D&D 4E 4E vs 5E: Monsters and bounded accuracy

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I'm fairly sure I know the answer, but I want to check, and I want to know the why. I'm loving 5th Edition's player side, but I'm not liking the monsters. I find them boring. All the dragons are basically the same, except their lair actions. Everything except for spellcasting enemies are one trick ponies.

This, I can adjust for my games. What I can't adjust, without doing more work than just playing an older edition, is the concept of bounded accuracy and how it applies to monsters. I understand the notion of bounded accuracy. Is supports a very stable "rules represent reality" approach to game design: an Orc is an Orc is an Orc.

In 4E, rather than use the same stats forever, you might adjust the monster for use at higher levels. An ogre could go from solo for a low level party (think of the cave troll in the "Fellowship of the Ring" movie), to elite, standard, and eventually minion for the high level characters taking down the Storm Giant King. This represents a system where the rules facilitate the gameplay, not simulate a reality.

I like the 4E approach in theory, but I think I like the 5E approach in practice. 4E's approach allows for faster scaling, which some players like for making them feel like they are improving. 5E's approach let's you scale slower, allowing you to not feel like it's a constant grind to improve. So, what approach do you like best, and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Satyrn]

I prefer 5e because I'm tired of dealing with numbers. Of measuring my character's awesomeness by his numbers.

I prefer gaining new, cool abilities to pick from as the measure in improvement. Sure, 3e and 4e did that too, and I like them both. I'm just tired of the numbers.




Well, the one number that I still like to watch increase is hit points. They can be an excellent measure of awesome.

 

[Jester David]

I like 5e because I don't need to tweak monsters for every fight.
I converted Madness at Gardmore Abby from 4e to 5e and mostly ran using monsters right out of the Monster Manual. I didn't need to invent new kobolds that are the same as regular kobolds but with all the number being +8 (like 4e) or that couldn't land a hit to save their lives... literally (like 3e).

Unique monsters (bosses, NPCs, etc) are a little more rare. But those should be a little more unique. Some more customization option would be nice...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I like the 4E approach in theory, but I think I like the 5E approach in practice. 4E's approach allows for faster scaling, which some players like for making them feel like they are improving. 5E's approach let's you scale slower, allowing you to not feel like it's a constant grind to improve. So, what approach do you like best, and why?

I vastly prefer the 5E "rules represent reality" approach. What's the point of even measuring your character's Strength and weapon damage if the actual reason he's so much more lethal to an ogre at high levels is that the ogre's hit points have mysteriously dropped to 1? If an epic character boasts that he can slay an ogre in a single blow, I'd like that to be more meaningful than the DM/adventure path deciding that it is now appropriate for ogres to be minions.

 

[mellored]

Just remove the +1/2 scaling from 4e and your in the same ballpark as 5e.

 

[fjw70]

I like both approaches.

 

[Satyrn]

Just remove then +1/2 scaling from 4e and your in the same ballpark as 5e.

Indeed.

And 4e's powers are a source I use when adding those cool new abilities to 5e characters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I prefer monsters with consistent stats over monsters whose stats shift depending on how awesome the PCs are. It's the only way that the world makes sense as a world, rather than simply as a game.

I'm not a fan of Bounded Accuracy, though. I wish that a giant could have AC 30 and +23 to hit, which would be nearly insurmountable to a level 3 character and almost trivial to a level 20 character.

 

[Mistwell]

Hi everyone. I'm fairly sure I know the answer, but I want to check, and I want to know the why. I'm loving 5th Edition's player side, but I'm not liking the monsters. I find them boring. All the dragons are basically the same, except their lair actions. Everything except for spellcasting enemies are one trick ponies.

This, I can adjust for my games. What I can't adjust, without doing more work than just playing an older edition, is the concept of bounded accuracy and how it applies to monsters. I understand the notion of bounded accuracy. Is supports a very stable "rules represent reality" approach to game design: an Orc is an Orc is an Orc.

In 4E, rather than use the same stats forever, you might adjust the monster for use at higher levels. An ogre could go from solo for a low level party (think of the cave troll in the "Fellowship of the Ring" movie), to elite, standard, and eventually minion for the high level characters taking down the Storm Giant King. This represents a system where the rules facilitate the gameplay, not simulate a reality.

I like the 4E approach in theory, but I think I like the 5E approach in practice. 4E's approach allows for faster scaling, which some players like for making them feel like they are improving. 5E's approach let's you scale slower, allowing you to not feel like it's a constant grind to improve. So, what approach do you like best, and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the 5e approach, but I understand your sense that the monsters feel the same. I think, as third parties are putting out more monster books, and as WOTC includes new monsters in their adventures, we're seeing more diversity now.

What I do these days when coming up with a challenge is I use this resource to find some monsters to choose from, and then (assuming I have the source book) pick one with more interesting abilities. I will sometimes re-skin monsters in that process as well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm not sure that 5th edition actually takes a "rules represent reality" stand on the matter.

To me it seems more that they take a "here's monsters that work, in one capacity or another, at a wider variety of levels without you having to change their stats and without us having to print more statblocks."

And I'm way into that for reasons including but not limited to it touching on the nostalgia of that being a lot like how things worked in the version of the game I first experienced.

But then, I also want to argue that the statement "Everything except for spellcasting enemies are one trick ponies." because I am used to the "tricks" coming from my style and panache as a DM through role-playing and the general rules of the game or minor alterations like equipment used, not from words and numbers in the statblock telling me stuff like "Hit: deals 1d10+3 slashing damage and shifts 1 square."