Why do people pretend CR makes sense?

[mmu1]

Is it because there's no other easy alternative? Because it saves argument about how much XP you're handing out, and whether you're appropriately challenging the party? Because you think it's still useful enough despite being so... vague..., to use the nicest term I can think of?

I'm not trying to judge anyone (no one is making me play the game in a way I don't want to, etc., etc.) but some of the stuff I've seen in CR-related discussions just boggles my mind. To paraphrase some of it:

"Just slap some non-associated sorcerer levels on it. So its CR only goes up by X, but you can have it buff itself before the fight, and..."

"Give it some extra HD, but not so many that it hits the next CR bracket."

"They're outsider HD, so technically, they can be unassociated, even though it has a good BAB..."

"A 10th level PC is not the same thing as a CR 10 monster, anyway." (demonstrably true in many cases, but isn't that a problem that needs fixing, not exploiting?)

It just makes no sense to me... All this advice on how to make something considerably tougher, without having to raise the CR. Why? You know you're making the monster or NPC a greater challenge - in fact, it's the point of the exercise - but hiding behind the rules to pretend you're not? If you're doing it, then you know there are holes in the logic of the rules - it's what you're relying on, in fact... And presumably, if you're doing NPC or monster design, you're the GM - so you don't need to try to find loopholes in the rules, since you're the one in charge.

 

[Gargoyle]

CR/EL makes about as much sense as any other system I've seen for balancing encounters. D&D is as much of an art as a science in this area.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

So, players are the only ones allowed to be munchkiny, min-maxing rules lawyers, and us poor DM's just have to sit there and take it?

If you are going to use CR/EL as the arbiter of XP disbursement and want to do so fairly by-the-book, then there is nothing wrong with 'abusing' the aspects you mentioned to make a critter tougher (or weaker) than it's CR would indicate. The CRs are estimated based upon the canonical party. If you're allowing lots of new base classes, splatbooks, 32-point-buy, and so forth, a standard CR is going to be easier for that party than a bunch of PHB-only, 25-point-buy characters.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Bingo, which is why it shouldnt be used as a basis for mechanics (knight's challenge, truenamer utterances, etc).

 

[Psion]

Because CR is a rough measure, and as much as you may want it, a more exhaustive system would be elusive and give a poor trade off for the effort invested? I mean, can you picture a system with tables upon tables quantifying if X is a good feat for a monster of class Y? It would be tedious, unmanageable, and likely still innacurate.

Frankly, I was pretty impressed that they made a pretty fair cut and dried assessment of the potency adding certain class levels add to creature CR without getting overly complicated.

 

[Rhun]

I've found the CRs and ELs can only be used for rough estimates. Not a big deal, though, since I've always thought that part of the GM's job was to know his players and their characters, and be able to design appropriately challengin encounters.

 

[Whisper72]

Well... kinda like political systems. Democracy sucks, but it's the best system around. So is the ECL/CR system. It is in any case completely impossible to use a critter CR as a good indication of the actual challenge. The environmental factors are so important in deciding whether something is a real challenge that any codification can only be anything like a rough measure.

Kinda think of it as a sorted list to choose critters from when designing your adventure. That is all I use it for. I do not even use it for XP hand-outs, those are 'completely arbitrary', based on DM fiat, i.e. my estimation of how the players and PC's handled things and what I think they deserve to get for that. Never had any complaints... (and any complaints have been squased using excessive force)

 

[Nalfeshnee]

Ive always wondered how on earth a 5th level human fighter can be the same CR as a monster with spellcasting abilities and (mre often than not) 6-8 hp and gods know what other spell-like abilities.

having said that, i use CR religiously all CR is meant to be is a simple gauge of how well/badly the party would do against a certain creature. Onl the DM knows his players' abilities and he should adjust CRs and ELs accordingly

 

[mmu1]

Because CR is a rough measure, and as much as you may want it, a more exhaustive system would be elusive and give a poor trade off for the effort invested? I mean, can you picture a system with tables upon tables quantifying if X is a good feat for a monster of class Y.

I don't think a "system" is the answer, since there's no way it could accurately account for all the variables, and as you point out, the effort involved would be too great.

Then again, I'm not really asking how to use the CR system (I very rarely do, and I tend to modify and/or design monsters from scratch a lot - which works out just fine most of the time, with the groups I play with), just wondering why people don't more often say "it's a rough guideline, I'll just do what I think will work best", and instead go with "how can I make the letter of the rules fit what I feel like doing".

 

[Stalker0]

Considering we use a system that can model gods and dogs with the same numbers, and that attempt to boils down all of the possible combinations of both players with their feats, prcs, and abilities and monsters with their own list of power and abilities to a single number....I think the CR system does remarkably well.