D&D 5E do CRs seem a bit arbitrary?

[iserith]

Yeah, after all, it's not too hard to challenge a party with CR 0, 0 XP, 0 damage sea horses!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

Yeah, its always been that way which I'm fine with. I know my party better than Joe the Module writer. In 3e with the assumptions of X number of party magic items at X level and such I suppose it was a bit more useful, but when I'd diverge from that it would also "break". I've always used it as a loose guideline. Quite loose.

 

[evilbob]

next time, bring a druid to tame your polar bears.

That is certainly a fair point as well. (A druid trained in perception will also be your best defense against a hidden Cube, since it's a DC 15 to spot. Maybe what I'm really saying is: every party needs a druid?!?!)

 

[I'm A Banana]

That is certainly a fair point as well. (A druid trained in perception will also be your best defense against a hidden Cube, since it's a DC 15 to spot. Maybe what I'm really saying is: every party needs a druid?!?!)

Given how powerful wild shape is at low levels, I don't think anyone would blame you for it.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree.

But, combat is not just damage. It's the fighter having an AC 17 so that the cave bear only hits 55% of the time against him. So in a single round, the odds of taking down the fighter are .55% * .55% * .70% (bear does not roll too low of damage) = 21%.

Sure, the fighter will probably not survive two rounds without help, but in the mean time, the entire party of four has gotten in a minimum of one round each of attacks. And again, nothing stops the fighter from getting hit once in round one (or hit twice in round one for low damage), and then dodging. Sure, he's not attacking in round two, but the bear is most likely not hitting him then either and if the bear moves off to attack someone else, that's an OA by the fighter.

So your assumption that the bear will likely take out a PC in round one is probably not supported by the odds (assuming decent tactical play by players). This gives focus fire (plus other synergies from spells or special abilities) time to take place.


In our game, our 2nd level fighter had the Heavy Armor Master feat and 16 CON (plus of course, second wind). He would almost always survive a full round against the bear unless there was a crit and even two rounds in some cases.

There's definitely a reason to have a well balanced party makeup (tank, striker, etc.).

 

[evilbob]

Yeah, after all, it's not too hard to challenge a party with CR 0, 0 XP, 0 damage sea horses!

HA! That is awesome - I am guessing from the icon/name you're the same poster? What a nice one shot! And you're not kidding - giant sharks are no joke, especially to a level 3 or lower party - they can drop level 1 or 2 characters in one hit, and level 3 ones in two, which they will do with advantage. I'd probably sub a hunter shark - with no flee condition - depending on the group. Still, love the idea of making up an entire scenario based on using the most useless monster in the book!

 

[evilbob]

I don't necessarily disagree.
...
There's definitely a reason to have a well balanced party makeup (tank, striker, etc.).

Also very good points. Mostly what I think we're proving is that this is all just hard to measure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is certainly a fair point as well. (A druid trained in perception will also be your best defense against a hidden Cube, since it's a DC 15 to spot. Maybe what I'm really saying is: every party needs a druid?!?!)

Um...I never said that. Why is it showing up in your reply as if you're quoting me when I didn't say that?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also very good points. Mostly what I think we're proving is that this is all just hard to measure.

Frig yeah. Try to measure this more tightly and you're likely to come up against the infinite possible variables of D&D in short order (unless you remove those variables from play). But this is why things like retroactive XP can be popular - screw predictive XP, just award me for what I actually endured.

 

[evilbob]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]: Yeah, that's weird - Kamikaze Midget said that. I probably just messed something up when trying to reply too quickly - sorry!