5e combat system too simple / boring?

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't mention AD&D.

I did.

It wasn't exactly the same no. That's nitpicky.
But at it's heart, the 4e level system and the 3e/5e CR system were about determining the appropriate challenge of monsters. You can look at a level 5 monster and a CR 5 monster and know they're appropriate for a level 5 party, easy for a level 6 party, and harder for a level 4 party.

That was kind of the heart of the complaint I was addressing: that you couldn't. A 3.x CR 5 monster was meant to be a 'speed bump' challenge for a level 5 party, by itself. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't (in either direction). Two CR 5 monsters were supposed to be a similar challenge for a level 7 party, and 4 for a level 9. That got even less certain.

4e could have easily (easily) had CR11 solo and CR11 minions.

But, if all you looked at was that hypothetical CR, you'd have some CR 11 monsters that put up a tough fight, and some that folded instantly, and you'd be wondering how anyone could published such an fdup sub-system. CR, alone, can't do everything 3.5 expected of it.

5e doesn't quite depend as exclusively on CR, either. There are some monsters of a given CR that have a lot more hps than others - 'bosses.' And, there are Legendary monsters. So you have some nuance beyond just that one CR number.

True... but I could say the same thing about "level" in 4e. If I change and house rule the game, level just provides a rough guideline.

Always the case, if you feel the need to, and especially if you do so unadvisedly. 4e, for all the controversy and edition warring, though, was a fairly clear little system, and didn't really cry out for house rules, re-skinning was very often all you needed. 5e, OTOH, cries out for 'rulings' from the get-go, it's very DM-Empowering, that way, which is one of it's greatest strengths. It also makes any 'guidelines' pretty rough, because you're going to be making rulings that'll essentially fine-tune 'em, anyway. In essence, 5e doesn't need CR to be dependable as level/role was, just like it doesn't need mechanical class balance, because all that is stuff the DM is free to work with, himself, and tune to the needs of his players & campaign.

And from what I've heard (and experienced) of 4e, level was a pretty rough guide of the challenge of encounters as well. My party ripped through some pretty hard high-level encounters.

Nod, more dependable than either version of CR, but still just a guideline: player choices, the environs of the battle, and how the DM chose to run the enemies could all make a big difference.

 

[Jester David]

That was kind of the heart of the complaint I was addressing: that you couldn't. A 3.x CR 5 monster was meant to be a 'speed bump' challenge for a level 5 party, by itself. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't (in either direction). Two CR 5 monsters were supposed to be a similar challenge for a level 7 party, and 4 for a level 9. That got even less certain.

And in 4e, the Target Encounter XP four level 5 PCs was 1000. Which was two level 10 monsters or one level 14 monster. Or 10 level 1 monsters. Neither would be as effective and satisfying a fight as five level 5 monsters.
Even then, without a nice mix of roles (such as the five Encounter Templates in the DMG) just having five monsters might not be an appropriate challenge.

The 3e system was twitchy. Especially when adding opponents and calculating CR. The 4e system was hampered by the rate of bonuses. The 5e system can produce swingy fights (and monsters).
No system is perfect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Target Encounter XP four level 5 PCs was 1000. Which was two level 10 monsters or one level 14 monster. Or 10 level 1 monsters. Neither would be as effective and satisfying a fight as five level 5 monsters.

More of the point I just made, yes: If you just looked at level, or if you just looked at exp value, or if you just looked at secondary roles you'd get a less dependable result, even an awful one. If you took all of them into account, it'd be much more reliable. Consider a mix of primary roles, budget some exp to traps/hazards to create a hostile battlefield or a skill challenge to add a critical in-combat objective, and you had a more nuanced challenge.

CR in 3.x/PF or 5e is comparable to just looking at level. It won't get you consistent results. With 5e, for instance, it's particularly critical to apply that multiplier for not outnumbering the enemy sufficiently, so you can use an exp budget as well as CR (plus it has Legendary creatures). CR, by itself (as in 3.5), a lone statistic, just falls short.

No system is perfect.

All other systems don't have to be flawless to cogently discuss one of them.

 

[MechaPilot]

Level and CR are effectively the exact same thing.

I have to take issue with that for one specific reason: effectiveness. In my experience, 4e's levels were more accurate than 3e's CRs.

