CR and level are just names. Pathfinder uses the term CR, but has XP budgeting that works more or less exactly like in 4e.
Given how overused the word "level" is in D&D, I think CR is the better term, but that's the only difference.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure
- Thread starter GM Dave
- Start date
CR and level are just names. Pathfinder uses the term CR, but has XP budgeting that works more or less exactly like in 4e.
Given how overused the word "level" is in D&D, I think CR is the better term, but that's the only difference.
KesselZero
First Post
Agreed that 4e has the easiest and best-balanced system for pitting monsters against PCs. It's one thing that I do hope stays pretty much identical in 5e. There has to be some guidance-- back in the day (2e and previous) there wasn't even always a relationship between how dangerous a monster was and how much XP and treasure it gave you. It was hard for a DM to tell (an inexperienced DM, at least) what threat a monster might be, and the players could easily earn better rewards for easier fights, which seems backwards to me.
I also support random treasure tables, as long as they're balanced. Essentials' are pretty good, if a little dull (I'm a bit tired of making up 200-gp art objects). The one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet but I think ABSOLUTELY MUST GO is 4e's edict that parties should get treasure that fits their level, unrelated to the level of the encounter they just beat. This seems totally insane to me-- I can see the argument that treasure should follow an in-world logic (goblins wouldn't have 200 gp), and I make the argument for risk/reward balancing, but the argument that every encounter will be stocked with one of ten level-appropriate parcels just doesn't do anything for me.
The first house-rule I made in my campaign was to always roll on the treasure table based on what level an encounter would be for a 5-PC party. So a 1,000-XP encounter will always be rolled on the Level 5 treasure table, for example. Harder encounters give better treasure; if there are fewer PCs they each get more treasure that day (since the encounter was harder for them) and vice versa with larger groups.
All of this is to say that I ignored three of the four poll questions and voted 5 on the "Risk/Reward" one.
I also support random treasure tables, as long as they're balanced. Essentials' are pretty good, if a little dull (I'm a bit tired of making up 200-gp art objects). The one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet but I think ABSOLUTELY MUST GO is 4e's edict that parties should get treasure that fits their level, unrelated to the level of the encounter they just beat. This seems totally insane to me-- I can see the argument that treasure should follow an in-world logic (goblins wouldn't have 200 gp), and I make the argument for risk/reward balancing, but the argument that every encounter will be stocked with one of ten level-appropriate parcels just doesn't do anything for me.
The first house-rule I made in my campaign was to always roll on the treasure table based on what level an encounter would be for a 5-PC party. So a 1,000-XP encounter will always be rolled on the Level 5 treasure table, for example. Harder encounters give better treasure; if there are fewer PCs they each get more treasure that day (since the encounter was harder for them) and vice versa with larger groups.
All of this is to say that I ignored three of the four poll questions and voted 5 on the "Risk/Reward" one.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I like random monsters and treasure a lot.
Not always. Not constantly. But I absolutely want that possibility.
I can always interfere in a random system to make it less random if I want. It's harder to add randomness to something that is designed without that in mind. Rolling for random 4e treasure doesn't work -- treasure is too much a part of the character's power. Likewise, random encounters in 4e aren't really using the system right. In 3e, each has their flaws, too (whether due to the more vague notion of CR, or whether because the assumed wealth-by-level guidelines were wired into the game's challenge).
Not always. Not constantly. But I absolutely want that possibility.
I can always interfere in a random system to make it less random if I want. It's harder to add randomness to something that is designed without that in mind. Rolling for random 4e treasure doesn't work -- treasure is too much a part of the character's power. Likewise, random encounters in 4e aren't really using the system right. In 3e, each has their flaws, too (whether due to the more vague notion of CR, or whether because the assumed wealth-by-level guidelines were wired into the game's challenge).
D'karr
Adventurer
Sometimes I'm actually surprised at the comments coming from the designers for this "hallelujah" edition that will unite all others. When I see their comments it's almost as if their only experience with the game started about 10 years ago.
I know that Gary's DMG was a masterpiece of disorganization. It's hard to look at that and find stuff in it easily. However, he does give guidance for monster placement, as well as treasure placement. He even goes into great detail explaining about the DM being careful with the placement of magic items as they can unbalance and break the campaign.
The "level" system for monster placement was so explicit as to make it almost moron proof. Dungeons had levels, and it was expected that monsters would be placed in a dungeon using that level as a guide. The deeper in the dungeon the higher the level, and the more challenge that should be expected. How much easier can it get? Each monster also had a treasure type that could be used by the DM to determine what type of treasure the creature had. He could roll randomly for the treasure or pick from the multitude of tables.
