CR/EL System View

[I'm A Banana]

Who's exaggerating? I'm perfectly serious. They might not always be off to a huge extent(most monsters are not as absurd as, for example, the Banelar, or the Drowned), but they are incorrect more often than not.

Well, then you are exaggerating, since they're clearly not "picked out of a hat." They're not arbitrary if they're not absurdly off.

This means there's a process behind deciding what they are. Perhaps a flawed process, perhaps an inaccurate process, but a logical process nonetheless. And perhaps, if they're not absurdly off, they make a good guideline, but a poor absolute rule?

If you'd like to discuss the merits and precieved flaws of such a system, that could be productive. But if you're just bent on soapboxing...it'll be less so.

 

[Hussar]

I'm squarely in the guidelines camp. Since I started running the World's Largest Dungeon, this has certainly been the most combat intensive campaign I've ever run. We average 2 to 3 combats every session with 4 and 5 happening more than a few times (we play 3 hour sessions). After 70 sessions and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 to 300 combats, I can honestly say that the guidelines hold up very, very well.

We've had a group as small as four and as large as six, with a pretty wide selection of classes and resource books, so, when people start going on and on about power creep, I gotta admit that I certainly don't see it. Hands down the most combat effective character we have is the orc barbarian with power attack and a greataxe. The least effective characters have almost always been the ones drawn from other sources - the Favoured Soul, the Warmage, and the Scout have all been less powerful in combat than a cleric, wizard or thief.

I ran an encounter a while ago with four straight encounters EL -1, EL -1, EL par and EL +1. And, it went almost by textbook - the party was pretty much out of spells by the end and succeeded by the skin of their teeth. Which is exactly what the EL guidelines predict.

Granted, I haven't played with creatures above CR 20, so, I can't speak to that. But, I certainly haven't had the issues that some seem to have regarding the guidelines.

 

[Celebrim]

Don't exaggerate. It doesn't make your case as well as you think it does.

I don't think he's exageratting. I think that's a pretty spot on analysis.

• The CRs are more often wrong than not. My experience as well.

• They're wrong for all PC and NPC characters Yes. In addition to some bad guidelines, there is simply too much that goes into a character build to claim any claim that a character of any class and of any level and of any build is the same challenge as any other class of any other build of that same level.

• they're wrong for nearly all dragons Not only are they wrong, but they are deliberately wrong which is one of the few boneheaded moves that the 3rd edition designers made.

• they're clearly wrong when you compare monsters from the original Monster Manual to ones from MM2 or MM3 that supposedly have the same CR There has been CR creep as monsters get more powerful for a given CR.

• and once you get to CRs higher than 20, they might as well be pulled out of a hat. The best anyone can say is that one monster is probably more powerful than some other, but I don't think anyone knows enough about high level play and enough definitive can be said about high level play with the diversity of player ability and its absolutes to suggest anyone knows whether something is CR 26 or CR 28.

• And that's just the really big obvious ones (without even getting into side stuff like Monsters of Faerun), many of the other ones are far less egregious, but still off. For example of the more subtle problems, like so much of D20 the CR system breaks down because the power increase in D&D isn't linear but the measurement is. A CR3 is supposedly twice as deadly as a CR1 (in practice its probably more so), but two CR 26's would probably overwhelm a CR 28. So how do you measure what a CR 28 is, or for that matter a CR 18. There are just all sort of ways that the system needs tweaking and DM judgement.

 

[Grog]

The CR system is completely worthless, except as a (very) loose guideline. Take this example:

The 8th level NPC fighter from the DMG has AC 23, 64 hit points, +12/+7 to hit, 1d10+6 damage with +1 bastard sword and weapon specialization, saves +8 Fort +3 Ref +3 Will.

A stone giant has has AC 25, 119 hit points, +17/+12 to hit, 2d8+12 damage, saves +13 Fort +6 Ref +7 Will, and 10 foot reach.

These are both CR 8 enemies. Would anyone seriously try to claim that they present even close to the same threat level? The giant has twice as many hit points, hits twice as hard, his saves are twice as good, and he has a better AC and a significantly better chance to hit.

To say those creatures have the same CR is absolutely ridiculous. (For even more laughs, look at the 20th level DMG fighter vs. a balor.)

And this example is just from the core rules; this isn't even getting into how the MM2 and MM3 break the system.

 

[Hussar]

I don't have my books, but, why is the 8th level fighter losing out on like 6 feats? That will close the gap considerably between the two creatures. Also, a Stone Giant is probably the strongest CR 8 creature, while an Ogre Mage has AC 18, 37 hit points, +7 to hit, 3d6+7 damage and some special abilities.

Granted, the only reason an Ogre Mage has that CR is because of its cone of cold ability.

But, it does show the range of CR 8 creatures. Certainly not all CR 8 creatures are as nasty as a stone giant.

 

[Grog]

I don't have my books, but, why is the 8th level fighter losing out on like 6 feats? That will close the gap considerably between the two creatures.

Are you kidding? What feats could possibly make up for a difference that huge? Besides, I already gave him Weapon Specialization. And Exotic Weapon Prof (Bastard Sword). That's three feats right there. If you can come up with three more feats that will put the fighter anywhere even close to the stone giant's power level, I'm all ears.

But, it does show the range of CR 8 creatures. Certainly not all CR 8 creatures are as nasty as a stone giant.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[Hussar]

Grog - Are you honestly trying to argue that CR's should be so exact that there should be no range within a given CR? That you can't have a Hard 8 and a Soft 8? There's no way that you could be that exact unless every monster had exactly the same stats.

So, CR remains a rough guideline. It may not work for you, but, it certainly did for me. I know that if I throw a given CR creature out against an equal level party, it's not going to be a difficult fight. If I go a few EL's higher, then it will be.

What more should I expect?

 

[mmu1]

Grog - Are you honestly trying to argue that CR's should be so exact that there should be no range within a given CR? That you can't have a Hard 8 and a Soft 8? There's no way that you could be that exact unless every monster had exactly the same stats.

Of course there ought to be a range - making an exact system, even if possible, would be more trouble than it'd be worth.

But suggesting that the 8th level Fighter and the Stone Giant are in the same "range" is completely absurd, when the latter is 50 to 100 percent ahead in most measurable categories. It's a bigger mismatch than a 1st level human Fighter vs. an Ogre.

And the fact the Ogre Mage is too weak for its CR is just another example of the system not working - two wrongs don't balance each other out.

 

[DragonLancer]

I ignore it completely. The CR system just does not work.

Instead I look over a given monsters stat block and decide for myself what kind of challenge it would be to my current players and their characters. CR doesn't factor into anything except as a rough guide to the XP they should get.

 

[Fishbone]

I find that monster strength varies so much from book to book and that the party's makeup has such a radical effect on what a CR should be that I've been chucking assigned CRs out the window for the past 2 or so years.
The fact that CR errata has been issued for plenty of books and monsters just further goes to show that the CR is too fishy to be slavishly adhered to.
Its better than stat blocks with nothing to go on but I trust my experience, limited though it may be, over WOTC assigned numbers.