D&D 5E Level = Challenge Rating

[mamba]

Class balance is decent in 5e. Less tight than 4e, but perhaps a bit more robust.

Using the criteria of levels for balancing classes makes sense for balancing monsters too.

maybe that works for NPCs, but once you come to dragons, demons, etc. I am not so sure it helps at all. Heck, I am not even sure it helps with NPCs, an NPC Wizard of level 10 could be much harder or easier depending on which spells you choose

 

[Yaarel]

maybe that works for NPCs, but once you come to dragons, demons, etc. I am not so sure it helps at all. Heck, I am not even sure it helps with NPCs, an NPC Wizard of level 10 could be much harder or easier depending on which spells you choose

With Dragons and Fiends and so on, one can start backward.

First build a player character, with Fighter levels, spells and feats, etcetera to arrive at the mechanics of a Dragon or Fiend. Then one has a sense of what its level is, with regard to the combat pillar.

The Fighter class is excellent at combat. It is its social and exploration capabilities that need a boost at high levels. But monsters only need to concern combat.

 

[Yaarel]

Hypothetically,

Two player characters versus one opponent of the same level, is about a standard 5e combat encounter.

 

[Upper_Krust]

5e "Challenge" ratings are a hot mess, highly inconsistent, and there are no official rules to determine them. The 2014 DMs Guide has rules, but none of the official books with monsters utilize these rules.

I agree the assignment of a Challenge Rating is a "hot mess", but the system itself is functional IF you just build the monsters using consistent (unified) rules.

1. Link Hit Dice with Challenge Rating as follows:

CR 2 = 3 HD
CR 4 = 6 HD
CR 6 = 9 HD
CR 8 = 12 HD
CR 10 = 15 HD
CR 12 = 20 HD
CR 16 = 30 HD
CR 20 = 40 HD
CR 24 = 60 HD
CR 28 = 80 HD

2. Derive base damage from Hit Dice

Main Attacks: # of dice = 1/4 HD
Reactions: # of dice = 1/8 HD
"Super Attack" (like a Breath Weapon): # of dice = 1/2 Hit Dice

E.g. CR 12 Dragon: 20 Hit Dice, Claw 5d6/Claw 5d6/Bite 5d12, Breath Weapon: 10d8 (cone); Tail (Reaction) 2d12, etc.

From that baseline you can modify for creature role or whatever. But it gives you a core consistency.

In the 2014 Monster Manual, the "2/3" sometimes happens, but again is inconsistent. For example, the Archmage is Challenge 12 for a level 18 spell caster, and the Mage is Challenge 6 for a level 9 spell caster.

However, the spell casters in the recent book Mordenkainen Presents have a CR that is close to the level, and sometimes the same.

I know, but you can see from the random assignment of Hit Dice (throughout that book, not just the spell casters) WotC are completely inconsistent.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It surprises me that noone's mentioned Forge of Foes, that has a CR to level comparion chart.
But Giffyglyph of Reddit has made 4e-fication of 5e monsters years ago. You could do worse than checking it out:

 

[NotAYakk]

I hope 5e 2024 eliminates the esoteric and often imbalanced terminology of monster "Challenge" rating. Instead, refer to "levels", such as a "level 13 Red Dragon", or whatever.

In any case, there exists a direct link between Level and Challenge, via the "Proficiency" bonus. Notice how the monster "challenge" in the Monster Manual and again in Mordenkainen Presents corresponds exactly to a player character "level".


Proficiency: Level = Challenge

+2: Level 0 (Background) = Challenges 1/8, 1/4, 1/2

+2: Levels 1 thru 4 = Challenges 1 thru 4
+3: Levels 5 thru 8 = Challenges 5 thru 8
+4: Levels 9 thru 12 = Challenges 9 thru 12
+5: Levels: 13 thru 16 = Challenges 13 thru 16
+6: Levels 17 thru 20 = Challenges 17 thru 20

+7: Levels 21 thru 24 = Challenges 21 thru 24
+8: Levels 25 thru 28 = Challenges 25 thru 28
+9: Levels 29 thru 30 [32?] = Challenges 29 thru 30 [32?]


Hopefully, 5e actually is obsoleting and phasing out the terminology of "Challenge".

Level and Challenge arent the same thing, because multiple monsters can gang up on a player character, and odds are the player character will win.

But as DM I will treat challenge as if it is the same thing as level, then see what happens.

In terms of "a CR X monster is a reasonable fight for a level Y PC", it is closer to:

CR 1/4: L1
CR 1/2: L2
CR 1: L3
CR 2: L4.5
CR 3: L6
CR 4: L8
CR 5: L11
CR 6: L13
CR 7: L15
CR 8: L17
CR 9: L19

4 CR1/4 monsters have a 400 XP budget. A party of 1 L 1 PCs has a deady budget of 400.
4 CR3 monsters have a 5600 XP budget. A party of 4 L7 PCs has a deady budget of 5600.
4 CR9 monsters have a 20000*2 = 40000 XP budget. A party of 4 L 19 PCs has a deadly budget of 43600.

However, 5e D&D monsters are written as "solo" medium difficulty encounters for a group of 3-4 PCs instead of individual deadly threats for a single PC.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree the assignment of a Challenge Rating is a "hot mess", but the system itself is functional IF you just build the monsters using consistent (unified) rules.

Sure. But since there is a lack of official unified rules, and what does exist needs fixing anyway, it is for many reasons to refer to "level" that are a meaningful unit of measurement, rather than the opaque hot mess of "challenge".

1. Link Hit Dice with Challenge Rating as follows:

CR 2 = 3 HD
CR 4 = 6 HD
CR 6 = 9 HD
CR 8 = 12 HD
CR 10 = 15 HD
CR 12 = 20 HD
CR 16 = 30 HD
CR 20 = 40 HD
CR 24 = 60 HD
CR 28 = 80 HD

2. Derive base damage from Hit Dice

Main Attacks: # of dice = 1/4 HD
Reactions: # of dice = 1/8 HD
"Super Attack" (like a Breath Weapon): # of dice = 1/2 Hit Dice

E.g. CR 12 Dragon: 20 Hit Dice, Claw 5d6/Claw 5d6/Bite 5d12, Breath Weapon: 10d8 (cone); Tail (Reaction) 2d12, etc.

From that baseline you can modify for creature role or whatever. But it gives you a core consistency.

I will check out these numbers, but again it is better to refer to "level" when creating a standard.


The inflation of hit points requires attention. For a player character to have this amount of hit points at this "level" would mean something like usage of Second Wind, bonus Cure Wounds spells, regeneration, etcetera.

I know, but you can see from the random assignment of Hit Dice (throughout that book, not just the spell casters) WotC are completely inconsistent.

Apparently the "hit points", along with AC, are the most consistent aspect of "challenge" relatively speaking, and anything else even less consistent!

4e had official standard rules for monsters, that were so clear it was possible to critique precisely the math. Inevitably, the 4e fans were merciless in their criticism of small discrepancies. 5e succeeded in avoiding criticism by making its "in house" rules for monsters an opaque hot mess.

It surprises me that noone's mentioned Forge of Foes, that has a CR to level comparion chart.
But Giffyglyph of Reddit has made 4e-fication of 5e monsters years ago. You could do worse than checking it out:

I will look into these numbers too.

In terms of "a CR X monster is a reasonable fight for a level Y PC", it is closer to:

CR 1/4: L1
CR 1/2: L2
CR 1: L3
CR 2: L4.5
CR 3: L6
CR 4: L8
CR 5: L11
CR 6: L13
CR 7: L15
CR 8: L17
CR 9: L19

4 CR1/4 monsters have a 400 XP budget. A party of 1 L 1 PCs has a deady budget of 400.
4 CR3 monsters have a 5600 XP budget. A party of 4 L7 PCs has a deady budget of 5600.
4 CR9 monsters have a 20000*2 = 40000 XP budget. A party of 4 L 19 PCs has a deadly budget of 43600.

However, 5e D&D monsters are written as "solo" medium difficulty encounters for a group of 3-4 PCs instead of individual deadly threats for a single PC.

And I will look at these numbers.


I also want to call attention for the important reverse engineering here, by Blog of Holding. It is referring to the 2014 math, and we probably need new numbers for 2024 math.

In any case, in any new monster math system, it is better to refer player character "level" as the standard unit of measurement.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Sure. But since there is a lack of official unified rules, and what does exist needs fixing anyway, it is for many reasons to refer to "level" that are a meaningful unit of measurement, rather than the opaque hot mess of "challenge".

Possibly, but quick-fixing the Challenge Rating "system" is a LOT easier than assigning 'Level' to the thousands of existing monster stat-blocks.

I will check out these numbers, but again it is better to refer to "level" when creating a standard.

If Level parallels Hit Dice and Challenge Rating derives from Hit Dice, then suggesting Monsters be measured by 'Level' wouldn't be necessary.

The inflation of hit points requires attention. For a player character to have this amount of hit points at this "level" would mean something like usage of Second Wind, bonus Cure Wounds spells, regeneration, etcetera.

Characters still have 1 Hit Dice per Level. I don't see where the "inflation" you mention is coming from...?

Apparently the "hit points", along with AC, are the most consistent aspect of "challenge" relatively speaking, and anything else even less consistent!

The math must have been done in the Far Realm.

4e had official standard rules for monsters, that were so clear it was possible to critique precisely the math. Inevitably, the 4e fans were merciless in their criticism of small discrepancies. 5e succeeded in avoiding criticism by making its "in house" rules for monsters an opaque hot mess.

Easy fix though.

 

[Zardnaar]

Very loosely, multiply CR by something between 2 and 4 (4 for low-CR creatures, 2 for high CR creatures) and you get something that kinda-sorta approximates this. It'll never work precisely that way because the CR system is meant to approximate a party of four people, e.g. CR 1 = "four 1st level characters," and the power level of 4 first-level characters scales in highly nonlinear ways across 5e's level range.

Sadly, there's basically zero chance 5.5e will actually move to this system, for two reasons. First, it would remove a major component of backwards compatibility, which is the watchword of 5.5e. Second, it's a distinctive 4e-ism, specifically as part of the design rules rather than the flavor. The designers scrupulously avoided referencing or employing 4e rules whenever possible in 5e's design, to the point of repeatedly reinventing the wheel (and usually with far less testing to boot.)

CR was a 3E thing tweaked in 4E and 5E.
The big problem is that it exists in the first place. There's to many variables in monster, class abilities, playstyles, character generation, player skill etc to account for it.

Square peg round hole. They're trying to quantify an art.

Even in 4E to fix that they would have to strip out all player build agency make ability array the only allowed option and have every class have a set ability with 0 variables to get a CR system to work properly.

Beats me why they didn't figure this out in 3E or end of 4E at the latest.

 

[Blue]

Be that as it may, I would rather have the 2024 Monster Manual give the DM guidance, saying the level of each player should be 4 higher than the level of a corresponding monster.

Similarly, advise how many lower level monsters equate one higher level monster.

Talk in terms of "levels".

At least then I know, if I have a DM player character with a level and a character sheet as a recurring villain, I have a sense of what to expect during a combat challenge.

I find the obscure technical jargon of "challenge ratings" to be opaque and deeply unhelpful.

I am the exact opposite from you. Like, the EXACT opposite, this couldn't be more wrong to me.

We already know that overloading the a word, like level, causing issues. Class levels vs. character levels vs. spell levels. Why do I get spell level 9 when I hit class level 17? Please, for different things always use different words. Most especially when they are loosely related, like spell level is so there's honest confusion. So something that is kinda like level but really off by FOUR? Whatever you call it, the most wrong it could be would be to call it level. Because level and level+4 are not the same thing, even if they happen to advance at the same rate.