D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Remathilis]

The bolded is flat out incorrect and you know it. How many times do we have to tell you that there are other acceptable ways for them to do the damage that 5.5.e has them at?

I am responding to the notion 2014 "got it right", not some quantum hobgoblin that exists in your mind.

 

[Remathilis]

And AC 18 without justification as well. We assume half-plate, shield, and DEX +1. But then what about with the longbow? Should be AC 16, right? You would think so, but again, with things like a 2d10 longsword why assume they need the shield for AC 18?

Funny you should mention this. It's an error from 2014, where their AC is Armor Class 18 (chain mail, shield). And it too has a longbow and even a notation on using it's longsword two-handed. Yet it doesn't offer an alternative AC either. In fact, no monster in the MM has an alternative AC (except maybe lycanthropes?). It's one of the many simplifications made. And I'm fine with that as long as I never have to see "AC 15 (+1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14" again.

 

[mamba]

For versimillitude's sake, you would prefer the hobgoblin's damage to be inconsistent and often times worse than other creatures of its CR.

no, you always arrive at false equivalencies. I want it to hit it’s CR and have a longsword that deals the same damage as the one described in the item section. Any difference has to come from some ability in the stat block and not be handwaved away

 

[ezo]

Funny you should mention this. It's an error from 2014, where their AC is Armor Class 18 (chain mail, shield). And it too has a longbow and even a notation on using it's longsword two-handed. Yet it doesn't offer an alternative AC either. In fact, no monster in the MM has an alternative AC (except maybe lycanthropes?). It's one of the many simplifications made.

But the difference is in 2014 it is AC 18 (chain mail, shield), so it is obvious that the AC is calculated according to the rules PCs uses concerning armor. Without the shield, it is AC 16. Pretty simple and direct. In 2024, just AC 18. You might consider it a simplification, but even if so it was an unnecessary one which could (understandable) lead to confusion to a new DM who is not familiar with the 2014 version.

And I'm fine with that as long as I never have to see "AC 15 (+1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14" again.

Well, of course in 5E you don't have to worry about that.

Here is another Hobgoblin Warrior statblock:

Is it really much of a simplication to not include the armor with AC?

This version deals a bit less damage with one-hand use. I also removed the poison because it seems like a needless and blatant "damage bump" without reason. However, Martial Excellence provides a reason why the longsword damage is greater (and is now also part of the longbow damage).

It also doesn't have armor which costs several hundred gold pieces!!! (Seriously, half-plate?? What were they thinking?!?)

 

[mamba]

I am responding to the notion 2014 "got it right", not some quantum hobgoblin that exists in your mind.

that was about there being rhyme and reason to things, not that the hobgoblin has to stay exactly the same…

 

[TwoSix]

Funny you should mention this. It's an error from 2014, where their AC is Armor Class 18 (chain mail, shield). And it too has a longbow and even a notation on using it's longsword two-handed. Yet it doesn't offer an alternative AC either. In fact, no monster in the MM has an alternative AC (except maybe lycanthropes?). It's one of the many simplifications made. And I'm fine with that as long as I never have to see "AC 15 (+1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14" again.

Yes, but let's say the hobgoblin was sleeping, and someone stole their shield and armor; we wouldn't then assert that the hobgoblin's AC was still 18, right?

We have to acknowledge that at least a portion of their capabilites comes from fictional positioning like equipped armor.

Especially with humanoids, we want to see their abilities derived so that we can later extrapolate.

 

[Pedantic]

Yes, but let's say the hobgoblin was sleeping, and someone stole their shield and armor; we wouldn't then assert that the hobgoblin's AC was still 18, right?

We have to acknowledge that at least a portion of their capabilites comes from fictional positioning like equipped armor.

Especially with humanoids, we want to see their abilities derived so that we can later extrapolate.

Right, this is the bit that's so weird and frustrating, where we're drawing this strange dischotomy between gameplay and detail, when that function of derivation and extrapolation is ideally a function of gameplay. If AC is a function of actual physical armor in some cases, a PC can want to get a creature out of armor to make it easier to fight, and can know what will happen when they do.

That sort of thing should be part of the gameplay, not separate from it, or designed on the fly in response to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is some straight comparisons:

Hobgoblin 14: AC 18, HP 11. Atk: +3, Damage 5 + 7 = 12 if another hobgoblin is next to them. (Alone or separated, their damage is just 5).

Hobgoblin 24: AC 18, HP 11, Atk +3 (advantage if another hobgoblin is next to them), damage 12.

So what is different? Well, the AC and HP is consistent. The difference is that the 14 hobgoblin needs allies to deal the proper amount of damage. A hobgoblin without other hobgoblins next to them is doing half the damage of his CR. Whereas the 24 hobgoblin is consistent in his damage and only gets an advantage (literally) to hit with allies. It keeps the "dangerous in groups" element but doesn't turn a lone hobgoblin into a non threat.

For versimillitude's sake, you would prefer the hobgoblin's damage to be inconsistent and often times worse than other creatures of its CR. I mean, you can believe what you want, but then shut up about how 5e monsters hit like wet noodles and PCs don't fear death.

Not really my argument. My issue has always been about setting logic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. I'm not buying any of the new books. However, my friend who owns a game store needed an emergency replacement for his D&D 101 session the other night. I get $50 in store credit and think I will use it on the DMG for the Greyhawk and Bastions. It is free after all.

I would love to have a copy of the Bastion rules myself (for adaptation to my preferred system), but I'm not paying $50 for it.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, I realize the hypocrisy. It appears that when they want fighters to break the laws of physics, any excuse (or no excuse) is fine, but a hobgoblin doing extra damage? Sorry, I need a full audit and paragraph of rules and lore to explain it.

Agreed. Let’s take the Guard Captain, which can be any humanoid, and does 2D10 long sword damage per hit; 15 on average with its strength bonus. Two attacks. It’s a CR4 creature, so it should be a match for around a level 8 fighter in terms of DPR…and it is.

Now, I could create it as a level 8 fighter and play through all of its turns as I would a PC. The game lets me do that, and if it is a BBEG I probably would. But if it’s just a guard captain for a random caravan, no thanks. I’m fine with having the complexity reduced to keep the game moving, while keeping the threat level roughly the same.

Edit: so for those worried about the hobgoblins, the game has you covered. Just make them as NPCs. The MM is designed to speed up combat rounds, to a certain degree. Or just think of them as their own class that gets extra damage dice, the way plenty of character classes and subclasses do.