How accurate would you rate the 2024 CR guide?

I am running a new campaign for some new players + 1 veteran, and I am using the CR system this time around(I've literally never been able to understand it before).  

I'm gonna have them go through a hex crawl of an enchanted forest next session, and I've created some random encounters for them along the way.  I've tried to base it entirely off the current 2024 DMG CR chart.  We've had 1 combat encounter in our 2 sessions so far, and the one went pretty well.  

My party is 5 level 2 players, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric.  

Any thoughts?

They have lots of good melee characters. You could pit them against an owlbear. It would be a fun challenge, and they should be able to succeed.

Owlbear is actually my 'high' difficulty encounter.  

5 Level 2s? Most of them melee? They'll be fine. More importantly, it gives them a sense of stakes.

I have found the chart with xp budget per encounter really helpful. It only breaks down at higher levels and mostly due to it not factoring magic items. For example, a high level fight with a litch and minions, that could potentially be a deadly battle but throw in a cleric and a paladin with a holy avenger. The math changes quite a bit. However, at level 2 it should allow you build encounters that will be challenging and fun. Also, use minions, single monsters tend to go down much quicker than you might expect.

The 2024 xp budgets have problems with encounter size. For example, consider a 700 xp budget, which is Average for that number of PCs

1. 1xowlbear: attack +7, 28 damage per round, AC 13, 59 hp.
2. 7xblack bear attack +4, 77 damage per round (11 per bear), AC 11, 126 combined hp.

PC stats are a bit build dependent, but a reasonably typical setup might be something like 60 combined DPR and 100 combined HP, with an average attack bonus of +5 and average AC of 16. This means:

• Owlbear: goes down in 1-2 rounds, so figure it gets about 1.5 actions, with a 60% hit chance, total about 25 damage to party.
• Bears: the PCs can be expected to take down 2 bears per round, so total bear turns around 12. 45% chance to hit, so average bear turn does 5. Total about 60 damage to party.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The 2024 xp budgets have problems with encounter size. For example, consider a 700 xp budget, which is Average for that number of PCs

1. 1xowlbear: attack +7, 28 damage per round, AC 13, 59 hp.
2. 7xblack bear attack +4, 77 damage per round (11 per bear), AC 11, 126 combined hp.

PC stats are a bit build dependent, but a reasonably typical setup might be something like 60 combined DPR and 100 combined HP, with an average attack bonus of +5 and average AC of 16. This means:

• Owlbear: goes down in 1-2 rounds, so figure it gets about 1.5 actions, with a 60% hit chance, total about 25 damage to party.
• Bears: the PCs can be expected to take down 2 bears per round, so total bear turns around 12. 45% chance to hit, so average bear turn does 5. Total about 60 damage to party.

This same scenario is called out in the DMG under the troubleshooting section immediately following the XP graph.

"Many Creatures. The more creatures in an encounter, the higher the risk that a lucky streak on their part could deal more damage to the characters than you expect. If your encounter includes more than two creatures per character, include fragile creatures that can be defeated quickly. This guideline is especially important for characters of level 1 or 2." 

So is it a problem, sure but it is a known issue and one easily overcome by simply not throwing a bunch of targets at low level parties. There are other ways of addressing this issue as well through simple behavior. Not every creature is going to fight to the death, especially beasts. They are more likely looking for an easy meal and when that meal stops being so easy, they are going to take off. I have done this with large groups of wolves, scare the party with a large group of targets, then they realize they are just trying to grab a refugee for a easy meal. Stops being a direct combat encounter and more a game of keep the injured guy away from the wolves. 

I find the budgets helpful and easy to build from. Use one larger CR monster and fill the budget with 1-4 smaller creatures. Just make sure the monsters make narrative sense, don't want the group asking why skeletons are hanging out with a owlbear and not have a good answer. 

Quote from adkins224 >>

This same scenario is called out in the DMG under the troubleshooting section immediately following the XP graph.

The question from the OP is "does the CR guide work". If it has known major issues, it doesn't work.

The 2014 rules for encounter building were a PITA to use, but they did a significantly better job of indicating the value of numbers. There are simpler ways of accomplishing what those rules did in a way that's easier to use, but 2024 didn't accomplish it.

If you were to use an owlbear and black bears, you could  have it be described as a mother owlbear with juvenile cubs. That would definitely pull at their heartstrings if you wanted to make a memorable encounter. It could also open up other options if the pcs didn't want to fight.

I think the hardest thing about being a new DM in the modern era (though I think this has been true about all editions of the game to various degrees) is encounter balance.  There has never been a particularly great way to "calculate" difficulty in D&D, and while the CR system is a reasonably decent attempt at it, I would not call it "good" or even "reasonable".  It's more to say that it "works well enough".

