D&D 5E Why are 5E Giants Huge size?

[Upper_Krust]

Orcus CR check

Defensive CR:
HP = 405 x 1.25 (immunities) + 90 (legendary resistance) = 596.25 EHP
AC = 20 (with wand) + 2(saving throws) + 2 (magic resistance) = 24

Defensive CR subtotal = 27

You can't factor that stuff for goodness sake.

Offensive CR
DPR = 158 (2 wands & 3 tails)
Attack bonus = 17 (average of all attack bonuses)

Offensive CR subtotal = 24

DPR 158 = CR 21

DMG Total CR = 25.5 (27+24/2)

Seems pretty close to the CR 26 listed to me. And that doesn't account for it being able to summon 500 HP of undead warriors if needed.

I would be shocked if that version of Orcus lasted more than 1 round against any party ever.

Now a few issues. The DMG provides guidance for applying the resistance and immunities multiplier to HP, but it doesn't say you have too. I think a 1.25 multiplier for this high CR is a bit much, but it has immunity to 4 conditions and 3 damage types (lumping b,p, & s as one), so it feels justified to apply the lowest option provided by the DMG (and WotC seems to agree). Also, I often find that the MM rounds up fractional CRs, when I think they should round down, but as far as I know there is not guidance on this in the DMG. I would list Orucs as a CR 25, but the Wand of Orcus probably justifies the higher CR.

Well here's the thing. If a PC has immunity to x, y or z do you consider them higher level? No of course not.

 

[dave2008]

, personally I'd rather go back to 1e norms and make the baseline ones more like CR 13 or so.

I thought that way several years ago and wanted to make the 5e monsters "CR appropriate." But then I learned to adjust my thoughts on what CR was and let loose old baggage. For example, if I want a CR 20 pit fiend to be deadly challenge I don't through it a lvl 20 party, I have face a lvl 12-15 party and that is OK.

If you divorce yourself from the idea that CR = party level, the whole thing makes a lot more sense. It doesn't matter if CR 20 is tough enough to be CR 20, it just matters if it is tougher than CR 18 or 15, which it is.

 

[dave2008]

You can't factor that stuff for goodness sake.

It is in the DMG guidelines:

Effective Hit Points Based on Resistances and Immunities​

Expected Challenge Rating	HP Multiplier for Resistances	HP Multiplier for Immunities
1–4	× 2	× 2
5–10	× 1.5	× 2
11–16	× 1.25	× 1.5
17 or more	× 1	× 1.25

Step 15. Saving Throw Bonuses​

A monster with three or more saving throw bonuses has a significant defensive advantage, so its effective AC (not its actual AC) should be raised when determining its challenge rating. If it has three or four bonuses, increase its effective AC by 2. If it has five or more bonuses, increase its effective AC by 4.

Monster Features​

Legendary Resistance

Ancient black dragon

Each per-day use of this trait increases the monster’s effective hit points based on the expected challenge rating: 1–4, 10 hp; 5–10, 20 hp; 11 or higher, 30 hp

DPR 158 = CR 21

It is modified by the attack bonus, see rules text below, which I averaged to 17 (19 wand & 16 tail). The expected attack bonus for a CR 21 attack is +11. SO 17-11 = 6/2 = +3 to offensive CR = 24

Offensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster’s damage output per round. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster’s attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.

Well here's the thing. If a PC has immunity to x, y or z do you consider them higher level? No of course not.

It is what is in the DMG. You keep saying the official CR doesn't follow the DMG, but they generally do. You just have to look at the whole DMG guidelines, not just the table.

EDIT: I put quoted rules text in red

 

[Upper_Krust]

Why not? My level 15 party definitely has, and more than once.

How many of those monsters met the DMG pg. 274 criteria for HP & Damage of their CR? If they were out of the Monster Manual the likely answer is none.

Sure, but that doesn't change anything really. FYI some monsters have different numbers of legendary actions already.

