CR increases for advancing creatures

[Upper_Krust]

Hi WizarDru!

UK, I don't know if you created that document, but it's VERY hard to read. The fonts do not serve the document well.

I presume you mean the headers, I thought they were sufficiently large to read okay. They may seem quirky at first glance but they soon become second nature.

That said, I think that PDF fails to understand the main prupose of CRs...to SIMPLIFY creating challenges for the DM.

My pdf doesn't change what Challenge Ratings are, fundamentally they still represent exactly the same thing - at what Party Level the monster (or npc) constitutes a moderate challenge for a party of 4-5 characters.

If I'm sitting around, calculating long formulas using percentages based on hit dice, ability increases and so forth, that's time I'm not actually spending playing the game.

But you don't have to do that unless you were intent on creating brand new monsters for every game. Also once you overcome the initial unfamiliarity with the system (as with any system) using the factors becomes second nature.

Even then, monsters are only as complex as you make them. All the factors are laid out in black and white, its a simple matter of pick and choose.

Second, CRs are a guideline.

Exactly! My intention is to make that guideline as accurate as possible so as to avoid glaring mistakes as with many core monsters.

Abilities of individual parties vary wildly, so that's where ELs come in. The system in the PDF seems to emphasize radically increasing most CRs, and then using ELs to lower situations back down....all of which doesn't seem to provide much more utility for the DM; it's just reinventing the wheel to satisfy the author's sense of verisimilitude.

Not at all. There are glaring flaws with the current rules:

One of the key flaws with regards the core rules are that monsters and non-player characters simply don't equate in any meaningful way. I mean are they honestly saying that a 25th-level NPC and a Great Wyrm Red Dragon are equal challenges!?

Furthermore that both above examples would unequivocably defeat a party of 16th-level characters, when the situation is heavily in favour of the 16th-level PC party against the single 25th-level NPC. Yet the core rules attest that this encounter would be impossible for the PCs!!

So we have a situation whereby either monsters or npcs are collectively wrongly assessed. Followed by the fact that the higher level the party the more their allowed encounters are constricted.

eg. A party of 40th-level epic PCs would only gain EXP from CRs between 32 and 48! Which is laughable considering npcs of much lower and much higher level would be viable opponents.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't sound like it helps the DM much more than just simply 'eyeballing' it.

Of course DMs are still free to do so if they wish, but 'eyeballing' it you can still get it wrong. My method removes the guesswork.

A group with a Radiant Servant of Pelor is certainly more likely to deal with a high-powered undead or creatures who use darkness than one without. A group of four barbarians is going to find a spectre much more challenging than a group of four clerics. The CR system needs to deal with that.

Read the situational modifiers section.

Of course there are still elements outside our control (not just party composition, but also dice rolls), but thats not our concern. We are simply trying to work within the factors we can control to determine accuracy. Obviously there always has to be an element of chance, Challenge Rating is supposed to aid the DM in determining the odds.

At low levels, the CR system has much less of a problem with this. But at higher levels, with insta-kill 'save or die' powers, calculating CR becomes more problematic.

Exactly, which is one of the primary reasons why the relationship between Challenge Rating and Encounter Level scale differently to what the core rules attest.

Note how monsters are filled with abilities that would be incredibly powerful in a PCs hands...but the monster is only going to get one combat to use them, generally. My players party level is a collective 19...but they've defeated a CR23 creature, with no loss of life.

Exactly my point! A CR 23 creature (by the core rules) should have posed a 50/50 threat to the party, but of course this totally isn't the case!

They followed that up with defeating a Paragon half-fire Elemental Beholder. Under the CR system listed above, I'm assuming both of these encounters would have been in the 40s or higher.

Well you didn't tell me what the first monster was so I don't know. I have a list of all the epic monster CRs near the back of the pdf.

The Paragon Half-Fire Elemental Beholder (I anticipate) would be close to CR 54 (27) under my auspices.

Meaning that the 19th-level party would have been facing an EL +6 encounter and should have been at less than a 50/50 chance of success. I would be very interested to hear how your PCs dismissed it so easily (?) I envision it involved a hefty amount of luck (or some other factor I am not yet privy to)?

Which illustrates that the CR system is a tricky beast, in either system.

I disagree. Its actually pretty simple to see the improvements I advocate.

Thanks very much for the quick feedback, greatly appreciated!

I hope if you use it for your high-level campaign you will see the benefits much more clearly.

 

[WizarDru]

Hi WizarDru!

[waves]

I presume you mean the headers, I thought they were sufficiently large to read okay. They may seem quirky at first glance but they soon become second nature.

It was the font mostly that threw me. It's a little difficult to read, for me.

But you don't have to do that unless you were intent on creating brand new monsters for every game. Also once you overcome the initial unfamiliarity with the system (as with any system) using the factors becomes second nature.

Well, actually I DO create new monsters on a fairly regular basis. But your system actually gives some factors for computing that, which is a Good Thing (tm).

Exactly! My intention is to make that guideline as accurate as possible so as to avoid glaring mistakes as with many core monsters.

Oh, I grok that. I think it's a good thing, but I'm not sure that I agree that there are a large number of glaring errors in the MM.

One of the key flaws with regards the core rules are that monsters and non-player characters simply don't equate in any meaningful way. I mean are they honestly saying that a 25th-level NPC and a Great Wyrm Red Dragon are equal challenges!?

Situationally, they can be. Now, I agree that the Dragons CR is off...but WotC has claimed this to be intentional, for the main reason that Dragons are usually inclined to be 'boss' monsters, and encountered usually as THE encounter of a session. My experience has tended to bear this out.

Furthermore that both above examples would unequivocably defeat a party of 16th-level characters, when the situation is heavily in favour of the 16th-level PC party against the single 25th-level NPC. Yet the core rules attest that this encounter would be impossible for the PCs!!

But we have assertions from WotC themselves that a party should be able to beat a more powerful foe with little difficulty, IF THEY EXPECT TO HAVE FEW OR NO OTHER ENCOUNTERS THAT DAY. Look at the fights in 'Speaker in Dreams', for example. If the party encounters a CR 16 dragon by itself when it attacks a town, it's a much different situation than if they do battle with it at the bottom of a dungeon, as their tenth encounter of the day.

Read the situational modifiers section.

I will. I intened to give the whole document a more thorough read-over. You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it's appreciated. Consider this constructive criticism, and take it with the grain of salt with which it's offered.

Exactly my point! A CR 23 creature (by the core rules) should have posed a 50/50 threat to the party, but of course this totally isn't the case!

Well, in this case, it was a little more complicated. This featured a party of 6 characters, ranging from 17th-19th level, with a few NPCs, mounts and companions along for the ride. Add to that the addition of a LOT of lucky rolls and saves, and it was a miracle that they made it through alive. The creature in question was a Winterwight.

Against the beholder, they lost one of the NPC cohorts, and one of the PCs. And they could have lost quite a few more, but the saves were coming fast and furious. Not to mention two NPC copper dragons and a summoned Solar (via Planar Ally).


I do see part of what you're driving at though, concerning the XP boundary. But how much XP would you award for the beholder I described? At CR 57, the number would be enormous, and not really scaling to the challenge. That's probably where my mental stumbling block was.

 

[S'mon]

I do think there are a lot of glaring CR errors in the MM, different monster groups seem to have been assigned CRs by different people. Personally I think it's a consequence of the person placed in charge of creating the MM not bothering to create a formulae for assigning CRs (as he didn't bother creating encounter tables, an entry for humans, etc), making consistency between entries impossible.

A few monster groups are consistently too high (demons) others too low (dragons). My favourite one though is the Celestials, where the weak ones and the powerful ones seem to have had CRs assigned on completely different scales - weak are too high, strong are too low. The break point comes between the 68-hp trumpet archon, rated CR 14, and the 102 hp Astral Deva, also rated CR 14 - in actuality the astral deva is vastly more powerful, and the only one of the celestials whose rated CR seems at all accurate.

