D&D 5E Are solo monsters weaker in 5e?

[NotActuallyTim]

Not quite an infinite number--even wizards can use weapons. SOP against a Rakshasa is to cast Magic Weapon on a crossbow and commence plinking, on a Phantom Steed if necessary.

That's not quite the monster challenge I presented. In fact, given its vulnerability to magic piercing weapons wielded by good creatures, and the assumption that the wizard will have enough room to kite on a phantom steed (and that the defense of a Rakshasa is actually quite a bit weaker than a genuine dead magic zone, which would presumably stop any kind of magic such as the aforementioned Magic Weapon benefit) I'd say that a custom Wizard Eater would be quite a bit more of a challenge.

Particularly if the only way to deal damage to it was through non magically applied lightning damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's not quite the monster challenge I presented. In fact, given its vulnerability to magic piercing weapons wielded by good creatures, and the assumption that the wizard will have enough room to kite on a phantom steed (and that the defense of a Rakshasa is actually quite a bit weaker than a genuine dead magic zone, which would presumably stop any kind of magic such as the aforementioned Magic Weapon benefit) I'd say that a custom Wizard Eater would be quite a bit more of a challenge.

Particularly if the only way to deal damage to it was through non magically applied lightning damage.

Oh sure, if you add immunities to the "dead magic and FLIES" it becomes a lot harder. I obviously wouldn't be suggesting using weapons against something that was immune to everything except electricity.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How does it compare historically? Actually they were much weaker in 1e/2e with a 4 AC (roughly equivalent to an AC 16), doing less damage (2d8), and way, way weaker with only an average of about 38 hp.

Hold on. Your basic 5E Guard has a +3 to hit with his crossbow, will hit 5E AC 16 7 times in 20. An AD&D 0th level guard would hit AC 4 only 5 times in 20. That doesn't look equivalent to me.

Even from a fluff perspective, ignoring rules changes, AC 4 was chainmail + shield, which in 5E would be AC 18. From an actual odds-of-hitting perspective, AC 4 is more like 5E's AC 19: 5 times in 20 for the guards.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It will drop a PC to 0 HP, but the implications of dropping to 0 HP are very different in 5E vs. 2nd edition. In 2nd edition (and also I think in 1st edition, but I never played 1st edition) dropping to 0 HP kills you outright, and if you use the widely-used "Death's Door" rules it doesn't kill you until you hit -10 HP but it does wipe your mind clean of all spells and IIRC made you unable to fight or otherwise exert yourself for a lengthy period of time thereafter (a day?). In contrast, in 5E you can be back on your feet and fighting at full efficiency after a single bonus action spell (Healing Word) or even a completely free-except-for-gold usage of a Healing kit by someone with the Healer feat. At first level, there's still a chance the ogre could roll high and instantly kill you, but that risk rapidly fades as you gain levels.

Without insta-kill, it is impossible for the Ogre to win a fight against a party with two healers in it.

My point: looking at game stats in isolation, independent of rule changes, can lead you to believe in similarities which don't really exist.

Agreed, with some caveats. First, there is an instant-kill in 5e, and an ogre has a chance of doing enough damage in a single strike to kill a 1st level character in a single shot, and a much greater chance if it gets in a second shot against the same opponent. The main difference I still see, is that with the lower AC, the chance that the ogre gets to land a second hit is significantly lower.

Yes, they won't necessarily be dead. But if one PC is having to tend to a second that drops, that's half of your party out of the combat for that round. In addition, that character that's back in the combat is probably at much lower hit points, and is at a greater risk of being instantly killed.

With 1st level characters, if the ogre is attacking the same opponent, with a 50%+ chance of hitting, I'm guessing that character would last an average of 3 rounds against the ogre. If the PCs each have a 20-25% chance of hitting, then in theory only one will hit in a round on average. Which means the ogre is likely to be around long enough to potentially drop two of the PCs. Remember that if one of the PCs is dropped, and somebody goes to help, then half of your party is out of the combat.

Now this doesn't take into account special abilities, and magic, etc, but it also doesn't cover terrain and tactics either. So like I said it's not scientific, but it seems to imply that it is a bit weaker than earlier editions, and that bumping the AC back up would help.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hold on. Your basic 5E Guard has a +3 to hit with his crossbow, will hit 5E AC 16 7 times in 20. An AD&D 0th level guard would hit AC 4 only 5 times in 20. That doesn't look equivalent to me.

