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

[The Crimson Binome]

The way 5th edition allows you to have actual ogres as minions at high level is definitely worth the extra admin (the ogres will fall to a hit, but before everyone realizes that, you will still waste a few seconds calculating damage).

I don't get what you're saying here. An ogre in 5E has like 59hp, and even a high-level character would be lucky to deal more than 25 damage with an attack. Barring critical hits or the expenditure of spell slots, an ogre will usually take at least three hits to kill.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't get what you're saying here. An ogre in 5E has like 59hp, and even a high-level character would be lucky to deal more than 25 damage with an attack. Barring critical hits or the expenditure of spell slots, an ogre will usually take at least three hits to kill.

Oh, sorry, yes you're right.

Even a dozen ogres will still fall to a single area effect spell at high level, but, yes.

Substitute any other low-CR with hit points around twenty creature for my point to stand.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

4E sure sports impressive NPC class names, huh?

The eladrins' are pretty good, but taking them on the whole, one can only handle so many titles on the pattern of "Bodypart Thingdoer" before one's eyes begin to cross.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh, sorry, yes you're right.

Even a dozen ogres will still fall to a single area effect spell at high level, but, yes.

Substitute any other low-CR with hit points around twenty creature for my point to stand.

So... an orc? An orc will die in one hit to a rogue's sneak attack, or someone with a greatsword, if you're using feats and they have power attack. Otherwise, the average 15hp on a typical orc will usually protect it from the 2d8+5 damage on the paladin's improved smite longsword. A striker-type character, at high levels, can almost always one shot an orc.

And if you want to drop a dozen ogres with a spell, then that spell had better be Meteor Swarm, because anything less than that (say, a Fireball cast in a level 8 slot) will still average less than 59 damage.

A high-level character can usually one-shot a CR 1/2 orc without spending any resources. A high-level spellcaster can almost one-shot any number of CR 2 ogres by expending a valuable resource.

 

[CapnZapp]

A Bodypart Thingdoer sounds like an awesome monster! Do you have a writeup?

 

[CapnZapp]

So... an orc? An orc will die in one hit to a rogue's sneak attack, or someone with a greatsword, if you're using feats and they have power attack. Otherwise, the average 15hp on a typical orc will usually protect it from the 2d8+5 damage on the paladin's improved smite longsword. A striker-type character, at high levels, can almost always one shot an orc.

And if you want to drop a dozen ogres with a spell, then that spell had better be Meteor Swarm, because anything less than that (say, a Fireball cast in a level 8 slot) will still average less than 59 damage.

A high-level character can usually one-shot a CR 1/2 orc without spending any resources. A high-level spellcaster can almost one-shot any number of CR 2 ogres by expending a valuable resource.

Yes...?

(I mean, is this an argument for bringing back 4E minions... or just nitpicking my erroneous usage of Ogres. If the latter, cool cool )

 

[Visanideth]

So every monster can have the extra line.
'Don't forget all the things PCs can do. Monsters do those too!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the (3) things characters can do.

For people who feel like gameplay is same-ish, 5E is pretty anemic in terms of player options too, honestly. "All the things players can do" is a very slim list, made of extremely situational options, and won't really satisfy someone who's looking for the kind of complexity 4E offered.

Which is precisely what 5E is after: 5E WANTS to be a simplier game. You need to accept that you can't have both, you can't have the easy-to-run, not-about-numbers game and also want to have the nuanced, tactical gameplay.

As someone's who's been DMing for almost 30 years, I've learned that statements like "if your monsters are sameish, you're not doing enough with them" are very suspicious and in practice they almost always end up with "they can grapple too!". Written, codified and unique options are a meaningful addition to the game, both in terms of pure gameplay and immersion, and not having them can't be handwaved away as a minor detail or something you can make up for by having your monsters "grapple and shove" every now and then.

This is a common flaw of arguments about RPGs, because people often say "I like my favourite edition because it's easier and more elegant and it flows faster", and the moment someone says "That's true, but I prefer my favourite edition because it's more tactical" the first guy starts saying "My favourite edition is more tactical too!".
5E's monster design is, in my opinion, a weak point of the edition, but in large part it's consistent with what the game is trying to do, which is NOT having complicated and "tactical" combat events. Pretending you can use the 3 or 4 options available to players and get a tactically nuanced experience like you did in 4E and arguably 3E makes as much sense as those guys who claim that 4E is easier to prepare for than 5E. It's not. They're different games for a reason.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A Bodypart Thingdoer sounds like an awesome monster!

No! No it does not! Do not encourage that execrable level of writing!

 

[CapnZapp]

You need to accept that you can't have both, you can't have the easy-to-run, not-about-numbers game and also want to have the nuanced, tactical gameplay.

Though this does not change the fact that you can offer players a simple menu of gameplay actions, and then deepen and complexify that menu for both advanced players and advanced monsters through special options.

For players, a special option could be a class feature, but I suspect a feat works better, since it automatically keeps said complexity completely optional. Both "optional" as in "optional for our campaign" and "optional for my character".

For monsters, a special option can and should be a special attack given only to that monster. 5th edition has massively cut back on these, probably because WotC definitely needed a big hit with 5E and couldn't afford to experiment.

But the fact that these things aren't in the PHB or MM is no good excuse for not having them in things like an Expert Player's Handbook, or a Fiend Folio.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

(I mean, is this an argument for bringing back 4E minions... or just nitpicking my erroneous usage of Ogres. If the latter, cool cool )

It's an argument for scaling AC instead of HP, because scaling just the HP means you never get to a point where you can one-shot an ogre.

Just like with real solo-type boss monsters, it's a problem that they could have addressed with better math, but either they didn't care about making that possible or they couldn't be bothered to make the math work.