D&D 5E Quick question re: monsters as PCs

[JEB]

If you're talking about NPCs that "mimic" certain PC classes, then did you look at the Berserker? To me, that's a definite Barbarian (or "Barbarian").

It doesn't have enough of the actual Barbarian class's traits to work as an equivalent, unfortunately.

 

[JEB]

It's actually reverse. When CR=1, 2/5ths of a Warlock=1 while 4/5ths of a Paladin=1, which means a Paladin=1/2 of a Warlock.

So you get better oomph from a single Warlock than a single Paladin.

Not quite. It means that it takes 5 warlock levels per every 2 CR, whereas a paladin is 5 levels per 4 CR. So warlocks are proportionately weaker, because it takes more levels to hit each CR.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't have enough of the actual Barbarian class's traits to work as an equivalent, unfortunately.

Just out of curiosity, what class trait do you feel is missing?

It's got a heap of hit points (especially for such an unskilled warrior), which I read as a simplification of Barbarian resistance.

It's got Reckless Attack, perhaps the most signature Barb ability (mechanically speaking) - and what gives it away as the "barbarian" of NPCs.

It doesn't need actual Rage mechanics IMHO since that's mostly fiddly little bonuses, when I can simply describe it as raging.

Zapp

PS. Of course I'm not contesting that the Berserker stats as written are a bit of a wet bag of hp, and not much of a lethal threat (above what an Orc projects at, what, a quarter of the CR). Give the Berserker the GWM feat and/or two attacks, however, and suddenly its Reckless elevates it into a very nasty threat indeed.

 

[JEB]

Just out of curiosity, what class trait do you feel is missing?

It's got a heap of hit points (especially for such an unskilled warrior), which I read as a simplification of Barbarian resistance.

It's got Reckless Attack, perhaps the most signature Barb ability (mechanically speaking) - and what gives it away as the "barbarian" of NPCs.

It doesn't need actual Rage mechanics IMHO since that's mostly fiddly little bonuses, when I can simply describe it as raging.

Zapp

PS. Of course I'm not contesting that the Berserker stats as written are a bit of a wet bag of hp, and not much of a lethal threat (above what an Orc projects at, what, a quarter of the CR). Give the Berserker the GWM feat and/or two attacks, however, and suddenly its Reckless elevates it into a very nasty threat indeed.

The Berserker is too much of an abstraction of the Barbarian's concept to work as a gauge for estimating actual Barbarian CR. And without Rage there's no way to estimate what level it's meant to be, either (HD are not a reliable guide in 5E). Perhaps if there'd been a "Berserker Chieftain" to compare it with, like Bandit vs. Bandit Captain, but even then I'd be wary.

Sorcerers, FWIW, can probably be safely treated much like Wizards. I have no basis for this either, but the two classes aren't as different from each other as both Wizards and Sorcerers are from Warlocks.

 

[JEB]

FYI, my 3/4 level = CR was the average across all classes, seemed to sit in the middle of the various ranges and was within 1 CR of most of the actual NPC numbers.

Agreed that 2/3 level = CR is good for wizards (with an allowance for slightly lower CRs for weaker subclasses and slightly higher for stronger). Likely works for druids as well.

For the other individual classes, best I could figure from the limited sample size:

Bard: CR = 1/2 level (could easily be same as warlock, though, see below)
Fighter, Monk: CR = 3/5 level
Paladin: CR = 4/5 level
Warlock: CR = 2/5 level (actually pretty confident about this one)
Cleric, Rogue: Inconsistent, clearly varies by subclass (non-combat clerics might be same as warlock, though)
Barbarian, Sorcerer: No examples

FYI, doing the math to get a more direct level = CR conversion:

Paladin: 1.25 levels per 1 CR (20th level = CR 16)
Wizard, Druid: 1.5 levels per 1 CR (20th level = CR 13-14)
Fighter, Monk: 1.67 (1 + 2/3) levels per 1 CR (20th level = CR 12)
Bard: 2 levels per 1 CR (20th level = CR 10)
Warlock: 2.5 levels per 1 CR (20th level = CR 8)

Again, this is based on a fairly limited sample size, and only represents a typical build (as determined by WotC), and only based on PHB options. (I am pretty confident that this is correct for the average Wizard or Warlock, though.)

 

[Satyrn]

@CapnZapp

I mostly agree with your assessment (half level might be a bit low). I wonder though, where did the CR numbers come from in the first place? While there is something to the "must be this high to fight" element at lower levels, it quickly vanishes into insignificance. So why are CRs numbered the way they are? Why is the difficulty of an adult copper dragon defined as CR 14 rather than CR 20 or CR 8, or CR ZX-4?

I think a significant part of CR - perhaps the primary part - is meant to consider "What level is the average PC that this monster can drop to 0 in a single round?" And I think that's based on all attacks hitting (or saving throws failed), and rolling average damage (no crits).

 

[JEB]

A correction to my earlier posts. CR = 3/4 is not the average, it's the high end. I forgot a step from my earlier work (for producing this blog post on monster PCs), where I actually averaged 3/4 and 2/3 (which comes to something like 7/10). Apologies for the misconception.

The most rigorous approach, FWIW, probably involves figuring out what class the monster race is most like and using that ratio specifically.

 

[77IM]

Based on the analysis and conversation in this thread, I came up with these provisional rules for my setting, MonsterTown!

Monster PCs
For humanoids, just use the racial traits from Volo’s Guide to Monsters.

For more exotic monsters, as a rule of thumb, a monster stat block is equivalent to a PC of a level equal to 1.5 × CR, rounded up. However, this can vary on a case-by-case basis, especially for monsters with immunities, spellcasting, or larger sizes.

Calculate your proficiency bonus and hit dice based on your level equivalent. You can swap your skill proficiencies for other skills.

To advance, use the multiclassing rules. You can gain proficiency in one or two of your class saving throws, such that you are proficient in two saving throws (unless you already are).

These rules are experimental; if a monster PC proves un-balanced, we’ll adjust it.

I'm now trying to come up with guidelines for some of the weirder monster abilities.

• The DMG suggests that resistances/immunities/regeneration can impose an additional 1.25, 1.5 or 1.75 multiplier. (The DMG suggests reducing the multiplier at higher tiers, but this is based on expected PC capabilities, and monster opponents might not have those same resources at their disposal to bypass the immunities.) Super low hit points are worth a 0.75 or 0.5 multiplier.
• Large size is a little trickier, and seems to be worth about +2 level equivalent per size category above medium. It might vary per tier.
• Spells and spell-like abilities have a minimum level equivalent of the spellcaster level required. E.g., if a monster has an ability that basically works like greater invisibility, a 4th-level spell, then its level equivalent would be at least 7. If this level equivalent is higher than the monster's number of hit dice, give it extra hit dice to reach the level equivalent.
• I'd be willing to modify monster stat blocks to make creatures more playable. For example, a pixie lacks an attack, so I'd be open to giving them an attack somehow. Also, their Superior Invisibility is a 4th-level spell, so I'd suggest replacing it with a regular invisibility, like the 2nd-level spell. Stuff like that.

I love monster PCs. I really hated 3e's Savage Species because it made so many creatures unplayable. But I think 5e's approach is more workable. For starters, monsters tend to be big sacks of hit points, which alleviates the problem in 3e where a monster's special abilities could inflate its level equivalent while leaving it unplayably defenseless. More generally, 5e's flexible approach to monster stat blocks reduces the expectation that PC monsters would need to replicate the stat block exactly; in 3e, a monster's stat block was taken to be the baseline for the species. For example, in 3e, the lizardfolk stat block has 2 HD because they are a 2 HD creature, so PC lizardfolk had to have 2 crappy monster HD before they could get class levels; while in 5e the lizardfolk has 4 HD for no reason other than "it's a good amount of hit points for a lizardfolk stat block to have," and the lizardfolk racial traits work just like any other race.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think a significant part of CR - perhaps the primary part - is meant to consider "What level is the average PC that this monster can drop to 0 in a single round?" And I think that's based on all attacks hitting (or saving throws failed), and rolling average damage (no crits).

I think you may be right here. On the DMG chart for monster design, the lowest number of the average DPR at each CR is exactly equal to the hit points a d8 character with a +1 Con mod would have at that level (for levels 1-20).

Now I have to figure out what the hit point values of the defensive CR represent.

while in 5e the lizardfolk has 4 HD for no reason other than "it's a good amount of hit points for a lizardfolk stat block to have," and the lizardfolk racial traits work just like any other race.

From the way the published adventures handle monsters, I'd say it's more like, "the typical lizardfolk warrior uses these stats". Same with other races. Published adventures often say to use commoner statblocks for non-combatant humanoid type monsters. It's just that a typical lizardfolk (or drow, etc) warrior is stronger than a typical human, dwarf, elf, or halfling warrior (who uses the guard NPC stats).

Against the Giants suggests using ogre statblocks for non-combatant or weaker hill giants in a similar vein. (Though they also suggest orc stats for some of them--which doesn't really work well in 5e since hill giants are substantially more powerful huge creatures rather than just super-ogre large creatures.)

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION]: I really wouldn't worry about off-kilter choices like a PC Pixie.

It's easier to just say it doesn't fit into the "standard" scheme, so the group should basically only choose it if they like having a very special party member; such as for a one-off or convention adventure.

After all, while its abilities are initially obviously overpowered, it has (as you say) no attack of its own, and it dies instantly if any attack hits it ever.

Easier to just say such a small creature is best used sparingly than to try to force it into the standard adventurer mold. Even if you somehow manage to standardize its hit points and give it an attack, a clever player will still be able to abuse its Tiny size and flight ability far up into the levels. Allowing a level 10 Pixie Barbarian with one hundred hit points might not be a smart choice.

Worst case, your guidelines contort so much to accommodate cases like the Pixie other more regular choices get the shaft.

I'm basically convinced what you'll end up is the realization any PC Pixie (that's balanced) will have to be a completely new race built up from scratch: essentially a Tiny human that gets a few watered-down Pixie-light abilities and later on flight and more Pixie abilities.

But that's not why I would want to play a Pixie! (That is, the danger is that you lose whatever it was that attracted a player to playing one in the first place...) What if I want to play a Pixie because I want to have magical dust and flight while my fellow adventurers are small-sized Commoners running around in pyjamas, and you trust my ability to not abuse my powers to steal the spotlight?