D&D 5E DMG Creating Monster Disparity

[Jester David]

Because the DMG was finished two months after the Monster Manual, and the chart for CR came after. Especially when you get to higher level monsters there's some stuff that really, really don't feel likely the challenge is appropriate (*cough* lich *cough*).

 

[DaveDash]

Because the DMG was finished two months after the Monster Manual, and the chart for CR came after. Especially when you get to higher level monsters there's some stuff that really, really don't feel likely the challenge is appropriate (*cough* lich *cough*).

This is basically the real reason why. Easily proven by the fact that the authors of HoTDQ said they didn't even have a CR system back then.

There a massive difference in MM CR and DMG CR as you start getting higher levels, even using defensive/offensive CR ratings the same.

I think WoTC basically had some rough idea, threw the numbers on, and tweaked some with play testing. Others are WAY off. All mu custom monsters built with the DMG end up hitting way harder AND have way more hitpoints than their MM equivalents.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

(*cough* lich *cough*).

Too easy or too hard?

 

[pemerton]

Regarding solos, few of the monsters outside of legendary creatures are actually good at being solos. This is primarily because the party can very effectively gang up on most single monsters and unload on it.

<snip>

The legendary monsters may look great, but they are not really any more difficult, and therefore no more appropriate to be a solo, than another monster of the same CR. The legendary monster generally has lower hp and other stats when compared to a monster of the same CR because that is how it "pays" for its legendary resistance and legendary actions.

Having run a few test encounters against a creature with the stats from the table in the DMG, the encounter for a 4 PC on 1 monster fight lasts about the same amount of time (3 rounds) as another similar CR monster from the MM. The HP may look great, but the PCs motor through it quickly.

Have you got any experience on what happens if you build higher-than-party-level CR monsters, but emphasising defence rather than offence?

If you do: do those monsters last long enough to be interesting? or do they just turn into boring hp slogs?

 

[ExploderWizard]

One of the campaigns I run has 7 PCs so I usually end up using creatures on the higher CR end of the scale for the party AND in greater numbers. A party of 7 level four characters can pump out a LOT of damage while being very resilient. For this group I'm having to heavily wing it with CR related stuff anyway. Even with higher HP totals I haven't had much of a problem with combats dragging on.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Have you got any experience on what happens if you build higher-than-party-level CR monsters, but emphasising defence rather than offence?

If you do: do those monsters last long enough to be interesting? or do they just turn into boring hp slogs?

Fewer monsters will mean fewer actions for team monster. The number of actions is a multiplier on team monster's damage output. So having less monsters will greatly decrease the threat which will lead to a slog.

4E tried to deal with this a bit by having the monster change at half HPs and recharge powers to keep things interesting, but it wasn't nearly enough. If you want to avoid players "I do the same thing I did last round to the same target, yawn" then you'll need to add in more moving parts like traps and environment, or more monsters that get summoned, or big interesting effects on the monster that alter play.

 

[Tormyr]

Have you got any experience on what happens if you build higher-than-party-level CR monsters, but emphasising defence rather than offence?

If you do: do those monsters last long enough to be interesting? or do they just turn into boring hp slogs?

Since I am converting a 3.5 AP, there are a few solos in it. I also have had between 6 and 8 players at my table over the last year. To make the solos last, I have taken to bumping the hp of solos to make up for the extra players. Up until something like CR15 the effective HP for each CR level is 15 different. I forget off the top of my head how the math worked, but I found that 4 times the hp bump would move the CR of the monster up enough to keep the challenge the "same" for the party when taking on an extra PC above 4. So for monsters without resistances or immunities below about CR 15, adding 60 HP per extra PC will keep the challenge of the solo encounter about the same. For creatures whose resistances or immunities give them double effective HP, adding 30 HP per PC works.

I have used this for an ulgurstat, froghemoth, abyssal ghoul, and adult black dragon to good effect. The monsters stick around long enough to do their damage and threaten the PCs. By focusing on HP instead of DPR, the monsters stick around longer and get more hits in rather than having huge hits that risk 1 shot kills.

This has been the only situation where I have used monsters with the DCR bumped up like that. For a 4 person party it may be a little bit of a slog, and the monster may stick around long enough for the party to blow through most of their resources, but that is speculation.

 

[Quickleaf]

Too easy or too hard?

From eye balling the Lich, I'd say it suffers form the glass cannon problem. While I haven't played high level 5e yet, I have noticed the players' perceived threat of glass cannon monsters depends a lot on the encounter setup. If they get the drop on the monster, they can shut it down before it gets to show off it's scary DPR. On the other hand, if things go wrong for them, they can go very wrong.

One of the "art" aspects of monster design is recognizing how much you can push the Defense vs. Offense challenge of a monster at a given level range before you've gone too far.

Another somewhat "artistic" thing to bear in mind when making 5e monsters is that certain traits are highly suggestive of what level of play the monster should be encountered at (independent of how they influence CR calculations). For example, immunity to nonmagical weapon damage (e.g. a Wererat) is not something to throw lightly against a party of 1st level PCs who haven't had the time to acquire magical or silvered weapons, no matter if your "XP budget" appears to make such and encounter "difficult."

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of the "art" aspects of monster design is recognizing how much you can push the Defense vs. Offense challenge of a monster at a given level range before you've gone too far.

Another somewhat "artistic" thing to bear in mind when making 5e monsters is that certain traits are highly suggestive of what level of play the monster should be encountered at (independent of how they influence CR calculations). For example, immunity to nonmagical weapon damage (e.g. a Wererat) is not something to throw lightly against a party of 1st level PCs who haven't had the time to acquire magical or silvered weapons, no matter if your "XP budget" appears to make such and encounter "difficult."

There's a lot of situational circumstances that WotC seems cool with. Like, a wererat vs. a 1st level party still takes damage from spells just fine, and anyone can buy a vial of alchemist's fire or acid and go to town. So something like immunity to weapon damage isn't a dealbreaker, it's just that you should give that dude lower HP's....sometimes?....

 

[Chocolategravy]

From eye balling the Lich, I'd say it suffers form the glass cannon problem. While I haven't played high level 5e yet, I have noticed the players' perceived threat of glass cannon monsters depends a lot on the encounter setup. If they get the drop on the monster, they can shut it down before it gets to show off it's scary DPR. On the other hand, if things go wrong for them, they can go very wrong.

One of the "art" aspects of monster design is recognizing how much you can push the Defense vs. Offense challenge of a monster at a given level range before you've gone too far.

Another somewhat "artistic" thing to bear in mind when making 5e monsters is that certain traits are highly suggestive of what level of play the monster should be encountered at (independent of how they influence CR calculations). For example, immunity to nonmagical weapon damage (e.g. a Wererat) is not something to throw lightly against a party of 1st level PCs who haven't had the time to acquire magical or silvered weapons, no matter if your "XP budget" appears to make such and encounter "difficult."

A lot of it comes down to how the DM plays it too. If the DM plays monsters as all wanting suicide by adventurer then they tend to be a lot easier. Vampires, for instance, if played suicidally, are **very** easy to deal with, but if a DM uses them intelligently, like a creature that wants to remain unliving, then doing hit and runs with the charm and shape change abilities can very easily result in a TPK.