FitzTheRuke
Legend
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.
D&D 5E Project Monsters by Level (not CR)
dave2008
Legend
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
Legend
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).
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%)
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
Legend
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
Legend
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.
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
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.
The business card guy makes claims far stronger than his stats demonstrate. I'd even say dishonestly.
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...
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
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
Legend
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.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:
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.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
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.
Quickleaf
Legend
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
Legend
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.
Similar Threads
