D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jul 24, 2012

I don't know, this just doesn't work so well for me, because it contradicts the myth. Can there not be something else done to make it more appropriate? It eats humans, so maybe it should have bite attack that restores it hit points or something like that.

I mean, it's kinda like saying: "If you kill a Medusa, it turns into stone". Sure, something turns into stone, and there is a creature with snakes for her hair, but something is ... off.

Destil · Jul 24, 2012

Meh. Sounds like the 4E core is still there but you use it as a reference along the way rather than a starting point. It's nice to hammer home that exceptions are allowed, but this is one of the make or break issues for me and it's way to close to 3E's hot hit die mess.

GX.Sigma · Jul 24, 2012

I'd prefer it if the minotaur's defining characteristic was a complete lack of sense of direction: actual zero chance of escaping maze, and even having trouble navigating an average dungeon. That's why they live underground: they can't find their way out.

Anyway, to everyone voting for the maze immunity in D&D Next, check your playtest bestiaries. It's there.

pemerton · Jul 24, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
I'm therefore wondering the purpose of rage - is it protection against guardian and debuffs ("I'm already taking Disadvantage so you can't slow me more")? Because except in very rare circumstances it seems to be a bad choice fro the minotaur and add needless complexity. Or is it just fluff that slows the game down and makes it nastily swingy?

Good question.

Ultimatecalibur said:
It is a thematic ability. It is to help present the Minotaur as a wild, if not feral, combatant that is sometimes not in complete control of its powerful attacks.

That's not enough of an answer, though - if, mathematically, raging makes the minotaur weaker than it is very misleading, and likely to lead to misplays by the GM given it is presented as something to make the minotaur wildly threatening.

KidSnide said:
Either way, "putting disadvantage on this opponent is useless" is a perfectly reasonable special ability, provided that the abilities that impose disadvantage seem like the kind of things that should be less effective on a raging opponent.

keterys said:
The minotaur should use rage when...
1) It's ticked off cause it's having trouble hitting the super-defensive character
2) It's ticked off cause someone is giving it disadvantage with attacking

Eh, good enough.

This is all fine, but I want GM's text to tell me it. I don't want to have to do the calculations myself. And I don't want misleading flavour text.

Dark Mistress said:
I am not a fan of the article, the str for something large size only being 18 same as a strong PC was not a fan of, hill giant being mentioned at a str 20.

This seems to be going back to AD&D standards: Ogres at 18/00, Hill Giants at 19.

pemerton · Jul 24, 2012

SkidAce said:
And its odd you say that you wish to cling to 4e, because the majority of those stat blocks were "devastating" in combat abilities only.

When reading 4e statblocks for monsters, it can be helpful to remember that 4e uses a very different action resolution out of combat (namely, the skill challenge). And the stats for that are in the DC-by-level table.

This can mean that there are weird interactions around the marginal overlaps between combat and non-combat encounters. DMG2 has a bit of hand-wavey advice on how to handle this - more advice that was less hand-wavey would improve the game in this respect.

FireLance · Jul 24, 2012

vagabundo said:
FireLance said:

The dissonance I am experiencing is as follows:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> bad

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> good

Maybe it because I'm more results oriented than process oriented.

Click to expand...

There is a small bit of extra information in the second step that could be useful for the narrative.

Would it have hurt WotC to say something along the lines of:

"One of the great things about 4e was the way that the monsters' attack bonuses were closely linked to their level, so that you don't get high-level monsters that were unable to hit the characters or low-level monsters that almost always hit.

Now, some people didn't like this approach because sometimes, there didn't seem to be any relationship between a monster's ability scores and its attack bonus. In 5e, we're going to improve things for these people by explaining why a monster's attack bonus is lower or higher than its ability scores would suggest. For example, ..."

That way, it would be a case of:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> good

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> better

Then again, maybe WotC has assessed that publicly acknowledging the design influence that 4e had on 5e will cost them more sales than keeping silent on the subject.

Pickles JG · Jul 24, 2012

SkidAce said:
Not everybody builds their NPC villains the way you described. And its odd you say that you wish to cling to 4e, because the majority of those stat blocks were "devastating" in combat abilities only.

But so were the PCs stat blocks. Even if you do design 3e NPC wizards with a load of utility spells by some low level they will still have more spells to cast than rounds they can survive. It's the other side of ECL - some class abilities are not as much use in a one off fight as they are in extended play.

Chris_Nightwing · Jul 24, 2012

FireLance said:
Would it have hurt WotC to say something along the lines of:

"One of the great things about 4e was the way that the monsters' attack bonuses were closely linked to their level, so that you don't get high-level monsters that were unable to hit the characters or low-level monsters that almost always hit.

Now, some people didn't like this approach because sometimes, there didn't seem to be any relationship between a monster's ability scores and its attack bonus. In 5e, we're going to improve things for these people by explaining why a monster's attack bonus is lower or higher than its ability scores would suggest. For example, ..."

That way, it would be a case of:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> good

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> better

Then again, maybe WotC has assessed that publicly acknowledging the design influence that 4e had on 5e will cost them more sales than keeping silent on the subject.

That seems, to me, just as hand-wavey as the 4E approach. I read it rather as, start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, consider whether it's appropriate to apply a bonus (hobgoblin martial training) or penalty (clumsy giants) and if you choose to steer away from the expectation then be aware of the consequences (which in flat-mathland, shouldn't be as severe).

Pickles JG · Jul 24, 2012

I am pretty pleased with the article. One of the few pervading principles I disliked about 4e was the complete dissociation between a monster's game stats & it's description. I like levels/HD & a fudge factor to tie everything together so the "story" & numbers both work.

I am pleased to see solos & elites back together with "commons" as Arcanis calls them. It is much better for a Hobgoblin Warlord to be a level 5 elite/solo than for him to be level 10/20. However bounded the maths are +15 levels would no doubt push the flatness & having level 20 hobgoblins running low level warbands feels wrong.

While I am at it I am unsure of the bounded maths in general. All of the benefits of being highly skilled defensively have to be put into HP. This really emphasises how much they are not meat which, while it is exactly what I want, is clearly something a lot of people have issues with. I love getting away from the relentless levelling +1 treadmill though.

I do not like the Goring charge power. The fact it needs a clause to prevent you standing up as normal highlights how irrelevant being prone is in general, although I guess if it cancels disadvantage then having one Minotaur knock someone prone & his mates rage on the poor fellow is a good idea. Of course the damage gain from rage is usually less than that from having advantage. I think this is me feeling that the power should be as effective as it is withoutt needing a special case rule.
It's also very easy to charge about with no AOs or similar.

Ultimatecalibur · Jul 24, 2012

pemerton said:
That's not enough of an answer, though - if, mathematically, raging makes the minotaur weaker than it is very misleading, and likely to lead to misplays by the GM given it is presented as something to make the minotaur wildly threatening.

There is a difference between optimal tactics and viable tactics.

As it stands Rage is not optimal in most situations from a dpr perspective, but that does not mean that it is not a viable action.

Remember also that this minotaur has an int of 6, it is not supposed to be making the most tactically sound decisions all the time.