The CR is a lie!

[Talakeal]

CR in D20 is broken, everyone knows this. Although some things are more broken than others (MM2 I am looking at you), it is pretty obvious to most people that the entire system is flawed.

My question is, how would you do better?

I have gotten to the point in designing my own RPG that I am trying to balance the minutia, such as assigning appropriate challenges to the players, and for the life of me I can't figure out how to make CR work.

How did D&D come up with the equal CR encounter = 20% resources thing? How did they come up with each further CR = 20% resources? What are the odds of surviving things more than 4 CR above the party? What percentage of resources should lower CR encounters use up (I am very curious about this).

For one thing, a flat CR number is just too situational.
Take for example a monster with weaknesses or immunities; if the party relies on these methods of attacks the fight will be tremendously changed, if the party doesn't include those methods of attack the immunity / weakness is meaningless. The opposite is also true, a party immune or weak to a monsters abilities screws up CR.
Further, if one side has ranged attacks and superior speed / flight, then the encounter will be a slaughter regardless of CR.
Wings make a huge difference outside, not so much in a dungeon. Aquatic creatures are tough in the water, no so much on land. Monsters with blind / dark vision are tough in the dark, but these abilities don't matter during the day. Let's not even get started on ethereal creatures vs. parties with no magic attacks (and vice versa).

Then there is the problem of numbers. The DMG claims that doubling the number of enemies increases the CR by +2, but it isn't at all confident in this assessment and says it is better to eyeball it. What about uneven increases in numbers, or fighting a group of monsters of different types and different CRs? What if the party has more or fewer members?

In short, does anyone have any idea how one would design a working CR system, is such a thing even possible?

[Malachei]

I think it is incredibly hard.

A few reasons:

Parties' and characters' power levels vary widely
The combination of party resources is hard to predict
The combination of different monsters can lead to synergy (White Dragon + Undead or other cold-immune creature etc.)


CR can serve as a general guideline, within limits. As different players, characters, combinations come into play, individual results are hard to predict. Also, different designers have worked on monsters, and with the huge scope of 3.5 material, it is obvious that there are outliers.

I think blaming game designers is easy, but it is hard to create a flawless system.

[godryk]

Well, a DM should always check the monsters and enemies and judge their ability to slaughter the party. I found the Will-o'-the-wisp in the Moster Manual and I thought it would be a fun monster (CR 6) for a 5th level party. Well, as a novice DM I skimmed through the description and didn't realize that this beauty had AC 29, Natural Invisivility, Inmunity to Magic and was able to hit almost every turn with a +16 melee touch dealing 2D8. The cleric was missing and the players were mostly new so I had to let them runaway (they had a cart). For me it made sense that a Will-o'-the-wisp wouldn't follow them relentlessly. Is it wrong that players have to flee from a combat? Not necessarily, but still, I learned my lessons that day (specially with the Ogre barbarian).

[limejuicepowder]

I think people are expecting far too much from CR. Yes, the books make it out like it's a more exact science, which it's not, but it's still useful as a base guideline. It's an easy way to separate monsters roughly by power - the designers guessed at how much of a challenge each of the monsters would pose against a completely average party of the given level. I think they largely succeeded - I can't think of a single CR that I would adjust by more then 2 after all, and that's pretty close.

If a DM is looking for a challenge for his party of 4th level characters, there is no reason he should have to go over every monster in the book, the majority of which would be a TPK in a matter of seconds. Rather, he just looks at the CR 2-5 range, and makes his ultimate decision based on the actual capabilities of his party.

[Talakeal]

I can't think of a single CR that I would adjust by more then 2 after all, and that's pretty close.


You obviously haven't read the Monster Manual II :)

Anyway, I was just hoping I could find a less broken solution, it would really make playtesting easier if I could figure out some sort of baseline difficulty for a challenges, as well as how many / frequent challenges to put in an adventure overall.

[Denamort]

I think the first thing to know about CR is that it's just a guidline. Before you jump into creating CR tables for the creatures on your RPG you should make a paragraph explaining how it works. You can't just go to the Monster Manual and pick a level apropiate encounter. The DM should know the parties weaknesses and how they interact with the enemies immunities. He should also know what kind of terrain are the monsters spected to be. Using an aquati encounter on dry land is just silly, since it's obvious the challenge of such creature is tied to it being under water.
The problem with CR is that it tries to do the imposible. You can either acuratly predict how dificult a challenge will be by restricting character choice, or you can leave character options as open as posible, and thus making calculating CR extreamly dificult.
You can have a set of tables to modify a monster's CR acording to the the parties resources. For instance, a Wraith is a CR 5 encounter, for a party with a Figther, Rouge, Wizard and Cleric. Now, this asumes the character already have magical weapons, that the Wizard and Cleric have spells usefull against the creature. You can add +1 to the CR if they have no magical weapons. And +2 if the wizard doesn't have any spell that can hurt the creature. Or -1 if they are a party of divine casters (Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, for instance) with a bigger repertoire of "Anti-Undead" tactics. The problem with this is that the point of CR is to have a fast and easy way to determine how strong a monster is against a party. If you have to check the Table and add modifiers and check the monster's immunities, then you may as well estimate the CR by yourself. It's all about striking a balance between how effective the system is and how quickly one can calculate CR.

[theNater]

The 20% of resources thing came from what the designers wanted the monsters to do. They were hoping most parties would go through 4-6 fights per day, and that means that each fight needed to use 16-25% of the party's resources. If you want your parties to have a single fight per day, you'd want an equal CR encounter to consume 100% of their daily resources; while if you prefer that they have 10 fights a day, you'd design an equal CR fight to consume 10% of their resources.

I suspect the biggest help in making CR reliable would be to normalize player efficacy. If you know approximately how high a PC's hit bonus will be at a certain level, you can base the AC of monsters with that CR on that. If you know how much damage PCs are dealing, you can base monster HP on that. Monster attack bonuses can be based on the AC a PC should have, and so on.

If you aim for that, monsters should rarely be able to completely shut out a PC's ability to participate. You can do this by making immunities rare and resistances/weaknesses small relative to damage, or by making it difficult to build characters who only have one damage type.

Assuming it's a dungeon delving game, you'll probably want to design monsters assuming the monster is in its element. This is based on the premise that the PCs are usually attacking monsters in their lairs. So if PCs have a penalty to attacks underwater, aquatic monsters would have slightly lower AC to compensate(maybe by a touch less than the penalty, making them just a bit harder to hit than normal). This makes pulling the monsters out of the water feel like a bonus, instead of the expected way to fight.

[Darth Stabber]

MM2 is a 3.0 book, my expectations for it's balance are minimal. Other than random encounters, you can pick any monster you want keeping in mind party composition and abilities. Just picking a CR is always a bad way to roll. It's closer to reasonable in 4e, but even then it's not perfect. Over all CR isn't bad, people just trust it too much.

