D&D 5E Serious gamers and new CR formula

[shoak1]

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.

sigh...Our entire society, including this forum, your computer, and virtually everything you have, was invented and constructed using the scientific method. Its basis is the controlled experiment, where you set values for all variables but one, then experiment to determine the value of the remaining variable. It is especially useful in complex situations like this. So, at the outset I set several baselines. Thereby allowing us to have a discussion and possibly get some results. It does not preclude you from adjusting them based on your relative skill levels, the amount of magic in your campaign, or anything else that you have different in your campaign. But it gives us a starting point.

Its like saying you cant make a household budget because you dont know for sure what expenses you might have, and that unknown expenses might come up, etc. (OMG!!! There's too many variables!!! I cant do it!!!) Of course you can.

 

[redrick]

IME, the first point does not hold. As an example, a Rakshasa is CR 13 and it is not nearly the same threat as a Storm Giant or an Adult White Dragon. I could dig up other examples, but there have been plenty throughout the various threads.

The Rakshasa is a weird-butt monster. Most of its abilities are not combat-related — it is geared much more towards NPC villainy than combat bad-assery. At the same time, it also has some abilities that make it pretty daunting for a low-level party. Being immune to all spells below 6th level means that it can't even be touched by casters until level 11, and even then they get one shot with their highest level spell slot, and nothing else. Its claw attack isn't that scary, but a no-save curse that prevents the target from benefitting from a short or long rest? Let's hope it doesn't claw your cleric before he has a chance to prepare Remove Curse. And then, on the other hand, vulnerability to piercing from magic weapons wielded by good creatures... that's a hard one to control for as well. My last high level campaign happened not to have any magic piercing weapons wielded by good creatures in it, but a good Ranger with a magic bow is gonna take this guy down in no time.

I'm not saying that CR 13 is the "right" CR for the Rakshasa; I have no idea. I do think that it very accurately illustrates some of the challenges in applying a meaningful CR to many of the creatures in the Monster Manual.

The difficulty of creatures can also be very much influenced by the creatures they are fighting alongside. A lot of traits and abilities compliment each other. Some monsters are even more useless than most as solos, but when given adequate support, can be extremely deadly.

 

[Pauper]

Because the first two answers were not enough?

Nope, because I hadn't had my say!

 

[Imaculata]

So, at the outset I set several baselines. Thereby allowing us to have a discussion and possibly get some results. It does not preclude you from adjusting them based on your relative skill levels, the amount of magic in your campaign, or anything else that you have different in your campaign. But it gives us a starting point.

Its like saying you cant make a household budget because you dont know for sure what expenses you might have, and that unknown expenses might come up, etc. (OMG!!! There's too many variables!!! I cant do it!!!) Of course you can.

I think you are entirely missing the point I was trying to make. My point was that there is no added value to come up with a new way to calculate CR's, if it only takes into account the exact same things that the current CR system does. If you're going to change it, at least start taking into account more factors.

For starters, you could categorize magic items, and determine a penalty to the CR if the players have certain types of items. You could add a modifier depending on the number of extra, or missing players. But at least do something different. Expand on the idea, don't try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[redrick]

sigh...Our entire society, including this forum, your computer, and virtually everything you have, was invented and constructed using the scientific method. Its basis is the controlled experiment, where you set values for all variables but one, then experiment to determine the value of the remaining variable. It is especially useful in complex situations like this. So, at the outset I set several baselines. Thereby allowing us to have a discussion and possibly get some results. It does not preclude you from adjusting them based on your relative skill levels, the amount of magic in your campaign, or anything else that you have different in your campaign. But it gives us a starting point.

Its like saying you cant make a household budget because you dont know for sure what expenses you might have, and that unknown expenses might come up, etc. (OMG!!! There's too many variables!!! I cant do it!!!) Of course you can.

I think you are slightly over-exaggerating the role of the scientific method in EVERY ASPECT OF OUR SOCIETY. None of the things that we make in my line of work are made using the scientific method. But I digress.

Wizards admitted when they released the DMG guidelines on encounter creation that they were "a work in progress." That is to say, they were a model that was evolving. So I think it is legitimate to want to advance and refine that model, even though I personally have little value for a more precise model. However, in order to approach this scientifically, the only thing you can really do is just run experiments. That's basically what Wizards did. They had more data available to them than any of us do, both from the public and their internal playtests. This absurdly complicated model that they presented to us is the result of those experiments.

Oh, and trying to perfect an encounter-building budget for a single encounter is like trying to perfect a household budget for a single day.

 

[Imaculata]

Oh, and trying to perfect an encounter-building budget for a single encounter is like trying to perfect a household budget for a single day.

Personally I'd love to see an elegant simple system that can reliably calculate the difficulty of an encounter. But then I'd like to see way more things included than what the OP suggests.

To me, it's the equivalent of saying:

"This system is broken, it does not take into account all the variables! Lets make our own system and use the exact same variables, and some how try to do it better."

Why not go all the way? If you want a better CR calculation, then broaden the scope.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I must not be a "serious gamer" so I'm anxious I'm going to booed off the pitch here, but this all seems somewhat mathsy.

Which I get, it's important.

But isn't a good way of building encounters - especially for "serious gamers", who I imagine would be drawn only from the non-mudblood community: ie those with experience, and those that have DMd their party through sufficient adventures to allow them to gain a fair few levels; in other words, DMs who are familiar with their party, know their tics and tricks, and know their Achilles heels mainly through being the one who was holding the heel in the first place (classical reference ahoy) - wouldn't it be great if the main metric wasn't maths but PC observation?

Create a kobold warlock with eldritch blast.

A paranoid community of orcs who live in a permanent anti magic shell provided for them by a strange deus ex machina. Theirs is not to reason why, etc.

A basilisk in reverse. It's gaze works in reflection. It sets up mirrors all other the shop so it can see YOU - one glance and BAM! Stone.

Your party has a Paladin? Great. Fight them from afar with missiles thrown by Good monsters who are Dominated or just misguided. Hell, the whole forest is full of drunken, sneaky archers. And no one but no one is undead. Why not.

You want harder challenges, MAKE THEM UP.

Imagination will always make a better encounter than maths ever could.

Maths builds the house. But it's the cat on your lap that make it a home.

So the CR system is shonky *for your party*. Use it as a yardstick and grow from there. The CR puts up the walls and the roof. Your knowledge of what your party will find difficult/enjoy is what makes it more than just a standard 10'x10' stone flagged room.

But then I'm not a "serious gamer" so perhaps my views should be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave as they're not properly attired.

Yes, I'm facetious. But I get a bit riled at talk of "serious gamers" as though anyone who doesn't follow the same type of tabletop experience (usually power gamed) is of no concern, importance, or relevance.

TL;DR - us "non-serious" (comedy?) gamers are sensitive flowers, talk to us nicely; also, MM and CR is a starting point for you to add the weight of your serious experience onto and develop interesting challenges designed to tax *your party's specific* weaknesses/foibles.

 

[Talmek]

I tried the CR system repeatedly with my weekly group over six months; it simply didn't work for us.

So I removed CR from the way that I build and review encounters and started concerning myself with making "better" encounters for the group. What is better, you ask? A more difficult, but not too difficult encounter that, when stacked with 6-8 other encounters between rests would have the PCs being forced to make difficult decisions like who was going to get the last healing resource...

I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I even figured it out. We as a group just messed around with things until we got it to feeling good for our group and moved forward from there.

Why so *serious*, seriously? It's not like people are going to really die if a GM gets it wrong?

 

[mflayermonk]

Is there a way that you could have a flexible CR system, based on the character's abilities?

For example, PCs often maximize AC and to-hit bonuses. For example, an 8th level PC with a 24 AC would be an effective level 14 PC against a generic monster that attacked AC.
However, against something that attacked PC saving throws such as an intellect devourer, the PC would be level 8.

 

[shoak1]

OMG! Overrun by nihilists - noone to help fix CR system (pulls pin on grenade/leaves forum to silly nihilists)...AAAARGGHHHHH!!!!!