• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Tidbit for monster design

Since I'm seeing more interest in monster design, I thought I'd share a tidbit of the official math I was able to derive during my attempts to reverse engineer it.

The rule of adjusting Defensive CR up/down by +1/-1 per each +2/-2 of AC difference from the 2014 DMG chart is a simplified approximation of the real math.

Here's what's actually going on.

1) The AC values in the chart are the values that will give a PC of Level equal to that CR, built in the assumed way, a 65% chance of hitting.
2) The assumed PC attack bonus is easy to determine. Start with a +3 in your attack stat, use your 4th level ASI to raise it +4, and your 8th level ASI to raise it to +5. Add the appropriate proficiency bonus.
3) This matches up exactly at every level, except level 9, where the hit chance is 70%. If you make a line graph of the values, that 1 AC shift at that level brings it closer to the trend line, which is almost certainly the reason for the discrepancy.
4) The reason AC stops increasing at 19 is because that's also when attack bonus stops increasing, maintaining that 65% hit chance.

What this means, is that you can precisely determine how AC and Hit Points interact to create Defensive CR. Divide the hit points by 0.65 to determine the expected PC damage potential over the course of 3 rounds. Then for every point by which the AC differs, adjust that 0.65 by +0.05 for lower AC or -0.05 for higher AC. Multiply the damage potential by that number to get the effective hit points, and the Defensive CR is whatever line that HP value gives you.

In the mid-ranges, +1/-1 for +2/-2 AC is accurate, but as you depart from the mid-ranges it becomes less and less accurate.

Hopefully that's useful!

(The Offensive CR adjustments almost certainly work in a similar manner, but deriving the actual math there is much more difficult due to various complications that I won't go into here unless there is real interest right now.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I don't use math ever, I have a pretty good understanding on how to make a monster without needing to stick to formulas. 5e generally lacks variation and the reason for this are these formulas, now that I think about it.

Flavor should be the driving factor, not just a late addition. If a monster makes sense to have a high AC, it shall. No, an Ankylosaurus can't have an AC of 17, it is a roaming fortress!

And as I have seen, CRs are unreliable. That being said, DM experience is the best tool.
 

I don't use math ever, I have a pretty good understanding on how to make a monster without needing to stick to formulas. 5e generally lacks variation and the reason for this are these formulas, now that I think about it.

Flavor should be the driving factor, not just a late addition. If a monster makes sense to have a high AC, it shall. No, an Ankylosaurus can't have an AC of 17, it is a roaming fortress!You c
You can, and perhaps should, design a monster that way and use math. The math just let you assign a CR.
And as I have seen, CRs are unreliable. That being said, DM experience is the best tool.
I assign a CR (and use math) not for my personal use and benefit, but so I can share with others and we have a common language that provides value. That, to me, is the heart of D&D.
 

I don't use math ever, I have a pretty good understanding on how to make a monster without needing to stick to formulas. 5e generally lacks variation and the reason for this are these formulas, now that I think about it.

Flavor should be the driving factor, not just a late addition. If a monster makes sense to have a high AC, it shall. No, an Ankylosaurus can't have an AC of 17, it is a roaming fortress!

And as I have seen, CRs are unreliable. That being said, DM experience is the best tool.
I'm determining a descriptive rather than prescriptive formula. Prescritive formulas are like most third party ones you've seen, or 4e D&D. You pick a CR and it guides you to assign stats the creature should have. A descriptive formula lets you make a monster with any stats you want, and then just tells you what its CR and proficiency bonus actually are by D&D rules. If you aren't interested in prescriptive formulas, these descriptive formulas will be more likely to interest you when completely derived.

The descriptive formulas I'm attempting to derive are the ones that WotC actually uses.
 
Last edited:

You can, and perhaps should, design a monster that way and use math. The math just let you assign a CR.

I assign a CR (and use math) not for my personal use and benefit, but so I can share with others and we have a common language that provides value. That, to me, is the heart of D&D.
Of course you can, it just isn't my way. I prefer much more free style and I have the experience to know how tough something is without the need of formulas. Even the CRs of the monstrous manual falter way too often.
 

I'm determining a descriptive rather than prescriptive formula. Prescritive formulas are like most third party ones you've seen, or 4e D&D. You pick a CR and it guides you to assign stats the creature should have. A descriptive formula lets you make a monster with any stats you want, and then just tells you what its CR and proficiency bonus actually are by D&D rules. If you aren't interested in prescriptive formulas, these descriptive formulas will be more likely to interest you when completely derived.

The descriptive formulas I'm attempting to derive are the ones that WotC actually uses.
Descriptive>>>Prescriptive. More freedom is good. I think prescriptive is a variety killer and a backwards way of creating monsters.
 

Descriptive>>>Prescriptive. More freedom is good. I think prescriptive is a variety killer and a backwards way of creating monsters.
While I basically agree with you, and that is the method I prefer (descriptive), a Prescriptive method is easier, faster, and good enough for a lot of people.
 

I'm determining a descriptive rather than prescriptive formula. Prescritive formulas are like most third party ones you've seen, or 4e D&D. You pick a CR and it guides you to assign stats the creature should have. A descriptive formula lets you make a monster with any stats you want, and then just tells you what its CR and proficiency bonus actually are by D&D rules. If you aren't interested in prescriptive formulas, these descriptive formulas will be more likely to interest you when completely derived.

The descriptive formulas I'm attempting to derive are the ones that WotC actually uses.
How is the offensive CR formula coming?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top