Why do people pretend CR makes sense?

[Raven Crowking]

As a practical matter, the longer you duck answering the questions the more clear it becomes that there is a genuine difference that matters.

Well, of course there is. Presentation matters quite a bit.

However, your "pop quiz" asked:

(1) You are DMing 4 7th level PCs. You want too give them 2 separate combats today -- something not too taxing but not a complete walkover either. How much XP worth of monster do you throw at them?

(2) You are DMing 4 7th level PCs. You want too give them 2 separate combats today -- something not too taxing but not a complete walkover either. How much CR worth of monster do you throw at them?​

Were I claiming that XP and CR are equivilent, then you would have a point. However, that was not my claim. My claim is that CR is a gussied up version of Monster Levels, and that it is no easier to use than Monster Levels. Both require some guesswork, and some knowledge of the system being used.

In the case of Monster Levels, XP gives you the means to determine ML. However, you do not need to look at XP to determine ML...you can look in the DMG. In the case of CR, guessing gives you the means to determine CR, but CR gives you means to determine XP.

Presentation in 3.X is worlds better, and allows you to use the content more quickly, even if the content is similar.

However, your "pop quiz" is a strawman. As was, I am certain, intended.

RC

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

eyebeams,

I recognize that there are downsides to the CR as a bit of a package deal for monsters. I think that an accounting of each ability used is trying too hard to be precise.

IMHO it is better for the DM to be aware that it is inherent to some scenarios that a particular monster will be more or less effective. Modify the effective encounter level by plus or minus 1 or 2 and call that close enough.

If it is not obvious based on the rough scenario that the monster has an advantage or disadvantage, then I think you will end up nickel and diming PCs for being too effective and playing smart. Or even rewarding them for stupidity.

I am playing in one party that is pretty kooky. I have never seen such a high skill party before and we are constantly ambushing the bejesus out of our foes. We are buffed to the gills and hammering flatfooted enemies the majority of the time. But you know what? In a "fair fight" we would kinda suck. And sometimes the opening round does not go quite as well as we might hope and it devolves (from our POV) into a fair fight.

We are not going to see a lot of special abilities because those particular critters (at least some of them) are dead before the end of round 1. But we suffer more greatly than other more normal parties when the battle drags out or the 1st round luck turns against us.

Putting your eggs into one basket should be its own reward for the PCs. Should they get less XP when specialized tactics happen to succeed and especially dangerous opponents are eliminated quickly?

 

[Nightfall]

Not really, a few fireballs and the creature will be dead.

Yeah people forget about fireballs Crothy.

*btw Ridley no shennagins on this post!* but if it goes past 5 it might!

 

[Agent Oracle]

Not really, a few fireballs and the creature will be dead.

But what's a CR 10 monster from CoC?

I'm pretty sure Shoggoths have more hit dice than, say, a rakhasa? (Still can't find my book!)

Also: CoC players get Pistols (2d6 damage at range) and Shotguns, and dynamite... really, I think CoC players have a higher damage infliction capability (at low levels at least) because of technological advantages...

Not that it matters, since SAN will be drained away long before they make it to CR 10 encounters.

 

[Nightfall]

They only LOOK like they have more HD. Plus the fact they don't have the abilities of Rakashakas in D&D.