D&D 5E do CRs seem a bit arbitrary?

Kamikaze Midget said:

The price we paid for that tight budget was a decrease in the meaningful variation of options and a system that resisted dramatic swings in fate. Given the amount of complaints about 4e's "sameness" and its "draggy combat," it's pretty safe to say that not everyone was on board with paying that price.

Personally, I think CR does a fine job, because I expect my D&D combats to sometimes be wildly swingy. Sometimes the party cleric will roll good on turn undead and turn the zombie fight into a cakewalk, and that's fine, because it lets them be awesome for a moment. Sometimes, they'll roll low and save-or-suck effects will lead to the wizard's untimely demise. That's fine, because it makes the risk of failure very real. Greater precision in 4e didn't lead to a more fun game for me - in fact, I pursued measures fairly early on that restored the swinginess to the system for my own games.

Click to expand...

My point was not that it works absolutely perfectly for all possible styles of play. I was responding to someone who asserted that the nature of D&D as a game made it utterly impossible to have a system with any "consistency." 4e proves it is at least possible to have a consistent system.

I'd also argue that there is a difference between "variation of options," which I at least believe 4e had in spades, and "unpredictability of outcome," which I completely agree 4e actively fought against. If you want a system that will occasionally surprise you, the DM, as to how the encounter should work? You don't want 4e's budget system. You want something that is precisely like 5e's CR--that is, unreliable. It does not reliably tell you the encounter strength; the strength it tells you may be spot on, or may be radically different, and there's little way to know for sure which it will be in any given situation. It gives you a rough estimate, which may or may not actually pan out. Admittedly, the designers took at least some effort to consider important secondary effects, e.g. relative numbers and who has the more favorable terrain, I just don't feel it's enough.

Or, another way to put it: It is easy to ignore a reliable system if you want to be surprised. It is hard to achieve reliable results by tweaking an unreliable system.

Note, though, that "unreliable" should not be taken to mean totally useless. The CR system is not at all useless. It's just very squishy, and sensitive to more factors than I think it has to be sensitive to.

Roger said:

Grick has damage resistance to nonmagical weapons, which isn't quite as good as twice as many hit points, but it's sort of in that ballpark.

Click to expand...

I can't believe the thread made it to page 4 before somebody mentioned it. I read the first post, thought, "Oh, someone's going to point that out", then kept reading and waiting.

Usually, we D&D nerds are on point about the specific properties of every monster in the MM.

EzekielRaiden said:

My point was not that it works absolutely perfectly for all possible styles of play. I was responding to someone who asserted that the nature of D&D as a game made it utterly impossible to have a system with any "consistency." 4e proves it is at least possible to have a consistent system.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the way I parsed that was essentially "the nature of D&D as I play it makes it utterly impossible." Because the nature of D&D as a whole makes basically nothing impossible if you want it.

I'd also argue that there is a difference between "variation of options," which I at least believe 4e had in spades, and "unpredictability of outcome," which I completely agree 4e actively fought against. If you want a system that will occasionally surprise you, the DM, as to how the encounter should work? You don't want 4e's budget system. You want something that is precisely like 5e's CR--that is, unreliable. It does not reliably tell you the encounter strength; the strength it tells you may be spot on, or may be radically different, and there's little way to know for sure which it will be in any given situation. It gives you a rough estimate, which may or may not actually pan out. Admittedly, the designers took at least some effort to consider important secondary effects, e.g. relative numbers and who has the more favorable terrain, I just don't feel it's enough.

Click to expand...

First, "options" doesn't necessarily equal "variety." If I have 500 different flavors of "attack roll -> damage -> condition" that is a lot of options, but all the options are, at a high level, the same, which can lead to a feeling of "sameness" even if it's "attack vs. will, fire damage, and dazed" vs. "attack vs. fort, necrotic damage, and teleport myeslf 5 squares." At a tactical level, they are VERY different. At a strategic level, they are rather dully similar. I think we're on the same page about variety of outcome, and I also think that played into the "sameness," but I think it's important to note that more options doesn't necessarily work against that vibe.

Second, I question the value of added granularity to the CR system. If we start with 4e as a baseline, I'd ask why that...consistent....play experience is better than a more swingy and variable play experience. What is the benefit that gives to the people enjoying the game? How does it make it fun for them? I know what a more swingy experience brings to my table - more excitement, more engagement, less predictability, more delight - because I worked hard to bring those things back in 4e. About the only virtue I see in a more consistent experience is that it's kind of easier for the DM to predict where the game is going to go, but that's a conflicted virtue - there's a LOT of fun to be had in not knowing exactly where the game is going to go (but having a rough idea).

