D&D 5E Tome of Beasts 5E

[dave2008]

The CRs are designed to be "tougher." Like Fifth Edition Foes. It hews closer to the DMG guidelines than the MM, and rounds fractions down on CRs.

I will dispute the bold part. I haven't check ToB hardly at all, but the Iron Ghoul mentioned checks in at CR 7.5 per the DMG vs. CR 5 in ToB. I have checked a lot of monsters in the MM and they tend to be spot on. Even the more complex higher CR monsters I posted about in post #16 only had a maximum variance of 1.

Now, that doesn't mean that the ToB monsters are closer based on the encounter guidelines, but they are not closer to the DMG (at least in the 2 examples in the OP)

 

[dave2008]

Defensive CRs of 13, 16, and 24.

So the final CRs should be 15.5, 18.5, and 24.

No, see below:

Balor
Defense
HP x 1.25 for resistances/immunities = 18 base DCR; w/ AC 21 (+2 for magic resistance) = +1 to DCR = 19
Offense
DPR = 102 = 16 base ACR; w/ +14 attack = +2 to ACR = 18 ACR
Total = 19+18/2 = 18.5

Pit Fiend
Defense
HP x 1.25 for resistances/immunities = 20 base DCR; w/ AC 21 (+2 for magic resistance) = +1 to DCR = 21
Offense
DPR = 120 = 19 base ACR; w/ +14 attack = +2 to ACR = 21 ACR
Total = 21+21/2 = 21

Ancient Red Dragon
Defense
HP + legendary resistance = 24 base DCR; w/ AC 22 = +1 to DCR = 25
Offense
DPR = 158 = 21 base ACR; w/ +17 attack = +3 to ACR = 24 ACR
Total = 25+24/2 = 24.5

EDIT: It looks to me like you didn't take into account resistances and immunities, magic resistance, and legendary resistance in your CR calculation.

 

[dave2008]

(Still... monsters like the lich and vampire seem totally below expected numbers.)

Yay, I agree about those too mostly. I've looked at them before. If my memory is correct, the vampire was definitely weak. I seem to remember it being more a CR 10 or 11, but I would have to check that.

The Lich is a weird one. It can definitely be a glass cannon. It has low HP, but if you give it meteor swarm - look out! Now, with the spells it has in the MM I believe its weak for its CR, but I don't remember what it calculated out to be.

 

[Jester David]

No, see below:

Balor
Defense
HP x 1.25 for resistances/immunities = 18 base DCR; w/ AC 21 (+2 for magic resistance) = +1 to DCR = 19
Offense
DPR = 102 = 16 base ACR; w/ +14 attack = +2 to ACR = 18 ACR
Total = 19+18/2 = 18.5

Pit Fiend
Defense
HP x 1.25 for resistances/immunities = 20 base DCR; w/ AC 21 (+2 for magic resistance) = +1 to DCR = 21
Offense
DPR = 120 = 19 base ACR; w/ +14 attack = +2 to ACR = 21 ACR
Total = 21+21/2 = 21

Ancient Red Dragon
Defense
HP + legendary resistance = 24 base DCR; w/ AC 22 = +1 to DCR = 25
Offense
DPR = 158 = 21 base ACR; w/ +17 attack = +3 to ACR = 24 ACR
Total = 25+24/2 = 24.5

Nitpick: It's only if the expected CR of the monster is 11-16 you only multiply hp by 1.25 for resistance. If the expected CR is 17+ you multiple the hp by 1.

 

[dave2008]

Nitpick: It's only if the expected CR of the monster is 11-16 you only multiply hp by 1.25 for resistance. If the expected CR is 17+ you multiple the hp by 1.

That is for resistances, immunities never go down to 1. In addition, they specifically mention bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing resistance as something that should modify the dCR. Since, magic weapons are not supposed to be required I can see why they would dot that. However, for most groups that is a trivial easy resistance to overcome by the time you should be getting to CR 19-20 monsters. So I agree that should not factor into it, but I believe they did.

Now if you take out the bonus HP for resistance/ immunities then the CR drops to 19, still one off from the listed CR. However, the balor drops all the way to 16, that is significant and probably something a DM should know. Making a CR 19 monster into a CR 16 monster just because you have magic weapons is a big drop.

EDIT: We also have to remember they are guidelines. Something strange the Demilich with resistance to magical weapons really should get a CR boost even though it is expected CR is above 16.

 

[Jester David]

That is for resistances, immunities never go down to 1. In addition, they specifically mention bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing resistance as something that should modify the dCR. Since, magic weapons are not supposed to be required I can see why they would dot that. However, for most groups that is a trivial easy resistance to overcome by the time you should be getting to CR 19-20 monsters. So I agree that should not factor into it, but I believe they did.

Now if you take out the bonus HP for resistance/ immunities then the CR drops to 19, still one off from the listed CR. However, the balor drops all the way to 16, that is significant and probably something a DM should know. Making a CR 19 monster into a CR 16 monster just because you have magic weapons is a big drop.

They're only immune to poison and fire. The b/p/s is resistance. And in the pit fiend's case, it's silver in addition to magic. Which is why I mentioned it.
No shortage of ways to get magic weapons. Elemental weapon or magic weapon spells, conjuring animals, etc. Plus monks are just magic, paladins can smite, etc.

 

[dave2008]

They're only immune to poison and fire. The b/p/s is resistance. And in the pit fiend's case, it's silver in addition to magic. Which is why I mentioned it.
No shortage of ways to get magic weapons. Elemental weapon or magic weapon spells, conjuring animals, etc. Plus monks are just magic, paladins can smite, etc.

I agree with you. I was just trying to jump into the heads of the designers. I can understand the pit fiend. It is off only by 1, so one might think "hey, we are not requiring magic weapons in this edition so let's split the difference and make it 20." The balor though is pretty bad. The only thing I can think they might have done is count the death burst damage twice (for 2 targets), but that is not what the DMG says. That would get you to CR 18 and then your back with the pit fiend argument (sort of) to raise it to 19. Of course, if that is what they did I think it would be better to make its attacks do more damage and reduce the damage of death burst. Really it is a pretty bad design for an fairly iconic high CR monster.

 

[Dualazi]

I typed a review for ToB of decent length, which you can find under my username/in my profile. Very short version is that yeah, the book is great, and yeah, the monsters are a little over-tuned. I for one don't mind this so much, as I tend to have shorter adventuring days than the recommended value and so the monster help ramp up the challenge neatly.

 

[Ricochet]

CRs are all over the place, but the book is sooooo good! I use it frequently.

 

[Jester David]

I agree with you. I was just trying to jump into the heads of the designers.

The DMG was written two months after the MM. So they were kinda eyeballing monster CR. Maybe based on some unfinished guidelines.
I was at GenCon 2014, when the PHB was available and they were showing off early copies of the MM, and Crawford wasn't around all the time because he was off in his hotel room writing the DMG