D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yea I've basically come to the conclusion that any one monster thrown at a party of 5 players is going to die. It doesn't matter if the party is level 5 and the monster is CR 15. The action economy is just THAT skewed in the party's favor. My group of level 5 players (Paladin, Bard, Rogue, Warlock & ranger, only one of whom is a Min/Maxer) can handle a high CR monster with absolute ease if they've recently had a long rest. It doesn't matter if it has 180hp and dishes out 3 attacks per round dealing 60 damage within them. If I roll bad on initiative, it'll be dead in the first round.

I bet you they cannot handle a well-played Adult Red Dragon with 5 levels of Dragon Sorcerer. Dragon strafes them from the air from within Darkness spell. Paladin cannot respond effectively unless the wizard casts Flight on the Paladin, but the dragon just Counterspells it, or casts Quickened Dispel Magic after the paladin has begun to chase him, causing the paladin to fall for 6d6 damage or more. Rogue cannot respond effectively because Darkness prevents sneak attack from working (because disadvantage--and the dragon has Blindsight to boot). The Warlock and the Bard can cast some spells for minimal effect, but the dragon has Legendary Resistance to make his saves. If the Warlock has Devil's Sight, he can at least ignore the dragon's Darkness to attack it normally with Eldritch Blast, which maybe will damage the dragon enough to make it drop Concentration... but Legendary Resistance works for concentration checks too, so probably not. And if the dragon hasn't had to Counterspell this turn, it can Shield for AC 24, which makes the Warlock's chances of even hitting in the first place pretty low. For everybody but the Warlock, hitting AC 24 at disadvantage is essentially impossible.

If the party miraculously begins to gain the upper hand, possibly after one or more PCs die, the dragon can drop Darkness in favor of Expeditious Retreat and retreat at 280' per round (including Wing Buffet), and come back under cover of Invisibility and his Stealth +6 (effective +11, probably beating any PC's perception) for a surprise round later, during which he will:

1.) Cast Quickened Darkness on himself (specifically, on an object he's carrying) to gain advantage.
2.) Breath fire on the heaviest concentration of PCs.
3.) Tail attack surprised PCs with advantage on their (surprised) turns.
4.) Laugh at the expression on their faces at the end of the surprise round.

But no DM should do such a thing to his players. Except maybe if it's a dream sequence intended to warn them not to mess with dragons until they are much higher than 5th level.

Edit: yep, I just tried this with my own 5th level test party from OotA. PCs failed to overcome dragon's Stealth roll (I didn't decide whether it was at night or in daytime because the dragon's Invisibility prevents it from mattering). I require multiple Stealth rolls for a successful approach, and the dragon rolled four times during its approach: 13, 15, 14, 12. Due to Darkness, the PC with the highest passive perception (16) had only 11, so failed to see the dragon's approach. I suppose in a real game with players I might have been merciful and ruled that that PC would have heard the dragon's approach without seeing it, preventing surprise and giving them a chance to stop and listen actively, but it wouldn't have mattered because he still wouldn't have seen the dragon (I just rolled four active checks for him and none of them were above 11) so the dragon would still have gotten the first strike in--and that first strike killed three of the four PCs outright and left the Moon Druid with only 1 HP. Not being surprised would have let the Moon Druid at least attempt to shift into animal form and flee, or fight, instead of just dying helplessly to the dragon's tail attack (18 damage) while surprised, but it wouldn't have changed the basic outcome of the fight, which was TPK with no real chance for the PCs to prevail.

 

[Evenglare]

This is exactly why the challenge ratings in 5th edition are intended as being no more useful than "if your party isn't at least this level, this creature could be difficult to defeat without suffering casualties." If for no reason other than the damage dealt by a monster being too near a character of that level's maximum hit points.

As for how this idea even got into someone's head, it has been there in one shape or another for the majority of D&D's life - and continues to be present specifically at the request of the fanbase, because "just experiment and you'll figure it out" is not what a lot of folks consider to be valid and helpful advice on how to be a successful DM.

It's not at all that the numbers, or the idea behind them "need to go," it's that people need to learn to use them as what they are now rather than what numbers of the same name, or differently named buy similarly used numbers, used to be.

