D&D 5E 5e Hardcore: Monster Manual

dave2008 · Feb 1, 2017

Hemlock said:
Responding to a couple of points:

The Ancient Red's breath weapon does about 30% more fire damage than the Meteor Swarm--seems clear that it is actually hotter than a Meteor Swarm. Unless you're planning on the ancient red actually vomiting out stones onto the party for extra damage, it doesn't seem right to count the bludgeoning damage when trying to find an analogy for how hot the dragon breath is.

True, but I was looking at purely damage. From my perspective on this topic it doesn't matter what type. I thought we just discussing monster damage relative to PC damage.

Hemlock said:
Then you probably want to remove Dragon Sorcerer from your campaign as a class. If dragons aren't magical spellcasters, then why would having a dragon ancestor make you a magical spellcaster?

Well, not me (I like spell casting dragons), but I get your point. That would make sense thematically.

Hemlock said:
Good gaming to you too Dave!

You too!

dave2008 · Feb 1, 2017

I have added a quartet of ogres to the giants section. This are mostly updates from 4e, with one new one inspired by [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]

FormerlyHemlock · Feb 1, 2017

dave2008 said:
Well, not me (I like spell casting dragons), but I get your point. That would make sense thematically.

Sorry, I misread. Edited my post to clarify.

dave2008 said:
True, but I was looking at purely damage. From my perspective on this topic it doesn't matter what type. I thought we just discussing monster damage relative to PC damage.

I was discussing the reason why I don't want to just pump up the numbers. One of the real benefits to the 5E philosophy sometimes known as "bounded accuracy" is that numbers stay grounded and descriptive. I know how to describe an adult red dragon's breath today, either in game terms (hotter than a 9th level Delayed Blast Fireball that's been charging for four rounds) or in descriptive terms ("can melt steel into a puddle"), and I can describe an ancient red dragon's breath just barely (hotter than a Meteor Swarm; "hotter than the heart of a star; can vaporize steel"). But if I double the damage from 91 to 182, what does that mean except more numbers? It's meaningless to me.

That was one of the things I really hated about 3E, and why I never played it except in CRPGs. I knew what AC 0 meant in AD&D ("as tough as an armored steel knight") and the equivalent in 5E is AC 20; but in 3E, what was AC 33? How was it different from AC 44? I don't know how to describe these things except as raw numbers, and that turns me off.

I wouldn't want to do the same thing to my dragons' breath weapons, so to me baselines like "hotter than a Meteor Swarm" really are important and I don't want to exceed them.

MostlyDm · Feb 1, 2017

CapnZapp said:
Thanks, but ten CR 1 creatures are toast with a single fireball, which is only a minor inconvenience to a CR 10 critter.

Not saying you're wrong, only that your comparison doesn't paint the full picture: letting all ten foes reach you is a mistake, so you don't do that.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, first of all, my statement was that they won't be one-hit-kills without resource expenditure. That is to say, the SS or GWM will not be one-shotting them.

A paladin burning a smite, a Wizard burning a spell, sure, then maybe. But that's my whole point. Even just CR 1 means they're tough enough that you have to consider what resources they are worth.

Also, if those CR 1 monsters have ranged attacks or just generally don't clump up, a single fireball still won't do. So, overall, I don't think you're really countering my point.

dave2008 · Feb 1, 2017

Hemlock said:
Sorry, I misread. Edited my post to clarify.

No worries, that is what I assumed (that or I miss-typed).

Hemlock said:
I was discussing the reason why I don't want to just pump up the numbers. One of the real benefits to the 5E philosophy sometimes known as "bounded accuracy" is that numbers stay grounded and descriptive. I know how to describe an adult red dragon's breath today, either in game terms (hotter than a 9th level Delayed Blast Fireball that's been charging for four rounds) or in descriptive terms ("can melt steel into a puddle"), and I can describe an ancient red dragon's breath just barely (hotter than a Meteor Swarm; "hotter than the heart of a star; can vaporize steel"). But if I double the damage from 91 to 182, what does that mean except more numbers? It's meaningless to me.

That was one of the things I really hated about 3E, and why I never played it except in CRPGs. I knew what AC 0 meant in AD&D ("as tough as an armored steel knight") and the equivalent in 5E is AC 20; but in 3E, what was AC 33? How was it different from AC 44? I don't know how to describe these things except as raw numbers, and that turns me off.

I wouldn't want to do the same thing to my dragons' breath weapons, so to me baselines like "hotter than a Meteor Swarm" really are important and I don't want to exceed them.

That's interesting, I have never experienced that type of cognitive disconnect myself. It is also nice to get a little closer to understanding someone else's viewpoint. Thank you for explaining.

Now a follow up questions: Why not just use the breathweapon as the measuring stick. I mean meteor swarm is as fictional a goal post as fire breath. If the ancient red dragon does 140 damage couldn't you rationalize that the meteor swarm does half the damage or is half as hot?

Sacrosanct · Feb 1, 2017

CapnZapp said:
I, on the other hand, think it's an excellent title, since it implies the 5th edition we have today *isn't* advanced.

Which is exactly my criticism against it, if you boil it down to a single line.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, I think it's a bad title, for two reasons. One, Hemlock mentioned--it confuses with the real AD&D. And two, you don't need to know a bunch of new rules or mechanics over 5e now. You're just adding crunch. So call it "Crunch Monster Manual" or "Monsters with Moar Options". There's nothing really "advanced" about it.

*Edit* Or Dave calls it "Hardcore Monster Manual", which is also an accurate name. But "Advanced"? Not so much. In fact, I'd make the argument that a true advanced player/DM doesn't need more defined stat block abilities to make monsters interesting, but that argument has been done to death, so no point in repeating the whys here.

Tony Vargas · Feb 1, 2017

MostlyDm said:
I think you misunderstand the appeal of E6 to those of us that love it. I mean, I guess Ican only speak for my group, but... to me, the appeal isn't because the game breaks at 7th level. It's because the tone changes.

Same phenomenon viewed from different perspectives. If you have PCs spending the day Polymorphed into Anis Hags, there are issues.

FormerlyHemlock · Feb 1, 2017

dave2008 said:
Now a follow up questions: Why not just use the breathweapon as the measuring stick. I mean meteor swarm is as fictional a goal post as fire breath. If the ancient red dragon does 140 damage couldn't you rationalize that the meteor swarm does half the damage or is half as hot?

When you're describing something by analogy, you relate something new to something they're familiar with. "Can vaporize steel" works if they know what steel is and how it behaves when heated. "Hotter than a Meteor Swarm" is meaningless to fighters but meaningful (and terrifying) to wizards.

Describing a Meteor Swarm as "half or a third as hot as the breath of great-grand-uncle Ancalagon, but also with a rain of stones that could kill a wyrmling" would be meaningful in a dragon-centric setting. It's not so meaningful to a group of humanoid PCs who have no dragons living in their household. That is why I wouldn't use the analogy in a normal campaign--there's no point in using a frame of reference the players and PCs are both unfamiliar with.

ObGhostbusters: "Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

DM: a Meteor Swarm is almost a tenth as hot as the interior of a Slor!

dave2008 · Feb 1, 2017

Sacrosanct said:
Well, I think it's a bad title, for two reasons. One, Hemlock mentioned--it confuses with the real AD&D. And two, you don't need to know a bunch of new rules or mechanics over 5e now. You're just adding crunch. So call it "Crunch Monster Manual" or "Monsters with Moar Options". There's nothing really "advanced" about it.

I believe [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] 's point is that there already exist and AD&D player's guide - it is called the Player's Handbook." The free Basic PDF (4 classes, no multiclassing, no feats) is the Basic D&D. However, the MM is geared to be used with "Basic D&D," not the options available in the PHB, aka AD&D. Thus the need for an AD&D monster manual.

I do wish I had a chosen a different name, but it was CapnZapp's post that inspired me to start the thread.

MostlyDm · Feb 1, 2017

dave2008 said:
I have added a quartet of ogres to the giants section. This are mostly updates from 4e, with one new one inspired by [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]

I like some of the ideas, especially the sack, but the mechanics are wrong.

An Ogre's greatclub deals 2d10 damage at base. Not 2d8. This isn't arbitrary, it's explicitly defined in the rules for weapon damage.

Was this just an oversight, like the spelling "orge" or did you scale it down intentionally?

If it was intentional... why? Was the damage expression a bit too high to stay CR 2 otherwise?

If it was intentional, this sort of dovetails with [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]'s general complaint... the changes to damage seem to be more just geared towards tweaking numbers, rather than reflecting the reality of the situation. For example, the smash of the Ogre Savage deals double damage, including double it's Strength modifier. But that's not typically how such things get expressed in 5e. Is this an oversight (perhaps a 3E-ism, when flat bonuses were multiplied too?) or an intentional choice to further boost the damage?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to understand how many of the issues I'm seeing are just incidental vs. institutional.

D&D 5E 5e Hardcore: Monster Manual

dave2008

Legend

dave2008

Legend

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

MostlyDm

Explorer

dave2008

Legend

Sacrosanct

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

dave2008

Legend

MostlyDm

Explorer

Similar Threads