longer: attack routines that do not kill a character a round.  More hit points for monsters.  Lots more hit points.  Five times the normal number of hit points.  Or ten!

A useful measure of a monster may be the "suicide test"- how long a combat with an exact copy of itself would last, ignoring special immunities.  Check to see if it misses its own AC only on a 1; stuff like that.  Check how many "save or die" effects it has.  Could be a very enlightening experiment.


----------



## takyris (Aug 28, 2002)

Heck, a "House Rule" can fix most of the problem really quickly:

If a creature has a Disintegration or Death Effect ability, remove that ability. Give the creature Haste, Displacement, and Dimension Door as spell-like abilities to compensate, or DR 5-10/-, or +8 to Constitution.  Voila.  A monster that survives quite a bit longer, has the ability to run away, and is a tad harder to damage.

Do this only for monsters where the death effect seems tacked on.  A basilisk and a bodak are otherwise weak monsters with a limited instakill power -- it has a limited range and a fairly easy save.

But a beholder with self-hasting, DR 8/-, Regeneration 5, a Dispel Magic eye ray, and Dimension door usable 3/day, in the place of, say, Death Spell, and Disintegrate, is going to create a much longer and more involved combat.  He's still got the Hold and Flesh to Stone stuff going on, but a high level party can get past those problems quickly.  He's dangerous, but he probably won't kill as many people -- although he could still finish off an unprepared party fairly easily.

Or, as another option, items.  Several of my players have items that stop Death magic aimed their way.  The items have limited charges, and take up an item slot. They have to choose whether to wear the "no death spell" amulet or the "+2 Dexterity, Fire resistance 15" amulet or the "+3 to Fortitude Saves" amulet.  If they get killed by a beholder because they wore the wrong amulet, that wasn't horrible game balance.  That was strategy, and a choice on their part.

-Tacky


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 28, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I think you are dealing with a classic case of confusing cause and effect.  It doesn't matter whether you run a story based game or a hack and slash game, the mechanics of high level combat remain the same.  Either you kill or be killed.  And that harsh standard forces everyone (whether the PC's or the DM) to always be ready for combat and when in doubt attack on sight.  I have already written extensively about defusing the attack on sight attitude of the PC's, but at some point the system is going to force it on the PC's if you as a DM ever plan on having monsters that seriously challenge them at high level.  As a PC waiting or holding your action is highly unattractive if the monsters first action could quite probably kill one or more members of the party.  So the reason that everyone is buffing up isn't that the game is combat oriented, the game is combat oriented because everyone is so buff.  Failure to be ready and willing for combat puts you out of the game if the other side was ready and willing for combat.  How many DM's have been caught unprepared for NPC death because the NPC wasn't supposed to be attacked but died in the first round?
> 
> The solution isn't merely changing playing style, it is limiting the destructiveness of PC's and NPC's so that they have time to interact memorably violently or otherwise and feel that they can afford to give up the advantage of going first in order to see if some sort of non-violent interaction is possible. *




But the change has to start with the DM, and it's a change in playing style, not game stats. If the PC's are trigger happy it's because the DM has given them no reason to be otherwise--if every monster they meet immediately unleashes its most lethal attack, the players are going to react accordingly. The way to get the players not to do this is to not have monsters do it. In other words, make success in the game less dependent on success in combat. Give the players a reason to do something other than kill everything they meet. That's a change in playing style, not game stats--you can have a hack and slash game just as easily with underpowered characters as with overpowered characters, and you can have a non-hack and slash game even if every character is minmaxed to the max (as it were).

As for unexpected NPC death, part of the fun of being a DM is constantly having to deal with the unexpected.  I've been surprised just as much in the other direction--having an NPC or monster all set to wreak havoc on the party, and then the players find a way to not have to fight it at all. If you're worried about well-laid plans getting tossed out the window, don't be a DM. 

Peter Donis


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 28, 2002)

Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.

Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 28, 2002)

*Please email me....*



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There is a simple way of doing this with the existing rules. Give a creature multiple DRs. *




I think is an outstanding suggestion. If you see this, please email me. I need to ask you something privately at mchance3@houston.rr.com

Thank you.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 29, 2002)

> *Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.
> 
> Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls.*




Power words have no saves, but do have a hit point cap. IMC Harm has no save, but it does no more than 10 hp/caster level.   Suppose save or die effects worked in a similar way and had a really high hit point cap?  High enough that the save or die spells work normally except at really high levels.  At those really high levels they allow hit points to soak up the effect of the spell- but it would take a lot of hit points.  10, 15 or 20 hp per caster level say.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 29, 2002)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.
> 
> Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls. *




Necessary?  I don't see why.

Ability damage and negative levels are intimidating in a way that losing half your hit points isn't, at least until you have access to Heal.  Even if you survive the combat, you will be in a bad way until the Cleric can prep a bunch of restorations tomorrow morning.

While I don't like save or die effects, I don't advocate removing them completely from the game.  They have their place, more for flavor than dramatic necessity.  But even a medusa's gaze could be rewritten as Dex damage (stiffening up), where you turn to stone when your Dex is 0.


----------



## Celebrim (Aug 29, 2002)

"If the PC's are trigger happy it's because the DM has given them no reason to be otherwise--if every monster they meet immediately unleashes its most lethal attack, the players are going to react accordingly."

Errr... you missed the point entirely.   I don't run hack and slash campaigns (except demonstration nights at the gaming store but thats a different story).  Hack and slashers in my campaigns die horribly.  I've written extensively on this board about avoiding hack and slash campaigning and defusing the 'kill on sight attitude', so you are preaching to the choir and the deacons.

I was going to go through another long explanation, but if you don't get it now you won't no matter how I explain.  I've been doing this for 20 years now, and I find the thought of you trying to tell me that high level combat in D&D doesn't go too quickly and that simply changing my DMing style will correct that frankly kinda silly.  Referee games for another 10 years and then we'll have this conversation.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 29, 2002)

Lostsoul - which has more dramatic tension:
A duel where the two individuals are evenly matched, and during the duel, both individuals are wounded repeatedly, wearing each other down, until one of them finally strikes the killing blow.

OR

A duel where one side is worried because the other side might disintegrate him before he disintegrates them.

Unless we're going for a wild-west style gunfight, where both sides stand around sizing up their opponent before suddenly attacking (not really covered by the D&D rules, or even a sane way for the average monster to behave), I'd have to say number 1.

