An exercise to the reader.

[Basket Burner]

This is a simple thought experiment.

Here's how it works.

I post the full attack stats of a melee creature, without context.

You guess the level or CR of the creature.

The objective of this experiment will be revealed later.

First test.

+24/2d6+13, +24/1d6+11, +24/1d6+11, +24/1d8+15, +22/1d6+7, +22/1d6+7.

[Kol Korran]

around CR 11-12? large dragon? (i cheated s bit, using the SRD. though some of the figures are off)

my initial guess wass CR 14ish though.

[herrhauptmann]

Is it a dragon of large size?
Bite, 2 claws, 2 wing buffets, and tail slap.

If it is, I'm not going to work through ALL the dragons in 3.5 trying to find which large sized dragon has those stats, and since different dragons have different CRs at the same size...

bah, ninjas

[ClothedInVelvet]

I'll go higher. CR 14?


ninja'd on an edit

[Telonius]

Number and diversity of attacks does kind of shout "Dragon!" to me. I'd guess CR 13-14.

[Flickerdart]

The extra -2 on the last two attacks doesn't fit with natural attacks, which would all be made at the same attack bonus. Unless someone took a bunch of Greater Weapon Focuses I guess.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Multiattack, if the first four somehow counted as primary and the last two as secondary?

[Basket Burner]

The goal is to correctly guess level or CR, not type and source.

No one is even close yet. I'll let it run a bit longer before shifting to the second example.

[DeAnno]

Maybe the first four are manufactured weapons and it has four arms? That would explain the different attack bonus on the last two, and all the different damage expressions. What troubles me more is all the different static mods added to damage. 13/11/11/15/7/7???

I'd say CR 10.

[Telonius]

The goal is to correctly guess level or CR, not type and source.

No one is even close yet. I'll let it run a bit longer before shifting to the second example.

Correctly guessing the CR requires correctly guessing the monster. Just attack bonus and damage tells you almost nothing about how dangerous a given creature is.

[Flickerdart]

I'm thinking enchanted weapons might play into it. The creature has a Strength modifier of +8. The +15 is a +1.5 STR attack with a +3 enhancement bonus, the 11s are a +STR attack with the same bonus, and the last attacks are +1/2 STR with the +3 bonus. The first attack doesn't fit, but we can chalk that up to Weapon Specialization or something.

[Basket Burner]

Correctly guessing the CR requires correctly guessing the monster. Just attack bonus and damage tells you almost nothing about how dangerous a given creature is.


I post the full attack stats of a melee creature, without context.

For melee creatures, to hit and damage is all you need to know to gauge their threat levels. In this case, correctly guessing the monster would cause you to wrongly assess its threat level.

[Kol Korran]

For melee creatures, to hit and damage is all you need to know to gauge their threat levels. In this case, correctly guessing the monster would cause you to wrongly assess its threat level.

first of all, no one said it was a purely melee monster. also, melee monster may have additional abilities that make them dangerous- trample, rake, improved grab, rend, swallow whole, defenses (CR, resistances, high NA or dex and/ or dodge bonuses) modes of movement (flight, burrowing, , web, teleportation, even jumping hing enough).

hell, even type of monster affects their CR

attacks on their own do not a CR make.

[Telonius]

For melee creatures, to hit and damage is all you need to know to gauge their threat levels. In this case, correctly guessing the monster would cause you to wrongly assess its threat level.

So a human with +15 to hit, and dex of 20... CR 30. The human is a level-30 Wizard and has acquired several other attacks through magical means. While living on his private demi-plane, he finds it amusing to conjure up low-level fighters to hunt with his weapon-finessed dagger.

[Basket Burner]

So a human with +15 to hit, and dex of 20... CR 30. The human is a level-30 Wizard and has acquired several other attacks through magical means. While living on his private demi-plane, he finds it amusing to conjure up low-level fighters to hunt with his weapon-finessed dagger.

A level 30 Wizard is obviously not a melee creature. Not to mention such a character would have +20 or so.


first of all, no one said it was a purely melee monster. also, melee monster may have additional abilities that make them dangerous- trample, rake, improved grab, rend, swallow whole, defenses (CR, resistances, high NA or dex and/ or dodge bonuses) modes of movement (flight, burrowing, , web, teleportation, even jumping hing enough).

When someone says "a melee creature", it can generally be assumed that their primary or most effective tactic is to get into range and then hit things.

Trample replaces attacks and is almost certainly inferior to them.
Rake would be listed.
Rend would be listed.
Things with Improved Grab are almost always less threatening than the same things that do not use Improved Grab.
Same deal for Swallow Whole.
No enemy is going to get enough AC and saves to make a difference without massive buffing, and in any case threats are established by offense, not defense.
Movement modes available don't matter when discussing what happens when the enemy gets in someone's face, or someone gets into their face.


hell, even type of monster affects their CR

attacks on their own do not a CR make.

Nope. Focus on the topic here.

[Telonius]

hell, even type of monster affects their CR

attacks on their own do not a CR make.



Nope. Focus on the topic here.

Yes, it does affect the CR (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#addingHitDice). If this topic actually has a point (other than "let's pull a random number out of a hat, since neither CR nor monster type can be derived from two factors among all the things that comprise a given monster") I'd love to see it.

[jindra34]

Greatsword, 2 claws (guess), A something, and 2 of another natural attack. Str modifier of +5 (guessing). BAB of 19ish. CR estimate 8. Secondary guess is 17, and a pure fighter.
And going by MM build rules for melee this would be CR 14 (24-2=22 22*2/3=14ish).

[Basket Burner]

I have no idea what MM build rules he is referring to, but jindra gave the correct answer, for the wrong reasons. However since the point of this was to determine what and not why giving the correct number (8) is good enough to be exactly right.

This topic does have a point, but the experiment is not concluded yet so I will not be revealing it until then.

Take 2.

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.

[Istari]

I'm going to guess CR 6

[jindra34]

My reasoning was based on the (1) fact that it was a thought experiment, and (2) therefore what was the least CR granting way of getting 19ish BAB.
The rules are for making a new monster at the back of the MM. And those rules were not factored into my guess.

Editing a just for the fun of it guess: CR 12

[herrhauptmann]

I have no idea what MM build rules he is referring to, but jindra gave the correct answer, for the wrong reasons. However since the point of this was to determine what and not why giving the correct number (8) is good enough to be exactly right.

This topic does have a point, but the experiment is not concluded yet so I will not be revealing it until then.

Take 2.

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.

So what was the first creature?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a creature, or monster with class levels that has a full attack of greatsword +2claws+2 other natural attacks.

[jindra34]

So what was the first creature?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a creature, or monster with class levels that has a full attack of greatsword +2claws+2 other natural attacks.

I think he is just posting the attacks and not the words that go between them. Thus it may not always be one full attack represented.

[drakir_nosslin]

Are the creatures from the same book? Because the CR ratings have varied enormously between the different MM:s that what was a CR 6 in one could be classed as a CR 9 or 3 in another.

[herrhauptmann]

I think he is just posting the attacks and not the words that go between them. Thus it may not always be one full attack represented.

I'd think something like that could dramatically affect CR...

Here's a monster with 5 different standard attacks he can perform, and a full attack that's just 2 of them.
And here's a monster with 5 different standard attacks he can perform, and a full attack that includes all of them.

[jindra34]

I'd think something like that could dramatically affect CR...

Here's a monster with 5 different standard attacks he can perform, and a full attack that's just 2 of them.
And here's a monster with 5 different standard attacks he can perform, and a full attack that includes all of them.

It would. With a little knowing of how WotC thinks and prints things it becomes easier to sort. My big concern is Basket not showing sequential attacks, or if these guys might be using power attack.

[Basket Burner]

My reasoning was based on the (1) fact that it was a thought experiment, and (2) therefore what was the least CR granting way of getting 19ish BAB.
The rules are for making a new monster at the back of the MM. And those rules were not factored into my guess.

Editing a just for the fun of it guess: CR 12

BAB =/= to hit.


So what was the first creature?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a creature, or monster with class levels that has a full attack of greatsword +2claws+2 other natural attacks.

All shall be revealed when the experiment is concluded.


I think he is just posting the attacks and not the words that go between them. Thus it may not always be one full attack represented.

All of these are a single full attack from a single melee creature. So if a series of actions are listed, you should assume that they can do all of them at once, and that doing so is their best course of action (else they would not be a melee enemy, they'd be something smart assed like an Epic Wizard with a dagger).

[jindra34]

BAB =/= to hit.
I'm suprised your trying to make sense of what I'm sure is funny logic.


All of these are a single full attack from a single melee creature. So if a series of actions are listed, you should assume that they can do all of them at once, and that doing so is their best course of action (else they would not be a melee enemy, they'd be something smart assed like an Epic Wizard with a dagger).
Wow. My answer for the first was based on parsing it into 3 separate full attacks.

[JaronK]

Wait, Greatsword + Claws? That's bizarre. So that was a four armed creature that uses the sword in two hands and claws in others?

JaronK

[jindra34]

Wait, Greatsword + Claws? That's bizarre. So that was a four armed creature that uses the sword in two hands and claws in others?

JaronK

The greatsword part came from my guess which has been shown to be completely wrong in assement.

[JaronK]

I'm really not getting the point on all this. Some critters are much more aggressive glass cannon types, with brutal full attacks but limited mobility and durability. Some are far more manueverable, some more durable, some both. Obviously the CR would be much lower in the first case than in the other ones.

