Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steady Vane" data-source="post: 9596323" data-attributes="member: 7051331">Spell design does follow the 2014 DMG table rather closely. The notable exceptions are that 1st level spells tend to do slightly more than the table suggests, so as are not outclassed by cantrips; and that at every spell level around two spells do more than the table because WOTC felt like it. Call the second the Fireball problem.Comparing effects to spell damage isn't how they are valued (this is a second-level spell!!), the status effects are valued as flat virtual damage as if a single-target attack. An attack that does some damage and applies a status is valued as a single attack that does more psuedo damage and no status.So from a DPR perspective; the medusa does 23 to 26 damage with a +5 to-hit. This puts its actual damage under the average for the level, which is 35 damage with a +7 to-hit. This is, outside the stone gaze, average stats of a CR 3 or 4 monsterMeanwhile, the AC and HP values put it more in line with a CR 7 or 8 creature than the listed CR 6. This is ignoring the presumed auto-disadvantage attack rolls against her have.So the medusa sure looks like the CR is probably correct based on how one values the stone gaze. CR 3 and CR 8 averaged out equals CR 5.5, plus the stone gaze tipping it over the edge to CR 6. This is probably WOTC's reasoning hereIf you value the stone gaze as effective AC (which you probably can comfortably do) and value the pseudo-damage as a higher value than WOTC does, by those criteria the Medusa could comfortably be bumped in CR a few levels. Probably CR 8 or so.Hope this helps</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steady Vane, post: 9596323, member: 7051331"] Spell design does follow the 2014 DMG table rather closely. The notable exceptions are that 1st level spells tend to do slightly more than the table suggests, so as are not outclassed by cantrips; and that at every spell level around two spells do more than the table because WOTC felt like it. Call the second the Fireball problem. Comparing effects to spell damage isn't how they are valued (this is a second-level spell!!), the status effects are valued as flat virtual damage as if a single-target attack. An attack that does some damage and applies a status is valued as a single attack that does more psuedo damage and no status. So from a DPR perspective; the medusa does 23 to 26 damage with a +5 to-hit. This puts its actual damage under the average for the level, which is 35 damage with a +7 to-hit. This is, outside the stone gaze, average stats of a CR 3 or 4 monster Meanwhile, the AC and HP values put it more in line with a CR 7 or 8 creature than the listed CR 6. This is ignoring the presumed auto-disadvantage attack rolls against her have. So the medusa sure looks like the CR is probably correct based on how one values the stone gaze. CR 3 and CR 8 averaged out equals CR 5.5, plus the stone gaze tipping it over the edge to CR 6. This is probably WOTC's reasoning here If you value the stone gaze as effective AC (which you probably can comfortably do) and value the pseudo-damage as a higher value than WOTC does, by those criteria the Medusa could comfortably be bumped in CR a few levels. Probably CR 8 or so. Hope this helps [/QUOTE]

Verification