Monsters - older edition more challenging?

[Ralif Redhammer]

Those monsters are generally really inventive, with creative ability sets and powers. They really can change up the combat dynamic and make for interesting opponents. Would also recommend that book.

It might also be a good idea to slip in some monsters from Tome of Beasts. Classical monsters are neat, but most players have an idea of their weaknesses. Surprising them with something new might be very effective.

 

[CapnZapp]

The point wasn't one where "you can easily add..." is an appropriate reply.

The point is "it's not in the product you pay money for any more".

The point is "we used to get... now we don't"

In general, advanced users of the D&D product are abandoned; getting less support in decades.

Our only hope is that PF2 becomes enough of a success that WotC feels obliged to start actually adding crunch for once.

Not breadth-crunch; the relatively simple task of adding more ways to create characters.

No, I'm talking depth-crunch, that makes building existing characters more complex, satisfying and mechanically deep.

 

[jgsugden]

Again: As someone that played a number of wizards in the old days (AD&D), the examples given here are a bit unrealistic. You can't put together a puzzle if you don't have enough pieces, and even with far more spell slots in the old days, you never had enough to prepare oddball spells.

Who memorized Dig? As for Grease, few wizards kept it after they gained a few levels and had more need of extra Magic Missiles. Unless you had scrolls, or you had specific knowledge about a specific threat that allowed you to select the perfect spell, you generally had a narrow selection of spells prepared - not 'creative' spells prepared just in case you hit a golem. Even with far more spell slots.

 

[Oofta]

The point wasn't one where "you can easily add..." is an appropriate reply.

The point is "it's not in the product you pay money for any more".

The point is "we used to get... now we don't"

In general, advanced users of the D&D product are abandoned; getting less support in decades.

Our only hope is that PF2 becomes enough of a success that WotC feels obliged to start actually adding crunch for once.

Not breadth-crunch; the relatively simple task of adding more ways to create characters.

No, I'm talking depth-crunch, that makes building existing characters more complex, satisfying and mechanically deep.

The response is: it can be added in easily and every edition of D&D has required a DM to adjust the game to fit their group. This edition is selling as well or better than any previous version. It works quite well for me and my group. Is it perfect? Of course not.

If you hate 5E so much, why play it? There are plenty of options, perhaps PathFinder would be a better option for you. No game can be the perfect fit for everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you hate 5E so much, why play it? There are plenty of options, perhaps PathFinder would be a better option for you. No game can be the perfect fit for everyone.

5e has more obligation to try than most, though, since it was concieved in that wierd kumbaya please-let-the-edition-war-be-over spirit of the Next playtest, "One edition to rule them al..." ..er, I mean, "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D."

The point wasn't one where "you can easily add..." is an appropriate reply.

Adding monsters has always been something DMs do. It's been more art than science in most editions, but if you're up for running 5e at all, you should be up for artistically adding or modding - or just converting - monsters, especially if you're missing an old monster or version of one. Heck, for lower-level monsters, just grab the 1e version and convert on the fly.

 

[Oofta]

5e has more obligation to try than most, though, since it was concieved in that wierd kumbaya please-let-the-edition-war-be-over spirit of the Next playtest, "One edition to rule them al..." ..er, I mean, "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D."

Hasn't every edition tried to be the best edition ever? Oh, and I thought 5E was meant to be the "Please forgive us for trying to make an MMO into a tabletop game of World of Warcraft" edition.

Adding monsters has always been something DMs do. It's been more art than science in most editions, but if you're up for running 5e at all, you should be up for artistically adding or modding - or just converting - monsters, especially if you're missing an old monster or version of one. Heck, for lower-level monsters, just grab the 1e version and convert on the fly.

I've created custom monsters in every edition, particularly if I found a cool mini. I find it easier and faster in 5E than in most previous editions. I will agree that if you're running a high level game you need to make a commitment to think outside the box. Or at least add more boxes until you get the desired result.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

My recollection of how a lot of those fights went back in the day:

“I hit it with my broadsword”

“It appears unaffected. It swings back and hits you for 13 points of damage”

“I hit it with my dagger+1”

“It appears unaffected. It swings back and hits you for 11 points of damage”

“I cast magic missile”

“The magic missiles bounce back and hit you in the face”

“Heck, I’m going to try fireball”

“It appears unaffected. It swings back and hits you for 17 points of damage”

“Well, we’re all almost out of HP. We run for our lives!”

Granted, we were all much younger back then, and less…sophisticated. These days, I like to think that some PC would come up with a clever workaround.

Again: As someone that played a number of wizards in the old days (AD&D), the examples given here are a bit unrealistic. You can't put together a puzzle if you don't have enough pieces, and even with far more spell slots in the old days, you never had enough to prepare oddball spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hasn't every edition tried to be the best edition ever? Oh, and I thought 5E was meant to be the "Please forgive us for trying to make an MMO into a tabletop game of World of Warcraft" edition.

I suppose not every edition technically tried to be the best ever - 0e, for instance, didn't have to try, because it was the only edition at the time, and 1e & BECMI were probably not trying to out-do eachother, but to ... well, I'm not sure what the point of that was...

5e, though, is very much a 'compromise edition,' meant to heal the rift of the edition war (obviously with mixed results), and is thus meant to be 'for everyone' (every extant D&Der at the time, who cared to respond to surveys, anyway), regardless of prior-edition preference or playstyle.
So it was really aiming for 'broadly acceptable,' and 'evocative of the classic game' more than 'best.' A harder bar to clear, in many ways, but it made it, but for a few stragglers like the Capn...

... and a few mixed metaphors, like that one. ::ugh::

I've created custom monsters in every edition, particularly if I found a cool mini. I find it easier and faster in 5E than in most previous editions.

It's less involved than 3.5, more so than 4e - you can't just plug in level-appropriate numbers, let alone have a balky bit of obsolete-at-release software do it for you - but, still calls for some of the artistry/instinct/experience/whatever we applied back in the day.

I think any 'missing monsters' complaint, at this point, must be more about the validation of seeing it in print, than 'needing' it for use in your own game. If you are a new/inexperienced DM, you aren't aware of the 'missing' beast so don't need it, if you are an old grognard, you're more than capable of whipping it up in your sleep.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Again: As someone that played a number of wizards in the old days (AD&D), the examples given here are a bit unrealistic. You can't put together a puzzle if you don't have enough pieces, and even with far more spell slots in the old days, you never had enough to prepare oddball spells.

Although I never encountered one, I remember hearing people talk about the "Batman Wizard" of 3.0, with a utility haversack full of countless scrolls for every unusual situation. I think that the ability to carry scrolls was considered a core power of the wizard class, for some reason.

 

[Oofta]

Although I never encountered one, I remember hearing people talk about the "Batman Wizard" of 3.0, with a utility haversack full of countless scrolls for every unusual situation. I think that the ability to carry scrolls was considered a core power of the wizard class, for some reason.

I used to do that. Back when men were men, women were scarce and sheep were nervous. Or wait .. no ... back when the wizard was a glass cannon that didn't have that many spells at their disposal unless they used scrolls and wands. Limited spell slots, entire categories of spells not allowed if you specialized, etc.

It really depended on your DM and the style of play. If you had a DM that allowed the flexibility to do things like turn a section of floor into mud and then turn it back to rock after the bad guys were buried up their necks in muck for example. Some of that flexibility is still there of course, but scrolls made it easier to have your mainline spells set up for your primary purpose and have scrolls for backup.