In which Surf shares some observations on monsters in the D&D 5e Starter Set and tells us what we can expect in upcoming articles...
Starter Set Monsters
First up no, this is not another Starter Set unboxing. This is not another "I just got the Starter Set" post. I was lucky enough to gain access to the Starter Setmonsters about a week early and commenced my analysis then. I have yet to open my own personal copy of the Starter Set... It's waiting for me to finish writing this post!
First Impressions
The D&D 5e Starter Set contains the adventure Lost Mine Of Phandelver, which in turn includes the ten page Appendix B: Monsters. The first two pages of Appendix B discuss monster statistics and the remaining eight pages contain 27 monsters.
Now my goal with monster analysis has always been to peel back the covers on the underlying math, allowing us to construct reliable and appropriate Monsters. As you might imagine I wasn't expecting to be able to unlock much about 5e monsters with a sample size of a mere 27 low-level creatures! I was resigned to waiting for the Monster Manual release on the 3rd of October before I could do any useful analysis.
But I was to receive a very pleasant surprise!
The Good
It's apparent that after the last playtest packet Wizards Of The Coast wiped the slate clean and started fresh with both monster math and monster construction. It's readily evident that the monsters in the Starter Set support a straightforward method of monster construction. A few hours of preliminary analysis confirmed that the creatures all follow a consistent set of rules that facilitate a straightforward, process-oriented build method. On the few occasions where a creatures falls outside these rules the exception is for obvious reasons. Reasons that apply uniformly across other similar examples. This build process has some similarities to the way PCs are built, but is somewhat simpler and and looser.
Another benefit of following a process-oriented build is that it encourages the DM to think about the monster they are constructing as something more than raw numbers. It also promotes variety in the pool of creatures that emerge over time.
My instincts tell me that there is likely more than one way that D&D 5e monsters can be built. In fact, I get the feeling that if a result-oriented method isn't directly supported one can be built without too much difficulty... Given a sufficient volume of monster samples to draw on.
The Bad
The biggest issue facing analysis is the tiny sample size. Although a lot is obvious about 5e monsters from the Starter Set there are a number of areas we simply cannot break down until we have a larger sample size. Challenge Rating (aka CR) and Damage are the two key areas that present this difficulty.
Another problem resulting from the small sample of low level monsters is, of course, scaling to higher levels. The Starter Set does include creatures from CR0 through to CR8, but there is only one CR8 creature (the Young Green Dragon) and one CR4 creature (the Flameskull). The rest of the monsters range fairly evenly from CR0 through CR3. Until we can analyse a volume of higher level monsters we won't be certain of how our results scale or of any stepping or bumps needed along the way.
Finally, there is a downside to using a process-oriented build methodology. While these approaches generally have some resiliancy built into them the final result may still be significantly weaker or stronger than anticipated. There are ways to compensate for this or check against it, but these are difficult to discover with small sample sizes.
The Ugly
An analysis hoping to prove useful in the short term will need to deal with the issues described above. And this is where it gets a bit dirty. The only real option is to plainly flag where there's a shortfall, use a placeholder that seems appropriate and revisit the area once more data is available.
Where To From Here?
Based on the above observations and assumptions I decided to make a rough long-term plan for my D&D 5e monster analysis. This plan has five distinct phases...
Monster Construction. In this first phase we'll flesh out what I've explored of monster design, flagging items as described above. This phase will be driven primarily out of Basic D&D and the Starter Set. I expect it to last only a few short weeks and plan to make 2-3 blog posts a week during this period.
Preparation. Once the first phase is completed I will prepare for the deeper analysis the Monster Manual release will trigger. This will mainly consist of analysis of PC data, similar to the Class Analysis I did for my D&D Next series. During this time new official D&D 5e monsters may also be release and, if appropriate, I will post updates for the Monster Construction phase. Basic D&D and the Player's Handbook will be the main sources of this work. New blog posts will be few and far between during this period.
Monster Manual Data Entry. The day I get my hands on the new Monster Manual I'll be consumed with entering all of the monsters into a spreadsheet and doing the preliminary number crunching. Don't expect any blog posts during this period, but it will only last a couple of weeks.
Review. The first thing we'll do with our Monster Manual data is check our Monster Construction guidelines. We'll make any necessary corrections and fill in any gaps we can. Then we'll look to extend it to higher level creatures. This will probably take a couple of weeks.
Deep Analysis. Finally I'll embark on a much deeper analysis of monsters. The results of this will look similar to much of my D&D Next Monster Analysis. It's difficult to estimate how long this will take or how frequent blog posts will be. But the aim is to produce tables that support a result-oriented monster construction methodology.
Surf gets side-tracked for a while... But that's a good thing!
Part 3: Construction: CR & Size
OK I want to open this article with a couple of apologies.
First up, some folks felt that "two introductions" for this series was excessive. I can understand this and I'd normally agree - be assured that I agonised over this when I was writing Before Building. But in the end I decided that a process-oriented build really does demand that the conceptual pre-work be done. It is far, far more important for this kind of build than for a result-oriented build. To those who felt put-out I do apologise and can assure you that it is not how I prefer to write a series of articles, so you shouldn't expect a repeat any time soon.
Secondly, I apologise for the lateness of this article. I originally indicated I'd post it almost a week ago, but as I started writing Part 3 I realised how fundamental CR is to the process. I was faced with a choice - do some quick and dirty analysis to work around it or do some solid analysis. So I chose the latter and disappeared down a rabbit hole for a while.
I think most readers will be happy that I did... I certainly hope so!
Let's have a look at the two foundational components of a D&D 5e monster - CR and Size. Then we'll use these to fill out some peices of an example monster.
Challenge Rating
So I had committed to leaving Challenge Rating (aka "CR") analysis until the Monster Manual hit the shelves, but as I dug into 5e monsters I developed a deeper appreciation of something I had previously suspected. While CR clearly is a measure of how appropriate a given creature is for a same-level party to fight, it is also a foundational element in building 5e monsters. When we decide to build an opponent for the PCs, regardless of the approach we use, we have an idea of how challenging it should be. We may or may not have formalised it, but we do have an idea. I starting thinking of this as Target CR in order to differentiate it from the actual final CR.
I came to this realisation as I was doing some analysis to work around using CR when building monsters. Ultimately this lead me to analyze PC data earlier than anticipated. Interested readers might check out this thread on the wizards.com forums where I posted the data I crunched about Classes.
Several key components of monsters are based directly on Target CR...
A monster's Hitpoints are the result of it's number of Hit Dice, it's size and it's Ability Score modifiers. But how many hitpoints should my monster have? Target CR yields a Target HP range towards which we can build.