JaronK

[drakir_nosslin]

I'm really not getting the point on all this. Some critters are much more aggressive glass cannon types, with brutal full attacks but limited mobility and durability. Some are far more manueverable, some more durable, some both. Obviously the CR would be much lower in the first case than in the other ones.

JaronK

I think that BasketBurner is trying to prove a point with his 'experiment', though what it might be beyond 'different creatures have different CR:s' I don't know.

Or, he wanted to see how long he could do this before people started asking what he was doing instead of just answering the questions :smalltongue:

[mrcarter11]

I'd say CR 8..

And I think the point he's trying to prove will end up being along the lines of how terrible CR is to assess a monster, or how UP'ed melee monsters are.. Or some such thing.

[drakir_nosslin]

And I think the point he's trying to prove will end up being along the lines of how terrible CR is to assess a monster, or how UP'ed melee monsters are.. Or some such thing.

We already know that, I'm hoping for something new and exciting :smallbiggrin:

[Basket Burner]

All will be explained once the experiment is concluded.

[Siosilvar]

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.
Eeeh.... CR 8 ± 2.

[rockdeworld]

BAB =/= to hit.
All shall be revealed when the experiment is concluded.
(else they would not be a melee enemy, they'd be something smart assed like an Epic Wizard with a dagger).
Reading through this, I do not appreciate your enigmatic brevity. It reads like curtness, and I don't appreciate curtness, nor am I predisposed to assist you with your thought experiment when you act that way.

I also agree with what others have said about the CR of a monster. There is a gulf between a Commoner that can hit +15/+10/+5 (2d6+7) and an angel that can do the same.

[jindra34]

Serious guess for new attack routine: CR 4

[Basket Burner]

If you are not interested in the exercise, no one is forcing you to participate.

[Mystral]

Take 1

Well, I'd say that it's strength is 24-25 (because of the damage +7/+11 (1,5*7)). That'd make it's BAB 17. I'd say it's CR is 16-17.

Take 2:

Oddly low damage dice, but rather high damage bonus and attack bonus. I'd say CR 8.

[jindra34]

Well, I'd say that it's strength is 24-25 (because of the damage +7/+11 (1,5*7)). That'd make it's BAB 17. I'd say it's CR is 16-17.

Are you responding to the first (its CR 8) or the second (at which point how do you get BAB 17 from a net attack of +16)

[rockdeworld]

If you are not interested in the exercise, no one is forcing you to participate.
I'm expressing my feelings because you're encountering hostility and responding with more. I am interested in your exercise to the extent that I can understand it (although "teaching everyone else in the world a lesson" is not something I personally endorse), but I don't want to feed the anger level, so I'm trying to help you understand my (and possibly others) feelings.

/offtopic

[Mystral]

I responded to the first. Missed the second take. Edited my post.

Seriously? The first one is CR 8? That seems rather strange.

[KillianHawkeye]

{{scrubbed}}

[drakir_nosslin]

I responded to the first. Missed the second take. Edited my post.

Seriously? The first one is CR 8? That seems rather strange.

I don't think there's anything stopping Basket Burner from using templated creatures or stuff like that to change the 'normal' monsters, all he said was 'what CR is this melee creature' so it's a very open thing.

[Mystral]

Allright, I'll just get in on the fun then!

Take 3:

2* +19 (1d10+6) +14 (2d6+3) +14 (3d6+3)

[jindra34]

Allright, I'll just get in on the fun then!

Take 3:

2* +19 (1d10+6) +14 (2d6+3) +14 (3d6+3)

Its baskets thought experiment lets just let him do his thing.

[Basket Burner]

I'm expressing my feelings because you're encountering hostility and responding with more. I am interested in your exercise to the extent that I can understand it (although "teaching everyone else in the world a lesson" is not something I personally endorse), but I don't want to feed the anger level, so I'm trying to help you understand my (and possibly others) feelings.

/offtopic

Many here are posting despite having no interest in the exercise to post things that are entirely off topic. Often many times in rapid succession. The BAB =/= to hit thing was a simple correction, but the others...

Regardless, the continued attempts at derailment are annoying.

0 people have correctly guessed the level or CR of the second example. 2 people were off by 1.

[jindra34]

That makes it a CR 5

[Hiro Protagonest]

The attack/damage of this makes no sense unless the creature's Power Attacking. Two attacks at the same bonus either means some weird Haste effect, TWF, or natural attacks. Less damage on the second rules out natural attacks and Haste, so it's TWF. However, the -2 damage on the off-hand attack implies +4 strength mod. But with +4 strength mod, how is he getting a flat bonus of 9 on GOP of that strength? If he's Power Attacking for 9, he's gotta have +21 BAB, and that would make him either epic level or have a high HD:CR ratio, which basically restricts him to epic level or dragon, maybe giant with class levels. If it's dragon it'll have to be in human form. Wait, does he have natural attacks and Multiattack, but you mixed up the -2 to attack for -2 to damage?

My estimate is that his CR is... between 1 and 30.

[mrcarter11]

Well.. That rules out CR 7-9.. As three people have said CR 8..

[AMFV]

The attack/damage of this makes no sense unless the creature's Power Attacking. Two attacks at the same bonus either means some weird Haste effect, TWF, or natural attacks. Less damage on the second rules out natural attacks and Haste, so it's TWF. However, the -2 damage on the off-hand attack implies +4 strength mod. But with +4 strength mod, how is he getting a flat bonus of 9 on GOP of that strength? If he's Power Attacking for 9, he's gotta have +21 BAB, and that would make him either epic level or have a high HD:CR ratio, which basically restricts him to epic level or dragon, maybe giant with class levels. If it's dragon it'll have to be in human form. Wait, does he have natural attacks and Multiattack, but you mixed up the -2 to attack for -2 to damage?

My estimate is that his CR is... between 1 and 30.

Actually most creatures with two claw attacks make them at the same bonus as they are primary weapons...

Obviously there isn't sufficient information here to determine CR.

[averagejoe]

Obviously there isn't sufficient information here to determine CR.

I believe that's why he's asking us to, "Guess." It's hard to guess when you know the answer.

For take 2, I'm gonna say CR 7.

[Urpriest]

BasketBurner is of course trying to prove that this forum underestimates the damage that low CR melee monsters do, and thus that his frequent arguments that optimization is necessary to survive are being denied due to ignorance. Just because you don't have an avatar doesn't mean I don't recognize your name cropping up. :smallcool: By the way, a memorable stickatar does go a long way towards being respected on this forum, as arbitrary as that sounds.

Also, many monsters with Improved Grab benefit from using it, since they trade one attack for a full set of iteratives with the same (or higher with Constrict) damage while still keeping their Rakes. Power Attack evens the odds a bit, but many grabbers don't have it.

Edit: Oh, and since that wasn't contributing much to the thread topic: I guess CR 5.

[Jolly]

BasketBurner is of course trying to prove that this forum underestimates the damage that low CR melee monsters do, and thus that his frequent arguments that optimization is necessary to survive are being denied due to ignorance. Just because you don't have an avatar doesn't mean I don't recognize your name cropping up. :smallcool: By the way, a memorable stickatar does go a long way towards being respected on this forum, as arbitrary as that sounds.

Also, many monsters with Improved Grab benefit from using it, since they trade one attack for a full set of iteratives with the same (or higher with Constrict) damage while still keeping their Rakes. Power Attack evens the odds a bit, but many grabbers don't have it.

You know, I rather thought this sounded like the DnD version of "Have you stopped hitting your wife" so I'm glad to hear my instincts weren't entirely off.

Also, I've had avatars and signatures disabled for so long I rather forgot I had either...

[Siosilvar]

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.

I have a new guess!

12th level tiny-sized Fighter dual-wielding +3 elven thinblades with Greater Weapon Specialization, 16/17 Strength, 18/19 Dex, and Power Attacking for 3.

To-hit: +12 BAB, +2 size, +4 Dex, +2 GWS, -4 TWF -3 PA +3 magic = +16
Damage: 1d4 + 3/1 Str + 4 GWS +3 Power Attack +3 magic = 1d4+13/11

:smallbiggrin:

EDIT: You can power attack with one-handed weapons held in the off hand so long as they're not light, right?

[Derjuin]

Take 2.

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.

I guess...CR 4.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

+16/1d4+13, +16/1d4+11.

Guess that level or CR.

Well, it's not a standard monster, as no monster I can think of gets two primary natural attacks at only a -2 damage difference. I don't honestly think that's possible within the rules, although I'd be interested to know what this turns out to be.

Either way, I can't guess a CR based on damage values alone, nor can I think of a reason why you would want us to try: which of the following, for example, is more dangerous?

+27 / +27 melee (2d10+11/19-20)
+10/+5 melee (1d4 + 0)

The first is an Elder Earth Elemental, CR 11. The second could be a Fighter 10 with no Strength modifier, or it could be a Wizard 20 with no Strength modifier. That's a possible CR difference of 100%.

That Said
There exists online a database of averages from the Monster Manual. Since all we have are the attack and damage rolls, I'll use that to estimate the CR based on the information we are given and only the information we are given.

An average attack modifier of +16 falls around CR 11, but the average of 30 damage per round puts it at CR 9. Based on the information given, this monster would, if the rest of the chassis lines up with the average, clock in around CR 10.

This is unlikely to be correct, however, as the range of other abilities makes the average unreliable, and we are not given enough information to be even remotely accurate.

[herrhauptmann]

Think monster 2 was solved so...

Allright, I'll just get in on the fun then!

Take 3:

2* +19 (1d10+6) +14 (2d6+3) +14 (3d6+3)
I'm gonna say a CR 11.

