CR doesnt account for alot of things like having magic items. Also no way to know for sure what weird things players will do which will change how easy or difficult something is.
The problem comes from the metrics they use to determine CR. To put it bluntly, they suck eggs.
Didn't those metrics work reasonably well in 3.5e? And if so, why not now, since the game still works mostly the same in terms of the way AC, hit points, etc. (which are the primary determinants of CR) function.
I could be wrong... my interaction with 3/3.5 was NWN modding and such... but my recollection is that CR worked pretty well when I was making NWN modules. Though it's been 17 years so I could be remembering it wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's hard to calculate CR for wizards, and other mages. Normally they are humanoids, so they don't have many hit points, but they have really potent spells. Also, they don't always roll great for initiative, so the players can normally kill them before they have the chance to do any defensive spells. Spells are hard to account for when calculating CR, because spell slots are common with higher level spells, and it is just hard to take those into account.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Because the Action Economy was different. Almost everybody got multiple attacks as they leveled up in 3/3.5 so those metrics worked then. Now if you have 3 attacks with a +5 Mod you are way more dangerous than a single attack with a +10. All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
Levi,
If you count AoEs as 3&1/2 attacks then my Attacks/HP system works fairly well.
All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
If that's true (and I don't doubt you that it is) then why is it so hard for them to calculate CR in a meaningful way? And why is that ratio not in the DMG table? They include total damage but not attacks per round.
The metric they use for CR (damage over 3 rounds) doesn't work well when the damage profile is spiky and the critter has mismatched attack and defense. Also, high attack generally makes for extremely swingy battles.The reality is, a Mage is perfectly capable of doing the total expected damage from a CR 6 monster in a single spell, so it's fine that he can be taken down in a round (he probably won't go down before getting a spell off, unless unlucky or hit with a successful Hold Person or similar), and if he had warning ahead of time (for example, he ritually cast alarm) he could be horribly scary.
All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
If that's true (and I don't doubt you that it is) then why is it so hard for them to calculate CR in a meaningful way? And why is that ratio not in the DMG table? They include total damage but not attacks per round.
I think they didn’t quite fully understand their own action economy until after it was published. Either that or they thought that people would figure it out for themselves past CR 5 so it didn’t matter?
The metric they use for CR (damage over 3 rounds) doesn't work well when the damage profile is spiky and the critter has mismatched attack and defense. Also, high attack generally makes for extremely swingy battles.The reality is, a Mage is perfectly capable of doing the total expected damage from a CR 6 monster in a single spell, so it's fine that he can be taken down in a round (he probably won't go down before getting a spell off, unless unlucky or hit with a successful Hold Person or similar), and if he had warning ahead of time (for example, he ritually cast alarm) he could be horribly scary.
Absolutely! The problem is there is no distinction in the book anywhere between those monsters. They don’t tell us how they got to that “Average CR” unless find that chart, and even then their own monsters don’t follow it half the time.
Instead of listing everything by “Average CR” They should have included both “Offensive” and “Defensive” numbers as well. Would make things a lot clearer.
Because the Action Economy was different. Almost everybody got multiple attacks as they leveled up in 3/3.5 so those metrics worked then. Now if you have 3 attacks with a +5 Mod you are way more dangerous than a single attack with a +10. All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
Um... no, what matters is DPR * survival time. Average DPR is (num attacks) * (hit chance) * (average per hit). A single attack with a +10 bonus that does 30 damage is strictly better than three attacks with a +5 bonus that do 10 damage each, and has a good chance of being better than three attacks for +15 (the first is better against AC 17+, the second is better against AC 15-). There is a problem with balancing against status effects, and any monster can have vastly varying difficulty based on situational effects.
Because the Action Economy was different. Almost everybody got multiple attacks as they leveled up in 3/3.5 so those metrics worked then. Now if you have 3 attacks with a +5 Mod you are way more dangerous than a single attack with a +10. All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
Um... no, what matters is DPR * survival time. Average DPR is (num attacks) * (hit chance) * (average per hit). A single attack with a +10 bonus that does 30 damage is strictly better than three attacks with a +5 bonus that do 10 damage each, and has a good chance of being better than three attacks for +15 (the first is better against AC 17+, the second is better against AC 15-). There is a problem with balancing against status effects, and any monster can have vastly varying difficulty based on situational effects.
