Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Not an exaggeration at all. I didn't say that every monster in that range was viable, but that there were monsters that existed in that range that were. CR should be more accurate than that.
D&D 5E Who wrote these CRs?
Not an exaggeration at all. I didn't say that every monster in that range was viable, but that there were monsters that existed in that range that were. CR should be more accurate than that.
Chocolategravy
First Post
The Solar is significantly more powerful than other creatures of the same CR. That fact alone tells you how much the CR system is worth, creatures of the same CR are nowhere near the same power.
It's been very well established low level the encounter system is probably overtuned and you can get some overly deadly fight. This is also do in part to CRs not working and things like flying snakes being off the chain for their CR. Likewise it's well established that at high level monsters are severaly underpowered and encounters are far too easy.
It's been very well established low level the encounter system is probably overtuned and you can get some overly deadly fight. This is also do in part to CRs not working and things like flying snakes being off the chain for their CR. Likewise it's well established that at high level monsters are severaly underpowered and encounters are far too easy.
I'm so so so glad CR is that inaccurate.
The fact that a level 7 (or level 10 or whatever) party can theoretically face any monster in the MM is basically the crown jewel in Bounded Accuracy, and the only reason I returned to D&D at all.
Your campaign world doesn't need hidden MMO zones. Or well telegraphed ones. You can just make a world as it is, as it makes sense to you. Put dragons where they should be. Put giant clans and goblin tribes where it makes sense. Joe Shmoe guards can all be CR 1/4.
You can just build a world, and populate it, and give your NPCs agendas, and let the party do what they want. It's so deeply refreshing.
The only way I'd agree CR is broken is if higher CR monsters consistently, when you summed up their attacks, defenses, and versatility, came out below lower CR monsters. I don't think they do, with possible rare exceptions.
CR means something. But it doesn't mean everything. And that is a huge selling point to some of us.
The fact that a level 7 (or level 10 or whatever) party can theoretically face any monster in the MM is basically the crown jewel in Bounded Accuracy, and the only reason I returned to D&D at all.
Your campaign world doesn't need hidden MMO zones. Or well telegraphed ones. You can just make a world as it is, as it makes sense to you. Put dragons where they should be. Put giant clans and goblin tribes where it makes sense. Joe Shmoe guards can all be CR 1/4.
You can just build a world, and populate it, and give your NPCs agendas, and let the party do what they want. It's so deeply refreshing.
The only way I'd agree CR is broken is if higher CR monsters consistently, when you summed up their attacks, defenses, and versatility, came out below lower CR monsters. I don't think they do, with possible rare exceptions.
CR means something. But it doesn't mean everything. And that is a huge selling point to some of us.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I'd prefer level to actually mean something. If every party can fight every monster there's no point in levels or experience.
But that is clear hyperbole. Is a purple worm more dangerous than a ghast? Is a 10th level rogue better than a 3rd level rogue?
The answers are objective. Of course they are. Therefore level means something. And so does CR. What has you mad is that it's not always so clear cut...
If you're very close in level or CR then there is flex... Sometimes a lot of flex. Is a 10th level fighter more powerful than a 9th level rogue? Depends on the situation. Ditto between, say, a rakshasa and a vampire. This doesn't make level or CR meaningless.
I won't argue that some specific CRs could potentially use some fine tuning. But much beyond that and I think the truth of the matter is maybe going to be hard to hear: those of you who are craving a highly reliable tiered CR system where CR genuinely serves as an irrefutable "you must be this tall to ride" won't really be satisfied. Bounded Accuracy is your real enemy here. It's the only thing that kept 10th level characters from being able to toast level 20 monsters in 4e. And even then, with enough splat and min/maxing you could get pretty damn close.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
There was some hyperbole there, yes. However, CR should mean something. Things beneath you should remain a threat for longer than they used to be, but those way above you should not be doable until you reach the level to defeat them. When you can face something so far above you and still beat it fairly easily, CR is broken.
If 6 kobolds (CR 1/4? 1/2? Away from book), using clever tactics, should be expected to remain a threat that can't be totally ignored... Even against a PC of, say, 10th level...
Then how is it surprising that 6 PCs of 10th level would be a threat to a CR 20 monster? That's how math works, dude. It goes both ways.
And it's even worse than that, since PCs have a variety of abilities and versatility that kobolds lack. Which... I mean... Not many people are arguing for reducing PC versatility, right?
Then how is it surprising that 6 PCs of 10th level would be a threat to a CR 20 monster? That's how math works, dude. It goes both ways.
And it's even worse than that, since PCs have a variety of abilities and versatility that kobolds lack. Which... I mean... Not many people are arguing for reducing PC versatility, right?
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I echo these sentiments exactly. Like MostlyDM, I'd been away from D&D for quite some time until 5E (since 1999 I believe), and like him(?) I think the implications of bounded accuracy are awesome.
I will still incessantly mock the inaccuracy of the CR system, but since I don't use it for anything except awarding experience points and treasure, it doesn't matter if it's arbitrary as long as it's consistent. Not a real problem.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
They can't be a threat. Low level creatures are intended to be a threat in great numbers. A level 10 PC would waste 6 kobolds.
Because it makes encounters worthless. I like for there to be a challenge in the game. If 10th level PCs can run around fighting and defeating anything in the book, the game ends before 10th level for me. At that point, there's no point in combat anymore, and while I love non-combat more than combat, combat is still a critical part of the game.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
That claim is controversial.
It's my experience that what makes first-level encounters deadly is not so much a lack of levels as a lack of good gear. If you let PCs start off with 5000 gold worth of equipment (plate armor, warhorse, plenty of iron rations, caltrops, longbow, lots of arrows, healing kits) 1st level characters do pretty okay in groups of 4 or more. There's still a noticeable increase in ease of play at 2nd and 3rd level, but the 1st level characters don't exactly struggle with the grizzly bears and lone orcs that the DMG specifies for them to fight. For example, four pairs of orcs is four Deadly fights for four 1st level characters, using up their whole 1200 daily XP budget, but I would have no hesitation at all about running four newly-rolled 1st level characters through that challenge with the full expectation that they would handily defeat all eight orcs, if they were fully geared up.
On the other hand, undergeared 1st level characters are quite fragile. In Out of the Abyss, my players' PCs are no longer naked, but nobody has any armor better than AC 13 Chain Shirts, or any weapons better than hand crossbows and short swords. It makes everything harder by a lot.
