D&D 5E Monster to-hit still seems borked.

[mlund]

They dropped the XP values of monsters a lot. Now you get 2 or 3 of something to fill threat value [A] where you used to only get 1. Yes, the +2 to hit Orc is frustratingly incompetent at hitting the Mountain Dwarf. Now there are a lot more Orcs in an encounter so it comes out in the wash.

Still, there are definitely some monsters that just make you scratch your head. Some of them look like they just got their Strength Modifier and nobody cares how many Hit Dice they have.

- Marty Lund

 

[Obryn]

They dropped the XP values of monsters a lot. Now you get 2 or 3 of something to fill threat value [A] where you used to only get 1. Yes, the +2 to hit Orc is frustratingly incompetent at hitting the Mountain Dwarf. Now there are a lot more Orcs in an encounter so it comes out in the wash.

It's not a wash, though, on the table. It's only a wash in the pure mathematical sense. This is the same mistake the 4e designers made early on with Soldiers - "Yeah, they do less damage, but they are hard to hit so they have more rounds to do damage in!" (And thus, grind was born...)

On the table, it's a very different play experience, and tracking 40 orcs is much more labor-intensive than bookkeeping for 5 or 6. It also takes a lot longer, with a whole heck of a lot more die rolling.

-O

 

[B.T.]

They dropped the XP values of monsters a lot. Now you get 2 or 3 of something to fill threat value [A] where you used to only get 1. Yes, the +2 to hit Orc is frustratingly incompetent at hitting the Mountain Dwarf. Now there are a lot more Orcs in an encounter so it comes out in the wash.

Still, there are definitely some monsters that just make you scratch your head. Some of them look like they just got their Strength Modifier and nobody cares how many Hit Dice they have.

- Marty Lund

That sounds awful.

 

[mlund]

On the table, it's a very different play experience, and tracking 40 orcs is much more labor-intensive than bookkeeping for 5 or 6. It also takes a lot longer, with a whole heck of a lot more die rolling.

The ratio shift is around 5:2, not 7:1.

Having run Orcs and whatnot in 4-5 sessions of play-testing now I'd say the book-keeping isn't a big issue. I sub-group them on initiative, few of them hit per turn, and they die in 1 or 2 hits each.

That said, we were just using a graph-paper map and otherwise theater of the mind handling for combat. If this were 4E and I was trying to shove 10 orcs and 4 characters into a tiny dungeon space, each vying for Combat Advantage via Flanking it would be a hot mess, just due to all the move actions for maneuvering.

- Marty Lund

 

[Zaukrie]

No idea why to hit for monsters should be based on stats and feats. Make monsters hit based on how powerful you want them to be in combat. It is just too much work to worry about why a centipede is +4 or +8 to hit. The important part is if they hit appropriately for their level or challenge rating.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I much prefer monsters that hit often for a low amount compared to monsters that rarely hit for a big amount. This also reduces the chances of high AC characters that can barely be hit.

 

[B.T.]

No idea why to hit for monsters should be based on stats and feats. Make monsters hit based on how powerful you want them to be in combat. It is just too much work to worry about why a centipede is +4 or +8 to hit. The important part is if they hit appropriately for their level or challenge rating.

With that much arbitrarium, you might as well be playing a videogame. I want my games to be internally consistent.

 

[Zaukrie]

Maybe the centipede is a really good hunter? Maybe it attacks well because it needs to leant that to survive. I see no logical inconsistency, it just isn't explained. I never, ever, want to have to refer to stats or feats for monsters to run them for basic things like attack bonuses. I do not want to ever worry about it when building monsters. Ever.

 

[slobo777]

With that much arbitrarium, you might as well be playing a videogame. I want my games to be internally consistent.

With that approach to design the consistency is with level and xp as opposed to stats and feats. Really all the stats, feats and other fiddly bits are just proxies for level in any case. There's no actual self-consistency, just a lot of detail. Sometimes the detail is fun. I used to love adding templates to monsters in 3E.

However, there's no build consistency for monster traits - they simply exist, bolted on to the monster "chassis" in order to make the monster behave in some way like the fluff.

For instance, monstrous centipedes have a poison attack. This is not a "level 1 vermin poison feat" that they purchase from some kind of build system. It's not an ability that a PC can buy as a background, class feature or specialty. It's arbitrarily chosen as an ability that the designers think will be an appropriate attack for the level and xp assigned to the monster (or vice-versa, it's designed, then some figure is pulled out ogf the air as to what level and xp it is worth)

I think one 5E "monster design" goal is to be able to build monsters either way round. If they do this correctly, that will mean two things - amongst many:

1) Traits such as poison bite attack will need to have a self-consistent build system (at the very least, well-written guidelines)

2) There will be target numbers for what constitutes as suitable threat for a level A xp B creature. Attack bonus, hit points, AC, number of "special feature build points" or however they want to manage it.

. . . and you should be able to use either or both systems as a guide to building cool challenges for the PCs. You can go straight to the numbers, 4E style (gets my vote), or you can build up from components 3E style (looks like this will get your vote).

I think this is a tall order for the designers, but look forward to seeing it when published!

 

[Steely_Dan]

What I'm seeing is monster attacks being based on ability scores (good), but with a semi-arbitrary +1 (drow) or +2 (gelatinous cube, hobgoblins) thrown in here or there.