"Challenge Rating (CR) summarizes the threat a monster poses to a group of four player characters. Compare a monster's CR to the characters' level. If the CR is higher, the monster is likely a danger. If the CR is lower, the monster likely poses little threat. But circumstances and the number of player characters can significantly alter how threatening a monster is in actual play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance to the DM on using CR while planning potential combat encounters."
But... I can't find much in the DMG'24 that gives any additional info on "using CR while planning encounters". In the DMG'24, under "Plan Encounters"/"Combat Encounters" it walks through picking monsters based on your XP Budget. It barely mentions CR:
"If your combat encounter includes a creature whose CR is higher than the party's level, be aware that such a creature might deal enough damage with a single action to take out one or more characters."(DMG'24 p116) - this is pretty much just a rehash of the above from the PHB'24.
"Creatures that have a CR of 0 should be used sparingly." (DMG'24 p115) - um, ok.
-that's about it.
Where is the guidance to the DM in the DMG'24 as promised in the PHB'24??
If DMs are creating encounters based on XP, what's the point of the CR?
What's the point of having 17 monsters with CR>20 and as high as 30 if they can "deal enough damage with a single action to take out one or more characters"? - ok,ok I get that level 20 characters in a large group might want this challenge... but there's no "guidance" on how many players are needed to take on a CR30 monster, for example.
The most obvious function of CR is it's a much more straightforward indicator when you're perusing stat blocks than XP is. Assuming all monsters of the same CR give the same XP they're technically redundant, but the smaller numbers are easier to quickly parse at a glance.
As for why there's monsters with a CR above 20, what the quote you used doesn't mention is that it's operating on the assumption that the 4 characters are running off of just their class features. Whereas in most cases by the time the party gets into tier 4 they'll be kitted out with a nice array of magic items. There's a large difference between fighting a Tarrasque with basic gear and fighting one with an array of Rare or higher magic items like a Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi, Armor of Invulnerability, Oathbow, etc. Plus ultimately the CRs are lowballed a bit so it doesn't require optimized play to get consistent wins against them.
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
The most obvious function of CR is it's a much more straightforward indicator when you're perusing stat blocks than XP is. Assuming all monsters of the same CR give the same XP they're technically redundant, but the smaller numbers are easier to quickly parse at a glance.
As for why there's monsters with a CR above 20, what the quote you used doesn't mention is that it's operating on the assumption that the 4 characters are running off of just their class features. Whereas in most cases by the time the party gets into tier 4 they'll be kitted out with a nice array of magic items. There's a large difference between fighting a Tarrasque with basic gear and fighting one with an array of Rare or higher magic items like a Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi, Armor of Invulnerability, Oathbow, etc. Plus ultimately the CRs are lowballed a bit so it doesn't require optimized play to get consistent wins against them.
Yes, exactly my point. There's no CR guidance (as promised in the PHB'24) for a DM to create an encounter that takes into account the number of PCs and their kit.
An regarding your statement "the CRs are lowballed" I thought I've heard that that was an issue for 2014 rules that had been specifically addressed by the new 2024 rules. But heck if I know how since there's no guidance given.
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
Yes, but there's no guidance for a DM to know how many CR5 creatures might be appropriate for a party of 6 PCs that range from level 4-level 6, for example.
One of the examples they give under the "Spend your XP Budget" (DMG'24 p115) is:
"A high-difficulty encounter for six level 15 characters has an XP budget of 7,800 x 6, for a total of 46,800 XP. With that you could build this encounter: 2 Adult Red Dragons (18,000 XP each) and 2 Fire Giants (5,000 XP each), for 46,000 XP total."
But if you look at the CR of a Red Dragon (2xCR 17!!) and Fire Giants (2xCR 9), how do those CRs square with a party at level 15? It looks like the XP budget is the only real way to design encounters and the CR is just a stat to be ignored unless you are just doing a vanilla 4v1? There's no correlation or explanation given (as promised in the PHB'24). Given the bare bones CR rules a DM would be hard pressed to even put a single Red Dragon again a level 15 party, let alone 2 (plus 2 additional enemies)!
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
Yes, but there's no guidance for a DM to know how many CR5 creatures might be appropriate for a party of 6 PCs that range from level 4-level 6, for example.
One of the examples they give under the "Spend your XP Budget" (DMG'24 p115) is:
"A high-difficulty encounter for six level 15 characters has an XP budget of 7,800 x 6, for a total of 46,800 XP. With that you could build this encounter: 2 Adult Red Dragons (18,000 XP each) and 2 Fire Giants (5,000 XP each), for 46,000 XP total."
