D&D 5E Weak 5e monsters

[SkidAce]

...it looks like challenging my PCs with solo monsters is going to be very hard - either I'd need a gang of Tyrannosaurs or at least double their hit dice & damage...

Yeah, I START with doubling the hit points of any creature that I want to be a solo of appropriate level.

And maybe tweak a few other things.

Edit: I'm cool with the rest of the 5e combat/challenge system. Solos (and I've mostly solved that) were the only weak spot for me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I almost always have flunkies included in my encounters. Even the addition of 4 or 5 much weaker monsters makes a significant difference.

The issue I have with the 5e system is the concept that players are going to have an insane number of encounters between long rests. During a dungeon crawl, ya maybe. But most of my adventures are not dungeon crawls. If my players went 5 combat encounters every day they would probably be jailed as criminals! (they spend a lot of time in civilized areas).

I prefer to have less frequent, more meaningful, encounters. We probably average 2 combats per 6 hour session. Almost every combat is challenging and I think that adds to the characters enjoyment. Groups and DM's vary, so my style is not for all, but I do think it is a weakness of 5th ed. that they balance based on number of encounters per day and then set that number abnormally high for most circumstances.

I think, most days have 0 encounters. But usually if there is one, there may be more following on the same day.
Sending in enemies in waves can help getting up to 6-8 medium encounters. Or 3 deadly if the PCs are making too much noise...

 

[jgsugden]

It all depends upon the PCs. If you allow rolled stats and the party is walking around with a bunch of great stats, if you facilitate them long resting every 2 to 4 encounters, if you hand out magic items like there is no tomorrow (by the guidelines, PCs should find about 6 permanent magic items over their 20 level progression - meaning at 6th level they should have 1 or 2 low powered items each), or if you put up monsters that play to the strengths of the party constantly - the guidelines for monster difficulty will not help you.

If you stick close to the guidelines, the CRs are mostly ok with a few stinkers.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I START with doubling the hit points of any creature that I want to be a solo of appropriate level.

And maybe tweak a few other things.

Edit: I'm cool with the rest of the 5e combat/challenge system. Solos (and I've mostly solved that) were the only weak spot for me.

Thanks - ok looks like the t-rex they killed was just a juvenile; maybe they'll meet the mother...

 

[Syntallah]

Thanks - ok looks like the t-rex they killed was just a juvenile; maybe they'll meet the mother...

I recently threw a mated pair of T-Rexes at my Party; out hunting food for the little ones back at the nest. The ranger died in the belly of the male [stomach juices FTW] as he was running off with the still squirming rogue in his mouth, who also died after failing three death saves...

And this was the only encounter of the day, and rated only medium difficulty...

 

[Vicaring]

My own experiences with the CR in 5e has been mixed. In a short campaign where I was a player, the creatures seemed to be pushovers. Our party was regularly taking down creatures that we had no business taking down at our low level.

Once I started DMing, though, it's been consistently 180 degrees opposite that first experience. I recently had a TPK (I don't like TPKs, I don't set my combats up to be inappropriately difficult, and I attempt to, without the use of any sort of Deus Ex Machina, keep at least one party member alive. This time was impossible for me to see a solution to) where the party wiped to kobolds. I mean seriously, kobolds. Prior to that the party was very nearly wiped by a Gnome village they decided to attack. After that, in a new campaign (post-kobold TPK), the party hasn't come close to wiping, but every single fight has so far had at least one player go down (not dead, just down). And we're talking CR 1/2 zombies and the like here. The fights have actually, each one of them, felt pretty epic, with lots of movement and burning of churches and the like. Last night's game involved a Bullywug chieftain damned near killing the party's rogue (the player rolled a natural 20 on his final death save. He got back up, dusted himself off, and demanded the party let him take the bullywug's armor, or else. And legs. Frog legs is good eating. Talk about hitting a grand slam on a full count. Man, epic).

So, I know, wall of text. But I really haven't been able to wrap my brain around the difficulties yet. I don't know what I as a DM am doing differently than the previous DM. I just don't get it, from an adventure-creation, this-is-what-the-difficulty-should-be standpoint. So for now I'm just winging it.

EDIT: Actually, I think I do know what the difference is. That previous DM regularly tossed very tough creatures at us, but they were all solo creatures. My own DMing style is different, in that I tend to toss in a lot of soft squishy creatures.

So, in 5e, the more critters you have, even of low levels, is going to create a MUCH greater challenge to the party, whereas a solo one-shot is just going to be a pushover, even if its CR suggests that it should be difficult.

 

[Kithas]

So, in 5e, the more critters you have, even of low levels, is going to create a MUCH greater challenge to the party, whereas a solo one-shot is just going to be a pushover, even if its CR suggests that it should be difficult.

This exactly. Because of bounded accuracy and other factors having the numbers advantage is HUGE. If you want to challenge with a big monster give him some weak friends, this basically ups his dpr and health by a lot and divides the party's resources much more.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Here are the reasons why 5e monsters seem weak to you or anyone else who says "5e monsters are weak":

• You allowed your players to roll stats, perhaps using an even more generous method than those described in the PHB
• You allowed human variant
• You allowed feats, including those commonly regarded as unbalanced
• You allowed multi-classing, including class dipping to poach front-loaded class features
• You have awarded lots of magic items already
• You have given out magical armor, which stresses Bounded Accuracy and makes it difficult for enemies with a +5 attack bonus to hit
• You frequently allow players to gain surprise, which is almost always guarantees a lopsided rout
• You are pitting a party of 5 PCs against one big monster who is always going to lose simply because of how the Action Economy works

• Finally, you are going by the encounter guidelines in the DMG, which are quite inexact, and don't take into account any of the aforementioned points. The DMG encounter XP guidelines seem to assume an un-optimized party with no magic items, no feats, non-multiclass characters with modest ability scores, who are expected to be having an artificially high 8 encounters between long rests.

 

[AriochQ]

Here are the reasons why 5e monsters seem weak to you or anyone else who says "5e monsters are weak":

• You are pitting a party of 5 PCs against one big monster who is always going to lose simply because of how the Action Economy works

.

This. The rest of the bullet points have less of an impact and more easily balanced. Solo monsters get tore up in 5th ed, even with a pure vanilla group.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fast combat mandate of 5e means 'easy' combats (well, or quick TPKs). A party completing an encounter with just some hps and spells expended and never seeming in danger is still experiencing resource attrition, and attrition over the day, not danger within a given combat, is meant to provide the challenge in 5e as it did in classic D&D (maybe even a bit more so, since 5e lacks the arbitrary gotchyas of old-school).