D&D 5E CR and Encounter Difficulty: Is It Consistently Wrong?

[Jester David]

The CR system doesn't seem to be that different from the level system of 4e. Replace "CR" with "level" and it's comparable.
The big difference is that in 5e the CR system is averaged, so you can have a higher defensive CR paired with a lower offensive CR, opposed to both numbers being mandated to be the same (or varied by role). This means there's more flexibility but also some wobble. A high CR monster because it's offensively high might be taken out quickly because of its low defences. Or a low offensive CR creature will be shut down by good tanking. So if the party is built right, they can be overly effective against certain foes.
The CR system also doesn't account more monster building and roles. Having a couple goblin archers backing up melee hobgoblins will potentially make an encounter more deadly than just adding an extra hobgoblin. But, again, that's standard practice as you could use effective combinations and good tactics to turn weak fights into deadly ones in any edition.

So I think a lot of people's problems come down to the learning curve. They're uncertain how to really make the most of monsters, not sure how to best accommodate their individual party's power level, and still learning what makes a monster tough or weak in 5e.


Honestly, also I think a lot of the complaints come down to naming. CR was broken in 3e. As were the encounter building rules. 5e uses the same terminology, so it's easy to see the flaws.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Look at Tables 31 & 32 in the 2E DMG, emdw45 ... it's rigid. I forgot that it's not the same as the AD&D 1E nor BX/BECMI version (but note that I mostly used BECMI/Cyclopedia, where it was used right through the End of TSR...)

Yes, I remember that table well. Trolls are my favorite AD&D2 monster because they are ruthlessly optimized to be as powerful as possible without crossing any of the thresholds that give PCs extra experience points for killing them.

So, if you're talking about DMG tables and not MM tables, 5E follows the same pattern as 2nd edition, except it also gives you one of the intermediate results (CR) whereas in 2nd edition you would have had to look at the DMG table to figure out what "effective HD" it had. (But you wouldn't have done that in the first place, because the 2nd edition paradigm for computing monster frequency was based off of rarity and number appearing instead of off of desired encounter difficulty--so there was no reason to care about effective HD/"CR".) But in no case did AD&D2 use the star notation.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, I remember that table well. Trolls are my favorite AD&D2 monster because they are ruthlessly optimized to be as powerful as possible without crossing any of the thresholds that give PCs extra experience points for killing them.

So, if you're talking about DMG tables and not MM tables, 5E follows the same pattern as 2nd edition, except it also gives you one of the intermediate results (CR) whereas in 2nd edition you would have had to look at the DMG table to figure out what "effective HD" it had. (But you wouldn't have done that in the first place, because the 2nd edition paradigm for computing monster frequency was based off of rarity and number appearing instead of off of desired encounter difficulty--so there was no reason to care about effective HD/"CR".) But in no case did AD&D2 use the star notation.

At least two adventures did. Not the MC, but then, the MC was a mess. Hell, 2E was a mess.

 

[Authweight]

A lot of it also comes down to the fact that 5e tends to be deadlier than prior editions, and PCs have fewer tricks up their sleeve to deal with difficult situations. It means that that the mathematical balance is simply less important, and the situational balance is far more important. It means that players are forced to rely less upon their abilities to get them out of scrapes and rely more upon their ingenuity and planning. 5e really emphasizes skill in play at the table over build skill.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A lot of it also comes down to the fact that 5e tends to be deadlier than prior editions, and PCs have fewer tricks up their sleeve to deal with difficult situations. It means that that the mathematical balance is simply less important, and the situational balance is far more important. It means that players are forced to rely less upon their abilities to get them out of scrapes and rely more upon their ingenuity and planning. 5e really emphasizes skill in play at the table over build skill.

Which prior editions did you have in mind here? To my eye, PCs have more tricks available in 5E than in AD&D, with the sole exception of wizards, who have fewer tricks due to magic system changes.

 

[DaveDash]

Which prior editions did you have in mind here? To my eye, PCs have more tricks available in 5E than in AD&D, with the sole exception of wizards, who have fewer tricks due to magic system changes.

Yeah I'm converting City of the Spider Queen, and so far 5e is a lot more "soft" at the higher levels than 3rd. Less "save or die" traps, easier to detect, and the PCs can overcome those higher EL encounters due to bounded accuracy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah I'm converting City of the Spider Queen, and so far 5e is a lot more "soft" at the higher levels than 3rd. Less "save or die" traps, easier to detect, and the PCs can overcome those higher EL encounters due to bounded accuracy.

Good point about the absence of save-or-die effects. Not to mention the fact that you don't die instantly until you hit -100(ish) HP as opposed to -10 HP, and even 1 HP of healing resets you to full consciousness and activity requiring the full 100(ish) HP to start all over again. With nothing more than a Healing Word spell each round, or a pre-cast Regenerate, a high-level fighter can survive arbitrary amounts of Red Dragon breath/Meteor Swarms as long as he doesn't get hit three times in the same round.

And, almost none of the monsters have anything resembling old-school Magic Resistance. (Rakshasa and Tiamat both have spell immunity, which is similar, but Mind Flayers are now squishy to evocations instead of nearly invulnerable.) And no, Legendary Resistance is not a substitute. See: Maze, Wall of Force.

 

[Authweight]

Which prior editions did you have in mind here? To my eye, PCs have more tricks available in 5E than in AD&D, with the sole exception of wizards, who have fewer tricks due to magic system changes.

I had in mind 3e and 4e, I should have specified that more clearly. I have almost no experience in ad&d, but I would agree that PCs have a lot more tricks in 5e than they did back then.