Level Up (A5E) Accuracy of A5E's Encounter Design for 5e and 5.5e

[TheDungeonMathster]

I have been using A5E's monster creation and encounter design system for quite a while for a 3.5-to-5e conversion. Prior to switching to A5E's creature creation and encounter design tools, I used several other tools. Below are my observations of each tool I have used:

Tool​	Advantages​	Disadvantages​
2014 DMG Guidelines	Official rules	CR of creatures ended up being highly inaccurate (at times) creature design rules were too vague for most complex NPC/creatures not mathematically "tight"
GiffyGlyph's Monster Maker	Incredibly tight mathematics for both creature creation and encounter design lots of design options	no longer supported (GiffyGlyph went MIA a year after releasing the Monster Maker) The math, while incredibly tight, was built on a completely different system - D&D 4e. It was converted to 5e, but the 4e artifacts still persist. Since the design system cares more about numbers than how to get those numbers, I would end up with NPCs having thrown dagger attacks doing a ridiculous amount of damage. My players felt like I was playing by a different set of rules (which they were correct about).
My own system	More detailed control and mathematics based on probability lots of options Probably the "tightest" when it comes to the mathematics (I was not constrained by assumptions of, for example, a 60' Cone effect only targeting 2 PCs).	Not truly vetted Lots of work by me While mathematically the most accurate, when trying to target encounter levels for an abstraction like 5e, that math is being compared to a different beast
Blog of Holding (Paul Hughes) and, subsequently, A5E's Monstrous Menagerie	Based on a statistical analysis of the actual creatures in officially released and supported content from 2014 5e The subsequent analysis and "targeting" system for HP, DPR, etc based on CR is easy to implement. Official A5E process (Monstrous Menagerie) is nicely laid-out and easy to follow (for the most part). Not really about the creation of creatures, but I really love the stat block design in A5E. The encounter design is simple and well-described (mathematically).	While the statistical analysis gives me a lot of faith in the veracity of the creature profile targets (AC, HP, DPR, etc based on CR), the "why" of it all seems more like hand-waving. For example, the effect of severe conditions on DPR in Appendix D of the Monstrous Menagerie are not justified, nor do they make sense. Inflicting a condition that takes an opponent out for a single round seems to effectively bump your creature's HP (since they are going a round without being hit by an opponent) - not damage a target. I feel like I am trying to fit a square peg in an octagonal hole. Is A5E creature and encounter design meant for A5E, or is it meant for 5e as well? If it's also meant for 5e, how does that translate to 5.5e? Still suffers from some mathematically broken assumptions (e.g., all AoEs affect 2 PCs).

With all that said, are the creature creation and the encounter design mechanics in A5E still usable with the new 5.5e? Or, were they never to be used to create in 5e at all? That is, should I give up on designing with A5E's system for 5.5e because they are completely different systems mechanically?

I sincerely appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

 

[Reynard]

I have found that the 5.5 rules are themselves a little better than the 5.0 rules for building encounters -- mostly because the 5.5 rules jettisoned the weird action economy math -- but I still use the A5E ones and they work pretty well. If I am using A5E monsters (or ToV monsters) I have found I need to build encounters as if the PCs were one or two levels higher than they are, just because of the power boost PCs* got in 5.5E.

*except wizards, because hoo boy did they over-nerf a lot of magic.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

I have found that the 5.5 rules are themselves a little better than the 5.0 rules for building encounters -- mostly because the 5.5 rules jettisoned the weird action economy math -- but I still use the A5E ones and they work pretty well. If I am using A5E monsters (or ToV monsters) I have found I need to build encounters as if the PCs were one or two levels higher than they are, just because of the power boost PCs* got in 5.5E.

*except wizards, because hoo boy did they over-nerf a lot of magic.

Thank you for responding. Do you find the A5E encounter-building rules (using Encounter Points) still works? 5.5 switched to Low, Moderate, and High difficulty. Throwing out "Easy" and "Trivial" has thrown me for a loop.

 

[Reynard]

Thank you for responding. Do you find the A5E encounter-building rules (using Encounter Points) still works? 5.5 switched to Low, Moderate, and High difficulty. Throwing out "Easy" and "Trivial" has thrown me for a loop.

I only ever use High/Deadly encounters. Anything less is a waste of time IMO.

 

[Xenolith234]

How do the Tales of the Valiant or Forge of Foes calculations work out in comparison?