CR
XP
0
10
1/8
25
1/4
50
1/2
100
1
200
2
450
3
700
4
1100
✝5
1700
✝6
2300
✝7
3000
8
3900
✝9
4800
✝10
5900
✝ Not in the Starter Set
Monster Damage output results from a creature's traits and actions. A combat-focussed creature's damage is influenced by it's Ability Score modifiers, it's size, the weapon it uses, the number of attacks it makes and several other factors. A creature that focusses on casting spells mainly produces damage according to it's caster level. Creatures with other approaches produce their damage output via other methods. But what should this damage output be? Target CR gives us an appropriate range for this.
Proficiency for monsters is indexed directly off the creature's CR. We can simply use the Character Advancement table on page 10 of the Basic D&D v0.1 and use CR instead of level.
Experience Points seem to be tightly bound to CR. While there are a number of gaps the XP rewards for the monsters presented in the Starter Set make it quite easy to fill in these gaps up to level 10 with a reasonable level of confidence. We can estimate values for the missing CRs using the following moderate polynomial:
XP = -0.3553xCR^3 + 60.485xCR^2 + 5.5534xCR + 155.52
It's important to note that our limited sample size makes it difficult to be confident of certain numbers past a reasonable level or CR. In this case we can have a high level of confidence that we are in the right ballpark with these XP numbers. Some of them might be a hundred XP or so out but they'll be pretty close and more than good enough for most uses. We'll revisit these as soon as there's more data, but it's what we have to use for now.
Note that I won't provide tables out past CR10 until we have at least some examples of creatures at these higher levels to analyze.
Prediction: I believe we'll see creatures up to at least CR25 in the Monster Manual, probably out to CR30 and maybe even beyond.
Size
Monster Size partners with Target CR to provide targets for most of the building blocks of a 5e monster, either directly or indirectly.
Size has a direct bearing on Hit Points (via Hit Dice), weapon damage dice and on speed. It may also influence other aspects of monsters.
Size
HD
Speed
Tiny
d4
10'
Small
d6
20'
Medium
d8
30'
Large
d10
40'
✝Huge
d12
50'
✝Gargantuan
d20
60'
✝ Not in the Starter Set
Page 71 of the Basic D&D v0.1 PDF outlines the appropriate size categories in D&D 5e and Appendix B of the Starter Set shows us the HD size for most of these. Appendix B doesn't tell us the HD size for Huge or Gargantuan creatures, but it's pretty reasonable to assume that these are simply the next dice sizes up from Large.
Speed is normally thought of as an aspect of race - it's listed in the Racial Traits section of the Basic D&D v0.1 PDF, for example. I believe that this is primarily because Size is a component of Race. Note that Speed is not a "hard" aspect of size, rather it is a starting point that can be modified and tuned to suit the specific creature you are building. Variance up to one size category above or below seems to be quite normal.
Prediction: Because of the relationship between Size and Hit Points I believe monsters of the smaller sizes will become less frequent as CR increases and that creatures past say CR10 will be predominantly Medium or bigger. We'll need the volume of data expected in the Monster Manual to confirm this.
Example: Human Pyromancer
Since this part of my blog focuses on the build-oriented approach to D&D 5e monster creation I thought it would be appropriate to provide some example monsters for illustration purposes. In these examples we'll normally omit parts of the stat block which we have not yet dealt with.
Human Pyromancer
Medium humanoid (human), any alignment
Speed: 30ft
Challenge 5 (1,700 XP)
The idea behind the Human Pyromancer is a "Glass Cannon" ranged attacker with an aracane fire theme. The intent is for this monster to blast the PCs from a distance, while receiving protection from melee type monsters and cover. Once the PCs get up close it should be all over for this guy. With some lower level meat-shield support it could be the central piece of a toughish level 5 or 6 encounter. It should have some longevity out to level 10 or so as lower-end ranged support for higher-CR melee creatures.
From a monster design perspective it will allow us to explore how spellcasting monsters are built in D&D 5e and thus also explore the math associated with casters. It will also allow us to illustrate the flexibility the CR guidelines for HP and Damage support.
The momentum of Surf's D&D Next Monster Analysis overflows into the 5e release and Surf pokes an analysis stick at D&D 5e Monsters...
I was fortunate enough to get access to part of the D&D 5e Starter Set several days in advance. The Appendix B: Monsters section from the Lost Mine Of Phandelver booklet is the key item of interest from a monster analysis perspective and with this in hand I was able to complete my initial analysis in very short order.
With the Starter Set released today it seemed like a good time to launch the 5e monster math articles!
Surf continues on into the final parts of the monster stat block...
Part 8: Construction: Actions
Some of these articles seem to take on a life of their own and grow longer in the writing. I originally intended to include the Attack Bonus analysis in this instalment, however I've decided to post this part on its own and continue working on Attack Bonus as its own separate article.
Monsters are subject to the same action economy as player characters, although some monsters are able to extend this action economy in ways that PCs cannot - most notably Legendary Creatures. Just like PCs each monster can move and take one Action on its turn. And just like PCs monsters also have a Reaction and a Bonus Action that they may use, if they have a way of doing so.
Formally expressed actions use certain common elements to standardize documentation, though some actions may omit almost all of these components. The components themselves are pretty straightforward and tend to focus primarily on supporting attacks. These elements include the following...
Name: All formally presented actions start with a short descriptive name for that action, frequently this is a single word. For example "Bite".
Usage: Some actions are of limited usage and this is normally noted in braces immediately after the attack name. For example "Recharge 5-6".
Attack Type: Most attack actions employ a standardized short form to indicate the general attack range (for example melee or ranged) and type (for example weapon or spell), along with the keyword "attack". Common examples include "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack" and "Ranged Spell Attack".
Special attacks instead typically describe very briefly the attack type, range and shape. For example "The dragon exhales fire in a 60-foot cone".
Attack/Defense enumeration: Attack actions normally specify either a "to hit" bonus or details of a saving throw that the target must make. For example "+14 to hit" or "DC21 Dexterity save".
Target/Range information: Attack actions normally describe targeting information. For standardized short-form attacks this will be a range type (reach or range), a range outline in feet (including long range if applicable) and the number of targets. Examples include "reach 5', one target" and "range 120/360 ft., one target".
Special attacks normally dovetail their action description into their target specification descriptively. For example "each creature in area" or "each creature that can see the..."
Hit/Miss section: These sections of attack actions describe what happens when the attack hits or, in some cases, when it misses. This section describes damage amounts, damage types, conditions and ongoing damage/conditions. It may also include nested attack sections, which are effectively additional attacks.
Move
Move actions are not formally expressed actions in D&D 5e and are almost expressly not to be used for purposes other than movement. Indeed a number of monster actions which could be considered movement are implemented using Actions and Bonus Actions, such as the Etherealness action of the Ghost.
In D&D 5e the use of move actions is normally described in the Speed section near the very top of the monster stat block.
Action
Combat-viable monsters almost universally have at least one Action and the majority of Actions are some form of attack, either as a direct attack or indirectly by enabling attacks, Multiattack being the most common of these.
Actions appear to fall in five specific categories and these always seem to occur in the following order with in the Actions section, when present...
Multiattack
Regular attacks
Special attacks/Non-attack actions
Limited use attacks
1. Multiattack
Multiattack. The dragon can use its Frightful Presence. It then
makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws.
Multiattack actions simply specify the name "Multiattack" and the other Actions which may be used when the creature's Multiattack action is used, including the number of times each may be used (if more than once).
The Multiattack action is one of the most common actions in D&D 5e and the mechanism by which many of this edition's monsters achieve the bulk of their Damage. The action's simple elegance makes it easy to tune in to the desired target damage range at design time and at game time allows the DM a good deal of flexibility dishing out damage with as much or as little focus as desired. We already see in the PC classes that increasing the number of attacks over levels is a common scaling method in D&D 5e and that may be one of the reasons Multiattack is so common in its monsters, but I believe it is also present specifically because of the control it yields to DMs and to monster designers.
The Multiattack action can be as simple as two uses of a single regular melee attack or as complex as five, or possibly more, different Actions.
2. Regular Attacks
Tail.Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target.
Hit: 18 (4d6 + 4) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a
creature, it must succeed on a DC 14 Strength saving throw or
be knocked prone.
Regular attacks are slim-line in design and implementation, generally steering clear of unnecessary complexity. These actions include a standardized short-form Attack Type, typically an Attack Enumeration of the "to hit" variety and short-form Target/Range Information. They generally also include a relatively simple Hit section, occasionally with a Miss section, and may include nested damage.
Almost all combat-viable creatures have at least one regular attack and many of the lowest CR creatures have nothing but regular attacks. In some cases regular attack actions are fallbacks used for things like opportunity attacks or as building blocks for Multiattack actions.
3. Special Attacks/Non-Attack Actions
Rotting Gaze. The nothic targets one creature it can see within
30 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution
saving throw against this magic or take 10 (3d6) necrotic
damage.
Special attacks and non-attack actions generally eschew the use of short-form annotation. By definition the more free-form Attack Type description is used and in most cases the free-form Attack/Defense enumeration and Target/Range information are also observed. Both the Hit section and Miss section may be present, but they may also be omitted in favor of a more free-form description, particularly in the case of non-attack actions.
Special attacks may account for a significant portion of a monster's alpha damage (aka "burst damage" or "spike damage"), especially where special attacks are conditional. However, in most cases alpha damage is the domain of limited use attacks or of the SpellcasterTrait.
4. Limited Use Attacks
Cold Breath (Recharge 5-6). The wolf exhales a blast of
freezing wind in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area
must make a DC 12 Dexterity saving throw, taking 18 (4d8)
cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a
successful one.
Limited use attacks are those that specify a Usage restricting how frequently they may be used. Attacks of this type generally inflict damage well above that which the creature would otherwise cause and its normal damage is normally comparatively lower to compensate. In other respects the limited use attack typically resembles either regular attacks or special attacks.
The limited use attack is one of two vectors in D&D 5e for implementing alpha damage (aka "burst damage" or "spike damage"), the other normal vector being the Spellcasting trait.
Action Analysis
Now that we have examined the different types of Actions we need to consider the number of actions that are appropriate for a creature of our target CR. Is it just random (and by inference static with an acceptable margin of variance)? Or is there some kind of progression?
Common sense and instinct suggest that higher level monsters are more complex and thus more likely to have more Actions, but let's check the facts analytically.
Monster Number of Actions Scatter
Monster Number of Actions Average
Once we have recorded the number of Actions each monster has it's a relatively simple matter to create a scatter graph showing number of Actions by CR. Placing a trendline on this gives us an initial indication of whether there might be some kind of progression.
The graph suggests that there probably is a progression, although it is kind of difficult to tell exactly what. And the relative sparseness of our higher-level samples means the high CR end will be quite prone to skew. Still the shape of the samples tells us that a variation of +/-2 seems quite normal. In fact the Standard Deviation for this across all CRs is 0.89 and the average variability is 1.14. So we can be quite happy with +/-2 as our regular variation, understanding that there is scope to vary outside this if we feel that it's appropriate in a particular case.
Averaging the data out by CR and then producing a comparable graph reveals a likely progression. For the most part the data is quite well aligned and the progression itself is quite shallow. D&D 5e's preference for simple elegance shows itself here - even the more complicated monsters in the new edition tend to be relatively simple to understand and run. I find this a refreshing difference to its immediately preceding editions.
CR
Num Actions✝
0
1
⅛
1
¼
2
½
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
3
8
3
9
3
10
3
✝ Varies by +/-2
The summary graph tells us pretty clearly that a progression from 2 at CR1 to 7 at CR30 is probably appropriate and that we'd want to drop down to about 1 action somewhere around CR¼. How sure of this can we be? What margin is there for error? And how much does it matter if we are wrong?
Well we already mentioned the low Standard Deviation and Variability, which give us some surety. But as I said we are quite light on higher CR samples and this could skew that end of the trendline. Fortunately with such a short range of difference this is somewhat like Bounded Accuracy, we don't necessarily have to be exactly right - our margin for error isn't that big. Additionally these are only guidelines of what's generally appropriate at a nominated CR and we are designating a significant variation as standard so the impact of being out by a couple of Actions isn't big.
It only takes a couple of minutes to determine a linear progression that matches this pattern...
Actions=0.17 × CR + 1.46
As a matter of practical advice I'd encourage monster designers to follow D&D 5e's principle of elegant simplicity wherever possible with Actions. Look to expressing your monster concept clearly with a small number of concise Actions where possible.
Prediction: I think most of what we have covered so far is self-evident. The only predication I can make is about the accuracy of the progression we have detailed above. I believe we'll find it's not too far off.
Reaction
Just like PCs monsters have a Reaction they may use each turn and they can "spend" it in any of the standard ways - by readying an action, making an opportunity attack, dismounting as their mount falls or by using a spell with a casting time of "reaction". Some monsters can also use their Reaction in special ways, just as many PCs can, and if present this will be described in the monster's Reactions section.
Parry. The knight adds 2 to its AC against one melee attack
that would hit it. To do so, the knight must see the attacker
and be wielding a melee weapon.
The layout for a Reaction is normally its Name, an explanation of its trigger conditions and the details of the Reaction's results. While this might include any of the elements described in the Action Overview most Reactions tend to be fairly freeform, with a layout similar to the Special Attacks/Non-Attack Actions discussed above.
