D&D 5E Issues with the "NPCs" in the MM and HotDQ (SPOILERS!)

[pemerton]

the ability of a monster to hit an opponent was always related to the HD of the monster, not the challenge rating. And now NPCs are also done that way in both the MM and HotDQ.

Well, AC used to start at 9 or 10 (depending on edition) and go down, whereas now it starts at 10 and goes up.

In 3E a two-handed sword does 2d6, and likewise in 5e, whereas in AD&D and B/X it did d10.

These are mechanical changes made for mechanical reasons. They don't tell us anything about the underlying fiction.

The inconsistency I am trying to highlight here is the fact that in all previous editions I have played, HD and level were nearly synonymous

[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] has pointed out two cases where, in AD&D, this was not the case: a 10th level fighter has only 9 HD, and a monster's level (from I to X) is not, in general, equivalent to its HD.

Here's another little-known AD&D fact: according to the DMG, whereas a PC half-orc attacks on the class-appropriate "to hit" table, an NPC half-orc attacks on the monster table (with HD equivalent to level).

Changing these various rules over the years isn't inconsistency, it's just difference. Differences driven by mechanical considerations.

 

[Sparrowhawc]

Aha, I see what happened here. I am guessing that you may not be familiar with monster level in early D&D? It's an actual specific game term. Monsters were measured as "level" I through X, depending on how tough they were. Generally, a monster was most likely to appear on a dungeon level of its level, though this varied an awful lot. It had very little to do with HD; for instance, a high damage monster that had save or die poison might only have 1 HD but could be level II or III, while a 10 HD monster might only be level IV if it didn't have many special abilities. (I'm spitballing here, as my 1e books are at my gf's house, but you get the idea.)

I had completely forgot about that whole monster level thing until I saw the roman numerals in your post. Really digging deep into the memory vaults on that one. Consulting the good book on that for a refresher, the monster level is more akin to the CR. There is a chart on page 174 of the DMG that breaks out percent chance of which monster level monster would be present in a specific level of dungeon. But you kind of helped reinforce my one point though...monster level was a rating of overall monster strength/power but did not affect it's chance to hit. A 10 HD level IV monster still has the attack roll based on the 10 HD. In 5e, a 10 HD monster (try the Ettin) with a CR 4 gets a +2 PB based on the CR instead of a +4 PB due to 10 HD.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Double post

 

[ruleslawyer]

OK, this will probably be long winded so please bear with me. I’ll be quoting multiple threads as well.



No that is not what I mean. HD has been used from the beginning to determine a monster’s ability to hit a target just like level for a PC. The higher the HD the better the chance to hit. Check the following sources:

1. Basic D&D from 1979 rule book page 19
2. Basic D&D from 1981 rule book page B27
3. Expert D&D from 1981 rule book page X26
4. AD&D DMG page 75
5. 2e D&D DMG page 53

Under 3e, the Base Attack Bonus (BAB) was determined by the Type of creature, number of HD, and a PC class reference for progression; i.e. an 8 HD giant would use a 6 level cleric BAB. Reference Core Rule Book III Monster Manual page 13.

I don’t know about 4e as I didn’t play that rule set. 5e uses CR to determine the proficiency bonus used for attacks, not HD.

Ah, I see. So your concern is simply that monster HD are not used to determine base attack bonus? Because that is literally the only issue you raise here. That has very little to do with the connection between monster and NPC class level and CR.

Honestly, I don't know what you're arguing at this point. If you're saying that CR has to be a function of HD then designers of every single edition of D&D seem to disagree. If you're arguing that there has to be HD/CR/level parity then ditto.

Look at it this way:

1) a 1e vampire MU12 is two levels (monster level X) above a vanilla vampire with no changes in HD or THAC0.

2) Ravenloft 2e setting strahd is a creature with 16 levels of necromancer specialist wizard, the THAC0 and attacks of a 10th-level fighter, and 12 Hit Dice (ancient vampire).

3) Ravenloft 3e Strahd is a CR 23 vampire Ftr5/Wiz15 with 20 HD.

4) Strahd's monster-caster counterpart Vercinabex Tor ("Kings of the Rift" from the Age of Worms AP) is a CR 18 frost giant Sor16 with 30 HD.

Oh, and extra fun and games? Strahd as an NPC is considered CR 23, the equivalent of his human Wiz23 buddy. Turn him into a PC and he becomes a 28th-level NPC, the equivalent of a human who somehow needs 5 HD and levels to compete.

Honestly, I'm just curious as to what you're getting at here. It would be helpful if you could delve into issues that you think need solving in a defined manner.

 

[Sparrowhawc]

Well, AC used to start at 9 or 10 (depending on edition) and go down, whereas now it starts at 10 and goes up.

In 3E a two-handed sword does 2d6, and likewise in 5e, whereas in AD&D and B/X it did d10.

These are mechanical changes made for mechanical reasons. They don't tell us anything about the underlying fiction.

[MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] has pointed out two cases where, in AD&D, this was not the case: a 10th level fighter has only 9 HD, and a monster's level (from I to X) is not, in general, equivalent to its HD.

