CR numbers not adding up - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 RavingDork Dec 25, 2014 9:14:22	So now that I finally have a character made up, I finally have a basis of comparison for some of the beasties in the Monster Manual. Is it just me, or do the CR listings seem a little borked? Upon comparison, it would appear that I would have a hard time hitting even CR 6 critters with my spells and abilities! I understand that monster CRs are meant for comparison against whole adventuing parties, but why is the gap so freakishly wide? Why on earth would a 14th-level character have such a hard time with ANY CR 6 beasty? I estimate it would take me several rounds for me to kill such a critter, and I would even have a possibility of losing! LOSING! Against something less than half my level? WTF!?
#2 Delanar Dec 25, 2014 10:36:28	Now I'm no expert, just got into D&D, but I remeber reading that a CR level X creature can should be a good challange for a group of four characters level X. So following off of that logic in mind I would think that a level X character should only be able to tango with a boggie with a CR 1/4th your level. So in your case with a level of 14 a creature with a CR of 3-4.
#3 EzechielDantan Dec 25, 2014 11:11:00	The creatures in 5th edition are supposed to have a broader spread than in previous editions, orcs can still be fairly challenging for lvl 10 adventurers in the right situations. Your character is not quite optimized, it has invested a feat in skilled that could have put in an intelligence boost to have your intelligence more up to date to your lvl 14 wizard, your abilities are not quite set in an optimized order either. None of that will make it a bad character but might depend a bit more on companions. I see no way how it is likely for your wizard to lose with the right spells prepared. What CR 6 are you talking about, because most creatures do not have a dauntingly high AC. Encountering a monster alone should elevate the xp and the challenge, a CR 6 monster alone is about equal to a CR 8 creature, a bit tougher but not quite CR 9. A CR 14 is an encounter the party should survive without deaths, that is not saying much really a CR 14 creature could put two or three characters down without killing and consume considerable resources. A CR 9 they should survive but burn some resources in doing so spend on healing and some spells most likely. If 4 characters spend a round battling this creature it seems ok for you to do 4 or 5 rounds spending those resources. I also think that a wizard in this edition's role in the party is one mainly of versatility and utility, a sorcerer will likely put the wizard to shame in most encounters, but the ,support a wizard can give is valuable.
#4 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 25, 2014 11:21:57	Challenge rating doesn't mean the same thing in 5e as it, or level, did in prior editions. It is just a gauge of what level at which a well rested and well equipped party of four are likely able to defeat the monster without anyone ending up dead. It is entirely intentional that a wide range of CR can be used to challenge the characters.
#5 rampant Dec 25, 2014 11:40:09	In other words it's sloppy and vague, and they should have stuck closer to the 4e monster creation style.
#6 Lawolf Dec 25, 2014 11:46:34	If you compare various monsters of the same CR, you will notice a wide range in attack, damage, AC, HP, and saving throws. In other words, monsters were not built on a solid mathematical backbone. Instead numbers were thrown at a dartboard and CR was assigned based on feeling. This leads to CR being a poor tool for gauging monster difficulty. It requires an experienced DM with many hours if encounter building and much trial and error to design appropriate challenges.
(Reply to #5) EzechielDantan	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #6) EzechielDantan	Lawolf wrote:
#9 MonsterEnvy Dec 25, 2014 12:13:31	Did none of you even look at the builidng monster section in the DMG. It already shows how the math works.
#10 Lawolf Dec 25, 2014 12:15:58	MonsterEnvy wrote:
#11 edwin_su Dec 25, 2014 13:04:50	Wel lets look at the bobgolin C 1/2 And a creature many people talked abour fealing very strong for it's cr. Defenceive CR. 11 HP gives a base of 1/8 The hobgobing has a AC of 18 5 higer then the 13 listed for a CR 1/8 chalange rating creature adding a +2 to defensive chalange rating making it 1/2 Ofensive CR Damage per atack 9 ( assumng being able to use martial advantage 50% of the time.) Giving a base ofensive CR of 1. The hoggoblin has a to hit of +5 and that is 2 higer then the listed +3 to hit for a Cr 1 creature, giving a +1 bonus For a total ofencive CR of 2. so acoring to the DMG guide line the hobgoblin would be CR 1.25 and not 1/2
#12 Chiisai_Usagi Dec 25, 2014 15:13:28	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #11) tendentious	edwin_su wrote:
#14 Mecheon Dec 25, 2014 17:57:47	EzechielDantan wrote:
(Reply to #6) CCS	Lawolf wrote:
#16 Wuzzard Dec 25, 2014 18:08:45	edwin_su wrote:
#17 pukunui Dec 25, 2014 18:30:49	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #16) tendentious	Wuzzard wrote:
#19 Brock_Landers Dec 25, 2014 20:47:00	Lawolf wrote:
#20 Wuzzard Dec 25, 2014 21:31:16	tendentious wrote:
#21 EzechielDantan Dec 26, 2014 1:10:21	Hobgoblin: . 11 hp is a bit on the low side in it's range, average would be 21 hp. AC 18, it is on the high side but in my opinion it is more than offset by the relative lack in hp for the hobgoblin. attacks will strike a bit less often but that would only increase effective hp by 10% or so. Also worth noting that it is impossible to use a bow and shield at the same time and they (should) have disadvantage on stealth checks. Damage, base damage of 5 is on the low side at CR 1/4, with martial advantage this will get a major boost and take it to a CR 1. The martial advantage should apply to 1 attack per round following the guidelines, but this is not very realistic. Once the PCs know where the threat lies they can take steps to avoid it or minimize it and quite a few attacks will fail to carry this bonus. I'd keep it at CR 1 but at the low side of the rating considering. No good saves and no skills, shouldnt factor into the CR directly but should be taken note off, they do have darkvision though that might cause a situational advantage. They do have a ranged and a melee option, though not ideal it is an option to use ranged weaponry at the cost of a lowered defense. Through normal calculation you would come down to a CR of 3/4 by averaging OCR and DCR but considering the somewhat situational damage for martial advantage and the relatively low hp, I'd still drop it down to CR 1/2. I would probably give them scalemail instead of chainmail though, lowering their AC by 1 to make them a bit more fairly balanced, and gives them a little room to carry extra weight without being lightly encumbered if using that optional rule. A situation in which the hobgoblins are surprised will play out much differently than the hobgoblins grabbing the initiative, they will drop relatively easy when they are being ambushed and the other way around they can be surprisingly dangerous. Stealth isn't their greatest asset with the default gear though, I'd give some chain shirts and stealth / perception skill instead.
#22 JohnLynch Dec 26, 2014 3:59:21	RavingDork do yourself a favour and actually play the game instead of just reading the books. I've GM'd Hoard of the Dragon Queen from Episode 1 to Episode 5 and the Starter Set from start to almost the end. The CR system works fine for giving you a guideline as to when you should start throwing enemies at a party. Using the XP system for building encounters can help, but at the end of the day every party is different and ultimately the DM will have a good idea as to what does and doesn't challenge his party. Poor tactics and environmental conditions will have a lot more effect then going over an XP budget by a few hundred XP.
#23 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 4:54:47	RavingDork wrote:
#24 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 5:03:06	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #22) RavingDork	JohnLynch wrote:
