Kobold Fight Club: http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder is my go-to for figuring out encounter math. That will give you the DMG baseline, and then you can figure out from there how it relates to your actual party.
D&D 5E DM's, what's your experience with suggested Challenge Ratings?
CydKnight
Explorer
I think suggested CR is a decent guideline but it is going to depend a lot on the environment, the player's spells and equipment, the environment, and even the player's choices. I had a Medium to Hard fight scoped out for a group of 4 Level 4 PCs who had been rolling through everything I had been throwing at them lately without too much challenge. This fight ended with one PC dead, two NPCs dead, and one PC on his last Saving Throw before someone got to stabilize him.
When I replayed how the whole thing unfolded, it was really all on the players as they made some real head-scratching decisions. The first head-scratcher was the decision to split the party up when it was known there could be as many as 20 bad guys attacking the town and hadn't had a short rest after fighting two smaller skirmishes that put them at lowered HP and lost spell slots. Then for some reason the Wizard decides he is going to try to attack a Level 5 Bad Guy Mage with 10 henchmen all by himself because he was convinced that he could take the Boss out with Chromatic Orb (which he nearly did). Finally the Paladin decides he is just going to hide behind a bush on the far edge of town from the action for 13 rounds while the Cleric, Ranger, a High Level NPC, and a token NPC get pummeled.
So sometimes it doesn't matter what the CR is if the players do not make wise decisions.
When I replayed how the whole thing unfolded, it was really all on the players as they made some real head-scratching decisions. The first head-scratcher was the decision to split the party up when it was known there could be as many as 20 bad guys attacking the town and hadn't had a short rest after fighting two smaller skirmishes that put them at lowered HP and lost spell slots. Then for some reason the Wizard decides he is going to try to attack a Level 5 Bad Guy Mage with 10 henchmen all by himself because he was convinced that he could take the Boss out with Chromatic Orb (which he nearly did). Finally the Paladin decides he is just going to hide behind a bush on the far edge of town from the action for 13 rounds while the Cleric, Ranger, a High Level NPC, and a token NPC get pummeled.
So sometimes it doesn't matter what the CR is if the players do not make wise decisions.
jimmytheccomic
First Post
I've found CR is useful as a starting point, with a few caveats-
1.) Action economy is a HUGE equalizer. A party can bat well above it's suggested CR if a monster is by itself.
2.) Remember that a "Deadly" ranked encounter (especially if just barely) by CR simply means "ONE player MIGHT die", not "Total party kill!". So don't be nervous about dropping those fights in.
3.) Also remember that, by 5e rules, a "Deadly" ranked encounter means "Deadly in the context of an adventuring day, with 6-8 encounters". If the players just have one big fight a day, they'll be fine, they are challenged by a string of fights that lower their encounters. The "XP per Adventuring day" table is more useful to me than the CR charts, to be honest.
4.) It's art more than science- you'll have to run a few games to get a better handle on what your specific party can do. Get a handle on what damage output your party can take, what they dish out, etc, and within a few games you'll get it down.
1.) Action economy is a HUGE equalizer. A party can bat well above it's suggested CR if a monster is by itself.
2.) Remember that a "Deadly" ranked encounter (especially if just barely) by CR simply means "ONE player MIGHT die", not "Total party kill!". So don't be nervous about dropping those fights in.
3.) Also remember that, by 5e rules, a "Deadly" ranked encounter means "Deadly in the context of an adventuring day, with 6-8 encounters". If the players just have one big fight a day, they'll be fine, they are challenged by a string of fights that lower their encounters. The "XP per Adventuring day" table is more useful to me than the CR charts, to be honest.
4.) It's art more than science- you'll have to run a few games to get a better handle on what your specific party can do. Get a handle on what damage output your party can take, what they dish out, etc, and within a few games you'll get it down.
Flamestrike
Legend
Ignore what most people have said in this thread.
CR has very little to do with encounter difficulty. It's simply a rough approximation of the average difficulty of particular individual monster.
A single CR 5 monster against a party of five fifth level player characters is an easy encounter. The player characters are expected to steamroll it inside of a round or two with little to no resource expenditure and zero risk.
To build an encounter you need a combination of monsters of multiple different CRs, or all of the same CR. The only time a solo creature really works is if the CR is substantially higher than that player characters level or it is legendary.
Also note when designing encounters the challenge of the encounter isnt the encounter itself. It's the challenge that that encounter presents in the context of the longer adventuring day.
A fully rested party is far more dangerous than a party that is out of resources. A party that is forced to hold back on its resource expenditure is not as powerful as one that can afford to nova every single encounter. Killing one dragon a day is hard. Killing one Dragon every hour of the day for the whole day is nearly impossible.
The dungeon Master's guide recommends approximately 6 to 8 encounters in between long rests and approximately 2 to 3 short rests given during that time. I personally work off a ratio of around 5 to 6 encounters per adventuring day and giving around two short rests during that day. I stick to this ratio for about 50% of the adventuring days i handout to my player characters.
