Used the Monster Creator in the DMG

[Envyus]

I just made a Frost Giant Jarl using the DMG's monster creation rules.

Overall it turned out well. It came up CR 14 which is what I aimed for and he seems suitably challenging and powerful for his level.

Anyone else made any monsters with the section yet.

[MaxWilson]

Only as an experiment to see how stupidly overpowered a CR 1/4 creature can get.

[Madfellow]

Gotta wait a week to get my grubby paws on a copy. I want to try making a paladin to serve as a villain for the adventure I'm working on. :smallsmile:

[Madfellow]

Only as an experiment to see how stupidly overpowered a CR 1/4 creature can get.

How'd that turn out?

[CyberThread]

Gotta wait a week to get my grubby paws on a copy. I want to try making a paladin to serve as a villain for the adventure I'm working on. :smallsmile:







To paraphrase..... Use the base monster, add all class features. Monsters don't get starting gear, get one more HD of its monster type not class type. Proficiency bonus is based on challenge rating not class levels.

[Gnomes2169]

To paraphrase..... Use the base monster, add all class features. Monsters don't get starting gear, get one more HD of its monster type not class type. Proficiency bonus is based on challenge rating not class levels.

Actually... To paraphrase, make it that way or make it like a normal leveled character, compare HP, DPR and resistances/ immunities to the tables given, and assign a CR based on the average result of that, adjusting as necessary by 1-4 for exceptional abilities (like true polly or other powerful forms of spellcasting). Either method is supported.

[MaxWilson]

How'd that turn out?

My CR 1/4 Flamespren could probably kill the OP's CR 14 Frost Giant Jarl. So, pretty broken.

[pwykersotz]

My CR 1/4 Flamespren could probably kill the OP's CR 14 Frost Giant Jarl. So, pretty broken.

You should post it!

[MaxWilson]

You should post it!

It's at the bottom of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385372-Pixies-by-RAW-non-issue/page3&highlight=flamespren).

[pwykersotz]

It's at the bottom of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385372-Pixies-by-RAW-non-issue/page3&highlight=flamespren).

/facepalm at my forgetfulness.

I remember reading that post now. Yeah, most of the rules are based on the idea that you aren't trying to min/max the badguy, but embody a concept. You clearly want to embody the concept of killing the players. :smalltongue:

On a side note, it's immune to prone twice. You must like that condition. :smallbiggrin:

[Envyus]

My CR 1/4 Flamespren could probably kill the OP's CR 14 Frost Giant Jarl. So, pretty broken.

How so? I have checked ways to make Cr 1/4 creatures and they tend to be unimpressive.

Edit just checked it and you made mistakes.

[pwykersotz]

How so? I have checked ways to make Cr 1/4 creatures and they tend to be unimpressive.

Immunities don't stack with regards to adjusting defensive CR. So throw on as many as you like. That pretty much makes them untouchable, and you don't need a high HP. Couple with special abilities of a low cost and reliable damage with a high to-hit but low average damage, and you have a freakin' brute.

[Envyus]

Immunities don't stack with regards to adjusting defensive CR. So throw on as many as you like. That pretty much makes them untouchable, and you don't need a high HP. Couple with special abilities of a low cost and reliable damage with a high to-hit but low average damage, and you have a freakin' brute.

No they do I just checked.

Their effective Hp counts as gets a x2 multiplier for each immunity or resistence placed on a creature of cr 4 or less.

[pwykersotz]

No they do I just checked.

Their effective Hp counts as gets a x2 multiplier for each immunity or resistence placed on a creature of cr 4 or less.

Do you have a quote? The part I'm looking at on page 277 says


For example, a monster with an expected challenge rating of 6, 150 hit points, and resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons effectively has 225 hit points (using the 1.5 multiplier for resistances) for the purpose of gauging its final challenge rating.

That's one multiplier for 3 resistances. Unless I missed a line.

[MaxWilson]

No they do I just checked.

Their effective Hp counts as gets a x2 multiplier for each immunity or resistence placed on a creature of cr 4 or less.

Negative, Envyus, that is only for immunities which "not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract." Since anyone can bypass force/acid/lightning/thunder/fire resistance by using weapons, only the immunity to nonmagical weapons counts (x2), hence why it has 17 HP instead of 34.


/facepalm at my forgetfulness.

I remember reading that post now. Yeah, most of the rules are based on the idea that you aren't trying to min/max the badguy, but embody a concept. You clearly want to embody the concept of killing the players. :smalltongue:

On a side note, it's immune to prone twice. You must like that condition. :smallbiggrin:

Good catch on Prone.

BTW, one of the reasons I love the AD&D 2nd edition Troll is that it is clearly trying to min-max. Pretty much every single ability it has is designed to be as powerful as possible without quite hitting the breakpoint that makes players get more XP for killing it.

[Envyus]

His creature has an effective hp of 2176. Which is completely out of bounds of the chart and means of calculating CR.

[MaxWilson]

His creature has an effective hp of 2176. Which is completely out of bounds of the chart and means of calculating CR.

Nope. It has an effective HP of 34.

[Envyus]

Nope. It has an effective HP of 34.

Not how I read it because you covered the Non Magical weapon weakness with an immunity each one of those others stacked because it's another way it can't be hurt. So no it did stack and your creature does have effectively that much hp.

[pwykersotz]

Not how I read it because you covered the Non Magical weapon weakness with an immunity each one of those others stacked because it's another way it can't be hurt. So no it did stack and your creature does have effectively that much hp.

Can you provide a quote to back that up? I'm honestly looking for it and I can't find it. The very example I posted earlier indicates it only applies once. :smallconfused:

[Gnomes2169]

Nope. It has an effective HP of 34.

Actually, the biggest immunity is its immunity to non-magical weapons. Since you are forced to find a way around that, each elemental resistance that comes after it is shutting down a way to get around it, and thus increasing the defensive capabilities/ overall hit points. So I'd side more with Envius on this one, really.

[Envyus]

Can you provide a quote to back that up? I'm honestly looking for it and I can't find it. The very example I posted earlier indicates it only applies once. :smallconfused:

Thats due to Resistance/Immunity to Non Magical weapons being counted as one thing for some reason.

[pwykersotz]

Thats due to Resistance/Immunity to Non Magical weapons being counted as one thing for some reason.

Allow me another snippet quote:


If a monster has resistance or immunity to several damage types- especially bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons...snip... you need to take these defenses into account when comparing your monster's hit points to its expected challenge rating.

In other words, if they only have a single resistance or immunity, you don't apply a modifier to effective HP at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping you're right, but I'm not seeing any limitations like what you're stating.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, the biggest immunity is its immunity to non-magical weapons. Since you are forced to find a way around that, each elemental resistance that comes after it is shutting down a way to get around it, and thus increasing the defensive capabilities/ overall hit points. So I'd side more with Envius on this one, really.

Nope. If this were true, the Air Elemental would be much higher CR than the Earth Elemental due to having two extra resistances (lightning, thunder), the same number of immunities (poison), and one less vulnerability (thunder).

Oh, BTW, since the Flamespren is a CR 1/4 creature, you can give it an infinite number of Legendary Resistances for free.

[pwykersotz]

Nope. If this were true, the Air Elemental would be much higher CR than the Earth Elemental due to having two extra resistances (lightning, thunder), the same number of immunities (poison), and one less vulnerability (thunder).

Oh, BTW, since the Flamespren is a CR 1/4 creature, you can give it an infinite number of Legendary Resistances for free.

Dude...so not helping here... :smalltongue:

Edit: No way to make my uproarious laughter come across through words, so yeah, adding this part in to make sure my tone is read right. :smallwink:

[Envyus]

When they said 1 to 4 they meant 0 to 4 it's a typo that shows up a few times.

[MaxWilson]

Other things you can give it for free include:

Con 30, Wis 30, Int 30, and Cha 30, and Invisibility.
Relentless like a wereboar for some extra HP.
Rejuvenation like a Lich so it can't actually be killed.
Arbitrarily high movement rate as long as it doesn't fly.
And, apparently, Spell Immunity like a Rakshasa, since it isn't listed in the level adjustment table anywhere.

The CR guidelines are relentlessly focused on DPR and AC/HP, so anything which is dangerous because of mobility, tactics, or special abilities won't fit well into the CR system. That's why pixies and intellect devourers are broken.


Dude...so not helping here... :smalltongue:

Edit: No way to make my uproarious laughter come across through words, so yeah, adding this part in to make sure my tone is read right. :smallwink:

You just made me day. :) Thanks.

[Envyus]

Other things you can give it for free include:

Con 30, Wis 30, Int 30, and Cha 30, and Invisibility.
Relentless like a wereboar for some extra HP.
Rejuvenation like a Lich so it can't actually be killed.
Arbitrarily high movement rate as long as it doesn't fly.
And, apparently, Spell Immunity like a Rakshasa, since it isn't listed in the level adjustment table anywhere.

The CR guidelines are relentlessly focused on DPR and AC/HP, so anything which is dangerous because of mobility, tactics, or special abilities won't fit well into the CR system. That's why pixies and intellect devourers are broken.



You just made me day. :) Thanks.

Con affects hp. Anyway your looking at it the wrong way anyway. Also Intellect Devourers are not broken and Pixies are worthless. Intellect Devourers are deadly but not broken.

[pwykersotz]

Con affects hp. Anyway your looking at it the wrong way anyway. Also Intellect Devourers are not broken and Pixies are worthless. Intellect Devourers are deadly but not broken.

He can always lower the HD to 2d4 by making it tiny and the 30 Con adds +10. That's 15 and still meets the metric.

By the way, you've got to realize that this is basically the 3.5 epic magic creator of 5e. DM oversight is critical. This is just amusing to theorycraft.

[MaxWilson]

Con affects hp. Anyway your looking at it the wrong way anyway. Also Intellect Devourers are not broken and Pixies are worthless. Intellect Devourers are deadly but not broken.

Con doesn't have to affect HP, and in any case you can just set the base HP low enough (7) that a Con bonus (+10) wouldn't push you over the threshold.

By "broken" I mean "have a threat profile totally inconsistent with their CR rating." I don't mean that they are unbeatable, but they are very, very nasty compared to other CR 2 creatures, especially if they have a Mind Flayer with them or something else that can incapacitate humanoids.

(Hmmmm, what about a Shadow Monk with a pet Intellect Devourer? He'd make a good mage-stealer. Shadow Monk teleports in, uses Stunning Strike on the mage (Con save, once per strike). Intellect Devourer pops out of monk's pocket and possesses the mage (no saving throw).)


By the way, you've got to realize that this is basically the 3.5 epic magic creator of 5e. DM oversight is critical. This is just amusing to theorycraft.

Yeah, obviously I wouldn't actually use the Flamespren or anything like it in practice. That would be straight-up murder and player abuse, and "the DMG says it's only CR 1/4" is not any kind of valid excuse.

[Gnomes2169]

Nope. If this were true, the Air Elemental would be much higher CR than the Earth Elemental due to having two extra resistances (lightning, thunder), the same number of immunities (poison), and one less vulnerability (thunder).

Oh, BTW, since the Flamespren is a CR 1/4 creature, you can give it an infinite number of Legendary Resistances for free.

So wait, you mean the lower AC, lower HP, lower DPR air elemental is weighted the same because of the weakly skewed defensive bonus from resistance to the much, much more durable Earth Elemental? Btw, vulnerabilities are called out as not applying to the formula, due to rarity.

And that... Is stupid, and likely blatantly against creation rules/ intent. Pretty sure a legendary resistance clause is in there making CR 5 the lowest CR of this particular ability...

[pwykersotz]

So wait, you mean the lower AC, lower HP, lower DPR air elemental is weighted the same because of the weakly skewed defensive bonus from resistance to the much, much more durable Earth Elemental? Btw, vulnerabilities are called out as not applying to the formula, due to rarity.

And that... Is stupid, and likely blatantly against creation rules/ intent. Pretty sure a legendary resistance clause is in there making CR 5 the lowest CR of this particular ability...


Yeah, the intent is pretty clearly stated too. Several times throughout. Such as:

Assign a vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to a monster only when it's intuitive.
But then where would the fun be? :smallwink:

[MaxWilson]

So wait, you mean the lower AC, lower HP, lower DPR air elemental is weighted the same because of the weakly skewed defensive bonus from resistance to the much, much more durable Earth Elemental? Btw, vulnerabilities are called out as not applying to the formula, due to rarity.

And that... Is stupid, and likely blatantly against creation rules/ intent. Pretty sure a legendary resistance clause is in there making CR 5 the lowest CR of this particular ability...

Air Elementals have the same DPR as Earth Elementals: 2x +8 for 14 points per hit. That gives them an offensive CR of 4.

If we multiplied the Air Elemental's effective HP multiple times for every resistance/immunity, it would have x1.5 (resistance to non-magical piercing/slashing/blunt, accepting for the sake of argument that these are a redundant special case in redundancy instead of three separate immunities) x2 (poison immunity) x1.5 (lightning resistance) x1.5 (thunder resistance) x90 HP (base HP) for a grand total of 608 effective HP, a defensive CR of 25, and a total CR of 15.

It doesn't work that way though: there's just one x1.5 modifier for a defensive CR of 5, and a total CR of 5.

[SiuiS]

Negative, Envyus, that is only for immunities which "not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract." Since anyone can bypass force/acid/lightning/thunder/fire resistance by using weapons, only the immunity to nonmagical weapons counts (x2), hence why it has 17 HP instead of 34.

Sounds like you goofed a little, in that it's not about a generic party but the specific one. So if the party this thing faces cannot get through those with the weapons they actually own instead of Schroedinger's quantum swords of element, then it's suddenly shifted.

Which is good. It means cr reflects the challenge to the party, not an arbitrary benchmark.



BTW, one of the reasons I love the AD&D 2nd edition Troll is that it is clearly trying to min-max. Pretty much every single ability it has is designed to be as powerful as possible without quite hitting the breakpoint that makes players get more XP for killing it.

I'll check that out. I haven't looked through those in a while.

Specifically the 2e one? I only have the 1e monster manual handy.

[pwykersotz]

Sounds like you goofed a little, in that it's not about a generic party but the specific one. So if the party this thing faces cannot get through those with the weapons they actually own instead of Schroedinger's quantum swords of element, then it's suddenly shifted.

Which is good. It means cr reflects the challenge to the party, not an arbitrary benchmark.



I'll check that out. I haven't looked through those in a while.

Specifically the 2e one? I only have the 1e monster manual handy.

Is it this troll? (http://www.lomion.de/cmm/troll.php)

[Giant2005]

It's at the bottom of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385372-Pixies-by-RAW-non-issue/page3&highlight=flamespren).

That thing is actually CR 3.5.
The 14 AC puts its defensive CR at 4 and the +4 to attack puts its offensive CR at 3. Averaged out they are 3.5

[MaxWilson]

That thing is actually CR 3.5.
The 14 AC puts its defensive CR at 4 and the +4 to attack puts its offensive CR at 3. Averaged out they are 3.5

False. Read the rules on page 274 step 4 and 275 step 7. And just look at hobgoblins in the MM.

[MaxWilson]

Is it this troll? (http://www.lomion.de/cmm/troll.php)

Yes, that one. Having four or more attacks grants bonus XP, so it has three. Doing thirty points of damage or more grants bonus XP so it does up to 28, but skewed high due to static bonuses. Having more than +6 to HP grants extra HP IIRC, so it has +6. Having an AC of 1 or better IIRC grants extra XP, so it has 4. (Not perfectly min-maxed in this case.)

And they come in packs of 1-12.

I wish the 5E MM had notes on pack size, social structure, etc., but I guess I can just steal from 2nd edition.

[Giant2005]

False. Read the rules on page 274 step 4 and 275 step 7. And just look at hobgoblins in the MM.

I stand corrected - I missed the part about being able to get away with 1 AC and +1 to hit more than the table stated without effecting the CR.

[Demonic Spoon]

Was anyone really under the impression that monster creation rules were ever going to be opened up to players to create their own summonable creatures?

Was anyone really under the impression that the monster creation rules wouldn't rely on the DM applying some modicum of thought to creating something that is fun and balanced?

[pwykersotz]

Was anyone really under the impression that monster creation rules were ever going to be opened up to players to create their own summonable creatures?

Was anyone really under the impression that the monster creation rules wouldn't rely on the DM applying some modicum of thought to creating something that is fun and balanced?

Nope. But it's hilariously fun to construct player-murder machines "by the book". :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Was anyone really under the impression that monster creation rules were ever going to be opened up to players to create their own summonable creatures?

Was anyone really under the impression that the monster creation rules wouldn't rely on the DM applying some modicum of thought to creating something that is fun and balanced?

Some people were disappointed that the DMG does not include detailed point-buy rules for creating your own races and classes. I think the CR rules are sufficient proof that it's good they didn't. Monster creation and class creation rely heavily, almost exclusively really, on DM judgment to keep things reasonable. Content creation in D&D is not and should not be a game-inside-a-game. Therefore it didn't really need rules beyond "balance against existing content and try not to create dominant options."

[Demonic Spoon]

Some people were disappointed that the DMG does not include detailed point-buy rules for creating your own races and classes. I think the CR rules are sufficient proof that it's good they didn't. Monster creation and class creation rely heavily, almost exclusively really, on DM judgment to keep things reasonable. Content creation in D&D is not and should not be a game-inside-a-game. Therefore it didn't really need rules beyond "balance against existing content and try not to create dominant options."


It absolutely does require rules, or at least guidelines. Math-conscious people - the type of people who would go onto forums and theorycraft and optimize their way to understanding the math of D&D - weren't ever going to have issues homebrewing vaguely balanced monsters and such. Even for such people, though, the guidelines are a good starting point.

The real benefit is that the other people, who aren't as number-crunchy as we on this forum are, have some ability to customize their game. DM judgment is still required, but it takes little more than a pulse to realize that immunity to nonmagical weapons is a very strong thing to bestow on a monster and thus affects its power level.


Point systems are are needlessly restrictive. No point system will ever let you create the full gamut of content that would be balanced. There would always be balanced things that the point buy system didn't account for, and there would always be things that would be more optimal than others in a point buy system, leading to people trying to optimize what otherwise should be a creative process

[MaxWilson]

It absolutely does require rules, or at least guidelines. Math-conscious people - the type of people who would go onto forums and theorycraft and optimize their way to understanding the math of D&D - weren't ever going to have issues homebrewing vaguely balanced monsters and such. Even for such people, though, the guidelines are a good starting point.

The real benefit is that the other people, who aren't as number-crunchy as we on this forum are, have some ability to customize their game. DM judgment is still required, but it takes little more than a pulse to realize that immunity to nonmagical weapons is a very strong thing to bestow on a monster and thus affects its power level.

Point systems are are needlessly restrictive. No point system will ever let you create the full gamut of content that would be balanced. There would always be balanced things that the point buy system didn't account for, and there would always be things that would be more optimal than others in a point buy system, leading to people trying to optimize what otherwise should be a creative process

It feels like you're contradicting yourself here. Yes, to math-conscious people, it is immediately obvious that the x2 modifier for immunity to all weapons (magical and otherwise) is waaaaay cheaper than it should be. But a non-math-conscious person might slap that trait on a custom Black Pudding and think that it's okay, because the DMG says so.

The issue is compounded when dealing with player-oriented content. In theory the DM can disallow anything he wants, but you and I and anyone who's ever met a human being knows that in real life it's not that simple. If the DMG had rules for custom class creation, there would be ways to abuse those rules (just as you can abuse the monster creation rules), and furthermore the mere fact that a class can be created "per DMG RAW" is something that a player can leverage to ask his DM to allow him to play this custom class in campaign, since it's not breaking any rules. Obviously a DM wouldn't allow anything as overtly broken as my Flamespren, but if the DMG says that being Small is a -5 point penalty, and +1 to a stat is +5 points and +2 to a stat is +15 points, well, you're going to see a lot of Small-race wizards out there who take their extra points and shove them straight into Constitution, because the DMG says you can. Even better if they can be identical to a Variant human in every way except size and the extra +1. You'll have players who play elves, except they drop the racial proficiency in longbow/shortbow/longsword/shortsword because they want to spend the points on halforc-style Relentless instead.

Point-buy systems are inherently prone to abuse, which means they always come down to DM fiat and judgment anyway. Especially for something as simple as race/subrace creation, it's better to drop the point-buy part and skip straight to DM fiat/judgment.

[Demonic Spoon]

I thought you were arguing in favor of point-buy systems. I agree that such a system would be terrible.

I haven't seen the rules myself, but it doesn't seem like the DMG monster creation rules strictly apply. From this thread, it seems like they're vague enough that DM fiat is not just implied but required.

[MaxWilson]

I thought you were arguing in favor of point-buy systems. I agree that such a system would be terrible.

I haven't seen the rules myself, but it doesn't seem like the DMG monster creation rules strictly apply. From this thread, it seems like they're vague enough that DM fiat is not just implied but required.

No, I'm arguing against. Hence, "Some people were disappointed that the DMG does not include detailed point-buy rules for creating your own races and classes. I think the CR rules are sufficient proof that it's good they didn't."

I think the DMG CR rules are necessary for one simple reason: for a race/class, you make a binary decision. "Is this thing overpowered?" Yay or nay. For CR though, you need to assign how many XP it gives when you kill it, which is a quantitative judgment. If it weren't for XP-for-kill the CR rules would be unnecessary, but XP-for-kill is the default in D&D 5E so the CR rules need to be in the DMG.

[Ziegander]

The real problem, and the issue we will likely never see any definitive dev posts about, at least not for a very long time yet, is, were designers subject to such rules when designing monsters for the monster manual, and did these designers even know what the "average," or "reasonable expectation" for monsters was when they did use the rules (if they did)? Because, there is certainly evidence that the actual paid game designers might have been held to these guidelines, and yet, if they were, we can already see how these guidelines are pathetically bad at creating any sort of actual balance or parity between creatures of equal CR.

[MaxWilson]

The real problem, and the issue we will likely never see any definitive dev posts about, at least not for a very long time yet, is, were designers subject to such rules when designing monsters for the monster manual, and did these designers even know what the "average," or "reasonable expectation" for monsters was when they did use the rules (if they did)? Because, there is certainly evidence that the actual paid game designers might have been held to these guidelines, and yet, if they were, we can already see how these guidelines are pathetically bad at creating any sort of actual balance or parity between creatures of equal CR.

That's actually not true. Most monsters of equivalent CRs are actually pretty close to the same power level. There are a handful of outliers (Intellect Devourer, arguably Hobgoblins) but for the most part the MM is pretty consistent.

[Ziegander]

That's actually not true. Most monsters of equivalent CRs are actually pretty close to the same power level. There are a handful of outliers (Intellect Devourer, arguably Hobgoblins) but for the most part the MM is pretty consistent.

Sure, I agree, but that doesn't seem to be a product of the Monster Creation rules in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, I agree, but that doesn't seem to be a product of the Monster Creation rules in the DMG.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood your point in that case. Carry on.

[pwykersotz]

And, apparently, Spell Immunity like a Rakshasa, since it isn't listed in the level adjustment table anywhere.

I just realized, we should be able to reverse engineer the CR adjustment of that ability by plugging the Rakshasas other abilities into the calculator and seeing where he ends up. Alas, I am too busy at the moment.