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

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm regularly surprised by the fact that Giffyglyph's work in this area doesn't get more attention. Here for example is their work on mapping monster levels to CR so that we can easily convert from CR to monster level (for existing D&D monsters)

https://giffyglyph.com/monstermaker/grimoire/2.1.2/en/ratings_and_levels.html

But when you want to roll your own their approach to making monsters, in general, was a revelation to me at least:

https://giffyglyph.com/monstermaker/grimoire/2.1.2/en/making_monsters.html

Thanks for sharing. Its complexity/simplicity points are slightly different than I would use, but otherwise has a lot of what I'd like monsters to look like. I'll keep looking at it and see what it does for my current thinking on the subject of monsters...

 

[NotAYakk]

Thinking about https://giffyglyph.com/monstermaker/grimoire/2.1.2/en/ratings_and_levels.html again.

I'd be tempted to merge Solo and Elite.

Elite(X) means "X times harder". They get (X-1) paragon actions. During a Paragon action, you can move half your movement speed and do about half a standard action's worth of damage, and you have X times as many HP, and +2 to all defences and accuracy.

Now your damage output is BASE * (X/2+.5) and your defence is BASE * X.

X monsters have X times the HP. If you kill them one at a time with constant damage each one taking 1 round, then you take X + X-1 + X-2 + X-3 + ... + 1 monsters damage output, which is (X)(X+1)/2.

For the solo above, it takes you X rounds to kill it. Each round it does (X/2+1/2) damage. So the total damage you take is ... X(X+1)/2.

You can then add in whatever mechanisms you need to deal with the fact it is one big monster (and hence vulnerable to single target control), and not multiple (and hence vulnerable to AOE and harder to pin down). Like a +2 to all attacks and defences, and some kind of 'shrug off failed save' ability (legendary resists, reroll saving throws, whatever).

 

[dave2008]

I'm regularly surprised by the fact that Giffyglyph's work in this area doesn't get more attention. Here for example is their work on mapping monster levels to CR so that we can easily convert from CR to monster level (for existing D&D monsters)

Do take note that Giffy uses Monster Level (ML) not character level and ML =/=PC level.* That is fundamentally different from what I am trying to do.

*Note: I actually find this more confusing than CR. Why call it "level" if it is not equivalent to a PC level?

 

[robus]

Do take note that Giffy uses Monster Level (ML) not character level and ML =/=PC level.* That is fundamentally different from what I am trying to do.

*Note: I actually find this more confusing than CR. Why call it "level" if it is not equivalent to a PC level?

I guess I'm confused then, from "Build a monster:"

Your first step is to assign a level to your new monster. Quickstart monsters don't use challenge ratings—instead, they use monster levels to determine their base strength. Monster levels are a one-to-one match for character levels—one 4th-level monster should be a decent contest for one 4th-level player character.

 

[dave2008]

I guess I'm confused then, from "Build a monster:"

Let me clarify, that may be the intent, but it is not how it is working. From their examples:

"From the conversion table, we see that this CR 11 remorhaz may be used in place of a ML 11 Solo, a ML 16 Elite, a ML 20 Standard, or a ML 28 Minion."

A CR 11 remorhaz is not equivalent to one lvl 20 PC. That is my point. It is not far off, IMO, but not equal.

 

[robus]

Let me clarify, that may be the intent, but it is not how it is working. From their examples:

"From the conversion table, we see that this CR 11 remorhaz may be used in place of a ML 11 Solo, a ML 16 Elite, a ML 20 Standard, or a ML 28 Minion."

A CR 11 remorhaz is not equivalent to one lvl 20 PC. That is my point. It is not far off, IMO, but not equal.

Well there's a huge variety of capabilities when you get to a Level 20 PC of course Are we talking a wizard or a fighter?

Anyway, I'll leave you be. Glad to know you're aware of that resource even if it isn't what you're looking for.

 

[NotAYakk]

Let me clarify, that may be the intent, but it is not how it is working. From their examples:

"From the conversion table, we see that this CR 11 remorhaz may be used in place of a ML 11 Solo, a ML 16 Elite, a ML 20 Standard, or a ML 28 Minion."

A CR 11 remorhaz is not equivalent to one lvl 20 PC. That is my point. It is not far off, IMO, but not equal.

A L 20 fighter, L 20 wizard, and L 20 rogue are not equal. So there is no set of stats that is equal to a level 20 PC, as there is more than one level 20 PC.

They are not far off, but are not equal.

And the CR 11 remorhaz is about as close to those level 20 PCs as the level 20 PCs are to each other. You know, depending on build.

The Remorhaz does about 70 damage per round (ish) and has about 200 HP. Its saves aren't great, but aren't complete garbage. It has decent senses, and a burrow speed.

A naive level 20 rogue does about 40-50 damage per round with higher accuracy than the Remorhaz and has 122 HP. The rogue has a few defensive abilities, including uncanny dodge, that make it tougher than it looks. Its save are going to be better. It has quite impressive skills.

The AC of the two (without magic items) is going to be similar.

With (typical) magic items on the rogue and a subclass, I could see it going either way.

There is enough balanced fudge-room in D&D (and 5e in particular) that being more accurate than a certain amount produces false confidence.

Like, we might be better off if monsters where tier-based instead of CR or level based.

T0 monsters are level 1 and under, T1 are level 2-4, T2 are 5-10, T3 are 11-20, and T4 are 21+. Each of these windows is about a factor of two in power. If we stick the monster in the middle of the window (so 1.4x bottom and 0.7x top), then add in Minion and Elite(X), we'd have a toolkit.

Ie, tier based monsters look like:
L0.7 equivalent (roughly)
L3 (roughly)
L7 (roughly)
L14 (roughly)
L28 (roughly)

Elite(X) scales HP by a factor of X and damage by a factor of (X+1)/2, adds +2 to d20 rolls, and gives Elite Actions.

Instead of the "type modifiactions" of the linked system above, I'd have packages you add on to monsters that are strict bonuses. Then adding a package makes the monster tougher.

A side effect of tier based monsters is that the DM cannot trivially use a sliding scale of monster power to nullify PC advances. Instead, each tier is narratively distinct. It resists the temptation to have Orcs just auto-gain levels as your character gets more powerful. Instead, you fight more Orcs, or something narratively distinct (a full tier up) like Ogres.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Personally, I don't think we should worry all that much about level 20. I think levels 15-20 are poorly designed (both Monster-wise and PC-wise) and are likely to get a severe overhaul of both in the next year-and-a-half. If we can get this working for level 1-12, we'll be doing quite well.

 

[dave2008]

Well there's a huge variety of capabilities when you get to a Level 20 PC of course Are we talking a wizard or a fighter?

Anyway, I'll leave you be. Glad to know you're aware of that resource even if it isn't what you're looking for.

It may be, but part of this is digging in to see what I come up with. In the end it may be very similar to what Gliffy is doing. But I don't want to reverse engineer what they are doing. I want to try it on my own.

 

[dave2008]

A L 20 fighter, L 20 wizard, and L 20 rogue are not equal. So there is no set of stats that is equal to a level 20 PC, as there is more than one level 20 PC.

They are not far off, but are not equal.

And the CR 11 remorhaz is about as close to those level 20 PCs as the level 20 PCs are to each other. You know, depending on build.

The Remorhaz does about 70 damage per round (ish) and has about 200 HP. Its saves aren't great, but aren't complete garbage. It has decent senses, and a burrow speed.

A naive level 20 rogue does about 40-50 damage per round with higher accuracy than the Remorhaz and has 122 HP. The rogue has a few defensive abilities, including uncanny dodge, that make it tougher than it looks. Its save are going to be better. It has quite impressive skills.

The AC of the two (without magic items) is going to be similar.

With (typical) magic items on the rogue and a subclass, I could see it going either way.

There is enough balanced fudge-room in D&D (and 5e in particular) that being more accurate than a certain amount produces false confidence.

Like, we might be better off if monsters where tier-based instead of CR or level based.

T0 monsters are level 1 and under, T1 are level 2-4, T2 are 5-10, T3 are 11-20, and T4 are 21+. Each of these windows is about a factor of two in power. If we stick the monster in the middle of the window (so 1.4x bottom and 0.7x top), then add in Minion and Elite(X), we'd have a toolkit.

Ie, tier based monsters look like:
L0.7 equivalent (roughly)
L3 (roughly)
L7 (roughly)
L14 (roughly)
L28 (roughly)

Elite(X) scales HP by a factor of X and damage by a factor of (X+1)/2, adds +2 to d20 rolls, and gives Elite Actions.

Instead of the "type modifiactions" of the linked system above, I'd have packages you add on to monsters that are strict bonuses. Then adding a package makes the monster tougher.

A side effect of tier based monsters is that the DM cannot trivially use a sliding scale of monster power to nullify PC advances. Instead, each tier is narratively distinct. It resists the temptation to have Orcs just auto-gain levels as your character gets more powerful. Instead, you fight more Orcs, or something narratively distinct (a full tier up) like Ogres.

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