Effective CR of dragons [3.5]

[SilverLeaf167]

Most dragons in D&D already have a fairly high challenge rating, but I've heard they're extremely tough for their level. To my understanding, this is because of their high HP, great damage, casting and potentially really high AC.

But how tough exactly are they? For example, let's look at a Young Adult Red Dragon. It's listed as a CR 13 monster, but would some other CR be more appropriate for it, and what exactly?

[That_guy_there]

Dragons are over powered for their CRs if you play them intelligently and make use of all their abilities. Its like giving a wizard access to a barbarians body.

If you play them dumb, like big biting meatsheilds, they tend towards much more appropriate to their CR. One of our group suggested that if the Dragon is run smart (uses fodder, buffs himself, preps the battlefield, uses spells smartly) they should be 2-3 CR higher.

i don't like this approach as PCs who are just as prepared should have as much difficulty with a "smartly played dragon" as unprepared PCs have with a "Dumb one".

For example, if your CR 13 Adult Red Plays smart:
He has 218hp, AC 26, DR 5/ magic, 10d10 BW, Frightful presence with a Save of 21, and SR19. Nice for a tank. But he also has a caster level 5 as a sorcerer and CHA 14. That gives him 2 known spells (before bonus spells) at 2nd level which he can cast 4 times a day... Invisibility and Blur are second level and always tip the balance of a battle, even against 13 lv characters (even when they will most likely have true seeing preped... maybe). Pyrotechnics is also a good spell that plays off to a red dragon's strength. I think the fact that many dragons have lots of strengths to play to they can be tougher than their CRs suggest.

[Particle_Man]

Dragons with illusion magic can be devastating. It is amazingly easy to set up the party to be in the perfect position to eat a breath weapon. :)

[That_guy_there]

Dragons with illusion magic can be devastating. It is amazingly easy to set up the party to be in the perfect position to eat a breath weapon. :)

HAHA, soooo true. And fun with TPK of high level characters....:nale:

[Flickerdart]

Dragons on par with the party's level (so, 4 13th level characters versus that Adult Red) are fine, largely. SR19 is worthless at that level, likewise DR/magic. His AC is easy to hit for your average Fighter (13 BAB, easily 26 STR at this point for a +8, +3 magic weapon for a total of 24, or "hits on a 2"). The Frightful Presence helps against everyone not immune yet, but the save is also now. The Dragon's real strength here is its reach and deadly full attacks.

But using this dragon as a boss monster (CR+4) against a 9th level party? They are so screwed. The SR now has an even chance of working. The Frightful Presence is up against smaller saves. Backup weapons might not be magical yet, and even main weapons and primary ability scores are going to be lower. If anyone sticks around for full attacks, the dragon returns the favor, and probably kills the PC.

[Rhaegar14]

But using this dragon as a boss monster (CR+4) against a 9th level party? They are so screwed. The SR now has an even chance of working. The Frightful Presence is up against smaller saves. Backup weapons might not be magical yet, and even main weapons and primary ability scores are going to be lower. If anyone sticks around for full attacks, the dragon returns the favor, and probably kills the PC.

Having run an Adult Green Dragon (CR 11, I believe) against a 6-man, 8th-level party, I can add some more specific examples, but he's definitely right.

The party was a lo-op Rogue, medium-op Frenzied Berserker (knew to Power Attack but didn't have Pounce), a Wizard who, despite all my meager optimization expertise, could not play his character to full potential, a healbot Druid, a blaster Psion, and a Swordsage.

Now, I put them up against this green dragon, that they have no warning they're going to fight (something I will not do again), on a sinking ship in the middle of the ocean. The result? Draggy makes auto-hit flyby attacks while everyone who actually has a decent chance of hitting it can't get at him, and within one or two breath weapons they're all set for a TPK. I had to deus ex machina them (which I hate doing, but I put them up against an encounter that it turned out they couldn't handle). I actually ended up killing the swordsage, which was hilarious because he had just created that character (he was later revived at no penalty).

So, to make a long story short, from personal experience, PCs are not going to beat a boss-level dragon unless they're fighting on the PCs' terms (i.e. dragon can't fly around all day, majority of PCs can bring their power to bear against the thing, PCs are prepared, etc).

[Flickerdart]

The amusing thing is that dragons scale (no pun intended) very well - around the time that flight stops being a major advantage, their spellcasting picks up enough to become an asset.

[Rhaegar14]

The amusing thing is that dragons scale (no pun intended) very well - around the time that flight stops being a major advantage, their spellcasting picks up enough to become an asset.

Even at low levels, their spellcasting can still be valuable... they just have to use it as a gish would, to capitalize on pre-existing strengths.

For instance, a Juvenile Blue Dragon casts as a 1st-level Sorcerer, and knows two 1st-level spells. The dragon takes Mage Armor and Shield, and casts them before going into melee. Now everyone in your party who makes non-touch attacks is screwed because the thing has a comparatively massive armor class to what it normally would... I think even my Barbarian wasn't hitting that on less than a 12 by level 8, with both Rage and Frenzy up. And god forbid he tries a Power Attack.

So the dragon lands, brutalizes the PCs' casters and such that can effectively try to hurt him while he's airborne with full attacks, while that +8 bonus to his armor keeps him safe from the nasty melee types.

[candycorn]

First: There is a lot of support for strengthening a dragon.

Dragons get good skills, good attack bonus, good HP, good saves.
They get numerous feats.

Let's look at that Red dragon. Young Adult, CR 13. CL 5, SR 19, 7 Feats.

Let's take Awaken Spell Resistance twice. SR is now 23.
Multiattack.
Power Attack.
Blind-fighting.
Shape Soulmeld: Sphinx Claws
Open Least Chakra (Hands).

Seven decent feats.

Now, against a level 13 party, this dragon has SR = Party level +10. Competitive.

Its attacks on a charge are:
Bite +29 (2d8+10)
Claw +27 (2d6+5)
Claw +27 (2d6+5)
Wing +27 (1d8+5)
Wing +27 (1d8+5)
Tail +27 (2d6+15)

Assume that it has two spells, level 2. Let's go with Resist Energy and Blur. Assume Level 1 spells include Mage Armor and Shield, along with Obscuring Mist.

If it gets a charge off, and power attacks for 5, then it does, vs an AC 30 character, about 99 average damage. It will have an AC of 30 with long term buffs (mage armor), and 34 if it got advance notice of the attack (shield).

This isn't crazy optimized. 3 feats from core, 2 from draconomicon, and 2 from Magic of incarnum. Of those, the only things coming close to high-op is the MoI feats, for pounce on a charge.

Could this give a moderately optimized level 13 party a challenge? Yes. Would it be very dangerous to a level 11 party? Probably. A mid-op level 9 party? Would have little chance.

[Tvtyrant]

Dragons have metabreath feats which means that if one is stated out to destroy your party, it will very likely destroy your party.

[candycorn]

Breath weapons aren't even the big danger.

For example: that dragon, above, will deal 10d10 fire damage, reflex dc 24 half.
That's 55 average damage, 27.5 on a save.
Factor in Resist Energy (Fire), at CL 9+.
25 average damage, 0 on a save.

Let's metabreath it.
Say, maximize, and make it a full round action.
100 damage, 50 on a save.
After Resist? 70 damage, 35 on a save.

Is it dangerous? Yes.
Is it lethal? No.

At level 13, on an even CR fight, the party has access to energy immunity, as well, which makes the breath weapon a non-factor.

The metallic dragons have alternate breath weapons, which make them more versatile, but still, breath weapons are actually a small part of a dragon's arsenal.

[Particle_Man]

I tend to "wimp" my dragons a bit by taking toughness as their feats.

[candycorn]

I tend to "wimp" my dragons a bit by taking toughness as their feats.

At least do Improved Toughness once. While not worthwhile, it's not outright criminally horrible.

[Flickerdart]

Its attacks on a charge are:
Bite +29 (2d8+10)
Claw +27 (2d6+5)
Claw +27 (2d6+5)
Wing +27 (1d8+5)
Wing +27 (1d8+5)
Tail +27 (2d6+15)

No pounce.

[candycorn]

No pounce.

Shape Soulmeld: Sphinx Claws
Open Least Chakra (Hands).

Look em up. Binding Sphinx Claws to the Hands Chakra allows a creature to make a full attack on a charge, with natural weapons only.

[DeAnno]

I think it'd be more accurate to say Dragons are vaguely CR appropriate and most other monsters are under-CRed. :smallamused:

After all, a PC of ECL X is supposed to have CR X. A lone well optimized (even within the realms of practical optimization) Tier 1 or 2 PC of ECL X can probably beat, or at least stalemate, a lone well optimized dragon of CR X.

[Coidzor]

Shape Soulmeld: Sphinx Claws
Open Least Chakra (Hands).

Look em up. Binding Sphinx Claws to the Hands Chakra allows a creature to make a full attack on a charge, with natural weapons only.

Yes, that would definitely be intelligent feat choices and tactical changes, of the sort that they mentioned would be worth changing the EL to reflect.

[candycorn]

Yes, that would definitely be intelligent feat choices and tactical changes, of the sort that they mentioned would be worth changing the EL to reflect.

No. Those would be effective and intelligent feat choices.

A dragon doesn't gain CR because it uses Wraithstrike, any more than a wizard gains an extra LA for memorizing Time Stop. That's selecting a resource allotted to it.

Effective selection of abilities doesn't alter CR. Shaping a battlefield before combat may. Terrain selection might.

But no creature has an entry that states:
CR: 12 (+1 or 2 if them feats you choose iz really good)

[Rhaegar14]

I think it'd be more accurate to say Dragons are vaguely CR appropriate and most other monsters are under-CRed. :smallamused:

After all, a PC of ECL X is supposed to have CR X. A lone well optimized (even within the realms of practical optimization) Tier 1 or 2 PC of ECL X can probably beat, or at least stalemate, a lone well optimized dragon of CR X.

I would challenge this statement, depending on spell level. While a well-played Wizard of any level is certainly very powerful (I'm not debating this), he doesn't have many ways of telling a dragon "lol I win" until he gets 5th or 6th level spells. He can certainly cripple the thing, but dragons have a lot of hit points, and he can only prepare so many spells to actually kill it with... and each one of those is one less spell he can cripple it with. Plus, dragons have SR and good saves.

Of course, I half expect someone with more knowledge of the massive amount of Wizard splat to go "lol, you so wrong, silly noobie." XD

[Flickerdart]

Shape Soulmeld: Sphinx Claws
Open Least Chakra (Hands).

Look em up. Binding Sphinx Claws to the Hands Chakra allows a creature to make a full attack on a charge, with natural weapons only.
Hum. Could have sworn that had some other asinine restrictions, but I guess not.

[Taelas]

No. Those would be effective and intelligent feat choices.

A dragon doesn't gain CR because it uses Wraithstrike, any more than a wizard gains an extra LA for memorizing Time Stop. That's selecting a resource allotted to it.

