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

[Quartz]

They're a bag of HP. They're easy to hit. They have a reasonable attack bonus for their level, but they only hit as hard as a fighter with a greatsword. To me, it looks like they're missing an ability.

Don't forget that they can get Reactions and Bonus Actions.

 

[Dualazi]

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.

It more or less does…for players. For monsters they kneecapped the ability to do stuff like that on the fly, and anything even remotely resembling a ‘taunt’ effect against players has almost always been rejected, doubly so for nonmagical ones.

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.

I suspect ‘fiddly’ and ‘inconsistent’ are editorials, since most of the monster abilities were just riders, AoEs, or Save Ends effects, none of which are what I would call fiddly, especially since 2 of those are present in 5e as well. You’re also going to have to elaborate on what action types were unavailable to everyone, since you can definitely make basic attacks, bull rush, grapple, and aid another without needing class support to do so. Whether or not you were good at it was a result of other factors, but that’s pretty much the same story with 5e, a wizard can grapple, yeah, don’t expect him to win very often. The only thing I can think of off-hand is a marking mechanic, which is only vaguely even in 5e at all, save the more recent UAs.

Also, you seem to be going back and forth between player options and monster options, when we don’t care about the former in this discussion. This is about monster design, not player/class mechanics.

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).

Not wrong at all. All of that stuff you mentioned earlier about grabbing spears and insults and whatnot always boils down to a skill check if it’s not an explicit part of the monster’s statblock. So yeah, you end up RP’ing the choice of action, the efficacy of which is determined by the skills in question, or default stat bonuses in this case. Which is also an excellent counterpoint, even if there was a suite of more robust combat options, it’s still possible that the ogre ends up being a boring auto-attacker by virtue of not being effective with the new options.

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.

Not in the slightest. I could probably think of a dozen reasons for an ogre to be intelligent, from finding a headband of intellect, to divine meddling/lineage, demonic possession, being the subject of arcane experiments, the list goes on and on. Outside of combat there are so many dizzying factors from campaign theme to setting to character intervention that those options are best left lightly touched on at best, since there’s no assumption that they’ll be used. There is an inherent need for the Ogre to be usable in combat, though. 4e design was great about this, giving a slew of background info on how a lich operates is of little value when they tend to be used sparingly and customized as overarching villains, but having them perform well in combat was of utmost importance when it came down that. I’ll definitely say they didn’t hit the mark perfectly out the gate, but the reasoning was solid.

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.

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.

Pretty much shot your argument in the foot at the end there, because yeah, you can painstakingly craft every foe to have some modicum of options or abilities, but the crap CR system makes it a pain to do in a balanced fashion and it takes up precious planning time. When I buy a product, I’m expressly doing so for that reason; to have to the pros craft interesting monsters so that I don’t have to. Also, given how bounded accuracy works I don’t think we have to worry about 30 different ogre variations, but we could certainly use a table of alternate actions/abilities to add as needed.

Same chapter different paragraph with the RP, there’s an endless wealth of materials and settings both within D&D and fantasy at large that you can draw from to get background information for ecology, the exception of course being if you want to play in an established setting. That’s my problem with the 5e lore, is that in addition to eating up space that could go to statblocks or art, they waste a bunch of time with lore for a setting I’m not going to use in a product that really should go out of its way to be system agnostic. Doubly so when products like VgtM come out, which is exactly where that rich setting RP stuff should be revealed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I also feel it’s worth noting that “powerz” aren’t the only way of making a monster interesting.

I fully agree. The most important factor to making a monster interesting is how the DM plays it, regardless of what's in a statblock.

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.

Flavor text is just as important as the statblock. So while technically correct that you can ignore it, you can also ignore the statblock. But to hold one over the other, especially at such an extreme disparity, is doing the monster and yourself a disservice. No wonder people think monsters are boring if they are ignoring the parts that make it interesting and unique and only look at numbers. Like I said in an earlier thread, it's like cutting yourself off at the knees and then complaining the fence is broken because it was built too high to see over.

I also disagree that most likely those humanoids will be generic auto attackers. I'm not sure how many times this has to be brought up in threads like this, but that is a "you" problem, not a monster problem, because none of those monsters are forced to do nothing but just auto attack. Monsters, especially humanoids, can and will and should use the environment to their advantage. Goblins are excellent at hit and run tactics, bugbears are very sneaky, ALL of them may surrender and turn on their allies to save their own skin, etc, and you shouldn't need a blurb in a statblock that says, "will use terrain and objects around them if they find it to be at an advantage in battle, and feel free to equip them how you want." in order to play them that way.

There is a HUGE functional difference between an ogre and a bugbear. It's called intelligence, of which the bugbear is much higher and thus functionally will act different in the game. If you don't think there is a functional difference, than I'm afraid that's on you ignoring half of what's under the bugbear's entry. It simply is a false claim to make objectively.

 

[Dualazi]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] you are technically correct (the best kind of correct) with your examples, but only because...guess what, the stat block supports those distinctions. Goblins are shifty and can use hit and run tactics because they get to use disengage/dodge as bonus actions, and bugbears are encouraged to be use as ambushers because they receive a mechanical bonus for doing so.

Plus, I suggest you and others take a step back with me, as the ogre is just the initial point made by Xeviat to start the thread off. Things get much worse when you compare creatures like frost and fire giants, which have identical attack patterns (both of which are basic melee/ranged, no spells or abilities) and simply mirrored immunities. They are 1 point of intelligence apart from one another. I used 4e frost giants quite a bit and they had a bevvy of cold themed powers, from damage to terrain manipulation, and it's disheartening that none of that made it through here. You can add spells and effects yourself, typically through templates or class levels, but at CR 8 and 9 respectively that effectively shunts them into late game options at best. Kobold Press' Tome of Beasts is an example of better diversity, with Thursir giants having augmented basic attacks, Flab Giants with a powerful pin, and Jotun with a combination of alternate attacks through legendary actions along with spellcasting.

 

[dco]

I fully agree. The most important factor to making a monster interesting is how the DM plays it, regardless of what's in a statblock.

Flavor text is just as important as the statblock. So while technically correct that you can ignore it, you can also ignore the statblock. But to hold one over the other, especially at such an extreme disparity, is doing the monster and yourself a disservice. No wonder people think monsters are boring if they are ignoring the parts that make it interesting and unique and only look at numbers. Like I said in an earlier thread, it's like cutting yourself off at the knees and then complaining the fence is broken because it was built too high to see over.

I also disagree that most likely those humanoids will be generic auto attackers. I'm not sure how many times this has to be brought up in threads like this, but that is a "you" problem, not a monster problem, because none of those monsters are forced to do nothing but just auto attack. Monsters, especially humanoids, can and will and should use the environment to their advantage. Goblins are excellent at hit and run tactics, bugbears are very sneaky, ALL of them may surrender and turn on their allies to save their own skin, etc, and you shouldn't need a blurb in a statblock that says, "will use terrain and objects around them if they find it to be at an advantage in battle, and feel free to equip them how you want." in order to play them that way.

There is a HUGE functional difference between an ogre and a bugbear. It's called intelligence, of which the bugbear is much higher and thus functionally will act different in the game. If you don't think there is a functional difference, than I'm afraid that's on you ignoring half of what's under the bugbear's entry. It simply is a false claim to make objectively.

Flavor text as the name implies adds flavor, it doesn't add anything for combat and in a lot of cases is pure fill. That's the reason why all the creatures of the appendices come without flavour text, the flavor was not important.

The text of the bugbear could be reduced to they prefer ambushes, worship Huggrek and enslave goblins, in their stat block they already have the surprise attack feature. The flavor text doesn't make the combat less boring, it doesn't add anything to it. The ogre could be reduced to a stupid, glutton and hot blooded creatures who gang with other creatures to bully or prey weaker creatures, after more than 1/2 page to tell the same thing the flavor text doesn't add anything to spice combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A simple fix for big monsters: you have advantage on strength checks made to grapple against foes that are smaller than you. And you may have disadvantage on strength checks vs bigger foes. That should make everything a bit more interesting. Maybe give advantage on dexterity based grapple checks if you are two size categories smaller than the foe...

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] you are technically correct (the best kind of correct) with your examples, but only because...guess what, the stat block supports those distinctions. Goblins are shifty and can use hit and run tactics because they get to use disengage/dodge as bonus actions, and bugbears are encouraged to be use as ambushers because they receive a mechanical bonus for doing so..

But those weren't the only things I mentioned in my example. Every humanoid can do more than what they have an ability in the statblock for, as I illustrated above.

*Edit* And do you really need flavor text for real world animals/animal varients? We kinda already know how they act and behave. Why waste the page space for that?

Flavor text as the name implies adds flavor, it doesn't add anything for combat and in a lot of cases is pure fill.

Objectively not true. The flavor text tells you how and when the monster will most likely be encountered, how it behaves, what its motivations are, etc---all things that add a tremendous amount to combat. If you don't think it does, then no wonder you find the monsters lacking. You're completely ignoring what brings them to life in an RPG--its personality and expected behavior.

for example, with the ogre, I can assure you that it being a dumb brutish thug that will "whenever possible" ally itself with humanoids IS going to have an effect in the combat encounter because it tells me as the DM a base guideline on how to play it. For goblins, not only does it tell me they are hit and run, but that implies to me that they avoid melee combat whenever possible, and will try to flee or even turn on their allies (interesting RP possibilities there) or beg the moment things go south for them. That's not in the statblock, but you can be sure it affects the combat encounter.

It's the difference between:
"The ogre moves 30ft and attacks Thorn. Does AC 17 hit? Ok, 8 damage."

and

"The brutish ogre turns and yells, 'Baaarrrrghhh! Squishy and smooshy hoomans dare think you beat Gruumash! now you dead!'. He waves his giant hand and suddenly from hidden outcroppings you are peppered with arrows from his goblin companions as Gruumash grabs the cow carcass he was previously feasting on and hurls it at Thorn!"


If you're only doing the first, then no wonder why you find monsters boring. It's the difference between roll-playing and role-playing, and role-playing shouldn't stop once combat starts.

 

[machineelf]

I'm of the opinion that not all low-level monsters need to have a bunch of bells and whistles. Much of the excitement for them is what the DM brings to the table story-wise, and the threat they still can pose for low-level characters.

An ogre is a simple, large, stinking brute that will club you over the head and drag you back to its cave to eat you. A single ogre is not much of a challenge for a group of 4 or 5 adventurers. But if one can isolate a single 1st level adventurer, it can be trouble. What's more dangerous is when your group wanders across territory that a group of ogres has claimed. Imagine 5 or 6 ogres coming out of caves near some ruins along an old mountain pass. You can even have them gang up on one adventurer, club him unconscious, and try to drag him into an ogre cave while the others toss rocks to keep his adventure mates from rescuing him. That would be an exciting scene, and motivate the rest of the group to act fast before their friend is torn limb-from-limb in the cave for tonight's supper.

5th edition seems to save the bells and whistles for higher-level monsters, and that seems right to me. But I understand that opinion varies on this sort of thing.

 

[dco]

Objectively not true. The flavor text tells you how and when the monster will most likely be encountered, how it behaves, what its motivations are, etc---all things that add a tremendous amount to combat. If you don't think it does, then no wonder you find the monsters lacking. You're completely ignoring what brings them to life in an RPG--its personality and expected behavior.

for example, with the ogre, I can assure you that it being a dumb brutish thug that will "whenever possible" ally itself with humanoids IS going to have an effect in the combat encounter because it tells me as the DM a base guideline on how to play it. For goblins, not only does it tell me they are hit and run, but that implies to me that they avoid melee combat whenever possible, and will try to flee the moment things go south for them. That's not in the statblock, but you can be sure it affects the combat encounter.

It's the difference between:
"The ogre moves 30ft and attacks Thorn. Does AC 17 hit? Ok, 8 damage."

and

"The brutish ogre turns and yells, 'Baaarrrrghhh! Squishy and smooshy hoomans dare think you beat Gruumash! now you dead!'. He waves his giant hand and suddenly from hidden outcroppings you are peppered with arrows from his goblin companions as Gruumash grabs the cow carcass he was previously feasting on and hurls it at Thorn!"

If you're only doing the first, then no wonder why you find monsters boring. It's the difference between roll-playing and role-playing, and role-playing shouldn't stop once combat starts.

Yes, that's a difference between different ways of roleplaying, still flavor is flavor, or do you want to tell me that your archmages, bandits, etc are all mute because they don't have flavor text?
That doesn't change that later the ogre will do the same thing, his base attack, anda lot of players and DM find it boring regardless of all things the DM says to describe the scene.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, that's a difference between different ways of roleplaying, still flavor is flavor, or do you want to tell me that your archmages, bandits, etc are all mute because they don't have flavor text?
That doesn't change that later the ogre will do the same thing, his base attack, anda lot of players and DM find it boring regardless of all things the DM says to describe the scene.

You said flavor adds nothing to combat. That is objectively not true, as I demonstrated. And the only reason an ogre would do the same base attack over and over is if there is no other reasonable option to the DM. In my example above, I just showed you an example of the ogre not doing its base attack because in the actual game world, there are often other options that an ogre would do. You know, if you paid attention to the flavor and didn't treat monsters as nothing more than stat blocks that don't take environmental factors into consideration...