Even from a fluff perspective, ignoring rules changes, AC 4 was chainmail + shield, which in 5E would be AC 18. From an actual odds-of-hitting perspective, AC 4 is more like 5E's AC 19: 5 times in 20 for the guards.

True. I was just doing a quick calculation, which is tough because things don't line up the same way. A shield was +1 for example, and the other categories don't line up perfectly. Probably the best approach would be something like reverse the AC list +2.

So 10 = 10
9 = 13
8 = 14
7 = 13
6 = 12, etc.

But that leaves a gap between no AC and armored that doesn't exist in 5e. So it's not an exact science, but when converting you're probably better to consider that bump.

Either way, the lower AC in 5e seems to greatly weaken a lot of the monsters.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Tony Vargas]

It will drop a PC to 0 HP, but the implications of dropping to 0 HP are very different in 5E vs. 2nd edition. In 2nd edition (and also I think in 1st edition, but I never played 1st edition) dropping to 0 HP kills you outright, and if you use the widely-used "Death's Door" rules it doesn't kill you until you hit -10 HP but it does wipe your mind clean of all spells and IIRC made you unable to fight or otherwise exert yourself for a lengthy period of time thereafter (a day?).

In 1e, 'Death's Door' was an option, you were essentially bedridden for a week recovering from being at negative hps. I'm fuzzier on 2e, but, IIRC, death's door was the standard rule and dying at 0 the option, and there wasn't the long recovery time - I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember it being more forgiving somehow.

My point: looking at game stats in isolation, independent of rule changes, can lead you to believe in similarities which don't really exist.

And/Or differences that aren't really relevant.

Even from a fluff perspective, ignoring rules changes, AC 4 was chainmail + shield, which in 5E would be AC 18. From an actual odds-of-hitting perspective, AC 4 is more like 5E's AC 19: 5 times in 20 for the guards.

Case in point. What does that really indicate?

In 1e, a 1st level fighter could almost always afford splint or banded rather than chain, and DEX bonuses added regardless of armor worn. So AC 3 was not unusual and 0 not unheard of, even at 1st level. Better armor was just /better/ and the hard 'no armor' and 'leather only' proscriptions really hurt magic-users' and thieves' ACs.

Oh sure, if you add immunities to the "dead magic and FLIES" it becomes a lot harder. I obviously wouldn't be suggesting using weapons against something that was immune to everything except electricity.

"Ben, why are you going monster-hunting in a thunderstorm armed only with a kite?"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Either way, the lower AC in 5e seems to greatly weaken a lot of the monsters.

Yes, very much this. One reason why monster summoning of CR 1/4 creatures (Conjure Animals, etc.), and GWM/Sharpshooter feats are both considered extremely strong/OP is precisely because missing isn't really an issue even against extremely high-level monsters.

 

[Hussar]

According to the 5e encounter guidelines a same-CR-as-level monster would be a 'medium' challenge for a party of 4. Maybe 'medium' doesn't equate to 'real' (even in 3e, a basic same-CR-as-level encounter was supposed to be more a 'speedbump.').

The 5e guidelines give a lone monster facing a party of 3-5 a x1 multiplier to determine difficulty. That sure sounds like a baseline.

There weren't exactly encounter guidelines, at all, prior to 3e. Maybe some DMs or modules or wandering monster tables tended towards large encounters, maybe some tended towards small ones. I can't say I remember a strong tendency either way.

I would go by the #Encountered in the 1e Monster Manual as well. But, also, modules. If you start comparing encounter numbers in modules, 1e modules extremely rarely had single monsters. OTOH, if you go the 3e modules, most encounters were with 1-3 monsters.

 

[S'mon]

BTW from what I've seen so far, dragons seem a fair bit more dangerous than other monsters of their CR. A lot of creatures have very low damage output - indeed this is baked into the DMG CR table - which I think makes them feel non-threatening even if they have loads of hp. Dragons and other critters with high damage feel threatening even if their hit points are relatively low.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

BTW from what I've seen so far, dragons seem a fair bit more dangerous than other monsters of their CR. A lot of creatures have very low damage output - indeed this is baked into the DMG CR table - which I think makes them feel non-threatening even if they have loads of hp. Dragons and other critters with high damage feel threatening even if their hit points are relatively low.

Yes, especially the CR 6 Young White dragon with its 10d8 (45) (DC 15 Con save for half) 30' cone breath weapon. Three of those are theoretically only "Hard" for an 11th level group of four PCs, whereas a couple of Fire Giants are considered Deadly, but between the breath weapon and the dragon's high mobility and good visual capabilities I'd rather fight the Fire Giants, even if the dragons don't have spells.