D&D 5E (2014) DMG page 274.

[JEB]

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.

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...)

 

[the Jester]

But the lower end seems rather a very rough estimate and it would lead to a game where fights last many rounds. Maybe it is the intention, for a 4e module, that you usually use more defensively orientated creatures...but for the game presented in the MM, it just seems off...

Play the game. Most low-level fights are over in 3 rounds or less.

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.

Just because the monsters in the MM are balancing acts doesn't mean that you can't use the numbers on the table to quick-generate a monster. You absolutely can. You just can't expect that monster to remain at the same CR if you start adding a bunch of resistances, regeneration and other CR-affecting traits.

Look, here's a custom CR 1 war beast built from the charts, instantly: AC 13; hp 75; bite +3 (2d10+1 damage). Boom. Done.

 

[Grazzt]

Play the game. Most low-level fights are over in 3 rounds or less.



Just because the monsters in the MM are balancing acts doesn't mean that you can't use the numbers on the table to quick-generate a monster. You absolutely can. You just can't expect that monster to remain at the same CR if you start adding a bunch of resistances, regeneration and other CR-affecting traits.

Look, here's a custom CR 1 war beast built from the charts, instantly: AC 13; hp 75; bite +3 (2d10+1 damage). Boom. Done.

Interesting thing about that, and maybe it is resistances, etc. is that the average CR 1 monster in the MM has 31 hp or so (removing the quasit and imp from the equation since both hit points on those are extremely low). (If you remove the kuo toa whip, 65 hp, the highest CR 1 in the MM, the average drops to just over 30 hp.)

 

[JEB]

Just because the monsters in the MM are balancing acts doesn't mean that you can't use the numbers on the table to quick-generate a monster. You absolutely can. You just can't expect that monster to remain at the same CR if you start adding a bunch of resistances, regeneration and other CR-affecting traits.

Look, here's a custom CR 1 war beast built from the charts, instantly: AC 13; hp 75; bite +3 (2d10+1 damage). Boom. Done.

Yes, you can use those stats. You can use any stats you want. But when they're so far off the stats of the official CR 1 monsters (triple the hit points, for starters!), it seems pretty unfair to pit that against four 1st-level characters.

I guess I just don't understand why they created a chart that requires so much averaging and shifting to create monsters similar to the official ones. Why not calibrate the chart to the creatures they already made and use them as a starting point?

 

[the Jester]

Interesting thing about that, and maybe it is resistances, etc. is that the average CR 1 monster in the MM has 31 hp or so (removing the quasit and imp from the equation since both hit points on those are extremely low). (If you remove the kuo toa whip, 65 hp, the highest CR 1 in the MM, the average drops to just over 30 hp.)

Look at their damage and attack bonus, too- most CR 1 monsters probably have a higher offensive CR to make encounters more interesting. The low-offense, high-defense CR 1 monster would be a very boring fight (shades of early 4e!); a high-offense, low-defense CR 1 monster leads to a scary and fast combat.

 

[Grazzt]

Look at their damage and attack bonus, too- most CR 1 monsters probably have a higher offensive CR to make encounters more interesting. The low-offense, high-defense CR 1 monster would be a very boring fight (shades of early 4e!); a high-offense, low-defense CR 1 monster leads to a scary and fast combat.

Yep. Brown bear falls into this category I believe. Like around CR 3 for Offensive CR (damage output, attack bonus), but CR 1/8 for Defensive CR (hit points, nothing it has modifies its effective hp).

 

[Tormyr]

Yes, you can use those stats. You can use any stats you want. But when they're so far off the stats of the official CR 1 monsters (triple the hit points, for starters!), it seems pretty unfair to pit that against four 1st-level characters.

I guess I just don't understand why they created a chart that requires so much averaging and shifting to create monsters similar to the official ones. Why not calibrate the chart to the creatures they already made and use them as a starting point?

I think it comes down to what would be the most interesting in a fight. There really isn't anything unfair about sending a CR 1 "by the chart" creature. The 4 person team will most likely tear the CR 1 creature apart. It will hit 1 of the 4 guys less than half the time (more likely 33% of the time)

A quick playtest with a level 1 Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard
HP 80, AC 13, 2 attacks at 1d8 + 1 Avg 11, AB 3
Initiative: Fighter, Creature, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric
Round 1: Fighter hit for 10, Creature hits Fighter 1 time for 5 , Wizard uses magic missile for 12, Rogue hits once for 11, Cleric uses Healing Word to heal Fighter for 4 and hits for 8
Creature 39 hp. Fighter 11 hp Everyone else at full.
Round 2: Fighter miss, Creature misses twice, Wizard crit ray of frost for 6, Rogue hits twice for 12, Cleric hits for 5
Creature 16 hp, Fighter 11 hp, Everyone else at full
Round 3: Fighter miss, Creature hits rogue once for 3, Wizard uses ray of frost for 8, Rogue hits twice for 11 and creature is down

The party ended up with 4 damage and 2 used spell slots. I know the dice could have gone a different way, but this seems like a Medium encounter to me.

The MM creatures have special abilities that modify their difficulty. The easiest way to balance that difficulty back out is to pull back some on the HP. My guess is that is why the MM monsters have hp less than suggested.

 

[Leatherhead]

Yes, you can use those stats. You can use any stats you want. But when they're so far off the stats of the official CR 1 monsters (triple the hit points, for starters!), it seems pretty unfair to pit that against four 1st-level characters.

I guess I just don't understand why they created a chart that requires so much averaging and shifting to create monsters similar to the official ones. Why not calibrate the chart to the creatures they already made and use them as a starting point?

You have to consider the monsters role in encounters. Many of the official lower-CR creatures are intended to be "minions" and should be glass cannons to represent that kind of thing. And thanks to bounded accuracy, having a good AC means some HP has to come down.

Personally, I like the building block approach even more than I liked the generic stat block. Being able to do some quick +/- on either side of the equation to add abilities or change combat roles is the kind of modularity I was looking for. I just wish there was quick saving throw ballpark on the table, even if adding the proficiency bonus to the main stat(s) is the only thing you have to worry about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Play the game. Most low-level fights are over in 3 rounds or less.



Just because the monsters in the MM are balancing acts doesn't mean that you can't use the numbers on the table to quick-generate a monster. You absolutely can. You just can't expect that monster to remain at the same CR if you start adding a bunch of resistances, regeneration and other CR-affecting traits.

Look, here's a custom CR 1 war beast built from the charts, instantly: AC 13; hp 75; bite +3 (2d10+1 damage). Boom. Done.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You have to consider the monsters role in encounters. Many of the official lower-CR creatures are intended to be "minions" and should be glass cannons to represent that kind of thing. And thanks to bounded accuracy, having a good AC means some HP has to come down.

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...