Effective selection of abilities doesn't alter CR. Shaping a battlefield before combat may. Terrain selection might.

But no creature has an entry that states:
CR: 12 (+1 or 2 if them feats you choose iz really good)

Uh, no, that is exactly the sort of thing which should make (or break) CR. Since, it's challenge rating. Y'know, how difficult the encounter is.

There might not be any guidelines for judging CR with regards to effective (and non-effective) feat choice, but there should be.

CR is not anywhere near as fixed as level adjustment, so comparing it to a wizard getting LA for effective spell choice is pointless; apples and oranges. CR has always been a rough estimate, one that can be altered by rather small changes.

[Eisenfavl]

I would challenge this statement, depending on spell level. While a well-played Wizard of any level is certainly very powerful (I'm not debating this), he doesn't have many ways of telling a dragon "lol I win" until he gets 5th or 6th level spells. He can certainly cripple the thing, but dragons have a lot of hit points, and he can only prepare so many spells to actually kill it with... and each one of those is one less spell he can cripple it with. Plus, dragons have SR and good saves.

Of course, I half expect someone with more knowledge of the massive amount of Wizard splat to go "lol, you so wrong, silly noobie." XD
Don't be hard on yourself. Most people don't go that heavily optimised.

My Archivist, who is my 'high but not TO' character for tier 1, is likely to use shivering touch.
Shivering touch is 3rd level. It's 3d6 dex damage. You can deliver it by spectral hand, or familiar, or in person. My archivist would be at spontaneous casting stage right now, so he DMM twin's the touch and drops the dragon on average 21 dex. If it hits 0 it loses.

D&D isn't balanced for standard tier 1 played smart. In core, blindsense doesn't save the dragon from someone greator invisibly maiming the dragon, and we won't even go into polymorph.
Down that road madness lies, and it's a 4 inch road.

[DeAnno]

I would challenge this statement, depending on spell level. While a well-played Wizard of any level is certainly very powerful (I'm not debating this), he doesn't have many ways of telling a dragon "lol I win" until he gets 5th or 6th level spells. He can certainly cripple the thing, but dragons have a lot of hit points, and he can only prepare so many spells to actually kill it with... and each one of those is one less spell he can cripple it with. Plus, dragons have SR and good saves.

Of course, I half expect someone with more knowledge of the massive amount of Wizard splat to go "lol, you so wrong, silly noobie." XD

Most dragons are fairly vulnerable to a Shivering Touch based attack, inflicting Dex damage and needing to get through SR and Touch AC. The mechanics of getting this done can be a little hairy and usually involve either teleportation, tumbling, eye beams, getting hit a little, or what have you. But beating the SR at equal level isn't hard at all with Assay or True Casting, and you should paralyze it in one or two hits most of the time even with no metamagic. If at high enough level for the Dragon to have 2nd level spells you should Dispel/Greater Dispel/Disjunction first to strip off its defensive buffs.

Other options are to attempt to ambush and assassinate it with direct damage from a distance (this may involve limiting its movement with other spells), forcing your way through a will save (possibly with limited wish), or even polymorphing yourself and buffing heavily. Blindsense doesn't have much range so Invisibility of some type might be helpful comibined with sniping or sneaking. Beating the equal CR dragon would probably be pretty hard before 3rd level spells barring TO though.

Druids would probably go with the Wild Shape & Extensive Buffs route, or with tying it down (entangle et al) and sniping it to death, though I'm no expert (I have seen a Dragon cry at pretty low levels against a simple tripper fighter before). I'm unsure what the proper course of action for a Cleric type might be, but I don't know too much about how they operate. Various buff/build combos involving heavy melee presence would probably do well, as long as you could stop it from flying away.

In general my statement was a bit of a generalization: the T1-2 PC will easily win at level 20, and have a very hard time of it at level 5, with middle levels being somewhere in between.

[candycorn]

Uh, no, that is exactly the sort of thing which should make (or break) CR. Since, it's challenge rating. Y'know, how difficult the encounter is.
Challenge Rating is an entry in a monster manual. Modifications to it are allowed, in the same way that modifications to a race's ability modifiers are allowed. Via DM ad-hoc Rule 0 use.


There might not be any guidelines for judging CR with regards to effective (and non-effective) feat choice, but there should be.And all characters of a given level should be exactly equal in power. And all monsters of a given CR should be exactly equal in power.

But in actuality? They're not.

Argue your coulda-woulda-shoulda, if you like. I will argue what *is*.


CR is not anywhere near as fixed as level adjustment, so comparing it to a wizard getting LA for effective spell choice is pointless; apples and oranges.CR is exactly as fixed as level adjustment. It is a number, from which experience and treasure rewards are derived, which is able to be modified only through direct DM use of Rule 0. Both must go through that identical process to be modified, therefore, they are both equally fixed.


CR has always been a rough estimate, one that can be altered by rather small changes a DM judgement call and use of Rule 0.Fixed that for you.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Challenge Rating is an entry in a monster manual. Modifications to it are allowed, in the same way that modifications to a race's ability modifiers are allowed. Via DM ad-hoc Rule 0 use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't DM ad-hoc Rule 0 use what allows you to take Shape Soulmeld (sphinx claws) and Open Least Chakra (hands) over, say, Flyby Attack? After all, the entry in the Monster Manual says that


Dragons favor Alertness, Blind-Fight, Cleave, Flyby Attack, Hover, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Snatch, Weapon Focus (claw or bite), Wingover, and any metamagic feat that is available and useful to sorcerers.

Why, other than DM ad-hoc Rule 0 use, would a dragon even know about Inarcanum, much less bind claws to its claws? Because pounce is better optimized? Doesn't that seem somewhat contrary to the letter of the books which you are invoking?

And don't pretend for a second that adjusting feats to give a dragon pounce on a charge is not an ad-hoc modification, but adjusting the CR to account for the change in difficulty is. I don't think even you believe that, and you're the one saying it.

[motoko's ghost]

I once ended up tricking out a white dragon to be a monk-style encounter and it almost TPK the (level appropriate) party due to high touch AC/saves/combat power.

Also got to make about 50 "dragon style"kung-fu jokes:smallbiggrin:

[Taelas]

Challenge Rating is an entry in a monster manual. Modifications to it are allowed, in the same way that modifications to a race's ability modifiers are allowed. Via DM ad-hoc Rule 0 use.
Yes, it requires DM adjudication. Just as everything else in the game does.

However, it has nothing to do with rule zero. It does not involve changing the rules of the game in any way; quite the opposite.

"Assigning a Challenge Rating is a subjective judgment, not an exact science" (Monster Manual, page 294)


And all characters of a given level should be exactly equal in power. And all monsters of a given CR should be exactly equal in power.

But in actuality? They're not.

Argue your coulda-woulda-shoulda, if you like. I will argue what *is*.
No, there aren't any specific rules regarding altering CRs according to effective feat use. It'd be a lot easier for many DMs to accurately judge CR if there were rules.

There are rules for altering CR by adding special abilities, however. Something like Pounce? That's a special ability, even if it's added through feats. It's not something you can use for every type of feat, but in this specific case, it works just fine.

Look. You use CR to gauge the difficulty of an encounter. Therefore, anything which alters the difficulty of an encounter, alters the CR. If you do not alter the CR, you simply have an incorrect CR, which means any rewards you give out will be inappropriate for the encounter.

Treating CR as a fixed can't-be-changed-except-in-specific-ways-outlined-in-the-rules breaks CR. In the process of preserving a number in a monster's entry, you're completely ignoring the purpose of the number in the first place.


CR is exactly as fixed as level adjustment. It is a number, from which experience and treasure rewards are derived, which is able to be modified only through direct DM use of Rule 0. Both must go through that identical process to be modified, therefore, they are both equally fixed.
No, it isn't.

Again: It has nothing to do with rule zero; no rules are adjusted or changed.

Yes, small changes can adjust CR. RTFM. Specifically pp. 293-294 of the Monster Manual.


Fixed that for you.
:smallannoyed:
If you honestly believe that, then you have a lot to learn.

[candycorn]

Yes, it requires DM adjudication. Just as everything else in the game does.

However, it has nothing to do with rule zero. It does not involve changing the rules of the game in any way; quite the opposite.If the rules explicitly state "The DM must pull a random number out of her butt", then that IS rule 0. You have to create a houserule. That houserule being "sphinx claws + hand chakra bind increases a dragon's CR".

There's a vast difference between implementing a rule, implementing a houserule, and implementing a rule that requires houseruling. This is the second, as re-assigning the creature's CR is not required, since the


"Assigning a Challenge Rating is a subjective judgment, not an exact science" (Monster Manual, page 294)Yes. That applies when modifying a monster entry by adding class levels, if you take it in context.

Luckily, however, when you use unmodified monster entries already provided, the game has done you the service of assigning the CR already. In those cases, deviating from that CR is deviating from the RAW, no matter how much you might wish it to be otherwise. A Mature Adult Blue Dragon is CR 16, no matter what its 9 feats are. That is because, in the entry for Blue Dragon, under the section labeled "CR", it lists "Mature Adult 16". There are no provisos anywhere in the rules, to the best of my knowledge, for altering CR based on legal feat selection for monsters with selectable feats. Until there is, then doing that is a houserule, invoking rule 0, just as if you ruled that Fireball is a 4th level spell when the campaign setting features mostly Cold subtype creatures. May be accurate and good, may not be. The only thing that it definitely is, every time, is a use of Rule 0.


No, there aren't any specific rules regarding altering CRs according to effective feat use. It'd be a lot easier for many DMs to accurately judge CR if there were rules.And since there are not, doing so is Rule 0. Thank you.

There are rules for altering CR by adding special abilities, however. Something like Pounce? That's a special ability, even if it's added through feats. It's not something you can use for every type of feat, but in this specific case, it works just fine.Now you're just reaching. Therefore, Totemists gain additional CR every time there's an entry for a new chakra bind? Level 2 totemists must be CR 3 then. Heck, a Human Level 1 wizard is now CR 3, since Spellcasting is a significant ability, by those rules. Never mind that there are rules that establish CR increases based on Hit Dice, and that those rules are listed under the section for modifying and improving monsters. Never mind that you're trying to take things out of context.

This is what is known as "incredibly severe misapplication of rules to suit your personal opinion on how things should be, in addition to willful ignoring of how they actually are".


Look. You use CR to gauge the difficulty of an encounter. Therefore, anything which alters the difficulty of an encounter, alters the CR. If you do not alter the CR, you simply have an incorrect CR, which means any rewards you give out will be inappropriate for the encounter.Look, you use a greatsword to hit enemies. Therefore, anytime you miss with a greatsword, you're not attacking?

CR is a reserved term. Sometimes, you can and should alter it, through application of opinion, houserule, and other uses of Rule 0. Not arguing that.

