A Thought About CR

[The_Gneech]

So what exactly is the complaint? That a single number can't capture how challenging a monster is in every situation? That the number represents the wrong thing? That people put too much faith in the number?

Do we need a valid complaint? We just like to gripe!

In all seriousness, I think the main beef I have with CR is that there's too much emphasis on it, viz. complex calculations of EL and calculation of experience points. Given what a vague, fuzzy number it is, it has a LOT of repercussions.

I'm not sure what I would do to fix this; more emphasis on story exp. and less on monsters for a start, probably.

-The Gneech

 

[Nephet]

Any DM worth his salt adjusts xp rewards as needed and knows pretty well what challenges his party. The CRs are a decent guide but they'll never substitute for experience. I don't think there is much of a need to change what CR means as far as party resource depletion.

 

[Sacredbull]

This is why the fighter needs the cleric. And why the wizard should be tossing fireballs and lightning bolts at the creature from a distance. And why the party needs to stay generally away from it unless it can only get off one attack.

The Girallon is a fine CR5 monster, as it will drain a party's resources -- but not wipe them out. With a rogue, a wizard, a cleric, and a fighter, the guy's nothing more than a tough physical customer. Charm him, hold him, slow him, ranged attack him -- he can't touch you and he's meat in a matter of rounds.

Not every monster problem should be solved by going up next to it and hitting it on the head until it dies. Sure, a CR5 Fey may be the perfect victim of that, but a big four-armed gorilla? You expect it to hit like a pansy little elf?!

While I agree with your use of tactical logic here, part of my problem with CRs has and always been the assumptions made about standard magic level, group size, and class makeup. I feel this logic has caused a great many members of our community to fall back into straight-jacketing a number of people into roles. By the way I'm not sure this exists on EN World from the postings i have seen, just a blanket generalization, that will probably end upshooting me in the foot in later.. I'm not quite sure how you could fix this, but the more general challenge codes and experience system evidenced in Wheel of time goes a long ways IMNSHO.

I guess that I'd like to advocate, a more general awareness of the assumptions involved in the CR system, you'd be surprised by the amount of people that don't read beyond surface details. I sound harsh, I don't mean to sound harsh, but while some rules are solid the impact they bring about in the world at large is not solid. If this is a jumbled mess, it's because I'm a jumbled mess of a person.

Edit: After reading Mike Mearls post on useful critiquing, I thought I'd offer an apology for his post. I am actually quite greatful for the CR system and how much easier it has made locating monster candidates to fit a challenge. My point here is simply this, the emphasis of it as a guideline as well as most of the other 3e rules as guidelines was in my opinion a little underemphasized, and this has effected me in my endeavors as a DM. I'll try to be a little more balanced in my approach to subjects from now on. I will not however edit out my previous comments, because I view them as valid opinions, expressed wrongly through the passion of the moment. As raw emotions I believe they also serve to further my point, even if they do sound a tad disrespectful.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Re: Re: A Thought About CR

Why?

Anyway, an Nth-level character is CR N -- presumably capable of pushing another Nth-level character to his limits. That same CR N character is an EL N encounter, capable of challenging four CR N characters, i.e. of putting up a good fight before dying and using up about one-fourth of their resources.

You can compose a reasonable adventure for four Nth-level characters out of a string of EL N encounters. Any one encounter that pushes a party to its limits should end the adventure then and there (typically).

OK, this really surprised me.

CR does not equal EL!

CR is a vague measure of how dangerous a creature is, and is subject to all the problems that are being discussed in this thread.

EL is a measure of how powerful a fully grown creature is compared to a PC of the same level, and is discussed in Savage Species. The two are utterly different.

A CR13 Vrock is not the equivalent of a 13th level Evil Cleric if both are played in an evil game. The Vrock is in fact EL16 (pg 202 of Savage Species) and thus if played as a character, is the same as playing a 16th level PC from the normal PHB.

 

[BryonD]

Tallarn

I think you are confusing ECL and EL.

For an encounter with 1 creature the EL = CR.

Savage Species does not discuss ELs. It does cover ECLs.

 

[mmadsen]

IMO, the best thing that can be done for the CR system is to take the section on scenario setups to CR/El where they discuss orcs in ambush vs orcs in the open and expand it into about 10 pages of scenario design 101.

Excellent idea, Petrosian.

FWIW, in my games, less than 1 ogre in 10 ever got to melee range when my guys were at levels 2 and 3. Lumbering morons with negative hide and silent scores and no reasonable ranged capability just do not seem all that effective. My bugbears were a lot more of a threat.

Ogres may lumber (Dex 8), but they lumber quite quickly (30-ft per turn in armor). I would think that an Ogre's charge would close the distance in most encounters.

 

[Endur]

Entangle + archers = dead Ogres. Even against level 1 PCs.

At higher levels, Briar Web + Plant Growth + Wall of Thorns = dead Giants.

Tom

Ogres may lumber (Dex 8), but they lumber quite quickly (30-ft per turn in armor). I would think that an Ogre's charge would close the distance in most encounters.

 

[mmadsen]

While I agree with your use of tactical logic here, part of my problem with CRs has and always been the assumptions made about standard magic level, group size, and class makeup.

To use one, simple number for CR, the designers have to use some set of assumptions. Do you feel they made the wrong set of assumptions? Would another set of assumptions be more correct for more people?

 

[D'karr]

To use one, simple number for CR, the designers have to use some set of assumptions. Do you feel they made the wrong set of assumptions? Would another set of assumptions be more correct for more people?

I think the assumptions work in most cases. A party of 4 diverse characters encompassing Fighting, Sneaking, Divine and Arcane spellcasters.

Besides these assumptions are based on the input from playtesters. The average party is the average party. Deviations will change the assumption. But that is explained in the DMG.

 

[mmadsen]

Besides these assumptions are based on the input from playtesters.

That was going to be my follow-up point: WotC actually researched what was average. As I recall (and I might not be recalling this correctly), they found that parties averaged around four characters (not 8 to 12), and campaigns lasted six months or so (not years).