D&D (2024) Paul Hughes's Analysis of D&D 2024 Monster Manual monsters on Blog of Holding

[Bae'zel]

I'm not terribly good at "game math", but I love and trust this chart in particular (it's a dream reference for DMs who want to "wing it" and give monsters slightly different stats or equipment without too much bookkeeping):

edit: assuming it works properly. I doubt going +/- 2 or +/- 10% will have a huge impact, right?

 

[Oofta]

I'm not terribly good at "game math", but I love and trust this chart in particular (it's a dream reference for DMs who want to "wing it" and give monsters slightly different stats or equipment without too much bookkeeping):

View attachment 396247

edit: assuming it works properly. I doubt going +/- 2 or +/- 10% will have a huge impact, right?

In my experience if you added all the possibilities it might, but to me it's really dependent on what kind of result you want. So I may add to attack and damage but decrease AC and HP to make it a bit of a glass cannon.

Of course I also just kind of throw this guidance out the window and if I want a minion-like monster I'll take a monster who's CR is significantly lower than the party's level but add +5 to attack and double or triple damage while leaving everything else the same. But at that point I'm just kind of guessing at their CR.

Oh, and because I'm (long term) lazy I put all the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and attached it (I did the same with the XP guidelines). See the attached if you find that kind of stuff useful.

 

[Quickleaf]

I thought side-by-side comparison of 2014 DMG guidelines, Blogofholding's 2018 monster chart, and then his 2025 monster chart would be interesting...

 

[aiouh]

I thought side-by-side comparison of 2014 DMG guidelines, Blogofholding's 2018 monster chart, and then his 2025 monster chart would be interesting...

It is interesting however you need to factor in that the table you posted is under "Creating Quick Monster Stats" which is used as a guideline for "Creating a Monster Stat Block" where you also have to substract monster features from because some features are considered to raise effective AC or HP by a few points.

Meaning that the 2014 DMG Statblock Guideline will always be higher as the 2014 Monster Manual Monsters all have unique features that reduce its raw stats to compensate for them

 

[TerraDave]

I thought side-by-side comparison of 2014 DMG guidelines, Blogofholding's 2018 monster chart, and then his 2025 monster chart would be interesting...

View attachment 396256

5.0 monster stats, especially from the MM, tended to be low (and their special properties usually did not fully compensate). HP are still low, though they are higher at high levels than in 2014. AC is same or 1 higher than 2014 guidance and practice.Attack is 1, 2, then 3 higher then guidance, but in line with 2014 actuals (given pc acs the guidance was way too low). Damage has the clear boost, at the top of guidance and well above actuals.

I am not sure the result averages out—hp tends to be a few levels behind the guidance and damage about a level ahead, but combats should be fast and furious.

 

[Morrus]

But it falls short, IMO, of providing true monster design guidelines.

It's not intended to. It's monsters on a business card. What you're asking for is a chapter in a book.

I mean, your post falls short of providing true steam train design guidelines, but we're not writing long posts about that. Because it's not intended to.

Let's be fair and evaluate this for what it is, not the other thing you want which it isn't. That's like criticising a bicycle for not being a pickup truck. Evaluate it as a bicycle.

 

[dave2008]

It's not intended to. It's monsters on a business card. What you're asking for is a chapter in a book.

I mean, your post falls short of providing true steam train design guidelines, but we're not writing long posts about that. Because it's not intended to.

Let's be fair and evaluate this for what it is, not the other thing you want which it isn't. That's like criticising a bicycle for not being a pickup truck. Evaluate it as a bicycle.

While I agree with your comment, I have seen people claim they (at least the 2014 version) are monster creation guidelines and Paul, in the very first paragraph says this:

"How does WOTC design 2024-compatible monsters, and how can I do the same for my home games and publishing projects?"

That statement, right up front, sure implies that he is figuring out how WotC designs monsters and how you can do it too. He later throws in a bunch of caveats in clarifications. However, from my experience, the damage is already done. People think it is something it is not and then use it incorrectly.

If you want to be fair, I pointed out, in my first point what, what the article was and what it is good for:

Point #1
The business card approach is good for a general idea / quick build monster. But doesn't really give you full monster creation guidelines. It is better, but I don't consider this much better than reskinning.

I then make it clear how it is not full monster creation guidelines for those you may not understand. I think that is reasonable and OK to discuss in this thread. Am I wrong?

 

[dave2008]

I thought side-by-side comparison of 2014 DMG guidelines, Blogofholding's 2018 monster chart, and then his 2025 monster chart would be interesting...

View attachment 396256

That is interesting, but not particularly useful to compare the DMG chart to the blog of holding charts. The DMG chart is not really useful as a one-stop-shop for monsters stats. It is meant to be a part of semi-complex & involved process to develop a monsters CR. The blog of holding table is a quick reference guide to make a monster. You can't use the tables in the same way and get similar results.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not terribly good at "game math", but I love and trust this chart in particular (it's a dream reference for DMs who want to "wing it" and give monsters slightly different stats or equipment without too much bookkeeping):

View attachment 396247

edit: assuming it works properly. I doubt going +/- 2 or +/- 10% will have a huge impact, right?

Yeah, that’s exactly what I use them for. I love winging monsters. But not the math.

I take BoH’s numbers and tune them a bit to bring 4E monster/encounter design back. Works an absolute treat and makes encounter building a breeze.

 

[overgeeked]

So here's my preliminary PDF of 4E monster/encounter design using 5E math.

The numbers are all based on the Blog of Holding post.

Basically, take the numbers for HP and damage and divide by four. (Why divide by four? Because the game assumes a party of four.) Round them up a bit to keep the smooth math, and you're done. This lets you stay close enough to the math while allowing you to use a simple 1-to-1 ratio of monsters to PCs. Have a party of 3 PCs, or 5, or 7...standard 5E math breaks down. This approach fixes that.

I also broke down the XP by CR and encounter building math to confirm things line up right. So a low difficulty encounter is 1 monster to 1 PC. A moderate difficulty encounter is 3 monsters to 2 PCs. A high difficulty encounter is 2 monsters to 1 PC. Dead simple.

You can combine monsters to create tougher challenges. To make a solo monster vs group, multiply the listed HP by the number of PCs. And the monster gets a number of attacks equal to the number of PCs. Again, dead simple.

Enjoy. If you happen to use this, let me know how it goes.