D&D General 2014 vs 2024: Monster HP and Resistances

[M_Natas]

I think its an art form vs science. A formula might get you in the ballpark.

I think the Problem is - it is not one Formula. It is a very big spread sheet.
Like, creating a single table is already a compromise and very limiting.
For 2014 I reverse engineered it the other way around (not using the monsters, but using the characters as a base line for Monster Stats) - but already averaged out - Party of 4, 2 Wizards, 2 Fighters, each with +2 Con.
Average HP at Level 1: 10, AC Average 15, Attack Bonus +5, Damage (before Hitchance) they can doll out in a round: 33,95 (in a full adventuring day with 18 Rounds of combat).

So based on this alone, a CR 1 Monster can have anywhere from 4 HP (at AC 25) to 101 HP (AC 6), depending on AC, doing 4d4+2 Damage / 12 on average with an Attack bonus of +0 or 1d4+2 / Average 4 Damage with an Attackbonus of +10. An this with an expected combat time of 3 rounds. One can increase combat time by increasing HP and lowering damage output. A CR 1 Monster that is supposed to last for 6 Rounds would have 9 HP (AC 25) up to 196 HP (AC 6) and doing from average 6 to 2 damage (Attackbonus 0 or +10).

So a typical CR 1 Monster / or 1 Monster that is a medium encounter for a Level 1 Party can be either:

AC 6, HP 90, Attack-Bonus +2, Damage 3d4+2 (9) - 3 Rounds of Combat
AC 18, HP 35, Attack-Bonus + 7, Damage 2d4 (5) - 3 Rounds of Combat
AC 12, HP 120, Attack-Bonus +7, Damage 1d4+1 (3) - 6 Rounds of Combat

And that is for a Medium Encounter, that uses up 16% of Party HP for that Adventuring day. Those 3 Monsters are doing the exact same thing math wise to the HP of a party, but would feel totally different in combat.

I use Excel and some formulas, but printed out it would be at least 40 tables (Defense and offense per Character Level). Oh, times four because I added back the 4e Minion, Normal, Elite, Boss Categories, also times another 5 for the Option to have different Combat length (from 2 rounds to 7 rounds).

Because also Player abilities are not based on one formula. The only thing that can be done in a formula is HP of the Characters. But the Damage output of the PCs changes on a level basis, based on the length of adventuring day (having 3 combat rounds between long rests or 18 dramatically changes Damage Output per Combat Round). Which means that you need to adjust damage output and HP of the Monsters ...

Also that CR und Level are not identical (so a Level 12 Party vs a CR 12 Monster is a medium encounter) is really annoying. Why in the world is a CR12 Monster a trivial encounter for a Level 12 party of four? That is so annoying and counter intuitive and probably responsible for most of the encounter balance problems newer DMs encounter.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the Problem is - it is not one Formula. It is a very big spread sheet.
Like, creating a single table is already a compromise and very limiting.
For 2014 I reverse engineered it the other way around (not using the monsters, but using the characters as a base line for Monster Stats) - but already averaged out - Party of 4, 2 Wizards, 2 Fighters, each with +2 Con.
Average HP at Level 1: 10, AC Average 15, Attack Bonus +5, Damage (before Hitchance) they can doll out in a round: 33,95 (in a full adventuring day with 18 Rounds of combat).

So based on this alone, a CR 1 Monster can have anywhere from 4 HP (at AC 25) to 101 HP (AC 6), depending on AC, doing 4d4+2 Damage / 12 on average with an Attack bonus of +0 or 1d4+2 / Average 4 Damage with an Attackbonus of +10. An this with an expected combat time of 3 rounds. One can increase combat time by increasing HP and lowering damage output. A CR 1 Monster that is supposed to last for 6 Rounds would have 9 HP (AC 25) up to 196 HP (AC 6) and doing from average 6 to 2 damage (Attackbonus 0 or +10).

