Howdy-
Ok maybe I might be missing something here but looking over the MM monsters, they seem awfully weak compared to what they have to face vs the classes of the PHB. For example, in ver 3.5 the gibbering Mouther had an AC of 19, in 5E its AC is now 9. An Ancient Blue Dragon in 3.5 has an AC of 38, in 5E is AC 22. Are we as DM's supposed jack up the monsters abilities and everything else as we see fit?
Honestly, I'm not a killer DM but I would also like to present to my players a challenging campaign, not one where all they need is a 2 or better to hit an ancient red dragon.
Scott
Hello Scott - this is 2016 calling.
No, the low numbers you see are deliberate, and aren't a cause of concern by themselves.
Any correctly created high-level monster will work just fine even if the fighter has more than a 50% chance to hit it, provided it has enough hit points to survive long enough on the battlefield to do its thing, provided it can withstand an appropriate number of save or suck spells, and generally is capable of actually reaching the heroes.
My evaluation of hit points:
Generally fine. Sure, some foes will be very weak, but others are oddly strong. The problem lies mainly in the non-acknowledgement of solo fights. A solo needs to at the very least double the listed hp total.
For instance, you can't have a demon lord with 300 paltry hit points and expect it to last more than a couple of rounds tops. Hard-hitting parties routinely and reliably do 100+ damage, every round.
So, if the monster is accompanied by henchmen and minions, everything is fine. If it is presented solo, nothing is fine.
My evaluation of save or suck:
5E is unfortunately extremely swingy. At low levels, a spellcaster will have a hard time making anything stick. But at high levels, DCs that creep above 17 start to become truly fearsome. This is in itself not a bad thing. But it does mean that a spell such as Hold Person which is bordeline useless at the level you get it (3rd), becomes incredibly useful and cheap ten levels later or so.
The real problem is that official modules throw saves well above DC 20 at you. And that's just not fun.
Since you don't even autosucceed on rolling a 20, you will have cases where heroes simply can't succeed. Demon lords and the like can throw saves of up to DC 25 at you. If you're not built for that particular save (and there are six of them!), you might sport a -1 bonus, or perhaps a +2. That is not fun. It is not heroic.
I call it a failure of design.
But it gets worse. 5E's solution to have legendary foes stay around longer is to essentially have them cheat. It's called "legendary resistance" and it means DMs are empowered to basically say three times "the monster made the save" even after rolling a failure.
This illusion might work as long as the players aren't made aware of the rule. But then it just becomes a dull thing. Spending your nice juicy high-level killing spell isn't fun when you know the monster can basically cheat. And the solution - to first fire off a couple of cheap spells in the hopes the DM will use up all his cheats, feels incredibly gamey and meta.
It's no better for the DM, who is asked to judge "okay so my monster saved this debuff spell; should I use up one of my precious legendary saves now to have the monster still present a challenge, or should I save it for the save-or-die spells that are sure to follow?". The problem is: if I save it, I'm basically hosing my player whose high level spell will be automatically whiffed.
The real problem is: save or suck spells are STILL binary, on or off. There REALLY needs to be a system where (at least legendary monsters) can be partially affected.
For instance, if the spell effect is fear, there could be an universal system that says that legendary opponents are only
shaken, then
frightened, and
only then panicked.
(Using 3E conditions here to make my example) My point is: all save or die spells should have a three step ladder for legendary foes, so that they can be allowed to fail a couple of saves without simply negating the efforts of the wizard player and yet without bringing the combat and the excitement to a full stop.
PS. I should explain this is what I meant by "an appropriate number of save or suck spells". For a rank and file thug or soldier or demon, being completely disabled by a single failed save is quite okay. For perhaps 95% of all monsters, an appropriate number is thus 1. It's the exceptional monsters, the "named foes", that need something more.
My evaluation of reaching the heroes, or the "bag of tricks"
Any high-level party played by decently experienced players will have many many ways to mess with the monsters.
At low level it is often enough to simply run towards the heroes. There are little they can do that completely stops the monster from reaching them, and then being allowed to be fearsome for a bit, before it dies.
As the heroes level up, their toolbox grows to impressive proportions.
In previous editions, perhaps the first "screw you" utensil was flight. Once the party could all fly (one way or the other) a large chunk of melee-only monsters were brutally neutered. So at higher levels, you would need to pick monsters than can fly themselves. Leading to the fantasy game truning into some kind of superhero game where everybody that counts zip around in the air.
This particular devolution of the genre has been well and truly shuttered by 5th edition. Only one out of a thousand little changes that makes 5E my favorite edition by far.
But - what you love, you criticise. Let's move on.
There are still problematic monsters that essentially "run towards the party, hoping they'll let it within reach" even at high level.
And by itself that's not a problem.
The problem starts when the monster isn't described as a stupid expendable grunt, but some kind of smart strategist or leader of troops. And still have nothing else to do but run towards the party, hoping they'll let it within reach.
A Roper: our party's Warlock have 120" darkvision and Repelling Blasts. He simply concluded "I kill the roper, it can never reach me." Anticlimactic, but okay - a Roper's game depends on being able to ambush the party. Pity the rules for Passive Perception make that highly unlikely.
The Marilith demon: sure it has sharp blades. But it has no abilities commensurate with its description.
Juibilex, the Demon Lord: a sad sack of goop. If you run it by the book, expect the party to easily kite it, never taking a single point of damage. (Unless a party member fails the fear save and runs mindlessly straight at it)
In short: high-level MM monsters seem designed for the neophyte DM; the kind that would be overwhelmed by having a tool box to react to player tactics.
This is a huge letdown for those of us that are experienced DMs. It basically nails the coffin shut that 5E isn't really up to the task of challenging those of us that have survived AD&D, d20 and 4E.
TL;DR:
Fifth Edition desperately needs an Expert add-on, adding back enough crunch to challenge the players and give the DM the tools needed to do just that.
