D&D 5E Surf's D&D 5e Monster Analysis

[surfarcher]

Nice. This supports my "PC's last two hits against a monster" experience so far. Which is a less than half of what 4e presumed. Though I wonder what healing resources are factored into the PC HP calculation on the PC's side.

I haven't done any formal analysis on this yet, but I have looked at it in passing. Right now I think that it's effectively a flip-side to damage, that PCs with healing spells/powers can spend those to do approximately the same healing as an equivalent resource would in damage.

So if a level 3 single-target, direct damage spell does say 25HP average damage then a L3 single-target heal would do 25HP average healing. Or maybe a swift heal could pop 15HP healing and the PC could make a melee attack for around 10HP damage.

The PC gets to choose which direction on the HP/Damage axis they want to work, possibly even splitting it a bit each way. I can see some elegance in that.

But like I said I haven't crunched the numbers on that so YMMV!

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION] Thanks for the damage analysis!

It is very surprising to me that your example Pyromancer (with fireball, scorching ray, and burning hands) is a 5th level caster that is CR 5, while the Mage NPC from the DM basic rules is a 9th level caster (with ice storm, cone of cold, and fireball, among other more utility spells) and is CR 6.

I would expect the difference of four caster levels to be worth more than 1 CR difference.

It's very non-intuitive to judge a caster's CR by their spell selection. :/

 

[surfarcher]

@surfarcher Thanks for the damage analysis!

Glad you enjoyed it!

It is very surprising to me that your example Pyromancer (with fireball, scorching ray, and burning hands) is a 5th level caster that is CR 5, while the Mage NPC from the DM basic rules is a 9th level caster (with ice storm, cone of cold, and fireball, among other more utility spells) and is CR 6.

Quick spell damage evaluation...

• Cone Of Cold (L5) = 135
• Ice Storm (L4) = 86.25
• Fireball (L4) = 118.125
• Fireball (L3) = 105

If I was running the Mage against a L6 group of 4 PCs they'd have an average of 196 Hit Points. I wouldn't use Ice Storm unless the other spells were excluded by circumstances. Instead I'd Throw Cone Of Cold and two L4 Fireballs...

Damage=135 + 118.125 + 118.125=371.25​

Average Damage=371.25 / 3=123.75
​

Now the reality is everyone in the party is going to take either 36/31 or 18/15 damage every round and on average they have 49HP. But the less combat oriented ones will have something like 39HP at full HP and a good roll by the DM can put them at death saves.

The Mage's very low HP make it a glass cannon, but frankly I think it's too OP. But then it's an NPC and not necessarily designed for the PCs to fight?

While the Pyromancer is also a Glass Cannon it's a bit more balanced, thus it has higher HP and lower average damage to compensate. It has a good "alpha attack" with Fireball and should be able to really push the PCs without presenting quite the danger that the Mage would.

I would expect the difference of four caster levels to be worth more than 1 CR difference.

Nope. That's not how CR is evaluated. It's based on an assessment of the overall offensive and defensive assessment of the creature.

It's very non-intuitive to judge a caster's CR by their spell selection. :/

In fact spells are arguably the most difficult Damage to estimate and spells can make casters highly variable. I kinda picked off the hardest first, lol.

 

[surfarcher]

OK Part 8: Construction: Actions is now up... Sick em gang!

 

[surfarcher]

Just posted Part 9: Construction: Attack Bonus!

 

[the Jester]

Just posted Part 9: Construction: Attack Bonus!

Aargh, I meant to give you xp for this, not laugh at it. Hahaha?

 

[dd.stevenson]

Aargh, I meant to give you xp for this, not laugh at it. Hahaha?

You can undo a laugh by pressing the frown button.

 

[the Jester]

You can undo a laugh by pressing the frown button.

Hey, thanks!

 

[Elric]

Do you have plans to look at the encounter guidelines and the progression of how much tougher monsters get by level (or maybe you already have done this)?

It seems to me that PC and monster power doesn't scale as fast in general as the XP numbers alone would imply (e.g., a CR 5 Hill Giant worth 1,800 XP is not as deadly as 4 CR 2 Ogres worth 450 XP each). So large numbers of lower CR monsters would be too strong relative to what the XP total suggests.

The encounter XP multiplier (basic DM guide, p. 57) helps to address that design flaw. However, the XP multiplier is itself flawed (as an encounter with an Adult Red Dragon and 3 Kobolds demonstrates).

My take is that some monsters are particularly dangerous in groups (e.g., with their own kind, like Intellect Devourers, or with any melee combatant, like Hobgoblins). Those should have been handled with special guidelines in their stat blocks (CR varies based on group composition), and XP should have simply scaled more slowly as CR increased (with the corresponding decrease in the XP budget encounter guidelines), thus obviating the need for a multiplier. But I would like to see your analysis of the issue!

 

[surfarcher]

Aargh, I meant to give you xp for this, not laugh at it. Hahaha?

LMAO!

Do you have plans to look at the encounter guidelines and the progression of how much tougher monsters get by level (or maybe you already have done this)?

It seems to me that PC and monster power doesn't scale as fast in general as the XP numbers alone would imply (e.g., a CR 5 Hill Giant worth 1,800 XP is not as deadly as 4 CR 2 Ogres worth 450 XP each). So large numbers of lower CR monsters would be too strong relative to what the XP total suggests.

The encounter XP multiplier (basic DM guide, p. 57) helps to address that design flaw. However, the XP multiplier is itself flawed (as an encounter with an Adult Red Dragon and 3 Kobolds demonstrates).

My take is that some monsters are particularly dangerous in groups (e.g., with their own kind, like Intellect Devourers, or with any melee combatant, like Hobgoblins). Those should have been handled with special guidelines in their stat blocks (CR varies based on group composition), and XP should have simply scaled more slowly as CR increased (with the corresponding decrease in the XP budget encounter guidelines), thus obviating the need for a multiplier. But I would like to see your analysis of the issue!

Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I don't know if I'll get to it or not... But I do keep a list of article suggestions and this is on it (I'll give it a +1 as a result of your suggestion).