DMG - Monster by CR Damage, is it off? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Sands666 Jan 20, 2015 17:11:18	Hello! So I was creating some Baby Wyvern monster stat blocks for an upcoming game, using the Creating Quick Monster Stats section. As I looked through the Monster Stats by CR table, I couldn't help but begin to feel that the "damage output per round" column seemed to be a little bit off. For my own purposes I wanted the Baby Wyverns to be about a 1/2 CR, with HP of 20 and damage output of 6-8 per round. Those choices worked out fine to create the CR I needed for my game, but the damage had to be adjusted. I started to look at higher CR rating damage output a round and was a little curious about how the higher CR stats would stack up against monsters in the actual Monsters Manual. I found, after paging briefly through various monster stat blocks, that the damage output in the Monster Stats by CR table was higher than the average high CR monster and lower for the low CR monsters. I didn't do in depth comparisons, but I was left with the feeling that the damage would always need to be adjusted to a different CR, instead of being able to use what was on the table. Does anyone else feel like this too? I'm fine adjusting the damage, just wanted to know what others thought.
#2 DaveDash Jan 20, 2015 17:26:14	Yeah I've built a few monsters that are around CR6-16 and they all end up with higher damage than their monster manual counterparts. One recent example is vampires. the base vampire in the MM does very low damage for a CR13 monster (and yes, I am calculating its legendary actions). My version for a BBEG I ended up adding 2d10 necrotic damage to all the unarmed strikes to get it in line with what the DMG guidelines say (so 8d10 extra damage). Now in terms of real play, a lot of my creations using the DMG feel a lot true to their CR than a lot of the stuff in the MM. The problem seems to be the monsters in the MM are built under different assumptions than what the DMG guidelines offer. Humanoids tend to stick to weapon damage for example, regardless of what their CR is, which leads to very low DPRs.
#3 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 20, 2015 17:55:48	the guidelines in the DMG are meant to get you close enough for final tweaks through playtesting the actual monster, not provide you with infallibly perfect monster stats guaranteed to hit every possible mark for their CR. The monsters in the Monster Manual have received such tweaking through playtesting, and that is why their stats often differ. As for the vampire in specific, the damage is low for a CR 13 monster until you consider the damage being dealt by any summoned wolves, or swarms of bats or rats to be part of the vampire's ability to deal damage.
#4 FFSAA Jan 20, 2015 19:34:31	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #4) Azzy1974	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #4) DaveDash	FFSAA wrote:
#7 Sands666 Jan 20, 2015 21:48:32	Seems like a leaning consensus that the DMG numbers are a little bit more accurate for a good challenge ... here. I would love to hear WotC comment about it, but they're always so quiet... For a new system that I've only run about 10 games for, using all lower level monsters and stuff straight out of the MM or Lost Mine, it's not possible for me to see an answer yet. PERHAPS I need to start making my own monsters more often, secretly experimenting during my campaign, ...possibly to my players chagrin!
(Reply to #4) EzechielDantan	FFSAA wrote:
#9 FFSAA Jan 21, 2015 7:48:51	EzechielDantan wrote:
(Reply to #9) AaronOfBarbaria	FFSAA wrote:
#11 Miladoon Jan 21, 2015 8:50:00	Reference...DMG, pg 274 CR1/8 Stat block PB +2 AC 13 HP 7-35 AB +3 DPR 2-3 SDC 13 Your Baby Wyvern PB +2 AC 14 HP 20 AB +5 DPR 8 SDC 13 Defensive Challange Rating(DCR) = 1/8 Offensive Challenge Rating(OCR) = 1 Average Challenge Rating (ACR) = 9/16 rounded to the nearest challenge rating...1/2 Giving it a flight speed should not change the CR unless it can fly and attack at range. Those are the DMG steps RAW. Also, use Leugren's Calculator. LINK
#12 FFSAA Jan 21, 2015 9:07:32	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#13 TheNovaLord Jan 21, 2015 9:10:36	Vampire was fun to run against level 7 party, but it never felt that A, it was doing much damage B, spend lot legendary actions moving away from moonbeam and the party paladin
#14 FFSAA Jan 21, 2015 9:36:48	TheNovaLord wrote:
(Reply to #12) AaronOfBarbaria	FFSAA wrote:
#16 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jan 21, 2015 10:18:21	I suspect that what happened is straightforward enough: Several different people worked on monsters. There was no easy to use spreadsheet to tally up CR. The DMG system hadn't yet been finalized. And in a lot of cases, the designer eyeballed it, and because of the number of monsters, they trusted each other rather than do a detailed check. Given they recreated the unassociated level problem of 3e on page 283, I wouldn't expect the system to work that well at recreating specific monsters. That's a sign of not understanding the math of their own system. Namely, the Ancient Red Dragon Wizard 5 which is not considered an adjustment in CR, despite at an absolute minimum: Adding +97 hp for an 18% bump which ought to be a +1 to defensive CR and therefore potentially bump up CR all by itself. Granting a feat Now, that's the minimum - a possible bump up in CR while valuing spells(Shield, Misty Step), the feat(Alert, Mage Slayer, Sentinel), and class features(Divination, Abjuration) as being 0...
#17 Miladoon Jan 21, 2015 10:25:21	Just grabbing some random monsters from the MM. pg, 139. Galeb Duhr, CR6. Appears to follow the DMG guidance pg, 104. Ancient Brass Dragon, CR 20. Without figuring in legendary actions I get a CR 18. That is using attack bonus and not save DC for the OCR. pg, 194. Kenku, CR 1/4. Appears to follow the DMG guidance
(Reply to #16) AaronOfBarbaria	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
(Reply to #17) AaronOfBarbaria	Miladoon wrote:
#20 Leugren Jan 21, 2015 13:02:38	@Miladoon spotted a problem with the Quick Monster CR Calculator I created whereby the results of the computations were completely erroneous when the "Attack Type" was set to "Save DC". It was the result of some shoddy testing on my part. I have resolved the problem and deployed a new version of the tool to the cloud. You should now be able to use my calculator to compute quick monster stats where the dominant attack form is based on either Attack Bonus or Save DC. Thanks again, Miladoon! --Leugren
#21 FFSAA Jan 21, 2015 13:29:25	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #21) AaronOfBarbaria	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #20) Miladoon	Leugren wrote:
#24 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jan 21, 2015 18:08:03	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #24) AaronOfBarbaria	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
#26 RCanine Jan 22, 2015 8:13:38	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #26) EzechielDantan	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #26) Azzy1974	RCanine wrote:
#29 FFSAA Jan 22, 2015 13:31:15	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#30 Azzy1974 Jan 22, 2015 14:29:04	Where's the evidence, FFSAA? Still waiting.
#31 FFSAA Jan 22, 2015 14:41:19	Azzy1974 wrote:
#32 ModusPonens Jan 22, 2015 16:00:17	FFSAA wrote:
#33 Cyber-Dave Jan 22, 2015 17:02:58	There isn't any evidence. FFSAA has some sort of vendetta against the fifth edition. Any time he has got into a debate about the subject, however, he has been proven to be wrong. Last time, he posted about how certain character types were horribly overpowered. When people asked him to prove it with math, he tried, and it turned out that in order to make the claims he was trying to make you needed to give the characters an exorbitant amount of magical items. Well above what this edition assumes you will give them. In this thread he is doing nothing but calling a one true Scotsman. He hasn't provided proof. Meanwhile, the actual math suggest that what is written in the DMG matchesvwhat is inside the monsters manual. I wouldn't put too much stock in his statements. They are woefully under salted.
(Reply to #29) AaronOfBarbaria	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #31) Azzy1974	FFSAA wrote:
#36 Ramzour Jan 23, 2015 1:09:39	Another interesting thread derailed by one angry grognard desperately clinging to their hatred for 5e. Please don't feed them anymore. Anyway, ignoring certain posts, I enjoyed reading these. I love that CR calculator made by Leugren. Nice job!!!! From the examples in this thread, it looks like the CR guidelines are pretty accurate...or as accurate as I expect them to be. I admit that I haven't actually created a monster using these rules, but then again, I generally don't care about CR. I also use Milestone XP and never calculate "appropriate encounters" using CR. When I homebrew monsters (and I do that all of the time!!!), I go by feel. I usually start with an existing monster and make whatever changes I feel it needs. Whatever CR that happens to be is a mystery. It's worked just fine for me so far. Question: in re-creating existing MM monsters using the DMG guidelines, what's the most the CR has been off by? Maybe a 1-2? Has anyone found a monster that's off by any more than that?
#37 Ramzour Jan 23, 2015 1:13:19	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#38 Leugren Jan 23, 2015 12:17:34	Ramzour wrote:
#39 DaveDash Jan 23, 2015 12:23:42	Ramzour, the two "most off" monsters I have found have been the Drow Wizard and Archmage NPC. Their defensive CR comes out way too low. I've used the former a lot in play, and it really doesn't fit its CR. The monster building guidelines work great for monsters, but fall apart when building monsters like characters (ie NPCs).
(Reply to #39) AaronOfBarbaria	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #40) DaveDash	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #41) AaronOfBarbaria	DaveDash wrote:
#43 Ramzour Jan 28, 2015 5:05:22	DaveDash wrote:
#44 Timborama Jan 28, 2015 11:45:34	Yeah, it was a bit shocking to me that in the guidelines in the MM, it said "Hey, if it casts spells, just substitute any ol' thang and it's still the same CR. It's fine, whatevs." I mean, I suppose there are obvious exceptions to this like using "Control Water" in a desert vs. Create Food/Water in a desert ^_^ But the most glaring, to me, was the ability for the Archmage to cast Meteor Swarm or Power Word: Kill instead of Time Stop. Albeit, I suppose Time Stop is a cute, defensive "villain gets away!" button. But it was quite the revelation! Thankfully, the DMG was a bit more specific about this, helping us quanitfy Offensive vs. Defensive spells and how they relate to CR! Not gonna lie, though, I'm still basically using all these CR/Encouter builders as guidelines. I always have, even when we had the Basic DMG. Things to make a rough estimate, because everyone's party is built differently, and every has different players of varying skill. But! It's worked out so far! No one has died by accident, and the fights I want to be exciting are, indeed, exciting!
#45 Ramzour Jan 28, 2015 12:47:51	Timborama wrote:
#46 Timborama Jan 28, 2015 12:52:57	Ramzour wrote:
#47 DaveDash Jan 28, 2015 13:40:46	I think the feeling of underpowered monsters comes from the fact that as characters get higher level, they can really go nova way above their CR. But they can only do this once or twice per day (ish). I've noticed now that my group struggles on some "medium" and "hard" fights because they're conserving resources, but then when it comes to the big fights they go nova, and they roll over the encounter, even if its 5 times over the deadly limit! I have noticed as well though that every time I throw a custom monster at them using the DMG guidelines, they do A LOT of damage. Whereas some of the more standard ones tend to feel more on the conservative side damage wise. I think this may be due to the fact there aren't a lot of higher CR monsters, so using standard monsters in encounters tend to be filled with numerous low CR creatures, thus giving me the "feeling" of low damage monsters.
#48 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jan 28, 2015 19:19:45	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #48) AaronOfBarbaria	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
(Reply to #48) DaveDash	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
#51 Ramzour Jan 28, 2015 23:59:29	DaveDash wrote:
#52 Ramzour Jan 29, 2015 0:05:26	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #48) EzechielDantan	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
#54 Timborama Jan 29, 2015 7:29:29	To be honest, I think the CR for Vampire comes from his non-combat abilities/utility. Yeah if you find him in his coffin you'll wipe the floor with him. But boy some of those Legendary Actions and hypnosis-like abilities...OOF! (but I agree even then it's overkill. I'll probably be using the Fighter variant and still be okay with him being the big bad for a group of level 10s)

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Sands666

Jan 20, 2015 17:11:18

Hello! So I was creating some Baby Wyvern monster stat blocks for an upcoming game, using the Creating Quick Monster Stats section. As I looked through the Monster Stats by CR table, I couldn't help but begin to feel that the "damage output per round" column seemed to be a little bit off. For my own purposes I wanted the Baby Wyverns to be about a 1/2 CR, with HP of 20 and damage output of 6-8 per round. Those choices worked out fine to create the CR I needed for my game, but the damage had to be adjusted. I started to look at higher CR rating damage output a round and was a little curious about how the higher CR stats would stack up against monsters in the actual Monsters Manual. I found, after paging briefly through various monster stat blocks, that the damage output in the Monster Stats by CR table was higher than the average high CR monster and lower for the low CR monsters.

I didn't do in depth comparisons, but I was left with the feeling that the damage would always need to be adjusted to a different CR, instead of being able to use what was on the table. Does anyone else feel like this too? I'm fine adjusting the damage, just wanted to know what others thought.

DaveDash

Jan 20, 2015 17:26:14

Yeah I've built a few monsters that are around CR6-16 and they all end up with higher damage than their monster manual counterparts.

One recent example is vampires. the base vampire in the MM does very low damage for a CR13 monster (and yes, I am calculating its legendary actions). My version for a BBEG I ended up adding 2d10 necrotic damage to all the unarmed strikes to get it in line with what the DMG guidelines say (so 8d10 extra damage).

Now in terms of real play, a lot of my creations using the DMG feel a lot true to their CR than a lot of the stuff in the MM.

The problem seems to be the monsters in the MM are built under different assumptions than what the DMG guidelines offer. Humanoids tend to stick to weapon damage for example, regardless of what their CR is, which leads to very low DPRs.

AaronOfBarbaria

Jan 20, 2015 17:55:48

the guidelines in the DMG are meant to get you close enough for final tweaks through playtesting the actual monster, not provide you with infallibly perfect monster stats guaranteed to hit every possible mark for their CR.

The monsters in the Monster Manual have received such tweaking through playtesting, and that is why their stats often differ.

As for the vampire in specific, the damage is low for a CR 13 monster until you consider the damage being dealt by any summoned wolves, or swarms of bats or rats to be part of the vampire's ability to deal damage.

FFSAA

Jan 20, 2015 19:34:31

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #4)

Azzy1974

FFSAA wrote:

(Reply to #4)

DaveDash

FFSAA wrote:

Sands666

Jan 20, 2015 21:48:32

Seems like a leaning consensus that the DMG numbers are a little bit more accurate for a good challenge ... here. I would love to hear WotC comment about it, but they're always so quiet...

For a new system that I've only run about 10 games for, using all lower level monsters and stuff straight out of the MM or Lost Mine, it's not possible for me to see an answer yet. PERHAPS I need to start making my own monsters more often, secretly experimenting during my campaign, ...possibly to my players chagrin!

(Reply to #4)

EzechielDantan

FFSAA wrote:

FFSAA

Jan 21, 2015 7:48:51

EzechielDantan wrote:

(Reply to #9)

AaronOfBarbaria

FFSAA wrote:

#11

Miladoon

Jan 21, 2015 8:50:00

Reference...DMG, pg 274

CR1/8 Stat block

PB +2 AC 13 HP 7-35 AB +3 DPR 2-3 SDC 13

Your Baby Wyvern

PB +2 AC 14 HP 20 AB +5 DPR 8 SDC 13

Defensive Challange Rating(DCR) = 1/8

Offensive Challenge Rating(OCR) = 1

Average Challenge Rating (ACR) = 9/16 rounded to the nearest challenge rating...1/2

Giving it a flight speed should not change the CR unless it can fly and attack at range. Those are the DMG steps RAW.

Also, use Leugren's Calculator. LINK

#12

FFSAA

Jan 21, 2015 9:07:32

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#13

TheNovaLord

Jan 21, 2015 9:10:36

Vampire was fun to run against level 7 party, but it never felt that

A, it was doing much damage

B, spend lot legendary actions moving away from moonbeam and the party paladin

#14

FFSAA

Jan 21, 2015 9:36:48

TheNovaLord wrote:

(Reply to #12)

AaronOfBarbaria

FFSAA wrote:

#16

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Jan 21, 2015 10:18:21

I suspect that what happened is straightforward enough:
Several different people worked on monsters.
There was no easy to use spreadsheet to tally up CR.
The DMG system hadn't yet been finalized.
And in a lot of cases, the designer eyeballed it, and because of the number of monsters, they trusted each other rather than do a detailed check.

Given they recreated the unassociated level problem of 3e on page 283, I wouldn't expect the system to work that well at recreating specific monsters. That's a sign of not understanding the math of their own system. Namely, the Ancient Red Dragon Wizard 5 which is not considered an adjustment in CR, despite at an absolute minimum:
Adding +97 hp for an 18% bump which ought to be a +1 to defensive CR and therefore potentially bump up CR all by itself.
Granting a feat

Now, that's the minimum - a possible bump up in CR while valuing spells(Shield, Misty Step), the feat(Alert, Mage Slayer, Sentinel), and class features(Divination, Abjuration) as being 0...

#17

Miladoon

Jan 21, 2015 10:25:21

Just grabbing some random monsters from the MM.

pg, 139. Galeb Duhr, CR6. Appears to follow the DMG guidance

pg, 104. Ancient Brass Dragon, CR 20. Without figuring in legendary actions I get a CR 18. That is using attack bonus and not save DC for the OCR.

pg, 194. Kenku, CR 1/4. Appears to follow the DMG guidance

(Reply to #16)

AaronOfBarbaria

Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

(Reply to #17)

AaronOfBarbaria

Miladoon wrote:

#20

Leugren

Jan 21, 2015 13:02:38

@Miladoon spotted a problem with the Quick Monster CR Calculator I created whereby the results of the computations were completely erroneous when the "Attack Type" was set to "Save DC". It was the result of some shoddy testing on my part. I have resolved the problem and deployed a new version of the tool to the cloud. You should now be able to use my calculator to compute quick monster stats where the dominant attack form is based on either Attack Bonus or Save DC.

Thanks again, Miladoon!

--Leugren

#21

FFSAA

Jan 21, 2015 13:29:25

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #21)

AaronOfBarbaria

FFSAA wrote:

(Reply to #20)

Miladoon

Leugren wrote:

#24

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Jan 21, 2015 18:08:03

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #24)

AaronOfBarbaria

Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

#26

RCanine

Jan 22, 2015 8:13:38

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #26)

EzechielDantan

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #26)

Azzy1974

RCanine wrote:

#29

FFSAA

Jan 22, 2015 13:31:15

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#30

Azzy1974

Jan 22, 2015 14:29:04

Where's the evidence, FFSAA? Still waiting.

#31

FFSAA

Jan 22, 2015 14:41:19

Azzy1974 wrote:

#32

ModusPonens

Jan 22, 2015 16:00:17

FFSAA wrote:

#33

Cyber-Dave

Jan 22, 2015 17:02:58

There isn't any evidence. FFSAA has some sort of vendetta against the fifth edition. Any time he has got into a debate about the subject, however, he has been proven to be wrong. Last time, he posted about how certain character types were horribly overpowered. When people asked him to prove it with math, he tried, and it turned out that in order to make the claims he was trying to make you needed to give the characters an exorbitant amount of magical items. Well above what this edition assumes you will give them. In this thread he is doing nothing but calling a one true Scotsman. He hasn't provided proof. Meanwhile, the actual math suggest that what is written in the DMG matchesvwhat is inside the monsters manual. I wouldn't put too much stock in his statements. They are woefully under salted.

(Reply to #29)

AaronOfBarbaria

FFSAA wrote:

(Reply to #31)

Azzy1974

FFSAA wrote:

#36

Ramzour

Jan 23, 2015 1:09:39

Another interesting thread derailed by one angry grognard desperately clinging to their hatred for 5e. Please don't feed them anymore.

Anyway, ignoring certain posts, I enjoyed reading these. I love that CR calculator made by Leugren. Nice job!!!! From the examples in this thread, it looks like the CR guidelines are pretty accurate...or as accurate as I expect them to be.

I admit that I haven't actually created a monster using these rules, but then again, I generally don't care about CR. I also use Milestone XP and never calculate "appropriate encounters" using CR. When I homebrew monsters (and I do that all of the time!!!), I go by feel. I usually start with an existing monster and make whatever changes I feel it needs. Whatever CR that happens to be is a mystery. It's worked just fine for me so far.

Question: in re-creating existing MM monsters using the DMG guidelines, what's the most the CR has been off by? Maybe a 1-2? Has anyone found a monster that's off by any more than that?

#37

Ramzour

Jan 23, 2015 1:13:19

Cyber-Dave wrote:

#38

Leugren

Jan 23, 2015 12:17:34

Ramzour wrote:

#39

DaveDash

Jan 23, 2015 12:23:42

Ramzour, the two "most off" monsters I have found have been the Drow Wizard and Archmage NPC. Their defensive CR comes out way too low. I've used the former a lot in play, and it really doesn't fit its CR. The monster building guidelines work great for monsters, but fall apart when building monsters like characters (ie NPCs).

(Reply to #39)

AaronOfBarbaria

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #40)

DaveDash

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #41)

AaronOfBarbaria

DaveDash wrote:

#43

Ramzour

Jan 28, 2015 5:05:22

DaveDash wrote:

#44

Timborama

Jan 28, 2015 11:45:34

Yeah, it was a bit shocking to me that in the guidelines in the MM, it said "Hey, if it casts spells, just substitute any ol' thang and it's still the same CR. It's fine, whatevs." I mean, I suppose there are obvious exceptions to this like using "Control Water" in a desert vs. Create Food/Water in a desert ^_^ But the most glaring, to me, was the ability for the Archmage to cast Meteor Swarm or Power Word: Kill instead of Time Stop.

Albeit, I suppose Time Stop is a cute, defensive "villain gets away!" button. But it was quite the revelation!

Thankfully, the DMG was a bit more specific about this, helping us quanitfy Offensive vs. Defensive spells and how they relate to CR!

Not gonna lie, though, I'm still basically using all these CR/Encouter builders as guidelines. I always have, even when we had the Basic DMG. Things to make a rough estimate, because everyone's party is built differently, and every has different players of varying skill. But! It's worked out so far! No one has died by accident, and the fights I want to be exciting are, indeed, exciting!

#45

Ramzour

Jan 28, 2015 12:47:51

Timborama wrote:

#46

Timborama

Jan 28, 2015 12:52:57

Ramzour wrote:

#47

DaveDash

Jan 28, 2015 13:40:46

I think the feeling of underpowered monsters comes from the fact that as characters get higher level, they can really go nova way above their CR. But they can only do this once or twice per day (ish).

I've noticed now that my group struggles on some "medium" and "hard" fights because they're conserving resources, but then when it comes to the big fights they go nova, and they roll over the encounter, even if its 5 times over the deadly limit!

I have noticed as well though that every time I throw a custom monster at them using the DMG guidelines, they do A LOT of damage. Whereas some of the more standard ones tend to feel more on the conservative side damage wise. I think this may be due to the fact there aren't a lot of higher CR monsters, so using standard monsters in encounters tend to be filled with numerous low CR creatures, thus giving me the "feeling" of low damage monsters.

#48

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Jan 28, 2015 19:19:45

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #48)

AaronOfBarbaria

Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

(Reply to #48)

DaveDash

Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

#51

Ramzour

Jan 28, 2015 23:59:29

DaveDash wrote:

#52

Ramzour

Jan 29, 2015 0:05:26

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #48)

EzechielDantan

Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

#54

Timborama

Jan 29, 2015 7:29:29

To be honest, I think the CR for Vampire comes from his non-combat abilities/utility. Yeah if you find him in his coffin you'll wipe the floor with him. But boy some of those Legendary Actions and hypnosis-like abilities...OOF!

(but I agree even then it's overkill. I'll probably be using the Fighter variant and still be okay with him being the big bad for a group of level 10s)