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

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

As long as the advanced menu doesn't calcify and lock out options for the core game. I do not want to see "Sand in the Eye" as an option exclusive to 7th-level and higher rogues.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

I don't follow. Scaling HP seems like it would be more likely to allow you to one-shot an ogre. If you scale AC, then the ogre becomes easier to hit as you level up, but the relative damage you deal when you hit it doesn't change. If you scale HP, then the ogre doesn't become easier to hit, but when you do hit it, the ogre has less HP relative to the damage you deal, and in principle there's a point where the damage you deal with a single shot is greater than the ogre's HP. The problem here is that the ogre is high enough on the scale that PCs are unlikely to reach that one-shot point by level 20. If you look at a monster with 15 or 20 HP, it's not reliably one-shottable at 1st level but it's very one-shottable at 20th.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't follow. Scaling HP seems like it would be more likely to allow you to one-shot an ogre. If you scale AC, then the ogre becomes easier to hit as you level up, but the damage you deal when you hit it doesn't change. If you scale HP, then the ogre doesn't become easier to hit, but when you do hit it, the ogre has relatively less HP relative to the damage you deal, and in principle there's a point where the damage you deal is greater than the ogre's HP.

That's if you scale HP and damage, then you would eventually get to the point where you have enough damage to one-shot a lower-level tough enemy.

For whatever reason, they didn't really do that. They went with scaling HP primarily, and then minor scaling of attack bonuses and damage and numbers of attacks. I guess it kind of gets there, if you consider three attacks (with power attack balancing out the higher attack bonus) to count as one-shotting. It's still dead in one turn, at least.

If they'd gone with AC scaling, though, then they wouldn't have needed to give the ogre nearly as many HP in the first place. Instead of it having AC 11 and 59hp, they could have given it AC 19 and 29hp, and a high-level PC with +20 to hit would be able to drop it quickly in 1-2 attacks.

I guess that's just a matter of preference, though. In terms of game balance and flow, it doesn't really matter whether you hit it six times for damage, or only three times for damage because the other three attacks failed to hurt it. It's just a weird mental image that you need to actually hit with so many attacks before something will fall down.

 

[fjw70]

That's if you scale HP and damage, then you would eventually get to the point where you have enough damage to one-shot a lower-level tough enemy.

For whatever reason, they didn't really do that. They went with scaling HP primarily, and then minor scaling of attack bonuses and damage and numbers of attacks. I guess it kind of gets there, if you consider three attacks (with power attack balancing out the higher attack bonus) to count as one-shotting. It's still dead in one turn, at least.

If they'd gone with AC scaling, though, then they wouldn't have needed to give the ogre nearly as many HP in the first place. Instead of it having AC 11 and 59hp, they could have given it AC 19 and 29hp, and a high-level PC with +20 to hit would be able to drop it quickly in 1-2 attacks.

I guess that's just a matter of preference, though. In terms of game balance and flow, it doesn't really matter whether you hit it six times for damage, or only three times for damage because the other three attacks failed to hurt it. It's just a weird mental image that you need to actually hit with so many attacks before something will fall down.

You could narrate multiple attacks against the same target as a single attack that does more damage the more you hit.

 

[S'mon]

possibly some sort of Snatch ability to pick up halflings and fly up into the air to drop them, or whatever.

I've been letting my big swoopy flying critters (griffins & wyverns) give up their claw attack to snatch (opposed athletics check) & pick up foes, then drop them... It's the PCs who have the flying mounts so this has proved very popular.

 

[Uchawi]

I am not sure 4E auto scaling, or 5E bounded accuracy for monsters is any different. Because both lack variety in regards to monster abilities, AC, etc. They are both constant in regards to they always change or never change. I believe that is the source of the problem. I did find adjusting 4E monsters easier, but that is a solution towards building reliable encounter difficulty.

 

[S'mon]

We need many many more CR 5 to CR 10 stat blocks.

I definitely agree with that. I do a lot of reskinning - eg a swarm of quippers became an undead raven swarm, since the 5e raven swam was too weak - but above the lowest CRs there's not much to work with. I'd like a bunch more CR 5-10 monsters, some more CR 11-20 monsters, and about 50 pages of NPC stat blocks, preferably with spells listed out as 4e style powers. Running Paizo conversions I find that converting the PF stat blocks is very quick and easy ("half numbers above 10, x1.5 hp and damage" usually works to maintain CR), but Paizo tend to put "see Bestiary #13 pg 134" notes whereever possible rather than give the stats, and in those cases I'd like to be able to flick open a 5e manual rather than look it up in the PF SRD then convert.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Neither of these are actual arguments, because “the DM can fix it” can be applied to any and all criticisms of a system, and the answer is unhelpful for all of them.

I don't think that categorizing advice to remember that there are general rules already in place that anyone/anything can utilize to expand their options in combat as "the DM can fix it" is fair or accurate.

There is no functional difference between a zombie that can grapple a character because it has a grab action listed in its stat block and a zombie that can grapple a character because the game includes grappling rules that are not gated away behind a requirement that you have the appropriate feature, and those rules are also not so remedial in function as to be not worth using without some feature that enhances them.

There is no "re-write" involved in this advice for you to feel puts your cash expenditure into question.

And I know I'm not alone in having experienced a kind of reverse problem when playing 4th edition: With so many options codified and delivered via various powers and traits, it felt unfair to improvise outside of those options in ways that resembled other codified options not taken (specific example: a player of a fighter feeling like they shouldn't be able to improvise smashing their shield into someone to push them because they had the option of taking Tide of Iron to do just that and chose something else instead), and for me personally as a DM it felt like I was spending so much time reviewing what action options and traits were in a stat block while choosing what the monster would do that I felt taking the time to think of something outside of those options to improvise wasn't fair to the players (who are just sitting there waiting for me to move the action forward) so the practical effect was exactly what some are now describing of 5th edition's short-list stat blocks; Monsters never did anything but the few tricks in their stat block, and felt boring as a result.

By the sharing of which I mean mostly to say: there is no such thing as a perfect solution for the entire playerbase - so it's okay that 5th edition design aims to please a significant portion, while being so easy to alter and resilient to alterations that those not satisfied can, if they are willing, adjust to suit their differing preference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

That is true. I do miss some more complexity sometimes. But my assessment of 5e monsters is that they are about as diverse as 3e monsters but easier to run.
A goblin and an orc are really different. One can hide easily. The other one charges more easily.
3e monsters had feats on the other hand... but since they were mostly giving abilities back everyone should be able to try the were sometimes more annoying than everything else.
On the other hand I liked bears hugging people and trolls rending people in 3e... So maybe it is not general lack of features in 5e but some monsters just missing an iconic one.

 

[The_Gneech]

The idea to have "elite warrior" stats for many monsters was still a good one.

I would have loved a second Ogre stat block, for an "elite Ogre" of perhaps CR 7.

Or Grimlocks. Or Gnomes. Or Tigers.

...

More to the point, here we have a single humanoid race writeup, with no less than four distinct stat blocks, CR 2, CR 3, CR 8 and CR 15; for loads of fun variety!

There are a few of these, primarily among the monstrous humanoids, but yes, I would like to have seen more. I was a fan of them in 3E Monster Manual IV days, and I'm still a fan now! I don't know if WotC was hedging their bets, trying to hold off content for future releases, or what.

The already-mentioned reskinning of blocks from the NPC section can be very effective, but I can see it getting stale if you do it a lot.

I also agree that 5E doesn't need minions. My players tend to one-punch anything below CR 1/2 as it is. 5E's low-skewed monster CR selections mean that you can have appropriate "minions" (in the form of low CR allies) for anything.

You do kinda have to throw the encounter building guidelines out the window when considering them, tho. My group (six players @ 2nd level) went through something like 20 kobolds, which was theoretically a "deadly" encounter even accounting for the group size, without ever being in serious danger. [1]

-The Gneech

[1] There were a lot of factors at work here besides raw math. Well-placed illusions, sleep, and thunderwave spells, a narrow corridor that allowed the PCs to establish and hold a front line, etc. I've got a smart and experienced group.