D&D 5E Challenge Rating Is Imprecise (And That's OK)

[Swarmkeeper]

Honestly they should just drop the "build encounters" aspect of it. You can keep CR. It is essentially the same as (and just as "reliable" as) Hit Dice plus Asterix from AD&D. Just don't try and pretend there is some real math behind it that will somehow magically work for ever possible PC party permutation.

I think this is a reasonable take on the subject. Despite the "coulds", "usuallys", "mights" and "oftens" that are in the Combat Encounter Difficulty lead-in, and the (incomplete) caveats in the Modifying Encounter Difficulty section, the entire overarching CR section is overwhelmed by the focus on the math which, the Alexandrian and many in the community agree, is destined to be imprecise most of the time (I say "most" b/c even a broken clock, yada, yada). It's no surprise that the DMG guidance on CR endures criticism - and... more - from fans (and not-fans?) of 5e.

Quite a few years back, I had utilized Kobold Fight Club to design reasonable encounters based on the fuzzy math. Now I just aim to design encounters that are more-or-less logical/relevant/appropriate for the environment that the PCs currently find themselves in. Should combat occur, sometimes these fights will be cake-walks, sometimes they will be way over the PCs' heads, and sometimes they will be goldilocks-ish. More important than trying to predict the "Difficulty Level" of a combat encounter, I strive to do two things as DM: 1. to telegraph the potential difficulty of fighting the enemies, especially when it feels to me that the party may be in over their heads; and 2. to play the enemies with motivations and goals - motivations and goals that are typically more nuanced than "fight to the death" (h/t for some assistance from Keith Amman).


Also worthy of note is Mike Shea's take on the subject:

"Any DM who has played this game long enough recognizes that any system for measuring combat challenge in D&D is imperfect."

And his attempt at simplifying all the math rigamarole of the DMG:

The Lazy Encounter Benchmark, a Simple Measure for D&D Encounter Deadliness

Lazy Encounter Benchmark: An encounter may be deadly if the sum total of monster CRs is greater than one quarter of the sum total of character levels, or half the sum of character levels if the charac...

slyflourish.com

 

[Krachek]

I fully understand the intent of CR when I relate it with the comments of Perking and Mearls telling that the DM can change monsters hit points during a fight.
I simply don’t expect tight challenge (and balance) from the game.

 

[Oofta]

I fully understand the intent of CR when I relate it with the comments of Perking and Mearls telling that the DM can change monsters hit points during a fight.
I simply don’t expect tight challenge (and balance) from the game.

While I don't change things once the fight starts, I do agree that people expecting a precise calculation are never going to be happy. If you want a tight challenge and balance, play checkers.

 

[Maxperson]

While I don't change things once the fight starts, I do agree that people expecting a precise calculation are never going to be happy. If you want a tight challenge and balance, play checkers.

Psh! Too complex and unstable. Tic Tac Toe!

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't mind CR being inexact. I mind published monsters having the wrong CR by their own rules.

 

[Clint_L]

While I don't change things once the fight starts, I do agree that people expecting a precise calculation are never going to be happy. If you want a tight challenge and balance, play checkers.

Yeah, once the fight starts, it is locked in. Can't tell you how many times a supposedly deadly encounter has turned into a squash because the players completely outwitted me. C'est la vie.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, once the fight starts, it is locked in. Can't tell you how many times a supposedly deadly encounter has turned into a squash because the players completely outwitted me. C'est la vie.

Yeah, sometimes the PCs decimate the bad guys easily. Good for them.

 

[ad_hoc]

Yeah nah the 5e CR system is so dysfunctionally rubbish that it may as well not exist at all.

And yet lots of people find it to be a great tool.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the fundamental issue with the CR system is that it doesn't take it into the PCS themselves, and there is no reason you couldn't do this. For example, just like monsters, you can get the PCs standard AC, HP, you can look at what damage models they use most of the time, and then calculate a CR number for each PC. And then use them as a comparison between monster CR.

Sure its more work, but you at most have to recalculate it one a level, or if the party gets a particularly strong magic item, so its not something you ahve to figure out constantly.

 

[Tonguez]

And yet lots of people find it to be a great tool.

do they though? I find that I rely more on HD and general feel/experience more than Cr these days.
I did use the CR system in 3.5 so that might have trained me to be able to just pick suitable monsters based on narrative and feel rather caluculations