D&D 5E (2014) 5e Monster Stats by Level (not CR)

[dave2008]

Update Table. Small reduction in HP and DPR and added XP column since that is different too (OP has been updated):

 

[Horwath]

I suppose the first question would be, how will you determine what an average PC of a given level is?

PCs being as unequal as they are at various levels depending on their composition.

it should average out that a single monster of equal level of a 4 member party would deplete 25% of daily resources to beat.

 

[SlyFlourish]

OK, here is my first stab at a Monsters by Level table. The idea is that one monster roughly equals one "average" PC at the same level.

What is an "average" PC. I didn't get to fancy with it, but I tried to get an average HP & DPR and expected AC and attack bonus from level 1-20 for a 4 person group (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). This chart also assume magic items (see the +1, 2, & 3 in parentheses). I wanted to get peoples thoughts and then I will tweak these numbers. So what do you think? Is this a good place to start?

PS - When designing monsters the level is revised as noted in the DMG for CR, except you use this chart.

View attachment 369212

Really cool idea. Some thoughts:

• You might remove the variance in damage per round. It’s not enough to matter. Just give an average.
• You might extend the levels up to 25 since I assume there’s some sway to what level monster a character might face. A 20th level character might face a level 25 monster, right?

One difficulty other systems have had with this approach is that monsters fall into a very narrow band in which they are an appropriate threat to PCs. This is why 5e went with challenge ratings. 4e, for example, has to have like five different stat blocks for ghouls so they remained an appropriate opponent for characters across levels. There’s no great way to deal with this in a horizontally-scaling level-based approach like this one but it’s worth understanding.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Jumping in just to say that the thing that never makes sense for me with this kind of setup, is not how to determine the power of an average PC, but how to define what a "challenge" is for such a PC. Let Mr clarify exactly what I mean.

"Level 5 Monster = Level 5 PC" is never what is meant. Because what that means is that such a monster is of equal power, which means there is a 50/50 chance that PC would win or lose vs a fight against that monster, and those are not the odds such games are designed around.

What is meant appears to be more along the lines of "Intended Standard Challenge of Monster Level 5 is designed for a PC of Level 5".

But that frustrates me on more than one level.

First, while there may be a note of what the math us somewhere in the book, like saying such a battle should involve the PC winning but using half their resources, such a point is usually under-emphasized, and there is an assumption that people just "get" what "Level 5 Monster is appropriate match for Level 5 PC" is supposed to mean, and I don't.

Next, and related, is that in order for that to make sense there needs to be some sort of "standard challenge", which comes with a massive playstyle assumption. It assumes whatever this particular math is aiming for is something most people want most of their encounters to provide. And that isn't at all like my playstyle. 2014 5e used much more useful metrics for me (even if the math to get there doesn't work for my groups!) because it says what they mean by a "Easy", "Medium", etc encounters. Assuming a "standard" that is typically defined as being "standard" or " average" feels like a foreign language to me, because it's prescribing a playstyle I'm just supposed to understand. The same issue us there when defining a "standard" difficulty for a task (and often worse, because usually the definitions make no sense--how is a task the average person suited for it is supposed to succeed at about 50-60% supposed to be "Average difficulty?")

I do not know how much of my frustration is autism related and how much of it is such design skewing super-hard towards the Gamism element of G/N/S theory just not meshing well for me. Certainly not explicitly and clearly saying, "Hey guys this design is intended to be hard-core Gamist, so we sort of assume you know what a 'standard challenge' is meant to feel like" is a big part of the problem. By now RPGs should be more accessible by telling you exactly what they mean and not assuming you just know.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for your thoughts!

Really cool idea. Some thoughts:

• You might remove the variance in damage per round. It’s not enough to matter. Just give an average.

I will think about it. However, if it doesn't matter I might as well keep what I have since I have already done it!

• You might extend the levels up to 25 since I assume there’s some sway to what level monster a character might face. A 20th level character might face a level 25 monster, right?

Well this started as an exercise to explore my immortal rules. So I have tables going up to level 60 now with plans to go to level 120! I just want to get levels 1-20 right first to set a solid foundation.

One difficulty other systems have had with this approach is that monsters fall into a very narrow band in which they are an appropriate threat to PCs. This is why 5e went with challenge ratings. 4e, for example, has to have like five different stat blocks for ghouls so they remained an appropriate opponent for characters across levels. There’s no great way to deal with this in a horizontally-scaling level-based approach like this one but it’s worth understanding.

