D&D 5E Quick question re: monsters as PCs

[CapnZapp]

@CapnZapp

I mostly agree with your assessment (half level might be a bit low). I wonder though, where did the CR numbers come from in the first place? While there is something to the "must be this high to fight" element at lower levels, it quickly vanishes into insignificance. So why are CRs numbered the way they are? Why is the difficulty of an adult copper dragon defined as CR 14 rather than CR 20 or CR 8, or CR ZX-4?

While I certainly am the last person to defend the CR system, they need some quick eyeball classification so you don't need to look at the stats to know a a Tarrasque is more dangerous than a Goblin.

So, for the purposes of quickly pegging a monster on a scale, CRs work just as fine as any other simple scheme.

I can even buy the idea "when in doubt, overestimate the monster". After all, one lame boring fight doesn't disrupt an adventure nearly as much as one TPK.

It's when people actually start believing the spiel about pseudo-scientific calculations to arrive at said CRs things go haywire.

The only thing a CR is good for is a very rough estimate. To downplay the "accurate science" BS, they could just have pegged each monster into one of the four tiers to really drive home the inaccuracy of it all.

But the idea of being able to use numbers to calculate a scientifically "correct" encounter is very alluring, and so the CR system sells PHBs, so it will probably always be included, even if it's all an illusion (avoiding the term "lie" here).

 

[CapnZapp]

(half level might be a bit low)

Based on my own guesstimate work from looking at the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide NPCS, an average of 3/4 level = CR (round up) seems functional

It's because of the Challenge Ratings below 1.

If you exclude basic humanoids (and rats etc) that are nearly as capable as a level 1 character except rated, no not CR 3/4 but CR 1/4, then yeah.

Considering how perhaps 90% of the critters you meet (but not fight) would be in this range, and how very few monsters that actually get a higher CR rating than 3/4ths of "level", it felt appropriate to go with half rather than three quarters.

Even pure attack spellcasters are only rated at 2/3 of "level". A Mage, for instance, is essentially a level 9 Wizard, and is rated CR 6. The Archmage is a level 17 Wizard rated CR 12.

After all, if your level 17 Wizard were to go up against a full party (and no "she's too smart to play it straight, he would annihilate them from a distance" nonsense), an APL of 12 sounds about right. Remember, she would face them alone and in "arena combat", since that's what CR measures, so it's not as if any player character is worth his level in CRs.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I certainly am the last person to defend the CR system, they need some quick eyeball classification so you don't need to look at the stats to know a a Tarrasque is more dangerous than a Goblin.

In support of the speculation that the actual numbers are intended to mean something, the PHB shapechanging spells (polymorph, shapechange, true polymorph all allow transformation into a creature of equal or lower CR, but say you can use level if you lack a CR.

Xanathar's mass polymorph breaks with that mold though and uses half level in place of CR for creatures without CR (it does apply to multiple creatures, but it is unclear why that would affect one value but not the other).

It's almost like they initially thought CR and level might be close enough to equivalent, but then realized that isn't how it ended up working out.

 

[JEB]

FYI, my 3/4 level = CR was the average across all classes, seemed to sit in the middle of the various ranges and was within 1 CR of most of the actual NPC numbers.

Edit: The above is incorrect, I forgot a step in my math. See this later post.

Agreed that 2/3 level = CR is good for wizards (with an allowance for slightly lower CRs for weaker subclasses and slightly higher for stronger). Likely works for druids as well.

For the other individual classes, best I could figure from the limited sample size:

Bard: CR = 1/2 level (could easily be same as warlock, though, see below)
Fighter, Monk: CR = 3/5 level
Paladin: CR = 4/5 level
Warlock: CR = 2/5 level (actually pretty confident about this one)
Cleric, Rogue: Inconsistent, clearly varies by subclass (non-combat clerics might be same as warlock, though)
Barbarian, Sorcerer: No examples

 

[JEB]

It would be interesting to build a heap of average NPCs of every level for every class and subclass, extrapolating from the NPCs we do have from the core rules and VGTM, and see if you can determine any consistency in CR/level ratios. But that's a lot of work.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's almost like they initially thought CR and level might be close enough to equivalent, but then realized that isn't how it ended up working out.

