FallenRX
Adventurer
Got a link to these streams, they sound interesting
D&D 5E Wizards values the power of conditions and noncombat effects as virtual damage.
- Thread starter FallenRX
- Start date
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Unfortunately, they are lost to time. They were fascinating, but when Mearls tanked his career the D&D team turned all his old streams private, so as far as I know theybare gone. ThinkDM has an archive of all the Subclasses he improved on-stream, but I am not aware of any transcripts or video=/audio still existing. But he made this very clear when talking about Fighters and Rogues: all the Champion abilities sre mathematically equivalent to the Spell load out an Eldrit h Knoght gets, by WotC spreadsheets.
FallenRX
Adventurer
Its not just that, but also the fact that thats the baseline.
And they rated the "power" by the average damage over 3 rounds.
You can kinda see the big issue, where they are assuming martials are novaing every round with action surge, all ki, all rage.
When viewed that way they kinda out pace a lot of casters in raw single target damage, very rapidly.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
It also explains a great deal about why the Warlock was so underpowered...and why they're switching it to a regular long-rest caster model.
They literally couldn't actually do their analysis on the Warlock, because it (demonstrably) did not have all of its power available with every fight. Instead of trying to solve this problem by refining their analysis, they just gave up and made the Warlock a regular (but painfully limited) spellcaster.
Deeply disappointing.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
The 3 rounds assumption is that most fights are 2 Rounds, 3 at most.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I watched that video and found the details very interesting.
What I'm trying to figure out (and I'd love any assistance) is exactly how they are valuing spell effects over 2nd-level.
The way spell levels should be valued for monster math is using double the multi-target value--because that's how multi-target damage counts. You assume it hits 2 targets. So the 5e DMG says a multi-target 2nd-level spell should do about 4d6 damage (ie 14), but that should be doubled to 28. If the original spell were multi-target, but the monster power can only target a single individual, you wouldn't use double the value. Otherwise you should. And if the original spell could only target one creature, but the monster can target multiple, you should double the damage. For monster design, a fireball is worth 56 (8d6 x 2) damage, not 28 (8d6), and not 44 (8d10).
But instead of using 28 for a 2nd-level spell, which is derivable from the table, they are using 21 from scorching ray as an iconic 2nd-level damage spell. Okay, so they are basically using the real spell damage, rather than the guidelines for creating spells in the DMG. Fair enough, if annoying since we don't have those numbers. (And by the way, using the 2024 DMG a 2nd-level effect would convert to 21 damage rather than 28.) But I can't figure out the math regardless of how it works. For using real spells, fireball and lightning bolt are your iconic 3rd-level damage spells, and they absolutely are worth 56 damage for monster design. So there is what should be our 3rd-level equivalent, but no sense has been made when you look beyond that.
The medusa's petrifying gaze is producing the 6th-level flesh to stone effect, and can hit multiple targets. Using the method I described above (which would accord with the value of actual spells in monster design) and the DMG table, this should be worth 154 (11d6 x 2 for a 6th level spell that hits one target, x2 again because it can hit multiple targets) damage. That would give the medusa a CR of about 12, rather the 6 it has. In order to get the CR 6 it has, they need to be rating the virtual damage of the petrifying gaze somewhere between 16 and 33, which is less than the actual damage of 3rd-level fireball and lightning bolt, and even less than the 42 (6d6 x2) damage one would expect from the spell design tables.
I really wish Jeremy had given us a little bit more information. Maybe they stopped with rating conditions at 2nd-level where they put "action denial" (petrify is about the only condition that would be worth more than a 2nd level spell anyway) and just treated the medusa's gaze as action denial. If they forgot that it could hit multiple targets in a round, the 21 damage from action denial would fit within the 16-33 range to get the right hp.
The 2024 medusa would come out exactly the same in the CR calculations, despite some variance in how the effect is targeted (it's still roughly equivalent to flesh to stone but enhanced to be multi-target).
What I'm trying to figure out (and I'd love any assistance) is exactly how they are valuing spell effects over 2nd-level.
The way spell levels should be valued for monster math is using double the multi-target value--because that's how multi-target damage counts. You assume it hits 2 targets. So the 5e DMG says a multi-target 2nd-level spell should do about 4d6 damage (ie 14), but that should be doubled to 28. If the original spell were multi-target, but the monster power can only target a single individual, you wouldn't use double the value. Otherwise you should. And if the original spell could only target one creature, but the monster can target multiple, you should double the damage. For monster design, a fireball is worth 56 (8d6 x 2) damage, not 28 (8d6), and not 44 (8d10).
But instead of using 28 for a 2nd-level spell, which is derivable from the table, they are using 21 from scorching ray as an iconic 2nd-level damage spell. Okay, so they are basically using the real spell damage, rather than the guidelines for creating spells in the DMG. Fair enough, if annoying since we don't have those numbers. (And by the way, using the 2024 DMG a 2nd-level effect would convert to 21 damage rather than 28.) But I can't figure out the math regardless of how it works. For using real spells, fireball and lightning bolt are your iconic 3rd-level damage spells, and they absolutely are worth 56 damage for monster design. So there is what should be our 3rd-level equivalent, but no sense has been made when you look beyond that.
The medusa's petrifying gaze is producing the 6th-level flesh to stone effect, and can hit multiple targets. Using the method I described above (which would accord with the value of actual spells in monster design) and the DMG table, this should be worth 154 (11d6 x 2 for a 6th level spell that hits one target, x2 again because it can hit multiple targets) damage. That would give the medusa a CR of about 12, rather the 6 it has. In order to get the CR 6 it has, they need to be rating the virtual damage of the petrifying gaze somewhere between 16 and 33, which is less than the actual damage of 3rd-level fireball and lightning bolt, and even less than the 42 (6d6 x2) damage one would expect from the spell design tables.
I really wish Jeremy had given us a little bit more information. Maybe they stopped with rating conditions at 2nd-level where they put "action denial" (petrify is about the only condition that would be worth more than a 2nd level spell anyway) and just treated the medusa's gaze as action denial. If they forgot that it could hit multiple targets in a round, the 21 damage from action denial would fit within the 16-33 range to get the right hp.
The 2024 medusa would come out exactly the same in the CR calculations, despite some variance in how the effect is targeted (it's still roughly equivalent to flesh to stone but enhanced to be multi-target).
Steady Vane
First Post
Spell design does follow the 2014 DMG table rather closely. The notable exceptions are that 1st level spells tend to do slightly more than the table suggests, so as are not outclassed by cantrips; and that at every spell level around two spells do more than the table because WOTC felt like it. Call the second the Fireball problem.
Comparing effects to spell damage isn't how they are valued (this is a second-level spell!!), the status effects are valued as flat virtual damage as if a single-target attack. An attack that does some damage and applies a status is valued as a single attack that does more psuedo damage and no status.
So from a DPR perspective; the medusa does 23 to 26 damage with a +5 to-hit. This puts its actual damage under the average for the level, which is 35 damage with a +7 to-hit. This is, outside the stone gaze, average stats of a CR 3 or 4 monster
Meanwhile, the AC and HP values put it more in line with a CR 7 or 8 creature than the listed CR 6. This is ignoring the presumed auto-disadvantage attack rolls against her have.
So the medusa sure looks like the CR is probably correct based on how one values the stone gaze. CR 3 and CR 8 averaged out equals CR 5.5, plus the stone gaze tipping it over the edge to CR 6. This is probably WOTC's reasoning here
If you value the stone gaze as effective AC (which you probably can comfortably do) and value the pseudo-damage as a higher value than WOTC does, by those criteria the Medusa could comfortably be bumped in CR a few levels. Probably CR 8 or so.
Hope this helps
Comparing effects to spell damage isn't how they are valued (this is a second-level spell!!), the status effects are valued as flat virtual damage as if a single-target attack. An attack that does some damage and applies a status is valued as a single attack that does more psuedo damage and no status.
So from a DPR perspective; the medusa does 23 to 26 damage with a +5 to-hit. This puts its actual damage under the average for the level, which is 35 damage with a +7 to-hit. This is, outside the stone gaze, average stats of a CR 3 or 4 monster
Meanwhile, the AC and HP values put it more in line with a CR 7 or 8 creature than the listed CR 6. This is ignoring the presumed auto-disadvantage attack rolls against her have.
So the medusa sure looks like the CR is probably correct based on how one values the stone gaze. CR 3 and CR 8 averaged out equals CR 5.5, plus the stone gaze tipping it over the edge to CR 6. This is probably WOTC's reasoning here
If you value the stone gaze as effective AC (which you probably can comfortably do) and value the pseudo-damage as a higher value than WOTC does, by those criteria the Medusa could comfortably be bumped in CR a few levels. Probably CR 8 or so.
Hope this helps
Quickleaf
Legend
I'll point out the flaw – or the crucial factor – that was left out in that conversation (and also the...Goblin...something blog interview with Jeremy that covered the same topic).
Pace and actual play matter as much as if not more than numbers. Interpreting a ghoul's paralyzation as hold person and translating that to virtual damage... says nothing about how being paralyzed is experienced and how it slows down combat.
If it were actually damage, it would speed combat up and create a different experience.
It's good to have some kind of guideline. It's more important - imo - to be mindful in creating monsters of the experience we're creating and to take these sorts of guidelines with a grain of salt.
Pace and actual play matter as much as if not more than numbers. Interpreting a ghoul's paralyzation as hold person and translating that to virtual damage... says nothing about how being paralyzed is experienced and how it slows down combat.
If it were actually damage, it would speed combat up and create a different experience.
It's good to have some kind of guideline. It's more important - imo - to be mindful in creating monsters of the experience we're creating and to take these sorts of guidelines with a grain of salt.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
That did point me towards the answer! (Thanks!) In this case, I don't think it's taking into account the petrifying effect at all.
The Medusa's hp and AC give it a defensive CR of 4. There is no debate there, thats how it works. The attack routine also gives it an offensive CR of 4. So, if we ignore the special ability, it's just a CR 4 creature.
So, what if, instead of messing with the petrification, they are assuming all the PCs are averting their gaze to avoid getting petrified? In that case, the PCs are effectively blinded against the medusa the entire fight. That means they have disadvantage on their attacks and it has advantage on attacks against them. And in monster design, that converts to a +4 effective AC and a +4 effective bonus to attack. Since each +2 raises the CR of its respective part (offense or defense) by 1, that means that both offensive and defensive CRs (and thus CR in general) increase by 2. Which bring that CR 4 to the listed 6. Either that or they are just treating it as 21 damage for action denial and didn't count it twice for multiple targets (One would think they might have caught their error for the 2024 version if the latter were the case though.)
As far as your direct points, I think you are probably right that they are going with single target damage from a spell converted to the condition. If that is what they are doing though, it means they are not valuing condition causing spells as much as damage causing spells, because otherwise they would be doing it the way I described before (which is how they do actual damage and damage spells). That in and of itself is a noteworthy concept.
I'm also leaning more strongly into the idea that they really are only treating the strongest condition as 2nd level action denial. I mean, what conditions (other than dead) actually have a stronger impact on the battle than taking a character out of the fight for a round? The only one I can think of is getting PCs to attack their allies. That would likely count as a 4th-level effect, and it's anyone's guess what virtual damage they would assign to it.
And I'm wondering now about the cantrip and 1st level values of 5 and 11 offered in the OP. If we are taking magic missile and rounding it up from 10.5 to 11, why are we going with 5 for a cantrip? I would assume fire bolt rounded up from 5.5 to 6. Or maybe those values are derived from the DMG tables. But, as Jeremy said, thats not actually where the condition-equivalent numbers are coming from. Those come from the strong iconic damage spells. Otherwise 2nd level would be 16.5 from the table, rather than the 21 from scorching ray that it is.
And it seems from that that chromatic orb might be a better one to pick for first level, giving us a virtual damage value of 13.5, rather than 11. Anyone's guess which way to round. In general, design tends to round off, as opposed to the in-play rule of rounding down.
Probably late to the game here, or I would have been asking the OP about his numbers when this thread started.
kayakingpoodle
Adventurer
All jail the crawdaddu. Rhere are woman you people involved in writing the books it is an issue of the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the rules lawyers love it.
Similar Threads