Monster Reaction Scatter
Monster Reaction Average
While most PCs manage to pick up a reaction by level 5 we find that Reactions are far less common amongst D&D 5e's monsters.
If we note the number of reaction entries each creature has and then plot the results on a scatter graph it's immediately obvious that very few monsters have a special Reaction. In fact of our 225 sample monsters only 7 have a Reaction (that's 3.1%) and none of these has more than one.
By averaging this data out and graphing it again we get visual confirmation of just how unusual it is for D&D 5e monsters to use special Reactions. Besides one tiny "blip" we can see that the overall average for any given level is close to zero, as it is across all levels.
This means that the use of special Reactions isn't something that monsters in this edition rely upon. We can probably simply consider it a flourish and as such a way of adding a certain "flavor" to the odd monster.
Based on the principle of elegant simplicity I believe we should not normally give our monsters special Reactions. Instead we should save these for when there is a compelling reason - perhaps we want a creature to "feel" like a Fighter or a Rogue and give it a Reaction similar to one that class has. Or perhaps our mental picture of the monster compels us to give it a special Reaction
Prediction: Special Reactions will remain quite rare as we see more monsters released by Wizards of the Coast.
Bonus Action
As monsters may take a reaction each turn they may also take a Bonus Action, if they have a way of doing so.
Rampage. When the hyena reduces a creature to 0 hit points
with a melee attack on its turn, the hyena can take a bonus
action to move up to half its speed and make a bite attack.
A monster's Bonus Action use is not detailed in a separate dedicated section, instead it is incorporated within other sections already discussed, typically the Traits section. A monster's Bonus Action may sometimes also be spent as a conditional extension of an Action.
While some Bonus Actions do enable additional attacks or Damage (which must be factored into the creature's average damage) some do not, instead they enable additional movement or other activity.
Monster Bonus Action Scatter
Monster Bonus Action Average
This brings us to consideration of Bonus Action progression and occurrence. Once again we tally up the number of Bonus Actions that each monster has and see what the data tells us. The first thing we see is that 24 of our 225 sample creatures (that's about 10.7%) have at least one Bonus Actions. And all but one of these have only a single Bonus Action.
The scatter graph of all samples makes this quite clear and we can see the CR2 Will-O'-Wisp clearly standing out above the rest. This tells us that most of the time our monsters won't need a Bonus Action, but if we choose to use one it should probably just be a single one. This is nicely in keeping with the principal of elegant simplicity.
The summary graph clearly reflects the approximate 10% occurrence of Bonus Actions and also reveals the low numbers of our high-CR samples, which results in some variability from about CR10 onwards.
Essentially monster mechanics which utilize Bonus Actions add complexity to monsters. If we consider the principals of elegant simplicity and easy operation together with the frequency of Bonus Actions it suggests we should think a little before using Bonus Actions on our monsters. If our monster feels a bit on the plain side and too simple maybe it's appropriate to spice it up a bit with a Bonus Action. If we want to give our monster the feel of a PC class maybe we could factor a Bonus Action into its composition.
Bonus Actions don't add the complexity of Reactions so with these I believe it's more a matter of using our judgment.
Prediction: Once the Monster Manual analysis is complete I believe we will see that the distribution of Bonus Actions stays at around 10% across all CRs, that said it is possible that it will increase somewhat at higher CRs.
Building Attack Actions
Building attack actions can be fairly freeform however there are some underlying construction guidelines we should observe, especially in the case of most regular attack actions.
Many monster designers feel more comfortable building monster attacks based on PC attacks and this works particularly well with weapon attacks. One selects a weapon, applies the appropriate modifier (Strength modifier for most melee weapons or Dexterity modifier for finesse and many ranged weapons) for to-hit and damage, then adds proficiency to the to-hit value. Monster size does appear to play a role here and that role seems to focus on damage dice.
Size
Modification
Tiny
Light weapons only
Small
Heavy weapons excluded
Medium
N/A
Large
2x weapon dice
Huge
3x weapon dice
Gargantuan
4x weapon dice
Weapon attacks seem to be impacted by creature size. Creatures smaller than medium appear to have restrictions on the weapons they can use and creatures bigger than medium size gain multipliers to the number of weapon dice. These modifications are clearest when looking at creatures assigned attack actions corresponding to weapons in the players guide. But this can also be extrapolated from other attack actions.
I have included a table with my understanding of these modifications. Please do note that this table is based on my observations and reflections.
While these observations correspond with those made by other members of the D&D 5e analysis community (kudos to Coronoides from the RPG.net forums and to others) they may not be a perfect match to what Wizards of the Coast is using. But it should be useful until we receive official guidelines from WotC.
Many creatures have attack actions similar to spells and many monster designers find it easiest to build these using PC spells as a base. The most important thing here is to ensure that the Spell Save DC or Spell Attack Modifier are appropriately calculated, using the appropriate ability modifier as the spellcasting modifier, as we discussed in the Spellcasting section of Part 6.
As monster designers gain more confidence building monsters in D&D 5e it's likely they'll tend to move away from reproducing PC attacks, except where appropriate, and instead move towards a more "pure form" of building monster attack actions. To those embarking down this path I would share the following notes and general pieces of advice...
Decide on the base ability and work out its modifier. For direct physical attacks it should be Dexterity or Strength. For magic, mental and other similar attacks it should be Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom. Usually it's the highest ability in that group, unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.
Assume the monster has proficiency with their attacks, unless it suits design for them not to have proficiency.
Damage always seems to have a base damage which is then built upon, which should be in the form
NdN + Base_Ability_Modifier. For example 2d8+4
There is no mixed damage in D&D 5e, different types of damage in the same attack are concatenated. The base damage comes first with other damage appended to it. For example we would not have "3d8+2 fire and force damage"; instead we might have "1d8+2 fire damage plus 2d8 force damage".
It's legitimate to nest additional damage within base damage, typically using a save. For example "1d8+2 bludgeoning damage, the target must make a DC12 wisdom save or take an additional 2d8 psychic damage".
Example: Human Pyromancer
Applying this article's content to our example monster will produce a result that is essentially complete.
Human Pyromancer
Medium humanoid (human), any alignment
Armor Class 12
Hit Points 77 (14d8+14)
Speed 30ft
STR 9 (-1)
DEX 14 (+2)
CON 12 (+1)
INT 19 (+4)
WIS 12 (+1)
CHA 12 (+1)
Saving Throws Dex +5, Int +7
Skills Arcana +7, Perception +4
Damage Resistances Fire
Languages Common, Ignan
Challenge 5 (1,700 XP)
Spellcasting. The pyromancer is a 5th-level spellcaster. Its
spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC15, +7 to hit
with spell attacks). The pyromancer has the following wizard
spells prepared.
Actions Dagger.Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d4 + 2) piercing damage.
Reactions Flame Shroud (Recharge 5-6). When a ranged attack would hit
the pyromancer, or it is targeted by a spell that has a range
other than touch, the air around it bursts into shimmering,
shifting flame for a few seconds. Until the start of the
pyromancer's next turn ranged attacks against it, including the
triggering attack, are made with Disadvantage and it has
Advantage on saving throws against spells with a range other
than touch. During this time it takes no damage from magic
missile.
Because we made a conscious choice to rely heavily on the Spellcasting trait for most of the pyromancer's damage we don't have a great deal to do in the Actions section. All we really need to do is to give it a melee attack action that it can use for opportunity attacks. To this end let's give it a Dagger attack.
A CR5 creature's Proficiency bonus is +3 and the dagger is a finesse weapon, so we'll use the dexterity modifier of +2 for this. There's no compelling reason to beef this up so we will just go with +5 to hit and 1d4+2 damage.
Now several times during these articles I have indicated that we would give our pyromancer some kind of "trick" against ranged spells and attacks. Something to help it get through that first round, until some of the PCs close on it. What I've had in mind is something like the Shield spell, however I see several issues with simply assigning the pyromancer Shield. First up our monster would be able to use this three times, not simply once. Secondly Shield works against weapon attacks, but doesn't provide any benefit against ranged spells. Finally Shield isn't fire-themed.
Because of the first two issues simply reskinning Shield isn't going to meet our needs. So we'll take what we can as inspiration from Shield, modify other parts and fill the gaps ourselves.
Shield is a reaction with a force flavor that gives a +5 defensive bonus until the start of the caster's next turn and nullifies magic missile. The +5 isn't much help against spells, but a +5 is about the same as advantage/disadvantage compared with a plain roll. So we can use advantage/disadvantage in its place and word a reaction that functions against ranged attacks, with a fire flavor.
If we imagine that the pyromancer is momentarily shrouded in shimmering fire that makes it difficult to target we can envision how this can all come together.
Finally we want to restrict use of this reaction somewhat so that it isn't used every round. We could make it a daily power, but I decided that it would be most interesting if there was a small chance the pyromancer could use it more than once per encounter, so I made it a recharge reaction.
Next time we'll look at how the pyromancer matches up to the to-hit curve and then we'll move on to assessing its actual CR.
D&D 5e Monsters: Part 4: Construction: Ability Scores & HP
Where Surf maps out some of the parameters and progression around monster Ability Scores and Hit Points...
Part 4: Construction: Ability Scores & HP
Before getting into things I'd like to thank the guy who forwarded Appendix B of the Horde Of The Dragon Queen PDF to me - you know who you are and you have my thanks. The 5 monsters in it have been entered into my spreadsheets and these all fit analysis to date. The highest CR of these was a CR4 Dragonborn NPC.
Onwards!
D&D 5e monsters rely heavily on their Ability Scores to implement much of their mechanics. Once we have determined these we are in a position to compute dependant stats, like Hit Points. After considering these two aspects of D&D 5e monsters we'll apply the results to our Example Monster.
Ability Scores
I spent some time analysing monster ability scores. I looked at standard arrays. I looked at some point-buy approaches. And I looked at combinations of the two. I also tried to factor in possible racial bonuses. Now it's quite possible a combination of these approaches is being used, but if they are it's something not evident to me.
Raw Max & Average Ability
Analyzed Max & Average Ability
What is apparent is that monster ability scores adhere to an average based approach, at least for the data available at the time of writing.
Dropping a trendline on a scatter graph of each creature's maximum and average ability score produces some interesting results. We can see that the two are generally an equal distance apart. That said, the predominance of the very low level monsters does skew the trendline.
If we do some aggregation on the data we can work out both the average maximum attribute score and the average attribute score for creatures at each CR. We can then create a scatter graph of this data and plot trendlines on the two sets of data. This shows us that average ability score remains pretty consistent and that the relationship between it and average maximum ability score is also normally fairly consistent. There is a little skew due to the Young Green Dragon, but that creature has sacrifices it's high score a little in order to improve some of it's secondary scores.
CR
Ability Scores
Average
Maximum✝
0
8
13
⅛
9
14
¼
10
15
½
10
15
1
11
16
2
11
16
3
12
17
4
12
17
5
13
18
6
13
18
7
14
19
8
14
19
9
15
20
10
15
20
✝ Typical maximum.
This data makes it pretty simple to construct a linear progression out to level 10 that we can be quite confident of. We focus on the CR1 through CR10 creatures for matching the curve and identifying the appropriate formula. For creatures lower than CR1 I simply entered data matching the analysis. I could have built a poly2 or poly3 formula to produce the same results. But I figure people following this series would rather me not waste several hours, possibly delaying the next post by an extra day as a result.
With a few minutes work we can obtain a simple linear formula that fits our requirements very well...
Average Ability=0.5 x CR + 10.5
Our analysis of the data tell us that the maximum attribute value is typically five higher than the average attribute value for the CR, but sometimes they are seven or even more. That's fine as long as the creature's abilities average out to a value close to the average for the Target CR.
Since monster designers will be building these creatures in the context of D&D 5e discarding the remainders is the most appropriate approach here and I have used that method to construct the table for this section.
You can use the top-right table from page 9 of the Basic D&D v0.1 PDF to determine each ability's modifier based on the ability score. If you use spreadsheets the following formula should work perfectly (assuming your data is in cell A1):
=FLOOR((A1-10)/2,1)
Prediction: We know that maximum monster ability scores will be 30. My prediction is that we won't commonly see this in monsters until past CR20. I think it'll plateua shortly after that CR out to the CR25 or CR30 maximum I predicted in my last post.
Hit Points
Monster Hit Points are one of the most important aspects of D&D 5e monsters, along with the creature's damage output. I believe that these two stats are the principle elements used to determine a creature's Actual CR, but we'll look at that in a later post.
During my D&D Next Monster Analysis we saw that there is an important relationship between PC Damage and monster HP. In fact PC Damage Output is the main consideration for determining appropriate monster HP and that is clearly still the case in D&D 5e.
In order to analyse monster Damage and Hit Points I had to enter that same data for PC Classes into a spreadsheet and use that data in the analysis of monster stats. This data was presented to the community for review, comment and reuse in this thread on the Wizards of the Coast forums.
Average/Total PC Damage
Graphing the sum and average of PC Damage reveals some interesting patterns. At levels 5, 11 and 17 PCs see a significant gain in damage output - a jump of about 5 damage on top of their normal progression. In other words they double the damage gain they normally make over an entire tier of play. This kind of "stepping" is often used in game design to help build a feeling that characters make significant gains in power by advancing into new tiers of play. Wizards of the Coast has used this before and even told us this would be the case at these levels in recent Legends & Lore posts and on Twitter.
