Boss CR

[Pope Scarface]

In 5E, what CR should the 'boss fight' of a story arc be, compared to average party level? Equal, one or two CRs higher?

[JoeJ]

In 5E, what CR should the 'boss fight' of a story arc be, compared to average party level? Equal, one or two CRs higher?

Balancing combat isn't really based on CR in 5e, but on xp totals. The rules are on p. 82-85 of the DMG.

[RickAllison]

In 5E, what CR should the 'boss fight' of a story arc be, compared to average party level? Equal, one or two CRs higher?

There isn't really an optimal level, but it generally is higher. Just ran a boss that was 6 CR higher, for example.

[R.Shackleford]

Depends on party set up. Cause level 10 parties can take out the Terrasque.

I've been thinking of just using narrative to run all my boss fights. It sounds... Mean to make it where the players mechanics mean a bit less but those boss fights had the best review from players.

It's really a combo of narrative and gameist moreso than just narrative.

Kinda weird to explain by typing.

[Zman]

It depends on what level they are and how optimized they are, but here are a couple rough guidelines.

This assumes a couple of tougher Mooks and at least one previous encounter in the day. If you aren't using Mooks or are using a ton of them this won't apply.

Levels 1-4 +1-2CR
Levels 5-10 +2-4
Levels 11-16 +3-5
Levels 17+ +X(Requires additional stuff to challenge as a Boss fight)

[pwykersotz]

I just had a boss fight for a party of level 11's. It was a refluffed Balor with regen of 50 and of bestial intelligence. Only weapons of the "Frozen Men" on the mountainside could deal wounds that would not regenerate, but it would not pursue them outside of its territory.

They had great fun engaging it, getting their cans kicked, running away, planning, and re-engaging it. Eventually they managed to figure out that it feared the weapons of the Frozen Men (they had one that they recovered), and used it to banish the creature, drew a magic circle around it to trap it, and beat it down. There were complications as it attempted to break free (we went outside of game rules for this part, doing things such as it bending the circle and the cleric re-inforcing it with another slot and concentration and also with it summoning shades that blasted the party with lightning bolt), but these were mostly for flavor and fun.

But yeah, I could have stomped them with a lower CR creature or given them an easy fight with a higher one. I just knew my party and spitballed it to the right area. In my opinion, boss fights are less about CR and more about the style.

[NewDM]

Well since the rules say using a CR above the party level is possibly deadly. I'd say rework normal monsters of a CR equal to the parties level by:

Give it attacks that hit multiple characters or a multiattack feature
Give it ways to avoid or lessen stun-lock effects
Multiply its hp by the number of members in the party.
Give it some fun reactions.
Give it some kind of thematic aura (like an Ogre that wildly swings its club creating a glancing blow aura that makes anyone in the area save or take low damage)
Avoid using legendary resistances as for some players they come off as a cheap shot solution to an in depth problem
Avoid using legendary actions as for some players they come off as a cheap shot solution to an in depth problem.


There is also an article by the angryGM/DM that describes how to do bosses in stages.

There is no need to go outside 5e's rules and suggestions to create a decent boss fight. You do not need to up the CR just to make a good boss fight.

[R.Shackleford]

Multiply its hp by the number of members in the party.


There is also an article by the angryGM/DM that describes how to do bosses in stages.

There is no need to go outside 5e's rules and suggestions to create a decent boss fight. You do not need to up the CR just to make a good boss fight.

Your examples are already going outside 5e's rules...

Also, Angry DM is a good call, I would take his advice over pretty much anyone.

My biggest issue with what you typed is the HP. No, no, no, nooooooo.

A Young dragon has 110 ish HP (average multiplying that by 4, 5, or 6 is absolutely insane and will increase the fight time in a bad way.

440, 550, or 660 HP for a CR 6 is just going to give you early 4e monster issues (way too much HP).

If it comes down to "we can beat this thing, just going to take x rounds cause of HP" then that gets boring.

Having dynamic fights, or stages to a fight, works a lot better than adding a bag of HP.

[NewDM]

Your examples are already going outside 5e's rules...

Also, Angry DM is a good call, I would take his advice over pretty much anyone.

My biggest issue with what you typed is the HP. No, no, no, nooooooo.

A Young dragon has 110 ish HP (average multiplying that by 4, 5, or 6 is absolutely insane and will increase the fight time in a bad way.

440, 550, or 660 HP for a CR 6 is just going to give you early 4e monster issues (way too much HP).

If it comes down to "we can beat this thing, just going to take x rounds cause of HP" then that gets boring.

Having dynamic fights, or stages to a fight, works a lot better than adding a bag of HP.

Several monsters already have hp outside the range of given in the DMG and I believe dragons fall into this category as well as anything that has lair actions.

AngryGM also suggests increasing HP. So I don't know what you are going on about. Stage fights eat any hp loss after the stage hits 0. Dynamic fights are created when the monster is dynamic and using both mine and the AngryDM suggestions do that. Adding a bag of HP does exactly the same thing.

Edit: If you don't want to increase its HP, give it resistances and immunities to common damage types unless some condition is met that's equivalent to giving it 2x or even 4x hp.

[R.Shackleford]

Several monsters already have hp outside the range of given in the DMG and I believe dragons fall into this category as well as anything that has lair actions.

AngryGM also suggests increasing HP. So I don't know what you are going on about. Stage fights eat any hp loss after the stage hits 0. Dynamic fights are created when the monster is dynamic and using both mine and the AngryDM suggestions do that. Adding a bag of HP does exactly the same thing.

Edit: If you don't want to increase its HP, give it resistances and immunities to common damage types unless some condition is met that's equivalent to giving it 2x or even 4x hp.

Increase HP can work, just not 3, 4, 5, or 6 x Monster HP.

That is ridiculous levels of HP.

[NewDM]

Increase HP can work, just not 3, 4, 5, or 6 x Monster HP.

That is ridiculous levels of HP.

Its the equivalent of sending an equal number of monsters against the party. So if you would normally send 4 kobolds against the party, you would instead send 1 kobold with 4x the hp.

[R.Shackleford]

Its the equivalent of sending an equal number of monsters against the party. So if you would normally send 4 kobolds against the party, you would instead send 1 kobold with 4x the hp.

1 kobold with 5x the HP doesn't have 550hp and takes round after round to defeat.

The problem with sending huge bags of HP at PCs is that it gets repetitive and boring.

If you have 10 kobold and one Young Dragon the kobolds will work differently than the 1 young dragon.

Just throing out a huge bag of HP dragon... It only fights like a dragon and after to many rounds it becomes repetitive.

[Foxhound438]

my general rule of thumb is to have the boss a bit over CR and a few things at or below average level. You rarely want to throw a 1 v X, because action economy dictates that even well over CR in that case the party will win easily.

[NewDM]

1 kobold with 5x the HP doesn't have 550hp and takes round after round to defeat.

The problem with sending huge bags of HP at PCs is that it gets repetitive and boring.

If you have 10 kobold and one Young Dragon the kobolds will work differently than the 1 young dragon.

Just throing out a huge bag of HP dragon... It only fights like a dragon and after to many rounds it becomes repetitive.

Many of the legendary creatures already have multiples of hit points. The dragon in your example has quite a few more hit points than other creatures of the same CR. In those cases you wouldn't multiply them out.

A Young Black Dragon is CR 7 and has 127 hp. The DMG chart says CR 7 should have 161-175. If we look at the dragons damage resistances and immunities we find they are immune to Acid. HP were adjusted because it has an abnormally high AC of 18 which should be 15. They adjusted the hit points down by 2 rows to account for this. Now lets look at some other CR 7 creatures:

Creature: Hit Points
Drow mage: 45
Stone Giant: 126
Grick Alpha: 75
Mind Flayer: 71
Oni: 110

It fluctuates between close to the dragons hp and less than half. I'd say up the hit points to at least their suggested level in the DMG on page 274. Then maybe throw a resistance or two on. That way you stay perfectly within the rules.

Having a lot of hit points can help the creature survive the players nova round. If that is accomplished and it takes 3-5 rounds to take it down, I'd call that a good boss fight.

[R.Shackleford]

Many of the legendary creatures already have multiples of hit points. The dragon in your example has quite a few more hit points than other creatures of the same CR. In those cases you wouldn't multiply them out.

A Young Black Dragon is CR 7 and has 127 hp. The DMG chart says CR 7 should have 161-175. If we look at the dragons damage resistances and immunities we find they are immune to Acid. HP were adjusted because it has an abnormally high AC of 18 which should be 15. They adjusted the hit points down by 2 rows to account for this. Now lets look at some other CR 7 creatures:

Creature: Hit Points
Drow mage: 45
Stone Giant: 126
Grick Alpha: 75
Mind Flayer: 71
Oni: 110

It fluctuates between close to the dragons hp and less than half. I'd say up the hit points to at least their suggested level in the DMG on page 274. Then maybe throw a resistance or two on. That way you stay perfectly within the rules.

Having a lot of hit points can help the creature survive the players nova round. If that is accomplished and it takes 3-5 rounds to take it down, I'd call that a good boss fight.

Your initial claim was boss HP x # players.

I'm not saying you can't give monsters more HP, I'm saying that if you give mid to high CR creatures a x4 to x6 HP modifier it gets ridiculous.

Instead of making the fight dynamic you are making it about reducing a bag of HP.

If it would normally take 2 rounds to kill a boss and the only thing changed to make it 3 - 5 rounds is just *I attack*... That is a failure of a boss fight. You essentially wasted everyone's time with round 3, 4, and 5.

It isn't how many rounds a boss can survive but the ride to when a boss (or PCs) is defeated.

You can boost HP but the number you originally said is just ridiculous.

[NewDM]

Your initial claim was boss HP x # players.

I'm not saying you can't give monsters more HP, I'm saying that if you give mid to high CR creatures a x4 to x6 HP modifier it gets ridiculous.

Instead of making the fight dynamic you are making it about reducing a bag of HP.

If it would normally take 2 rounds to kill a boss and the only thing changed to make it 3 - 5 rounds is just *I attack*... That is a failure of a boss fight. You essentially wasted everyone's time with round 3, 4, and 5.

It isn't how many rounds a boss can survive but the ride to when a boss (or PCs) is defeated.

You can boost HP but the number you originally said is just ridiculous.

I changed my view. Some enemies will need 3x or 4x the hp to last through the nova round, but many won't. Some you won't have to adjust hp at all. Others 1.5x or 2x is plenty. If it takes 2 rounds to kill a boss, it could be that everyone is unloading their novas. If that is the case then an extra 3 rounds could prove challenging not because of bag of hp syndrome, but because 'oh no we actually have to think and fight' syndrome. I know many players simply don't like this play style, but others do.

The 'ride' is up to the players and DM. Having the right statistics makes it easier to give the right kind of ride.

[uraniumrooster]

Somebody mentioned the AngryGM. I think this is the article they meant: http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

I've borrowed some techniques from his Paragon monster method. The biggest takeaway, IMO, is actions. If you want your solo BBEG to be a challenge for your party, giving them extra turns in combat (essentially mimicking multiple creatures) is a great way to go about accomplishing that. Legendary and Lair Actions were sort of an attempt to give solo monsters more actions in combat, but they still aren't competitive against a full party of PCs all getting to take their full turns.

I've also used a modified version of the same approach by stealing the Thief's capstone ability and applying it to my boss mob, or (in the case of a 2-headed creature) rolling two initiatives for the same creature and giving it a full turn on each of those initiative counts. I will typically adjust their movement speed down a little bit since they get to act twice, and depending on the creature's starting CR I might reduce the number of attacks they make using Multiattack for the same reason.

Alternatively, you can also get the same end result by giving your monster a way to deprive the PCs of their turns. A monster with an AoE ability that inflicts incapacitated, paralyzed, stunned, etc, can balance the odds pretty effectively. Even better if it also gets multiple turns in a round.

[R.Shackleford]

I changed my view. Some enemies will need 3x or 4x the hp to last through the nova round, but many won't. Some you won't have to adjust hp at all. Others 1.5x or 2x is plenty. If it takes 2 rounds to kill a boss, it could be that everyone is unloading their novas. If that is the case then an extra 3 rounds could prove challenging not because of bag of hp syndrome, but because 'oh no we actually have to think and fight' syndrome. I know many players simply don't like this play style, but others do.

The 'ride' is up to the players and DM. Having the right statistics makes it easier to give the right kind of ride.

If all it takes is HP damage to kill a boss I make/send at a party then the encounter is a failure on my part.

Hell, I think I'm going to start making killing the boss the least desireable outcome more often. You can hold back on melee weapons but not ranged weapons, spells, and I think extra damage (sneak attack/smite).

[mgshamster]

If all it takes is HP damage to kill a boss I make/send at a party then the encounter is a failure on my part.

Hell, I think I'm going to start making killing the boss the least desireable outcome more often. You can hold back on melee weapons but not ranged weapons, spells, and I think extra damage (sneak attack/smite).

When you start designing these encounters, can you share them? I'd love to see what you come up with.

[R.Shackleford]

When you start designing these encounters, can you share them? I'd love to see what you come up with.

Recently I posted about a gargantuan undead ankheg that the party would need to climb, kill undead spawns, and then find and destroy a crown. Stabbing the ankheg will have it sweep its arm to swat at the pain (gargantuan arm) which can hurt the PCs or sweep away a horde of enemies.

I could make it where the PCs *must* let the gargantuan undead ankheg get close to the capital so that they have they can reclaim a former glory or win a bet/deal (I'll donate money to the orphanages when a gargantuan undead ankheg walks to town!).

Hmmm

[Zman]

Well since the rules say using a CR above the party level is possibly deadly. I'd say rework normal monsters of a CR equal to the parties level by:

Give it attacks that hit multiple characters or a multiattack feature
Give it ways to avoid or lessen stun-lock effects
Multiply its hp by the number of members in the party.
Give it some fun reactions.
Give it some kind of thematic aura (like an Ogre that wildly swings its club creating a glancing blow aura that makes anyone in the area save or take low damage)
Avoid using legendary resistances as for some players they come off as a cheap shot solution to an in depth problem
Avoid using legendary actions as for some players they come off as a cheap shot solution to an in depth problem.


There is also an article by the angryGM/DM that describes how to do bosses in stages.

There is no need to go outside 5e's rules and suggestions to create a decent boss fight. You do not need to up the CR just to make a good boss fight.

Firstly, being possibly deadly is exactly what higher difficulty encounters could be, in fact it exactly in the definition of a deadly encounter and doesn't have anything to do with higher CRs. The DM reference to being careful about CR> Level was mostly in reference to lower levels where they can kill a player in one hit, at medium and higher levels having a CR>Level isn't problematic and falls well within the encounter difficulty charts. Your assertion that you don't need to up CR for decent boss fight and that doing so is counter to the rules is in error. It is perfectly within the encounter system and well within the rules.

Secondly, your suggestions make calculating encounter XP more difficult as you are customizing monsters which is finicky on the best of days, and your suggestions can vary creature strength by a ton. HPxNumber of Party Members is quite silly and unlikely to sit well, also it wildly unbalances the built in assumptions of monsters.

Thirdly, your personal biases towards Legendary Actions and Resistances is asking to derail the thread and come across as needlessly confrontational and demeaning to how others enjoy the game. They are part of the rules, you may not like them, but they are part of the Monsters.

As I said in my earlier post, there is nothing wrong with using Monsters with a CR higher than the party level, it is well within the rules, and there are other options to creating a good boss fight. Using Mooks, lair actions, and previous encounters is always helpful and often enhances a boss fight and push a party to its limit.

[NewDM]

If all it takes is HP damage to kill a boss I make/send at a party then the encounter is a failure on my part.

Hell, I think I'm going to start making killing the boss the least desireable outcome more often. You can hold back on melee weapons but not ranged weapons, spells, and I think extra damage (sneak attack/smite).

So what? you just don't allow the monsters to take damage while the party novas all over it? As long as HP are involved the thing is going to go down after a nova unless it is a sack of hp.


When you start designing these encounters, can you share them? I'd love to see what you come up with.

Yes, I'd like to see that too.


Firstly, being possibly deadly is exactly what higher difficulty encounters could be, in fact it exactly in the definition of a deadly encounter and doesn't have anything to do with higher CRs. The DM reference to being careful about CR> Level was mostly in reference to lower levels where they can kill a player in one hit, at medium and higher levels having a CR>Level isn't problematic and falls well within the encounter difficulty charts. Your assertion that you don't need to up CR for decent boss fight and that doing so is counter to the rules is in error. It is perfectly within the encounter system and well within the rules.

They aren't deadly because they are harder. They are deadly because the players may not have the means to defeat them or survive their attacks. The example they give is globe of invulnerability which makes spell casters below a certain level useless. Which is why you have to be careful if you put players up against it. If you don't want to have to look too deeply at every monster you pit against the players its generally a good idea to avoid using them.


Secondly, your suggestions make calculating encounter XP more difficult as you are customizing monsters which is finicky on the best of days, and your suggestions can vary creature strength by a ton. HPxNumber of Party Members is quite silly and unlikely to sit well, also it wildly unbalances the built in assumptions of monsters.

Not really. You calculate like normal and possibly at a CR or two for the extra features. Please read the thread. I gave up on HP times number of members and instead said raise hp to the CR threshold in the DMG monster creation chart. Which doesn't affect the assumption of monsters at all.


As I said in my earlier post, there is nothing wrong with using Monsters with a CR higher than the party level, it is well within the rules, and there are other options to creating a good boss fight. Using Mooks, lair actions, and previous encounters is always helpful and often enhances a boss fight and push a party to its limit.

There is something wrong with it. They can cause a TPK if you don't carefully monitor each creature who's CR is above the parties and that is spelled out in the book.

Its not really a boss fight if its 10 mooks + a leader. That's a regular encounter. Lair actions fall under the category of cheap shot to many of us and don't do anything but annoy players.

[Foxhound438]

When you start designing these encounters, can you share them? I'd love to see what you come up with.

mind control an NPC the party members like.

important political figure adored greatly by the people of their land; murder would result in a massive war breaking out

"competition" fight where straight damage isn't really what counts; if they lose by the rules then x bad thing happens

Edit: above is pretty vague, so I came up with an example. "(x thing) and you find yourself (through whatever chain of circumstances) on a big slab of rock that's teetering on the point of another big rock, above (x ill fate if fall). (x thing) has a flying speed, but it seems to want to still fight you here. If it were to fly/fall off, you would definitely plummet to your death, as it is basically using its own weight to stabilize the platform. You aren't heavy enough to balance the thing, so you have to survive with the thing for a number of rounds that is easy to predict because of (x incoming circumstance) unless another party member can fly to you to pick you up." /edit

enemy pulls the pin on a grenade and takes a kid hostage... or fantasy equivalent



all that I came up with in about 5 minutes.

[Foxhound438]

Its not really a boss fight if its 10 mooks + a leader. That's a regular encounter. Lair actions fall under the category of cheap shot to many of us and don't do anything but annoy players.

that's just part of the game. Boss monsters get lair actions and legendary actions, PC's get class features. It's asymmetrical warfare.

[mgshamster]

Recently I posted about a gargantuan undead ankheg that the party would need to climb, kill undead spawns, and then find and destroy a crown. Stabbing the ankheg will have it sweep its arm to swat at the pain (gargantuan arm) which can hurt the PCs or sweep away a horde of enemies.

I could make it where the PCs *must* let the gargantuan undead ankheg get close to the capital so that they have they can reclaim a former glory or win a bet/deal (I'll donate money to the orphanages when a gargantuan undead ankheg walks to town!).

Hmmm

I saw that thread. I really liked your ideas.

One good way to solve the HP issue is to have the primary bad guy resolution occur without having to attack it. For example, a creature who is causing problems but cannot be killed for some reason. Say, a Sprite is concerned about pollution in her river, but the pollution is cause by a bunch of creatures that you don't want to kill (such as a large group of modrons crossing the river upstream). Then figure out why they're going through the river - maybe because a more powerful creature is forcing them that way because it doesn't want them in its territory. (This happens in the planescape campaign The Modron March).

There was another adventure from my youth where a lower plane creature ended up getting imbued with a divine soul. The evil nature of the creature combined with the good nature of the soul slowly changed the creature. It migrated from the abyss to one of the upper planes (the soul drove it towards goodness), but the evil in it cause the beast to cause carnage wherever it went. Your job is to track it and kill it - but as you track it, it becomes less and less evil, so do you still want to kill a creature who has a good soul and is shedding its evil? What moral consequences are behind such an action? If you decide to help it, now you have to help defend it against good beings who want it killed (and who don't understand that it is no longer evil). It was a fun adventure.

Or what about having to defeat a cultural symbol? Say a kingdom has a love for a dangerous creature, and that creature is causing havoc. You have to stop it, but if you just kill it, the people will hate you for it.

I once played in a low magic game where we were facing demons. This was 2e, and the demons we were facing were immune to non-magical attacks. Since it was low magic, we didn't have magic weapons or very much magical power from or casters (they went in to the game knowing they'd be limited). It made for some interesting resolutions for defeating enemies who couldn't be harmed by brute force.

In Out of the Abyss, there are plenty of situations where you have to defeat your enemies, and if you choose the damage dealing option or nova option, you will die. You have to figure out another way.

There are ways to design end boss encounters where simply doing damage isn't enough to win.

[NewDM]

that's just part of the game. Boss monsters get lair actions and legendary actions, PC's get class features. It's asymmetrical warfare.

Some of us enjoy "War as Sport" and "Fun as Obstacle Course" which means a level playing field. Lair/Legendary Actions/Saves are not attainable by players so its not an even playing field. It comes off as cheap. Like playing checkers and your opponent starts with all their pieces kinged.


I saw that thread. I really liked your ideas.

One good way to solve the HP issue is to have the primary bad guy resolution occur without having to attack it. For example, a creature who is causing problems but cannot be killed for some reason. Say, a Sprite is concerned about pollution in her river, but the pollution is cause by a bunch of creatures that you don't want to kill (such as a large group of modrons crossing the river upstream). Then figure out why they're going through the river - maybe because a more powerful creature is forcing them that way because it doesn't want them in its territory. (This happens in the planescape campaign The Modron March).

There was another adventure from my youth where a lower plane creature ended up getting imbued with a divine soul. The evil nature of the creature combined with the good nature of the soul slowly changed the creature. It migrated from the abyss to one of the upper planes (the soul drove it towards goodness), but the evil in it cause the beast to cause carnage wherever it went. Your job is to track it and kill it - but as you track it, it becomes less and less evil, so do you still want to kill a creature who has a good soul and is shedding its evil? What moral consequences are behind such an action? If you decide to help it, now you have to help defend it against good beings who want it killed (and who don't understand that it is no longer evil). It was a fun adventure.

Or what about having to defeat a cultural symbol? Say a kingdom has a love for a dangerous creature, and that creature is causing havoc. You have to stop it, but if you just kill it, the people will hate you for it.

I once played in a low magic game where we were facing demons. This was 2e, and the demons we were facing were immune to non-magical attacks. Since it was low magic, we didn't have magic weapons or very much magical power from or casters (they went in to the game knowing they'd be limited). It made for some interesting resolutions for defeating enemies who couldn't be harmed by brute force.

In Out of the Abyss, there are plenty of situations where you have to defeat your enemies, and if you choose the damage dealing option or nova option, you will die. You have to figure out another way.

There are ways to design end boss encounters where simply doing damage isn't enough to win.

Those are not really boss fights. They are encounters that are mostly skill based. A boss fight, you are actually fighting the boss. Nothing wrong with the examples, but they aren't really a boss fight.

[RickAllison]

Some of us enjoy "War as Sport" and "Fun as Obstacle Course" which means a level playing field. Lair/Legendary Actions/Saves are not attainable by players so its not an even playing field. It comes off as cheap. Like playing checkers and your opponent starts with all their pieces kinged.



Those are not really boss fights. They are encounters that are mostly skill based. A boss fight, you are actually fighting the boss. Nothing wrong with the examples, but they aren't really a boss fight.

Part of the issue I see with the CaS is that it makes little sense in the D&Dverse. If you go against an evil adventuring party, then it works (same options, etc.), but why would an evil empire decide to fight the party in evenly matched battle? It makes far more sense to leverage the legions of soldiers that the party can't afford.

It gets even more ridiculous when you get to non-humanoids. Why would an angel or demon play by the same rules as the lower beings? They are older, stronger, and should be able to trash a humanoid in a 1v1. A dragon has almost nothing in common with a humanoid, why would they fight by the same rules?

Sorry, rant over. It just seems that D&D is awful for CaS, because the enemies have little in common with and canonically don't play by the same rules as the PCs.

[Foxhound438]

Some of us enjoy "War as Sport" and "Fun as Obstacle Course" which means a level playing field. Lair/Legendary Actions/Saves are not attainable by players so its not an even playing field. It comes off as cheap. Like playing checkers and your opponent starts with all their pieces kinged.


you can't force the thing you're doing war with to treat it as sport, though. That's why there's some situations where it's CaW and other situations where it's CaS. You as a participant don't get to decide whether or not the thing causing problems in the world your DM made is going to be playing symmetrically or not. Believe it or not, a thing might just be better/faster/smarter/stronger than you in a fantasy setting.

moreover,


Some of us enjoy

then why are you telling other people to avoid certain built-in things? You don't like it, but that's not everyone.

your checkers analogy falls flat as well, as you start with 3-7 pieces and they start with one. and chances are one of your checkers pieces has the ability to revive the other ones when they get jumped.

[NewDM]

Part of the issue I see with the CaS is that it makes little sense in the D&Dverse. If you go against an evil adventuring party, then it works (same options, etc.), but why would an evil empire decide to fight the party in evenly matched battle? It makes far more sense to leverage the legions of soldiers that the party can't afford.

It gets even more ridiculous when you get to non-humanoids. Why would an angel or demon play by the same rules as the lower beings? They are older, stronger, and should be able to trash a humanoid in a 1v1. A dragon has almost nothing in common with a humanoid, why would they fight by the same rules?

Sorry, rant over. It just seems that D&D is awful for CaS, because the enemies have little in common with and canonically don't play by the same rules as the PCs.

They have little in common with common folk. The PCs are mythical heroes able to clean out stables in a single day or hold the world on their shoulders for a 'moment'. They can wrestle with angels because they are just that epic.

[NewDM]

you can't force the thing you're doing war with to treat it as sport, though. That's why there's some situations where it's CaW and other situations where it's CaS. You as a participant don't get to decide whether or not the thing causing problems in the world your DM made is going to be playing symmetrically or not. Believe it or not, a thing might just be better/faster/smarter/stronger than you in a fantasy setting.

You can though by going to the DM and saying "I don't enjoy this style of game. I'm going to go find a different one." Then find a different game of 5e where it is that way.


moreover,

Some of us enjoy

then why are you telling other people to avoid certain built-in things? You don't like it, but that's not everyone.

your checkers analogy falls flat as well, as you start with 3-7 pieces and they start with one. and chances are one of your checkers pieces has the ability to revive the other ones when they get jumped.

Go back to my original post. I clearly state that some people don't like it. If you do like it, then ignore my advice on that part. Otherwise it applies to you. No need to get defensive or offensive. Take what you can use and ignore the rest. No need to dog pile someone because of an opinion.

[Foxhound438]

They have little in common with common folk. The PCs are mythical heroes able to clean out stables in a single day or hold the world on their shoulders for a 'moment'. They can wrestle with angels because they are just that epic.

sure they can, but it's still not going to be symmetrical. A pit fiend can poison a wizard because it has poison. A wizard can trap a pit fiend in a forcecage because it has forcecage.

a thing with legendary actions gets legendary actions because it has more things it's capable of doing at once. It can bite one guy at the same in-game time that it's pulverizing other people with its wings and tail.

[R.Shackleford]

I wouldn't want to use things that makes it feel cheap.

Mind controlling an NPC or having a creature that conveniently can't be killed is very... Meh to me.

Something like, Gary the Fire Giant is causing trouble again. However the local priestess begs the group not to kill him, Gary isn't a bad guy... Just misguided.

The priestess is in love with Gary, and Gary with her. However Gary is taking out his frustration on not being able to be with her on the people of the countryside.

Gary isn't one to listen to reason. Gary is an act first talk never sort of dude.

If the PCs kill Gary the priestess won't help them with their getting an audience with her boss or will put in a bad word against them.

The reason why PCs go NOVA is because they have no real reason not to. However if you give them reasons they can't go NOVA then they have to be careful and hold back, sort of, much like how marvel/DC/anime hero's hold back and don't just NOVA due to whatever reason.

I wouldn't do this every time but mix it up a bit.

[NewDM]

sure they can, but it's still not going to be symmetrical. A pit fiend can poison a wizard because it has poison. A wizard can trap a pit fiend in a forcecage because it has forcecage.

a thing with legendary actions gets legendary actions because it has more things it's capable of doing at once. It can bite one guy at the same in-game time that it's pulverizing other people with its wings and tail.

That has nothing to do with my response and nothing to do with the post I responded to.

In this case its a matter of the players not being able to achieve the same thing, so to some people (like me) it seems like a cheap patch rather than a good solid rule.

[NewDM]

I wouldn't want to use things that makes it feel cheap.

Mind controlling an NPC or having a creature that conveniently can't be killed is very... Meh to me.

Something like, Gary the Fire Giant is causing trouble again. However the local priestess begs the group not to kill him, Gary isn't a bad guy... Just misguided.

The priestess is in love with Gary, and Gary with her. However Gary is taking out his frustration on not being able to be with her on the people of the countryside.

Gary isn't one to listen to reason. Gary is an act first talk never sort of dude.

If the PCs kill Gary the priestess won't help them with their getting an audience with her boss or will put in a bad word against them.

The reason why PCs go NOVA is because they have no real reason not to. However if you give them reasons they can't go NOVA then they have to be careful and hold back, sort of, much like how marvel/DC/anime hero's hold back and don't just NOVA due to whatever reason.

I wouldn't do this every time but mix it up a bit.

Nah, in that case they just cast hold monster and then geas and the mob does what they want or it gets a pain response. Or they cast hold monster and then tie the thing up and teleport it in front of the priestess. That's not really a boss fight. That's a social encounter masquerading as a boss fight. Just like 'transport this magic stone from X to Y locations while bandits try to rob the 12 carts' is an exploration encounter masquerading as a combat encounter.

[RickAllison]

They have little in common with common folk. The PCs are mythical heroes able to clean out stables in a single day or hold the world on their shoulders for a 'moment'. They can wrestle with angels because they are just that epic.

Indeed, and this is reflected by the class features. Does that dragon have the ability to prone and grapple two enemies in one turn like a L20 fighter? Or reliably call upon the intervention of a god? Or mold reality to fit his whims? No. Instead he gets features like Legendary Actions.

For true CaS, it would take a massive overhaul of the MM to replace features like Legendary Actions with class levels. The system just isn't built for it, this isn't Warhammer 40K. If you want to homebrew an entire MM for that purpose, more power to you, but the MM as-is is flawed for what you desire.

[NewDM]

Indeed, and this is reflected by the class features. Does that dragon have the ability to prone and grapple two enemies in one turn like a L20 fighter? Or reliably call upon the intervention of a god? Or mold reality to fit his whims? No. Instead he gets features like Legendary Actions.

For true CaS, it would take a massive overhaul of the MM to replace features like Legendary Actions with class levels. The system just isn't built for it, this isn't Warhammer 40K. If you want to homebrew an entire MM for that purpose, more power to you, but the MM as-is is flawed for what you desire.

It really wouldn't and yes the dragon can prone one enemy and grapple two others (or at least there are creatures that can do this). Many creatures have cleric and druid spells and wizard spells so the answers to your questions in the first paragraph are 'yes'.

Do characters automatically succeed on 3 saving throws? no.
Do characters get to act 3 times after enemies turns? no.
Do characters get to control the environment? Yes (well some spells can do this).

You don't have to replace Legendary/Lair Actions/Saves with class levels (though that is one option), you can instead make interesting Reactions, multiattack, traits, and auras. Things that the players can get or at least are comparable to what players get.

This all only applies to those like me that like 'War as Sport' and 'Fun as Obstacle Course'. It does not apply to people that don't like that kind of thing.

For instance a character can cast Freedom of Movement to avoid being paralyzed, grappled, or restrained. So its not inconceivable for some monsters to be immune to the paralyzed, grappled, or restrained conditions.

To get extra actions the best characters can do is haste for an attack only or action surge for 1 extra action per round up to 2 rounds in a combat. If Legendary Actions were 3 extra actions per combat it would be entirely different. Instead its 3 extra actions every round of combat. To people like me this comes off as a cheap tactic. You know, like when creatures in a game can kill you with one hit and you can't avoid that hit.

Same with Legendary Saves. Can a character automatically make a save 3 times? Nope, as far as I know there isn't even anything that allows a character to make a saving throw automatically that they have access to at all. Nothing even comes close.

[Pex]

Same with Legendary Saves. Can a character automatically make a save 3 times? Nope, as far as I know there isn't even anything that allows a character to make a saving throw automatically that they have access to at all. Nothing even comes close.

I agree with your point, but the Diviner Wizard using his Portent Ability can do this if he's lucky in his rolls and chooses to use them only for this purpose. It's certainly nowhere near as reliable as a Legendary Save and only Diviner Wizards can do it, but it is technically possibly for a PC to have a simulation at least of a Legendary Save. It's 2 times for most of his career then the 3 times at high level.

[NewDM]

I agree with your point, but the Diviner Wizard using his Portent Ability can do this if he's lucky in his rolls and chooses to only use them for this purpose. It's certainly no where near as reliable as a Legendary Save and only Diviner Wizards can do it, but it is technically possibly for a PC to have a simulation at least of a Legendary Save. It's 2 times for most of his career then the 3 times at high level.

Only on the days the diviner rolls really good and only if you go with the interpretation that its the final result of the roll rather than the roll of a single dice. So 'not even close' still comes into play. For instance rolling three 15's or higher on 3d20 has a 25% chance per day. So one in 4 days they could pull this off if the DM interprets the feature that way. At higher levels the DCs are higher and a non-proficient save means they might need three 20's.

Edit: Also the response to your signature is that the players may no know they are doing it, which is easily possible with the landmine brokenness inherent in 5e.

[JoeJ]

So what? you just don't allow the monsters to take damage while the party novas all over it?

I like that idea. The party gets initiative and unleashes all their best nova attacks... and the BBEG is completely unaffected. Perfect for creating that, "Oh $#@%! What's plan B?" moment. Now I just have to figure out how to pull it off without making it a guaranteed TPK.

[Pope Scarface]

I would never do that unless there is an in-game reason for that to happen that can be eventually discovered by the PCs.

[smcmike]

This all only applies to those like me that like 'War as Sport' and 'Fun as Obstacle Course'

You keep saying this as if war as sport and fun as obstacle course are even remotely similar.

War as sport supports your argument. The sides should be roughly balanced to allow for a fair game. D&D 5e does not support this kind of fun at all, and you should look into a different game entirely if that's what you are after. Almost everything in the MM has an ability the characters cannot access.

Fun as obstacle course has nothing to say about whether your opponents get abilities that you do not. Enemies represent obstacles, not evenly matched game opponents. If war as sport is chess, fun as obstacle course is Pandemic. It would be ridiculous to whine that you don't get access to the same abilities as the diseases in Pandemic.

Instead of returning to this pair of mismatched goals, I'd suggest arguing that lair actions and legendary resistances just don't present entertaining obstacles for you.

. . . .

On another note, I really like that undead gargantuan ankheg from up the thread. Gargantuan "bosses" are basically boss-as-dungeon, which is a fun concept to me, since they lend good epic scale to even low-level adventures, with interesting time restraints built in. Climb aboard the monster, fight your way to the "control room" or whatever, figure out the mystery of who's behind it.

[R.Shackleford]

Nah, in that case they just cast hold monster and then geas and the mob does what they want or it gets a pain response. Or they cast hold monster and then tie the thing up and teleport it in front of the priestess. That's not really a boss fight. That's a social encounter masquerading as a boss fight. Just like 'transport this magic stone from X to Y locations while bandits try to rob the 12 carts' is an exploration encounter masquerading as a combat encounter.

It's cute that you assume as if this would be an encounter I would throw at players who have high enough spell slots to cast those spells :).

Fire Giant is CR 9... Probabaly have the party around level 5 to 7 take it on. Would adjust the fire giant a bit but nothing too much. Gary does a lot of damage so I would reduce that a little or reduce the to-hit, Gary's heart really isn't in it right now so his attacks aren't living up to their full potential.

Gary really wouldn't give them a choice in fighting or not. The original benefactor (say a politician, city, or whomever) would not give them a choice in the matter as they are pissed and want to see it get hurt or even killed. Even the priestess would understand that fighting is the only way to get Gary to listen, she just doesn't want him killed.

[NewDM]

You keep saying this as if war as sport and fun as obstacle course are even remotely similar.

It has nothing to do with similarity, it has to do with how they react.


War as sport supports your argument. The sides should be roughly balanced to allow for a fair game. D&D 5e does not support this kind of fun at all, and you should look into a different game entirely if that's what you are after. Almost everything in the MM has an ability the characters cannot access.

Actually aside from the Legendary/Lair stuff it does. Almost every monster trait and feature can be replicated by a character or something that is functionally equivalent. I could name a bunch of things that are replicated or equivalent, but I don't have the time or patience to go through every monster entry. If there are other things that the players can't replicate, I also dislike those things. For the most part however, anything a monster can do the players can do. Especially with spells.


Fun as obstacle course has nothing to say about whether your opponents get abilities that you do not. Enemies represent obstacles, not evenly matched game opponents. If war as sport is chess, fun as obstacle course is Pandemic. It would be ridiculous to whine that you don't get access to the same abilities as the diseases in Pandemic.

Fun as Obstacle course does have something to say about clearly presented obstacles and clear win conditions. Which things like Legendary/Lair stuff doesn't do. There is no clear way to overcome the obstacle besides just enduring it. There is no clear win condition besides the general one in 5e of 'stay alive'.


Instead of returning to this pair of mismatched goals, I'd suggest arguing that lair actions and legendary resistances just don't present entertaining obstacles for you.

They aren't mismatched. They are two things that provide fun for me and others. They interact creating a very specific feel to the game which is disrupted by Legendary/Lair stuff.


. . . .

On another note, I really like that undead gargantuan ankheg from up the thread. Gargantuan "bosses" are basically boss-as-dungeon, which is a fun concept to me, since they lend good epic scale to even low-level adventures, with interesting time restraints built in. Climb aboard the monster, fight your way to the "control room" or whatever, figure out the mystery of who's behind it.

Yeah, the boss is actually the crown, the rest of it is a series of exploration challenges. Nothing wrong with that, but the actual boss fight was hand-waved as 'they must destroy the crown' in the above post.


It's cute that you assume as if this would be an encounter I would throw at players who have high enough spell slots to cast those spells :).

Fire Giant is CR 9... Probabaly have the party around level 5 to 7 take it on. Would adjust the fire giant a bit but nothing too much. Gary does a lot of damage so I would reduce that a little or reduce the to-hit, Gary's heart really isn't in it right now so his attacks aren't living up to their full potential.

Gary really wouldn't give them a choice in fighting or not. The original benefactor (say a politician, city, or whomever) would not give them a choice in the matter as they are pissed and want to see it get hurt or even killed. Even the priestess would understand that fighting is the only way to get Gary to listen, she just doesn't want him killed.

How is it cute? A CR 9 is normally thrown at a party of level 9 unless you go against the advice in the DMG that says not to throw higher CR creatures against parties (barring research to make sure they won't TPK the party). If you lower its CR by reducing its stats it'll be easier to take down, the strategy just changes. Such as using spells that reduce movement or attacks such as slow, using non-lethal damage and then tying it up.

[mgshamster]

A CR 9 is normally thrown at a party of level 9 unless you go against the advice in the DMG that says not to throw higher CR creatures against parties (barring research to make sure they won't TPK the party).

The DMG doesn't say that. No where in the DMG does it tell you to not use a higher CR.

The closest it gets is the suggestion to exercise caution when using higher CR, and specifically gives an example for level 1 characters, as they have such low HP that they can be killed in a single hit by a CR 2 creature. This does not apply to a level 7 party facing a CR 9 creature.

Giving advice to exercise caution is not the same as saying "don't ever do this without research."

[R.Shackleford]

The DMG doesn't say that. No where in the DMG does it tell you to not use a higher CR.

The closest it gets is the suggestion to exercise caution when using higher CR, and specifically gives an example for level 1 characters, as they have such low HP that they can be killed in a single hit by a CR 2 creature. This does not apply to a level 7 party facing a CR 9 creature.

Giving advice to exercise caution is not the same as saying "don't ever do this without research."

This was going to be my response, thank you :)

[JoeJ]

The DMG doesn't say that. No where in the DMG does it tell you to not use a higher CR.

The closest it gets is the suggestion to exercise caution when using higher CR, and specifically gives an example for level 1 characters, as they have such low HP that they can be killed in a single hit by a CR 2 creature. This does not apply to a level 7 party facing a CR 9 creature.

Giving advice to exercise caution is not the same as saying "don't ever do this without research."

In fact, a single creature of CR = party level is a medium encounter, except at levels 5-7, where it's an easy encounter. That would not make for a very satisfying boss fight.

[Zman]

The DMG doesn't say that. No where in the DMG does it tell you to not use a higher CR.

The closest it gets is the suggestion to exercise caution when using higher CR, and specifically gives an example for level 1 characters, as they have such low HP that they can be killed in a single hit by a CR 2 creature. This does not apply to a level 7 party facing a CR 9 creature.

Giving advice to exercise caution is not the same as saying "don't ever do this without research."

Yes, this is exactly what I said earlier in the thread which was subsequently ignored. Exercising caution at very low levels is not the same as at mid or higher levels, in fact the system is designed explicitly for his given how to calculate encounter difficulty.

I mean, how is a party of characters ever expected to handle a CR21+ Monster when they max out at level 20? Never putting a party against a monster of a CR higher than their level is actually counter to the rules and base assumptions of the game, not the other way around.

[R.Shackleford]

In fact, a single creature of CR = party level is a medium encounter, except at levels 5-7, where it's an easy encounter. That would not make for a very satisfying boss fight.

Well, not a traditional boss fight at least.

Set it up to where bring the boss to 0 HP brings your client to 0 HP unless the boss is placed in a magic circle (that breaks said magic bond) and you could have a decent boss encounter.

Level 3 to 5 PCs fighting a mummy (CR 3) that has the soul of their client's daughter. If the mummy is destroyed or potentially when brought to 0 hp then the soul goes to the after life.

Grapple it and you get a rotting fist/glare. Kill it and you kill the girl. Your best chance is to figure a way to capture it, blind it, and pull it without touching it. Dragging it along the ground can damage it and you need to get the mummy back to the client before the clerics and Paladins of pelor find you (they are actively looking for said mummy) as they will destroy it outright.


Note: it isn't the only thing around, there are other enemies.

[smcmike]

Well, not a traditional boss fight at least.

Set it up to where bring the boss to 0 HP brings your client to 0 HP unless the boss is placed in a magic circle (that breaks said magic bond) and you could have a decent boss encounter.

Level 3 to 5 PCs fighting a mummy (CR 3) that has the soul of their client's daughter. If the mummy is destroyed or potentially when brought to 0 hp then the soul goes to the after life.

Grapple it and you get a rotting fist/glare. Kill it and you kill the girl. Your best chance is to figure a way to capture it, blind it, and pull it without touching it. Dragging it along the ground can damage it and you need to get the mummy back to the client before the clerics and Paladins of pelor find you (they are actively looking for said mummy) as they will destroy it outright.


Note: it isn't the only thing around, there are other enemies.

Sure, this is fun. NewDM seems to be suggesting that you should never use higher CR creatures for bosses, and should instead just give low level enemies many more HPs

[R.Shackleford]

Sure, this is fun. NewDM seems to be suggesting that you should never use higher CR creatures for bosses, and should instead just give low level enemies many more HPs

Oh yeah I know, I'm just saying that you can use just about any CR creature for a good boss fight/encounter (i hate the term boss fight, I prefer boss encounter) without changing much to the monster.

You could run a level 1 group up against a CR 20 creature and have it be an interesting boss encounter without TPK.

[TurboGhast]

I changed my view. Some enemies will need 3x or 4x the hp to last through the nova round, but many won't. Some you won't have to adjust hp at all. Others 1.5x or 2x is plenty. If it takes 2 rounds to kill a boss, it could be that everyone is unloading their novas. If that is the case then an extra 3 rounds could prove challenging not because of bag of hp syndrome, but because 'oh no we actually have to think and fight' syndrome. I know many players simply don't like this play style, but others do.

The 'ride' is up to the players and DM. Having the right statistics makes it easier to give the right kind of ride.

If the problem is that nova abilites are making bosses die too fast, perhaps that could be stopped with limited use reaction abilities that reduce damage until the start of the boss monster's next turn, so that everybody using their strongest move in a single round isn't a good idea. This would prevent nova rounds from quick-killing bosses without adding rounds of only using attacks that don't use resources.

[NewDM]

The DMG doesn't say that. No where in the DMG does it tell you to not use a higher CR.

The closest it gets is the suggestion to exercise caution when using higher CR, and specifically gives an example for level 1 characters, as they have such low HP that they can be killed in a single hit by a CR 2 creature. This does not apply to a level 7 party facing a CR 9 creature.

Giving advice to exercise caution is not the same as saying "don't ever do this without research."


This was going to be my response, thank you :)


Yes, this is exactly what I said earlier in the thread which was subsequently ignored. Exercising caution at very low levels is not the same as at mid or higher levels, in fact the system is designed explicitly for his given how to calculate encounter difficulty.

I mean, how is a party of characters ever expected to handle a CR21+ Monster when they max out at level 20? Never putting a party against a monster of a CR higher than their level is actually counter to the rules and base assumptions of the game, not the other way around.


Sure, this is fun. NewDM seems to be suggesting that you should never use higher CR creatures for bosses, and should instead just give low level enemies many more HPs

The exact text:
"When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose challenge rating is higher than the party's average level."

Note the word 'Especially'. It is a caution at all levels, but more so at lower levels. Most DMs are going to read that and not immediately ignore it in favor of using a higher CR creature. The average DM will probably not use a higher CR creature unless they need to for a particular reason.

I'm not suggesting you never use a higher CR creature. I'm suggesting the average DM won't use on unless they have an actual reason. I'm suggesting that its ok to use CR's of the parties level and lower and to use any creature you want as a boss. You just need to tweak it a bit, all perfectly within the rules. Again here are some suggestions:


Increase its HP to match the monster creation chart in the DMG for its CR.
Give it Auras
Give it Reactions
Give it multiattack
Give it resistances and immunities
Give it traits that keep it from getting stun-locked, but that don't completely ignore the players class features.



If the problem is that nova abilites are making bosses die too fast, perhaps that could be stopped with limited use reaction abilities that reduce damage until the start of the boss monster's next turn, so that everybody using their strongest move in a single round isn't a good idea. This would prevent nova rounds from quick-killing bosses without adding rounds of only using attacks that don't use resources.

This is actually a good idea. here are a few traits that fall into that category:

Tough. This creature is so tough that it has resistance against any attack that deals more than 1/4 of its hit points in damage.

Invulnerable Defense. Once per long or short rest as a reaction when hit, this creature becomes immune to damage until the end of its next turn. (this includes the attack that triggered the reaction).

Monstrous Regeneration. Once per short or long rest this creature can regenerate all the damage it took since its last turn as a bonus action.

These all have spells and class features that accomplish similar things like the fighter feature where they simply don't die and on their next turn heal themselves, or the spell Globe of Invulnerability.

[Pex]

Edit: Also the response to your signature is that the players may no know they are doing it, which is easily possible with the landmine brokenness inherent in 5e.

You miss the irony. It's actually an admonition against DMs who hate it when PCs have an 18 at first level, know stuff, or cast spells like Force Cage, i.e. the PCs "win".

[mgshamster]

The exact text:
"When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose challenge rating is higher than the party's average level."

Note the word 'Especially'. It is a caution at all levels, but more so at lower levels. Most DMs are going to read that and not immediately ignore it in favor of using a higher CR creature. The average DM will probably not use a higher CR creature unless they need to for a particular reason.

I'm not suggesting you never use a higher CR creature. I'm suggesting the average DM won't use on unless they have an actual reason. I'm suggesting that its ok to use CR's of the parties level and lower and to use any creature you want as a boss. You just need to tweak it a bit, all perfectly within the rules. Again here are some suggestions:


Increase its HP to match the monster creation chart in the DMG for its CR.
Give it Auras
Give it Reactions
Give it multiattack
Give it resistances and immunities
Give it traits that keep it from getting stun-locked, but that don't completely ignore the players class features.


So when you said that the DMG said not to use a higher CR unless you do research, and everyone else said that it doesn't say that and they proceed to say exactly what the DMG actually says, your response is to say the exact same argument that everyone else used as if they weren't saying that, all the while pretending that they were wrong and you were right all along.

Ok.

Well, at least you're on the same page as everyone else now, and we can expect you to stop claiming that the DMG says not to use higher CR without research.

[pwykersotz]

Sure, this is fun. NewDM seems to be suggesting that you should never use higher CR creatures for bosses, and should instead just give low level enemies many more HPs

Ironic in this context, because increasing HP increases CR. :smalltongue:

[smcmike]

Ironic in this context, because increasing HP increases CR. :smalltongue:

Yeah, that's one thing I don't get at all about his stance - don't use higher CR enemies, just boost the heck out of lower CR enemies, and ignore the fact that this makes them higher CR....

[Foxhound438]

I'm suggesting the average DM won't use on unless they have an actual reason.

"it'd be fun"

"I like this monster, and you can definitely still kill it even though it's 2 CR ahead of you"

"i'd rather you fight an encounter wherein messing up a lot can actually kill someone because otherwise it's just rolling dice for an hour and everyone knows there's no real danger for the PC's"

"this encounter is intended to be 'very difficult' as per exp thresholds in the DMG"



and please provide the data you used to justify saying an "average DM" would or wouldn't do something.

[mgshamster]

and please provide the data you used to justify saying an "average DM" would or wouldn't do something.

The idea is fairly valid - it's that the average [new] person trying to play the game will most likely play the game as written.

The issues are primarily located in two points:

1) It requires a new person to read the rules in the exact same way he is, which may be problematic, considering how many people here disgree with his interpretations.

2) Those who are experienced will deviate from the rules and advice as written. As new people become experienced, they will likely deviate.

[R.Shackleford]

The idea is fairly valid - it's that the average [new] person trying to play the game will most likely play the game as written.

The issues are primarily located in two points:

1) It requires a new person to read the rules in the exact same way he is, which may be problematic, considering how many people here disgree with his interpretations.

2) Those who are experienced will deviate from the rules and advice as written. As new people become experienced, they will likely deviate.

Average *new* DM and average DM would be quite different. I'm pretty sure there are more veteran DMs than new DMs.

I have no data of course.

[mgshamster]

Average *new* DM and average DM would be quite different. I'm pretty sure there are more veteran DMs than new DMs.

I have no data of course.

Quite possibly. Of all the many GMs I've met, both in real life and online, I've never met a single one who ran pure RAW. Nor have I ever met a single new GM who ran pure RAW - mostly because they misinterpret the rules and end up not running it as intended, which tends to lead to Houserules as they experiment with the rules through trial and error. I know I've had the same issue when picking up a new game, even as an experienced GM for other games.

I've also never met two GMs who completey agree 100% of the time on every rule interpretation.

Still, the idea is sound. It just has some complications. Kind of like the classic difference between "theory" and practice. :)

[NewDM]

So when you said that the DMG said not to use a higher CR unless you do research, and everyone else said that it doesn't say that and they proceed to say exactly what the DMG actually says, your response is to say the exact same argument that everyone else used as if they weren't saying that, all the while pretending that they were wrong and you were right all along.

Ok.

Well, at least you're on the same page as everyone else now, and we can expect you to stop claiming that the DMG says not to use higher CR without research.

No, I said that anyone reading the DMG and following its guidelines is going to avoid using higher CR creatures because the book warns against it. Some experienced DMs will go to the trouble of checking the individual monsters to make sure they won't be a problem. Most DMs won't though. If they don't they are not following the guidelines.


Yeah, that's one thing I don't get at all about his stance - don't use higher CR enemies, just boost the heck out of lower CR enemies, and ignore the fact that this makes them higher CR....

You can boost lower CR enemies without raising their CR. Since CR is based on the higher of Offense and Defense. You can bring the lower one up to the higher one and it will be the same CR.


The idea is fairly valid - it's that the average [new] person trying to play the game will most likely play the game as written.

The issues are primarily located in two points:

1) It requires a new person to read the rules in the exact same way he is, which may be problematic, considering how many people here disgree with his interpretations.

2) Those who are experienced will deviate from the rules and advice as written. As new people become experienced, they will likely deviate.

You mean reading the part where it says to avoid using higher CRs than the party level? Yeah, short of flat out ignoring it, most DMs will not use a higher CR unless there is a good reason and "it might be fun" usually isn't a good enough reason.


Quite possibly. Of all the many GMs I've met, both in real life and online, I've never met a single one who ran pure RAW. Nor have I ever met a single new GM who ran pure RAW - mostly because they misinterpret the rules and end up not running it as intended, which tends to lead to Houserules as they experiment with the rules through trial and error. I know I've had the same issue when picking up a new game, even as an experienced GM for other games.

I've also never met two GMs who completey agree 100% of the time on every rule interpretation.

Still, the idea is sound. It just has some complications. Kind of like the classic difference between "theory" and practice. :)

That's odd because nearly every DM I've ever played with (and I play a lot of pickup games and games with strangers) use RAW unless they don't want to look up a rule, then they make a ruling and come back the next session with the RAW that applies. Most new DMs I play with are sticklers for the rules because they are new and don't realize rule 0 allows them to do whatever they want. They also pay a lot more attention to the details because they don't want to mess up. This is coming from my 'practice'.

[JNAProductions]

You can boost lower CR enemies without raising their CR. Since CR is based on the higher of Offense and Defense. You can bring the lower one up to the higher one and it will be the same CR.

It's the average, not the higher of.

[BurgerBeast]

I tend to try to make the Boss a Deadly encounter. I have no problem with going very far into "Deadly" range, but about half the difference between the "Hard" and "Deadly" thresholds beyond "Deadly" works well enough.

Here's an example I cooked up to illustrate how I build them. Almost all of this I learned from reading the AngryGM, and making my own tweaks. I chose to make a Hydra because it's mechanically straightforward. I won't go crazy with immunities and special attacks. It can bite and it's basically a bag of hit points. I'll show you how I'd build a Level 8 boss Hydra.

From page 82 of the DMG, the Deadly threshold for a level 8 character is 2100. Hard is 1400, so the difference between Hard and Difficult is 700. I'd aim for about 2450 (2100 + half of 700). I'll assume 4 PCs so my encounter difficulty needs to be about 9800.

The experience granted for defeating a CR 13 monster is 10 000, so this is pretty much what I'm aiming for. But I don't want to design a boss monster as a single monster. It needs to essentially function as a whole group of monsters, so I'm going to work backward to determine the CR for four monsters that are roughly an equivalent challenge.

Remember that four monsters get a multiplier of 2 when determining difficulty, so 10 000 difficulty is equivalent to four monsters of 1250 difficulty (1250 * 4 monsters = 5000 * 2 = 10 000).

So we want to build the hydra to function as essentially four CR 4 creatures. So that's where we'll start. A CR 4 monster has AC 14, 116-130 hp, Att +5, and Dmg 27-32. So that's our baseline. Just for reference, our target CR 13 has AC 18, 251-256 hp, Att +8, and Dmg 81-86.

But we want our Hydra to be a worthy boss monster, so we will adjust AC and attack bonus to bring it more in line with a CR 13 monster. So we'll assign an AC of 18 and an attack bonus of +8 (tentatively). The damage range of 27-32 taken four times is greater than the 81-86 range of a CR 13 monster, but that's okay since we'll be expecting heads to die as the fight goes on, so it's offence will get reduced as the fight progresses.

So now our Hydra is composed of four monsters with AC 18, unknown hp, Att +8, and Dmg 27-32. Let's see what the offensive CR (OCR) is so we know what we need the defensive CR (DCR) to be.

The OCR is 5, because the damage level puts us at CR 4, but the extra +3 to attack raises the CR by one. So in order to maintain a final CR of 4, we need DCR 3.

Notice that the AC of 18 is going to raise the DCR by two, so our hit point level will need to be two levels lower to account for this. CR1 ht points are 71-85. Let's re-consult the table to make sure this all works: the hit point totals put us at DCR 1, but the extra 5 points AC raises that to DCR 3. Perfect. Final CR of our four hypothetical monsters is (5+3)/2 = 4.

So let's hash this out. First, the hit points for the monster need to be multiplied by four, so we're looking at about 284-340 hit points. I want a six-headed hydra (this is somewhat arbitrary - the Heroslayer Hydra mini which I plan to use has six heads), so I'm going to divide the damage into six attacks. Initially I went with higher damage, but I finally settled on 16 damage per bite and a "tearing attack" that tigers whenever two heads bite the same target for 27 damage. Assuming we start with six heads, we can average out the damage (very roughly) by assuming 3.5 heads for the duration [(6+1)/2 = 3.5]. So take the max damage with 6 heads (6 bites for 96 damage and three tears for 81 damage) you get 177 damage. But the hydra can;t maintain this damage. Averaged across a fight it has 3.5 heads, not 6. So we will call it 103 damage, or about 26 damage per hypothetical monster (remember it's a composite of four monsters, in theory).

So, the final product is a hydra with 6 heads. It attacks with every head every round, using a bite for 2d10+5 (16) piercing damage, and if two heads successfully bite the same target, they can tear for 4d10+5 (27) slashing damage. It has 312 hit points (27d12+135). This actually works out to 310, but I made it 312 so that it's 52 per head.

Here's what's cool. If we calculate the CR of the final monster we get a DCR of 17 and OCR of 8, which is 25/2=12.5 or 13. It's a CR 13 monster, exactly as we wanted. Obviously there a number of things you can tailor, for example do you really want the hydra to become easier and easier to fight? But it's a good starting point anyway.

[pwykersotz]

good stuff

Very clever, that sounds like a great way to make a boss!

[NewDM]

It's the average, not the higher of.

You are correct. However it still ends up as a CR creature of the level we aim for. Averaging 13 and 13 is 13.


I tend to try to make the Boss a Deadly encounter. I have no problem with going very far into "Deadly" range, but about half the difference between the "Hard" and "Deadly" thresholds beyond "Deadly" works well enough.

Here's an example I cooked up to illustrate how I build them. Almost all of this I learned from reading the AngryGM, and making my own tweaks. I chose to make a Hydra because it's mechanically straightforward. I won't go crazy with immunities and special attacks. It can bite and it's basically a bag of hit points. I'll show you how I'd build a Level 8 boss Hydra.

From page 82 of the DMG, the Deadly threshold for a level 8 character is 2100. Hard is 1400, so the difference between Hard and Difficult is 700. I'd aim for about 2450 (2100 + half of 700). I'll assume 4 PCs so my encounter difficulty needs to be about 9800.

The experience granted for defeating a CR 13 monster is 10 000, so this is pretty much what I'm aiming for. But I don't want to design a boss monster as a single monster. It needs to essentially function as a whole group of monsters, so I'm going to work backward to determine the CR for four monsters that are roughly an equivalent challenge.

Remember that four monsters get a multiplier of 2 when determining difficulty, so 10 000 difficulty is equivalent to four monsters of 1250 difficulty (1250 * 4 monsters = 5000 * 2 = 10 000).

So we want to build the hydra to function as essentially four CR 4 creatures. So that's where we'll start. A CR 4 monster has AC 14, 116-130 hp, Att +5, and Dmg 27-32. So that's our baseline. Just for reference, our target CR 13 has AC 18, 251-256 hp, Att +8, and Dmg 81-86.

But we want our Hydra to be a worthy boss monster, so we will adjust AC and attack bonus to bring it more in line with a CR 13 monster. So we'll assign an AC of 18 and an attack bonus of +8 (tentatively). The damage range of 27-32 taken four times is greater than the 81-86 range of a CR 13 monster, but that's okay since we'll be expecting heads to die as the fight goes on, so it's offence will get reduced as the fight progresses.

So now our Hydra is composed of four monsters with AC 18, unknown hp, Att +8, and Dmg 27-32. Let's see what the offensive CR (OCR) is so we know what we need the defensive CR (DCR) to be.

The OCR is 5, because the damage level puts us at CR 4, but the extra +3 to attack raises the CR by one. So in order to maintain a final CR of 4, we need DCR 3.

Notice that the AC of 18 is going to raise the DCR by two, so our hit point level will need to be two levels lower to account for this. CR1 ht points are 71-85. Let's re-consult the table to make sure this all works: the hit point totals put us at DCR 1, but the extra 5 points AC raises that to DCR 3. Perfect. Final CR of our four hypothetical monsters is (5+3)/2 = 4.

So let's hash this out. First, the hit points for the monster need to be multiplied by four, so we're looking at about 284-340 hit points. I want a six-headed hydra (this is somewhat arbitrary - the Heroslayer Hydra mini which I plan to use has six heads), so I'm going to divide the damage into six attacks. Initially I went with higher damage, but I finally settled on 16 damage per bite and a "tearing attack" that tigers whenever two heads bite the same target for 27 damage. Assuming we start with six heads, we can average out the damage (very roughly) by assuming 3.5 heads for the duration [(6+1)/2 = 3.5]. So take the max damage with 6 heads (6 bites for 96 damage and three tears for 81 damage) you get 177 damage. But the hydra can;t maintain this damage. Averaged across a fight it has 3.5 heads, not 6. So we will call it 103 damage, or about 26 damage per hypothetical monster (remember it's a composite of four monsters, in theory).

So, the final product is a hydra with 6 heads. It attacks with every head every round, using a bite for 2d10+5 (16) piercing damage, and if two heads successfully bite the same target, they can tear for 4d10+5 (27) slashing damage. It has 312 hit points (27d12+135). This actually works out to 310, but I made it 312 so that it's 52 per head.

Here's what's cool. If we calculate the CR of the final monster we get a DCR of 17 and OCR of 8, which is 25/2=12.5 or 13. It's a CR 13 monster, exactly as we wanted. Obviously there a number of things you can tailor, for example do you really want the hydra to become easier and easier to fight? But it's a good starting point anyway.

Sounds good. Now you just need to make it more than a sack of hit points by adding a few traits, special attacks, and reactions like the following:

TRAITS
Multiple Minds. Any spell or affect that requires an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw only affects one head per target of the spell. As long as at least one head is unaffected the creature as a whole is not affected. For instance a Hold Monster spell normally paralyzes a creature affected by it. If cast on this creature only one head becomes paralyzed and cannot attack. The creature can still move as normal.

Tough Scaly Hide. The hydra has a hide that absorbs great impacts and is extremely tough. The hydra has resistance against any attack that deals more than 20 damage.

Multiple eyes. The hydra cannot be surprised while at least one head is awake and aware. It can keep track of a number of characters equal to its number of heads. The hydra has advantage on perception checks and can choose to forgo an attack with a head to make a perception check.

Multiple Heads. When the hydra's hit points reach certain thresholds a head dies:
260, 208, 156, 104, and 52.

All Around Awareness. The hydra can make a number of opportunity attacks equal to the number of heads left.

ATTACKS
Multiattack. The hydra makes a number of bite attacks equal to its number of heads as well as a Trample attack.

Trample. The creature moves through enemy spaces up to half its speed. Any enemy in the path must make a DC 18 Dexterity save. On a success they must use their reaction to move out of the path to the nearest space. On a failure (or if they choose not to move) they take 2d10+8 damage and are knocked prone.

Biting Grapple. Anytime the hydra makes a successful bite attack, it may start a grapple as a bonus action. While it has a creature grappled, it cannot make another bite attack. It can deal 2d10+8 damage to any creature it has grappled however. It can have a number of creatures grappled equal to the number of heads it has.

REACTIONS
Quick Reflexes. When one of the hydra's heads dies it immediately makes a trample attack as a reaction.

Instinctive Bite. When a creature breaks the hydra's grapple, as a reaction the Hydra can immediately make a bite attack against the creature that broke the grapple. On a miss the creature that was grappled falls 11 feet.

Lightning Instinct. The hydra can make an opportunity attack against any creature that moves within its reach as a reaction.

[Zman]

No, I said that anyone reading the DMG and following its guidelines is going to avoid using higher CR creatures because the book warns against it. Some experienced DMs will go to the trouble of checking the individual monsters to make sure they won't be a problem. Most DMs won't though. If they don't they are not following the guidelines.



You can boost lower CR enemies without raising their CR. Since CR is based on the higher of Offense and Defense. You can bring the lower one up to the higher one and it will be the same CR.



You mean reading the part where it says to avoid using higher CRs than the party level? Yeah, short of flat out ignoring it, most DMs will not use a higher CR unless there is a good reason and "it might be fun" usually isn't a good enough reason.



That's odd because nearly every DM I've ever played with (and I play a lot of pickup games and games with strangers) use RAW unless they don't want to look up a rule, then they make a ruling and come back the next session with the RAW that applies. Most new DMs I play with are sticklers for the rules because they are new and don't realize rule 0 allows them to do whatever they want. They also pay a lot more attention to the details because they don't want to mess up. This is coming from my 'practice'.

It warns about using caution, especially at low levels. Your interpretation may be that no one will or should do this, but can you please accept that is not the majority position and adjust your rhetoric to accommodate that?

No, it is the average CR.

Again, it does not say to avoid it, you are putting words into the DMG that do not exist.

Interesting, most Dnd players don't end up in that many different groups in that short of time. I play at one table with one group of players weekly. In addition I play some PBP. I've never seen a DM that was RAWonly, I've seen some that are close a RAW, but still leaned RAI.


You are correct. However it still ends up as a CR creature of the level we aim for. Averaging 13 and 13 is 13.


Thank you for admitting you were mistaken and incorrect. No, that is not what you said. A more apt example according to your own words would be a 9/13=11 to a 13/13=13. Any added capabilities theoretically can raise a Creature's CR. Sometimes they won't move it up a CR, and other times they could move a creature up multiple CRs. Adding special actions or abilities can influence CR as well.

[R.Shackleford]

I tend to try to make the Boss a Deadly encounter. I have no problem with going very far into "Deadly" range, but about half the difference between the "Hard" and "Deadly" thresholds beyond "Deadly" works well enough.

Here's an example I cooked up to illustrate how I build them. Almost all of this I learned from reading the AngryGM, and making my own tweaks. I chose to make a Hydra because it's mechanically straightforward. I won't go crazy with immunities and special attacks. It can bite and it's basically a bag of hit points. I'll show you how I'd build a Level 8 boss Hydra.

From page 82 of the DMG, the Deadly threshold for a level 8 character is 2100. Hard is 1400, so the difference between Hard and Difficult is 700. I'd aim for about 2450 (2100 + half of 700). I'll assume 4 PCs so my encounter difficulty needs to be about 9800.

The experience granted for defeating a CR 13 monster is 10 000, so this is pretty much what I'm aiming for. But I don't want to design a boss monster as a single monster. It needs to essentially function as a whole group of monsters, so I'm going to work backward to determine the CR for four monsters that are roughly an equivalent challenge.

Remember that four monsters get a multiplier of 2 when determining difficulty, so 10 000 difficulty is equivalent to four monsters of 1250 difficulty (1250 * 4 monsters = 5000 * 2 = 10 000).

So we want to build the hydra to function as essentially four CR 4 creatures. So that's where we'll start. A CR 4 monster has AC 14, 116-130 hp, Att +5, and Dmg 27-32. So that's our baseline. Just for reference, our target CR 13 has AC 18, 251-256 hp, Att +8, and Dmg 81-86.

But we want our Hydra to be a worthy boss monster, so we will adjust AC and attack bonus to bring it more in line with a CR 13 monster. So we'll assign an AC of 18 and an attack bonus of +8 (tentatively). The damage range of 27-32 taken four times is greater than the 81-86 range of a CR 13 monster, but that's okay since we'll be expecting heads to die as the fight goes on, so it's offence will get reduced as the fight progresses.

So now our Hydra is composed of four monsters with AC 18, unknown hp, Att +8, and Dmg 27-32. Let's see what the offensive CR (OCR) is so we know what we need the defensive CR (DCR) to be.

The OCR is 5, because the damage level puts us at CR 4, but the extra +3 to attack raises the CR by one. So in order to maintain a final CR of 4, we need DCR 3.

Notice that the AC of 18 is going to raise the DCR by two, so our hit point level will need to be two levels lower to account for this. CR1 ht points are 71-85. Let's re-consult the table to make sure this all works: the hit point totals put us at DCR 1, but the extra 5 points AC raises that to DCR 3. Perfect. Final CR of our four hypothetical monsters is (5+3)/2 = 4.

So let's hash this out. First, the hit points for the monster need to be multiplied by four, so we're looking at about 284-340 hit points. I want a six-headed hydra (this is somewhat arbitrary - the Heroslayer Hydra mini which I plan to use has six heads), so I'm going to divide the damage into six attacks. Initially I went with higher damage, but I finally settled on 16 damage per bite and a "tearing attack" that tigers whenever two heads bite the same target for 27 damage. Assuming we start with six heads, we can average out the damage (very roughly) by assuming 3.5 heads for the duration [(6+1)/2 = 3.5]. So take the max damage with 6 heads (6 bites for 96 damage and three tears for 81 damage) you get 177 damage. But the hydra can;t maintain this damage. Averaged across a fight it has 3.5 heads, not 6. So we will call it 103 damage, or about 26 damage per hypothetical monster (remember it's a composite of four monsters, in theory).

So, the final product is a hydra with 6 heads. It attacks with every head every round, using a bite for 2d10+5 (16) piercing damage, and if two heads successfully bite the same target, they can tear for 4d10+5 (27) slashing damage. It has 312 hit points (27d12+135). This actually works out to 310, but I made it 312 so that it's 52 per head.

Here's what's cool. If we calculate the CR of the final monster we get a DCR of 17 and OCR of 8, which is 25/2=12.5 or 13. It's a CR 13 monster, exactly as we wanted. Obviously there a number of things you can tailor, for example do you really want the hydra to become easier and easier to fight? But it's a good starting point anyway.

Pretty neat.

Though this is why I prefer 4e's monster system. Changing the challenge (level) was a simple straight forward process and even new DMs could take a level 10 monster and make it a level 5 monster in a minute or two.

[BurgerBeast]

Sounds good. Now you just need to make it more than a sack of hit points by adding a few traits, special attacks, and reactions like the following...

Yep. Thanks for the going to the trouble, and awesome work. I think the one think 4e got undeniably right was monster design.