 

[Morrus]

I have been using A5E's monster creation and encounter design system for quite a while for a 3.5-to-5e conversion. Prior to switching to A5E's creature creation and encounter design tools, I used several other tools. Below are my observations of each tool I have used:

Tool​	Advantages​	Disadvantages​
2014 DMG Guidelines	Official rules	CR of creatures ended up being highly inaccurate (at times) creature design rules were too vague for most complex NPC/creatures not mathematically "tight"
GiffyGlyph's Monster Maker	Incredibly tight mathematics for both creature creation and encounter design lots of design options	no longer supported (GiffyGlyph went MIA a year after releasing the Monster Maker) The math, while incredibly tight, was built on a completely different system - D&D 4e. It was converted to 5e, but the 4e artifacts still persist. Since the design system cares more about numbers than how to get those numbers, I would end up with NPCs having thrown dagger attacks doing a ridiculous amount of damage. My players felt like I was playing by a different set of rules (which they were correct about).
My own system	More detailed control and mathematics based on probability lots of options Probably the "tightest" when it comes to the mathematics (I was not constrained by assumptions of, for example, a 60' Cone effect only targeting 2 PCs).	Not truly vetted Lots of work by me While mathematically the most accurate, when trying to target encounter levels for an abstraction like 5e, that math is being compared to a different beast
Blog of Holding (Paul Hughes) and, subsequently, A5E's Monstrous Menagerie	Based on a statistical analysis of the actual creatures in officially released and supported content from 2014 5e The subsequent analysis and "targeting" system for HP, DPR, etc based on CR is easy to implement. Official A5E process (Monstrous Menagerie) is nicely laid-out and easy to follow (for the most part). Not really about the creation of creatures, but I really love the stat block design in A5E. The encounter design is simple and well-described (mathematically).	While the statistical analysis gives me a lot of faith in the veracity of the creature profile targets (AC, HP, DPR, etc based on CR), the "why" of it all seems more like hand-waving. For example, the effect of severe conditions on DPR in Appendix D of the Monstrous Menagerie are not justified, nor do they make sense. Inflicting a condition that takes an opponent out for a single round seems to effectively bump your creature's HP (since they are going a round without being hit by an opponent) - not damage a target. I feel like I am trying to fit a square peg in an octagonal hole. Is A5E creature and encounter design meant for A5E, or is it meant for 5e as well? If it's also meant for 5e, how does that translate to 5.5e? Still suffers from some mathematically broken assumptions (e.g., all AoEs affect 2 PCs).

With all that said, are the creature creation and the encounter design mechanics in A5E still usable with the new 5.5e? Or, were they never to be used to create in 5e at all? That is, should I give up on designing with A5E's system for 5.5e because they are completely different systems mechanically?

I sincerely appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

In answer to your question—A5E is meant for 5E as well, but it’s important to remember that 5E CRs are often janky. It predates 5.5E by several years, so it might or might not work but wasn’t designed with that in mind.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

How do the Tales of the Valiant or Forge of Foes calculations work out in comparison?

I recently did an analysis of the Forge of Foes CR profiles.

Here is the table from LUA5E.

... and here is the table from Forge of Foes.

The "Difference" columns are how this compares to A5E. For example, the CR 20 profile from Forge of Foes sees an increase of 2 in AC over A5E, a decrease of 15 in HP from A5E, and an increase of 27 in DPR over A5E.

I am not sure how Michael arrived at these targets, but I would say that I agree with them for the most part.

AC. A decrease in AC at the lowest tier makes encounters less deadly for the "squishiest" time in gameplay. The increase in AC at the highest CRs comes at a time when PCs likely have massive bonuses to hit.

HP. At the first tier of play, the difference between the two is negligible; however, we see tier three experience a nearly 10% dip in HP with Forge of Foes. I am not sure how I feel about this. Later CRs (26+) see a mirrored bump in HP. In the big picture, I don't think these make much of a difference.

DPR. Here's where the two creature-design systems diverge. At almost all CRs, Forge of Foes sees an increase in DPR (and at an increasing rate!). From my experience with LUA5E, I like this bump for one simple reason - I don't need optimized play.

That is, when designing a creature in LUA5E (and pretty much with any other method), optimized play is assumed - the most powerful (damage-wise) abilities are assumed to be used first, the second-most powerful second, and so on. However, from actual table play, rarely can I get optimized tactics to work - things are so situational. Thus, reality kicks in and I am operating at 70% (made-up number) of optimal DPR. Some would say, "learn to play optimally"; however, that style of play is mentally exhausting and doesn't allow for narrative coolness (IMO). Having that extra DPR "buffer" might make the combats more fun all around.

 

[Reynard]

I recently did an analysis of the Forge of Foes CR profiles.

Here is the table from LUA5E.

[td width="41pt"]CR[/td][td width="42pt"]AC[/td][td width="42pt"]HP[/td][td width="41pt"]PB[/td][td width="123pt"]Highest Ability Mod[/td][td width="89pt"]Attack Bonus[/td][td width="143pt"]Number of Attacks/Turn[/td][td width="48pt"]DPR[/td] [td]0[/td][td]12[/td][td]3[/td][td]2[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]1[/td] [td]0.125[/td][td]12[/td][td]9[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td] [td]0.25[/td][td]12[/td][td]15[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]1[/td][td]5[/td] [td]0.5[/td][td]13[/td][td]24[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]1[/td][td]8[/td] [td]1[/td][td]13[/td][td]30[/td][td]2[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]1[/td][td]10[/td] [td]2[/td][td]13[/td][td]45[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]2[/td][td]15[/td] [td]3[/td][td]14[/td][td]60[/td][td]2[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]2[/td][td]20[/td] [td]4[/td][td]14[/td][td]75[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]2[/td][td]25[/td] [td]5[/td][td]14[/td][td]90[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]7[/td][td]2[/td][td]30[/td] [td]6[/td][td]15[/td][td]105[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]7[/td][td]2[/td][td]35[/td] [td]7[/td][td]15[/td][td]125[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]7[/td][td]2[/td][td]40[/td] [td]8[/td][td]15[/td][td]135[/td][td]3[/td][td]4[/td][td]7[/td][td]2[/td][td]45[/td] [td]9[/td][td]16[/td][td]150[/td][td]4[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][td]2[/td][td]50[/td] [td]10[/td][td]16[/td][td]165[/td][td]4[/td][td]5[/td][td]9[/td][td]2[/td][td]55[/td] [td]11[/td][td]16[/td][td]180[/td][td]4[/td][td]5[/td][td]9[/td][td]3[/td][td]60[/td] [td]12[/td][td]17[/td][td]195[/td][td]4[/td][td]5[/td][td]9[/td][td]3[/td][td]65[/td] [td]13[/td][td]17[/td][td]210[/td][td]5[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][td]3[/td][td]70[/td] [td]14[/td][td]17[/td][td]225[/td][td]5[/td][td]6[/td][td]11[/td][td]3[/td][td]75[/td] [td]15[/td][td]18[/td][td]240[/td][td]5[/td][td]6[/td][td]11[/td][td]3[/td][td]80[/td] [td]16[/td][td]18[/td][td]255[/td][td]5[/td][td]6[/td][td]11[/td][td]3[/td][td]85[/td] [td]17[/td][td]18[/td][td]270[/td][td]6[/td][td]6[/td][td]12[/td][td]4[/td][td]90[/td] [td]18[/td][td]19[/td][td]285[/td][td]6[/td][td]7[/td][td]13[/td][td]4[/td][td]95[/td] [td]19[/td][td]19[/td][td]300[/td][td]6[/td][td]7[/td][td]13[/td][td]4[/td][td]100[/td] [td]20[/td][td]19[/td][td]315[/td][td]6[/td][td]7[/td][td]13[/td][td]4[/td][td]105[/td] [td]21[/td][td]20[/td][td]330[/td][td]7[/td][td]7[/td][td]14[/td][td]4[/td][td]110[/td] [td]22[/td][td]20[/td][td]350[/td][td]7[/td][td]8[/td][td]15[/td][td]4[/td][td]116[/td] [td]23[/td][td]20[/td][td]375[/td][td]7[/td][td]8[/td][td]15[/td][td]4[/td][td]125[/td] [td]24[/td][td]21[/td][td]400[/td][td]7[/td][td]8[/td][td]15[/td][td]4[/td][td]133[/td] [td]25[/td][td]21[/td][td]425[/td][td]8[/td][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][td]4[/td][td]141[/td] [td]26[/td][td]21[/td][td]450[/td][td]8[/td][td]9[/td][td]17[/td][td]4[/td][td]150[/td] [td]27[/td][td]22[/td][td]475[/td][td]8[/td][td]9[/td][td]17[/td][td]4[/td][td]158[/td] [td]28[/td][td]22[/td][td]500[/td][td]8[/td][td]9[/td][td]17[/td][td]4[/td][td]166[/td] [td]29[/td][td]22[/td][td]550[/td][td]9[/td][td]9[/td][td]18[/td][td]4[/td][td]183[/td] [td]30[/td][td]23[/td][td]600[/td][td]9[/td][td]10[/td][td]19[/td][td]4[/td][td]200[/td]
... and here is the table from Forge of Foes.

