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

[surfarcher]

I will be following your analysis with interest.

Thanks!

if anyone is interested in what the delay means you can see part of it in my Profiling Class Damage & Hitpoint Curves... on the WotC forums.

But feel free to post back on here instead!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Does your damage analysis include a rough hit rate estimation in it, or is this simply the average damage that would be rolled if all attacks had hit?

 

[surfarcher]

Does your damage analysis include a rough hit rate estimation in it, or is this simply the average damage that would be rolled if all attacks had hit?

Nope! Like I said this is purely about raw damage. I believe accuracy has been decoupled from damage at this level in the design and moved over to Bounded Accuracy, as with the last packet in the open playtest.

 

[bording]

In your post at wizards.com, you mentioned that you were expecting a damage increase at 16 and not 17. Why were you expecting it at 16? Looking at page 10 of the basic rules, the increases you found at 5, 11, and 17 correspond directly to the 4 tiers of play they describe, at the beginning level of each tier.

 

[surfarcher]

In your post at wizards.com, you mentioned that you were expecting a damage increase at 16 and not 17. Why were you expecting it at 16? Looking at page 10 of the basic rules, the increases you found at 5, 11, and 17 correspond directly to the 4 tiers of play they describe, at the beginning level of each tier.

It was entirely an error on my part I mis-rememberred the tier change. I put it in for the sake of transparency - to highlight that I make errors ;-)

Actually I think I'll go and edit in that clarification so thanks for the pointing it out!

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=84774]surfarcher[/MENTION]
I too am looking forward to your analysis, and appreciate how you're looking for a "results" oriented monster design formula as you dissect what very much seems to be a "procedural" design philosophy.

In particular I'm interested in ways to roughly approximate NPCs of certain classes without having to design the NPC like a PC from scratch.

 

[nnms]

Can't wait to read more. I've been collecting every bit of info on monsters for 5E that I can find.

 

[surfarcher]

Thanks @Quickleaf and @nnms!

I just posted Part 3: Construction: CR & Size. Hope it's of some use.

Give me a few days and I'll get Ability Scores & HP posted too.

 

[nnms]

I for one am glad you wrote two introductory posts. I ended up reading them again after reading part 3.

Given the ability score cap of 30 even for god-like beings, I think your prediction of very high CR monsters in the Monster Manual is probably going to be correct. Ability scores scale based on CR, so at what CR will monsters hit 30 in an ability score based on the progression of ability scores in the existing monster sample?

Over the last few years I've become less and less enamored with the tactical encounter approach to challenge design. I appreciate a more environmental approach like an older edition sandbox where threats are not scaled to the party and where how combat occurs emerges from play rather than having my preset trigger to enter combat mode hit. CR is useful as a smaller number to talk about when looking at XPs and describing just how dangerous a creature looks, but one thing I'm happy about is that the scaling of monster stats doesn't seem to be just about providing a constant challenge to the PCs, but a fair way of assessing XPs. The presence of the largest creature in the starter set seems to be indicative of the support for a more environment/sand box approach.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am just impatient for actual hard numbers for ability scores, hp, damage, and AC. Sounds like CR governs these in much the same way as level governs these for players, though....