That is possible, but as of now I am not changing the underlying math. I did a quick check and I could take a CR 5 Hill Giant as is and it would be a level 9 monster in my system. All the math is the same, so it should have the same band of usefulness. They only difference is the XP reward (I haven't decided what to do about that yet).

Now, I am also taking a page from 4e in that I hope to create a range of monster types for a given level. So I am thinking of having (not 100% sure yet) at a given level:

• Minions (1/4 threat)
• Grunt (1/2 threat)
• Standard (= threat)
• Elite (2x threat)
• Paragon (4x threat)

I'm not sure they are needed, but I always liked that aspect of 4e.

 

[dave2008]

"Level 5 Monster = Level 5 PC" is never what is meant. Because what that means is that such a monster is of equal power, which means there is a 50/50 chance that PC would win or lose vs a fight against that monster, and those are not the odds such games are designed around.

That is exactly what I mean though. It is hard because a system like 5e is so variable in PC power per level based on how a PC is configured, equipped, and played.

For example, this chart assumes the use of magic weapons, feats, and multiclassing. At level 20 a PC is assumed to have:

• Magic items: 2 uncommon, 2 rare, and 2 very rare
• Max primary stat + magic item boost (+3 to attack or save DC)
• Access to feats & multiclassing

If I where to publish this I would try to be as clear as possible about the assumptions. However, it is an average and each group and PC will not fall neatly into any given level as they jump around in power level at different levels. 5e PC math is not "neat," but this table is, so there will be some rounding errors here and there.

Next, and related, is that in order for that to make sense there needs to be some sort of "standard challenge", which comes with a massive playstyle assumption. It assumes whatever this particular math is aiming for is something most people want most of their encounters to provide. And that isn't at all like my playstyle. 2014 5e used much more useful metrics for me (even if the math to get there doesn't work for my groups!) because it says what they mean by a "Easy", "Medium", etc encounters. Assuming a "standard" that is typically defined as being "standard" or " average" feels like a foreign language to me, because it's prescribing a playstyle I'm just supposed to understand. The same issue us there when defining a "standard" difficulty for a task (and often worse, because usually the definitions make no sense--how is a task the average person suited for it is supposed to succeed at about 50-60% supposed to be "Average difficulty?")

Again, if I were to publish I would also create an encounter building guideline that is as clear as possible about how to create an encounter of different degrees of challenge.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments!

 

[SlyFlourish]

One other thing, Scott, Teos, and I released a good chunk of Forge of Foes into the Creative Commons in the Lazy GM's 5e Monster Builder Resource Document. For anyone who wants to use this, please stick to just the stuff in this document – not in the larger Forge of Foes book (including the sample chapters) – and see how to reference your work in the intro to the document:

The Lazy GM's 5e Monster Builder Resource Document

 

[NotAYakk]

I plan to! Thank you for the analysis, I will have to get into it later and get back to you with my thoughts. Here is what I used for my HP and DPR figures at level 20. I then worked back from there. Why you ask{ because I am working on level 20+ content so I care about that more!

This assumes (at level 20) each PC has:

• Magic items: 2 uncommon, 2 rare, and 2 very rare
• Max primary stat + magic item boost (+3 to attack or save DC)
• Access to feats & multiclassing

Class	Hit Points	Damage / Round
Cleric	143	69
Fighter	206	126
Rogue	143	81
Wizard	117	118
Average:	152	98

Also, at a 60% hit rate, it takes 3 rounds to take an at level opponent down.


Yes, I am not trying to match the DMG monster guidelines. This is one monster = 1 PC. Not 4 PCs against 1 monster.

Your Rogue doesn't use Uncanny Dodge; that is a pile of mitigation.

Your fighter ... doesn't seem to use second wind? 149.5 HP plus (con bonus)*20.

If it is a "3 rounds between short rests", the fighter gets 5 actions and 3 bonus actions over 3 rounds; so 20 attacks plus 3 bonus actions. Maybe a PAM for 23 attacks? At 20 attacks that is ~19 damage per attack, at 23 ~16.5. Those are strange numbers; too low for -5/+10, high for most other cases.

PAM staff+3+shield duelist with a 25 strength giant belt? +7 str, +3 enchant, +2 duelist is 1d6+12 and 1d4+12 damage; slightly low.

PAM GWF halbard+3 GWF with 25 strength giant belt? +7 str, +3 enchant, +10 GWF, 1d10/1d4 damage for 25.5/22.5 damage.

Naive duelist rapier+3 fighter with 20 dex and a +3 sword does 1d8+10(14.5) per swing, gets 20 swings over 3 rounds for 97 DPR at +14 to hit.

Naive GWM Flaming GS fighter with 25 strength (belt) does 4d6+17(32.3) per swing, gets 20 swings over 3 rounds 215 DPR at +8 to hit (plus bonus crit hits)

Naive oathbow SS fighter with 20 dex does 1d8+3d6+15(30) per attack, gets 20 shots over 3 rounds (200 DPR) at +8 to hit (with advantage).

Daily resources need to take into account hit dice. You appear to only care about encounter resources? That really warps stuff.

A naive rogue is 12d6+11 damage (53) per round. Booming blade ups this to 60s. XBE/SS based hits 78.

Not sure how you hit 81. Did you take into account accuracy somehow?

An more optimized rogue with a scimiltar of speed and booming blade does 22d6+14+3d8 = 104.5 DPR at +13 accuracy.

If you are burning daily resources, meteor swarm (140 massive aoe), delayed blast fireball (ally throws it, cast before the fight) of 20d6 (70 aoe), distintegrate(s) (75), dark star (44 damage per round, 1 action to start off), summon fiend (70 damage per round concentration at level 8 slot).

An active fiend (70 DPR: 4 attacks at 1d12+11 damage) or similar, meteor swarm (280 damage; assume you can get 2 targets (heh)), disintegrate x2 (150) is a level 20 wizard 3-round combo at 213 DPR without any real optimization. Of course you burnt 2 6th an 8th and a 9th level slot, and not very efficiently (those damage spells are often not the most powerful options).

A Cleric who casts an 8th level Spirit Guardians does 36 AOE damage every round. Add in a 6th level Spiritual Weapon (18.5 DPR), one toll the dead (26), and a flame strike (28 aoe). (36*3*2 + 18.5*2 + 26 + 28*2)/3 is 112 DPR without even being creative (assumes at least 2 targets for aoes, but doesn't give credit for save-for-half).

And you instead account for the clerics healing, each 6th level slot is 70 HP, and a 9th level slot is "everyone is full HP", which have insane impact. Let alone the impact of "mass cure wounds" or the like (74 healed+22.5 per slot level over 5).

The amount of HP a cleric adds to the PC budget is large at higher levels (in an encounter).

...

Maybe pick a specific class you want to emulate and a specific level of optimization. Then model that a bit better.

Like we could model a "soldier" to be a "champion fighter who uses a longsword and shield, duelist, sentinal, plate, buffs str and con". Medium-optimized.

Feats:
Starts with 16 str/14 con. ASI: +4 str, +6 con (5), Sentinal, Other
Fighting Style: Interception (11.5 damage per round soaked), Duelist.

HP budget: 6*20 + 4 (base) + 5*20 (con) + 1d10+20 (second wind) + 20 (Survivor) + 11.5*3 interception
=~ 304 soaked over 3 rounds.
Damage budget (+3 longsword): 1d8+10 per swing, 20 swings over 3 rounds = 97 DPR at +14 ATK.
AC: +2 Plate, +3 Shield (25)
3 uses of Indomidable (worth ???)
18-20 crit range (worth 4.5 "perfect accuracy" DPR).

This is a concrete, actual PC fighter that isn't especially optimized.

You can use 4e inspired "roles" to make archtypes like this for each of:
Soldier/Brute (maybe 2, maybe 1).
Skimisher (close based, duck in duck out, relatively fragile)
Artillery (ranged based, relatively fragile, damage based)
Controller (like Artillery but messes with people instead of raw damage)

actual, concrete PCs, not super optimized, to base your monsters off of.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you again for the analysis - I will look at it in more detail.

actual, concrete PCs, not super optimized, to base your monsters off of.

That is what I did. I have a spreadsheet of a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard through all levels with the subclass, feat, equipment, and spells used. (though I haven't actually finished the cleric and rogue yet). I just made different choices than you . To be honest, I am a forever DM and don't make PCs so the process is very slow and painful for me!

 

[dave2008]

HP budget: 6*20 + 4 (base) + 5*20 (con)
Question: Perhaps I have been doing it wrong (or my old school biases), but didn't you figure your fighter HP wrong? You don't multiply 5 (con mod) x 20 for the Con bonus. It is con mod at each level isn't it?

So levels 1-3 might be 2 (con mode) x 3, and then levels 4-10 might be 4 (con mode x 7) and levels 11-20 might be 5 (con mode) x 10.

so you have HP from constitution = 87 not 100? That is how I did my spreadsheet at least!

EDIT: I just reread the PHB - I've been doing it wrong for the past 10 years! I will get that corrected.