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

D&D 5E do CRs seem a bit arbitrary?

evilbob

Explorer
Looking for a good CR 2 monster to challenge a level 2 party, I noticed there is a wide variance in what constitutes a CR 2 monster. Keep in mind that for a level 2 character, 20 HP is extremely high (14 Con fighter) and 10 HP is extremely low (10 Con wizard), with ~17 being about what many characters have. Similarly 18 AC is really high, and 14 AC is really low, with 15-16 being average in my experience. Most PCs will have +5 to hit, and do about 8 damage per attack.

Let's start with a Grick. 14 AC, 27 HP, potential to do 13 damage with two +4 to hit attacks. Probably get a surprise round, which grants it advantage to hit once, but otherwise something I'd call a very moderate challenge to a level 2 party. Chance of PC death is basically zero.

Move next to a Gnoll Pack Lord, fighting alone. Now we've got 15 AC and 49 HP, with the chance to do 16 damage in two attacks. Tough, and definitely more dangerous, but still the chance of PC death is quite low. But that's already a significant difference (and this monster is designed to work with others, which makes it even stronger in a group).

Now the Polar/Cave Bear: only 12 AC and 49 HP, but +7 to hit on two attacks for a total of 21 damage each round. It's got a good chance to hit and a good chance to drop a character each round, and 49 HP is easily 2+ rounds for an average party, even focus-fired. Still not a likely TPK but the damage is way up and it's still a CR 2.

That's quite a variance with the "brute" monsters - but then we also have the "save-or-drop" monsters where things get even more tricky.

Ghast - not too tough with 13 AC and 36 HP, but turn defense means clerics no likey and melee will have a bad time with it - save or disadvantage to hit. The main thing is its +5 hit, 10 damage and DC 10 Con save or paralyzed - which means next round you are down (coup-de-grace bite for 19 damage). Sure it takes a couple rounds and a failed save, but the chance of a PC dying goes up.

But what about the Gibbering Mouther? It's a first-round danger: DC 13 Dex save or be blind in an AoE, which gives it advantage to hit you for a whopping 17 damage. That means someone is very likely to go down in one round - which combos in a nasty way with its "DC 10 Wis save or be useless" power that happens EVERY ROUND to EVERYONE. So there's a decent chance you'll helplessly watch your downed buddy bleed out while you hit your friend or stand in a corner, especially since it has 67 HP to chew through. Chance of death goes way up.

Now check the Gelatinous Cube. Very good chance for a surprise round, where it's a save with disadvantage or get sucked in and take 10 damage. If you fail another save, you're down, no question: 21 auto-damage. No one is going to stay up from 31 damage - most level 4 PCs won't. And if you stay in another round, you're dead completely from the 21 auto-damage again. And your buddies can try to help with the 2nd save but it's 10 auto-damage to anyone who does - that is ROUGH. But at least it's two saves, and they are DC 12 Dex then Str - most will at least have a good shot at one of those. And the thing has auto-hit AC. But 84 HP means it will definitely get many turns, and considering it is large there's no reason it can't do this to multiple PCs at a time, possibly as many as four. Quite a bit more scary - still CR 2. There is a good chance multiple PCs could get killed.

And then you have crazy combo CR 2s, like the Giant Elk. Not too scary on its own - average AC and HP for CR 2 - but the problem is if you have two of them. One can get a +6 to hit you for 11 damage and a not-too-easy DC 14 Str save or be prone. The next one gets advantage to trample you to death - a 22 damage hit! Sure, two CR 2s is a "hard" encounter even for a group of four level 4 PCs, but even by level 4, 33 damage can drop most characters (Con 14 with d8 hit dice is still only 31 HP at level 4). By contrast, think back to our humble Gricks. Two of those vs. a level 4 party would very likely not drop anyone. Sure, you can boost up the difficulty by changing the encounter somehow, but apples-to-apples these guys are nowhere near as strong as two Great Elks, which are in turn nowhere even close to two Gelatinous Cubes - which I would easily call a TPK in the making. And yet they are all "worth" 1350's worth of XP for the day.

