D&D 5E Interesting (if you like geeky analysis) little anomalies in the 5e NPC statblocks

[jrowland]

Cleric domain spells are extra prepared spells. The acolyte gets an extra 1st level spell slot.

ahh...let me clarify...one should assume the extra slot is for casting a domain spell (undetermined and not in the MM listing so using rule 0 here). So, for example, and Acolyte of Pelor (light domain) would have 3 prepared spells (1 + 2 for wisdom) from the cleric list and 3 1st level slots with 2 regular slots (for casting from prepared list) and 1 slot for casting burning hands (domain spell) only.

again, DM rule 0...anomaly still exists in RAW.

 

[Joe Liker]

All monsters always had d8 hit dice back in the olden days, so it's not all that surprising that they've reverted to that simpler method.

 

[MoutonRustique]

There's strange sort of "yes and no" about monster creation right now - it's kind of like : yes, they follow certain rules. But then again, no they don't, but we'll sort of make it look like they do... so nyose?

My example would be the "brutal" trait - it exists purely to have the creature deal more melee damage, but since they can't just assign a damage value (as the damage values are calculated with the same methods as for PCs - weapon and stat), they have to makeup these rules so that they can get the result they want.

Another would be the "charisma bonus to AC" for the cambion - AC is very important. That it is derived from the gear an NPC uses makes it so you can change a creatures power with just a gear swap. Give than cambion a fullplate and... ouch, that AC is going to be pretty rough.

It makes the thing into a strange contradiction - the idea is supposed to be about feel more than rules, but you really have to ignore the given rules to change the feel in many situations (with regards to gear-using monsters anyway).

On the other hand, a campaign where stopping arms (good ones) from getting into enemy hands can make a lot of sense now - give that hobgoblin regiment a set of fullplates and greatswords, and it becomes a whole lot scarier!

 

[Joe Liker]

Speaking of AC, I made the mistake of using four Animated Armors in an encounter. It's made of plate armor and has no weapon, so it's got an AC of 18 and deals low damage with its low-accuracy Slam attacks. And because it is a construct, it has a lot of resistances and immunities.

OH. MY. GOD this fight was boring. For a CR 1 monster, they take forever to kill, but the party didn't really feel like it was in any danger because the stupid things could barely scratch them.

So while this may be an example of "by-the-book" monster-building, I kinda wish they'd found a better way to express the idea of an animated suit of armor, starting with way fewer hit points or something.

Didn't mean to derail, but I kinda needed to vent. I really did learn long ago that high AC = no fun, but I must not have been paying attention to that part of the stats when I pulled the encounter together.

 

[Grazzt]

S[*]
[*] Standard attacks and damage are all worked out in the same way PCs calculate them. Additional effects are not. For instance, NPC effects that do something on a hit have a DC of 15. One of these is the Gladiator's Shield Bash attack. If that uses the normal Shove action, it would be a DC of 1d20 + the Gladiator's Athletics of 10 - an average DC of 20. It looks like the Shield Bash is a version of the bonus action shield bash option in the Shield Master feat, but simplified and balanced for use by the GM.
[/list]

The DC is figured like a monster's DC for attacks: 8 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier (in this case Strength). So, 8 + 3 + 4 = DC 15.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Speaking of AC, I made the mistake of using four Animated Armors in an encounter. It's made of plate armor and has no weapon, so it's got an AC of 18 and deals low damage with its low-accuracy Slam attacks. And because it is a construct, it has a lot of resistances and immunities.

OH. MY. GOD this fight was boring. For a CR 1 monster, they take forever to kill, but the party didn't really feel like it was in any danger because the stupid things could barely scratch them.

So while this may be an example of "by-the-book" monster-building, I kinda wish they'd found a better way to express the idea of an animated suit of armor, starting with way fewer hit points or something.

Didn't mean to derail, but I kinda needed to vent. I really did learn long ago that high AC = no fun, but I must not have been paying attention to that part of the stats when I pulled the encounter together.

yes, animated armor in bigger numbers are boring as hell. But a single one at level 1 is a very good challenge.
At higher levels, you should give them a big weapon in their gloves, so offense and defense are more balanced.

We are already told, CR is the average of offense and defense. I really hope the next monster manual spells out the offense rating and defense rating for each monster. Would really be helpful to mix and match them better in an encounter.

 

[Chocolategravy]

There are lots and lots of "anomalies" that I think it's safe to say they just threw a bunch of numbers at things. One example is thrown rock damage. Die size and number of dice are pretty much arbitrary and relate more to the monster's CR than it's strength or size. Weapon damage for large sized monsters also doesn't follow the same rule that the "enlarge" spell uses for PCs. Also "named" enemies are quite different than standard ones, the CR6 "mage" NPC doesn't get any wizard class abilities but CR 4 "Azbara Jos" does.

 

[ccooke]

There are lots and lots of "anomalies" that I think it's safe to say they just threw a bunch of numbers at things. One example is thrown rock damage. Die size and number of dice are pretty much arbitrary and relate more to the monster's CR than it's strength or size. Weapon damage for large sized monsters also doesn't follow the same rule that the "enlarge" spell uses for PCs. Also "named" enemies are quite different than standard ones, the CR6 "mage" NPC doesn't get any wizard class abilities but CR 4 "Azbara Jos" does.

I don't think you understand what CR is meant to accomplish, there.

There are not many anomalies, and most of them seem to be "the standard formula isn't producing quite what we want. Let's tweak it". One or two are almost certainly editing mistakes, but I've yet to find one that looks like it breaks the creature - either making it too good for its CR or too bad.

Has anyone else found an example of that?

As to named enemies and NPCs... why is that a surprise? It's been said several times that you can create NPCs with the PC chargen rules, but that most of the time they won't. The NPC statblocks in the MM and DMBasic (DMB?) are there to support the generic case that doesn't use the PC rules.
It's simply unfair to compare two NPCs with different-but-valid generation methods expecting them both to have all the same abilities. It would be perfectly reasonable to argue that one of those two generation methods was a bad thing for the game (and there are plenty of people who will state an opinion on it, given that the statblocks represent a 4e-like method and the NPC you mentioned is more 3e-like). Personally I like both ways of doing it - I want detail for important NPCs, but I want usable quick statblocks that I can flesh out if need be for the general case.

The best fair comparison between the two NPCs is actually if their CR is accurate. The CR6 Mage is spot on, from the fights I've used it in. I haven't seen "Azbara Jos" - is it a fair CR4 creature?