You are less likely to use multiple CR 30 monsters than you are multiple CR 13. Therefore giving higher CR monsters a few more Legendary Actions just balances stuff out.

But what if you want too? I want my truly epic monsters to be tougher, but planetars and pit fiends, not so much.

Why does a Pit Fiend need to be CR 20? What number constitutes 'truly epic' in 5e?

I agree monsters can be too weak, but not counting LA damage would make no sense to me. Just make monsters a higher CR. Issue solved.

Most of the testimony suggests the monsters are already far too weak.

I just checked Orcus (see the separate post) and he comes in at CR 25.5 (aka 26) so it is pretty spot on.

I saw that. I disagree with your evaluation of Orcus.

Also, though I don't like the dragon designs very much, they also come in as CR appropriate or high on their CR. I think you are probably not checking the full DMG guidelines in your analysis as I find they are fairly accurate.

I'm not going to factor stuff that doesn't really make a difference. Multiplying CR because of condition immunities is pointless IMO.

 

[dave2008]

How many of those monsters met the DMG pg. 274 criteria for HP & Damage of their CR? If they were out of the Monster Manual the likely answer is none.

Almost all of the meet the whole guidelines as does Orucs (which I explained in my follow uo)

You are less likely to use multiple CR 30 monsters than you are multiple CR 13. Therefore giving higher CR monsters a few more Legendary Actions just balances stuff out.

Got it

Why does a Pit Fiend need to be CR 20? What number constitutes 'truly epic' in 5e?

I used to think that way. Now I just except that CR 20 is not "truly epic" and everything works great for me. It is the same idea, just looking at it from a different perspective. If we accept that CR 20 is not epic, divorce it from player level, then everything falls into place.

Most of the testimony suggests the monsters are already far too weak.

I personally think so (because I like tough monsters), however it is party dependent. The MM monsters work pretty darn well for my current group, but they didn't work as well for another group once the hit level 5+

I saw that. I disagree with your evaluation of Orcus.

See my response. You don't seem to be using the whole monster design guidelines in your evaluation. Orcus may not feel like a CR 26 monster to you, but he is per the whole guidelines. You can't just look at the table. That is not how it is supposed to be used. That is the mistake most people make when comparing the MM to the DMG.

I'm not going to factor stuff that doesn't really make a difference. Multiplying CR because of condition immunities is pointless IMO.

That is fine, but it is in the guidelines regardless of whether or not you want to do it. If you want to follow the DMG guidelines you should factor them in. If you don't like the result, just make the monster a higher CR.

 

[Upper_Krust]

It is in the DMG guidelines:

Effective Hit Points Based on Resistances and Immunities​

Expected Challenge Rating	HP Multiplier for Resistances	HP Multiplier for Immunities
1–4	× 2	× 2
5–10	× 1.5	× 2
11–16	× 1.25	× 1.5
17 or more	× 1	× 1.25

Step 15. Saving Throw Bonuses​

A monster with three or more saving throw bonuses has a significant defensive advantage, so its effective AC (not its actual AC) should be raised when determining its challenge rating. If it has three or four bonuses, increase its effective AC by 2. If it has five or more bonuses, increase its effective AC by 4.

Monster Features​

Legendary Resistance

Ancient black dragon

Each per-day use of this trait increases the monster’s effective hit points based on the expected challenge rating: 1–4, 10 hp; 5–10, 20 hp; 11 or higher, 30 hp

It is modified by the attack bonus, see rules text below, which I averaged to 17 (19 wand & 16 tail). The expected attack bonus for a CR 21 attack is +11. SO 17-11 = 6/2 = +3 to offensive CR = 24

Offensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster’s damage output per round. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster’s attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.



It is what is in the DMG. You keep saying the official CR doesn't follow the DMG, but they generally do. You just have to look at the whole DMG guidelines, not just the table.

EDIT: I put quoted rules text in red

Most of the above is just insane (IMO). PCs get a myriad amount of abilities and spells that let them do all the above but they are not treated as higher level.

