D&D 5E Legendary monsters are not solo monsters

[Eric V]

I didn't ask about 4e, I asked what granularity are you looking for CR to convey (in 5e)... what information is it not conveying at this point that you wanted it to.

Oh, brother...!

You don't have time to look at the monsters in the monster manual (only time to look at a CR list!) despite DMing, but you somehow have time to post stuff like this? Someone who was engaged in a genuine conversation could have inferred (correctly) from my statement that I wanted the encounter-building system of 5e (of which CR is a part of) to have the level of detail and specificity that 4e had (despite not being perfect itself).

Someone just looking to "score points" would type what you did. That's something I don't have time for.

 

[Imaro]

Oh, brother...!


You don't have time to look at the monsters in the monster manual (only time to look at a CR list!) despite DMing, but you somehow have time to post stuff like this? Someone who was engaged in a genuine conversation could have inferred (correctly) from my statement that I wanted the encounter-building system of 5e (of which CR is a part of) to have the level of detail and specificity that 4e had (despite not being perfect itself).


Someone just looking to "score points" would type what you did. That's something I don't have time for.

What does time to look through a MM have to do with typing 3-4 sentences? It's not about "scoring points" but your broad statements without any specifics isn't relaying any relevant information. I find the encounter system of 5e to be accurate for my purposes and I was up front about that when I first posted... I am trying to figure out what it's missing for you but a statement like this...

4e had better guidelines for encounter creation, IMO.

Tells me nothing and seems more directed at trying to edition war than trying to communicate exactly what your issue is with the 5e encounter guidelines and this is ignoring some of the wonkiness in your example that you haven't explained and could account for why you see them as inaccurate... Like why these saves were so easy for classes that weren't proficient in them... This would in fact change the difficulty of the encounter since without the saves being "laughable" (your words not mine) the drow would have a substantial impact on the encounter... Like I said earlier in my mind that is an encounter that, if run correctly for the party you listed, should be an above deadly encounter... Now if there's some reason thos e spells and poison were as ineffective as you claimed I'd like to know because it might change how I look at encounter design, but so far you've offered no justification.

 

[Cyberen]

Disclaimer : this is theorycrafting, not supported by actual play
When I read the Adult Dragons statblocks, I see fearsome skirmishers, in 4e parlance. They have excellent mobility (various speeds + wing buffet LA), good evasion abilities (LR, wing buffet to disengage), and a tremendous damage output if they are able to fight on their terms (engaging the squishies in melee, or using breath weapon on at least 3 PCs). Also, my take on the "Detect" LA is they can use it between surprise rounds, thus being able to negate surprise except for the first ambusher.
Their lair actions are overkill, if you also suppose the lair is built in order to let the beast make good use of its superior mobility.
A vampire is not really meant to be encoutered alone. Beholders have always been glass cannons, but I never could tell if it was done purposefully. Liches, krakens look good.
The so-called reports of weak Legendary monsters, afaict, involve dragons behaving stupidly (because module designers and DM alike haven't taken stock yet of the fact they are toast if they behave like soldiers or brutes)

 

[Sage Genesis]

An ancient white dragon and a pit fiend don't have different XP values.

According to my MM, they actually kind of do?

 

[Umbran]

Someone just looking to "score points" would type what you did. That's something I don't have time for.

You don't have time for it, but you took it anyway?

The next time you find a most to be not worth a response, try the stunningly original tactic of... not responding!

In general, folks, remember - we expect you to show respect for people and their opinions, even if you don't agree with them. If you find yourself thinking it is okay to deride someone's statements or opinion, it is time to take a break.

 

[DaveDash]

Disclaimer : this is theorycrafting, not supported by actual play
When I read the Adult Dragons statblocks, I see fearsome skirmishers, in 4e parlance. They have excellent mobility (various speeds + wing buffet LA), good evasion abilities (LR, wing buffet to disengage), and a tremendous damage output if they are able to fight on their terms (engaging the squishies in melee, or using breath weapon on at least 3 PCs). Also, my take on the "Detect" LA is they can use it between surprise rounds, thus being able to negate surprise except for the first ambusher.
Their lair actions are overkill, if you also suppose the lair is built in order to let the beast make good use of its superior mobility.
A vampire is not really meant to be encoutered alone. Beholders have always been glass cannons, but I never could tell if it was done purposefully. Liches, krakens look good.
The so-called reports of weak Legendary monsters, afaict, involve dragons behaving stupidly (because module designers and DM alike haven't taken stock yet of the fact they are toast if they behave like soldiers or brutes)

The problem with Dragons is all their legendary actions require them to get into melee range, and they also have weak DPR without their breath weapon.

You're left with two options - get in close to do damage and actually have an engaging battle, or fly around waiting for your breath weapon to recharge. Not terribly exciting.

When you're doing your theorycrafting you need to factor in the DPR:hitpoint ratio of a "solo" creature vs a party. An adult Dragon has a FAR inferior ratio compared to a party it will face. A single fighter can output more damage per round.

Compare an ancient white dragon to a solar. The solar outputs a truckton more DPR with out using legendary actions - it actually has the ability to drop a player in 1-2 rounds just with its attacks. It also has superior mobility and a deadly ranged attack. Its a much tougher foe for a party to face.

In general I've found monsters that have a high offensive CR are way more deadly in general, across a broad range of CRs.

The problem with Dragons though right is they're swingy. They can be easy or very difficult based on breath weapon charges and party composition. If you lack decent ranged attacks and no way to deal with their fear they can be hard, but other party compositions turn them into trivial fights. I built a level 20 party with no magic items that cleaned up and ancient red dragon in about 3 rounds. However a "normal" party would struggle, especially against its breath weapon.

 

[DaveDash]

Here is a encounter I have used to wipe my high level test group.

1 Balor, 3x Glabrezu.

The Balor by itself is a pretty weak opponent (especially against ranged Fighters), but combined with Glabrezu's who can spam darkness it is a fearsome foe. It grinds down PC's and then Glabrezu's power word stun them. Glabrezu's spam darkness to keep ranged attackers unable to see their targets, and the Balor can teleport into darkness if it runs into trouble.
Just be wary of banish spam.

This kind of encounter is way more difficult than a 'solo' encounter with a Dragon.

Glabrezu's are very tough opponents for their CR by the way. One example (I have many) of where the CR system is totally out of whack.

 

[Cyberen]

The problem with Dragons is all their legendary actions require them to get into melee range, and they also have weak DPR without their breath weapon.

You're left with two options - get in close to do damage and actually have an engaging battle, or fly around waiting for your breath weapon to recharge. Not terribly exciting.

When you're doing your theorycrafting you need to factor in the DPR:hitpoint ratio of a "solo" creature vs a party. An adult Dragon has a FAR inferior ratio compared to a party it will face. A single fighter can output more damage per round.

Compare an ancient white dragon to a solar. The solar outputs a truckton more DPR with out using legendary actions - it actually has the ability to drop a player in 1-2 rounds just with its attacks. It also has superior mobility and a deadly ranged attack. Its a much tougher foe for a party to face.

In general I've found monsters that have a high offensive CR are way more deadly in general, across a broad range of CRs.

The problem with Dragons though right is they're swingy. They can be easy or very difficult based on breath weapon charges and party composition. If you lack decent ranged attacks and no way to deal with their fear they can be hard, but other party compositions turn them into trivial fights. I built a level 20 party with no magic items that cleaned up and ancient red dragon in about 3 rounds. However a "normal" party would struggle, especially against its breath weapon.

I agree with your assessment, but I think you're missing my point : adult Dragons are very good at harassing a party but should decline invitations to a straight fight, exactly for the reasons you give. They should aim at splitting the party using terrain, fear, and superior speed, then confront the weaker half. Rinse and repeat.
It is, by the way, the usual tactic of many lonesome predators.
Ancient dragons are a different beast, as they belong to a different tier of play, where mundane obstacles such as difficult terrain might not be relevant. Comparing them to Solars is not really nice for the poor wyrms, though, as any glimpse of the 1e MM2 would tell these golden angels can have both Asmodeus and Demogorgon for breakfast
CR feels good when you come at it with 1e eyes, where the threatometer of any monster was the level of the random dungeon encounter table you would find it. It is a correct ballpark assessment, not a precise tool for engineering encounters (for instance, the additive xp model is doomed to be flawed, and the corrective ratio for outnumbering is clunky at best. Also, Intellect Devourers are CR2)

 

[Eric V]

CR feels good when you come at it with 1e eyes, where the threatometer of any monster was the level of the random dungeon encounter table you would find it. It is a correct ballpark assessment, not a precise tool for engineering encounters (for instance, the additive xp model is doomed to be flawed, and the corrective ratio for outnumbering is clunky at best. Also, Intellect Devourers are CR2)

This is what I am discovering as well, though I'd love to do a few more experiments with it. Even with 1e eyes, though, a friend of mine tried converting a 1e mod (sorry, I don't know which, he plans on running us through it) and said that if he did it straight up, the encounters would be overwhelming. But I suppose looking at it with 1e eyes, then remembering to change to a 5e perspective might be the way to go.

Considering CR is the basis for the monster's XP, I wish it provided more relevant info for encounter building...as your point re: Intellect Devourers demonstrates.

 

[Tormyr]

So to follow on from my earlier post about adding hit points when dealing with large amounts of PCs for a solo monster, I did it in my game on the fly last night and it worked out pretty well. The party is 7 8th level PCs. The encounter level from the 3.5 adventure path is 9. What I use the encounter level for is adjusting some encounters to be easy, medium, hard, or deadly. For an EL of 9, I calculated a medium encounter would have an XP budget of at least 7700xp. For the level 8 party, this would still be a medium encounter, just slightly more difficult.

The encounter called for a single Spirit Naga. Originally, I was going to have 2 to scale up for the 7 players, but I decided to keep it as a solo creature encounter. According to encounter building guidelines, you need 1 CR 17 creature to be a medium encounter for 7 9th level PCs. Obviously I am not going to reskin a CR17 creature, and I decided last night on the fly to use the 1 creature instead of 2. Instead, I popped open my DMG to page 274, looked up the CR8 for the Spirit Nage and the CR17 that I needed to get to. The difference between CR8 and CR17 is 140 hit points. I added that to the Spirit Naga so it started with 215 hp instead of 75 hp. This allowed the Spirit Naga to not only take a sucker punch from the wizard that likes to get the first shot in but also take focused fire from the PCs for several rounds.

While the quick increase in CR using hp was not perfect, It got the job done. The CR of the creature increased to allow it to survive multiple rounds against 7 PCs. By using hp instead of AC, DPR, or AB, The CR and staying power of the creature increased without increasing the risk of a 1 shot kill from the creature. While it would have been more accurate to calculate out the change in effective hp, and average the new defensive CR versus the existing offensive CR, this did a good enough job on the fly. Later on I will recalculate the CR using the "real" calculate instead of the quick one I used, but the good thing was that it worked well on the fly and the players liked the encounter (whereas with only 75 hp, the Spirit Naga would have evaporated).