So a typical CR 1 Monster / or 1 Monster that is a medium encounter for a Level 1 Party can be either:

AC 6, HP 90, Attack-Bonus +2, Damage 3d4+2 (9) - 3 Rounds of Combat
AC 18, HP 35, Attack-Bonus + 7, Damage 2d4 (5) - 3 Rounds of Combat
AC 12, HP 120, Attack-Bonus +7, Damage 1d4+1 (3) - 6 Rounds of Combat

And that is for a Medium Encounter, that uses up 16% of Party HP for that Adventuring day. Those 3 Monsters are doing the exact same thing math wise to the HP of a party, but would feel totally different in combat.

I use Excel and some formulas, but printed out it would be at least 40 tables (Defense and offense per Character Level). Oh, times four because I added back the 4e Minion, Normal, Elite, Boss Categories, also times another 5 for the Option to have different Combat length (from 2 rounds to 7 rounds).

Because also Player abilities are not based on one formula. The only thing that can be done in a formula is HP of the Characters. But the Damage output of the PCs changes on a level basis, based on the length of adventuring day (having 3 combat rounds between long rests or 18 dramatically changes Damage Output per Combat Round). Which means that you need to adjust damage output and HP of the Monsters ...

Also that CR und Level are not identical (so a Level 12 Party vs a CR 12 Monster is a medium encounter) is really annoying. Why in the world is a CR12 Monster a trivial encounter for a Level 12 party of four? That is so annoying and counter intuitive and probably responsible for most of the encounter balance problems newer DMs encounter.

CR 12 can turn up around lvl 6 or 7 iirc.

I ran RAW last campaign with the encounter budgets. Kinda broke CR 19-21.

At level 12 they grinded through 9-10 encounters 3 low/medium/high.

Boss fight was 27000xp budget I used a 5.0 CR23 iirc at 50k. I assumed its really CR 20 or 21 new rules. Buffed its HP to 500.


CRs always been wonky.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think its an art form vs science. A formula might get you in the ballpark.

I think by "art" we mean "let's make up some number without a backing formula, so that nobody can say whether it's right or wrong ".

 

[Zardnaar]

I think by "art" we mean "let's make up some number without a backing formula, so that nobody can say whether it's right or wrong ".

Don't of. Do they balance for damage type? Eg 20d6 poison vs 20d6 psychicHit points are to low still for power creep on 5.5 classes.

Hit points are all over the place. Old 5.0 monsters tweaked are still weak. Mew 5.5 monsters are still tuned high.

If they have a weak wisdom save theyre not really worth the CR theyre printed with.

That's what im meaning does their formula include relevant saves and defenses and damage types? They also cranked up initiative on sone of the higher critters. They might get a round to do something at least except they also added PC initiative manipulation.

4E had a formula. They rewrote the MM in effect. Great job.

Damage is the least scary thing on the new monsters. Immunities, mental saves, initiative and special attacks espicially bonus action mental saves.

 

[M_Natas]

CR 12 can turn up around lvl 6 or 7 iirc.

I ran RAW last campaign with the encounter budgets. Kinda broke CR 19-21.

At level 12 they grinded through 9-10 encounters 3 low/medium/high.

Boss fight was 27000xp budget I used a 5.0 CR23 iirc at 50k. I assumed its really CR 20 or 21 new rules. Buffed its HP to 500.


CRs always been wonky.

If I go with my spread sheet and would make a Boss fight for a level 12 Party, HP 500 is okay for an AC between 12 and 18 (HP Range for AC 12 is 485 to 726, for AC 18 it is 339 to 508). If I go with an Attack-Bonus of +14, the Monster would need to dish out on Average 122 Damage per round (for example 34d6+3, spread out in AOEs or Multiattack or Lair Actions, Reactions ...). That would count as an extrem encounter for a 4 People Party. Depleting 50% of the Party HP, probably downing 2 to 3 PCs in the process - Not accounting for Player Abilities that will negate the Monster its turns.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I go with my spread sheet and would make a Boss fight for a level 12 Party, HP 500 is okay for an AC between 12 and 18 (HP Range for AC 12 is 485 to 726, for AC 18 it is 339 to 508). If I go with an Attack-Bonus of +14, the Monster would need to dish out on Average 122 Damage per round (for example 34d6+3, spread out in AOEs or Multiattack or Lair Actions, Reactions ...). That would count as an extrem encounter for a 4 People Party. Depleting 50% of the Party HP, probably downing 2 to 3 PCs in the process - Not accounting for Player Abilities that will negate the Monster its turns.

AC was 18 iirc. 5 person party.

Think the boss lasted 2 rounds maybe 3.

CR 23 under old rules.

Balfeshnee was kinda scary. I also have been looking at tbe new Magen. AC 21 CR 8 or lower.

Lots of stuff does force damage as well. Theres virtually nothing immune or resistance to force.

 

[Minigiant]

There are likely too many modifiers to HP based on AC, Damage, resistance, immunity, saving throws, and defensive abilities that if a person doesn't read the section carefully one by word, they'd make boring monsters or bad monsters.

And many DMs didn't even read thr 2014 DMG sooooooooooo.....

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Most likely the reason they didn’t give us the actual formula is that it’s more complex than the average reader would be able to understand. I think @tomedunn is pretty damn close to the mark, though.

I was given to understand that there wasn't actually a formula at all, at least not in 2014. They used the formula, and then did playtesting and found the formula led to undesirable results. So they just...eyeballed it, more or less. Vibes-based design, tweaking CRs up or down until they seemed to work more or less alright. It's part of why CR is such a poor guideline; it just...isn't systematic.

But that is just what I've heard, admittedly in one case what was claimed by a credited consultant, but still, hearsay. It could be that it really was more systematic.

 

[Minigiant]

I was given to understand that there wasn't actually a formula at all, at least not in 2014. They used the formula, and then did playtesting and found the formula led to undesirable results. So they just...eyeballed it, more or less. Vibes-based design, tweaking CRs up or down until they seemed to work more or less alright. It's part of why CR is such a poor guideline; it just...isn't systematic.

But that is just what I've heard, admittedly in one case what was claimed by a credited consultant, but still, hearsay. It could be that it really was more systematic.

It isn't a formula.

It's a spreadsheet or flow chart. I remember 2 designers saying they have to pump values into an excel sheet.

It's too complex to print. A chart would produce boring monsters.

And like @M_Natas stated, things get wonky at the fringes of values.

So in 2014, they fudged the wackier values.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Also that CR und Level are not identical (so a Level 12 Party vs a CR 12 Monster is a medium encounter) is really annoying. Why in the world is a CR12 Monster a trivial encounter for a Level 12 party of four? That is so annoying and counter intuitive and probably responsible for most of the encounter balance problems newer DMs encounter.

I think that kinda represents a move from the players always fighting a monster, versus the characters fighting against other people?

I don't know if that was always the case, or true in all campaigns, but I think most combats in games involve fighting against opposition that are vaguely humanoid, only occasionally you fight a big bad evil like a dragon or some archmage or bandit king.

So there seems some assumption that you are basically putting in a number of monsters equal to the number of party members. You have a smaller party, you take less monsters, but you can still take the same ones, if you have a larger party, you can take more monsters.
It gets more complicated of course then when you want to have a big bad boss supported by his henchmen, or a big lone monster that the party is going to engage on its own, or if you want to fight a horde of enemies. Suddenly you need to use much lower or higher CRs.


4E monster and encounter building guidelines were a bit more open about this, and they also realized that just a higher CR is not neccessarily enough to create a viable "boss" or "lone monster" type challenge, and that a hoard of low level CR monsters still requires a lot of book-keeping, so it created minions, Elite and Solo monster types.
Monsters of your level basically had damage output, defenses and attacks suitable for a party of that level.
4E then scaled the XP per monster so it could suggest encounter budgets to help you guide toward what kind of challenge a given group of enemies would be. (Whether you use that prespective or descrptively is ultimately up to you). EIther way, you still have an extra step to take, because just the level is not enough to tell you the real threat level for your party.

Either way, even if a Level 4 monster was a suitable challenge for a 4th Level party. What if you want them to fight 4? What's a reasoanble CR value then? You kinda always have a situation where you can't just take equal level = reasonable challenge. ANd the math always ends up more complicated then you'd like.