Just because you don't have an avatar doesn't mean I don't recognize your name cropping up. :smallcool: By the way, a memorable stickatar does go a long way towards being respected on this forum, as arbitrary as that sounds.

Now that you mention it, going through someones old posts can be informative. I remember the days when people on the internet didn't even list their home state, let alone name/address/phone number, so I'm used to an internet that's not sweetness and kisses from kittens. But still

[Basket Burner]

That makes it a CR 5

Correct again, though by wording the hint the way I did I gave away the answer.


BasketBurner is of course trying to prove that this forum underestimates the damage that low CR melee monsters do, and thus that his frequent arguments that optimization is necessary to survive are being denied due to ignorance. Just because you don't have an avatar doesn't mean I don't recognize your name cropping up. :smallcool: By the way, a memorable stickatar does go a long way towards being respected on this forum, as arbitrary as that sounds.

The truth or falsehood of this theory will be revealed when the experiment is concluded.

I see no purpose in adopting a generic avatar in order to make shallow people happier.


Also, many monsters with Improved Grab benefit from using it, since they trade one attack for a full set of iteratives with the same (or higher with Constrict) damage while still keeping their Rakes. Power Attack evens the odds a bit, but many grabbers don't have it.

Edit: Oh, and since that wasn't contributing much to the thread topic: I guess CR 5.

We are talking about melee monsters. That means that one of the following is true:

Their other attacks are better. They are not actually melee monsters. They would not be mentioned as melee monsters. So there is a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000% chance I am trying to trick you by listing the attack stats of a caster as if that were a melee monster.
They only have melee attacks.
They have other attacks, but the melee attacks are the best ones, which makes them a melee monster.
They get some free effects on their melee attacks, but it just amounts to more to hit and damage. Still just a melee monster.

All of these are already taken into account.

Take 3. The real take 3.

+9/1d10+6.

Guess that level or CR. This one is a bit harder though, as not only do you have to guess the correct number, but the correct approximate reasoning that leads to that number. After this one has been correctly answered, I will explain what the purposes of this was.

[jindra34]

Large creature with a STR mod of +6 (or a medium something with powerful build). BaB of 3 (3+1[compensating for largeness]-1[masterwork weapon]) so that would put it at 2. Unless its one of those medium creatures at which point 2 (3-1[masterwork weapon]) BaB means 2 class levels means CR 2. Or it might be That Crab, which is also CR 3.

[Gotterdammerung]

I thought the first one was a 4 headead unicorn with only 1 magical horn and multiattack =/



Edit: oh and i guess CR 1 for the 3rd thingy. 18 strength +4 rage +1 bab + 1 weapon focus +1 masterwork bastardsword =)

+9 / 1d10+6

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

They have other attacks, but the melee attacks are the best ones, which makes them a melee monster.

So we don't even get the full attack routine, hm? That further sways this exercise towards the un-guessable.


Take 3. The real take 3.

+9/1d10+6.

Again, using the table of averages. I'll up the values by 30% to cut out the non damage-heavy monsters, which should swing us more towards the correct melee-monster range.

So, with that percentage taken into account, we're looking for the CR that has an average attack of around +7 and an average damage of around 10, making this monster seem a reasonable CR 4, maybe CR 5. But, again, lack of information means this could be anywhere between about CR 3 and CR 8.

[noparlpf]

Take 3. The real take 3.

+9/1d10+6.

Guess that level or CR. This one is a bit harder though, as not only do you have to guess the correct number, but the correct approximate reasoning that leads to that number. After this one has been correctly answered, I will explain what the purposes of this was.

I'm going to guess CR 2-3, considering I've had those sorts of attack/damage numbers around level 2-3 as a Fighter (or variant thereof).
If it's a halberd or similar and Str 18, that's the 1d10+6 right there. I'm not sure how to get a +9 to attack, though. I would probably end up with either +7, +8, or +10.
But anyway, yeah. I guess CR 2-3. Is it either of those?

[DeAnno]

+9/1d10+6.


If we guess that's a manufactured weapon and that the creature is medium, then it's two handed, which means 6 is Strength and a half, meaning we have a strength mod of +4. This leaves a huge gulf of +5 that must be filled with feats and HD and will probably result in something with too high a CR to be melee with that expression.

If we guess that the creature is large and the weapon is one handed, it has a str mod of +6, but must overcome a size penalty of -1, meaning the gulf in attack bonus has been reduced to 4. At this point I look up an Ogre in the SRD and see it has 4 Giant HD and Weapon Focus, though its Strength mod is one too low and it seems to prefer two handed weapons. This is probably close enough to the right idea though, so I would say that if its from a source similar to MM1 it has a CR of 3 (like the Ogre), and if from a more aggressive source it may have a CR of 2.

[Flickerdart]

Dwarf Barbarian or Orc with a Dwarven Waraxe one-handed has +6, which matches the damage. If the weapon is Masterwork, that is +9 to-hit with Weapon Focus. This is a CR1 monster.

[Basket Burner]

So we don't even get the full attack routine, hm? That further sways this exercise towards the un-guessable.

You did get the full attack routine in all three cases.

At least one person is close to figuring it out, though how many are and what parts of it are close I am not saying.

[Gotterdammerung]

Dwarf Barbarian or Orc with a Dwarven Waraxe one-handed has +6, which matches the damage. If the weapon is Masterwork, that is +9 to-hit with Weapon Focus. This is a CR1 monster.

I said this alredy i just used the other 1d10 one handed exotic weapon.

[jindra34]

You did get the full attack routine in all three cases.

At least one person is close to figuring it out, though how many are and what parts of it are close I am not saying.

Wait do you expect us to figure out the build used to generate this attack? Because that is just stupid.

[Basket Burner]

Wait do you expect us to figure out the build used to generate this attack? Because that is just stupid.

In approximate terms. So if I had posted this:

+10/2d4+5, +10/2d4+5, +8/1d8+2.

Then saying that it was a Large creature with 6 BAB and 20 Str's Claw/Claw/Bite routine with Multiattack and that made it CR 5 would be a correct answer, even if you did not determine that is a Manticore (which is not a melee enemy obviously).

[byrd-man]

+9/1d10+6 = lvl 4 fighter with weapon focus and weap spec bastard sword and an 18 str and mstwk b.sword?

[Retech]

That damage is also the attack routine of an infinite number of Pun-Puns that can use its immense god-like powers to create an ability to change its attack routine to that and only that (although, here's a question. Can Pun-pun create a feat that limits its powers that can't be overcome by its powers?)

So, CR Infinite

[jindra34]

Lets see. 3 lvl Samurai BaB 3, Str 18 Cha 14, Using Kiai Smite with Bastard Sword does it. Race doesn't matter.

thats another 1 out of like 90 builds.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Lets see. 3 lvl Samurai BaB 3, Str 18 Cha 14, Using Kiai Smite with Bastard Sword does it. Race doesn't matter.

thats another 1 out of like 90 builds.
Basket doesn't ask for builds, he asks for CR/lvl, of a melee monster, if I understand correctly.

My guess would be CR 4. Oh, I have to give a reason? Nevermind then.

[jindra34]

Dasket doesn't ask for builds, he asks for CR, of a melee monster, if I understand correctly.

My guess would be CR 4.

And for this one how you freaking arrived at that CR result. Which considering it Must have a manufactured weapon (natural weapons don't use d10's), and the size, weapon, BaB, relevant stats, and feats, are now required. So we pretty much have to give a specific build.

[byrd-man]

i don't know for sure, but i am guessing to take the bab and the dmg and fill in the blanks from there, that is the best way to get Lvl/ CR. the damage is a little more telling than the bab of course but you should be able to algebraicly (can i copyright that word?) formulate the answer...

the problem is that there are in fact several ways to arrive at the answer which may not all be right, so in the end it is an exercise and guessing game which serves no other point than to be such... its is kinda fun though.

i am still going with my lvl 4 fighter though.

[ThiefInTheNight]

I think for the third one what he's looking for are: what is the type of attack (type of Natural or Manufactured weapon being used), and the components of the attack bonus, weapon damage die, and damage bonus (i.e. the Str score/BAB, other relevant bonuses), and then how those things cause a given CR.

I don't really find the exercise that interesting, though I am interested in where he's going with it so I hope someone guesses correctly soon.

[Basket Burner]

Some people got very close, or parts of it, but the answer was very simple.

Now, first I will describe the examples and then explain what the purposes of this experiment were.

The first example was perhaps the most interesting, because people figured out the size and type quickly, despite my posting the attacks out of order to mess with this. However it wasn't size and type I was looking for. It was level or CR. People consistently overestimated it, often by a very large margin and not a single person underestimated it, until someone got it right.

It is indeed a CR 8 Large Dragon, specifically Juvenile Green. Stats are as listed in the books, which includes 5 feats. 2 of those of course went to nullifying the penalty on secondary attacks. A third went to Knowledge Devotion, which combined with skills allocated accordingly, and a natural 20 on the check gave more than enough for +5 to hit and damage on all attacks. Add in one other effect that gives +2 to hit and +4 to damage to every natural weapon except for the claws and there you go.

As this makes its full attack routine clearly more dangerous than its breath weapon, and certainly more dangerous than its ability to cast 2 1st level Sorcerer spells at CL 1st that qualifies it as a melee enemy.

The second example was a bit harder to puzzle out as the attack sequence didn't give as much away. It is CR 5. Specifically a Fighter 4/Full BAB anything 1. Dual wielding MW Kukris with TWFing, and Weapon Focus and Specialization along with the Knowledge Devotion thing (only +2 this time) and an 18 Str accounts for most of that. The rest is the result of a level 3 Bard using Inspire Courage. This one was also consistently overestimated, but two people underestimated it by 1.