[Tokuhara]

This number is right not because it's the number the formula spits out, it's just more right than every other number we tried.

From 3.0 into early 3.5 (Have a friend who's dad worked for WotC), everything was done through some arcane formula to balance everything and crank out "balanced" items. However near the midpoint to end of 3.5, everything was made through Benchmarking (compare New Monster to similar monster of similar intended CR or New Feat to Feat we know works), thus causing some balance issues (when mis-benchmarked against something REALLY overpowered or underpowered)

[killem2]

I completely agree on the CR thing. When I sent a basic shadow from the MM at a party of level 1/2's with no magical items, other than one weak mage, a low level cleric, and an elven hound we barely got through that measly encounter and it was a CR3 and by all means it really should have been an even fight. For christs sake they destroy a MM version of a max hp brown bear! and this shadow was ripping them apart.

At that point forward, I discovered, as the DM I have a lot of power to fine tune encounters. Not to always make my players win, but to make sure that the battle at hand, is with the scope of what they can do.

As much fun as it might be, to fight some uber zombie templated Minotaur, if I have a bunch of melee with blud/pierce weapons, the fight will feel less epic for them, and drag on for far to long.

Concealment, Cover, DR, are aspects that i feel just don't match exactly the same with the party levels, unless wizards is figuring up the wealth per level and assume players will have the weaponry.

My current dungeon I made is a crypt on one side, bandit hide out on the other. they entered it when they were level 1 and 2, and after it is all said and done, they will be scratching at level 5.

Also, with the flux of miniatures since 2000, (go go mage knight old figures that aren't used anymore lol), I always play out the encounter 5 to 6 times straight before looking at any possible adjustments.

That I feel is key. As a dm, it doesn't matter if you know the out come or have seen how the battle could play out, your players will never know, so by pass a possible TKP (unless you are tying to) and be mindful!

[nedz]

Combat can be very swingy too, especially at low levels.
I once had 10 basic Orc Warriors trounce a level 5 party. I was shocked it was only meant to be a theamatic encounter.

So CR - well I generally ignore it, but you have to know your party and what they can actualy do. Player ability, OP level and random luck are usually more important.

[Sturmcrow]

no Challenge rating system will be perfect because it cannot predict either the optimization level of the party, the synergy of the PCs, the synergy of the players nor the experience level of the Players either.

It just takes experience as a DM to try and build challenging fights with the possibility that sometimes the fights will be too easy or too hard

[Talakeal]

The problem with just eyeballing everything and judging by the current party is two fold. First, from a design perspective, I need to be able to write guidelines so future DMs aren't flailing around blindly, particularly new and inexperianced DMs.

Second, the need to be able to establish a "baseline" to tell the difference between an optimized party, a cometent party, and a feeble one.

[a_humble_lich]

A thing to remember is that as broken as the CR system is, almost no other games have anything as good. I can't think of any game outside of the d20 series that has anything like CR*. Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, GURPS, 2nd edition DnD, Rifts/Paladium, Talislanta, Exalted/World of Darkness, Ars Magica, MERP--none of these games have anything like the CR system; in all of them the GM just has to eyeball encounters.




* Of course, I'm only including games I've had experience. In particular, I assume 4th edition has something like a CR, but I've never had an opportunity to play it.

[Tvtyrant]

The best system for this would probably be to simply have 10 different parties play test each monster at every level (which would take a lot of time and people, but whatevskies).

So:
Level 1 party against Beholder (wipe out!)
Level 2 party against Beholder (...)
etc.


The one problem with this approach is that you would need to have the parties be the same between each monster, so you do not get the "Let's kill a Balor at level 5 by having a party designed to kill Balors!"

[Andorax]

The best system for this would probably be to simply have 10 different parties play test each monster at every level (which would take a lot of time and people, but whatevskies).

So:
Level 1 party against Beholder (wipe out!)
Level 2 party against Beholder (...)
etc.



Which would prove that CRs are (within a certain amount of luck variance) viable and appropriate if your party happens to be composed similarly to one of the "test 10" and played with comparable skill against a comparably skillful DM.

A lot of work, and still highly imperfect.

[Taelas]

It's impossible to balance "perfectly". What's more, it doesn't really need to be, if the DM is willing to work a little. CR is an estimate for what is challenging against an average party. If it doesn't fit your group... just adjust CRs downwards or upwards until they do.

It's not as if your group will know if the monster gets an adjusted CR mid-fight. (If they know the CR of a given monster, just say you adjusted it to tailor it to the group.)

"Huh. This encounter was way harder than I thought it'd be. I'll increase the CR, give them a little more XP to make up for the higher difficulty."
"Oyyy... they are making mince meat out of this boss. I'd better decrease the CR, so they don't get a boatload of XP for what's essentially a curbstomb."

If that approach doesn't fit your game style, well, you can always keep it in mind for the next fight instead.

[Mirakk]

It's impossible to balance "perfectly". What's more, it doesn't really need to be, if the DM is willing to work a little. CR is an estimate for what is challenging against an average party. If it doesn't fit your group... just adjust CRs downwards or upwards until they do.

Beautiful. I had never considered doing this before, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for this wonderful input! I'll definitely be doing this from now on.

[DeltaEmil]

Challenge Ratings don't work well because the strength of the party in general as well as each one individual can be wildly different from the 'standard full attack fighter-healbot cleric-blaster wizard-sneak attack and then dying-rogue'. Extremely different. Brutally different.

[Bahamut Omega]

It's impossible to balance "perfectly". What's more, it doesn't really need to be, if the DM is willing to work a little. CR is an estimate for what is challenging against an average party. If it doesn't fit your group... just adjust CRs downwards or upwards until they do.

It's not as if your group will know if the monster gets an adjusted CR mid-fight. (If they know the CR of a given monster, just say you adjusted it to tailor it to the group.)

"Huh. This encounter was way harder than I thought it'd be. I'll increase the CR, give them a little more XP to make up for the higher difficulty."
"Oyyy... they are making mince meat out of this boss. I'd better decrease the CR, so they don't get a boatload of XP for what's essentially a curbstomb."

If that approach doesn't fit your game style, well, you can always keep it in mind for the next fight instead.

I agree wholeheartedly, but with one caveat. Don't penalize players because the dice are with them that night. I've had nights playing 4th edition Gamma world where my dice didn't know of numbers less than 15, other nights getting a roll above 4 is a real chore. My point is that getting criticals is part of the game and sometimes you counted too much on the PCs not getting one. It happens, but you move on. On the same note, don't increase the CR just because they can't roll for crap either. When that happens, it may just be time to run.

[Taelas]

No, of course don't change the CR simply due to the players' luck (good or bad); the dice should never determine CR.

But if your boss' calculated CR is meant to be a challenge for the PCs, and it turns out he can't beat the wizard's save DCs on anything but a 20, or the fighter hits on 2s with his main attacks--if he isn't a real challenge, basically--then you should probably look at the CR for the boss (assuming you don't just straight up boost his stats to match the CR instead, though personally I find this more questionable than adjusting CR).