Or, another way to put it: It is easy to ignore a reliable system if you want to be surprised. It is hard to achieve reliable results by tweaking an unreliable system.

Note, though, that "unreliable" should not be taken to mean totally useless. The CR system is not at all useless. It's just very squishy, and sensitive to more factors than I think it has to be sensitive to.

Click to expand...

It wasn't so easy to ignore 4e's more reliable system, because it had significant ramifications on everything from the powers format to 4e-style ritual use to monster stats - everything was built from the ground up to be math wrapped in a chassis of fluff. The reliability was hard-coded into the very woof and weft of the thing.

It doesn't seem too hard to turn 5e's less reliable system into something more reliable - you just use the monster stats table and don't put in specific strengths and weaknesses and pay close attention to the monsters you're using (so that they're not swingy) and the encounter XP budget.

And I can see why, in the interest of play experience, they may have gone with a less reliable system intentionally.

Kamikaze Midget said:

First, "options" doesn't necessarily equal "variety." If I have 500 different flavors of "attack roll -> damage -> condition" that is a lot of options, but all the options are, at a high level, the same, which can lead to a feeling of "sameness" even if it's "attack vs. will, fire damage, and dazed" vs. "attack vs. fort, necrotic damage, and teleport myeslf 5 squares." At a tactical level, they are VERY different. At a strategic level, they are rather dully similar. I think we're on the same page about variety of outcome, and I also think that played into the "sameness," but I think it's important to note that more options doesn't necessarily work against that vibe.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how any version of D&D has managed to achieve substantially greater variation at the monster level, without resorting to (IMO) BS gotcha-tricks like rust monsters or the like--such "puzzle monsters" are only strategic until you solve the puzzle, at which point they're just "Activate Anti-(Monster X) Plan Alpha." That is, they (the non-puzzle monsters) all involve attacks or saves and deal damage or inflict some kind of undesirable status. Can you provide an example of one that wouldn't fit this pattern? I may just be brainfarting (I've been studying for a physics midterm all week, on top of Latin homework and a major programming report, so I'm not exactly running on all cylinders.)

Second, I question the value of added granularity to the CR system. If we start with 4e as a baseline, I'd ask why that...consistent....play experience is better than a more swingy and variable play experience. What is the benefit that gives to the people enjoying the game? How does it make it fun for them? I know what a more swingy experience brings to my table - more excitement, more engagement, less predictability, more delight - because I worked hard to bring those things back in 4e. About the only virtue I see in a more consistent experience is that it's kind of easier for the DM to predict where the game is going to go, but that's a conflicted virtue - there's a LOT of fun to be had in not knowing exactly where the game is going to go (but having a rough idea).

Click to expand...

Because DMs should be empowered in knowing the strength of the things they use. If they don't want to know that, they can do what they have always been able to do: make monsters in whatever way they see fit. The encounter design and monster design systems can be ignored if one doesn't want any of the things they provide. A lot of people want a system that means they don't have to worry, "Have I screwed over my players by accident?" *That* is where consistency is valuable. And if you don't want consistency...do whatever you want. Seriously, do whatever. Make random monster tables--that's a great way to circumvent any amount of system-derived consistency, because you never know whether you'll get the five-kobold curbstomp or the five-ogre TPK.

It wasn't so easy to ignore 4e's more reliable system, because it had significant ramifications on everything from the powers format to 4e-style ritual use to monster stats - everything was built from the ground up to be math wrapped in a chassis of fluff. The reliability was hard-coded into the very woof and weft of the thing.

Click to expand...

It was coded into player abilities, sure. I fail to see how DMs were forced to use monster stats as-is. There's an entire (and relatively popular, as I understand it) style of play dedicated to making 4e a vicious, more old-school-like experience; it was called Fourthcore. I believe their websites are defunct now, sadly, but if they could do it, anyone can do it.

