Do you find the CR/EL system useful when writing adventures?

[Ron]

Not really. The idea is pretty good but the execution lacks. I the few times I DMed with d20 I found that CRs would not give me an accurate represetation of the challenging of an encounter and so I needed to study each monster entry to evaluated it myself or, sometimes, make some modifications on the fly to adequate it to my needs. Not really diferent to what I do when I play classic D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't give a darn about ELs, but I use CRs as a good shorthand for how hard an encounter can expect to be.

Of course, I also have to go back to each of those encounters and evaluate them more thoroughly, but the CR is at least a good indicator of what to expect when selecting encounters.

I don't use it very thoroughly, or expect really great results from it, though--no.

 

[satori01]

I think the system works pretty well. CR/EL do a pretty good job at pegging the general challenge of a monster. I am also glad it is not perfect, because thinking what goes into making a challenging adventure is a line of thought that yields great dividends, and is one of the rewards of being a DM.

Character Level = CR, is a nice rule of thumb, but very often not true. A 5th level Bard is CR 3 encounter to my mind. At Higher CR's 3 levels of class will for the most part not really effect the outcome of a battle, unless class abillities really synergize with the creature, ala evasion for high Dex, or Divine Grace etc.

 

[Melan]

These sorts of devices are valuable as guidelines, but dangerous when they become constraints. They look like a good numerical guideline, but in truth, nothing can replace human judgement.

 

[Shade]

CR definitely, EL not so much.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Somewhat. Many monsters are just wildly off in how challenging they are. A will-o-wisp will ravage a 6th level party... 9HD, +16 melee touch for 2d8, TOUCH AC 29 before you factor in their natural invisibility, +13 to initiative, immunity to all spells except maze and magic missile... So lets see, odds are the wizard probabnly has 3 magic missiles that wont kill it, he drops in a couple of rounds, and then everyone hopes for a natural 20 to hit?

NPC's are anotgher bad error on CR's part, particularly with nonassociated class levels on creatures with racial hit die. Even with base NPC's, you cant tell me that a 9th level cleric, a 9th level druid (with its animal companion that doesnt give exp), a 9th level warlock and a 12th level commoner are anywhere near equal to one another on the power curve. Some PC classes just dont hold up well... the warlock for instance, a class that benefits from doing the same thing over and over. However, most NPC's dont get into more than 1 fight per day, so the warlock is just a nuisance compared to a more powerful class. Add in that non-caster NPC's are usually complete pushovers compared to monsters of an equal CR (yet give far more treasure), and something is definately wrong.

I think my favorite is the planetar, a CR 16 creature with a crapton of special abilities that ALSO casts spells as a 17th level cleric. You'll note that a CR 16 cleric doesnt even cast spells as a 17th level cleric. Furthermore, the "good guys" are almost always listed at a CR rating lower than they would be if they were evil. COmpare a solar to a pit fiend with a few more hit die tacked on.

The CR system has some good points, but also some noticable flaws, so I think it should be avoided at all costs when actual mechanics are involved (knight's challenge and the abomination known as the truenamer). As a guideline, it works close enough for government work.

 

[Celtavian]

I find it mostly useless

I never base experience off of EL. I utilize CR or just make something up. My players mow down ECL encounters that should have been rough for them. I gauge my players, then write up my foes accordingly.

Supposedly a lvl 4 Fighter is CR 4 or ECL 4 if alone meaning that 4 level 4 characters should have an average time with 1 level 4 fighter. Against my parties, a single level 4 fighter is dog meat.

I hope they overhaul the experience system in 4th edition. I hope they do a bit better job of gauging CR or the equivalent when designing monsters. Dragons are more challenging than their CR indicates when played by a smart DM, and equal level NPCs are much less challenging than their CR. For example, a lvl 14 Fighter is not a harder challenge than a CR 11 Dragon.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I never base experience off of EL. I utilize CR or just make something up. My players mow down ECL encounters that should have been rough for them. I gauge my players, then write up my foes accordingly.

Supposedly a lvl 4 Fighter is CR 4 or ECL 4 if alone meaning that 4 level 4 characters should have an average time with 1 level 4 fighter. Against my parties, a single level 4 fighter is dog meat.

I hope they overhaul the experience system in 4th edition. I hope they do a bit better job of gauging CR or the equivalent when designing monsters. Dragons are more challenging than their CR indicates when played by a smart DM, and equal level NPCs are much less challenging than their CR. For example, a lvl 14 Fighter is not a harder challenge than a CR 11 Dragon.

I think I remember a designer comment somewhere that said dragons were put at a CR lower than normal because they had a ton of treasure, and certain monsters (animals and dinosaurs mainly) were placed at a CR higher than you'd expect for a near mindless creature with no ranged abilities because they dont carry treasure (thus the extra exp is their reward).

 

[DragonLancer]

The CR/EL system works fine at low levels but after about 5th-6th it fails to take into account AC, HP, specific powers/abilities of the moanter and the capabilities of the players.

These days while I do scane my eye of the CR I make my own decision based on the monster and party's capabilities.