Alternatives to CR

What's your gripe with CR?

>>52439068
Monster level.

How do you mean, OP?

And there's always knuckling down and doing some math to work out the general capabilities of your party and comparing them to monsters to figure out what's suitable. Average attack rolls vs defences, average damage vs HP, the ability to inflict and resist various forms of debilitating effect.

Initially crunching the numbers can be a pain, and you need to update it every level/significant gain in power, but if you're not going to be using or trusting whatever abstract value a system gives you for the threat a monster presents, it's the only way to go about it.

>>52440434
Gosh, I guess that means playing 3e or 5e is pretty stupid.

>>52439068
4e monster levels but that requires balance.

>>52439068
No. Everything is situational, so trying to nail down a precise 'this monster is X levels of dangerous' is always going to be shaky.

>>52440460
Well... duh?

>>52441324
But 4e uses pretty much the same encounter design as if you had CR (pick encounter difficult, fill up with XP derived from level/CR of monsters)

>>52439068
Yeah, its called max damage estimates and average damage estimates. Why the fuck do you need anything else? I dont know. Max damage estimates are good to avoid party wipes, average damage estimates are good to control challenge.

>>52444785
I'm new to the whole tabletop scene. Explain MDE and ADE to me.

>>52446313
Not the guy your replying to

How about you figure it out from the names...

I mean, why not just build the scenario so that the party has a failsafe? Im not saying make it obvious but also just don't be a tool and throw them a dragon at low level.

>>52446572
What kind of failsafe can you provide that doesn't obviate the point of a bunch of low-level schmucks fighting whatever they're fighting, and doesn't remove all danger?

>>52446581
enviromental puzzles for one or a weakpoint on a large monster that they need to look for. Have you seriously gotten to the state that you need a set of rules for everything? Hell just encourage the party to do things like 'go for the eyes'. One of my players favorite fights was in DH against a servitor that was impervious to small arms they had to lure it into certain points on the map and then use a console to cut that armor off. They couldn't just kill it they needed to use their brains, and handle the fight carefully, they came out alive but, it did cost them.

>>52446665
I'm trying to figure out how this constitutes a 'failsafe' rather than a basic component of the encounter. How do you ensure the PCs don't use this environmental puzzle right off, even if they don't need it?

>>52446677
you dont point it out? Like why is this such a hard concept? You set the scene and let them parse out the information they're given. If they're facing a tough enemy or having a hard time encourage them to make a spot check or make note of enemy behavior. say something like ' The iron golem, impervious to your puny blades seems has you in a spot; behind you awaits a pool of water and before you it swings its heavy blade.' Players aren't brainless they'll realize they can use the water to their advantage if they're not total gits.

>>52439068
Well, CR isn't a decent alternative itself, so...

>>52446665
>Have you seriously gotten to the state that you need a set of rules for everything?
So there wasn't even a point to us statting out characters in the first place, given that winning is going to hinge on a game of Mother May I?

>>52446714
Yes, but in that case you're basically adding new features to the encounter if the players are having difficulty- you're literally metagaming and deciding not to give them all information unless you think they need it.

>>52444716
I the broadest strokes, yes, but 4e's encounter design was built to be very easy to use - you can crank out interesting and varied encounters while staying balanced.

You can compare it with the CR of both 3e and 5e and see how terrible the design is, how things like the basilisk are not rated at all with any understanding of how powerful they are, which makes them easy to misuse and even used 'correctly' it makes a very boring one-note encounter.

>>52446420
Who pissed in your cheerios this morning? I just said I was new to tabletop as a whole.

>>52449618
It's basic math dude. What does maximum mean? Average? What does damage mean? Do you know how to calculate an average or a maximum?

>>52446714
If I omitted important environmental elements from the initial map and/or description of an area, my players would rightly flip shit.
What you're proposing is on-the-fly retcons at best, and outright denying player characters clear and obvious information at worst.