So do the CRs seem a bit arbitrary? Some don't even attempt to follow the guidelines for monster-building in the DMG (which is fine, but they break those conventions quite a bit). When a 27 HP creature has the same CR as an 84 HP creature, that's already a bit weird. And when some creatures are just plain stronger than others in nearly every way, it seems a lot more uneven. And this is just a quick glance at CR 2 creatures. I'm sure there are others. What do people think? (Part of why I posted this was because of the Banshee thread, where a CR 4 banshee turned out to be a lot stronger than you would have thought.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I don't know how much precision one can reasonably expect out of any CR value. It's meant to be a rough approximation of what the party can handle and, IMXP, it serves that goal. If you're looking for a more precise measure of reward for challenge, you might want to consider retroactive XP, or even round-by-round XP - you award it after determining the damage faced last round. This is more granular than most parties probably need, though.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
It's not arbitrary in that it's generally based on reason and on a system; however, said system is not too good at predicting difficulty for all parties and all situations.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Yeah, CR is just a rough guideline. Any time when you have that many factors that go into a stat block to be pitted against a near infinite number of opposing stat block combinations (PC stats for a party of 4 PCs of every class/race/attribute combo), you're only going to get rough estimates.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Challenges are based on an XP budget, not CR. CR does not mean what it meant in 3e or 4e. It's just one of those things that players of prior versions of the game have a hard time shaking, due to preconceived notions about what CR should mean. CR is a quick rough guide to whether or not you should be on alert for an unexpected PC death from that creature or something else unusual based on level - like for instance if it is resistant to non-magic weapons and the party is of a level where they are unlikely to have magic weapons. But it's not a guide to the overall challenge that creature represents (despite being called "Challenge" rating, which was probably a bad name for it in this edition) - that's XP. And while XP is related to CR, it's not so related that you can use CR for that instead of XP.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Let's start with a Grick. 14 AC, 27 HP, potential to do 13 damage with two +4 to hit attacks. Probably get a surprise round, which grants it advantage to hit once, but otherwise something I'd call a very moderate challenge to a level 2 party. Chance of PC death is basically zero.

Move next to a Gnoll Pack Lord, fighting alone. Now we've got 15 AC and 49 HP, with the chance to do 16 damage in two attacks. Tough, and definitely more dangerous, but still the chance of PC death is quite low. But that's already a significant difference (and this monster is designed to work with others, which makes it even stronger in a group).

Now the Polar/Cave Bear: only 12 AC and 49 HP, but +7 to hit on two attacks for a total of 21 damage each round. It's got a good chance to hit and a good chance to drop a character each round, and 49 HP is easily 2+ rounds for an average party, even focus-fired. Still not a likely TPK but the damage is way up and it's still a CR 2.

None of these are actually too challenging:

Grick:

+5 to hit, 10 points of damage on a hit average PC, 4 1/3 PC attacks on average. < one round for 5 PC group.

Monster does (assuming all attacks hit) about 13 * 0.87 = 11 hit points or one PC injured, a bit more with a surprise round.
With surprise, monster does (assuming all attacks hit) about 13 * 1.87 = 24 hit points or one PC down, one PC injured.


Gnoll Pack Lord:

+5 to hit, 10 points of damage on a hit average PC, 8.5 PC attacks on average. 1.7 rounds for 5 PC group.

Monster does (assuming all attacks hit) about 16 * 1.7 = 27 hit points or one PC down, one PC injured.


Polar/Cave Bear:

+5 to hit, 10 points of damage on a hit average PC, 6.75 PC attacks on average. 1.35 rounds for 5 PC group.

Monster does (assuming all attacks hit) about 21 * 1.35 = 28 hit points or one PC down, one PC injured.


Although I don't have the MM in front of me, the Gnoll Pack Lord and Polar/Cave Bear seem fairly close. One does more damage and is taken out faster, the other does less damage, but survives longer. Assuming that the Grick gets surprise, it's not that far behind. It does have less chance to hit though.


This also assumes some subpar tactics like one PC being attacked until that PC goes down. The best strategy for any fight is that if a PC gets hurt bad, he should either disengage or dodge.
 

evilbob

Explorer
I don't know how much precision one can reasonably expect out of any CR value. It's meant to be a rough approximation of what the party can handle and, IMXP, it serves that goal.
I'm not talking about a measure of reward - just the challenge. And that's my point: is it too rough?

