D&D 5E Serious gamers and new CR formula

[Wolf118]

In my experience, to date, the answer is no. Again, this is my experience only. I will use the Rakshasa as a point of reference. A primary "defensive" advantage of the Rakshasa is the immunity to spells, thus giving it the CR of 13. But in terms of damage output and HPs, it is incredibly weak. That doesn't mean it is a terrible monster if played well by the DM, but it has a very different profile (consistency) than other CR13 monsters.

Once you get past the first 5 or so levels, the various abilities of the monsters, vis-a-vis the party, makes consistency a serious issue. Again, this is only my experience- others might have different experiences at their table.

I'll go with #lowkey13 on this. In planning my encounters for my party (run both at Levels 1-4 and now at Level 11+), two creatures with the same CR do not pose the same level of threat. Part of that I believe is due to PC abilities, but also part due to the (programmed) fuzziness of determining CR.

Let's face it; 5e is deliberately fuzzy on a lot of math and rulings. That's the Old School way. 4e was very consistent (as noted) and easy to predict, but 5e is not. Any DM looking for an A-B-C-D progression of how to design consistent encounters is going to be disappointed every time. Creativity and flexibility are the keywords for 5e.

 

[Mistwell]

XP and CR are joined at the hip, with XP being strictly determined by CR. It's dumb if you ask me; there isn't really any justification for having two different numbers that always move in lockstep. But it's what we got.

It's been a while since I looked at it, but I thought two different creatures with the same CR may have different XP?

 

[Dausuul]

It's been a while since I looked at it, but I thought two different creatures with the same CR may have different XP?

Nope. XP = f(CR).

Originally, the idea they presented was that XP would measure a monster's power level, while CR was a "this tall to ride" bar. A monster which dished out 40 points of damage might have the same XP value as a monster which did 10 points of damage to four targets, but it would have a higher CR because it was more likely to one-shot a low-level PC. However, that idea seems to have fallen by the wayside at some point.

 

[Wolf118]

It's been a while since I looked at it, but I thought two different creatures with the same CR may have different XP?

Nope. There's a table in both the MM and DMG which proscribes the XP value for each CR.

 

[Uller]

It seems to me that in the "attrition based" adventure style that the CR system is based upon there are lots of failure conditions. They just aren't clear in a single encounter.

For instance, in an easy encounter the party uses a high level spell slot. It makes the encounter seem trivial..but they actually failed because they might need that spell slot later. Maybe in another encounter a couple enemies escape and warn others making it impossible for the party to circumvent them without fighting....that is a failure of sorts.

In so many of these threads the basis for the declaration that the CR system is broken is that one particular encounter didn't "feel" deadly because the players never felt like there was a real risk of a PC dying...but then we get the details and learn that one PC went down, another had to use a short rest to heal up and one or two PCs "went nova". Sure...that fight wasn't deadly because you spent resources to avoid it being deadly. But how many times can your party do that without a rest? If there is no chance for more than one or two encounters you have to buold in other failure conditions...for instance: have a group of griffons attack the PCs horses. The party must prevent the horses from being scattered and killed or they'll mever get to the palace in time to warn the prince of his impending assassination.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, attrition is the other aspect to consider here. Like it or not, 5E is built on the same attrition model as all other editions except 4E. Take that away, and all sorts of stuff stops working as intended--not just CR, but class balance too.

If you want to have 2-3 encounters per day instead of 6-8, and don't want to use the "gritty" DMG option, another solution is to use the "wave" approach, where some of the encounters involve several waves of enemies. What functions narratively as a single encounter is actually several encounters in rapid succession. The wave effect can be achieved in several ways. You can have enemies arriving on the scene at different times; you can have enemies confined in a narrow space, so they can't all engage the party at once; you can provide the party with "divide and conquer" devices that let them split an enemy force and tackle it piecemeal.

 

[jrowland]

No, it's not. I have a party of 6 Level 11s right now. They're going to face a horde of CR 1 and 2 monsters. All of those CRs are significantly below the PC level; should none of their XP count?

As I stated in point 1a, they *might* not. Only you can determine that. That's why I use the qualifier *might*.

 

[Imaculata]

Regardless of whether I agree about the statements being made regarding the CR system (I don't agree obviously), I think that if you are going to try and come up with a more accurate system (which you could try and do)... then your first step should not be to ignore powerful magical items, and assume 4 players. Weren't those the things that everyone mentions as changing the difficulty?

If you want a system that accurately tells you if your encounter is challenging enough, then you need to factor in all the variables, and not neglect them. So include all levels of magical equipment that the party could have, and all numbers of players. You may even want to add modifiers based on whether certain classes are represented in the party. Having a paladin or cleric in your party, for example, will no doubt make encounters with undead a lot easier. And what about difficult terrain? Do the opponents have a height advantage? Do they have easy access to call reinforcements? Are they in their natural terrain?

If you want a more accurate system, you can't ignore those details. Go all the way, or don't bother.

 

[jrowland]

If you want a more accurate system, you can't ignore those details. Go all the way, or don't bother.

Amen. Only you, as DM, know your PCs capabilities/weaknesses and also know what Creatures the PCs will face. Only you know the terrain, the tactics, the contingencies, the reinforcements, etc. no mere guidelines can accurately model any of that.

The fuzziness of 5E encounter design is an admission (some might say capitulation) of that reality.

 

[Wolf118]

As I stated in point 1a, they *might* not. Only you can determine that. That's why I use the qualifier *might*.

So you agree with the RAW?