• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

CR System--> :) or :( ?

LokiDR

First Post
Some nice comments all round. But what about the more specific rules on CR? For example, 15% of all encounters should be "very difficult and running may be the parties best option" This is from the DMG, about page 102 (I forget the exact location).

Also, is using a character's level as a CR viable. Monsters may be well tested, but what about an, I don't know, 7th level monk with 19000gp in stuff? Should this be considered on same par as CR7 monster? Does it work at some levels and not at others?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

malichai

First Post
Help me understand CR's a bit better... If you're running a party of 5 level 7 PCs, they should be able to defeat 5 CR 7 creatures using approximately 100% of their resources?
 

DynaMup

First Post
I like the CR system, purely because it gives me a quick, simple guide as to how challenging a monster is. One of my biggest gripes with the old 2nd edition system was the sheer number of "big" stats that got thrown around at higher levels, and the CR system gets rid of a lot of this.

I've only tested it out with characters between levels 1-10, as this is the sort of range where I prefer most of my games - and I think it works fine. As for the "recommended" percentages of encounters, as always, I say just use it as a guide. I don't like always having one "massive" encounter in a session, because it feels more like a computer game - having to face an end-of-level-baddie or something crap like that. As always, do what you feel is best. Don't go sticking in a CR 8 monster in a 1st-level adventure because you feel you -ought- to.
 

arwink

Clockwork Golem
I loved the system, but I recently found it it'd made me lazy. I used to evaluate and balance my enounters, or the encounters in modules, against what I thought my party could handle. Then, with 3e, I just started cross-referencing EL with party level and letting that do all the work.

And about 90% of the time, this is fine. Then you throw one psion-killer backed up by a trio of mind flayers at a spell-caster/psionics heavyparty with no tank fighters, no heavy magical weaponry and no real way of standing up to a creature that negates spells and psioncs and deals out 22 to 42 points of domage every round.

Killed the campaign, and the group kinda disintergrated afterwards (Whic wasn't all the fault of the TPK, but the TPK definately sped up the problem).

Now I'm back to evaluating the encounter. I still use the EL system, but I make sure I'm the final arbiter of balance.
 

DrSkull

First Post
My first 3e campaign I used CR's and El's pretty faithfully for the prepared dungeon encounters, but for encounters in the above-ground world I used whatever seemed appropriate.

But when I started my new camapgin, I decided to just chuck the whole business. I use the monsters I think the players can handle and give them a set EXP reward at the end of each game session. It works just fine for me and is faster and easier, again for me.
 

Celebrim

Legend
On the whole I find the CR/EL system to be quite good, but it of course has a few oddities. TiQuinn says it well. Just because a monster has a given CR, doesn't mean that all parties will find it equally challenging. Nor should they, IMO.

I do feel that once you get away from CR and start computing EL or otherwise playing with the system, that some ammount of DM subjective fudging is in order. For instance, it is not gauranteed that doubling the HD of any two given monsters will increase the challenge by the same ammount. Some monsters with double hit dice are only slightly more challenging than before. Others when doubled elimenate many of the weaknesses that made them low CR monsters and become quite fearsome. Similarly, doubling the number of creatures does not necessarily increase the EL by two against parties of any given level. This is adressed in a limited fashion in the DMG when they discuss doubling the number of Orcs, and whether or not multiple Orcs remain challenging at higher levels. In general, they rightly assert that they do not, but they don't go on to discuss why or in what circumstances doubling the number of monsters will produce scalable challenges.