Wizards of the Coastdidn't tell us about the flatter damage gain in the final tier and it's final damage step at level 20. But this is hardly surprising since PCs typically take on Deities and Greater Demon Lords at this point in the game. Interestingly this also lends some support to the idea that creatures higher than CR20 will be part of the game.
I've read a number of comments on the net about folks finding 5e monsters difficult to figure out. They often point to power curves like those in D&D 4e and talk about how predictable and incremental these are. Folks seem to find the stepping in 5e problematic because they can't look to the underlying curve. The thing is, even if Wizards of the Coast are simply cobbling all of 5e together in a huge spreadsheet without using coherent formulae and curves... Why curves will still tend to be there! And this is no exception.
PC Damage/Monster HP Curve
If we take the average PC damage output from our first graph we can plot a simple Power trendline over it. We can angle this trendline so that much of the regular damage progression in each tier aligns with the trendline. The dip before the step at the end of each tier falls away below this and the steps at levels 5, 11 and 17 (and the one at level 20) pop up to just above the trendline.
And thus the magic of curve-matching reveals to us the actual power curve for PC Damage in D&D 5e...
Damage=4.55 x Level ^ 0.72
So how do the Hit Points of monsters from the Starter Set (and Horde of the Dragon Queen) relate to PC Damage? Well what I did was compare those with the actual PC stats at the same level as the CR in question. For monsters with a CR under CR1 there needed to be a slight manual workaround in the comparison - to gain the base equivalent PC Damage I had to determine it from the level 1 PC data.
CR
Hit Points
Min
Target
Max
0
1
1
3
⅛
3
5
7
¼
6
8
11
½
11
14
19
1
18
23
31
2
29
37
44
3
43
50
57
4
55
62
68
5
67
72
96
6
77
83
78
7
87
92
88
8
97
102
98
9
106
111
107
10
115
119
115
Note: Typical boundaries shown.
To be honest things break down a little bit below CR1 anyway. For example, what's the difference between a CR⅛ and a CR0 creature's hitpoints? We are talking about the difference between say 2hp and 4hp. Most PCs can kill either with a single hit. They differentiate more when we introduce Damage into the equation, but we'll leave that for it's own post.
If we divide the average monster HP by the average PC Damage for the same level/CR we see that it is consistently a 5. What does this mean? Well a party of 4 PCs shaping up against a monster of the same CR as their level can expect that opponent to survive for about two rounds, on average.
From here it's pretty simple to build an appropriate formula for Monster Hit Points. In this case we'll round any remainders to the nearest whole number and assume a minimum value of one. Here's what I came up with...
HP=(4.55 x CR ^ 0.72) x 5
We could assume that the halfway point between each of these values is the cut-off point for each CR, but that isn't the case. There appears to be some overlap between adjacent CRs. This is mainly constrained within a 5% overlap, however the Hit Points of some monsters is significantly above or below these limits. In most of these cases there is a corresponding opposite variation in Damage and the remainder of the cases compensate in some other manner. This supports the supposition that Damage is a significant factor when it comes to assessing Actual CR.
CR
Con Mod
Hit Dice
Tiny (d4)
Small (d6)
Medium (d8)
Large (d10)
Huge (d12)
Garg'n (d20)
0
-1
1
-
-
-
-
-
⅛
-1
3
1
1
-
-
-
¼
+0
3
2
2
1
1
-
½
+0
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
+0
9
7
5
3
3
2
2
+0
16
12
9
6
5
4
3
+1
16
12
10
7
6
5
4
+1
21
16
13
10
9
6
5
+1
25
20
16
12
11
8
6
+1
29
23
19
15
14
9
7
+2
26
21
18
15
14
9
8
+2
29
24
20
17
16
11
9
+2
32
27
22
18
17
12
10
+2
35
29
24
20
19
13
Once we have decided on a target Hit Point value for the creature we need to decide how many Hit Dice it should have to be at or near that target. This isn't necessarily as staightforward as one might think and it's best that we understand how Average HP is calculated...
Average HP=(Num_HD x Dice_Avg) + (Num_HD x Con_Mod)
As we can see this pretty much the traditional pre-D&D 4e method for determining monster HP.
The fiddly part here is determining the appropriate HD for a monster based on it's Target HD, incorporating the creature's Constitution modifier into the equation. To help facilitate this I spent a couple of hours precalculating a table of the number of a given HD needed to achieve close to a given Target CR's target Hit Points, assuming the creature has a constitution of average for that Target CR.
Hopefully this helps put folks in the right ballpark when building monsters for a given Target CR. But in many cases readers will find that they still need to tinker a bit with number of HD and the creature's Constitution score. In these cases modifying number of HD generally results in the smallest incremental changes, while changes to Constitution normally result in bigger differences.
So how do the monsters in the Starter Set and in Appendix B of Horde Of The Dragon Queen fit these tables?
Between the Starter Set and Appendix B of Horde Of The Dragon Queen there are 33 creatures.
15 of these 33 have HP outside the boundaries I described.
8 of these 15 could be have inappropriate hitpoints after factoring in their Damage, using my provisional method.
4 of these 8 are more than 3 hitpoints outside the ranges we have discussed. I consider 3 or less to be an acceptable margin of error in this area.
So these 4 creatures could be considered "outside CR", but is this the case?
Flameskull
This creature falls well short of minimum target HP. Looking at the Flameskull we can see that it has considerable resistances and immunities, possibly more than other creatures of this CR will have. But the real trick here seems like the Rejuvenation trait. PCs will probably have to fight this creature twice to beat it! So we can consider it valid. Additionally I did not include Damage from it's Spellcasting trait and this should probably compensate it's HP a modest amount.
Langdedrosa Cyanwrath
This creature from Horde of the Dragon Queen seems to fall a bit short on both HP and Damage. But if we look closely at it we can see that it has quite high Alpha Damage. I suspect that this has been factored in as approximately 7 or more in their base Damage, which would see them within an appropriate Actual CR.
Spectator
While the Spectator's HP are below the minimum for it's CR that's not why it falls below CR. Instead this comes back to difficulties accurately determining the creature's Damage output. Only one of the Spectator's four eye attacks cause damage and so only that eye's damage has been calculated. If we assume that the it's Spell Reflection and the effect of another eye combined would be "worth" at least 12 damage we find that it falls neatly within it's CR.
Zombie
The Zombie's HP are much more than we'd expect for a CR¼ creature, in fact they are more in line with a CR1 monster. On the flip-side it's Damage is more appropriate to a CR⅛ or even a CR0 monster. Combined with it's slow movement I think the Zombie is probably OK. As I've inferred before, the tighter margins below CR1 allow for less leeway with creatures that push the boundaries of our definitions.
Prediction: Once the Monster Manual has been released I believe we'll see that creature Hit Points will vary outside their suggested boundaries more frequently than their Damage does.
