D&D 5E (2024) Paul Hughes's Analysis of D&D 2024 Monster Manual monsters on Blog of Holding

[Stormonu]

The HP bloat above CR 10 is insane. Creatures with 200+ hp just boggle me and it's no wonder I don't play to such high levels.

 

[mamba]

The HP bloat above CR 10 is insane. Creatures with 200+ hp just boggle me

it might be the appropriate response to the character’s progression in power…. I do not like that one either, but I can see why the monsters need to keep up with it

 

[Stalker0]

The HP bloat above CR 10 is insane. Creatures with 200+ hp just boggle me and it's no wonder I don't play to such high levels.

in another thread we are talking how a single high level fighter can often output 200 damage in a single round....by themselves. 2024 PCs do lots of damage!

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Gotcha gotcha.

Actually what I thought was interesting are the specific “jump” points in different monster hp/ac/damage/saves by level, and how those vary across the three sources!

 

[overgeeked]

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)

Because there doesn't need to be, it's always 1 attack per monster. You're using 1 monster per 1 PC as the baseline, so 4 PCs means 4 monsters and therefore 4 attacks. It's a waste of space to have a column that just lists "1" across 30 rows.

It's only "low" compared to RAW, because it's divided by 4. That's intentional.

A CR1 RAW monster has an average of 10 DPR. Four of my Standard Monsters have a combined average of 12 DPR. Mine do slightly more across the board than the RAW monster numbers. Again, that's intentional.

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.

No, it's not. Here's a breakdown of the encounter building XP chart in the 2024 DMG compared to the monster XP chart from the 2014/2024 MM (they're identical). The designers have a little wiggle room, but the game is designed around a default of low difficulty encounters and a party of 4 PC vs 1 monster with a CR equal to the party's level. That's where monster vs PC math is balanced. Hence divide by 4.

Low difficulty encounters are almost always exactly 1 monster to 4 PCs. Moderate encounters are almost always exactly 1.5 monsters to 4 PCs. High difficulty encounter are almost always exactly 2 monsters to 4 PCs. This holds across all 20 levels. That's not an accident. That's intentional design.

 

[Zardnaar]

The HP bloat above CR 10 is insane. Creatures with 200+ hp just boggle me and it's no wonder I don't play to such high levels.

Well 100+ tends to start around CR5.

 

[Zardnaar]

in another thread we are talking how a single high level fighter can often output 200 damage in a single round....by themselves. 2024 PCs do lots of damage!

Part of thr problem. HP has been bloated since 3.5/4E. Some coild argue 3.0 as well but it wasn't to bad.

More damage and inflating hp just slows stuff down adding up damage.

You're not really achieving anything more.

Noticed it last night in osr. Big bad had 60 hp, 5E version 200 iirc. Magic missile did the same damage both versions (3 missiles).

 

[I'm A Banana]

As an example of my points above, see below. Paul notes the demilich is a statistical deviant, but doesn't / can't tell us why. I am hoping to figure out why in my own analysis

Hmm...let's see...

If the team is using rules similar to the 2014 rules (and it seems that they are), they're averaging Defensive CR and Offensive CR (which is another thing the "average"-focused analysis can't take into account).

Defensive CR contributions
HP: 180 [x1.25, +90, = effective: 315]
AC: 20
DCR = 17. OK, pretty close.
+: 3x Legendary Resistance. At CR 18, that's +90 effective hp
+: 3+ Immunities at CR 18 mean the HP multiplier is 1.25. 2014 doesn't tell me if that goes before or after the Legendary Resistance bonus, so I put it before (so it's (180*1.25)+90, as opposed to (180 + 90)*1.25).

Offensive CR contributions
DPR: 166-167
Attack Bonus / DC: +11/19
OCR = 22. Very high
DPR Analysis
1st round = 212 | 140 (Howl x2 targets) + 72 (3x Legendary Action: Necrotic Burst)
2nd round = 144 | 72 (Multiattack: Necrotic Burst) + 72 (3x Legendary Action: Necrotic Burst)
3rd round = 144 | 72 (Multiattack: Necrotic Burst) + 72 (3x Legendary Action: Necrotic Burst)

Total Average CR = 19.5, or CR 20.

This lines up with the "average" analysis noting that the damage has increased in 2025. I suspect there are new bands for damage, especially at the high end. If, say, the 2025 band put 166-167 DPR in the CR 19 band, that would line up with the published CR.

It could also be the case that the immunities aren't adding anything to the defensive CR calc here, which would give us a DCR of 16 and an average CR of 19...which is still high for what's published. Given that the monster hp and AC hasn't dramatically changed in 2025, I suspect there's no real change to the defensive math here.

A strict calculation like "7.5 * CR" wouldn't take into account these bumps to higher CR damage bands. Based on average data, it's a reasonable place to get to, but the average is going to be weighted to the lower CRs (where the 2014 math holds up reasonably well). You'd expect higher CR critters built using that math to hit weaker than the critters in the 2025 MM actually hit overall.

I wanna know where those bumps are and how big they are. I wanna know the new OCR bands. And I think that's going to take a lot of this kind of backwards analysis: finding out the Defensive CR, finding out 2014's offensive CR, and finding out what 2025's offensive CR should be, and then getting DPR numbers assigned to a CR band based on what it should be.

Not impossible, probably, but a heck of a lot of work. For now I can say that a CR 19 OCR in 2025 is probably ~ 166 dpr. It'd be curious to test that on some CR 17-22 critters.

 

[dave2008]

Because there doesn't need to be, it's always 1 attack per monster. You're using 1 monster per 1 PC as the baseline, so 4 PCs means 4 monsters and therefore 4 attacks. It's a waste of space to have a column that just lists "1" across 30 rows.

It's only "low" compared to RAW, because it's divided by 4. That's intentional.

That is what I guessed, it was just unclear to me when I noticed that attacks per round comment. I thought I had it figured, then that comment through me for a loop.

No, it's not. Here's a breakdown of the encounter building XP chart in the 2024 DMG compared to the monster XP chart from the 2014/2024 MM (they're identical). The designers have a little wiggle room, but the game is designed around a default of low difficulty encounters and a party of 4 PC vs 1 monster with a CR equal to the party's level. That's where monster vs PC math is balanced. Hence divide by 4.

Low difficulty encounters are almost always exactly 1 monster to 4 PCs. Moderate encounters are almost always exactly 1.5 monsters to 4 PCs. High difficulty encounter are almost always exactly 2 monsters to 4 PCs. This holds across all 20 levels. That's not an accident. That's intentional design.

In case you missed it, I said based on the 2014 guidelines.* I haven't done a deep dive into the 2024 guidelines or monsters yet. So I am not faulting your analysis of the 2024 guidelines, but possibly the guidelines in the DMG themselves. I don't know though because I haven't looked at in depth yet. My comment was based only on the 2014 guidelines.

*I want to be clear that the 2014 guidelines implied a 4 person party too. However, if you really dug into the math you can see that a solo monster encounter really was, either intentionally or not, designed around 3 v 1, not 4 v 1. I also want to be clear I made this discover years ago and, since I almost immediately stopped using the 2014 DMG encounter guidelines, I don't remember the specifics. I am not really that interested in going back and figuring out as I am moving my monster designs away from CR and the DMG encounter guidelines.