A Sample CR Comparison

[Bad Paper]

I agree with everything I2k says. Sorry, airwalkrr, but your post was an exercise in futility. But what exercise!

That having been said,

My Players once commented "We never see any NPC rogues."

I said "It looks like they are doing [their] job then!"

It's times like these, Frank, when I would love to have the honor of a gruesome death by your hands.

 

[Stalker0]

Here's the problem:

Your taking a wealth of powers, ACs, damages, resistances, and pretty much any wacky ability you can think of...

Then your throwing it against 4 characters whose abilities, ACs, damages, etc, you can only guesstimate at...

And then boiling all of that down to a single number.

From a math standpoint, that model is just not going to be very good. Considering this, I think the CR system does a relatively decent job. Its not perfect by any stretch, but considering how widly parties and monsters can very, I think it stands up well. More importantly, I don't think your going to be able to improve the system without increasing the complexity.

 

[shilsen]

From a math standpoint, that model is just not going to be very good. Considering this, I think the CR system does a relatively decent job. Its not perfect by any stretch, but considering how widly parties and monsters can very, I think it stands up well. More importantly, I don't think your going to be able to improve the system without increasing the complexity.

I totally agree. Considering the context in which it exists, the CR system does as good a job as you can realistically expect it to.

 

[airwalkrr]

Disagree. I don't pigeon-hole monsters/NPCs like that. It's fine to talk about their strengths, but not their 'function'.

Those monster roles are taken right out of the MM, so if you disagree with me, you disagree with the designers. Additionally, I said "typically" which means this does not apply to all cases, but in the case of a hill giant, it is obviously a battler. I challenge you to argue otherwise. Plus, just because categories do not ALWAYS fit EXACTLY in EVERY case does not mean they are useless (which seems to be your position). And finally, you apparently agree with me more than you think by saying it is ok to talk about their "strengths" but not their "function." The two are readibly interchangeable for most intents and purposes. A battler's function is to challenge the PCs in combat. It's strengths may be in melee or ranged combat, or it may have high AC and consistent but low damage. But it usually remains the same kind of challenge for the party and similar tactics are required to fight a battler whether it relies on ranged attacks or melee ones: let the warriors absorb the damage, let the mages confound it, let the rogues trick it, and let the clerics keep the warriors and anyone else unlucky enough to get in its path alive.

...the associativity of class levels has to do with how they improve the monster's strengths. I would not equate strengths with basic function, though there are obvious similarities.

What you are saying about associative class levels is true, but you seem to fail to understand that what I am trying to do is to classify monster strengths in a general way. I never claimed this works in all cases. To say my idea doesn't work because it is absolute is therefore a misrepresentation of my idea.

For example, levels in fighter will almost always be associative.

No matter how good a mind flayer is at sucking brains, they make pretty crappy fighters. So do beholders. So do dopplegangers, so do dryads, so do lillends, and dozens of other monsters.

Depending on the spells picked, in some cases I would call sorcerer associative even on a creature that relies on its fighting ability.

Yes, that can be true. A creature that typically does not wear armor but has 1 level of sorcerer and gains mage armor and shield effectively boosts its AC by 8. That is quite useful. But please go back and read my OP again and notice how many times I use words like "typically" and "usually." These are not catch-alls, but general trends. There will always be exceptions.

Yes, although it can be inferior in some cases or equal in others (e.g. undead is worse and dragon is equal or better).

Once again you seem to be reading right through the word "typically." I know there are exceptions. That's why I used that word "typically."

This entire exercise is flawed from the get-go. CR's are not intended to be compared one with another. They are intended to be compared with a party of 4 PC's of equal level--specifically wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue. So, redo your analysis comparing the hill giant with stock PCs and the fighter with stock PCs and try to match up the two comparisons.

That's an easy one. Tordek loses faster than the hill giant every time. This is a no brainer if you just look at the stats. Tordek doesn't hit as hard, doesn't resist as much damage, and isn't as fast. He will get clobbered much quicker than the giant in virtually every case. There is virtually no category of statistics in which Tordek holds a significant mechanical advantage. The single category where he does hold a powerful advantage: initiative, could easily be mediated by swapping out one of the giant's more conditional feats, and besides that Tordek lacks the resources to make good use of high initiative. If he were capable of downing a foe in one round consistently (i,e. without critting) then the high init might be a valuable advantage, but Tordek can't hit as hard as the giant and thus has a low chance of downing a foe in one hit, even with a crit.

 

[airwalkrr]

You ignore 1900 gp worth of gear and expect the NPC to keep up with a monster?!

Oh no, my friend. You forget one crucial detail here: The giant didn't get treasure either. According to the DMG, a CR 7 monster has on average, oh let's see *flips open DMG to page 51* 2,600 gp of treasure. Hmm. It seems to me that is markedly MORE than the 1,900 gp I, as you so eloquently put it "ignore." Monsters can use treasure just as well as NPCs. I simply didn't see a need to make the case any bolder by giving the hill giant yet another (700 gp) advantage.

1. That remaining 1900 is there to customize the NPC and is more than enough to have several other weapons, potions to round out the NPC CR.

Yes, and as I pointed out, monsters can use them too. And apparently a hill giant should have more of them.

Dogs are what, 25gp each?

Tordek's actions are wasted on commanding dog companions with +1 to hit to attack 7th level PCs.

Unless you don’t allow them, tanglefoot bags are a must for every NPC.

And a must for every monster too? Personally, rather than POSSIBLY slow down an opponent, I would much rather stick to what my NPC is good at and beat stuff down. Tanglefoot bags are great for PCs like the rogue fighting undead or constructs or the wizard who is out of spells, but most NPCs can usually find much better use for their actions that consuming expendables.

Alchemist fire is another must since the person bathed in it must chose to loose an action to put it out or suffer a greater risk of catching on fire and putting all their stuff at risk

As per the RAW, alchemist's fire does not damage items, only the character. Additionally, Tordek could be dealing 2d10+12 points of damage in one round with his melee attacks, why would he choose to instead deal 2d6 damage over two rounds?

If he has allies, and is expecting trouble, a smart foe shares his resources with his allies.

Giants and dwarves alike are capable of doing this.

Where are his caltrops?

Do I really need to address how useless of an action it would be for Tordek to spend a full round withdrawing a pouch of caltrops and dropping them on ONE 5-foot square?

2. NPCs that are built to challenge the party should be built to challenge the party. While it is gauche to snipe at PC weaknesses, unless the you expect the NPC to reliable kill a PC, taking cleave is almost throwing away a feat.

Ah, so metagaming is the answer then. Very well. The giant's feats are now as follows: Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Toughness, Monkey Grip, and Power Attack. OUCH!

Try quickdraw and carry a tripping weapon, Swim as a major skill? Try Ride or Handle Animal.

I was sticking to a typical fighter. Most fighters don't bother with Ride because most mounts are too fragile at later levels and it is like pulling teeth to get a DM to allow you to have a griffon or something with more staying power. Now if you can put a price on a griffon and give Tordek a griffon mount, he becomes tougher. But unfortunately, that is two creatures, not one.

3. Core Shield builds are arguably weaker than 2 handed weapon builds. Make a dwarf or half orc barbarian and then compare the two.

The barbarian is quite simply a better class than the fighter in 3e. Sad but true. That is part of what I am highlighting here. Glad you see my point.

 

[airwalkrr]

Tordek breaks Invisibilty as he takes a Hasted full attack on the wizard.

That's just cheesy. Besides it is somewhat impossible, as this would likely be a surprise action and therefore limited to a single attack. Or the wizard simply uses his brains and says "if I stand still, then the dwarf might be standing next to me and get a full attack next round. I'll just move at the end of every action like a smart character."

 

[airwalkrr]

I totally agree. Considering the context in which it exists, the CR system does as good a job as you can realistically expect it to.

I would tend to agree EXCEPT in the case of NPCs. NPCs need to have lower CRs. If you balk at the idea of a CR 10 NPC giving the PCs so much treasure, reduce his treasure load to that recommended for a CR 10 monster.

 

[shilsen]

Oh no, my friend. You forget one crucial detail here: The giant didn't get treasure either. According to the DMG, a CR 7 monster has on average, oh let's see *flips open DMG to page 51* 2,600 gp of treasure. Hmm. It seems to me that is markedly MORE than the 1,900 gp I, as you so eloquently put it "ignore." Monsters can use treasure just as well as NPCs. I simply didn't see a need to make the case any bolder by giving the hill giant yet another (700 gp) advantage.

One thing to note here. A CR7 monster may have, on average, 2,600 gp of treasure, but that number is based on average rolls on the treasure table (3-5, pg. 52-53, DMG). A hill giant, rolling on the 7th lvl table, would have a 46% chance of having 1d3 minor magic items and a 3% chance of 1 medium magic item. The chances of the item(s) actually being usable by the giant are proportionately lower. An NPC, on the other hand, explicitly has its money sunk into equipment, which is specifically designed for its use. That makes a significant difference. Whether it completely bridges the gap you're pointing to or not is another matter, but I think your point above misrepresents the way monster treasure works vis-a-vis NPC equipment.

 

[Benimoto]

Oh no, my friend. You forget one crucial detail here: The giant didn't get treasure either. According to the DMG, a CR 7 monster has on average, oh let's see *flips open DMG to page 51* 2,600 gp of treasure. Hmm. It seems to me that is markedly MORE than the 1,900 gp I, as you so eloquently put it "ignore." Monsters can use treasure just as well as NPCs. I simply didn't see a need to make the case any bolder by giving the hill giant yet another (700 gp) advantage.

Well the DMG also notes (p. 55) that "NPCs may have treasure in addition to ther gear, at your discretion," so as long as you don't mind handing out a wheelbarrow full of treasure, Tordek is equal to the giant here. Tordek has his gear, and he can also have as much treasure as the giant potentially has.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I totally agree. Considering the context in which it exists, the CR system does as good a job as you can realistically expect it to.

Agreed.

It is nice to have things boiled down to a single integer number. And it is inevitable that such a number will not always be accurate.

There is no non-hypercomplex numerical solution that will improve the system significantly. What I would like to see are expanded notes on tactical considerations of the playing the monsters, including how they are likely to fare against level equivalent, higher level, or lower level PCs.