CR/EL System View

[I'm A Banana]

...and the CR/EL system factors this in, how? (the PCs potential - and by no means guaranteed - ability to fly, I mean) Are you seriously claiming that the CR system is so robust, it's actually able to factor in things like that?

By including a level 8 wizard in an encounter against a CR 8 monster, and by making sure level 8 wizards have access to the "fly" spell, the CR/EL system takes into account a much more vast region of options than hit points, AC, and attack bonus.

By assuming there's a level 8 cleric in the encounter, it also accounts for healing.

By assuming there's a level 8 rogue in the encounter, it also accounts for fairly regular sneak attack damage.

And all those party members will get to use their full round of actions, while in the same amount of time, the giant can whack the fighter once.

This is one instance of reality that D&D models fairly decently: a four-on-one battle is not a fair fight. And CR accounts for four-on-one battles, not one-on-one battles.

You completely missed the point of my comparison. Nowhere did I say that because a stone giant can kill six 8th level NPC fighters in a row, it necessarily follows that it could kill an average 8th level party. The point of my comparison was to compare the meele abilities of two meele-oriented creatures.

By my (admittedly rough) calculations, the stone giant performs roughly five to six times better in meele than the 8th level NPC fighter does. And yet these enemies are considered to have the same CR. That's evidence that the system simply doesn't work.

No, evidence that the system simply doesn't work would come from throwing an 8th level party against both creatures and seeing how the creatures consume that party's rescources. Showing that the stone giant is a better melee fighter than the 8th level NPC fighter doesn't provide evidence that is useful for CR calculations.

 

[Celebrim]

CR8 means, "This is a moderate challenge for a typical 8th level party of four."

Yes I know. Everyone here knows that. There isn't a person here that doesn't know that.

CR8 means, "An 8th level party is expected to expend 25% of its resources to overcome this encounter, and they will prevail better than 87% of the time."

Yes, I know. Everyone here knows that. There isn't a person here that doesn't know that.

CR8 is not an appropriate encounter for a single 8th level character. CR8 would be an "extremely difficult" encounter for an 8th level character. The 8th level character has only a 50/50 chance of surviving, and then only by expending 100% of his resources.

Yes, I know. Everyone here knows that. There isn't a person here that doesn't know that. All of this is a given. Why do you persist in repeating it, especially when it really doesn't have a bearing on what is being discussed.

In case you don't know, what is being discussed is whether all things which by the rules are CR 8 encounters are in fact CR 8 encounters. In other words, if you go by the rules are there not infact CR 8 encounters which are not only easier than other supposed CR 8 encounters, but in fact much easier so that they consistantly require the expenditure of less resources than some other group of stock encounters that we all agree as CR 8.

For these purpose, I don't really care what group of stock encounters you agree are CR 8, I can always show that there are another group of encounters which in the general case are either much harder or much easier than the ones you've chosen.

Which is precisely why having more actions is exponentially more useful.

No. It's not. More actions is linearly more useful. Having a higher AC and higher saving throws is within limits (nearly) exponentially more useful, because the difference between failing on a 2 or less and failing only on a 1 is much bigger than the difference between failing on a 10 or less and failing only on a 9 or less. Having a higher BAB is within a limit (nearly) exponentially more useful for the same reason. Having all these things together is exponentially more useful, which is why a 10th level character is more than twice as powerful as a 5th level character. But having more actions is only linearly more useful.

This is pretty easy to demonstrate in the simple case. A monster with one claw attack does half the expected damage of the same monster with two claw attacks, and one third that of the same monster with three claw attacks. This is linear relationship.

Regardless, it only takes one action-- one potion-- to turn this fight from a deadly encounter to a giant pincushion.

With a stone giant? The DEX 15, boulder tossing expert, stone giant?

PC: I quaff a potion.
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC: I fly out of the giants reach and ready my bow.
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC: Full attack action with my bow!
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC (looking a little more worn than not so long ago): Maybe I should rethink this tactic.

Besides which, that's not the point. The point is that compared to the general class of CR 8 challenges, the CR 8 PC classed, PC race, NPC is a weaker than expected challenge (sometimes much weaker) for the various reasons previously mentioned.

What CR can't model, of course, is whether or not there's room to fly out of reach of the giant.

No of course not. Nor can it take into account party composition. But I never claimed that it could. Presumably for some parties a challenge is easier than others, but by focusing on succeeding at those challenges they've made other challenges of the same general difficulty more difficult. But neither of those

 

[Grog]

Well, the fighter ignores hardness of 20 or less if armed with an adamantine weapon (as mentioned, +3,000 gp), so that gives him one slight edge in sundering compared to the stone giant. A stone giant's reach can negate most of the AOO problems from not having Improved Disarm and Improved Trip, but at least with respect to tripping, he doesn't get a free attack after tripping an opponent. Giving the fighter a spiked chain can also equalize his reach. It's not entirely in the stone giant's favor.

Hold on a second. Why doesn't the stone giant have Improved Disarm and/or Improved Trip? He can take those feats just as easily as a fighter can. After all, if the fighter can switch his stats around to qualify for feats, so can the stone giant. And the stone giant will be much more likely to win the opposed rolls for disarming and/or tripping than the fighter will.

And the fighter can't get extra reach for free. If the fighter uses a spiked chain, he gives up his +1 large steel shield, which reduces his AC by three points. Also, the stone giant could use a spiked chain, too, giving him a 20' reach.

I guess it depends on how you define "close". He is certainly closer in power to a stone giant than an ogre (CR 3) or a troll (CR 5). A well-built 8th-level fighter might even be slightly closer in power to a stone giant than a hill giant (CR 7). I'm quite happy to give the 8th-level fighter the benefit of the doubt, but even if it was "really" CR 7, 7 is just one less than 8, right?

I strongly disagree that the 8th level NPC fighter is closer in power to a stone giant than he is to a troll. He's better than the troll in meele, but not by a huge amount. Factor in the troll's regeneration and they're even closer. He's certainly not even close to even a hill giant in meele capability.

For those of you who don't like the CR system, I'm curious to know what you'd use to replace it. And if your answer is something like DM experience or common sense, that's not really a good answer, because there's nothing to stop you from adding the CR system to your DM experience and common sense (or vice-versa) to get even better results. If you don't have anything to replace it, then I think I prefer the CR system to no system at all.

Well, I think a system this bad is worse than no system at all, personally.

 

[Grog]

No, evidence that the system simply doesn't work would come from throwing an 8th level party against both creatures and seeing how the creatures consume that party's rescources. Showing that the stone giant is a better melee fighter than the 8th level NPC fighter doesn't provide evidence that is useful for CR calculations.

Yes, it most certainly does. They are both meele combatants, thus their meele ability is extremely relevant for calculating how much challenge they'll provide to a PC party.

Yes, it's true that not everyone in a PC party is going to be doing straight-up meele with the stone giant. The rogue will be flanking/sneak attacking, the cleric will be healing, the wizard will be casting spells.

But here's the thing. They'll all be doing those same things in the fight with the NPC fighter, too. And they'll be vastly more effective against the fighter than they will against the stone giant. The rogue's sneak attacks will be more effective because the NPC fighter has a lower AC and doesn't have as many hit points to chew through. The cleric's heals will be more effective because the NPC fighter won't be doing nearly as much damage as the stone giant. And the wizard's spells will be more effective because the NPC fighter's saving throws are substantially worse than the stone giant's.

In fact, the PC party has a lot more options in combat against the fighter than they do against the stone giant. They can do things like bull rushing, tripping, or grappling against the fighter, things which wouldn't be very likely to work against the stone giant because of its large size and high strength score.

All these things add up to the fact that the 8th level NPC fighter won't be nearly as much of a challenge to and won't drain nearly as many resources from an 8th level PC party. That's what CR is supposed to measure, and it fails miserably in this (and many other) case(s).

 

[Rel]

I am exceedingly close to locking this thread due to all the snotty comments flying about. Last chance folks....

 

[Fishbone]

Does anyone else feel that certain types of monsters are underCRd because of the "wowee! Neato!" nature of their type?
I'm thinking of outsiders, especially demons, devils, and angels, and things with the Dragon subtype.

 

[BryonD]

With a stone giant? The DEX 15, boulder tossing expert, stone giant?

PC: I quaff a potion.
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC: I fly out of the giants reach and ready my bow.
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC: Full attack action with my bow!
Stone Giant: Big rock to the head! Big rock to the head!
PC (looking a little more worn than not so long ago): Maybe I should rethink this tactic.

Um, wow.
You are basing your whole argument on just proclaiming that being limited to throwing rocks has no negative impact on the effectiveness of the giant. That is so far off the mark as to be pointless.

Without flight the giant can throw rocks, bull rush, grapple, attack with two handed weapons, ... With flight the giant can throw rocks. Yeah, the giant is still some degree of threat. But describing a +11 Ranged attack as an assumed "big rock to the head" that will take out a flying fighter character of 8+ level in short order is more than a stretch. The threat remains, but it is a distinctly lesser threat. And thus the CR (if done correctly) must take this into account.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Not to mention the fact that giants only throw one rock per round. Just sayin'.

 

[Fishbone]

There are plenty of flying creatures out there that could fly against the fighter, no sweat. All the dragons and most drakes, Elder arrowhawks, Chimeras, Manticores, Dragonnes, Hieracosphinxs, Wyverns, Will-o-the-whisps, Efreeti, and on and on and on. Flying at 60 good is nice but it is hardly a deal breaker. Every creature just listed is probably more challenging than a level 8 NPC melee character.

 

[Celebrim]

Um, wow.
You are basing your whole argument...

Stop right there. I've written several pages on this and you think that the 'whole of my argument' boils down to one single point?

...on just proclaiming that being limited to throwing rocks has no negative impact on the effectiveness of the giant.

I didn't say that. Yes, it may have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the giant. Yes it might. I was however not responding to a claim that it might have some negative impact on the effectiveness of the stone giant. I was responding to this claim.

Regardless, it only takes one action-- one potion-- to turn this fight from a deadly encounter to a giant pincushion.

That claim might have some substance in the case of say a Dire Bear. You could argue that the CR of a Dire Bear might take a hit because of its near absolute vulnerability to a particular tactic (flying ranged attacks). But I don't see how you can argue that in the case of the stone giant. My point there was that the Stone Giant is not nearly so helpless in the face of a flying ranged attacker that it could be claimed his strong melee attack is balanced by his 'weak' ranged attack, especially because even the giants 'weak' ranged attack is probably as strong or stronger than most 8th level fighters.

...That is so far off the mark as to be pointless.

That's kinda my impression of your reply, but I'll chalk it up to not making myself clear enough.

And thus the CR (if done correctly) must take this into account.

Agreed. But the secondary ranged attack mode of a 'default' 8th level fighter is probably going to be no stronger than the giants secondary ranged attack given that the giants 'big rock' does 2d8+12 damage. Given the hit point and AC disparity, even a flying 8th level fighter isn't going to win that fight either (though, sure, it will fare better in general than if it went to melee). And, if the 8th level fighter specializes in archery as a primary attack mode so that it is in fact superior in that one area, then its disparity in melee between the fighter and the giant increases accordingly and thus the CR if done correctly must take that into account as well. In short, there is no way around the fact that an 8th level NPC fighter is not nearly the challenge (in general) of a stone giant and most other CR 8 monsters.