D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[Aribar]

Maybe people want CR to be a system that can accurately detail how tough monsters are, thus help build an appropriate encounter for their group. It should be a tool that helps make the game easier to run and isn't so easily broken by "someone played a caster" or "oops, turns out Thugs and Kobolds are much, much deadlier than their CR suggests!" CR and the encounter building guidelines in the book don't provide enough support to do more than make guesses; it should be more science than art, more numbers than look-and-feel.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[discosoc]

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?

Yes. I stated it elsewhere -- maybe in this thread eve -- there are rules in the DMG that basically make short rests into long rests, and long rests into once a week things. The reason this is important is because it allows you to run fewer encounters per day without having the party fully rested and willing to expend all resources on those few encounters knowing they don't be up against much more that day.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you would point me to the thread on this website that says, "CRs have worked great for me," I would be obliged.

That's not how forums work, and you know it. People complain far more readily than they state things are working fine for them, so the threads are all "this is busted!" - but within those threads you can find posts, such as mine, that say otherwise. And to hit exactly the phrasing you requested: CRs have worked great for me.

Then again, I came from 1e, so I've never had a problem with CRs, since I mostly ignore them.

I haven't noticed anyone that comes from an AD&D or BECMI background expressing any issues with the 5th edition CR system, whether they ignore it or not. It is a lot like the old system of number of hit dice and asterisks for when there is something a little less predictable at play - it just expects you'll notice the readily listed special traits given the statblock format, rather than expecting that you'd need a * to remind you to look.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[redrick]

Well, I agree that people complain more often than they post a thread saying, "I love how things are!" But I have noticed the complete absence of any threads extolling the virtues of using CRs to build appropriate level-appropriate encounters, and using them to do so, whereas there have been innumerable threads (look them up!) that talk about how they are busted, don't work, are problematic because the MM was released before the DMG, etc.

And for those of us (like you and me) who don't care, it's because we ignore them in whole or in part and don't really apply them, instead looking at the monster holistically. And, in addition, we state that really matters is how the monster is played, the context, what the monster is paired with (solo, in groups, what kind of groups) and so on.

So I'm not sure what we are arguing about?

Ha, well, to jump on this agreeing/disagreeing chain, I'll extoll the virtues of CRs for how I use them in my game.

I don't plan "level-appropriate" encounters, but I do scan lists of monsters and CRs while populating a dungeon. I'll throw in a few monsters of higher CR, several of equivalent CR, and a bunch of much lower CR. This works even better for wandering monster tables, though I widen the CR range a bit, and use the CR to eyeball how many will be encountered. (Rolled randomly, but it's a difference between 4d6 kobold refugees and 1 Wyvern.) The DMG includes "monster by terrain" lists that are very helpful for this. Players are encouraged to choose their fights wisely.

For combats that I know PCs will fight, either because they are almost unavoidable, or because there's no way players won't take the bait, I use an encounter calculator (that does all those damn modifiers for me) to help turn down the number of monsters. Nothing grinds gameplay to a halt faster than an overly difficult combat, especially early on.

At higher levels, as characters become more specialized and start to develop outrageous strengths (while keeping their achilles heels), I have to work a little harder and actually comb through the Monster Manual looking for monsters with traits that will target those weaknesses, and make sure to put some of them in the dungeon. CR doesn't help too much here.

For final fights or boss fights, the condition that characters are in when they arrive is at least as important as the actual difficulty of the encounter, no matter how you choose to calculate it. Are they close to full health? Do they have high level spell slots left and other abilities? Were they able to take a short rest before reaching the Big Fight, or did they use a lot of their short rest abilities in the penultimate encounter? CR doesn't really help here. I guess, if I were able to accurately predict the adventuring day, I could use that table as a guide, but there are too many variables in what my characters face (and when and how), for me to be able to budget that stuff out in any scientific fashion. But I can't really see much changing that, beyond either changing the way 5e resources or managed, or Wizards being more direct in saying, "Seriously, guys, just wing it."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well, I agree that people complain more often than they post a thread saying, "I love how things are!" But I have noticed the complete absence of any threads extolling the virtues of using CRs to build appropriate level-appropriate encounters, and using them to do so, whereas there have been innumerable threads (look them up!) that talk about how they are busted, don't work, are problematic because the MM was released before the DMG, etc.

How frequently someone says something doesn't actually affect whether it is true or not, neither does it mean that more people think CRs don't work as intended than do because internet forum threads on the topic always start with the "it's broken" side of the discussion.

And as for the "problematic because the MM was released before the DMG," argument, I'm glad you brought that up as it is one of my favorites given that it makes zero sense - every monster from the monster manual I have seen checked (which is more than a few, and all over the CR range) matches up to the guidelines for creating monsters that are found in the DMG (at least, once you actually include "and adjust as needed after playtesting" as being part of those guidelines since it is present, but folks trying to prove CRs don't work ignore it as it is inconvenient for their argument).

And for those of us (like you and me) who don't care, it's because we ignore them in whole or in part and don't really apply them, instead looking at the monster holistically.

You appear to have grown confused. I use CR. I use it exactly as it is described in the 5th edition rules, and I do not ignore it even in part, even when deciding to place a monster nearby that is too potent for the party to directly confront, I use CR to help me find just such a monster.

And, in addition, we state that really matters is how the monster is played, the context, what the monster is paired with (solo, in groups, what kind of groups) and so on.

Which, like looking at the monster holistically, is not an either-or situation - you do not choose either CR or read the monster and use it appropriately, they are not mutually exclusive; you can, and I do, do both.

So I'm not sure what we are arguing about?

I'm basically just counterbalancing as much of the "WotC please change/clarify this because I didn't read how it works, am using it wrong, and don't like the results" as I can so that, for example, less of Sage Advice is covering rules that nobody actually wants the clarification to because everyone either A) already understands how it works or has already decided to rule as they see fit on the matter, or B) will house-rule it to what they incorrectly think it actually says once clarification is made and are just demanding that clarification because they think it will help them win an argument.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well, other than the whole rhetorical and unpleasant, "You appear to have grown confused[,]"

Rhetorical and unpleasant? Jeez, I guess in the future I'll just assume the reason you appear to be thinking something about me that isn't true is malicious intent rather than genuine confusion, and remove all attempts from my own posts to not seem like I am accusing you of malicious misrepresentation of my opinions.

you seem to be stating the banal truism that CRs are perfectly fine, because they are just rough guidelines, and everything is just a rough guideline, and all the people that don't use them correctly are the ones who have messed up.

...um... yeah. It is true according to the evidence I have seen, so why would I state anything else?

Perhaps they should have made that a wee bit more clear for those who aren't great readers, such as yourself, and those who don't ignore stuff, like me?

I think it is very interesting that you are implying that I think I am a "great reader" when I have actually been saying this whole time that I don't think anyone has read the rules text and failed to understand it - they have simply not read that part. How clearly written it is (which I think is sufficiently clearly written, since I'm not actually some "great reader" with skills beyond those reasonable to expect of the average literate person, and I get it) has no bearing at all on whether someone who has skipped that portion of the book, possibly because they think they know what they will find there, is going to reach the intended conclusion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*