D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 04/25/2014

[GMforPowergamers]

CR seems more like a gauge for damage and health. For example a CR 2 probably will not kill a level 2 PC in one attack routine.

So an orc with a 2d6+3 great ax attack is probably CR3 because it can drop 10 damage easily. The force chieftain with 2 attacks might be CR5.

except that doesn't work at all

my level 1 wizard has 7hp and 11 ac
my level 1 rogue has 8hp and 13 ac
my level 1 fighter has 12hp and 16 ac
my level 1 barbarian has 15hp and 16ac

my CR x orc has an axe that 1d8+3 (min 4 average 7.5 max 11) 1 hit can drop half the characters, 2 hits can drop any character

my level 2 wizard has 11hp and 11ac
my level 2 rogue has 13hp and 14ac
my level 2 fighter has 19hp and 18 ac
my level 2 barbarian has 25hp and 18 ac

2 max damage hits wont drop the barbarian at level 2 but 2 average hits drop the wizard or rogue

so is the ORC CR 1, 2, or 3?

 

[Plaguescarred]

@wotc_rodney: CR is just an easy to reference indicator for DMs to know a monster's relative power.

I wonder if level is not a better reference indicator for DMs to know a monster's relative power then, since its the one used for PCs.

 

[Iosue]

I wonder if level is not a better reference indicator for DMs to know a monster's relative power then, since its the one used for PCs.

Kinda apples and oranges, I think. CR is supposed to represent a moderate-to-challenging fight for a party of 4 PCs. So, if you use level, that means a Level 1 monster is a moderate-to-challenging fight for a party of 4 PCs. Which means a Level 1 monster is far more powerful than a Level 1 PC.

Conceivably, you could change it so that a Level 1 monster is as strong as a Level 1 PC. But since most games will involve more than 1 PC, you'd have symmetry without any practical use.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Maybe I'm just a simple mutated country chicken who is also a lawyer, but wouldn't it be easier to just ditch the CR and have XP budgets based on the difficulty of the fight and the number and level of PCs? Adding CR as an encounter difficulty advisory seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like this considering it can be made abundantly clear to DMs what these stats are for.

XP is "XP Reward" and overall "Encounter Difficulty' (combat difficulty only still, but...)
Challenge Rating (CR) is "Monster Level" and "Dungeon Level appropriateness" (and/iow PC level appropriateness too)

There are challenges with it still though for greatly mixed level parties. At least as I understand it.

Example:
Party A: XP budget 1500
1. Ookla Level 10, easy challenge = 900 XP
2. Boggo Level 5, moderate challenge = 425 XP
3. Helmy Level 1, difficult challenge = 175 XP (probably 150 really)

If CR is used, these guys are only ever appropriate to the 1st level of the dungeon: CR 1 creatures. But with 1500 XP budgets they should be taking on lots of them.


Personally I think through judicious sharing of treasure, magic items, info on monsters, smart tactics, and so on can allow 1st level Helmy to take on higher level challenges. And combats can be fought different to protect some allies more than others. So 1st level isn't the only available game for the whole party. But I'd agree making your allies powerful is good for the goose is one of the lessons of the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

The biggest difference here and old school D&D is XP is pre-apportioned to each PC prior to the combat.

I mean, instead of that 1500 XP reward getting divvied up equally 3 ways, 500 XP each for everyone, the PC's XP rewards are apportioned by -character level-*. This means combats are still being thought of by default as custom designed. Something that older DMs will need to redesign the system out of.




*(a concept I disagree with)

 

[Klaus]

The biggest difference here and old school D&D is XP is pre-apportioned to each PC prior to the combat.

I mean, instead of that 1500 XP reward getting divvied up equally 3 ways, 500 XP each for everyone, the PC's XP rewards are apportioned by -character level-*. This means combats are still being thought of by default as custom designed. Something that older DMs will need to redesign the system out of.




*(a concept I disagree with)

That's actually incorrect. PCs contribute to the Encounter Budget based on their level, so 5th-level PCs each contribute 200 XP and a 2nd-level PC contributes only 100 (numbers I just made up, BTW). So if your party is composed of four level 5 and 1 level 2 PCs, your encounter budget is 900 XP. But if you go a little overboard and put in 1000 XP worth of monsters, the PCs divide those 1000 equally (200 XP each for the five PCs).

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe I'm just a simple mutated country chicken who is also a lawyer, but wouldn't it be easier to just ditch the CR and have XP budgets based on the difficulty of the fight and the number and level of PCs? Adding CR as an encounter difficulty advisory seems a bit unnecessary.

Not necessarily.

(Using Pathfinder numbers to illustrate) Imagine you are going to create a hard encounter for fifth level PCs. The XP budget is 2400 XP. You have three choices you could use:

1.) 12 orcs (XP 200). Kinda a waste, since most PCs will one-hit kill them. Your best hope is to overwhelm them with numbers and roll crits.

2.) 2 gargoyles (XP 1200) Less foes, but more powerful.

3.) 1 Young white dragon (XP 2400) A huge, powerful, complex foe capable of doing significant casualties to the party.

The first encounter is a cakewalk, the second a decent challenge, the third could be dangerous if not handled properly. Yet all have the same XP budget. So its easier to tell that if you know the monsters' CR (1/2, 4, and 6 respectably).

I wager even with the flatter math, that one dragon isn't the same challenge as 12 orcs, no matter what the XP budget says...

 

[ExploderWizard]

What's actually disconcerting is:
-They still assume challenges (combat or otherwise) are not chosen by the players
-NPCs are out of the game ("screen time") when not engaged with the PCs
-NPCs fight for their lives every fight and so spend all resources every fight (and PCs wouldn't)
-PCs are expected to battle as if not in life or death struggles, but necessary steps of an "adventure"

Oh so very much this. The assumptions made about how PC vs. monster resources are viewed paint a very clear picture of combat as sport that just leaves me much less interested in the whole deal.

Expected "fights per day" is craptastic design at its very foundation and needs to go away.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Conceivably, you could change it so that a Level 1 monster is as strong as a Level 1 PC. But since most games will involve more than 1 PC, you'd have symmetry without any practical use.

Well, the practical use of that is you can go "I have 5 level 1 PCs, so an average fight would be 5 level 1 monsters." And you could replace 4 of those with a solo, or one of those with 4 minions. That's what was nice about 4e-style monster levels. It doesn't work too great with 5e-style monster design, though.

I wager even with the flatter math, that one dragon isn't the same challenge as 12 orcs, no matter what the XP budget says...

Based on 5e so far, the 12 orcs are much more dangerous than the one dragon.