#26 JohnLynch Dec 26, 2014 8:35:07	RavingDork wrote:
(Reply to #23) Reius	Ramzour wrote:
#28 Samrin Dec 26, 2014 23:13:30	One of the things that has turned me off of DM'ing 53 was opening the MM and seeing references to other books in monster descriptions. I loved 4e's stat blocks. Everything you needed to run every monster was right there. Now enemy casters are tedious..... Again. Big step backwards for me. This CR system isn't helping much either. 4e was the first time I actually wanted to DM. A lot of the reasons I didn't want to before it came out are now back. The lack of minions is huge too. Low level enemies are not an acceptable alternative. Orcs and kobold paired up with high level enemies don't always make sense. Minions allowed weak versions of the same thing you're fighting and they had their own unique mechanics to boot. They could have at least put Mook rules in as an option.
#29 EzechielDantan Dec 27, 2014 0:03:07	Samrin wrote:
#30 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 0:31:54	You miss my point. I don't want low level enemies. I want to fight the same type of enemy across the board. Not throwing goblins in with high level enemies. Minions were so easy to track, had very few moving parts, required no book keeping, and had very unique mechanics. The ones in the mm2 and up had roles attached to them, and theyre a lot of fun to run. Something similar would have been nice. They're just designed to be red shirts. Having to reference anything outside of the stat block, though, is a huge turnoff. Having everything I need right there in one simple format made life much easier. My group has no interest in 5e due to lack of a warlord. They'd play it if I ran it, though. DM'ing looks like it's a lot more work in 5e, though.
(Reply to #30) EzechielDantan	Samrin wrote:
#32 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 4:30:55	I'm not disinterested in 5e myself. I just don't think it's something I'd want to run. No one in my group is interested to put it lightly. Mainly the lack of warlord and the martial classes in general being unattractive. Not using casterd in exactly a solution, either. It's D&D, after all. I'd consider playing 5e if I found a group for it, but I'm generally not picky when it comes to systems I'll play. World of Darkness is my system of choice. However, I've always found the group I play with to be far more important than the system. We're starting a 3.5 game at the end of January. I'm not running it. I wouldn't touch DM'ing that one lol. At least I get to play a Swordsage. Probably my favorite D&D class of any edition.
#33 bonethug0108 Dec 27, 2014 4:38:30	Want minions in 5e? Give the ones you want to use as minions 1 hp, taking no damage on a miss. Problem solved. You could do the same thing in 4e for things that weren't minions. That's literally the only rule in making a minion. Not sure why some people are acting like that's hard to do.
#34 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 5:02:28	There's more to minions than just 1hp. Their offense and defense was much different than their standard counterparts, they have static damage, and beyond the MM2, they had unique abilities that really set them apart. Some monsters (particularly leader types) could gain abilities when x number of minions were around them and vice versa. Up to and including temporary hit points. I loved that later monsters were designed to interact with them in really interesting ways. They were also only worth 1/4 the xp value of a standard monster. It made it so easy to set up huge fights without needing any bookkeeping at all. First and foremost, they were designed to be red shirts and super easy to manage. Simply dropping a monster to 1hp and calling it a minion is like throwing wings on a dinosaur and calling it a dragon.
#35 bonethug0108 Dec 27, 2014 5:32:19	Th defenses were generally the same. 5e lists static damage and you can just halve that number to get the same effect for 4e minion damage (I did forget about that aspect but again it's not hard). As for abilities that worked with similar monsters, that wasn't just with minions in 4e(the MM1 Gnolls spring to mind). And like you said that was more added later in the system.
#36 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 5:49:30	From the MM2 up, minions started getting unique abilities that made them impossible to just ignore is what I'm getting that. They're a lot of fun to run, and I'm disappointed that 5e doesn't offer them. I just don't want to have to go building a whole bunch of them when a simple template could have been added to get a similar effect. I'm not looking for minions verbatim, it's a different system. What I am looking for is something to fill the same role. That's something just throwing a bunch of goblins into fights where they don't make sense doesn't work. It's just one of quite a few problems I have with monster design that turns me off of DM'ing this, though. This thread topic is another one.
#37 Ramzour Dec 27, 2014 6:16:42	Samrin wrote:
#38 Ramzour Dec 27, 2014 6:25:14	Oh, also, you can use Minions in 5e really easily. You just give them 1 hit point and have them deal average damage. Done.
(Reply to #36) EzechielDantan	Samrin wrote:
#40 Brock_Landers Dec 27, 2014 7:02:52	Samrin wrote:
#41 bonethug0108 Dec 27, 2014 8:05:28	The "rules" or traits you are talking about were not limited to minions. As I pointed out Gnolls and I'm sure goblinoids, orcs, and others had rules that worked with the same way and were not minions. You are taking something they did in general with 4e monsters (which was a cool thing) and making it specific to minions. 1 hp, halve static damage and any monster becomes a minion. That's literally all there is to it. Any other "rules" are something you'd have to add to just about any other monster.
#42 Mistwell Dec 27, 2014 8:14:06	Samrin wrote:
#43 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 9:58:41	The battle master comes nowhere close to a warlord. It fails horribly at it. It's the fact that it's a favorite class and the absence of it in 5e was a tipping point. there wasn't even an honest attempt. It definitely wasn't the only factor. Martial classes in general turned a few Iof my players off completely. Something more like a Warblade would be more up their alley. I don't dislike 5e in general, and I'd love to play it. I just wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole from the DM side. Mainly due to the lack of internal consistency. The CR issues listed here are one of my many gripes. It's just kinda clunky. Especially the monster design in general. Again, low level monsters as minions doesn't work for me for the reasons listed. The fact that monsters reference other books is enough to turn me off, though. If everything I need isn't on the page the monster is on, not really interested. Brock needs to look at minions in the later books, I think. They were changed almost as drastically as solos were. its easy to make them a credible threat.
#44 Samrin Dec 27, 2014 10:01:06	Once again, I'm interested in playing it. Just not in running it. It's so hard to find groups around here, though. I have to drive 45 minutes to the one I have now.
#45 RavingDork Dec 27, 2014 10:08:10	One of the creatures that I weas looking at was the drider. CR 6 and a distinct impression that it might actually beat my 14th-level character in 1 on 1 fight.
(Reply to #45) EzechielDantan	RavingDork wrote:
(Reply to #45) Azzy1974	RavingDork wrote:
#48 DaveDash Dec 27, 2014 12:22:51	I've been going through the MM and recalculating CRs. Most of them are wrong - the calcs I come up with are generally lower using the DMG guidelines. It seems the designers have chucked in a CR here and there for stuff not listed in that table in the DMG, e.g. The Aboleth comes out CR9, but it's CR10 in the book, presumably due to it's charm ability. I really wish the designers were forthcoming in all their assumptions in the DMG. Also certain things like flying/teleport/invisibility/etc having no impact on CR seems wrong to me, and I think they have factored in stuff like this in the MM, despite the DMG saying otherwise. In short, it's still a lot of guess work.
(Reply to #47) DaveDash	Azzy1974 wrote:
(Reply to #48) Azzy1974	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #49) Azzy1974	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #50) DaveDash	Azzy1974 wrote:
(Reply to #52) EzechielDantan	DaveDash wrote:
#54 bonethug0108 Dec 27, 2014 19:55:39	CR from 3.5 was why I chunked XP to begin with. I tried with 4e(and it worked well enough) but we aren't fans of it. We don't use the milestone system per se, but it's something close to it and it is miles better than trying to funk around with XP. /end rant Sure it's not by the book, but if you are intent on using XP you could always just hand it out based on how easy you thought the encounter was. You don't have to hand out uber amounts just because the book says that's what the guidelines are. In fact, the book says the rules support you and you should feel free to change them.
#55 Mistwell Dec 28, 2014 8:10:10	I've read and re-read the DMG pages on encounter difficulty. You know what's not mentioned in those pages, except in a side-bar? Challenge Rating. You know what role Challenge Rating plays in calculating encounter difficult? Zero. The sidebar that mentions it, and it's brief, is about how CR is purely a warning light concerning the possibility that powers or abilities may be present which can become deadly to a party, such as immunity to spells of 6th level or lower. That's it, the only purpose of CR is to tell a DM to look closer at something for particular things that may prove deadly to a particular party if they lack something needed for that monster. The entire encounter difficulty systems is built on XP, not CR. So why does thread after thread complain about CR as the key to encounter difficulty? I guess left-over assumptions from prior editions.
#56 Mistwell Dec 28, 2014 8:35:25	RavingDork wrote:
#57 Darth_Caffeineus Dec 28, 2014 8:49:07	I am in the same boat as Samrin, I have no problem playing 5E, but I have zero intrest in running a game under this system. The CR system is sloppy, the monster creation rules are wonky and its guess work if encounters you intend to be hard will turn out easy or vice versa. Basicaly 5E gives you the most sketchies gudielines and tells you as the DM to figure out the rest, no thanks. I want a game system where the designers have already worked out its system math and encounter building system, not one that expects me to use my own game sessions as extended playtests. Lately I have been running 13th age and that is a system that has really solid and conistent encounter and monster building rules, and still manges to stay very rules light. http://www.13thagesrd.com/monsters
#58 Mistwell Dec 28, 2014 9:21:04	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#59 Hurin88 Dec 28, 2014 11:18:11	Samrin, Darth Caffineus, and others who have problems with the system: I am sincerely sorry you have problems with the new system. I have the same problems, and agree that the 4e system of encounter design was superior in the sense of being much easier to use and more accurate. Unfortunately, however, you won't get much help with these problems on these boards. Any criticism of 5e, and especially any criticism of 5e that notes 4e did better in a particular way, will not be tolerated by some posters on these boards. They will tell you (as they have already in this thread) that you are playing the game wrong, or don't understand it, or that you are not even playing but just theorycrafting, so your opinions don't count. If you want real help with the problem, you'll have to go somewhere else. Sadly, these forums are not much help anymore for people with sincere problems with the new system.
(Reply to #55) DaveDash	Mistwell wrote:
(Reply to #60) Karnos	Is that what passes for a major problem in 5th editon? Back in the old days, we didn't have XP budgets, encounter building guidelines, or "encounter per day". DMs just had to throw random mosters at PCs and sometimes the players had an easy fight, and sometimes they had to run crying and screaming back to town. It was fun, and created a hobby. If the expected DPS of a challange .5 monster is actually as high as a challange 1.0 monster posters seem to think the sky is falling and it's the end of the world. Calm down. It's fine. It's okay for some monsters to be stronger than others in a given situation, even if they have the same CR or XP value. The gmae isn't broken, by any stretch- it could have shipped without ANY encounter building guideleines and it wouldn't have been broken, because hundreds of games in the past have done just fine without them.
(Reply to #61) DaveDash	Karnos wrote:
(Reply to #62) Azzy1974	DaveDash wrote:
#64 Zardnaar Dec 28, 2014 15:48:25	Karnos wrote:
#65 Hurin88 Dec 28, 2014 16:41:26	Azzy1974 wrote:
#66 Azzy1974 Dec 28, 2014 17:39:33	Hurin88 wrote:
#67 Gnarl Dec 28, 2014 18:16:35	Hurin88 wrote:
#68 DaveDash Dec 28, 2014 18:22:45	Gnarl wrote:
(Reply to #68) Rhenny	DaveDash wrote:
#70 Gnarl Dec 28, 2014 19:26:07	DaveDash wrote:
#71 DM_HEEGZ Dec 29, 2014 6:11:06	I don't understand how this is so difficult... I pretty much ignore the guidelines and just use my best guess. I do use the CR as intended and rarely introduce a creature before the CR indicates. That has worked really well for me so far. I also use waves of enemies, my enemies retreat from battle, and I also change the stat blocks (max HP, add shields, upgrade armor) to tweak difficulty. I never DM'd in 4ed though, even though I have some of the monster vaults. There are so many tools for a DM to use during an encounter, and 5ed seems pretty well designed as is, though it sounds like 4ed hit a high point in D&D? What I really want is a second Monster Manual for more encounter variety, not tweaked CR/XP stats. My solution so far is to use creatures from AD&D, 3.5ed, 4ed, and Pathfinder...
#72 Nesian42Ryukaiel Dec 29, 2014 6:21:38	I'd make a desired monster as per DMG first, then playtest it with optimized Basic Rules only characters (no feat and magic item assumed) to adjust further. And I have a gut feeling that the devs did something similar to me as per monster...
#73 Darth_Caffeineus Dec 29, 2014 7:08:12	5E does a good job at old school encounter design that existed in the TSR days. Back then, the party encountered whatever the party encountered, and the system was not too particular concerned about whether the encounter was level appropriate or whether it produced a TPK or not. When combat occurred it was very swingy and much more strategic than tactical. What I mean by that, is the outcome of the battle was largely determined by the conditions set up before the battle started. If the PC's set up an ambush or a trap, or figured out a way to split the enemies and pick them off in small groups then the actual combats that followed would just be formality as the outcome had already been largely determined. 3E, 4E, PF, and 13th age on the other hand are more interested in providing the DM a reliable and accurate system to set up encounters that will provide whatever level of challenge is required for the scene. Combat in these systems is resolved by positioning, team work, and tactics used by the party during combat and mechanics exist to minimize swingness. Unfortunately this is something that 5E does not do very well at all either in terms of encounter generation and monster creation systems or providing tactical encounters. Hence this why, that while as a player I can take or leave 5E, it is not a system I want to DM at all. I tend to run role playing and intrigue heavy games, with 2-4 highly involved set piece encounters an adventure, and thus I find the system a very bad fit for non-old school types of games.
(Reply to #71) Darth_Caffeineus	DM_HEEGZ wrote:
#75 FFSAA Dec 29, 2014 7:26:06	Azzy1974 wrote:
#76 RavingDork Dec 29, 2014 9:06:28	What good would polymorphing the drider do? Even if he fails his save, I have to maintain concentration to keep him changed, do I not? Also, if I attempt to kill it after polymorphing it, only the excess damage (that goes past 0 hp) gets applied to his actual hit points. At best, it allows me to temporarilly disable the foe. Mistwell wrote:
#77 DM_HEEGZ Dec 29, 2014 9:08:43	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#78 Karnos Dec 29, 2014 10:25:43	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #76) bonethug0108	RavingDork wrote:
#80 RavingDork Dec 29, 2014 11:16:02	OCR? DCR? Bounding accuracy? I am not familiar with these terms. I totally understand how 1 versus 1 statements can be misleading in a 4 vs 1 system, but it still seems queer to me that he is 8 CRs below me, has more hit points, better defense, and generally equal (though less varied) abilities and attacks. That's not balanced at all, even against a party of four.
#81 bonethug0108 Dec 29, 2014 12:00:19	Offensive Challenge Rating(OCR) and Defensive Challenge Rating(DCR) are averaged to find the "true" CR. Bounded Accuracy is a term used to mean that the level spread of AC and to hit bonuses aren't ever increasing by large amounts like in 3e and 4e. They are bounded to a certain range. That's why you have CR 1 creatures with the same AC as CR 12 creatures. But AC is only one part of CR. And think of it this way. If you are fighting a monster solo as opposed to a party of 4, multiply his CR by 3(the 3 members you are down). His CR would be 18 in that case, which is above your level 14 PC. Hell even multiplying it by 2 gets him to 12, which is very close to your level. It isn't one monster to one pc when looking at CR. It's one monster to 4 pcs, and even still that isn't the level of the fight. That's just the level that makes the monster "safe" to fight without being a high TPK risk. CR in 5e isn't the same thing as CR in 3e and it was actually a poor decision on their part to use the term. Edit: And it is balanced against a party of 4 because HP and damage are the things that actually level. A party of 4 14 level pcs will have nearly 4 times the HP(each one will have about equal HP to the Drider) and will deal MUCH higher damage on average. The AC and hit bonus don't factor in nearly as much.
#82 Brock_Landers Dec 29, 2014 12:31:40	I have ignored the last two previous edition's pathetic attempt at encounter building/challenge rating rules, I just eyeball it (which 5th Ed makes dirt easy) like I always have, which is the most important, as no knows the party like the DM.
#83 Mistwell Dec 29, 2014 13:02:02	DaveDash wrote:
#84 Mistwell Dec 29, 2014 13:06:00	RavingDork wrote:
#85 Noon Dec 29, 2014 15:34:55	Isn't CR really being miss read here? CR 1 is for a party of four, level one characters. So yeah, a single level one character can only consistantly handle a 1/4 CR on it's own. Same goes for higher levels - you're level 12 - you can only consistantly handle a CR 3 on your own. When did people suddenly start reading CR and single PC level as somehow being the same? No doubt it'll go on though - not with evidence to the contrary, but just with sheer stubborness.
#86 Gnarl Dec 29, 2014 16:01:55	Mistwell wrote:
#87 Orethalion Dec 29, 2014 16:18:12	Noon wrote:
#88 bonethug0108 Dec 29, 2014 16:44:57	Yeah it's not like you can take the number of pcs over/under the party of 4 expectation and divide/multiply it in a consistent pattern. My early example was a mere approximation based on the parameters given, but is in no way a consistent pattern across all levels and numbers of party members. The fact is the math behind CR was built around a party of 4 and straying from that number by more than one will get very unexpected results(even at one it shifts expectations well enough). CR is also not used in encounter building and, as said, is instead used as a warning for which level the party should be before facing it lest they run a higher risk of a TPK.
#89 Noon Dec 29, 2014 17:37:29	Orethalion wrote:
#90 Orethalion Dec 29, 2014 18:09:51	Noon wrote:
#91 Noon Dec 29, 2014 19:35:34	Orethalion wrote:
#92 bonethug0108 Dec 29, 2014 19:33:32	I realized there hasn't been a direct example of why CR is not used in encounter building. Say you have four 5th level pcs. A hard encounter would be worth 3,000 xp. Now in the block about CR it warns that even a CR 2 monster can one shot a level 1 pc because of damage(the game is based off of damage and HP more than AC and to hit bonus). Now technically a CR 7 monster would present just about a hard encounter(2,900 xp), BUT the CR warning says that you shouldn't be using the CR 7 monster on a 5th level party. That is why CR is not tied to encounter building. CR is only used to determine what level the party is "safe" to start facing them at.
#93 Rastapopoulos Dec 30, 2014 0:07:45	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#94 RavingDork Dec 30, 2014 7:55:15	bonethug0108 wrote:
#95 bonethug0108 Dec 30, 2014 8:48:40	Poor wording on my part. I should have said leveling or higher CR monsters factor in HP and damage way more than AC and hit bonus. Instead we of being like 3e and 4e with ever increasing AC and hit bonus, you have a much smaller range in 5e that makes HP and damage much more important and increases at a much higher rate.
(Reply to #92) Azzy1974	bonethug0108 wrote:
#97 Noon Dec 30, 2014 18:33:13	Side topic : I hope CR is always subjective to some degree. It's proof the game is to some degree about imagination, rather than spreadsheets.
#98 JohnLynch Dec 30, 2014 22:12:19	RavingDork wrote:
#99 bonethug0108 Dec 31, 2014 4:00:17	Fact is they have CR 1 monsters with 9 AC and others with 18 AC. But AC doesn't go much higher than 18 even on the high CR monsters(don't have my MM on me to say how high but I think most monsters around CR 20 don't go higher than 21). That's the tight range in this edition and it's not scaling by CR. It is only a small part that determines one half of CR(defensive CR) as opposed to 4e where monster level determined AC. It's the opposite approach. I'm noticing more and more that many of the issues people are having with 5e is they are still thinking in terms of how 3e and 4e worked when in many cases (especially with 4e) things work very different.
(Reply to #28) arnwolf666	Samrin wrote:
(Reply to #76) CulveDaddy	What good would polymorphing the drider do? Even if he fails his save, I have to maintain concentration to keep him changed, do I not? Also, if I attempt to kill it after polymorphing it, only the excess damage (that goes past 0 hp) gets applied to his actual hit points. At best, it allows me to temporarilly disable the foe.
#102 FFSAA Dec 31, 2014 16:35:01	bonethug0108 wrote:
#103 bonethug0108 Dec 31, 2014 20:07:50	First off, Bless will not break a whole encounter. It adds 2.5 average to rolls for 3 creatures for 1 minute(+1 creature for each slot used above 1st). It requires concentration and uses a spell slot(using resources that could be spent elsewhere, some of which are much more powerful). The DM should be attempting to break the casters concentration(which he should be trying to do with every spell caster concentrating on spells anyway). A lot of people think Bless is just something that is free. At most it can be used 5 times a day(unless multiple people have it, but again there are usually more powerful options than a mere +2.5 bonus). And if you personally find Bless too strong, it's one of the easiest things to house rule. Just take off the concentration part and make it usable on the next attack or saving throw or on 1 attack or saving throw within the next minute. But seriously people calling this game breaking are ridiculous(for all the reason said above). AoP is nice but it requires the Paladin to heavily invest in Cha for it to be really potent(you're not likely to have more than +3 until 12th level). It also makes pcs have to cluster to get the bonus, making them extremely susceptible to AEs and being ganged up on by mobs. More likely you'll only have one other player close enough for it to be active(until 18th level, which an 18th level class feature SHOULD be very potent). Plus this is a 6th level class feature. It should be better than Extra Attack, but I don't think you can say it is(as EA shoots up DPR). If you look at other 6th level class features, it actually is very comparable(better than some and worse than others). Again this isn't something that is free. This is a pretty big class feature. These are things that bend the rules of the game. They are working as intended. Just as some classes use more damage to defeat a challenge, these two features use other methods.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

RavingDork

Dec 25, 2014 9:14:22

So now that I finally have a character made up, I finally have a basis of comparison for some of the beasties in the Monster Manual.

Is it just me, or do the CR listings seem a little borked? Upon comparison, it would appear that I would have a hard time hitting even CR 6 critters with my spells and abilities!

I understand that monster CRs are meant for comparison against whole adventuing parties, but why is the gap so freakishly wide? Why on earth would a 14th-level character have such a hard time with ANY CR 6 beasty? I estimate it would take me several rounds for me to kill such a critter, and I would even have a possibility of losing! LOSING! Against something less than half my level? WTF!?

Delanar

Dec 25, 2014 10:36:28

Now I'm no expert, just got into D&D, but I remeber reading that a CR level X creature can should be a good challange for a group of four characters level X. So following off of that logic in mind I would think that a level X character should only be able to tango with a boggie with a CR 1/4th your level. So in your case with a level of 14 a creature with a CR of 3-4.

EzechielDantan

Dec 25, 2014 11:11:00

The creatures in 5th edition are supposed to have a broader spread than in previous editions, orcs can still be fairly challenging for lvl 10 adventurers in the right situations.

Your character is not quite optimized, it has invested a feat in skilled that could have put in an intelligence boost to have your intelligence more up to date to your lvl 14 wizard, your abilities are not quite set in an optimized order either. None of that will make it a bad character but might depend a bit more on companions.

I see no way how it is likely for your wizard to lose with the right spells prepared. What CR 6 are you talking about, because most creatures do not have a dauntingly high AC.

Encountering a monster alone should elevate the xp and the challenge, a CR 6 monster alone is about equal to a CR 8 creature, a bit tougher but not quite CR 9.

A CR 14 is an encounter the party should survive without deaths, that is not saying much really a CR 14 creature could put two or three characters down without killing and consume considerable resources. A CR 9 they should survive but burn some resources in doing so spend on healing and some spells most likely. If 4 characters spend a round battling this creature it seems ok for you to do 4 or 5 rounds spending those resources.

I also think that a wizard in this edition's role in the party is one mainly of versatility and utility, a sorcerer will likely put the wizard to shame in most encounters, but the ,support a wizard can give is valuable.

AaronOfBarbaria

Dec 25, 2014 11:21:57

Challenge rating doesn't mean the same thing in 5e as it, or level, did in prior editions. It is just a gauge of what level at which a well rested and well equipped party of four are likely able to defeat the monster without anyone ending up dead. It is entirely intentional that a wide range of CR can be used to challenge the characters.

rampant

Dec 25, 2014 11:40:09

In other words it's sloppy and vague, and they should have stuck closer to the 4e monster creation style.

Lawolf

Dec 25, 2014 11:46:34

If you compare various monsters of the same CR, you will notice a wide range in attack, damage, AC, HP, and saving throws.

In other words, monsters were not built on a solid mathematical backbone. Instead numbers were thrown at a dartboard and CR was assigned based on feeling. This leads to CR being a poor tool for gauging monster difficulty. It requires an experienced DM with many hours if encounter building and much trial and error to design appropriate challenges.

(Reply to #5)

EzechielDantan

rampant wrote:

(Reply to #6)

EzechielDantan

Lawolf wrote:

MonsterEnvy

Dec 25, 2014 12:13:31

Did none of you even look at the builidng monster section in the DMG. It already shows how the math works.

#10

Lawolf

Dec 25, 2014 12:15:58

MonsterEnvy wrote:

#11

edwin_su

Dec 25, 2014 13:04:50

Wel lets look at the bobgolin C 1/2

And a creature many people talked abour fealing very strong for it's cr.

Defenceive CR.

11 HP gives a base of 1/8

The hobgobing has a AC of 18 5 higer then the 13 listed for a CR 1/8 chalange rating creature adding a +2 to defensive chalange rating making it

1/2

Ofensive CR

Damage per atack 9 ( assumng being able to use martial advantage 50% of the time.) Giving a base ofensive CR of 1.

The hoggoblin has a to hit of +5 and that is 2 higer then the listed +3 to hit for a Cr 1 creature, giving a +1 bonus

For a total ofencive CR of 2.

so acoring to the DMG guide line the hobgoblin would be CR 1.25 and not 1/2

#12

Chiisai_Usagi

Dec 25, 2014 15:13:28

Lawolf wrote:

(Reply to #11)

tendentious

edwin_su wrote:

#14

Mecheon

Dec 25, 2014 17:57:47

EzechielDantan wrote:

(Reply to #6)

CCS

Lawolf wrote:

#16

Wuzzard

Dec 25, 2014 18:08:45

edwin_su wrote:

#17

pukunui

Dec 25, 2014 18:30:49

CCS wrote:

(Reply to #16)

tendentious

Wuzzard wrote:

#19

Brock_Landers

Dec 25, 2014 20:47:00

Lawolf wrote:

#20

Wuzzard

Dec 25, 2014 21:31:16

tendentious wrote:

#21

EzechielDantan

Dec 26, 2014 1:10:21

Hobgoblin:

11 hp is a bit on the low side in it's range, average would be 21 hp.

AC 18, it is on the high side but in my opinion it is more than offset by the relative lack in hp for the hobgoblin. attacks will strike a bit less often but that would only increase effective hp by 10% or so.

Also worth noting that it is impossible to use a bow and shield at the same time and they (should) have disadvantage on stealth checks.

Damage, base damage of 5 is on the low side at CR 1/4, with martial advantage this will get a major boost and take it to a CR 1. The martial advantage should apply to 1 attack per round following the guidelines, but this is not very realistic. Once the PCs know where the threat lies they can take steps to avoid it or minimize it and quite a few attacks will fail to carry this bonus. I'd keep it at CR 1 but at the low side of the rating considering.

No good saves and no skills, shouldnt factor into the CR directly but should be taken note off, they do have darkvision though that might cause a situational advantage.

They do have a ranged and a melee option, though not ideal it is an option to use ranged weaponry at the cost of a lowered defense.

Through normal calculation you would come down to a CR of 3/4 by averaging OCR and DCR but considering the somewhat situational damage for martial advantage and the relatively low hp, I'd still drop it down to CR 1/2. I would probably give them scalemail instead of chainmail though, lowering their AC by 1 to make them a bit more fairly balanced, and gives them a little room to carry extra weight without being lightly encumbered if using that optional rule.

A situation in which the hobgoblins are surprised will play out much differently than the hobgoblins grabbing the initiative, they will drop relatively easy when they are being ambushed and the other way around they can be surprisingly dangerous. Stealth isn't their greatest asset with the default gear though, I'd give some chain shirts and stealth / perception skill instead.

#22

JohnLynch

Dec 26, 2014 3:59:21

RavingDork do yourself a favour and actually play the game instead of just reading the books. I've GM'd Hoard of the Dragon Queen from Episode 1 to Episode 5 and the Starter Set from start to almost the end. The CR system works fine for giving you a guideline as to when you should start throwing enemies at a party. Using the XP system for building encounters can help, but at the end of the day every party is different and ultimately the DM will have a good idea as to what does and doesn't challenge his party. Poor tactics and environmental conditions will have a lot more effect then going over an XP budget by a few hundred XP.

#23

Ramzour

Dec 26, 2014 4:54:47

RavingDork wrote:

#24

Ramzour

Dec 26, 2014 5:03:06

Lawolf wrote:

(Reply to #22)

RavingDork

JohnLynch wrote:

#26

JohnLynch

Dec 26, 2014 8:35:07

RavingDork wrote:

(Reply to #23)

Reius

Ramzour wrote:

#28

Samrin

Dec 26, 2014 23:13:30

One of the things that has turned me off of DM'ing 53 was opening the MM and seeing references to other books in monster descriptions. I loved 4e's stat blocks. Everything you needed to run every monster was right there. Now enemy casters are tedious..... Again. Big step backwards for me. This CR system isn't helping much either.