Yes, I should have specified in my example equivalent damages.
Yes, DPR*ERS (expected rounds of survival) is a more accurate metric.
I always refer back to the example of 8 goblins vs. 1 Ogre. Same base CR, almost exactly the same HP per side. Goblins win turn one every time. Fiddle with the numbers until you get equivalent “Adjusted CRs” and Gobbos still win. Because an ogre has 1 Attack, and the Gobbos have lots. Put 2 goblin bosses against that same Ogre. Same CR, HP are close, Adjuster CR is I think the same, totally different fight.
Or take a look at the Acolyte. Match them in CR against those Gobbs and see how that goes. Half of them can sit in Sanctuary casting Bless and Cure Wounds on the other half who are spamming Sacred Flame, and when the spell slots run out, they switch. Give them a 1CR meatshield of cultists, and give the Goblins a goblin boss. How’s that gonna shake out? Place your bets.
So, I have devised a medium encounter for two level 4 and two level 5 PCs which means I have 1500 EXP as a budget. But it feels a tad... unbalanced. Check this out:
Two CR 1/2 and eight CR 1/4 100 EXP cost into 250 for a total of 500 EXP for the two CR 1/2 cultists. 50 cost into 125 eight times for a total of 1000 for the CR 1/4 cultists.
This group should have a total of 388 HP (the minimal) which is ON PAR with a CR 20 creature!!
And they all have at least one attack per round to deal an average of 56 damage per round! And again, that's the minimum! They can drop players real fast! That's intense!
Am I doing something wrong? :(
Edit: an additional note: Xanathar's Guide to Everything suggests, using the "Multiple Monsters: 1st-5th level Table", that I could have two CR 2 monsters for my level 5 heroes and eight CR 1/4 for my level 4 adventurers in this one encounter... that's even stronger, I thought the maths were supposed to match! :'(
Xanathars and the DMG don't fully match..thats why they are alternate calculation methods. Regarding your question: The DMG says that when you use creatures of significantly lower level than your party, they don't really count for the purposes of calculating the encounter
4. Modify Total XP for Multiple Monsters. If the encounter includes more than one monster, apply a multiplier to the monsters’ total XP. The more monsters there are, the more attack rolls you’re making against the characters in a given round, and the more dangerous the encounter becomes. To correctly gauge an encounter’s difficulty, multiply the total XP of all the monsters in the encounter by the value given in the Encounter Multipliers table.
For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty.
When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.
The bolded is the part I'm referencing, and I tend to use it the same way in PC level vs Monster CR comparison as it does with Monster CR comparison. a CR 1/4 monster against a level 5 PC is probably too weak to cause meaningful damage to the PC (not saying it can't happen, but it would be rare) as its hit ratio is probably very low. So despite the total damage and hitpoints of the collective creatures being high, this is probably much less of a challenge than it seems to be. All that said, a lot depends on your party's makeup (healer/no healer, etc...), how much they've done in the day (is this the first fight or the last after they've been beaten up a bit), and the player's skill level (how well do they know their characters abilities).
I always refer back to the example of 8 goblins vs. 1 Ogre. Same base CR, almost exactly the same HP per side. Goblins win turn one every time.
8 goblins: xp 400, adjusted xp 1,000. 1 ogre: xp 450, adjusted xp 450. A nominally even fight is 4 or 5 vs 1.
The goblins have expected DPR 3.5, so it takes about 17 goblin attacks to drop the ogre.
The ogre has the problem of overdamage being wasted (hitting a 7 hp goblin for 13 is wasteful) and is expected to drop 2 goblins per 3 rounds.
4 goblins vs the ogre is thus 6 rounds for the ogre to drop the goblins, and in six rounds there are about 15 goblin attacks (because some will die and not attack). That's actually a fairly even fight.
The other factor that's being ignored is that the numbers exponent in the DMG is about 1.5 (the numbers multiplier is, to a first approximation, equal to the square root of the number of monsters), while it's known that the true exponent is 2 as long as (a) no area effects are involved, and (b) no combatants are unable to attack (look up Lanchester's Square Law if you really care). D&D probably uses a 1.5 exponent because both effects are rather common, but this means numbers generally win when neither effect is in play.
Thank you for proving my point. Any calculation that has the possibility of needing to know how to calculate the square root of a number is too much for the design philosophy of 5e. I can get close enough to all that just estimating, in part because of experience, and in part because of a familiarity with numbers. (Not as familiar as you I’ll admit, but I can run the basics in my head.) My point is, how it’s calculated takes someone with your level of maths to explain, and even I had to read it twice to follow it.
Either way, CR in 3e worked better than the one in 5e was that it better represented the actual maths for that action economy than it does for this one. At least I remember it that way too.
To point one thing out though, your example presumes that the Ogre and the Gobbs start within 30’ of each other. Starting at 80 ft., the Goblins could get two rounds with their Shortbows without moving before they charge in. Remember, they will most likely have an Initiative advantage on the Ogre, and if the Flanking rule is being used, then the goblins’ DPR goes up as well. So a lot depends on the level of tactics being employed by the DM vs by the Players.
See, CR is not by any means all inclusive of the factors.
Can you do me a favor and run the numbers for those Acolytes against the Gobbs? I’m interested.
Can you do me a favor and run the numbers for those Acolytes against the Gobbs? I’m interested.
That's messy because it turns out that the acolyte's spells don't do a lot; bless does nothing of value for an acolyte (it doesn't add to sacred flame in any way) and monsters don't generally get death saves, so there won't be many wounded acolytes to heal; mostly they'll be dead or full health. Probable tactics (to even out initiative, I'll use 8 goblins vs 9 acolytes)
Goblins (8): focus fire if they can. With 8 goblins and 75% hit chance, 6 hit; at 1d6+2 we can figure an average result of 2 dead and one wounded (there's a chance to roll down). After attacking, they attempt to hide (+6 vs 12, 75%). Two remain visible.
Acolytes (7): all cast [Tooltip Not Found]. On average 3 saves are failed, which kills one visible goblin and wounds the other.
Goblins (7): attempt to target wounded acolytes (5 of them have advantage, so probably hit 6 times). Figure two hit their choice of target, two hit a secondary target, one hits a tertiary target. Most likely two acolytes go down and one is wounded, but one down and three wounded is also plausible.
Acolytes (5): one self-heals, the other two cast sacred flame and sanctuary. One goblin dies.
Goblins (6): see the above. This time we'll assume one dead, two wounded.
Acolytes (4): two self-heal, the other two cast sacred flame and sanctuary. Probably no goblins die. All acolytes out of spells.
Goblins (6): another dead acolyte. The remaining three acolytes kill one more goblin before all dying.
Acolytes are really only decent when paired with another monster. Preferably one that has a way to shield them from missiles. 6 acolytes is 600 adjusted xp. Two acolytes and 6 guards is 625 xp.
So, I have devised a medium encounter for two level 4 and two level 5 PCs which means I have 1500 EXP as a budget. But it feels a tad... unbalanced. Check this out:
Two CR 1/2 and eight CR 1/4 100 EXP cost into 250 for a total of 500 EXP for the two CR 1/2 cultists. 50 cost into 125 eight times for a total of 1000 for the CR 1/4 cultists.
This group should have a total of 388 HP (the minimal) which is ON PAR with a CR 20 creature!!
And they all have at least one attack per round to deal an average of 56 damage per round! And again, that's the minimum! They can drop players real fast! That's intense!
Am I doing something wrong? :(
Edit: an additional note: Xanathar's Guide to Everything suggests, using the "Multiple Monsters: 1st-5th level Table", that I could have two CR 2 monsters for my level 5 heroes and eight CR 1/4 for my level 4 adventurers in this one encounter... that's even stronger, I thought the maths were supposed to match! :'(
Xanathars and the DMG don't fully match..thats why they are alternate calculation methods. Regarding your question: The DMG says that when you use creatures of significantly lower level than your party, they don't really count for the purposes of calculating the encounter
4. Modify Total XP for Multiple Monsters. If the encounter includes more than one monster, apply a multiplier to the monsters’ total XP. The more monsters there are, the more attack rolls you’re making against the characters in a given round, and the more dangerous the encounter becomes. To correctly gauge an encounter’s difficulty, multiply the total XP of all the monsters in the encounter by the value given in the Encounter Multipliers table.
For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty.
When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.