This is also valid if the reason for the boss' distress is that the players prepared extremely well... while preparation is good, the fight itself needs to be a challenge to provide XP. You can even do this for class abilities (though generally you should do it the other way around; increase the CR if they don't have them, like fighting waves of undead without a cleric), though your players probably won't be happy if you do either. It feels like punishing the players for being smart, even though it is simply providing the proper reward for the challenge.

[Bahamut Omega]

Remember, Szar, players earn XP when they overcome a challenge. If the players decide against attacking the lich straight out and instead research the ritual and who he was beforehand, learning his weaknesses and preparing for it, they should absolutely get the full XP for the lich. They roleplayed, they used skills besides just their combat abilities to defeat their enemies.

Consider in OOTS when Roy defeats Thog thanks to cross-class ranks in (Architecture and Engineering). If a player's character makes those expenditures and uses them to great effect, that's good roleplaying. Just because the combat wasn't difficult because of the players' foresight is no reason to deny XP. Heck, I'd probably award a little more.

[Taelas]

Remember, Szar, players earn XP when they overcome a challenge. If the players decide against attacking the lich straight out and instead research the ritual and who he was beforehand, learning his weaknesses and preparing for it, they should absolutely get the full XP for the lich. They roleplayed, they used skills besides just their combat abilities to defeat their enemies.

Consider in OOTS when Roy defeats Thog thanks to cross-class ranks in (Architecture and Engineering). If a player's character makes those expenditures and uses them to great effect, that's good roleplaying. Just because the combat wasn't difficult because of the players' foresight is no reason to deny XP. Heck, I'd probably award a little more.

If the players decide to avoid engaging the lich BBEG and instead seek some other way to defeat him outside of actual combat, then they will not receive XP as if they had overcome the lich in combat. They may easily receive some other form of XP reward, as appropriate for their efforts (which may exceed the reward they would have gotten from combat, depending on what exactly they had to do), but it is a separate reward, not tied to the CR system. Well. I should say it is not tied to the lich. The task they are to do may have a challenge rating associated with it, of course.

Roy's combat was certainly difficult, and I see no reason not to award him full XP for the encounter. Remember, the combat was quite a bit longer than the last few rounds below the arena. If Roy had had the trap in place from the beginning, it would be a different matter, but he improvised mid-combat.

If the players learn in advance that they will face a troll, and they research trolls and learn that they only take full damage from fire and acid, and prepare accordingly--then the challenge is less than if they had not done so, and the CR should be decreased accordingly. There is nothing wrong with researching your opponents, but you should not expect full XP when you use a weakness the creature possesses. Against a troll, using only fire and acid damage is like eliminating his Regeneration ability. A troll without Regeneration is not a CR 5 monster.

CR is an estimate of the difficulty of an encounter. If you eliminate or invalidate elements incorporated into an encounter, the difficulty decreases--and CR should decrease accordingly.

[Emperor Tippy]

The variability makes CR a total crap shoot.

Take the Solar. CR 23, supposed to be a good boss level fight for an ECL 20 party.

With a well built party and using the stat block lifted straight from the MM, Solars can be a relatively trivial fight for an ECL 15 or lower party.

With an average party and the stat block played straight the Solar is pretty much where it should be CR wise (a difficult, but not overwhelming, fight for a level 20 party).

Now, if you play a Solars stats like they should be played then it will stomp most non epic parties without any real effort.

Thanks to it's free SLA wish, add a +5 Inherent bonus to every stat.

Using a Rod of Extend (for 48 hour duration) add in 3 castings of Energy Immunity (6th level Cleric spell) for immunity to Fire, Sonic, and Electricity. That's immunity to all energy types.

Replace the crap feat selection with useful feats (and thanks to 22 HD you qualify for Epic feats). Permanent Emanation, Widened Zone of Respite is an excellent choice. Epic Magic is a possibility if you feel like using it.

Get a full load out of nifty items. Pick decent spells.

You can, without using Epic Magic, turn a Solar into a true beast of a fight that will challenge even a highly optimized level 20 party. In point of fact, that is what every solar should be based on it's purpose, it's temperament, and it's ability scores.

Throw a fully tricked out Solar at anything less than a highly optimized level 20 party and it will stomp that party flat in about 6 seconds, conversely, throw a highly optimized level 20 party at a vanilla Solar and the Solar will be dead in under 6 seconds.

[Bahamut Omega]

If the players decide to avoid engaging the lich BBEG and instead seek some other way to defeat him outside of actual combat, then they will not receive XP as if they had overcome the lich in combat. They may easily receive some other form of XP reward, as appropriate for their efforts (which may exceed the reward they would have gotten from combat, depending on what exactly they had to do), but it is a separate reward, not tied to the CR system. Well. I should say it is not tied to the lich. The task they are to do may have a challenge rating associated with it, of course.

Roy's combat was certainly difficult, and I see no reason not to award him full XP for the encounter. Remember, the combat was quite a bit longer than the last few rounds below the arena. If Roy had had the trap in place from the beginning, it would be a different matter, but he improvised mid-combat.

If the players learn in advance that they will face a troll, and they research trolls and learn that they only take full damage from fire and acid, and prepare accordingly--then the challenge is less than if they had not done so, and the CR should be decreased accordingly. There is nothing wrong with researching your opponents, but you should not expect full XP when you use a weakness the creature possesses. Against a troll, using only fire and acid damage is like eliminating his Regeneration ability. A troll without Regeneration is not a CR 5 monster.

CR is an estimate of the difficulty of an encounter. If you eliminate or invalidate elements incorporated into an encounter, the difficulty decreases--and CR should decrease accordingly.

I disagree completely. Players have a lot of skills beyond their ability to stab things. Characters taking ranks in knowledges sacrifice their ability to tumble, jump and climb in combat and receive a better understanding of what they face. Instead of learning to stab things with brute force, they figure out what's the most effective way to stab things. Nothing wrong with that.

They used their skills that weren't combat related to overcome a combat challenge with more ease. They should get the full the XP.

If a Rogue goaded a troll into chasing them as he scrambled up a cliff, got to the top and then kicked him off, would you award less XP? He used his environment and non combat skills to make a combat easier on himself. Why should he fight fair, that's not what rogues do.

[navar100]

The game's fault is declaring a particular CR for a monster that is too high or too low for whatever reason.

However, sometimes I think the fault also lies with a DM who misunderstands what CR is supposed to mean. Not every DM, not anyone here in particular, just the colloquial DM. The misunderstanding lies in not realizing that when the party faces an appropriate CR monster, they're supposed to win. Four full round actions of a party to one full round action of the monster is another factor overlooked.