As for the third example, it was the simplest, so I offset that by upping the requirements on what was considered a correct guess. That was enough to cause no one to get it within a reasonable time frame, though several people were close so I just gave it away. Level 4 full BAB anything with 18 Str and a MW Halberd. That's it. This one was consistently underestimated. Not many people overestimated it.

I also found it interesting that the same person got the first two right and was the main one to underestimate answers whereas just about everyone else overestimated. He was also on the right track to a 3 out of 3 before giving up.

Now, the purposes of this experiment. Some of you might already know some of these things. If so, they are not directed at you.

1: To illustrate that statistically speaking, melee monsters are underestimated. People consistently and near universally underestimated the dragon's level, often by very large margins. This could be called a dragon specific thing, but then creatures of other types could get similar output easily enough and +24 to hit is most certainly far too low to be a CR 14's melee output which is the most common answer given. It's still too low for a 13, or a 12, and is fairly weak for an 11.

2: To illustrate that those same melee monsters aren't that big of a deal... most of the time. That attack sequence looks impressive, but all you have to do is enact anti full attack measures (as in walk briskly) and it can't do much of anything to you. I say most of the time because some characters don't have a choice in the matter. Which brings me to...

3: To illustrate that melee damage output, on the part of the PCs is something that looks far more impressive than it actually is. If you are playing one of the classes that doesn't have a choice but to trade full attacks with the melee monsters, your choices are to either kill it very quickly or to die slightly slower, but still quickly. Given that you have 1-2 rounds to deal out damage equal to or greater than 134 at level 8 in this example, and other examples aren't that different those melee builds that stacked multipliers to get their normally poor damage up to par don't seem nearly as impressive anymore.

4: To illustrate that humanoid melees are markedly inferior to monster melees. Both in the sense that a level 8 PC melee would have substantially lower than 133 HP and have to invest substantially more effort to getting his damage from its default point to the point it needs to be than a level 8 melee enemy needs to do the same to them and in the sense that if all else were equal here (same level, same +5 on KD) such a dual wielder is only tied with to hit on the dragon's lowest attacks to his highest attacks because of a bard song buffing him. And is substantially behind on damage output even though he gets a damage buff that the monster does not.

5: To illustrate just how bad humanoid melees are without synergy making them slightly better. The third example was consistently underestimated, often by a large margin.

6: To illustrate that melee output can be reduced to a simple line of numbers. No other aspect of the game can be reduced in this way without losing something, but in the case of melee enemies you can correctly assess their threat just by looking at that line and ignoring everything else. If they do anything other than damage with their attacks it's either a free effect that just means more damage, or it's worse than just doing damage.

7: To illustrate why concepts such as tanking are pointless, as anything that wants to hit you will, and anything that doesn't will go attack someone else. While not as pronounced at level 8 as it is later, melee enemies hitting everyone on a 2 is not that unusual at this level.

8: To illustrate why defenses other than AC are great. Walking briskly is the easiest one, but there's also Mirror Image (works on dragons), miss chances (don't work on dragons, do work on most anything else), and so forth.

9: To illustrate why you're going to be playing rocket tag, because this is D&D and rocket tag is the name of the game. So you might as well enjoy the Schadenfreude with Nikitas.

There were other goals as well, but those were the main ones, and I consider this experiment to be a success.

[jindra34]

On why the third was underestimated is it was obviously using a manufactured weapon, which meant it likely had class levels, and there were so many f'ing ways to build a melee PC to do that.
and expecting us to figure out weapons (there are a lot that do 1d10) without crit numbers is kinda crazy, and factoring in other people providing aide, or which feats the creature took is down right crazy.

EDIT: Everyone of those except for number 6 is something most people here know. And #6 is disputable considering that for some readouts support HD can give drastically different CR outputs, which was the problem with your 3rd one in that at that low level of building an entity any number of factors could adjust the CR by up to 2 in either direction. Add in tactics, skills, resistances, and tricks that can be evident from a full block and it becomes clearer. And by the fact that pretty much everyone struggled to get the 'correct' cr for the first two I believe its pretty much refuted.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Assuming a nat-20 on the Dragon's Knowledge Devotion seemed... uhm. not reasonable.

The Bard with Inspire Courage similarly so.

[Gorgondantess]

It is indeed a CR 8 Large Dragon, specifically Juvenile Green. Stats are as listed in the books, which includes 5 feats. 2 of those of course went to nullifying the penalty on secondary attacks. A third went to Knowledge Devotion, which combined with skills allocated accordingly, and a natural 20 on the check gave more than enough for +5 to hit and damage on all attacks. Add in one other effect that gives +2 to hit and +4 to damage to every natural weapon except for the claws and there you go.

As this makes its full attack routine clearly more dangerous than its breath weapon, and certainly more dangerous than its ability to cast 2 1st level Sorcerer spells at CL 1st that qualifies it as a melee enemy.

I call shenanigans on this one. The only reason its attack routine was so powerful was because you optimized it for the sole purpose of being a melee monster. If you took a bunch of breath weapon and a few flight feats, you could make an equally viable case that skirmishing with the breath weapon, as a dragon, is a far more powerful option than melee.
Also, you should've taken 10 on the knowledge devotion, not 20. You can't just assume something with a 5% chance of happening will automatically happen.
Not that the other examples were any better.:smallsigh:

[Cruiser1]

Can Pun-pun create a feat that limits its powers that can't be overcome by its powers?)Yes! Pun-Pun, being able to grant himself any power due to the wording of Manipulate Form, can grant himself a feat that says, "All feats and powers you've been granted due to Manipulate Form (excluding this one) cease to function. You can no longer be affected by Manipulate Form and you can no longer use Manipulate Form." That makes Pun-Pun powerless and returns him to a simple Kobold. However, he does have this one feat, that if removed or suppressed through some means suddenly makes him omnipotent again! Might make an interesting campaign to have a benevolent Pun-Pun that accidentally trapped himself in this way with his own powers. The PC's goal is to empower him again before some Cosmic Horror destroys the Multiverse! :smallwink:

[noparlpf]

The third example was thoroughly under-optimized based on the level of optimization you used for the dragon. I have had numbers higher than that by level 2-3, hence my guess of CR 2-3. Taking until level 4 to have +9/1d10+6 means slacking on your optimization.

[Basket Burner]

EDIT: Everyone of those except for number 6 is something most people here know. And #6 is disputable considering that for some readouts support HD can give drastically different CR outputs, which was the problem with your 3rd one in that at that low level of building an entity any number of factors could adjust the CR by up to 2 in either direction. Add in tactics, skills, resistances, and tricks that can be evident from a full block and it becomes clearer. And by the fact that pretty much everyone struggled to get the 'correct' cr for the first two I believe its pretty much refuted.

Most does not equal all. Especially if things like a creature with no preselected feats picking particular feats comes as a shock. But then, a lot of people tend to assume that if it isn't written it isn't there, even if there is explicitly a blank space there to put whatever you want (in this case, 5 feats, only 3 of which actually mattered).


Assuming a nat-20 on the Dragon's Knowledge Devotion seemed... uhm. not reasonable.

The Bard with Inspire Courage similarly so.

For the Knowledge Devotions, I rolled them. It came out to be +5 in the first example and +2 in the second.

For the Inspire Courage, it's a Bard 2 levels lower. He could be a cohort if 5th level characters could take Leadership. I have also already explained the reason why that was there.


I call shenanigans on this one. The only reason its attack routine was so powerful was because you optimized it for the sole purpose of being a melee monster. If you took a bunch of breath weapon and a few flight feats, you could make an equally viable case that skirmishing with the breath weapon, as a dragon, is a far more powerful option than melee.
Also, you should've taken 10 on the knowledge devotion, not 20. You can't just assume something with a 5% chance of happening will automatically happen.
Not that the other examples were any better.:smallsigh:

In such a case, it would still be bad at breath weapon strafing, and would also be bad at meleeing. The only relevant difference that would make is making it not classified as a melee monster anymore.

As for the third example, like I said it is an example of what happens when you're a humanoid lacking synergy. Of course it's very weak and non threatening for the level. That is what disproportionally low damage means. It was also there to act as a control group of sorts, and to establish contrast.

So if a group were to fight these they'd walk all over an NI number of the third ones, getting quite a lot of easy experience and loot out of the deal. The second one would be mildly annoying, and the first would really make them work for their win.

[theMycon]

So the short version of this thread is "If you optimize the feats and skills of MM1 monsters with a half-dozen other books, they look 3-5 CR more dangerous than they really are; Melee PCs have to optimize and have support to keep up.", correct?

Pun-pun is an apt analogy. Nothing should be able to stand up to a first-level kobold paladin, because if truly optimized it can smash even the souls of the gods. Hence, full-casters are underpowered. QED.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

There were other goals as well, but those were the main ones, and I consider this experiment to be a success.

Except this experiment, in my eyes, proved nothing aside from demonstrating that attacks alone do not necessarily equate to CR. But the CR system, firstly, is broken, and, secondly, you didn't take any other considerations of the monster (HD, saves, amount of hit points, special attacks and/or special defenses, and so forth) into account. Additionally, the CR system (what little bits of it do work) is designed for the monsters as written: adding or changing elements of them will wreck havoc with the already poorly designed CR system.

All your points except 6 are derived from things other than this experiment (which, while it might support them, it doesn't prove them), and #6 fails to take into account things like size, special abilities, special qualities, AC, hit points, and a bunch of other factors which can influence encounter difficulty.