Challenges are based on an XP budget, not CR... But it's not a guide to the overall challenge that creature represents (despite being called "Challenge" rating, which was probably a bad name for it in this edition) - that's XP.
But everything I listed above is the same XP budget. That's why I called out the difference between two Gricks and two Gelatinous Cubes: same budget, same approximated "challenge," but wildly different outcomes in play. And if you're not supposed to use "challenge rating" - what in the world should you use? The whole point is that they made a "quick reference" system that you can use as a guideline - but I'm just wondering if their guidelines are so wildly approximated as to become less useful than simply thumbing through the book.

Yeah, CR is just a rough guideline. Any time when you have that many factors that go into a stat block to be pitted against a near infinite number of opposing stat block combinations (PC stats for a party of 4 PCs of every class/race/attribute combo), you're only going to get rough estimates.
I get that, but there's a difference between "rough estimate" and "challenge is not too bad and this one will kill someone almost for sure." "Is it too rough" is the question.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Yeah, the encounter guidelines would be much more useful if they dropped this pretense of being objective, scientific, calculable.

The way xp and cr makes you believe you can actually put numbers on encounters, and calculate what makes a good encounter, only means some newbies are scared away and others are trapped.

The brutal truth is that nothing can replace DM experience in knowing your group and what makes for a challenging encounter.
 

evilbob

Explorer
None of these are actually too challenging:
Ok, this is fair; if "by the math" they are actually pretty close, then I'm just missing the bigger picture, and these are closer than I'd thought.

It seems like in actual play, though, the Cave Bear will likely drop someone in one round - which means the PCs will have a much tougher time killing the bear, since they have to fight with 1/2 capacity for that round, assuming 4 PCs (one down, one helper). So 6.75 PC attacks to kill the bear on average, but assuming every round you are fighting with only 1/2 your PCs, that's ~3.4 rounds, not 1.35. Which means the bear does 70 damage - which is enough to down 4 PCs. Strict averages are useful, but if the damage is enough to start removing PCs from play for a round, then the numbers start to tip quickly against you.

Same thing with the Cube: anyone pulling out some dying person is not only taking 10 damage, they are also not attacking the Cube. And if they already got hit once that round, they can't help anyway, or they would drop themselves. So it feels like these are much worse than the averages would lead you to believe.

Maybe I just happened to find the two ends of the spectrum - Grick vs. Cube - but they are really wide apart. I'd easily put the Cube up against some CR 3 monsters - like the Owlbear, which is really just a slightly upgraded cave bear. The Cube is still far more deadly than the Owlbear.

Or maybe the problem is that the Gelatinous Cube is supposed to be a CR 4 monster. :)
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I'm not talking about a measure of reward - just the challenge. And that's my point: is it too rough?

I don't think so. ESPECIALLY if you let the party determine the pacing (giving players control over what challenges they face and when they rest, generally speaking). Under that design scheme, the party generally knows something about what it's getting into, isn't locked into fight-to-the-death scenarios, and can bypass entire encounters if they're sneaky or talky or smart about it. Exceptions to those rules happen, but they're exceptional and notable, not the norm.

Different parties and different terrain will give much different results. A party with a druid or ranger who meets a polar bear is one animal friendship spell away from not having to fight the thing, for instance, and despite its damage, the low INT makes it very vulnerable to even the most rudimentary illusions. Most brutes have at least one really low ability score that is easy to exploit, and their reliance on damage means that party buffs and enemy debuffs are VERY effective at swinging those odds

Creatures that rely on save effects have the problem of hitting characters who are good at that save, and the general bounded accuracy issue of hot dice or simple advantage being really significant. They also typically have significant weaknesses - radiant damage in the case of most undead, low ability scores in the case of oozes and similar creatures. Also, save-or-suck abilities are less key in a fast-paced combat. Those elk can set up a powerful blow with time and planning, but if each one is only lasting a round or two, a well-placed area effect will preserve the downed mage. And all of these creatures have low HP totals in comparison to the damage that PC's can do ("dead" is the most useful debuff).

Looking at raw numbers is theorycraft - play results are much more holistic, usually, an while an unlucky and unprepared and stubborn party will have a bad day with these monsters, that's part of D&D, too -- next time, bring a druid to tame your polar bears. :)
 

Remove ads

Top