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

[dave2008]

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.

Yes I agree. I wouldn't say they deliberately use suboptimal tactics, but they have no desire to use tactics and we are very low magic (level 15 with +1 max items), and for that group the monster CRs work very well.

 

[S'mon]

Its rules bloat all over again. They keep upping the Balor and Pit Fiend in each edition. Albeit in 5E they forgot to stat them appropriately.

The Listed Balor has the Hit Points of a CR 13 monster and the Damage of a CR 11 monster.
The Listed Pit Fiend has the Hit Points and Damage of a CR 16 creature.

Yes, and I think a Balor is indeed a moderate challenge for a typical 4-PC level 13 group (plus some annoyance when the death explosion drops the CON 10 Wizard to 0 hp again); the Pit Fiend likewise for a 15th or 16th level group. By 17th it's more a speed bump on its own.

I always tend to give over-XP'd 'boss monsters' a bunch of minions, this gets the threat level & XP award nicely in sync.

 

[Upper_Krust]

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.

But its a much better indicator of actual CR to just use that table rather than the myriad tangental abilities like Immunities that are FAR too easily circumnavigated and thus don't actually affect the monster's CR.

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

They are Strength 1. That's how weak they are.

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.

I agree. Its roughly 3 Levels = 2 CR.

 

[dave2008]

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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

They are what they are. IMO it is more professional to follow the official guidelines and compensate in other ways. Otherwise people will be blindsided by monsters that punch way above their CR with respect to official monsters.

I believe the better path is to recalibrate our idea of what CR means. It took me about 4+/- years to get there, but that is what I eventually did and I am much happier for it. I went through the process you are going through now several years ago. My whole epic monster updates thread revised the DMG CR system to what "I" thought made sense. But I eventually came to believe that was counter productive. Accept the CR guidelines for what they are, revise the encounter guidelines if needed, and if you want stronger monsters (which I do), make them higher CR. So, when I stat Orcus again, even his avatar will be CR 33+/-.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, and I think a Balor is indeed a moderate challenge for a typical 4-PC level 13 group (plus some annoyance when the death explosion drops the CON 10 Wizard to 0 hp again); the Pit Fiend likewise for a 15th or 16th level group. By 17th it's more a speed bump on its own.

I always tend to give over-XP'd 'boss monsters' a bunch of minions, this gets the threat level & XP award nicely in sync.

I stopped using XP about a year into 5e.

 

[S'mon]

Yes I agree. I wouldn't say they deliberately use suboptimal tactics, but they have no desire to use tactics and we are very low magic (level 15 with +1 max items), and for that group the monster CRs work very well.

I kinda feel the default expectation should be that by level 15 the PCs show some tactical nous...

As it is, using the listed CRs, 5e starts out very dangerous at level 1, then drops off very rapidly. I like some decline in default danger level, but I think it's far too extreme as-is. It can make players sort of lazy/inattentive to the extent that when circumstance does produce an actual dangerous situation they don't know what to do and there's an unnecessary TPK or a GM fudging wildly.

 

[S'mon]

I stopped using XP about a year into 5e.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure none of the designers use it, either!

 

[dave2008]

But its a much better indicator of actual CR to just use that table rather than the myriad tangental abilities like Immunities that are FAR too easily circumnavigated and thus don't actually affect the monster's CR.

It is a better indicator of what you think is the actual CR. That is your hangup (and was mine too). The CR is what the guidelines say they are and the MM monsters generally agree. You just don't like what CR represents in 5e and that is OK.

I just no longer see the benefit in fighting it. I think you know how that fight works out.

 

[dave2008]

I kinda feel the default expectation should be that by level 15 the PCs show some tactical nous...

Maybe, we've played for 30+ years and I don't think they are going to change any time soon. I can't speak for other groups by I get the feeling that 5e has brought in a lot of casual players (note a recent thread where DMs complained about none of the players even owning a PHB) and the monsters work well (well enough) for them.

As it is, using the listed CRs, 5e starts out very dangerous at level 1, then drops off very rapidly. I like some decline in default danger level, but I think it's far too extreme as-is. It can make players sort of lazy/inattentive to the extent that when circumstance does produce an actual dangerous situation they don't know what to do and there's an unnecessary TPK or a GM fudging wildly.

Again, I think that is based on old assumptions of what CR means. I agree that if you go by the encounter guidelines, danger drops off and I agree that monsters only get incrementally stronger after CR 2-5. I just no longer see that as a problem for 5e.

 

[S'mon]

They are what they are. IMO it is more professional to follow the official guidelines and compensate in other ways. Otherwise people will be blindsided by monsters that punch way above their CR with respect to official monsters.

I think the popularity of the Kobold Press monster books shows that there is likely a happy medium here. Don't totally ignore special powers, but don't let them take your CR wildly out of proportion to actual threat level like the 5e Balor.

Heck, just look at the CR 13 Beholder vs CR 13 Vampire. There's no comparison, the Beholder is vastly more dangerous. You can make your CR 13s closer to the Beholder with a clear conscience. I loved using the Tome of Beasts CR 13 Stuhac - it felt very nasty in play, but it certainly wasn't worse than a Beholder.