How do you create monster stats?

[Bjarkmundur]

This is my attempt of making a "Monster Template" for my DnD group.

Goals:
CR and XP is great for using the Monster Manual, but creating a completely original monster for your group poses a different kind of challenge. This is how I create my original monster stats.

Method
× Attacks hit by rolling a 10 (55%).
× Base values assume an equal number of players and monsters.
× A NPC takes 1 turn of focus fire to drop.
× A creature can drop a PC to 0hp in six turns on average, or three good hits.

Disclaimer:

× This has yet to be playtested.
× When possible, use original DnD creatures from an official source. There's a reason for why the Monster Manual exists. This can however be a useful tool when you need to modify an encounter, or for some reason tailor it to your specific needs.
× DPR is a number that combines damage and hit chance (damage÷chancel. DPR can therefor be changed by changing either hit chance or damage-per-hit.
× If I understand CR correctly, this creates an encounter with a CR equal to the average player level.
× For a different player-to-monster ratio, values will have to be adjusted accordingly. This does not mean an easy encounter can't be engaging . Two standard rust beetles can have players at the edge of their seat in fear of losing precious stats.
× If you have fewer monsters than players, you can add multi attack to have your monster have a more impact. Just remember to account for it in your damage estimations.

Average Monster Stats:
Attack: +5
AC: 15
HP: 20 (+4 per level)
Damage Roll: 2 (+3 per level)

Guidelines:
You can change a monster using the following Modifiers to better match its characteristics. See examples below.
±2 AC
±25% HP
±1 to damage rolls per level

Examples:
Assume each monster has the traits normally associated with it, such as orc racial feature, kenku mimicry etc.

My first real attempt is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584187-NPC-Boss-creation-need-help-as-new-DM&p=23801736#post23801736).

Skirmishers:
Wolves, goblins, a gang of bandits etc
Add mobility trait
Increase damage, but lock some of it behind a situational bonus.
Weakness: Movement restrictions, and negated damage condition

Brute:
Ogers, Orcs, Barbarians etc.
+25% HP
-2 AC
Bonus damage
Could also just be +HP and Reckless Feature
Weakness: Can (and should) be focused down due to poor defenses

Soldier:
+2 AC, Brave feature or other bonus to saving throws
Reduces damage
Some melee control like grab, prone or other.
Weakness: Can be kept occupied by one player

Controller/Support:
Clerics, Druids, mages etc.
-2AC, but can gain durability with a spell
-25% HP
Reduced damage damage
Have some spell utility (see below).
Weakness: Is useless after the first two turns, can be bursted down or silenced or charmed or feared or otherwise disrupted.

Artillery:
Blasters, rangers, orcs with giant crossbows.
-2AC, but have strategic advantage
-25% HP
Increased damage
Deal half damage, or have disadvantage, in melee.
Weakness: Useless in melee, can be bursted down
Encounter Building
6 rounds of 'just fighting' isn't very engaging. Add a half-way event, or some secondary objective for your group.

Number of Threats
Threats can be monsters, traps, magical effects etc.
You can divide a average monster into as many small threats as you like. First add your Modifiers, then divide the HP and damage between them any way you like.

For example, you can have 12 small bugs, each with 6-7 HP and deal 1-2 damage. Running this encounter might be slow, so i would still have them act in groups of 4 and attacking as one average creature, just to keep the ball rolling.

Spell Examples
Support: Sanctuary
Mage: Misty Step
Battlefield Control: Entangle
Debuffer:
Blaster: Pewpewpew

To-do
CR
swarms
Bosses

[JackPhoenix]

I either take existing monster, refluff things and tweak whatever's needed, (95% of the time), or use the guidelines from DMG.

[Unoriginal]

I either take existing monster, refluff things and tweak whatever's needed, (95% of the time), or use the guidelines from DMG.

Same.

Also, monsters are more than stats. Stats alone don't make an encounter interesting. What do you want to accomplish using your "Monster Template"?