What PCs are going to use Necrotic Attacks and Non-Magic Weapons on Orcus, lol. There is no way that should affect his Challenge Rating.

 

[S'mon]

Most of the above is just insane (IMO). PCs get a myriad amount of abilities and spells that let them do all the above but they are not treated as higher level.

What PCs are going to use Necrotic Attacks and Non-Magic Weapons on Orcus, lol. There is no way that should affect his Challenge Rating.

Yeah, I think maybe the disparity is because WoTC CRs seem based on a party with no magic weapons using deliberately suboptimal tactics. Kobold Press CRs seem more based on what a typical medium-magic-campaign party of that level actually looks like; more or less the 3e approach. They're not factoring in immunities & powers that don't actually make a difference.

 

[S'mon]

I used to think that way. Now I just except that CR 20 is not "truly epic" and everything works great for me. It is the same idea, just looking at it from a different perspective. If we accept that CR 20 is not epic, divorce it from player level, then everything falls into place.

This is what I do - of necessity - but it does mean that we don't actually expect a CR 20 to be a moderate challenge to a typical level 20 party. IME it's more like a moderate challenge to a single level 20 Barbarian (without Epic Boons)! Or maybe two weaker PCs. This isn't a huge problem, but it does leave XP awards out of whack with threat level - smart PCs will preferentially hunt very-high-CR monsters for their XP and loot. Getting to fight a Pit Fiend feels like Christmas come early for the 19th level PCs.

 

[dave2008]

Most of the above is just insane (IMO). PCs get a myriad amount of abilities and spells that let them do all the above but they are not treated as higher level.

What PCs are going to use Necrotic Attacks and Non-Magic Weapons on Orcus, lol. There is no way that should affect his Challenge Rating.

That is fine, but it is the guidelines. If you want to compare official monster stat blocks to the DMG, you have to use the whole DMG guidelines. You can't just use the table on pg 274. That is not what it is used for.

Now, if you want to say the guidelines are to weak - sure, not complaints from me.

However, I found it better for my sole to just separate the idea of CR and level. For example. If you figure the CR of a level 20 fighter, it is going to be in the 12-13 range. CR =/= level.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Almost all of the meet the whole guidelines as does Orucs (which I explained in my follow uo)

[/QUOTE]

I understand your reasoning, I just disagree that those secondary things make a pip of difference to CR. No wonder high level monsters are getting steam-rolled.

I used to think that way. Now I just except that CR 20 is not "truly epic" and everything works great for me. It is the same idea, just looking at it from a different perspective. If we accept that CR 20 is not epic, divorce it from player level, then everything falls into place.

Personally I'd say a properly effective CR 13 is epic.

I personally think so (because I like tough monsters), however it is party dependent. The MM monsters work pretty darn well for my current group, but they didn't work as well for another group once the hit level 5+.

If most high level campaigns are saying the official high CR monsters are too weak (on a per CR basis), then you have to ask why and the proverbial fly in the ointment seems to be these secondary CR modifiers.

See my response. You don't seem to be using the whole monster design guidelines in your evaluation.

I'm not because I don't see the point of those secondary elements. Orcus' immunities do not affect his effective Challenge Rating IMO, they are too easily ignored.

Orcus may not feel like a CR 26 monster to you, but he is per the whole guidelines. You can't just look at the table. That is not how it is supposed to be used. That is the mistake most people make when comparing the MM to the DMG.

When Orcus is likely getting dropped in one round by the majority of high level party's (I'd estimate) then something in the official CR rules smells fishy and we can trace most of that bad smell to these secondary guidelines, most of which don't actually affect Challenge Rating.

That is fine, but it is in the guidelines regardless of whether or not you want to do it. If you want to follow the DMG guidelines you should factor them in. If you don't like the result, just make the monster a higher CR.

Adhering to those secondary guidelines is what's causing most of the problems in my opinion.