For shorter adventuring days I will increase the difficulty of the encounters. Occasionally I throw in an even longer one with either more or fewer short rests.
CR has very little to do with encounter difficulty. It's simply a rough approximation of the average difficulty of particular individual monster.
A single CR 5 monster against a party of five fifth level player characters is an easy encounter. The player characters are expected to steamroll it inside of a round or two with little to no resource expenditure and zero risk.
To build an encounter you need a combination of monsters of multiple different CRs, or all of the same CR. The only time a solo creature really works is if the CR is substantially higher than that player characters level or it is legendary.
Also note when designing encounters the challenge of the encounter isnt the encounter itself. It's the challenge that that encounter presents in the context of the longer adventuring day.
A fully rested party is far more dangerous than a party that is out of resources. A party that is forced to hold back on its resource expenditure is not as powerful as one that can afford to nova every single encounter. Killing one dragon a day is hard. Killing one Dragon every hour of the day for the whole day is nearly impossible.
The dungeon Master's guide recommends approximately 6 to 8 encounters in between long rests and approximately 2 to 3 short rests given during that time. I personally work off a ratio of around 5 to 6 encounters per adventuring day and giving around two short rests during that day. I stick to this ratio for about 50% of the adventuring days i handout to my player characters.
For shorter adventuring days I will increase the difficulty of the encounters. Occasionally I throw in an even longer one with either more or fewer short rests.
practicalm
Explorer
I find myself paying attention to CR for the most powerful opponent and then add minions as necessary to complicate the situation. The only kinds of solo's I use are ones with legendary actions or ability to hit and run.
I have a large party most of the time so what I try to pay attention to is if the opponent can one shot my players. I'll still throw them in but I might limit their power (and reduce the reward appropriately). I will make exceptions if the party knows they are in a situation where they can get over their heads and will need to rely on stealth or social interaction instead of combat.
In my large party I generally max the HP to keep things from getting too easy.
I have a large party most of the time so what I try to pay attention to is if the opponent can one shot my players. I'll still throw them in but I might limit their power (and reduce the reward appropriately). I will make exceptions if the party knows they are in a situation where they can get over their heads and will need to rely on stealth or social interaction instead of combat.
In my large party I generally max the HP to keep things from getting too easy.
wedgeski
Adventurer
I have found the *general* encounter guidelines to be on the easy side for my group (easily fixed), but I've found CR's to be about right. Admittedly I haven't run very high level 5E yet, but without thirty pages of rigorous recipes of the kind that 5E doesn't indulge in, I don't see how any game of D&D at those extremes can deliver spot-on difficulty for the majority of groups.
LordEntrails
Hero
That's a useful attitude to start with.
What you went on to say is useful, and not that different from what many others have said. But starting with that type of statement will get your opinions ignored or worse.
Flamestrike
Legend
you're right.
I should've said 'most of what's been said in this thread is wrong or misleading".
Jester David
Hero
The encounter building guidelines are a nice baseline, but using optional rules (feats) and having optimizing players throws them out the window.
I usually don't bother with the guidelines and just toss out whatever monsters seem appropriate. Based on the play experiences of Mike "Sly Flourish" Shea, it also sounds like a monster with a CR equal to the player's level/ 3 is a fair fight. So four CR 1 monsters challenge a level 3 party, four CR 2s challenge a level 6 party, etc.
But CR tends to get funky and break down at higher levels, depending on where you are in the adventuring day...
I usually don't bother with the guidelines and just toss out whatever monsters seem appropriate. Based on the play experiences of Mike "Sly Flourish" Shea, it also sounds like a monster with a CR equal to the player's level/ 3 is a fair fight. So four CR 1 monsters challenge a level 3 party, four CR 2s challenge a level 6 party, etc.
But CR tends to get funky and break down at higher levels, depending on where you are in the adventuring day...
CRs are mostly useless in my opinion, at best providing a rough estimate of the creature's capabilities, but it's nowhere near as effective as 4e's "Monster level X", though in fairness I'm not sure it was ever intended to be. Ultimately what a lot of other people in this thread have said is correct, you're simply going to have to get a feel of your group and adjust as appropriate, while keeping the action economy and length of adventuring day in mind.
Also remember to account for potential advantages/disadvantages in particular fights. Even low CR opponents can be dangerous to higher level players if they are able to engage on their own terms and turf. If your players are min-maxers, then I would use this design liberally since it increases the difficulty without having them rocket through levels from trouncing high XP foes.
Also remember to account for potential advantages/disadvantages in particular fights. Even low CR opponents can be dangerous to higher level players if they are able to engage on their own terms and turf. If your players are min-maxers, then I would use this design liberally since it increases the difficulty without having them rocket through levels from trouncing high XP foes.
Similar Threads