Yeah.. the thing is your quote of ... " if your party isn't at least this level, this creature could be difficult to defeat without suffering casualties." is found no where in the explanation of monster CR. Specifically your "at least this level". That line is found no where. The description states a monster of X CR should be able to be killed by a well rested party and well equipped party. That party should have no deaths.

The thing about that is that's exactly why this topic exists I think. The CRs just mean nothing because of the massive amounts of moving parts of the system (ability scores, DM style, magic weapons, obscure items, class powers, racial powers, different magic systems, various environmental hazards, OTHER npcs, buffs/debuffs, monster abilities etc etc). I mean.. just... NO it can't be done. If you want to argue that the CR works fine for lower levels, then I'll play devils advocate and say you are right.

So if you admit that they don't work at high levels, then you essentially agree with me that the CRs are meaningless at that level range. If you agree they are meaningless, then you have a few options. First make up another type of CR system for the stuff at high levels. This is idiotic because it would add another layer of complexity which 5e has tried not to approach. If you don't want to make up another CR system for higher levels, then you are going to have to explain how to balance appropriate fights....at those levels.

That means that you are going to have to explain to the DM why/what/how to create those good encounters. Now, okay, you are EVENTUALLY going to have to do EXACTLY what I said. You need to teach the GM how to make good encounters. This is also incredibly poor approach. Clearly we all know that at higher levels characters and monsters become exponentially complex in what they can do, which again, leads us to the fact that CR is an awful way of calculating the power of something. So why the hell would you want to use the CR system for lower levels, then explain to the GM how to make higher level encounters good?? Why not do THAT from level 1 and onward instead of relying on the CR crutch that will eventually stop working???

It's just.. it makes absolutely no sense! Get rid of CR and explain how to run encounters by assessing the party's ability against the monsters abilities. At low levels you will begin to learn what monster's can and can not do without an overload of options. Then gradually as the game gets harder as the monsters get more complex you will have that foundation to build off what you learned in the earlier levels.

... I don't see how anyone could argue this except for "muh nostalgia". The CR system itself is just a cluster**** of god awful rules to calculate a number that tells you how hard something is. Hell, in 5e it's debatably the worst system to figure out CRs of a monster. Have you LOOKED at that table that shows you how to calculate CR? It's a nightmare! It's like... they tried to mathematically explain "winging it".

Teach a GOOD GM how to run a game, not how to regurgitate meaningless numbers in a certain situation.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yeah.. the thing is your quote of ... " if your party isn't at least this level, this creature could be difficult to defeat without suffering casualties." is found no where in the explanation of monster CR. Specifically your "at least this level". That line is found no where. The description states a monster of X CR should be able to be killed by a well rested party and well equipped party. That party should have no deaths.

I don't see how there is a difference between "should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths," and "a party of at least a level equal to the challenge rating should be able to defeat it without suffering any deaths."

The thing about that is that's exactly why this topic exists I think. The CRs just mean nothing because of the massive amounts of moving parts of the system (ability scores, DM style, magic weapons, obscure items, class powers, racial powers, different magic systems, various environmental hazards, OTHER npcs, buffs/debuffs, monster abilities etc etc). I mean.. just... NO it can't be done. If you want to argue that the CR works fine for lower levels, then I'll play devils advocate and say you are right.

CR works fine when used as intended, and the reasons you list here for why it supposedly doesn't are just the reasons why challenge can't do what some people expect of it (tell them exactly how challenging a monster will be for their group of characters and their specific DM, playstyle, and so forth) - not reasons why it doesn't work as the benchmark for level at which the party shouldn't find the monster to be able to present a significant lethal risk even if they are well prepared.

So if you admit that they don't work at high levels, then you essentially agree with me that the CRs are meaningless at that level range. If you agree they are meaningless, then you have a few options. First make up another type of CR system for the stuff at high levels. This is idiotic because it would add another layer of complexity which 5e has tried not to approach. If you don't want to make up another CR system for higher levels, then you are going to have to explain how to balance appropriate fights....at those levels.

I don't agree that CR doesn't work as intended at higher levels, though I will admit that CR above 20 don't really fit the system as described because character levels stop at 20, but it is a serviceable shorthand for degrees of a little extra power on top of what a level 20 party shouldn't face any casualties while defeating.

