D&D 5E Base attack Monster spreadsheet issues

[I'm A Banana]

Table in the DMG is what I go by. I'm AFB, but [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] 's formula sounds right.

It's possible there's monsters that don't meet that formula - these might have a modifier on top. But that formula is quite reliable, and what I'd use if I was going to use a formula. Even if you're off, it probably won't be by much.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Table in the DMG is what I go by. I'm AFB, but @Hemlock 's formula sounds right.

It's possible there's monsters that don't meet that formula - these might have a modifier on top. But that formula is quite reliable, and what I'd use if I was going to use a formula. Even if you're off, it probably won't be by much.

There certainly are monsters such as ghouls that don't use their proficiency bonus on some of their attacks. (Ghouls are proficient with their claws but not their bites.) From a monster-math point of view, the DMG allows you to assign arbitrary to-hit bonuses to arbitrary attacks, as long as you account for it correctly in the CR. This is similar to how you're "allowed" to have an AC 30 CR 5 creature, as long as you trade off the strong defense with low HP and/or weak offense. But from a convention standpoint, nothing in the monster manual actually does that. Low-CR creatures tend to max out around AC 18 (hobgoblins) or perhaps a bit more than that for Derro.

Anyway, the point is that if you're the DM, there's actually no such thing as being "off." The monster stats are what you say they are. Even CR itself is subject to DM judgment: if the CR tables say something should be CR 5, and you think it's really CR 7 because of wonky abilities like petrification which the DMG doesn't do a good job of accounting for... the DMG tells you to trust your own judgment, not be a slave to the DMG tables.

As an aside, I have never yet seen a player complain about getting too much XP because the DM calculated the monster's CR "incorrectly" for its actual threat level.

Good gaming!

 

[monsterworkbench]

I get it now and have an idea of what formula I would use, however a rapier for example is dex based. So honestly I will need to go through every monster and just type in the bonus. (Might as well add in if it is ranged or melee.

Thanks guys! Back to excel.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I get it now and have an idea of what formula I would use, however a rapier for example is dex based. So honestly I will need to go through every monster and just type in the bonus. (Might as well add in if it is ranged or melee.

Thanks guys! Back to excel.

Rapier can also be Strength based.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The Monster Manual stats are very consistent. There are a few exceptions, and there are even patterns there.

Some monsters don't get their proficiency bonus at all on some attacks.

Some Tiny monsters (mostly beasts) have their attack bonuses determined differently. Instead of giving them penalties due to low Strength, they sometimes skip the ability mod and just give them a +0 if they suck at fighting (non-proficient), or a +2 if they can defend themselves (proficient). They generally (maybe even always) have such creatures just do a flat 1 point of damage also.

Black and brown bears only get half proficiency bonus on their attacks.

The other occasional numbers that are off by 1 are textual errors. Some were corrected in errata or new printings, and they didn't get to some others. (There is no way anyone is convincing me that ancient gold dragons intentionally are 1 point lower (like +17 for things that should be +18) on all of their proficient modifiers than their CR would indicate.)

 

[monsterworkbench]

Well once again thanks for the ideas, I manually added them all in. Pretty

 

[Angel of the Dawn]

There certainly are monsters such as ghouls that don't use their proficiency bonus on some of their attacks. (Ghouls are proficient with their claws but not their bites.) From a monster-math point of view, the DMG allows you to assign arbitrary to-hit bonuses to arbitrary attacks, as long as you account for it correctly in the CR. This is similar to how you're "allowed" to have an AC 30 CR 5 creature, as long as you trade off the strong defense with low HP and/or weak offense. But from a convention standpoint, nothing in the monster manual actually does that. Low-CR creatures tend to max out around AC 18 (hobgoblins) or perhaps a bit more than that for Derro.

Anyway, the point is that if you're the DM, there's actually no such thing as being "off." The monster stats are what you say they are. Even CR itself is subject to DM judgment: if the CR tables say something should be CR 5, and you think it's really CR 7 because of wonky abilities like petrification which the DMG doesn't do a good job of accounting for... the DMG tells you to trust your own judgment, not be a slave to the DMG tables.

As an aside, I have never yet seen a player complain about getting too much XP because the DM calculated the monster's CR "incorrectly" for its actual threat level.

Good gaming!

Dude, this sounds way too much like common sense. Who cares about fun or actually playing the game? You have to make the math work because math.

Snark aside, this approach is one that I prefer. I remember how 3E and 4E were really big on having rigidly consistent formulas for every monster. So an undead monster in 3E had a wizard's attack bonus (half hit die), so even if it doesn't make a lot of sense for a particular undead monster to have that -- say, some raging barbarian-type creature from beyond the grave -- you had to go with it to make it "legal". A creature of a certain hit die got X number of feats, even if that was fewer than what made sense for the concept. Of course you can do at your table what you want, but I don't have any problem with official monster design that is based on eyeballing it. I like how 5E goes back to the informal, less rigid monster design of early editions.

So in 5E, the CR and Str this raging undead has suggests a +4 bonus, but that seems a little unimpressive; so we'll give him a base +5 attack bonus, and advantage on attacks once he scents blood and goes into a frenzy. However, the undead has mystical vulnerabilities to counterbalance this. Totes legit, it fits, and is totally in line with 5E design philosophy.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The other occasional numbers that are off by 1 are textual errors. Some were corrected in errata or new printings, and they didn't get to some others. (There is no way anyone is convincing me that ancient gold dragons intentionally are 1 point lower (like +17 for things that should be +18) on all of their proficient modifiers than their CR would indicate.)

What things should be +18? They're CR 24, so proficiency bonus is +7, so with Str 30 they should have +17 to attacks... and they do, just like Ancient Reds do.

They have Perception Expertise and Wis 17, so Perception should be 3 + (7 * 2) = 17, which, again, it is. Ancient Reds have only 15 Wis so Perception 16 is correct for them, which they do have.

I don't see anything should have should a +18.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What things should be +18? They're CR 24, so proficiency bonus is +7, so with Str 30 they should have +17 to attacks... and they do, just like Ancient Reds do.

They have Perception Expertise and Wis 17, so Perception should be 3 + (7 * 2) = 17, which, again, it is. Ancient Reds have only 15 Wis so Perception 16 is correct for them, which they do have.

I don't see anything should have should a +18.

Ah, you're right. For some reason I was thinking CR 24 was the breakpoint for +8 proficiency bonus.