D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[Aribar]

CR is just about as wonky and meaningless as it was in third edition. Plus a lot of enemies tend to be more "rocket-taggy", super offensive and weak defenses while still being piles of HP. Not too fun. I've found the alternate way to create monsters and encounters below much better.

https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/improved-monster-stats-table-for-dd-5th-edition/

 

[discosoc]

Are you using enough encounters in the day? Have the party face five Hard encounters (without the advantage of any circumstances which might make them easier), and then give them a Solar.

Pretty much this. All the CR values are messed up if attacked in a vacuum. You have to be challenging the players with 6 to 8 encounters per long rest, and then suddenly the monsters aren't so weak.

 

[AtomicPope]

Our DM has changed the way CR works and added "Legendary" to all single creature encounters. The way it works is like this:
* Take the total number of attuned items in the party and divide by the number of characters. Add that to the Challenge Rating
* All single Creatures get at least 1 Legendary Resistance/day and 1 Legendary Action. If the creature is more bossy, they get more up to 3 of each in total.

So far it's worked out perfectly. With good magic items (the DM is generous) we're fighting at about 3 levels higher. Giving monsters at least 1 Legendary Resistance point prevents a single roll from ending an encounter and keeps the monster in the fight for one more round. There are so many monsters that are a bag of hit points but have REALLY weak mental saves allowing them to be shut down with a single spell. Keeping them around a bit longer turns it into a real fight, even if it's not "deadly" it does expend some resources.

 

[bgbarcus]

Reading the explanation of what CR is supposed to mean, the comments about not having enough encounters in the day are off base. The MM says, "an appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not a deadly one."

That statement assumes the party has not been worn down by previous encounters. Based on that statement and what I've seen in two years of playing 5e, the MM ratings are way too high for most monsters with a CR equal to or greater than 5.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't buy the whole feature not a bug argument.

Low levels can be pretty fricken deadly. Running POTA I've had to hold back a couple of times or I'd be looking at a TPK. My higher level game I had to throw everything I could at them to challenge them.

Yeah, makes sense. Low levels are designed to feel deadly (as befits characters taking on big scary adventurers), not surprised that high levels feel like the adventurers are competent and powerful (as befits renowned heroes who have saved the kingdom once or twice already).

Even at low levels, though, Sleep or Hold Person can own a one-off encounter.

 

[Sunseeker]

Some general responses:

The spell was Feeblemind. Solar's are immune to charm, but not enchantment. I rolled poorly against the effects.

I'm honestly not interested in running 6-8 encounters per day. I run 2-3 that are "hard" because I hoenstly don't want my game to be as follows:
You encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter a Dragon.

I want to run few fights that are fun and memorable. I don't want to throw a million pieces of trash at the party. Not to mention, I honestly don't want to bother with running that many stat blocks. Lower levels, 5 goblins are a serious fight for 4 level 1-2 players, even tactical players and well-built characters. Early on in this same game, I killed party members when they fought a single group of 6 guards (reflavored Skeletons).

Beyond that, if CR is actually: APL/4 divided by 6-8 encounters then it is absurdly off base. Again, I had 3 party members. One spent the encounter sitting out because they disagreed with the other party members actions. One party member dealt with some guards while another party member (no magic items, brand new, fresh out of the box character actually) one-shot the Solar.

If CRs are actually CR/4=Idiots. CR/2=Skilled. CR/1=Skilled party utilizing the features printed in the books, that should be made clear somewhere.

I really shouldn't have to restrict players to the bare minimum in order for the game to work. That's a sign of something being broken. I never did this in 4e and I killed party members with beasties straight from the books (usually the later books yes but largely no tweaking required) from 1-18 (the highest we ever got). But this feels way too much like the 3E "we didn't really design this well, we know that, suck it up." attitude.

 

[bgbarcus]

Some general responses:

The spell was Feeblemind. Solar's are immune to charm, but not enchantment. I rolled poorly against the effects.

I'm honestly not interested in running 6-8 encounters per day. I run 2-3 that are "hard" because I hoenstly don't want my game to be as follows:
You encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter a Dragon.

I want to run few fights that are fun and memorable. I don't want to throw a million pieces of trash at the party. Not to mention, I honestly don't want to bother with running that many stat blocks. Lower levels, 5 goblins are a serious fight for 4 level 1-2 players, even tactical players and well-built characters. Early on in this same game, I killed party members when they fought a single group of 6 guards (reflavored Skeletons).

Beyond that, if CR is actually: APL/4 divided by 6-8 encounters then it is absurdly off base. Again, I had 3 party members. One spent the encounter sitting out because they disagreed with the other party members actions. One party member dealt with some guards while another party member (no magic items, brand new, fresh out of the box character actually) one-shot the Solar.

If CRs are actually CR/4=Idiots. CR/2=Skilled. CR/1=Skilled party utilizing the features printed in the books, that should be made clear somewhere.

