Are Dragons under-CR'd?

Ry

Explorer
I remember reading ... somewhere ... that dragons in D&D were deliberately under-CR'd. Is that true - and if so, is it just 1 CR off in most cases?

The reason I ask is I'm trying to do some stats workups on the SRD, and dragons are frequently dragging my numbers up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

When you say under-CRed ... if you mean that they are more powerful than their CR indicates, then yes. THat is typically true. Dragons are almost always one of the most powerful foes for a given CR range.
 

I thought that was one of the things that was fixed in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

I know that the 3.0 dragons are heavily under thier actual CR, but it seems like that they got an across the board +1 bump in CR in 3.5. There are still probably a few that are arguably 1 below thier CR on a case by case basis, but its not nearly the problem that it was in 3.0 when they all were.
 

I've noticed that most creatures seem to be under-CR'd, especially Undead. A lot of the really nasty Undead (Shadows, Bodaks, Entombers, etc.) have a rather low CR in my opinion compared to what they can do a party.
 

Celebrim said:
I thought that was one of the things that was fixed in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

Perhaps it did get attention, I can't argue that. But it is still true that on a CR range where you are likely to find dragons, they are usually near the top of the list of creatures for that specific CR. I also agree with an above poster that there are some undead out there that if played intelligently can make their given CR an absolute farce! :D In general, though, Dragons are consistantly at the high end for their CR.
 

wayne62682 said:
I've noticed that most creatures seem to be under-CR'd, especially Undead. A lot of the really nasty Undead (Shadows, Bodaks, Entombers, etc.) have a rather low CR in my opinion compared to what they can do a party.
Don't forget that CRs are based off the assumption of a four person party with a cleric, a wizard, a fighter and a rogue. A shadow meeting such a four-person party of level 3 PCs would be rolled over with no PC really having a chance to die and after probably causing some Str damage to one, maybe two, PCs. That sounds just about right for what a CR 3 critter should be.

Bodaks are a poorly designed creature, having the one big death gaze but no real strong defenses or other real offense.

I don't know about entombers.

And to answer the OP, dragons are definitely at the top end of their CR. If you bump most dragons' CRs up by 1, they'd work fine as a moderate monster of that level.
 

Things get a little unbalanced when you let dragons wear armor, though. And two simple buff spells - mage armor and shield - turn them from tough to nigh impenetrable.

In Red Hand of Doom we faced a dragon that was CR 13 when we were level 9. Normally this critter would have an AC of 26, which is respectable, but easily hittable by a powerful 9th level PC (our harpoonist, for instance, has a +17 attack bonus).

But the dragon had an ring of protection, and cast shield and mage armor, knocking its AC up to 35. Then it cast blur. Needing an 18 to hit a creature, and then having a 20% miss chance? Ridiculous. We would all have died, except an amazingly successful dispel magic stripped away all those spells.
 



Something to keep in mind is how the creatures are played. A very intelligent and played as such dragon should mop up most groups through use of henchmen, traps and in the end their own might.

However, take the same dragon and play them as reckless and they can be beaten by groups of CR 3 lower than expected.

Some groups are also just better suited. This happens at higher level. If the fighter has a flaming sword and the mages specialize in fire attacks a White Dragon is in serious danger. A red would thank them before / during their meal consisting of teammates.


I like to use the CRs as a gage then adjust it as the DMG suggests for ease / difficultity and the such.
 

Remove ads

Top