This system complements CR and tries to find an easier way to scale encounters up and down. It uses Challenge Points, a more accurate measure of monster power that tells you how strong a creature is within its CR.
Each level of a 5e-based game has a separate table that lists:
- The CRs that are relevant to that level
- The challenge point (CP) cost of the typical creature of that CR
- Individual creatures might list specific CP costs at differnet levels, reflecting creatures that are strong or weak for their CR.
As a starting point, the DM uses a CP budget based on the difficulty of the encounter. The CP budget varies based on the type of session, such as a single, massive battle, or a series of smaller battles as the characters navigate a dungeon. To start with, here is a generic set of point budgets based on the encounter guidelines from the SRD.
Very roughly speaking, each CP represents about a 10% resource loss for a single character. Keep that in mind as you look at the various CP costs at differnet levels. Part of the challenge of using CR is that it provides a one-size-fits-all solution to a framework that is much more variable than CR's seeming consistency indicates.
| Danger | CPs per Character |
|---|---|
| Moderate | 3 |
| Difficult | 5 |
| Dangerous | 7 |
| Deadly | 10 |
In theory, you could jam an encounter with 10 one point creatures per character, but that encounter runs in one of two ways. If the party has access to area of effect spells, it's an easy win for them. If not, the fight becomes a long, grueling slog as you burn through a 10:1 action advantage. As a baseline, avoid using monsters that have move total actions per round greater than three times the number of players. In my games, I try to avoid doubling up the party's actions unless I'm familiar enough with the characters that I know it won't be a long slog.
This approach requires more overhead, as we have many tables instead of a general rubric. Given that not all levels are created equal, the delta in power represented by leveling requires this more exacting approach. I think the benefits in scaling are worth the greater width of content.