Example: Human Pyromancer
As I said in my last post the Pyromance will be a ranged glass cannon with a focus on Arcane fire.
Human Pyromancer
Medium humanoid (human), any alignment
Hit Points: 77 (14d8+14)
Speed: 30ft
STR 9 (-1)
DEX 14 (+2)
CON 12 (+1)
INT 19 (+4)
WIS 12 (+1)
CHA 12 (+1)
Challenge 5 (1,700 XP)
I'm loosely modelling it on the Wizard class, so I will focus on Intelligence as it's main stat. To compensate I will give it below average Strength, because of all those years studying dusty tomes. The Pyromancer's Dexterity will be slightly above average - he looks after his fingers and practices a lot of arcane gestures and exercises. The remaining stats I will leave at average for a CR5 creature.
This monster is going to rely on cover and it's allies to protect it, rather than high defences and an ocean of health. So I am going to set it's Hit Points below the minimum suggested for a CR5 creature. This will allow me to push it's Damage up quite high for it's Actual CR. Tweaking number of HD and not adjusting the creature's Constitution score is the easiest way to do this fine tuning.
D&D 5e Monsters: Part 5: Construction: AC & Other Attributes
Where Surf deals with the Armor Class curve and does some other attribute analysis...
Part 5: Construction: AC & Other Attributes
Apologies to those patient readers who were expecting a blog post last week. Real life is unimaginative and unforgiving. It left me without time to peice this post togethor until now.
To complete the top four sections of the D&D 5e monster stat block we need to understand Armor Class, the Miscellaneous Stats that a creature has and set appropriate values on our Example Monster.
Armor Class
Monster Armor Class has a close relationship with PC Attack Bonus. While our small sample size does present some difficulties here we can do some analysis on PC Attack Bonus to help us leverage value from the samples we have. Yes, there will be some element of uncertainty, but it will be smaller than many people expect.
Monster AC Scatter
If we plot all of the monster AC values by level we get an interesting little scatter graph, with most of the data on the left hand side because of the predominantly low level nature of our sample data. A trendline will be less impacted by this low-level skew, however the sparseness of higher level data does tend to make the trendline somewhat unreliable. But remember, that's why we are constraining ourselves to CR10 and below.
What's important here is that we get a sense of roughly where the average is for the data we have, what we think the trendline should look like and what kind of variability we should expect to see at a given level.
Monster AC Average
We can also average monster AC data and plotting the results on another graph, adding a trendline to this graph too. We can then consider the similarities and differences between the two, along with what these might signify. As you can see this tightens up the clusters and brings the lower level data into sharper focus. Unfortunately this doesn't directly help with our higher level samples.
That said this is probably enough to crack this particular nut for CR0 through CR10... That is, if we do some analysis of related PC data and then leverage off it.
Average PC Attack
To achieve this I had to go and analyze Attack Bonus data for PC Classes, as I had previously done for PC Damage in order to properly analyze monster Hit Points. Since I was doing this anyway I also did the initial analysis on PC AC, updated my previous PC data spreadsheet and floated a new PC Stat Curves thread on the Wizards of the Coast forums. Hopefully this proves useful to others and you are welcome to look at it yourself and comment back on that thread, if you are so inclined.
The casual reader might be forgiven for assuming that we can express the PC Attack Bonus using a simple linear expression, or possibly a power expression. While we can get fairly close to the trendline we see in that graph using a linear or power equation, but to achieve something close to an exact match we need to use a simple polynomial similar to this one:
Attack = -0.0062 x Level ^ 2 + 0.495 x Level + 4.012
This curve is particularly useful for several reasons. It almost perfectly matches the projected progression, having a 0.2 variance that only tells at four points due to rounding - levels 5, 9, 10 and 13. AT these points the rounded value slips one above or below the actual PC class values. I think that falls with the margin for error in the observed PC data itself. The progression below level 1, where we might match with CR, looks appropriate. Past level 20 the progression becomes quite shallow, which should be appropriate for building CR21+ creatures. Additionally the equation is one of the least complicated polynomials. It seems fairly elegant to me.
CR
Armor Class
Average
0
13
⅛
13
¼
13
½
13
1
14
2
14
3
14
4
15
5
15
6
16
7
16
8
17
9
17
10
17
Now, what should an average D&D 5e character roll to hit an average CR-equivalent creature? Subtracting our average PC Attack bonus from the AC of an average CR-equivalent monster we see that it's very close to an average of 9 for our level 1 through 4 sample range. I guess it's possible that it could be an 8 or a 10, but we'll need the kind of data the Monster Manual will supply to work that out for sure. So for now we'll go with a 9.
Thus all we need to do is add 9 to the simple polynomial equation I posted above. This can be easily expressed as...
AC = (-0.0062 x Target_CR ^ 2 + 0.495 x Target_CR + 4.012) + 9
The table on the left displays these values, rounded to the nearest integer, for CR0 through CR10.
That said it's really important to understand that the there appears to be a margin of at least +/-5 on this average. So it's perfectly legitimate for a CR1 monster to have an AC anywhere from 9 to 19 or for a CR10 monster to have an AC between 12 and 22, without compensating significantly in any of it's other stats.
Furthermore this is a guideline only and experienced 5e monster designers shouldn't have any qualms about going even further outside the boundaries, though they should probably ensure they do apply some kind of mitigation elsewhere in their creature. More inexperienced monster designers should probably aim to stay in or near these boundaries until they gain some confident building creatures with this system.
You see, the D&D 5e monster system "feels" very strongly like a "rule of sense" type system. The emphasis is more on the art of monster design than in D&D 4e, for example. And this is an area where Bounded Accuracy really makes itself felt.
Prediction: Based on my analysis so far I think it's pretty obvious that there is a progression, flattened though it may be, for AC and, by inference, Attack Bonus. On top of that I reckon some folks are going to cry foul when they realise that there is the case. Those people will be missing the point. Bounded Accuracy isn't about there being no progression on this axis. It's about the progression being quite muted so that monsters can stay relevant across more levels.
Prediction: I think average monster AC will peak at about 22 around level 25.
Miscellaneous Stats
In general the miscellaneous statistics (those in the same section as Challenge) seem to follow the rule of common sense. A creature native to the Elemental Plane Of Fire is probably immune to fire damage and an especially sneaky creature in all probability has proficiency in Stealth. So the main driver for miscellaneous stats does appear to be logic.
Additionally it's pretty obvious that D&D 5e monsters strongly leverage off a templating system and this starts to become evident in miscellaneous statistics. Undead are immune to poison damage and both the charmed and poisoned conditions, for example. Since the use of templating layers up attributes on a creature systems that use it usually cautioned not to apply too many templates as the creature may become overpowered for it's level (or CR in the case of D&D 5e). The impact on analysis is to increase the observed variability of creatures, which is consistent with my observations.
With this all said there does appear to be a general progression of these stats as CR increases. Whether this is by design or incidental, simply being a result of increasing complexity and toughness, is a moot point. The pattern is present and, given sufficient data, it can be enumerated.
But do we have enough data? Well yes and no. The release of the Player's Handbook, the update of Horde Of The Dragon Queen and certain spoilers from the Monster Manual have helped and those stats have been included in this part of this post. We can be fairly confident of this pattern out to CR10 and I'll illustrate why shortly.
By experimenting with different ways of combining the miscellaneous stats I came up with a method that keeps the variance minimal and makes sense - simply add up the number of Saving Throws, Skills, Damage Resistances and Damage Immunities the creature has, arriving at a "misc stats score". This method should be considered provisional and how it actually fits with the build process Wizards of the Coast will present remains to be seen. That said it does appear to work with the current crop of monsters.
Monster Misc Stats Score Scatter
Creating a scatter graph of these scores and placing a linear trendline on the graph suggests an interesting pattern. Based on this graph CR1 creatures typically score just over 2 and CR30 creatures score around 11. And we can see at the lower CRs that the variability seems to be about +/-5.
Of course, the dearth of higher level data will generally cause that end of the trendline to be unreliable and to wander. That's why we aren't looking past CR10 until we have more data.
So how can we gain some confidence in the lower level data? Let me illustrate the approach I have used in this particular case.
Monster Misc Stats Score Average
What I did was generate a pivot table of average by CR, scatter graph that and place a linear trendline on the graph. See the Blue data points and blue trendline on the Monster Misc Stats Score Average figure.
As you can see this produces a fairly different trendline to the preceeding graph, primarily on the righthand side, where data is most sparse. This trendline would suggest CR1 creatures score just under 4 and that CR30 creatures scoure about 7.5.
Overlaying the trendline from the first figure in red highlights the disparity
So how do we reconcile these? Splitting the difference is a pretty common-sense approach. Past CR10 things start to become increasingly uncertain. Restricting ourselves to CR10 and below (check out the green box) we can see that the margin for error is very low and that we can have high confidence in this approach at those levels.
Now let's have a look at what I've observed about each of the miscellaneous stats...
Saving Throws
Monsters may add proficiency to their saving throws in the same way as PCs.
Counts towards Misc Stat Score.
Skills
Skills are calculated for monsters in the same way as for PCs. Monsters may add their proficiency modifier to skills they are trained in.
Counts towards Misc Stat Score.
Damage Vulnerabilities
These are pretty rare in D&D 5e, with only 1.8% of current samples having a vulnerability. These don't seem to be used to compensate for other strengthening attributes, though one could use them to provide an Achilles Heal for a creature that is particualrly strong for it's CR.
Best advice here is to only apply a vulnerability where there is an especially compelling reason for your monster to have one. Does not count towards Misc Stat Score.
Damage Resistance
Damage resistance is pretty common in 5e.
Note that resistance to bludgeoning, peircing and slashing from nonmagical/non-adamantine/unsilvered weapons seems to be the replacement for the "immune to damage from nonmagical weapons" in older editions and counts as one Damage Resistance.
Counts towards Misc Stat Score.
Damage Immunities
In D&D 5e these are rarer than Damage Resistances, but 19.4% of the current sample have them.
Given they are somewhat stronger than an equivalent resistance I had hoped weight them as "worth" more than resistances. However, this simply introduced greater skew and variability. I'd suggest that best advice is to go light on Damage Immunities, but to use them where there is a compelling reason in your creature's background.
Counts towards Misc Stat Score.
Condition Immunities
Creatures with resistance or immunity to a particular damage type normally also have immunity to it's corresponding condition, if there is one.
Otherwise these should be applied where there is a compelling background/story reason. Does not count towards Misc Stat Score.
Senses
Most creatures have one additional sense. Some have none, some have two or even more. There doesn't seem to be any consideration here beyond story/background. Does not count towards Misc Stat Score.
Languages
The number of languages a monster knows seems to be purely defined by story/background considerations, or "the rule of sense". Does not count towards Misc Stat Score.
As we can see "the rule of sense" and the concept of "the art of monster building" are alive and well in D&D 5e. And along with those all the baggage and concerns from earlier editions that had the same focus.
CR
Average Misc Stat Score✝
0
1
⅛
1
¼
2
½
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
8
4
9
5
10
5
✝ Varies by +/-5
So what "score" should we use for each CR? Well using the medium value between the two in our last graph it's pretty easy to come up with a formula that produces appropriate results...
Score = 0.2 x CR + 2.8
Note that I have hand-editted the vlaues for CRs of less than 1 to save complexity. We could produce a solid match using a Power or Poly2 formula, but I don't think this rates the extra time that would be involved.
Prediction: I think Monster Manual analysis will confirm we are on the right track here and that we'll find that CR30 creature do have an average score around 9 using this approach.
Prediction: I expect the Dungeon Master's Guide's section on monster construction will suggest using "the rule of sense".
Example: Human Pyromancer
If we recall our Glass Canon with an Arcane Fire theme we'll remember it isn't going to be especially hard to hit, but focusses on dealing damage.
Human Pyromancer
Medium humanoid (human), any alignment
Armor Class 12
Hit Points 77 (14d8+14)
Speed 30ft
STR 9 (-1)
DEX 14 (+2)
CON 12 (+1)
INT 19 (+4)
WIS 12 (+1)
CHA 12 (+1)
Saving Throws Dex +5, Int +7
Skills Arcana +7, Perception +4
Damage Resistances Fire
Lanuguages Common, Ignan
Challenge 5 (1,700 XP)
That doesn't mean the Pyromancer won't have a couple of little tricks to make it a little more viable. Our plan is for melee characters to get close and then for it to go down quickly.
The Pyronmancer is unarmored so adds it's Dexterity Modifier to it's AC. This puts it on the low side of appropriate for it's CR, which is fine.
As a CR5 creature it'll typically have 4 significant miscellanoues stats, though it may have anywhere from 0 to 9. Now, what is thematic?
As a caster with a casting attribute of Intelligence it makes sense go give it proficiency on that, though proficiency on Dexterity is also appropriate and helps encourage melee characters to deal with it, so I have added both... After it's not that common for monsters to make intelligence saves.
Arcana is an obvious choice for Skills, though of rather limited application for a monster. We'll also give the Pyromancer something useful in combat - proficiency in Perception.
The choice of fire resistance is an obvious one, given the creature's theme.
Given the Pyromancer is human I'll give it Common and an additional language. Ignan, the language of Fire Elementals and their kin, seems like a good fit.
Master Index
Master Index