I think far better advice, especially for new DM's is to understand that if you use the CR system to balance your encounters, the odds of you actually killing the entire party by accident are relatively low.  The encounter might end up too hard or too easy, but generally, you're not going to accidentally TPK the group if you use CR as designed, and I think that in itself already makes it a lot more reliable than any method that came before.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you use CR you might not get exactly the balance you're looking for, but the margin of error isn't going to be so extreme that it will derail your campaign. So you can rest easy.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

The 2024 xp budgets have problems with encounter size. For example, consider a 700 xp budget, which is Average for that number of PCs

1. 1xowlbear: attack +7, 28 damage per round, AC 13, 59 hp.
2. 7xblack bear attack +4, 77 damage per round (11 per bear), AC 11, 126 combined hp.

PC stats are a bit build dependent, but a reasonably typical setup might be something like 60 combined DPR and 100 combined HP, with an average attack bonus of +5 and average AC of 16. This means:

• Owlbear: goes down in 1-2 rounds, so figure it gets about 1.5 actions, with a 60% hit chance, total about 25 damage to party.
• Bears: the PCs can be expected to take down 2 bears per round, so total bear turns around 12. 45% chance to hit, so average bear turn does 5. Total about 60 damage to party.

* PC stats are a bit build dependent, but a reasonably typical setup might be something like 60 combined DPR 

Ooh, how did you determine that?  Is there a resource that does 'average party damage/health at x level'?

Quote from xPosterity >>

Ooh, how did you determine that?  Is there a resource that does 'average party damage/health at x level'?

No, I just guessed based on typical builds at that level (though damage output varies by a lot depending on choice of weapon and fighting style).

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from xPosterity >>

Ooh, how did you determine that?  Is there a resource that does 'average party damage/health at x level'?

No, I just guessed based on typical builds at that level (though damage output varies by a lot depending on choice of weapon and fighting style).

I just guessed

A true DM haha. 

Well, it's an educated guess, and is on the low side, but relatively inexperienced players were specified. Assuming standard array, base dpr (not expending resources) for relevant classes:

• Cleric with mace and shield: 6.5
• Sword and shield, no offensive fighting style: 7.5
• Sword and shield, dueling fighting style: 9.5
• Great weapon, no offensive fighting style: 10
• Two weapon, no offensive fighting style: 10
• Great weapon, great weapon fighting: 11
• Two weapon, two weapon fighting style: 13

This could range from a total party dpr of 36 to 58, probably winding up somewhere in the middle, and will then get buffed by resources (smites, hunter's mark, rage); 60 is fine for back of the envelope calculations. Hit points are easier: if everyone has 14 con and doesn't roll for hit points, they'll have 17 (cleric), 23 (barbarian), and 20 (everyone else) hit points for a total of 100. AC is something like two people at 15 (studded with 16 dex or chain shirt with 14), two people at 16 (scale with 14), one at 18 (scale and shield with 14) to average at 16.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Well, it's an educated guess, and is on the low side, but relatively inexperienced players were specified. Assuming standard array, base dpr (not expending resources) for relevant classes:

• Cleric with mace and shield: 6.5
• Sword and shield, no offensive fighting style: 7.5
• Sword and shield, dueling fighting style: 9.5
• Great weapon, no offensive fighting style: 10
• Two weapon, no offensive fighting style: 10
• Great weapon, great weapon fighting: 11
• Two weapon, two weapon fighting style: 13

This could range from a total party dpr of 36 to 58, probably winding up somewhere in the middle, and will then get buffed by resources (smites, hunter's mark, rage); 60 is fine for back of the envelope calculations. Hit points are easier: if everyone has 14 con and doesn't roll for hit points, they'll have 17 (cleric), 23 (barbarian), and 20 (everyone else) hit points for a total of 100. AC is something like two people at 15 (studded with 16 dex or chain shirt with 14), two people at 16 (scale with 14), one at 18 (scale and shield with 14) to average at 16.

 You just helped me realize that every dX average damage is just the number /2 +.5

d10 average is 5.5. 

Idk how I never realized that before lol.

For an alternate way of doing encounter building, see https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/225712-easier-encounter-building

Using the second set of tables produces results that scale numbers more like the 2014 rules -- using 4x as many monsters means 1/8 the xp per monster rather than 1/4 -- which generally makes hordes of weenie monsters less scary and solo monsters more deadly.

Kobold Fight Club. Nuff said.

I stopped using XP a long time ago 😀

Quote from Furrybeardedmonk_198654 >>

I stopped using XP a long time ago 😀

 I don't use EXP either.  Still a good source of combat balance(potentially)