That means that you are going to have to explain to the DM why/what/how to create those good encounters. Now, okay, you are EVENTUALLY going to have to do EXACTLY what I said. You need to teach the GM how to make good encounters. This is also incredibly poor approach. Clearly we all know that at higher levels characters and monsters become exponentially complex in what they can do, which again, leads us to the fact that CR is an awful way of calculating the power of something. So why the hell would you want to use the CR system for lower levels, then explain to the GM how to make higher level encounters good?? Why not do THAT from level 1 and onward instead of relying on the CR crutch that will eventually stop working???

CR isn't a crutch, and it doesn't stop working when used as intended - and since teaching a DM how to "be good" isn't actually a thing where you can just tell someone how to do it, they have to be given a general idea how to do it (which CR actually helps provide) and then be left to find their style and what works for their group (which CR stays conveniently out of the way of).

It's just.. it makes absolutely no sense! Get rid of CR and explain how to run encounters by assessing the party's ability against the monsters abilities. At low levels you will begin to learn what monster's can and can not do without an overload of options. Then gradually as the game gets harder as the monsters get more complex you will have that foundation to build off what you learned in the earlier levels.

To communicate the starting point of finding one's own style and becoming a competent DM without the use of a simple benchmark guideline like CR would require the DMG be not packed full of interesting rules options and variants as well as world-building help and the like, but just a guide dedicated entirely to trying to explain how to read a monster and use that information in a way that is relevant to your group - but the author doesn't know your group specifically, and thus needs to try and cover every possible sort of gamer and will fail to do so because they haven't necessarily encountered every possible sort of gamer, and don't have the page count necessary to actually meaningfully cover the ones they have.

But the same goal can be reached with just a few pages of CR explanation and encounter building guidelines that are intentionally on the easy end of the spectrum (I'm serious: only Deadly encounters are actually intended to give the party a chance to lose high enough to actual mention - all the other difficulties are defined by how many resources are spent on the basically assured victory of the party), so that is the obvious choice to make.

... I don't see how anyone could argue this except for "muh nostalgia". The CR system itself is just a cluster**** of god awful rules to calculate a number that tells you how hard something is. Hell, in 5e it's debatably the worst system to figure out CRs of a monster. Have you LOOKED at that table that shows you how to calculate CR? It's a nightmare! It's like... they tried to mathematically explain "winging it".

Nostalgia? That's a strange claim. If the game were going for the "nostalgia" approach, it would likely include next to zero guidance on the topic of encounter building beyond the general idea that the deeper into a dungeon you go the tougher or more numerous the monsters should be like the old AD&D wide enough to be useless definition of monster level by XP value.

As for the DMG section on building monsters, I have found it to be extremely helpful as a guide to build or tweak a monster and know well enough what level of characters it should be used against to fit as a particular sort of threat, and through the testing of use determine more solidly what it's CR should be - which coincidentally happens to be exactly what those guidelines say they are meant to do.

Teach a GOOD GM how to run a game, not how to regurgitate meaningless numbers in a certain situation.

These numbers you speak of and knowing how to run a game well are not even close to being mutually exclusive.

 

[discosoc]

Something I'm not seeing mentioned here is lair actions. Boss-style monsters have them, and they allow you to run a single big monster against a party.

 

[S'mon]

If the DM applies the rules rigidly with no flex under any circumstance, that investment (and the associated "fun") can be wiped out with unlucky rolls despite the best efforts and ideas of the party.

The risk of loss is what makes it fun! (IMO/IME). There's zero point in running a fight if the
PCs can't lose. Better to make the fights easy-but-real than hard-but-fudged. IME a very small risk of real loss is much more exciting than an apparently big but fake risk. Some GMs get away with
this Illusionism for awhile, but IME when players realise there's no real risk, they lose interest.

Edit: You may be exceptionally good at concealing when you're fudging, and at deciding when
to do so. I've just never seen any good come of this.

 

[S'mon]

There is an expectation from previous editions that creatures such as the Solar were total badarse. That expectation in 5e has not been met.

It sounds as if the 5e Solar fills the role of the 1e Deva - tougher than a Pit Fiend, but no
demigod. Maybe just call them Devas!

 

[Imaculata]

The description states a monster of X CR should be able to be killed by a well rested party and well equipped party. That party should have no deaths.