It doesn't seem too hard to turn 5e's less reliable system into something more reliable - you just use the monster stats table and don't put in specific strengths and weaknesses and pay close attention to the monsters you're using (so that they're not swingy) and the encounter XP budget.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what half of these things mean. So in order for things to be reliable, they have to be completely bland (no strengths or weaknesses), and you have to be extremely careful about which monsters you use even after that? That hardly sounds "easy." It sounds a hell of a lot harder than just "make or use whatever monsters you like of whatever level." Which was precisely my point. DMs have always, from time immemorial, been able to make whatever the hell they like--the system exists to back them up, to provide them with tools to fall back on, as it were. If you want a lack of consistency, you don't want a system. You want--at very most--rules of thumb.

MortalPlague said:

I can't believe the thread made it to page 4 before somebody mentioned it. I read the first post, thought, "Oh, someone's going to point that out", then kept reading and waiting.

Usually, we D&D nerds are on point about the specific properties of every monster in the MM.

Click to expand...

It's a bad argument. The Gargoyle, also CR 2, also has resistance, but has 52 HP. It also has a fly speed of 60, something the Grick wishes it had, to chase down and consume those pesky new bird men that are popping up everywhere.

Compare the Bronze and Silver dragon wymlings for more CR 2 creatures, one better in every way than the other.

CR is a bit wonky in the monsters manual. People keep telling me that's because these monsters have been play tested, but I have my doubts. I wonder does anyone have a source for MM monsters being play tested?

CR's built with the DMG guidelines however seem to work out a lot better, although I haven't used any custom low level ones yet.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Second, I question the value of added granularity to the CR system. If we start with 4e as a baseline, I'd ask why that...consistent....play experience is better than a more swingy and variable play experience. What is the benefit that gives to the people enjoying the game? How does it make it fun for them? I know what a more swingy experience brings to my table - more excitement, more engagement, less predictability, more delight - because I worked hard to bring those things back in 4e. About the only virtue I see in a more consistent experience is that it's kind of easier for the DM to predict where the game is going to go, but that's a conflicted virtue - there's a LOT of fun to be had in not knowing exactly where the game is going to go (but having a rough idea).



It wasn't so easy to ignore 4e's more reliable system, because it had significant ramifications on everything from the powers format to 4e-style ritual use to monster stats - everything was built from the ground up to be math wrapped in a chassis of fluff. The reliability was hard-coded into the very woof and weft of the thing.

It doesn't seem too hard to turn 5e's less reliable system into something more reliable - you just use the monster stats table and don't put in specific strengths and weaknesses and pay close attention to the monsters you're using (so that they're not swingy) and the encounter XP budget.

And I can see why, in the interest of play experience, they may have gone with a less reliable system intentionally.

Click to expand...

@EzekielRaiden has answered this quite well (and I know I've done this on more than one occasion) but this position you're taking defies engineering 101.

Do you realize how easy it is to go from a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari to an insane drag-racer on the edge of being wildly out of control (without stripping it and caging it because you're not going for safety)? Turbo-charge the engine (maybe * 2 even). Turn off the traction control. Change the tires. Giant spoiler for more downforce. Done.

Now have someone hand you a custom built drag-racer or heavily modified <whatever> and see how easy it is to create a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari out of it.

Making a poorly calibrated, swingy (from GM-side understanding of it) encounter system into a tightly calibrated, predictable (GM-side) system is an extremely significant project. Doing the inverse is absolutely trivial.

I really don't understand this:

It wasn't so easy to ignore 4e's more reliable system, because it had significant ramifications on everything from the powers format to 4e-style ritual use to monster stats - everything was built from the ground up to be math wrapped in a chassis of fluff. The reliability was hard-coded into the very woof and weft of the thing.

Click to expand...

If your aim is for swingy, unpredictable (for the GM) combat, how in the world is this true? Wonk up two of the widgets and you're there. Do you mean its a difficult thing psychologically for the GM...or a difficult thing to convey to the group, and have them accept, that you're wonking up the widgets and throwing encounter budgets out the window? And that is the system's fault? I don't understand at all. You can't possibly be meaning "it isn't easy" from an engineering perspective so that must be what you mean?

evilbob said:

Definitely ranged is the way to go with this guy - it's just amazing how bad it can be if it actually gets close to you

<snip>

Oozes are also much safer from a distance, lacking any ranged abilities and being particularly slow.

Click to expand...

Slightly tangential to your original post - but it has been a thread of tangents - I think this speaks very much to different ways of approaching D&D.

What is the optimal gibbering mouther of gelatinous cube encounter? One in which the PCs are victim of its gibbering, or get trapped in its gello, and have to fight their way out? Or one in which the PCs retreat safely to a distance and pepper it with arrows?