The tension in #1 has been generated by the fact that it's a neck-and-neck race. If spells worked in a similar way to hitpoints (for instance petrification causing dex damage), then the tension is increased - it's possible for a character to have a "phew, one more of those would have finished me off" moment, instead of just waiting for the inevitable failed saving throw.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 29, 2002)

*High Level CR's and EL's*

This is the fourth or fifth really good thread on EN World and Wizards boards about the challenges of high-level play in 3rd Edition.  This is one of the first threads that has had so many heavy-weights weigh in on the subject.

It has been farily well established in the previous threads that the CR system begins to lose it's consistency at higher levels.  Even a "baseline" CR becomes significantly less relevent at higher levels as the "comparable changes" required to bring your villian up to the power of your party becomes exponentially more difficult to calculate.

I echo the sentiment that a CR "factor" which laid out the designer's reasoning in assigning a creatures' CR would be extremely helpful.  Further, I would really love to see a standard "d20" methodology for advancing creatures to fight against a "min/max'd" party.  For example, I am required to spend hours of preparation time advancing, adding hit dice, increasing saving throws, calculating stats with "buff" spells, adding magic items, and developing encounters that leverage my villian's strengths.  This is a ton of additional work.  The bottom line is that below 10th level, I rarely, if ever, must put forth this kind of effort, no matter how much my characters' min/max.  

On another note from the thread, I use the XP system from the DMG, and I think it works great.

As it regards Sean's rant, I agree that it can be very disheartening to fight against villians who ignore your character's strengths.  Any DM that thinks otherwise needs to spend some more time as a player!  In defense of the concept of this creature, however, having played high-level 3rd Ed quite a bit, I recognize and appreciate how difficult it is to really challenge a party of high level characters.  If you take away the abilities of Undead, Incorporeal, and Possession, this monster is reduced to surprise round fodder!  It most likely, won't even take an action.  This is a tough situation, and I'd challenge Sean (or others) to offer how they would have presented a similar monster, that challenges a high level party?  In my present high level campaign, it is a rare villian that doesn't have SR, immunities, concealment, damage reduction, defensive spells, buff spells, and more than one type of attack that will be threaten the party (ie, very high raw damage, poison, attribute reduction, immediate incapacitation, etc.).

Good luck to all who take on the endeavor of building a CR system that makes it easier for DM's to do their jobs!


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 29, 2002)

Has someone ever tried to fight a dragon in an antimagic field ? Some creature, with a lot of HD and extraordiny abilities become really scaring if you must fight in a dead magic zone, because they keep most of their physical firepower, while the PCs  (even the non-spellcaster)are nerfed by the lost of their magic item.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 29, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> While I don't like save or die effects, I don't advocate removing them completely from the game.  They have their place, more for flavor than dramatic necessity.  But even a medusa's gaze could be rewritten as Dex damage (stiffening up), where you turn to stone when your Dex is 0. *




Hmmm, I quite like this idea. Similarly death effects could be CON damage.

It would be too big a change for me to bother trying out in my current campaign, but it would be an interesting escape from the "all or nothing" saves.


----------



## Tsyr (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm just gonna chime in here with a quick comment...

My only real gripe with the CR system is that some DMs belive it is... infallible. I play under a DM that sends us up against something with a challenge rating near what we should be able to deal with (always a bit high 'cause he either thinks we enjoy the challenge or he hates us), but doesn't care that it has damage reduction and we have one magic weapon amongst the entire party, and it's the wizards staff at that. (He gives screwy rewards). 

Then he gets mad when we complain about not standing a chance, as he gestures ephaticly at the CR entry in the MM, yelling "YOU GUYS COULD HAVE BEAT IT!".


----------



## Ravellion (Aug 29, 2002)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *I'm just gonna chime in here with a quick comment...
> 
> My only real gripe with the CR system is that some DMs belive it is... infallible. I play under a DM that sends us up against something with a challenge rating near what we should be able to deal with (always a bit high 'cause he either thinks we enjoy the challenge or he hates us), but doesn't care that it has damage reduction and we have one magic weapon amongst the entire party, and it's the wizards staff at that. (He gives screwy rewards).
> 
> Then he gets mad when we complain about not standing a chance, as he gestures ephaticly at the CR entry in the MM, yelling "YOU GUYS COULD HAVE BEAT IT!". *




Or the other way around: DM's that give "Phat L3wt tm ", then say "How the heck did you beat that!? You should have ran away!" 

Interesting thread. Funny that Monte and Sean actually reply to each other's post _here_, 2+ years after release.

Rav


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 29, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Errr... you missed the point entirely.   I don't run hack and slash campaigns (except demonstration nights at the gaming store but thats a different story).  Hack and slashers in my campaigns die horribly.  I've written extensively on this board about avoiding hack and slash campaigning and defusing the 'kill on sight attitude', so you are preaching to the choir and the deacons.*




Sorry, I wasn't aware of your previous posts (too many threads, too little time).  I didn't mean to imply that you were promoting hack and slash gaming, I was really just trying to make a general comment.



> *I was going to go through another long explanation, but if you don't get it now you won't no matter how I explain.  I've been doing this for 20 years now, and I find the thought of you trying to tell me that high level combat in D&D doesn't go too quickly and that simply changing my DMing style will correct that frankly kinda silly.  Referee games for another 10 years and then we'll have this conversation.*




I've been refereeing games for more than 20 years, a good many of them high level. Of course, my experiences are just one person's experiences, so read a YMMV after my posts if that helps. But my experience has been that combat--straight hack and slash combat--doesn't change all that much as the levels get higher. Some combats go quickly, others don't--but that's just as true at low levels. An orc can take out a 1st level character with one good blow--is that any different than a power word kill taking out a high-level character in one round? If I had to pick out one trend in my experience, it would be that combats actually on average last a little longer at high levels, simply because characters have more hit points, more resistances, and more defenses to put up. But the trend, if it's there, is very minor. That's precisely the reason I like to have my game revolve around other things than combat--because in a sense, if you've seen one combat, you've seen 'em all.

