Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7212133" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Any specific instance needn't be the case, sure. But neither does pointing out that some encounters may be harder than CR indicates rather than weaker mean that design of the monster or the CR system (or the encounter, by the DM!) can't be deemed 'poor.' </p><p>That's all.</p><p></p><p> Obviously. A 'good' design would moderate that variance enough to make CR a useful yardstick for the DM who wants such a yardstick.</p><p></p><p> Nope, no specific details, just a generic 'ceteris parabus' kind of comparison. If CR X results in wildly difficult degrees of challenge, then CR's not a very useful metric, thus design of CR (or design of the monsters it rates) might reasonably be deemed 'poor.' Or, a specific DM noting such might be blamed, personally. </p><p>:shrug:</p><p></p><p> They were at least with the same DM, an experienced one.</p><p></p><p> 's all relative. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> Dependability that can't readily be gauged certainly can't be very dependable! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p> I don't see how anyone could think that. You'd have to at least posit the same DM with the same players & characters to even start isolating CR as the culprit.</p><p></p><p> Doesn't really contrast with the former extreme, you could recognize it as a rule of thumb, and still expect it to be equally useful to everyone, or you could think of it as an exact formula and expect it to need to be adjusted heavily for the needs of a given table.</p><p></p><p> Which also says something about how useful a guideline it is. ;(</p><p></p><p> I'm afraid a few things in D&D are traditionally viewed and even actually used that way (as 'for beginners' or the like), when they may actually be rather poor for the purpose. Apprentice Tier and 'simple' fighters as well as CR.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Definitely. </p><p>I suspect leaving things out entirely is more damning than intentionally making them garbage, which is more damning than just doing a half-assed job. So including CR, even if it's of questionable value, was the right call.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7212133, member: 996"] Any specific instance needn't be the case, sure. But neither does pointing out that some encounters may be harder than CR indicates rather than weaker mean that design of the monster or the CR system (or the encounter, by the DM!) can't be deemed 'poor.' That's all. Obviously. A 'good' design would moderate that variance enough to make CR a useful yardstick for the DM who wants such a yardstick. Nope, no specific details, just a generic 'ceteris parabus' kind of comparison. If CR X results in wildly difficult degrees of challenge, then CR's not a very useful metric, thus design of CR (or design of the monsters it rates) might reasonably be deemed 'poor.' Or, a specific DM noting such might be blamed, personally. :shrug: They were at least with the same DM, an experienced one. 's all relative. ;) Dependability that can't readily be gauged certainly can't be very dependable! ;) I don't see how anyone could think that. You'd have to at least posit the same DM with the same players & characters to even start isolating CR as the culprit. Doesn't really contrast with the former extreme, you could recognize it as a rule of thumb, and still expect it to be equally useful to everyone, or you could think of it as an exact formula and expect it to need to be adjusted heavily for the needs of a given table. Which also says something about how useful a guideline it is. ;( I'm afraid a few things in D&D are traditionally viewed and even actually used that way (as 'for beginners' or the like), when they may actually be rather poor for the purpose. Apprentice Tier and 'simple' fighters as well as CR. Definitely. I suspect leaving things out entirely is more damning than intentionally making them garbage, which is more damning than just doing a half-assed job. So including CR, even if it's of questionable value, was the right call. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
Top