In Your Opinion, How Broken Is 3E?

[Eldariel]

CRs are relatively accurate, with notable exceptions (dragons at least being deliberately so).

How can you just say that without even delving into any kind of an analysis? How does that follow from anything presented in this thread? CR isn't even clear on what it's measuring. Is a level 1 Orc Warrior, fully capable of one-shotting any 1st level character on a level where resurrection isn't an option, really alright? Those things are CR ½. CR is some kind of an amalgamation of what's alright for a party to face, what's challenging and what makes for an interesting encounter; a measurement trying to reflect multiple attributes simultaneously with a single numeral value is bound to reflect nothing at all accurately.

CR doesn't account for feats let alone class combinations, even though the danger posed by a Power Attack/Improved Sunder/Shock Trooper/Cleave/Destructive Rage/Intimidating Rage Orc Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker is obviously from a different world compared to the Weapon Focus/Alertness/Endurance/Toughness Orc Barbarian. It doesn't even need to be said that one is capable of one-shotting any PC it faces while the other will mostly tickle even on the best of days and neither of them has much in terms of meaningful defense.

The fact that some creatures are listed at lower CR than their challenge intentionally, and others unintentionally, while various enemy formations and advancement rules also lead to ridiculous CR situations. CR is worse than useless. Everything is situational. Combinations have wildly different efficiency levels. It's fully possible to design a level 10 NPC that's twice better than another level 10 NPC in every single trait even though nominally they have the same CR. Same with e.g. advanced Gibbering Mouther which suddenly has ridiculous save DCs, or the various puzzle monsters that can't be defeated. And every spellcaster enemy's CR is directly proportional to the spells they happen to prepare and awfully often they're spontaneous casters capable of preparing whatever the hell they want.

And some effects are either TPK or useless; looking at stuff like Blasphemy for instance. For characters affected by those, they're just screwed. There are precious few defenses for a lower level party. And yet, parties built with them in mind are probably completely unaffected and they don't even register such spells. There's no nice scale of difficulty; a lot of things are either trivial or practically unbeatable. CR assumes that multiple lower level enemies are threat but that completely falls by the wayside with effects and enemies that cease to pose even the slightest threat to the party at a certain point.


The system simply has too many variables and too uneven a powercurve for such a system to properly even exist. For CR to make sense, one level 10 party should have approximately similar capability to the other and yet one level 10 party can be shooting for the stars and fighting gods while the other one is still trying to figure out how to fly.

The very foundation that a CR system that's simple enough to be useful could function in a game like 3.5 is preposterous. No such system could possibly exist. CR is best treated game-by-game and monster-by-monster basis with DM judgment. That's the only way it can work.

TL;DR: CR as a system is both dysfunctional and impossible to make functional in a game like this.

[zergling.exe]

-snip-

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

[Florian]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

This. And it never pretended to be otherwise.

[Eldariel]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

That's not the game though - you can't limit options so that players will magically fall in the right tracks or if you do, you've removed all the reason to play a system as expansive as 3.5 in the first place. Low-op in and of itself is nebulous - there are many levels of low-op. And Cleric and Wizard can switch between optimization levels day to day. If CR is only useful for a playtest party, it should only be used with a playtest party. Though I doubt its utility even in such circumstances; even if you eliminate the variety on the players' side, the variety on the monsters' side in things like feat selection, spell selection, class selection, HD, size, items, etc. still exists and will keep throwing CR off.

[Melcar]

And 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.

By this, I mean if you sat down a couple of random people new to D&D, with a basic understanding of the rules, would the party function well? Would you get a group of people who could take on level appropriate encounters, or would you have some massive disparities? Would people be underpowered? Overpowered? So on and so forth.

Yes, yes they would! All who did not play a tier 1 class would be underpowered, but they would not know that, so the game would be fun!

[Beheld]

CR works for what is was designed for: a low-op fighter, a healbot cleric, a trapfinding rogue, and an evoker wizard. Other combinations may or may not work with CR as written.

No, it actually doesn't. CR would result in that party getting TPKed over and over and over by pathetic challenges. A well built optimized party using mostly good classes is going to conform to CR a lot better.

