Cosmic Deity power levels in 5E...

[Upper_Krust]

Good morning to you and thank you for the reply! These will have to be quick reactions as I have to get to a meeting.

No hurry dave.

Quite a few things: resistances, immunities, saving throw proficiencies, and a whole host of features: avoidance, blood frenzy, constrict, damage transfer, magic resistance, nimble escape, pack tactics, parry, possession, etc.

All monsters should have some unique/interesting abilities and defenses as a counterbalance to player advantages/abilities/spells/items.

Are you saying you don't count legendary actions because they only act after another creatures turn? IMO, that is silly rules lawyering.

No I am saying I don't count them towards the average damage totals because it doesn't make sense to weaken a monster by ADDING Legendary Actions.

Additionally player character immortals will get Legendary Actions - can you imagine saying to the player, yes you can get this Legendary Action but I'm going to nerf all your attacks and spells by 33%, lol.

It is clear the intent is that the legendary actions are supposed to part of its standard attack routine.

Yes they didn't think that through clearly.

However, I've rewritten legendary actions to clarify that. If you don't count them then that means a legendary monster could potentially be much more dangerous than the calculated CR.

Who would have thought monsters would be dangerous at epic levels.

Unless you are not having legendary actions inflict any damage or conditions.

That would be silly.

I will have to wait and see I guess. I personally like the randomness of LA (depending on what you mean by randomness).

I mean the mechanical assigning of whether something should be a 1, 2 or 3 'action' Legendary actions

The dragons have the most boring LA because they are all the same, random - or a least unique - legendary actions are the best IMO.

You'll like my dragons.

...although fair warning, they are very dangerous.

I will have to wait and see.

OK, but that is only true if you are stuck with the idea that there is some golden CR.

I think there could be.

Like Orcus should be CR 26, no matter what difficult CR 26 actually is. That is just arbitrary IMO. Orcus should be the CR that allows him to be a badass. That could be CR 16, 26, or 76!

I think I have managed to create a solid CR framework so that I know CR 25-28 is where I expect something as powerful as a Lesser God.

So you would need to change the existing stat blocks to make it comply with your guidelines.

Only for individuals, so that they retain their inherent CR.

The HP and DPR guidelines in the DMG are made with the intent that they are modified by other things in the DMG. IF you remove the other things you invalidate that table in the DMG.

You are better just ignoring the secondary modifiers, borderline waste of time as regards determining the difficulty a monster will present.

Again, in your approach you still have to change the stat block of every high CR unique monster. You just have to change it to match your guide instead of the DMG guide.

How many unique monsters do epic campaigns require each session? One or two at most. DM just spends 5 minutes a pop checking the HP & DMG and they are good to go. I'm not asking anyone to "change the stat-block of every high CR unique monster". Just double check the ones you are planning on using.

The monsters in the book are the monsters in the book. If I want the demon lords to be stronger than the WotC version, they need to be remade whether it is your version of the CR guide or the official version of the CR guide.

5 minutes checking HP & DMG for a unique monster/deity is infinitely less annoying than recreating the entire stat-block from scratch.

In fact, I could take your version of monster and the only additional change I would need to make (and would make) is to recalibrate the CR to match the DMG guidelines.

Well you could do that if wanted to. D&D is very flexible.

They are, or could be, otherwise the same. There is no need to completely remade as you suggest. At least not anymore than how your system would need to remake them.

What challenge rating is a demon prince in your opinion?

I will have to wait and see, but on the face of it I have serious concerns about your CR guideline changes.


I will see, but I doubt it. It just seems like you are cutting to much to me. But I will reserve final judgement. I look forward to the book. Good luck!

I hope you'll like it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy le Redoutable buddy!

instead of searching for Legendary Abilities you should better develop the Monster Races system :
you create and build your character by spending xp to purchase Monster Covers (that is, any Monster who provides data )
then, you assemble your character by merging a given Monster Cover and that, for each of the valid Alignments
( except perhaps for LN Monsters, who are rare ?? )
example :
LG Solaar
NG Unicorn
CG Storm Giant
CN Ettin
LE Vampire
NE Zombie
CE Troll

Certainly players could adopt the abilities of monsters, especially if they choose that monster as their Portfolio.

ie. An immortal player could become the God of Trolls and take on certain powers and characteristics.