[guachi]

I either take existing monster, refluff things and tweak whatever's needed, (95% of the time), or use the guidelines from DMG.

This is what I do. If I need to do more I'll look at a sampling of monsters in the CR I'm looking at to see if my choices are reasonable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same.

Also, monsters are more than stats. Stats alone don't make an encounter interesting. What do you want to accomplish using your "Monster Template"?


This is what I do. If I need to do more I'll look at a sampling of monsters in the CR I'm looking at to see if my choices are reasonable.

Agreed. Refluffing/tweaking is quicker (so I can do more prep), easier (I'm lazy), and less prone to breakage. Heck, about half the time, I'll just describe the monster differently. A huge person on magical steroids? That's an ogre. Change "giant" to "humanoid" and you're golden.

[Bjarkmundur]

Ah yes, design goals, forgot to include that.

I DMd 4e for a year with a very dedicated group. Somewhere along the way I discovered that each challenge had perimeters that could be changed to accommodate different character levels and lethality.

I ended up coding the whole thing in Excel and it became my main way of creating monsters for the following six months. I simply typed in the player level, number of players and number of threats, and the sheet did the math for me.

I loved how I could read about a certain type of monster, and use my generated numbers as a skeleton to hit the exact level of challenge I was aiming for. It was also great for random encounters, and lowered my prep time to practically nothing. Having the math front loaded like this allowed me to spend more time on making the encounter engaging with different challenges, sources of conflict etc.

This resulted in creating a ton of very original encounters. 5e has bounded accuracy, so the need for this template is not as dire. It's mainly there to make sure don't accidentally kill my party.

When I'm done with this I can tell you, within seconds, exactly what the stats should be for a level 3 encounter featuring 4 player characters fighting a cleric vampire ghost and his 4 minions of lycanthropic mummy treants. Even at this early stage I can tell you that the combined HP should be around 160 for a 6 round battle.

I posted a while back the simple question on "what stats would you use for an evil adventuring party for a level 3 encounter against 4 PCs, and how many threats should I have?". No one answered with stats, only advice, , leaving me to think that not many can create balanced encounters from the top of their head within specific perimeters.

[Rerem115]

When I'm done with this I can tell you, within seconds, exactly what the stats should be for a level 6 encounter featuring 4 player characters fighting a cleric vampire ghost and his 4 minions of lycanthropic mummy treants.


That was an expression I never expected to hear, but knowing this community, I'm not surprised by it either.:smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah yes, design goals, forgot to include that.

I DMd 4e for a year with a very dedicated group. Somewhere along the way I discovered that each challenge had perimeters that could be changed to accommodate different character levels and lethality.

I ended up coding the whole thing in Excel and it became my main way of creating monsters for the following six months. I simply typed in the player level, number of players and number of threats, and the sheet did the math for me.

I loved how I could read about a certain type of monster, and use my generated numbers as a skeleton to hit the exact level of challenge I was aiming for. It was also great for random encounters, and lowered my prep time to practically nothing. Having the math front loaded like this allowed me to spend more time on making the encounter engaging with different challenges, sources of conflict etc.

This resulted in creating a ton of very original encounters. 5e has bounded accuracy, so the need for this template is not as dire. It's mainly there to make sure don't accidentally kill my party.

When I'm done with this I can tell you, within seconds, exactly what the stats should be for a level 6 encounter featuring 4 player characters fighting a cleric vampire ghost and his 4 minions of lycanthropic mummy treants.

I posted a while back the simple question on "what stats would you use for an evil adventuring party for a level 3 encounter against 4 PCs, and how many threats should I have?". No one answered with stats, only advice, , leaving me to think that not many can create balanced encounters from the top of their head within specific perimeters.

