Expanding Bears to handle CR 1/4-6

[Segev]

Putting my effort where my mouth is, here are bears, either from the SRD, or using the DMG rules for monsters-by-CR to build them as beasts. I put a little extra effort into them; the lowest-effort option would've been just to slap some fixed numbers in place. The higher-CR bears have an extra Rend bonus action for their full-round damage output, rather than only upping the bite and claw damage even more than I did. I don't think this long-form of each stat block takes up that much space, but it's noteworthy that condensing these down to 3 or so stat blocks with different hp and damage values wouldn't be too hard. I tried to keep the ratio of defensive CR to offensive CR at least comparable, too.



Bear Cub (CR 1/4) small beast
AC 11 (natural armor); HP 16(3d6+6); Speed 30 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
14(+2) 10(+0) 14(+2) 2(-4) 12(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (2d4 + 2) slashing damage.

Black Bear (CR 1/2) medium beast
AC 11 (natural armor); HP 19(3d8+6); Speed 40 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
15(+2) 10(+0) 14(+2) 2(-4) 12(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes two attacks: one with its bite and one with its claws.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (2d4 + 2) slashing damage.

Brown Bear (CR 1) large beast
AC 11 (natural armor); HP 34(4d10+12); Speed 40 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
19(+4) 10(+0) 16(+3) 2(-4) 13(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes two attacks: one with its bite and one with its claws.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6 + 4) slashing damage.

Polar Bear (CR 2) large beast
AC 12 (natural armor); HP 42(5d10+15); Speed 40 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
20(+5) 10(+0) 16(+3) 2(-4) 13(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes two attacks: one with its bite and one with its claws.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (1d8 + 5) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (2d6 + 5) slashing damage.

Grizzly Bear (CR 3) large beast
AC 13 (natural armor); HP 76(8d10+32); Speed 40 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
20(+5) 10(+0) 18(+4) 2(-4) 13(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws (one with each). If both claw attacks hit, the creature is grappled (escape DC 15). The bear cannot grapple another creature while grappling a creature in this way.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (1d8 + 5) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d6 + 5) slashing damage.
BONUS ACTIONS
Rend. If the bear has a creature grappled, it may end the grapple as a bonus action to rend it with its claws, dealing 11 (1d12+5) slashing damage.

Dire Bear (CR 4) huge beast
AC 13 (natural armor); HP 84(8d12+32); Speed 40 ft., climb 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
20(+5) 10(+0) 18(+4) 2(-4) 13(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +3 Proficiency Bonus +2
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws (one with each). If both claw attacks hit, the creature is grappled (escape DC 15). The bear cannot grapple another creature while grappling a creature in this way.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d10 + 5) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (1d8 + 5) slashing damage.
BONUS ACTIONS
Rend. If the bear has a creature grappled, it may end the grapple as a bonus action to rend it with its claws, dealing 14 (2d8+5) slashing damage.

War Bear (CR 5) huge beast
AC 13 (natural armor); HP 115(10d12+50); Speed 50 ft., climb 40 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
22(+6) 10(+0) 20(+5) 2(-4) 13(+1) 7(-2)
Skills Perception +4 Proficiency Bonus +3
Senses passive Perception 14
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws (one with each). If both claw attacks hit, the creature is grappled (escape DC 17). The bear cannot grapple another creature while grappling a creature in this way.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (1d10 + 6) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d8 + 6) slashing damage.
BONUS ACTIONS
Rend. If the bear has a creature grappled, it may end the grapple as a bonus action to rend it with its claws, dealing 15 (2d8+6) slashing damage.

Polar Bear King (CR 6) gargantuan beast
AC 13 (natural armor); HP 140(9d20+45); Speed 50 ft., climb 40 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
22(+6) 10(+0) 20(+5) 2(-4) 14(+2) 8(-1)
Skills Perception +5 Proficiency Bonus +3
Senses passive Perception 15
Resistances Cold
Languages --
FEATURES
Keen Smell. The bear has advantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks that rely on smell.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The bear makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws (one with each). If both claw attacks hit, the creature is grappled (escape DC 17). The bear cannot grapple another creature while grappling a creature in this way.
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (1d12 + 6) piercing damage.
Claws. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (1d12 + 6) slashing damage.
BONUS ACTIONS
Rend. If the bear has a creature grappled, it may end the grapple as a bonus action to rend it with its claws, dealing 19 (2d12+6) slashing damage.

