D&D (2024) 5e 2024 − The Monster Math

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I mean, apart from the lack of group size multiplier, the XP budget guidelines are the same up to 5th level (due to the affirmationed shift from floors to ceilings), and very close from 6th to 10th. Beyond that the 2014 math was far enough off that correcting both the XP budgets and the monster stats may have been warranted.

Agree with this take entirely - aside from the group size multiplier, the only places where 5.5e encounter math significantly differs from 5e's is in the areas where people already recognize that 2014's math starts to break down: high level play.

I am very worried about the removal of the multiplier - while 2014 tended to overvalue large group sizes, I think its very possible to build TPK encounters while still remaining within "hard" in 5.5e, simply by overwhelming the party with numbers. I honestly don't think a 3rd level party has a chance in hell against 8 dire wolves, for example, but that's a valid Hard encounter with 5.5e.

 

[mearls]

I mean, apart from the lack of group size multiplier, the XP budget guidelines are the same up to 5th level (due to the affirmationed shift from floors to ceilings), and very close from 6th to 10th. Beyond that the 2014 math was far enough off that correcting both the XP budgets and the monster stats may have been warranted.

Looking back at it, I realize that the final battle of Sunless Citadel is probably the worst example to use. If you just use the XP multiplier as a guide, then it's pretty clear how to scale an encounter upward to work in 5.5.

You literally just use the multiplier and apply that to the number of monsters or the XP value.

1 monster: No change
2 monsters: Increase by 50%
3 - 6 monsters: Double the encounter

And so on. Very simple.

This is why I like forums. Feedback is a lot more in-depth. Thanks everyone!

 

[Charlaquin]

Agree with this take entirely - aside from the group size multiplier, the only places where 5.5e encounter math significantly differs from 5e's is in the areas where people already recognize that 2014's math starts to break down: high level play.

I am very worried about the removal of the multiplier - while 2014 tended to overvalue large group sizes, I think its very possible to build TPK encounters while still remaining within "hard" in 5.5e, simply by overwhelming the party with numbers. I honestly don't think a 3rd level party has a chance in hell against 8 dire wolves, for example, but that's a valid Hard encounter with 5.5e.

Looking back at it, I realize that the final battle of Sunless Citadel is probably the worst example to use. If you just use the XP multiplier as a guide, then it's pretty clear how to scale an encounter upward to work in 5.5.

You literally just use the multiplier and apply that to the number of monsters or the XP value.

1 monster: No change
2 monsters: Increase by 50%
3 - 6 monsters: Double the encounter

And so on. Very simple.

This is why I like forums. Feedback is a lot more in-depth. Thanks everyone!

Also note that the 2024 rules aren’t completely without guidance for large group sizes. It’s just not part of the mathematical formula. They just tell you in plain English that you shouldn’t include more than two monsters per PC in an encounter, unless a lot of them are weak enough that the players can kill them very quickly.

 

[mearls]

So I went back and crunched the numbers to convert XP to a an approximate CR based on PC level.

If you are converting a 5e adventure to the 5.5 guidelines, you can reverse the XP multiplier to figure out the gap.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Also note that the 2024 rules aren’t completely without guidance for large group sizes. It’s just not part of the mathematical formula. They just tell you in plain English that you shouldn’t include more than two monsters per PC in an encounter, unless a lot of them are weak enough that the players can kill them very quickly.

I kept that in mind with my example. (8) CR1 direwolves vs (4) 3rd level PCs is a Hard encounter which still has no more than 2 monsters per PC.

 

[Quickleaf]

Teos put up a nice summary video following up on the maths video!

 

[occam]

The numbers came from Teos's calculations in his video. While I realize they are not fully equivalent, Moderate and Medium are synonymous. Most DMs will look at building encounters and think "this should be a decent challenge" and just choose Moderate. I wanted a mathematical comparison.

After years of building encounters and running them for 2014. I am excited by the new guidelines because, hopefully a Moderate challenge will "feel" more correct instead of just being a minor speed bump.

But that's because what's now called Moderate used to be called Hard. My point was that Moderate and Medium are not synonymous when comparing 2024 and 2014. Look at the language defining the difficulty levels. What you'll find is that:

• 2014 Easy doesn't exist in 2024 (or is included as the very low end of 2024 Low)
• 2014 Medium = 2024 Low
• 2014 Hard = 2024 Moderate
• 2014 Deadly = 2024 High

You shouldn't expect anything like a similar outcome when comparing 2014's Medium to 2024's Moderate; being surprised by the huge gap you find is akin to being surprised that Medium and Hard were different in 2014.