Peter Donis


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Aug 29, 2002)

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



			
				Monte at Home said:
			
		

> *"Did you (and all the other designers) really think that player's "wouldn't" optimize their characters?"
> 
> Of course we did.*



I see no evidence of it, unless you and other designers intentionally set out to create a Challenge Ratings system that was counter-productive to the rest of what is otherwise a diversified edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

You see, if you "knew" that players would optimize their characters, then why not create a Challenge Ratings system that _scales_ with the party, rather than basing monster Challenge Ratings on the _baseline_ statistics of *one* set of non-tweaked iconic characters? Rest assured, I understand full well what you meant by "baseline" Monte. Hopefully you see what I mean now.

Something else bears mentioning. You and the other designers created a "wonderful" diversified role-playing system. It's just that the Challenge Rating system did not rise to that same level of diversification. So if you are taking these criticisms personally, please don't. The current Challenge Ratings system is (by your own admission) singular in its scope, only taking into account the iconic characters. It fundamentally lacks the ability to diversify across as many character types as possible.

I'll be realistic now. You and the other designers accomplished A LOT with 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. Definite progress was made (the skill system for instance). So I'm not calling your efforts a failure by any stretch of the imagination. Challenge Ratings, however, need to be reworked. They require too much adjustment and tweaking at higher levels. They currently force dungeon masters to dissect monsters into their component parts (read: special abilities) in order to properly assign more appropriate Challenge Ratings and thus Experience Point rewards. It's too cumbersome a task that fails to offer "accuracy" as the final product.

So let me ask you another question Monte...

Rather than resisting what I suspect even you realize is a flawed Challenge Ratings system, why not instead weigh in amongst the devoted gamers of this thread and join the mammoth task of fixing it?

I'm sure your help would be more than welcome.

So far I would say that Ryan Dancey has the right idea with Challenge Ratings Factors, but it obviously needs to be built on.

Heck, are you still reading along Ryan? I'd be interested in knowing if you have already done some preliminary work on those numbers? Can you offer this thread anything? I don't think anybody is expecting perfection at this stage. Just some *splattered* ideas to give people a starting point.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 29, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> Hmmm, I quite like this idea. Similarly death effects could be CON damage.
> 
> It would be too big a change for me to bother trying out in my current campaign, but it would be an interesting escape from the "all or nothing" saves. *




Essentially 3e takes this exact style of death damage when they rewrote the poison rules as ability damage.  We could tweak the most all of the insta-doom effects as ability damage.

Frex, Finger of Death could be rewritten as: "Make a Fort save immediately and once in each of the following two rounds.  For each save you miss, take 1d12 Con damage."

A death effect can still be a near certain death sentence without killing you instantly.  It could be much more dramatic to have to option of desperately attempting to save your life with potions or healing spells as the clock ticks.

It wouldn't be difficult if you were starting at low level and tweaked as you slowly introduced powerful magic.  Probably too ugly to try out on an existing high level campaign, though.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 29, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *Essentially 3e takes this exact style of death damage when they rewrote the poison rules as ability damage.  We could tweak the most all of the insta-doom effects as ability damage.*




I guess you could also use Hit Points for all types of damage (considering how nebulous Hit Points are).  A medusa's gaze does 2d6 damage; stones the commoners but the hero avoids it.  When the hero hits -10, he's turned to stone.

(I don't know why 3e has ability damage; it seems like a way of getting around Hit Points, even though the designers say that Hit Points are great.  I like ability damage, but I wonder why all damage isn't ability damage.)

Of course, to do this you'd have to refit all spells and spell effects.  I think giving PCs some kind of fate point to help them out when they need it would be easier.


----------



## neroden (Aug 29, 2002)

*My considered opinion*

On SKR's actual topic: I agree that the "immune to X, Y, Z, resistant to everything else" trend is no fun.

On the topic of CR:

Tactics and adjustment notes for each monster would be invaluable for any DM running a monster for the first time.  I'd like to see, for instance, "This monster is twice as hard if you can't turn undead"; "This monster is three times as hard if you have no magic weapons"; "This monster's greatest weakness is X, so is very easy if your party is especially good at dealing with X"; "This monster is designed for parties which can deal out lots of melee damage, and is nearly impossible for other parties"; etc.

Certain monsters in the MM have CRs which are wildly off because the monsters are *very* specialized.  For example, the shrieker.  If there are no other monsters in the area, the lone shrieker can deal NO damage, and is no challenge.  If there are twenty strong monsters nearby, the shrieker forces the party to face them all at once rather than one at a time, which may be a tremendous challenge.  And yet it is listed as having "CR 3".  That's a joke.  The shrieker should have a section explaining how to determine its challenge based on its surroundings, since a fixed CR is worthless.

There are other creatures where the situation is less extreme, but where the difference by situtation or type of party is still very significant, warranting more than the generic comments in the DMG on adjusting CR, EL, and XP.  But these detailed comments do not exist, leaving DMs to guess or ask others.


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 30, 2002)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *
> (I don't know why 3e has ability damage; it seems like a way of getting around Hit Points, even though the designers say that Hit Points are great.  I like ability damage, but I wonder why all damage isn't ability damage.)
> *



Probably because the designers wanted to keep the feature of previous editions that most damage doesn't change your ability to do things. If all damage were ability damage then each hit would decrease your ability to hit back (to put it crudely). You may well say, "Exactly--that's why I think all damage should be ability damage", but it would be a major enough change to the system that it would require a huge redesign and re-balance of other aspects of the game.

Peter Donis


----------



## rounser (Aug 30, 2002)

If you penalise those who are losing combat, they're not nearly as likely to make a comeback, are they?  It begins to be like the Monopoly end game - fun for those on top, but a pointless exercise in waiting for the inevitable for those down and out.  And - who hits first becomes even more important...as if the game needs that.

Degrading abilities due to injury reduces the ability of heroes to be heroic, so what it adds to the game in terms of realism, it takes away doubly in terms of fun, IMO...


----------



## RyanD (Aug 30, 2002)

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



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Heck, are you still reading along Ryan? I'd be interested in knowing if you have already done some preliminary work on those numbers?*




I am, and I have, but I don't have anything I'd feel comfortable demonstrating yet.

I am working on a [hush]secret project[/hush] that will contain my final cut on that system.  I expect to work out many of the details of that system with public feedback once I've got my framekwork in some kind of comprehensible format.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Aug 30, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am, and I have, but I don't have anything I'd feel comfortable demonstrating yet.
> 
> I am working on a [hush]secret project[/hush] that will contain my final cut on that system.  I expect to work out many of the details of that system with public feedback once I've got my framekwork in some kind of comprehensible format. *




D'oh! _Another_ secret project for the rumor and speculation mill...


