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

[Li Shenron]

It doesn't sound that far from 3e anyway... I don't care whatever underlying math there is, or what terms are used. I only care for the final numbers to work, so that I know how to design encounters small (1 foe) or big (up to maybe 12 foes using normal combat rules, but also want WotC to keep their promise of a rules system for combat against larger groups, not necessarily "mass") without ending up with something surprisingly too easy or too hard.

 

[Minigiant]

The 4 to 1 thing I think only counts for solos.

In the play test, you'd look and the monster level and add its XP to the XP budget. If it ate all the budget, it was a solo. Half the budget made it elite. And 1/10 the budget made it a minion. Much like 4e.

All they are doing is changing "monster level" to CR and using the bounded accuracy to make monsters last longer as viable enemies.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you are right here, but with the much wider level of monsters you can use in 5e (due to bounded accuracy), the CR just doesn't tell that much, and it gets outright confusing at low levels when a CR2 monster looks twice as tough as a CR1 monster (look, the CR is double!), and completely useless when creating encounters with mixed xp/cr monsters.

I think the idea is that CR serves one narrow and specific purpose: you use it to determine if the monster is a moderate difficulty fight for a party of that level. So a CR 2 critter isn't necessarily twice as powerful as a CR 1 critter, it's just a moderately difficult fight for level 2 characters. Maybe level 1 characters could handle it, maybe not, CR doesn't tell you that (though I imagine the DMG would give some advice).

That, and disentangling it from the XP system might stop it from falling prey to some of the problems of CR in 3e. It's not a value you manipulate, it's a descriptive statement saying one limited thing: "This critter is good for LV X characters."

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
In the play test, you'd look and the monster level and add its XP to the XP budget. If it ate all the budget, it was a solo. Half the budget made it elite. And 1/10 the budget made it a minion. Much like 4e.
...

This is my thought as well, and I do think they should just skip the whole CR-business, since it will just add confusion.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the idea is that CR serves one narrow and specific purpose: you use it to determine if the monster is a moderate difficulty fight for a party of that level. So a CR 2 critter isn't necessarily twice as powerful as a CR 1 critter, it's just a moderately difficult fight for level 2 characters. Maybe level 1 characters could handle it, maybe not, CR doesn't tell you that (though I imagine the DMG would give some advice).

That, and disentangling it from the XP system might stop it from falling prey to some of the problems of CR in 3e. It's not a value you manipulate, it's a descriptive statement saying one limited thing: "This critter is good for LV X characters."

The question then becomes, what CR do they put on monsters like Dragons (that you will often meet alone)? Do you just set CR10 and 4x the xp of a monster you usually meet one of for each party member, or do you set the CR to 15 or something so that on level 15, you run into 4 dragons for the appropriate challenge?

Personally, I won't have a problem either way, but I think it would be better if they just dropped CR. In my opinion, it would create a less confusing system.

EDIT: they basically answer the question in the article:

The CR of a monster is based on the level at which a party of four player characters could fight that monster and have a moderate-to-challenging fight.

In other words, if you want to typical solo monsters like a Dragon, you look at the CR that about the level of the characters. If you want multiple monsters monsters, the CR is mostly useless, since there the mapping between CR and xp isn't linear.

 

[Minigiant]

This is my thought as well, and I do think they should just skip the whole CR-business, since it will just add confusion.

Because XP doesn't scale . You can have a 300XP monster made for level 1-3 PCs as a solo and a 300XP made for level 5-7 PCs as a minion.

Next monster will scale better than previous edition but they do level out. You could throw 1000 goblins at a level 10 PC but if won't be balanced. Monsters will have level ranges.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Because XP doesn't scale . You can have a 300XP monster made for level 1-3 PCs as a solo and a 300XP made for level 5-7 PCs as a minion.

Next monster will scale better than previous edition but they do level out. You could throw 1000 goblins at a level 10 PC but if won't be balanced. Monsters will have level ranges.

You are probably right here, they do say:

By going with CR, we can indicate to the DM at what point the monster should enter his or her stable of monsters for use when designing adventures and avoid making it seem like they are too quickly removed from that same stable.

So, CR is to be used to find appropriate monsters, while you use the XP/XP budget to figure how many you should use. Maybe not so idiotic as I first thought. I hope they use xp in all their examples for creating encounters...

 

[Minigiant]

You are probably right here, they do say:

So, CR is to be used to find appropriate monsters, while you use the XP/XP budget to figure how many you should use. Maybe not so idiotic as I first thought. I hope they use xp in all their examples for creating encounters...

Yes. It looks pretty much like 4e's system except they don't put (solo, elite, minion) tags on them and the range is CR +/-7 instead of level+/-3

 

[Savage Wombat]

The cynical voice in my head says that, despite the reassurances, there will turn out to be a correlation between CR and XP and they just don't want to admit it.

 

[Ruzak]

Yes. It looks pretty much like 4e's system except they don't put (solo, elite, minion) tags on them and the range is CR +/-7 instead of level+/-3

I too am hoping this is the correct interpretation.