Jester David
Hero
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.
Monsters - older edition more challenging?
jgsugden
Legend
You're talking about the theory of old D&D, not the real practice we saw - at least not in any of the campaigns I saw.
PCs did not have a spell prepared to dig a hole when they encountered a golem. The spellcasters buffed their allies and stood aside while the fighter did their thing.
Demons had a plethora of spells - but usually only relied upon one or two.
The changes in the modern editions have been made to resolve problems observed with these older systems.
It wasn't fun for wizards to be useless against a golem, so now they are of limited use, but still are useful.
They trimmed out the plethora of spells from the demon and devil spell lists and gave them magical abilities that suit their nature - resulting in monsters that are not weighted down by unused excessive options and have a 'tighter feel' that highlights the intended tactics for the beast.
I think they went a bit too far in both of these regards. It would be nice to see golems have Limited Magic Immunity like the Rakshasa and to see Demons and Devils have a bit more versatile spellcasting (like Dragons can).
PCs did not have a spell prepared to dig a hole when they encountered a golem. The spellcasters buffed their allies and stood aside while the fighter did their thing.
Demons had a plethora of spells - but usually only relied upon one or two.
The changes in the modern editions have been made to resolve problems observed with these older systems.
It wasn't fun for wizards to be useless against a golem, so now they are of limited use, but still are useful.
They trimmed out the plethora of spells from the demon and devil spell lists and gave them magical abilities that suit their nature - resulting in monsters that are not weighted down by unused excessive options and have a 'tighter feel' that highlights the intended tactics for the beast.
I think they went a bit too far in both of these regards. It would be nice to see golems have Limited Magic Immunity like the Rakshasa and to see Demons and Devils have a bit more versatile spellcasting (like Dragons can).
The Crimson Binome
Hero
I'm not sure what you mean by that. A stone golem in 5E is as vulnerable to Fireball than a troll is, or nearly so, because Magic Resistance is practically worthless when you don't have a decent save bonus to back it up.
jgsugden
Legend
In the old days, a fireball did nothing to a golem. Now they have magic resistance, which means that your spells are less useful against them than other foes with similar abilities... pretty straight forward. You don't seem to be missing anything.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
My point is that wizards aren't limited against golems at all, unless you're specifically playing an enchanter. For wizards who would normally react to a strong enemy by casting Fireball, they are still operating at nearly 100% capacity against golems, because Magic Resistance is a non-factor.
If Magic Resistance worked like it did in AD&D or 3E, or if golems had resistance against damage caused from spells, then wizards would be limited-but-still-useful against them. If it was un-fun before for wizards to be worthless against golems, then it's un-fun now because a golem is just a sack of HP with no interesting features.
MechaPilot
Explorer
Original? No.
However, I have lifted mechanics and concepts from 4e to add more tactical depth to 5e's monsters, especially the legendary ones intended to be encountered alone (or, mostly alone).
CapnZapp
Legend
SSSSHHHHHHHH Don't you remember you are not allowed to say this edition has issues ??? I am sure the Stormwind Brigade will soon set you straight.
toucanbuzz
No rule is inviolate
Golems are a prime example. When your regular tactic of "bash them till they're dead" can't work, you were forced to be creative. A wizard might Dig a pit or create an illusion of a bridge over the pit of acid, and so on to defeat the golem. While I suppose that all still could work today, there's not an incentive to be creative when it's much easier to blast it down.
We could go on: Drow once were fearful. Well armed, armored, with poison and solid magic resistance. They used to be an oh-crap encounter. And that's just the foot-soldier. Now, they're slightly weaker than a hobgoblin. Glorified elves with a faerie fire spell.
Anyways, my point was that monsters with unique abilities and immunities were created to challenge players to be more creative, cautious, and devious in facing them, and largely (not entirely) that's been taken away. Of course, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting me from putting it back. The DM is always right, right?
We could go on: Drow once were fearful. Well armed, armored, with poison and solid magic resistance. They used to be an oh-crap encounter. And that's just the foot-soldier. Now, they're slightly weaker than a hobgoblin. Glorified elves with a faerie fire spell.
Anyways, my point was that monsters with unique abilities and immunities were created to challenge players to be more creative, cautious, and devious in facing them, and largely (not entirely) that's been taken away. Of course, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting me from putting it back. The DM is always right, right?
Oofta
Legend
Which is all good if the wizard has the right combination of spells and a handy pit of acid available.
But here's something else I've learned over the years. Whether I agree or even really understand the attitude, many players just want to blast away at the golem. They don't want to have to dig a pit or "waste" time with creative solutions. Hitting something immune to magic is not a "challenge" it's just annoying and makes them feel useless.
Puzzles are not for everyone, but can easily added into the game if your group enjoys it.
Similar Threads
D&D General
The core monster lineup across all editions
