Challenge Rating, magic and more [Archive] - Wizards Community

Challenge Rating, magic and more [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
hovnarr
11-11-04, 09:42 AM This question/comment might be slightly off topic (for the Magic and Spells forum) but I find I get the best answers here and I can't think of any forum where this would fit better. What I wonder is this:

How is the concept of Challenge Rating to be interpreted?

We learn from the PHB that a challenge (group of monsters or other peril) with a CR equal to the party's average level (considering a party of four) will expend less than 1/4 of the party's resources. Now, if the party is but one player, matching CR should be an even fight or about 50% probability of death. Let us take an example:

I'm playing a lvl 13 sorceror up against a CR13 white dragon. I look at my spell selection and see that I might put that Acid Fog to good use, throw in a Sleet Storm for good measure and use Wall of Force to control it further. Even if I was able to defeat it, I would be hard pressed to come up with enough defenses to survive long enough to get all those spells off.

Now, consider a CR13 black dragon instead. Oops - he's immune to acid. Should I attack with fireball then perhaps? Hardly. Perhaps the only thing I can do other than restrict his movement is use Enervation - a time consuming tactic. In the end, Dimension Door and living to fight another day feels like a winning concept.

So we see then that two very similar creatures with the same CR can be either challenging or unbeatable. Or is it so?

The two dragons above are examples of pretty random encounters. Perhaps you are travelling, spot something far away in the sky, have a round or two to put up defenses and then you're in combat. Let's change the setting a bit and say that this is infact a planned assault on your part on a white or black dragon's cave.

Then the acid immunity would come as no surprise and you know you must employ a different tactic to kill the black dragon off. So you study up. You learn that the black dragon's cave holds many traps and is infested with bat vermin. Perhaps you devise a plan to use Shrink Item on some large lead blocks, polymorph to a large bat and cast nondetection so the dragon's true seeing will not reveal your true form. Near the dragon you speak the command word and the "rags" feebly attached to your wings transform back to a hail of anvils. Perhaps it won't work, but that's not the point: You could hire a spell caster to scribe a message with a Sepia Snake Sigil in it and have a charmed bat deliver it to Mr. Dragon. Or somehow use the campaign world to your advantage in another way - rally the commoners or whatever.

What I'm trying to say is that there are so many different aspects that influence if a "challenge" is going to be challenging or not, that I wonder how Wizards where thinking when they attributed challenge ratings. Did they consider it like a random encounter much like in my first example, or did they consider dropping shrunken anvils on top of its head? With or without the peasantry as allies? If you have time to prepare if you don't? If you actually have a means to deal significant damage to the creature or not?

To clarify my point: If you're a wizard, I'd say it's pretty challenging to go in melee with a fighter of slightly lower level. It is also very stupid. Casting Improved Invisibility and Fly and then proceeding with a barrage of offensive spells is far less challenging and likely a guaranteed success, but it's hardly challenging. So is the CR system based on having players act intelligently, stupidly or somewhere in between? If the latter is the case, the key to overcoming challenges (or should I say, gaining levels) lies not in being of sufficient power so much as playing intelligently. Or more bluntly, a 7th level wizard played by someone smart could be infinetely more efficient in combat than a 10th level wizard played by someone stupid. Or even more bluntly, if you are smarter than your DM, you will overcome challenges with far greater CR than you "should" - not because they are challenging, but because they aren't.

Those are my comments on the subject of CR for now. Now I'm dying to hear yours!
[GSV] Kirstar
11-11-04, 11:43 AM you are right. CR & EL are stupid.

all they do is take the hit dice and maybe add 1 or 2 for lots of abilities.

Personally i ignore them. The characters will come across the same encounter if they are 1st level or if they are 20th.

i award xp based on how challenging they find the encounter and how well they worked.

for example i would award more xp to the invisible wizard from your example than i would for the bashing wizard from the same example. the invisible wizard has used his noggin
Seeker95
11-11-04, 03:43 PM Kirstar is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

CR and EL are useful...
for a party of four with diversity of class: fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard.

CR and EL become less useful the more you deviate from core assumptions. If you are going to run a solo campaign, the DM is going to have to judge the challenge of a single creature based upon the opponent. A fighter can handle encounters that would destroy a wizard. And a wizard can handle an encounter that would leave a fighter saying yes master with enthusiasm.
calypso
11-11-04, 03:50 PM Like many things in D&D, the CR system is a guideline. It's supposed to make the DMs job easier by saying "Okay... level 10 group... Hmm, guess an Ancient Gold Dragon would be too tough." You have to consider what you want to accomplish with the encounter: let the players win, challenge them with a possible win, give them a slim chance of surviving, or crush them if they don't flee. And all of those have their time and place.

I mean, I appreciate the CR system, because it allows me at a glance to see roughly how powerful a monster is. I can then pick whatever I want and modify up or down as needed.