[Chronos]

Not bad on the stats, though I might change up the names a bit. In our world, "grizzly bear" and "brown bear" are synonyms, and the bears of Kodiak Island are just grizzlies/browns that are a little larger than normal for their species. But in the fine tradition of D&D monsters, you could probably get away with a "Dire Bear", a "Cave Bear", a "Monstrous Bear" or two, maybe a "Giant Bear", and probably a "Pseudonatural Paragon Titanic Bear of Legend", or a "Bearbear".

[Unoriginal]

In our world, "grizzly bear" and "brown bear" are synonyms

All grizzlies are brown bears, but not all brown bears are grizzlies.

[JackPhoenix]

Not bad on the stats, though I might change up the names a bit. In our world, "grizzly bear" and "brown bear" are synonyms, and the bears of Kodiak Island are just grizzlies/browns that are a little larger than normal for their species. But in the fine tradition of D&D monsters, you could probably get away with a "Dire Bear", a "Cave Bear", a "Monstrous Bear" or two, maybe a "Giant Bear", and probably a "Pseudonatural Paragon Titanic Bear of Legend", or a "Bearbear".

Primal Bear, Cocaine Bear....

[awa]

not certain why polar bears are so weak they are not only bigger than kodiak bears they are both sneaky likely to ambush their prey and while a typical kodiak will avoid conflict with humans a polar bear will seek it out.

Size huge is way to big for a kodiak the largest kodiak on record was less than 2000 pounds. Just rename the kodiak a cave bear.

Id switch some of those around and give the polar bear stealth in snow and a swim speed. Further most of the biggest bears dont really climb much.

[JackPhoenix]

not certain why polar bears are so weak they are not only bigger than kodiak bears they are both sneaky likely to ambush their prey and while a typical kodiak will avoid conflict with humans a polar bear will seek it out.

Size huge is way to big for a kodiak the largest kodiak on record was less than 2000 pounds. Just rename the kodiak a cave bear.

Id switch some of those around and give the polar bear stealth in snow and a swim speed. Further most of the biggest bears dont really climb much.

Black, Brown and Polar Bears are taken from the MM (Cave Bear there is just a polar bear with darkvision). The rest is homebrew.

[Segev]

not certain why polar bears are so weak they are not only bigger than kodiak bears they are both sneaky likely to ambush their prey and while a typical kodiak will avoid conflict with humans a polar bear will seek it out.

Size huge is way to big for a kodiak the largest kodiak on record was less than 2000 pounds. Just rename the kodiak a cave bear.

Id switch some of those around and give the polar bear stealth in snow and a swim speed. Further most of the biggest bears dont really climb much.

Not a bad call on Kodiaks. Polar Bears (and Cave Bears, which are just Polar Bears with darkvision) are in the SRD; part of what I am trying to do is leave the SRD named bears alone and base the rest of the bears on the SRD bears to at least some extent. Further enhancement for different swim or climb speeds, better stealth in snow, etc., are all decent ideas. Could possibly split the bear line into polar bears and non-polar bears, starting with cave bears. There's a kind of bear I roughly based the justification for the dire bear's size and strength on that is only known by its latin name, as it's prehistoric, and didn't sound like a D&D-esq bear at all. Kodiaks being named wrong is on me, though. Maybe change them to "giant bear?" I could use "Cave Bear," but they already exist in 5e (as I said as copies of polar bears, but with darkvision added).

[Kane0]

Black Bear
Brown Bear
Polar Bear
Grizzly Bear
Giant Bear
Dire Bear
Soviet War Bear

[Segev]

Black Bear
Brown Bear
Polar Bear
Grizzly Bear
Giant Bear
Dire Bear
Soviet War Bear

Ooh, I like "War Bear." I might put that where Kodiak currently is in the list.

Believe it or not, "Polar Bear King" is an actual name for an actual prehistoric ancestor of the modern Polar Bear. It was apparently elephantine.

[awa]

personally I would leave war bear open for a only slightly bigger bear that gets its cr increase from tines and armor.

You could use a short faced bear, its still not really size huge but the biggest variants are bigger than cave bears by a considerably margin.