To provide some counter-arguments:

Melee monsters are constantly underestimated
Their CR is underestimated...probably because their CR is overestimated in the first place. A creature that merely stands and dishes out melee damage as a primary form of combat without recourse to other things can be easily and simplistically defeated by something as simple as a fly spell and a bow. In short, melee monsters are not a threat to a properly prepared party. Damage increases scale up the difficulty, yes...but only if the party is in a position to get hit. It's easy to avoid this situation.

Melee monsters aren't a threat
Correct. See the previous point.

Melee damage isn't effective for the PCs
This is a well-known fact: with the number of Save-or-HORRIBLE THINGS that exist out there, straight damage is the most inefficient way to fight monsters that might actually prove difficult. This experiment doesn't really prove that, but the actual math and the existence of spells does prove the point. Unless insanely optimized (UberCharger, Hulking Hurler, 1d2 Crusader, and other such builds), raw damage pales compared to your other options.

Humanoid damage lags behind monster damage
In an un-optimized world, yes. But humanoids have the most options for maximizing damage, as most monsters advance through monster levels rather than through the PC levels that grant the best tricks. Also not entirely true, as the PCs are (in theory) supported by buffs from that party members and by magic items that the monsters do no possess, both of which can swing the balance in favor of the PCs.

Humanoids make bad melee combatants
Again, largely true. But there are a number of feats and classes which, as aforementioned, fix the issue, as well as the Tome of Battle, which makes PCs hit just as hard (if not harder) than many of the things they fight. Besides, a bruiser monster is meant to threaten the entire party: if the Fighter could take it 1v1 easily every time, it's not a CR appropriate threat.

Melee damage output can be simplified to a line of numbers
Yes...to a point. Such a simplification ignores techniques such as tripping, disarming, grappling, special abilities, feats, maneuvers, buffs, magic items, and all other things that could grant stronger and/or more effective melee attacks. You can't, for example, represent a Warblade by a mere line of numbers. Looking at just the number line of the Tarrasque (admittedly not a very threatening CR 20 monster) will not get you an accurate threat either, as you'll miss its Regeneration, it's massive number of hit points, and its Spell Deflection, all of which add significantly to its difficulty. You can't view just a single line and suddenly have an accurate assessment of difficulty.

Melee monsters will hit.
True. This is a problem with the system, as the AC range gets to be so astronomical that you can't really narrow down a monster's to-hit bonus to a reasonable range. At lower levels where the AC range is smaller, monsters are usually much better balanced with their attack bonuses, but when a character could, in theory, have an AC in the low 50's while another has an AC of just under 30, you're going to have issues. This is one of the things 4e did better, actually.

Non-AC defenses are best
We've known this for a long, long time. Not getting hit at all is obviously better than having a chance to not get hit.

D&D will become rocket-tag
This was also a known fact, not due to some thought experiment like this (which just shows that the CR system isn't actually based entirely on damage and to-hit bonuses, and it also borked beyond belief), but from the large number of hit points monsters have compared to how few Save-or-Dies it would take to drop them, and how other spells can turn encounters into No-Save-Just-Die events. Therefore, in such an optimized setting, a damage-dealer must be able to drop the target in 1-2 attacks, as the encounter isn't likely to last longer.

[drakir_nosslin]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Weezer]

As others have said, this is a useless "experiment" that proves nothing. All of your points are either invalid or are true conclusions that aren't supported by your experiment. The experiment only showed that CR doesn't correlate purely to full attack, something everyone knows. Also a wide spread in optimization levels for your three examples, random assigning of Knowledge Devotion values and clear attempt to trick the respondents further contributes to the invalidity of your exercise.

Your goal would've been better served if you'd made a post saying "I think XYZ about melee monsters and here is why" than this flawed "experiment".

[herrhauptmann]

You need to work on your experimental process a bit.
Knowledge devotion:
At a minimum, use averages when dealing with variable effects. You could do some sort of bell curve or other statistical analysis, but that'd be a little more difficult.
Determining CR:
One of your creatures was made with a bard providing some background music. Did you include the effects of the bardsong in determining overall fight difficulty? There's more than attacks and damage to factor into a CR.
Overall difficulty of a fight can change greatly with tactics and terrain. (Tuckers kobolds)
The Dragon:
Even after we'd determined that hte dragon was a size large, how can you expect us to guess its CR, even for a standard dragon? Different races of dragons have different CR for a given size. And since you'd further obscured it by altering his feats...
Made worse since most dragons have a much lower listed CR than they should.

What else did you prove?
That monsters out of the monster manual are underpowered for the CR (or CR is poorly estimated in some cases), and can be made vastly more difficult if you alter their feats? Especially when you start using options that didn't come out for 3 years after the book was printed (power creep)?
Turns out, yeah, we knew that.

Look at the tarrasque if you don't believe me. A big slow pile of HP with some annoying abilities.
Toughness, 6 times? Lets replace that with multiattack and its 2 iteratives. And lets throw in some leap attack and shocktrooper too (requires adjusting skills a little bit).
Toss out dodge and replace it with a better and more useful form of dodge, and then put in one of the pouncing style feats, perhaps the one from ToB. (That gets rid of the 6 toughness feats)
Toss alertness and replace with mageslayer.
Toss greatcleave and replace with Improved Toughness. Tada! 48 extra HP, where before we took 6 feats to get 18.
And it's still a CR 20. Albeit a slightly deadlier CR20 than he was before.

[jindra34]

Can someone run the mentioned builds through VT's cr generator. Because I think that might turn up some interesting result's (and potentially cause some consternation to Basket). I'm asking because it seems like the evidence here is quite shaky.

[Basket Burner]

So the short version of this thread is "If you optimize the feats and skills of MM1 monsters with a half-dozen other books, they look 3-5 CR more dangerous than they really are; Melee PCs have to optimize and have support to keep up.", correct?

I didn't know a single feat outside of core qualified as a half dozen books. What, is that some sort of Chuck Norris feat that appears in six different books because one couldn't contain him?

But even if you pretended that dragons had 0 feats, or picked something with the feats preselected (which wouldn't let me make the point that people don't give dragons everything they are supposed to have) melee PCs still have 133 HP to attack through in 1-2 rounds at level 8. And since your default damage output is barely breaking single digits, it takes quite a bit of work to get it up to par. Certainly more than a simple +5 bonus.


Except this experiment, in my eyes, proved nothing aside from demonstrating that attacks alone do not necessarily equate to CR. But the CR system, firstly, is broken, and, secondly, you didn't take any other considerations of the monster (HD, saves, amount of hit points, special attacks and/or special defenses, and so forth) into account. Additionally, the CR system (what little bits of it do work) is designed for the monsters as written: adding or changing elements of them will wreck havoc with the already poorly designed CR system.

Monster HP is on the high side. That's the only part of it that really matters, as once it is established that melee enemies will kill anyone who has no choice but to trade full attacks with them in a round or two, that means you need to get your offenses up to the point where you kill them faster. Spells do this well enough as they are, but HP damage attacks don't.


Melee monsters are constantly underestimated
Their CR is underestimated...probably because their CR is overestimated in the first place. A creature that merely stands and dishes out melee damage as a primary form of combat without recourse to other things can be easily and simplistically defeated by something as simple as a fly spell and a bow. In short, melee monsters are not a threat to a properly prepared party. Damage increases scale up the difficulty, yes...but only if the party is in a position to get hit. It's easy to avoid this situation.

I said that they were statistically underestimated. That means people assume they have lower full attack values than they actually do (which is why people consistently guessed high, often much higher on the CR). This point in no way addresses my own, other than to agree with another one of them (the bit about full attacks being easy to avoid).


Melee damage isn't effective for the PCs
This is a well-known fact: with the number of Save-or-HORRIBLE THINGS that exist out there, straight damage is the most inefficient way to fight monsters that might actually prove difficult. This experiment doesn't really prove that, but the actual math and the existence of spells does prove the point. Unless insanely optimized (UberCharger, Hulking Hurler, 1d2 Crusader, and other such builds), raw damage pales compared to your other options.

Many know it yes. However not all do, and these points were directed at those who don't know those things and instead insist that swinging a sword is useful, or that AC is useful which is what the last point is directed as.


Humanoid damage lags behind monster damage
In an un-optimized world, yes. But humanoids have the most options for maximizing damage, as most monsters advance through monster levels rather than through the PC levels that grant the best tricks. Also not entirely true, as the PCs are (in theory) supported by buffs from that party members and by magic items that the monsters do no possess, both of which can swing the balance in favor of the PCs.

It still makes for a very large gap. Enemies as written still 1-2 round people. A PC would have trouble 10 rounding anything without some optimization work once you get past the first few levels. It should go without saying that if you are trading full attacks with something that knocks your life bar down faster than you knock its down, you lose. Many monsters can even use the same tricks, but generally require little to no effort to be at par. Enemies can synergize each other as well, and use items (but not as many items).


Humanoids make bad melee combatants
Again, largely true. But there are a number of feats and classes which, as aforementioned, fix the issue, as well as the Tome of Battle, which makes PCs hit just as hard (if not harder) than many of the things they fight. Besides, a bruiser monster is meant to threaten the entire party: if the Fighter could take it 1v1 easily every time, it's not a CR appropriate threat.

Tome of Battle doesn't help damage that much. It helps with other things, but in terms of killing things before they kill you? Not a lot to offer there.

If the Fighter can't take it 1v1 every time, then you beat it by means other than HP damage, and there is no real reason for him to be there. Not to mention... what happens when you encounter the boss battle where there are 4 of them and 4 of you? If one person can't take one of them, then four cannot take four of them.