The level system also made it so that the players could decide the level of challenge they were willing to endure. A first level party knew that going to the 8th level of the dungeon was probably suicide, but the payoff was great too.
The XP system even mentioned to gauge XP rewards based on level of difficulty. Gold was turned to XP and if the challenge was low the XP reward was not 1 to 1. Not only that the creatures treasure was usually "thematically" appropriate for the creature. Something the Wealth by Level Guidelines never really addressed.
I know that the CR system and the Wealth by Level system existed starting with 3.x but I'd be hard pressed to call the CR system a hallmark of design. As a matter of fact placing monsters using 1e guidelines is much more accurate than anything I ever experienced using the CR system. My overall experience ended up with about a 70% inaccurate ratings for the CR system.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking at 1e with rose colored glasses and saying that finding that information was easy. I admit that had it been formatted in a much more "precise" manner it would have been much better.
I just don't see the CR system and the Wealth by Level Guidelines as an improvement of design. They were better organized, I'll give them that.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
1, 5, 5, 5
D'karr
Adventurer
May I interest you in the following:
donjon; 4e Random Treasure Generator
I've used it for some time and like you find that I can easily swap out things I don't like, but this saves me the "heavy" lifting.
Janaxstrus
First Post
I love using the random treasure tables to determine what the magic/armor/arms shop may have for magical goodies.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
If some method of gauging monster challenge and of getting a ballpark on appropriate treasure aren't in a game--then at least one or two such methods will be gradually developed and posted on the internet. Because people need that information, and not everyone wants to learn it the hard way. Better to include at least a stab at it in the core rules than ignore it.
Personally, I prefer guidelines that aren't down to a single number per creature or item--not least because such guidelines are more likely to be treated as guidelines instead of rules. It's the exact number of a CR rating or monster level that makes people treat it as more precise than it really is. People treat it like a high tech tempature reading instead of someone saying, "that pretty darn hot!"
We probably can't get away from numbers entirely, as the labels that would be needed would become nonsensical, or the bands would be too broad. But at least we could use a range. 3E CR ratings would be immensely better if they were a range. "How tough is that monster?" "Oh, it's around CR 3 to 5. Depends on your group, and how they handle area cold damage and slow effects." I suppose a lot of them would collapse down into an average, with a little note saying to vary by 1 or 2 up or down. But an explicit range on every creature would reinforce that the designers don't really know exactly how tough this creature is in every situation.
Another way to do it would be a single number for the average rating, then another number for the expected variance. Instead of a range of 3 to 5, you'd list CR 4, V 1. Something more extreme (not a lot of hit points for its level, but tough attacks, for example) might be CR 10, V 3. Same thing would apply to 4E levels. In effect, the bigger the variance number, the less confidence the author has that the monster will stick close to the average. Just get rid of the false illusion of precision, and guidelines are fine.
Personally, I prefer guidelines that aren't down to a single number per creature or item--not least because such guidelines are more likely to be treated as guidelines instead of rules. It's the exact number of a CR rating or monster level that makes people treat it as more precise than it really is. People treat it like a high tech tempature reading instead of someone saying, "that pretty darn hot!"
We probably can't get away from numbers entirely, as the labels that would be needed would become nonsensical, or the bands would be too broad. But at least we could use a range. 3E CR ratings would be immensely better if they were a range. "How tough is that monster?" "Oh, it's around CR 3 to 5. Depends on your group, and how they handle area cold damage and slow effects." I suppose a lot of them would collapse down into an average, with a little note saying to vary by 1 or 2 up or down. But an explicit range on every creature would reinforce that the designers don't really know exactly how tough this creature is in every situation.
Another way to do it would be a single number for the average rating, then another number for the expected variance. Instead of a range of 3 to 5, you'd list CR 4, V 1. Something more extreme (not a lot of hit points for its level, but tough attacks, for example) might be CR 10, V 3. Same thing would apply to 4E levels. In effect, the bigger the variance number, the less confidence the author has that the monster will stick close to the average. Just get rid of the false illusion of precision, and guidelines are fine.
Last edited:
FireLance
Legend
Or, we could bring back the "% liar" entry to indicate how confident the designers are that the CR of the monster will be accurate for your group.
Examples:
Goblin, CR 1 (% liar 0)
Nilbog, CR 1 (% liar 70)