But if you look at the CR of a Red Dragon (2xCR 17!!) and Fire Giants (2xCR 9), how do those CRs square with a party at level 15? It looks like the XP budget is the only real way to design encounters and the CR is just a stat to be ignored unless you are just doing a vanilla 4v1? There's no correlation or explanation given (as promised in the PHB'24). Given the bare bones CR rules a DM would be hard pressed to even put a single Red Dragon again a level 15 party, let alone 2 (plus 2 additional enemies)!
No, CR is not some precise and reliable instrument for fine-tuning encounters. It never has been. It's there because even though an Abominable Yeti is technically somewhere between a Medium and High difficulty encounter for a party of six 5th level characters- 5000 XP and the Medium XP budget for this group would be 4500, its damage output is enough to down a PC each round, thus making it a less than ideal option. Ergo it has a CR of 9, indicating that the encounter could be swingy or just not particularly fun for the people who got downed in the first turn or two without getting to do much if anything.
To address your example, CR 17 against a level 15 party is more viable because the disparity of damage output to HP at that point is far less pronounced than it would be in early tiers. In absolute values a point or two of CR difference is not necessarily huge, but relatively speaking a monster with a CR of about twice the party's average level has enough damage output that there's a lot more room for RNG variance to swing the fight against the party, even if theoretically the encounter is within their XP budget.
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
Yes, but there's no guidance for a DM to know how many CR5 creatures might be appropriate for a party of 6 PCs that range from level 4-level 6, for example.
One of the examples they give under the "Spend your XP Budget" (DMG'24 p115) is:
"A high-difficulty encounter for six level 15 characters has an XP budget of 7,800 x 6, for a total of 46,800 XP. With that you could build this encounter: 2 Adult Red Dragons (18,000 XP each) and 2 Fire Giants (5,000 XP each), for 46,000 XP total."
But if you look at the CR of a Red Dragon (2xCR 17!!) and Fire Giants (2xCR 9), how do those CRs square with a party at level 15? It looks like the XP budget is the only real way to design encounters and the CR is just a stat to be ignored unless you are just doing a vanilla 4v1? There's no correlation or explanation given (as promised in the PHB'24). Given the bare bones CR rules a DM would be hard pressed to even put a single Red Dragon again a level 15 party, let alone 2 (plus 2 additional enemies)!
No, CR is not some precise and reliable instrument for fine-tuning encounters. It never has been. It's there because even though an Abominable Yeti is technically somewhere between a Medium and High difficulty encounter for a party of six 5th level characters- 5000 XP and the Medium XP budget for this group would be 4500, its damage output is enough to down a PC each round, thus making it a less than ideal option. Ergo it has a CR of 9, indicating that the encounter could be swingy or just not particularly fun for the people who got downed in the first turn or two without getting to do much if anything.
To address your example, CR 17 against a level 15 party is more viable because the disparity of damage output to HP at that point is far less pronounced than it would be in early tiers. In absolute values a point or two of CR difference is not necessarily huge, but relatively speaking a monster with a CR of about twice the party's average level has enough damage output that there's a lot more room for RNG variance to swing the fight against the party, even if theoretically the encounter is within their XP budget.
So basically the DM should use the XP Budget to design encounters and just use the CR as a quick check that the monsters aren't too powerful.
The 2014 DMG had more complex rules regarding CR, but it looks like they abandoned those and forget to update the PHB'24 where it says to look in the DMG for guidance.
From what I have read, CR was always inconsistent and hard to judge, which is why the new MM and DMG have moved away from using that as the main source: it never worked properly to begin with.
From what I have read, CR was always inconsistent and hard to judge, which is why the new MM and DMG have moved away from using that as the main source: it never worked properly to begin with.
Part of the complaints for 5e have always just been people pointing out how an equal CR monster can often be a trivial challenge for a party, ignoring both that the assumption this will be one of several such challenges per LR and that encounters generally don't happen in a white room where the monster isn't positioned to take advantage of its features.
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
Yes, but there's no guidance for a DM to know how many CR5 creatures might be appropriate for a party of 6 PCs that range from level 4-level 6, for example.
One of the examples they give under the "Spend your XP Budget" (DMG'24 p115) is:
"A high-difficulty encounter for six level 15 characters has an XP budget of 7,800 x 6, for a total of 46,800 XP. With that you could build this encounter: 2 Adult Red Dragons (18,000 XP each) and 2 Fire Giants (5,000 XP each), for 46,000 XP total."
