Show Posts
1
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 3.5: You Must Be This Tall to Ride the Ride
« on: April 08, 2012, 02:56:50 PM »
Sounds like an interesting project in the works, always good to see actual numbers being crunched. Also appreciate Ziegander approaching this divisive topic so civilly.
Here's my issue: The CR system sucks. It fails to account for differences in power and versatility between class/feat/spell choices, which is kind of the point of this discussion. But it also ignores differences in tactical ability, system mastery and party composition, not to mention the rock-paper-scissors way in which monster and character abilities can interact. It is not hard for a competent GM to crush even a decently optimized and played party with a CR-appropriate encounter, should he decide to do so, simply by metagaming and playing to the party's weaknesses. I don't hear anyone advocating this kind of adversarial GMing, but as GM fiat plays such a heavy role in determining encounter difficulty (it is equally easy to throw a CR-appropriate softball encounter to Team Gimp) I find it hard to accept the CR system as a basis for objective character standards.
There must be some objective standard, as otherwise the game is Magical Tea Party and not Dungeons & Dragons, but I would set it at an extremely low level. I'd put the 'armless archers' and unoptimized Truenamers of the world below the acceptable threshold because their abilities just don't function. However, I'd let an unoptimized Bard 4/Cleric 4 onboard the ride because even in a theoretical houserule-free game I believe there is a reasonable expectation that the GM will base encounters around the actual abilities of the players. This can require deviating from CR guidelines if PCs are exceptionally strong or weak for their level, but that doesn't necessarily make it a houserule:
While a difference in GM worldbuilding style shouln't really be called a houserule, the last line leads me to believe that tailored encounters (with a smattering of status-quo ones thrown in) should be considered the default expectation in D&D. I just don't see how any objective standard beyond basic functionality can apply in such a case.
Here's my issue: The CR system sucks. It fails to account for differences in power and versatility between class/feat/spell choices, which is kind of the point of this discussion. But it also ignores differences in tactical ability, system mastery and party composition, not to mention the rock-paper-scissors way in which monster and character abilities can interact. It is not hard for a competent GM to crush even a decently optimized and played party with a CR-appropriate encounter, should he decide to do so, simply by metagaming and playing to the party's weaknesses. I don't hear anyone advocating this kind of adversarial GMing, but as GM fiat plays such a heavy role in determining encounter difficulty (it is equally easy to throw a CR-appropriate softball encounter to Team Gimp) I find it hard to accept the CR system as a basis for objective character standards.
There must be some objective standard, as otherwise the game is Magical Tea Party and not Dungeons & Dragons, but I would set it at an extremely low level. I'd put the 'armless archers' and unoptimized Truenamers of the world below the acceptable threshold because their abilities just don't function. However, I'd let an unoptimized Bard 4/Cleric 4 onboard the ride because even in a theoretical houserule-free game I believe there is a reasonable expectation that the GM will base encounters around the actual abilities of the players. This can require deviating from CR guidelines if PCs are exceptionally strong or weak for their level, but that doesn't necessarily make it a houserule:
(click to show/hide)
While a difference in GM worldbuilding style shouln't really be called a houserule, the last line leads me to believe that tailored encounters (with a smattering of status-quo ones thrown in) should be considered the default expectation in D&D. I just don't see how any objective standard beyond basic functionality can apply in such a case.