There you go. That is indeed what it says quite literally. But I suspect that your next line will complain that it doesn't do something that it's not intended to do...

The thing about that is that's exactly why this topic exists I think. The CRs just mean nothing because of the massive amounts of moving parts of the system (ability scores, DM style, magic weapons, obscure items, class powers, racial powers, different magic systems, various environmental hazards, OTHER npcs, buffs/debuffs, monster abilities etc etc). I mean.. just... NO it can't be done. If you want to argue that the CR works fine for lower levels, then I'll play devils advocate and say you are right.

And there it is.... The CR's mean nothing? Yes they do. You just explained what they do, and that's it. And yet in the very next sentence, you then complain that they are worthless, because they don't do something that they were never intended to do in the first place. Yes they work. No they don't do what you want, but that is your problem with having the wrong expectations of what a CR means.

So if you admit that they don't work at high levels, then you essentially agree with me that the CRs are meaningless at that level range.

They are not meaningless. For crying out loud, in your first sentence you described what the CR means, and that is exactly what they do, even at higher levels.

This is what a CR means:

Players of that level, if appropriately equipped and well rested, should be able to overcome an encounter of that CR without casualties or much injuries.

This is what CR does NOT mean:

Creatures of this CR will be an exciting fight for the players.
This will be a hard fight.
This will not be a dull fight.
Not a single player can possibly die during this fight.

 

[wedgeski]

I gotta go with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] here. Yes, in a system with so many variables and such a wide spectrum of players, it is practically impossible to devise a system that accurately predicts the nature and outcome of any single fight.

The CR system, loose and hinky as it might be, does an adequate job of sign-posting where these monsters should/might/may fit in the careers of your PC's. I wouldn't want to do without it, and, in any case, in the low-to-mid levels where I've played and DM'd, it does a perfectly adequate job. One bad experience doesn't invalidate the whole thing.

 

[dndthrowaway1]

I bet you they cannot handle a well-played Adult Red Dragon with 5 levels of Dragon Sorcerer.

What's the CR of that?

 

[Evenglare]

[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] "CR isn't a crutch, and it doesn't stop working when used as intended - and since teaching a DM how to "be good" isn't actually a thing where you can just tell someone how to do it, they have to be given a general idea how to do it (which CR actually helps provide) and then be left to find their style and what works for their group (which CR stays conveniently out of the way of)."

This is completely untrue. CR is meaningless, it's why this whole thread exists in the first place! If it was working as intended there wouldn't be 11 pages of people describing how their parties can destroy monsters at much higher levels. You say earlier that I said it was meaningless and then I described what the CR does. Yeah.. that's not a contradiction. If the CR isn't doing what it needs to be doing it's meaningless. It doesn't make it automatically a meaningful tool if it doesn't even gauge the party level correctly. Let's say you want to need to hammer something into the wall, and then I gave them a banana and say GOODLUCK! The banana isn't meaningless, but in that situation it's clearly the wrong tool for the job.

So you can say how awesome and wonderful the CR is and it does it's job well. Okay, so that might flt into your playstyle. Other GMs may have better prepared characters, those characters might have some sort of crazy item. They may be different level characters. There's literally thousands of character builds using variables such as HP, Skills, Saves, Items, special ablities, magic system etc. If you have had beyond a 9th grade math education you should INSTANTLY see why the CR is godawful at determining this type of stuff. It's like saying

Ax^9 +ln B/ YR + E^O - ART - (5i+ 45,00 S) - VRK^-1 SQRT(l+ AD)= X

Find X numerically, X is CR and every other letter is a variable that goes into calculating X.
You simply can not do it. You can't take into all the facts. You certainly can't provide anecdotal evidence as proof that if CRs work for you they must be correct and work for everyone. No. Again, it's why OP made this thread. There's hundreds more like it. People know CR is an awful sacred cow that should have been put down YEARS ago. I have a hell of a lot of RPGs (GURPS, HERO, EORIS, Cypher system (they have tiers as I suggested but enemies don't really scale so they don't really use CR), Savage worlds, Mutants and Mastermind usually sticks with one powerlevel... etc etc ) and most of them describe to the GM how to create a challenging encounter. Those enemies don't have "level" or "CR". The GM must understand the game then apply the understanding.