D&D 5E 5e Monster Stats by Level (not CR)

Quickleaf said:

But my first thing is – Mass Heal should not be factored into what's happening at Levels 1 to 16 – i.e. the vast majority of the game.

Click to expand...

I think you may be correct. I was reviewing the healing spells and clearly Mass Heal far out paces the other healing options. I mean an 8th level Heal is only doing 90 HP versus Mass Heal's 700 HP.

I need to do some other things this weekend, but I will take a look to see what happens if I change it up below lvl 17. By 16th level the effects of that Mass Heal are already reduced by 180 HP and it only used about 500 HP of the Mass Heal to begin, assuming the cleric uses Heal, it is about 90/4 or 22.5 HP gain for the Monster at 16th (if I did my math correctly off the top of my head).

dave2008 said:

First, I am not trying to simulate every level. I've done 1st and 20th and extrapolated between the two. I want a smooth, predictable table. I don't want the bounciness of actual PCs. So specific levels may be off. Hopefully the averages help here. Also, my actual table is also 10% less on HP than the calculated value at level 20. So I'm not use 100% of the healing power of Mass Heal.

My approach was to make a group of 4 classic PCs. I then added up the HP, attack bonus, DPR, and AC of the 4 classes. I took those totals divided them by 4 to get the values for the "average" 20th level PC. Does that make sense?

I do plan to make more average PCs for levels 5, 10, & 15 and see how well my table holds true, but for my current purposes* it works well. It takes time too, so I am not sure when I will get to it.

*I'm working on epic/immortal PCs and monsters, so level 21 and above. If I get level 20 correct - that was my minimum goal. Everything else is extra.

Click to expand...

That sounds fine! As long as Mass Heal (or other high level magic) has 0 influence on low level HP and damage estimates, you’re good.

dave2008 said:

First, I am not trying to simulate every level. I've done 1st and 20th and extrapolated between the two. I want a smooth, predictable table. I don't want the bounciness of actual PCs. So specific levels may be off. Hopefully the averages help here. Also, my actual table is also 10% less on HP than the calculated value at level 20. So I'm not use 100% of the healing power of Mass Heal.

My approach was to make a group of 4 classic PCs. I then added up the HP, attack bonus, DPR, and AC of the 4 classes. I took those totals divided them by 4 to get the values for the "average" 20th level PC. Does that make sense?

I do plan to make more average PCs for levels 5, 10, & 15 and see how well my table holds true, but for my current purposes* it works well. It takes time too, so I am not sure when I will get to it.

*I'm working on epic/immortal PCs and monsters, so level 21 and above. If I get level 20 correct - that was my minimum goal. Everything else is extra.

Click to expand...

If your going that approach, I would remove levels 1-4 and start from 5 on ward. 1-4 PCs are completely different than 5+ in terms of damage and toughness.

Now obviously there is still a major difference between 5 and 20....but a lot of the PCs abilities have at least started to come online at this point (two attacks, 3rd level spell, highly unlikely to die by massive damage but only by death saves).

Stalker0 said:

If your going that approach, I would remove levels 1-4 and start from 5 on ward. 1-4 PCs are completely different than 5+ in terms of damage and toughness.

Now obviously there is still a major difference between 5 and 20....but a lot of the PCs abilities have at least started to come online at this point (two attacks, 3rd level spell, highly unlikely to die by massive damage but only by death saves).

Click to expand...

That is probably not a good idea. I will think about it.

Emulate 1, 3, 8, 14 and 20 ("middle" of each tier) rather than just 1 and 20. To ensure that things don't get too wonkey.

...

The argument against BM isn't "this is your favourite subclass" - it just you should aim for ballparks, and including complex PC builds is a waste, as once you are done monsters shouldn't act like PCs. With a complex build, you'll focus on false detail (what maneuvers should you use?) that shouldn't matter.

I built my "Soldier" prototype using a basic Champion fighter who burned a few feats to keep the damage curve going up, and burned Sentinel in order to reflect "Soldiers should have some kind of lockdown abilities". Mine had no offensive magic items; using the equivalent of basic +X items would tweak it only a bit.

I built the "Brute" with a pared-down set of features, aimed at boosting damage and HP while sacrificing AC and accuracy. The goal is a monster that is in the realm of what a PC could do (literally, as you can emulate it), so that we know how much soak a Level X PC could pull off and how heavy they could hit. So seeing it in a monster won't be too far off.

If I did a cleric, accounting for healing is hard. Doing it only at level 20 is going to cause some problems, as high level healing is insanely more action-efficient than lower level healing.

For a Mage, I'd probably work out how fragile a PC wizard is in order to calculate how fragile an NPC Mage should be, so it feels similar. Its damage output is going to be really strange; mages mostly help by taking foes out of the battle and changing battle geometry on the PC side.