----------



## Victim (Aug 30, 2002)

You aren't cleared into the secret project that can make comments on the other secret projects.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 30, 2002)

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



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am, and I have, but I don't have anything I'd feel comfortable demonstrating yet.
> 
> I am working on a [hush]secret project[/hush] that will contain my final cut on that system.  I expect to work out many of the details of that system with public feedback once I've got my framekwork in some kind of comprehensible format. *




Hereby volunteers to assist in public feedback 

In the meantime I'll continue some thoughts on how I'd like to meet that same objective.

Cheers


----------



## hong (Aug 30, 2002)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> *
> Probably because the designers wanted to keep the feature of previous editions that most damage doesn't change your ability to do things. If all damage were ability damage then each hit would decrease your ability to hit back (to put it crudely). You may well say, "Exactly--that's why I think all damage should be ability damage", but it would be a major enough change to the system that it would require a huge redesign and re-balance of other aspects of the game.
> *




First, Con damage doesn't degrade your ability to hit back.

Second, even if it did, it would still be an improvement over an insta-kill spell, where if you fail your save, you die. That's a pretty major degrading of your hitting ability.


----------



## njorgard (Aug 30, 2002)

*About CRs and Iconics and stuff...*

Very interesting thread...

I have been following the discussion and I must say that I LIKE the current CR system.  As Monte clearly states in his post, this is just a baseline, and baselines should be used to calculate divergences.

It is natural for this (or any other) system to break down when applied to higher level enconters.  The reason for this has been stated many times in this thread and can be explained easily using mathematical reasoning.  As a party becomes more powerful and challenges progress in difficulty new factors such as special abilities, powerful spells, and magic items come into play.  As the number of factors increases the formula to calculate the outcome of such encounters becomes more complex - exponentially.  It would be possible to create a system that takes into account all these different factors to come up with one magical number that could be applied to adjudicate the difficulty level of an encounter.  However, such a system would have to be changed every time a new ability, spell, or rule bending mechanic is introduced, therefore limiting the flexibility and expandability of the game.  This is why the CR system abstraction is good enough for me.  

I also believe the iconics approach to calculate CRs is correct as well.  Sure, everyone will try to optimize their character some way or another, but I think it is absurd to ask the game designers to account for all the different possibilities in which this optimization can be done.  Thus, as a game designer, you take a "middle of the road" approach - a group of iconic characters which represents the everyday party.  As a dm, I feel it is part of my job to determine whether a creature rated as "CR4" would really challenge my 4th level party.  In other words, I'm making a determination on how much more powerful my PC party is in relation to the iconic party.  This is a classic use for baselines.

Now, if we accept the fact that CRs become less accurate at higher levels (because of the reasons mentioned above) and assume that all CRs are calculated with iconics in mind then we can come up with a divergence factor using our baseline (the iconics).  This factor can then be used to approximate the correct challenge level FOR YOUR PARTY.  I'm still not sure what could be used to make this comparison, but let me propose this (I'm sure someone out there can come up with something more simple) - take the average party level for your party.  Take an averge of the ability bonuses for each member and divide it by the number of party members.  If you want more accuracy, you can also average out BABs and saving throw mods.  Multiply all these numbers toghether.  Do the same thing for an iconic party of the same level and member constitution.  Divide these two numbers up and you get a factor you can use to multiply to CRs.  Bingo.

Just my two cents...


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 30, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *First, Con damage doesn't degrade your ability to hit back.*



True, but it does degrade your ability to absorb future hits. I should have elaborated a bit more, but I was writing quickly and it was late. 



> *Second, even if it did, it would still be an improvement over an insta-kill spell, where if you fail your save, you die. That's a pretty major degrading of your hitting ability. *



True again, and I don't mind the idea of re-designing instant kill effects as ability damage if it fits better into your campaign. As I said in a previous post, though, an orc can take out a 1st-level character with one good blow, so the possibility of instant death is there at low levels too.

Peter Donis


----------



## hong (Aug 30, 2002)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> *
> True, but it does degrade your ability to absorb future hits. I should have elaborated a bit more, but I was writing quickly and it was late.
> *




Ah, but that's a feature, not a bug. Hit point damage, after all, also degrades your ability to absorb future hits.



> *True again, and I don't mind the idea of re-designing instant kill effects as ability damage if it fits better into your campaign. As I said in a previous post, though, an orc can take out a 1st-level character with one good blow, so the possibility of instant death is there at low levels too.
> *




The problem is less severe at low levels, because 1st level PCs have max hit points, and also because attack bonuses haven't outpaced AC. Typically an orc won't take down a 1st level fighter except on a successful crit (and then all bets are off).

At high levels, this is no longer the case. With multiple attacks, death spells, special attacks, etc combatants can often _reliably_ take down an enemy in one or two rounds.


----------



## evildmguy (Aug 30, 2002)

*Not sure it is a baseline*

Okay, I am in the group, with skr if I understand what he is saying, that says that CRs break down for high level groups.  I agree with that.  

Example:

I ran a one shot epic level group.  I chose 37th level out of the blue as the level.  The players wrote up their own characters.  

Using 37th level as a baseline, I wrote up the encounters.  I was surprised at what I found out.

1)  Before I even got to running the adventure, I thought about using a Devistation Vermin.  Question?  How can a creature with a CR of 39 have a Fortitude save of 98?  I have no idea how a 39th level group can have at least a +88 to have an *average* chance to succeed at this save.  This might have been a typo, of course, of either CR or Save DC.  

2)  The "baseline" is VERY important.  It is tough to ignore it.  While I like RyanD's ideas, I don't know how he will do it.  Case in point.  All of my players took the cool special abilities of Epic weapons instead of having higher than a +5 enhancement bonus.  An encounter with creatures that were rated as a CR of 25 with DR of 20/+6 nearly decimated the party!  As I understand CR, anything that is 2 less should be a cakewalk for the group.  This was 12 less and nearly destroyed the party!  Again, this was from a play test session.  

3)  Even after all of this, combat still lasted LESS THAN 4 ROUNDS!  Even against the most powerful creature with DR such that the PCs only did a little damage.  It was through good uses of spells (attack and defensive) as well as tactics that they did this.  

