D&D 5E (2014) Need Opinions on Relative Strength of this Feature

[CleverNickName]

4e's monster design?

Wasn't 4E also produced by Wizards of the Coast?

 

[delericho]

Wasn't 4E also produced by Wizards of the Coast?

It was. But given that this thread is posted in the 5e area, and given that the OP was clearly objecting to the 5e monster design, I would certainly argue that the 4e design could be put forward as a suitable alternative.

 

[CleverNickName]

It was. But given that this thread is posted in the 5e area, and given that the OP was clearly objecting to the 5e monster design, I would certainly argue that the 4e design could be put forward as a suitable alternative.

In that case, I'd go with my favorite WotC-era monster design, or at least the one I've played the most (3.XE). For all its faults, templates were an extremely handy way to modify on the fly. I really miss templates.

 

[NotAYakk]

"HP maximum reduction" is almost entirely fluff as far as CR is concerned; what matters is the damage. Rounding error.

+12 damage per round sustained over at least 3 rounds, +36 damage one round (both before factoring in accuracy), 32 HP, +4 AC, +4 to hit/save DCs are all worth about 1 CR.

If you are replacing an other ability, it is the change that matters. So if the monster's best option was a multiattack for +11 to hit/3d6+10 damage, that is 41 damage per round. If you add in a new ability that does less than 41 damage, it is a wash. If you add in a 1/encounter ability that does 41+36 = 77 damage average, that is +1 CR.

If that 77 damage ability is a medium sized AOE and save for half, you'd double it for the AOE (to 154) then throw another +50% at it for save for half (231), subtract the 41 (190) then divide by 36 (5); that ability is worth about +5 CR, give or take.

It gets harder when you throw in stuff like status conditions, but for basic damage it isn't hard to adapt CR.

(be careful of HP multipliers from immunites, however. A creature that is resistant to everything gets 1 CR for every 16 HP, not 32, as their HP are effectively doubled.)

 

[delericho]

In that case, I'd go with my favorite WotC-era monster design, or at least the one I've played the most (3.XE). For all its faults, templates were an extremely handy way to modify on the fly. I really miss templates.

Fair enough.

That wouldn't be my choice, and actually 4e itself wouldn't be my choice either - the ideal would probably be to take the best practices from everything to date and build something new incorporating those benefits.

(An awful lot of people found templates fiddly to use. Personally I felt they had strengths, especially when allowing for some really niche combinations, but they definitely needed prep time to use. In particular, I really enjoyed Green Ronin's "Advanced Bestiary"... in theory. Alas, I don't think I ever got to actually use it.)

For me, the really big strength of the 4e design was in making the various monster roles explicit, and also the Minion/Elite/Solo thing. 5e has emulated some of that (especially with legendary actions and lair actions), but a lot of it does represent a step backwards. As with so many things, 5e took a big step back from 4e, even where that edition had real strengths.