These DMs think the CR is wrong because the party is winning so easily. The DM is upset no one is even going to Death's Door. It's not even about wanting to kill a PC; he honestly just thinks something is wrong if no PC has a lethality scare. He's not "challenging" them. Suggesting increasing the CR the party faces solves the symptom but not the problem. The problem is hypochondria - the DM thinks there's a problem when there really isn't a problem.

[Nabirius]

I'm inclined to agree with the variability argument. CR has use, its nice to be able to sort the monster by CR and say is this good? How about this? How about this. Then when you've found one you liked looking it over in detail in order to see how it stacks up to the party.

I had a DM that made the mistake of assuming CR is additive, in that 20 monsters with a CR of 1/2 was a good fight for a level 10 party. Or just took weak monsters like a harpy and kept slapping more and more health and stats on it. These were not very challenging or engaging fights.

When I DM I am all for fiating things in the party's favor in order to keep things fair if I screw up an encounter and make it too hard. That said I'm also cool with making it a close call, and even having characters die as long as there is a not terribly painful method of Resurrection or something.

[Endarire]

I've given up awarding XP in 3.x.

Instead, I level the party when 'tis plot-appropriate. That way, I need not worry about the opposition I use providing the 'wrong' amount of XP. I also need not worry if the group has played long enough with the 'effort meter,' that is, if they've spent enough rounds wailing on it or messing with it to warrant full XP.

This allows for smoother games. I need not worry if the Wizard's sob story that granted him 25 XP would be enough to push him to the next spell level, thereby nullifying the challenges in this area.

Also, an important factor of CR (which 3.x doesn't use) is to say in each creature entry why the creature is CR X, including the assumptions of party makeup and assumed items/powers/spells/classes.

For example, a Dire Wolf (CR 3 in 3.5) would be CR 3 because of these factors, compared to other CR 3s:
-High HP
-Low AC
-High damage
-Trip
-Scent

(Mind you, I believe a Dire Wolf as listed is a better CR 4 or CR 5 considering how easily it can turn parties into paste with +11 accuracy and d8+10 damage with a free trip attempt if it hits.)

[Taelas]

I disagree completely. Players have a lot of skills beyond their ability to stab things. Characters taking ranks in knowledges sacrifice their ability to tumble, jump and climb in combat and receive a better understanding of what they face. Instead of learning to stab things with brute force, they figure out what's the most effective way to stab things. Nothing wrong with that.
When did I say there was anything wrong with it? Strictly speaking, there isn't; they simply need to be aware that any challenges they undertake that they have lessened through study will reward less XP.

If there isn't a challenge involved, what's the point?


They used their skills that weren't combat related to overcome a combat challenge with more ease. They should get the full the XP.
No; they changed the challenge. A party equipped with nothing but fire and acid damage facing up against a troll has effectively eliminated--or at least invalidated--one of the troll's iconic abilities. It is not as effective a challenge as it would have been.


If a Rogue goaded a troll into chasing them as he scrambled up a cliff, got to the top and then kicked him off, would you award less XP? He used his environment and non combat skills to make a combat easier on himself. Why should he fight fair, that's not what rogues do.
Off-hand, I see no reason not award full XP for this, though it depends on how precisely he goaded the troll (and how exactly he 'kicked him off'). Assuming he made a Bluff check, then it's fine. I wouldn't be so sure that attempting to push a troll off the side of a cliff would work, but assuming it did, then he defeated the combat challenge as it was written, albeit in an unorthodox way. The point is, though, the troll has statistics for things like this. It can resist a Bull Rush attempt (or simply side-step it) to get pushed off a cliff. It can roll a Sense Motive check to see through the Bluff.

[Eisirt]

CR is a guideline, not an iron clad rule.

[Bahamut Omega]

When did I say there was anything wrong with it? Strictly speaking, there isn't; they simply need to be aware that any challenges they undertake that they have lessened through study will reward less XP.

If there isn't a challenge involved, what's the point?


No; they changed the challenge. A party equipped with nothing but fire and acid damage facing up against a troll has effectively eliminated--or at least invalidated--one of the troll's iconic abilities. It is not as effective a challenge as it would have been.


Off-hand, I see no reason not award full XP for this, though it depends on how precisely he goaded the troll (and how exactly he 'kicked him off'). Assuming he made a Bluff check, then it's fine. I wouldn't be so sure that attempting to push a troll off the side of a cliff would work, but assuming it did, then he defeated the combat challenge as it was written, albeit in an unorthodox way. The point is, though, the troll has statistics for things like this. It can resist a Bull Rush attempt (or simply side-step it) to get pushed off a cliff. It can roll a Sense Motive check to see through the Bluff.

What I'm understanding from this is that you're allowing the Rogue who made a physical skill check the rightly entitled XP, but denying full XP to the clever Wizard who spent a few days and made intelligence skill checks in the library before heading out to face a threat. I think that's wrong and I think it's poor DMing on your part.

[Taelas]

What I'm understanding from this is that you're allowing the Rogue who made a physical skill check the rightly entitled XP, but denying full XP to the clever Wizard who spent a few days and made intelligence skill checks in the library before heading out to face a threat. I think that's wrong and I think it's poor DMing on your part.

They are two completely different situations, and it is a mistake to assume they are equal. The rogue is facing the full creature. The wizard eliminates an aspect of it and is only facing part of the challenge.

Giving both characters the same XP (when one faced a significant challenge and one did not) is, in my opinion, poor DMing.

It may be appropriate for the wizard to receive an XP bonus for researching the creature's weaknesses beforehand (perhaps even exceeding the normal XP reward for the creature when combined with the combat reward), but that would be a singular occurrence, and would not be repeated.

If you remove part of the challenge, you should not expect to be rewarded as if you had faced it fully.

The wizard can still receive full XP if he does not purposefully target the weakness--the knowledge itself does not reduce his XP. Likewise, if he is grouped with the rogue, they will both receive half of the full reward, as is appropriate, even if the wizard targets the weakness--as long as the rogue does not. XP for groups is based on the group as a whole, not on a per-character basis.

[Bahamut Omega]

They are two completely different situations, and it is a mistake to assume they are equal. The rogue is facing the full creature. The wizard eliminates an aspect of it and is only facing part of the challenge.

Giving both characters the same XP (when one faced a significant challenge and one did not) is, in my opinion, poor DMing.

It may be appropriate for the wizard to receive an XP bonus for researching the creature's weaknesses beforehand (perhaps even exceeding the normal XP reward for the creature when combined with the combat reward), but that would be a singular occurrence, and would not be repeated.

If you remove part of the challenge, you should not expect to be rewarded as if you had faced it fully.

The wizard can still receive full XP if he does not purposefully target the weakness--the knowledge itself does not reduce his XP. Likewise, if he is grouped with the rogue, they will both receive half of the full reward, as is appropriate, even if the wizard targets the weakness--as long as the rogue does not. XP for groups is based on the group as a whole, not on a per-character basis.