In my experience, balanced encounters rely a lot less on stats than on tactics. That is, you're trying to make a template with only a few parameters (not perimiters) fit a gigantic range of variation. By doing so, you're both underfitting and overfitting. 5e just doesn't work the way you want it to. Sorry, but that's the truth. 4e could, because it nailed down everything else. And in doing so, it lost a lot of the open-ended nature that I like.

Things that matter more than stats (a non-exhaustive list):
1. How many encounters the party has had that day.
2. Presence or absence of magic items, especially those with +X to hit.
3. Specific choices made by the party in build and characterization
4. Terrain
5. Starting distance for combat.
6. Tactical choices made by the party.

You're trying to break the diversity of encounters on a procrustean bed.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm pretty convinced. I don't have much experience in 5e, and I'll take your word for it that the CR ratings are spot-on enough to do what they're supposed to do, and thst rest comes with experience.

What still worries my is the "reflavour" part. Isn't reflavouring just taking a monster you've used before and know that works, and changing a couple of features to fit your encounter? How is that more creative than starting with a blank slate and adding the flavour accordingly?

[Bjarkmundur]

Things that matter more than stats (a non-exhaustive list):
1. How many encounters the party has had that day.
2. Presence or absence of magic items, especially those with +X to hit.
3. Specific choices made by the party in build and characterization
4. Terrain
5. Starting distance for combat.
6. Tactical choices made by the party.


My method is akin to buying your wood and creating a blueprint before you start building. It's simply a manner of looking at what you have to work with, to make sure you don't over or underestimate. The final product is still most parts your specific craftsmanship and creativity, and good materials don't automatically make a good build. But knowing what you got means you're more likely to stay on track. Knowing you've got hinges goes a long way when deciding to create a cabinet. If you don't got it, you'll have to settle with making drawers, and you never intended on creating drawers. If you monster is too durable, too lethal, too squishy, it might affect the encounter in a negative way.

1. It's based on basic attacks.
2. + hit bonus is included
3. Agreed. Sleep and hold person can't be calculated, and shouldn't be included.
4. Isn't stats, but creative encounter building. (craftsmanship)
5. Isn't stats.
6. Isn't stats.

But hey, too each their own, and I value your input and experience. Thanks for commenting and making sure I don't try to calculate some un calculateable.

[Unoriginal]

Encounters don't have to be calibrated for the PCs.


I'd rather have the beings be parts of the world, with their strengths and weaknesses and quirks and flaws, than having them only exist as Appropriately Difficult Challenges for as long as the PCs are in the vicinity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My method is akin to buying your wood and creating a blueprint before you start building. It's simply a manner of looking at what you have to work with, to make sure you don't over or underestimate. The final product is still most parts your specific craftsmanship and creativity, and good materials don't automatically make a good build. But knowing what you got means you're more likely to stay on track. Knowing you've got hinges goes a long way when deciding to create a cabinet. If you don't got it, you'll have to settle with making drawers, and you never intended on creating drawers. If you monster is too durable, too lethal, too squishy, it might affect the encounter in a negative way.

1. It's based on basic attacks.
2. + hit bonus is included
3. Agreed. Sleep and hold person can't be calculated, and shouldn't be included.
4. Isn't stats, but creative encounter building. (craftsmanship)
5. Isn't stats.
6. Isn't stats.

But hey, too each their own, and I value your input and experience. Thanks for commenting and making sure I don't try to calculate some un calculateable.

These are things that matter more than stats. IE--you can run the same encounter multiple times, varying any of these things and you'll get way bigger differences than just varying stats of individual creatures (or other pure encounter-composition effects). Ie, what you're asking for is just not meaningful in 5e.


Encounters don't have to be calibrated for the PCs.


I'd rather have the beings be parts of the world, with their strengths and weaknesses and quirks and flaws, than having them only exist as Appropriately Difficult Challenges for as long as the PCs are in the vicinity.

