Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Monster Stats by Level (not CR)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8996685" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>The business card guy makes claims far stronger than his stats demonstrate. I'd even say dishonestly.</p><p></p><p>His analysis of how the DMG rules work doesn't reflect actually using the DMG rules, but a common misunderstanding of how to use them. (Ie, the idea that the HP column for CR 3 means that typical CR 3 monsters should have that much HP: this is explicitly not what the DMG table means).</p><p></p><p>He did a handful of correlations, found nothing, and then <strong>asserted</strong> there is no correlations between stats, and then after assuming that discarded entire possibilities.</p><p></p><p>I mean, </p><p>This is a complete misunderstanding of how the DMG monster CR evaluation table works!</p><p></p><p>The guy even talks about variance and describes it as if it was standard deviation. This is a stats 101 error; imagine if you where describing car stats and you called the wheels "axles". The data might be right, but this is really suspicious. And he doesn't provide raw data, so it is <em>hard</em> to confirm he isn't making math mistakes; he provides charts and the results of the math. To find errors you'd have to repeat all of his research, instead of just verifying it.</p><p></p><p>I mean like here:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.blogofholding.com/?p=7357[/URL]</p><p>he takes a comment about paralysis, then <strong>assumes that damage is balanced against damage</strong>, and then proceeds to conclude the comment is wrong. He does this because he has concluded <strong>damage is not balanced against defence</strong> and acts 100% certain of it, despite never testing his hypothesis.</p><p></p><p>Basically he's insanely too certain for his claims. He does a bit of math, gets a result he likes, and concludes he's certain and never has to consider alternatives again. High-grade Engineers disease.</p><p></p><p>Like, take a completely random 5e monster (I used an app, and discarded the CR 1/4 one I got first) a Fomorian.</p><p></p><p>Offensive CR: 10</p><p>Defensive CR: 6</p><p>Proficiency Bonus: +3</p><p>Effective HP: 149 (13d12+65)</p><p>Effective AC: 14</p><p>Average Damage Per Round: 59</p><p>Effective Attack Bonus: +9</p><p></p><p>Challenge Rating: 8</p><p></p><p>Hey look, the DMG calculated its CR exactly.</p><p></p><p>Now lets use MM on a business card. CR 8 eh?</p><p>13+4 AC (17)</p><p>120 HP</p><p>+8 ATK</p><p>40 damage</p><p>15 save DC</p><p>+7 highest saves</p><p></p><p>That isn't a Fomorian. It has too much AC, not enough HP and damage is too low.</p><p></p><p>If you feed it back into the DMG rules... I get a CR 6 monster, significantly weaker than the Fomorian.</p><p></p><p>Despite the numbers being averages and interpolations of the monster manual numbers, a <strong>completely random MM monster</strong> turns out to produce the accurate CR under the DMG mathematics, and the blog of holding monster ... is significantly weaker than the random MM monster.</p><p></p><p>He's confident, uses math, and is just plain wrong. He doesn't expose enough of the math to make it easy to figure out what he did wrong. To demonstrate his error, you'd have to <strong>repeat the entire task</strong>, which is the opposite if how you are supposed to use math to prove a point.</p><p></p><p>Don't use MM on a business card.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8996685, member: 72555"] The business card guy makes claims far stronger than his stats demonstrate. I'd even say dishonestly. His analysis of how the DMG rules work doesn't reflect actually using the DMG rules, but a common misunderstanding of how to use them. (Ie, the idea that the HP column for CR 3 means that typical CR 3 monsters should have that much HP: this is explicitly not what the DMG table means). He did a handful of correlations, found nothing, and then [b]asserted[/b] there is no correlations between stats, and then after assuming that discarded entire possibilities. I mean, This is a complete misunderstanding of how the DMG monster CR evaluation table works! The guy even talks about variance and describes it as if it was standard deviation. This is a stats 101 error; imagine if you where describing car stats and you called the wheels "axles". The data might be right, but this is really suspicious. And he doesn't provide raw data, so it is [I]hard[/I] to confirm he isn't making math mistakes; he provides charts and the results of the math. To find errors you'd have to repeat all of his research, instead of just verifying it. I mean like here: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.blogofholding.com/?p=7357[/URL] he takes a comment about paralysis, then [b]assumes that damage is balanced against damage[/b], and then proceeds to conclude the comment is wrong. He does this because he has concluded [b]damage is not balanced against defence[/b] and acts 100% certain of it, despite never testing his hypothesis. Basically he's insanely too certain for his claims. He does a bit of math, gets a result he likes, and concludes he's certain and never has to consider alternatives again. High-grade Engineers disease. Like, take a completely random 5e monster (I used an app, and discarded the CR 1/4 one I got first) a Fomorian. Offensive CR: 10 Defensive CR: 6 Proficiency Bonus: +3 Effective HP: 149 (13d12+65) Effective AC: 14 Average Damage Per Round: 59 Effective Attack Bonus: +9 Challenge Rating: 8 Hey look, the DMG calculated its CR exactly. Now lets use MM on a business card. CR 8 eh? 13+4 AC (17) 120 HP +8 ATK 40 damage 15 save DC +7 highest saves That isn't a Fomorian. It has too much AC, not enough HP and damage is too low. If you feed it back into the DMG rules... I get a CR 6 monster, significantly weaker than the Fomorian. Despite the numbers being averages and interpolations of the monster manual numbers, a [b]completely random MM monster[/b] turns out to produce the accurate CR under the DMG mathematics, and the blog of holding monster ... is significantly weaker than the random MM monster. He's confident, uses math, and is just plain wrong. He doesn't expose enough of the math to make it easy to figure out what he did wrong. To demonstrate his error, you'd have to [b]repeat the entire task[/b], which is the opposite if how you are supposed to use math to prove a point. Don't use MM on a business card. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Monster Stats by Level (not CR)
Top