Depending which way a given player, or group, answers, they are looking for very different things from the use of these monsters.

Kamikaze Midget said:

If I have 500 different flavors of "attack roll -> damage -> condition" that is a lot of options, but all the options are, at a high level, the same

Click to expand...

At a high level all 19th century novels are the same - 'Words that tell a roughly linear story of how some stuff happened to some (typically) middle class person." That doesn't really mean that there is no interesting variety in 19th century novels.

How are 5e monsters any different from what you describe (and deride)? As @EzekialRaiden has pointed out, the historical design space of D&D is attack rolls, damage rolls and condition infliction. (If you have in mind that some 5e monsters use saving throw rather than attack rolls to determine whether damage is taken and/or conditions are inflicted, I can't say that that strikes me as very dramatic variety.)

Manbearcat said:

@EzekielRaiden has answered this quite well (and I know I've done this on more than one occasion) but this position you're taking defies engineering 101.

Do you realize how easy it is to go from a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari to an insane drag-racer on the edge of being wildly out of control (without stripping it and caging it because you're not going for safety)? Turbo-charge the engine (maybe * 2 even). Turn off the traction control. Change the tires. Giant spoiler for more downforce. Done.

Now have someone hand you a custom built drag-racer or heavily modified <whatever> and see how easy it is to create a street legal, precisely calibrated, perfectly engineered Ferrari out of it.

Making a poorly calibrated, swingy (from GM-side understanding of it) encounter system into a tightly calibrated, predictable (GM-side) system is an extremely significant project. Doing the inverse is absolutely trivial.

I really don't understand this:



If your aim is for swingy, unpredictable (for the GM) combat, how in the world is this true? Wonk up two of the widgets and you're there. Do you mean its a difficult thing psychologically for the GM...or a difficult thing to convey to the group, and have them accept, that you're wonking up the widgets and throwing encounter budgets out the window? And that is the system's fault? I don't understand at all. You can't possibly be meaning "it isn't easy" from an engineering perspective so that must be what you mean?

Click to expand...

The analogy of cars carries that a bit far. D&D is nowhere near that complex. Getting it balanced and calibrated has often been done. At the same time, I think the point you're making is correct. It's that the groundwork has been done to make it balanced, or not in the case of 5th Edition. It's going to require some attention to fix it, but that would be no different than 3rd Edition.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Yeah, the way I parsed that was essentially "the nature of D&D as I play it makes it utterly impossible." Because the nature of D&D as a whole makes basically nothing impossible if you want it.



First, "options" doesn't necessarily equal "variety." If I have 500 different flavors of "attack roll -> damage -> condition" that is a lot of options, but all the options are, at a high level, the same, which can lead to a feeling of "sameness" even if it's "attack vs. will, fire damage, and dazed" vs. "attack vs. fort, necrotic damage, and teleport myeslf 5 squares." At a tactical level, they are VERY different. At a strategic level, they are rather dully similar. I think we're on the same page about variety of outcome, and I also think that played into the "sameness," but I think it's important to note that more options doesn't necessarily work against that vibe.

Second, I question the value of added granularity to the CR system. If we start with 4e as a baseline, I'd ask why that...consistent....play experience is better than a more swingy and variable play experience. What is the benefit that gives to the people enjoying the game? How does it make it fun for them? I know what a more swingy experience brings to my table - more excitement, more engagement, less predictability, more delight - because I worked hard to bring those things back in 4e. About the only virtue I see in a more consistent experience is that it's kind of easier for the DM to predict where the game is going to go, but that's a conflicted virtue - there's a LOT of fun to be had in not knowing exactly where the game is going to go (but having a rough idea).



It wasn't so easy to ignore 4e's more reliable system, because it had significant ramifications on everything from the powers format to 4e-style ritual use to monster stats - everything was built from the ground up to be math wrapped in a chassis of fluff. The reliability was hard-coded into the very woof and weft of the thing.

It doesn't seem too hard to turn 5e's less reliable system into something more reliable - you just use the monster stats table and don't put in specific strengths and weaknesses and pay close attention to the monsters you're using (so that they're not swingy) and the encounter XP budget.

And I can see why, in the interest of play experience, they may have gone with a less reliable system intentionally.

Click to expand...

What I felt wasn't easy about 4e was the new jargon it introduced, and the huge hit points given to monsters.