D&D General Things That Bug You

[JEB]

I disagree with this. The table from the DMG almost always has more hit points and higher DPR per CR than the MM monsters. That is then balanced by the fact the table typically has lower AC and to hit bonuses. I also find you can just pick a CR from the table and use those stats for an add-hock monster and it works fine. The issue is when you introduce the special features that complicate CR without taking them into account.

Examples:

Monster	CR	MM Hit Points	DMG Hit Points
Bugbear	1	27	71-85
Air Elemental	5	90	131-145
Stone Golem	10	178	206-220
Purple Worm	15	247	281-295
Pit Fiend	20	300	356-400
Marut	25	432	581-625
Tarrasque	30	676	806-850

Yeah, sorry, my brain was working backwards for some reason. Fixed the previous post.

The point being, pretty much every official 5E monster has an imbalance (often a significant one) between OCR and DCR that evens out to their listed CR. I'd rather the actual CR calculation assume a balanced OCR and DCR, so the default "generic" monster of a particular CR competes automatically with most others of its CR.

I also just find a calculation system for CR that assumes severe imbalances like that a bad design.

 

[dave2008]

sounds like it would get boring quickly if other options existed.

Everyone is different. What we find boring is more a reflection on us than anything else, IMO. I often tell my partner she has selective boredom.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, sorry, my brain was working backwards for some reason. Fixed the previous post.

Got it, however, my point about them working still stands. The higher HP and DPR in the table is balanced by the lower AC and to hit bonus in the table vs the MM. The DMG table still works, it is just balanced differently. The reason for this is all the features that modify a monster's CR beyond that table (resistances, saving throws, special traits, etc.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Everyone is different. What we find boring is more a reflection on us than anything else, IMO. I often tell my partner she has selective boredom.

true but I see limited replayability, it would need more option before you get sick of the gameplay loop.

 

[dave2008]

Dexterity adding to ranged weapon damage. Strength, if its thrown, sure, that'll fly. But Dex? No.

That used to bug me too. However, once I fully embraced the abstraction of HP and damage I came to understand a "hit" is not necessarily striking an opponent and "damage" is not actual wounds. After that, it works well enough.

Also, have you ever used a bow (or sling or thrown an axe)? There is a lot more going on than just STR to effectively hit your target.

All that being said, I think if they used STR for damage and DEX to hit, it might make sense to more people than what we have now.

 

[dave2008]

true but I see limited replayability, it would need more option before you get sick of the gameplay loop.

Again, that is a personal issue. Some would have any issue, others do not.

My group started playing 5e the year it came out. We are still playing with the same characters and just hit lvl 15 at the start of the pandemic. Others on this forum have play dozens of characters since the beginning of 5e. The difference has little to do with the game, but a lot to do with the people playing it.

 

[JEB]

Got it, however, my point about them working still stands. The higher HP and DPR in the table is balanced by the lower AC and to hit bonus in the table vs the MM. The DMG table still works, it is just balanced differently. The reason for this is all the features that modify a monster's CR beyond that table (resistances, saving throws, special traits, etc.)

Sure, the 5E CR table works. But it could work better, is what I mean. 4E isn't my favorite edition, but they did a better job with this sort of thing for their monsters. (Though it did take until MM3 to get it right.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Again, that is a personal issue. Some would have any issue, others do not.

My group started playing 5e the year it came out. We are still playing with the same characters and just hit lvl 15 at the start of the pandemic. Others on this forum have play dozens of characters since the beginning of 5e. The difference has little to do with the game, but a lot to do with the people playing it.

true but it also has to do with the group, luck, setting, and the ability to get in a game.

 

[Oofta]

Specially when you have six players.

DM at start of each session: "OK, you lot, you know what to do: each of you roll a d20 and the two lowest rolls have to sit out tonight..."

Nah. Do it the old school way. "The two lowest rolls get killed by a trap that you could not detect and could not avoid. Write up new characters for next session."

 

[dave2008]

I also just find a calculation system for CR that assumes severe imbalances like that a bad design.

I don't necessarily think it is a bad design. I think you are trying to use it in a way it is not intended. I find the DMG table and rules for making a monster pretty easy to use, others do not. So it seems it could be more clear or simplified, but I like the steps and the different things they address that simply cannot be contained in just a table.

What you are really looking for is a "Typical Monster Stats by CR" table where you can pick a CR and just use the stats and it will compare well to the "average" MM monster of that CR. That would be great, and I wish they would provide that (I've seen it reverse engineered on the internet), but that is not what the table in the DMG is. Now, 4e had a table like that and it was very useful for improvising monsters. That is not what the table in the 5e DMG is though.