The bolded is the part I'm referencing, and I tend to use it the same way in PC level vs Monster CR comparison as it does with Monster CR comparison. a CR 1/4 monster against a level 5 PC is probably too weak to cause meaningful damage to the PC (not saying it can't happen, but it would be rare) as its hit ratio is probably very low. So despite the total damage and hitpoints of the collective creatures being high, this is probably much less of a challenge than it seems to be. All that said, a lot depends on your party's makeup (healer/no healer, etc...), how much they've done in the day (is this the first fight or the last after they've been beaten up a bit), and the player's skill level (how well do they know their characters abilities).
But there are 10 monsters vs. 4 player characters: the monsters outnumber the PCs and will attack with advantage, most of the time, giving them an indirect +4 to every attack. The fact that their numbers are high makes it relevant that they are in this fight. As I mentionned earlier, too, the cultists, in total, have a high average damage while the players don't, compared to their total HP.
So, I have devised a medium encounter for two level 4 and two level 5 PCs which means I have 1500 EXP as a budget. But it feels a tad... unbalanced. Check this out:
Two CR 1/2 and eight CR 1/4 100 EXP cost into 250 for a total of 500 EXP for the two CR 1/2 cultists. 50 cost into 125 eight times for a total of 1000 for the CR 1/4 cultists.
This group should have a total of 388 HP (the minimal) which is ON PAR with a CR 20 creature!!
And they all have at least one attack per round to deal an average of 56 damage per round! And again, that's the minimum! They can drop players real fast! That's intense!
Am I doing something wrong? :(
Edit: an additional note: Xanathar's Guide to Everything suggests, using the "Multiple Monsters: 1st-5th level Table", that I could have two CR 2 monsters for my level 5 heroes and eight CR 1/4 for my level 4 adventurers in this one encounter... that's even stronger, I thought the maths were supposed to match! :'(
Xanathars and the DMG don't fully match..thats why they are alternate calculation methods. Regarding your question: The DMG says that when you use creatures of significantly lower level than your party, they don't really count for the purposes of calculating the encounter
4. Modify Total XP for Multiple Monsters. If the encounter includes more than one monster, apply a multiplier to the monsters’ total XP. The more monsters there are, the more attack rolls you’re making against the characters in a given round, and the more dangerous the encounter becomes. To correctly gauge an encounter’s difficulty, multiply the total XP of all the monsters in the encounter by the value given in the Encounter Multipliers table.
For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty.
When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.
The bolded is the part I'm referencing, and I tend to use it the same way in PC level vs Monster CR comparison as it does with Monster CR comparison. a CR 1/4 monster against a level 5 PC is probably too weak to cause meaningful damage to the PC (not saying it can't happen, but it would be rare) as its hit ratio is probably very low. So despite the total damage and hitpoints of the collective creatures being high, this is probably much less of a challenge than it seems to be. All that said, a lot depends on your party's makeup (healer/no healer, etc...), how much they've done in the day (is this the first fight or the last after they've been beaten up a bit), and the player's skill level (how well do they know their characters abilities).
But there are 10 monsters vs. 4 player characters: the monsters outnumber the PCs and will attack with advantage, most of the time, giving them an indirect +4 to every attack. The fact that their numbers are high makes it relevant that they are in this fight. As I mentionned earlier, too, the cultists, in total, have a high average damage while the players don't, compared to their total HP.
What actual creatures are you using? Advantage on rolls Is not the default based solely on outnumbering an enemy
The problem comes from the metrics they use to determine CR. To put it bluntly, they suck eggs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
CR doesnt account for alot of things like having magic items. Also no way to know for sure what weird things players will do which will change how easy or difficult something is.
Didn't those metrics work reasonably well in 3.5e? And if so, why not now, since the game still works mostly the same in terms of the way AC, hit points, etc. (which are the primary determinants of CR) function.
