D&D 4E I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters

[Tony Vargas]

Does anybody else ever feel like 5E slid "backwards" into boring, homogeneous monster design?

Not exactly. The 'backwards' trend-line isn't really from 4e but from 3e, when monsters were designed with very nearly the same depth of options as PCs. So it's not one instance where 5e changed direction. Maybe that's the same thing for your purposes, but I find it a distinction. 4e pulled back from 3e's peak of monster complexity back towards the 'monsters are different' de-facto philosophy of the classic game, 5e continued in that direction. FWIW.

If you do find monsters a little 'boring' it could be as much 5e's 'fast combat' imperative as its monster designs. You could try allowing more combat options, or constraining DPR a little, so that combats go more rounds, and there's more time for tactics to develop and play out.

Aside from converting everything myself, does anyone have suggestions about "4E-ifying" 5E's monsters?

There's already two similar threads going, though they may not be labeled that way, exactly, that's what Dave2008 is doing, more or less, for instance.

My suggestion would be to approach 5e monsters like we did 1e monsters back in the day, as, well (y'all are tired of hearing it, I'm sure) "a starting point." Think of it as the basic block you'd use when the monster isn't meant to be interesting, when it's one of many or there's another, more interesting one on in the challenge, as well. When it's the main course, improvise more actions for it, fill in abilities that it might have, have it display an impressive trick or magical ability at a dramatic moment. You can come up with an extra thing or two ahead, or you can do it on the fly.

 

[Dualazi]

Not to pick on you directly, but I've seen this comparison a lot (4e dragons and 5e dragons), and it throws me off.

In 4e, the only difference between abilities between, say, an ancient blue and ancient green is:

Blue: Thunderclap, lightning burst
Green: Luring Glare, Mind Poison

So that's 2 things each has no other dragon does

In 5e, each dragon has three unique things to it's species. Granted, that's lair actions, but most dragons who are worth their salt would be fighting in their lairs whenever possible. They didn't get to be ancient by being dumb. And of course, I'm only talking about mechanical things, dragon types have different personalities, so I would run them completely different depending on what that dragon typically acts like.

But to answer the overall point, the DMs Guild is full of stuff that addresses this, like Monstrous Leaders, where you add feats, traits, and abilities to monster stat blocks.

Blue: Wingclap, Thunderclap, Lightning Burst, Push+prone on basic attack
Green: Tail sweep, luring glare, mind poison, ongoing poison on basics

In 4e dragons get more abilities the more they age, which continues to highlight the differences between species, and that's not getting into differences of base stats like flight speeds or AC.

Also, I wouldn't call lair actions a given. Dragon raids on towns/settlements are a staple of the genre and the dragon can't rely on lair actions during these, either from a mechanical standpoint or a thematic one.

5e monsters still have a lot of interesting features. I will take lair actions plus legendary actions plus their unique traits over the tank/healer/dps grid-based gimmickry any day.

If you want the ancient red Dragon to do more than just breathe fire, how about you let it beat its wings to make wind to knock characters down prone just before it bites and claws them, or scorches them? What If you let it cause firery hot magma burst up from under their feet, or let hot poisonous gases form around them to debilitate them? Or earth tremors to throw them off their feet?

Those would be cool features to add right? Wait, the 5e ancient red Dragon already can do all of that.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

Lair actions/Legendary actions have nothing to do with tank/leader/controller distinctions, they are both just ways of trying to sneak extra turns to the monster without just saying they get multiple initiative passes.

Lair actions, again, also only apply when the dragon is within said lair. I'm not saying I'm displeased with how dragons ended up in 5e, because I think they're one of the better monsters, but it's disingenuous to assume they always have lair actions available.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I love 5E, but lately I find myself missing some aspects of 4E's monster design. I find this particularly true when I'm looking at 5E's dragons; we've gone back to the days when the main difference between a Red and a Blue is the type of breath weapon they use. OTOH, in 4E (especially later on) each type of dragon had different abilities suited to entirely different types of tactics; Reds were tough front-line fighters, while Blues were like highly-mobile artillery.

