General Discussion
- Thread starter Beoric
- Start date
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
It is a very different culture - both from Classic and OSR, but also from what Classic and OSR think it is.I have no words...
But for tinkerers like me, the CharOp boards were a good place to go to get a deep understanding of the system. The time I spent on them is why I am able to say with confidence that the style of play associated with 4e is a function of marketing and culture, not of the system itself. The system itself can function with far fewer options, and changes in style of play can mitigate CharOp abuses.
Yeah, I knew people like that.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Aren't they one and the same thing? A 3rd lvl NPC should be a 3rd lvl challenge, surely?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
No, 5e CR does not map the same way as 3e CR.
I am looking at a pregenerated 1st level level fighter, who will have AC 18, HP 12, Attack bonus +5, damage ~8. That appears to have defences equivalent to a CR 1/2 NPC/monster, and attacks equivalent to a CR 1 NPC/monster, which I think means it is midway between CR 1/2 and CR 1. Let's call it CR 1 because of fighter bells and whistles.
Now, looking at a pregenerated 3rd level fighter, with AC 18, HP 28, Attack +5, damage ~8. It has CR 1/2 defences and CR 1 attacks, which still means it is still CR 1 (5e is not very granular).
Same fighter at 6th level: AC 19, HP 52, attack +8, damage ~10. It has CR 3 defences and CR 3 attacks, and appears to be CR 3.
Same fighter at 10th level: AC 20, HP 94, attack +9, damage ~10. CR 5 defences and CR 4 attacks, so it is midway between CR 4 and 5, and probably counts as CR 5.
Compare this to what happens if you try the same calculations using encounter tables. Correct me if I am wrong, looking at the 3.5e tables, if a group of 4 1st level fighters battles a group of 4 CR 1 monsters, that would have an Encounter Level of 4 and be at the top range of "very difficult" encounters. That "very difficult" rating appears to be the case whenever PC level = CR and you have the same number of creatures on each side.
If I am reading the 5e encounter building rules correctly, an encounter that was "hard" bordering on "deadly" for 4 1st level PCs would involve 4 CR 1/4 creatures - significantly less than the CR of 1 we estimated above. But after that it appears to track more closely. For 4 3rd level PCs the equivalent encounter would use CR 1 NPCs/creatures (or a mix of CR 1/2 and CR 1), which is similar to what we calculated above. For 6th level PCs, the equivalent encounter would use CR 3 NPCs/monsters, and for four 10th level PCs it would be about right to use two CR 4 and two CR 5 NPCs/monsters, both of which track with what we calculated above.
So what I am getting is PC level 1 = CR 1/4; level 3 = <CR 1; level 6 = CR 3 and level 10 = CR4 to CR5. But I don't have enough play experience to know if it works out that way in practice. And the whole thing is incredibly non-granular, with huge jumps in power level between one CR and the next.
I mean, I have this theoretical map of equivalencies based on what the edition says about itself in its own encounter tables. It looks to me like CR 1/4 is a bit below level 1 (say the equivalent of 3e CR 1/2)
CR 1/2 = level 2
CR 1 = level 3
CR 2 = level 4
CR 3 = level 5
CR 4 = level 8
CR 5 = level 10
CR 6 = level 11
CR 7 = level 12
CR 8 = level 13
CR 9 = level 15
CR 10 = level 16
CR 11 = level 18
CR 12 = level 19
CR 13 = level 20.
But I have no way of knowing if that works out in practice.
I am looking at a pregenerated 1st level level fighter, who will have AC 18, HP 12, Attack bonus +5, damage ~8. That appears to have defences equivalent to a CR 1/2 NPC/monster, and attacks equivalent to a CR 1 NPC/monster, which I think means it is midway between CR 1/2 and CR 1. Let's call it CR 1 because of fighter bells and whistles.
Now, looking at a pregenerated 3rd level fighter, with AC 18, HP 28, Attack +5, damage ~8. It has CR 1/2 defences and CR 1 attacks, which still means it is still CR 1 (5e is not very granular).
Same fighter at 6th level: AC 19, HP 52, attack +8, damage ~10. It has CR 3 defences and CR 3 attacks, and appears to be CR 3.
Same fighter at 10th level: AC 20, HP 94, attack +9, damage ~10. CR 5 defences and CR 4 attacks, so it is midway between CR 4 and 5, and probably counts as CR 5.
Compare this to what happens if you try the same calculations using encounter tables. Correct me if I am wrong, looking at the 3.5e tables, if a group of 4 1st level fighters battles a group of 4 CR 1 monsters, that would have an Encounter Level of 4 and be at the top range of "very difficult" encounters. That "very difficult" rating appears to be the case whenever PC level = CR and you have the same number of creatures on each side.
If I am reading the 5e encounter building rules correctly, an encounter that was "hard" bordering on "deadly" for 4 1st level PCs would involve 4 CR 1/4 creatures - significantly less than the CR of 1 we estimated above. But after that it appears to track more closely. For 4 3rd level PCs the equivalent encounter would use CR 1 NPCs/creatures (or a mix of CR 1/2 and CR 1), which is similar to what we calculated above. For 6th level PCs, the equivalent encounter would use CR 3 NPCs/monsters, and for four 10th level PCs it would be about right to use two CR 4 and two CR 5 NPCs/monsters, both of which track with what we calculated above.
So what I am getting is PC level 1 = CR 1/4; level 3 = <CR 1; level 6 = CR 3 and level 10 = CR4 to CR5. But I don't have enough play experience to know if it works out that way in practice. And the whole thing is incredibly non-granular, with huge jumps in power level between one CR and the next.
I mean, I have this theoretical map of equivalencies based on what the edition says about itself in its own encounter tables. It looks to me like CR 1/4 is a bit below level 1 (say the equivalent of 3e CR 1/2)
CR 1/2 = level 2
CR 1 = level 3
CR 2 = level 4
CR 3 = level 5
CR 4 = level 8
CR 5 = level 10
CR 6 = level 11
CR 7 = level 12
CR 8 = level 13
CR 9 = level 15
CR 10 = level 16
CR 11 = level 18
CR 12 = level 19
CR 13 = level 20.
But I have no way of knowing if that works out in practice.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm sorry man, that makes no sense to me at all. Why would they do this? It's utterly unintuitive. CR should match level. Less is a nice light snack designed to eat up resources. More is a perilous mini-boss. Much more is a do-or-die boss encounter.
I feel like we've had this CR equivalence conversation before on these forums, and it got equally mathy last time as well
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I think they set the CRs the way they did for math reasons. You take the offensive CR and the defensive CR for a creature and average them; I think they chose the numbers they did so the averages would make sense.I'm sorry man, that makes no sense to me at all. Why would they do this? It's utterly unintuitive. CR should match level. Less is a nice light snack designed to eat up resources. More is a perilous mini-boss. Much more is a do-or-die boss encounter.
I feel like we've had this CR equivalence conversation before on these forums, and it got equally mathy last time as well
Accuracy of CR is somewhere I think 4e really shines (even though it isn't called CR in 4e, it's called "level" - I know, totally counterintuitive). It is very granular, and (at least until you get to very high levels) the numeric relationship between levels is standard and reliable. A creature of level n+4 is always twice as tough as a creature of level n. Four minions are always equivalent to one standard monster, two standard monsters are equivalent to one elite monster, five standard monsters are equivalent to one solo monster. A level n elite monster is pretty much equivalent to a level n PC, so x level n PCs fighting x level n elite monsters is a 50/50 proposition (unless your players are optimizing).
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Equally confusing is Level I-X monsters in AD&D which I think were supposed to correspond with actual physical dungeon levels? Certainly they didn't match player level in any way whatsoever. 1e challenges were not well balanced after intermediate level either. Without serious lead-time to prep spells, your average lich was at best a threat for a 10th lvl party. They had like 49 hp. 1 round and down.
CR's and corresponding XP calculations are pretty well thought out and intuitive in 3e making monster creation/alteration a breeze.
CR's and corresponding XP calculations are pretty well thought out and intuitive in 3e making monster creation/alteration a breeze.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yes, the 1e monster levels weren't well thought out. They were ostensibly based on XP, but Level X included everything from 10,000 XP to 76,000 XP.
Starting at 11th level liches would start getting attendants - one per level after 10th - say, mummies or specters or a bound vrock. Which makes fighting a lich on the 11th level of a dungeon a fair bit more difficult than fighting one on the 10th level.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Not if you accept the procedure in Appendix C. The soonest you can encounter a single lich is on the (equivalent) 8th level of a dungeon, at which point you have a 5% chance of encountering a Level X monster.
You might make it there with ten level 1 PCs, but I doubt it. And the lich has a reasonable chance of taking out the whole party with one AoE spell. And unless the party all has +1 weapons at level 1, only the spellcasters can hurt the lich.
Could two level 5 PCs take out a lich? I dunno, I haven't played 1e in a long time and can't judge.
Note if you encounter an NPC party on level 8 of the dungeon, it will be made up of nine NPCs, 2-5 of which will be level 8-10, and the balance of which will be henchmen of level 3-6. Which NPC party would make short work of said lich. Not to mention making short work of the party of ten level 1 PCs, if the NPCs were evil.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Ok, can one level 5 PC take out a lich with 9th level spells, after the other level 5 PC is killed?Power Word Kill says one of the PCs bite it.
I think I know the answer to this.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I remember everyone being all 'woo woo' about the rando lich just sitting in an alcove in the dungeons below the Hall of the Fire Giant King and how the first time around, my party ganked the guy in less than a round. I think he's got a Time Stop in memory which is the clincher if he can get it off first...
But yeah, in 1e they have sad sad hp. I guess it's not a great comparison though, since lich, like vampire, is a template in 3e; so you can encounter pretty low level (and conversely, insanely high level) liches and vampires and it's a little less complicated to make monster versions.
But yeah, in 1e they have sad sad hp. I guess it's not a great comparison though, since lich, like vampire, is a template in 3e; so you can encounter pretty low level (and conversely, insanely high level) liches and vampires and it's a little less complicated to make monster versions.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
If it's a 5th-level magic-user...? 5d6 fireball...nope.
Heck, most 5th level fighters can't deliver 60-hp damage in a round without some sort of big-time magic item.
Initiative is the decider perhaps. Most importantly a lich needs cronies and time to prep. It's suppose to represent an evil high-level magic-user, so HP aren't going to be it's thing.
Still, very dangerous if use craftily.