The wizard did face it fully, he just defeated it in a less dramatic way than the rogue. What if the wizard faces the troll, makes a good knowledge check and learns that his acid arrows and fireball spells are a better choice than anything else. What if he's like most wizards and fireball is his standard method of dispute resolution? Should he get less then?

Times when I think it's appropriate to modify the CR is when the enemy is less or more of challenge to the party than it should be. Facing high HD zombies without the benefit of an arcane caster is annoying as it drags on and on the cleric can't turn them, the fighters and rogues can't crit/sneak attack them, it really just turns into a slogfest with the walking HP mounds.

Facing off against an arcane caster with a significant terrain advantage is good reason to increase the CR. Suppose 15th level wizard attacks a 12th level party from atop a cliff which grants him 50% concealment against missile attacks from below. The party has to weather his assault until they can get within range of him to engage him. That's a reason to increase the CR.

On the flip side, facing off against low hit die undead with 2 clerics in the party would justify reducing the CR. That enemy grouping will likely get steamrolled.

Should the PCs stumble upon a grouping of ogres down in a valley and rain fire down on them, the CR should be reduced. It's not like they tracked the ogres through the valley and deliberately attacked them while they slept in a poorly defended position. If that had happened, I would award full XP. They could've fought the ogres directly, but they chose not to.

[Red_Dog]

I'll just drop my 2 CP in this jar.

I generally prefer to make my own system for XP in a campaign and than evaluate Player's chances to succeed in an encounter on case by case bases.

Its fairly "simple" to me.

My XP system basically consists of me dropping "XP items" all over the campaign, which when "meditated" up on will provide PCs with XP. Items vary widely and always non-magical [personal nicknacks, family relic, etc.]. A player has few options on how to get them, => Talking a monster/NPC out of it, killing the owner, or stealing an item.

This way, a character that isn't great in combat, or isn't great in combat with THIS particular "owner", he/she can use a different approach and not be punished for it.

This than lets me make a "high powered" game, where an average NPC is lvl6-8 and comes in bulk of 1000, but doesn't provide XP when simply "grinded". This explains wars better, and helps knock the sense of invulnerability out of players a bit ^^. It also lets me create a wide ranger of NPCs [as I found that CL8 usually gives a cool unique type of NPC and not be a "hero" on his own"].

This all together lets me make an encounter that looks difficult [PCs vs 1-3 squads of trained soldiers, backed by a leader for example], which in reality has a lot of ends with a lot more than 50% going in favor of PCs. The PCs would feel threaten but come out victorious because a lot of times, killing all NPCs isn't a goal at all. ^^ I like to think it brings a bit of "gritty fantasy" into lvl10-15 territory where a PC should be in "heroic fantasy zone". ^^
**What can I say, I like gritty fantasy games^^**

I understand that a lot of people wouldn't like this system, but I'm not writing the sales pitch here, just dropping of my 2 CP ^^

[Riverdance]

On-the-spot improvisation I choose you!! I usually just adjust things to be more or less powerful as the situation requires.

[Taelas]

The wizard did face it fully, he just defeated it in a less dramatic way than the rogue. What if the wizard faces the troll, makes a good knowledge check and learns that his acid arrows and fireball spells are a better choice than anything else. What if he's like most wizards and fireball is his standard method of dispute resolution? Should he get less then?
There is no difference. Whether he knows or not is irrelevant. The monster was less of a challenge than it is written to be.

The wizard did not face the full encounter. He was able to ignore an aspect of it, which the rogue could not (in my estimation of the situation). You attempt to hide the rogue's difficulty by claiming he could kill the troll by "making a physical skill check", but you do not provide enough details to determine this. Please, provide details to an actual situation, and I can say whether or not I would reward full XP.


Times when I think it's appropriate to modify the CR is when the enemy is less or more of challenge to the party than it should be.
This is precisely what I am doing. :smallconfused:

The enemy is less of a challenge than it should be, thus it is not appropriate to reward full XP.


Should the PCs stumble upon a grouping of ogres down in a valley and rain fire down on them, the CR should be reduced. It's not like they tracked the ogres through the valley and deliberately attacked them while they slept in a poorly defended position. If that had happened, I would award full XP. They could've fought the ogres directly, but they chose not to.
If the two encounters are identical, they should reward identical XP. It doesn't matter whether they tracked them down and planned an elaborate ambush or they simply stumbled upon the perfect ambush site.

It may be appropriate to reward XP for planning an elaborate ambush, but that has little to do with the XP you get for the encounter itself. There is no logical reason that this reward should be the difference between the CR of an ambush and the CR of an actual battle, unless you simply don't want to bother with the minute differences--in which case you could simply not adjust CRs in the first place.

[Thomasinx]

After reading this thread I had to chime in...



The enemy is less of a challenge than it should be, thus it is not appropriate to reward full XP.

In the example given, the players faced the whole challenge. It was not 'less of a challenge', it was just approached in a more intelligent way.

This was the full challenge because the players circumvented the Troll's weakness themselves. Not all parties are capable of this (especially when players over-optimize combat). I would almost be inclined to give the party slight bonus experience for such a solution, as it's a welcome change to the "charge ahead and muscle through it" solution that I tend to see in campaigns.

An example of a situation where you might apply a reduced encounter level would be if you intentionally gave the players a flaming sword immediately before telling them to kill the troll. In that case, they didn't circumvent the Trolls weakness, you did it for them.

I honestly don't see why you want to reward players for putting themselves in stupid positions. Its like giving a party more experience for going and fighting incorporeal undead with nonmagic weapons. Sure it's harder, but it's not very intelligent.

Under that same logic, the pure wizard that never casts spells and tries to wield a greatsword should level at an extraordinary rate, since what he's doing is especially difficult (-read: suicidal).

I personally prefer to reward my players for acting intelligently, as opposed to punishing them for coming up with novel solutions beyond "Thog Smashes".

Maybe this is more succinct: The CR is determined by the problem presented by the DM. Not by how the players choose to overcome it.

[candycorn]

Let's look at a RP situation that I have had happen in a recent game.

A party was setting out to hunt down a demon who had information they needed. That party did so, by doing the following:

Commune: Asked about the identity of the demon, narrowed down the whereabouts.
Scry: looked in on where the demon was, got a surprise, they saw a white dragon.
Teleport: to a nearby town to the dragon's lair,
Searched: for indications of tribes or villages in the area.
Tongues: To speak their language.
Diplomacy: to make favorable impressions on those villagers.
Gathered Information: To find out more about neighboring dragons. Found out that there was a white dragon in the area, but recently, it had gotten a lot more aggressive.
Commune: to identify the demon's abilities. Found out the demon had the ability to possess.

Based on this, the party had discovered that the demon had possessed a white dragon. They prepared spells (Dispel, Energy Resistance, Magic Circle against Evil), and engaged it. It was a decent challenge, but they got the demon out of the dragon.

Does those player actions affect the difficulty of the encounter?
No.