(Full disclosure: I've considered simply running 4E again, and I'm not interested. The player-side mechanics just don't scratch the same itch that 5E's do, and ever-inflating-math got old fast. I don't want to go all the way back to 2010; I just miss the monster designs.)

Does anybody else ever feel like 5E slid "backwards" into boring, homogeneous monster design? Aside from converting everything myself, does anyone have suggestions about "4E-ifying" 5E's monsters?

Monster design in 4e was one of the aspects that really didn't mesh with how I play D&D, so I don't really agree. I can see what you're saying, I think - tightly defined combat roles give you an idea of how to use a monster in a fight. That's true enough. But the differences between these things in 4e were pretty trivial in practice for me.

Like you say the blue was "highly mobile artillery," but it only moves 10 ft. faster than the red (and it had the exact same movement modes). You say the Red was a "tough front-line fighter" but +3 AC and +100 hp looks a lot more different on paper than it feels in play. If that seems like a significant difference to you, we have very different thresholds of "significant."

I feel like most of what the 5e dragons got rid of was the complexity of 4e and 3e (and 2e!) dragons. That's great for me - one or two points of distinction can be made significant in the use of the monster. The fact that blues burrow and reds don't? PERFECT! Now we have the blue leaping out of the sand dunes in an explosion of grit and static. Lightning vs. Fire? Maybe that's old to you - to me it's classic, reds smelling of brimstone and radiating heat, blues making your hair stand on end and shuddering with energy. To me, those are the significant differences.

I don't have any real objections to some "role templates" or something, but I also don't think they're really necessary for a lot of folks, and I'm glad 5e didn't bake that stuff into the monster itself. The fewer fiddly bits I have to work with as a DM, the more fun I can have narrating and storytelling.

YMMV, of course, but I also think it's important to avoid complexity just for the sake of countering something that's only really "boring" on paper. A creature being a front-line soldier or a mobile artillery unit can be done with a few BIG abilities that are obvious in their use. That sounds OK. But I don't care about +3 AC, +10 ft. speed, +100 hp...different numbers don't make a big distinction in my gameplay.

 

[Raith5]

I agree with the claim that monsters in 5e are a bit boring. But I dont think dragons are the best example, I think ogres, gnolls, orcs etc are where a feel like the bag of hit points claim has some merit. I do think that 5e overreacted to the idea that 4e fights take too long and made monsters (and some of the martial classes) too simple.

However, I do wonder that if you add extra attacks to monsters that you could unbalance the system.

 

[cbwjm]

I agree with the claim that monsters in 5e are a bit boring. But I dont think dragons are the best example, I think ogres, gnolls, orcs etc are where a feel like the bag of hit points claim has some merit. I do think that 5e overreacted to the idea that 4e fights take too long and made monsters (and some of the martial classes) too simple.

However, I do wonder that if you add extra attacks to monsters that you could unbalance the system.

It wouldn't unbalance it, but you would have to recalculate the CR of the creature. If an orc goes from 1 to 2 attacks, that is a significant amount of additional damage they can put out which will likely push the CR up. This would be fine for higher level players but those 1st and 2nd level characters would be far more likely to never see the higher levels.

 

[Xeviat]

Honestly, I currently DM 5e with the 4e PHBs and Sly Flourish's DM math cheat sheet. I flip to the monsters I want in the 4e monster manual, lift their abilities wholesale, and then find the CR level I want for everything else. It's quick, easy, flexible, and lets me toss in interesting monsters without too much hassle.

Sure, things like creatures getting advantage if an ally is within 5 ft probably bust CR over their knee, but it certainly makes for some dynamic combat scenarios. Thorn Whip's pull or Eldritch Blast's push effect shine in moments like this, making it so players have to play smart to win.

Advantage to allies is just "pack tactics" so it can be priced and balanced. This has been something I've thought of as well.

My thought for "solo" and elites is to balance them offensively for the level you want them to be faced, but then give them higher Defensive CR so they can survive long enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Manbearcat]

Monster design in 4e was one of the aspects that really didn't mesh with how I play D&D, so I don't really agree. I can see what you're saying, I think - tightly defined combat roles give you an idea of how to use a monster in a fight. That's true enough. But the differences between these things in 4e were pretty trivial in practice for me.

Like you say the blue was "highly mobile artillery," but it only moves 10 ft. faster than the red (and it had the exact same movement modes). You say the Red was a "tough front-line fighter" but +3 AC and +100 hp looks a lot more different on paper than it feels in play. If that seems like a significant difference to you, we have very different thresholds of "significant."

When I see you posts things like the above, I'm always left trying to shake off some stunned disbelief. You played 4e for a bit (thought I'm not sure that you GMed it?) so I know the nuance of things like those two creatures and how they are integrated into the greater whole can't be completely lost upon you.

1) Let's take a closer look at the Ancient Red Dragon:

Inferno (Fire) aura 5; creatures that enter or start their turns in the aura take 20 fire damage. Creatures in the aura have concealment against ranged attacks.

Soldier's have good defenses and control the melee around them to protect allies. The Red's Inferno aura protects servitors (who would inevitably have Resist 20 fire or outright immunity; Azer, Salamandyr) who may play a role in healing the Red or granting it action recovery, or force multiplying Artillery around the lair (or something else). If you're going to get at them, you're going to have to get up close and personal (and eat auto-fire damage and teeth) or plink away at -2 to hit.

Couple that with its other melee control abilities (and straight damage), its Breath Weapon (and rider), its ranged Immolate Foe ability and its stout front-line combatant with battlefield control and ally protection emerges.

Now a MM3/MV update would improve it by giving it the Action Recovery and Instinctive Assault of its Elder version and/or probably doubling the Inferno damage/size at Bloodied.

2) Let us take a look at the Ancient Blue (still MM1):

a) Basic attack rider "...and the target is pushed 3 squares and knocked prone."
b) Move Action:

Wingclap (move, recharge ) Thunder
The dragon flies up to 12 squares and attacks with its wings at the end of its move: reach 4; +34 vs Fortitude; 3d10+8 thunder damage. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.

c) If folks close to melee (or near it?), AoE stun:

Thunderclap (standard, at-will) Thunder
Close burst 3; +34 vs Fortitude; 2d10+8 thunder damage, and the target is stunned until the end of the blue dragon’s next turn. Critical Hit: As above, except that the target is stunned (save ends).

d) and what self-respecting elemental juggernaut doesn't have a ranged AoE lightning bolt barrage for optimal kiting:

Lightning Burst (standard, at-will) Lightning
Area burst 4 within 20; +34 vs Reflex; 5d6+8 lightning damage. Miss: Half damage.

That is Thor as a giant blue lizard; highly mobile piece of lightning and thunder spewing artillery. In 4e, this combat would take place in a battlefield to accentuate such abilities. High cliffs with lots of drop-offs. Littered with pools of knee-deep water as hazards (to electrify from above). Quick-sand and minions to bog down the good guys.

Finally, the Elder (MM3 version) is even (much) better still (unsurprisingly). Yay:

Instinctive Lightning
On an initiative of 10 + its initiative check, the dragon can use a free action to fly up to its speed and use lightning burst. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. If the dragon cannot use a free action to make this attack due to a dominating or stunning effect, then that effect ends instead of the dragon making the attack.

and

Wing Backblast At-Will
Trigger: An enemy hits the dragon with a melee attack.
Attack (Immediate Reaction): Close burst 3 (enemies in the burst); +23 vs. Reflex
Hit: The target falls prone.
Effect: The dragon flies up to half its speed. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.

So, I don't agree. Blue dragons' legacy is that of preferring to fight at distance. Reds are impulsive (due to well-earned confidence born on borderline invincibility) engines of destruction. They both look the part (on paper), and they definitely feel that way in play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

When I see you posts things like the above, I'm always left trying to shake off some stunned disbelief. You played 4e for a bit (thought I'm not sure that you GMed it?) so I know the nuance of things like those two creatures and how they are integrated into the greater whole can't be completely lost upon you.

Oh, I DM'd it quite a bit! And it's still my second-favorite edition (no other edition beats it for flexibility, and while I prefer 5e overall, 4e is the edition you'd have the best chance of talking me into running again if 5e wasn't an option).

But the monster roles were often FAR too fiddly in practice to give much of a distinct identity to a creature IMXP. Yeah, 4e had brutes, but none of their +25% damage had even half of the psychological impact as the first hit a level 2 character sustains from a 5e ogre.

Ancient Red Dragon

Sorry, I probably didn't mention it in my post: I was comparing the Adult versions of the dragon in 4e and 5e. I figured these were a pretty "fair" point of comparison on the 4e side, being smack in the middle of 4e's level arc, and so being powerful enough to be "real" dragons, but not so high level that they were unseen by most parties. Most 5e parties will be dealing with less powerful dragons, but their fundamental decision points don't tremendously change.

As far as the list of ancient blue powers goes...

a) is essentially in 5e (thanks, shove!)
b) is a slightly more fiddly version of any dragon's Wing Attack legendary action ("do damage and move away and prevent people who try and stop me")
c) and d) are unnecessary fiddly bits (c is "the dragon's most terrifying feature is that it makes you keep track of an ongoing effect with variable duration!", d is "alternate breath weapon")

The 4e's Elder basically has a Lair Action and yet another different version of Wing Attack.

I've got no real objections to some option to apply some role to a monster ("Mobile attacker!"), but I'm glad the MM versions of these creatures rely on bigger distinctions and smaller action lists.

 

[machineelf]

Lair actions/Legendary actions have nothing to do with tank/leader/controller distinctions ...

Right. I'm not saying they do. I'm saying there are two different approaches in monster design from 4e to 5e, and I prefer one over the other.

 

[machineelf]

Have you watched Matt Colville's YouTube episode about using 4E monsters in 5E? While he doesn't make specific statblocks or anything, he does talk about the process of doing what you want, and what works and what you can expect if you try it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoELQ7px9ws

This is a cool video, and he makes some interesting points. But one of the things that I think he misses is when he talks about how 4e simply takes certain things like spell descriptions and put them into game mechanics terms, like saying a power is an "encounter" power, instead of saying this spell lasts 10 minutes, which would be about the same thing. His argument is that it's really all the same, but some people didn't like that mental shift from a story-driven terminology to a game mechanic terminology, whereas other people don't have a problem with that mental shift.

What I think he misses, though, is that the whole point of Dungeons and Dragons as a role-playing game is the immersive aspect of it. The language is a part of that immersive aspect. When you change the language, you are essentially changing the nature of the game. When I want to play a "role," I want to think about magic as my character would. The world should represent that.

If we suddenly decide to talk about powers as "encounter powers," then we are making a subtle shift out of our immersion to a kind of meta-game mentality. When we start to think more about "sliding a character back two squares," what is a square? It's a meta-game mechanic that takes you out of the immersiveness; Suddenly you're not a person in an ancient world, now you're a mini on a game map, and your brain will subtly realize it. You will lose the immersiveness.

Is it still a fun game? Yeah I still think 4e is a fun game, but it's a meta, grid-mechanic game, and loses some of that important role-playing immersion. Language is important. And apparently the unpopularity of 4e is a testament to how important immersion (and the use of natural language in spell descriptions) is to the idea of role-playing.

This is ultimately my concern with monster design that goes overboard with special abilities or gimmicks. Or having monsters with types that scale up from level 1 to the level cap. Aside from the treadmill problem, it also breaks immersion for me. Is that how the world would actually function? Sometimes an ogre is just a big strong monster with a club. It doesn't need to have an extra gimmick. And there are plenty of other strange monsters that do have unique traits. That plus the DM being able to tell an interesting story with dynamic fighting tactics is what I require.