Doing some kind of average between different PC builds seems wrong? Unless you intend one stats to cover Lurkers, Soldiers, Brutes, Mages, Artillery and Skirmishers, which is going to be awkward: a Brute is dangerous for different reasons than Artillery.

NotAYakk said:

Emulate 1, 3, 8, 14 and 20 ("middle" of each tier) rather than just 1 and 20. To ensure that things don't get too wonkey.

Click to expand...

That is the next level of research, just not there yet. Besides 20, I already modeled level 1 (and it is included in the current table) and was planning to do 5, 10, 15.

NotAYakk said:

Unless you intend one stats to cover Lurkers, Soldiers, Brutes, Mages, Artillery and Skirmishers, which is going to be awkward: a Brute is dangerous for different reasons than Artillery.

Click to expand...

I don't intend to cover Lurkers, Soldiers, Brutes, Mages, Artillery and Skirmishers necessarily. That was never the goal of this project (at least not when I came back to it - I don't actually remember when I started this last year). If those are covered at all they would be a template applied to the standard generic monster which is what I am trying to model.

That being said, the approach of modeling each of those separately would likely be more accurate. However, then I have to have 6 types of orc instead of 1 orc (and possible some templates). My preference is one statbock to cover them all, but I will think about it.

@Quickleaf, @Stalker0, @NotAYakk , I just wanted to say thank you for your feedback and comments. I am will taking a little break from posting anything here, but I will be improving the project in the background. I will be getting more data points for verification and revision, and possibly looking at more classes too.

I also like it idea of creating some role templates which should be easy once the baseline is established.

Anyway, just wanted to say thank you and more to come!

Ok, here is the fruit of my labors, version 6 of the Monsters by Level table. With this version I replaced the life cleric with a tempest cleric and went with damage spells instead of healing. I did also include the use of bless and added those buffs to the whole party.

If you want to check my work, here is a link to the google sheet I'm using: D&D 5e: Average PC

A few comments:

1. This is not the final version.
2. I have not checked XP values with this new table (see also note 8 below)
3. Things line up pretty well with the numbers I got from my Average PC analysis. I am generally happy with the spread, but my try to iron out some rinkles.
4. This version has less HP, but more DPR than the last, but with higher AC and similar attack bonus too. I would guess their overall effectiveness hasn't changed much.
5. My goal is ultimately to set a foundation for level 21+ gaming, so some revisions going forward my be geared to making that play more effect and less on making it work for level 20 and under....
6. ...or I may make two tables or split the table at level 21. TBD.
7. I would like every 5 levels to be 2x as powerful. Initial testing indicates this table is pretty close to that. That way for a group of 4 a "solo" encounter is party level +10. For that to make sense I may need to monkey with the numbers a bit...
8. ...One big red flag to this approach are the XP values. They worked well with the previous chart and converting existing monsters; however, they didn't make sense at all for doubling the combat effectiveness every 5 levels.

version 6:


Anyway, more to come! I just wanted to share my progress and give people a chance to tear apart my spreadsheet!

dave2008 said:

Ok, here is the fruit of my labors, version 6 of the Monsters by Level table. With this version I replaced the life cleric with a tempest cleric and went with damage spells instead of healing. I did also include the use of bless and added those buffs to the whole party.

If you want to check my work, here is a link to the google sheet I'm using: D&D 5e: Average PC

A few comments:

1. This is not the final version.
2. I have not checked XP values with this new table (see also note 8 below)
3. Things line up pretty well with the numbers I got from my Average PC analysis. I am generally happy with the spread, but my try to iron out some rinkles.
4. This version has less HP, but more DPR than the last, but with higher AC and similar attack bonus too. I would guess their overall effectiveness hasn't changed much.
5. My goal is ultimately to set a foundation for level 21+ gaming, so some revisions going forward my be geared to making that play more effect and less on making it work for level 20 and under....
6. ...or I may make two tables or split the table at level 21. TBD.
7. I would like every 5 levels to be 2x as powerful. Initial testing indicates this table is pretty close to that. That way for a group of 4 a "solo" encounter is party level +10. For that to make sense I may need to monkey with the numbers a bit...
8. ...One big red flag to this approach are the XP values. They worked well with the previous chart and converting existing monsters; however, they didn't make sense at all for doubling the combat effectiveness every 5 levels.

version 6:
View attachment 371440

Anyway, more to come! I just wanted to share my progress and give people a chance to tear apart my spreadsheet!

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've done a bunch of this already, Dave, but here are a few WotC monsters translated using your method... Conclusion is probably what you already realize: at the extreme low CRs and higher CRs, the numbers break down.