[Edited to add] The reason I'm pointing this out is because it's an easy change to miss. You might assume that Medium and Moderate mean the same thing based on common usage, and that Hard and High mean the same thing, and that Easy and Low mean the same thing; but they don't. The terminology has changed, so one should be aware of that when making comparisons between the two encounter-building frameworks.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

But that's because what's now called Moderate used to be called Hard. My point was that Moderate and Medium are not synonymous when comparing 2024 and 2014. Look at the language defining the difficulty levels. What you'll find is that:

• 2014 Easy doesn't exist in 2024 (or is included as the very low end of 2024 Low)
• 2014 Medium = 2024 Low
• 2014 Hard = 2024 Moderate
• 2014 Deadly = 2024 High

You shouldn't expect anything like a similar outcome when comparing 2014's Medium to 2024's Moderate; being surprised by the huge gap you find is aking to being surprised that Medium and Hard were different in 2014.

This is incorrect. Look at the ranges of XP values that Easy, Medium, and Hard encounters cover in 2014 vs 2024. They are nearly identical. Don't think of difficulty as singular values.

As an example, for a party of (4) 3rd level characters:

In 2014, a medium encounter is 600 - 899 XP. In 2024, a medium encounter is 601-900 XP.

 

[occam]

This is incorrect. Look at the ranges of XP values that Easy, Medium, and Hard encounters cover in 2014 vs 2024. They are nearly identical. Don't think of difficulty as singular values.

As an example, for a party of (4) 3rd level characters:

In 2014, a medium encounter is 600 - 899 XP. In 2024, a medium encounter is 601-900 XP.

First: There is no Medium difficulty in 2024. You're referring to Moderate; they deliberately changed the naming.

And it's not about the numbers, it's about the guidance given to DMs on the meanings of the difficulty levels. Seriously, read the written definitions in both versions. What you're pointing out here is that the new guidance doesn't make all encounters more difficult; at low levels the 2024 guidance can be for lower XP:

• 2014, 3rd level: An encounter that "usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but... no casualties" (i.e. Medium) is 150-224 XP per character.
• 2024, 3rd level: An encounter that "is likely to have one or two scary moments for the players, but... no casualties" (i.e. Low) is up to 150 XP per character.
• 2024, 3rd level: An encounter that "could go badly for the adventurers... and there's a slim chance that one or more characters might die" (i.e. Moderate) is 151-225 XP per character.

The numbers for 2014 Medium and 2024 Moderate are similar, but the expected outcome described to the DM planning the encounter are very different.

 

[Yaarel]

In the Monster Manual, the average hit points for each CR follows a clear pattern. This is an extra 15 hit points for each higher CR − until CR 22 when hit points leap off the rails. Then there is a sudden almost-100 extra hit points, and the hit points ramp up from there. It is like a car in traffic suddenly flying into the sky.

These wildly high hit points make one wonder if the hit points should be accelerating gradually all along, so the the entry into CR 22 is part of a smooth progression.

Defacto, the Damage Per Round accelerates at a smooth curve while advancing thru the CRs. One can expect the amount of damage that a monster can deal at a certain CR to correlate with how much damage the monster can withstand from others at that CR. Probably, the hit points should be accelerating at the same curve proportional to the DPR. The formula for the DPR curve involves the exponent CR^1.4. If this same exponent is used for a proportional formula for the hit points, the result is the "Curve" formula in the table below.

My feeling is the hit points generated at the mid upper CRs are a bit high. Even so, each CR includes some creatures that function as less powerful "mooks", and some creatures that function as very powerful "bosses". Part of the reason for the spike in hit points from CR 22 on up is, at those epic CRs, they are all bosses. So the higher hit points that the Curve formula generates are useful as a guideline for around where the hit points of bosses should be. Additionally, if a DM tends to find the creatures of a certain CR too easily focus-fired away, use the Curve as an approximate ceiling when deciding how many hit points to buff the creatures.

In the Hit Point table below, the actual average hit points in the 5.5 Monster Manual are in parentheses in the central column. The left column is the linear "Line" formula for hit points, that stays true until CR 22 when the hit points leap upward. In the right column, is the exponential "Curve" formula, that shows what a smooth acceleration of hit points looks like into the highest CRs. Significantly, this Hit Point Curve is proportional the DPR Curve for the damage dealing. For comparison, the numbers in red are lower than the MM average, being less than 90%, and the numbers in blue are higher than the MM average, being more than 110%.