But if you look at the CR of a Red Dragon (2xCR 17!!) and Fire Giants (2xCR 9), how do those CRs square with a party at level 15? It looks like the XP budget is the only real way to design encounters and the CR is just a stat to be ignored unless you are just doing a vanilla 4v1? There's no correlation or explanation given (as promised in the PHB'24). Given the bare bones CR rules a DM would be hard pressed to even put a single Red Dragon again a level 15 party, let alone 2 (plus 2 additional enemies)!
No, CR is not some precise and reliable instrument for fine-tuning encounters. It never has been. It's there because even though an Abominable Yeti is technically somewhere between a Medium and High difficulty encounter for a party of six 5th level characters- 5000 XP and the Medium XP budget for this group would be 4500, its damage output is enough to down a PC each round, thus making it a less than ideal option. Ergo it has a CR of 9, indicating that the encounter could be swingy or just not particularly fun for the people who got downed in the first turn or two without getting to do much if anything.
To address your example, CR 17 against a level 15 party is more viable because the disparity of damage output to HP at that point is far less pronounced than it would be in early tiers. In absolute values a point or two of CR difference is not necessarily huge, but relatively speaking a monster with a CR of about twice the party's average level has enough damage output that there's a lot more room for RNG variance to swing the fight against the party, even if theoretically the encounter is within their XP budget.
So basically the DM should use the XP Budget to design encounters and just use the CR as a quick check that the monsters aren't too powerful.
The 2014 DMG had more complex rules regarding CR, but it looks like they abandoned those and forget to update the PHB'24 where it says to look in the DMG for guidance.
Just like players, a DM needs to gain experience to better judge if the CR of the monster(s) is applicable and how to +/- that combat while in the middle of combat.
Not just using the CR as being to powerful but being too underpowered as well. The DM needs to look at several variables that make up the Player party. and then determine how if at all to use that monster. Depending on the party, 2 different monsters with the exact same CR (or XP Budget or whatever) can result in different outcomes.
An regarding your statement "the CRs are lowballed" I thought I've heard that that was an issue for 2014 rules that had been specifically addressed by the new 2024 rules. But heck if I know how since there's no guidance given.
Yes and no. 2024 tried to rebalance CRs (mainly in tier 3&4 play) but the CRs still are based on basic single-classed characters without any magic items and without using optimal feats. So if you are playing with HB, or lots of magic items, or with optimized MC characters the CRs will still feel low-balled. Because CRs & combat difficulty is designed for new players and new DMs who just sat down at a table to play a fun game. They are not designed for arm-chair strategists who have spent 3 months perfectly optimizing their character build and party composition.
I've been making encounters for 5e for over 10 years now and I can guarantee monster CR is the least useful part of the statblock for balancing encounters. True in 2014, stayed true in 2024.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
PHB'24 states:
"Challenge Rating (CR) summarizes the threat a monster poses to a group of four player characters. Compare a monster's CR to the characters' level. If the CR is higher, the monster is likely a danger. If the CR is lower, the monster likely poses little threat. But circumstances and the number of player characters can significantly alter how threatening a monster is in actual play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance to the DM on using CR while planning potential combat encounters."
But... I can't find much in the DMG'24 that gives any additional info on "using CR while planning encounters". In the DMG'24, under "Plan Encounters"/"Combat Encounters" it walks through picking monsters based on your XP Budget. It barely mentions CR:
"If your combat encounter includes a creature whose CR is higher than the party's level, be aware that such a creature might deal enough damage with a single action to take out one or more characters." (DMG'24 p116) - this is pretty much just a rehash of the above from the PHB'24.
"Creatures that have a CR of 0 should be used sparingly." (DMG'24 p115) - um, ok.
-that's about it.
The most obvious function of CR is it's a much more straightforward indicator when you're perusing stat blocks than XP is. Assuming all monsters of the same CR give the same XP they're technically redundant, but the smaller numbers are easier to quickly parse at a glance.
As for why there's monsters with a CR above 20, what the quote you used doesn't mention is that it's operating on the assumption that the 4 characters are running off of just their class features. Whereas in most cases by the time the party gets into tier 4 they'll be kitted out with a nice array of magic items. There's a large difference between fighting a Tarrasque with basic gear and fighting one with an array of Rare or higher magic items like a Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi, Armor of Invulnerability, Oathbow, etc. Plus ultimately the CRs are lowballed a bit so it doesn't require optimized play to get consistent wins against them.