4e was the first time I actually wanted to DM. A lot of the reasons I didn't want to before it came out are now back.

The lack of minions is huge too. Low level enemies are not an acceptable alternative. Orcs and kobold paired up with high level enemies don't always make sense. Minions allowed weak versions of the same thing you're fighting and they had their own unique mechanics to boot. They could have at least put Mook rules in as an option.

#29

EzechielDantan

Dec 27, 2014 0:03:07

Samrin wrote:

#30

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 0:31:54

You miss my point. I don't want low level enemies. I want to fight the same type of enemy across the board. Not throwing goblins in with high level enemies.

Minions were so easy to track, had very few moving parts, required no book keeping, and had very unique mechanics. The ones in the mm2 and up had roles attached to them, and theyre a lot of fun to run. Something similar would have been nice. They're just designed to be red shirts.

Having to reference anything outside of the stat block, though, is a huge turnoff. Having everything I need right there in one simple format made life much easier.

My group has no interest in 5e due to lack of a warlord. They'd play it if I ran it, though. DM'ing looks like it's a lot more work in 5e, though.

(Reply to #30)

EzechielDantan

Samrin wrote:

#32

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 4:30:55

I'm not disinterested in 5e myself. I just don't think it's something I'd want to run. No one in my group is interested to put it lightly. Mainly the lack of warlord and the martial classes in general being unattractive.

Not using casterd in exactly a solution, either. It's D&D, after all. I'd consider playing 5e if I found a group for it, but I'm generally not picky when it comes to systems I'll play. World of Darkness is my system of choice. However, I've always found the group I play with to be far more important than the system.

We're starting a 3.5 game at the end of January. I'm not running it. I wouldn't touch DM'ing that one lol. At least I get to play a Swordsage. Probably my favorite D&D class of any edition.

#33

bonethug0108

Dec 27, 2014 4:38:30

Want minions in 5e? Give the ones you want to use as minions 1 hp, taking no damage on a miss. Problem solved. You could do the same thing in 4e for things that weren't minions. That's literally the only rule in making a minion. Not sure why some people are acting like that's hard to do.

#34

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 5:02:28

There's more to minions than just 1hp. Their offense and defense was much different than their standard counterparts, they have static damage, and beyond the MM2, they had unique abilities that really set them apart. Some monsters (particularly leader types) could gain abilities when x number of minions were around them and vice versa. Up to and including temporary hit points. I loved that later monsters were designed to interact with them in really interesting ways. They were also only worth 1/4 the xp value of a standard monster. It made it so easy to set up huge fights without needing any bookkeeping at all. First and foremost, they were designed to be red shirts and super easy to manage. Simply dropping a monster to 1hp and calling it a minion is like throwing wings on a dinosaur and calling it a dragon.

#35

bonethug0108

Dec 27, 2014 5:32:19

Th defenses were generally the same. 5e lists static damage and you can just halve that number to get the same effect for 4e minion damage (I did forget about that aspect but again it's not hard). As for abilities that worked with similar monsters, that wasn't just with minions in 4e(the MM1 Gnolls spring to mind). And like you said that was more added later in the system.

#36

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 5:49:30

From the MM2 up, minions started getting unique abilities that made them impossible to just ignore is what I'm getting that. They're a lot of fun to run, and I'm disappointed that 5e doesn't offer them. I just don't want to have to go building a whole bunch of them when a simple template could have been added to get a similar effect. I'm not looking for minions verbatim, it's a different system. What I am looking for is something to fill the same role. That's something just throwing a bunch of goblins into fights where they don't make sense doesn't work. It's just one of quite a few problems I have with monster design that turns me off of DM'ing this, though. This thread topic is another one.

#37

Ramzour

Dec 27, 2014 6:16:42

Samrin wrote:

#38

Ramzour

Dec 27, 2014 6:25:14

Oh, also, you can use Minions in 5e really easily. You just give them 1 hit point and have them deal average damage. Done.

(Reply to #36)

EzechielDantan

Samrin wrote:

#40

Brock_Landers

Dec 27, 2014 7:02:52

Samrin wrote:

#41

bonethug0108

Dec 27, 2014 8:05:28

The "rules" or traits you are talking about were not limited to minions. As I pointed out Gnolls and I'm sure goblinoids, orcs, and others had rules that worked with the same way and were not minions. You are taking something they did in general with 4e monsters (which was a cool thing) and making it specific to minions. 1 hp, halve static damage and any monster becomes a minion. That's literally all there is to it. Any other "rules" are something you'd have to add to just about any other monster.

#42

Mistwell

Dec 27, 2014 8:14:06

Samrin wrote:

#43

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 9:58:41

The battle master comes nowhere close to a warlord. It fails horribly at it. It's the fact that it's a favorite class and the absence of it in 5e was a tipping point. there wasn't even an honest attempt. It definitely wasn't the only factor. Martial classes in general turned a few Iof my players off completely. Something more like a Warblade would be more up their alley.

I don't dislike 5e in general, and I'd love to play it. I just wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole from the DM side. Mainly due to the lack of internal consistency. The CR issues listed here are one of my many gripes. It's just kinda clunky. Especially the monster design in general. Again, low level monsters as minions doesn't work for me for the reasons listed. The fact that monsters reference other books is enough to turn me off, though. If everything I need isn't on the page the monster is on, not really interested.

Brock needs to look at minions in the later books, I think. They were changed almost as drastically as solos were. its easy to make them a credible threat.

#44

Samrin

Dec 27, 2014 10:01:06

Once again, I'm interested in playing it. Just not in running it. It's so hard to find groups around here, though. I have to drive 45 minutes to the one I have now.

#45

RavingDork

Dec 27, 2014 10:08:10

One of the creatures that I weas looking at was the drider. CR 6 and a distinct impression that it might actually beat my 14th-level character in 1 on 1 fight.

(Reply to #45)

EzechielDantan

RavingDork wrote:

(Reply to #45)

Azzy1974

RavingDork wrote:

#48

DaveDash

Dec 27, 2014 12:22:51

I've been going through the MM and recalculating CRs. Most of them are wrong - the calcs I come up with are generally lower using the DMG guidelines.
It seems the designers have chucked in a CR here and there for stuff not listed in that table in the DMG, e.g. The Aboleth comes out CR9, but it's CR10 in the book, presumably due to it's charm ability.
I really wish the designers were forthcoming in all their assumptions in the DMG.
Also certain things like flying/teleport/invisibility/etc having no impact on CR seems wrong to me, and I think they have factored in stuff like this in the MM, despite the DMG saying otherwise.
In short, it's still a lot of guess work.

(Reply to #47)

DaveDash

Azzy1974 wrote:

(Reply to #48)

Azzy1974

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #49)

Azzy1974

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #50)

DaveDash

Azzy1974 wrote:

(Reply to #52)

EzechielDantan

DaveDash wrote:

#54

bonethug0108

Dec 27, 2014 19:55:39

CR from 3.5 was why I chunked XP to begin with. I tried with 4e(and it worked well enough) but we aren't fans of it. We don't use the milestone system per se, but it's something close to it and it is miles better than trying to funk around with XP.

