D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?

[DaveDash]

The core issue isn't really the CR system. It's the fact a lot of higher level monsters aren't that fearsome anymore "out of the box".

This is a consequence of 1. Faster combats and 2. DM workload streamlining.

There is an expectation from previous editions that creatures such as the Solar were total badarse. That expectation in 5e has not been met.
In another thread a while back, I killed a Adult Red Dragon using four non optimised characters (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) at level 11. The DM was playing to win with the Dragon as well. Ended up grappling it with Bibgy's Hand, and then it didn't have the AC, HPs, or "toolbox" to escape unlike previous editions.

It annoyed me at first as well, but now I'm used to it and I don't care.

EDIT: It's also a consequence of bounded accuracy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Some general responses:

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

That spell shouldn't defeat the Solar, although it might cause it to retreat. A Feebleminded Solar is still a mobile, hard-hitting, teleporting creature with built-in Arrows of Slaying and radiant damage. What happened after the Feeblemind to make the Solar just roll over and die?

 

[Sunseeker]

I've read through almost all the responses to this page and I certainly appreciate people's thoughts but I'm going to throw this out there: Neither me nor my players are interested in "challenge by attrition". I don't have the time and energy to run 7 combats per session, nor are my players interested in such a thing. If the answer, with that in mind is "you need to custom build each and every encounter to be something along the lines of CR=total party level instead of CR=average party level then I guess that's what I'm stuck with. We may play for 8-12 hours a night, but I don't want to spend that time bogged down in meaningless combats which do nothing more than burn resources. I got OUT of MMOs because I got tired of the grind. I'm not going to inflict a style of play I don't enjoy on myself and my players because that's "the way 5E was written."

 

[DaveDash]

I've read through almost all the responses to this page and I certainly appreciate people's thoughts but I'm going to throw this out there: Neither me nor my players are interested in "challenge by attrition". I don't have the time and energy to run 7 combats per session, nor are my players interested in such a thing. If the answer, with that in mind is "you need to custom build each and every encounter to be something along the lines of CR=total party level instead of CR=average party level then I guess that's what I'm stuck with. We may play for 8-12 hours a night, but I don't want to spend that time bogged down in meaningless combats which do nothing more than burn resources. I got OUT of MMOs because I got tired of the grind. I'm not going to inflict a style of play I don't enjoy on myself and my players because that's "the way 5E was written."

Not only that, once PC's get to higher levels it becomes easier for them to dictate the pace of when/where they rest, not the DM. There's only so many times you can throw in contrived timelines to hurry them up.

D&D still feels more natural with 3-5 encounters per day. I don't think after over a year of playing 5e I've ever done 8. Way too grindy.

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks to all those who replied to me while I was at work. It's good to know that my playstyle will work in 5e.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not only that, once PC's get to higher levels it becomes easier for them to dictate the pace of when/where they rest, not the DM. There's only so many times you can throw in contrived timelines to hurry them up.

This is especially true when a lot of the game takes place in the open world. It's easy to set the pace in a dungeon where there are few safe places, it's difficult to make a location safe and there is an abundance of enemies in close proximity that may readily detect the players within a few moments time.

D&D still feels more natural with 3-5 encounters per day. I don't think after over a year of playing 5e I've ever done 8. Way too grindy.

I agree that more than 1 combat is needed per day, at least when not exploring. I would say 2-3 meaningful combats is what I try to shoot for each day. They're large, they take time and represent progress towards a given goal. IE: fight the guards, then the wizards guarding the alchemy lab and finally the horrible abomination. Honestly any more than that and I just don't see the point. Either you end up with a bunch of "small" combats which are really just the same combat taken in running fashion, or you are just providing "filler" content.

The core issue isn't really the CR system. It's the fact a lot of higher level monsters aren't that fearsome anymore "out of the box".

