D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[D_E]

Additionally, even many of the tougher/more singular monsters are relegated to either slapping spellcasting ability on it ('cause that never gets old, right?), or having it be a passive ability such as a medusa/basilisk stone gaze or the rakshasa's cursed claws. The number of creatures with a genuinely unique active abilities is annoyingly small. Even other kinds of passive abilities, like auras, are strangely absent.

Just want to point out that, in many cases, monsters with innate spellcasting have a very limited number of spells that are chosen to according to the monster's theme. The idea seems to be that whenever possible they re-use an existing spell, rather than writing a bunch of unique abilities that are all similar-to-but-different-than the spell (and each-other).

I'm not sure which is better, I think 4e put a greater emphasis on having everything needed to run a monster in the monster's stat block, while 5e is putting a greater emphasis on conformity across monsters.

 

[cbwjm]

Having everything needed to run a monster in the stat block is one of the things that was great in 4e. I tend to do something similar now, pick one or two spells/level and write out a short description and then just ignore the rest of there spells. So I might have a description of hold person with 2/day after it to denote their spell slots.

I've done something similar with NPC sorcerers. Instead of writing out sorcery points and twin spell, for instance, I'll write up something like multi attack, caster may target a second creature with firebolt 3/day.

I find this method easier than having to try and memorise the description of each spell.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Rhenny]

Having everything needed to run a monster in the stat block is one of the things that was great in 4e. I tend to do something similar now, pick one or two spells/level and write out a short description and then just ignore the rest of there spells. So I might have a description of hold person with 2/day after it to denote their spell slots.

I've done something similar with NPC sorcerers. Instead of writing out sorcery points and twin spell, for instance, I'll write up something like multi attack, caster may target a second creature with firebolt 3/day.

I find this method easier than having to try and memorise the description of each spell.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

This is one reason why I love running my 5e games online using Fantasy Grounds. The monsters have the spells attached and easy to read/use.

I do agree that the stat blocks in the mm were better in 4e though.

 

[Xeviat]

Conformity between monsters, with the use of spells instead of individual powers, is nice on the spellcasters. But noncasting monsters are boring.

Heck, dragons, who should be the pinnacle of awesomeness, are almost identical to each other EXCEPT for their lair actions. After 4E's amazingly differentiated dragons, that alone made me mad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dave2008]

Heck, dragons, who should be the pinnacle of awesomeness, are almost identical to each other EXCEPT for their lair actions. After 4E's amazingly differentiated dragons, that alone made me mad.

Yep, I thought they could at least give them different legendary actions. I.ve let dragons use lair actions in place of a legendary action

 

[Sacrosanct]

Heck, dragons, who should be the pinnacle of awesomeness, are almost identical to each other EXCEPT for their lair actions. After 4E's amazingly differentiated dragons, that alone made me mad.

That's an odd thing to say, because 5e's Lair actions are more varied and differentiated than 4e's dragon abilities. Looking the book, and a 4e dragon had one or two different abilities that other dragons didn't have. For example, an ancient green has lure and mind poison, and an ancient red has immolate foe. Even if you think one unique ability counts as "amazingly differentiated" (I don't, but that's not really relevant). Compare that to 5e, where each ancient dragon is going to have 3 unique lair actions, as well as regional actions. So when you look at what a dragon brings to the combat table, they can do more in 5e, and are more differentiated in 5e, than in 4e. 3 is greater than 2 or 1. Not to mention the 5e dragon can do them more often, as a lair action doesn't take from the dragon's actions, and one happens every round, unlike 4e which does take action points, and has a recharge cost.

 

[Xeviat]

That's an odd thing to say ...

Perhaps it's because the lairs don't feel like they're the dragon's abilities? That you can fight a dragon outside its lair (it lowers their CR like it does Beholders, right?).

Beyond individual powers dragons had in 4th, the role system made them play differently too. Especially an essentials dragon, the white dragon played very differently from a red or a black. They were all different. The blue was my favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

Perhaps it's because the lairs don't feel like they're the dragon's abilities? That you can fight a dragon outside its lair (it lowers their CR like it does Beholders, right?).

I've always considered lair actions to be effects that the dragon controls, so in that sense I would consider them a dragon ability.

Beyond individual powers dragons had in 4th, the role system made them play differently too. Especially an essentials dragon, the white dragon played very differently from a red or a black. They were all different. The blue was my favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confused. How do you mean the role system? I've always played them differently based on their lore, which has been in every edition. Unless I'm missing something. What in 4e makes that different?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Monsters, especially humanoids, are usable (without modification) at many more levels than in any previous edition due to bounded accuracy. The only difference is the number you use, so at level 1 you throw a single Bugbear at the party, and at level 10 you send a score or more.

Which gets into ludicrous territory pretty quick, since a dungeon becomes "you open a door and see 30 orcs playing cards". I have to roll for all these losers, who have suck AC, suck damage, and then track all their friggin hit points. Its a busywork treadmill to achieve the same thing 4E did better with minions.

Monsters in 5E are just sad, boring wusses PC's are meant to steamroll over in a round. The exception being casters (naturally...) which means I need another damn book handy, where 4E had the courtesy of keeping all the crap I needed to run a monster on the monster entry. It's like they designed for a party of champions all wielding non-proficient improvised weapons and stat arrays of straight 10-12's... God forbid you actually hand out magic items or let people use feats (or roll for stats).

 

[dave2008]

Perhaps it's because the lairs don't feel like they're the dragon's abilities? That you can fight a dragon outside its lair (it lowers their CR like it does Beholders, right?).

Beyond individual powers dragons had in 4th, the role system made them play differently too. Especially an essentials dragon, the white dragon played very differently from a red or a black. They were all different. The blue was my favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actual, unless I missed it (and I just checked again), dragon lair actions have no effect on their CR. The reason for this is typically only one of them causes damage and averaged out over 3 rounds it has minimal affect on CR. Of course, you could just swap them for legendary actions if you are concerned. That is what I have been doing - it really adds some distinctive flavor to each type. Of course I have added some 4e powers back int too