This too. Sure, I make sure they're not totally out of bounds, either for the world or for the party, but there's a huge range of acceptable variation. And it's better that way. Variation is good. Some curbstomps, some scrambles to survive. The fiction comes first and should control

[Bjarkmundur]

Encounters don't have to be calibrated for the PCs.


I'd rather have the beings be parts of the world, with their strengths and weaknesses and quirks and flaws, than having them only exist as Appropriately Difficult Challenges for as long as the PCs are in the vicinity.

I like this, and I tend to think the same.


Then again, I'm not entertaining Bob the Bartender and Lilith the Lich in my living room on a Saturday night, I'm entertaining my closest group of friends. If tuning the difficulty of an encounter too low results in a non-engaging combat encounter, I feel like I missed the mark.
I'll most likely be able to save it and we'll have fun anyways, either make an ogre bash through the wall or simply cut the encounter short by saying "you proceed to take names and bash skulls" and continue with the story. but the idea of failing something that could be easily prevented makes me cringe. It's like pouring milk int a broken glass. Why not just be safe and use a non-broken glass?

[Unoriginal]

I like this, and I tend to think the same.

This thread seems to indicate the contrary, though.



Then again, I'm not entertaining Bob the Bartender and Lilith the Lich in my living room on a Saturday night, I'm entertaining my closest group of friends. If tuning the difficulty of an encounter too low results in a non-engaging combat encounter, I feel like I missed the mark.
I'll most likely be able to save it and we'll have fun anyways, either make an ogre bash through the wall or simply cut the encounter short by saying "you proceed to take names and bash skulls" and continue with the story. but the idea of failing something that could be easily prevented makes me cringe. It's like pouring milk int a broken glass. Why not just be safe and use a non-broken glass?

It's not failing. Not all fights are going to be engaging by themselves, it's just the nature of things. Killing three goblins who are guarding a prison cell isn't going to be particularly epic for 3 level 5 PCs. That doesn't mean the adventurer isn't engaging, or the RP with the prisoner afterward isn't engaging, or that trying to talk with the goblins rather than killing them can't be engaging.

Sometime there is a low time. It's not bad.

IMO, when it comes to make a fight interesting, the stats do little for it. Most of the interest is from presentation, be it the stakes, the gimmick, the risks, the personality of the combatants, etc.

[Bjarkmundur]

I must admit, you are completely right.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm creating an evil adventuring group. Can you help me with the stats and features, and how many í should use against my four-man-group? The drama of the encounter has already been accounted for. On top of what I've already planned, There's gonna be a lot of "we are the stronger group" type tension. I have a couple of 'out of the box solutions', but I don't want the evil group to be unbeatable without them. I want my players to feel like they are really going to-to-toe with these guys, and that each of the 'evil adventurers' has a very distinct class, playstyle and weakness.

[Unoriginal]

What's your PCs' levels and how tough do you want the NPCs to be?

[Bjarkmundur]

We are level 3

Im thinking pretty toe-to-toe. It's the first encounter of the day, so we've got resources to spare. But then again, it's a full group of short-resters. Long days only count towards our hit dice.

I'm thinking Barbarian, Rogue, Archer and a utility caster that does engaging stuff (not just buff/debuff)

[Man_Over_Game]

I want to say that this is an excellent guide to creating monsters. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover CR, swarms or bosses, but I think it's a step in the right direction. If you don't care about CR, then modifying stats in this manner is exactly how I'd do it.


On a similar note, I was playing around with converting player classes into NPC enemies, so that players can fight against other adventurers as needed.

I settled on this:


Weapon attacks from the NPC deal -3 less damage.
NPCs have half as many spell slots as players.
NPCs have 50% more HP than players.


This dramatically reduces burst potential from both sides, and extends an equal fight of a Player vs. NPC to about 50% more rounds. That is, if it took them 4 rounds to kill one another, it will now take them 6 rounds. This makes the problem of Player vs. Player swinginess a lot more manageable. Notably, this follows basically the same formula as yours does (which is, use player strength as a guideline and modify slightly to increase survivability and lower damage).

