D&D 5E DMG page 274.

[UngeheuerLich]

So why is it a problem?

One thing to remember is that the HP, AC, DPR, and AB are effective stats, not the actual stats for the creature. Even at higher levels, the creatures don't have that much HP. The Adult Red Dragon is 60 HP low. The Air Elemental is 50 HP low. The Yeti is 60 HP low.

Have you played much 5e yet?

Yes, I have played it a lot. I don´t have any problems with the monsters presented in the MM, the DMG guidelines at higher CR are good, just the low end seems so much off target...

Combat using the low-level creatures in the MM generally goes very fast. It is usually just a few rounds. That probably is why creatures are skewed the way they are at the low levels. A CR 1/4 creature that had HP 40, AC 13, DPR 4, and AB 3 seems like it would not be very interesting. It would not have any CR altering traits. It would not do much damage. At level 1, the players would be hitting it regularly but not getting anywhere quickly.

This is exactly my problem. Using the guidelines, you get boring fights.

 

[Tormyr]

Yes, I have played it a lot. I don´t have any problems with the monsters presented in the MM, the DMG guidelines at higher CR are good, just the low end seems so much off target...

This is exactly my problem. Using the guidelines, you get boring fights.

Sorry, I got the wrong impression from your reference about fights dragging on. However, I disagree on the guidelines giving boring fights. The guidelines give the option for a great variety of CR creatures, but even the "stock" CR1 creature with 80 hp has a fight that is still over in 3 rounds. Even then, there is an element of danger in the fight. There is still the chance that the creature hits for 11 or more damage and knocks someone out in 1 round.

But whether a DM uses a "stock" CR1 creature or 1 from the MM that has been adjusted one way or another, combat for a level 1 party is still going to be over in about 3 rounds or less, and it has to be that way. If combat didn't resolve within a few rounds regardless of how the CR1 creature was built, the PCs would suffer from the result of the gambler's fallacy, and eventually too many results would go against them for their meager resources to deal with. A fight that is over in 3 rounds or less doesn't really have time to become boring in my opinion.

 

[Tormyr]

That is what I also thought. Official low CR Monsters are Minion Type... Maybe a little more differentiated approach would have helped here insead of One guideline. The DMG guidelines seem to present a more 4e design approach. Low damage, high hp. fights that last for a while.
I would have liked offensive CR and defensive CR spellt out in the Monster Stat block. Would really help to create fun encounters.
Also 2 kinds of Tables in the DMG, one for more offensive monsters, one for more defensive monsters would also work. Not that I believe it is terrible or so, but the CR 1/8 HP range 7-30 is way too high. 7 HP, down in one blow. 30hp, Soaking up a complete parties attacks for one round. Makes a very very different kind of creature. And in my opinion not granular enough.
Most CR 1/2 creatures have less than 25 hp. So I´d like to have CR 1/8 at 7-14, CR 1/4 15-30 CR 1/2 31-45 or something like that. Having that big jump at CR 1/8 seems not like a good approach...

Even with the low damage, high hp creature, fights don't drag. 3 or fewer rounds on average is a pretty quick fight.

While its true that the stat block when viewed on its own is very static, the actual guidelines that accompany it provide a wide array of directions a DM can go. They don't focus on a 4e design approach in my opinion because they allow you to create the "average" creature or something that does more damage. You need that big HP jump between CR levels because that and DPR are the currency you spend to add traits and other special stuff. If the DM does not modify the HP or DPR as other powerful abilities are added, the creature ceases to be a CR1 creature.

The HP of creatures in the MM are lower than the stat block in the DMG because the creatures are modified in other areas as well. If the DMG tables had CR 1/8 at 7-14, CR 1/4 15-30, CR 1/2 31-45 then the base AC, DPR, and AB would have to be higher, and not all creatures in the MM are built that way. The other thing is that the stat table is listing effective HP, AC, DPR, and AB. Traits and other special abilities modify these in a way that will not be displayed in a creatures stat block in the MM.

Perhaps even more compelling of an argument is that having the high HP in the table allows for the AC, DPR, and AB to scale from low numbers at CR < 1 to high numbers at CR 30. A CR 1/8 creature with 7-14 hp falls within the existing guidelines, although it is a bit on the low side. A CR 1/4 creature with 15-30 hp would need an AC of 15, a DPR of 7, or an AB of 5 to balance out the lower HP. If the lower HP is codified, then at least 1 of those changes would need to be codified as well. The DPR would be the best candidate from a standpoint of keeping the AC and AB scaling from low to high, but it makes the creatures more swingy by default. The higher DPR and lower hp would continue all the way up to CR 30 to provide a constant progression. This could be done, but as I mentioned before, it might make the creatures even more swingy if that is the default that everything is built off of.

It seems that HP more than anything else is the currency used to purchase, higher AC, AB, DPR, traits or other special abilities. The end result is that the HP in published monsters is lower than the effective HP listed in the CR table in the DMG.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Even with hp being the currency, I still believe, it would have been easier to have CR < 1 hp scale differently. And instead AC bar raised a bit for CR < 1 creatures. Even if it is good the way it is now... and i believe so, it is still unintuitive.

But thanks for yur elaboration I guess that helps!

 

[the Jester]

I do play the game. Yes, most fights are over in 3 rounds... some took longer...
I am not speaking of the game presented in the MM. It works well. But nearly all monsters in the CR 1/4 range have way lower hp than the guidelines in the DMG propose. Which is good in my opinion.

Right, but it's because their offensive CR is higher.

The guidelines are very flexible. That table is just part of the process.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, but one should, in theory, be able to use the "CR 2" line for a quick on-the-fly monster, hp and all. However, in practice, that seems not to be the case - every monster appears to be a balancing act. Which is unfortunate - instant monsters were possible in 4E, but not this edition!

Kinda makes me want to create an alternate table that reflects the actual observed average HP for a monster of that level.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Crawford officially confirmed that the table is supposed to be listing average hp and damage. So yep, you all were right! (And now I can get rid of my Twitter account...)

Oh, you CAN use the CR 2 line for a quick monster. He's got your choice of any number between 86 and 100 (inclusive) hit points, AC 13, Proficiency bonus 2, a +3 attack bonus total (so his attack stat is a 12 or 13), does 16-20 damage per round (call it 2d8+1 x2 or 1d10+1 x3, or 5d6...), and anything he does that uses a save uses a save DC of 13. Or it could be 1d4 x2 plus an area effect of 2d6 or 3d4, with a save...

 

[Grazzt]

Oh, you CAN use the CR 2 line for a quick monster. He's got your choice of any number between 86 and 100 (inclusive) hit points, AC 13, Proficiency bonus 2, a +3 attack bonus total (so his attack stat is a 12 or 13), does 16-20 damage per round (call it 2d8+1 x2 or 1d10+1 x3, or 5d6...), and anything he does that uses a save uses a save DC of 13. Or it could be 1d4 x2 plus an area effect of 2d6 or 3d4, with a save...

Technically, you can vary AC or attack bonus up or down by +/- 1 and still be the same CR. Only adjusts if it is +/- 2 points higher/lower. So this CR 2 guy could have an attack bonus of +2 to +4 and an AC of 12-14.