Monsters - older edition more challenging?

[CM]

I share your concern with a lot of the stuff in the MM and the first few adventure hardcovers. Judging by the stuff in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, I think the design team has started to remember what made monsters memorable. Just about everything has a unique quirk or two. Reminds me a lot of 4e monster design.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

Ah, that Monster Talent supplement looks great!

One of the reviewers cites the Balor as an example of things that need to be fixed, wherein an iconic source of fear is now something you'd be embarrassed to put up against players as there'd be a letdown in defeating it. I'm of the same mindset. Any chance you (or someone on here) can vouch for it being worth the price tag (and have playtested it?)

I picked it up yesterday after reading this thread. Haven't had time to playtest it yet (obviously!), but I like it quite a bit! I'd say worth the price tag easily. A few notes:

-The Balors are great! Lots of distinctive abilities for them. The Vampire, the Aboleth, the Rakshasha and the Beholder were also big stand outs for me.

-New abilities are solid. Lots of auras, which I'm always a fan of. Aboleths are enslaving multiple people at a time, Beholders can move their antimagic beams on a reaction (brilliant, and obvious in hindsight!), Vampires charm as a bonus action (or a reaction if they're about to get hit!). If you've got three Ankhegs in a fight, one can have a harder shell with resistance, one bursts out of the ground on a recharge, and one has a spiked shell that damages you if you hit it- what would have been a dull slugfest against three bags of HP now presents some tactical decisions, and a less bored DM! Banshees and ghosts are really great too, less of a one trick wonder than they were- I'm excited to run a banshee beyond the first round now!

-There is a little bit of "now the creature has an extra attack!", which is a bit dull and we could have thought of ourselves. But, one thing I really love is the creature using it's signature move as a bonus action rather than a full action- it lets the players see whats unique about the creature, but it still dishes out the damage from it's multi-attack that it needs to be a challenge.

-A lot of creatures have abilities that let them negate damage three times- a bit like "Legendary resistance" against fighters. The description of how the creatures do this is really cool- ghosts phase into the ethreal realm and come back, frost giants make an ice wall, etc. I think my players wouldn't enjoy this feature, but the descriptions are cool, so I'll mechanically make it like a "Shield" spell which will feel more fair to them.

-"Boss" creatures have a bonus action that lets a few of their minions use their reaction to attack- I like this quite a bit, because it'll make the players a bit more hesitant to just focus fire on the leader if they know two rounds worth of attacks are coming from the smaller ones.

I recommend it, good buy, with the caveat I haven't brought it to the table yet.

 

[Schmoe]

I think there are good and bad points about monster design in 5e. On the plus side, even basic chaff such as goblins and kobolds have unique abilities that really make them feel different, whereas in 1e a goblin was about the same as a kobold, an orc, a hobgoblin, etc.

However, quite a few advanced monsters lost a bunch of tactical options and some of the puzzle aspects are gone, especially with golems. To be fair, the golems started to lose their special status with 3e and the orb spells.

At any rate, I like having opponents that require study and preparation to defeat. I think it's a good thing if the party has to retreat from time to time to figure out a new approach.

 

[Li Shenron]

IIRC, during 5e playtest the designers have mentioned many times about the idea of setting the monsters complexity baseline LOW in order to have 'basic' monsters (3.5 monsters were typically exhausting for the DM to run decently because they had way too many features and abilities), and then provide optional add-on abilities to have 'advanced' monsters. Unfortunately they didn't really develop the second part of the idea... there are very few monsters in the MM with optional additional features.

 

[Oofta]

IIRC, during 5e playtest the designers have mentioned many times about the idea of setting the monsters complexity baseline LOW in order to have 'basic' monsters (3.5 monsters were typically exhausting for the DM to run decently because they had way too many features and abilities), and then provide optional add-on abilities to have 'advanced' monsters. Unfortunately they didn't really develop the second part of the idea... there are very few monsters in the MM with optional additional features.

There are a couple of templates in the DMG, as well as a list of features that monsters have. It could certainly be more extensive, but I modify monsters all the time. It's not that hard to add those features or simply levels of an appropriate class if that makes more sense.

I could have wished for more (I also want a flying Delorean) but it does exist.

 

[Li Shenron]

There are a couple of templates in the DMG, as well as a list of features that monsters have. It could certainly be more extensive, but I modify monsters all the time. It's not that hard to add those features or simply levels of an appropriate class if that makes more sense.

I could have wished for more (I also want a flying Delorean) but it does exist.

Adding one or more special abilities is very easy. Figuring out the CR/XP adjustment less easy but also less important.

It would have been nice however to have set suggestions in the MM, because those would enrich the world narrative, a sidebar that says e.g. 1 Vrock every 10 can cast Mirror Image. It adds something to the common baseline of all tables.

 

[Oofta]

Adding one or more special abilities is very easy. Figuring out the CR/XP adjustment less easy but also less important.

It would have been nice however to have set suggestions in the MM, because those would enrich the world narrative, a sidebar that says e.g. 1 Vrock every 10 can cast Mirror Image. It adds something to the common baseline of all tables.

I don't disagree, but I also understand the desire to avoid bloat.

The point of my response was that all monsters have optional abilities as spelled out in the DMG. If you start giving unique abilities to specific monsters (Vrocks in your case), then it's implying that the only monsters that can have special abilities are those that are called out.

Personally I'd have liked to see an appendix/chapter with nothing but templates and upgrades to add on to monsters, but at least they gave us the idea. I'd also like an anti-gravity hover-board.

 

[Stormdale]

I’ve been DMing since 1982 and find many 5e monsters as written are boring as hell to run. I like to run more old school games and find many 5e monsters to have a couple of tricks but no substance. I see the monster manual as the baseline and as such monsters should be/need to be tweaked/modified so I usually add 1e or 2e or even 3e abilities (I like my demons/evils having lots of spell options so give them back) for more oomph.

I also have bought back a more old school style of Magic Resistance- monsters with MR either take 1/2 dam if they fail a save, or no dam if they pass it – just like many class abilities pcs have. Some monsters also need magic weapons to hit, but the amount of magic pew-pew cantrips wielders can use mitigates that “Oh crap” we need a magic weapon to hit somewhat.

Stormdale