I find, in general, if the CR of the monster is below the level of the party, doubling the number of monsters increases EL by one - not by two. Doubling the number of monsters with a CR equal or higher that the level of the party does increase the EL by two. This is because monsters of much lower CR than the parties level lack the ability to regularly penetrate the parties defences, and can be wiped out quickly (if needed) with area of effect spells. You would expect this because the DMG suggests that a party should be able to handle a large number of encounters with EL's two or more lower than the parties level without significantly reducing the parties resources. However, thier are exceptions to this. Some monsters of relatively low CR have abilities that remain dangerous to higher level characters, and which stack well with other like monsters. For instance, incorporeal monsters with touch attacks (like shadows or wraiths) will get by the defences of even high level parties fairly regularly. In fact, any touch attack is likely to remain dangerous - lantern archons and arrowhawks for instance. Relatively weak monsters with breath weapons and spells (like mephits) can with numbers do irratating ammounts of damage to even relatively high level parties. Low CR monsters with exceptionally high strengths (like dire monsters, the bigger vermin, or ogres) can in sufficient numbers continue to be a challenge to parties well into the mid levels because they can overcome AC so easily. Any creature that provokes a nasty save that stacks with other such creatures (that is successfully saving against one does not protect against the others) like vargoilles, rust monsters, or even monstrous spiders will continue to be a sourse of fear to higher level characters if you continue to increase the numbers.
 
Last edited:

Psion

Adventurer
Truly playtested CR for monsters as they exist in the MM: :)

In my experience, a well considered and playtested CR can be a much better gauge of the threat of a creature than just "eyeballing it." Time and again, when I have assigned a higher than recommended CR to a group thinking "they can handle it", I've found that I was wrong.

In general, the CR system works pretty well so long as you are mindful of sticking points relating to party and creature capabilities (like DR.)

CR thumbrules for characters: :(

The thumbrules for CRs of classed creatures very often overestimates the capabilities of character. A 10th level commoner is not a match for a 9th level party. Likewise, creatures with lots of HD and abilities who add a few class levels rarely stack up to their supposed CR. Finally, unless well supported, the CR for single members of specific classes faced by a party has many holes in it. The CR thumbrules are pretty shaky.
 

LokiDR

First Post
Psion said:
CR thumbrules for characters: :(

The thumbrules for CRs of classed creatures very often overestimates the capabilities of character. A 10th level commoner is not a match for a 9th level party. Likewise, creatures with lots of HD and abilities who add a few class levels rarely stack up to their supposed CR. Finally, unless well supported, the CR for single members of specific classes faced by a party has many holes in it. The CR thumbrules are pretty shaky.

the problem is that the NPC classes add 1/2 CR, so a commoner 10 is a CR 5. That seems to make sense. But what about PC classes? I would put most spell casters above their level in CR, at least >=12th level. I would put the fighter types below their level at low levels, about equal at mid levels, and slightly above at high levels. This assumes PC race with PC amount of money. Thoughts?
 

Hakkenshi

First Post
The thumbrules for CRs of classed creatures very often overestimates the capabilities of character. A 10th level commoner is not a match for a 9th level party. Likewise, creatures with lots of HD and abilities who add a few class levels rarely stack up to their supposed CR. Finally, unless well supported, the CR for single members of specific classes faced by a party has many holes in it. The CR thumbrules are pretty shaky.

In my experience, NO class of level 10 is a suitable challenge for a level 9 party. I entirely agree that those rules (or guidelines) do not make sense. If a level 10 character is a CR 10, why is it that he doesn't really consume 1/5 the resources of a level 10 party? Because having 1/4 the number of attacks, HP, etc. is too much of a gap, that's why. Spellcasters hold up better, that's true (especially with Haste), but they're still not a sufficient challenge. And the closer the characters get to level 20, the less a single NPC can actually be a challenge.

Whereas a level 2 character can severely challenge a level one party. Up until about level 5, that system of one or two levels more seems to work. After that it falls apart.

And adding class levels to creatures doesn't help NEARLY as much as adding a template. I love those so much that some players are getting suspicious with every tough creature they fight.

"Does it have uncharacteristic horns or reddish scaly skin?" :D
 
Last edited:

Psion

Adventurer
Hakkenshi said:
In my experience, NO class of level 10 is a suitable challenge for a level 9 party.

Actually, I mispoke. "Match" is the wrong word. An equal EL is supposed to be a "suitable encounter" for a party of the same level, i.e., consumes 20% resources. But when it comes to commoners and experts, you really cannot expect them to match a creature of their supposed CR -- the thumbrule doesn't work.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top