Just as the players NOT doing those actions wouldn't have. The players had those resources available. I wouldn't award a fighter additional XP for dropping his sword and getting in a fist fight with a hill giant. Why not? Because not using your resources effectively shouldn't be rewarded.

Awarding extra XP to the party that stumbles in blindly encourages players to be wasteful of their resources and abilities, and to use abilities in an unintelligent fashion.

Those traits do not seem the hallmark of an "experienced" character.

Remember, every spell spent in this way is a resource expended. Every skill point invested isn't invested in a direct combat skill. These are costs the player has made to be more effective in other areas. Not rewarding that, indeed, trivializing it by applying a penalty? That encourages players to be dumb.

[Taelas]

In the example given, the players faced the whole challenge. It was not 'less of a challenge', it was just approached in a more intelligent way.
No, the challenge was less. Eliminating an aspect of a challenge makes that challenge less. Was it approached intelligently? Certainly. That does not change anything.


This was the full challenge because the players circumvented the Troll's weakness themselves. Not all parties are capable of this (especially when players over-optimize combat). I would almost be inclined to give the party slight bonus experience for such a solution, as it's a welcome change to the "charge ahead and muscle through it" solution that I tend to see in campaigns.
Whether or not the players caused it themselves has no relevance whatsoever. (Though if it is a particularly interesting solution, I too might give bonus experience.)

As for their tactics, I don't see how I encourage anything but their best.


An example of a situation where you might apply a reduced encounter level would be if you intentionally gave the players a flaming sword immediately before telling them to kill the troll. In that case, they didn't circumvent the Trolls weakness, you did it for them.
Certainly, and in that case, I clearly intended for the CR to be less. (For instance, if the party is too low level overall to face a full troll, or if I know the party is not optimized enough to handle it at their level, but I still want them to face one for story reasons.)


I honestly don't see why you want to reward players for putting themselves in stupid positions. Its like giving a party more experience for going and fighting incorporeal undead with nonmagic weapons. Sure it's harder, but it's not very intelligent.
I wouldn't pit a party with non-magical weapons against incorporeal undead. That particular situation isn't fun, just frustrating.

I am not "rewarding" them for putting themselves into stupid situations. I am running the game according to the rules, which includes altering CRs when they are not appropriate.


Under that same logic, the pure wizard that never casts spells and tries to wield a greatsword should level at an extraordinary rate, since what he's doing is especially difficult (-read: suicidal).
That wizard would level the same as anyone else, for he would never face anything he couldn't handle. Yes, he would get more XP than a fighter of the same level if the fighter was fighting the things he was fighting, but I don't see how that is relevant. Because of how I adjust CRs, the wizard would be fighting things that are child's play for the fighter. It probably wouldn't be particularly fun for either of us, though, so I would suggest he play as a wizard is meant to be played.

I do not just change CRs without changing what the party is facing. There would be no point in that. If I have found a troll is not a CR 5 monster to my party, then I don't throw a troll at them when I want a CR 5 challenge. If, to my players, it is closer to what CR 3 is to an average party, then I find a something else, like an Ettin, and make it CR 5 (as an estimate). If I find that the players had more trouble with it than I intended, then I reward them for a CR 6 monster (which the ettin is out of the book) and adjust my expectations of my players going forward.


I personally prefer to reward my players for acting intelligently, as opposed to punishing them for coming up with novel solutions beyond "Thog Smashes".
I do not intend for my players to not come up with good ideas; it is simply that when they do, I throw harder monsters at them. I consider what is a challenge for them, and I reduce the CRs accordingly, until they face an appropriate challenge. That is what is fun for my players... challenges.

If my players are smart enough that a troll is a lesser challenge than it is intended to be, then they get to face one earlier than the hypothetical average party would. They wouldn't get the same experience as them, but that is because they are not that average party.


Maybe this is more succinct: The CR is determined by the problem presented by the DM. Not by how the players choose to overcome it.
No. CR is determined by the players' competence. If the overall competence of a 3rd level party is such that a troll boss is not a significant challenge for them (and I have lowered CRs across the board so far), then I don't throw a plain troll boss at them. I might give him a fighter level or two, to keep up with their tactics, so they can have a fun challenge.

CR determines XP (as well as treasure), and the only proper thing XP determines is the rate at which your players level (and treasure determines their overall gear level). I find I like the rate at which the book assumes you level, which is why I adjust CRs until they are appropriate for my party (whether that is up or down). As a result, my players level at mostly the same rate as an average party facing the monsters out of the book, just as the book intended.

[candycorn]

Whether or not the players caused it themselves has no relevance whatsoever.

As for their tactics, I don't see how I encourage anything but their best.
Simple. Players are rewarded with more XP when they make things harder for themselves.

Players are rewarded with LESS XP when they make things easier for themselves.

Just like a dog that gets a treat when he sits learns to sit, a player that gets more XP when he plays dumb learns to play dumb.

[Taelas]

Simple. Players are rewarded with more XP when they make things harder for themselves.

Players are rewarded with LESS XP when they make things easier for themselves.

Just like a dog that gets a treat when he sits learns to sit, a player that gets more XP when he plays dumb learns to play dumb.

They are not rewarded with less XP, for they do not face those monsters again when I want them to have a certain amount of XP. They face more difficult monsters, which are the level of challenge I want them to face.

Is this really so difficult a concept to understand?

[sonofzeal]

CR if oft-maligned, but I find it usually roughly given that some things may be exceptionally good or bad matches for particular groups. Shadows and other incorporeal undead should be up a little higher, some beatsticks should be down a little, and something with good SR/DR might be difficult to beat if the party isn't statted to beat it.

But CR still gives you a starting range. CR is usually pretty accurate (+/- 1) at least 90% of the time. A normal lvl5 party isn't going to be handling very many CR9 threats, and there's few CR1 threats that can pose anything resembling a challenge except in large numbers. The exceptions can usually be eyeballed, or learned from experience. As long as you're willing to do one of those two things, I think everything's fine.

[candycorn]

They are not rewarded with less XP, for they do not face those monsters again when I want them to have a certain amount of XP. They face more difficult monsters, which are the level of challenge I want them to face.

Is this really so difficult a concept to understand?

Evidently.

Because I see you saying that when a player does something intelligent, and makes a combat easier through ingenuity, you lower the CR, and give them less XP.

That means their intelligent play directly resulted in the character getting less XP. They might not realize it once, or twice, but they will result the trend that why the fight is hard doesn't matter... Only that the fight is hard. So, they'll begin trying to make fights harder, by lack of preparation.

You have flat out said that smart playing will cause you to lower the CR of an encounter, and thus, the XP rewards, provided that smart playing results in a fight that is less difficult.

That is a direct cause-and-effect.

Is that really so difficult a concept to understand?

[Taelas]

Evidently.

Because I see you saying that when a player does something intelligent, and makes a combat easier through ingenuity, you lower the CR, and give them less XP.

