D&D General How you think CR should work

[Clint_L]

I find the current system works fine. CR is always going to be an art rather than a science, given the huge humber of variables in monster ability, table style, number of encounters/day etc. The best it will ever be is a rough guideline, and the current system gives me that. There are always places things could be improved, but I don't think it is possible to make a CR system that will accurately reflect the actual challenge a creature might pose for my table (heavy emphasis on RP) versus a tabletop of highly optimized power gamers.

 

[Scribe]

In 5E, none of this works. PC combat power varies by class, doesn't scale smoothly by level, and is heavily dependent on time of day (how many spells do the casters have left?), so you can't just determine that "my players fight at level + 1" and be done with it. On top of that, CR is loose and sloppy; the DMG guidelines allow a ton of variation, and the Monster Manual doesn't follow them anyway.

All of this, had me just throw my hands up in surrender.

 

[Oofta]

For all the wailing and moaning about CR, I find it reasonably accurate. Yes, I have to adjust total points per group and I ignore the numbers multiplier but the combats are fairly close to the guess. Of course it depends significantly on extraneous features that aren't encapsulated in a simple calculation. Everything from how many encounters between long rests, group dynamics, amount of magic, environmental factors.

I do use a spreadsheet I downloaded long ago, but it's just because I'm lazy and it's easier to plug numbers than to pull out a calculator. Not sure why it works for me and seems to work for no one else (or at least not the ones that complain about it incessantly) but it does.

 

[Oofta]

I find the current system works fine. CR is always going to be an art rather than a science, given the huge humber of variables in monster ability, table style, number of encounters/day etc. The best it will ever be is a rough guideline, and the current system gives me that. There are always places things could be improved, but I don't think it is possible to make a CR system that will accurately reflect the actual challenge a creature might pose for my table (heavy emphasis on RP) versus a tabletop of highly optimized power gamers.

I've run multiple groups at the same time. Same levels, options, similar encounters. One group? I could throw a half dozen deadly encounters, the others were lucky to get through as many medium encounters. Different groups are just more effective, there's no way one system can account for that. But once I get a group dialed in, my estimates are pretty spot on.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I made an Excel file for using CR to estimate whether an encounter will be easy, medium, hard, or deadly, based on the rules outlined in the DMG. I've found it works reasonably well as a baseline personally. Sure, some encounters will shift a degree one way or another depending on players' strategy, luck, and other factors, of course, but probably 70% of the time it is spot on.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think CR can work until we balance the idea of level.

is throwing 3 attacks at +11 to hit for 2d6+7 reroll 1s and 2s what you are going against or Save or Die, or just remove floor or bringing the dead back to life? Without making things closer there is no way to make CR mean anything...

having said that I still think 4e did it best, it labled EVERYTHING, soldier, skirmisher, controller minion élite solo

 

[Vaalingrade]

CR is a means of tricking DMs into ruining sessions and a test to see if they're humble enough to walk back a mistake* on their part.


*Trusting CR

 

[kigmatzomat]

having said that I still think 4e did it best, it labled EVERYTHING, soldier, skirmisher, controller minion élite solo

I don't know that the types other than minion really impacted CR as much as they were guidance on how a creature should be played. Solos aren't just tough, they are in some form anti-social. A skirmishes runs around, soldiers form up. Elites have minions, minions are cannon fodder.

You could take the same stat block and wrap a different skin on it. The stats for a black bear (solo) are pretty close to an bugbear (elite) or a hobgoblin (skirmisher). The CR would be the same. Now a minion version would have a lower CR due to no HP.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Still, the Monster Level was simple and elegant:

1 monster of this level is a challenge for 1PC of this level based on math and not some weird alchemy.

Elites are worth 2 normal monsters, solos are worth 4. Done and dusted.

 

[Stormonu]

Based on the encounter at hand, assuming a fully rested party. A CR 4 monster should be a moderate challenge for one 4th level characters, using about 50% of the party's resources (spells, abilities, hit points) to overcome. An encounter with two such creatures would reduce two characters to 50% (or wipe one character out). Ditto with three or four such monsters (and guidance you probably don't want to run more than 3 such monsters or you risk a good chance of one character getting "focused" on and killed).

If the party does one encounter for the day, they should feel "wiped" and that a 2nd such encounter would result in their defeat. If you're stringing multiple encounters together for a single day, you add up fractional CRs to spread the challenge out over the adventuring day. But go with the assumption of a lone encounter and work from there. Certainly not 6-8 in a day.