D&D 5E Project Monsters by Level (not CR)

[FitzTheRuke]

Like I said, Gliffy may be right. But I've got to come up with my own approach.

Yes. When I said "we" above, I of course mean "you" (and those of us that feel like watching you do it and commenting). I'm not usurping your project. Though I'll help if I can, with whatever you want me to.

 

[dave2008]

Yes. When I said "we" above, I of course mean "you" (and those of us that feel like watching you do it and commenting). I'm not usurping your project. Though I'll help if I can, with whatever you want me to.

I've got some plans and would love some help when I get to them. It will be a bit though as I have a bust few weeks. I just had an itch to lay the foundation of this idea.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you wind up having to convert extant monsters to your new chassis, I can take up some of the grunt work. (You know, once we have a working system).

 

[palikhov]

I still trying to made something similar (and delete dependancy of challenge rating and proficiency bonus).
My starting point was to calculate CR of standard human fighter champion from 1st to 20 lvl.
Second, I set different challenge difficulty framework - hard is fight vs equal enemies (when chance to lose is equal to 50%)

 

[dave2008]

I still trying to made something similar (and delete dependancy of challenge rating and proficiency bonus).
My starting point was to calculate CR of standard human fighter champion from 1st to 20 lvl.
Second, I set different challenge difficulty framework - hard is fight vs equal enemies (when chance to lose is equal to 50%)

That is not a bad approach and similar to what I was trying to do. I was thinking of doing a deeper dive into each class and then coming up with an "average" PC at each level and then extrapolate and PC by level reference. But I need to think it over a bit.

The issue I see with converting PCs to CR is I have done that some and Lvl 20 PCs tend to top out around CR 10-12 IIRC. So get 20 levels of PC crammed into 12-14 steps of CR.

 

[Quickleaf]

That is not a bad approach and similar to what I was trying to do. I was thinking of doing a deeper dive into each class and then coming up with an "average" PC at each level and then extrapolate and PC by level reference. But I need to think it over a bit.

The issue I see with converting PCs to CR is I have done that some and Lvl 20 PCs tend to top out around CR 10-12 IIRC. So get 20 levels of PC crammed into 12-14 steps of CR.

Yeah, that estimate of topping out matches the numbers I shared for a hypothetical Rogue (Thief). Below 11th level, the Rogue moves from CR 1 to 4, then from 11th+ it moves from CR 5 to 9.

Spoiler: CR maths (spoiler)

11th Rogue = CR 5
hp 79, AC 18 = Def. CR 3
DPR 30.5, atk +9 = Off. CR 6
(6+3) / 2 = 4.5

13th Rogue = CR 6
hp 91, AC 18 = Def. CR 4
DPR 34, atk +10 = CR 7
(4+7) / 2 = 5.5

15th Rogue = CR 7
hp 103, AC 18+2 (saves) = Def. CR 6
DPR 37.5, atk +10 = Off. CR 7
(6+7) / 2 = 6.5

17th Rogue = CR 8
hp 115, AC 18+2 (saves) = Def. CR 6
DPR 54.5, atk +11 = Off. CR 10
(6+10)/2 = 8

19th Rogue = CR 9
hp 127, AC 19+2 (saves) = Def. CR 7
DPR 59, atk +11 = Off. CR 11
(7+11)/2 = 9

There are good reasons to take the DMG monster building CR guidelines with a heavy grain of salt, not the least being the recent admittance during the D&D Creator Summit that those DMG guidelines do not reflect their internal monster building tools.

Perhaps, at least for now, a better source to use is Paul Hughes Monster Manual on a Business Card which extrapolates monster guidelines based on reverse engineering the Monster Manual monsters. It eschews the DMG completely.

However, translating Paul Hughes' guidelines to PC stats is tricky cause the numbers are "softer." For example, taking that 11th level Rogue (Thief) and evaluating it with Paul Hughes' CR guidelines, I get something like...

11th Rogue
hp 79 = CR 4 (15*CR + 15)
AC 18 = CR 15 (13 + 1/3 CR) ...or CR 6 if we allow for the +3 AC guideline he gives
DPR 30.5 = CR 5 (5*CR + 5)
atk +9 = CR 10 (4+1/2 CR) ...or CR 6 if we allow for the +/-2 Attack guideline he gives

So, with this method, the Rogue's hit points and damage look about like CR 4 or 5. However, the attack bonus and AC are, at best, consistent with a CR 6. I guess I'd call that a CR 5... which actually is pretty accurate to the DMG method in this case.

 

[NotAYakk]

However, translating Paul Hughes' guidelines to PC stats is tricky cause the numbers are "softer." For example, taking that 11th level Rogue (Thief) and evaluating it with Paul Hughes' CR guidelines, I get something like...

The business card guy makes claims far stronger than his stats demonstrate. I'd even say dishonestly.

His analysis of how the DMG rules work doesn't reflect actually using the DMG rules, but a common misunderstanding of how to use them. (Ie, the idea that the HP column for CR 3 means that typical CR 3 monsters should have that much HP: this is explicitly not what the DMG table means).

He did a handful of correlations, found nothing, and then asserted there is no correlations between stats, and then after assuming that discarded entire possibilities.

I mean,

the average CR 1/4 monster has 13 hit points. The DMG suggests that they should have 43 hit points

This is a complete misunderstanding of how the DMG monster CR evaluation table works!

The guy even talks about variance and describes it as if it was standard deviation. This is a stats 101 error; imagine if you where describing car stats and you called the wheels "axles". The data might be right, but this is really suspicious. And he doesn't provide raw data, so it is hard to confirm he isn't making math mistakes; he provides charts and the results of the math. To find errors you'd have to repeat all of his research, instead of just verifying it.

I mean like here:

jeremy crawford talks about monster design

I’m pretty close to finishing up my monster design guidelines based on reverse-engineering the Monster Manual. Before that, though, I want to comment on an interesting episode of DM’s D…

www.blogofholding.com

he takes a comment about paralysis, then assumes that damage is balanced against damage, and then proceeds to conclude the comment is wrong. He does this because he has concluded damage is not balanced against defence and acts 100% certain of it, despite never testing his hypothesis.

Basically he's insanely too certain for his claims. He does a bit of math, gets a result he likes, and concludes he's certain and never has to consider alternatives again. High-grade Engineers disease.

Like, take a completely random 5e monster (I used an app, and discarded the CR 1/4 one I got first) a Fomorian.

Offensive CR: 10
Defensive CR: 6
Proficiency Bonus: +3
Effective HP: 149 (13d12+65)
Effective AC: 14
Average Damage Per Round: 59
Effective Attack Bonus: +9

Challenge Rating: 8

Hey look, the DMG calculated its CR exactly.

Now lets use MM on a business card. CR 8 eh?
13+4 AC (17)
120 HP
+8 ATK
40 damage
15 save DC
+7 highest saves

That isn't a Fomorian. It has too much AC, not enough HP and damage is too low.

If you feed it back into the DMG rules... I get a CR 6 monster, significantly weaker than the Fomorian.

Despite the numbers being averages and interpolations of the monster manual numbers, a completely random MM monster turns out to produce the accurate CR under the DMG mathematics, and the blog of holding monster ... is significantly weaker than the random MM monster.

He's confident, uses math, and is just plain wrong. He doesn't expose enough of the math to make it easy to figure out what he did wrong. To demonstrate his error, you'd have to repeat the entire task, which is the opposite if how you are supposed to use math to prove a point.

Don't use MM on a business card.

 

[dave2008]

The business card guy makes claims far stronger than his stats demonstrate. I'd even say dishonestly.

His analysis of how the DMG rules work doesn't reflect actually using the DMG rules, but a common misunderstanding of how to use them. (Ie, the idea that the HP column for CR 3 means that typical CR 3 monsters should have that much HP: this is explicitly not what the DMG table means).

He did a handful of correlations, found nothing, and then asserted there is no correlations between stats, and then after assuming that discarded entire possibilities.

I mean,
This is a complete misunderstanding of how the DMG monster CR evaluation table works!

The guy even talks about variance and describes it as if it was standard deviation. This is a stats 101 error; imagine if you where describing car stats and you called the wheels "axles". The data might be right, but this is really suspicious. And he doesn't provide raw data, so it is hard to confirm he isn't making math mistakes; he provides charts and the results of the math. To find errors you'd have to repeat all of his research, instead of just verifying it.