/end rant

Sure it's not by the book, but if you are intent on using XP you could always just hand it out based on how easy you thought the encounter was. You don't have to hand out uber amounts just because the book says that's what the guidelines are. In fact, the book says the rules support you and you should feel free to change them.

#55

Mistwell

Dec 28, 2014 8:10:10

I've read and re-read the DMG pages on encounter difficulty.

You know what's not mentioned in those pages, except in a side-bar?

Challenge Rating.

You know what role Challenge Rating plays in calculating encounter difficult?

Zero.

The sidebar that mentions it, and it's brief, is about how CR is purely a warning light concerning the possibility that powers or abilities may be present which can become deadly to a party, such as immunity to spells of 6th level or lower. That's it, the only purpose of CR is to tell a DM to look closer at something for particular things that may prove deadly to a particular party if they lack something needed for that monster.

The entire encounter difficulty systems is built on XP, not CR.

So why does thread after thread complain about CR as the key to encounter difficulty?

I guess left-over assumptions from prior editions.

#56

Mistwell

Dec 28, 2014 8:35:25

RavingDork wrote:

#57

Darth_Caffeineus

Dec 28, 2014 8:49:07

I am in the same boat as Samrin, I have no problem playing 5E, but I have zero intrest in running a game under this system. The CR system is sloppy, the monster creation rules are wonky and its guess work if encounters you intend to be hard will turn out easy or vice versa.

Basicaly 5E gives you the most sketchies gudielines and tells you as the DM to figure out the rest, no thanks. I want a game system where the designers have already worked out its system math and encounter building system, not one that expects me to use my own game sessions as extended playtests.

Lately I have been running 13th age and that is a system that has really solid and conistent encounter and monster building rules, and still manges to stay very rules light.

http://www.13thagesrd.com/monsters

#58

Mistwell

Dec 28, 2014 9:21:04

Darth_Caffeineus wrote:

#59

Hurin88

Dec 28, 2014 11:18:11

Samrin, Darth Caffineus, and others who have problems with the system:

I am sincerely sorry you have problems with the new system. I have the same problems, and agree that the 4e system of encounter design was superior in the sense of being much easier to use and more accurate. Unfortunately, however, you won't get much help with these problems on these boards. Any criticism of 5e, and especially any criticism of 5e that notes 4e did better in a particular way, will not be tolerated by some posters on these boards. They will tell you (as they have already in this thread) that you are playing the game wrong, or don't understand it, or that you are not even playing but just theorycrafting, so your opinions don't count. If you want real help with the problem, you'll have to go somewhere else. Sadly, these forums are not much help anymore for people with sincere problems with the new system.

(Reply to #55)

DaveDash

Mistwell wrote:

(Reply to #60)

Karnos

Is that what passes for a major problem in 5th editon? Back in the old days, we didn't have XP budgets, encounter building guidelines, or "encounter per day". DMs just had to throw random mosters at PCs and sometimes the players had an easy fight, and sometimes they had to run crying and screaming back to town. It was fun, and created a hobby.

If the expected DPS of a challange .5 monster is actually as high as a challange 1.0 monster posters seem to think the sky is falling and it's the end of the world. Calm down. It's fine. It's okay for some monsters to be stronger than others in a given situation, even if they have the same CR or XP value. The gmae isn't broken, by any stretch- it could have shipped without *ANY* encounter building guideleines and it wouldn't have been broken, because hundreds of games in the past have done just fine without them.

(Reply to #61)

DaveDash

Karnos wrote:

(Reply to #62)

Azzy1974

DaveDash wrote:

#64

Zardnaar

Dec 28, 2014 15:48:25

Karnos wrote:

#65

Hurin88

Dec 28, 2014 16:41:26

Azzy1974 wrote:

#66

Azzy1974

Dec 28, 2014 17:39:33

Hurin88 wrote:

#67

Gnarl

Dec 28, 2014 18:16:35

Hurin88 wrote:

#68

DaveDash

Dec 28, 2014 18:22:45

Gnarl wrote:

(Reply to #68)

Rhenny

DaveDash wrote:

#70

Gnarl

Dec 28, 2014 19:26:07

DaveDash wrote:

#71

DM_HEEGZ

Dec 29, 2014 6:11:06

I don't understand how this is so difficult... I pretty much ignore the guidelines and just use my best guess. I do use the CR as intended and rarely introduce a creature before the CR indicates. That has worked really well for me so far. I also use waves of enemies, my enemies retreat from battle, and I also change the stat blocks (max HP, add shields, upgrade armor) to tweak difficulty. I never DM'd in 4ed though, even though I have some of the monster vaults. There are so many tools for a DM to use during an encounter, and 5ed seems pretty well designed as is, though it sounds like 4ed hit a high point in D&D?

What I really want is a second Monster Manual for more encounter variety, not tweaked CR/XP stats. My solution so far is to use creatures from AD&D, 3.5ed, 4ed, and Pathfinder...

#72

Nesian42Ryukaiel

Dec 29, 2014 6:21:38

I'd make a desired monster as per DMG first, then playtest it with optimized Basic Rules only characters (no feat and magic item assumed) to adjust further.

And I have a gut feeling that the devs did something similar to me as per monster...

#73

Darth_Caffeineus

Dec 29, 2014 7:08:12

5E does a good job at old school encounter design that existed in the TSR days. Back then, the party encountered whatever the party encountered, and the system was not too particular concerned about whether the encounter was level appropriate or whether it produced a TPK or not. When combat occurred it was very swingy and much more strategic than tactical. What I mean by that, is the outcome of the battle was largely determined by the conditions set up before the battle started. If the PC's set up an ambush or a trap, or figured out a way to split the enemies and pick them off in small groups then the actual combats that followed would just be formality as the outcome had already been largely determined.

3E, 4E, PF, and 13th age on the other hand are more interested in providing the DM a reliable and accurate system to set up encounters that will provide whatever level of challenge is required for the scene. Combat in these systems is resolved by positioning, team work, and tactics used by the party during combat and mechanics exist to minimize swingness. Unfortunately this is something that 5E does not do very well at all either in terms of encounter generation and monster creation systems or providing tactical encounters.

Hence this why, that while as a player I can take or leave 5E, it is not a system I want to DM at all.
I tend to run role playing and intrigue heavy games, with 2-4 highly involved set piece encounters an adventure, and thus I find the system a very bad fit for non-old school types of games.

(Reply to #71)

Darth_Caffeineus

DM_HEEGZ wrote:

#75

FFSAA

Dec 29, 2014 7:26:06

Azzy1974 wrote:

#76

RavingDork

Dec 29, 2014 9:06:28

What good would polymorphing the drider do? Even if he fails his save, I have to maintain concentration to keep him changed, do I not?

Also, if I attempt to kill it after polymorphing it, only the excess damage (that goes past 0 hp) gets applied to his actual hit points. At best, it allows me to temporarilly disable the foe.

Mistwell wrote:

#77

DM_HEEGZ

Dec 29, 2014 9:08:43

Darth_Caffeineus wrote:

#78

Karnos

Dec 29, 2014 10:25:43

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #76)

bonethug0108

RavingDork wrote:

#80

RavingDork

Dec 29, 2014 11:16:02

OCR? DCR? Bounding accuracy? I am not familiar with these terms.