What I got out of the play test, and this thread, is that RyanD is probably on the right track.  It might take more tough.  For example, DR of 10/+1 might be +1 to CR but what about against the group that didn't have a magic weapon?  What is it then?

In general, what I have gotten out of this is the following:  DND is sometimes TOO specific.  I have completely stopped an adventure because at some point the group had to go underwater, fly or travel to the planes and yet no one in the group was able to do it.  I have always found that frustrating.  Or worse, they can't breathe underwater so they have to stop what they are doing and either wait for a day to memorize different spells or go try and find potions or spells or whatever to let them do what they needed to do.  There are work arounds but work arounds get old, imo.  This is a limitation of the system, imo, because of how specific things are.  

Just some thoughts and observations.

edg


----------



## Zjelani (Aug 30, 2002)

*Re: Not sure it is a baseline*



			
				evildmguy said:
			
		

> *
> What I got out of the play test, and this thread, is that RyanD is probably on the right track.  It might take more tough.  For example, DR of 10/+1 might be +1 to CR but what about against the group that didn't have a magic weapon?  What is it then?*



Well, I'm not sure of exact numbers, but I think this is exactly the point of the system Ryan is suggesting. The CR is broken out in to separate factors, one of which is the DR. If your party has a ton of magic weapons, then you remove the CR factor for that. If you only have a couple, then probably include it. If you have no magic weapons at all, then that CR factor is a big warning flag about whether you should use the encounter. It should make you think about whether or not the party has other means of taking it on. 

I do this already, and I think many other DMs do as well, just by looking at the special abilities and qualities, as well as hit dice, AC, etc. However, having that translated into CR factors would save DMs a big step. At the very least a meta-game paragraph addressing the abilities and possible warning flags would be nice.

I'm now considering something like this for the Planescape products coming up (from the Official fan-site, Planewalker.com, plug plug). If Ryan shows his system before we start releasing stuff and it looks good, I'll probably try to use it there. If it isn't out yet, we might just cobble together some basics, or at least the meta-game paragraph.


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 30, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Ah, but that's a feature, not a bug.*



You're not by any chance a software developer, are you? 



> *The problem is less severe at low levels, because 1st level PCs have max hit points, and also because attack bonuses haven't outpaced AC. Typically an orc won't take down a 1st level fighter except on a successful crit (and then all bets are off).*




Well, the standard MM orc does 1d12+3 normal damage with his greataxe, which gives a 50-50 chance of reducing a 1st-level fighter to 0 hp, taking him out of the combat. I agree that's not exactly the same as a finger of death, though.



> *At high levels, this is no longer the case. With multiple attacks, death spells, special attacks, etc combatants can often _reliably_ take down an enemy in one or two rounds.*



But the enemy also has more defenses to raise against these attacks. For death spells, there's death ward; for multiple attacks, there's damage reduction; for special attacks, there's other stuff. I'm not arguing that combat doesn't get more complex or dangerous at high levels, just that it doesn't necessarily get shorter at high levels.

Peter Donis


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 30, 2002)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> *
> But the enemy also has more defenses to raise against these attacks. For death spells, there's death ward; for multiple attacks, there's damage reduction; for special attacks, there's other stuff. I'm not arguing that combat doesn't get more complex or dangerous at high levels, just that it doesn't necessarily get shorter at high levels.
> *




It seems that most people believe that combat does get shorter at higher levels.  That's my experience, too.  Anyone disagree?

Flip through the story hours.  Look at Wicht's low level campaign, frex.  A lot of those combats are lasting 4 or 5 or 6 rounds because people keep missing.  Look at PirateCat's high level campaign.  The life expectancy of a big monster is less than 1 1/2 rounds.

We do have to be a little careful in making these comparisons.  With Haste, Mass Haste, Quickened spells, weird feats and abilities, a combat that last fewer _rounds_ arguably has a similar amount of _action_ to a more leisurely low level combat.  OTOH, that may mean the guy who rolled a '1' on his initiative may be dead or be on the winning side while still flatfooted.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 30, 2002)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> *Probably because the designers wanted to keep the feature of previous editions that most damage doesn't change your ability to do things. *




Which is why hit points exist.  Yet, some creatures and effects do ability point damage.  Why the inconsistancy?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Aug 30, 2002)

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



> _Originally posted by njorgard_
> *However, such a system would have to be changed every time a new ability, spell, or rule bending mechanic is introduced, therefore limiting the flexibility and expandability of the game. This is why the CR system abstraction is good enough for me.*



As I understand it, the "Challenge Rating Factors" that Ryan Dancey is proposing could be abstracted as well; but the abstraction would be much more precise level than the current _baseline_ Challenge Ratings, in addition to accounting for party abilities versus opponent abilities (which this system would also track).

Once a list of Challenge Rating modifiers is created for all the generic special abilities, spell power levels, and extraordinary items, creating a value for any *new* abilities, powers, or items that are introduced into the game would be relatively easy to approximate (basing them on the values created by the aforementioned list).



> _Originally posted by njorgard_
> *As a party becomes more powerful and challenges progress in difficulty new factors such as special abilities, powerful spells, and magic items come into play. As the number of factors increases the formula to calculate the outcome of such encounters becomes more complex - exponentially.*



Okay, let's not exaggerate for effect. Exponentially is overstating the matter. Challenge Rating Factors represent a new idea, so we have to wrap our minds around it, much like we did when 3rd edition first came out. So rather than reexamining this system on a conceptual level (something I'm exceedingly guilty of doing) let's look at a practical example.

As I see it (feel free to interject anytime Ryan) every monster would have a "base" Challenge Rating. Let's say that challenge rating is calculated as being ½ their Hit Dice or Level. A creature with 4 Hit Dice would therefore have a base Challenge Rating of 2 (for instance). Straightforward enough.

Now for every special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item that a monster benefits from, their Challenge Rating would be adjusted upwards accordingly. To use Ryan's example, let's say we're dealing with "undead", or more specifically, a large skeleton.

A large skeleton, with 2 Hit Dice, would therefore have a base Challenge Rating of 1. Moreover, as I already stated, a large skeleton is obviously undead. As per Ryan's earlier supposition, let's say that equals a +2 Challenge Rating modifier. Skeletons also have an immunity package, making them invulnerable to cold attacks and resilient to piecing and slashing weapons. Fine... for the sake of argument let's say that adds another +1 to the final Challenge Rating of a large skeleton.