I also have to disagree about the reason they went with CRs relating to the fractional CRs. All of the fractional CRs could have been rolled into CR 1, with the Xp value doing the work of the fraction.

 

[Jester David]

I have to take issue with that for one specific reason: effectiveness. In my experience, 4e's levels were more accurate than 3e's CRs.

Just because one works and one doesn't, doesn't mean they're not the same thing. THAC0, BAB, and proficiency bonus to attacks are also effectively the same thing. THAC0 doesn't cease to be a method of determining hit resolution just because there are more effective methods, and neither does CR cease to be a method of determining the challenge of monsters.

I also have to disagree about the reason they went with CRs relating to the fractional CRs. All of the fractional CRs could have been rolled into CR 1, with the Xp value doing the work of the fraction.

No. Sorry, but that's confusing. Because the challenge of those monsters isn't the same.

And that just means you're looking at the xp value rather than the CR (since, at that point, it could vary for any monster). Really, why have CR at that point? And then we're back to AD&D... Which would work and mean only a single place to look rather than two, but it's harder for new DMs to know that "Y xp means an appropriate challenge for level 1 PCs" while you need two monsters of Z xp to challenge that same party.
Even without consulting the encounter chart in the DM you can guess a challenge 1 monster is a good single fight for four level 1 PCs while you need four CR 1/4 monsters.

 

[MechaPilot]

No. Sorry, but that's confusing. Because the challenge of those monsters isn't the same.

And that just means you're looking at the xp value rather than the CR (since, at that point, it could vary for any monster). Really, why have CR at that point? And then we're back to AD&D... Which would work and mean only a single place to look rather than two, but it's harder for new DMs to know that "Y xp means an appropriate challenge for level 1 PCs" while you need two monsters of Z xp to challenge that same party.
Even without consulting the encounter chart in the DM you can guess a challenge 1 monster is a good single fight for four level 1 PCs while you need four CR 1/4 monsters.

The challenge isn't the same, that's why the Xp reward would be different. The CR would be there to indicate the minimum level that a party should be when encountering the creature (in case you care about creating balanced encounters).

 

[Jester David]

The challenge isn't the same, that's why the Xp reward would be different. The CR would be there to indicate the minimum level that a party should be when encountering the creature (in case you care about creating balanced encounters).

It's still less intuitive. If I see a monster is worth 5,000 xp for encounter building, I don't know if it's appropriate for my party without checking the table in the DMG.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No. Sorry, but that's confusing. Because the challenge of those monsters isn't the same.

The challenge already isn't the same. For example, goblins are harder than orcs in a typical dungeon environment (lots of dim light and hiding places), but the orcs are CR 1/2 and the goblins are CR 1/4. The CR is already 'wrong' from a difficulty perspective, so you already have to know your party and the monster stats instead of relying on CR.

Goblins are only easier than orcs if someone knows Sleep.

 

[Xeviat]

Not sure if it's been addressed, but 4E wouldn't have a party of level 5 characters fight a level 14 opponent, even if it fit the XP Budget; 4E used solo monsters, who were x5 stronger than normal, instead of having you fight something so much higher. A level 14 opponent would have a +9 attack, AC, and Defense bonus over the level 5 characters, and be nearly impossible to hurt or hit.

 

[iserith]

The challenge already isn't the same. For example, goblins are harder than orcs in a typical dungeon environment (lots of dim light and hiding places), but the orcs are CR 1/2 and the goblins are CR 1/4. The CR is already 'wrong' from a difficulty perspective, so you already have to know your party and the monster stats instead of relying on CR.

Goblins are only easier than orcs if someone knows Sleep.

For what it's worth, if the goblins have an advantage that the PCs do not - such as easy hiding places or the ability to see in the dark - then we're told the difficulty steps up by one grade (DMG, page 84-85).

There also seems to be some conflation of challenge and difficulty in this exchange. Difficulty in D&D 5e is determined via the adjusted XP value. Whether or not a given monster is an appropriate challenge for a given party level is stated via the CR, "appropriate" here meaning "not too hard, not too easy."

This is not to say the difficulty level predicted by the numbers is actually accurate when the rubber hits the road, however. What's more, difficulty changes based on the players' decisions (or should).