That means their intelligent play directly resulted in the character getting less XP. They might not realize it once, or twice, but they will result the trend that why the fight is hard doesn't matter... Only that the fight is hard. So, they'll begin trying to make fights harder, by lack of preparation.

You have flat out said that smart playing will cause you to lower the CR of an encounter, and thus, the XP rewards, provided that smart playing results in a fight that is less difficult.

That is a direct cause-and-effect.

Is that really so difficult a concept to understand?

You are taking one aspect of what I said in a vacuum and ignoring everything else.

Yes, smart players will get less XP for an encounter in which they proved they are better than what I believed they were. This is not a punishment, but a consequence of me lowering the CR to the appropriate level, and I may very well give them a one-time only XP bonus for a particularly smart play. Moving forward, they will not face that same challenge again, unless I intend for them to face a challenge of that particular level--i.e. less than what I originally intended it to be. In other words, they get precisely the amount of XP I intend to give them. I am not punishing or rewarding them.

If a party "figures out" that they can get more XP by playing dumb, then the only thing that will happen is that they get lesser challenges than they otherwise would. If I pit them against a CR 6 monster, intending it to be an easy challenge for the level 6 party, and they intentionally cause themselves to have much more trouble with it than they normally would, I adjust my expectations, mark the CR 6 monster as higher than that against that particular party, and give them more XP. If that is consistent overall, then I throw lower CR monsters at them when I want easy challenges and keep equal CR monsters for harder challenges... and I adjust the CRs upwards. Again, they get the XP I want to give them.

If they attempt to "game" that system, and I figure it out, then I tell them to stop doing that, or I can't go to the effort of adjusting CRs based on my perception of their skill level, because I can't get a clear picture of where they are. If they persist, then they and I have a problem.

[candycorn]

You are taking one aspect of what I said in a vacuum and ignoring everything else.

Yes, smart players will get less XP for an encounter in which they proved they are better than what I believed they were. This is not a punishment, but a consequence of me lowering the CR to the appropriate level, and I may very well give them a one-time only XP bonus for a particularly smart play.
You are not grasping this. It IS a vacuum. Everything else you've said is irrelevant to the player goal you are tinkering with. XP.

Assumption: Players want more XP.
Assumption: Players will consider a consequence that lowers XP to be negative.
Assumption: Players will consider a consequence that increases XP to be positive.
Assumption: Players will seek positive consequences, and attempt to avoid negative consequences.

Based on these above assumptions, introducing a consequence that lowers XP, and tying it to smart playing, teaches players to avoid that negative consequence.

And that's what you're doing.

Everything else is irrelevant. You might not call it a punishment, but players receive a higher reward for killing a demon if they barely survive a fight, because the wizard chose crappy spells, the fighter used his +1 dagger of ineffectiveness, rather than his +5 demonslaying greatsword of doom, and the rogue refused to search for traps on the way in, resulting in the party being at half HP, and the cleric with half his spells already spent on healing.

If they get a better reward for that, then that is what you teach them to do.

If you never encourage intelligent play, you'll not likely get intelligent players.

[Taelas]

No, it is not a vacuum.

I don't tell them how I calculate the CRs they face. I don't tell them "Hey, you guys are so much better than I thought you'd be, so you're getting less XP, since this was not as much of a challenge as I expected." I simply calculate the XP they get and tell them the number.

If they happen to know the CR for the monster, and notice they get less XP than what is written on paper, then I explain that they are better than the average party, so I lowered the CR as a consequence. I don't tell them when I made that decision, and I would simply refuse to go into details. It isn't necessary that they know how I calculate their XP.

If the encounter where I adjusted CRs throws the intended progress out of whack, I adjust the upcoming encounters to compensate, whether that's up or down. A single encounter rarely has that much influence on the progress, though.

[Talakeal]

No, it is not a vacuum.

I don't tell them how I calculate the CRs they face. I don't tell them "Hey, you guys are so much better than I thought you'd be, so you're getting less XP, since this was not as much of a challenge as I expected." I simply calculate the XP they get and tell them the number.

If they happen to know the CR for the monster, and notice they get less XP than what is written on paper, then I explain that they are better than the average party, so I lowered the CR as a consequence. I don't tell them when I made that decision, and I would simply refuse to go into details. It isn't necessary that they know how I calculate their XP.

If the encounter where I adjusted CRs throws the intended progress out of whack, I adjust the upcoming encounters to compensate, whether that's up or down. A single encounter rarely has that much influence on the progress, though.

Wow, you have very trusting players. If I was short changing my players on XP every time they used a good tactic they would quickly realize something was wrong and then call me on it. They ensuing fight would likely result in a permanent lessening of respect and unless I apologized and made it up to them some would likely leave the game. Even my good players, I think, would be pissed off.

[Havvy]

The first time a character discovered a tactic that helps against a certain enemy, that is a time for experience to be rewarded. Then, when it is used in battle the first time, the character can experiment with the tactic. If it works, the character gains first hand knowledge that it works. Finally, if the character goes against a similar challenge in the future, the character has dealt with it before, and it has a lower CR. Though ideally, the necessity to go against the same challenge twice, unless that challenge is the main challenge of the game, should be suspect.

And if the tactic learned via studying is wrong, still give experience during the discovering stage. It'll backfire during the usage stage. To use the troll example, learning that ice and electricity will get passed its regenerative qualities would give experience, and the character would gain full experience during the battle. The challenge will be harder than its CR, but that is due to not cross-checking gained knowledge. If the player changes tactics during the next encounter with trolls, give full experience. Otherwise, treat as a less challenging event.

Basically, reward playing the game smartly.

Also, diplomatic victories should be a full reward, but make sure that they aren't always 100% possible.

[Douglas]

No, it is not a vacuum.

I don't tell them how I calculate the CRs they face. I don't tell them "Hey, you guys are so much better than I thought you'd be, so you're getting less XP, since this was not as much of a challenge as I expected." I simply calculate the XP they get and tell them the number.
That doesn't change any of candycorn's point, it just adds that you are disguising the true nature of the reward system from those rewarded so that they cannot make properly informed decisions. In fact, because of the knowledge the players likely have of the XP system from reading the books on their own and because that knowledge differs from how you're actually handling it, I might even go so far as to describe it as a deceptive reward system - the players believe that smart fighting will lead to more XP and loot, when in fact smart fighting leads to (long term) nothing more nor less than perpetuating the need for smart fighting.

[Seatbelt]

A thing to remember is that as broken as the CR system is, almost no other games have anything as good. I can't think of any game outside of the d20 series that has anything like CR*. Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, GURPS, 2nd edition DnD, Rifts/Paladium, Talislanta, Exalted/World of Darkness, Ars Magica, MERP--none of these games have anything like the CR system; in all of them the GM just has to eyeball encounters.




* Of course, I'm only including games I've had experience. In particular, I assume 4th edition has something like a CR, but I've never had an opportunity to play it.

