Tony Vargas
Legend
Not exactly. The 'backwards' trend-line isn't really from 4e but from 3e, when monsters were designed with very nearly the same depth of options as PCs. So it's not one instance where 5e changed direction. Maybe that's the same thing for your purposes, but I find it a distinction. 4e pulled back from 3e's peak of monster complexity back towards the 'monsters are different' de-facto philosophy of the classic game, 5e continued in that direction. FWIW.Does anybody else ever feel like 5E slid "backwards" into boring, homogeneous monster design?
If you do find monsters a little 'boring' it could be as much 5e's 'fast combat' imperative as its monster designs. You could try allowing more combat options, or constraining DPR a little, so that combats go more rounds, and there's more time for tactics to develop and play out.
There's already two similar threads going, though they may not be labeled that way, exactly, that's what Dave2008 is doing, more or less, for instance.Aside from converting everything myself, does anyone have suggestions about "4E-ifying" 5E's monsters?
My suggestion would be to approach 5e monsters like we did 1e monsters back in the day, as, well (y'all are tired of hearing it, I'm sure) "a starting point." Think of it as the basic block you'd use when the monster isn't meant to be interesting, when it's one of many or there's another, more interesting one on in the challenge, as well. When it's the main course, improvise more actions for it, fill in abilities that it might have, have it display an impressive trick or magical ability at a dramatic moment. You can come up with an extra thing or two ahead, or you can do it on the fly.