D&D 5E Low CRs and "Boring" Monsters: Ogre

[Psikerlord#]

How about... on a natural 19+, the target must make a save or roll on an Injuries/setback table. Also, when bloodied, ogres get an attack against everyone in melee with them, and they have a 10 ft reach.

That's how Low Fantasy Gaming RPG spices up Ogres (p,120, free PDF https://lowfantasygaming.com/ ).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Ugh. The hard-coded nature of 4e monster stats coupled with an inflexible combat system is PRECISELY what I hated about 4e and precisely what made the 4e monsters boring and disgustingly two-dimensional. Don't give monsters each some hard-coded, inflexible ability. Particularly big, dumb brutes like ogres. Expand what the system lets everyone do in combat, perhaps by houserule (ing), then use skills and RP considerations to determine specifically what the ogre does.

Example:
- Ogre leans over a PC and roars, letting its foetid breath wash over said PC. Some sort of opposed initimidate check vs PC, resulting in Frightened or Poisoned condition for a round or two if successful.

- Ogre picks up a PC with a successful grapple check (Athletics vs PCs' Athletics or Acrobatics to resist), may maneuver said PC to provide some cover from ranged attacks. Next round, ogre tosses the PC at another PC - thrown attack roll w/ improvised weapon. If the attack hits deal unarmed strike damage to both targets. Maybe thrown target ends up prone, save or skill check for impacted target to remain standing.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm trying to think of a humanoid I found more disappointing than the ogre and I can't think of one. It's the poster child for a boring bag of hit points. Ogres should be terrifying for a low level party and they just aren't.

An ogre is a 'hard' encounter (450 XP) for 5 x 1st level PCs. Not even deadly.

With 13 damage on a hit (at +6) it drops 1 PC per round, and likely one shot auto-kills any spellcaster it manages to clobber.

A 1st level party (5 PCs) has an average adventuring day XP budget of 1500 XP (300 each). Meaning even after taking on the Ogre, they still have another 1050XP worth of encounters to go before long resting.

If that isnt a terrifying encounter for a low level party, then Im not sure what is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Do the abilities you guys tack on add to the XP value of the creature for your heroes? Bump the CR by 1-2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me, yes. I threw together guidelines here for how to adjust CR by adding things like feats (as well as several of my own homebrew abilities that monsters may have)

 

[pemerton]

Ogres are perfectly in-line with what the monster creation guidelines in the DMG lay out as the normal process of determining CR

<snip>

And since an ogre deals enough damage in one hit to put a 1st level character out of the fight with a single hit, or outright kill a 1st level character with a critical hit, it's not at all surprising that the final CR was bumped upward from the CR 1 the math comes out to for a final result of CR 2.

The ogre should be a CR 1 creature by its stats, not CR2. A bandit captain is a good CR 2 creature.

Comparing the ogre and the captain:

AC 11 vs 15 plus a parry buff
hp 59 vs 65
Melee Attack +6 for 13 vs +5 for 6, 6, and 5
Ranged Attack +6 for 11 vs +5 for 5 and 5​

On the whole, the bandit looks quite a bit tougher. Assuming +6 to hit, the AC increase reduces hit chance from 80% to 60%, which is a 4/3 multiplier to effective hp, which are already higher than the ogre. And for -1 to hit in melee it gets +3 to damage, which is nearly a 25% boost. The -1 only reduces chance to hit by one-fifth if AC is 22, which is probably not that likely at low levels. Vs AC 17, expected DPR is 6.5 from the ogre but 7.65 from the bandit.

So overall, the bandit looks something like 1.1 (base hp) * 1.33 (better AC) * 1.17 (better DPR) = perhaps 70% more dangerous than the ogre in melee. (Upping the PCs' to hit and AC will bring this back down, but the bandit captain will still be notably better. And I haven't factored in parrying.)

Perhaps the ogre can't be CR 1 because of its potential for one-shot killing some 1st level wizards or wounded PCs. But it is noticeably weaker in melee than the CR 2 bandit captain. Curiously enough, though, the ogre is a more dangerous ranged attacker than the bandit (+1 to hit, +1 to damage) - which I find a bit counterintuitive.

Multiattack for 2 greatclub attacks would double their damage. That would up their offensive CR to 4, and 4 and 1/4 average to 2 by steps or mathematically. That would potentially make them more interesting, as you could swap out an attack for a Push to make them seem like they hit like a truck

It's been an oft discussed topic here over the years, with most people coming down somewhere between wanting more of 4e's relatively complex offerings and others prioritizing speed of play with these 'simple' foes

Doubling the ogre's attacks would then make it stronger than the bandit captain. Maybe it should be, though - it's an ogre, after all!

An alternative approach is just to allow it to Shove on a hit, with a +6 to the check (ie STR + prof). This is fairly straightforward, and also fits with its "ganging up" flavour text: if ogre 1 knocks a PC over, ogre 2 can get advantage, which takes its DPR from 6.5 to nearly 10 - which is more on par with the bandit captain. (Though not ever attack will have advantage, so still not quite there.)

No offense to the OP, but in threads like this, it's almost always ignored about what the actual flavor text is and how it impacts the game. That text is there for a reason, and monsters are much more than just a statblock. So what does the text say: "Whenever possible, ogres gang up with other monsters to bully or prey on creatures weaker than themselves. They associate freely with...." This is very important, because it means that the party probably isn't just fighting an ogre, but fighting other creatures along with it. "Whenever possible" is strong language. It's not "occasionally" or "sometimes".

How does travelling in groups affect its CR, though? It seems a tangential point.

 

[Dualazi]

Ugh. The hard-coded nature of 4e monster stats coupled with an inflexible combat system is PRECISELY what I hated about 4e and precisely what made the 4e monsters boring and disgustingly two-dimensional. Don't give monsters each some hard-coded, inflexible ability. Particularly big, dumb brutes like ogres. Expand what the system lets everyone do in combat, perhaps by houserule (ing), then use skills and RP considerations to determine specifically what the ogre does.

The problem with this line of thinking is that not every DM wants to meticulously comb over every monster to create unique abilities, and also the difficulty of creating balanced options on the fly. Furthermore, monsters are explicitly discouraged from improvising with the rules as written, as I said earlier in the thread, on account of them having to sacrifice their entire action to trip/rush/grapple.

Secondly, the “skills and RP” solution is a cop-out, and always will be. Same thing was said in any number of fighter vs. caster debates, and it’s just as useless here. Also, if you do happen to think “skills and RP” is the proper option, then you must then acknowledge that that would be just as applicable for the allegedly inflexible 4e monsters. No one forced you to use their written abilities if you’d rather house-rule them.

If a low level PC isn't scared of a creature that can kill him or her in one hit, then they aren't a very bright PC.

Or they’re a (group) of PCs who understand basic strategy against an opponent with no significant resistances, no abilities, and a mediocre move speed.

1) Not all monsters need to have kool powerz. That's a fallacy. There are hundreds of monsters to choose from. Ogres fit a purpose.

I don’t believe anyone made the claim all monsters need super flashy powers, but there’s a definite disparity here on the other side of the spectrum. Giants in particular are bad about this, with only the cloud and storm giants even getting spellcasting (mostly non-combat or utility) and only the storm giant alone with a unique non-spell ability. Pretty much all non-caster humanoids join this camp as well, save a few of the pseudo leaders able to give a few extra attacks here and there, like gnoll leaders.

I also feel it’s worth noting that “powerz” aren’t the only way of making a monster interesting. Things like auras are very simple to run, and the 4e ability of demons to shift their resistance adaptively offers a lot more thought for both sides than simply slapping every kind of resist on them like most high-end ones seem to.

2) even if you take #1 away, let's look at what it says for an ogre. No offense to the OP, but in threads like this, it's almost always ignored about what the actual flavor text is and how it impacts the game. That text is there for a reason, and monsters are much more than just a statblock. So what does the text say: "Whenever possible, ogres gang up with other monsters to bully or prey on creatures weaker than themselves. They associate freely with...." This is very important, because it means that the party probably isn't just fighting an ogre, but fighting other creatures along with it. "Whenever possible" is strong language. It's not "occasionally" or "sometimes".

Flavor text is always ignorable. There’s absolutely no guarantee it’ll fit into the world your running and/or circumstances that lead to exceptions to the rule. You’re no more bound to have ogres with minions than you are to have goblins worship the listed deity in x-y-z MM or source book. Even so, let’s say that’s the case; as I said earlier, most of those humanoids will be generic auto-attackers as well (assuming they’re from the usual cast of orcs/goblins/bugbears etc.). In the end, it’s not about whether or not the group is dangerous, but if they have interesting ways of affecting the battle/players that need to be accounted for. As it stands, there’s no functional difference between an ogre or a hill giant, one is just a bigger sack of HP than the other.

 

[discosoc]

Ogres are fine, they just make horrible solo fights, which is what they tend to get used in (because they are large). The reality is, 5e does a horrible job of handling "bosses." Start throwing multiple ogres at a level 2 or 3 party, and they can be pretty good challenges -- assuming you stick to the expected 6-8 encounters per long rest assumptions.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The problem with this line of thinking is that not every DM wants to meticulously comb over every monster to create unique abilities, and also the difficulty of creating balanced options on the fly. Furthermore, monsters are explicitly discouraged from improvising with the rules as written, as I said earlier in the thread, on account of them having to sacrifice their entire action to trip/rush/grapple.

Fiddly and/or unique abilities are almost the opposite of what I'm talking about, let alone coming up with them on the fly. The system should be able to able to model a reasonable range of combat and noncombat tactics such as "I try to grab the orc's spear out of his hands." Or "I try to make the hobgoblin angry at me by insulting his paternity." The system should offer viable alternatives to "hit things" that are open to everything. If the GM feels these tactics aren't viable, they should houserule ways to make them viable. And then apply them consistently to both monsters AND player characters.

4e went the completely wrong direction by squelching any non-hit things action and then designing a horde of fiddly, inconsistent, unique abilities for every monster based on breed or military rank. Many of which accomplished similar things in highly inconsistent ways. Action types that should have been open to anyone were monopolized by specific race or class options for no justification whatsoever beyond "balance". 5e hasn't done a fantastic job in that department by comparison, but there ARE at least base grapple, shove, aid maneuvers as well as more expansive (if less defined) skills.

Secondly, the “skills and RP” solution is a cop-out, and always will be. Same thing was said in any number of fighter vs. caster debates, and it’s just as useless here. Also, if you do happen to think “skills and RP” is the proper option, then you must then acknowledge that that would be just as applicable for the allegedly inflexible 4e monsters. No one forced you to use their written abilities if you’d rather house-rule them.

Wrong. First of all, these aren't connected concepts. Skills are hard-coded monster abilities that provide tangible benefits, if ill-defined ones. (And the ogre doesn't get any beyond base stats btw). RP is inappropriate for gauging class or spell balance since that's character dependent, but it is entirely appropriate for monster balance since it determines monster behavior. For example: If you take a base ogre as GM and give it a dozen contingency plans or play it as deftly manipulating the labyrinthine schemes of Drow nobility (beyond brute intimidation) then I'm sorry but yes, you're doing something wrong. 4e absolutely could have fixed their base system by offering reasonable non-hit things options, 4e GMs could have houseruled their way out of the problem. But the base system made it much more difficult to do so.

As a GM, a document that provides ideas for RP, social perspectives, religion, hierarchy, and other things to inspire the imagination is far more valuable than wasting space on separate stat blocks for ogre bludgeoneers, thugs, skirmishers, warhulks, and other pigeonholed combatants with slightly different circumstantial boni.

I don’t believe anyone made the claim all monsters need super flashy powers, but there’s a definite disparity here on the other side of the spectrum. Giants in particular are bad about this, with only the cloud and storm giants even getting spellcasting (mostly non-combat or utility) and only the storm giant alone with a unique non-spell ability. Pretty much all non-caster humanoids join this camp as well, save a few of the pseudo leaders able to give a few extra attacks here and there, like gnoll leaders.

All those NPC stat blocks at the end of the MM and VGtM are designed to be adjusted to an assortment of monstrous races. Need an ogre shaman? Fit the ogre stat and special ability adjustments to the Druid or Acolyte NPC block. Want to create a swashbuckling gelatinous cube for some tortured in-game reason? Gelatinous cube stats and abilities mixed with Swashbuckler (VGtM). It's a pain to recalculate CR in 5e, but the tools are there.

That said, having a book or web-enhancement of monster-specific customization options as well as appropriate CR-adjustment wouldn't be a terrible idea.

 

[dco]

An ogre is a 'hard' encounter (450 XP) for 5 x 1st level PCs. Not even deadly.

With 13 damage on a hit (at +6) it drops 1 PC per round, and likely one shot auto-kills any spellcaster it manages to clobber.

A 1st level party (5 PCs) has an average adventuring day XP budget of 1500 XP (300 each). Meaning even after taking on the Ogre, they still have another 1050XP worth of encounters to go before long resting.

If that isnt a terrifying encounter for a low level party, then Im not sure what is.

At the same time it has some horrible saves, if it fails a control spell it can die without doing anything.

 

[akr71]

Ogres are fine, they just make horrible solo fights, which is what they tend to get used in (because they are large). The reality is, 5e does a horrible job of handling "bosses." Start throwing multiple ogres at a level 2 or 3 party, and they can be pretty good challenges -- assuming you stick to the expected 6-8 encounters per long rest assumptions.

Or one ogre with a group of 6 to 8 orcs like in LMoP. For a group of low level adventurers, that can be a pretty scary fight, especially if the ogre shows up a round or two into combat - being outnumbered 2 to 1 by orcs is one thing, but now this beast?

However, I do agree with a lot of posters. The ogre could use a special ability or two to make it a real threat - and to keep the party on their toes the next time they meet one.