Melee damage output can be simplified to a line of numbers
Yes...to a point. Such a simplification ignores techniques such as tripping, disarming, grappling, special abilities, feats, maneuvers, buffs, magic items, and all other things that could grant stronger and/or more effective melee attacks. You can't, for example, represent a Warblade by a mere line of numbers. Looking at just the number line of the Tarrasque (admittedly not a very threatening CR 20 monster) will not get you an accurate threat either, as you'll miss its Regeneration, it's massive number of hit points, and its Spell Deflection, all of which add significantly to its difficulty. You can't view just a single line and suddenly have an accurate assessment of difficulty.

Disarming is a waste of time and resources. Grappling other than Improved Grab is as well. Improved Grab is a free effect on hit. I've already been over those. Buffs and magic items go into your to hit and damage, along with feats and maneuvers, and lastly special abilities don't do anything to influence this equation. Either they're better than melee, so it does not melee and is not a melee enemy, or just having the ability nerfs it so much in every other area that it would be better off not having it.

Looking at Big T would tell you that he is a very big threat when trading full attacks, and that you probably should not do that. If you looked at the other stuff you'd see just how weak he is to almost everything else though.


Melee monsters will hit.
True. This is a problem with the system, as the AC range gets to be so astronomical that you can't really narrow down a monster's to-hit bonus to a reasonable range. At lower levels where the AC range is smaller, monsters are usually much better balanced with their attack bonuses, but when a character could, in theory, have an AC in the low 50's while another has an AC of just under 30, you're going to have issues. This is one of the things 4e did better, actually.

The problem with AC is that it does not scale nearly as fast as to hit. The latter goes up by about 3 a level every level. The former does not improve nearly as quickly. When there are only 18 numbers that matter, you will fall out of that range quickly.

I don't consider doing the opposite and making everyone steadily less accurate, even if they're making all the right choices to be an improvement though.


Non-AC defenses are best
We've known this for a long, long time. Not getting hit at all is obviously better than having a chance to not get hit.

Again, not everyone does and these were directed at those that do not know them.


D&D will become rocket-tag
This was also a known fact, not due to some thought experiment like this (which just shows that the CR system isn't actually based entirely on damage and to-hit bonuses, and it also borked beyond belief), but from the large number of hit points monsters have compared to how few Save-or-Dies it would take to drop them, and how other spells can turn encounters into No-Save-Just-Die events. Therefore, in such an optimized setting, a damage-dealer must be able to drop the target in 1-2 attacks, as the encounter isn't likely to last longer.

This was one of many things it was meant to illustrate. See previous comments. The thing that makes it rocket tag is enemies' ability to drop you, which only some PCs can keep up with. Optimized or not. Difference is with optimization, the other guys can keep up.

[Weezer]

But even if you pretended that dragons had 0 feats, or picked something with the feats preselected (which wouldn't let me make the point that people don't give dragons everything they are supposed to have) melee PCs still have 133 HP to attack through in 1-2 rounds at level 8. And since your default damage output is barely breaking single digits, it takes quite a bit of work to get it up to par. Certainly more than a simple +5 bonus.

I don't see the point of making this point, it's a well known fact that dragons are under-CRed. No one is saying anything different.

You're ignoring the major methodological problems with your exercise that a number of people have pointed out in favor of saying things that are besides the point and obvious. Some response to the fundamental critiques is needed for anyone to take you seriously.

[Siosilvar]

A third went to Knowledge Devotion, which combined with skills allocated accordingly, and a natural 20 on the check...Emphasis mine.

That's a load of 2nd-level Strength-boosting spells. Why would you assume a natural 20? Assume an average result (10 or 11). Likewise, don't roll it, because that skews the results a lot, making something look more or less dangerous than it is.

Likewise, why should we assume there's a 3rd-level bard helping the second monster? You gave us one attack sequence and told us to guess one CR, not an entire encounter's EL (which, by the way, would be 6).

[Basket Burner]

Your goal would've been better served if you'd made a post saying "I think XYZ about melee monsters and here is why" than this flawed "experiment".

Had I said that, it would only be met by vague and meaningless statements that I am wrong. Granted I got some of those anyways, but by wording things in this way, they have to provide some manner of reasoning to back up their claims. So instead of wasting my time being met by vague and meaningless statements, I started a discussion that has been somewhat productive despite the continued attempts to derail it.


You need to work on your experimental process a bit.
Knowledge devotion:
At a minimum, use averages when dealing with variable effects. You could do some sort of bell curve or other statistical analysis, but that'd be a little more difficult.

At which point it would contain non integer numbers.


Determining CR:
One of your creatures was made with a bard providing some background music. Did you include the effects of the bardsong in determining overall fight difficulty? There's more than attacks and damage to factor into a CR.
Overall difficulty of a fight can change greatly with tactics and terrain. (Tuckers kobolds)

Help affects ECL of encounters, and not the CR of an individual opponent. Since I asked for level or CR, and not ECL it does not affect the given numbers. Now I could have been a smart ass and made something low level buffed up by CL 20 effects but I kept things reasonable, along the lines of stuff you would actually fight. Tactics and terrain do not affect CR at all. Difficulty yes, CR no. Again, that is not what I asked for (and it is assumed the party is trying to engage in a manner favorable to them while avoiding engagements that are not favorable to them so as to make it as easy as possible).


The Dragon:
Even after we'd determined that hte dragon was a size large, how can you expect us to guess its CR, even for a standard dragon? Different races of dragons have different CR for a given size. And since you'd further obscured it by altering his feats...
Made worse since most dragons have a much lower listed CR than they should.

Because it is possible to alter something that is not previously set right? But to answer your question: By determining that it is a Large Dragon (which people did quickly) and then determining what sort of CRs Large Dragons could be, and then applying some social profiling to determine it was probably on the lower end of the scale considering the source after which it would be easy to determine?

Dragons are overrated and overhyped.


What else did you prove?
That monsters out of the monster manual are underpowered for the CR (or CR is poorly estimated in some cases), and can be made vastly more difficult if you alter their feats? Especially when you start using options that didn't come out for 3 years after the book was printed (power creep)?
Turns out, yeah, we knew that.

Again with the altering something that is not preset. And no, that wasn't one of my points.


Can someone run the mentioned builds through VT's cr generator. Because I think that might turn up some interesting result's (and potentially cause some consternation to Basket). I'm asking because it seems like the evidence here is quite shaky.

I have no idea what that is, but just based on the name I'd give it 10:1 odds it overestimates the CR (or underestimates the numbers if you'd prefer to look at it that way).

Which is kind of the point I am making.

[jindra34]

Actually Vorpal Tribble's CR (found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2525039&postcount=2)) guide gives about the right numbers for the 2 PC's, though it rates the dragon at a more reasonable CR of 10.

[erikun]

Let's do another quick thought experiment. What would you guess the CR of this creature from its attack routine?

+16/4d6+14, +16/4d6+14, +16/4d6+8

The answer is below, because I'm lazy.
CR 4, exactly the same as our 4th level Fighter from earlier.

What we have is a Barbarian 3/Psychic Warrior 1 Goliath. They are dual-wielding an oversized Quarterstaff with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. They are currently Raging and under the effects of Expansion, and currently have Shillelagh, Aid, Inspire Courage, Bull's Strength, and Haste active. They are charging and using Pounce for a full attack.

+3 BAB
24 STR
Rage (+4 STR)
Bull's Strength (+4 STR)
Expansion (+2 STR, -1 to attacks, increase size)
Aid (+1 to attacks)
Haste (+1 to attacks, one extra attack)
Inspire Courage (+1 to attacks, damage)
Shillelagh (+1 magic weapon, increase weapon size twice)
Powerful Build (increase weapon size)
Two-Weapon Fighting (-2 to attacks)
Charging (+2 to attacks)

What does this tell us? Not much, beyond that some feats and abilities are far more useful than others. Mostly though, it tells me that you can greatly increase the apparent threat of an opponent through buffs, abilities, or selective use of feats to do so.

Also, you will note that this is almost twice the attack bonus and over twice the damage of our 4th level fighter, and puts our CR 5 fighter complete to shame.

Take from that what you will.

[The Boz]

This thread is the single most extreme example of bad science, theory, logic and argument I've seen in a VERY long time.

[herrhauptmann]

This thread is the single most extreme example of bad science, theory, logic and argument I've seen in a VERY long time.

Now it's not quite as bad as that. I've seen an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and that was just terrible.
"Swing a morningstar into a pirates temple, and he survives the crushed skull and 2 inch spike in his brain long enough to pull a pistol and shoot his enemy." Result: A Draw.


And what's wrong with non-integers Basket? Are you afraid of decimals? Or just nonreal numbers?

[jindra34]

Now it's not quite as bad as that. I've seen an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and that was just terrible.
"Swing a morningstar into a pirates temple, and he survives the crushed skull and 2 inch spike in his brain long enough to pull a pistol and shoot his enemy." Result: A Draw.
At least that one kind of tried to get enough evidence.


And what's wrong with non-integers Basket? Are you afraid of decimals? Or just nonreal numbers?
I think its more that it would have given away the kind of shenanigens that were being used. Afterall how many ways are there of getting a point something to attack and damage?

[Urpriest]

I see no purpose in adopting a generic avatar in order to make shallow people happier.


A generic avatar would make people more dismissive. Instead, pay attention to my adjectives and make friends with the friendly folks in Arts&Crafts. Or are you calling my avatar generic? :smallfurious:

More to the point, it's not about making people happier. As I said in my post, it's about making them respect your opinions. You know, the whole purpose of airing experiments like this in the first place.