I really shouldn't have to restrict players to the bare minimum in order for the game to work. That's a sign of something being broken. I never did this in 4e and I killed party members with beasties straight from the books (usually the later books yes but largely no tweaking required) from 1-18 (the highest we ever got). But this feels way too much like the 3E "we didn't really design this well, we know that, suck it up." attitude.

Sounds like you have the right answer - CR didn't work as expected. So, ignore it. I have never built an encounter using CR or encounter guidelines. I occasionally compare the guidelines afterward just for the fun of seeing how badly unreliable they are with my group.

It is easy to adjust an encounter on the fly if you realize your plans were too easy or too hard.

 

[discosoc]

I'm honestly not interested in running 6-8 encounters per day. I run 2-3 that are "hard" because I hoenstly don't want my game to be as follows:
You encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter a Dragon.

I want to run few fights that are fun and memorable. I don't want to throw a million pieces of trash at the party. Not to mention, I honestly don't want to bother with running that many stat blocks. Lower levels, 5 goblins are a serious fight for 4 level 1-2 players, even tactical players and well-built characters. Early on in this same game, I killed party members when they fought a single group of 6 guards (reflavored Skeletons).

And that's ok. I run my games the same way. I do recommend you consider changing what a short rest and a long rest is, however, to compensate. The GM's guide calls it "gritty realism" or something, but basically make a short rest happen once per day (when they rest for the night), and a long rest happen once per week or whenever they can take an entire day out to rest.

The reason I suggest it is twofold: first, it lets you run fewer but more memorable battles without having to throw the CR system out the window entirely. Second, it keeps class balance in line between classes that are more short rest dependent versus those that are more long rest depending.

To better illustrate my second point, consider a group with both a Monk and a Paladin. The Monk really shines in being able to recharge ki on a short rest, and gains basically nothing on a long rest other than HD and HP. The Paladin, however, gains little on a short rest, but everything on a long rest. If your groups are never really *needing* short rests (such as due to only fighting a few encounters per day), the Paladin will come off as much stronger because he doesn't need to ration things like smites for future encounters and instead can just unload without concern for what comes next because he'll probably get a long rest soon after. Meanwhile, the Monk won't really get to take advantage of the staying power they have for ki usage because the whole "recharge on a short rest" thing means nothing to him.

Try that optional rule out for a few adventures, and you might be surprised at how CR calculations start to make more sense during play. The biggest hurdle is getting the players on board, because it appears to be an obvious nerf. Just explain why it's happening and focus on how CR is calculated based on 6-8 encounters per day, and how class balance assumes several short rests throughout as well. Anyone who happens to be playing something like a Monk, Warlock, or beast Druid should quickly see the benefits.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some general responses:

The spell was Feeblemind. Solar's are immune to charm, but not enchantment. I rolled poorly against the effects.

I'm honestly not interested in running 6-8 encounters per day. I run 2-3 that are "hard" because I hoenstly don't want my game to be as follows:
You encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter kobolds
you encounter a Dragon.

I want to run few fights that are fun and memorable. I don't want to throw a million pieces of trash at the party. Not to mention, I honestly don't want to bother with running that many stat blocks. Lower levels, 5 goblins are a serious fight for 4 level 1-2 players, even tactical pwlayers and well-built characters. Early on in this same game, I killed party members when they fought a single group of 6 guards (reflavored Skeletons).

That's not really how it goes, but whatever. It's shouldn't be a major surprise that a tool doesn't work as well when you're not using it for its intended purpose.

To run fewer, harder combats and still keep CR roughly meaningful, you might want to look into rolling encounters together per the DMG's phased encounter guidelines - roll two encounters into one by having some sort of trigger for the second encounter within the first, have the enemies come in waves, etc.

A "harder" encounter in 5e isn't usually an encounter of a higher CR, it's an encounter with more creatures.

Beyond that, if CR is actually: APL/4 divided by 6-8 encounters then it is absurdly off base. Again, I had 3 party members. One spent the encounter sitting out because they disagreed with the other party members actions. One party member dealt with some guards while another party member (no magic items, brand new, fresh out of the box character actually) one-shot the Solar.

It's possible to one-shot a single encounter with a lucky roll. This allows for luck to be meaningful in the game's narrative. If you'd like to reduce the level of luck that can apply to the narrative, you might have to do some more creative things (give certain "powerful" creatures legendary resistance, for one).

I really shouldn't have to restrict players to the bare minimum in order for the game to work. That's a sign of something being broken. I never did this in 4e and I killed party members with beasties straight from the books (usually the later books yes but largely no tweaking required) from 1-18 (the highest we ever got). But this feels way too much like the 3E "we didn't really design this well, we know that, suck it up." attitude.