So what we have is an undead creature with a modified Challenge Rating of 4. I'm sure this seems kind of high at first, but let's see how the skeleton rates in a few moments.

Along comes a group of adventures. Lo and behold it turns out there's a cleric in the party! Right away the threat of undead has been diminished significantly with the presence of at least one character who can turn/destroy undead. This effectively nullifies the +2 Challenge rating modifier given to the skeleton for being undead. Secondly, it turns out that at least one-half the party carries a spare bludgeoning weapon with them, canceling out the skeleton immunity package.

Suddenly our scary Challenge Rating 4 large skeleton has been reduced to a Challenge Rating 1 annoyance. Simple.

I've taken a few paragraphs to explain myself, but only for the purpose of edification. Such a mental calculation could be resolved instantly. Basically, for almost every generic special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item, there would be a counter-acting force that *cancels out* their Challenge Rating Factors (all dependant on whichever abilities and items the party currently possesses).

So here come the next big question...

Is a detailed system of Challenge Rating Factors better than making a good ole fashioned judgment call (modifying _baseline_ Challenge Ratings on the fly)?

Well, assuming that a dungeon master is interested in being conscientious and "fair", then I believe that any system which helps them to achieve that goal is a good one. Moreover, once a system of Challenge Rating Factors is in place there are still _plenty_ of judgment calls left for the dungeon master to make (believe you me). I would think that any system which alleviates some of the needless "end-of-game" calculations would be a welcome one.


----------



## Victim (Aug 30, 2002)

That doesn't work so well.

Why doesn't having a cleric around take away any additional undead related difficulty?  What if the cleric has a low CHA and doesn't turn well?  What if, like the Effigy that started this thread, the undead has too many HD to turn?  What if there's a rogue in the party - all of a sudden his combat ability drops dramtically.  For example, in the high level game that I ran, both the rogue and ranger relied heavily on critical hits to do damage, and the fighter spellsword also had some crit effects too.  Does having a cleric that can maybe turn the creature mean that the party is at an advantage, even though it's main damage dealing methods no longer work?  I don't think so.

Also, so what if the party carries maces?  People might have maces, but prefer not to use them.  Maybe they have a different magic weapon or are focused in a sword.  Just because they have maces doesn't mean that the skeleton's resistance to other weapons means nothing.


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 30, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> It seems that most people believe that combat does get shorter at higher levels.  That's my experience, too.  Anyone disagree?
> *



Besides me, I take it.  Actually, it's not that I disagree, exactly, it's that it hasn't been my experience. I'll have to check out the story threads in question--what I'm wondering is if those who are getting killed off more quickly (whether characters or monsters) are really using all the defensive options available to them to prevent that.

Ultimately I think this is a campaign-specific issue. If you don't like the kind of combat tactics that come into play at high levels under the rules as written (e.g., having to remember to defend against death effects in *every* combat), then of course it's perfectly OK to modify the rules to make them more suitable. IMC we haven't seen the need to do that.

Peter Donis


----------



## PeterDonis (Aug 30, 2002)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *Which is why hit points exist.  Yet, some creatures and effects do ability point damage.  Why the inconsistancy? *




As hong said recently, that's not a bug, it's a feature.  Some kinds of damage impair your ability to fight back, and some don't.

Peter Donis


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Aug 31, 2002)

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



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> * Why doesn't having a cleric around take away any additional undead related difficulty? What if the cleric has a low CHA and doesn't turn well?*




That's irrelevant. The "potential" to counter-act a special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary ability is all that matters. Whether a character successfully counter-acts the ability in question is neither here nor there. If the opportunity to cancel out a certain ability simply *exists*, then any appropriate Challenge Rating Factor would be nullified. The rest is up to the individual character.

It's no different for monsters. For instance, a monster can be dispatched in 1 round of combat and never use anything close to their arsenal of special abilities. The fact that they didn't get a chance to stretch those additional muscles doesn't change their final Challenge Rating though. The potential "threat" of those myriad abilities is what made them dangerous in the first place.

Essentially what I am saying is that how-effectively-characters-use-their-abilities *does not* affect the interaction of counter-acting Challenge Rating Factors.


----------



## Victim (Aug 31, 2002)

Again, I disagree.  Just because the potential for something exists doesn't mean that it's good.

For example, a Balor has the potential to cause instant death with his sword because it's Vorpal.  That's going to be worth something in terms of CR factors.  And it also has an impressive arrary of spell-like abilities.  That's going to be worth some CR factors too.  However, it can never really use both to full effect at the same time.  Therefore, some of those CR things will never come into play.

It works the same way for characters.  A cleric might be able to do X, Y, and Z, but he can only choose two.  Especially on something like turn undead, which is a choice made at character creation.  So assuming that the cleric can do all 3 for the purposes of CR factors is a false assumption.  

For example, take an 8th level fighter, 12th level wizard.  By using combat buffs, he can still be a very effective fighter with a few other tricks.  However, what if he's an Evoker with barred Transmutation?  He can blast things, or he can hack them.  So his actual effectiveness is always going to be less than the max.  Similiarly, consider some monsters with power ranged attacks, and/or flight.

Let's say that the creature has a base CR of 6, and flight and ranged are each +2.

Normal CR 6
Flying CR 8
Ranged CR 8
Flying Ranged 10

However, a creature that can fly but has no ranged attacks doesn't have that much of an advantage.  He still has to close within reach to attack, making his flight just some extra speed and a possible escape plan.  

You have to consider how everything fits together, and the opportunity costs of using powers.  It's not as if characters and monsters can unload all their abilities at the same time, or even be good at all their abilities.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 31, 2002)

I think that people are too quick to throw around "+2 CR", since that is a huge jump in capability. In most cases +1 CR would be appropriate for certain abilities.

The things I'm working on at the moment (inspired by Ryan, but following the plot of my earlier post) is a bunch of simple factors that reflect how a CR is made up.

I would include several potential -1's for vulnerabilities (e.g. turnable, double damage from something, can't attack flyers etc) since if the PC's have the means to take advantage of a vulnerability, they probably will and it will be less of a threat.

