D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[CapnZapp]

I don't think complaints about the monsters are entirely without merit. I don't think the system needs a complete overhaul or anything that drastic. I think the system already has provided the tools needed. I've modified monsters in order to make them more challenging. For instance, I've made a Marilith able to use her reactive ability to parry arrows and I made teleport a move action for her. Pretty easy. Didn't need WotC to hold my hand for it. They can't write the rules with every game group in mind.

I think a big part of it is howcodified everything was in the predominant edition that folks have come to 5E from...the 3E/Pathfinder rules. There is a formula for almost everything. So I think people became very used to that. They want to be able to consult a table in a book that says "adding ability X to monster Y increases its CR by Z." In a way, I can understand that desire because that's what people have become used to.

However, given the approach that 5E is taking, I don't think that such a thing that anyone should expect any time soon. It just seems at odds with how they are approaching the game in this edition. Why spend all that time and effort to create rule components that will appeal to a handful of the audience...especially when the resolution for any problems that such components would add is already in the hands of the players?

My Marilith problem, for example. Played one encounter with one when she was well beyond the PCs actual ability. So she was still beyond their ability...I played it up as more of a sparring session where she was toying with them. But I saw a couple of areas that could be an issue for when she shows up later in the campaign and the PCs are more capable. So I switched her abilities a bit. Nothing drastic...nothing that I even need to write down. Problem solved.

We already have the tools to fix the problems ourselves. I would rather they spend time and effort on other matters than simply addressing one aspect of the game that a small percentage of the audience has an issue with.

3rd edition gave each monster an absurd level of little used abilities.

That is not what I am asking for, and what I consider to be a reasonable expectation.

However, statting up Juiblex, say, as a melee heavy hitter that can be completely neutralized by the repelling blast ability of warlocks is a HUGE failing in my book.

You simply don't design CR 15 and CR 25 creatures the way you can get away with designing CR 5 creatures.

There's this whole layer of... sophistication... that's by and large missing complete from this edition's high-level monsters. Like as if the MM was rushed. Or they put an intern on the job.

---

So please don't try to frame this as something completely ordinary. And please don't paint our criticism as something unreasonable.

Yes, I'm calling you out on doing precisely this, hawkeyefan. You start out by being completely reasonable, but then you start dropping one uncalled for slight after the other.

I'm not looking for a "formula for almost everything". I don't "need WotC to hold my hand".

Using such language is only meant to denigrate the validity of our complaints.

The system hasn't "provided the tools needed" when it is precisely the opposite. The problem is definitely not solved just because you made it work once, in your home game.

A designer of high-level monsters must provide a way to counter trivial tactics, or the CR should be dropped to make it clear this is just a beefier upgraded low-level monster, with none of the tricks a true high-level monster needs to have to challenge a high-level group.

What the MM has done, is to drop the ball on high-level play.

Nothing more, nothing less. You will see it too, eventually, hawkeyefan.

 

[Yunru]

Yes, because Repelling Blast's 20ft (maximum) push has no way of being negated *coughmovement*

 

[smbakeresq]

The MM is not as spelled out as previous editions, that is true. I own them all and have played all of them. The 2nd edition white cover one was probably the best. High level play was covered the best in Dungeon Magazines, the Age of Worms and the one with Demogorgon were the best examples. Those took play from levels 1-20+. Most modules now top out at 13-14.

It used to be that you could open the cover and play right out of the book. Those days are over it seems. Hasbro is a toy company that caters to kids, that's what we have. They assume that DM will be like me and basically use the MM as a guideline and spice it up. The use of legendary and lair actions must be increased by the DM to balance stuff out, as is various mundane stuff to spice encounters up. For example, when using a blue dragon in its lair have the dragon breathe on the characters and bounce the lightening breathe off a wall back into them, requiring 2 saving throws made for half damage. In the Juiblex example above its a slime creature, I would rule that the push ability of the warlock just pushes a hole into the creature (like a donut) so it doesn't really move anywhere. Or better yet, since Juiblex is a huge creature that takes up 9 squares rule that's its shape is mutable, so it can take up any 9 contiguous squares, so your push attack with the warlock just changes its shape. Also Juiblex Eject Slime attack says its targeting one creature, that should be a ranged attack roll at +14, which is probably more effective than a Dex save at DC 21 for the characters at that level. I would change that to an area attack, 10x10 seems appropriate if I were to keep the DC 21 Dex save portion.

I do agree though that more could have been done, all the high level creatures are not fully thought out or fleshed out. I think it was done to make the game easier on the DM. The Lich for example has spell list that's designed to be easy to use without a direct screwing over of the players, the more effective but more DM intensive Time Stop should be the choice.

Look at Storm Kings Thunder, the added attacks for the Giants in there are standard stuff that every DM should use and make the Giants much more effective. Those extra giant attacks should have been in a UA article or Dragon magazine article.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I don't think complaints about the monsters are entirely without merit. I don't think the system needs a complete overhaul or anything that drastic. I think the system already has provided the tools needed. I've modified monsters in order to make them more challenging. For instance, I've made a Marilith able to use her reactive ability to parry arrows and I made teleport a move action for her. Pretty easy. Didn't need WotC to hold my hand for it. They can't write the rules with every game group in mind.

I think a big part of it is howcodified everything was in the predominant edition that folks have come to 5E from...the 3E/Pathfinder rules. There is a formula for almost everything. So I think people became very used to that. They want to be able to consult a table in a book that says "adding ability X to monster Y increases its CR by Z." In a way, I can understand that desire because that's what people have become used to.

However, given the approach that 5E is taking, I don't think that such a thing that anyone should expect any time soon. It just seems at odds with how they are approaching the game in this edition. Why spend all that time and effort to create rule components that will appeal to a handful of the audience...especially when the resolution for any problems that such components would add is already in the hands of the players?

My Marilith problem, for example. Played one encounter with one when she was well beyond the PCs actual ability. So she was still beyond their ability...I played it up as more of a sparring session where she was toying with them. But I saw a couple of areas that could be an issue for when she shows up later in the campaign and the PCs are more capable. So I switched her abilities a bit. Nothing drastic...nothing that I even need to write down. Problem solved.

We already have the tools to fix the problems ourselves. I would rather they spend time and effort on other matters than simply addressing one aspect of the game that a small percentage of the audience has an issue with.

I hear you Hawkeyefan, I've never wanted any hand holding and it is very easy to make modifications. But, we're viewing this through the lens of a seasoned DM that has played through every edition of the game. The flip-side of this, is that I've seen time and time again, people struggle when they get behind the screen and try to DM... It's easy to get overwhelmed when trying improvise a narrative and develop challenging encounters, when you add modifying monsters & mechanics on top of that as a necessary part of the "Good DM Formula". I've seen people that would be good DMs just decide that they'd rather stay on the other side of the screen. I definitely don't want to overhaul the 5e rules or go back to the extremely granular codified approach of 3e. But, I think a supplement that provides lots of advice/examples/tools for building challenging, balanced, and dynamic encounters, modifying monsters (mechanically or aesthetically), maybe even tactical advice for DMs... I dunno, maybe it's an impractical idea, but anything that can help DMs build their skills, or give them the confidence to jump behind the screen without an AP would be cool with me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is why we'll never, ever see eye to eye and why folks like you and Flamestrike continue to prove my point that monsters as written are not a very good challenge for the PCs. They have to play "smart" and use their "INT and WIS" to challenge the PCs rather than the PCs having to play smart and use their INT and WIS to beat the fearsome, destructive demonic warlord or awe-inspiring dragon. If that sits well with you, then so be it. It doesn't sit well with me. I want the dragon and balor to force the PCs to use their INT and WIS to beat them if they're sitting in a room drinking tea with the door wide open waiting for the PCs to come in. In fact, I want the Balor to want the PCs to fight him straight up because he knows that's a losing battle for them or at least a very great situation for him.

One of my favorite tropes is the Big Bad Evil Guy who is so big and bad that he Cherry Taps the PCs out of boredom, basically. Strahd in Curse of Strahd can function this way at low levels, but 5E out of the box doesn't have any truly epic individuals. I think it's easy enough to add them (e.g. just slap some sorcerer levels on any dragon chassis and you're basically done) but from a design and story perspective it's extremely strange that 5E is designed to feature weak adversaries instead of strong ones.

And yes, you can create contrived scenarios like Flamestrike's "suddenly a Balor appears in your midst" that give weak adversaries temporary tactical advantages to make them scarier, but that's the wrong kind of fear for my taste. That is temporary, short-term adrenaline rush and a long-term fear that "the DM might arbitrarily kill us for no reason"; it's not a long-term fear that adds to the campaign the way "last time we crossed Darth Vader he killed Han and crippled Luke!" does. In a roleplaying game I want the latter.

5E does have the saving grace that it is designed to scale with quantity, so even if you never change any monster stats you can still scare players with organizations instead of monsters. An individual beholder isn't scary, but maybe a ship full of dozens of them is. An individual Chasme isn't scary to an 11th-level party, but eight of them kind of are. A Tarrasque... well, there's a whole planet full of them (Falx).

In my view, high-level 5E play works best when it turns into strategic play. Abandon dungeon crawling and embrace space opera. Think of a 20th level PC as roughly equivalent to a small military unit (squad-size through company-size, depending on the PC), and give the PCs challenges that would otherwise fit into a wargame--but let them use roleplaying means to overcome the challenges. If the Zentraedi spice mines are guarded by a battalion of elite troops, the 20th level PCs don't have to fight their way through all 800 of them in order to sabotage the water supply--they can, for example, choose to impersonate the Inspector General using illusions and do it that way. There will still be plenty of dramatic tension every time they might get detected because a straight-up fight with the whole battalion would be very, very tough; but the players have a lot of freedom to choose their approach, and plenty of room to create fallback plans for themselves.

So you can still easily create scenarios using MM monsters where the players need to use their brains and skill in order to win.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, because Repelling Blast's 20ft (maximum) push has no way of being negated *coughmovement*

I think you mean 40ft maximum.

 

[Cyrinishad]

You simply don't design CR 15 and CR 25 creatures the way you can get away with designing CR 5 creatures.

There's this whole layer of... sophistication... that's by and large missing complete from this edition's high-level monsters.

A designer of high-level monsters must provide a way to counter trivial tactics, or the CR should be dropped to make it clear this is just a beefier upgraded low-level monster, with none of the tricks a true high-level monster needs to have to challenge a high-level group.

What the MM has done, is to drop the ball on high-level play.

CapnZapp, the part of your post that I quoted speaks to part of what I was driving at in my previous post. I think the mechanics of the 5e system hold up very well to high-level game play. However, the DM Tool-Box (PHB, DMG, and MM) doesn't really provide the tools to challenge optimized high-level PCs in a ready-to-go package. It is reliant on a seasoned DM with a good tactical mind that is comfortable with improvising and modifying the written material. I think a supplement dedicated to designing challenging encounters could go a long way to bridging that gap, and get people to be more willing to try DMing.

 

[Satyrn]

But, I think a supplement that provides lots of advice/examples/tools for building challenging, balanced, and dynamic encounters, modifying monsters (mechanically or aesthetically), maybe even tactical advice for DMs... I dunno, maybe it's an impractical idea, but anything that can help DMs build their skills, or give them the confidence to jump behind the screen without an AP would be cool with me.

A DM Advice supplement is totally doable. TSR had a little line of them with their blue books. The internet is full of advice, too. And there's even some of the stuff crammed into the 5e core books and adventures.

I guess it would be neat if WotC published their own blue book called Combat & Tactics, where they discuss how to use various monsters. Maybe by separating them into different categories, like describing hobgoblins as a militaristic, and providing on advice on how a militaristic band of hobgoblins operates while travelling, while camping 9 - and especially how tge DM could run them in a fight to showcase their militarism. It could be advice on how to use them straight of the MM, but also include little rules tweaks for the DM to use if they wish.

And ideally, this would be written so it would not just apply to hobgoblins, but also any band the DM the DM decides is militaristic.

And then include more such groupings. Along with militaristic, there'd be skulkers, bullies, solos, whatever might make sense. Totally doable.

Anyway, as said above it would be Halaster's guide, not Volo's.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

CapnZapp, the part of your post that I quoted speaks to part of what I was driving at in my previous post. I think the mechanics of the 5e system hold up very well to high-level game play. However, the DM Tool-Box (PHB, DMG, and MM) doesn't really provide the tools to challenge optimized high-level PCs in a ready-to-go package. It is reliant on a seasoned DM with a good tactical mind that is comfortable with improvising and modifying the written material. I think a supplement dedicated to designing challenging encounters could go a long way to bridging that gap, and get people to be more willing to try DMing.

"Grimtooth's Book of Set-piece Battles"?

 

[hawkeyefan]

3rd edition gave each monster an absurd level of little used abilities.

That is not what I am asking for, and what I consider to be a reasonable expectation.

However, statting up Juiblex, say, as a melee heavy hitter that can be completely neutralized by the repelling blast ability of warlocks is a HUGE failing in my book.

You simply don't design CR 15 and CR 25 creatures the way you can get away with designing CR 5 creatures.

There's this whole layer of... sophistication... that's by and large missing complete from this edition's high-level monsters. Like as if the MM was rushed. Or they put an intern on the job.

---

So please don't try to frame this as something completely ordinary. And please don't paint our criticism as something unreasonable.

Yes, I'm calling you out on doing precisely this, hawkeyefan. You start out by being completely reasonable, but then you start dropping one uncalled for slight after the other.

I'm not looking for a "formula for almost everything". I don't "need WotC to hold my hand".

Using such language is only meant to denigrate the validity of our complaints.

The system hasn't "provided the tools needed" when it is precisely the opposite. The problem is definitely not solved just because you made it work once, in your home game.

A designer of high-level monsters must provide a way to counter trivial tactics, or the CR should be dropped to make it clear this is just a beefier upgraded low-level monster, with none of the tricks a true high-level monster needs to have to challenge a high-level group.

What the MM has done, is to drop the ball on high-level play.

Nothing more, nothing less. You will see it too, eventually, hawkeyefan.

I don't agree, I'm sorry. Your criticism has merit, I said, so I don't think I am painting your criticism as unreasonable. I also find that some of the higher level monsters in the MM need a bit of tweaking in order to be as effective as I like them.

It's the solution you request. You mentioned a "complete overhaul" of the system, as it pertains to monsters and high level play. I do think that is unreasonable. You may as well invite Jeremy Crawford to your house to fix your game. It's an entitled view and it's one that you think anyone who might share your criticism also agrees with. I don't think that's the case.

You absolutely have the tools needed. Your own judgment being the most important. To use your own example of Juiblex....you already know that you have to "add a way to counter trivial tactics or the CR should be dropped". So do that. You've recognized the problem and how it needs to be addressed in a general way....so now decide the specific solution. In this case, I would assume that dropping his CR is not desirable because he's meant to be a huge threat. So then add an ability that removes his seeming vulnerability to the repelling blast or any other spam tactic that your players use. Maybe Juiblex is so elastic that he cannot be forcibly moved? Seems reasonable.

This, in my opinion, is the far more reasonable approach. Legendary actions and resistance, spellcasting ability, daily powers, resistances, improved skills.....all of these are ways you can adjust a monster slightly in order to achieve the effect you want. These are almost all existing game mechanics that you are already familiar with. These are the tools available to you.

It's one thing to say "My criticism of 5E is that high level monster design feels incomplete" and quite another to say "I feel that high level monsters are lacking, and I expect the designers to address my concern in an official capacity through errata or an updated Monster Manual."

For plenty of players who don't play in the same hyper-optimized way that you and your players choose to play the game, the monsters and rules work as is, with little or no modification. Expecting the design to cater to you rather than to more average baseline is a pretty entitled way to view the game. You are far more capable of tweaking the system to match your expectations than a new player or DM is to do the same.

I hear you Hawkeyefan, I've never wanted any hand holding and it is very easy to make modifications. But, we're viewing this through the lens of a seasoned DM that has played through every edition of the game. The flip-side of this, is that I've seen time and time again, people struggle when they get behind the screen and try to DM... It's easy to get overwhelmed when trying improvise a narrative and develop challenging encounters, when you add modifying monsters & mechanics on top of that as a necessary part of the "Good DM Formula". I've seen people that would be good DMs just decide that they'd rather stay on the other side of the screen. I definitely don't want to overhaul the 5e rules or go back to the extremely granular codified approach of 3e. But, I think a supplement that provides lots of advice/examples/tools for building challenging, balanced, and dynamic encounters, modifying monsters (mechanically or aesthetically), maybe even tactical advice for DMs... I dunno, maybe it's an impractical idea, but anything that can help DMs build their skills, or give them the confidence to jump behind the screen without an AP would be cool with me.

I can understand the desire to have some assistance for new DMs to learn the ropes. I think it far less likely for new DMs to have to deal with this, as I think it is something that comes with some level of system mastery on the part of the players. There certainly will be examples of a new DM running a game for more experienced players, but I think that is far less often the case...typically the DM is of equal or greater experience as the players.

As I said, I can understand the desire of this. It's odd in that the source of this criticism is usually not someone that seems in need of it; mostly it is coming from folks who have plenty of experience as a DM. My take on it would be that it would be a great idea for someone to sell on the DMs Guild. I don't think that it makes sense for WotC to produce such a product. I don't know if it would have enough appeal for them.

I honestly think that this is the kind of thing that is best learned through experience, and to a lesser extent, through discussion on boards like these, or with other players and DMs. I mean, most of the time, the answer isn't as complex as we make it....if the party always sneaks up on everything, then raise the perception score of the important monsters to give them a chance to notice the PCs. Don't rely on passive perception and let them make actual checks. Simple.