[R.Shackleford]

I either take existing monster, refluff things and tweak whatever's needed, (95% of the time), or use the guidelines from DMG.

Existing monster and then simplify it.

Keep the monster's HP and tweak weaknesses and resistances as needed. So I have...

Hit Points (HP):
Resistances/Immunities (R/I):

Average Physical Modifier (APM):
Average Mental Modifier (AMM):
Ability Check Bonuses (ACB):

Special Features and Special Actions:

****

If a creature is "proficient" with something I add a few points to a roll, give it advantage, or something else that I think up at the time.

This has worked out so well we are going to play around with the idea a bit more.

[Bjarkmundur]

I tried using my method here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584187-NPC-Boss-creation-need-help-as-new-DM&p=23801736#post23801736). What do you guys think? This is the first creature I create in 5e. Did I do OK?

[Dr. Cliché]

I either take existing monster, refluff things and tweak whatever's needed, (95% of the time), or use the guidelines from DMG.

Basically this.

Even if I want to create an entirely new monster, I usually find it much easier to find a monster that's vaguely similar to what I want and then modify it accordingly.

That said, a part of me does miss the creation tables from 3.5 - where different types of monster had different HD, BAB, Saving Throws etc.

I find some of the current ones a bit weird. Like how Proficiency is calculated entirely differently than it would be for a PC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Basically this.

Even if I want to create an entirely new monster, I usually find it much easier to find a monster that's vaguely similar to what I want and then modify it accordingly.

That said, a part of me does miss the creation tables from 3.5 - where different types of monster had different HD, BAB, Saving Throws etc.

I find some of the current ones a bit weird. Like how Proficiency is calculated entirely differently than it would be for a PC.

It's not, really. Monsters don't have class levels, so they use CR for that determination instead. But the CR <-> proficiency mapping is pretty much the same as the level <-> proficiency mapping.

And having different HD types was an utter, total trainwreck IMO. Also imposed weird worldbuilding constraints--why do all these X-type creatures have the same skills and weapons? Why can't you have a beefy fey, or a spindly giant? The worst part was tying HD to combat capabilities (ECL). Had all sorts of distorting effects.

[Unoriginal]

We are level 3

Im thinking pretty toe-to-toe. It's the first encounter of the day, so we've got resources to spare. But then again, it's a full group of short-resters. Long days only count towards our hit dice.

I'm thinking Barbarian, Rogue, Archer and a utility caster that does engaging stuff (not just buff/debuff)

Mmmh, level 3...

As starter, I would use a Spy NPC with one less HD for the Rogue, a Scout NPC with three additional HDs for the Scout, a Berserk NPC with three less HDs, and a Illusionist NPC with one less HD and with spellcasting only up to 3rd level and a changed spell list.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm not familiar with monster balance past the first couple of levels, so I don't have a clear picture of how my scaling skews with time.
It should at least create a good guideline for me to improve upon in the future.

[guachi]

Agreed. Refluffing/tweaking is quicker (so I can do more prep), easier (I'm lazy), and less prone to breakage. Heck, about half the time, I'll just describe the monster differently. A huge person on magical steroids? That's an ogre. Change "giant" to "humanoid" and you're golden.

Players likely won't catch on, anyway. Most monsters do damage so it's basically the same, regardless. But a little change of description, one interesting special ability, and an interesting encounter location is all that's really needed.

My favorite monster I spent a lot of time on was the BBEG from B10 Night's Dark Terror. It's a big slimy tentacled monster. 5 5th and 1 4th level PC. Only fight of the Adventuring Day. I wanted a CR 10 Legendary as the encounter guidelines said it would be a very hard fight (correct!). I basically made it a cut-down Kraken. Gave it a special lair ability. Done!

It took a lot of work to get to that point, but once I settled on what I wanted it was really easy.