D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[BMaC]

People need to stop saying that encounter frequency is the cure. Running 6-8 encounters per session is a terrible grind and puts severe limitations on role-playing and interactions with NPCs. The other solution, to do a few encounters per session but stretch out long rests is another bad idea. My group meets every other week and I don't want to have to run a game day over six weeks! This is a serious problem in 5th edition.

I'll contribute this anecdote. I had five 13th level characters drop five Remorhaz (CR11) the other night. The party was fresh and they dispatched them but it was a tough fight. According the DM guide, this encounter was almost double the 'deadly' XP rating for the group. The party then dropped a purple worm (CR15) in 1/2 a round. It was dead by the time the third person in the party acted.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty much this. All the CR values are messed up if attacked in a vacuum. You have to be challenging the players with 6 to 8 encounters per long rest, and then suddenly the monsters aren't so weak.

My group is currently looking at 5e and we might switch over. My question is this. Suppose we don't want to play a hack 'n slash game with 6-8 fights a day, and would rather have 1 or maybe 2 encounters in a given day. Can the game support this?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ExploderWizard]

My group is currently looking at 5e and we might switch over. My question is this. Suppose we don't want to play a hack 'n slash game with 6-8 fights a day, and would rather have 1 or maybe 2 encounters in a given day. Can the game support this?

Yep. I am running a campaign like this. It works fine. In order to feel challenging, those encounters need to be more difficult than typical encounters because the party will be facing them more or less fully loaded. Session before last, my group faced an encounter that was 3X the deadly level. The encounter lived up to its name. One PC died and several went down during that fight. It was the only encounter of the day but it was more than challenging enough.

To run such a campaign, you need to know your group, and be prepared to navigate uncharted waters in the encounter prep area. To run an encounter that really tests a fully rested party you can't be squeamish about killing a few off every now and then. Its fun for the players because they get to use most of their toys in every encounter.

 

[bgbarcus]

The biggest change in encounters from 1e to 5e (can't speak to the middle versions that I never played) is that a solo monster is extremely vulnerable. PC's in 5e hit more often and do far more damage on each hit. Fighters can easily do 100+ HP damage in one round by the time they hit 12th level - an 8th level paladin with a holy avenger in my game was dealing 60+/round. There is no bag of hit points big enough, without going to ridiculous extremes, to withstand a group of 5e characters ganging up on it.

Monster tactics, use of terrain, and additional monsters all change the balance. The PC's can't afford to ignore minions like we did in 1e because those little guys also pack a punch.

The monsters are written to assume very limited magic items in the game. That holy avenger mentioned above would probably be considered well beyond what a normal 8th character would have but I've edited my MM to fit our game.

 

[S'mon]

My group is currently looking at 5e and we might switch over. My question is this. Suppose we don't want to play a hack 'n slash game with 6-8 fights a day, and would rather have 1 or maybe 2 encounters in a given day. Can the game support this?

My game certainly works fine, but I have only three PCs usually - Barbarian Rogue & Warlock - which I think makes a big difference.

 

[Evenglare]

CRs need to go.. like.. right now. Get rid of CR all together... or i guess if the game is in tiers just do that for the monsters. Put them in like... 4 tiers (1-5,6-10, 11-15, 16-20 ), Then write something about how the DM can judge how difficult a monster would be for the party based on what the party is capable of. Clearly the CRs aren't a good method for this, and it hasnt been for 15 years. Teach the DM how to make encounters judging from the party and monster's potential...

For a game as complex as D&D (or most TTRPG) it is laughable that they think they can combine all of those variable into one nice neat little number. The sheer thought of it makes me wonder how that idea even got out of someone's head to begin with. It's ridiculous to even think that you could distill the game and it's monsters down to one number.

 

[Gnashtooth]

CRs are a lot more accurate at lower levels simply because less variables.

That being said, I don't care about abilities of anything at character level 15+. At that point I hope I have armies at my disposal and my character doesn't have to do the work themselves.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

CRs need to go.. like.. right now. Get rid of CR all together... or i guess if the game is in tiers just do that for the monsters. Put them in like... 4 tiers (1-5,6-10, 11-15, 16-20 ), Then write something about how the DM can judge how difficult a monster would be for the party based on what the party is capable of. Clearly the CRs aren't a good method for this, and it hasnt been for 15 years. Teach the DM how to make encounters judging from the party and monster's potential...

For a game as complex as D&D (or most TTRPG) it is laughable that they think they can combine all of those variable into one nice neat little number. The sheer thought of it makes me wonder how that idea even got out of someone's head to begin with. It's ridiculous to even think that you could distill the game and it's monsters down to one number.

This is exactly why the challenge ratings in 5th edition are intended as being no more useful than "if your party isn't at least this level, this creature could be difficult to defeat without suffering casualties." If for no reason other than the damage dealt by a monster being too near a character of that level's maximum hit points.

As for how this idea even got into someone's head, it has been there in one shape or another for the majority of D&D's life - and continues to be present specifically at the request of the fanbase, because "just experiment and you'll figure it out" is not what a lot of folks consider to be valid and helpful advice on how to be a successful DM.

It's not at all that the numbers, or the idea behind them "need to go," it's that people need to learn to use them as what they are now rather than what numbers of the same name, or differently named buy similarly used numbers, used to be.