Why do people pretend CR makes sense?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Considering we use a system that can model gods and dogs with the same numbers, and that attempt to boils down all of the possible combinations of both players with their feats, prcs, and abilities and monsters with their own list of power and abilities to a single number....I think the CR system does remarkably well.

Agreed.

The CR is every bit as good as you can expect a system that must distill a complex & dynamic model covering a very wide range of diverse abilities into a single number to be.

Of course it is imperfect. How could it be otherwise?

Frankly any better system is likely to include the moral equivalent of a CR as its starting point and build from there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bingo, which is why it shouldnt be used as a basis for mechanics (knight's challenge, truenamer utterances, etc).

It's a guideline and an attempt to bring consistency to one of the key elements of D&D. It's not where it should be yet, but look how long it took us to get to the current core D20 mechanic and get rid of our charts to figure out if Gutboy hit the orc with his axe.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's not an accurate accessment of the 1e/2e systems. 1e, at least, was as accurate as CR IMHO.

DMs were capable of making 1E run in a balanced fashion, but it took DMs being better than DMs often are. Out of the box (well, books), there was a lot less for a new/average DM to base their decisions off of. The CR system, with all its flaws, provides a better guideline than just Hit Dice, which was the 1E measuring stick.

The best DMs will always do fine. The system can't be designed around them.

 

[Shemeska]

It's not a big issue for me, largely because since I don't give out numerical XP, I don't have to consider CR at all.

I can blissfully ignore CR and just use my own judgement on the fitness or challange of a particular monster/npc in context of environment and how they're likely to interact with the PCs.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I think using the CR system to gauge the challenge to PC's is fine, but I've totally scrapped using the XP method from the DMG. I use the more old school method found in Unearthed Arcana. My players don't mind at all, as long as they get to loot the bodies of their fallen foes.

 

[Crysmalon]

I do use CR/EL but only as a rough gauge. I have to admit that I roughly track CRs encountered by the party and estimate a 'right' amount of XP depending on how I think the party did. So, I agree that it is more 'art' than 'science.' It only 'makes sense' to me in that it gives me a starting point.

 

[Umbran]

just wondering why people don't more often say "it's a rough guideline, I'll just do what I think will work best", and instead go with "how can I make the letter of the rules fit what I feel like doing".

On message boards, a variation of the anthropic principle applies - if you do the former, there's no discussion. You'll only see that which has meat for people to chew over. "I'll do what I think is best," invites no further comment, input, or insight.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's a guideline and an attempt to bring consistency to one of the key elements of D&D. It's not where it should be yet, but look how long it took us to get to the current core D20 mechanic and get rid of our charts to figure out if Gutboy hit the orc with his axe.

The attack roll system is a definite improvement. The CR system, OTOH, seems to be mostly a superficial revamp of the "Monster Level" system from 1st Ed to me. The EL system is a way to better guage how various monsters of differing monster levels might work together, but I'm not sure it works any better than the guesswork I used to do in 1e. Of course, I'm sure EL is more consistent than guesswork, and allows less experienced DMs to do a better job.

The question about divine ranks and CR (above) was a real question, though. What is the CR of a CR 3 creature that you give a DR 0 to? A DR 1? Etc. Is there a method of determining this somewhere?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The CR system, with all its flaws, provides a better guideline than just Hit Dice, which was the 1E measuring stick.

Go back and look. The measuring stick was HD + special abilities, with different special abilities being given different weights to determine XP. The level of a monster was determined by its XP. This is very, very close to the CR system IMHO.

 

[WizarDru]

Then again, I'm not really asking how to use the CR system (I very rarely do, and I tend to modify and/or design monsters from scratch a lot - which works out just fine most of the time, with the groups I play with), just wondering why people don't more often say "it's a rough guideline, I'll just do what I think will work best", and instead go with "how can I make the letter of the rules fit what I feel like doing".

So your question actually is something more akin to: "why do some people try and minmax monsters within the existing CR system when they're the DMs and don't have to make the numbers add up correctly?"

Several reasons that I can think of. Firstly, some groups prefer that play-style. Creating the best possible challenge for their players may be tactically motivated or it may simply be a desire to create the best possible challenge for their players. Some groups enjoy playing D&D as more of a purely tactical excercise of challenging battles with a story merely there to move them along to the next encounter.

Second, some groups like to stick to the letter of the rules. Even when the rules are something more of a 'I know it's balanced when I see it' art doesn't invalidate a benchmark that helps in assessing the baseline...especially when it was created by people who have more time to determine balance and good rules design than they might have time for.

Third, CR isn't the only way to measure an encounter, obviously. For those who use CRs to help compute XP, using the CR as a starting point in the equation is a help. A DM can always break the rules, but it's much easier if there ARE rules to break in the first place.