Or if you were creating an immortal PC, the DM might let the player choose to roleplay a Solar instead of building their own Quasi-deity.

 

[Upper_Krust]

OK a quick Orcus example. Please note, I would do a lot more to make Orcus a more interesting battle, but this looking primarily at HP and DPR and the minimum changes one could make to the stat block to make it more dangerous.

So I think that is a much more dangerous Orcus, it follows your HP and damage guidelines and the DMG guidelines and only moves the CR up to 28. This took 5-10 minutes. Now, if I really get into what I think a good design of Orcus would be, well that would take a lot more time, but it wouldn't change the CR.

As a vanilla WotC conversion its certainly an improvement; albeit you have taken the damage from Legendary actions away from the DPR average; so he isn't much of a threat.

But I think it highlights vanilla Orcus is a pretty bland enemy design.

 

[dave2008]

All monsters should have some unique/interesting abilities and defenses as a counterbalance to player advantages/abilities/spells/items.

Yes, and IMO (and WotC apparently) they should be accounted for in the CR calculation.

No I am saying I don't count them towards the average damage totals because it doesn't make sense to weaken a monster by ADDING Legendary Actions.

You are not weakening monsters by adding legendary actions. I think a see your perspective, but I don't agree with that viewpoint. The idea of "adding LA" is a meta viewpoint that doesn't have anything to do with the actual monster design IMO.

If you don't count LA in the CR, then your CR is meaningless. You are essential making a new type of monster (like a 4e elite or solo or 5e mythic) at the same CR. Are you adjusting the XP of these monsters if you are not adjusting the CR? Are you calling it something than Legendary Actions since they impact the monster differently?

I actually don't mind these changes and they could be good. However, I hope you are clear that:

1. You are not using the DMG guidelines
2. You making new monster type

If you don't do that, then your are basically lying and confusing your users / players. So go with your design changes, just make it clear that these are changes / a different paradigm.

Additionally player character immortals will get Legendary Actions - can you imagine saying to the player, yes you can get this Legendary Action but I'm going to nerf all your attacks and spells by 33%, lol.

That is not how that works IMO. You don't need to nerf anything, you just admit they are more powerful. Right now you are saying: hey you have all of these new actions, but really these don't make you any stronger wink, wink. They do make you stronger so that should be reflected by increasing the CR IMO.

I will also add that I think LA for players is a mistake, but I will be interested to see how it works. I tried that route at first, but it lead to nearly incomprehensible game play for my test group.

Yes they didn't think that through clearly.

I disagree. Actions that effect DPR should be included in CR.

I mean the mechanical assigning of whether something should be a 1, 2 or 3 'action' Legendary actions

OK, it doesn't seem that random to me, but more structure would make it easier to design. I don't have an issue assign them personally, because I understand how they impact CR! I also like the flexibility of changing things up. Teleport being one action for one monster, may be 3 actions for another. I hope that flexibility remains.

You'll like my dragons.

...although fair warning, they are very dangerous.

I always like more dragons and I've seen many versions of 5e dragons. So far mine are still my favorite, but I think I may need to do a simplification pass.

I think there could be.

I don't necessarily see a lot of value in that.

I think I have managed to create a solid CR framework so that I know CR 25-28 is where I expect something as powerful as a Lesser God.

Sure, but that is the same for the DMG guidelines. The only difference is a bit higher.

You are better just ignoring the secondary modifiers, borderline waste of time as regards determining the difficulty a monster will present.

I disagree. From actual play experience, so secondary modifiers can have a big effect on the challenge of a monster.

How many unique monsters do epic campaigns require each session? One or two at most. DM just spends 5 minutes a pop checking the HP & DMG and they are good to go. I'm not asking anyone to "change the stat-block of every high CR unique monster". Just double check the ones you are planning on using.

