D&D 5E Monsters compared- new vs old versions

[the Jester]

So we've all seen that there are revised core books and Monsters of the Multiverse coming soon. What level of changes can we expect to e.g. monsters? Well, we have a few examples to check out.

First, the tree blight- as depicted in Wild Beyond the Witchlight- vs. the tree blight as depicted in my OG Curse of Strahd book.

The name is the same in both cases.

Both are "Huge plants" but the new version adds "typically" before the alignment.

AC and Speed are unchanged.

Hit points have gone down slightly (by one HD).

Ability scores are unchanged, as are condition immunities, senses, languages, and Challenge; but they added "Proficiency Bonus +3".

False Appearance has changed dramatically. The old version: "While the blight remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a dead tree." The new version: "If the blight is motionless at the start of combat, it has advantage on its initiative roll. Moreover, if a creature hasn't observed the blight move or act, it must succeed on a DC 18 Int (Investigation) check to discern that the blight is animate.

Siege Monster remains unchanged.

And here we get to a very interesting change. The blight's old multiattack was two branch attack and two grasping root attacks, with a bonus action bite if it has a target grappled. The new version is only one branch and one grasping root. This reduces the expected damage by 16 per round. When I check the CR vs. the DMG's guidelines, I get 44 damage per round with an effective attack bonus of +9, for an offensive CR of 7, but the defensive CR is only 5. So I'm not sure where CR 7 comes from. The original guy was a bit too tough for its CR- I calculate an extra 25 damage/round for an offensive CR of 11 (and a final of 8).

 

[J.Quondam]

I like the change to False Appearance. The old "Nope, there's no way to tell it's not a tree/statue/furniture/etc" never sat well with me.
I'm not a fan of absolutes, so this counts as a big positive in the updates to monster design, imo.

 

[Krachek]

I like the proficiency bonus precision.
I like the effect. A concrete effect noticeable by players. having advantage is a nice bonus.
And Int is a little bit less a dump stat!

 

[Charlaquin]

Love that change to false appearance! Gives players a chance to discern the difference, and gives a concrete effect not being noticed before the start of combat.

EDIT: Actually, just realized as written it still gives advantage on initiative if the player realizes it’s animate, as long as it doesn’t move until the start of combat… Weird…

 

[J.Quondam]

EDIT: Actually, just realized as written it still gives advantage on initiative if the player realizes it’s animate, as long as it doesn’t move until the start of combat… Weird…

Hmm, good catch. I mean, I can maybe rationalize it, but a GM shouldn't have to do that. Definitely odd.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm, good catch. I mean, I can maybe rationalize it, but a GM shouldn't have to do that. Definitely odd.

Yeah, seems like an oversight to me.

 

[ad_hoc]

I like the proficiency bonus precision.
I like the effect. A concrete effect noticeable by players. having advantage is a nice bonus.
And Int is a little bit less a dump stat!

Yeah, though that is high enough to beat most passive investigation scores at that level.

Observant feat would do it.

 

[Ath-kethin]

So we've all seen that there are revised core books and Monsters of the Multiverse coming soon. What level of changes can we expect to e.g. monsters? Well, we have a few examples to check out.

First, the tree blight- as depicted in Wild Beyond the Witchlight- vs. the tree blight as depicted in my OG Curse of Strahd book.

The name is the same in both cases.

Both are "Huge plants" but the new version adds "typically" before the alignment.

AC and Speed are unchanged.

Hit points have gone down slightly (by one HD).

Ability scores are unchanged, as are condition immunities, senses, languages, and Challenge; but they added "Proficiency Bonus +3".

False Appearance has changed dramatically. The old version: "While the blight remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a dead tree." The new version: "If the blight is motionless at the start of combat, it has advantage on its initiative roll. Moreover, if a creature hasn't observed the blight move or act, it must succeed on a DC 18 Int (Investigation) check to discern that the blight is animate.

Siege Monster remains unchanged.

And here we get to a very interesting change. The blight's old multiattack was two branch attack and two grasping root attacks, with a bonus action bite if it has a target grappled. The new version is only one branch and one grasping root. This reduces the expected damage by 16 per round. When I check the CR vs. the DMG's guidelines, I get 44 damage per round with an effective attack bonus of +9, for an offensive CR of 7, but the defensive CR is only 5. So I'm not sure where CR 7 comes from. The original guy was a bit too tough for its CR- I calculate an extra 25 damage/round for an offensive CR of 11 (and a final of 8).

Re: CR calculations. If you haven't done the full 20-step process in calculating a CR, your conclusion is almost definitely wrong. The monster math isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot closer than many people trumpet. Just looking at the first page of the process and making a call based on that is not how the system is designed to work.

 

[el-remmen]

the full 20-step process. . .

Is determining a monster's CR really a "20-step process?" Because if so, no wonder so few people bother. That strikes me as still a problem of the system regardless of the accuracy of the results!

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It’s not actually 20 steps cause steps can be skipped. Anyway I saw the new Tree Blight being calculated and they pointed out that the new version of False appearance is what boosts it from a 6 to a 7. As it’s apparently on the borderline.