I totally understand how 1 versus 1 statements can be misleading in a 4 vs 1 system, but it still seems queer to me that he is 8 CRs below me, has more hit points, better defense, and generally equal (though less varied) abilities and attacks.

That's not balanced at all, even against a party of four.

#81

bonethug0108

Dec 29, 2014 12:00:19

Offensive Challenge Rating(OCR) and Defensive Challenge Rating(DCR) are averaged to find the "true" CR. Bounded Accuracy is a term used to mean that the level spread of AC and to hit bonuses aren't ever increasing by large amounts like in 3e and 4e. They are bounded to a certain range. That's why you have CR 1 creatures with the same AC as CR 12 creatures. But AC is only one part of CR.

And think of it this way. If you are fighting a monster solo as opposed to a party of 4, multiply his CR by 3(the 3 members you are down). His CR would be 18 in that case, which is above your level 14 PC. Hell even multiplying it by 2 gets him to 12, which is very close to your level.

It isn't one monster to one pc when looking at CR. It's one monster to 4 pcs, and even still that isn't the level of the fight. That's just the level that makes the monster "safe" to fight without being a high TPK risk.

CR in 5e isn't the same thing as CR in 3e and it was actually a poor decision on their part to use the term.

Edit:

And it is balanced against a party of 4 because HP and damage are the things that actually level. A party of 4 14 level pcs will have nearly 4 times the HP(each one will have about equal HP to the Drider) and will deal MUCH higher damage on average. The AC and hit bonus don't factor in nearly as much.

#82

Brock_Landers

Dec 29, 2014 12:31:40

I have ignored the last two previous edition's pathetic attempt at encounter building/challenge rating rules, I just eyeball it (which 5th Ed makes dirt easy) like I always have, which is the most important, as no knows the party like the DM.

#83

Mistwell

Dec 29, 2014 13:02:02

DaveDash wrote:

#84

Mistwell

Dec 29, 2014 13:06:00

RavingDork wrote:

#85

Noon

Dec 29, 2014 15:34:55

Isn't CR really being miss read here?

CR 1 is for a party of four, level one characters.

So yeah, a single level one character can only consistantly handle a 1/4 CR on it's own.

Same goes for higher levels - you're level 12 - you can only consistantly handle a CR 3 on your own.

When did people suddenly start reading CR and single PC level as somehow being the same?

No doubt it'll go on though - not with evidence to the contrary, but just with sheer stubborness.

#86

Gnarl

Dec 29, 2014 16:01:55

Mistwell wrote:

#87

Orethalion

Dec 29, 2014 16:18:12

Noon wrote:

#88

bonethug0108

Dec 29, 2014 16:44:57

Yeah it's not like you can take the number of pcs over/under the party of 4 expectation and divide/multiply it in a consistent pattern. My early example was a mere approximation based on the parameters given, but is in no way a consistent pattern across all levels and numbers of party members.

The fact is the math behind CR was built around a party of 4 and straying from that number by more than one will get very unexpected results(even at one it shifts expectations well enough).

CR is also not used in encounter building and, as said, is instead used as a warning for which level the party should be before facing it lest they run a higher risk of a TPK.

#89

Noon

Dec 29, 2014 17:37:29

Orethalion wrote:

#90

Orethalion

Dec 29, 2014 18:09:51

Noon wrote:

#91

Noon

Dec 29, 2014 19:35:34

Orethalion wrote:

#92

bonethug0108

Dec 29, 2014 19:33:32

I realized there hasn't been a direct example of why CR is not used in encounter building.

Say you have four 5th level pcs. A hard encounter would be worth 3,000 xp. Now in the block about CR it warns that even a CR 2 monster can one shot a level 1 pc because of damage(the game is based off of damage and HP more than AC and to hit bonus).

Now technically a CR 7 monster would present just about a hard encounter(2,900 xp), BUT the CR warning says that you shouldn't be using the CR 7 monster on a 5th level party.

That is why CR is not tied to encounter building. CR is only used to determine what level the party is "safe" to start facing them at.

#93

Rastapopoulos

Dec 30, 2014 0:07:45

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#94

RavingDork

Dec 30, 2014 7:55:15

bonethug0108 wrote:

#95

bonethug0108

Dec 30, 2014 8:48:40

Poor wording on my part. I should have said leveling or higher CR monsters factor in HP and damage way more than AC and hit bonus. Instead we of being like 3e and 4e with ever increasing AC and hit bonus, you have a much smaller range in 5e that makes HP and damage much more important and increases at a much higher rate.

(Reply to #92)

Azzy1974

bonethug0108 wrote:

#97

Noon

Dec 30, 2014 18:33:13

Side topic : I hope CR is always subjective to some degree. It's proof the game is to some degree about imagination, rather than spreadsheets.

#98

JohnLynch

Dec 30, 2014 22:12:19

RavingDork wrote:

#99

bonethug0108

Dec 31, 2014 4:00:17

Fact is they have CR 1 monsters with 9 AC and others with 18 AC. But AC doesn't go much higher than 18 even on the high CR monsters(don't have my MM on me to say how high but I think most monsters around CR 20 don't go higher than 21).

That's the tight range in this edition and it's not scaling by CR. It is only a small part that determines one half of CR(defensive CR) as opposed to 4e where monster level determined AC. It's the opposite approach.

I'm noticing more and more that many of the issues people are having with 5e is they are still thinking in terms of how 3e and 4e worked when in many cases (especially with 4e) things work very different.

(Reply to #28)

arnwolf666

Samrin wrote:

(Reply to #76)

CulveDaddy

What good would polymorphing the drider do? Even if he fails his save, I have to maintain concentration to keep him changed, do I not?

Also, if I attempt to kill it after polymorphing it, only the excess damage (that goes past 0 hp) gets applied to his actual hit points. At best, it allows me to temporarilly disable the foe.

#102

FFSAA

Dec 31, 2014 16:35:01

bonethug0108 wrote:

#103

bonethug0108

Dec 31, 2014 20:07:50

First off, Bless will not break a whole encounter. It adds 2.5 average to rolls for 3 creatures for 1 minute(+1 creature for each slot used above 1st). It requires concentration and uses a spell slot(using resources that could be spent elsewhere, some of which are much more powerful). The DM should be attempting to break the casters concentration(which he should be trying to do with every spell caster concentrating on spells anyway). A lot of people think Bless is just something that is free. At most it can be used 5 times a day(unless multiple people have it, but again there are usually more powerful options than a mere +2.5 bonus).

And if you personally find Bless too strong, it's one of the easiest things to house rule. Just take off the concentration part and make it usable on the next attack or saving throw or on 1 attack or saving throw within the next minute. But seriously people calling this game breaking are ridiculous(for all the reason said above).

AoP is nice but it requires the Paladin to heavily invest in Cha for it to be really potent(you're not likely to have more than +3 until 12th level). It also makes pcs have to cluster to get the bonus, making them extremely susceptible to AEs and being ganged up on by mobs. More likely you'll only have one other player close enough for it to be active(until 18th level, which an 18th level class feature SHOULD be very potent). Plus this is a 6th level class feature. It should be better than Extra Attack, but I don't think you can say it is(as EA shoots up DPR).

If you look at other 6th level class features, it actually is very comparable(better than some and worse than others). Again this isn't something that is free. This is a pretty big class feature.

These are things that bend the rules of the game. They are working as intended. Just as some classes use more damage to defeat a challenge, these two features use other methods.