I mean like here:

jeremy crawford talks about monster design

I’m pretty close to finishing up my monster design guidelines based on reverse-engineering the Monster Manual. Before that, though, I want to comment on an interesting episode of DM’s D…

www.blogofholding.com

he takes a comment about paralysis, then assumes that damage is balanced against damage, and then proceeds to conclude the comment is wrong. He does this because he has concluded damage is not balanced against defence and acts 100% certain of it, despite never testing his hypothesis.

Basically he's insanely too certain for his claims. He does a bit of math, gets a result he likes, and concludes he's certain and never has to consider alternatives again. High-grade Engineers disease.

Like, take a completely random 5e monster (I used an app, and discarded the CR 1/4 one I got first) a Fomorian.

Offensive CR: 10
Defensive CR: 6
Proficiency Bonus: +3
Effective HP: 149 (13d12+65)
Effective AC: 14
Average Damage Per Round: 59
Effective Attack Bonus: +9

Challenge Rating: 8

Hey look, the DMG calculated its CR exactly.

Now lets use MM on a business card. CR 8 eh?
13+4 AC (17)
120 HP
+8 ATK
40 damage
15 save DC
+7 highest saves

That isn't a Fomorian. It has too much AC, not enough HP and damage is too low.

If you feed it back into the DMG rules... I get a CR 6 monster, significantly weaker than the Fomorian.

Despite the numbers being averages and interpolations of the monster manual numbers, a completely random MM monster turns out to produce the accurate CR under the DMG mathematics, and the blog of holding monster ... is significantly weaker than the random MM monster.

He's confident, uses math, and is just plain wrong. He doesn't expose enough of the math to make it easy to figure out what he did wrong. To demonstrate his error, you'd have to repeat the entire task, which is the opposite if how you are supposed to use math to prove a point.

Don't use MM on a business card.

I've never done the analysis myself, but I had the same feeling when reading his work. He completely disregards things that should affect CR and do affect CR per the DMG. So I have tended to not believe his claims. I do think he can create some interesting monsters (based on the LevelUp Bestiary), but I don't trust the CR he gets any more than anyone else.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've never done the analysis myself, but I had the same feeling when reading his work. He completely disregards things that should affect CR and do affect CR per the DMG. So I have tended to not believe his claims. I do think he can create some interesting monsters (based on the LevelUp Bestiary), but I don't trust the CR he gets any more than anyone else.

Yeah, it took me a while, but I barely even glance at CR now. But I was pretty hung up on it when I started with 5e, always worried my big dramatic fights would get steamrolled, or that I'd accidentally TPK my low level party.

This is basically my "system" which is just a couple rules-of-thumb (which is fine for an experienced GM, but probably less great for newer GMs):

If a monster can deal damage in one turn that outright kills a fresh PC (i.e. reduces to negative Max HP value), that's a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

Similarly, if a monster can deal damage in one turn that outright knocks unconscious an entire fresh party, that's also a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

If a monster is immune to all damage that the players can deal, that's a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

If a monster circumvents HP entirely – e.g. banshee, intellect devourers, shadows – proceed with caution.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, it took me a while, but I barely even glance at CR now. But I was pretty hung up on it when I started with 5e, always worried my big dramatic fights would get steamrolled, or that I'd accidentally TPK my low level party.

This is basically my "system" which is just a couple rules-of-thumb (which is fine for an experienced GM, but probably less great for newer GMs):

If a monster can deal damage in one turn that outright kills a fresh PC (i.e. reduces to negative Max HP value), that's a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

Similarly, if a monster can deal damage in one turn that outright knocks unconscious an entire fresh party, that's also a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

If a monster is immune to all damage that the players can deal, that's a red flag. Stop or Proceed with caution.

If a monster circumvents HP entirely – e.g. banshee, intellect devourers, shadows – proceed with caution.

Yes I stopped worrying about CR about 2 years into 5e. I just use monsters / NPCs that make sense for the situation. However, I think your rule of thumb is a good one to watch for potential lethal encounters, and that is really the only thing you need to worry about really.

 

[NotAYakk]

I mean.. for most CR ranges, you can punt on the DMG table and just use:

HP/30 + DPR/12 + (AC-10)/4 + ATK_STAT_BONUS/4 minus 4.