Here's another little-known AD&D fact: according to the DMG, whereas a PC half-orc attacks on the class-appropriate "to hit" table, an NPC half-orc attacks on the monster table (with HD equivalent to level).

Changing these various rules over the years isn't inconsistency, it's just difference. Differences driven by mechanical considerations.

I get that we are not privy to the "behind the curtain" reasons for some of the changes. At times, some have clear reasons; changing the AC made sense based on the overall rule changes, i.e. the advent of difficulty checks. Other changes, not so much, i.e. why use CR to determine to hit bonus instead of HD?

What Jester points out about the 10th level fighter having a 9 HD equivalent on the monster table as well as your half-orc example are what I would deem inconsistencies within the rule set. In the Half-orc scenario you raise, the NPC has a better chance of striking the opponent by at least 5%, depending on class. Monsters and NPCs with the same number of HD as a PC character had an advantage just based on the numbers in the charts. A 1HD orc always has a better chance of hitting than a 1st level PC. At 2HD the disparity gets larger.

To me, these are all inconsistencies. I never said the other rule sets didn't have them, I was just focusing on one I perceive in 5e which is actually, at least to me, flipping the advantage to the PC instead of the monster/NPC.

 

[pemerton]

I get that we are not privy to the "behind the curtain" reasons for some of the changes.

<snip>

why use CR to determine to hit bonus instead of HD?

The best answer is probably found on [MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION]'s blog, but I think the answer is to keep monsters that will be dealing with PCs of a given level at bonuses and saving throw DCs comparable to those PCs.

 

[surfarcher]

The best answer is probably found on [MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION]'s blog, but I think the answer is to keep monsters that will be dealing with PCs of a given level at bonuses and saving throw DCs comparable to those PCs.

Yep. It's also about HP and Damage output... Well properly CR is about a monster's total Defense and Offense combined.

CR is what aligns a monster with PC "level". IMHO it would have been best to use Level 30 instead of CR30, but that ship has sailed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I get that we are not privy to the "behind the curtain" reasons for some of the changes. At times, some have clear reasons; changing the AC made sense based on the overall rule changes, i.e. the advent of difficulty checks. Other changes, not so much, i.e. why use CR to determine to hit bonus instead of HD?

To elaborate slightly on what others have said:

In combat, the "difficulty" of an enemy is determined entirely by how quickly the monster can kill you in comparison to how quickly you can kill the enemy. The factors in this somewhat complicated formula are: AC, HP, Saves, To Hit, Damage, Special abilities.

A monster with an 8 AC and 10 hitpoints can still be extremely dangerous if it has +20 to hit for 40d6 points of damage. Though it will be randomly dangerous and randomly extremely easy. The same thing happens if it has a save or die ability.

What CR should this creature be? It can easily hit and kill level 10 PCs without much of a problem. But if the PCs can avoid even one attack then they'll win easily and it wasn't that big of a challenge.

Now, consider that creature if its attack bonus is based on its hitdice. It would likely be +3. The only people it would ever be truly dangerous against is low level people. Now level 10 PCs are unlikely to be hit at all and it virtually guarantees they'll win every time.

Basically, basing the To Hit bonus off of CR says "I'd like monsters that the PCs fight to not be hoping for natural 20s to hit while still being able to construct glass cannon type enemies." Without it, every enemy that has +20 to hit ALSO needs to have 200 hitpoints. It's nice to be able to make monsters who are extremely easy to kill but do a lot of damage from time to time. However, the reverse is more often true. It's nice to have extremely tough enemies that miss most of the time.

Because, when it comes down to it, there will be 5 or 6 PCs and when fighting an enemy, they can output 5 times the damage of a single enemy. You need that enemy to have a lot of hitpoints if they are going to survive long enough for the players to consider them TOUGH. But you don't want them to hit 100% of the time simply because they have a lot of hitpoints. This discrepancy can't simply be fixed with con, either. We're talking about having monsters with 80 hitpoints that still are CR 2. You want the monster to have the same bonus to hit as a Level 2 character. Which would mean they'd have 2 hit dice. Unfortunately, in order to give that monster 80 hitpoints you'd need to increase their con to 50 or 60. It simply doesn't work.

However, if you based the bonus to hit on CR, then the hit dice can be whatever you want in order to have an exciting combat. The main point of hitpoints is to determine how long you want the enemy to hang around, anyway. In 4e there were Solos, Elites, and Standard monsters. They all had the same bonus to hit and damage(or close to it) but had quite a bit different hitpoints. This allows the designers to do the same thing.

It lets you engineer a monster for a specific combat type. If you want to use 5 of a monster at once, you keep their hitpoints down so the combat goes quickly and the PCs have a real chance of lowering the damage output of the enemy each round of combat by taking one of them out. In contrast, if you want an encounter that is going to take on the PCs by itself then you give it a lot of hitpoints so that it survives multiple rounds of combat while still not having an overwhelming chance to hit or too much damage.