Pundit, I mus tcall you to order!

Stop bashing 3.x in ways that are tried and true RQ/AD&D2nd Ed.-Swine-DMs-who-never-have-even-played-3rd Ed. arguments.


You are in the process of losing all the Mainstream-Cred you ever had.

Answer these questions:

When did your last character die from a save or die effect?
Have you ever been a player in a 3.5 campaign?
For how long?

Quote from: J ArcaneIOW, you want to force the players into making their characters the way the designer intended instead of allowing any creativeity on a mechanical level.  

Swine.

No, I think that there is a balance point, allowing a great deal of options without allowing for creating characters purely based on figuring out some feat-combo "cheat" that makes you unstoppable.

RPGPundit

I've played a shitload of 3.x, and consider 3.x my second favorite type of D&D (only beaten out by RC D&D; I like 3.x better than either 1st or 2nd edition AD&D).

That said, when I play 3.x I blatantly ignore CR and ECLs altogether, and feel free to modify poisons to do whatever I want them to do, usually direct hit-point damage or paralysis (or very occasionally death over x number of rounds).  And my level drainers always ALWAYS really drain a level.

So J Arcane is full of shit, as usual. But what's to be expected from a guy who likes to pretend that there's no such thing as D20?

As for Settembrini's questions, they're kind of pointless since everyone knows I almost always GM rather than play.

The last time I DMed a 3.x campaign was about 2 years ago, which if you consider that my campaigns typically run in the six-month+ time range isn't a very long time ago.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat said, when I play 3.x I blatantly ignore CR and ECLs altogether, and feel free to modify poisons to do whatever I want them to do, usually direct hit-point damage or paralysis (or very occasionally death over x number of rounds).  And my level drainers always ALWAYS really drain a level.

How do decide upon which Monsters are in which encounter?

Quote from: RPGPunditAs for Settembrini's questions, they're kind of pointless since everyone knows I almost always GM rather than play.

The last time I DMed a 3.x campaign was about 2 years ago, which if you consider that my campaigns typically run in the six-month+ time range isn't a very long time ago.

Bolded part.

Quote from: SettembriniHow do decide upon which Monsters are in which encounter?

There's a little something called "judgement"; I use it.

RPGPundit

I basically agree with Pundit that CR is not a very good idea.

First some basically irrelevant minutiae. Mearls wrote:

QuoteInstant die poisons, level drains, and similar crap are all legacies of inept, boring game design.

The use of threats like these with experienced players creates a certain amount of tension, especially where skilled play and familiarity allow you to identify said threats prior to interacting with them.

QuoteLevel drain is just a lame way to attack what players like the most, experience points and levels.

Spectres and vampires were the scariest monsters in 1e and OD&D. That's months of your life you spent playing you just lost if they hit you. I agree that maybe it's a little overkill, I guess, but making your PLAYERS afraid is an important effect for the DM to be able to reach for.

In the case of these two things I don't think the old way is better than the new way - it may well be worse overall - but it's not as black-and-white as you're making it out, and Pundit's complaint of 'pussification' speaks to the preference-set that might make you enjoy the earlier way more.

QuoteInstant kill stuff makes for a boring game. Rising tension (whether tactical or strategic) leading to defeat, victory, or escape is a ton better.

No contradiction between the two, as long as the instant kill isn't on the first encounter. This actually relates to the (much better) strategy vs. tactics discussion we were having a few weeks ago: the fight/encounter as unit vs. the dungeon as unit. From the first point of view, you're absolutely right. From the second, the insta-kill trap is just one moment in the bigger unfolding picture, so it's just a question of how you get there.


Now on to CR. If it's just a guideline and not incorporated into the rules it's questionable how much it really helps DMs. What's the ratio of "I assigned a good monster because of CR I wouldn't have been able to pick out by eyeballing the stat block/using past experience" to "I picked a too tough/too weak monster because of CR which I would have avoided using a little common sense"?

I suspect for beginning players it's skewed to the second, so that's good; I'm less sure that as people get more involved it continues to have that effect, and it serves as one more thing to hamstring the DM.

However, there are two other issues that to my mind make the problem even worse. The second is that whole 'situational' thing. Different monster types can come together in synergy to create parts greater than the whole, when they have complimentary abilities or cover each other's weaknesses. CR won't reflect this. Some monsters will be vastly more effective in some kinds of dungeon complex than others; some will be able to use terrain in nasty ways; terrain which furthermore the DM can place at will without regard to the CR system except for traps. But of course monsters and traps might synergize too.

As players and DMs get better at the tactical side of the game, these synergies will become more and more important, and the CR system will more and more have to be tempered by judgment.

I take part of Pundit's point to be that if you need judgment why not just use that instead of using judgment + CR. I think that's a good point and I'll back him up on it.

The third thing is maybe most critical of all, and it's already been broached. Responding to Obryn, Mike wrote:

QuoteA big problem facing D&D right now is that the gap between a weak character and a strong one is so huge. Even using the PH, it's way too easy to make an insanely inept character.

Current design assumes some skill in PC building, but I worry that it pushes things too far above the typical player.

If CR is a guideline to challenging your players, and different character builds are assigned the same CR but produce vastly different effectiveness, then almost by definition CR, even if it solved the first two problems above, can't be more than a guideline, which has to be tempered by the DM for his individual campaign. That's also going to skew that earlier ratio towards the first side. This is a problem.