Except I was around when they pulled that stunt back in 3E (making up a system that anyone with half a brain immediately realizes is valuable only for PR purposes; then later "realizes" it wasn't actually good for the "balanced"/"scientific"/"objective" approach after all) so I won't give them a pass now.

In other words, no I don't believe they think Challenge Rating is actually good enough (for anything else than selling the dream that you can create encounters without actually having the experience and DM chops to judge it yourself).

That said, it is not entirely without merit. A CR 2 creature will be roflstomped by a CR 10 creature nearly every time.

So I actually quite like how the spells don't even try to make a more detailed analysis than using Challenge Ratings.

But that's predicated by [CR = incredibly coarse and rough eyeball number] rather than [CR = incredibly fine-tuned and delicately balanced number good enough to create "accurate" encounters].

It all hinges on the fact that "the DM is supposed to pick the critters" for the conjure/summon spells. That is the balancing factor. (That is the only balancing factor.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Barbarian, Sorcerer: No examples

If you're talking about NPCs that "mimic" certain PC classes, then did you look at the Berserker? To me, that's a definite Barbarian (or "Barbarian").

 

[CapnZapp]

Bard: CR = 1/2 level (could easily be same as warlock, though, see below)
Fighter, Monk: CR = 3/5 level
Paladin: CR = 4/5 level
Warlock: CR = 2/5 level (actually pretty confident about this one)

I wonder if this paints an accurate picture of the relative strengths of the classes (like how 3E developed "tiers")?

Was there any (good) attempts at quantifying the "tier" system back then?

For instance, was there any attempts to say, idunno, "one tier 2 character is worth 50% as much as a tier 5" character.

The way we could say "if you're a recruiter for your band of heroes, you get about as much oomph bringing in two warlocks as one paladin" by looking at the quoted numbers above?

 

[Tormyr]

I wonder if this paints an accurate picture of the relative strengths of the classes (like how 3E developed "tiers")?

Was there any (good) attempts at quantifying the "tier" system back then?

For instance, was there any attempts to say, idunno, "one tier 2 character is worth 50% as much as a tier 5" character.

The way we could say "if you're a recruiter for your band of heroes, you get about as much oomph bringing in two warlocks as one paladin" by looking at the quoted numbers above?

It is difficult to say regarding the "tiers" of classes, but probably not? One of the difficulties of CR is that it examines creatures in isolation and provides a rough measurement of combat effectiveness for 3 rounds. PCs are generally in a party, and their powers need to last an adventuring day rather than nova for just 3 rounds of an encounter. It also gets into all the things that CR does not measure such as synergy which some classes, such as bard, cleric, and paladin, are more heavily built around. Additionally, the stripped down NPCs in the MM and Volo's do not necessarily accurately represent the class and have the HP set arbitrarily rather than following the hit dice size and number for the class.

A recruiter is probably better off going for diversity. Even if they got a second PC from a "top shelf" class, the party probably benefits more if the recruiter says, "Sorry, I already have got one of you."

 

[Sunseeker]

I wonder if this paints an accurate picture of the relative strengths of the classes (like how 3E developed "tiers")?

Was there any (good) attempts at quantifying the "tier" system back then?

For instance, was there any attempts to say, idunno, "one tier 2 character is worth 50% as much as a tier 5" character.

The way we could say "if you're a recruiter for your band of heroes, you get about as much oomph bringing in two warlocks as one paladin" by looking at the quoted numbers above?

It's actually reverse. When CR=1, 2/5ths of a Warlock=1 while 4/5ths of a Paladin=1, which means a Paladin=1/2 of a Warlock.

So you get better oomph from a single Warlock than a single Paladin.