[td width="41pt"]CR[/td][td width="42pt"]AC[/td][td width="95pt"]AC Difference[/td][td width="42pt"]HP[/td][td width="95pt"]HP Difference[/td][td width="48pt"]DPR[/td][td width="101pt"]DPR Difference[/td] [td]0[/td][td]10[/td][td]-2[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td][td]2[/td][td]+1[/td] [td]0.125[/td][td]11[/td][td]-1[/td][td]9[/td][td]0[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td] [td]0.25[/td][td]11[/td][td]-1[/td][td]13[/td][td]-2[/td][td]5[/td][td]0[/td] [td]0.5[/td][td]12[/td][td]-1[/td][td]22[/td][td]-2[/td][td]8[/td][td]0[/td] [td]1[/td][td]12[/td][td]-1[/td][td]33[/td][td]+3[/td][td]12[/td][td]+2[/td] [td]2[/td][td]13[/td][td]0[/td][td]45[/td][td]0[/td][td]17[/td][td]+2[/td] [td]3[/td][td]13[/td][td]-1[/td][td]65[/td][td]+5[/td][td]23[/td][td]+3[/td] [td]4[/td][td]14[/td][td]0[/td][td]84[/td][td]+9[/td][td]28[/td][td]+3[/td] [td]5[/td][td]15[/td][td]+1[/td][td]95[/td][td]+5[/td][td]35[/td][td]+5[/td] [td]6[/td][td]15[/td][td]0[/td][td]112[/td][td]+7[/td][td]41[/td][td]+6[/td] [td]7[/td][td]15[/td][td]0[/td][td]130[/td][td]+5[/td][td]47[/td][td]+7[/td] [td]8[/td][td]15[/td][td]0[/td][td]136[/td][td]+1[/td][td]53[/td][td]+8[/td] [td]9[/td][td]16[/td][td]0[/td][td]145[/td][td]-5[/td][td]59[/td][td]+9[/td] [td]10[/td][td]17[/td][td]+1[/td][td]155[/td][td]-10[/td][td]65[/td][td]+10[/td] [td]11[/td][td]17[/td][td]+1[/td][td]165[/td][td]-15[/td][td]71[/td][td]+11[/td] [td]12[/td][td]17[/td][td]0[/td][td]175[/td][td]-20[/td][td]77[/td][td]+12[/td] [td]13[/td][td]18[/td][td]+1[/td][td]184[/td][td]-26[/td][td]83[/td][td]+13[/td] [td]14[/td][td]19[/td][td]+2[/td][td]196[/td][td]-29[/td][td]89[/td][td]+14[/td] [td]15[/td][td]19[/td][td]+1[/td][td]210[/td][td]-30[/td][td]95[/td][td]+15[/td] [td]16[/td][td]19[/td][td]+1[/td][td]229[/td][td]-26[/td][td]101[/td][td]+16[/td] [td]17[/td][td]20[/td][td]+2[/td][td]246[/td][td]-24[/td][td]107[/td][td]+17[/td] [td]18[/td][td]21[/td][td]+2[/td][td]266[/td][td]-19[/td][td]113[/td][td]+18[/td] [td]19[/td][td]21[/td][td]+2[/td][td]285[/td][td]-15[/td][td]119[/td][td]+19[/td] [td]20[/td][td]21[/td][td]+2[/td][td]300[/td][td]-15[/td][td]132[/td][td]+27[/td] [td]21[/td][td]22[/td][td]+2[/td][td]325[/td][td]-5[/td][td]150[/td][td]+40[/td] [td]22[/td][td]23[/td][td]+3[/td][td]350[/td][td]0[/td][td]168[/td][td]+52[/td] [td]23[/td][td]23[/td][td]+3[/td][td]375[/td][td]0[/td][td]186[/td][td]+61[/td] [td]24[/td][td]23[/td][td]+2[/td][td]400[/td][td]0[/td][td]204[/td][td]+71[/td] [td]25[/td][td]24[/td][td]+3[/td][td]430[/td][td]+5[/td][td]222[/td][td]+81[/td] [td]26[/td][td]25[/td][td]+4[/td][td]460[/td][td]+10[/td][td]240[/td][td]+90[/td] [td]27[/td][td]25[/td][td]+3[/td][td]490[/td][td]+15[/td][td]258[/td][td]+100[/td] [td]28[/td][td]25[/td][td]+3[/td][td]540[/td][td]+40[/td][td]276[/td][td]+110[/td] [td]29[/td][td]26[/td][td]+4[/td][td]600[/td][td]+50[/td][td]294[/td][td]+111[/td] [td]30[/td][td]27[/td][td]+4[/td][td]666[/td][td]+66[/td][td]312[/td][td]+112[/td]
The "Difference" columns are how this compares to A5E. For example, the CR 20 profile from Forge of Foes sees an increase of 2 in AC over A5E, a decrease of 15 in HP from A5E, and an increase of 27 in DPR over A5E.

I am not sure how Michael arrived at these targets, but I would say that I agree with them for the most part.

AC. A decrease in AC at the lowest tier makes encounters less deadly for the "squishiest" time in gameplay. The increase in AC at the highest CRs comes at a time when PCs likely have massive bonuses to hit.

HP. At the first tier of play, the difference between the two is negligible; however, we see tier three experience a nearly 10% dip in HP with Forge of Foes. I am not sure how I feel about this. Later CRs (26+) see a mirrored bump in HP. In the big picture, I don't think these make much of a difference.

DPR. Here's where the two creature-design systems diverge. At almost all CRs, Forge of Foes sees an increase in DPR (and at an increasing rate!). From my experience with LUA5E, I like this bump for one simple reason - I don't need optimized play.

That is, when designing a creature in LUA5E (and pretty much with any other method), optimized play is assumed - the most powerful (damage-wise) abilities are assumed to be used first, the second-most powerful second, and so on. However, from actual table play, rarely can I get optimized tactics to work - things are so situational. Thus, reality kicks in and I am operating at 70% (made-up number) of optimal DPR. Some would say, "learn to play optimally"; however, that style of play is mentally exhausting and doesn't allow for narrative coolness (IMO). Having that extra DPR "buffer" might make the combats more fun all around.

You have some sort of formatting error going on.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

You have some sort of formatting error going on.

I fixed it with images instead.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

A follow-up: After comparing LUA5E monster creation tables with those in Forge of Foes, here's my 2 cents.

CR 0 - 1: Forge of Foes creatures have consistently lower AC, but nearly equivalent HP and DPR. That is, monsters are easier to hit. This is likely a good thing for players in Tier 1.

CR 2 - 9: ACs are almost identical in both systems; however, creature HP and DPR is higher in Forge of Foes. That is, creatures in Forge of Foes last a bit longer and hit a little harder (not by much).

CR 10 - 20: This is where differences really start to jump out. Creatures designed in Forge of Foes are slightly harder to hit (ACs 1-2 higher than A5E) and they deal more damage (DPR increasing steadily from 10 points to 27 points higher than A5E through the progression). The HP, on the other hand, is lower in Forge of Foes than A5E. It's almost a tradeoff - increase AC slightly but lower HP. Thus, the Forge of Foes creatures are slightly harder to hit, but are slightly squishier. However, they hit harder.

CR 21-24: Now differences become more dramatic. The ACs in Forge of Foes are 2-3 points higher than in A5E. The HP are almost identical. The DPR in Forge of Foes continues to increase at a faster rate (40, 52, 61, and then 71 points higher than A5E). In summary, at this level of play, Forge of Foes creatures are harder to hit and deal a lot more damage.

CR 25+: This is where the differences become obscene. Forge of Foes ACs are 3 - 4 points higher than A5E, HP is significantly higher (5, 10, 15, 40, 50, and 66 points higher than A5E), and DPR is also still escalating (81, 90, 100, 110, 111, and 112 points higher than A5E). Forge of Foes creatures in this range are tankier and deal more damage.

For those who find the A5E creatures to be a bit underpowered, Forge of Foes design might be for you. I am not sure how mixing the design systems would work, and I will likely stick with A5E for designing creatures due to the analysis done by Paul and wanting my creatures to match as closely to 5E mechanics as possible.