CR is essentially just a quick way to categorize the enemies. One quick look at the CR will give you a rough idea of how strong a monster is. Basically, think of it as "Monster Strength". If your party is level 5, that CR21 Lich is obviously going to trounce them, but they might be able to handle that CR8 Frost Giant. Really, it's just an easy to examine number to know if the monster's strength is anywhere near what is appropriate.
Yes, exactly my point. There's no CR guidance (as promised in the PHB'24) for a DM to create an encounter that takes into account the number of PCs and their kit.
An regarding your statement "the CRs are lowballed" I thought I've heard that that was an issue for 2014 rules that had been specifically addressed by the new 2024 rules. But heck if I know how since there's no guidance given.
Yes, but there's no guidance for a DM to know how many CR5 creatures might be appropriate for a party of 6 PCs that range from level 4-level 6, for example.
One of the examples they give under the "Spend your XP Budget" (DMG'24 p115) is:
"A high-difficulty encounter for six level 15 characters has an XP budget of 7,800 x 6, for a total of 46,800 XP. With that you could build this encounter:
2 Adult Red Dragons (18,000 XP each) and 2 Fire Giants (5,000 XP each), for 46,000 XP total."
But if you look at the CR of a Red Dragon (2xCR 17!!) and Fire Giants (2xCR 9), how do those CRs square with a party at level 15? It looks like the XP budget is the only real way to design encounters and the CR is just a stat to be ignored unless you are just doing a vanilla 4v1? There's no correlation or explanation given (as promised in the PHB'24). Given the bare bones CR rules a DM would be hard pressed to even put a single Red Dragon again a level 15 party, let alone 2 (plus 2 additional enemies)!
No, CR is not some precise and reliable instrument for fine-tuning encounters. It never has been. It's there because even though an Abominable Yeti is technically somewhere between a Medium and High difficulty encounter for a party of six 5th level characters- 5000 XP and the Medium XP budget for this group would be 4500, its damage output is enough to down a PC each round, thus making it a less than ideal option. Ergo it has a CR of 9, indicating that the encounter could be swingy or just not particularly fun for the people who got downed in the first turn or two without getting to do much if anything.
To address your example, CR 17 against a level 15 party is more viable because the disparity of damage output to HP at that point is far less pronounced than it would be in early tiers. In absolute values a point or two of CR difference is not necessarily huge, but relatively speaking a monster with a CR of about twice the party's average level has enough damage output that there's a lot more room for RNG variance to swing the fight against the party, even if theoretically the encounter is within their XP budget.
(I'm just here to say that I prefer the 2024 DMG's suggestion for planning encounters over the 2014 DMG's guidance)
(and now, Misty Step!)
So basically the DM should use the XP Budget to design encounters and just use the CR as a quick check that the monsters aren't too powerful.
The 2014 DMG had more complex rules regarding CR, but it looks like they abandoned those and forget to update the PHB'24 where it says to look in the DMG for guidance.
From what I have read, CR was always inconsistent and hard to judge, which is why the new MM and DMG have moved away from using that as the main source: it never worked properly to begin with.
Hold on. The XP-based guidance is also CR-based guidance. Specifically: XP is tied intrinsically to CR.
Part of the complaints for 5e have always just been people pointing out how an equal CR monster can often be a trivial challenge for a party, ignoring both that the assumption this will be one of several such challenges per LR and that encounters generally don't happen in a white room where the monster isn't positioned to take advantage of its features.
Just like players, a DM needs to gain experience to better judge if the CR of the monster(s) is applicable and how to +/- that combat while in the middle of combat.
Not just using the CR as being to powerful but being too underpowered as well. The DM needs to look at several variables that make up the Player party. and then determine how if at all to use that monster. Depending on the party, 2 different monsters with the exact same CR (or XP Budget or whatever) can result in different outcomes.
Yes and no. 2024 tried to rebalance CRs (mainly in tier 3&4 play) but the CRs still are based on basic single-classed characters without any magic items and without using optimal feats. So if you are playing with HB, or lots of magic items, or with optimized MC characters the CRs will still feel low-balled. Because CRs & combat difficulty is designed for new players and new DMs who just sat down at a table to play a fun game. They are not designed for arm-chair strategists who have spent 3 months perfectly optimizing their character build and party composition.
I've been making encounters for 5e for over 10 years now and I can guarantee monster CR is the least useful part of the statblock for balancing encounters. True in 2014, stayed true in 2024.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.