The idea that a planetar is equivalent to a nalfeshnee (both CR 16) or that a solar is only just above a balor (cr 19 to 18) is absurd, and even the most rudimentary formula would have avoid this.

I think the justification for dragons' too low CRs is silly - shouldn't the PCs get a reasonable XP award for killing the boss monster? The better explanation is that low CRs keep dragons as the scariest encountered monster, the biggest beast at all levels. If that's the reason, fair enough, but then it should be explained and the GM told to (at least) double the xp award for defeating a dragon.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

[waves]

*waves back*

It was the font mostly that threw me. It's a little difficult to read, for me.

I may change the font of the smallest subheading.

Well, actually I DO create new monsters on a fairly regular basis. But your system actually gives some factors for computing that, which is a Good Thing (tm).

Oh, I grok that. I think it's a good thing, but I'm not sure that I agree that there are a large number of glaring errors in the MM.

At least 25% of the 500 monsters in the MM are noticeably 'wrong'.

Situationally, they can be. Now, I agree that the Dragons CR is off...but WotC has claimed this to be intentional, for the main reason that Dragons are usually inclined to be 'boss' monsters, and encountered usually as THE encounter of a session. My experience has tended to bear this out.

Yes but their reasoning for doing so was inherantly flawed.

But we have assertions from WotC themselves that a party should be able to beat a more powerful foe with little difficulty, IF THEY EXPECT TO HAVE FEW OR NO OTHER ENCOUNTERS THAT DAY. Look at the fights in 'Speaker in Dreams', for example. If the party encounters a CR 16 dragon by itself when it attacks a town, it's a much different situation than if they do battle with it at the bottom of a dungeon, as their tenth encounter of the day.

I don't see what your point is here? Challenge Ratings are determined on their own merits not how many times PCs can face them consecutively. Its simply coincidence that a party can face 4-5 moderate encounters before expending all their resources.

I will. I intened to give the whole document a more thorough read-over.

I appreciate the feedback mate.

You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it's appreciated.

Indeed. It was a necessity for designing the Immortals Handbook.

Consider this constructive criticism, and take it with the grain of salt with which it's offered.

Sure!

Well, in this case, it was a little more complicated. This featured a party of 6 characters, ranging from 17th-19th level, with a few NPCs, mounts and companions along for the ride. Add to that the addition of a LOT of lucky rolls and saves, and it was a miracle that they made it through alive. The creature in question was a Winterwight.

So essentially you have just completely vindicated my system.

Remember that additional party members can increase the Parties Encounter Level (PEL) exactly as I outlined in the document.

Against the beholder, they lost one of the NPC cohorts, and one of the PCs. And they could have lost quite a few more, but the saves were coming fast and furious. Not to mention two NPC copper dragons and a summoned Solar (via Planar Ally).

Vindicated again then.

Can you smell what the Krust is cookin'!

I do see part of what you're driving at though, concerning the XP boundary. But how much XP would you award for the beholder I described? At CR 57, the number would be enormous, and not really scaling to the challenge. That's probably where my mental stumbling block was.

You see this is why you haven't picked up on everything from the first read through.

EXP is now determined through Party Level and opponent Encounter Level.

So if a 20th-level party were facing a CR 60 opponent (EL +6) the EXP would be 20 (average level) x 2400 (48,000 EXP; about half a level spread amongst 4 characters).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi S'mon!

My favourite one though is the Celestials, where the weak ones and the powerful ones seem to have had CRs assigned on completely different scales - weak are too high, strong are too low. The break point comes between the 68-hp trumpet archon, rated CR 14, and the 102 hp Astral Deva, also rated CR 14 - in actuality the astral deva is vastly more powerful, and the only one of the celestials whose rated CR seems at all accurate.

I agreed with every point you made but it should be noted that a Trumpet Archon has 14th-level Cleric Abilities, whereas the Astral Deva does not.

 

[S'mon]

Hi S'mon!

I agreed with every point you made but it should be noted that a Trumpet Archon has 14th-level Cleric Abilities, whereas the Astral Deva does not.

Yes, I'd rate the Archon as a weak CR 13 - it has few spell abilities besides.