It's fully intentional, it's just not designing to the goal you're expecting. 5e can be swingy at the level of individual encounters. It is probably intended to be that way, since the dynamic, changing environment keeps things interesting. A lucky roll might beat the powerful monster. 5e in general isn't too worried about that happening. 4e was VERY worried about that happening, so of course it was less swingy.

If you want 5e to provide pacing closer to 4e, you'll need to take it upon yourself to a certain degree, because 5e's pacing and 4e's pacing are different, with different goals. 5e designs for the day, 4e designs for the encounter.

To redesign 5e for the encounter, some legwork might be required. Legendary Resistance, some sort of attack-based LR, upping monster HPs, having monsters come in waves, etc., can be some of the arrows in your quiver.

 

[Lancelot]

Did the players enjoy the game?

In Red Hand of Doom (3e), I charged down the party with a half-fiend behir. I'd built up the creature with foreshadowing, and it was intended to be the climax of a particular session. I spent several minutes describing the beast and it's building rage. Then it charged! It lost initiative to the party sorcerer and wizard, and they promptly punched it out in a 1-2 save-or-die combo before it even acted. The players still talk about it to this day, more than a decade later.

In a 4e campaign set in the Shadowfell, I had a villain monologue atop a high tower. He was a solo boss monster (controller / wizard) who was intended to enjoy the benefits of superior cover (+5 all defenses) and shower the party with magical attacks as they made a series of skill checks to slowly ascend the tower until they could engage him without the cover penalties. The party won initiative and dropped a long-range Pull effect on him. It yanked him off the tower (failed save vs forced movement, even with his +5 solo save bonus) and he took an immediate 12d10 damage from the fall. With the villain now prone, the rest of the party moved in and dropped the hammer. One of the attacks promptly stunned him and, in the subsequent round, they finished off the last of his 200 hit points. Again, without the villain even getting an action off. The players still talk about it to this day, more than five years later.

In both cases, as the DM, I nearly threw my rulebooks out the window. My carefully laid plan for the story was pretty much ruined. Both sessions had finished early, and the end was anti-climactic. It took me some time to think more rationally about it...

1) Those sorts of unexpected events are memorable. I promise you that the warlock player will remember the time he one-shotted a solar. I can almost guarantee you he doesn't remember the first three creatures he killed when his warlock was 5th level. It's a good outcome if roleplaying produces memorable anecdotes.

2) For me (and your mileage may vary), one of the benefits of D&D is the ability to create uncertainty. In 5e, I've seen low-level characters back-doored by lucky criticals. I've seen victories snatched from the jaws of defeat, and vice versa, through unexpected results. I've seen characters one-shotted by a failed save. If the party knows that every boss is going to require a long drawn-out fight, it takes away some uncertainty. The fact that a solar went down to a single round is kind of awesome, because it creates the possibility that they'll try the same thing on the next boss. As a DM, that's good news - because the odds of that succeeding are really kind of low. You admit yourself that you rolled poorly against the feeblemind. Tactically, a save-or-die vs a solar is inferior to a fighter or raging barbarian just going hog-wild on its hit points for a couple of rounds. The latter is guaranteed to take it; the former is a crap-shoot. So, the solar got unlucky. The next boss probably won't... and the PC's lucky success will prompt them to try that risky gambit again.

3) If you wanted the fight to last longer, you can always do so. This solar had legendary resistance. Even if you roll the dice in front of the players (and I always do), you simply shrug when you roll that natural 1, and say: "Well done. It uses one of its legendary resistance uses. You feel it is weakening..." Give the PC the sense that they achieved something, and move on. But isn't that cheating? No. Your job as the DM isn't to compete against the players. Your job is to create a memorable story. If you feel the players aren't going to be happy that the solar went down so early, then change the rules. That's the DM's mandate. You don't even have to prep ahead of time. You just flex it on the fly.

I do this all the time. The nalfeshnee demon is getting beaten up? Then it attempts to summon a couple of vrock demons. The MM says it has a 50% chance of succeeding, and I tell the players this. I roll a d6 in front of them and get a "4". I look them in the eye and say: "It succeeds!". I would have said exactly the same thing if I rolled a "2". I create the illusion of following the rules, I set the challenge, they react.

4) Finally, I get a sense from the email that it's somehow WotC's fault that "their monsters" aren't providing an adequate challenge. To echo others, creating high level monsters is tough. That's the nature of the game. But there are so many solutions. The solar casts counterspell... it's immune to mind-affecting spells... its patron deity removes the feeblemind condition after one round... it has legendary resistance... it has a lair effect that removes the condition on Initiative count 20... they kill the solar (which was once a good cleric) and it returns one last time as an undead solar (lich stats)!!!

However, before making any of the changes above to "fix" the "problem" of the solar dying too quickly, I'd return to the original question: did the players enjoy the game?

If they did, you don't have a problem.

...although, from experience, you're still going to be hearing about the time they wasted a half-fiend behir or a Shadowfell wizard in a single round, years later...