Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7225732" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which really has nothing to do with CR if CR is viewed as only comparable to itself.To explain: when comparing a high-stat party to a low-stat party you're comparing nothing but party vs. party based on one variable.&nbsp; No worries there.But when using CR (in any edition that has it, not just 5e), isn't it all just an attempt at comparing challenge vs. challenge in a similar way, only taking more variables into account?&nbsp; When a DM sees that an encounter is CR 5 she can - one hopes - safely assume there's a bit less to it than the CR 6 encounter on the next page, but it's got more teeth than the CR 3 encounter on page 5.&nbsp; It compares challenge vs. challenge quite well, in a broad-brush sort of way.Where it falls down is when DMs (and the designers, for all that) expect the CR rating to directly mirror what a particular party at a particular table can handle.&nbsp; It can't.&nbsp; No two parties are the same...and even if they were, no two groups of players running them are the same.&nbsp; Only after some trial and error will a DM be able to say with reasonable confidence how the CR numbers will line up with what her particular party can take, based on a whole bunch of variables only one of which is the characters' base stats.In short: CR isn't broken, it's just being asked to do more than it's really capable of.Lan-&quot;and never underestimate the resilience of an adventuring party - they're like weeds&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7225732, member: 29398"] Which really has nothing to do with CR if CR is viewed as only comparable to itself. To explain: when comparing a high-stat party to a low-stat party you're comparing nothing but party vs. party based on one variable. No worries there. But when using CR (in any edition that has it, not just 5e), isn't it all just an attempt at comparing challenge vs. challenge in a similar way, only taking more variables into account? When a DM sees that an encounter is CR 5 she can - one hopes - safely assume there's a bit less to it than the CR 6 encounter on the next page, but it's got more teeth than the CR 3 encounter on page 5. It compares challenge vs. challenge quite well, in a broad-brush sort of way. Where it falls down is when DMs (and the designers, for all that) expect the CR rating to directly mirror what a particular party at a particular table can handle. It can't. No two parties are the same...and even if they were, no two groups of players running them are the same. Only after some trial and error will a DM be able to say with reasonable confidence how the CR numbers will line up with what her particular party can take, based on a whole bunch of variables only one of which is the characters' base stats. In short: CR isn't broken, it's just being asked to do more than it's really capable of. Lan-"and never underestimate the resilience of an adventuring party - they're like weeds"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification