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

[Sacrosanct]

Could you not derail the thread? The initial topic was "some monsters are boring (like the ogre)" and "the ogre is weak for a CR 2". Which of those points are you arguing against? Because you're clearly arguing against something.

If you don't want me to call out YOU making a strawman, then perhaps YOU shouldn't make a straw man. This isn't me derailing, this is me asking you to back up your claim.

"People have been saying this."
"Reallly? Where?"
"Don't derail the thread"

SMH...

[MENTION=6855537]Dualazi[/MENTION] didn't say that an ogre is limited to what's in its stablock.

Yes he did. He said there isn't any other option an ogre would take other than it's base attack, based on what I'm assuming is metagaming DPR. That's simply false. An ogre will do whatever it's typical behavior would do and in what environment it's encountered. You guys can't seem to grasp this concept because I've been saying it often and your response are all in the context of comparing it to DPR. It would be impossible for me to list every scenario and environment a monster can be encountered with. Will an ogre do it's base attack? Sure, probably most often. But depending on it's surroundings and what's available to it, it may do something else. That's a concept you seem to be either dead set against, or unable to visualize.

I'm still waiting for you to quote me saying the things you said I said by the way.

There was no contradiction, as I've never argued that the ogre (or other generic monster) can't do such things, just that it's a massive waste of time and routinely subpar to going with the auto-attack option, which is the case here.

The contradiction was you saying I never showed how an ogre can do anything other than a base attack and literally followed that up in the next paragraph with you pointing out how I had the ogre do something other than a base attack. You argued two opposite positions in the same post. Specifically:

"You showed nothing with your example." (that showed an ogre did something other than base attack)
" In your example, at best the ogre wastes his turn with yelling for his buddies and a worthless improvised ranged weapon attack" (which is not it's base attack)

That's a contradiction

You can fling cows all you want, but when you make that pitiful ranged 20/60 attack dealing 1d4 damage (as per the improvised weapon rules) then the party fighter is just going to be pleased he didn't have to deal with the javelin that could have been thrown.

Maybe a javelin wasn't readily available. This is what I keep trying to get through, and apparently it's falling on deaf ears. The environment of the encounter matters. You keep assuming that the statblock is the only thing that seems to impact the game. I bet every single one of your goblins have leather armor and shields because that's what the statblock says, often in spite of what may actually be available in the environment. Maybe the goblins don't have short bows, maybe they have mail shirts, maybe they have spears, maybe they improvise traps, etc. Statblocks are baselines. And even if a javelin is available, you're using metagame knowledge to make a decision for the ogre. Yet another reason why the fluff is important. Ogres are brutish and violent and dumb and prone to immediate outbursts. it fits the ogre's personality to grab the carcass it's next to and hurl it rather than think to itself, "Well, the javelin has a higher DPR, so I'll go grab that instead of the thing right in front of me."

You call the ogre boring, but are completely ignoring the things that can make the encounter less boring for metagaming reasons. That's 100% on you, not the game.

The real point that you consistently seem to not acknowledge is that that there's no functional difference between an ogre and a hill giant. Neither of them is unique in any way, and you can swap one for the other in either of your examples and nothing at all changes.

And what you keep refusing to acknowledge is that flavor does impart a functional difference. Flavor is what sets the encounter, it tells you how the monster will behave, how it will act, and in what types of settings it will be found. Those are all things that have a real and functional impact in the combat encounter unless you're playing arena style D&D. Since hill giants are literally meant to fill the role of "bigger ogre", there's not a whole lot of functional difference other than having the higher stats of being a larger and tougher creature. But there is another difference in that hill giants try to emulate the culture of those around them. So a hill giant will most likely be encountered in a different environment than an ogre, who just wanders around from place to place when the food runs try. The DMG gives two example of hill giants trying to live in trees and building dwellings with doors and windows. So even with two creatures that are intended to be very similar, that is still a functional difference because it impacts game play.

You've been doing that all thread. We've been saying that we find the ogre and its ilk to be mechanically boring, and your response has been to just repeat the mantra of "roleplay better".

If I've been saying that (mechanical details aren't important and a good roleplayer only needs fluff) all thread, then I suppose it's easy for you to find one quote of me arguing that the mechanical details aren't important and that good roleplayers only need flavor text. Just one. I'll wait. What you will find is me saying the fluff is equally important, but that's not the same as saying mechanical details aren't, or that good role players only need fluff is it?

You have only proved there are infinite ways to narrate an attack as we all knew in a thread about the mechanisms of one creature (the ogre) in a fight.

.

You argued that the flavor text doesn't add anything to combat. And that is blatantly false. How a monster behaves, how it reacts, and it's motivations affect how it handles combat because those things drive every decision, in or out of combat. it's a direct impact to combat. It affects things like tactics, will it flee or surrender or fight to the death, will it even enter combat in the first place (using the hill giant above, the quickest way to get it to fight is to insult it), etc. Unless you're playing a boardgame like Wrath of A, where the rules clearly say that all monsters can only do what's on their statsheet and the environment and other people around it can't be interacted with outside of those strict actions, then behavior and fluff matters. In fact, that's what makes a TTRPG an RPG compared to what makes Wrath of A a boardgame.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No wonder you guys think monsters are boring, because you're playing them as nothing but boring bags of stats when you have your solution literally right there in front of you but you either can't, or won't bother to think outside of a statblock.

White room analysis might see ogres as tactically boring. I can see the point.

But, I don't consider it a problem of design or with the monster itself. I think those who find the monster boring should spice it up! But, I like the ogre as it is for many reasons. Among them.

• "I can almost kill you with a single blow" = an identity for low-level ogre fights.
• A tactically interesting ogre would violate the characterization of ogres as dumb brutes.
• Makes using hordes of ogres easy (for higher level ogre fights)
• Gives clear tactical information to the player (ogres are vulnerable to those who are quick and accurate and maybe prefer ranged attacks)

Any more complications have diminishing returns for me (and, I'd imagine, even more severe diminishing returns for newbies).

Folks who want a more tactically interesting ogre should feel free to spice theirs up, and I'd welcome a thread discussing ways to make monsters more tactically interesting in general.

I don't think it's a problem that ogres aren't exactly tactically nuanced, though.

 

[Darkness]

Hey folks, this thread is getting a little rowdy.

Going forward, please keep it civil, everybody.

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.

For reference, the rules.

If you have any questions, PM me.

-Darkness,
EN World moderator

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I looked at the code initially and it looked like you had the Ogre at AC 15 with Defensive Duelist but I couldn't be certain so I'm glad you re-looked at it.

I suppose it was a bit of hyperbole on my part that a CR2 Bandit Captain could take on 5 1st level characters and then a CR2 Ogre. If you do the reverse (using your simulations) and face the Ogre first the Bandit Captain is in good enough shape, I think, to defeat 4 1st level PCs most of the time.

Just for fun, and as a way of avoiding my real work , here's that fight: a post-ogre Bandit Captain with 39.03 HP remaining vs. four 1st level PCs using simple tactics. I chose the PCs as a balance between "reasonably-effective; could have fun playing this at the table" and "simple to code up using the existing primitives." (I.e. I only had to add one feat to make them work; I didn't have to add rules for spellcasting or anything.)

// same as bandit captain but with fewer HP
let weakenedBanditCaptain() = Combatant(banditName(), (15, 16, 14, 14, 11, 14, 39), AC=15,
                                Traits = [DefensiveDuelist], Prof = +2,
                                Actions = [Action.Create("Melee attack",
                                                Attack [
                                                    Attack.Create "slashes" 5 [DieRoll.Create(1, 6, 3)]
                                                    Attack.Create "slashes" 5 [DieRoll.Create(1, 6, 3)]
                                                    Attack.Create "stabs" 5 [DieRoll.Create(1, 4, 3)]
                                                    ])
                                ])

// champion1 was generated using PHB standard array and variant human Fighter 1 with Defense Style and chain mail + shield + longsword and Heavy Armor Master feat
let champion1() = Combatant(nameOf humanNames "Proto-Champion Brawler", (16, 14, 14, 10, 12, 8, 12), AC=19,
                            Traits=[HeavyArmorMaster], Prof = +2,
                            Actions = [Action.Create("Melee attack",
                                            Attack [
                                                Attack.Create "slashes" 5 [DieRoll.Create(1, 8, 3)]
                                                ])
                                       ]
                            )
// archer1 was generated using PHB standard array and variant human Fighter 1 with Archery Style and studded leather and heavy crossbow and Sharpshooter feat
let archer1() = Combatant(nameOf humanNames "Proto-Champion Archer", (14, 16, 14, 10, 12, 8, 12), AC=15, Prof = +2,
                            Actions = [Action.Create("Shoot",
                                            Attack [
                                                Attack.BestOf(Attack.Create "shoots" 7 [DieRoll.Create(1, 10, 3)], Attack.Create "headshots" 2 [DieRoll.Create(1, 10, 3)])
                                                ])
                                        ]
                            )

// rogue1 was generated using PHB standard array and variant human Rogue 1 with studded leather and light crossbow and Skulker feat (doesn't factor into this fight)
let rogue1() = Combatant(nameOf humanNames "Rogue", (10, 16, 14, 14, 12, 8, 12), AC=15, Prof = +2, Traits=[SneakAttack(DieRoll.Create(1, 6))],
                            Actions = [Action.Create("Shoot",
                                            Attack [
                                                Attack.Create "shoots" 5 [DieRoll.Create(1, 10, 3)]
                                                ])
                                        ]
                            )

Weakened bandit captain against two front-liners and two Sharpshooters:

compare [champion1;champion1;archer1;archer1] [weakenedBanditCaptain]

Kitty the Bandit Captain wins 0 out of 100 matches against Katie the Proto-Champion Brawler and Rupert Grint the Proto-Champion Brawler and Elias the Proto-Champion Archer and Daniel Pinkwater the Proto-Champion Archer, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)

Same thing against two front-liners and two rogues instead (to see if it's just a Sharpshooter thing):

compare [champion1;champion1;rogue1;rogue1] [weakenedBanditCaptain]

Kitty the Bandit Captain wins 0 out of 100 matches against Katie the Proto-Champion Brawler and Elias the Proto-Champion Brawler and Lux the Rogue and Katie the Rogue, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)

How much of this is because of the Ogre weakening the bandit captain? Let's try it against a full-strength Bandit Captain.

compare [champion1;champion1;archer1;archer1] [banditCaptain]

Elias the Bandit Captain wins 3 out of 100 matches against Rupert Grint the Proto-Champion Brawler and Maid Marian the Proto-Champion Brawler and Maid Marian the Proto-Champion Archer and Rupert Grint the Proto-Champion Archer, with 0.42 HP remaining (0% of total)

compare [champion1;champion1;rogue1;rogue1] [banditCaptain]

Grizzabella the Bandit Captain wins 9 out of 100 matches against Graal Tiger the Proto-Champion Brawler and Rupert Grint the Proto-Champion Brawler and Ruprecht the Rogue and Kitty the Rogue, with 1.83 HP remaining (2% of total)

Conclusion: four 1st level PCs is a very, very tough fight for a Bandit Captain, with or without an Ogre as a prelude. Call it around Deadly x6-8. (Based on my experience with Deadly x6 challenges, PCs can win them, but it takes a fair amount of luck and there's about a 70% chance they'll lose if they just walk up and start bashing away with attack rolls.)

All the code is at this link: https://repl.it/EnFq/9

P.S. For those who don't like variant humans, if I remove Heavy Armor Master from the equation, then the weakened bandit captain wins around 3 out of 100 matches against the frontliner/rogue party (so, zero feats involved in the combat), and the full-strength bandit captain wins about 24 out of 100 matches.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Maybe a javelin wasn't readily available. This is what I keep trying to get through, and apparently it's falling on deaf ears. The environment of the encounter matters. You keep assuming that the statblock is the only thing that seems to impact the game. I bet every single one of your goblins have leather armor and shields because that's what the statblock says, often in spite of what may actually be available in the environment. Maybe the goblins don't have short bows, maybe they have mail shirts, maybe they have spears, maybe they improvise traps, etc. Statblocks are baselines. And even if a javelin is available, you're using metagame knowledge to make a decision for the ogre. Yet another reason why the fluff is important. Ogres are brutish and violent and dumb and prone to immediate outbursts. it fits the ogre's personality to grab the carcass it's next to and hurl it rather than think to itself, "Well, the javelin has a higher DPR, so I'll go grab that instead of the thing right in front of me."

You call the ogre boring, but are completely ignoring the things that can make the encounter less boring for metagaming reasons. That's 100% on you, not the game.

Hey [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], this is a really interesting point. Thanks for making it. It will probably impact the way I run ogres and other monsters in the future.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Dualazi didn't say that an ogre is limited to what's in its stablock. He made the point (and I also thought of it) that the ogre is probably better off throwing a javelin than a carcass.

Exactly. This is the gist of the problem with relatively granular systems (action economy and layers of codified numbers that must be integrated for any attempt at balance) that lack robust stunting guidelines.

Consider the below:

A) Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic? This scenario is simple and engaging.

1) Scene Asset = Grove of Oak Trees (d8) (maybe for hiding, climbing to get away from threats, or....)

2) GM's action for the Ogre is to slam into the tree and try to knock it over onto the PCs.

2a) GM thinks "this is a pretty silly gamble but awesome...even a massive ogre may not be able to uproot an mighty oak" and decides to use Area Attack SFX (for each additional target add d6 and keep additional effect die) + its "Dumb as a Box of Rocks" Distinction to add a 1d4 to its pool. This increases the chance of failure on the action, but also gives the GM a d6 to add to his/her Doom Pool.
2b) Add Strength d10 gives it a chance of knocking over a d8 tree.

Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't. However, now I've got a new d6 in the Doom Pool to add a Venemous Bee Swarm Threat to the mix as the tree housed a bee hive that the Ogre had become immune to over the years. Or maybe I stepped up an existing Doom Die to d8 rather than adding a d6, so now I have Infernal Bee Swarm as a new Threat!

B) Dungeon World? Simple. Just follow the fiction. Are they in a grove of oak trees? Do I think and ogre can knock one over? Ok. I make my move use the the existing Ogre damage for the tree. One the PCs outright fails their Defy Danger efforts with a 6- (and Marks XP). I'm going to make a different move instead of Dealing Damage to one of the PCs. I'm going to escalate things and Use a monster, Danger, or Location Move. Boom. (Infernal) Venemous Bee Swarm.

If they get a 7-9, they escape damage, but perhaps one of their legs are pinned under a branch and an upended and moderately anthologized hive is among the canopy.

All sorts of opportunity to engage the fiction via the mechanics (and vice versa).

C) 4e? Same situation as Dungeon World. Just follow the fiction. Are they in a grove of oak trees? Do I think and ogre can knock one over? Ok. I make my move; Standard Action Terrain Stunt for the Ogre. This would be a Limited Use ability so use that level's Limited Use damage budget for any damage and rider (immobilized, forced movement, prone, or a new Poison Zone of Bees perhaps). Ogre rolls Athletics vs Hard DC, Level + 3 vs Reflex vs PCs, damage/rider effect.

All 3 integrated within the scope of the game's basic engine, thus ensuring The Big Three:

* balanced/predictable effects (a GM's concern when comparing stunts against standard attack routines)
* dynamic, challenging combat with fun/interesting decision-points for GMs and players
* coherent genre fiction.

---

Of note, I don't think 5e's combat engine is inherently incapable of functionally engendering this kind of stuff as SOP (and ensuring The Big Three). But (a) more robust stunting guidelines for PCs and NPCs alike and/or (b) a large suite of balanced/system integrated dynamic monster abilities to pick and choose from would definitely help!

 

[Tony Vargas]

White room analysis might see ogres as tactically boring. I can see the point.

White room analysis makes everything tactically boring, including great tactics. ;P

But, I don't consider it a problem of design or with the monster itself. :

• "I can almost kill you with a single blow" = an identity for low-level ogre fights.
• A tactically interesting ogre would violate the characterization of ogres as dumb brutes.
• Makes using hordes of ogres easy (for higher level ogre fights)
• Gives clear tactical information to the player (ogres are vulnerable to those who are quick and accurate and maybe prefer ranged attacks)

I see a point there, maybe not the one you were going for. It's not the ogre's individual design that makes it boring, it's the overall design philosophy that requires stat blocks to be usable over a broad level range in very different roles. The Ogre stat-block needs be both a frightening challenge for a low-level party, and a knock-down mook in a horde of identical mooks for the high-level one. 5e's bounded accuracy and balooning hps/damage get it there, but only in a basic way, it's on the DM to flesh it out a bit.

 

[Imaro]

Ok just some quick observations...

1. The improvised weapon rules in the PHB specifically reference characters.
2. The DMG has rules for improvising damage... pg. 249
3. Why are we assuming a cow thrown by an Ogre does the same damage a character would do with... broken glass, table leg, a frying pan, dead goblin or wagon wheel?

 

[Imaro]

I see a point there, maybe not the one you were going for. It's not the ogre's individual design that makes it boring, it's the overall design philosophy that requires stat blocks to be usable over a broad level range in very different roles. The Ogre stat-block needs be both a frightening challenge for a low-level party, and a knock-down mook in a horde of identical mooks for the high-level one. 5e's bounded accuracy and balooning hps/damage get it there, but only in a basic way, it's on the DM to flesh it out a bit.

Or... the creature is supposed to be a hulking brute rarely given to planning or thinking in tactical terms... why expect it to, by default, do much more than beat on things and take damage if the mechanics should coincide with the fiction presented for the creature?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hey [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], this is a really interesting point. Thanks for making it. It will probably impact the way I run ogres and other monsters in the future.

Disclaimer: This is just how I feel personally, and what my gaming groups have tended to feel. It is not a declaration of how all gamers feel, or the "right way" to play the game.

For me, metagaming things like using the most DPR ability, especially when in contradicts the nature of the creature you're playing, absolutely destroys the verisimilitude and enjoyment of the game. Why? Because that's not how semi-intelligent being work, so it feels incredibly fake to me, and less of an actual role-playing experience and more of just an exercise in a formula. Look at it like this. The most efficient shot to take in basketball is from 15-17 ft away. Does that mean every basketball player only takes shots from that distance? Of course not. What's going on in the game, the environmental impacts, personal attitudes---those all play a very real factor. So when I DM and play the ogre like I gave an example above, that makes the ogre feel more real. It doesn't go for the highest DPR, it goes for what it most likely would do in that situation if it were real. And I know my players appreciate that because it's those things that make the encounter more memorable for us, not any particular power the monster might have. I'm not saying that abilities in a stat block aren't important--of course they are. But the flavor text is just as important, and in most cases differentiates how I play an ogre vs a hill giant in the game. I can assure you, even if you take away the stat differences between an ogre and hill giant, it's going to be a different functional experience to the players when they encounter them. On ogre is a wanderer with a few humanoid followers who can be tricked or lured with shiny objects, while a hill giant is part of a stationary clan with permanent settlements and buildings that are a weak attempt at mirroring whatever culture happens to be in the area (which can result in hilarious and memorable encounters, like the hill giants trying to live in trees because the nearest neighbors are wood elves). So even though hill giants and ogres are intentionally designed to be very similar, there are still differences there that stand out to the players.

Take Matt Mercer for example. He's widely considered a great DM. Look at how he DMs. He doesn't run his monsters with the highest DPR or most effective attack. He gets into the role of the monster and acts like the monster would act. If I don't want to deal with taking the roles of monsters, and don't want to bother myself with the flavor or interaction or the environment, then I'll play a boardgame. WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING. Sometimes I really like that, and prefer it over a TTRPG. Sometimes I like the RPG elements over the boardgame. Neither is worse than the other, they are just different, and are played in different ways. For me, the flavor and lore is what makes encounters more than just predicted dice roll results and HP tracking. D&D is ultimately a game of pretend and imagination with infinite possibilities. That's what distinguishes itself from a game like Wrath of A. In my very personal opinion, it shortchanges the monsters when what makes them tick is ignored. If I ignored all the flavor, I'm sure my players would think they were boring too.