D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Vaalingrade]

Very much this. CR works fine for the use it was intended.

Ignoring it completely and just eyeballing?

Because if it can't handle interaction with players playing D&D, there's not a lot of 'work' that it's doing at that point.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Probably because the DMG doesn't know what spells your party has prepared, what the tactical situation is, your players' skill and a million other factors that affect the outcome but can't possibly be included in CR calculations.

Then it should probably stop promoting CR as having any worth at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, the only way you made one "rule" work is to change another?

So, it's not a rule then, is it?

Exactly. I start thinking, you can't follow what I try to say. I try less words.

6-8 encounter per day = bad guideline.
=> guidelines for single encounter inaccurater than desired.
=> make better assumption in 5.5e

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ignoring it completely and just eyeballing?

I’m pretty sure that’s not the use for which it was intended.

Because if it can't handle interaction with players playing D&D, there's not a lot of 'work' that it's doing at that point.

As @Paul Farquhar points put, the stat bloc is only part of the story. Party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness, and dice all play a big roll. If novice DMs are causing an epidemic of TPKs it is definitely not the CR system.

CR is fine.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

CR is fine.

Yes and no. It is based on a very unrealistic assumption (6-8 encounters per day). The only part that is fine is the CR rating itself, that one single creature that has CR >= Party level can possibly one shot a single character.

 

[dave2008]

1) The Vampire was the only threat in the encounter.

2) The Vampire was the one from the MM straight.

3) 4 8th level PCs. The module says it is designed for 8th level PCs.

CR 13 vampire from the MM is 10,000 xp.

DMG deadly xp budget for four 8th level PCs is 8,400, so well into deadly territory. 10,500 xp is deadly for five 8th level PCs. 9,600 xp is deadly for four 9th level PCs and hard for four 11th level PCs. 10,00 xp would be in the hard range for four 10th level PCs.

Round 1 the vampire charmed the barbarian and the specific charm has this line "The charmed target regards the vampire as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected."

Three PCs attacking the CR 13 vampire and one protecting him is a bad start. A CR 13 monster on its own is considered a deadly encounter for three 11th level PCs.

That is what I mean. They just dropped the MM monster in their without considering the changes. Though 3 8th level PCs could typically take on a lone CR 17 monster (if they are at full power), it is not something you want to go into lightly. Also, it sounds like the fight swung on the DMs interpretation of the phrase "...and protected." if the barbarian is actively thwarting the groups attacks, that definitely ups the challenge!

 

[Vaalingrade]

I’m pretty sure that’s not the use for which it was intended.

Certainly wasn't to inform the DM of the relative ability of a monster to present a challenge to a party.

As @Paul Farquhar points put, the stat bloc is only part of the story. Party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness, and dice all play a big roll. If novice DMs are causing an epidemic of TPKs it is definitely not the CR system.

CR is fine.

So it's fine as long as you don't take into account party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness, and dice.

Yep. Fine.

Why can we not just let go of the illusion that CR is of any worth and not just a troll against new DMs?

 

[dave2008]

Yes and no. It is based on a very unrealistic assumption (6-8 encounters per day). The only part that is fine is the CR rating itself, that one single creature that has CR >= Party level can possibly one shot a single character.

That, the bolded part, is not what CR is based on. The encounter guidelines are geared around this assumption when determining encounter strength. However, the 6-8 is note required, it just the assumption the threat levels used in the guidelines. It is easy enough to take the daily XP budget and break it down differently. You can break that budget into 1 or 2 encounters if you wanted to. I actually hope the '24 DMG goes into this idea into a bit more depth.

 

[dave2008]

Certainly wasn't to inform the DM of the relative ability of a monster to present a challenge to a party.

So it's fine as long as you don't take into account party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness, and dice.

Yep. Fine.

Why can we not just let go of the illusion that CR is of any worth and not just a troll against new DMs?

Well it is of some worth to some people. In reality,, IMO, CR and the encounter guidelines work well. What the DMG doesn't do is tell you how to make adjustments to encounters based on: "...party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness,..." Which it could.

CR & the encounter guidelines work well for a base assumption. The DMG should, IMO, be clear about those assumptions are and tell us how to adjust the dials when our groups deviate from those assumptions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Certainly wasn't to inform the DM of the relative ability of a monster to present a challenge to a party.

So it's fine as long as you don't take into account party composition, character build, prepared spells, tactical environment, player skill/choices, DM meanness, and dice.

Yep. Fine.

Why can we not just let go of the illusion that CR is of any worth and not just a troll against new DMs?

So which do you propose, that would help new DMs?

1) Get rid of CR completely.

2) Build a system that (somehow?) incorporated all these variables.