TL;DR: CR as a system is both dysfunctional and impossible to make functional in a game like this.

Your entire argument boils down to "I can make NPCs that don't conform to CR guidelines for a variety of reasons, that's why the 14 monster books with monsters with listed CRs are all wrong."

If you can't see how that's a non-sequitar, then you are really not going to convince anyone of anything.

Yes, you can make NPCs that are different strengths. You can probably also tell me all about Non Associated NPC Cleric levels for giants, and pretend that's an issue with CR, and not an issue with you pretending that Cleric is non-associated when it obviously isn't.

But the actual CRs of actually existing in assorted Monster books monsters are "relatively accurate" as the quote you dispute claims, and they are "a reliable indicator of challenge" as the original point was claimed they weren't.

[Eldariel]

Your entire argument boils down to "I can make NPCs that don't conform to CR guidelines for a variety of reasons, that's why the 14 monster books with monsters with listed CRs are all wrong."

If you can't see how that's a non-sequitar, then you are really not going to convince anyone of anything.

Yes, you can make NPCs that are different strengths. You can probably also tell me all about Non Associated NPC Cleric levels for giants, and pretend that's an issue with CR, and not an issue with you pretending that Cleric is non-associated when it obviously isn't.

But the actual CRs of actually existing in assorted Monster books monsters are "relatively accurate" as the quote you dispute claims, and they are "a reliable indicator of challenge" as the original point was claimed they weren't.

Feats, spells, HD advancement & magic items exist on monsters as well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feats,

Already assigned for most creatures.

spells,

Rare and already assigned in most cases.

HD advancement

Only goes significantly off-target when you're piling on double to triple the original HD; something the MM points out.

& magic items exist on monsters as well.

Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

[Eldariel]

Already assigned for most creatures.

Feats don't alter CR. The same monster with any feats should be the same CR.

Only goes significantly off-target when you're piling on double to triple the original HD; something the MM points out.

When the monster has HD-scaling save DCs or when size increases are involved, modest changes can be drastic. Same with the relative change in cheap HD particularly on high base HD creatures (any Aberration, Undead or such with Ex/Su-abilities requiring a save is going to become significantly more dangerous at CR or two more HD).

Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Monsters should use their treasure where possible.

Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats. Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.

[Yogibear41]

No, it actually doesn't. CR would result in that party getting TPKed over and over and over by pathetic challenges. A well built optimized party using mostly good classes is going to conform to CR a lot better.

This has been closer to my experience, on average the people that I end up playing with have no idea or next to no idea what they are doing. They make less than mediocre characters who as me and my DM like to say "can't fight their way out of a paper bag" (heard the expression from a guy who use to post on these forums). Then they generally moan and complain that my characters are OP, and then I am generally the only reason we don't TPK on CR appropriate encounters.

I remember one situation, were I was playing one of my least optimized characters: a Paladin of Tyranny, along with a Wilderness rogue friend, and a newer player(had been with us a few weeks) playing a duskblade. He had just make his duskblade we were around level 6, and I tried to give him advice(after he asked me) on good spells he could pick to give him some versatility so he could be useful in several situations, damage, debuffs, buffs, utility, etc. Well he basically ignored me and made a Two weapon fighting guy who more or less picked the worst possible spells of the duskblade list as spells known. He died in the 2nd encounter of the night, after spaming spells like bigby's striking fist(deals non-lethal damage) against undead in the 1st encounter..... then complained that it took him over 4 hours to make his character.


The more I have played the game, the more I have come to the realization that if we fight a monster that I can't solo we are all probably going to die. And I like to play the "fighter type" so its that much more of a challenge.

[Yogibear41]

I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats. Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.

There is a bit in the DMG somewhere about 10% or so of encounters being a CR higher than the players are suppose to be able to handle( I believe its 4 or more CR higher than the party's level), the challenge is suppose to be recognizing the threat and avoiding it, or just getting out alive. So throwing CR out the window completely the DMG still says every now and then you are suppose to have an encounter (not necessarily a fight) with something you aren't suppose to be able to beat. Based on everything my DM has told me/what I have heard from others 3rd edition is a cake walk compared to the horrors of 1st edition and what could happen to the players. AD&D is less about fighting "CR" appropriate encounters and more about staying alive, thinking ahead, and maybe even a bit of luck. Random encounter with a vampire roles up at level 2? Bad news bears make a new 1st level character. Think I have even seen a guys signature on the forums a few times, saying that he basically died to a vampire at 1st level in AD&D.

[Beheld]

Almost never. A handful of creatures are listed with any items at all and of those only a fraction are listed with magical items.

Nobody's arguing that the CR system is perfect (it's certainly not,) but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in declaring it utterly useless.

Monsters are supposed to use their treasure, but like the other "issues" this almost never actually makes them too powerful or too weak, so is equally as irrelevant.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feats don't alter CR. The same monster with any feats should be the same CR.

Where is this stated? Because my MM says that you should adjust CR when you add or change a creature's special abilities and feats are EX special abilities unless otherwise noted.

When the monster has HD-scaling save DCs or when size increases are involved, modest changes can be drastic. Same with the relative change in cheap HD particularly on high base HD creatures (any Aberration, Undead or such with Ex/Su-abilities requiring a save is going to become significantly more dangerous at CR or two more HD).

See my previous point.

Monsters should use their treasure where possible.

That won't be often if you're using a wide variety of monsters and, even so, the DMG section on encounter design suggests changing the encounter's EL if there are favorable circumstances.

I have yet to play a game significantly improved by eyeballing CR of whatever you wish to use instead of eyeballing their stats.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Do you really need to eyeball the abiities of a small fire elemental when comparing it to a 15th level party? No, of course not.

Indeed, I have never seen a good argument in favor of the existence of a CR system, just defenses against arguments against it. AD&D does just fine without such a system in place, for instance. At least I've yet to hear any AD&D DM complain about lacking a number telling them how hard a creature is to fight. It's pretty apparent off the numbers - CR is at best a learning aid, but one that includes no warnings about dangerous things parties may be ill-equipped to face (e.g. incorporeality, no-save-AOE-disables, high risk of 1-hit KOs, flight or such), so at best a poor one at that.

CR helps to narrow down the list of creatures you have to eyeball for comparison and helps to assign appropriate treasure and XP awards for the encounter; things that are necessary for ensuring that they remain approximately on target for WBL which is, in turn, necessary to keep on the expected power-curve for their level and remain competetive with level appropriate CR. It's a recursive system of interdependent parts. If you screw with any of those parts, the system doesn't work as expected or intended. It's not the fault of the designers if you screw with the system and it stops working as intended.

[Beheld]

That won't be often if you're using a wide variety of monsters and, even so, the DMG section on encounter design suggests changing the encounter's EL if there are favorable circumstances.

Monsters using their treasure is not a favorable circumstance, it is an "every single time that they have items they should use, they use them" rule that doesn't trigger anything favorable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Monsters using their treasure is not a favorable circumstance, it is an "every single time that they have items they should use, they use them" rule that doesn't trigger anything favorable.

Most monsters will not have treasure they -can- use when you're using the random generation tables. Consequently, treasure they can use isn't factored into their CR unless it's specifically listed in their monster entry. Since gear they can use isn't accounted for, it -is- a favorable circumstance for deriving EL.

[Beheld]

Most monsters will not have treasure they -can- use when you're using the random generation tables. Consequently, treasure they can use isn't factored into their CR unless it's specifically listed in their monster entry. Since gear they can use isn't accounted for, it -is- a favorable circumstance for deriving EL.

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

[Malimar]

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

On treasure generation, one monster rolls up a +1 greatsword and a +1 full plate (both of which he uses against the PCs), and his neighbor rolls up 5000 copper pieces (which weighs 100lbs and puts him up an encumberance level or two). You don't think one fight is more favorable for the monster than the other?

[Troacctid]

In premade adventures, monsters with treasure typically have things like potions, which are almost never worth using in combat. If you're gonna spend a standard action and provoke attacks of opportunity to drink a potion of cure moderate wounds, then frankly, that's more likely to decrease your effective CR than anything else.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No it isn't, that is insane. Some monsters, can use lots of treasure, some can't, that's accounted for in their CR. In no case does using treasure amount to the difference between CR and CR+1, which is why it can be calculated into their CR without favorable circumstances.

We may be talking past each other.

I'm saying, flatly now, that unless there is a specific treasure listed in a monster's entry, treasure is not factored into their CR. Consequently, having treasure that is not listed in their entry that they can use is a favorable circumstance that increases the EL of encounters featuring those creatures. The ability to use gear does not effect CR but the gear itself, of course, alters encounter level depending on the gear at hand.

Also note that I'm talking about the vast majority of monsters which are -not- humanoids and monstrous humanoids that advance primarily by class level. Those have their own broad rules in the NPC section of the DMG and their CR is not fixed but, instead, a function of their level and special abilities (gear granted or otherwise).

Again, If the rules say "Monsters always use the treasure they can use" then it doesn't become favorable circumstances for them to use treasure any more than it is favorable circumstances for devils to see in the dark, or Demons to be immune to lightning, or Aboleths to be in water. Those are already the rules that always apply.

The rules don't say that. There's a guideline that suggest that intelligent creatures may benefit from doing so (something so patently obvious that it's barely worth mentioning, IMO.)

[Beheld]

On treasure generation, one monster rolls up a +1 greatsword and a +1 full plate (both of which he uses against the PCs), and his neighbor rolls up 5000 copper pieces (which weighs 100lbs and puts him up an encumberance level or two). You don't think one fight is more favorable for the monster than the other?

Since monsters explicitly don't carry around what they can't easily carry, they drop the coins somewhere in their home, shove it under a mattress or whatever, and the other one wears armor and a sword. If they are the type of monster that benefits from both the armor and the sword, then they get +1 to hit and damage, and possibly a small AC bonus depending on default armor and Dex, in exchange for a movement speed reduction. Those two fights may not be identical, but since you would have to roll on a level 5 encounter to even get two items, and CR 5 includes Trolls, Bearded Devils, and Greater Barghests with attacks from +9 to +13, and ACs from 16 to 20, and other defenses from Regeneration, to DR 5/Silver, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that equipping any of those creatures with a Greatsword and Full Plate is not changing the CR.

In fact, I'd rather you give them all the Greatsword, since it would reduce all their damage.

I'm saying, flatly now, that unless there is a specific treasure listed in a monster's entry, treasure is not factored into their CR. Consequently, having treasure that is not listed in their entry that they can use is a favorable circumstance that increases the EL of encounters featuring those creatures. The ability to use gear does not effect CR but the gear itself, of course, alters encounter level depending on the gear at hand.

And I'm saying that you are wrong. Exactly like PCs unspecified gear is calculated into their Party level, so too is the random treasure of monsters calculated into their CR. Because the rules say so, consequently, having and using the treasure they are defined by the rules to have and use is not a favorable circumstance. Just like appearing in their home environment listed in for example, the monster entry, is not a favorable circumstance, or using the tactics they are described as commonly using in the MM is not favorable circumstances.

Also note that I'm talking about the vast majority of monsters which are -not- humanoids and monstrous humanoids that advance primarily by class level. Those have their own broad rules in the NPC section of the DMG and their CR is not fixed but, instead, a function of their level and special abilities (gear granted or otherwise).

Some monsters can use a lot of gear, even and especially non humanoids, such as you know, Dragons and Demons and Devils and Yugloths and Slaads and Modrons Oh My!

The rules don't say that. There's a guideline that suggest that intelligent creatures may benefit from doing so (something so patently obvious that it's barely worth mentioning, IMO.)

The rules state they have treasure, the rules state they use the treasure they have, can't get more explicit than that.

[Yogibear41]

Since monsters explicitly don't carry around what they can't easily carry, they drop the coins somewhere in their home, shove it under a mattress or whatever, and the other one wears armor and a sword. If they are the type of monster that benefits from both the armor and the sword, then they get +1 to hit and damage, and possibly a small AC bonus depending on default armor and Dex, in exchange for a movement speed reduction. Those two fights may not be identical, but since you would have to roll on a level 5 encounter to even get two items, and CR 5 includes Trolls, Bearded Devils, and Greater Barghests with attacks from +9 to +13, and ACs from 16 to 20, and other defenses from Regeneration, to DR 5/Silver, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that equipping any of those creatures with a Greatsword and Full Plate is not changing the CR.

In fact, I'd rather you give them all the Greatsword, since it would reduce all their damage.

I'd prefer if Pit Fiends and the like weren't walking around in +5 mithral armor, using +5 longswords, as well as their other natural attacks, with +5 capes of resistance, who pull out scrolls of heal and auto succeed on the UMD due to modified skills and/or feats. Or conversely a wand chamber in their weapon using the refresh spell that heals all non-lethal damage, which thanks to their regeneration is likely a big chunk of the damage they have taken. Maybe toss on a +5 buckler with improved buckler defense while we are at it for another 6 AC, and the item enhancements that change armor bonus to Touch AC so you can't hit that either.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And I'm saying that you are wrong.

I see.

Exactly like PCs unspecified gear is calculated into their Party level, so too is the random treasure of monsters calculated into their CR. Because the rules say so, consequently, having and using the treasure they are defined by the rules to have and use is not a favorable circumstance. Just like appearing in their home environment listed in for example, the monster entry, is not a favorable circumstance, or using the tactics they are described as commonly using in the MM is not favorable circumstances.

The PC's gear has no effect on their level. They're not completely unrelated but you level regardless of how much or how little treasure the DM hands out and regardless of how much or how little you manage to hang onto or convert into useable gear. Level and CR are different things.

More importantly, PC's and NPC's are built identically, so it's possible to calculate the CR of PC's. Well built, multiclass PC characters will invariably have CR's higher, sometimes significantly so, than their single class NPC counterparts (the ones the generation tables in the DMG yield) of the same level. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that PC's have nearly twice the WBL of NPC's.

If treasure affects CR; the number assigned to represent the challenge the character represents; with humanoids, why wouldn't it effect the challenge represented by monsters of the more monstrous variety. The MM even points out that assigning CR to non-standard monsters is more art than science on page 294, whether they be advanced by class or HD.

That useful treasure, something not all monsters get, is a favorable circumstance granted them by the dice gods is patently obvious. To argue otherwise is absurd. Likewise, your argument that something that is entirely random even -could- be included in any kind of objective measurement of challenge is just as absurd.

Let's look at the range for level 5: There's a very real chance that the dice yield -nothing- for a standard treasure creature. On the other end it could yield a +2 vicious greatsword or an arrow of slaying or a +1 flaming longsword or all three. If the dice -really- hate the PC's you could even end up with a +2 flaming, shocking, frosty, vicious greataxe. These possibilities aren't remotely equal and to pretend they have -no- effect on the challenge represented by a creature capable of wielding them is nonsense; particularly given the difference between nothing and something.

Some monsters can use a lot of gear, even and especially non humanoids, such as you know, Dragons and Demons and Devils and Yugloths and Slaads and Modrons Oh My!

Yes, some creatures can. Most can't. Pointing out exceptions to a trend doesn't disprove the trend. That's beside the point though. Given that what's available, if anything, and what's useable are -random- (except where specifically noted) items -can't- be reasonably included in base CR.

The rules state they have treasure, the rules state they use the treasure they have, can't get more explicit than that.

The rules state that they -might- have treasure (up to the dice) and a -guideline- suggests that they -could- use that treasure if they have any.

[Beheld]

I'd prefer if Pit Fiends and the like weren't walking around in +5 mithral armor, using +5 longswords, as well as their other natural attacks, with +5 capes of resistance, who pull out scrolls of heal and auto succeed on the UMD due to modified skills and/or feats. Or conversely a wand chamber in their weapon using the refresh spell that heals all non-lethal damage, which thanks to their regeneration is likely a big chunk of the damage they have taken. Maybe toss on a +5 buckler with improved buckler defense while we are at it for another 6 AC, and the item enhancements that change armor bonus to Touch AC so you can't hit that either.

And I'm not okay with people breaking the rules either. But since the actual rules involve rolling an actual treasure parcel which comes out to 25% chance of no magic items, 40% chance of no major items, and a 35% chance of 1d3 major items, which probably isn't going to be 3, definitely won't be 5, which you already have in that list, and almost certainly won't be the specific items you want that are the few ones that are actually boosts to his primary combat stats.

And certainly none of that would change it into a CR 21 monster.

The PC's gear has no effect on their level. They're not completely unrelated but you level regardless of how much or how little treasure the DM hands out and regardless of how much or how little you manage to hang onto or convert into useable gear. Level and CR are different things.

"Party Level" is a specific name for a specific mechanic which defines what monsters of what CR and EL a party is expected to face. It goes up and down if you give them more or less treasure than they are defined to have according to the game rules. Likewise, CR is a number that defines monster challenge to a party, and it goes up or down when you deviate from the amount of treasure the monster is supposed to have. Now, it actually can't even go down at all, because every monsters is expected to have a non-zero chance of acquiring zero useful items of treasure, but if you give a monster more treasure than is defined, it could go up, but if you give a monster the amount actually defined, then it stays the same.

More importantly, PC's and NPC's are built identically, so it's possible to calculate the CR of PC's. Well built, multiclass PC characters will invariably have CR's higher, sometimes significantly so, than their single class NPC counterparts (the ones the generation tables in the DMG yield) of the same level. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that PC's have nearly twice the WBL of NPC's.

Actually, it isn't, because NPCs are supposed to use their wealth for, in addition to other things, consumables, that even though costing less than PC items, provide the same or more benefit, for 100% of their fights. That's right in the rules for NPC treasure.

That useful treasure, something not all monsters get, is a favorable circumstance granted them by the dice gods is patently obvious. To argue otherwise is absurd. Likewise, your argument that something that is entirely random even -could- be included in any kind of objective measurement of challenge is just as absurd.

That's funny, because last I checked, the challenge rating measures how likely the party is to take damage enough to kill it, amongst other things, and that is explicitly something that is random.

Let's look at the range for level 5: There's a very real chance that the dice yield -nothing- for a standard treasure creature. On the other end it could yield a +2 vicious greatsword or an arrow of slaying or a +1 flaming longsword or all three. If the dice -really- hate the PC's you could even end up with a +2 flaming, shocking, frosty, vicious greataxe. These possibilities aren't remotely equal and to pretend they have -no- effect on the challenge represented by a creature capable of wielding them is nonsense; particularly given the difference between nothing and something.

And, once again, I'm going to point out that:
a) None of those are actually meaningful differences enough to change the CR, except your 1 in a billion chance one.
b) Just like sometimes monsters roll well on attack rolls, and sometimes they don't, sometimes they roll well on treasure, and sometimes they don't. But in neither case is the monster rolling well supposed to change the CR. This is all factored into the CR.

I mean, there are specific monsters, one of whom is even CR 5, that have a 35% chance to almost literally clone themselves. Do you think rolling well on that roll increases their CR? Spoiler alert, it doesn't. And that roll succeeding is more likely than them rolling even a single magic item.

Yes, some creatures can. Most can't. Pointing out exceptions to a trend doesn't disprove the trend. That's beside the point though. Given that what's available, if anything, and what's useable are -random- (except where specifically noted) items -can't- be reasonably included in base CR.

Except for that whole thing where they can, just like random dice rolls for abilities and random dice rolls for attacks.

The rules state that they -might- have treasure (up to the dice) and a -guideline- suggests that they -could- use that treasure if they have any.

The rules state that they do have treasure, and sometimes that treasure is zero according to the dice, just like the rules say that Bearded Devils do have the ability to summon Bearded Devils, and sometimes they fail.

The rules say in multiple locations that monsters use treasure, and you probably haven't even noticed them all, and the ones you have noticed, you are calling guidelines based on absolutely nothing except that you don't want to admit the rules say monsters use treasure.

[Florian]

To recap at that point:

WotC created a system that is pretty much balanced when you understand its foundations and cornerstones:
- Closed environment (Dungeons)
- Party of four, Fighter, Rogue, Healbot-Cleric, Blaster-Wizard at mid-PB-values
- WBL based on random loot
- Monsters sometimes intentionally break the balance (Dragons)

Looking back at (and remembering gm´ing it back then) the first published 3E campaign (Beginning with citadel) and RTToEE, that worked out pretty well.

Now, is it so hard to understand that changing some of the cornerstones listed above will shift the results?

[Beheld]

To recap at that point:

WotC created a system that is pretty much balanced when you understand its foundations and cornerstones:
- Closed environment (Dungeons)
- Party of four, Fighter, Rogue, Healbot-Cleric, Blaster-Wizard at mid-PB-values

Except that no one agreed with you on 2, and multiple people disagreed. And no one even claimed 1, and also it explicitly contradicts what has been said, the actual rules, and the actual expectations of the game. Spoiler alert, monsters with listed environments of "the Plane of Air" or "Temperate Forests" aren't balanced for dungeons.

[Yogibear41]

I'm more inclined to think the "big four" or so was meant more to be

1. Fighter - primary melee, moderate damage, tanky
2. Rogue - primary skill monkey, high damage under certain situations, glass cannon
3. Cleric - secondary melee, tanky, buffs at beginning of combat or before hand, then wades into melee along side the fighter, fighting at approximately 75-80% of fighters capacity
4. Wizard - whatever is needed: buffs, debuffs, utility, damage, super class Cannon. High Risk high reward.


I don't think anyone ever envisioned the cleric as "oh I just heal" guy, if you go back to the 1st edition dnd PHB that Gygax wrote he basically says these guys are fighters too and might not be as good as a fighter but can hold their own in a melee.

[Florian]

@Yogibear41:

No, not really.
Back in 3E (not 3,5 that´s important), they still used the Base Class, Sub-Class thinking established in AD&D and the Sub-Class itself only had to be "balanced" in regard to the Base Class on a give-and-take basis.
That means that the implied team is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard as Base Classes and then it should be possible and balanced to switch out one of the Base Classes for a Sub Class (Fighter <> Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. Rogue <> Bard, Cleric <> Druid and so on. With Monk being the odd duck here)
It should be noticeable that the CR system should be the balancing factor between the four Base Classes.

And no, it was not the "healbot" but "the guy that can heal and manages his resources in a way that he is able to do so when necessary".

@Beheld:

See the above answer on (2).

As for (1), it is pretty much irrelevant where is happens. Dungeon is just one example.
What happens is that there is an pre-planned Environment containing the challenges to be overcome. As you will "the Adventure" or "the Campaign", nothing outside of that does exist or is relevant.
Ultimately, you can use the structure of the whole CR system as a backbone and use existing material to fill in the blanks.

Which is, I think, the main reason some apparently really powerful options are clumped in at the same levels as others. They used a dual ranking system:
1 - How does it hold up against the implied system?
2 - Is it more powerful than a lesser or higher option?

That means, amongst other things, that things like Plane Shift were never really considered as they would allow to leave "the Adventure" and who would ever want to do that?

[Pluto!]

Who is seriously maintaining that a game with 11 classes was balanced under the assumptions that only 4 would be used? Especially when additional stipulations need to be considered that go against the explicit design goals (eg. "Healbot Clerics" when one of 3e's changes to the class was making sure Clerics have no reason to prepare Cure spells).

3e is not a balanced wargame. There are mental gymnasts here trying to convince themselves that it is, under layers and layers of artificial and willfully misguided stipulations, but they are only misleading themselves.

The system is imbalanced to its core. Whether that has any bearing on whether the system is "good" or playable is another question, but if you're telling yourself that the game was successfully balanced, but only with X, Y and Z classes played in a specific way, and only with enemies A, B and C also being played in a certain way, and only in environments P and Q, you are kidding yourself.

[Eldariel]

Where is this stated? Because my MM says that you should adjust CR when you add or change a creature's special abilities and feats are EX special abilities unless otherwise noted.

See my previous point.

Feats give you ex special abilities where they specify so but that's certainly more of an exception than a rule. Else they'd be lost when Polymorphing - but I have yet to see any rules supporting this reading. Feats are an intrinsic part of levels or HD, just like ability score increases and skills. Any monster could have any given feat on any slot while its base chassis determines its abilities. From Monster Manual:
"The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does—one for its first Hit Die, a second feat if it has at least 3 HD, and an additional feat for every additional 3 HD. (For example, a 9 HD creature is entitled to four feats.)
Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."

So aside from the bonus feats, you're free to pick whatever feats you want for everything but its racial bonus feats. Nothing in the Challenge Rating section recommends changing a creature's CR regarding its feats either. Some come entirely without feats, such as Dragons, and yet regardless of their feats they're expected to be the same CR. Overall, CR is a function of HD/type/size/levels/stats plus situational adjustments, not feats or skills or such.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Do you really need to eyeball the abiities of a small fire elemental when comparing it to a 15th level party? No, of course not.

Whether I see its stats or its CR is one and the same. In both cases I'll know at a glance that it's an irrelevant challenge.

CR helps to narrow down the list of creatures you have to eyeball for comparison and helps to assign appropriate treasure and XP awards for the encounter; things that are necessary for ensuring that they remain approximately on target for WBL which is, in turn, necessary to keep on the expected power-curve for their level and remain competetive with level appropriate CR. It's a recursive system of interdependent parts. If you screw with any of those parts, the system doesn't work as expected or intended. It's not the fault of the designers if you screw with the system and it stops working as intended.

That's assuming sticking to WBL helps all classes equally (it doesn't), improves game balance (arguable), is desirable (arguable), leads to players having the expected amount of treasure (depends on the enemies they face - some enemy classes have next to no treasure while others have some to spare). It's a set of interdependencies, yes, but each individual cog is flawed so while they might support one another, even when the machine is working perfectly it's going to produce faulty results. I posit you're better of defenestrating the whole machine rather than trying to abide by flawed rules that should be adjudicated case-by-case. WBL is good for making characters of level X and that's about it.

The wealth of magic items in the game sees the same WBL lead to vastly different powerlevels depending on the specific items and the specific character involved. Ultimately, the amount of wealth is less critical for character power than the presence or absence of specific abilities within the itemization. Same with classes - the wealth of classes and options inside classes leads to character abilities and numbers being a more reliable indicator of appropriate challenge and power than ECL. Same goes for CR too.

[zergling.exe]

Who is seriously maintaining that a game with 11 classes was balanced under the assumptions that only 4 would be used? Especially when additional stipulations need to be considered that go against the explicit design goals (eg. "Healbot Clerics" when one of 3e's changes to the class was making sure Clerics have no reason to prepare Cure spells).

3e is not a balanced wargame. There are mental gymnasts here trying to convince themselves that it is, under layers and layers of artificial and willfully misguided stipulations, but they are only misleading themselves.

The system is imbalanced to its core. Whether that has any bearing on whether the system is "good" or playable is another question, but if you're telling yourself that the game was successfully balanced, but only with X, Y and Z classes played in a specific way, and only with enemies A, B and C also being played in a certain way, and only in environments P and Q, you are kidding yourself.

It would be more accurate to say that they balanced it around 4 roles, which the 4 classes mentioned were the base assumption of filling each role.
The fighter is the 'tank'. They take the hits keep the monster occupied.
The healbot cleric is the 'healer'. They apparently had to keep stacking more and more on the cleric and druid so that they could be both a healer and do other things, because people didn't seem to want to play them.
The rogue is the 'trapfinder'. Sneak attack was not viewed as something you would get all the time. If it was, WotC likely would have given it a much slower damage progression. Cause you know, doing lots of damage is scary. And then when people had figured out that you could get SA all the time, the ninja arrived with a harder to activate SA, as well as the scout with a weaker version (limited to one attack at half progression!).
The evoker wizard is the 'blaster'. This is the party member that does the damage.