Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mestewart3 Aug 16, 2014 1:51:46	So, I am kina bummed.  I really liked the idea of the two pronged method of monster classification that I read about in the L&L column a few weeks ago.  Sadly it doesn't seem like that is the system that we are going to be getting.  So far, from what I have seen every monster at a given CR has the same experience and often a monsters CR seems to be decided by its HP pool more than any other factor.  All I can say is that I am not all that impressed.   Spliting CR and level into two different categories was a fantastic idea.  With CR you could clue the DM in on which monsters would be a major challenge while still keeping those monsters XP low enough that a DM could run a few of them at a time at a level where they would be appropriate.  Or inversely you could have a low CR monster that offered a large chunk of EXP as a solo monster.   I just don't see that hapening with the rules as we are seeing them right now.  Does anybody else feel sort of let down by the current trend?
#2 seti Aug 16, 2014 1:59:50	I feel let down that they seem to have ignored the past 5-6 years of (IMO) brilliant, elegant encounter and monster stat block design.
#3 Eric888 Aug 16, 2014 3:52:35	The problem is they were way to strict with making sure all the math made sense. In 4e, no one cared if a level 10 soldier with 16 strength and no magic items had +16 to hit. Or a level 5 solo NPC wizard had more HP than a Balor. You just accepted that monster stats worked differently and moved on. But in 5e all the monster stats have to be correct. This severely ties their hands. Ergo we end up with level 16 solo dragons having barely enough HP to last half a round; but a hobgoblin archer has 18 AC. Okay.
#4 FFSAA Aug 16, 2014 7:26:22	seti wrote:
#5 mestewart3 Aug 16, 2014 22:47:16	I don't really mind that they are re-attatching the numbers to the PC framework.  I liked how 4e did monster creation, but I do think there is some value to be found in a system grounded in in-game realia.  What I mind is that the two different tools we have been given, CR & EXP, both of which have clearly stated purposes that are very different, scale exactly the same.  Every monster of CR x gives EXP y and visa versa.  I really feel like their a lost opportunity to diversify the monsters.   The example they use for the Rakshasa is a good one.  Rakshasa are immune to spells below a ceratain level.  This makes them hard for a lower level group to defeat.  However because EXP and CR are tied together a single Rakshasa has to be most of a parties moderate encounter budget at level 13 and therefore they have to be able to challenge a whole group of adventurers.  This seems a little silly to me.  Hopefully the trend of tied CR/EXP will not continue into the Monster Manual.
#6 Noon Aug 17, 2014 2:51:21	mestewart3 wrote:
#7 Diceman65 Aug 17, 2014 3:36:17	FFSAA wrote:
#8 Diceman65 Aug 17, 2014 3:51:08	mestewart3 wrote:
(Reply to #6) powerroleplayer	Noon wrote:
#10 Gnarl Aug 17, 2014 8:13:19	@Mestwart: The numbers are much tighter in this edition than in 4e. In 4e, monsters gain a +1 bonus to all their defenses and attack bonuses per monster level. In 5e, it's +1 per four monster levels. So it's kind of normal you get the impression that monsters only gain more HPs because that's the most visible aspect. But the damage and numbers are scaling slowing and that's enough to make the monsters different.   As for all monsters of the same CR having the same XP value. That's kind of the point of the CR system. Your complaint is the same as saying that all 3e monsters of the same CR have the same XP value and all 4e monsters of the same level and type have the same XP value. If they don't have the same XP value, you might as well ditch the CR system and use XPs alone as the rating system.   I think you're just worried because monsters are different than in 4e. I would be really surprised if they didn't use some kind of monster builder tool to make those monsters. The game runs so much better with proper monster math that I can't imagine they would have ditched their 4e know-how just because of tradition.
#11 Overpromises Aug 17, 2014 8:29:18	mestewart3 wrote:
#12 Alynn Aug 17, 2014 8:57:23	CR and XP are separate.   CR is how deadly the creature is. XP and number of monsters is how difficult the encounter is.   An ogre is a CR 2 450 XP monster. So 6 first level PC's could take it out as a hard encounter using the XP building rules. This however doesn't change the fact that the CR 2 Ogre is still more powerful than the PC's and has a pretty good shot at taking out 1 or more of them with an average damage of 13, the ogre has a good chance of one shotting any PC at that level even a barbarian, with a +3 con mod has a 32.81% of being dropped to 0 on a hit. At level 2, 4 PC's can take out the same ogre, but this time the ogre has a much lowered chance of taking them out, except the lowest hit die characters. In the first example, there is a good chance someone will die, in the second, there is a much lowered chance that anyone will die. In both examples, the party will still win.   2 Ogres However are worth 1200 XP towards the budget which is a part of 4 level 4 characters between medium and hard challenge. Little chance anyone will die. 3 Ogres are on the hard end of level 5 pcs at 2700 XP towards the budget, and medium side of level 6 pcs. Little chance anyone will die.     So CR will tell you off the top if the creature has a good chance of killing a PC, the XP value and the horde multiplier will give you the actual difficulty of the encounter.
#13 UngeheuerLich Aug 17, 2014 13:04:49	I totally agree with the OP. I believe it is a missed opportunity.   Lets take the Rakshasa example of MM´s L&L:   A Rakshasa is immune to level 6 and below spells. Thus it needs to be a CR 13 opponent. CR13 right now means, that it has to be this tough. But if you have a rakshasa warrior of great experience (5 levels of fighter added), the rakshasa is still CR 13, as the wizard has still access to level 7 spells. But the fight is a little bit harder because the rakshasa may be a better fighter overall, so he needs to give a little more xp.   With this characterization you can have minions ans elite monsters of a certain CR. But maybe that was a layer they wanted to avoid. Maybe it survives in some form in monster customization.
#14 Noon Aug 17, 2014 18:09:43	powerroleplayer wrote: