D&D General How you think CR should work

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know that the types other than minion really impacted CR as much as they were guidance on how a creature should be played. Solos aren't just tough, they are in some form anti-social. A skirmishes runs around, soldiers form up. Elites have minions, minions are cannon fodder.

so skirmishers of level 4 are going to have some kind of engage/disengage ability a desent attack/damage and a good AC, a soldier however will have both better attack and AC most likely slightly less damage and no engage.disengage ability. the types showed HOW they got the CR so you didin't have a lurker (leader) run up to the front line get smashed and wonder "why was that a CR 7, 1 round of 2 characters hitting him and he was dead"

 

[Stalker0]

The problem to me is that PCs themselves don’t get a CR. They need the same treatment that monsters get, converting their core hps, ac, and dpr into a cr banger that the dm can use to guage encounters.

That removes one of the big variables. So for example maybe a 4th level character is cr X, 5th level is cr X+3, level 6 is X+4. This helps convert the spikes of power into power assignments.

There are still other variables of course, it won’t consider everything, but it does give you a good foundation

 

[Stalker0]

again 4e had the answer... 1 reg, 4 minion 1/2 eliet or 1/5 a solo was per character...

The biggest thing about 4e encounter design was that it knew “it takes a party to kill a party”, and the system was designed around that, encouraging dm to create balanced parties of different monster types. Solo monsters were given extra special abilities to compensate for lack of a party.

 

[delericho]

4e pretty much had it right - indeed, that was the very best bit of that system.

The one thing that 4e got wrong (and 3e and 5e make the same mistake) is trying to be too exact. This gives an impression of a rigorous system that they just can't deliver. Either the system should give CRs by tier, or they should give them by level but build gaps into the system - so maybe there could be level 1, 4, 7, 10, etc monsters, with nothing at levels 2 and 3 or whatever.

 

[ad_hoc]

I feel CR is pointless, except as a rough indicator of power.

A difference between a group of 6 power gamers with a generous DM, who have optimized their damage is a world of difference to another group of 5 actors who are just out having fun in a low magic setting.

The first group could destroy triple the number of monsters of the second group.
So any CR calculator is always wrong.

The CR system is designed for 3-5 PCs and presumably works best with 4.

6 PCs are about twice as strong as 4 and with focus fire as well as shoring up weaknesses/missing abilities will make some monsters even weaker.

I just don't think the game works well at 6 PCs and it isn't the fault of CR.

 

[Oofta]

4e pretty much had it right - indeed, that was the very best bit of that system.

The one thing that 4e got wrong (and 3e and 5e make the same mistake) is trying to be too exact. This gives an impression of a rigorous system that they just can't deliver. Either the system should give CRs by tier, or they should give them by level but build gaps into the system - so maybe there could be level 1, 4, 7, 10, etc monsters, with nothing at levels 2 and 3 or whatever.

The main thing 4E had going for it was that everything was fairly locked down and predictable. Point buy for PCs, prescribed magic items, much more controlled expectations.

However, I'm not convinced that 4E, or any version of D&D, has ever or can ever come up with a system that will work for everyone without adjustment. In 4E, I had a level 21 party curb stomp Lollth, a CR 30 solo* without breaking a sweat. It's always been and always will be up to the DM to dial in difficulty to suit their group. The CR calculations we get with 5E give me a starting point, one that works fairly well for me.

*Admittedly solos have rarely worked well under most circumstances which is why I rarely used them solo.

 

[delericho]

However, I'm not convinced that 4E, or any version of D&D, has ever or can ever come up with a system that will work for everyone without adjustment. In 4E, I had a level 21 party...

My working assumption these days is that nothing beyond about level 10 or so received anything more than the most cursory playtest. People just don't play at those levels and that's where the complexity is greatest, so the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't suit it.

 

[overgeeked]

I find the current system works fine. CR is always going to be an art rather than a science, given the huge humber of variables in monster ability, table style, number of encounters/day etc. The best it will ever be is a rough guideline, and the current system gives me that. There are always places things could be improved, but I don't think it is possible to make a CR system that will accurately reflect the actual challenge a creature might pose for my table (heavy emphasis on RP) versus a tabletop of highly optimized power gamers.

Could you walk through the decisions you make to use CR to make an encounter? What do you use? What do you ignore?

For all the wailing and moaning about CR, I find it reasonably accurate. Yes, I have to adjust total points per group and I ignore the numbers multiplier but the combats are fairly close to the guess. Of course it depends significantly on extraneous features that aren't encapsulated in a simple calculation. Everything from how many encounters between long rests, group dynamics, amount of magic, environmental factors.

I do use a spreadsheet I downloaded long ago, but it's just because I'm lazy and it's easier to plug numbers than to pull out a calculator. Not sure why it works for me and seems to work for no one else (or at least not the ones that complain about it incessantly) but it does.

Likely the bolded bits help. Ignoring the number of monsters multiplier is a big deal. How much do you fiddle with the numbers? Add more than subtract? Max hit points for monsters? What are some of the most common numbers fixes you do?

 

[Oofta]

Could you walk through the decisions you make to use CR to make an encounter? What do you use? What do you ignore?

Likely the bolded bits help. Ignoring the number of monsters multiplier is a big deal. How much do you fiddle with the numbers? Add more than subtract? Max hit points for monsters? What are some of the most common numbers fixes you do?

While I do customize monsters now and then with things like giving lower level monsters advantage and max damage (or doubling damage) so that their sort-of-minions, for the most part I just run them out of the book. Legendary monsters also get legendary actions and saves equal to number of party members -1.

For other adjustments, I just plug into the spreadsheet based on player equivalent level (see attached zip file) I got off of this site long ago and generally aim for hard fights. My current group works fine without level adjustment, in the past I simply entered the PCs as a level or two higher. So for example, I had a fight with a CR 16 storm giant quintessential and 3 fire giants for my group of 6 16th level PCs. Since they were going to have a limited number of fights between long rest I decided to go with (barely) deadly. It was a tough fight as expected.

For other groups I've adjusted the PC level, adding a level or two to their actual level before plugging in numbers. I generally ignore the XP and normally do a mix of medium and deadly encounters or a couple of deadly fights like this example. I'm sure I could figure out the calculations for all of this if I didn't want to use a spreadsheet, I just find this easier.

 

[overgeeked]

Thanks for the detailed response.

While I do customize monsters now and then with things like giving lower level monsters advantage and max damage (or doubling damage) so that their sort-of-minions, for the most part I just run them out of the book. Legendary monsters also get legendary actions and saves equal to number of party members -1.

That’s a big deal, especially for non-standard sized groups.

For other adjustments, I just plug into the spreadsheet based on player equivalent level (see attached zip file) I got off of this site long ago and generally aim for hard fights. My current group works fine without level adjustment, in the past I simply entered the PCs as a level or two higher. So for example, I had a fight with a CR 16 storm giant quintessential and 3 fire giants for my group of 6 16th level PCs. Since they were going to have a limited number of fights between long rest I decided to go with (barely) deadly. It was a tough fight as expected.

View attachment 267569

For other groups I've adjusted the PC level, adding a level or two to their actual level before plugging in numbers. I generally ignore the XP and normally do a mix of medium and deadly encounters or a couple of deadly fights like this example. I'm sure I could figure out the calculations for all of this if I didn't want to use a spreadsheet, I just find this easier.

Player equivalent level seems to be doing the heavy lifting. And the numbers don’t quite come out in any obvious way.

The next question, if you don’t mind, is: how tactically the players play and how optimized are they? And how do you account for that? My assumption for the last bit is that’s the variable of you adding levels to better match the players at your table.