"Believe it or not, "Polar Bear King" is an actual name for an actual prehistoric ancestor of the modern Polar Bear. It was apparently elephantine."
I don't believe it:smallwink:

Its only got a single bone fragment to its name might actually have been a brown bear and was estimated to weigh a ton which while big isn't actually bigger than the biggest short faced bear estimates which are 4500 pounds (according to Wikipedia)

Now this is the important part ignore that last thing I said, polar bear king deserves to be bigger than a short faced bear in a D&d game because polar bear king is a better name than short faced bear. If we let realism chain us down we are stuck with dire wolves that are smaller than mastiffs, and cave bears that are roughly the same size as polar bears, that not fun and fun is more important than being realistic when it comes to extinct animals.

[Chronos]

Yeah, lots of things in D&D don't match up very well to the real world. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to match up to our fantasies of the world. And in out fantasies, dire wolves are big enough for orcs to ride, and There's Always a Bigger Bear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For reference, 4e (which kinda had to do the "separate stat blocks with different names" thing by how it did monster scaling) included the following:

Cave Bear (Level 6, roughly CR 4)
Dire Bear (Level 11, roughly CR 6-7)

So having Dire be bigger than Cave makes sense.

As to the rest, naming things is one of the two hard problems[1] in computer science game design.

[1] along with cache invalidation and off by one errors...:smallbiggrin:

[sambojin]

Were the nerfs to brown/polar bear intended? +6/+4 and +7/+4 on the bite and claw attacks respectively? In the MM they're a flat +6 and +7.

The Grizzly looks like a pretty good form for lvl9 Moon Druids. Three solid, fairly damaging attacks, and a bonus action rend, stacks up the damage and combat options nicely. I'd pick it over a scorpion most days, and might even choose it over an elemental sometimes if I didn't need the movement/ resistances of them (or specifically did need the wildshape charges).

(Tales from the Yawning Portal also has a Huge Polar Bear, which is, umm, huge. And it has more HP. It's sort of CR2.5, because it's basically better than a regular Polar Bear at the same CR. This is why we don't have nice new beasts. It's all the Moon Druid's fault. Kind of)

[Segev]

Were the nerfs to brown/polar bear intended? +6/+4 and +7/+4 on the bite and claw attacks respectively? In the MM they're a flat +6 and +7.

The Grizzly looks like a pretty good form for lvl9 Moon Druids. Three solid, fairly damaging attacks, and a bonus action rend, stacks up the damage and combat options nicely. I'd pick it over a scorpion most days, and might even choose it over an elemental sometimes if I didn't need the movement/ resistances of them (or specifically did need the wildshape charges).

(Tales from the Yawning Portal also has a Huge Polar Bear, which is, umm, huge. And it has more HP. It's sort of CR2.5, because it's basically better than a regular Polar Bear at the same CR. This is why we don't have nice new beasts. It's all the Moon Druid's fault. Kind of)

They were not. I was using an online SRD for them. Checking my MM, their numbers were just plain wrong. I suspect errata corrected them later and maybe madehem proficient with their claws. I have fixed it (I think) in these entries.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They were not. I was using an online SRD for them. Checking my MM, their numbers were just plain wrong. I suspect errata corrected them later and maybe madehem proficient with their claws. I have fixed it (I think) in these entries.

Yeah, there was an errata for that number.

[Oramac]

"Bearbear"

I am disappointed there is no Bearbear.

Otherwise, this seems like it would be a good addition for the game. That said, doing this for every animal would be a metric **** ton of work, and it would probably add 20 pages to the book. Not sure what WOTC's ROI looks like on monster creation, but it might not be worth the cost.

[Segev]

I am disappointed there is no Bearbear. I can understand that. Though that probably would need to be in a supplement leaning a little harder into humor than the SRD/PHB. :smallwink:


Otherwise, this seems like it would be a good addition for the game. That said, doing this for every animal would be a metric **** ton of work, and it would probably add 20 pages to the book. Not sure what WOTC's ROI looks like on monster creation, but it might not be worth the cost.

Atrenen put it into table form. I think it might bear (heh) a little tweaking in how things are labeled for clarity (this is, he said, how he keeps his DM notes, which is a little different than how full presentation should look), but it's pretty compact.

https://stormlord.us/Images/5eBears.png

It took me an afternoon to make the extra bears, and much of that was just me debating aesthetics about how to shape their attacks (e.g. coming up with the grapple and rend parts). If you ignore the underlying calculations and just go with recommended final to-hit and damage scores, as well as final hp scores, you will save a lot of time on this. Admittedly, writers of the product SHOULD worry about the underlying math for ease of alteration later on by DMs. But still, it's not THAT much work.

[Oramac]

Atrenen put it into table form. I think it might bear (heh) a little tweaking in how things are labeled for clarity (this is, he said, how he keeps his DM notes, which is a little different than how full presentation should look), but it's pretty compact.
snip

That looks good. It would certainly require some tweaks before publication though.


It took me an afternoon to make the extra bears, and much of that was just me debating aesthetics about how to shape their attacks (e.g. coming up with the grapple and rend parts). If you ignore the underlying calculations and just go with recommended final to-hit and damage scores, as well as final hp scores, you will save a lot of time on this. Admittedly, writers of the product SHOULD worry about the underlying math for ease of alteration later on by DMs. But still, it's not THAT much work.

Just looking at the beasts in the back of the PHB, there is: Bat, Bear, Boar, Cat, Constrictor Snake, Crocodile, (Dire) Wolf, Frog, (Giant) Eagle, (Giant) Spider, Hawk/Falcon, Lion, Mastiff, Mule, Owl, Panther, Poisonous Snake, Rat, Raven, Reef Shark, Riding Horse, Tiger, Warhorse, Wolf.

Even combining similar beasts (ex: Wolf and Dire Wolf), that's still 13 beasts: Bat, Bear, Boar, Cat, Snake, Crocodile, Wolf, Frog, Eagle, Spider, Horse, Rat, Shark. At an afternoon each, you're looking at a solid week of work just to get them to a base format. Which is to say nothing of the tweaks we've already determined they would need, plus playtesting, formatting, art, etc. I really doubt WOTC is going to spring for all that. Which isn't to say I don't want them to. I'd personally love to see something like this, especially as a reference sheet for Druid players. I just don't see it actually happening in any official capacity.

[Segev]

That looks good. It would certainly require some tweaks before publication though.



Just looking at the beasts in the back of the PHB, there is: Bat, Bear, Boar, Cat, Constrictor Snake, Crocodile, (Dire) Wolf, Frog, (Giant) Eagle, (Giant) Spider, Hawk/Falcon, Lion, Mastiff, Mule, Owl, Panther, Poisonous Snake, Rat, Raven, Reef Shark, Riding Horse, Tiger, Warhorse, Wolf.

Even combining similar beasts (ex: Wolf and Dire Wolf), that's still 13 beasts: Bat, Bear, Boar, Cat, Snake, Crocodile, Wolf, Frog, Eagle, Spider, Horse, Rat, Shark. At an afternoon each, you're looking at a solid week of work just to get them to a base format. Which is to say nothing of the tweaks we've already determined they would need, plus playtesting, formatting, art, etc. I really doubt WOTC is going to spring for all that. Which isn't to say I don't want them to. I'd personally love to see something like this, especially as a reference sheet for Druid players. I just don't see it actually happening in any official capacity.

Thing is, it took me an afternoon while I was doing other stuff. It probably was about 2-3 hours of work, and it was a prototype. With some practice, it'll go faster. Moreover, the playtesting is probably not that critical, since it's just using the CR guidelines that are already in place. The easiest way to do it would be just to raise the damage of the highest-damage attack (or all attacks in a multiattack) to keep them in the right CR range. Increase hp too. The AC can stay the same, honestly, and you could just raise the to hit to the target number and then spend a little time tweaking underlying stats (which was the second-biggest time-sink).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thing is, it took me an afternoon while I was doing other stuff. It probably was about 2-3 hours of work, and it was a prototype. With some practice, it'll go faster. Moreover, the playtesting is probably not that critical, since it's just using the CR guidelines that are already in place. The easiest way to do it would be just to raise the damage of the highest-damage attack (or all attacks in a multiattack) to keep them in the right CR range. Increase hp too. The AC can stay the same, honestly, and you could just raise the to hit to the target number and then spend a little time tweaking underlying stats (which was the second-biggest time-sink).

Yeah. And with some up-front work you could probably just turn it into a meta-template or 3. Effectively a fixed recipe. Since you don't have to be too precise (CR balancing isn't all that fine-grained), just have something like

All: For each step, add 6 damage and 15 HP[1]. For every N steps, increase attack bonus by 1 and natural AC by 1. Consider granting multiattack (or increasing number of attacks) at CR X instead of a flat damage increase. If they have a save DC (against poison, etc), increase it by 1 every N' steps.

Strong advancement: Increase Strength to fit attack bonus. Increase size at CRs A and B.
Fast advancement: Increase Dexterity to fit attack bonus. Optionally increase size at CRs A' and B'.

[1] for CRs below 20, 1 offensive CR step = 6 damage and one defensive CR step = 15 HP. This keeps things in sync. I'm too lazy to do the math for attack bonus, AC, and DC.

[Atranen]

Thing is, it took me an afternoon while I was doing other stuff. It probably was about 2-3 hours of work, and it was a prototype. With some practice, it'll go faster. Moreover, the playtesting is probably not that critical, since it's just using the CR guidelines that are already in place. The easiest way to do it would be just to raise the damage of the highest-damage attack (or all attacks in a multiattack) to keep them in the right CR range. Increase hp too. The AC can stay the same, honestly, and you could just raise the to hit to the target number and then spend a little time tweaking underlying stats (which was the second-biggest time-sink).

Yep. When I did the dire wolves (buried now in some other thread), it was basically algorithmic. You could write a code that would take the statblocks, apply the CR guidelines, and spit them out, for as many input beasts as you want, in a day or two.

[thompur]

You forgot the Polar Bear weakness...easily distracted by fizzy brown liquids in glass bottles.:smallbiggrin:

[Chronos]

And a week's work to improve a game that's played by millions isn't even all that much. If someone were to write the Expanded Zoo Book Supplement and sell it as a $1 download or whatever, they'd easily make a fair pay for that week's worth of work.

[Keravath]

Some comments ...

1) I think huge or even gargantuan is too large for most of these bears. I'd think maybe the largest would be huge unless you are looking for bears the size of a brontosaurus or other gargantuan creatures. Each size represents a range of possible sizes so that a large creature could be at the low or high end of the large range.

2) To make the creatures a bit more of a threat, I would be tempted to have the grapple also impose the restrained condition. Since grappling requires both claws to hit at the same time, it may not happen that often anyway. It also makes a bit of sense that a creature grappled by one of these large bears would be subject to more than just a grapple.

3) I think you changed the scaling in the creatures from being damage dealers to increasing their defense. The CR2 Polar bear has more damage potential (33 on average) than the CR3, 4 or 5 versions. The CR5 only does 31 damage from 3 attacks. Only the CR6 version will do more damage than the CR2 polar/cave bear. This is excluding the rend bonus action but that ends the grapple as well. In my opinion the bears should do more damage as they get stronger - which might require dropping the AC/hps a bit to keep your CR targets.

It also doesn't make much sense to me that the claws of a polar/cave bear do 2d6+5 which is the same average damage as the King Polar bear CR6 ... or that the CR1 brown bear can do more damage on average (30) than the CR4 dire bear (28).

[Segev]

I agree that gargantuan is pushing it, but I have it there because I kind-of pictured them as mounts for (huge) Frost Giants.

I think you may be reading the claws attack wrong. Note that, once it hits CR 3 or higher, Multiattack is 3 attacks, not 2. The CR 2 "claws" attack is both claws in one attack, doing 2d6+5 damage. The CR 3 bear, on a multiattack, does 3 attacks, 2 of them being claws. So if he hits with both claw attacks, he actually does 2d6+10 damage, vs. the 2d6+5 of the CR 2 bear. And then, on top of that, is the Rend attack.

The King Polar Bear is doing a multiattack of a bite at 1d12+6, and two claws for a total (if both hit) of 2d12+12. And then a rend on its bonus action.

I think I want to leave the Restrained condition being a thing that the crocodile and the constrictor snake get, though I'll consider it. The main idea is that the bear will likely rend rather than maintain the grapple, but if something else consumes or prevents the use of his bonus action, the grapple IS there.