D&D 5E Serious gamers and new CR formula

[shoak1]

So there has been enough threads that detail the woes of the CR system in 5e to know that there is a problem, at least for serious gamers that want a real challenge, not a cake walk. Back in 3.5 and 4e, I would go about 1-3 ELs higher than party level for routine encounters and 3-4 levels higher than party level for boss encounters. So I'm interested in opinions from other serious gamers on how to gauge difficulty levels of encounters from current CR ratings. Here are the assumptions:

1) Playing w/low magic items as per written game
2) Playing w/feats and multiclassing
3) Playing 6-8 encounters per day
4) Equal player/DM skill levels
5) 4 PCs
6) average luck both sides

Thinking back thru my previous encounters, I would estimate my group (4x level 10s) can handle 5-7 CR14s as warm up encounters, with a CR 16 as boss fight at end of day (as 8th encounter). And I would say +15% more CRs per extra PC (we often have 5-7 players). If the party is fresh off full rest and know they can pop all their pills in an encounter (not 6-8 encounters that day), I would probably throw CR 20 at them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why you gotta imply that people who think CR works for what it is meant to do aren't "serious gamers" and that they don't want "a real challenge"?

Here's how I suggest analyzing difficulty if you are looking for more potent challenges:

Step 1: Look at CR as being the highest level at which the party should face that creature if they outnumber it.
Step 2: Go to the encounter building section of the DMG, see that "Deadly" encounters are the only ones that are meant to come with a serious risk of losing the fight and of some characters dying, and in response use the XP budget for "Deadly" encounters as your "should be around this amount, or higher, for each encounter."

The numbers already in the game tell you exactly what you want, if you just use them the way 5th edition explains they are meant to be used.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just ignore CR completely is my advice.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CapnZapp]

Looking at the actual attacks, defenses and special abilities of monsters are helpful.

Do that instead and forget that CRs and encounter building procedures even exist.

 

[iserith]

If you're going to use CR, AaronOfBarbaria has the right of it in my view.

That said, I put monsters in a challenge based on my gut feeling of the difficulty (taking into account all of the monsters' abilities and situational advantages not just CR), how fun I think it will be, and how it will contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. Only then do I look at the numbers to see where it falls. If the difficulty is way off from what I was thinking, I'll give it another look, frequently overriding it. If it's in the area of what I was thinking, then I call it good and move on.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I always wonder what people consider a "real challenge" in Pen&Paper. I mean, does it require the DM to try his best to get the party killed? Or should the monsters be so hard that no matter how dumb the DM plays them, he can't prevent a TPK unless the PCs play smart?

 

[BlueDrake]

The system is setup so most fights cause resource attrition, not threaten the players lives. Try having the recommended number of encounters between rests and they will become more challenging.

If the players only have one fight per rest and get to blow all their best spells and abilities on it then it isn't going to be challenging if it's the "correct" CR for that group. I bet many of the people who think CR doesn't work aren't following the recommended encounters per day.

For the OP who is having a lot of encounters per day; go ahead an up it if you think it's too easy. You may have really good players, or you may not be using the monsters to best effect. Either way if the players are bored then throw them greater challenges.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*