However, the rules list a CR for dragons, incorporating their ability to select their feats as a part of that. If you feel the need to alter that in your games, based on your opinion of the power of certain abilities granted to the creature already in its description, then that is your perogative. But that decision doesn't extend outside your game.

Rule 0 has no place here.


Treating CR as a fixed can't-be-changed-except-in-specific-ways-outlined-in-the-rules breaks CR.Then CR is broken. Nobody in the history of this game, to the best of my knowledge, has ever argued otherwise.


In the process of preserving a number in a monster's entry, you're completely ignoring the purpose of the number in the first place.Yes, following the feelings of a rule may be well and good, but there is no definitive arbiter here to establish what exactly those feelings are in this case. So we have to go with what is actually written, rather than what we think should have been written.


No, it isn't.

Again: It has nothing to do with rule zero; no rules are adjusted or changed.But one is created. That's rule 0. And the rule that is created is the specific amount you adjust the CR by.

Fire elementals in a room with a lava floor? add 3 to the CR. The underlined text is the rule created, in this case. Not the modification perhaps, but the specific amount that is modified. I'm sorry you disagree. It is true, however, regardless of your personal opinion. When you apply a specific number not specifically enumerated in the rules, to a situation, then you are making a rule that, in that situation, the established RAW (the CR entry) should be altered.


Yes, small changes can adjust CR. RTFM. Specifically pp. 293-294 of the Monster Manual.You mean, the part for adding hit dice and class levels? Yep. Those changes can.


:smallannoyed:
If you honestly believe that, then you have a lot to learn.Like "how anyone can disagree that it requires a DM judgement call, or that assigning of a value not laid out in the rules is modifying or creating rules?"

Rule 0 isn't always a bad thing, guy. I'm not saying that you dine on the flesh of housecats, or wear white after Labor Day. Rule 0 is intended to fix parts of the game that are broken. Like the CR system.

But call a spade a spade, man. Don't poop in my hand and call it roses.

[Gnaeus]

I agree with Candycorn here in result, but not in argument.

IMO, dragons are very intelligent. That is part of their stat block. If the dragons are not using their very high intelligence to choose and make use of their feats, spells and magic items well, you are playing them below their listed CR. You don't raise their CR if they are smart. Of course they are smart! You lower it if they are played as if they aren't smart.

[CTrees]

Also got to make about 50 "dragon style"kung-fu jokes:smallbiggrin:

Two weeks ago in my PF game, I tossed a monk with crane style out against the party. The party included a dragon mount, who got steered into melee. This triggered quite a lot of crane style v. dragon style banter.

~~~~~~~~~~

On the CR discussion... CR claims to show roughly how difficult a fight will be, and has always had to be adjusted for favorable/unfavorable circumstances (see: PCs ambushed by an aboleth in a cave at the bottom of the ocean versus PCs ambushing an aboleth in a dead magic zone in the middle of a desert) - hence why Tucker's Kobolds isn't "party gets slaughtered by low CR monsters played smart," but rather "party gets slaughtered by low CR monsters and mid-to-high CR traps in circumstances which MASSIVELY boost the encounter level."

For experience purposes, just swapping feats/spells doesn't increase CR, but it can massively change how difficult the fight actually is. Is the CR system broken? YES. Why? Because it's just too difficult to actually gauge the CR of every circumstance and every set of choices. This is where Rule 0 comes in - DMs should either gauge and adjust the "real" CR of monsters by actual difficulty, not what the rules say, or restrict themselves in level of NPC optimization in order to make encounters appropriate for the party (even if that appropriate encounter is one you expect the party to run the heck away from).

For an example, that monk I mentioned was a boss fight (along with minions), and did exactly what I wanted it to. PF's version of the CR system pegged it dead on, for difficulty. My first revision looked cooler, and was theoretically of identical CR. However, because of better optimization (mostly in choice of base creature/playing up strengths), once I ran the numbers it became readily apparent that it would slaughter the party - CR got it way, way wrong, though a high-OP party might have been roughly right.

Point is, the CR system can only be meaningfully used as a guideline, because yeah, that kobold with epic spellcasting may technically have quite a low CR, but that doesn't mean your choices haven't effected the real difficulty, or how much reward should be given for victory.

[Talya]

It was always my understanding that a dragon was intended more as a "boss encounter," (to shameless rip a term from video gaming). While a regular encounter of appropriate CR was to use up an average of 20% of a party's resources, a dragon would use up at least 50% or more, being far tougher than a typical creature of its CR.

(This is also reflected in the "Triple Treasure" modifier.)

[Taelas]

If the rules explicitly state "The DM must pull a random number out of her butt", then that IS rule 0. You have to create a houserule. That houserule being "sphinx claws + hand chakra bind increases a dragon's CR".
...

No, it isn't. Rule zero is about changing rules. Following rules, even rules that explicitly state "It's up to the DM", is not using rule zero.

DM adjudication is not the same as rule zero.

Yes, DM adjudication will change from game to game, but that is not at all the same thing. I'm saying, if you add abilities that make dragons more effective than listed, you should consider increasing it's CR. I'm not saying by how much; and considering how imprecise CR is in the first place, I'm not even saying that it is certain that it's necessary to adjust it. But yes, you should take into account your group's composition as well as the monster they're facing whenever you calculate rewards. Just as the book tells you to.


There's a vast difference between implementing a rule, implementing a houserule, and implementing a rule that requires houseruling. This is the second, as re-assigning the creature's CR is not required, since the
This is not implementing a house rule. It is following the rules of the game.


Yes. That applies when modifying a monster entry by adding class levels, if you take it in context.
...

No. It applies every single time a CR is brought into the game. It is a judgement call, not hard science. Yes, it's mentioned in that section, but that does not mean it applies only then.

No two groups will run the same encounter exactly alike. Assigning a difficulty level to a given fight is impossible in reality, which is why we use Challenge Rating to approximate it. On average, this is what happens when a character with these abilities, these HD, these attacks, fight against an average group. It is not a precise model because a precise model is impossible. Outright changing one side of the equation--the side that is generally given a specific list of abilities that it possesses--throws it off even more than usual, because now you're not dealing with just a flux of abilities on one side of the table, but on both sides.

Attempting to treat it as a precise model is doomed to failure, and it was never intended as such. Every time CR comes up in the rules, DM adjudication is implied, if not outright stated.


Luckily, however, when you use unmodified monster entries already provided, the game has done you the service of assigning the CR already. In those cases, deviating from that CR is deviating from the RAW, no matter how much you might wish it to be otherwise. A Mature Adult Blue Dragon is CR 16, no matter what its 9 feats are. That is because, in the entry for Blue Dragon, under the section labeled "CR", it lists "Mature Adult 16". There are no provisos anywhere in the rules, to the best of my knowledge, for altering CR based on legal feat selection for monsters with selectable feats. Until there is, then doing that is a houserule, invoking rule 0, just as if you ruled that Fireball is a 4th level spell when the campaign setting features mostly Cold subtype creatures. May be accurate and good, may not be. The only thing that it definitely is, every time, is a use of Rule 0.
No, it means that the specific Mature Adult Blue Dragon in the Monster Manual, with those specific feats, those specific abilities, is labelled as CR 16. Changing those abilities changes the challenge. (So does having a different group of PCs than the "standard average", but it is not possible to account for every variation in a group of PCs, especially in the general rules.)


And since there are not, doing so is Rule 0. Thank you.
Following the rules of the game isn't rule zero. The rules state that CR is meant to be adjusted in any number of ways, for any number of reasons. If you want the book to state outright every single thing that can increase or decrease CR, then you're out of luck. That's never going to happen, because the different things that can change CR is quite frankly nigh-infinite. You could fill a library with different scenarios and different arguments as to why a specific CR is inappropriate in a specific situation.

Which is why we use approximations such as CR in the first place.


Now you're just reaching. Therefore, Totemists gain additional CR every time there's an entry for a new chakra bind? Level 2 totemists must be CR 3 then. Heck, a Human Level 1 wizard is now CR 3, since Spellcasting is a significant ability, by those rules. Never mind that there are rules that establish CR increases based on Hit Dice, and that those rules are listed under the section for modifying and improving monsters. Never mind that you're trying to take things out of context.
CR is meant for monsters. It's almost impossible to give CR accurately to classes, because every single character is different. Different stats, different races, different feats... different choices. So a broad approximation of "1 level = 1 CR" was made. For the most part, it works, but again... it isn't meant to be fixed in place. You adjust according to the individual situation.


This is what is known as "incredibly severe misapplication of rules to suit your personal opinion on how things should be, in addition to willful ignoring of how they actually are".
No, I'm applying the rules correctly. Look on pp. 39-41. It doesn't specifically mention CR, but it comes to the same end result.


Look, you use a greatsword to hit enemies. Therefore, anytime you miss with a greatsword, you're not attacking?
Don't go there, please.


CR is a reserved term. Sometimes, you can and should alter it, through application of opinion, houserule, and other uses of Rule 0. Not arguing that.

However, the rules list a CR for dragons, incorporating their ability to select their feats as a part of that. If you feel the need to alter that in your games, based on your opinion of the power of certain abilities granted to the creature already in its description, then that is your perogative. But that decision doesn't extend outside your game.
Actually, no. The rules list a CR for dragons with specific feats, and even goes on to list feats which are appropriate for dragons. You are taking feats from an entirely different aspect of the game and treating them as if it's the same as taking Alertness. It isn't.


Rule 0 has no place here.
Using rules that requires DM adjudication is not using rule zero.

I feel like I am repeating myself with every sentence.


Then CR is broken. Nobody in the history of this game, to the best of my knowledge, has ever argued otherwise.
I am arguing otherwise. CR is not broken when you use it properly. You are the one breaking it by not applying it correctly.


Yes, following the feelings of a rule may be well and good, but there is no definitive arbiter here to establish what exactly those feelings are in this case. So we have to go with what is actually written, rather than what we think should have been written.
I am going by what is actually written.


But one is created. That's rule 0. And the rule that is created is the specific amount you adjust the CR by.
No. Because there is no specific amount. It is not a hard science. It depends on the situation.

Earlier, I lamented the fact that there were no rules for effective feat use, but in reality, it isn't possible to provide rules for it, since every feat is different.


Fire elementals in a room with a lava floor? add 3 to the CR. The underlined text is the rule created, in this case. Not the modification perhaps, but the specific amount that is modified. I'm sorry you disagree. It is true, however, regardless of your personal opinion. When you apply a specific number not specifically enumerated in the rules, to a situation, then you are making a rule that, in that situation, the established RAW (the CR entry) should be altered.
I am not making a rule. I am FOLLOWING a rule.

Yes, that underlined part is most definitely a house rule, because it adds a rule that every time you are in a room with a lava floor and fightfire elementals, it adds a certain CR. That isn't what I am saying.


You mean, the part for adding hit dice and class levels? Yep. Those changes can.
There are others. Like choosing the elite array. Adding special abilities. Like Pounce.


Like "how anyone can disagree that it requires a DM judgement call, or that assigning of a value not laid out in the rules is modifying or creating rules?"

Rule 0 isn't always a bad thing, guy. I'm not saying that you dine on the flesh of housecats, or wear white after Labor Day. Rule 0 is intended to fix parts of the game that are broken. Like the CR system.

But call a spade a spade, man. Don't poop in my hand and call it roses.
No, that isn't what rule zero is about. Rule zero was never intended to "fix" ANYTHING. It was intended to tailor the rules to the gaming group.

This is the actual rule zero: "Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules."

Having house rules is rule zero. DM adjudication isn't. Every game requires DM adjudication. Not every game requires house rules.

There's nothing wrong with rule zero; it's a great rule. But it has no place in a discussion about the RAW, which this is--and when you insist on claiming I am invoking rule zero, what you are actually doing is insisting that what I am saying has no place in the discussion.

I don't disagree it's a DM's judgement call. I have said so over and over, in fact. But that is not the same thing as creating house rules, because the rules themselves say exactly the same thing.

[Particle_Man]

After all, a PC of ECL X is supposed to have CR X. A lone well optimized (even within the realms of practical optimization) Tier 1 or 2 PC of ECL X can probably beat, or at least stalemate, a lone well optimized dragon of CR X.

I thought the point of CR was "as a challenge for a party of 4 adventurers" so wouldn't that mean that a dragon of CR X should be a credible threat for 4 PCs of ECL X, not just 1?

[Doug Lampert]

I thought the point of CR was "as a challenge for a party of 4 adventurers" so wouldn't that mean that a dragon of CR X should be a credible threat for 4 PCs of ECL X, not just 1?

No, equal CR against a party is supposed to be a resource drain that uses 20% of their daily consumable resources (spells and HP). It explicitely should NOT have any real chance of winning against a fresh party.

A single NPC of a standard race (with the very bad elite array and NPC gear) is explicitely supposed to be CR==character level.

DougL

[tiercel]

The thing about CR is that it is supposed to be a baseline for how hard an encounter involving that creature is supposed to be (ultimately, EL).

(Key phrase: "supposed to be.")

Still, the point here is that EL is more than just "adding up the CRs," it includes adjustments for things like terrain advantage, how prepared the monsters are vis-a-vis the party, etc.

Presumably it also includes facets like optimization level: if you're running bog-standard unmodified entries from Monster Manual I against highly-optimized PCs who have cherry-picked two dozen sourcebooks and tweaked every possible advantage, you're going to need to adjust your EL to give them anything like an "appropriate challenge." Likewise, if you are running a fiendishly optimized monster with massive prep against unprepared, low-op PCs, you're going to have to tweak your EL the other way.

The thing about dragons is that pretty much every dragon is "build your own," so optimization levels are going to vary right from the get-go. At least something like an ogre has a bog-standard base build, so if you decide to build a Better Ogre you can reasonably guesstimate how its CR and/or resultant EL might change based on its build.

The effective EL of a dragon encounter varies a LOT depending on things like (A) how you build the dragon and (B) how the party winds up encountering the dragon. In the latter case, there is a huge difference in encounters between:

* an unprepared party has a "wandering encounter" with a dragon in flight

* a party carefully preparing to hunt a specific dragon

* a party carefully preparing to hunt a specific dragon, which is itself aware it is being hunted and is either (A) seeking to hunt the party before they can strike or (B) "forted up" in the heart of its lair, behind layers of minions and defenses (where its EL may still be significantly higher than just the "sum of the CRs" of itself + minions + traps)

[TypoNinja]

My group has always approached CR's retroactively.

Craft encounters with the CR system, but after they've actually been run the DM makes a judgement call.

If the party completely creams the encounter it gets ad hoc'd down, clearly it wasn't a challenge. If the party gets brutalized and barely scrapes through, ad hoc up.

We recognize that the system has flaws, and attempt to work with it. The phrase "Well, that was supposed to be a CR X, but since you just one shotted everybody, I think that's more like an X-2" Is pretty common. (the opposite slightly less so, but it still happens.)

Nobody begrudges this when it happens cause its usually just as obvious to the players as it is to the DM when an encounter ends on a one sided note.

Changing a dragons feat selection doesn't necessarily up his CR, but if the new feat selection drastically alters the encounter then the dragons CR should alter as well.

Plus, power creep. All the expansion books gave us power creep, ever notice how all the really neat stuff is in books other than the core three? I can tell how much of a beating the party is in for based on what number MM the DM opens up. Higher the number the nastier whatever it is we're about to face will be. If you are going to load up a creature with goodies from supplements you need to re-evaluate its CR when you are done. Abilities like adding pounce? Easily ups the CR. A dragon with pounce should have little trouble killing a PC a turn.

[Taelas]

Power creep is mostly a myth. The most powerful stuff is right in Core. Time stop. Gate. Shapechange.

There is powerful stuff in the supplements too, but the idea that Core was somehow balanced and it's the supplements which threw things out of whack is just wrong.

[sonofzeal]

Plus, power creep. All the expansion books gave us power creep, ever notice how all the really neat stuff is in books other than the core three?
....no, no I really haven't. Of the top 10 spells in the game, perhaps 8 of them are in the PHB, as well as two of the three best races, four of the six best classes, etc etc etc.


I can tell how much of a beating the party is in for based on what number MM the DM opens up. Higher the number the nastier whatever it is we're about to face will be.
Nope. I mean, okay, MM1 monsters are generally weak (except the dragons we're discussing). But MM2 was famously broken; there's little in 3, 4, or 5 that rivals the relative threat of few things in 2. I'd be more scared of that book than any of the later ones.


If you are going to load up a creature with goodies from supplements you need to re-evaluate its CR when you are done. Abilities like adding pounce? Easily ups the CR. A dragon with pounce should have little trouble killing a PC a turn.
Fix'd. You can twink out creatures in Core, just by switching their feats around and applying the nonelite array. A Gibbering Mouther with Ability Focus: Spittle and Gibbering instead of Weapon Finesse and Lightning Reflexes is a substantially more difficult encounter. Advance them by four HD and up a size category (technically only +2 CR according to Monster Manual), and they become downright terrifying.

That's got nothing to do with supplements though. Supplements just give more options, and a better chance of finding something that fills your particular niche.

[Flickerdart]

Plus, power creep.
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer

[TypoNinja]

Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer

Then why is it whenever people break out their "this is how you break the universe" builds on the board its always some kind of five multi-class monstrosity with classes I'd never even heard of before I joined this forum. and ACF's.

I never see anybody say, "here's a cleric build" that just 20 levels of cleric, its always cleric followed by dips in a half dozen different other classes.

Any pure caster is going to be able to break everything when he maxes out yea, but when ever I see examples on how they've done it on these boards nobody is using just core stuff. Clearly everybody is finding something more effective in the splat books than exists just in their PHB.

[Particle_Man]

I think that the idea is that cleric, wizard, druid are tier 1, and then the people get on the internet and want to see, just for TO purposes, if they can make the "most powerful wizard/cleric/druid" evar! on the internet, but this gets into TO-land rather than actual play for the most part.

So people could multi-source a wizard or cleric or druid just to push the limits of what can be done, or just play one right out of the PHB and still be a Tier 1.

Meanwhile, it is hard to similarly "push" a soulborn.

[Doug Lampert]

Then why is it whenever people break out their "this is how you break the universe" builds on the board its always some kind of five multi-class monstrosity with classes I'd never even heard of before I joined this forum. and ACF's.

Why does anyone need to post a core only wizard as an example of optimization? Seriously, your read the rules, you notice that ability checks are eligable for take ten and you play twenty questions with the universe at 0 risk or real cost. You notice the planar binding spells and you build your army of thralls. You notice gate and abuse the fact that you force obedience and thus gain 3 wishes for 1000 XP rather than 15,000 or more XP. You notice Candle of Invocation and realize that you don't actually need to be able to cast gate to abuse the **** out of it.

That's not a build, its a catelogue of broken. To have a build I need to have something more than that. So you get suplements.

But the basic brokenness is almost always from core.

[hamishspence]

Having house rules is rule zero. DM adjudication isn't. Every game requires DM adjudication. Not every game requires house rules.

From the point of view of a player, when a DM's adjudication is consistent, and different from the adjudication of the same situation by another DM, is that not, to all intents and purposes "different house rules"?

"House adjudications" and "house rules" seem awfully similar.

[tiercel]

Power creep is mostly a myth. The most powerful stuff is right in Core. Time stop. Gate. Shapechange.

There is powerful stuff in the supplements too, but the idea that Core was somehow balanced and it's the supplements which threw things out of whack is just wrong.

It's not that the supplements are more powerful, it's that having a ton of supplements plus Core means you can pick the most powerful/broken things from Core PLUS the most powerful/broken things from the supplements. It's more choices and more cherry-picking.

In particular, "Tier 1" classes get to live on "Tier 1" because of their wide variety of choices (i.e. spells) -- the more supplements you add, the more powerful their most powerful ability becomes.

Wizards have a relatively modest opportunity cost for adding spells to their repertoire -- gold -- and clerics and druids have no opportunity cost at all to get new choices -- they just get increased spell access entirely for free when their player/gaming group adds a new supplement. The only real opportunity cost is whether you get to cast this spell TODAY instead of that spell; tomorrow you can change back or to something else entirely.

By contrast, noncasters are stuck on lower "tiers" not only because their tricks can't break the game, but also because they don't have the panoply of choices and adaptability. Adding supplements doesn't help this problem for these classes, since supplemental material has a higher opportunity cost for noncasters than for casters (feat slots, class levels).

---

To get back a little more on topic, "power creep" is somewhat relevant re: dragons if you are allowing open season on supplement material. Shivering touch (especially metamagicked) is an infamous cheap-and-easy insta-dracokiller. Also, dragon SR (like all SR) means a lot less if PCs have wide access to supplement material like assay resistance, the Arcane Mastery feat, and/or a much wider range of "SR: No" spells.

In terms of building a dragon encounter it's a question of optimization level, which includes (but is not limited to) the range of options that the dragon and the PCs get to choose from in their respective builds. Since most dragons appearing in games are "built from scratch," they (like all BBEGs) tend to be more sensitive to the DM's optimization level compared to his players' than regular Monster Manual entries.

[peacenlove]

It's not that the supplements are more powerful, it's that having a ton of supplements plus Core means you can pick the most powerful/broken things from Core PLUS the most powerful/broken things from the supplements. It's more choices and more cherry-picking.

Name me a non core spell more versatile than Polymorph any object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm) or Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm)


In particular, "Tier 1" classes get to live on "Tier 1" because of their wide variety of choices (i.e. spells) -- the more supplements you add, the more powerful their most powerful ability becomes.


Know all spells from all sources as a class ability is a problem of the class, not of the spells themselves. SO core problem, not splatbook. By fixing that and the 20-30 problematic 3.5 edition spells, you drop these classes into T3 territory.



Wizards have a relatively modest opportunity cost for adding spells to their repertoire -- gold -- and clerics and druids have no opportunity cost at all to get new choices -- they just get increased spell access entirely for free when their player/gaming group adds a new supplement. The only real opportunity cost is whether you get to cast this spell TODAY instead of that spell; tomorrow you can change back or to something else entirely.

By contrast, noncasters are stuck on lower "tiers" not only because their tricks can't break the game, but also because they don't have the panoply of choices and adaptability. Adding supplements doesn't help this problem for these classes, since supplemental material has a higher opportunity cost for noncasters than for casters (feat slots, class levels).


In TO, Hulking thrower cheese disagrees. Note that those cheese start by badly written weight rules, that *surprise* are core.
In everyday gaming Tome of battle/MIC has vastly improved non-magic using classes, while ToM/PHB 2 proved that full spellcasters can be introduced and still be Tier 3/4.




---

To get back a little more on topic, "power creep" is somewhat relevant re: dragons if you are allowing open season on supplement material. Shivering touch (especially metamagicked) is an infamous cheap-and-easy insta-dracokiller. Also, dragon SR (like all SR) means a lot less if PCs have wide access to supplement material like assay resistance, the Arcane Mastery feat, and/or a much wider range of "SR: No" spells.


Shivering touch is stoppable by so many means available to a dragon that is instant death for the caster if he attempts it. 30-60' range won't save you from his pounce counterattack, which he can so easily achieve.
Dragons also profit from supplements. Especially dragons of eberron/draconomicon.



In terms of building a dragon encounter it's a question of optimization level, which includes (but is not limited to) the range of options that the dragon and the PCs get to choose from in their respective builds. Since most dragons appearing in games are "built from scratch," they (like all BBEGs) tend to be more sensitive to the DM's optimization level compared to his players' than regular Monster Manual entries.

Since almost always the DM of the group is the most optimization savvy (since he has the most contact with the rules) and has 5-10x the tools and resources of the players, If I expect 100% optimization from the side of the DM, it will be usually a TPK or fudged rolls/tactics, no matter the stated CR of the encounter (dragon in our case).

[DeAnno]

Shivering touch is stoppable by so many means available to a dragon that is instant death for the caster if he attempts it. 30-60' range won't save you from his pounce counterattack, which he can so easily achieve.
Dragons also profit from supplements. Especially dragons of eberron/draconomicon.


Slightly OT, but anyone who is trying this and experiencing such problems when dealing with dragons should remember to Dispel (preferably Chain Greater Dispel and/or Disjunction) first, which will remove the majority of such defenses.

[candycorn]

...

No, it isn't. Rule zero is about changing rules. Following rules, even rules that explicitly state "It's up to the DM", is not using rule zero.
It is an extension of Rule 0. It is the very same thing that Rule 0 is.

Rule 0 states that the DM may change, modify, or add to the game parameters at any time. One of those Parameters is CR.

If the rules don't state how CR is to be modified, and it is just left to "the DM may" or "the DM can" alter CR, then it is a paraphrased extension of Rule 0.

"The DM can change anything as he sees fit."
"The DM can change a monster's CR rating outside the bounds explicitly set in the rules."

One is simply a more specific example of the other.

It.
Really.
Is.
That.
Simple.

After all, even Rule 0 is laid out in the DMG. By your logic above, using Rule 0 isn't using Rule 0, because you're just following the rule laid out in the DMG, stating that the DM can change anything, as he/she sees fit.

So you can't say that, "just because it's in a rulebook, it's not Rule 0". Rule 0 is in a rulebook, and so are several more specific paraphrases of it.

For example: Circumstance modifiers. DM can apply a +2/-2 for favorable or unfavorable circumstances. When is a circumstance favorable/unfavorable? Not explained in the rules. Thus, Ruling a situation is favorable/unfavorable is Rule 0.

For example: Challenge ratings. DM can modify them, based on abilities gained, and class levels added. What circumstances qualify for a modification, and in what amount? Not explained in the rules. Thus, setting that is dealing with areas the rules don't cover, and is Rule 0.

Rule 0 is used in every game. It's not a bad thing.
But you know what is a bad thing? Not recognizing it when it's staring you in the face.


In TO, Hulking thrower cheese disagrees. Note that those cheese start by badly written weight rules, that *surprise* are core.In defense, the weight rules are not poorly written. What IS poorly written is damage conversions based on those weight rules, and linking that damage to a mechanic that was never intended to be used in that way.

We don't say that a sports car is poorly made because it sinks when you drop it in a lake. It's just not designed for that use.

Those damage conversions and links between weight and damage? That's Non-core.

Core is more broken than non-core, but this is not an example of that.

[sonofzeal]

Then why is it whenever people break out their "this is how you break the universe" builds on the board its always some kind of five multi-class monstrosity with classes I'd never even heard of before I joined this forum. and ACF's.
Eh.

Well, there's Pun-Pun for the serious breakage, and that does require non-Core (namely, Manipulate Form). But the biggest exploit in the game is probably Candle of Invocation -> Noble Djinn -> three Wishes -> three Candles -> Three Noble Djinn -> Nine Wishes....

...and that one's entirely core.

Thing is, Core is relatively small. If you've been playing for a while, you're almost certainly familiar with most of what Core is capable of. This means that if someone comes by going all "hey dudes check this out", then it's probably pulling from a bunch of non-Core content. But page for page, the PHB is the most brokenly imbalanced book in the game.



Heck, power actually stabilized over time. In my experience, 3.0 content is far more sporatically broken (in one direction or another) than 3.5, and early 3.5 content is the same. Complete Arcane's PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0)vary far more widely than Compete Mage's. The PHB has half of the best classes in the game and more than its fair share of the worst, while most of the middling Tier 3 classes were relatively late additions to the game. There's a few exceptions to this pattern (Artificers, I'm looking at you), but generally you can depend on late-era content to be more fair and balanced than early era content.

[Myth]

It totally depends:

Poorly run dragon (stays static, moves and attacks, uses breath on occsion) vs. poorly run PCs (healbot, blaster, sword&board and waste of space) is good as a challenge IMO. A PC may die, but more often I think they will win the day if the CR equals their level. More so if you give them quest hints and they pack (or you give them) scrolls and potions to resist the breath weapon.

Smartly run dragon (prepares, has low CR cronies like kobolds or goblin tribes, uses flight, targets the casters etc.) vs a poorly built and ran party will be a TPK.

Smartly run dragon vs an optimized, well ran party of PCs will most likely not be a challenge if CR=party level. Things like Shivering Touch, Enevration, the summon monster line, well built ToB characters will drop it by themselves. In a party, going above with the CR is a must IMO.

Note however, that when you get to the Great Wyrm, Epic feats and full casting then things become a bit more rocket tag-ey

[Clawhound]

Does a dragon's choice of spells and feats affect its effectiveness? Yes or No?

The consensus here seems to be YES.

So, if the build of a dragon can change its effectiveness, then those builds, by definition, MUST change CR.

CR for an ENCOUNTER is: Creature CR + Circumstances

Dragon + Useless Spells + Useless Feats < Dragon + Optimized Spells + Optimized Feats

[ericgrau]

If you play them dumb, like big biting meatsheilds, they tend towards much more appropriate to their CR. One of our group suggested that if the Dragon is run smart (uses fodder, buffs himself, preps the battlefield, uses spells smartly) they should be 2-3 CR higher.

i don't like this approach as PCs who are just as prepared should have as much difficulty with a "smartly played dragon" as unprepared PCs have with a "Dumb one".
To some extent playing a monster smart should be included in his CR, but once you start doing things like arranging the battlefield and letting him cast buffs since he sees the PCs coming it is a CR buff. This is true of any monster that not only gets the drop on the PCs but also sets the terrain up in their favor (tree cover and difficult terrain, arrow slits, dungeon hazards, etc.). Then it's the DM's "fault" for making the monster harder not the monster manual. Makes for fun encounters though. Same goes for feats on any monster.

I looked at a CR 13 red dragon's stat and even putting him toe-to-toe like a big meatshield he's a little too strong. Though by then everyone probably has flight magic items, buffs and so on so a smartly played dragon might not do any better than a smart party. He only gets 2nd level spells. I suppose the triple standard treasure makes up for the lack of experience points given out but then you have to make sure you keep the CR lower than normal to avoid killing the party. Looking at another fighter build 1 level higher the numbers came out about right.

So I'd say add 1 to a dragon's CR when figuring out what you want to put against the party but not when giving out experience. If the dragon prepares unusually well (via favorable terrain and so on) then increase the actual CR and also give out experience points to match.

[tiercel]

Name me a non core spell more versatile than Polymorph any object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm) or Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm)

Heightened silent image... in the hands of a Killer Gnome Shadowcraft Mage. (While heightened silent image ITSELF is a Core spell, the effect it actually has with a Killer Gnome build is not only decidedly non-Core but also ridonkulous.)


Know all spells from all sources as a class ability is a problem of the class, not of the spells themselves. SO core problem, not splatbook. By fixing that and the 20-30 problematic 3.5 edition spells, you drop these classes into T3 territory.

"Know all spells from all sources" is indeed a very serious Core problem. And there are indeed some very broken/problematic Core spells. That doesn't let non-Core spells and abilities like celerity, Craft Contingent Spell, or the Abrupt Jaunt Conjurer ACF (as a level 1 ability) off the hook, especially when non-Core brokenness is combined with Core brokenness.


Shivering touch is stoppable by so many means available to a dragon that is instant death for the caster if he attempts it. 30-60' range won't save you from his pounce counterattack, which he can so easily achieve.
Dragons also profit from supplements. Especially dragons of eberron/draconomicon.

Spectral hand alone gets you a lot more than 30-60' range, never mind if your project image pops out a spectral hand, Enlarged or not.

Dragons do very much benefit from supplements -- that's not my point. My point is a supplement-enriched party vs a Core dragon isn't a level playing field (any more than a supplement-enriched dragon would be vs a Core party); the number of options is just too disparate.




Since almost always the DM of the group is the most optimization savvy (since he has the most contact with the rules) and has 5-10x the tools and resources of the players, If I expect 100% optimization from the side of the DM, it will be usually a TPK or fudged rolls/tactics, no matter the stated CR of the encounter (dragon in our case).

The point of the DM optimizing is presumably to produce the greatest *challenge* to the PCs, not the greatest/most instantaneous *lethality* to the PCs. (Just as presumably players optimize their characters to best realize an effective concept, not to shatter the DM's game -- no one reasonable tries to actually *play* Pun-Pun.)

...and it's not always the case that the DM has the most optimization mojo, given that he has to wear a lot of hats in preparing for the game and running it. Especially if a DM is weaving a handcrafted storyline in a custom-build campaign setting, one that he's trying to make interactive with PC actions and aims, the DM may not have the full rules-tweaking mastery (or priority on doing so) as some players, assuming the DM even owns all the books his players do. (This is of course a common reason DMs disallow certain books -- they have enough on their plates that they simply do not have the time or inclination to master the rules set for Binders/Incarnum/ToB/psionics/etc.)

Even for a DM who does have the mojo, while he has a lot more resources at his command to use for optimization, he also has many more things to optimize. Players can concentrate on optimizing one build, and often can simply count on the DM to invoke a sanity check if their build is "too strong" for the campaign. DMs constantly have to find a "just right" level of optimization for their encounters: more than a little "too weak" and the encounters aren't particularly fun because they are no challenge, more than a little "too strong" and the encounters aren't particularly fun because PCs just die with little to no chance of realistic success.

And to at least make a nod to being on point with this topic, that's what makes dragon encounters hard to gauge for the DM. Their effective EL depends heavily on how well the DM matches the dragon build against his players' PCs, and a dragon is an iconic encounter of D&D (it's right there in the name!) -- it is supposed to be a difficult, memorable encounter that pays off in good "war stories" as much as gp and +X swords.

[candycorn]

Does a dragon's choice of spells and feats affect its effectiveness? Yes or No?

The consensus here seems to be YES.No argument so far.


So, if the build of a dragon can change its effectiveness, then those builds, by definition, MUST change CR.Incorrect. A DM can alter CR. As in, the DM has the option to. Not the requirement.


CR for an ENCOUNTER is: Creature CR + CircumstancesClose. CR for an encounter is the CR of the Creature + Circumstances.

"The creature" here is a statistic block, representing the HP, AC, attacks, special abilities, skills, and feats of the creature, tied to a CR for that creature.

"Circumstances" is everything not covered by "the creature"


Dragon + Useless Spells + Useless Feats < Dragon + Optimized Spells + Optimized FeatsTrue. One is easier to kill. But as the spells and feats are part of the creature's listed CR, they are both the exact same CR.

Fighter 20 < Wizard 20. But they're both CR 20.

I understand your argument. It's the same as every other person who's had your view here. There's just one problem with it.

It's not laid out in the rules.

Which feats are useless? Which are optimized? Is power attack worth +1 CR? What about Awaken Spell Resistance? Shape Soulmeld? Where in the rules does it lay that out?

I know that adding a Prestige Class increases CR.

I also know that non-associated class levels can create a Stone Giant (14 HD, CR 8) with 19 levels of Cleric (14 non-associated, 5 associated), which is CR 20.

I know that there's a certain Damn Crab that wipes the floor with anything in its weight class, at CR 3.

I know that a Level 20 Orc Fighter and a Level 16 Succubus Sorceror are CR 20.

I know that a Werebear Troll (12 HD, CR 9) with 17 levels of Cleric is CR 20.

...And you're arguing that the broken part of CR is the FEAT SELECTION OPTIONS FOR DRAGONS?

Really?

You're arguing common sense fixes. That's good. What you're not doing is providing a universal standard by which we can apply those fixes to all games. And that's what it would need to be, to be workable here.

[Clawhound]

So I think that I see where you and I are differing, and why. I am using the term CR more loosely than you are. For me, it doesn't matter if you adjust the creature's CR or the encounter's EL. The math is the same. For you, it does matter, and I recognize that. That's why folks just lump everything into CR.

So to be clear here, I'm speaking about an ENCOUNTER Level. The purpose of the CR system is designing level-appropriate encounters. An encounter's EL is rated by using the CR's of creatures involved, + any adjustments based on environment and circumstances that the DM thinks are applicable.

A dragon has a CR 5. The DM designs an encounter and gives that dragon amazing spells with terrific combos that he found on the optimizer boards. The dragon still has a CR of 5, but with optimizing, the DM thinks that the ENCOUNTER would actually be a harder fight than it would otherwise be, and adds +2 EL to the encounter, giving it a total EL of 7. The creature has not changed CR, but the encounter has.

So, that's how I see it. I hope that I explained it better this time.

Here's why estimating correct EL is important: characters get XP based on the difficulty of their encounters. If you rate the EL of an encounter incorrectly, you either gimp them XP that they deserve, or you give them XP that they did not earn.

Estimating EL is not breaking rule 0 as the EL is entirely about estimating encounter difficulty. CR estimates while the DM assigns EL. CR is a tool for the DM's use, but it only works when the DM uses judgement.

The CR/EL system, by itself, produces nothing as there's no DM to create the encounter. CR just sits there. All the inputs are placed there by the DM.

[Doug Lampert]

No argument so far.

Incorrect. A DM can alter CR. As in, the DM has the option to. Not the requirement.

Close. CR for an encounter is the CR of the Creature + Circumstances.


Encounters don't have CR, they have EL (encounter level).

Circumstances change EL. I'm not familiar with this rule the two of you are talking about where they change CR, at all. They don't change the CR of the monster, and the encounter doesn't have a CR to change.

EL<>CR. They have different terms for a reason.

Also, someone said that if a dragon sees you comming and buffs that's an extra bonus that makes the encounter harder. No it's not. That's EXPECTED!

Dragons are stated in the rules to usually max their spot and listen.
All dragons have skill points equal to (6 + Int modifier, minimum 1) × (Hit Dice + 3). Most dragons purchase the following skills at the maximum ranks possible: Listen, Search, and Spot.

A great wyrm red has listen at +53 if he does NOTHING else to improve it. He can hear you talking (DC 0), at 190' away (-19), through two closed doors (-10), and a stone wall (-15), while asleep (-10), on a roll of 1.

His spot is equally absurd, except for the part where he gets half or quarter range penalties. Then there's the blindsense.

And he can probably spot your scrying sensor, assuming he hasn't blocked that. And he's got cleric spells + 3 domains on his spell list.

Of COURSE he's buffed out the wazzoo by the time you get to him.

[candycorn]

So I think that I see where you and I are differing, and why. I am using the term CR more loosely than you are. For me, it doesn't matter if you adjust the creature's CR or the encounter's CR. The math is the same. For you, it does matter, and I recognize that.

So to be clear here, I'm speaking about an ENCOUNTER CR. The purpose of the CR system is designing level-appropriate encounters. An encounter's CR is rated by using the CR's of creatures involved, + any adjustments based on environment and circumstances that the DM thinks are applicable.

A dragon has a CR 5. The DM designs an encounter and gives that dragon amazing spells with terrific combos. The dragon still has a CR of 5, but with optimizing, the DM thinks that the ENCOUNTER would actually be a harder fight than it would otherwise be, and adds +2 CR to the encounter, giving it a total CR of 7. The creature has not changed CR, but the encounter has.

So, that's how I see it. I hope that I explained it better this time.

Here's why estimating correct CR is important: characters get XP based on the difficulty of their encounters. If you rate the CR of an encounter incorrectly, you either gimp them XP that they deserve, or you give them XP that they did not earn.
I understand the point you're making. I have always understood this point, as long as you've made it.

It's just not the rules.

The bolded text above. Where in the rules does it lay out exactly what the DM did here (bolded)?

Closest thing is "modifying difficulty" and "tougher monsters" sections, both on DMG, p.50. The latter is about advancing monsters, or adding classes. Not feats. The former relates to the environment (it's under the heading on Location), not feats.

The only place it does so? Is Rule 0. The rule where the DM can willy nilly do whatever they want, whenever they want.

And that is because your idea, while perfectly sensible, has a flip side you're not considering. If the Encounter Level reflects the danger to the party, and particularly optimized monsters increase the CR...

Then particularly optimized PC's would lower that danger, and thus would lower the EL of everything they face.

Opposite sides of the same coin, my friend. Because there are two factors in determining how dangerous an encounter is to the party.... The encounter... and the party.

Now that same DM can, just as easily, decide that the party wizard is highly optimized, enough to trivialize the dragon in most cases, and give that same CR 5 dragon a -3 CR, putting it down at EL 4.

And all this is perfectly ok, and a perfectly reasonable extension of your own position.

Truth be told, it's not a bad thing to do. Just as ruling against drown-healing isn't bad. Just as closing any number of rules breaks.

By the rules, the method for determining an Encounter Level is this:
1) Take the combined CR of all the monsters.
2) Add modifiers for location.
3) There's encounter level.

[Talya]

Also, someone said that if a dragon sees you comming and buffs that's an extra bonus that makes the encounter harder. No it's not. That's EXPECTED!

Dragons are stated in the rules to usually max their spot and listen.

A great wyrm red has listen at +53 if he does NOTHING else to improve it. He can hear you talking (DC 0), at 190' away (-19), through two closed doors (-10), and a stone wall (-15), while asleep (-10), on a roll of 1.

His spot is equally absurd, except for the part where he gets half or quarter range penalties. Then there's the blindsense.

And he can probably spot your scrying sensor, assuming he hasn't blocked that. And he's got cleric spells + 3 domains on his spell list.

Of COURSE he's buffed out the wazzoo by the time you get to him.

Just want to say, this analysis is made of pure win.

[Clawhound]

Of course the DM will be assessing the functionality of his party when designing the encounters. That is entirely expected behavior. Not only did I consider that, I expected that.

As a DM, when I find that my players are too easily handling encounters of their level, I eventually figure out which actual EL they can face and used that as my baseline. That's my job as an encounter designer. I design party-appropriate encounters. I need to know which ones I make easy, which one I make normal, and which ones I make hard.

One of tasks of encounter design is assigning the correct EL. Practical experience tells me that ignoring optimization gives you incorrect EL results. You can call that Rule 0 all you want. Everyone else sees that as normal DM prerogative.

[Flickerdart]

A Great Wyrm Red is also an Epic challenge.

A more reasonably scaled dragon, like the Young Adult Red mentioned before, will have +24 Spot and Listen if it maxes points, compared to a +22ish modifier of your average Rogue (16 points, +6 Dexterity) of the appropriate level. So sneaking up on the thing isn't all that unlikely, for people actually interested in doing so.

Its CL of 5 also means that Mage Armor is far from an "all day" buff. There's a 70% chance that you'll catch the dragon with the spell off (5 hours active, 8 hours sleep, 11 hours inactive). It could take Extend Spell and then mitigators, but even then, it's wasting a ton of resources on this, and will still have 6 hours without the spell.

So yes, if your PCs are walking into a lair bragging about how many dragons they're gonna kill today, the dragon will have some buffs up. But if they take precautions, it's quite likely they can catch a younger dragon without any active spells at all.

[Talya]

Meh. The dragon should have a lesser metamagic rod of extend spell in it's trove. This does not increase the CR of the encounter, it just adds to the loot the players get, afterward.

(No, not every encounter. I'm just sayin, if I were a red dragon, i'd have one. I want to live. I don't care how much treasure they get by killing me, because they're not going to!)

[That_guy_there]

To some extent playing a monster smart should be included in his CR, but once you start doing things like arranging the battlefield and letting him cast buffs since he sees the PCs coming it is a CR buff. This is true of any monster that not only gets the drop on the PCs but also sets the terrain up in their favor (tree cover and difficult terrain, arrow slits, dungeon hazards, etc.). Then it's the DM's "fault" for making the monster harder not the monster manual. Makes for fun encounters though. Same goes for feats on any monster.

I looked at a CR 13 red dragon's stat and even putting him toe-to-toe like a big meatshield he's a little too strong. Though by then everyone probably has flight magic items, buffs and so on so a smartly played dragon might not do any better than a smart party. He only gets 2nd level spells. I suppose the triple standard treasure makes up for the lack of experience points given out but then you have to make sure you keep the CR lower than normal to avoid killing the party. Looking at another fighter build 1 level higher the numbers came out about right.

So I'd say add 1 to a dragon's CR when figuring out what you want to put against the party but not when giving out experience. If the dragon prepares unusually well (via favorable terrain and so on) then increase the actual CR and also give out experience points to match.

Yeah, thats basically what i was saying. It does go for any monster but dragons seem to get a dramatic boost for playing smart.

[Clawhound]

I find, in creating encounters, and especially dragons, that hubris plays a part. That is, I enjoy optimizing for a creature's own personality, rather than mechanical effect.

The flaw that I build all dragons with is that they don't actually fear anything except someone stealing their gold. They have no fear. They are top predators. They can kill people with no trouble. They have no expectation of defeat.

My dragons value Alarm more than any other spell. They NEED to know if someone is in their lair. Protect themselves? They have no need to protect themselves with magic, they're DRAGONS. Anyhow, any spell cast on themselves is wasted when they could cast a spell that protects their gold. You can't ever be sure enough about your gold.

[charcoalninja]

It's been mentioned several times but it seems that people keep ignoring it, but the CR listed for a monster is as per that stat block: ver batum.

The moment you deviate from that stat block you are altering the encounter and thus must consider the change in CR. Giving a dragon the ability to full attack on a charge is not something that is considered in the base write up of the creature and thus not something that is considered in the dragon's CR; especially in material written before those feats existed. The book lists the feats the dragons take for a reason, as those feats keep the dragons more in line with their listed CR.

Deviating from that with potent feat choices dramatically alters the scope of the encounter and thus changes the CR. I don't understand how there's any contention on this point. I can only think that there's some nuance to the argument that I'm missing here.

It's like giving orcs Power Attack. That's a low level party killer right there. Hell the change from them using greataxes (3.0 I think)to Falcions (3.5)is enough to boost their CRs from what they were initially listed at in my opinion. A 2d4 +7 on a power attack charge is enough to kill most lowbie characters instantly. Heaven forbid if the orc crits on its 18-20 threat range. 4d4+14 destroys barbarians with little effort.

[charcoalninja]

Yeah, thats basically what i was saying. It does go for any monster but dragons seem to get a dramatic boost for playing smart.

It does go both ways though. Kobalds are famous for being nasty little buggers when played smart, but every DM has a memory of when their PCs went nuts and had a brilliant plan that maximized their strengths and trivialised what statistically should have been a difficult encounter.

[Gnaeus]

The book lists the feats the dragons take for a reason, as those feats keep the dragons more in line with their listed CR.

That COULD be the reason. Or it could be that those are among the best CORE feats for a dragon to take, and that they didn't list non-core feats because they hadn't been printed yet, and they weren't using their time machine that day.

Are your PCs better because non-core feats are in play in your game? Probably. Should the same benefit apply to the dragons? Probably.

[The Troubadour]

Hey there, guys. I have a question which I believe to be on topic: what if I removed a dragon's spellcasting abilities, took only feats which increased his natural abilities (Improved Natural Attack, Flyby Attack, that sort of thing) and played it as an intelligent individual, but one that can rely only on his formidable natural prowess? How much should I reduce the dragon's effective CR?

[Doug Lampert]

A Great Wyrm Red is also an Epic challenge.

A more reasonably scaled dragon, like the Young Adult Red mentioned before, will have +24 Spot and Listen if it maxes points, compared to a +22ish modifier of your average Rogue (16 points, +6 Dexterity) of the appropriate level. So sneaking up on the thing isn't all that unlikely, for people actually interested in doing so.

Great, so the Rogue, IF ALONE, and sneaking, has a chance of catching the dragon off guard. Maybe, shame about the rest of the party.

You're sneaking the rogue in alone, with his closest support hundreds of feet away at best, in the HOPE that he'll find a sleeping dragon.

Good luck with that. That's a 2 in 3 chance that the rogue dies even if the dragon doesn't have alarm (which will last longer than it sleeps), and a 1 in 3 chance that the dragon needs to make a fort save.


The moment you deviate from that stat block you are altering the encounter and thus must consider the change in CR. Giving a dragon the ability to full attack on a charge is not something that is considered in the base write up of the creature and thus not something that is considered in the dragon's CR; especially in material written before those feats existed. The book lists the feats the dragons take for a reason, as those feats keep the dragons more in line with their listed CR.

Actually it DOES NOT list the feats for a dragon. It gives some suggestions, and the total number of suggestions is less than the number of feats that many dragons get. The block for a dragon STATES that the GM to picks the feats. Doing so is following the stat block as written.

[Oscredwin]

Would anyone here, in a real game, optimize a dragon (or any monster) more than their players are being optimized? If the party is a charging barbarian, a Factotum, a focused speciallist with a few alt class features, bard, and a core druid then go nuts. But if you give Incarnum pounce to a dragon while the party is a straight Monk, CW Samurai, warmage, Healer, and a Ninja then you're doing something wrong. Hell, having the dragon hover would give that group some trouble.

[imneuromancer]

Round 1: Empowered Ray of Clumsiness + SR buffs (True Casting, etc.)
Round 2: Fatigue or entangle effect (bands of steel of medium, kelgore's grave mist if large or bigger).

No DEX dragon == dead dragon

[Gnaeus]

Would anyone here, in a real game, optimize a dragon (or any monster) more than their players are being optimized? If the party is a charging barbarian, a Factotum, a focused speciallist with a few alt class features, bard, and a core druid then go nuts. But if you give Incarnum pounce to a dragon while the party is a straight Monk, CW Samurai, warmage, Healer, and a Ninja then you're doing something wrong. Hell, having the dragon hover would give that group some trouble.

Personally, I would optimize the dragon anyway. It is probably smart and will choose intelligent things to take (if it isn't old enough to be smart, optimize less).

But I would pick a lower CR dragon to compensate.

[Runestar]

Hey there, guys. I have a question which I believe to be on topic: what if I removed a dragon's spellcasting abilities, took only feats which increased his natural abilities (Improved Natural Attack, Flyby Attack, that sort of thing) and played it as an intelligent individual, but one that can rely only on his formidable natural prowess? How much should I reduce the dragon's effective CR?

You may want to use the planar dragons in draconomicon as a guide, but as a general rule of thumb, I would peg it at -1 cr for every age category which would have improved its spell casting. For instance, the pyro clastic dragon is basically a red dragon sans casting, and is cr21 (compared to red's cr26 at great wyrm).

Alternatively, look to mm5' xorvintaal template as a baseline.:smallsmile:

[candycorn]

My general rule of thumb is to optimize to the party.

When the CR system was penned, barbarians couldn't pounce on a charge. Most of this didn't exist.

The definition of a "typical party" is the real issue.

If your typical party is Sword and board, rogue, healbot, blaster mage, then yeah, a pouncing dragon may be under-CR'd.

But if your party is Ubercharger, shadowpouncer, CoDzilla, Batman, then one that doesn't is over-CR'd.

But both are correctly CR'd, according to the Rules.

[Eldariel]

My general rule of thumb is to optimize to the party.

When the CR system was penned, barbarians couldn't pounce on a charge. Most of this didn't exist.

The definition of a "typical party" is the real issue.

If your typical party is Sword and board, rogue, healbot, blaster mage, then yeah, a pouncing dragon may be under-CR'd.

But if your party is Ubercharger, shadowpouncer, CoDzilla, Batman, then one that doesn't is over-CR'd.

But both are correctly CR'd, according to the Rules.

There is a reason CR is a fundamentally flawed system: It assumes characters of a given level are approximately equally powerful. Since character power is much more about specific class levels & feats and treasure than ECL, any system based on the assumption of equal level characters being equal starts off broken.

Then of course, same lack of balance applies to monsters which further borks up the CR. The end result is a completely meaningless system that's at best a rough gauge as to how much HD a creature has.

[candycorn]

There is a reason CR is a fundamentally flawed system: It assumes characters of a given level are approximately equally powerful. Since character power is much more about specific class levels & feats and treasure than ECL, any system based on the assumption of equal level characters being equal starts off broken.

Then of course, same lack of balance applies to monsters which further borks up the CR. The end result is a completely meaningless system that's at best a rough gauge as to how much HD a creature has.

And this is the point I've been trying to make, the whole time.

Thank you.

[That_guy_there]

It does go both ways though. Kobalds are famous for being nasty little buggers when played smart, but every DM has a memory of when their PCs went nuts and had a brilliant plan that maximized their strengths and trivialised what statistically should have been a difficult encounter.

A little off topic but i ran a 12th level encounter with an optimized party who took a job to kill a bunch of kolbolds... and were shocked that i had leveled them to the party and ran thier undead leader (Who i called the Leper King) smart, like his 18 Int dictated.

So i get what you're saying. its about context.

[Taelas]

It is an extension of Rule 0. It is the very same thing that Rule 0 is.
{{scrubbed}}

[candycorn]

*stuff*

"You, as DM, may alter anything as you see fit"
"You, as DM, may alter CR's to account for synergy as you see fit"

If the first is true, the second is redundant.
Why?
CR is a part of "anything".

The first is Rule 0.