Feed fomerian into that.
149 HP/30 = 5
59 DPR/12 = 5
(14 AC-10)/4 = 1
ATK_STAT (6 and 2 average 4) / 4 = 1

5+5+1+1-4 = 8 CR

That is pretty much the DMG table. The rules for how to deal with low CR situations are, however, distinct; the HP of a CR 1/4 and 1/8 creature is close, but the impact on the output CR even smaller.

For CR over 20 the calculated CR here (CR_0) is too high over 20 by a factor of 2 or 2.5 (I forget).

Now, theory wise, we should swap the linear AC and ATK modifiers for exponential ones. But in theory this can be handled by tweaks in the XP curve, and the assumption that AC/ATK isn't too far off the baseline for a given CR, because the true "threat" of a monster is (Damage output against a PC per round) times (rounds it survives and puts out that damage when attacked).

The blog of holding adds 15 HP, 5 damage, .5 ATK (but includes proficiency) and .5 AC per CR. Fed into my math this is 0.5 + 0.42 + 0.25 = 1.17 per CR.

But at CR 1 the estimated creature has .75 AC + 1 HP + .5 ATK + .83 damage = a calculated CR of -1 in my math. They then scale up by almost a CR in effectiveness per CR (a bitmore), then shave off some at level 8 (about when their excess would have hit a full point).

From this what I suspect the error is that the DMG creatures have "extra" stuff on them. Those that do end up with less HP/Damage/AC/ATK than their level. Blog of holding probably ignored this -- the result is that CR X monsters have lower stats than they should. The brutes (the ones with no special stuff) show up as outliers. What more, brutes (with no special tricks) tend to have higher HP and damage and AC and everything - messing up with the correlation stats the poster is relying on.

My equation gets low CR creatures wrong, but by around CR 4 it is disturbingly reliable.

Giant Hyena. 12 (+.5) AC, 16 (+.75) Str, 10 (+5/6) damage, 45 (+1.5) HP. Total 3.6, but then subtract 4.

Rampage every 3rd turn is worth 3.3 DPR; 0.25. Total 3.85 - 4 = -0.15.

The DMG, however, has the defensive CR 1/4 average with the offensive CR of 2, producing a 1.

If we treat HP below 60 as a 2 and AC under 14 as a 1 and require an ATK STAT of +1, we get a modified formula:

(AC-14)/4 + (HP-60)/30 + (ATK_STAT_BONUS-1)/4 + (DPR-6)/12
where any negative number is treated as 0.

Feed the Hyena in, and the damage of 13.3 and ATK stat of +3 gives it a CR of 1.

Now this is not directly relevant to your plan.

But you can take the vanilla rogue and make a table like this.

For DPR, a dual wielding rogue (two short swords) does 10 damage from weapons. It also sneak attacks; as the sneak attack has 2 chances to land, it deserves an accuracy bonus. Instead of being 3.5 per die, use 4 - this has the nice property of dividing by 2.

So the target DPR is 8 + Level*2.
The target HP for a 12 constitution rogue is 9 + 6 per level after 1. Call it 3 + Level*3 HP.

At level 1 a Rogue has 14 AC. At level 20, a Rogue can be expected to have 17-20 AC (an increase of 3-6 points)
At level 1 a Rogue has +5 to hit. At level 20, a Rogue can be expected to have +11-14 to hit (an increase of 6-9 points)

If we factor out proficiency to hit (I find it often helps), the Rogue goes from Prof+3 to Prof+5-8 (an increase of 2-5 points).

A +4 swing is close enough for both numbers. So baseline ATK bonus is +3+Level/5, and AC is 14+Level/5.

Rogues get other stuff, from their subclass and class, but this gives a baseline set of toys.

What I'd do is start with a baseline like this. Then add "Kits".

A "Kit" might be worth 0.25 a monster. The idea is that you start with a baseline monster, and add "Kits" to customize.

Soldier, Sniper, Support, Brawler, Skirmisher, etc.

We could even downstat the monster a bit so that every monster gets a Kit for free. But I also like the idea of giving a monster both the Solider and Brawler kit.

Elite(X) could be a second subsystem. An Elite(2) monster is "worth" 2 monsters, an Elite(4) is "worth" 4.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't know what Mike Shea's maths look like behind the screen, but his guidelines for comparing CR and level looks like this...

A single 1st level PC = one monster of CR 0 to CR 1/4
A single 2nd-4th level PC = one monster whose CR is 1/4 of the PC's level
A single 5th-20th level PC = one monster whose CR is 1/2 of the PC's level

PC Level	Monster CR Approx. Equivalent
1	0.25
2	0.5
3	0.75
4	1
5	2.5
6	3
7	3.5
8	4
9	4.5
10	5
11	5.5
12	6
13	6.5
14	7
15	7.5
16	8
17	8.5
18	9
19	9.5
20	10

Comparing a 4th-level Rogue (Thief) to a CR 1 Spy, Mike Shea's system says that the spy should be a decent challenge. I'll compare their numbers and look at what the DMG maths say (which are suspect at this point, but it's the only official metric I know of).

Rogue has 27 hp, AC 17, DPR 14.5, attack +6 (based on my hypothetical earlier in the thread).

If we try to CR-ify this 4th-level Rogue, its defensive CR = 0.5, and its offensive CR = about 2.5. So it's total CR = about 1.5.

Spy has 27 hp, AC 12, DPR 18, attack +4.

If we run the Spy's numbers through the DMG, its defensive CR = 0.125, and its offensive CR = 2. So its total CR = about 1.06.

Checks out. But...

What about at higher level? Let's compare a 16th-level Rogue (Thief) to a CR 8 Assassin...

Rogue has 109 hp, AC 18, DPR 37.5, attack +10.

If we try to CR-ify this 16th-level Rogue, its defensive CR = 5, and its offensive CR = 7. So its total CR = 6.

Assassin has 78 hp, AC 15, DPR 76 (no surprise, but sneak attack every round), attack +10.

If we run the Assassin's numbers through the DMG, its defensive CR = 2, and its offensive CR = 13. So its total CR = about 7.5.

Not exact but in a close ballpark. I can see stuff at higher level play that all this white room analysis doesn't account for making up the difference.

 

[dave2008]

I don't know what Mike Shea's maths look like behind the screen, but his guidelines for comparing CR and level looks like this...

A single 1st level PC = one monster of CR 0 to CR 1/4
A single 2nd-4th level PC = one monster whose CR is 1/4 of the PC's level
A single 5th-20th level PC = one monster whose CR is 1/2 of the PC's level

PC Level	Monster CR Approx. Equivalent
1	0.25
2	0.5
3	0.75
4	1
5	2.5
6	3
7	3.5
8	4
9	4.5
10	5
11	5.5
12	6
13	6.5
14	7
15	7.5
16	8
17	8.5
18	9
19	9.5
20	10

Comparing a 4th-level Rogue (Thief) to a CR 1 Spy, Mike Shea's system says that the spy should be a decent challenge. I'll compare their numbers and look at what the DMG maths say (which are suspect at this point, but it's the only official metric I know of).

Rogue has 27 hp, AC 17, DPR 14.5, attack +6 (based on my hypothetical earlier in the thread).

If we try to CR-ify this 4th-level Rogue, its defensive CR = 0.5, and its offensive CR = about 2.5. So it's total CR = about 1.5.

Spy has 27 hp, AC 12, DPR 18, attack +4.

If we run the Spy's numbers through the DMG, its defensive CR = 0.125, and its offensive CR = 2. So its total CR = about 1.06.

Checks out. But...

What about at higher level? Let's compare a 16th-level Rogue (Thief) to a CR 8 Assassin...

Rogue has 109 hp, AC 18, DPR 37.5, attack +10.

If we try to CR-ify this 16th-level Rogue, its defensive CR = 5, and its offensive CR = 7. So its total CR = 6.

Assassin has 78 hp, AC 15, DPR 76 (no surprise, but sneak attack every round), attack +10.

If we run the Assassin's numbers through the DMG, its defensive CR = 2, and its offensive CR = 13. So its total CR = about 7.5.

Not exact but in a close ballpark. I can see stuff at higher level play that all this white room analysis doesn't account for making up the difference.

Interesting, is that from his new book?

 

[Quickleaf]

Interesting, is that from his new book?

Not sure, I can't keep up with all the publications third party folks are doing. I just spotted it in his recent YouTube video.

 

[dave2008]

Not sure, I can't keep up with all the publications third party folks are doing. I just spotted it in his recent YouTube video.

View attachment 282814

I feel like that might have been included in the preview for his most recent kickstarter (which I backed), but I can't seem to find where a filed the preview!

 

[NotAYakk]

What about at higher level? Let's compare a 16th-level Rogue (Thief) to a CR 8 Assassin...

Rogue has 109 hp, AC 18, DPR 37.5, attack +10.

So a 14 constitution Rogue has 16*2 + 16*5 + 3 = 115 HP. 109 is low for a 16th level Rogue, especially one with no feats.

I'll assume Dual Wielding feat with two rapiers and 20 dex. Studded is 18 AC.

So its attack routine is 1d8+5 1d8 (14), and has 2 chances to land 28 damage sneak attack. If we ignore the two chances to land the sneak attak we get 42 DPR, not 37.5, and that is a low estimate (as the 2 chances are significant). Anyhow, +10 to hit.

Defensive roll halves the damage of 1 hit/turn. That is going to be worth at least +25% HP on the conservative side.

CR 6+2 for accuracy is CR 8 offensive
CR 5+1.5 for AC is CR 6.5 defensive
overall CR is 7.25

If we try to CR-ify this 16th-level Rogue, its defensive CR = 5, and its offensive CR = 7. So its total CR = 6.

and this is on a subclass-less rogue. While you did say Thief, you then assumed none of the abilities had any impact on combat.

All of fast hands, use magic device, and advantage on stealth can be significant combat abilities. So a "real CR" that is 1 point higher isn't all that unreasonable.

Assassin has 78 hp, AC 15, DPR 76 (no surprise, but sneak attack every round), attack +10.

If we run the Assassin's numbers through the DMG, its defensive CR = 2, and its offensive CR = 13. So its total CR = about 7.5.

Not exact but in a close ballpark. I can see stuff at higher level play that all this white room analysis doesn't account for making up the difference.

Assassin has 10.5 of sneak attack, 13 of weapon damage, then 24.5*2 poison damage. But the poison damage requires that you hit with a weapon attack, and has a 2nd chance to reduce it with a con save. So we should discount it. If we expect a 40% save chance, the proper discount is 20%.

The sneak attack damage should be boosted (as the assassin has 2 attempts). The ambush ability matters as well. We'll do without boosting from these two for now (we also neglected the sneak attack boost on the thief).

DPR is 62.7, not 76. Attack is +6, not +10.

Offensive CR of 10, but -0.5 from inaccuracy.
Defensive CR of 1, +1 from AC. Evasion isn't large enough for us to worry about.

(9.5+2)/2 is 5.75. It has an actual CR of 8, probably because we neglected the Assassinate ability; what DM doesn't have the assassin surprise the first round?

If we add that in, its damage is basically doubled round 1. Using the 3 round rule, this boosts its DPR by 33% to 83.4, or CR 13. It has an accuracy boost round 1, but not round 2/3: call that +1 to hit. So 12.5 offensive CR.

(12.5+2)/2 is 7.25 CR. The MM gives it an 8, which is close.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, for sure there are different approaches for estimating CR.

@dave2008 Thought I'd bring this to your attention, from this recent livestream for Forge of Foes... second column is Equivalent Character Level...

edit: this table can be found in their free preview pdf.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, for sure there are different approaches for estimating CR.

@dave2008 Thought I'd bring this to your attention, from this recent livestream for Forge of Foes... second column is Equivalent Character Level...

edit: this table can be found in their free preview pdf.

View attachment 282960

Yes, I have the PDF, it is form the Kickstarter. I took a look at after the video you posted. However, I haven't had a chance to break it down and see how accurate it is with regard to my goal of one monster of the same level of a PC being a "challenge." Thank you for keeping me posted. At some point I will get to the real number crunching!

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

The Forge of Foes CR to level is pretty close to Giffy's from a glance. FoF has CR5 equal to level 10, Giffy has it equal to level 11. And Giffy's math (afaik) is based on blog of holding/monster on a business card (I think - of course Giffy also doesn't care about resistances and such).

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

And really looking forward to Forge of Foes. Bummed that international shipping killed the hardcover for me