Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6481212" data-attributes="member: 42582">This was covered in more detail by [MENTION=13120]eryndel[/MENTION] upthread. The fact that there is no simple function defined over the real numbers that relates CR to XP (or vice versa) doesn't mean that the two are not related.XP is a value that is read off CR via a table provided in the core rules.CR is also used to determine the XP value of a monster - see the chart on pages 61 to 62 of the Basic DM PDF. So the input into the encounter-building guidelines - namely, monster XP values - is itself derived from CR. Which is, in turn, derived via the monster-building guidelines others have referred to plus (it seems) a hefty does of eyeballing.Hence, when people say that "CR is broken for encounter building purposes", what they are saying is that the XP values that have been assigned to monsters on the basis of their CR do not provide an accurate guide to encounter threat levels. They may also be implying that the suggested difficulty multipliers are not very reliable.Such claims may be true or false, but that truth or falsity will depend upon whether or not the XP values when aded and multiplied as the guidelines suggest do, roughly, correlate to encounter difficulty. The terminological issue is a total red herring, in general and in the context of this thread. I have read the whole thread, and have not seen a single post from anyone confused about how the encounter building guidelines work, how CR is related to monster XP value, or how CR is related to a monster's mechanical capabilities.On the substantive issue, my view is that the guidelines very obviously must break down at some point: whether a Giant Ape (CR 7, 2900 XP) is as challenging as 15 Acolytes (CR 1/4, so 50 XP each, x4 for numbers = 3000 XP) will depend so heavily on tactical context, party composition, etc that the comparison runs the risk of arbitrariness.If the guidelines break down even in simple cases - say, when comparing a Giant Ape to a Mummy and a Ghost haunting a tomb (CR 3, 700 XP plus CR 4, 1100 XP, x1.5 for two monsters = 2700 XP) - then that's a bigger issue. For a mid-level party without magic weapons I think the undead look harder than the ape, but I haven't actually run the encounters to compare.</blockquote>

Verification