This isn't anywhere close to RAW, and it doesn't factor in imposing debilitating conditions at all, making it extremely inaccurate. A monster that deals low damage but can charm, frighten, paralyze, etc. will be much more dangerous than a monster that just deals high damage. I also don't think the difference between a 5 and 10 foot range makes that big a difference, and you forgot to account for bigger creatures within a 15 or 20 foot reach.
75 HP (750), AC 17 (600), immune to fire (40), 24 damage at 5 foot range (24), +2 PB (-500), flight (150), 15 foot cone AOE (-250). I'm not sure how to calculate AOE damage, so I think you missed something here.
Final result: 825.
I don't think this works.
Now I'll try something the system works for, a werewolf.
AC 15 (200), 71 HP (710), skipping Pack tactics because you forgot things like that, 22 damage at 150/600 range (132 ish), proficiency bonus (-500).
75 HP (750), AC 17 (600), immune to fire (40), 24 damage at 5 foot range (24), +2 PB (-500), flight (150), 15 foot cone AOE (-250). I'm not sure how to calculate AOE damage, so I think you missed something here.
Final result: 825.
I don't think this works.
750+600+40+24+Damage at 10ft 48+zero PB bonus+ flying 150+No penalty for AoE range of 15ft -- that totals 1612 which is 512pts more than the MM. It's close.
If you want to know the actual formula that appears to have been used, we can say the following:
damage is roughly sqrt(xp value) * 0.85. Attack bonus is roughly 3 + damage/12. Area damage is counted at double value. Damage is averaged over 3 rounds.
HP is roughly sqrt(xp value)*2.1. AC is roughly 13 + HP/50.
A monster might be higher in one category and lower in another, but evidence for tradeoffs is limited.
Likewise, special attacks (status effects) and special defenses (immunities, legendary resistances, etc) are inconsistently handled and frequently seem to not be counted at all.
This mostly works CR for CR 1/8 (expect 4.5 damage and 10 hp) to 20 (expect 134 damage and 316 hp), monsters above CR 20 seem to fall below the curve (a CR 30, at 155,000 xp, should be 335 damage and 787 hp)
Now I'll try something the system works for, a werewolf.
AC 15 (200), 71 HP (710), skipping Pack tactics because you forgot things like that, 22 damage at 150/600 range (132 ish), proficiency bonus (-500).
Final result: 532.
Still broken, even on simple monsters.
AC15 (200) + 71HP (710) + 22 damage at 120 x6 (132) + 22 damage at 60 x4 (240) + 22 damage at 30 x3 (90) + 22 damage at 10 x2 (44) + (23) and no Area of Effect damage (-250).
My total is 1190.
Why are you calculating damage at every range a monster can reach? I don't think a monster should get bonus points from high range plus bonus points for all the lower ranges it can hit too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Calculate the monster's XP by adding these figures:
Multiply the HP by 10
if the AC is over14 then add 200 for each point above 14
Count the Immunities and multiply by 40
Count the Resistances and multiply that by 10
Add damage at distance (DaD) 120x6, 60x4, 30x3, 10x2, 5x1
Take the PB, subtract 3, then multiply by 500
If Flying add PBx75
If it delivers AoE damage below 15ft radius subtract 250
If it delivers AoE damage beyond 15ft radius, divide the radius by 5, subtract 3 from the result, then multiply that by 250
Count the number of Legendary Resistances it has and multiply that by 800
Now you have any monster's XP very close to Rules as Written (RaW).
This isn't anywhere close to RAW, and it doesn't factor in imposing debilitating conditions at all, making it extremely inaccurate. A monster that deals low damage but can charm, frighten, paralyze, etc. will be much more dangerous than a monster that just deals high damage. I also don't think the difference between a 5 and 10 foot range makes that big a difference, and you forgot to account for bigger creatures within a 15 or 20 foot reach.
Testing this:
kobold warrior: HP 7 (70), AC 14 (0), DaD is 4 damage at distance 20/60 (16), PB 2 (-500), total xp value -414. Not very close to 25.
Let's test a Red Dragon Wyrmling.
75 HP (750), AC 17 (600), immune to fire (40), 24 damage at 5 foot range (24), +2 PB (-500), flight (150), 15 foot cone AOE (-250). I'm not sure how to calculate AOE damage, so I think you missed something here.
Final result: 825.
I don't think this works.
Now I'll try something the system works for, a werewolf.
AC 15 (200), 71 HP (710), skipping Pack tactics because you forgot things like that, 22 damage at 150/600 range (132 ish), proficiency bonus (-500).
Final result: 532.
Still broken, even on simple monsters.
750+600+40+24+Damage at 10ft 48+zero PB bonus+ flying 150+No penalty for AoE range of 15ft -- that totals 1612 which is 512pts more than the MM. It's close.
AC15 (200) + 71HP (710) + 22 damage at 120 x6 (132) + 22 damage at 60 x4 (240) + 22 damage at 30 x3 (90) + 22 damage at 10 x2 (44) + (23) and no Area of Effect damage (-250).
My total is 1190.
If you want to know the actual formula that appears to have been used, we can say the following:
This mostly works CR for CR 1/8 (expect 4.5 damage and 10 hp) to 20 (expect 134 damage and 316 hp), monsters above CR 20 seem to fall below the curve (a CR 30, at 155,000 xp, should be 335 damage and 787 hp)
Why are you calculating damage at every range a monster can reach? I don't think a monster should get bonus points from high range plus bonus points for all the lower ranges it can hit too.