Level Up (A5E) Do you want more monster complexity?

[Voadam]

I will add my voice to the ones wanting 4e monster innovations back in 5e. Neat things that are not difficult for a DM to run but add a lot to the feel of a combat.

Monster roles.
Brutes with high damage, high hp, and low AC that you hit all the time but it takes a lot to take down and they hit hard. Skirmishers who are mobile but not very high AC. Lurkers who pop up for a lot but are kind of glass cannons if you can tag them. and so on.

Monster Types
Minions who are one shots, regular monsters, elites who do twice the attacks and take twice as much to take down, solos who do area effects and have X[party number] hp and some interrupt type action.

Monster Themes
Most monsters have a theme mechanic that goes with them so all gnolls get pack attack or whatever regardless of their other individual powers and you know and feel you are dealing with a gnoll regardless of whether you use a gnoll scout or shaman or even if you reskin mostly use the other stats for an orc berserker.

Monster Powers
Forced movement, movement variations, Conditions, Conditions until save, auras, sacrifice minions, bloodied powers. 4e had a lot of mechanically and tactically interesting monster powers while most 5e D&D ones are just hit, hit with effect, or spell.

It was easy to back engineer these 4e mechanics into 3e and Pathfinder, it can easily be done for an advanced 5e.

 

[R_J_K75]

*Lack of Combat Application - This is the big one that applies to this particular thread. Characters aren't using their skills in "combat". Or at least not nearly often enough. This is an issue with the skill system but also with monster design; adversaries don't often act in ways that necessitate skill checks. We also don't get a lot of mechanical guidance vis-a-vis parley and/or intimidation for various monsters. How much easier is it to scare off a kobold than it is a goblin, or a bugbear, or an owlbear? How easy is it to convince a hobgoblin captain that sustained combat is in neither party's best interest? How about the same, but with an orc warchief? Which types of bears does playing dead work with? Which monstrosities can be bought off/distracted with food? Is the creature territorial? Will they let the PCs leave if they simply back off and try to find another way around? There's a lot of room to building interesting encounters (and interesting adversaries) beyond giving them different combat tactics and abilities.

I agree with everything else you said but to try and keep the read on track in regards to monsters and combat skills, I think that this is where a more defined 2E type stat block write up would answer some of these questions. Orcs have their own society so bartering with the war chief may afford you safe passage if you know what their motivations are besides a few combat statistics. At what point is a natural creature attacking out of hunger and instinct, as opposed to a magical monstrosity thats just hardwired to attack? If a party is travelling through a swamp what time of day or night is it best to do so if they know that a Wil-o-Wisp is known to be in the area? So I guess its more of how to build a systems for monsters and combat that allows for the party to do more than just rush headlong into battle but allows for that if you wish. Makes alot of sense and I think these are some things Ive overlooked to a degree since 5E came out.

 

[CubicsRube]

My preference would be to have a monster tactics section under each monster. With the caveat of course, that the DM may decide that particular monster doesn't have to be have that way.

Mindless beings such as constructs and most undead, and many instinctive beasts, slimes, monsters etc might only have one common "go to" tactic. Humanoids and intelligent adversaries would have a table of tactics that can either be chosen from or rolled on if the DM wants to surprise themself.

Couple with a morale and reaction roll modifier (my wishlist for inclusion but probably not going to happen) and then not all monsters may fight, and even those that do should play out quite differently from each other.

 

[R_J_K75]

My preference would be to have a monster tactics section under each monster. With the caveat of course, that the DM may decide that particular monster doesn't have to be have that way.

Mindless beings such as constructs and most undead, and many instinctive beasts, slimes, monsters etc might only have one common "go to" tactic. Humanoids and intelligent adversaries would have a table of tactics that can either be chosen from or rolled on if the DM wants to surprise themself.

Couple with a morale and reaction roll modifier (my wishlist for inclusion but probably not going to happen) and then not all monsters may fight, and even those that do should play out quite differently from each other.

A section in the beginning of 1-2 pages describing a creatures tendencies based on their INT, WIS, morale and reaction may take care of 75% of monsters, while the rest could be elaborated on in their individual descriptions. I cant remember if 5E does this but I remember previous editions classifying creatures INT based on their score as animalistic, superior, etc..

 

[CubicsRube]

A section in the beginning of 1-2 pages describing a creatures tendencies based on their INT, WIS, morale and reaction may take care of 75% of monsters, while the rest could be elaborated on in their individual descriptions. I cant remember if 5E does this but I remember previous editions classifying creatures INT based on their score as animalistic, superior, etc..

This is effectively what Keith Amman does with "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" which I think is an excellent resource. I'd love an abridged version or something similar with monsters, or monster types (predator, frenzy, brute, skirmisher, etc)

 

[Rhuarc]

As a DM who heavily customizes almost all of his monsters (except for the lowest of CRs) to add more of a 4E feeling, I wholeheartedly endorse this idea! Even if I perhaps wouldn't run these new and improved monsters as is, having cool and interesting mechanics already presented to me, saving me time to come up with them on my own, would be extremely useful to me.

 

[ART!]

I want a better sense of each monster's preferred/natural tactics, and what they are likely to do when they get down to - for instance - half their HP. Are they more likely to fight to the death, run away, plead for mercy, etc. How many are you likely to encounter in one location, in one region, etc. How likely are they to have offspring around?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes.

 

[J-H]

2-3 abilities or characteristics per monster is enough. No more than double that for "boss" type monsters.
Spellcaster NPC foes don't even need a complete spell list.
In a 6-round encounter, a level 15 priest is not going to cast 20 different spells. As a DM, I can pick out just 6-10 spells, give him appropriate spell slots, and call it a day. Boom, now he's easier to run at the table.

Excessive monster complexity is the enemy of the DM.
Insufficient variety is also the enemy of the DM.

Enemy is an expert fencer? Give him 2 offensive maneuvers and 1 maneuver dice to spend when he is attacking. Give him 1-2 defensive maneuvers to use as a reaction. Simple, easy, memorable for the players when someone almost loses a sword when fighting on a bridge 60' over the ground.

A short tactics or tendencies section after each entry is helpful also.

 

[R_J_K75]

Spellcaster NPC foes don't even need a complete spell list.

I'd even possibly go one step further and say they dont even need a spell list, just a list of possible effects with range, duration, dam (effect) and save DC.