Here's the Abyssal Sibriex From Mordenkainen's Tome

This....thing...is....AWESOME!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm coming from 1st edition, having largely skipped 3rd and completely skipped 4e, so maybe that's why I'm not so hung up on CR.

In 1st edition the monsters actual hp total formed part of the calculation for it's xp value xp: XP = a + b*hp.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That brings back memories of "attacks like a 16 HD monster" (which I believe a T-rex was, so that impressed young Mechatarrasque's mind greatly).

I think CR is useful for monster summoning rules, and a starting place for considering monsters in your in fight, but I don't think it is end all. 5e is very much flavor to taste.

 

[jadrax]

I believe that is highly unlikely. Just because they are listed as average doesn't mean a creature with above average HP would have the same CR as an average monster. I find that logic very questionable. Are you suggesting changing the HP of an Ancient red dragon from 546 to 812 doesn't make it more challenging? That it shouldn't change the CR? If a group is challenged by CR 24 average red dragon, wouldn't be more challenged by the same dragon, but with 49% more hit points? Now, all I think is needed is a little description of how dialing up or down the HP affect the CR of the monster or the challenge of the encounter (however you want to track it).

O.k., Lets flip this on its head. If you have a party where everyone has rolled under average hit points, say they all have around 49% less, then monsters wold be significantly harder to defeat. Would you increase the Challenge of the monsters due to that?

 

[Saint_Ridley]

I can't decide if I think the art makes it look more or less disgusting than its 3.5 art. Only a slight nod to its original Obyrith flavor in 3.5, but that's manageable. I love it.

 

[dave2008]

O.k., Lets flip this on its head. If you have a party where everyone has rolled under average hit points, say they all have around 49% less, then monsters wold be significantly harder to defeat. Would you increase the Challenge of the monsters due to that?

Personally no, but that is because we don't use XP, CR, etc.

I do think the DMG should have a discussion about modifying monsters and/or CR/XP and/or encounter difficulty as needed for below average groups as well as above average groups. So, in general, Yes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Do you really consider exploiting what you know about the PCs to be completely wrong? I mean aren’t you already adjusting things based on their level? I mean it shouldn’t be a contest and a DM shouldn’t try to win, but a smart bad guy would try and figure out things and case the players, through Sherlock like intellect sometimes. I can’t do that, but as DM we can simulate that, because we already know things.

What level do you assume this is solo for?

Higher than 13 or so he’s probably not boss fight but a lackey. Still I do say he needs support. Probably exhausted drained PCs at the end of the day and terrain and even lackeys.

There's a huge gulf between what you CAN do roleplaying a smart, evil enemy, and what you SHOULD do. For example, the PC's in my campaign are enemies with a sect of Norgorber (god of murder/secrets). No one is vigilant at all times. Should I just state "hey, during your downtime, you were ambushed by 6 assassins while alone and killed"? We could play it out, but a solo PC would just straight up die, so it's basically a waste of everyone's time rolling the dice. I mean, realistically, no one is always vigilant and the characters don't live together. Should I just say "Oh, also your friend the blacksmith and that gnome innkeeper and his family are all dead"? It's not like they have class levels or even HP to protect them. It's realistic and technically "fair", it just isn't fun. D&D is basically a series of underhanded slow pitches by the DM.

In-combat uses for their high intelligence (ie, 4E style positioning tricks), better defenses (they saw your attack coming and it misses, using one unit of legendary avoidance) would seem more fair when initiative is actually rolled.

Using high level enemies as solos also comes with problems, namely their offense is too high if the defenses are good enough to stand up to 2 rounds of focus fire. Basically everything in the 5E MM is a paper tiger.

 

[Swift Nimblefoot]

I dunno why everyone is complaining about hit points every time they reveal a new monster. I remember when in 2E, 150 hit points was something reserved for stuff like Tiamat herself. I don't know whether 5E continued the 3E trend where you can increase your starting scores as you gain levels (so a higher level fighter would have a strenght rivaling a giant, something I always found unrealistic), but if not, then I'd say 150 HP is totally OK for a CR18 creature.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Superman can utterly destroy Lex Luthor in a fight.

But does anyone think that's what Lex should do? Get into a fist fight with Superman?

Yeah, the thing is, Superman has a code to not just go break Lex's neck the moment he gives a speech (Snyderverse notwithstanding). PC's are much less inclined to not simply murder a floaty demon head thing.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

There seems to be a lot of complaints about there being not enough hit points whether it has 150, 300, or even 4.5376 x 10^12 Hit Points, it still wouldn't be enough.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, the thing is, Superman has a code to not just go break Lex's neck the moment he gives a speech (Snyderverse notwithstanding). PC's are much less inclined to not simply murder a floaty demon head thing.

This does nothing to counter my point.