Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9453357" data-attributes="member: 83242">I disagree. The CR guidelines in the DMG work well and are very accurate to published monsters, particularly ones after the MM.&nbsp; The issues I see are:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">People don't follow the guidelines completely. Some people just look at the table and say that it is it - but it is a lot more involved than that. If you follow them correctly, they work.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">They can't cover everything. The DMG had a list of monster features that affected a creature's CR - easy. However, this list has not been updated with all the new monster features. So their is some guess work one needs to do to account for unique monster features with no exact precedent.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Guidelines, not rules. The monster creation guideline is not a set of hard rules that can't be modified or even &quot;gamed.&quot; They are made to allow freedom of design which is a good thing IMO. However, can lead to places that stretch our ability to define CR.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Situational benefits. Some creatures/abilities/features are very potent against some groups or in some situations, but much less so to other groups or other situations. That is, and should be IMO, in the fold of the DM to understand the monster and their group.</li>
</ol>The vast majority of the time when I see a monster with a CR out of line, it is because they didn't use the guide correctly. The biggest issues I often see are:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">people don't account for saving throws (+0 or +2 or +4 to AC depending on how many)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">people don't account for monster features (use the list or find something that is close)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">people misapply the offensive or defensive CR adjustment(s).</li>
</ol></blockquote>

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 9453357, member: 83242"] I disagree. The CR guidelines in the DMG work well and are very accurate to published monsters, particularly ones after the MM. The issues I see are: [LIST=1] [*]People don't follow the guidelines completely. Some people just look at the table and say that it is it - but it is a lot more involved than that. If you follow them correctly, they work. [*]They can't cover everything. The DMG had a list of monster features that affected a creature's CR - easy. However, this list has not been updated with all the new monster features. So their is some guess work one needs to do to account for unique monster features with no exact precedent. [*]Guidelines, not rules. The monster creation guideline is not a set of hard rules that can't be modified or even "gamed." They are made to allow freedom of design which is a good thing IMO. However, can lead to places that stretch our ability to define CR. [*]Situational benefits. Some creatures/abilities/features are very potent against some groups or in some situations, but much less so to other groups or other situations. That is, and should be IMO, in the fold of the DM to understand the monster and their group. [/LIST] The vast majority of the time when I see a monster with a CR out of line, it is because they didn't use the guide correctly. The biggest issues I often see are: [LIST=1] [*]people don't account for saving throws (+0 or +2 or +4 to AC depending on how many) [*]people don't account for monster features (use the list or find something that is close) [*]people misapply the offensive or defensive CR adjustment(s). [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification