D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[Imaculata]

I'm surprised that so many players don't understand how CR's work, and then yell out "CR's are broken! It's a bug, not a feature!"

Look, if the monsters were harder than their intended CR, you might have a point. But that isn't the case. A CR indicates what a party of that level should be able to handle, without much difficulty. And surprise, surprise, that's what you get. So it is working as intended. There's nothing wrong with the CR system. Some of you just misunderstand what the numbers mean.

And yes, in some cases a fight may be more difficult than others. One day you fight a dragon that is difficult to fight, and another you fight a beholder, and it's just bothersome. There are many variables here, including player gear, player strategies, monster abilities, and monster strategies. All of these can make the fight easier or harder. This does not mean the CR's are broken. You still won the fight, right? Well that's what the CR's mean. A reasonable challenge. Reasonable does not mean adequate in this case. It means that your party didn't die, and didn't suffer too many injuries.

 

[Prism]

Some general responses:

The spell was Feeblemind. Solar's are immune to charm, but not enchantment. I rolled poorly against the effects.

There may well be some issues with CR - I personally don't think the multipliers for several creatures work correctly especially in larger groups. However this is just an example of a single creature and save or die. The solar was unlucky and the players lucky. I wouldn't read much more into it. Spells like feeblemind have always been the same love em or hate em, all though the editions. They can end a fight in seconds against a solo creature (although actually the Solar isn't completely shut down its hard to imagine why it just wouldn't flee). You may well have to give a few more solo creatures legendary saves to guarantee to keep them up.

As an opposite example our three PC 20th level party encountered a single CR 18 demilich and it destroyed us. It flew up, howled and all of us failed a DC 15 Con save. Only one of the PCs had a decent Con save (and rolled badly). The fighter used an indomitable re-roll to have another save and managed to just about get out, dragging the other two party members.

This should have been a medium fight but very nearly TPK'd us. It doesn't mean that the CR system doesn't work, its just that with smaller groups, solo creatures and save or die effects its unpredictable. It really is a guide rather than an absolute system

 

[Imaculata]

As an opposite example our three PC 20th level party encountered a single CR 18 demilich and it destroyed us. It flew up, howled and all of us failed a DC 15 Con save. Only one of the PCs had a decent Con save (and rolled badly). The fighter used an indomitable re-roll to have another save and managed to just about get out, dragging the other two party members.

This should have been a medium fight but very nearly TPK'd us. It doesn't mean that the CR system doesn't work, its just that with smaller groups, solo creatures and save or die effects its unpredictable. It really is a guide rather than an absolute system

What this shows us, is that at higher levels a fair encounter comes with more risks, which is exactly what I would expect. Where as at lower levels, even if everyone rolls really badly, you should still survive the encounter.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm surprised that so many players don't understand how CR's work, and then yell out "CR's are broken! It's a bug, not a feature!"

Look, if the monsters were harder than their intended CR, you might have a point. But that isn't the case. A CR indicates what a party of that level should be able to handle, without much difficulty. And surprise, surprise, that's what you get. So it is working as intended. There's nothing wrong with the CR system. Some of you just misunderstand what the numbers mean.

And yes, in some cases a fight may be more difficult than others. One day you fight a dragon that is difficult to fight, and another you fight a beholder, and it's just bothersome. There are many variables here, including player gear, player strategies, monster abilities, and monster strategies. All of these can make the fight easier or harder. This does not mean the CR's are broken. You still won the fight, right? Well that's what the CR's mean. A reasonable challenge. Reasonable does not mean adequate in this case. It means that your party didn't die, and didn't suffer too many injuries.

I know exactly how CRs work.

How is it when I use the DMG rules to create a custom monster, I almost always end up with a vastly more satisfactory result than the equivalent monsters manual creature?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How is it when I use the DMG rules to create a custom monster, I almost always end up with a vastly more satisfactory result than the equivalent monsters manual creature?

The Challenge Rating of a monster is supposed to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Something like a Mind Flayer or a Young Red Dragon just has certain stats, because those are an accurate reflection of what it's capable of within the game world. The CR system attempts to take those organic entities and codify them each down to a single number, but they're complicated mechanisms with lots of moving parts that don't quite fit into any box.

When you're building a custom monster from the formulas in the book, you're taking the box and building a box-shaped monster, which performs exactly as you anticipate it will because boxes are super convenient to analyze and predict.

 

[Imaculata]

How is it when I use the DMG rules to create a custom monster, I almost always end up with a vastly more satisfactory result than the equivalent monsters manual creature?

That is the difference between a fair challenge and an adequate challenge, as I tried to explain. The CR is the bare minimum of what a group of players should be able to handle at that level, without casualties. It doesn't mean that the challenge is going to be 'challenging' .

 

[Minigiant]

If you want 5e to provide pacing closer to 4e, you'll need to take it upon yourself to a certain degree, because 5e's pacing and 4e's pacing are different, with different goals. 5e designs for the day, 4e designs for the encounter.

To redesign 5e for the encounter, some legwork might be required. Legendary Resistance, some sort of attack-based LR, upping monster HPs, having monsters come in waves, etc., can be some of the arrows in your quiver.

Basically, every edition except 4e used attrition for difficulty. 4e did not as a design choice. Earlier editions also used luck and "unfairness" as well.

5e almost completely uses attrition and a few legendary fights for difficulty. If you want constant legendary fights, bad luck, or unfairness, the DM has to add it back it.

 

[Azurewraith]

Tbh I think no matter what wotc do as far as combat design is wrong as they need the guidelines to be as broad as possible so they can apply to as many scenarios as possible. I use the mm as a base and build of it depending on my group, all melee party you bet I'm putting in elevated archers if I want a hard fight.

I know it sucks and its more work tailoring fights but dnd is like anything the more you put in the more yoy get out.

 

[Imaculata]

Tbh I think no matter what wotc do as far as combat design is wrong as they need the guidelines to be as broad as possible so they can apply to as many scenarios as possible. I use the mm as a base and build of it depending on my group, all melee party you bet I'm putting in elevated archers if I want a hard fight.

I know it sucks and its more work tailoring fights but dnd is like anything the more you put in the more you get out.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469949-Who-wrote-these-CRs/page5#ixzz3nmh8v9vs

Why would that suck? I consider it good practice to tailor your fights as a DM. Just dumping a monster in front of the players is something I find rather lazy. I think all DM's should consider their monster's strategies, and how to use terrain effectively. Of course you should put archers on a place where they have an advantage, and melee foes in a position where they can get close to the players. I think that's the bare minimum of encounter design that a DM can do.

 

[Azurewraith]

Why would that suck? I consider it good practice to tailor your fights as a DM. Just dumping a monster in front of the players is something I find rather lazy. I think all DM's should consider their monster's strategies, and how to use terrain effectively. Of course you should put archers on a place where they have an advantage, and melee foes in a position where they can get close to the players. I think that's the bare minimum of encounter design that a DM can do.

Oh no i meant in it sucks that sometimes you need to try and fine an hour in your busy life just to set up a encounter that will be fun and challenging. Its ok for me i work in retail and once iv done the initial store sweep and assigned jobs most of the rest of the work is mindless and i can think of DnD