Zombie (CR 1/4; AC 8, effective hp 22+7=29, atk +3, dmg 4)

Assuming your table works like DMG p274 table, hp 29 starts at Level 3, where default AC is 16, but AC 8 means there are four 2-AC point "downshifts", which puts it defensively below Level 1 by two steps... and with damage below Level 1 by one step...so...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cannot be evaluated

Chuul (CR 4; AC 16, hp 93, atk +6, dmg 11 x 2 + 2/3 x 11 = 29)

Had to guesstimate some things on the chuul, but by the DMG it is defensive CR 3 and offensive CR 4. In actuality the Poisoned condition should be factored into the attack bonus, but I'm uncertain if MM monsters do that. But it checks out to about CR 4.
On your table, I think it is defensive Level 9, and offensive Level 5, so the chuul averages out to Level 7

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gray Slaad (CR 9; eff AC 18+2 magic resist = 20, eff hp 127 + 30 regen = 157, save DC 14, atk +7, dmg 25)

Damage calc = [ (28 * 2) fireball, fireball + 10 * 2 multiattack greatsword] / 3 = 25
DMG says the gray slaad is defensive CR 8 and offensive CR 3 or 4 (I'm saying 4 for its spells), which makes it a CR 6 according to the DMG, not a CR 9. These sorts of discrepancies are pretty common when comparing official monsters to DMG maths, but it is something to consider when translating to another challenge evaluation method.
On your table, I think the gray slaad is defensive level 16 and offensive level 3, so it comes out to Level 9.5

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Adult Black Dragon (CR 14; eff AC 19 + 2 four saves= 21, eff hp 195 + 90 legendary resistances = 285, save DC 18, atk +11, dmg 112)

Damage calc = [(54 *2) acid breath + 15*3 triple tail L.A. attack + 47 bite/claw/claw + 15*3 triple tail L.A. attack + 47 bite/claw/claw + 15*3 triple tail L.A. attack] / 3 = 112
Double checking DMG says it's defensive CR 16 and offensive CR 18, which works out to CR 17...again not quite in line with the DMG table.
On your table, I think the adult black dragon is defensive level 23 and offensive level 18 or maybe 17, which works out to about Level 20

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And last one will be...

Empyrean (CR 21; eff AC 22 + 2 magic resist +2 four saves = 26, eff hp 313 x1.25 damage immunities + 90 legendary resistances = 481, save DC 23, atk +17, dmg 139)

Damage calc = [(38.5 x 2) fire storm + 31 x 3 L.A. triple attacks + 31 maul + 31 x 3 L.A. trip attacks + 31 maul + 31 x3 L.A. triple attacks] / 3 = 139
Double checking DMG says it's defensive CR 25 and offensive CR 23, which comes out to CR 24...again that discrepancy between the MM and the DMG maths.
Using your table, I think the empyrean works out to defensive level... well it's just waaay off the chart... and offensive level 23...so...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Cannot be evaluated

It seems like the numbers give you a rough level equivalency that breaks down at the sub-CR 1 range and at the higher CR ranges. I'm not sure about equating a Level 20 PC to an adult black dragon either, but I don't have the high-level play experience to make a recommendation there.

Quickleaf said:

I'm sure you've done a bunch of this already, Dave, but here are a few WotC monsters translated using your method... Conclusion is probably what you already realize: at the extreme low CRs and higher CRs, the numbers break down.

Zombie (CR 1/4; AC 8, effective hp 22+7=29, atk +3, dmg 4)

Cannot be evaluated

Chuul (CR 4; AC 16, hp 93, atk +6, dmg 11 x 2 + 2/3 x 11 = 29)


Gray Slaad (CR 9; eff AC 18+2 magic resist = 20, eff hp 127 + 30 regen = 157, save DC 14, atk +7, dmg 25)


Adult Black Dragon (CR 14; eff AC 19 + 2 four saves= 21, eff hp 195 + 90 legendary resistances = 285, save DC 18, atk +11, dmg 112)


And last one will be...

Empyrean (CR 21; eff AC 22 + 2 magic resist +2 four saves = 26, eff hp 313 x1.25 damage immunities + 90 legendary resistances = 481, save DC 23, atk +17, dmg 139)

Cannot be evaluated

It seems like the numbers give you a rough level equivalency that breaks down at the sub-CR 1 range and at the higher CR ranges. I'm not sure about equating a Level 20 PC to an adult black dragon either, but I don't have the high-level play experience to make a recommendation there.

Click to expand...

Thanks for giving it a run through. I have not done a ton of these yet; however, when I did a quick test of giants at CR 5, 10, 15, 20, & 25 I got the following:

CR 5 giant = Level 8
CR 10 giant = Level 12
CR 15 giant = Level 18
CR 20 giant = Level 26
CR 25 giant = Level 30

PS I tired to mostly use monsters that use the updated
math (Bigby's). Using MM monsters (particularly dragons) will alter the results. I will do some more test, but based on the initial findings I do plan to tweak the table a bit.