5 minutes checking HP & DMG for a unique monster/deity is infinitely less annoying than recreating the entire stat-block from scratch.

I don't see any advantage in your system for existing monsters. I will see when the full rules are in my hand. I see some value for new monsters as long as your clear these are different as previously mentioned.

What challenge rating is a demon prince in your opinion?

I don't have an opinion on what the CR is. The CR is what it needs to be to express the design intent. For me, demon princes should not be able to be defeated by lvl 20 characters. You need characters beyond level 20, either with boons or 3PP products. So, when I initially redesigned the demon princes they were CR 31-34. I did another design of demogorgon for someone else and it is CR 28 mythic / elite. But for my own work I would make it higher CR.

I hope you'll like it.

I'm sure it will have a bunch of good ideas. I look forward to it!

 

[dave2008]

As a vanilla WotC conversion its certainly an improvement; albeit you have taken the damage from Legendary actions away from the DPR average; so he isn't much of a threat.

No you don't, Orcus 2.0 is using the DMG guidelines which include LA in the damage. Orcus is not a standard monster with legendary actions added. It is a legendary monster - which includes LA.

This is the one that baffles me still, why wouldn't you include LA in the DPR calculation. If you don't, it completely invalidates the CR. I mean why calculate CR at all if you not include a large amount of damage in that calculation.

But I think it highlights vanilla Orcus is a pretty bland enemy design.

Most of the WotC monsters are a bit vanilla. That is their intent unfortunately.

 

[Chess435]

Wow this thread really blew up! I'm super excited to see how the divine scaling and tiers work out, especially in regards to how Post-20 power progression works, and balancing the bounded accuracy limitations of the D20 system vs. truly expressing the power levels of immortals, sidereals, and beyond.

In regards to challenge rating as a whole, I've always considered CR's as a whole to be approximately 10-20% higher than what they ought to be, even for sub-epic play. I'm not sure if WotC has really low expectations from the average party, but all too often I've seen "deadly" encounters by RAW get torn to shreds in a couple of rounds, at all levels of play. I'm all for juicing up what should be terrifying fundamental aspects of the universe to have a stat block that properly reflects that, rather than having to constantly homebrew monsters or wildly overestimate on CR just to challenge a party.

 

[dave2008]

In regards to challenge rating as a whole, I've always considered CR's as a whole to be approximately 10-20% higher than what they ought to be, even for sub-epic play. I'm not sure if WotC has really low expectations from the average party, but all too often I've seen "deadly" encounters by RAW get torn to shreds in a couple of rounds, at all levels of play.

It definitely depends on the group. I DM for 2 groups in 5e and one could barely handle deadly encounter and the other could trash them fairly regularly. However, I will point our that the WotC definition of "deadly" is not my definition and I think the source of a lot of confusion. Per the WotC definition "deadly" only means:

"...could be lethal for one or more player characters..."

Basically it is saying one PC might be knocked to 0. That to me is not a deadly battle. A truly deadly battle risks death (50% chance or more) for the whole party IMO. Luckily the game math gives you tools to handle those too, but they are not very up front with it!

I'm all for juicing up what should be terrifying fundamental aspects of the universe to have a stat block that properly reflects that, rather than having to constantly homebrew monsters or wildly overestimate on CR just to challenge a party.

If I can't homebrew monsters, what is even the point of playing the game!

 

[le Redoutable]

just one question ( that just springs to my mind ) :
of what a power level are Toons ( like Daffy Duck and the like ) ?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy dave2008 mate!

Yes, and IMO (and WotC apparently) they should be accounted for in the CR calculation.

Yet in so doing they made ALL their epic monsters completely weak pushovers that get stomped by epic tier characters,

You are not weakening monsters by adding legendary actions. I think a see your perspective, but I don't agree with that viewpoint. The idea of "adding LA" is a meta viewpoint that doesn't have anything to do with the actual monster design IMO.

Indirectly you are weakening them though.

If you don't count LA in the CR, then your CR is meaningless.

Wrong, I am building it into the CR gradually rather than all at once.

You are essential making a new type of monster (like a 4e elite or solo or 5e mythic) at the same CR. Are you adjusting the XP of these monsters if you are not adjusting the CR? Are you calling it something than Legendary Actions since they impact the monster differently?

Only Mythic Monsters get their XP adjusted.

I actually don't mind these changes and they could be good. However, I hope you are clear that:

1. You are not using the DMG guidelines
2. You making new monster type

If you don't do that, then your are basically lying and confusing your users / players. So go with your design changes, just make it clear that these are changes / a different paradigm.

I'm using the primary factors not the secondary factors, because they are a waste of time (assuming you don't go overboard with pages of actions).

That is not how that works IMO. You don't need to nerf anything, you just admit they are more powerful. Right now you are saying: hey you have all of these new actions, but really these don't make you any stronger wink, wink. They do make you stronger so that should be reflected by increasing the CR IMO.

If PC immortals get Legendary Actions then you can't nerf the NPC immortals who have them. I prefer a level playing field.

I will also add that I think LA for players is a mistake, but I will be interested to see how it works. I tried that route at first, but it lead to nearly incomprehensible game play for my test group.

I disagree. Actions that effect DPR should be included in CR.

DPR is already counted for with the Primary factors. If something looks completely bonkers (permanent damage for instance) I'll make a judgement call on toning the damage down but unless its a complete game changer I'll leave it as is - epic PCs are helluva tough.

OK, it doesn't seem that random to me, but more structure would make it easier to design. I don't have an issue assign them personally, because I understand how they impact CR! I also like the flexibility of changing things up. Teleport being one action for one monster, may be 3 actions for another. I hope that flexibility remains.

As regards teleport, a 3 action version might be an interupt. But two vanilla teleports should both be 1 action, not 1 for this guy and 3 for this guy.

I always like more dragons and I've seen many versions of 5e dragons. So far mine are still my favorite, but I think I may need to do a simplification pass.

I don't necessarily see a lot of value in that.

Sure, but that is the same for the DMG guidelines. The only difference is a bit higher.

Unnecessarily so in my opinion.

I disagree. From actual play experience, so secondary modifiers can have a big effect on the challenge of a monster.

I don't see any advantage in your system for existing monsters. I will see when the full rules are in my hand. I see some value for new monsters as long as your clear these are different as previously mentioned.

Yes best to wait and see for yourself.

I don't have an opinion on what the CR is. The CR is what it needs to be to express the design intent.

Without some sort of structure to it there is no point. Power is RELATIVE. Demon Princes contest with one another because they are all on a similar strata of power. That's why WotC have them at similar CR's.

I need to know how powerful these gods are within a fairly tight 'bandwidth'. Otherwise titles (like Demon Prince) become meaningless.

For me, demon princes should not be able to be defeated by lvl 20 characters.

Ever? Seven Level 20 characters are tougher than four, for instance.

You need characters beyond level 20, either with boons or 3PP products. So, when I initially redesigned the demon princes they were CR 31-34. I did another design of demogorgon for someone else and it is CR 28 mythic / elite. But for my own work I would make it higher CR.

I'm sure it will have a bunch of good ideas. I look forward to it!

I'll try to have a few in there.

 

[Upper_Krust]

No you don't, Orcus 2.0 is using the DMG guidelines which include LA in the damage.

I know that - I was giving my opinion of it...which is the damage is far too low to be a problem for epic PCs.

Orcus is not a standard monster with legendary actions added. It is a legendary monster - which includes LA.

Which, IMO is a flawed perspective.

This is the one that baffles me still, why wouldn't you include LA in the DPR calculation. If you don't, it completely invalidates the CR. I mean why calculate CR at all if you not include a large amount of damage in that calculation.

If PC immortals get them as EXTRA, so do NPC monsters.

Plus (again), my way isn't as random.

Most of the WotC monsters are a bit vanilla. That is their intent unfortunately.

It just presents a better opportunity for other epic content I suppose.