D&D 5E Surf's D&D 5e Monster Analysis

[surfarcher]

Just posted Part 6: Construction: Traits & Spellcasting but I just could not fit Damage in... So I am working my rear end off to get it polished and up in it's own installment...

 

[the Jester]

Just posted Part 6: Construction: Traits & Spellcasting but I just could not fit Damage in... So I am working my rear end off to get it polished and up in it's own installment...

Thanks for what you've done so far!

I'm very eager to see that damage analysis; it's really about the last thing I need to really go crazy with monster conversions. I've already got a ton of tentative versions of things in a megadungeon near where the pcs will be when I start my 5e game; the more high level monsters I see, though, the less certain I feel about the damage output I've been giving them.

I really need that Monster Manual... 3 weeks to go...

 

[Quickleaf]

Just posted Part 6: Construction: Traits & Spellcasting but I just could not fit Damage in... So I am working my rear end off to get it polished and up in it's own installment...

So I'm wondering what the relationship between CR and the Spellcasting trait is... Take your pyromancer example. As an 8th level caster (and no other traits/powers) it is CR 5. If the pyromancer was a 20th level spellcaster would its CR be 17? In other words, is the formula for strict casters CR = caster level - 3?

 

[surfarcher]

Thanks for what you've done so far!

You are welcome! I'm glad some of the community has found it interesting.

I'm very eager to see that damage analysis; it's really about the last thing I need to really go crazy with monster conversions. I've already got a ton of tentative versions of things in a megadungeon near where the pcs will be when I start my 5e game; the more high level monsters I see, though, the less certain I feel about the damage output I've been giving them.

I know and I am sorry for the delay. Thing is it already pretty long and I have hours of work left, then I need to polish it for posting. So I figured I'd have to post it separately... :-(

I'm working pretty hard to get it out ASAP because I know a lot of folks are waiting for it.

I really need that Monster Manual... 3 weeks to go...

Me too! And the DMG.

So I'm wondering what the relationship between CR and the Spellcasting trait is... Take your pyromancer example. As an 8th level caster (and no other traits/powers) it is CR 5. If the pyromancer was a 20th level spellcaster would its CR be 17? In other words, is the formula for strict casters CR = caster level - 3?

It's indirect - for example a pure utility caster's Spellcasting Trait has no impact on it's CR.

My analysis so far has lead me to the conclusion that CR is based primarily on the Damage/Hit Points axis. So for Spellcasting to impact CR it has to make a material contribution to one or the other.

 

[Quickleaf]

You are welcome! I'm glad some of the community has found it interesting.


I know and I am sorry for the delay. Thing is it already pretty long and I have hours of work left, then I need to polish it for posting. So I figured I'd have to post it separately... :-(

I'm working pretty hard to get it out ASAP because I know a lot of folks are waiting for it.


Me too! And the DMG.


It's indirect - for example a pure utility caster's Spellcasting Trait has no impact on it's CR.

My analysis so far has lead me to the conclusion that CR is based primarily on the Damage/Hit Points axis. So for Spellcasting to impact CR it has to make a material contribution to one or the other.

Thanks surf! From what I've gathered 5e is a hard system to make monsters for, particularly adjudicating their Challenge Rating. There definitely seems to be a strong influence of art/DM experience with the system when it comes to predicting how a monster will handle at the table.

Does that match our guy's experiences?

 

[surfarcher]

Thanks surf! From what I've gathered 5e is a hard system to make monsters for, particularly adjudicating their Challenge Rating. There definitely seems to be a strong influence of art/DM experience with the system when it comes to predicting how a monster will handle at the table.

Does that match our guy's experiences?

Sort of!

I mean the math is definitely there, it's just undocumented and has some pretty broad parameters. I think that's intentional to facilitate the return of "monster building as artform" and it does give monster designers a lot of leeway in design.

But that comes at a cost.

I remember a lot of veterans in recent editions complaining that the art of monster building was "lost" and how they missed it. But I think they forgot the issues that players and us DMs had in the early editions. Monsters were unreliable to build and tended to vary wildly in their suitability to level. Playtesting was really important and if you didn't work through everything just right your critter would be a cakewalk or slug TPKs everywhere.

My hope is that CR evaluation will be pretty solid and bring the best of both world together. From what I see it's there, it's just noone has told us exactly how to do it and I expect it will be one of the main monster building tools they give us in the DMG. At least I hope so, because other wise we are back or AD&D monster building...

FWIW I have a fairly simple CR evaluation method that seems to work for 90%+ of the monsters to date. Of the remainder most fall outside it simply because some traits and actions are difficult to enumerate as either damage or HP. So it does seem very close. I hope to have it formalized and into a post fairly soon (current target is Part 9).

 

[Savage Wombat]

Question for you:

I understand the Unicorn is a relatively low-CR Legendary monster. How does it compare to a monster of near-equal HP? Does it have a higher CR?

 

[surfarcher]

Question for you:

I understand the Unicorn is a relatively low-CR Legendary monster. How does it compare to a monster of near-equal HP? Does it have a higher CR?

Well I don't have the Monster Manual yet and noone has leaked a spolier of the Unicorn to me yet. So I can't comment specifically on that creature.

I have looked into Legendary Creatures already though and I can comment on them in general. Legendary Creature is basically a template that provides Legendary resistance and Legendary Action. In addition most Legendary Creatures also gain Lair Actions.

If we remove these elements from a Legendary Creature we find that it is generally within the bounds of what we'd consider appropriate for it's CR as a normal stand-alone creature.

 

[surfarcher]

OK folks, Part 7: Construction: Damage is now up.

Since folks have already asked on Reddit here's why AoE gets a x1.5 instead of a x0.75...

I do touch on this in the post, but if you are scanning the post you'll probably miss it.

Because we aren't concerned with DPR when looking at monsters because the damage/HP axis is decoupled from the AC/Accuracy axis in 5e - that's Bounded Accuracy.

That means we don't need to factor in accuracy.

Thus we can simply consider the constant for miss damage multiplication as 1. And x1 can simply be omitted as shorthand in most calculations, leaving a clearer calculation formula. But the knock-on is that we have to use a 1.5 half-damage-on-miss multiplier - 1.5 is to 1 as 0.75 is to 0.5. I do have a theory that WotC may actually be using 1.25 there but I don't have significant statistical evidence to support that supposition... Yet.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nice. This supports my "PC's last two hits against a monster" experience so far. Which is a less than half of what 4e presumed. Though I wonder what healing resources are factored into the PC HP calculation on the PC's side.