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

[SkidAce]

There was encounter design from the beginning.

The 1e DMG has a bunch of random encounter tables for lots of terrains, a system of categorizing monsters by monster level to factor into placement in dungeon levels, and suggested random encounter tables for various dungeon levels.

Check out for example page 174

DUNGEON RANDOM MONSTER LEVEL DETERMINATION MATRIX (d20)
Equivalent Level Of The Dungeon
Monster Level Table Which Must Be Consulted
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
1st 1-16 17-19 20 — — — — — — —
2nd-3rd 1-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — — — — —
4th 1-5 6-10 11-16 17-18 19 20 — — — —
5th 1-3 4-6 7-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — — —
6th 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — —
7th 1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-14 15-16 17-18 19 20 —
8th 1 2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-14 15-16 17-18 19 20
9th 1 2 3 4-5 6-8 9-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20
10th-11th 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 17-19 20
12th-13th 1 2 3 4 5 6-7 8-9 10-12 13-18 19-20
14th-15th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-8 9-11 12-17 18-20
16th & down 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8-10 11-16 17-20

This gives a range of monster difficulties in an encounter to be expected that adjusts to the level of the dungeon. It gives a huge range of hitting anything from kobolds to spellcasting vampires at the deepest levels.

CR in 3e, monster level in 4e, and CR in 5e were tighter and used more directly and in smaller bands for suggested encounter parameters than in 1e monster levels, but AD&D had the concept as part of its rules.

I "basically" still use this concept.

Areas of the world have "levels" of danger, thereby granting a range I can choose from for planned encounters, or randomly roll.

Players know or are informed when entering dangerous areas.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

I think the idea that you can simply look at a number to come up with a good encounter is a troll, yes.

New DMs need to be told to consider an encounter in all its details and complexity. It can't be reduced to a single number.

Those of us who learned our DM skills before CR was invented don't seem to have difficulties, one has to conclude that it is the existence of CR that is the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1) Get rid of CR completely.

This.

 

[dave2008]

Never said that it is. But if we see it regularily, something in the system does not works as intended.

Do you see it regularly? I have not, nor do I hear a lot of such stories.

 

[Jmarso]

Apparently some people thought this approach would be better because it is simpler...

Sadly, it is the way things are going, because people are either too lazy or not smart enough to handle spellcasting monsters. (When it should be the best thing about them IMO!!!)

Someday, we won't have spellcasting PCs either, just spell-like abilities. So many people already love the warlock. Very limited spell slots, spell-like abilities.... look familiar?

It's interesting. I had a discussion with my group's DM this past week over the merits of running 2E vs something like Castles and Crusades. His response was that he likes the little bit of extra difficulty in the 2E system, for example, like sometimes having to roll low and other times roll high, because he considers it a filter of sorts: it chases away people not smart or mentally agile enough to handle playing in that sort of game. And after playing in a couple of other different groups with some players who almost literally couldn't add the numbers on three dice, I'm beginning to think he may be onto something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's interesting. I had a discussion with my group's DM this past week over the merits of running 2E vs something like Castles and Crusades. His response was that he likes the little bit of extra difficulty in the 2E system, for example, like sometimes having to roll low and other times roll high, because he considers it a filter of sorts: it chases away people not smart or mentally agile enough to handle playing in that sort of game. And after playing in a couple of other different groups with some players who almost literally couldn't add the numbers on three dice, I'm beginning to think he may be onto something.

The advantage of a simpler system is that it chases away people who think like that.

 

[dave2008]

Personally, what I like about CR is that it compares monsters to each other. I don't need it to build encounters, but I like to know the relative strengths of these beasties

 

[SkidAce]

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?

CR shows (suggests) a new DM not use a CR 15 creature against a 1st level party.

Of course my example is taken to the extreme, but you are proposing the opposite extreme, that CR is useless.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Personally, what I like about CR is that it compares monsters to each other. I don't need it to build encounters, but I like to know the relative strengths of these beasties

True, it's worth having for that. It's the idea that you can throw it into a blender and come out with a balanced encounter that needs to go.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Or a system where these variables don't explodicate the challenge of a given encounter?

Like maybe a system with consistent rules instead of 'ask your DM' with little to no help for the DM?