Saga uses CR in its encounter system for star ships and its almost completely useless. An ISD will trounce an MC-80 in 3 rounds tops and they're both of a similar CR. So your point is a very good one. CR might not be perfect but its pretty damn reliable.

[Taelas]

Wow, you have very trusting players. If I was short changing my players on XP every time they used a good tactic they would quickly realize something was wrong and then call me on it. They ensuing fight would likely result in a permanent lessening of respect and unless I apologized and made it up to them some would likely leave the game. Even my good players, I think, would be pissed off.

On the contrary, when I decrease monsters' CR for my players, I am expecting them to use good tactics, and my reward for them doing so is increasing the challenge -- while keeping the characters' growth manageable. If my players are capable of defeating monsters with a CR of 5 or more above their level on a regular basis, and I did not adjust CRs, the only result would be a either a very rapid growth in levels (in which they have no time to adjust to their characters and must constantly change them), or I watch them tear through encounters that they defeat without any effort whatsoever, and they soon grow bored with the game, forcing me to use stronger monsters to engage them... in which case we are back to rapid growth.

I can generally trust my players to trust my decisions, or at least that has been the case so far. If they ever disagree with what anything I do, they are free to protest, and we can discuss it, but until that happens, I will run the game the way I believe is best for our mutual enjoyment.

I would not say I "short change" them on anything.


That doesn't change any of candycorn's point, it just adds that you are disguising the true nature of the reward system from those rewarded so that they cannot make properly informed decisions. In fact, because of the knowledge the players likely have of the XP system from reading the books on their own and because that knowledge differs from how you're actually handling it, I might even go so far as to describe it as a deceptive reward system - the players believe that smart fighting will lead to more XP and loot, when in fact smart fighting leads to (long term) nothing more nor less than perpetuating the need for smart fighting.

There has to be an arbiter, and at my table, that is me. Even if I didn't adjust CRs, I would still control how much XP they get, simply by choosing what I send against them.

The rate of XP or treasure is and has always been the prerogative of the DM, regardless of how they choose it. My system is no different. You can call it "deceptive" if you want. But that is a sacrifice I am willing to make in order to provide my group with enjoyable challenges while keeping their growth rate in check.

Combat is only a means to an end, not the end all of the game. It is a big part of it, but the bigger part is the story we tell together. As long as they enjoy it, I feel I am doing it correctly.

[Talakeal]

You have very mature players then. I don't think I have ever been in a group that didn't consider trashing enemies and leveling up to be "winning" and XP and loot to be "rewards".

I actually agree with you in principle, just not in practice. I just give them flat XP for accomplishing long term goals, regardless of how they do it, rather than for specific challenges or encounters. Clearing a dungeon (or a floor of a particularly large dungeon) might be worth X xp based on how much time and effort it should take rather than calculating XP for each specific fight within.

Your way seems to be a lot more work and with an added feel of deception and counter intuitive rewards.

[NoldorForce]

Ultimately I've seen CR as a (sometimes misguided) yardstick of player investment. If the PCs have played smart (by good optimization, tactics, divinations, what have you), the challenge at hand may seem like they've invested less. This is false; they've simply done some of that investment prior to engaging said challenge face-to-face rather than putting it all in at one time.

Take candycorn's example above of taking down a demon-possessed dragon. The combat encounter may have been easier due to prior knowledge, but that knowledge was itself gained by several skill checks and divination spells beforehand. Similarly, if you're facing a troll with fire-based weapons and spells...you had to figure out that you were facing said troll, and also put the money into buying the weapons (possibly the spells too, for wizards). The DMG even states something about this:

Keep in mind, however, that just because the PCs in your campaign happen to all have ban weapons against aberrations, that doesn't necessarily make beholders a lesser challenge overall. It just means that your party is particularly well equipped to deal with their challenge.

If an encounter becomes easier or harder based on what the PCs' opponents do, then the CR will change - someone else is making an investment to modify this, not the PCs, and so the players' own investment will change. For instance, if the opponents set up a chokepoint in rugged terrain suited for snipers (and use it), then the encounter requires more work from the PCs. On the other hand, if the PCs do the same thing, the encounter represents the same amount of work. Less in the combat, but the rest was invested in locating and planning for the chokepoint.

Now I understand the goal of keeping the PCs at a flat growth level, but if you're doing so do what Talakeal did - give out "flat" XP for achieving overall goals and admit that you're employing something other than the CR system. (Face it, if you're rubber-banding CR based on perceived ease of combat then you're not really using CR.)

[Taelas]

Well, we had to start using it. My group numbers only four, including myself. I have to downgrade normally, but the principles are the same.

Even if I don't use CR to give them XP, I have to figure out if a given monster is more of a challenge than usual given the lack of a fourth player. It isn't that hard, generally; I can normally just use a monster with 1-2 lower CR than what the book says is a challenge, but it can get trickier.

As for my players' maturity... they feel much the same about the game as the groups you've been in. They don't have nearly as much experience with the game as I do, which is another reason they tend to trust me on these things.

[killem2]

As far as adjusting CR ratings according to the power level of your group, I just go with the flow. If you think your group is going to destroy the match up, double the number of enemies, max out thier hp. They wont' get anymore exp for me making it harder.

Sometimes the CR is NOT a lie, and your party will get spanked. :smallbiggrin:

Also, my group understands that the DM is first and last, I am the alpha and the omega. What I say goes.

You can feel free to dispute, but that doesn't mean I have to abide. I'm pretty fair though.

[Malachei]

I'm pretty fair though.

I like your self-assessment :smallbiggrin:

[Keneth]

inb4 That Damned Crab

But seriously, it's hard to create a guideline for an appropriate challenge because there's a much more fundamental problem with d20, which is the vast disparity between character classes and even individual characters. To create any sort of viable challenge rating system, such problems would have to be addressed beforehand. The CR in d20 assumes a balanced party of 4 unoptimized (that is, not intentionally sabotaged) characters and even then it sometimes misses the mark by quite a lot. There is also much bias among the developers of all d20 systems who give preferential treatment to certain classes which is often reflected in the CR of the monsters.

[Darth Stabber]

I tend to go back and forth on using CR strictly and just telling players to level up when I fell like it. Of course I also go back and forth between rolling dice and seeing how I feel about them and running encounters the normal way. Both depend on how much effort I am willing and able to dedicate. If I am knee deep in work and stressed, I'll run monsters based on what I think they should be able to do, and just decide when a hit's a hit. For my big every other week game I tend to put the effort to develop encounters and run them to the rather strictly. Of course since I am a very bad poker player, the players can usually tell by the sadistic smile on my face when to be wary (and usually when to spend action points on monster knowledge rolls). I would rather run games strictly all the time, but it's more important to run good games with some frequency.

[killem2]

I like your self-assessment :smallbiggrin:

Of course! If they aren't dead then I've done a good job, if it looks like they are going to sweat, then it is even better. :smallfurious::smallfurious: :smallbiggrin: