Let's Rebalance Animals [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Unoriginal

2018-06-19, 04:11 PM

So a while back, my friend and I noticed that the CRs and stats for animals in the Monster Manual (mostly Appendix A) are pretty weird. Seriously, a cat only has AC 12 (ACs for Tiny creatures in 5e are pretty messed up in general, now that I think about it), a mammoth has CR 6 while a modern elephant has CR 4, killer whales don't have Pack Tactics

5e animals are balanced.

Cats have AC 12 because housecats aren't beasts of battles. 12 is pretty high for beings who have no armor of any sort. It's one point below a T. Rex.

CR 6 is a big improvement over CR 4, I don't see your issue with it.

You could add Pack Tactics to killer whales if you want, it won't change their CR. Not all beings who hunt in group have Pack Tactics, though.

considering the CR standards, the Tyrannosaurus is WAY stronger than it should be.

Tyrannosaurus Rex:

Defensive Challenge Rating:

HP:136 = CR 5, modified to CR 4 due to AC 13

Offensive Challenge Rating:

Damage Output: 53 = CR 8, modified to CR 12 due to +10 of to-hit bonus

Average Challenge Rating

((4+12)/2) = 8

Which is the CR given to the T. Rex in the MM.

So no, the Tyrannosaurus is exactly as strong as the CR standards indicate.

I think I need some help fixing this.

There is nothing to fix. You can modify the statblocks to fit your personal tastes better, sure, but other people on a forum won't know how to do that.

Sniccups

2018-06-19, 04:29 PM

Lalliman

2018-06-19, 04:31 PM

I would agree with Unoriginal. Cats are fast, but I think they'd be pretty easy to hit with a stick if you really tried. An arrow would be vastly harder, but 5e doesn't provide that kind of nuance for any creature. I guess disadvantage on ranged attacks against tiny creatures would be a solid house rule if you wanted to cover that.

Are you saying the mammoth's CR is too high compared to the elephant or too low? I can't tell.

And indeed, most creatures that hunt in groups do not have pack tactics. Like, you know, people. If you want to add it anyways, the DMG says it's equivalent to +1 attack for CR purposes, though that's obviously dependent on how many you actually fight.

Edit: You ninja'd me. Regarding your new points, the animals in the DMG are based more on popular perception of the animal than on realism. The rationale is that mammoths are cooler than elephants, therefor they should be stronger. Realistically, an elephant should probably be easier to kill than it currently is, but since HP are an abstraction you could give it just about any amount and it would be hard to dispute.

As for the T-Rex, I don't think we can make accurate assumptions about how easily it can take on a triceratops, given that we weren't there to see it. So this one is once again arbitrated based on popular perception.

That said, if you want to nerf them, sure. Shouldn't be too hard for these two. Are there any others you struggle with?

Requilac

2018-06-19, 04:39 PM

Tyrannosaurus Rex:

Defensive Challenge Rating:

HP:136 = CR 5, modified to CR 4 due to AC 13

Offensive Challenge Rating:

Damage Output: 53 = CR 8, modified to CR 12 due to +10 of to-hit bonus

Average Challenge Rating

((4+12)/2) = 8

Which is the CR given to the T. Rex in the MM.

So no, the Tyrannosaurus is exactly as strong as the CR standards indicate.

I think you made a slight error in your math. The offensive CR couldn’t possibly be 12. The expected to hit bonus of a CR 8 monsters is +7, so a +10 to hit bonus would only raise the CR to 9. Let me recalculate this.

HP 136=CR 5, decreased to CR 4 because it’s AC is 13 (which is two points lower than a creature of that defensive CR should be)

DPR 53=8, adjusted to CR 9 because it’s Attack Bonus is 10 (which is three points higher than a creature of that offensive CR should be).

(4+9)/2=6.5 (rounded up to CR 7)

That can’t be right...

...Wait a second, shouldn’t the effective AC be increased by 1 because the T-Rex can restrain targets with a bite attack? The table on ~180 of the DMG says that a creature which has the “constrict” ability increases its effective AC by 1, and the rex’s Bite attack has nearly identical wording to the constrictor snake’s constrict attack. If it has an HP of 136 and effective AC of 14, then it’s defensive CR would still be 5, because it’s effective AC is only one point lower than what it’s effective HP corresponds too (not enough to warrant a CR change). Let’s recalculate this.

HP 136=CR 5, Not decreased because it’s AC is 14 (the AC has to be two points below he average to make a reduction).

DPR 53=8, adjusted to CR 9 because it’s Attack Bonus is 10 (which is three points higher than a creature of that offensive CR should be).

(5+9)/2=7

Huh?

Either way is wrong. Am i misreading how to calculate CR or something? The passage on page 175 of the DMG seemed pretty clear to me. Did WotC make a mistake, or did I?

MaxWilson

2018-06-19, 04:41 PM

Lalliman

2018-06-19, 04:54 PM

Either way is wrong. Am i misreading how to calculate CR or something? The passage on page 175 of the DMG seemed pretty clear to me. Did WotC make a mistake, or did I?
I think you're correct, it's weak for its CR. Maybe WotC determined in playtesting that it was worthy of a higher CR due to being highly-offensive and thus capable of disposing players very quickly. There are other creatures with weird CR values like this, so I assume it isn't just a simple mistake. I've never used the T-Rex, so I can't vouch for whether they're worth their CR.

More significantly, a T-Rex is waaaaay more than 3x broader than a human being. If a 6' tall human being "controls" a 5'x5'x5' cube, a 20' tall and 40' long T-Rex should "control" a 25'x25'x25' or even larger cube, not a dinky 15'x15'x15' cube. 5E's T-Rex is a mini-Rex.
I think the idea is that its head and tail stick out of its space, thus the 10 foot reach on each. Even so, D&D has always been bad about dinosaur sizes. I remember in 3.5 seeing the length of a triceratops being stated as 30 feet right next to the stat block that lists it as huge size. I guess they want to preserve gargantuan size for mythical creatures.

Edit: Another little thing about the T-Rex. If we assume that they commonly hunt triceratops (which is an assumption, we don't really know whether they did) then the power difference between them makes sense. Given that a predator has to kill dozens or hundreds of prey in its lifetime, it isn't going to prey on anything that it is anywhere near equally matched with. It'll want to prey on something that it has almost no risk of being killed by, like a creature three CR levels lower. And that doesn't mean the triceratops is defenceless: if the T-Rex takes a wrong approach and the triceratops gets the first attack, it can knock off 40% of the T-Rex's HP with its trampling charge. This is sufficiently injured that retreat might be a better option than fighting, especially if there are other triceratops nearby who might help the first, or lesser predators who will come for you if you win the fight with low HP left.

JackPhoenix

2018-06-19, 04:55 PM

I meant weird with respect to the real world. The issue with the mammoth is that in real life, a mammoth wouldn't be almost twice as hard to kill (126 HP versus 76) and have it be 3 times as hard to avoid getting knocked over by its charge. Similarly, T. rex wasn't the most powerful animal to have ever lived - why is it CR 8 when its prey, Triceratops (which is usually seen as being able to hold its own and get away from a T. rex at least some of the time) is only CR 5?

How do you know? Have you seen someone fighting a mammoth and an elephant to have comparisons?

Similar with the dinosaurs... how can the triceratops be "usualy seen as being able to hold its own" against a tyrannosaur, when nobody has ever seen any dinosaur live, and all our knowledge comes from 70 million years old fossils? That show no evidence of fighting between them, by the way, but some evidence of T. rexes eating dead ceratops(es?).

Don't trust what Hollywood shows you. Jurassic Park is full of excrement... and I don't necessarily mean the steaming, dinosaur kind.

Besides that, combat rules are abstractions for the purpose of a game, not any attempt to simulate how hard or easy fighting an actual animal (or animals fighting amongst themselves) is.

Unoriginal

2018-06-19, 05:07 PM

I meant weird with respect to the real world. The issue with the mammoth is that in real life,

D&D doesn't do real life well, because it's not trying to. It's a world of fictional archetypes and awesome events, not of scientific realities.

Doesn't mean it's utterly outlandish, though. Let's see what science says about this

a mammoth wouldn't be almost twice as hard to kill (126 HP versus 76) and have it be 3 times as hard to avoid getting knocked over by its charge.

According to wikipedia, the steppe mammoth and the Columbian mammoth weighted around 10 tonnes and were around 4m tall. Later mammoths were smaller, with the woolly mammoth similar in size to the African elephant.

An Asian elephant is around 2.75 m tall and weight ~4 t, while an African Bush elephant is on average 3.2 meters tall at the shoulder and weight 6 t.

Also, in 5e, a mammoth's charge is DC 18 while an Elephant is DC 12.

I don't know for you, but I'd say that being more than twice as (in case of the Asian elephant) or a bit below twice as (in the case of the African Bush elephant) heavy as well than a meter taller would justify resisting the mammoth's charge being 1.5 time as hard to resist than its smaller cousins'.

Similarly, T. rex wasn't the most powerful animal to have ever lived - why is it CR 8 when its prey, Triceratops (which is usually seen as being able to hold its own and get away from a T. rex at least some of the time) is only CR 5?

The Triceratops has 95 HPs (so take 3 rounds to kill by a T. Rex in a duel), just as much AC as the T. Rex, is nearly as good as the T. Rex at hitting things, and deals only 9 points of damage less than the T. Rex on a single attack.

Not bad, for what you yourself recognize being a prey.

If the Tryceratops gets one good hit, a Tyrannosaur will probably go seek an meal easier to stomach.

I think you made a slight error in your math. The offensive CR couldn’t possibly be 12. The expected to hit bonus of a CR 8 monsters is +7, so a +10 to hit bonus would only raise the CR to 9. Let me recalculate this.

HP 136=CR 5, decreased to CR 4 because it’s AC is 13 (which is two points lower than a creature of that defensive CR should be)

DPR 53=8, adjusted to CR 9 because it’s Attack Bonus is 10 (which is three points higher than a creature of that offensive CR should be).

(4+9)/2=6.5 (rounded up to CR 7)

That can’t be right...

...Wait a second, shouldn’t the effective AC be increased by 1 because the T-Rex can restrain targets with a bite attack? The table on ~180 of the DMG says that a creature which has the “constrict” ability increases its effective AC by 1, and the rex’s Bite attack has nearly identical wording to the constrictor snake’s constrict attack. If it has an HP of 136 and effective AC of 14, then it’s defensive CR would still be 5, because it’s effective AC is only one point lower than what it’s effective HP corresponds too (not enough to warrant a CR change). Let’s recalculate this.

HP 136=CR 5, Not decreased because it’s AC is 14 (the AC has to be two points below he average to make a reduction).

DPR 53=8, adjusted to CR 9 because it’s Attack Bonus is 10 (which is three points higher than a creature of that offensive CR should be).

(5+9)/2=7

Huh?

Either way is wrong. Am i misreading how to calculate CR or something? The passage on page 175 of the DMG seemed pretty clear to me. Did WotC make a mistake, or did I?

...

You did.

The table on DMG p. 175 places the +10 to-hit bonus at CR 17

17-8 = 9. 9/2= 4.5, rounded down to 4.

8+4 = 12.

My calculation is correct.

The "point" mentioned in the CR calculation is the CR the number/bonus is listed at, not the number. It's pretty clear.

We can even do more calculations if you want more evidences:

Ogre: CR 2

DCR: 1/2 (59 HPs), modified by AC 11 into 1/4

OCR: 1 (13 dmg), modified by +6 to-hit into 3

ACR: ((3+0.25)/2)= 1.62 rounded up to 2.

MaxWilson

2018-06-19, 05:18 PM

I think the idea is that its head and tail stick out of its space, thus the 10 foot reach on each.

If so, that just makes it all the more absurd when it's allowed to squeeze into a 10'x10' cube (Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces PHB rule), not to mention the fact that a human with a halberd should logically be Large by that logic too (since his greatsword can stick out of his space). No matter how you slice it, 15' x 15' is the wrong size.

Probably the easiest way to rule it is to just give up on tying size categories to specific dimensions and treat them as abstract classifications of bulk. I think I remember seeing Xanathar's Guide take this approach somewhere: ISTR a suggestion that you just pick an appropriate number of grid squares for a monster, but don't change its Size rating for purposes of grappling/etc.

=================================

On the topic of T-Rex power: note that the T-Rex gets far more dangerous when played intelligently instead of as a dumb brute. If you take advantage of its 50' speed, 10' reach, and restraining bite, it can pick off one target at a time (grappling and restraining it with its bite) while avoiding the bulk of enemy melee retaliation (taking primarily opportunity attacks instead of Multiattacks).

It's up to the DM to decide whether it's appropriate to play a T-Rex with that level of intelligence. If need be you could make it a magically-enhanced T-Rex with a human brain or something.

Unoriginal

2018-06-19, 05:31 PM

There is a difference between "space you occupy" and "space you control in a fight".

An human doesn't occupy all of a 5x5ft square, but it's the space they control during a fight. They freely move and dodge and turn and adjust themselves within this space, and their attacks are made on the outside

For the T.Rex, it's the same, except with a 15x15 square. It can freely move withing that space, with their attacks reaching out of it in all the directions.

On the topic of T-Rex power: note that the T-Rex gets far more dangerous when played intelligently instead of as a dumb brute. If you take advantage of its 50' speed, 10' reach, and restraining bite, it can pick off one target at a time (grappling and restraining it with its bite) while avoiding the bulk of enemy melee retaliation (taking primarily opportunity attacks instead of Multiattacks).

It's up to the DM to decide whether it's appropriate to play a T-Rex with that level of intelligence. If need be you could make it a magically-enhanced T-Rex with a human brain or something.

A T. Rex has 2 in INT. It knows how to hunt and fight, but it's not going to be a master tactician. This include PCs polymorphed into one.

As an animal it'll go for the most attractive prey (easiest to kill/the one that seems the best meal/the one who pissed it off the most) and that's pretty much it.

So yeah, the "magically enhanced T. Rex with an human brain or something" is kinda needed, or the DM has to explain why they consider appropriate to give that kind of combat insight to a INT 2 proto-bird.

I agree that monsters can be far more dangerous than what their CR indicates if played as if they are smart, however.

ThePolarBear

2018-06-19, 05:51 PM

a human with a halberd should logically be Large by that logic too (since his greatsword can stick out of his space)

And would be a very confused human, not having noticed before their magical weapon can change shape.

GlenSmash!

2018-06-19, 05:51 PM

Similarly, T. rex wasn't the most powerful animal to have ever lived - why is it CR 8 when its prey, Triceratops (which is usually seen as being able to hold its own and get away from a T. rex at least some of the time) is only CR 5?

Triceratops evolved defenses against T-Rex and other predators specifically, Humans, Elves, Dwarves etc. did not.

A T-Rex's towering height and large jaws could easily represent a greater threat to humanoids than a Triceratops' horns and charge.

After all CRs are not a tool to calculate how well animals stack up against each other, but the threat they are to a party of adventurers.

Sniccups

2018-06-19, 08:11 PM

After all CRs are not a tool to calculate how well animals stack up against each other, but the threat they are to a party of adventurers.

In my opinion, that makes it kind of illogical to base wildshape, summoning, etc. off of CR. I guess that's why I posted this, now that I think about it.

Also, thanks to Unoriginal for the info about size of mammoths. I did not know that they ever reached more than about a ton bigger than modern elephants.

Requilac

2018-06-19, 10:10 PM

...

You did.

The table on DMG p. 175 places the +10 to-hit bonus at CR 17

17-8 = 9. 9/2= 4.5, rounded down to 4.

8+4 = 12.

My calculation is correct.

The "point" mentioned in the CR calculation is the CR the number/bonus is listed at, not the number. It's pretty clear.

We can even do more calculations if you want more evidences:

Ogre: CR 2

DCR: 1/2 (59 HPs), modified by AC 11 into 1/4

OCR: 1 (13 dmg), modified by +6 to-hit into 3

ACR: ((3+0.25)/2)= 1.62 rounded up to 2.

Umm Unoriginal, what are you doing? Your method of calculating CR is apparently somewhat reliable, but it is not what was outlined by WotC on page 275 of the DMG. I am AFB currently, but I have a lot of the home brewing monsters rules memorized. You are supposed base the Offensive CR off of the monster’s damage per round, check what the expected attack bonus* a monster of that offensive CR should deal, and raise the effective offensive CR up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference from the expected attack bonus to the actual attack bonus. Review the page again and it will say that. I am sure other people here can vouch for me on this matter.

What you appear to have done is found the attack bonus first, discovered what lowest CR that matched that attack bonus and... I can’t even tell what’s happening after that point. Regardless, it is certainly not what page 275 of the DMG states.

Can someone from out in the crowd please provide some clarity on this matter or provide a relevant quote.

*sometimes it’s saving throw DC instead

MaxWilson

2018-06-19, 10:39 PM

Umm Unoriginal, what are you doing? Your method of calculating CR is apparently somewhat reliable, but it is not what was outlined by WotC on page 275 of the DMG. I am AFB currently, but I have a lot of the home brewing monsters rules memorized. You are supposed base the Offensive CR off of the monster’s damage per round, check what the expected attack bonus* a monster of that offensive CR should deal, and raise the effective offensive CR up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference from the expected attack bonus to the actual attack bonus. Review the page again and it will say that. I am sure other people here can vouch for me on this matter.

What you appear to have done is found the attack bonus first, discovered what lowest CR that matched that attack bonus and... I can’t even tell what’s happening after that point. Regardless, it is certainly not what page 275 of the DMG states.

Can someone from out in the crowd please provide some clarity on this matter or provide a relevant quote.

DMG page 274-5. [emphasis added]

Final Challenge Rating

Calculate the monster's final challenge rating, accounting for the adjustments you made in step 3.

Defensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Hit Points columns of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster's hit points. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster with those hit points.

Now look at the Armor Class suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster's AC is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its hit points up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.

Offensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster's damage output per round. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.

If the monster relies more on effects with saving throws than on attacks, use the monster's save DC instead of its attack bonus.

If your monster uses different attack bonuses or save DCs, use the ones that will come up the most often.

Average Challenge Rating. The monster's final challenge rating is the average of its defensive and offensive challenge ratings. Round the average up or down to the nearest challenge rating to determine your monster's final challenge rating. For example, if the creature's defensive challenge rating is 2 and its offensive rating is 3, its final rating is 3.

With the final challenge rating, you can determine the monster's proficiency bonus using the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table. Use the Experience Points by Challenge Rating table to determine how much XP the monster is worth. A monster of challenge rating 0 is worth 0 XP if it poses no threat. Otherwise, it is worth 10 XP.

Creating a monster isn't just a number-crunching exercise. The guidelines in this chapter can help you create monsters, but the only way to know whether a monster is fun is to playtest it. After seeing your monster in action, you might want to adjust the challenge rating up or down based on your experiences.

SaurOps

2018-06-19, 10:58 PM

How do you know? Have you seen someone fighting a mammoth and an elephant to have comparisons?

Similar with the dinosaurs... how can the triceratops be "usualy seen as being able to hold its own" against a tyrannosaur, when nobody has ever seen any dinosaur live, and all our knowledge comes from 70 million years old fossils? That show no evidence of fighting between them, by the way, but some evidence of T. rexes eating dead ceratops(es?).

Don't trust what Hollywood shows you. Jurassic Park is full of excrement... and I don't necessarily mean the steaming, dinosaur kind.

Besides that, combat rules are abstractions for the purpose of a game, not any attempt to simulate how hard or easy fighting an actual animal (or animals fighting amongst themselves) is.

Careful extrapolation from trace fossils and injuries present on non-trace fossils can be quite an eye-opener. In this case, there are a few Triceratops specimens that show markings of the expected size and shape for being bitten by a tyrannosaur, but which had healed over, meaning that the ceratopsian in question got away and lived for a long stretch of time before finally dying.

Unoriginal

2018-06-20, 02:12 AM

What you appear to have done is found the attack bonus first,

I did not. I have no idea how you could say that when I specifically put the CR-according-to-the-damage-output first.

Step 1: check which CR the creature's damage output gives

Step 2: check what the attack bonus for this CR is

Step 3: check at which CR the creature's actual attack bonus is.

Step 4: note the difference between those CRs

Step 5: for every 2 points of CR difference, modify the damage-based CR by 1.

Did you test if the calculation you did work for any of the monsters?

Requilac

2018-06-20, 07:07 AM

Unoriginal let me start off by saying that I am not upset with you or really mad at all. I don’t mean to demean you, but I might sound a little bit too aggressive. Please don’t read this post with any sort of angry, flame inducing tone, there is no implication here. I am genuinely interested in what you are doing because I always thought I knew how to calculate CR, so the idea that I could be doing it wrong is something is something I need to look into. I have been homebrewing nearly half of the monsters I create, it is especially of concern to me, as I have never noticed major problems in the past. Thank you for your time with me here, I really appreciate it. There is no implied derogatory message or passive-aggression here.

______________

I did not. I have no idea how you could say that when I specifically put the CR-according-to-the-damage-output first.

Step 1: check which CR the creature's damage output gives

Step 2: check what the attack bonus for this CR is

Step 3: check at which CR the creature's actual attack bonus is.

Step 4: note the difference between those CRs

Step 5: for every 2 points of CR difference, modify the damage-based CR by 1.

Did you test if the calculation you did work for any of the monsters?

First of all, you did not not find the CR according to the damage ouput first. Here is your quote...

...

You did.

The table on DMG p. 175 places the +10 to-hit bonus at CR 17

17-8 = 9. 9/2= 4.5, rounded down to 4.

8+4 = 12.

My calculation is correct.

The "point" mentioned in the CR calculation is the CR the number/bonus is listed at, not the number. It's pretty clear.

We can even do more calculations if you want more evidences:

Ogre: CR 2

DCR: 1/2 (59 HPs), modified by AC 11 into 1/4

OCR: 1 (13 dmg), modified by +6 to-hit into 3

ACR: ((3+0.25)/2)= 1.62 rounded up to 2.

You went to straight to the to hit bonus.

And Thats also quite clearly not what it means. Review the page again, especially this paragraph

“Offensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster's damage output per round. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.”

At no point does it mention finding where the actual creatures attack bonus is. It only tells you to find the damage per round and adjust from there by every two points of difference from the to hit bonus. Let me repeat the steps in detail.

Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster's damage output per round.
1) The Rex has a total DPR of 53, 33 damage from the bite and 20 damage from the tail

Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.
2) According to the table on page 275 of the DMG, the expected DPR of a CR 8 monster is 51-56, including 53. The Rex currently has a defensive CR of 8.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating.
3) the average CR 8 monster has +7 to hit bonus

If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference
4) the Rex has a to hit bonus of +10, which is three points higher than what a CR 8 monster is expected to have (a +7 to hit bonus). That means we raise the Offensive CR up by 1 (to 5), because there is at least 2 points of difference between the rex’s Actual attack bonus when compared to the expected attack bonus. Even though the rex’s attack bonus is technically 3 points higher than it is expected to be for a CR 8 monster, we still only adjust the CR by 1 because the CR increases only occurs for every 2 points of difference, not every 1 point.

Steps 3 and 4 in your method are not mentioned at all in the DMG.

I did not. I have no idea how you could say that when I specifically put the CR-according-to-the-damage-output first.

Step 1: check which CR the creature's damage output gives

Step 2: check what the attack bonus for this CR is

Step 3: check at which CR the creature's actual attack bonus is.

Step 4: note the difference between those CRs

Step 5: for every 2 points of CR difference, modify the damage-based CR by 1.

The DMG does not say to “check at which CR the creature’s actual attack bonus is”. And that would also be an incredibly unreliable way to do that as multiple CR levels of monsters have the same attack bonus. Using your method, how could we tell what CR the creatures actual attack bonus is. The expected attack bonus of a CR 17, 18, 19, and 20 monster are all +10. If that’s really how WotC wanted us to do it, then wouldn’t it instructs us on how to choose which attack bonus corresponds to what CR? But it makes no mention of finding the what CR the monster’s actual attack bonus is.

Can someone from the crowd please give us some clarification, Especially those of you who have experience homebrewing monsters. Where is JNA productions or MFoV when you need them?

smcmike

2018-06-20, 07:15 AM

JackPhoenix

2018-06-20, 08:14 AM

Careful extrapolation from trace fossils and injuries present on non-trace fossils can be quite an eye-opener. In this case, there are a few Triceratops specimens that show markings of the expected size and shape for being bitten by a tyrannosaur, but which had healed over, meaning that the ceratopsian in question got away and lived for a long stretch of time before finally dying.

Really? Can you point me to a source? My sources say the known traces of tyrannosaur teeth on fossils showed no signs that the triceratops survived, or that they haven't happened after its death, but, admittedly, my sources are few years old, there may have been newer discoveries since.

MaxWilson

2018-06-20, 09:13 AM

The main reason that cats are hard to hit in real life is that humans are really slow. Almost every animal there is completely dusts us in a sprint, including cats. If you assume that most animals run away from serious threats, you will have a hard time punching a kitty, and things will generally look more realistic, though the disparity in actual foot speeds seems to have been reduced a bit in the game.

And that is why it is so ridiculous that most 5E monsters are roughly as fast as humans, sometimes a little bit slower. 5E wolves move at 50', roughly 10 mph when Dashing, and Giant Eagles fly at 80' (roughly 16 mph).

Humans are slooooow! You could double the speed of every quadruped in 5E and triple the speed of every flying creature and they'd probably still be slower than the real life versions.

Really? Can you point me to a source? My sources say the known traces of tyrannosaur teeth on fossils showed no signs that the triceratops survived, or that they haven't happened after its death, but, admittedly, my sources are few years old, there may have been newer discoveries since.

This isn't exactly what you asked for (since the triceratops didn't survive) but it is direct evidence of tyrannosaurs and triceratops fighting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2387727/Astonishing-fossil-immortalises-8-foot-dinosaurs-locked-mortal-combat-fetch-record-6-MILLION-auction.html

It might be fun to treat the 5E T-Rex as a Nanotyrannus Lancensis, and make a REAL T-Rex that is full-sized (Gargantuan, 40' long, controlling 30'x30') and, say, 240 HP and CR 13.

smcmike

2018-06-20, 09:44 AM

And that is why it is so ridiculous that most 5E monsters are roughly as fast as humans, sometimes a little bit slower. 5E wolves move at 50', roughly 10 mph when Dashing, and Giant Eagles fly at 80' (roughly 16 mph).

Humans are slooooow! You could double the speed of every quadruped in 5E and triple the speed of every flying creature and they'd probably still be slower than the real life versions.

Yeah, I didn’t do the math to convert “speed” into MPH, so I wasn’t sure whether to call D&D animals slow or D&D humans heroically fast, but either way the gap is too small. According to google, a housecat can track 30 mph. I assume this number comes from a fairly representative healthy active adult cat, rather than an extreme outlier. Usain Bolt, who is very much an extreme outlier, never reached that speed.

Most quadrupeds really are in a totally different class from us, particularly over short distances (the unit that matters in round-by-round combat).

This isn't exactly what you asked for (since the triceratops didn't survive) but it is direct evidence of tyrannosaurs and triceratops fighting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2387727/Astonishing-fossil-immortalises-8-foot-dinosaurs-locked-mortal-combat-fetch-record-6-MILLION-auction.html

It might be fun to treat the 5E T-Rex as a Nanotyrannus Lancensis, and make a REAL T-Rex that is full-sized (Gargantuan, 40' long, controlling 30'x30') and, say, 240 HP and CR 13.

Cool fossil but that Daily Mail write-up is pretty awful, and based upon auction-house hype rather than serious science. Here’s some more on the auction:

https://gizmodo.com/ancient-bones-and-millionaires-dinosaurs-for-sale-in-m-1467778814

JackPhoenix

2018-06-20, 09:54 AM

And that is why it is so ridiculous that most 5E monsters are roughly as fast as humans, sometimes a little bit slower. 5E wolves move at 50', roughly 10 mph when Dashing, and Giant Eagles fly at 80' (roughly 16 mph).

Humans are slooooow! You could double the speed of every quadruped in 5E and triple the speed of every flying creature and they'd probably still be slower than the real life versions.

Funny thing is, humans are faster than horses at short distances.

This isn't exactly what you asked for (since the triceratops didn't survive) but it is direct evidence of tyrannosaurs and triceratops fighting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2387727/Astonishing-fossil-immortalises-8-foot-dinosaurs-locked-mortal-combat-fetch-record-6-MILLION-auction.html

It might be fun to treat the 5E T-Rex as a Nanotyrannus Lancensis, and make a REAL T-Rex that is full-sized (Gargantuan, 40' long, controlling 30'x30') and, say, 240 HP and CR 13.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. However, that's not T. Rex. It is also a nice example of a difference between real life and D&D combat: just because you've won (i.e. your opponent died first) doesn't mean you'll live to celebrate the "victory". That won't happen in D&D.

smcmike

2018-06-20, 11:17 AM

Funny thing is, humans are faster than horses at short distances.

I don’t think that’s an accurate way to phrase it. Humans can sometimes get off the blocks faster than a horse, so in a race from a standstill over a very short distance, they have a chance to finish first. Most of the stunt races I’ve seen on youtube either give the human a head start or appear to have the racehorse start pretty darn slowly. I suspect that a fast start in an actual horse race covers the first 100 meters faster than human world record time, though they don’t measure horse races in 100 meter increments, so it’s hard to say for sure. They are certainly not “faster” once the horse starts moving, though - within 50 meters the horse is gonna be traveling about twice as fast as a very fast human sprinter. With a person on its back, too!

Humans do have a shot over extremely long distances, though.

GlenSmash!

2018-06-20, 11:26 AM

In my opinion, that makes it kind of illogical to base wildshape, summoning, etc. off of CR. I guess that's why I posted this, now that I think about it.

Now, that is a fair point.

Since wild-shape already takes more into factor than just CR, such as flying, I could see substituting CR restrictions for something else. number of HD perhaps? Size limits that loosen as as you level.

Summoning might be trickier.

Requilac

2018-06-20, 11:39 AM

. It is also a nice example of a difference between real life and D&D combat: just because you've won (i.e. your opponent died first) doesn't mean you'll live to celebrate the "victory". That won't happen in D&D.

Unless you are fighting against a gas spore, mummy, otyugh, or slaadi that is. Facing off against an aboleth, gorgon, Medusa, lycanthrope or vampire could also be a problem in the long run.

Now, that is a fair point.

Since wild-shape already takes more into factor than just CR, such as flying, I could see substituting CR restrictions for something else. number of HD perhaps? Size limits that loosen as as you level.

Summoning might be trickier.

To be fair, what else would we be able to use to estimate the general power of a monster if not CR? HD is vey unreliable because it makes creatures with high constitution seem less powerful than they really are, and it can’t factor in the creature’s offensive CR. Sure CR might not be perfect, but what else could we use as an indicator?

MaxWilson

2018-06-20, 11:48 AM

Cool fossil but that Daily Mail write-up is pretty awful, and based upon auction-house hype rather than serious science. Here’s some more on the auction:

https://gizmodo.com/ancient-bones-and-millionaires-dinosaurs-for-sale-in-m-1467778814

Yeah, it was a pretty awful writeup. I did enough digging to be sure it was real, but I didn't bother looking for a different source, since I don't know enough about modern paleontology to recognize the difference between a good source and an excellent source. I figured anyone interested would look up further details elsewhere. :)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. However, that's not T. Rex. It is also a nice example of a difference between real life and D&D combat: just because you've won (i.e. your opponent died first) doesn't mean you'll live to celebrate the "victory". That won't happen in D&D.

Yes, this probably explains some of the unusual behavior of D&D predators: they're more aggressive because the downsides to hunting prey are lower. In real life, a successful hunt can still leave you wounded enough to starve to death; in 5E, a successful hunt that leaves you with 4 HP means your belly is full and you'll be fine after about an hour's nap, or at most 24 hours of rest. Predators can be less cautious, which leads to more fights with PCs.

To be fair, what else would we be able to use to estimate the general power of a monster if not CR? HD is vey unreliable because it makes creatures with high constitution seem less powerful than they really are, and it can’t factor in the creature’s offensive CR. Sure CR might not be perfect, but what else could we use as an indicator?

It's too bad 5E's stat blocks are so combat-centric because it really strips out anything you could use for this purpose. I suppose you could use Rarity, which you'd have to look up in stat blocks from AD&D or make up yourself. E.g. Polymorph IV lets you turn into Common creatures, Polymorph VI lets you turn into Uncommon creatures, Polymorph VII lets you turn into Rare creatures, and Polymorph IX lets you turn into Very Rare creatures.

Requilac

2018-06-20, 01:06 PM

It's too bad 5E's stat blocks are so combat-centric because it really strips out anything you could use for this purpose. I suppose you could use Rarity, which you'd have to look up in stat blocks from AD&D or make up yourself. E.g. Polymorph IV lets you turn into Common creatures, Polymorph VI lets you turn into Uncommon creatures, Polymorph VII lets you turn into Rare creatures, and Polymorph IX lets you turn into Very Rare creatures.

I really wouldn’t say rarity so a good indicator of power though. For example a flumph’s rarity was Rare, and a vampire would also be Rare. So it takes the same energy to turn into a CR 19 vampire that it would take to turn into a CR 1/8 flumph. Doesn’t seem like a better alternative, does it?

Lalliman

2018-06-20, 01:22 PM

First of all, you did not not find the CR according to the damage ouput first. Here is your quote...
You're misinterpreting Unoriginal's method, which is clouding the real topic. The quote you're responding to, this one:

The table on DMG p. 175 places the +10 to-hit bonus at CR 17
17-8 = 9. 9/2= 4.5, rounded down to 4.
8+4 = 12.
My calculation is correct.

Is him elaborating on only a part of the method, the whole of which he laid out earlier. He's using the method in the correct order. The difference is that you (Requilac) are adjusting the offensive CR based on the number of points difference between the creature's attack bonus and the attack bonus of the CR value that its damage matches with, while Unoriginal is adjusting the offensive CR based on the number of steps difference between the CR that the creature's attack bonus matches with and the CR that its damage matches with. Which of those two is correct is the real question.

And the answer to that question is: Requilac is correct. The relevant part of the DMG is:

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every two points of difference.

"Every two points of difference" clearly refers to the attack bonus, not to the accompanying CR. CR is never referred to by points. You can tell even in this sentence, where it says "adjust (...) by 1", not "by 1 point". As to whether Unoriginal's method is more effective for determining the proper CR, I can't say definitively. But that method is definitely not how the rules present it.

Unoriginal

2018-06-20, 01:41 PM

First of all, you did not not find the CR according to the damage ouput first. Here is your quote...

You went to straight to the to hit bonus.

...no, I went to the hit bonus, because the CR-related-to-the-damage was already established and not contested.

At no point does it mention finding where the actual creatures attack bonus is.

[...]

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating.
3) the average CR 8 monster has +7 to hit bonus

If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference
4) the Rex has a to hit bonus of +10

You're contradicting yourself here.

The DMG does not say to “check at which CR the creature’s actual attack bonus is”. And that would also be an incredibly unreliable way to do that as multiple CR levels of monsters have the same attack bonus. Using your method, how could we tell what CR the creatures actual attack bonus is. The expected attack bonus of a CR 17, 18, 19, and 20 monster are all +10. If that’s really how WotC wanted us to do it, then wouldn’t it instructs us on how to choose which attack bonus corresponds to what CR? But it makes no mention of finding the what CR the monster’s actual attack bonus is.

One, the method I used is not unreliable.

Two, you simply use the CR that is the closed from the one indicated by the damage output.

If a creature had a CR 20 damage output and a +10 to hit, then it's clear it has both a CR 20 damage output and a CR 20 attack bonus and so that no adjustment is needed.

If it had a CR 26 damage output and a +10 to hit, you just go down the ranks until you find which is the closest CR has +10.

It'd be ready to recognize the method I used is not the one described by the book if given evidence of that, but I've calculated more than an handful of monsters and I've always found the CR the statblock indicated.

Woggle

2018-06-20, 01:50 PM

In regards to the mammoth vs. elephant charge DC, the elephant really should have a charge DC of 16, not 12, assuming that they are calculated in the same manner. The mammoth has a +7 strength modifier and a CR of 6, giving it an equivalent proficiency bonus of +3 for a DC total of 8+3+7=18, while the elephant should have a DC of 8+2+6=16 (the elephant has a +6 Str. modifier). Of course, the Monster Manual isn't always consistent with how it determines it's DCs, so I can't say whether the discrepancy is intentional or not. The rhinoceros, for example, follows the mammoth math.

MaxWilson

2018-06-20, 01:52 PM

I really wouldn’t say rarity so a good indicator of power though. For example a flumph’s rarity was Rare, and a vampire would also be Rare. So it takes the same energy to turn into a CR 19 vampire that it would take to turn into a CR 1/8 flumph. Doesn’t seem like a better alternative, does it?

Sorry, I wasn't intending to suggest it as a measure of power, rather as a measure of alien weirdness and the consequent difficulty of Polymorphing into it. Flumphs presumably have a weird, inhuman biology, and it makes sense that they'd be hard to Polymorph into even though they're easy to kill.

A bull is a common animal, and certainly harder to kill than a rare underground Loricifera specialized for anaerobic environments, but it makes intuitive sense to me that Polymorphing into the bull could legitimately be easier than Polymorphing into the Loricifera because it has a less alien biology.

Apparently I misunderstood what kind of a metric you're looking for.

Edit: actually, rarity modified by creature type would be better for expressing alien weirdness than rarity alone. E.g. Aberration always counts as Very Rare, Undead is impossible.

smcmike

2018-06-20, 01:52 PM

Yes, this probably explains some of the unusual behavior of D&D predators: they're more aggressive because the downsides to hunting prey are lower. In real life, a successful hunt can still leave you wounded enough to starve to death; in 5E, a successful hunt that leaves you with 4 HP means your belly is full and you'll be fine after about an hour's nap, or at most 24 hours of rest. Predators can be less cautious, which leads to more fights with PCs.

Who says D&D predators behave oddly?

(You do not need to assume that natural predation follows game rules).

MaxWilson

2018-06-20, 02:01 PM

If it had a CR 26 damage output and a +10 to hit, you just go down the ranks until you find which is the closest CR has +10.

It'd be ready to recognize the method I used is not the one described by the book if given evidence of that, but I've calculated more than an handful of monsters and I've always found the CR the statblock indicated.

Here's where you're diverging from the DMG procedure. The DMG says to do this:

Offensive Challenge Rating. Read down the Damage/Round column of the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table until you find your monster's damage output per round. Then look across and note the challenge rating suggested for a monster that deals that much damage.

Now look at the attack bonus suggested for a monster of that challenge rating. If your monster's attack bonus is at least two points higher or lower than that number, adjust the challenge rating suggested by its damage output up or down by 1 for every 2 points of difference.

So, the DMG says to raise offensive CR by 1 (because to-hit is +3 higher than the expected +7) from 8 to 9. Your procedure of looking for the first +10 in the table yields a much higher offensive CR, 12 IIRC.

Leugren has a handy web tool that implements the DMG tables, here: http://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/quick-monster-stats.html

Unoriginal

2018-06-20, 02:22 PM

Here's where you're diverging from the DMG procedure. The DMG says to do this:

So, the DMG says to raise offensive CR by 1 (because to-hit is +3 higher than the expected +7) from 8 to 9. Your procedure of looking for the first +10 in the table yields a much higher offensive CR, 12 IIRC.

Well then the method I used for the DCR compensated that, somehow.

Requilac

2018-06-20, 02:25 PM

...no, I went to the hit bonus, because the CR-related-to-the-damage was already established and not contested.

Sorry, you didn’t include that step in the post I was mentioning, so I thought you missed it. My mistake.

One, the method I used is not unreliable.

Two, you simply use the CR that is the closed from the one indicated by the damage output.

If a creature had a CR 20 damage output and a +10 to hit, then it's clear it has both a CR 20 damage output and a CR 20 attack bonus and so that no adjustment is needed.

If it had a CR 26 damage output and a +10 to hit, you just go down the ranks until you find which is the closest CR has +10.

It'd be ready to recognize the method I used is not the one described by the book if given evidence of that, but I've calculated more than an handful of monsters and I've always found the CR the statblock indicated.

Look Unorignal, I really have no idea what to say after this point. I am just doing what the book told me to by a literal interpretation, and doing it the same way which others have agreed on. Your method includes steps which isn’t outlined in the DMG, as others have stated. I am going to trust you that your method works effectively, but it’s not what WotC is suggesting on page 275 of the DMG. I don’t feel up to calculating the CR of every monster in the MM to prove my point.* If you haven’t agreed with me by this point, then I am absolutely out of words to say. I am confident with my way of doing it, and others have supported me, and you are also confident in your method. At this point I could argue with you round and round and get nowhere. At this point let’s just agree to disagree, because we clearly aren’t getting anywhere by doing this.

*if you have a specific number of monsters or a list of monsters you want me to do though, I would be willing to so long as it is of reasonable length.

KorvinStarmast

2018-06-20, 03:09 PM

Send five giant toads against a level 11 Ranger in an underground scenario. A giant toad is
Challenge 1 (200XP)

XP threshold .. 11th 800 / 1,600 / 2,400 / 3,600

In theory, this was barely over an easy encounter. Damn near killed him. Watch the fun as the Ranger nearly dies during this encounter. (They were able to surround him, so that he could not kite them, because the toads had higher initiative). How did they surround him? The first one grappled him; which allowed the others to move while the ranger could not. Normally, the speed differential between a bow wielding ranger and these toads is in the Ranger's favor, if he has initiative. How did this nearly go horribly wrong?

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d10 + 2) piercing damage plus 5 (1d10) poison damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 13). Until this grapple ends, the target is restrained, and the toad can’t bite another target. That beig restrained thing is a bugger.
Being restrained means that the next attacks against you are at advantage. While this ranger managed to escape (Acrobatics) each time, this is what might have ended it all ... he kept getting grappled by one of the toads for the first few rounds. (He eventually made some of them run off by using a fear spell).(Gloom Stalker)

Swallow. The toad makes one bite attack against a Medium or smaller target it is grappling. If the attack hits, the target is swallowed, and the grapple ends. The swallowed target is blinded and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the toad, and it takes 10 (3d6) acid damage at the start of each of the toad’s turns. The toad can have only one target swallowed at a time. Since the toad's grapple restrains the target, that swallow comes At Advantage.

Animals are fine.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-20, 03:25 PM

Send five giant toads against a level 11 Ranger in an underground scenario. A giant toad is
Challenge 1 (200XP)

XP threshold .. 11th 800 / 1,600 / 2,400 / 3,600

In theory, this was barely over an easy encounter. Damn near killed him. Watch the fun as the Ranger nearly dies during this encounter. (They were able to surround him, so that he could not kite them, because the toads had higher initiative). How did they surround him? The first one grappled him; which allowed the others to move while the ranger could not. Normally, the speed differential between a bow wielding ranger and these toads is in the Ranger's favor, if he has initiative. How did this nearly go horribly wrong?
That beig restrained thing is a bugger.
Being restrained means that the next attacks against you are at advantage. While this ranger managed to escape (Acrobatics) each time, this is what might have ended it all ... he kept getting grappled by one of the toads for the first few rounds. (He eventually made some of them run off by using a fear spell).(Gloom Stalker)
Since the toad's grapple restrains the target, that swallow comes At Advantage.

Animals are fine.

You did the encounter math wrong.

5 CR 1's vs a single level 11 is a hard encounter, not a barely easy one. Remember that you have to increase the difficulty if the party is small. Kobold.club confirms. 2500 adjusted XP.

That's because this is exactly the reverse of the solo monster problem. Action economy is king in this edition. A 5:1 action deficit makes up for a lot of power differences.

MaxWilson

2018-06-20, 04:00 PM

Well then the method I used for the DCR compensated that, somehow.

Not quite. You still wound up +1 CR relative to the DMG calculation. The MM also winds up at +1 CR relative to the DMG calculation, which is what the OP was noting and what you were attempting to double-check.

He's right though--the DMG calculation assigns CR 7 to a T-Rex. In fact, you could raise it all the way to 144 HP and AC 16 and it would still be CR 7. That's why when I quoted the DMG upthread, I underlined the final step of the procedure, where it says to tweak the calculated CR to taste based on your DMing experience/playtesting/judgment. Apparently someone did that to the T-Rex.

It's far from the only anomaly in the MM. E.g. Earth Elemental Myrmidons (CR 7) are comparable to or weaker than Earth Elementals (CR 5) in almost all ways.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-20, 04:04 PM

Not quite. You still wound up +1 CR relative to the DMG calculation. The MM also winds up at +1 CR relative to the DMG calculation, which is what the OP was noting and what you were attempting to double-check.

He's right though--the DMG calculation assigns CR 7 to a T-Rex. In fact, you could raise it all the way to 144 HP and AC 16 and it would still be CR 7. That's why when I quoted the DMG upthread, I underlined the final step of the procedure, where it says to tweak the calculated CR to taste based on your DMing experience/playtesting/judgment. Apparently someone did that to the T-Rex.

It's far from the only anomaly in the MM. E.g. Earth Elemental Myrmidons (CR 7) are comparable to or weaker than Earth Elementals (CR 5) in almost all ways.

Ogres are the canonical example. They should, by the numbers, be CR 1. But they were raised to 2 after the play test noticed that they could easily one shot many level 1 characters.

Other notable examples (working from the spreadsheet in my signature):

Creature
Book CR
DMG CR

Cranium Rat Swarms
5
1

Kraken Priest
5
2

Quickling
1
4

Death Slaad
10
15

Rakshasa
13
5

Adult/Ancient Dragons
X (varies)
X+3 (average)

Archmage
12
7-ish depending on spell choice

Beholder
13
17 (depending on luck with disintegration rays

Ki-Rin
12
17

Sniccups

2018-06-20, 04:59 PM

Another thing, this one from Volo's Guide: the Brontosaurus has fewer HP than the T. rex, and is CR 5 to the T. rex's CR 8. It's also a size larger, and in real life a single Tyrannosaurus definitely couldn't take down a large sauropod. (Yes, I know that they didn't live at the same time. T. rex didn't usually prey on the comparable sauropods of its time.)

Requilac

2018-06-20, 05:02 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-06-20, 05:16 PM

@ Pheonyxphyre

Were you factoring in special features and attack riders in your analysis? Those can easily change CR too. I am willing to bet that limited magic immunity really beefed up the Rakshasa.

I was only considering things that are explicitly given weights in the DMG.

And yes, the reason that the Rakshasa is the CR it is is that limited magic immunity. That's the lowest it can be and still have a chance of being affected by PC spell-casters.

The key take-away is that the DMG "rules" are really just a starting point. A benchmark, ivory-tower number that needs adjustment after playtesting.

It seems the offensive breakpoints were set based on seeing what would one-round KO (not kill) a baseline wizard of level = CR - 1 assuming perfect accuracy and no crits and average damage. That's the pattern that fits best.

hamishspence

2018-06-21, 06:04 AM

On the topic of T-Rex power: note that the T-Rex gets far more dangerous when played intelligently instead of as a dumb brute. If you take advantage of its 50' speed, 10' reach, and restraining bite, it can pick off one target at a time (grappling and restraining it with its bite) while avoiding the bulk of enemy melee retaliation (taking primarily opportunity attacks instead of Multiattacks).

It's up to the DM to decide whether it's appropriate to play a T-Rex with that level of intelligence.

A lion would pick off one calf from a herd of buffalo, while avoiding the bulk of parental buffalo retaliation.

Makes sense that a T. rex, like a lion, would not want to get hurt. Triceratops might be the "buffalo analog" for the Late Cretaceous.

in real life a single Tyrannosaurus definitely couldn't take down a large sauropod. (Yes, I know that they didn't live at the same time. T. rex didn't usually prey on the comparable sauropods of its time.)

It's a little unclear whether T. rex killed sauropods - but there's hints that it may have done:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-tyrannosaurus-chomped-sauropods-67170161/

Chances are they would have only targeted babies - but, if T. rex was gregarious and a group hunter, attacking adults is not impossible.

Unoriginal

2018-06-21, 06:14 AM

A lion would pick off one calf from a herd of buffalo, while avoiding the bulk of parental buffalo retaliation.

Makes sense that a T. rex, like a lion, would not want to get hurt. Triceratops might be the "buffalo analog" for the Late Cretaceous.

Also applies to how they behave facing adventuring groups.

Most animals fight to the death when they're cornered, when they're protecting their young (in many, but not all cases) or when they're too pissed off to realize the danger they're in. Not when they're hunting and just hungry. Even when they're fighting for territory most of the time it's not to the death, as behind they don't really have any "dying for your homeland" predisposition, they're just defending what's theirs and leave it if they can't defend it

A T. Rex is much more likely to flee when a group of people with spells and weapons start fighting back than continue with the attack-attack-attack-attack tactic.

smcmike

2018-06-21, 08:47 AM

Also applies to how they behave facing adventuring groups.

Most animals fight to the death when they're cornered, when they're protecting their young (in many, but not all cases) or when they're too pissed off to realize the danger they're in. Not when they're hunting and just hungry. Even when they're fighting for territory most of the time it's not to the death, as behind they don't really have any "dying for your homeland" predisposition, they're just defending what's theirs and leave it if they can't defend it

A T. Rex is much more likely to flee when a group of people with spells and weapons start fighting back than continue with the attack-attack-attack-attack tactic.

There’s nothing wrong with playing animals as more aggressive than natural. Movies do it all the time. I haven’t seen it, but my impression is that the dinosaurs in the new Jurassic Park are so focused on eating people that they are willing to stop for a snack while running away from an erupting volcano. That’s taking it a bit far, but cheesy good fun is a fine tone at the table.

Still, it’s sometimes worth giving the animals a reason for being so unnaturally aggressive. A pact with a vampire lord, for instance, can explain aggressive wolf attacks. It’s also worth using more natural predatory behavior as a way to subvert expectations and build atmosphere. Wolves aren’t really that interesting or scary if they run in and attack like idiots. On the other hand, if the party is traveling through the wilderness and realizes overtime that a large pack of wolves has been watching them from a distance for days? That’s something.