D&D 5E Level = Challenge Rating

[mamba]

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".

I find CR at least as meaningful as level, it allows for more granularity, avoids overloading the same term with different meanings and does not at all get in the way of the math.

If the math is off, changing the term will do nothing to fix it. Using level is a step in the wrong direction

 

[Yaarel]

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

The "invisible" fix is to simply define "Challenge" rating as exactly equal to player character "level".

The math must have been done in the Far Realm.

LOL!

 

[Yaarel]

[double post]

 

[Yaarel]

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?

avoids overloading the same term with different meanings and does not at all get in the way of the math.

The above posts misunderstand what is being said.

Rather, there is no new meaning for level.

When referring to monsters, a "level" means exactly the same thing. For example, if you are playing a "level 13 Vampire" monster, the other player characters alongside it, are likewise level 13.

 

[Yaarel]

Very roughly speaking.

"Challenge" ≈ Level of a Barbarian (d12 Hit Dice +5 Constitution)


But depending on concept, the stats can be lower or even higher, and if higher characterize it as magical regeneration etcetera.

 

[mamba]

When referring to monsters, a "level" means exactly the same thing. For example, if you are playing a "level 13 Vampire" monster, the other player characters alongside it, are likewise level 13.

why? what ever happened to e.g fighting 2 level 9 mummies instead?

Saying the right encounter is always 1 monster of the same level for n chars is just worse than what we have now in every conceivable way…

Even without that, using level instead of CR fixes nothing and is strictly less flexible.

 

[FallenRX]

i find CR=Levelx1.5, it holds consistent at all levels.

 

[Yaarel]

why? what ever happened to e.g fighting 2 level 9 mummies instead?

Saying the right encounter is always 1 monster of the same level for n chars is just worse than what we have now in every conceivable way…

Even without that, using level instead of CR fixes nothing and is strictly less flexible.

When measuring monsters by normal levels, a "level 9 Mummy" equals a level 9 Barbarian with special feats.

It seems a standard combat encounter is, two level 9 player characters versus one level 9 Mummy.

If there is only player character versus the level 9 Mummy, then the outcome at the same level would be about 50-50 odds, thus a very lethal encounter with 50% chance of death.

There's to many variables in monster, class abilities, playstyles, character generation, player skill etc to account for [CR]. ...

Precisely because there are too many variables in monsters, to refer to the player character "level" helps.

Likewise, the player character level must account for very many different variables between player characters, yet this system tends to successfully balance player characters with each other at each level despite their differences.

i find CR=Levelx1.5, it holds consistent at all levels.

x1.5 seems truer for the 2014 Monster Manual (with too many exceptions), but less true for 2024 which is closer to x1.0, maybe about x1.2 (judging by the spell casters).

It seems the 2024 math can systematically define: CR=Level

In which case, just refer to Level.

 

[FallenRX]

When measuring monsters by normal levels, a "level 9 Mummy" equals a level 9 Barbarian with special feats.

It seems a standard combat encounter is, two level 9 player characters versus one level 9 Mummy.

If there is only player character versus the level 9 Mummy, then the outcome at the same level would be about 50-50 odds, thus a very lethal encounter with 50% chance of death.



Precisely because there are too many variables in monsters, to refer to the player character "level" helps.

Likewise, the player character level must account for very many different variables between player characters, yet this system tends to successfully balance player characters with each other at each level despite their differences.



x1.5 seems truer for the 2014 Monster Manual (with too many exceptions), but less true for 2024 which is closer to x1.0, maybe about x1.2 (judging by the spell casters).

It seems the 2024 math can systematically define: CR=Level

In which case, just refer to Level.

Nah, i find the 2024 monsters(using MPMM as the example) actually follow this tighter then before in my testing.

 

[Yaarel]

This table from GiffyGliphy Monster Maker is gold!

Here, "Grunts" are the standard monsters, NPC soldiers, etcetera. (In contrast to Minions, Elites, etc.)


In other words, what it is saying is:

Four level 1 player characters can take on a level 4 monster as a standard encounter.
Four level 2 player characters can take on a level 6 monster as a standard encounter.
Four level 3 player characters can take on a level 8 monster as a standard encounter.
...
Four level 5 player characters can take on a level 12 monster.
Four level 9 player characters can take on a level 19 monster.
Four level 13 player characters can take on a level 22 monster.
Four level 17 player characters can take on a level 25 monster.


Because the official Challenge ratings are so inconsistent, and 5e tends to be robust, the math is flexible.


It is possible for the 2024 to systematize and standardize the monsters to accurately measure what "level" their combat traits are worth. Then separately, give a table for what counts as a standard combat encounter, depending on the level of the party and how many player characters are in the party.