D&D (2024) 5e 2024 − The Monster Math

[mearls]

I think the mistake DM's make is assuming one creature can stand up to a party regardless of how hard the encounter is expected to be based on CR math. The guidance in the DMG even suggests multiple creatures per character (within reason), and their high level "Hard" encounter example is two Adult dragons AND two Fire Giants.

The design goal is obviously to have groups of monsters so they are not losing on the action economy, and for those monsters to hit very hard but not stay alive more than 2-3 rounds, to make fights faster but also feel more dangerous.

Time will tell if those guidelines along with the new Monsters achieves this, but the design goal seems apparent to me.

Great point! I'm literally cleaning my garage right now, but later today I'll take a look at some comps for some typical fight models.

 

[Leatherhead]

This is the kind of analysis I was looking forward too.

 

[Quickleaf]

Quick question for folks with new MM, that’s math adjacent:

I understand some monsters hit harder, for example frost giant dealing cold damage in addition to a physical damage type.

In the case of man-sized creatures dealing only B/P/S damage, which have higher damage in 2024, is there a narrative explanation offered/hinted at for the GM to explain to players who are surprised at the damage of a sword or claw?

Similar question for increased HP of man-sized creatures, like the arch mage iirc?

 

[dave2008]

Quick question for folks with new MM, that’s math adjacent:

I understand some monsters hit harder, for example frost giant dealing cold damage in addition to a physical damage type.

In the case of man-sized creatures dealing only B/P/S damage, which have higher damage in 2024, is there a narrative explanation offered/hinted at for the GM to explain to players who are surprised at the damage of a sword or claw?

Similar question for increased HP of man-sized creatures, like the arch mage iirc?

I don't have the book, but I am 100% sure the answer is: no.

However, I give explanations if you want them - though I would rather wait until I have the book.

 

[CrashFiend82]

I got curious about 2014 vs 2024 encounters, so now that we have the new monster math and encounter guidelines I matched out 2 examples. Thought some people would enjoy it.

2014 Level 10 encounter 4 characters:
Medium Challenge is 4 CR 3 Monsters
Total HP: 240; Total Damage/Round: 80

2024 Level 10 encounter 4 characters:
Medium Challenge is 4 CR 6 Monsters
Total HP: 436; Total Damage/Round: 186

 

[CrashFiend82]

I did the same for Level 20.

2014 Level 20 encounter 4 Characters:
Medium Challenge is 4 CR 8 Monsters
Total HP: 480; Total Damage/Round: 160

2024 Level 20 encounter 4 Characters:
Medium Challenge is 4 CR 16 Monsters
Total HP: 960; Total Damage/Round: 484

This should help make high level encounters feel like challenges. Not sure if the math will work better with 2024 characters, we'll all have to see.

 

[Yaarel]

It is difficult to make sense of the hit points in the new Monster Manual.

Looking at the average of the official hit points at each CR, the rate of improvement sometimes accelerates, sometimes decelerates, at certain points reverses so the next CR actually has less hit points, and finally at epic CRs (20+) wildly accelerates deviating from any pattern.

The simplest formula to explain the numbers is: hit points = 15(CR+1).

In other words, CR 1 starts at 30 hit points, and after that, each higher CR improves by 15 hit points.

This simple formula closely matches the actual average hit points from CR 1 thru CR 10. Overall, the formula stays true even up to CR 21 where an expected 330 hit points matches the actual 335.8 hit points on average. In the CRs in between, the formula also helps shore up the anemic CRs. For example CR 14 averaging about 200.5 hit points, should instead expect about 225 hit points, which is at least a bit better. CR 17 which averages 254 hit points, should instead be about 270 hit points.

However the simple formula fails to explain the epic CRs. From CR 22 thru 24, the improvement to hit points lurches upward derailing from any formula, improving about 70 hit points per CR on average. Because the epic CRs tend to have fewer monsters, and many of them are unique individuals, it is fair to say the small sampling pool is nonrepresentative of any expected CR. On the other hand, these wildly higher hit points at the upper CRs, might instead suggest, the hit points should have been improving at higher rate all along at every CR.

The Hit Points table below compares the formula, hit points = 15(CR+1), to the actual hit points in the 2024 Monster Manual. Actual hit point averages that are less than the formula by 10% are in red. Actual averages that are more than the formula by 10% are in blue. The formula is solid and helpful, except at the very highest CRs.

 

[mearls]

Going back to the level 12 encounter, let's pit a party of 4 12th level characters against 4 critters of equal XP value.

In 5.5 that's very easy. We have 4700 xp per character. That's roughly 4 CR 9 creatures.

In 5e, it's trickier. We have to halve the monsters effective XP to stay within the guidelines, so that leaves us looking for monsters worth 1500 xp each. Ugh! That's roughly 4 CR 5 creatures.

In both cases we're overshooting the mark, but let's see what that gives:

5.5 Creatures: 155 hp each, 600 total. 65 DPR each, or 260 in the aggregate
5e Creatures via DMG: 138 hp each, 552 total. 35 DPR each, or 140 in the aggregate

It's wild how much higher the damage is (in a good way), but the hit points are about the same.

A 12th level champion fighter has 3 attacks base, 6 with action surge. Let's also assume they are wielding a two handed, d12 weapon with the reroll damage fighting style and 20 Str, +2 weapon.

Damage per attack, assuming a champion, is about 15 per attack. Given the list AC, they probably hit 95% of the time. (Listed AC is 16, fighter is attacking with +11 attack bonus and effectively advantage on every roll). The fighters also have about 136 HP each.

It takes about 12 attacks to drop a CR 9 creature in 5.5, so the fighters can slay one per round. Without using any daily abilities, the fight takes about 4 rounds. It goes faster if there are battle masters in the group or if they use action surge.

That's all great, but there's a huge downside if you are worried about backward compatibility. You need to rebuild all of your old encounters to use the new guidelines. If we just used the same stat blocks in a 5e adventure versus a 5.5 one, thus 4 creatures at CR 5, we get this in 5.5:

5e:
138 hp each, 552 total. 35 DPR each, or 140 in the aggregate

5.5:
99 hp each, 396 HP total. 37 DPR each, or 148 in the aggregate.

A fight designed to be deadly in a 5e adventure is trivial in 5.5

So a fight you directly convert is far easier for the party. You can't use the same stat blocks when you convert. You need to rebuild the encounter with the new XP budget.

I wonder if the double solved. Rather than work outward from the DMG encounter guidelines, they rewrote those while also recalibrating the monster stats, but didn't cross-reference the design. I'm not sure it is noticeable at low levels, but at high levels you're throwing out your 5e content and starting from scratch.

 

[mamba]

At a glance, one can see the higher CR monsters are hitting harder compared to his analysis of 2014.

I am curious about how much of that is die to all attacks being appropriate for the CR bs 2014’s the best is, but there may be duds you should never use that are dragging the average down

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure it is noticeable at low levels, but at high levels you're throwing out your 5e content and starting from scratch.

works for me, 5e monsters were always underperforming at high levels anyway, so that was necessary already, it might no longer be in the future however