Yes, I'm certain I was not entirely clear in my initial complaint, but it was not to say "the CR system is a bad measure of monsters" (CR has always been a bad measure) but more to say that it especially problematic with higher-level monsters who aren't at all as fearsome as they were in editions past, but still graded through CR as though they were. Worse, there is a lot of implication in CR, but assumed minions, to lairs to being in the monsters favored terrain and even a low-end party. Assuming certain things are true and then accounting for those things as though they are always true is bad statistical analysis (considering I studied this...), which is what CR essentially is: as statistical analysis of the average danger a monster presents.


I suppose with my overall enjoyment of 5th, I forgot some of the lessons I learned in 3rd: which was most importantly, to evaluate a foe based on what the party can do, and what the monster can do, rather than what the CR suggests it should be able to do. The end result is of course more work and less satisfaction with the published product, but I suppose that's the route wizards chose to take with this edition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another good reason not to rely on the attrition model is that, in the general case, you should not assume that the PCs will fight all the NPCs they come across. The PCs always have the option to parley with or avoid all but the most bestial NPCs, and even bestial NPCs should not be assumed to automatically attack. Sometimes a displacer beast is already hunting prey (less dangerous than armed humans); sometimes it is returning to its lair after a meal; sometimes it is mating or seeking a mate; sometimes it is sleeping; and sometimes it is bored and looking for a human to kill for fun. If your adventure designs require all beasts and NPCs to always be in full-on "kill the PCs" mode regardless of what actions the PCs take first, your roleplaying experience will be unfortunately stunted.

My mind is on this subject because of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...litical-Conflicts/page2&p=6722858#post6722858) and the excellent product linked in post #10 of that thread. Here's the 5E rules at a glance: http://angband.oook.cz/steamband/STQR5e.pdf

 

[DaveDash]

I suppose with my overall enjoyment of 5th, I forgot some of the lessons I learned in 3rd: which was most importantly, to evaluate a foe based on what the party can do, and what the monster can do, rather than what the CR suggests it should be able to do. The end result is of course more work and less satisfaction with the published product, but I suppose that's the route wizards chose to take with this edition.

My reaction was almost a mirror of yours at first, but I've come to be ok with it.

1. There's hardly any high level creatures anyway, so you end up making your own a lot using the DMG rules. These are generally better - I find DMG created creatures have more hps and more damage, but slightly lower attack bonuses, which gives them more 'staying power' in combat, and more of a feeling of danger when they hit hard.
2. The game is still "better" at higher levels than other editions, after you get over the initial disappointment of how weak the higher level creatures are.

 

[dndthrowaway1]

I've never really looked at the CRs of the creatures in the games I've DM'd. It makes a lot more sense to just figure out how the combat will play out for a given group of enemies and go with that as your guide. Is the enemy likely to get at least 1 attack in, or will it probably be alpha-strike'd out of existence? Does it have enough attacks that it's going to hit someone if it has lived till its turn in the initiative order, and if so, will it do meaningful damage? If all the players hit it, how many rounds is it going to live? Based on that, how many more enemies do I need to add to keep it interesting? Between thinking that basic stuff through plus story-based xp, I've felt pretty good ignoring CRs and throwing some way harder and way easier stuff at my parties, and I've been pretty happy with the results so far.

 

[Fion]

Yea I've basically come to the conclusion that any one monster thrown at a party of 5 players is going to die. It doesn't matter if the party is level 5 and the monster is CR 15. The action economy is just THAT skewed in the party's favor. My group of level 5 players (Paladin, Bard, Rogue, Warlock & ranger, only one of whom is a Min/Maxer) can handle a high CR monster with absolute ease if they've recently had a long rest. It doesn't matter if it has 180hp and dishes out 3 attacks per round dealing 60 damage within them. If I roll bad on initiative, it'll be dead in the first round.

These days few encounters include less than 3 types of enemies and I only throw a big single or duo encounter at the party if I make sure they exhaust much of their resources first. They'll never again confront a BBEG in the first or second encounter after a long rest if I have my way lol.