This is also a problem because people who like to use D&D for 'roleplaying', and take feats and prestige classes etc. not to maximize effectiveness but to develop their character vision - and that is part of the fanbase, I think - are going to widen out more and more from the Pun-pun makers and their ilk. So which group is the CR addressed to? The problem isn't just the typical player, it's that people look to D&D for different things, and what they look to the game for will influence their build considerably.  This was already a problem in my 3.0 game by the time we hit 7th level or so: the human wizard with his crafted wands of lightning firing every round and the half-orc multiclass chainfighter were so much more effective than everyone else (well, except the cleric could sort of keep up, because she had great stats and clerics are buff in 3e) that combat got to be a little bit odd in terms of who was racking up the body count and who wasn't.

----------------------------

For what it's worth, I don't think it's a good idea to try to "fix" CR to address the three problems above. I think the best thing to do is probably to keep it the way it is, tweaking up or down based on actual play reports from groups over time. The second best thing to do would be to turn it into a simple calculation, with a slightly more formalized eyeballing mechanism: say hit dice times type and special ability multipliers, where the SA multiplier was vague. This comes out to the same thing but gives people a little more guidance with making their own creatures.

The third best thing would be to junk it altogether and go back to DM judgment. But the worst thing would be to go the Champions route and try to micromanage all the variables to get an accurate number. It's an impossible quest, for the synergy and variable party ability reasons mentioned above.

that's why i think that even though the CR/EL thing was a neat exercise, it should be scrapped and just go back to "monster level" and flat XP per critter.  not measuring the creature vs. some imaginary 4-person party, etc.  the dm can adjust the experience up or down by whatever based on the actual encounter results.  

i know you could technically do that now, but for some reason my brain doesn't completely wrap around that part of the system.  just rank 'em from I to X (or 1 to 20, or whatever) and leave the extra steps out of it.  

found the UA addendum on something similar.  i'll look over it tonight and see if it's more like what i want.

Quote from: CalithenaSpectres and vampires were the scariest monsters in 1e and OD&D. That's months of your life you spent playing you just lost if they hit you. I agree that maybe it's a little overkill, I guess, but making your PLAYERS afraid is an important effect for the DM to be able to reach for.

Scaring the players with metagame threats is a lazy man's alternative to scaring the characters with in game threats.

I recently picked up Crown of the Kobold King and Hollows Last Hope from Paizo. One of the best encounters in these two modules is with a Hill Giant that would easily pulp the adventuring party, but he's drunk you see, and is looking for his misplaced wedding ring which he lost while getting drunk. Its designed specifically as a role-playing encounter instead of a combat encounter, and the module writers even have a sidebar explaining this.

So the overwhelming TPK-if-the-party-is-stupid encounter is still alive and well in OGL products, CR guideline obeyance or not.

I understand you've seized on that as a rationale for disliking level drains, Jeff, but all you have to do is rationalize increasing level as a 'growth of soul' and your'e good to go, no more metagame (which it often functionally acts as anyway - dragons and gods ignore low level PCs or else kill them as a general rule, but readily treat with higher level characters, at least in many games).

I think the metagame argument is ultimately a red herring, though I respect that some gamers may prefer not to think of 'level' as representing anything real in the game world, and for them it will seem like a metagame intervention.

It's fine to have a preference against old-style level drains - I think, like killing PCs in some games, it can simply be too much hassle relative to one's time invested in the game, or in other words not-fun. I just think the idea that they're 'bad design' in some universal sense is too easy.

Also, scaring the characters only has interest or value insofar as it connects to what the player is feeling. I prefer immersive play so I also prefer to scare players through their immersion in their characters, but the mere fact that a character is afraid (wounded, in love, whatever) is completely worthless and uninteresting except to the degree that it effects the players. Same deal with spectators in a book, movie, whatever.

Quote from: CalithenaI understand you've seized on that as a rationale for disliking level drains, Jeff, but all you have to do is rationalize increasing level as a 'growth of soul' and your'e good to go, no more metagame (which it often functionally acts as anyway - dragons and gods ignore low level PCs or else kill them as a general rule, but readily treat with higher level characters, at least in many games).

Its the bold part that makes me think you have no clue when responding to what I posted.

I was responding to James, not you, Jeff. Sorry for the confusion. Guess that's a reason to quote.

I feel the need to add that I've never been a big fan of old-school level drains myself - I fall into the 'they're more hassle than fun' camp. I just don't think it's a black-and-white issue.

Quote from: CalithenaI was responding to James, not you, Jeff. Sorry for the confusion. Guess that's a reason to quote.

Honest mistake. I apologize as well for being snippy.

As with a lot of 3.5 stuff, I think the rule is fine. I thinkn it actually is an improvement over the past in that it gives me a nice tool to work with. The problem lies in the culture that has grown up around 3.5, one in which CR and related issues are taken to be normative. Players do argue the appropriateness of the CRs, and at least some do expect challenges to be measured according to CR. It's the same with magic. You needn't load up a campaign with magic. Just because the rules lay out the prospects for a magic walmart doesn't mean you have to do it. But some players expect it. They argue that if the characters don't have x amount of magic on them then the game is out of balance, etc. It's shit, and it's tiresome. But it's shit that comes not from the rules themselves so much as from a certain way of reading the rules.