Then there are defensive benefits, with a range of +1's (e.g. incorporeal, Damage resistance, ultra high AC) and offensive benefits with a range of +1's (e.g. can cause massive damage check, has an attack which could take out a target instantly, has an area attack, can summon allies etc)

I'm anticipating that the base CR will be based on some fraction of HD as modified by creature type (which rolls up some of the basic immunities, BAB and benefits different creature types get)

(incidentally, I don't think "Undead" as such is a good category for assigning bonus CR - since zombies are undead but shouldn't be worth much extra... so they get the penalty of being turnable but no real benefits from their status. Wraiths, on the other hand, have a very real benefit of incorporeality, which I would want to take account of.)

More on the basics once I've run my initial ideas past a good chunk of the creatures in the Monster Manual.

Cheers


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Sep 1, 2002)

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



> _Originally posted by Victim_
> *For example, a Balor has the potential to cause instant death with his sword because it's Vorpal. That's going to be worth something in terms of CR factors. And it also has an impressive array of spell-like abilities. That's going to be worth some CR factors too. However, it can never really use both to full effect at the same time. Therefore, some of those CR things will never come into play.
> 
> It works the same way for characters. A cleric might be able to do X, Y, and Z, but he can only choose two. Especially on something like turn undead, which is a choice made at character creation. So assuming that the cleric can do all 3 for the purposes of CR factors is a false assumption.*



But I never made that assumption Victim. You did. No offense, but I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that a monster or character must use "all" of their special abilities at the same time. In fact, I *just* finished expressing the exact opposite sentiment. Once again, it doesn't matter that a creature was dispatched in 1 round before they could bring all of their might to bear. The danger (Challenge Rating Factors) of that monster is inherent in the threatening *number* of choices available to them.



> _Originally posted by Victim_
> *For example, take an 8th level fighter, 12th level wizard. By using combat buffs, he can still be a very effective fighter with a few other tricks. However, what if he's an Evoker with barred Transmutation? He can blast things, or he can hack them. So his actual effectiveness is always going to be less than the max. Similarly, consider some monsters with power ranged attacks, and/or flight.*



Precisely my earlier point.

_"Basically, for almost every generic special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item, there would be a counter-acting force that *cancels out* their Challenge Rating Factors (all dependant on whichever abilities and items the party currently possesses)."_

Using your example, we are talking about two things; spell power level and combat power level. If you didn't catch that implication at first, there would be scaled Challenge Rating Factors for different levels of spell or combat power.



> _Originally posted by Victim_
> *It's not as if characters and monsters can unload all their abilities at the same time, or even be good at all their abilities.*



I already addressed your first point, but as for the second, characters and monsters do not have to be *good* at using their abilities. In fact, they can be *bad* at using them. Their Challenge Rating Factors stem from the raw abilities they possess; or the potential of those abilities. Not whether they use their abilities competently. If they don't, that's their own fault. The opportunity to effectively use their abilities exists. That's all that matters when determining Challenge Rating Factors and their counting-acting forces.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 1, 2002)

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



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> But I never made that assumption Victim. You did. No offense, but I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that a monster or character must use "all" of their special abilities at the same time. In fact, I *just* finished expressing the exact opposite sentiment. Once again, it doesn't matter that a creature was dispatched in 1 round before they could bring all of their might to bear. The danger (Challenge Rating Factors) of that monster is inherent in the threatening *number* of choices available to them.*



Be that as it may, I think there should be some sort of "diminishing returns" on multiple abilities. If a monster can already cast Fireball 3 times per day, giving it the ability to cast Lightning Bolt as well doesn't increase its power all that much.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Sep 3, 2002)

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



> _Originally posted by Staffan_
> *Be that as it may, I think there should be some sort of "diminishing returns" on multiple abilities. If a monster can already cast Fireball 3 times per day, giving it the ability to cast Lightning Bolt as well doesn't increase its power all that much.*




Not it doesn't, and it shouldn't increase its power... *that much*. Let's say casting _fireball_ or _lightning bolt_ as a spell-like ability increases your Challenge Rating Factor by +1 each. So no, it doesn't increase the creature's power significantly, but it does increase the creature's power by a small amount.

If such a creature could cast _symbol_ or _wish_ as a spell-like ability, I think that would increase its Challenge Rating Factor even more, say... by +2 or +3 respectively. As you can see, so far, all of these distinctions easily fall under the ad hoc proposal growing out of this thread.


----------



## evildmguy (Sep 4, 2002)

*Reverse it?*

Greetings!

Okay, there have been some good ideas here but I wonder if we don't need to turn things sideways and look at them that way?

A lot of the current discussion goes on potential.  If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster.  Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challange rating.  

What if we came at this from the opposite direction?

Take the base, which I liked at 1/2 HD.  Then, anything they used or that came into effect, add to the CR of the monster.  At the end of the battle, add these up to figure the CR for the group.

For example, a creature with undead (+1) and spell casting (+2) attacks the group.  During the fight, the rogue attempted a sneak attack and would have succeeded except for the undead ability.  The creature never got a chance to even try to cast a spell, so that never came into play.  In the end, then, the creature's CR was 1/2 its HD +1.  This would seem to take into effect what did happen instead of what could happen.  (Also, notice that because someone was affected by the undead quality, even with a cleric present, the group gets the xp for the undead quality the monster had.)

There are 3 quick problems with this system, and CRs in this discussion, as a whole:

1)  At higher levels, this ends up being a lot to track.  If the DM uses multiple monsters with different abilities, all must tracked as they come into play.  (this isn't tough, that's not my point.  It just slows combat and the game down to be tracked)

2)  The core rules seem to indicate that whatever abilities a person has IS part of them and not tracked separately.  For example, even if a spell caster summons ten monsters, none of the monsters count towards xp.  Only the spell caster does.  Her CR counts the ability to summon monsters.  (I wonder if this indirectly says that potential *does* count?)  

3)  In the end, isn't it a wash?  I mean, when we start averaging these things, as a whole, over the long term they all wash out!  Why complicate the system for what is possibly a small pay back?

Just some coppers.

edg


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Reverse it?*



> _Originally posted by evildmguy_
> *A lot of the current discussion goes on potential. If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster. Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challenge rating.*



I think you're right. Something occurred to me after reading your post. This will sound obvious, but the way I proposed this system certain abilities would have *canceled out* certain other abilities. I now believe that this is the wrong way to approach it.

Rather than having abilities cancel each other out, Challenge Ratings would now be calculated for each player character as a standard rule. These values would be averaged and ultimately replace "Party Level" in the determination of Experience Points.

That way you can still use Challenge Rating Factors to determine a more accurate power level for monsters and characters without having to track which abilities *cancel out* which other abilities. Essentially, a sliding scale between the average "Party Challenge Rating" and monster Challenge Ratings seamlessly determines which abilities cancel out which other abilities (rather than tediously tracking individual abilities throughout every game session).

This brings me full circle back to Upper Krust's idea about Challenge Ratings. His "comparative" Challenge Ratings system would dovetail beautifully with Challenge Rating Factors.

Once again, to read his idea use the link he provided (below) and download issue #6 of Asgard. The article Upper Krust wrote is called "Challenging Challenge Ratings" on page 29.

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


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Reverse it?*



			
				evildmguy said:
			
		

> *A lot of the current discussion goes on potential.  If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster.  Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challange rating.
> 
> What if we came at this from the opposite direction?
> 
> Take the base, which I liked at 1/2 HD.  Then, anything they used or that came into effect, add to the CR of the monster.  At the end of the battle, add these up to figure the CR for the group.*




I'm not sure I like this idea - it seems to me like it would encourage people to do bizarre things in oder to maximize the XP gain from an encounter.

Rogue: "It's skeletal? I think I'll try to sneak attack it."
Fighter: "Good job! That's another 100 xp each."
Wizard: "Hey, don't kill it yet - the last time we fought one of these it cast a spell, if we let it cast again it'll be +2 CR..."

In short, you'd be rewarding them for _not_ learning their lesson the first time...

J


----------



## Ravellion (Sep 5, 2002)

The more I read about CRs and XPs, the more I am drawn towards a freeform XP system.

Rav


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 5, 2002)

I don't think you could ajudicate a CR based on what happened over a combat - it leads to the situation drnuncheon suggested.

You should, however, be able to look at the party, look at the monster, and rule out of the CR any abilities which simply will not apply. For instance, if it's impossible for a cleric to turn a skeleton, due to his pathetic charisma, then the CR of the skeleton shouldn't be reduced due to his undeadness (which would be further broken down into turnable, immune to crits, immune to poison etc) - he's simply not going to be turned,. If the entire party have an immunity to acid, and they're fighting a black dragon, then the dragon's breath should be left out of the equation. If the party use backstabs and poison a lot, then a creature immune to those would be increased in CR a little. Note that in these cases, the defending party tends to get the benefit - the dragon will probably still try to breath on the party, buying them valuable time, the party will (possibly) still attempt backstabbing and poisoning.

Saying that just because the cleric had the potential to turn before he chose a bad charisma is just being silly - you'd be reducing the CR of the creature for no reason. You could make the same argument for any of the cr-modifying items we've already mentioned.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 5, 2002)

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



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If such a creature could cast symbol or wish as a spell-like ability, I think that would increase its Challenge Rating Factor even more, say... by +2 or +3 respectively. As you can see, so far, all of these distinctions easily fall under the ad hoc proposal growing out of this thread. *




This says to me that CR progression isn't linear.  A goblin with the ability to Wish once a day isn't a CR 3 encounter.


----------



## evildmguy (Sep 5, 2002)

*Good points.*

Greetings!

Thanks for the replies.

Good points were made.

dmuncheon:  Yes, some players would undoubtably abuse the system.  A couple of suggestions.  

First of all, perhaps adders like this should never be more than +1?  (I will speak about the wish effects in a moment.)  What this would attempt to do is put more emphasis on the base CR (1/2 HD) than any special attributes or abilities.  This isn't perfect, obviously.  1/2 HD doesn't say what else they can do.  Again, though, did you catch "can" in that sentence.  I am already talking potential as I talk about CRs.  

Second, if the encounter is always about equal, again, it would be a wash.  If the group actually let the undead spell caster cast, they are taking a chance that they aren't blasted by the spell.  That is nearly proportionate at all levels.  

Last, again, I think that CRs are a good baseline but not much above that.  One of the developers (maybe Monte but I am not sure) gave examples where the CR would go up based on how intelligent the encounter was played.  The specific example was a fight with some archers (fighters).  As a straight fight, it was a CR of 2.  To make it a 3, the archers used cover.  Here is where I said what?  To do the obvious thing of protecting yourself increases the CR?  But it does.  Items count in DND and items used well also count.  There is a big difference between two 10th level fighters, one who has no equipment compared to one who does.  

I have found in game play that tactics, rolls and items are equally helpful.  My group was almost defeated by dogs!  I think I had them as CRs of 1/3 and 3 dogs (for a CR of 1, barely) almost killed the party!  In an epic level I ran, a CR of 25 vs a group of 37th level (and there were 9 players, so they were probably a 40) almost killed the group!  

This almost brings up a separate but related note.  What about CRs that are based on *specific* items or spells to overcome?  For example, I had created a small quest that involved going underwater.  None of the characters had any way to breathe underwater but a few did have Freedom of Movement.  What then?  Does overcoming that give them more XP because they had to think about it?  If they all had stuff to get by right away, would it reduce it because it was trivial?  

After all of that, I think what the DM should do is *AFTER* the battle, evaluate how tough it was and give XP that they think is appropriate for the fight.  It still creates a grey area but I would rather have it with the DM than a formula that may or may not work.  Guidelines would still be needed but no hard and fast formula.  

Just some more coppers.  

edg


----------



## Bragg Battleaxe (Sep 5, 2002)

Rav said:
			
		

> *The more I read about CRs and XPs, the more I am drawn towards a freeform XP system.
> *





I agree, in fact I have been using a free form xp system. BUT there is still the issue of using CR to determine how tough a monster will be for the party... I don't think xp is really the issue, TPK's however, are.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Sep 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rav_
> *The more I read about CRs and XPs, the more I am drawn towards a freeform XP system.*



Well, if a "free form" system works for you and your players, that's great. But the point of this thread is to create a system that is far less arbitrary, and far more accurate than the current system of tracking encounters levels and Experience Points.


----------



## Ravellion (Sep 6, 2002)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *But the point of this thread is to create a system that is far less arbitrary, and far more accurate than the current system of tracking encounters levels and Experience Points. *




I think that is the new, hijacked point of the thread, but that's okay. 

I am still using it by the book though. I might change it very soon, perhaps next session.

Rav


----------