I could be wrong... my interaction with 3/3.5 was NWN modding and such... but my recollection is that CR worked pretty well when I was making NWN modules. Though it's been 17 years so I could be remembering it wrong.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's hard to calculate CR for wizards, and other mages. Normally they are humanoids, so they don't have many hit points, but they have really potent spells. Also, they don't always roll great for initiative, so the players can normally kill them before they have the chance to do any defensive spells. Spells are hard to account for when calculating CR, because spell slots are common with higher level spells, and it is just hard to take those into account.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
BioWiz,
Because the Action Economy was different. Almost everybody got multiple attacks as they leveled up in 3/3.5 so those metrics worked then. Now if you have 3 attacks with a +5 Mod you are way more dangerous than a single attack with a +10. All that really matters now is how many actions/turn compared to how many turns they are likely to survive, or “Attacks/HP.”
Levi,
If you count AoEs as 3&1/2 attacks then my Attacks/HP system works fairly well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If that's true (and I don't doubt you that it is) then why is it so hard for them to calculate CR in a meaningful way? And why is that ratio not in the DMG table? They include total damage but not attacks per round.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The metric they use for CR (damage over 3 rounds) doesn't work well when the damage profile is spiky and the critter has mismatched attack and defense. Also, high attack generally makes for extremely swingy battles.The reality is, a Mage is perfectly capable of doing the total expected damage from a CR 6 monster in a single spell, so it's fine that he can be taken down in a round (he probably won't go down before getting a spell off, unless unlucky or hit with a successful Hold Person or similar), and if he had warning ahead of time (for example, he ritually cast alarm) he could be horribly scary.
I think they didn’t quite fully understand their own action economy until after it was published. Either that or they thought that people would figure it out for themselves past CR 5 so it didn’t matter?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Absolutely! The problem is there is no distinction in the book anywhere between those monsters. They don’t tell us how they got to that “Average CR” unless find that chart, and even then their own monsters don’t follow it half the time.
Instead of listing everything by “Average CR” They should have included both “Offensive” and “Defensive” numbers as well. Would make things a lot clearer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Um... no, what matters is DPR * survival time. Average DPR is (num attacks) * (hit chance) * (average per hit). A single attack with a +10 bonus that does 30 damage is strictly better than three attacks with a +5 bonus that do 10 damage each, and has a good chance of being better than three attacks for +15 (the first is better against AC 17+, the second is better against AC 15-). There is a problem with balancing against status effects, and any monster can have vastly varying difficulty based on situational effects.
Yes, I should have specified in my example equivalent damages.
Yes, DPR*ERS (expected rounds of survival) is a more accurate metric.
I always refer back to the example of 8 goblins vs. 1 Ogre. Same base CR, almost exactly the same HP per side. Goblins win turn one every time. Fiddle with the numbers until you get equivalent “Adjusted CRs” and Gobbos still win. Because an ogre has 1 Attack, and the Gobbos have lots. Put 2 goblin bosses against that same Ogre. Same CR, HP are close, Adjuster CR is I think the same, totally different fight.
Or take a look at the Acolyte. Match them in CR against those Gobbs and see how that goes. Half of them can sit in Sanctuary casting Bless and Cure Wounds on the other half who are spamming Sacred Flame, and when the spell slots run out, they switch. Give them a 1CR meatshield of cultists, and give the Goblins a goblin boss. How’s that gonna shake out? Place your bets.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Xanathars and the DMG don't fully match..thats why they are alternate calculation methods. Regarding your question: The DMG says that when you use creatures of significantly lower level than your party, they don't really count for the purposes of calculating the encounter
4. Modify Total XP for Multiple Monsters. If the encounter includes more than one monster, apply a multiplier to the monsters’ total XP. The more monsters there are, the more attack rolls you’re making against the characters in a given round, and the more dangerous the encounter becomes. To correctly gauge an encounter’s difficulty, multiply the total XP of all the monsters in the encounter by the value given in the Encounter Multipliers table.
For example, if an encounter includes four monsters worth a total of 500 XP, you would multiply the total XP of the monsters by 2, for an adjusted value of 1,000 XP. This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value’s only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter’s difficulty.
When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.
The bolded is the part I'm referencing, and I tend to use it the same way in PC level vs Monster CR comparison as it does with Monster CR comparison. a CR 1/4 monster against a level 5 PC is probably too weak to cause meaningful damage to the PC (not saying it can't happen, but it would be rare) as its hit ratio is probably very low. So despite the total damage and hitpoints of the collective creatures being high, this is probably much less of a challenge than it seems to be. All that said, a lot depends on your party's makeup (healer/no healer, etc...), how much they've done in the day (is this the first fight or the last after they've been beaten up a bit), and the player's skill level (how well do they know their characters abilities).
8 goblins: xp 400, adjusted xp 1,000. 1 ogre: xp 450, adjusted xp 450. A nominally even fight is 4 or 5 vs 1.
The goblins have expected DPR 3.5, so it takes about 17 goblin attacks to drop the ogre.
The ogre has the problem of overdamage being wasted (hitting a 7 hp goblin for 13 is wasteful) and is expected to drop 2 goblins per 3 rounds.
4 goblins vs the ogre is thus 6 rounds for the ogre to drop the goblins, and in six rounds there are about 15 goblin attacks (because some will die and not attack). That's actually a fairly even fight.
The other factor that's being ignored is that the numbers exponent in the DMG is about 1.5 (the numbers multiplier is, to a first approximation, equal to the square root of the number of monsters), while it's known that the true exponent is 2 as long as (a) no area effects are involved, and (b) no combatants are unable to attack (look up Lanchester's Square Law if you really care). D&D probably uses a 1.5 exponent because both effects are rather common, but this means numbers generally win when neither effect is in play.
Thank you for proving my point. Any calculation that has the possibility of needing to know how to calculate the square root of a number is too much for the design philosophy of 5e. I can get close enough to all that just estimating, in part because of experience, and in part because of a familiarity with numbers. (Not as familiar as you I’ll admit, but I can run the basics in my head.) My point is, how it’s calculated takes someone with your level of maths to explain, and even I had to read it twice to follow it.
Either way, CR in 3e worked better than the one in 5e was that it better represented the actual maths for that action economy than it does for this one. At least I remember it that way too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To point one thing out though, your example presumes that the Ogre and the Gobbs start within 30’ of each other. Starting at 80 ft., the Goblins could get two rounds with their Shortbows without moving before they charge in. Remember, they will most likely have an Initiative advantage on the Ogre, and if the Flanking rule is being used, then the goblins’ DPR goes up as well. So a lot depends on the level of tactics being employed by the DM vs by the Players.
See, CR is not by any means all inclusive of the factors.
Can you do me a favor and run the numbers for those Acolytes against the Gobbs? I’m interested.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's messy because it turns out that the acolyte's spells don't do a lot; bless does nothing of value for an acolyte (it doesn't add to sacred flame in any way) and monsters don't generally get death saves, so there won't be many wounded acolytes to heal; mostly they'll be dead or full health. Probable tactics (to even out initiative, I'll use 8 goblins vs 9 acolytes)
Goblins (8): focus fire if they can. With 8 goblins and 75% hit chance, 6 hit; at 1d6+2 we can figure an average result of 2 dead and one wounded (there's a chance to roll down). After attacking, they attempt to hide (+6 vs 12, 75%). Two remain visible.
Acolytes (7): all cast [Tooltip Not Found]. On average 3 saves are failed, which kills one visible goblin and wounds the other.
Goblins (7): attempt to target wounded acolytes (5 of them have advantage, so probably hit 6 times). Figure two hit their choice of target, two hit a secondary target, one hits a tertiary target. Most likely two acolytes go down and one is wounded, but one down and three wounded is also plausible.
Acolytes (5): one self-heals, the other two cast sacred flame and sanctuary. One goblin dies.
Goblins (6): see the above. This time we'll assume one dead, two wounded.
Acolytes (4): two self-heal, the other two cast sacred flame and sanctuary. Probably no goblins die. All acolytes out of spells.
Goblins (6): another dead acolyte. The remaining three acolytes kill one more goblin before all dying.
Acolytes are really only decent when paired with another monster. Preferably one that has a way to shield them from missiles. 6 acolytes is 600 adjusted xp. Two acolytes and 6 guards is 625 xp.
I meant with the Cultists and the Goblin Boss as well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But there are 10 monsters vs. 4 player characters: the monsters outnumber the PCs and will attack with advantage, most of the time, giving them an indirect +4 to every attack. The fact that their numbers are high makes it relevant that they are in this fight. As I mentionned earlier, too, the cultists, in total, have a high average damage while the players don't, compared to their total HP.
What actual creatures are you using? Advantage on rolls Is not the default based solely on outnumbering an enemy
I believe the are referring to the expected Flanking.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting