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

[Sword of Spirit]

I just want to point out that the quoted posts tell us the absolutely critical information in interpreting why WotC monsters stats seem "off" compared to the table in the DMG but actually correctly (mostly) follow the rules in there.

To my everlasting frustration it seems that many people actively refuse to absorb this info. Which isn't really engaging with the published material in good faith, IMO.

It would be like a DM saying rogues don't have enough DPR because the same DM is stingy with allowing stealth, and their new players don't realize how easy it is sneak attack in melee, and the DM won't accept the stated intent for rogues to be doing sneak attack almost every round. But in this case it is worse, because the rules are right there in your DMG, while you have to go to designer commentary to learn about rogue expectations.

Most people that don't like the monster creation rules (despite not understanding them) are likely going to continue to ignore (or post a retort), rather than carefully reading what the book actually says. I would just like to encourage you (whoever you may be, gentle reader) to take the inquisitive approach, dust off your 2014 DMG, and carefully read the monster creation rules from the beginning, including the 2 page spread chart on monster traits at the end (an essential part of the rules referenced within them).

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

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.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Question: the notes below the table mention attacks per round, but there is no such column in the table. If there is only one attack, damage seems very low (though I might not be using the table correctly)

 

[dave2008]

Basically, take the numbers for HP and damage and divide by four. (Why divide by four? Because the game assumes a party of four.)

This is/could be a mistake. If you really dug into the math of the 2014 Monster / encounter creation guidelines it indicated they assumed a solo was built to face 3 PCs. I am not sure about the 2024 guidelines as the monster multipliers are gone. However, if I were you I would divide by 3, not 4.

 

[Morrus]

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:



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?

I think it's a bit unfair to write a long essay on why it fails to do the thing you put in a short one-line caveat, yes. The caveat doesn't make your criticism fair.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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

I think three smart and handsome individuals wrote a book doing exactly this...

 

[dave2008]

I think it's a bit unfair to write a long essay on why it fails to do the thing you put in a short one-line caveat, yes. The caveat doesn't make your criticism fair.

OK, I see it differently.

Is it fair to critic that fact that Paul, in his first paragraph says he is providing how WotC designs 2024 monsters and you can too - when that is not what he is doing?

Without the caveats he provides later one could easily assume he has reverse engineered the monster creation guidelines. That is not what he has done. In fact, he has states that is what he is doing in the 2nd paragraph (see below), but that is not what he provides - which you seem to agree on.

IDK, the more I look into the more "fair" I feel my criticism is. Originally I just posted this less as a critic and more a warning for people to use his quick monster guide (which is great for its purpose) correctly. Now that I have gone back and looked at it again I definitely feel my criticism is fair and warranted.

 

[Morrus]

OK, I see it differently.

Is it fair to critic that fact that Paul, in his first paragraph says he is providing how WotC designs 2024 monsters and you can too - when that is not what he is doing?

View attachment 396343

Without the caveats he provides later one could easily assume he has reverse engineered the monster creation guidelines. That is not what he has done.

I'm not sure how to put my opinion any clearer than I already have.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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.

This is a really good point. I think the design guidelines for monsters for D&D 2014 overcompensated for monster features that subtracted from damage per round. The new D&D 2025 MM seems not to take these effects into consideration as much, which I think is good.

I argue that monsters need some types of offensive and defensive effects just to keep up with character abilities as you get into higher levels and higher -- outside of pure damage. I think the same is true for boss monsters, where it's even worse. Bosses have a huge target on their head just by being bosses and thus need more offensive and defensive capabilities (particularly defensive) that don't change their CR just to not get destroyed in round 1.

As a very rough example, you can turn any monster into a "boss" monster by giving it double the hit points, giving it some legendary resistances, and letting it attack with a single attack as a legendary action three times a round. It seems crazy powerful if you do that but because its a boss, players focus on it like crazy and all those extra actions and hit points compensate for the characters' hideous boss-destroying wrath.

In general, I think 5e GMs need to be more open to modifying monsters on the fly to support their role in the story and the fun of the game. Tweak their hit points. Tweak their damage. Give them more (or less) attacks. Add more monsters. It'll be fine!

 

[dave2008]

I'm not sure how to put my opinion any clearer than I already have.

You don't need to, but I would be interested on how you understand the two statements from the article I highlighted in my previous post. What am I to make of these, if not the implication he is recreating the 2024 monster creation guidelines:

 

[dave2008]

This is a really good point. I think the design guidelines for monsters for D&D 2014 overcompensated for monster features that subtracted from damage per round. The new D&D 2025 MM seems not to take these effects into consideration as much, which I think is good.

I think that is probably true, but Paul's approach doesn't appear to take them into account at all. Now it may be that he has for some of these (he clearly states that he doesn't on some) but there are lots of things that affect CR besides the stated HP, AC, DPR, & attack bonus.

One example, saving throws. The 2014 DMG guidelines adjusted CR quite a bit if you had prof. in 3-4 or 5-6 saving throws. I would argue saving throws absolutely should affect CR. Was it to much before, IDK. Paul's analysis and guide doesn't seem to look at saves at all.

However, I have noticed in some 2025 monsters that had 3-4 saves before only have 2 now (no CR adjustment in the 2014 guide), but they might have higher ability scores which raise the saving throws. That is interesting and something I want to investigate.