Calypso
[GSV] Kirstar
11-14-04, 10:14 AM basically my group , no mattger who DM's, uses the same system.

we place our content, without attension to the level of the party.

this may sound nasty, but as most content is low level this isnt that bad.

but if the party want to attack the lair of the lich king..... they better be ready for sevear snuffage.

on the same tack a party of 15th level characters should really worry about travelling between cities, unless there is something dangerous on the route

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
hovnarr 11-11-04, 09:42 AM	This question/comment might be slightly off topic (for the Magic and Spells forum) but I find I get the best answers here and I can't think of any forum where this would fit better. What I wonder is this: How is the concept of Challenge Rating to be interpreted? We learn from the PHB that a challenge (group of monsters or other peril) with a CR equal to the party's average level (considering a party of four) will expend less than 1/4 of the party's resources. Now, if the party is but one player, matching CR should be an even fight or about 50% probability of death. Let us take an example: I'm playing a lvl 13 sorceror up against a CR13 white dragon. I look at my spell selection and see that I might put that Acid Fog to good use, throw in a Sleet Storm for good measure and use Wall of Force to control it further. Even if I was able to defeat it, I would be hard pressed to come up with enough defenses to survive long enough to get all those spells off. Now, consider a CR13 black dragon instead. Oops - he's immune to acid. Should I attack with fireball then perhaps? Hardly. Perhaps the only thing I can do other than restrict his movement is use Enervation - a time consuming tactic. In the end, Dimension Door and living to fight another day feels like a winning concept. So we see then that two very similar creatures with the same CR can be either challenging or unbeatable. Or is it so? The two dragons above are examples of pretty random encounters. Perhaps you are travelling, spot something far away in the sky, have a round or two to put up defenses and then you're in combat. Let's change the setting a bit and say that this is infact a planned assault on your part on a white or black dragon's cave. Then the acid immunity would come as no surprise and you know you must employ a different tactic to kill the black dragon off. So you study up. You learn that the black dragon's cave holds many traps and is infested with bat vermin. Perhaps you devise a plan to use Shrink Item on some large lead blocks, polymorph to a large bat and cast nondetection so the dragon's true seeing will not reveal your true form. Near the dragon you speak the command word and the "rags" feebly attached to your wings transform back to a hail of anvils. Perhaps it won't work, but that's not the point: You could hire a spell caster to scribe a message with a Sepia Snake Sigil in it and have a charmed bat deliver it to Mr. Dragon. Or somehow use the campaign world to your advantage in another way - rally the commoners or whatever. What I'm trying to say is that there are so many different aspects that influence if a "challenge" is going to be challenging or not, that I wonder how Wizards where thinking when they attributed challenge ratings. Did they consider it like a random encounter much like in my first example, or did they consider dropping shrunken anvils on top of its head? With or without the peasantry as allies? If you have time to prepare if you don't? If you actually have a means to deal significant damage to the creature or not? To clarify my point: If you're a wizard, I'd say it's pretty challenging to go in melee with a fighter of slightly lower level. It is also very stupid. Casting Improved Invisibility and Fly and then proceeding with a barrage of offensive spells is far less challenging and likely a guaranteed success, but it's hardly challenging. So is the CR system based on having players act intelligently, stupidly or somewhere in between? If the latter is the case, the key to overcoming challenges (or should I say, gaining levels) lies not in being of sufficient power so much as playing intelligently. Or more bluntly, a 7th level wizard played by someone smart could be infinetely more efficient in combat than a 10th level wizard played by someone stupid. Or even more bluntly, if you are smarter than your DM, you will overcome challenges with far greater CR than you "should" - not because they are challenging, but because they aren't. Those are my comments on the subject of CR for now. Now I'm dying to hear yours!
[GSV] Kirstar 11-11-04, 11:43 AM	you are right. CR & EL are stupid. all they do is take the hit dice and maybe add 1 or 2 for lots of abilities. Personally i ignore them. The characters will come across the same encounter if they are 1st level or if they are 20th. i award xp based on how challenging they find the encounter and how well they worked. for example i would award more xp to the invisible wizard from your example than i would for the bashing wizard from the same example. the invisible wizard has used his noggin
Seeker95 11-11-04, 03:43 PM	Kirstar is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. CR and EL are useful... for a party of four with diversity of class: fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. CR and EL become less useful the more you deviate from core assumptions. If you are going to run a solo campaign, the DM is going to have to judge the challenge of a single creature based upon the opponent. A fighter can handle encounters that would destroy a wizard. And a wizard can handle an encounter that would leave a fighter saying yes master with enthusiasm.
calypso 11-11-04, 03:50 PM	Like many things in D&D, the CR system is a guideline. It's supposed to make the DMs job easier by saying "Okay... level 10 group... Hmm, guess an Ancient Gold Dragon would be too tough." You have to consider what you want to accomplish with the encounter: let the players win, challenge them with a possible win, give them a slim chance of surviving, or crush them if they don't flee. And all of those have their time and place. I mean, I appreciate the CR system, because it allows me at a glance to see roughly how powerful a monster is. I can then pick whatever I want and modify up or down as needed. Calypso
[GSV] Kirstar 11-14-04, 10:14 AM	basically my group , no mattger who DM's, uses the same system. we place our content, without attension to the level of the party. this may sound nasty, but as most content is low level this isnt that bad. but if the party want to attack the lair of the lich king..... they better be ready for sevear snuffage. on the same tack a party of 15th level characters should really worry about travelling between cities, unless there is something dangerous on the route