Challenge Rating and Monster Manuals

Greenfield said:

So what prompted this generosity on the DM's part? I pointed out that our party of 5 level one and level 2 characters had faced five CR 2s, which is a formula for a TPK, even if the "CR2s" aren't from MM III.

He questioned that, so I counted them off: Two at the entrance and three inside with no recovery time in between.

Click to expand...

Ah. It's worth noting that two separate encounters like that, even with no chance to rest between them, is still easier than a single encounter with all five creatures at once. That's an EL 4 encounter followed by an EL 5, rather than being a single EL 6/7 - two "very difficult" encounters rather than one "deadly".

It's also worth noting that the structure of the expected "adventuring day" changed over the course of 3e's lifespan - when the edition was first launched it was assumed parties would face four "challenging" (EL = party level) encounters per day, but it was quickly discovered that parties would instead nova in one or two encounters and then rest (the 15-minute adventuring day). Consequently, the trend was very much towards fewer, much tougher encounters.

(And it's also true that the escalation in CLs in later volumes of the MM was in response to greater optimisation amongst PCs as the edition went on - and in particular the adoption of the policy that PCs could, and would, buy their magic items, rather then find random items as they adventure. Of course, this has the effect of making CRs totally, rather than just mostly, useless. )

So, actually, it doesn't seem quite as awful as previously appeared to be the case.

Oh, I agree that it's easier when the timing provides the "Divide" part of "Divide and conquer".

D&D 3.* is about choices. Of all the versions I've played, it gives players the most control over how their character develops. Skill choices, feats and feat trees, spell and weapon choices, prestige classes and multi classing options open an incredible variety of options as characters develop.

At 1st and second level, however, using PHB only, that broad spectrum of options isn't very broad. PCs break really easy and recovery between encounters on the same day is very limited.

Add in a DM who won't give information or allow RP approaches to encounters, and your options are even narrower. It comes down to a slugfest.

Bottom line, facing combat focused opponents with a "standard" party (i.e. not all melee monsters) at that level is a recipe for a body count.

Of the party, two PCs had hit points needed to be standing after one hit at average damage. Nobody would be standing after two.

Opponent was +6 to hit (+8 if there's another within 30 feet), which makes any given swing is very likely to hit PC armor classes. (Our high end was a 19, our low end was a 15).

Weapon was Greataxe, so D12 damage +3 (+5 if there's another within 30 feet). Average damage is 9.5 alone, 11.5 when facing several.

They also have a head butt as a secondary attack, +0 to hit (+2 when another...), and D6 +1 (+3 when accompanied). Less than certain to hit, but 6.5 average damage.

It got industrial strength ugly when one of them was Enlarged.

So we were more than happy to simply escape alive. (And yes, I know, Monstrous Humanoids aren't supposed to be subject to Enlarge Person.)

Greenfield said:

Add in a DM who won't give information or allow RP approaches to encounters, and your options are even narrower. It comes down to a slugfest.

...

It got industrial strength ugly when one of them was Enlarged.

So we were more than happy to simply escape alive. (And yes, I know, Monstrous Humanoids aren't supposed to be subject to Enlarge Person.)

Click to expand...

I'll certainly agree that these are weaknesses in the DM's handling of the situation.