The second is text with essentially the entire guidelines for altering CR for situational advantages/disadvantages. It's less defined than the custom item guidelines, for Pete's sake.

You can insult me all you like. You can take me seriously, or not, as you prefer.

But what I have said here is still true.

...and until you can address how a Level 10 Kobold fighter is CR 10, and a Level 10 whisper gnome wizard is also CR 10, despite massive differences in power, I'm not going to debate the impact of a feat.

You are arguing that a dragon's CR should raise based on the feats it selects.
I argue that as long as a CR 20 dragon falls somewhere between a Level 20 Fighter and a Wizard 20 in power, then it's within the acceptable listed range of power of a CR 20 creature.

The CR system is not able to gauge encounter difficulty. It's like trying to measure the length of a football field in degrees Celsius, or the volume of a oil barrel in kilograms.

EDIT: Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the CR system is like trying to measure the 50 yard dash in miles.

[Taelas]

No, you don't understand.

That is not rule zero. Rule zero is, "These are the rules, but as arbiter of your personal game, you are free to have whatever house rules you want."

In other words, you may alter the rules.

Doing something in accordance with the rules, even if said something is of the "up to the DM"-variety, is not altering the rules; it is following them. Therefore it is not rule zero.

If you cannot see the difference between following an open-ended rule and creating custom rules, then any discussion with you regarding the rules is completely pointless, because you fail to understand even the most basic rules.

The success or failure of the CR system has nothing to do with that.

[candycorn]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Talya]

I think his point is, there are written rough guidelines for altering CR and EL based on various criteria. Following those doesn't require rule 0, because those alterations are allowed in the rules even without rule 0.

Much like it doesn't require rule 0 to give creatures specific equipment, it doesn't require rule 0 to alter the CR of a creature through advancement or the encounter level through circumstances.

Clarification:
Boosting the CR because the creature is tougher than the designers thought (I.E. "That damn crab:) = Rule 0.
Boosting the CR because you are giving it more effective feats, spells, etc. != Rule 0.

[Taelas]

I am not even going to bother refuting the argument that changing rules is somehow "following" them due to rule zero.

If you honestly believe that, then all I can do is wish you 'good luck' with any argument you ever attempt in the future, because they are doomed to fail.

[candycorn]

I think his point is, there are written rough guidelines for altering CR and EL based on various criteria. Following those doesn't require rule 0, because those alterations are allowed in the rules even without rule 0.I get his point. That point, however, is wrong. Even if there are guidelines for altering CR (which is part of the rules system for estimating encounters and rewards for them), you are still altering part of the rules.


Much like it doesn't require rule 0 to give creatures specific equipment, it doesn't require rule 0 to alter the CR of a creature through advancement or the encounter level through circumstances.DMG, Page 110, provides specific and explicit instructions for giving creatures specific equipment. In doing so, you must adhere to a specific gold total, but it is a specific, enumerated process for selecting the equipment of a creature, should you choose to. You could alter that gold total, but that would require rule 0.

Altering the CR of a creature is not a specific process. There is a specific, enumerated listing for the monster. That's the specific process. You could alter that enumerated listing, but that would require rule 0.


Clarification:
Boosting the CR because the creature is tougher than the designers thought (I.E. "That damn crab:) = Rule 0.Correct. You are altering the listed rulestext.

Boosting the CR because you are giving it more effective feats, spells, etc. != Rule 0.Incorrect. CR is a rule. If you are altering it, you are applying rule 0. Just as when you say that dealing with a friend of your PC's father is a favorable circumstance, and entitles you to +2 to gather information checks. While the number is laid out in the rules, there is no process for determining what is favorable. Therefore, announcing a situation as favorable is outside the scope of the rules, and must be addressed by Rule 0.


I am not even going to bother refuting the argument that changing rules is somehow "following" them due to rule zero.Changing rules is following Rule 0. Rule 0 is a listed set of rulestext. Therefore, in changing a specific rule, you are following Rule 0. In other words, the DM cannot break the rules. There is literally no way for the DM to be in violation of the rules. If the DM wholesale creates rules and ignores others, he/she is following Rule 0. You do not refute that because it cannot be refuted. It is truth. It is fact. I suppose it could be disputed, in much the same way that people could dispute that water is wet, or that carbon exists in all known vertebrates.

The issue I have here, is that in changing the CR for this specific discussion, you delve into personal opinion, and you're not the DM for the entire Playground. If another DM says that selecting pounce on a dragon lowers its CR by 3, that DM is just as justified in doing so, by the same rules you yourself are using, because whether the encounter becomes harder or not is a matter of personal speculation.

And as such, it has no place here.

[Emperor Tippy]

Opponents should be optimized to the level of their intelligence and the games optimization level.

Are your PC's paranoid bastards who use every trick they can come up with to win and survive? If so then your dragon is a level 20 Sorcerer with access to Epic Feats, 3 times wealth by level, a thousand plus years of preparation, etc.

Are your PC's a blaster wizard, sword and board fighter, rogue, and heal bot cleric who don't really optimize at all and lack any sense of paranoia? Then the dragon is pretty much exactly as shown in the printed stat block with all his wealth as gold bars, no pre cast spells or magical effects, etc.

[Talya]

DMG, Page 110, provides specific and explicit instructions for giving creatures specific equipment. In doing so, you must adhere to a specific gold total, but it is a specific, enumerated process for selecting the equipment of a creature, should you choose to. You could alter that gold total, but that would require rule 0.



The DMG also provides instructions for altering the CR of creatures through various means (for example, by advancement.) This is not rule 0, because you are following those rules.


For the record, I would argue that no combination of optimized feats would change a dragon's CR without using rule 0. Dragons are not given any feats in their statistics block. DMs are specificly instructed to choose dragons feats appropriate to their hit dice. (And, at 21 Hit dice and higher, they begin qualifying for epic feats, despite still being a non-epic CR.) Choosing optimized feats does not change the CR, so DMs should be careful in choosing things appropriate to the power and optimization level of the party. Likewise, you cannot increase the CR of a dragon by its spell selection. (at least, not without rule 0.) Dragons are expected to fill those spell slots, and there is no specific spells known (or memorized) list a DM must adhere to, beyond what they qualify for. Once again, spells should be chosen carefully so as to present an adequate, but not overpowering challenge for your party. All these things are already factored into a dragon's CR. Changing a dragon's CR because you optimized things already counted in a dragon's existing CR would be rule 0, as surely as changing the CR of "That Damned Crab."

Giving a dragon class levels? Altering its ability scores (not modifiers, but base -- the default dragons are assumed to have 10s and 11s, which DMs are allowed to change without invoking rule 0)? These things are well within existing guidelines and DO change CR. A dragon on the elite array with levels in Incantatrix and Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian has a higher CR than the base dragon, and is totally within normal guidelines. Giving a dragon underlings, traps, etc.? Those have CRs of their own and would be factored in. None of that requires rule 0.

[candycorn]

The DMG also provides instructions for altering the CR of creatures through various means (for example, by advancement.) This is not rule 0, because you are following those rules.I agree with this. For the rules which provide for specific ways in which to create monsters which get specific enumerated differences in exchange for specific enumerated alterations to the entry. This is a specific process for creating a specific monster.


For the record, I would argue that no combination of optimized feats would change a dragon's CR without using rule 0. Dragons are not given any feats in their statistics block. DMs are specificly instructed to choose dragons feats appropriate to their hit dice. (And, at 21 Hit dice and higher, they begin qualifying for epic feats, despite still being a non-epic CR.) Choosing optimized feats does not change the CR, so DMs should be careful in choosing things appropriate to the power and optimization level of the party. Likewise, you cannot increase the CR of a dragon by its spell selection. (at least, not without rule 0.)
This is precisely the issue that is being addressed by myself and Szar_Lakol. It's also precisely the issue I have been arguing. The bolded text represents my exact views.


Dragons are expected to fill those spell slots, and there is no specific spells known (or memorized) list a DM must adhere to, beyond what they qualify for. Once again, spells should be chosen carefully so as to present an adequate, but not overpowering challenge for your party. All these things are already factored into a dragon's CR. Changing a dragon's CR because you optimized things already counted in a dragon's existing CR would be rule 0, as surely as changing the CR of "That Damned Crab."Again, bolded text represents my exact view.


Giving a dragon class levels? Altering its ability scores (not modifiers, but base -- the default dragons are assumed to have 10s and 11s, which DMs are allowed to change without invoking rule 0)? These things are well within existing guidelines and DO change CR.Correct. Rules provide specific guidelines for doing this.


A dragon on the elite array with levels in Incantatrix and Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian has a higher CR than the base dragon, and is totally within normal guidelines. Giving a dragon underlings, traps, etc.? Those have CRs of their own and would be factored in. None of that requires rule 0.Correct, again.

The only time Rule 0 is invoked is when you say, "I think this CR should be different because I think this is more powerful than what I personally feel a creature of this CR should be."

[Clawhound]

There is optimized, then again, there is optimized.

An optimized kobald produces pun-pun, thus, all kobalds would optimize themselves to pun-pun. It only makes sense.

Or not.

I, as a person, can figure out where the rules break down and take advantage of those gaps. I can get far more advantage out of that strategy than other combination of choices. However, as a DM, I do not design creatures using out-of-game knowledge. Would my creatures follow these rules peculiarities? Are they apparent in the game world?

I contend that using optimizer board tactics does affect the overall difficulty of an encounter. There's a significant difference between good choices and exploiting loopholes in the rules. CR accounts for good choices, not for metagaming the rules.

[Talya]

There is optimized, then again, there is optimized.

An optimized kobald produces pun-pun, thus, all kobalds would optimize themselves to pun-pun. It only makes sense.

Or not.

Well, obviously. Why do most NPCs pick the commoner class? Encounters are only "optimized" to the extent the DM needs in order to present an appropriate challenge to her players.



I, as a person, can figure out where the rules break down and take advantage of those gaps. I can get far more advantage out of that strategy than other combination of choices. However, as a DM, I do not design creatures using out-of-game knowledge. Would my creatures follow these rules peculiarities? Are they apparent in the game world?


The creatures follow the same level of usage of "rules peculiarities" as the PCs do, at least in my games. The idea is to make the game fun, not a cakewalk, and not a ball-busting nightmare. (for the record, i wouldn't let a player pull "pun-pun" crap in game, and i doubt anyone else would either. Giving a dragon a level of pounce-barbarian with power attack as a feat turns the dragon into a melee terror, but it isn't taking advantage of rules loopholes or doing anything unintended. If party optimization warrants it, the dragon will be that tough, with no more increase in CR than a level of any other class would give it.)




I contend that using optimizer board tactics does affect the overall difficulty of an encounter. There's a significant difference between good choices and exploiting loopholes in the rules. CR accounts for good choices, not for metagaming the rules.

Of course optimizing board tactics affects the overall difficulty of an encounter. However, CR does not represent overall difficulty. It represents the level of party for which the monster should be an appropriate challenge, and the reward an encounter gives you, both in XP and treasure. Increasing (or decreasing) the difficulty to match the players' optimization levels doesn't require increasing or decreasing the reward for defeating an encounter. So changing the CR just because you better optimized a monster is not appropriate.

[candycorn]

I contend that using optimizer board tactics does affect the overall difficulty of an encounter.Agreed.


There's a significant difference between good choices and exploiting loopholes in the rules.What rules loopholes are you contending are being exploited?


CR accounts for good choicesI disagree.

If CR was a scale that accounted accurately for the difficulty of an encounter, then properly accounting would mean that within a given difficulty, CR's should be roughly equally powerful.

However, we run into the issue of:
Level 11 fighter (CR 11)
Level 11 Wizard (CR 11)

Assuming good choices, without deep in depth optimization, the latter presents a far greater threat to a level 11 party. Therefore, the CR system is not accomplishing the goal of providing a means to gauge the challenge of an encounter and providing a means to appropriately reward that challenge. This is due to the fact that these two encounters will provide the same reward, whilst having significantly differing levels of challenge.

The CR system is broken, yes. It needs Rule 0 to work. Luckily, it breaks in both directions, so some encounters will be trivial, and others will be dangerous, and the XP/rewards tend to balance out in the long run.

But it is not an accurate way to determine the difficulty of an individual encounter.