Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6899086" data-attributes="member: 58197">Actually it isn't; it's too low. This is a CR 1/2 monster listed as 1/4. That's arguably worse than a CR 1/8 listed as 1/4.Ermmm... all of these statements are true, but they don't invalidate the &quot;dartboard&quot; complaint. If you have two monsters, identical except that one has more hit points and does more damage, the latter will pose a bigger threat in all circumstances. Ergo, it should have a higher CR.As you say, CR cannot be taken as an absolute. You can't know how much of a threat a CR 5 monster will be to a 3rd-level party unless you know the builds of the PCs and the skills of the players. But CR should be reasonably reliable as a relative measure: A CR 5 monster is more of a threat than a similar CR 4 monster, and the difference is fairly well measured by their XP values. That's why we want CRs to follow the DMG guidelines. It makes that relative measure more reliable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6899086, member: 58197"] Actually it isn't; it's too [i]low[/i]. This is a CR 1/2 monster listed as 1/4. That's arguably worse than a CR 1/8 listed as 1/4. Ermmm... all of these statements are true, but they don't invalidate the "dartboard" complaint. If you have two monsters, identical except that one has more hit points and does more damage, the latter will pose a bigger threat in all circumstances. Ergo, it should have a higher CR. As you say, CR cannot be taken as an absolute. You can't know how much of a threat a CR 5 monster will be to a 3rd-level party unless you know the builds of the PCs and the skills of the players. But CR should be [i]reasonably[/i] reliable as a relative measure: A CR 5 monster is more of a threat than a similar CR 4 monster, and the difference is fairly well measured by their XP values. That's why we want CRs to follow the DMG guidelines. It makes that relative measure more reliable. [/QUOTE]

Verification