Anyway, few Dragons will have Knowledge Devotion because it involves devotion to knowledge and the relevant trap options for such a thematic focus (spellcasting, worship of draconic knowledge deities) are in practice much more compelling. In describing the kinds of foes unoptimized melee must face in unoptimized games (which you need to do in order to further your "unoptimized melee inevitably dies in their own environment" argument) you have to prioritize trap options above unthematic optimized options, as that is how such games come to be in the first place. The dragon probably will have the Multiattack tree, but it won't have Knowledge Devotion, and that cuts off enough accuracy that I think a reasonable number of people would have guessed its CR properly. It definitely removes the "hit on a 2 realm".

CR 5+CR 3 is indeed EL 6.

The inability of people to guess a monster's CR from a single line is evidence that the monster's CR cannot be determined by that single line, or at least neutral. It is impossible for it to be evidence that the monster's challenge is accurately represented by the single line. My guess is that you had a pre-prepared summary speech and just forgot to delete the parts that weren't relevant given your specific results.

[Tychris1]

Stab in the dark, CR 32.

Although, truth be told, I have no idea what CR is anyway.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A generic avatar would make people more dismissive. Instead, pay attention to my adjectives and make friends with the friendly folks in Arts&Crafts. Or are you calling my avatar generic? :smallfurious:I dunno about the whole experiment thing, but I doubt respect comes from having a custom avatar. I think you're looking for "name recognition," which is importantly different from respect.

[theMycon]

Stab in the dark, CR 32.

Although, truth be told, I have no idea what CR is anyway.

Cat Recognition.

Like MilliHelens, it is a linear representation of beauty.
However, rather than "the number of ships one is willing to send in your defense", it is tagged to the percentage of cats who would remember your face.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Until this moment I didn't realize how beautiful keys and balls of string were.

[JaronK]

So the point of this was that if you take a melee creature and upgrade him with feats that boost his full attack routine, his full attack routine looks like that of a higher CR'd creature?

Gee, I'm shocked. Never saw this coming. Certainly that wasn't why I refused to play the little "experiment" game.

JaronK

[Basket Burner]

And what's wrong with non-integers Basket? Are you afraid of decimals? Or just nonreal numbers?

An attack sequence with non integer numbers does not compute.


I think its more that it would have given away the kind of shenanigens that were being used. Afterall how many ways are there of getting a point something to attack and damage?

That too. And for all the obsessing over using average results, the dragon gets +5 on a 10 with MW tools, and if the second one gets a 10 it is also... +2. Which is the numbers I said.


A generic avatar would make people more dismissive. Instead, pay attention to my adjectives and make friends with the friendly folks in Arts&Crafts. Or are you calling my avatar generic? :smallfurious:

What you are saying is that in order to be respected I'd have to go get some avatar, so that people would respect me. Avatars are appearances, and people that would only respect me if I had an avatar, or not if I don't are by the literal definition of the word shallow.


More to the point, it's not about making people happier. As I said in my post, it's about making them respect your opinions. You know, the whole purpose of airing experiments like this in the first place.

And someone that is so shallow that they'd base their decisions on a picture instead of the merits of the actual words that I am writing is not someone whose respect means anything. They are shallow, fickle. If anything, getting their respect would be a mark against me. It certainly would not be a bonus.


Anyway, few Dragons will have Knowledge Devotion because it involves devotion to knowledge and the relevant trap options for such a thematic focus (spellcasting, worship of draconic knowledge deities) are in practice much more compelling. In describing the kinds of foes unoptimized melee must face in unoptimized games (which you need to do in order to further your "unoptimized melee inevitably dies in their own environment" argument) you have to prioritize trap options above unthematic optimized options, as that is how such games come to be in the first place. The dragon probably will have the Multiattack tree, but it won't have Knowledge Devotion, and that cuts off enough accuracy that I think a reasonable number of people would have guessed its CR properly. It definitely removes the "hit on a 2 realm".

I don't even know what you are talking about. You can take Knowledge Devotion without being a Cleric. It's also easy to represent. "I've been fighting you humans for hundreds of years, don't you think I'd know your tricks by now?"

And even at just +17, it's so close to hitting unoptimized level 8s on a 2 that even one or two buffs would do it. And maxed UMD for such a creature is exactly +19, just enough to automatically succeed.


The inability of people to guess a monster's CR from a single line is evidence that the monster's CR cannot be determined by that single line, or at least neutral. It is impossible for it to be evidence that the monster's challenge is accurately represented by the single line. My guess is that you had a pre-prepared summary speech and just forgot to delete the parts that weren't relevant given your specific results.

Nope. See, one person was consistently very accurate. Just everyone else wasn't. That means that most people were overestimating the CRs by underestimating the numbers creatures of a given CR had. But one person knew what was up and was a lot closer to the mark, including providing both of the correct answers that were given, and being at least close to the third before I concluded it early.

And for all the talk about how there is more to threat than to hit and damage...

+9/1d10+6. This line was consistently underestimated, often by a very large margin. Said creature actually does have decent defenses. But because they are a non threat, they're just going to get ignored until everything else is dead. And why not, if it has the offenses of a level 1 creature despite being level 4?

[Mystral]

Not the most sound science to say the least, Basket Burner. You're like a creationist, trying to prove something you have an agenda for by experiments which you already have decided the outcome for. Stuff like this only discredits you.

[Gotterdammerung]

Not the most sound science to say the least, Basket Burner. You're like a creationist, trying to prove something you have an agenda for by experiments which you already have decided the outcome for. Stuff like this only discredits you.

Sweet offensive metaphors, this thread is like a train wreck.

[jindra34]

Nope. See, one person was consistently very accurate. Just everyone else wasn't. That means that most people were overestimating the CRs by underestimating the numbers creatures of a given CR had. But one person knew what was up and was a lot closer to the mark, including providing both of the correct answers that were given, and being at least close to the third before I concluded it early.


Your using my instinct, intuition, and plain bad logic to support your claim? And honestly you completely lost me after the first one. So because one person, who really couldn't explain how he got the numbers, got lucky your claim is supported.

[Retech]

It's because the force is strong with you.

[jindra34]

It's because the force is strong with you.

Wow, thats the first time in the 3-4 years I've had that avatar that someone has made a reference to Starwars about me. But hey, benefits.

[Urpriest]

I dunno about the whole experiment thing, but I doubt respect comes from having a custom avatar. I think you're looking for "name recognition," which is importantly different from respect.

We know he's looking for name recognition because of his posting behavior. At that point it's just a question of whether he wants the sort of name recognition that causes people to read his posts or to ignore them. Matching community expectations and "playing along" with community behavior causes a more positive reaction, no matter what group you're addressing.




What you are saying is that in order to be respected I'd have to go get some avatar, so that people would respect me. Avatars are appearances, and people that would only respect me if I had an avatar, or not if I don't are by the literal definition of the word shallow.



And someone that is so shallow that they'd base their decisions on a picture instead of the merits of the actual words that I am writing is not someone whose respect means anything. They are shallow, fickle. If anything, getting their respect would be a mark against me. It certainly would not be a bonus.

I could go on a whole rant about the symbolic significance of participating in the social mores of the forum, but it really all boils down to this: humans are shallow. It's the cognitive mechanism that keeps us consistently better than computers at a variety of tasks. If you want to communicate with humans, you have to put some effort into understanding their cognitive biases, much like how if you want to make arguments about how unoptimized games go you need to put a token effort into understanding the thought processes of the people who participate in them.



I don't even know what you are talking about. You can take Knowledge Devotion without being a Cleric. It's also easy to represent. "I've been fighting you humans for hundreds of years, don't you think I'd know your tricks by now?"

From Complete Champion:

Domain feats are a new category of feats that signify character's dedication to a particular religious ideal or tenet.

Is it easy to refluff? Sure. But if you're the kind of person who thinks sword and board is a good choice, you're the kind of person who bases their decisions on the fluff in the book, not on mechanical benefit, so refluffing almost never occurs to you. Again, you're not putting much effort into understanding the games that you're trying to model.

Maybe the point of this thread was to decide that this forum will never listen and run off in a huff. I just want to let you know that the forum actually could use a mind like yours, one with optimization knowledge that isn't part of the playground's current gestalt. But you won't be able to fill that role if you insist on getting into a fight in every thread you post in.

[byrd-man]

let this be a lesson to you...

i threw a dragon at my 10th level party that was probly 5CR higher than they... it was to be an epic boss fight for 10th level characters...

enter the mage with disentigrate, then a rogue and a scout getting their SA dmg through shadow stepping... needless to say, a CR 15 dragon was killed by a lvl 10 party in less than 1 round... did i set myself up for failure? maybe, but the fact of the matter is that these things happen, and CR's too high and too low really don't mean anything.... just like everyone else has been saying

[Basket Burner]

I am not the one attempting to pick fights with such language as "you're looking for name recognition, though either to read or ignore your posts I don't know" and the whole armchair psychiatrist angle.

Regardless, I have gotten the information I was looking for, and it was mostly what I expected it to be.

One more thing worth mentioning is that a lot of people are bad about answering the question that was asked of them. Many responded with either different questions or the answer to different questions, neither of which fit the parameters given. This can also be seen in other ways, such as a thread in which the poster requests to know about archer options and half the posts are people making melee characters.

Regardless of what some people here are trying to claim in an attempt to demonize me, this isn't me picking on this forum but rather commenting on the nature of people posting. If it were a different forum, my findings would likely be similar.

[byrd-man]

One more thing worth mentioning is that a lot of people are bad about answering the question that was asked of them. Many responded with either different questions or the answer to different questions, neither of which fit the parameters given. This can also be seen in other ways, such as a thread in which the poster requests to know about archer options and half the posts are people making melee characters.

lol:smallbiggrin:

[Mystral]

I just wanted to mention that, if you really want to conduct an experiment, you should seek to formulate a hypothesis beforehand and then try your best to DISPROVE it. If you can't disprove it, you have made a valid point. If you set your sight on an idea and then cherrypick the data you get by experiments such as this one, you are proving nothing, and are in fact devalueing your ideas.

Personally, I'd love to debate you, it's just that I don't know what's even there to debate with you.

[Basket Burner]

I just wanted to mention that, if you really want to conduct an experiment, you should seek to formulate a hypothesis beforehand and then try your best to DISPROVE it. If you can't disprove it, you have made a valid point. If you set your sight on an idea and then cherrypick the data you get by experiments such as this one, you are proving nothing, and are in fact devalueing your ideas.

Personally, I'd love to debate you, it's just that I don't know what's even there to debate with you.

Explaining the purposes of what I was doing beforehand would have tainted the experiment, not to mention derailed the thread with insulting or otherwise non helpful remarks.

[Mystral]

The Problem with your experiment was that you tried to prove your hypothesis. You didn't try to disprove it.

[JaronK]

Explaining the purposes would have let us show you where your logic had gone wrong. Real science has peer review. The fact is, your dragon one that you started with was already flawed... you optimized the full attack (by giving a VERY significant bonus) while all the people answering assumed a default monster, thus skewing their answers up by a few CR... and then you used those skewed results as proof of something irrelevant. I could just as easily give some giant a pair of Morphing Keen Enfeebling +5 Shuriken (about 8k value), morph them into kukris, change his feats to give him TWF, and then ask what the CR of that full attack routine was. All I proved is that giving overpowered gear to a creature should raise the CR... just like adding Knowledge Devotion to a creature that was designed with basic Monster Manual feats in mind.

The fact is, most people guessed right, because if you optimize a creature, the CR goes up a bit. If I took an Adult Green Dragon and gave it Wyrm of War, Knowledge Devotion, Master of Poisons, and Hidden Talent (Psionic Minor Creation, for Black Lotus Poison), do you think it's still CR 8? Of course it's not, and if people guessed the full attack with those viscious poison attacks on there at CR 10+, they'd be perfectly correct.

JaronK

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Explaining the purposes would have let us show you where your logic had gone wrong. Real science has peer review. The fact is, your dragon one that you started with was already flawed... you optimized the full attack (by giving a VERY significant bonus) while all the people answering assumed a default monster, thus skewing their answers up by a few CR... and then you used those skewed results as proof of something irrelevant. I could just as easily give some giant a pair of Morphing Keen Enfeebling +5 Shuriken (about 8k value), morph them into kukris, change his feats to give him TWF, and then ask what the CR of that full attack routine was. All I proved is that giving overpowered gear to a creature should raise the CR... just like adding Knowledge Devotion to a creature that was designed with basic Monster Manual feats in mind.

The fact is, most people guessed right, because if you optimize a creature, the CR goes up a bit. If I took an Adult Green Dragon and gave it Wyrm of War, Knowledge Devotion, Master of Poisons, and Hidden Talent (Psionic Minor Creation, for Black Lotus Poison), do you think it's still CR 8? Of course it's not, and if people guessed the full attack with those viscious poison attacks on there at CR 10+, they'd be perfectly correct.

JaronKSomewhat related: I've had a hard time figuring out exactly how much optimization increases CR. I guess I could compare the stats of the "optimized" creature or NPC to creatures or NPCs of higher CRs and fit it that way; that would work better if the CR system wasn't borked already.

[Basket Burner]

Adult green dragons are much higher than CR 8, because they are adult and not juvenile. Though good call on the Wyrm of War, I didn't think of that. :D

[jindra34]

The Problem with your experiment was that you tried to prove your hypothesis. You didn't try to disprove it.

He also failled to get a significant testing base (probably 50ish, with different people for each test) nor did he run a significant number of tests (maybe 20 or so build each at CR 4, 8, and 12. All with different levels of optimization) so at best his test could be considered inconclusive. And of course the use of a statistical outlier as a primary data point. Not a very scientific experiment at all.

[herrhauptmann]

You can try to prove something true, but all you've proved is that it's true in a limited scope.

But then another person comes along, and tries to disprove you and your hypothesis. If he succeeds, and someone else is able to duplicate his experiment, your hypothesis has been proven false or incomplete.

Here's two more sample characters:
A)Full Attack: +12 attack, 2d4+9. and +7 Attack, 2d4+9
On charge: +14 attack, 2d4+9
B)Full Attack: +13 attack 3d6+10 and +8 attack 3d6+10
On charge: +15 attack, 3d6+28 (PA for 6)

A)Human fighter 6: Str 18. Dex 15. Reasonable stats for most point buy warriors.
Feats: Combat expertise, Improved Trip, Jotunbrud, EWP: Spiked Chain, Weapon focus:Chain, Knockdown, Combat Reflexes, and weapon spec.
Equip: +1 Spiked Chain. Steadfast boots.
All very reasonable things for a tripping character to have.


B)level 6 human fighter. Str 18, Dex 15
Feats: Power Attack, Leap Attack, Improved Bullrush, Shocktrooper, Knowledge devotion. Travel Devotion, weapon focus, weapon spec.
Average devotion roll: 10 or 11. Crossclass knowledge ranks=4.5. =14.5 or 15.5. So +1 on attack and damage.
Equip: +1 large Greatsword, Strongarm Bracers
Most chargers want a Valorous or Smoking weapon, but a +2 weapon is a little out of the price range of most level 6 characters.

I know Weapon focus/spec isn't optimized, but since both fighters have the same 2 bad choices, it evens itself out.

My conclusion:

2 CR 6 creatures by the rules. But just looking at the numbers, you'd think B would always win. Assuming average rolls, both should always hit the other.
Before Shocktrooper is taken into account, B will hit A just a little more often, and for a little more damage.
After shocktrooper? A will hit a lot more often than B. But B will hit for a LOT more damage (Charge +15 attack, 3d6+28).
So using the attack/damage line, B should probably be a higher CR. But I'd still put my money on A winning the fight.


Does it prove a hypothesis? Not really, there's a reason why DMs hate both chain wielding maniacs and leap attacking shocktroopers. So I set them against each other.
Does it disprove the idea that you can gauge CR or fight difficulty just by looking at attacks and damage? Yes.

[JaronK]

Adult green dragons are much higher than CR 8, because they are adult and not juvenile. Though good call on the Wyrm of War, I didn't think of that. :D

Right, right. Didn't remember which exactly you'd used. But you get the point.

And yes, Optimization HEAVILY increases CR because most critters have really poor feats (Toughness, Alertness, etc). Replace that with stuff like Mindsight, Knowledge Devotion, and Shock Trooper and the CR should jump dramatically.

JaronK

[Darthteej]

{{scrubbed}}

[JaronK]

Yes, a custom avatar is critical to being recognized and having noticed opinions. That's why everyone ignores everything I've ever written *sagely nod*.

JaronK

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

__________________________________________________ _________

JaronK

...sorry, what? :smalltongue:

[theMycon]

Cat Recognition.

Like MilliHelens, it is a linear representation of beauty.
However, rather than "the number of ships one is willing to send in your defense", it is tagged to the percentage of cats who would remember your face.

Everyone, I apologize for this shamefully bad joke. This is why you never post drunk: Things that are not actually funny or insightful make you fall out of your chair laughing at them.

If you are going to post while inebriated, make absolutely sure it is on a carpeted surface.

[KillianHawkeye]

I thought it was funny.

[BillyBobJoe]

Well, you've achieved your goal. Everytime I see your name, I'll laugh because of your incredible ability to make assumptions and argue pointlessly over the interwebz. Congratulations. :smallsigh:

[noparlpf]

Everyone, I apologize for this shamefully bad joke. This is why you never post drunk: Things that are not actually funny or insightful make you fall out of your chair laughing at them.

If you are going to post while inebriated, make absolutely sure it is on a carpeted surface.

I thought it was pretty funny when I was properly awake and sober and whatnot. Now that I'm on my fourth pot of tea and it's 2 AM, I still think it's funny.

[Basket Burner]

Right, right. Didn't remember which exactly you'd used. But you get the point.

And yes, Optimization HEAVILY increases CR because most critters have really poor feats (Toughness, Alertness, etc). Replace that with stuff like Mindsight, Knowledge Devotion, and Shock Trooper and the CR should jump dramatically.

JaronK

Dragons have no feats preselected.

A Fighter 1 with Alertness and Toughness is CR 1. One with 2 better feats... still CR 1.

[drakir_nosslin]

A Fighter 1 with Alertness and Toughness is CR 1. One with 2 better feats... still CR 1.


A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters.

To me this is pretty clear. If you change a monster so that it no longer is a 'good' challenge (determined by the DM, according to the optimization level) for its CR, either up or down, you should change its CR as well, it essentially becomes a different monster, or challenge.

And yes, you need to reevaluate the CR of most monsters in the MM depending on what group you play with. CR isn't set in stone, it changes if you change the monster, and it changes if the party optimization changes. The original MM CR might be usable if you play with the 'standard' party and you got sword-n-boarders, blasters and heal-bots etc, but when God, the übercharger and the 1d2 crusader start appearing on the table, that CR 11 Hezrou isn't an appropriate challenge for a lvl 11 party anymore.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread locked for review.