D&D 5E Monster Creation rules: Anyone else not find them particularly helpful.

[Neil the Knight]

I like what [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] said about the bite and [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] adds a cool idea with the swallow whole.

So combining the two, why not a claw attack which initiates a grapple then in the following round if the grapple still stands, a swallow whole ability.

I forget where but it was also suggested that it could have like a tongue lash ability. So maybe give it three attacks, two claws, one tongue lash.
The tongue if hits, grapples in the following round it can drag the creature closer to the hill giant, and once it's within a certain range, s bonus action to swallow. This give the creature a bit of battle feild control

 

[dave2008]

What I am going for is a Hill Giant Ghast that is CR 16, has legendary actions, uses a bite plus two claws, has a very big pack of orc ghouls that follow him around everywhere he goes, but doesn't use any weapons, wear armour, or use magic items.

I'm afraid if I pile on too much unique abilities then he will be too hard a challenge. I may have to bump him up to CR 18.

Ok, how about this:

 

[Quickleaf]

Quickleaf, I have a question for you.

The idea of a humanoid (or similar short necked bipedal monster) using a bite attack as a standard attack is absolutely ridiculous to me - i can think of no animal that has better options (like claws or weapons) that would make a bite attack this way. It is a terribly unwieldy weapon and very high risk to put your head in harms way.

Anyway, that was a long reply to ask: How do you visualize the bite attack as part of a multiattack action in terms of your world building.

Well...crack open your MM and read the ghoul description and read the hill giant description. What do they have in common? Hill giants are voracious eaters. Ghouls/ghasts are devourers of flesh. I assumed the OP selected this combination of monsters to kit-bash together because of this shared theme.

So the bite attack is this overwhelming need to consume flesh that overrides even certain elements self-preservation. Think a shark's bloodlust. Basically it's a giant cannibal. In playing the monster at the table I'd often be replacing one of its claw attacks with a grapple and narrate that as eagerly grasping a character and attempting to bite off a leg or an arm.

EDIT: There are other (arguably better) ways to present a bite attack, such as what is suggested above. So it bears repeating: I was being deliberately conservative in my stat block because (a) I have no idea whether the OP will use any of this, and (b) the OP seems to have a very different philosophy about monster design than I do. IF I was doing this for my own game, it would look quite different and far less conservative.

 

[dave2008]

Well...crack open your MM and read the ghoul description and read the hill giant description. What do they have in common? Hill giants are voracious eaters. Ghouls/ghasts are devourers of flesh. I assumed the OP selected this combination of monsters to kit-bash together because of this shared theme.

I think you miss-understood. I agree that the bite attack is an important part of the monster. The issue I have is the idea of a humanoid attempting a bite attack without first gaining some control of the target (i.e. a grapple).

So the bite attack is this overwhelming need to consume flesh that overrides even certain elements self-preservation. Think a shark's bloodlust. Basically it's a giant cannibal. In playing the monster at the table I'd often be replacing one of its claw attacks with a grapple and narrate that as eagerly grasping a character and attempting to bite off a leg or an arm.

Well sharks are a bad example as they have no choice. I believe I addressed that in my question to you. Regardless, I get your point, it does wall into the ghoulish theme for it to reckless bite (perhaps without proficiency?). It could possibly work with the ghoul. However, the idea of a giant ghoul bending down an leading with its head seems a bit silly to me. Personally I prefer to go with claw/claw w/ grapple + bonus bite or a bite that replaces the claw/claw attack. The single bite represents the extra time/effort/complexity of getting the head into position for a bite without a proper grapple.

EDIT: There are other (arguably better) ways to present a bite attack, such as what is suggested above. So it bears repeating: I was being deliberately conservative in my stat block because (a) I have no idea whether the OP will use any of this, and (b) the OP seems to have a very different philosophy about monster design than I do. IF I was doing this for my own game, it would look quite different and far less conservative.

I apologize, I think I was unclear and came off a little aggressive. I wasn't trying to bash your suggestion, I was trying to get your take on what I see as a world building issue with some MM monsters. Does it bother you that the claw/claw/bite routine this is a rather common thing in D&D monsters when there should be some sort of control / grapple before the bite? I would be happy if the bite was just contingent on the monster hitting with a claw or better yet both claws. There doesn't have to be a grapple.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think you miss-understood. I agree that the bite attack is an important part of the monster. The issue I have is the idea of a humanoid attempting a bite attack without first gaining some control of the target (i.e. a grapple).

Well sharks are a bad example as they have no choice. I believe I addressed that in my question to you. Regardless, I get your point, it does wall into the ghoulish theme for it to reckless bite (perhaps without proficiency?). It could possibly work with the ghoul. However, the idea of a giant ghoul bending down an leading with its head seems a bit silly to me. Personally I prefer to go with claw/claw w/ grapple + bonus bite or a bite that replaces the claw/claw attack. The single bite represents the extra time/effort/complexity of getting the head into position for a bite without a proper grapple.

I apologize, I think I was unclear and came off a little aggressive. I wasn't trying to bash your suggestion, I was trying to get your take on what I see as a world building issue with some MM monsters. Does it bother you that the claw/claw/bite routine this is a rather common thing in D&D monsters when there should be some sort of control / grapple before the bite? I would be happy if the bite was just contingent on the monster hitting with a claw or better yet both claws. There doesn't have to be a grapple.

I see, you're asking about the philosophy of monster design. I'm on your page now.

Yes, your interpretation of the action - lean down to grab, lift to mouth and bite - is how I'd do it in my own game too. Personally, I'm very willing to hack monster design to get the result I want, and it's primarily an artistic process for me (I find the maths mostly easy to work out). In this context, however, I was deliberately limiting myself because I realized the OP was coming from a different framework than me. I started to add stuff (like the limb devouring) and then caught myself and stopped. I think [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] was looking for a more 3e style direct translation of "ghast template applied to hill giant, and leveled up."

To your question from my own perspective...Yes, I think claw/claw/bite can feel incongruous, depending on the monster. For example, bullywugs biting as part of a multiattack feels off to me (in the case of the bullywug I'd just give it 2 spear attacks, ignore its bite, and if necessary adjust CR accordingly). OTOH, a bite as part of a multiattack fits quadrupeds like dragons just fine.

More broadly speaking, as DM I've always found narrating a non-lethal bite from a large/huge monster to be challenging; the adult blue dragon bite you...you take 30 damage, you're hurt but you're not dead...um...

Now, I've become more savvy about how to narrate these things, but it still isn't 100% natural, I have to think about it: The blue dragon clamps down over your head and arm, your magic staff the only thing keeping its jaws from snapping shut. <<I have to be careful to avoid implying any damage to the PC's equipment.>> Razor sharp teeth dig into your shoulder and a mild electrical current runs through your body, as you can see pinpoints of blue-hot lightning dancing deep in its gullet. In frustration, the dragon dislodges the staff from its mouth, knocking you to your side. <<However, because the attack doesn't knock prone, I have to remember to narrate that the PC recovers and is not Prone.>> Quickly rolling to your feet, you see crimson blood running down your arm to your fingers.

What's narratively jarring for me is that in movies and literature when a big thing bites a little thing, it's usually curtains for the little thing...unless they're swallowed whole and can escape from inside...or sacrifice a piece of equipment to jam its jaws open.

One of the things that I've come to miss in D&D is players being comfortable with the DM ad-libbing these sorts of complications. Maybe it was just because we were kids and barely knew what we were doing, but I would always be aiming towards creating these kinds of scenes when a bite attack from a big monster came into play. In adulthood with more savvy players and D&D being more transparent, you'd really need players to be onboard with this sort of improvising. I actually was called out on it by some players (who'd adopted D&D during 3e and played 4e) who felt like I was changing the rules under their feet.

 

[dave2008]

I see, you're asking about the philosophy of monster design. I'm on your page now.

Yes, you got it and thank you for your response / perspective. It aligns with mine pretty much - I don't feel so crazy now

I agree about huge & gargantuan creatures. I generally roll with it, but I have thought about implementing something like power wod kill:

Bite: Melee Weapon Attack +8 to hit, one target. Hit: If the target has less than 50 hit points it dies. Otherwise it takes 3d10 + 4 piercing damage.

Something like that.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, you got it and thank you for your response / perspective. It aligns with mine pretty much - I don't feel so crazy now

I agree about huge & gargantuan creatures. I generally roll with it, but I have thought about implementing something like power wod kill:

Bite: Melee Weapon Attack +8 to hit, one target. Hit: If the target has less than 50 hit points it dies. Otherwise it takes 3d10 + 4 piercing damage.

Something like that.

Brutal! That's probably fine for a monster meant to be facing 17th level and higher PCs (when an enemy spellcaster with 17th level spellcasting ability could cast a 9th level spell).

For me, the process of design (whether I'm doing a building concept, page layout, or a D&D monster) really requires us to use our imaginations to walk through how whatever we're designing is meant to be used. For example, with a monster I need to imagine how it should feel and function when the PCs encounter it, I need to imagine what it does when it's not getting pestered by bothersome adventurers. One way or the other, I'll get the mechanical rules design to reflect that, but it needs something crisply imagined in order to reflect.

For example, simply by naming this hill giant ghast a "barrow giant", you've evoked an old British burial mound as its lair and given it a certain feel. This is a monster that lives in or around some kind of primitive tomb. And that opens up creative ways to narrate the monster & for players to interact with it. Maybe its high natural AC and Undead Armor are due to wearing tombstones like armor? Maybe a casting of stone shape or several PCs cutting off the roped together tombstones would lower its AC down to 13 and remove its Undead Armor trait?

And how do we imagine its claw attacks working? The monster stands over 15 feet tall (being Huge), but it's not battering PCs around like bowling pins, instead it's paralyzing them just like a ghast would. What would that look like in play and how would we expect a DM to narrate?

And, even more importantly, what is this giant doing in the barrows? Who is buried there, was it the giant or its kin? How did it become undead? What is its purpose keeping it from moving on to the giant afterlife?

IME, fixating on stat blocks and rules mechanics will kill the originality of a monster concept before it gets off the ground. Someone on these boards once said "story first", and nowhere is that more immediately felt than in monster design.

 

[dave2008]

And how do we imagine its claw attacks working? The monster stands over 15 feet tall (being Huge), but it's not battering PCs around like bowling pins, instead it's paralyzing them just like a ghast would. What would that look like in play and how would we expect a DM to narrate?

That is a really good point and it should be revised. Maybe a push, prone, or grab option + paralyze. That is what I like about design monsters on these boards. Putting something up and then getting good constructive feedback.

 

[Scary]

No, I find the guidelines work well in general. Don't forget to adjust for resistances / immunities & "features."

I've got a spread sheet that helps with calculating CR if your interested.

Yes, please, I would like to see that or you can send me a copy, please

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[dave2008]

Yes, please, I would like to see that or you can send me a copy, please

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using EN World mobile app

I'm going to add it to the download's at the end of the month with some other monster creation templates. I will post a link here when I get it uploaded.