Monster Inconsistensies from the Formula

[Kryx]

It looks like monsters have static bonuses equal to their proficiency bonus(see MM 8) to saves/skills. For instance an Ancient Black Dragon has his +7 prof added to dex, con, wis, and cha saves and the math works out. It also has prof on stealth and expertise on Perception and the numbers seem to work out.

Some monsters, for instance the Lich, do not exactly follow this. The lich should have 19 Arcana, but has 18. 19 comes from (7 prof*2 for exp)=14 + 5 int = 19.

There seems to be a large list of inconsistencies based on D&D 5th Edition Monster Manual Dissected (WIP) (http://d-d-campaign-manager.webnode.fi/news/d-d-5th-edition-monster-manual-dissected-wip-/):

skills
saves
Escape DCs
miscalculated passive perception
to hit bonus
damage
Spell DCs
etc.
Longbow range as 120/600 instead of 150/600.


I assume most of these should be eratta'd to actually fit the formula. But I also doubt the Devs will want to do that.

Has anyone seen any Dev tweets about this topic? Or any other threads about it?

[Envyus]

There is a math error once in a while.

[Kryx]

There is a math error once in a while.
That's the question. Is it a mistake or purposeful?

I would ignore it, but I'm writing a script to import monsters for my roll20 sheet. So I need to know.

[Slipperychicken]

This is WotC we're talking about. The books are filled with mistakes; it's just a matter of how long it takes us to find and abuse them.

For anyone who played 3.5, this isn't news. Anyone remember how bad the example NPCs were? Wrong numbers of feats, not meeting requirements, wrong numbers of skill points, combat styles which didn't work, and so on. Sometimes, the sample builds couldn't even qualify for the prestige classes they were supposed to be showing off.