D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[SkidAce]

I was going to say, I kinda agreed with them about the 21 strength for an NPC guard. Most of my npcs are low level, rarely reaching higher than 3rd.

But then I did my research and saw it was a CR 10 creature...and well, I could use that for a unique NPC champion of the army, so in that context the 21 STR could make sense.

But not for captain of the watch, or district captain etc.

I will say, simulationism is not a bad word, it helps my players know what to expect to a certain degree.

 

[Chaltab]

The guard captain has STR 18, not 21.also it's CR4 not 10.

 

[Parmandur]

I was going to say, I kinda agreed with them about the 21 strength for an NPC guard. Most of my npcs are low level, rarely reaching higher than 3rd.

But then I did my research and saw it was a CR 10 creature...and well, I could use that for a unique NPC champion of the army, so in that context the 21 STR could make sense.

But not for captain of the watch, or district captain etc.

I will say, simulationism is not a bad word, it helps my players know what to expect to a certain degree.

Nothing wrong with simulations per se...but 5E Monsters have never been simulations constructs as with 3E, they are single use game objects.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I was going to say, I kinda agreed with them about the 21 strength for an NPC guard. Most of my npcs are low level, rarely reaching higher than 3rd.

But then I did my research and saw it was a CR 10 creature...and well, I could use that for a unique NPC champion of the army, so in that context the 21 STR could make sense.

But not for captain of the watch, or district captain etc.

I will say, simulationism is not a bad word, it helps my players know what to expect to a certain degree.

There is the issue, that simulationism is somewhat of a moving target. You and your table may have a convergent view of what to expect but it is fairly clear from discussions here that expectations can vary a lot.

 

[Distracted DM]

To me there is a real struggle with a lot of people in the hobby of having the game look like a certain way and what the positive and negative aspects of it looking that way. And sometimes many people struggle with the aesthetics being pushed away for actual gameplay enforcement.

If the Guard Captain having 18 strength annoys you then that shows that you care more about how the captain looks then how it functions. The 18th strength along with the +2 proficiency bonus is there in order to get the +6 attack. If you reduce the 18 down to 12, you have to either create another three points of bonus that is unexplained or figure out a way to explain three more points of bonus.

It seems like the best way to make NPCs and monsters make more sense in the context of the world, including their ability to challenge PCs, is to divorce them even further from the mechanics that the PCs use. Kind of ironic.

Just giving them flat numbers, "has a +10 to hit, does 3d6+6 damage, +3 to physical +6 to mental saves" rather than using proficiency bonuses and stats to achieve and/or rationalize those numbers. Now it's looking more like an OSR statblock :'D

 

[Mephista]

Honestly, I would have expected more complaints about how to explain mortal, flesh and blood creatures as elementals and fiends. I don't think anyone expects a lizardman sovereign to be suddenly an immortal spirit, but rather just a mortal that's inexplicitly immune to Hold Person and the like.

 

[Charlaquin]

I found that some of the monster design was to make monsters last only a few rounds of combat. I noticed this the other day with the scout and soldier both having 3 hit dice and both having multiattack. Their other powers are meh, especially compared to PCs. They are easy to play and run and designed to be killed and move on. Look at the casters with having only a few spells they can cast. It should not represent all their spells, but only the ones that might be needed in combat.

It makes sense. 5e monsters have always been balanced around the assumption of lasting 3 rounds of combat, but some monsters didn’t actually meet that assumption. Particularly monsters who got more of their CR from defense than from offense would survive longer than they were “supposed to,” so they would get an extra round of damage in, throwing their offensive CR estimate off and making them more dangerous than expected. I’m not surprised that the revised rules tend to make monsters more offensively-oriented to prevent this.

 

[Charlaquin]

wasn’t it the other way around? It supported a wider variety in 2014 than it does in 2024, and that is what he is complaining about

I don’t think that’s really true. What specifically does 5.14 support that 5.24 doesn’t?

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, I would have expected more complaints about how to explain mortal, flesh and blood creatures as elementals and fiends. I don't think anyone expects a lizardman sovereign to be suddenly an immortal spirit, but rather just a mortal that's inexplicitly immune to Hold Person and the like.

I mean, if a flesh and blood creature is type elemental, than that means the game mechanic “elemental” doesn’t mean immortal spirit, right?

 

[Marc17]

The guard captain has STR 18, not 21.also it's CR4 not 10.

Doesn't really matter, and the solutions is simple and the same we did in AD&D with the same issues. Captain of the guards are 5th level fighters. Cultists have really bad spell options, no wonder they aren't challenging, so now they all just become Warlocks and Clerics. Dragons get Wizard or Sorcerer levels. Etc etc etc.