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

[Distracted DM]

Ironically due to 10 HD, a guard Captain really should have a proficiency bonus of +4 not +2. So if you increase the proficiency bonus and decrease its strength down to 14 you pretty much have the same attack bonus which will be required for its challenge.

It does have a +4 Proficiency Bonus.

You might be thinking of the Warrior Commander, not the Guard Captain. Guard Captain has +2 PB.

Spoiler

 

[Charlaquin]

You might be thinking of the Warrior Commander, not the Guard Captain. Guard Captain has +2 PB.

Spoiler

View attachment 425246
View attachment 425245

Guard Captain also doesn’t have CR10, or 21 Strength, or 20 Dex, or 18 Con, which is why it was clear to me that wasn’t the creature @Nightfly was talking about when @Minigiant responded to them.

 

[Distracted DM]

Most Campaigns end at around Level 10 or 11, if not earlier. So CR 10 is fairly top of the line. There is no stat block for a "King of the Dwarves"...and in fact the Warrior Commander would be an excellent fit for a Dwarven King.

Well, the CR10 warrior commander wouldn't really be a suitable BBEG for a level 10 or 11 game, which is what the OP was getting at. You could potentially beef it up with legendaries and more powers, pump it up more to CR 18 and add some lieutenants/minions. Though at that point, probably just reskin the death knight or something else... depends on what you're looking for in said BBEG.

CR10 would probably be good as a BBEG for a level 5 or 6 party? Which, yeah, I guess would qualify as a relatively short game.

 

[mamba]

Thank you for the response. Can you clarify what you man by this:

I mentioned it a bit later in another post, stuff like spectral wings or respeccing after a long rest. 2024 does pretty much everything to have features not have downsides and / or build decisions never have the player stuck with something that is not all that useful in whatever situation they find themselves in.

 

[Distracted DM]

I mentioned it a bit later in another post, stuff like spectral wings or respeccing after a long rest. 2024 does pretty much everything to have features not have downsides and / or build decisions never have the player stuck with something that is not all that useful in whatever situation they find themselves in.

One thing that I noticed, the difference between the Warlock's 5e14 One With Shadows invocation and the 5e24 version.
5e14:

One with Shadows​

Prerequisite: 5th level

When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction.

5e24:

One with Shadows​

Prerequisite: Level 5+ Warlock

While you’re in an area of Dim Light or Darkness, you can cast Invisibility on yourself without expending a spell slot.

One could argue that the 5e14 version was perhaps too limiting, but the 5e24 version lets you cast Invisibility basically at-will, and doesn't require you to keep to the shadows or anything after it's cast. RAW, you can cover yourself with a blanket and cast it, then go about your day (this is something one of my players suggested)

They skipped over, IMO, the happy middle ground of saying that you could move around while in dim light/darkness and still be invisible, and went for straight-up infinite invisibility spell.

I'm not saying this is some huge shame, but it does demonstrate at least one difference between versions, since that was one of the questions asked.

 

[Minigiant]

I hear you, but a CR 10 enemy is not going to be the BBEG of any campaign, unless it's a really short campaign. I'm fine with legendary humanoids having stats of 20+, but I'm still not convinced the Warrior Commander is supposed to be legendary. King of the Dwarves having a STR higher than the PCs can obtain without a boon or relic? Sure. But this dude with less than half the CR of an ancient dragon? That feels really weird to me

Considering it is a CR 10 no legendary monster, that makes it a high Tier 2 or low Tier 3.

So a warrior Commander would really be like a kingdom level entity. So it would a high ranking Lord, Knight, or imperial. A national known scary dude(the).

So like... A knight magic gear as dangerous as a young red.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel like the argument about the Warrior Commander’s stats is coming from the fact that people see a generic, non-spellcasting, humanoid enemy and automatically think “random nobody.” But CR10 and “random nobody” just don’t compute together. This is a character who is supposed to be able to pose a challenge to a group of 4-5 10th level PCs, by himself.

“OMG, why is this nameless warrior NPC stated out like he’s Conan the Barbarian?” My sibling in St. Cuthbert, he’s the same challenge rating as a young red dragon. He should be stated out like Conan.

What you have a problem with is not this individual NPC’s stats. What you have a problem with is the entire concept of a generic NPC being CR10.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like the argument about the Warrior Commander’s stats is coming from the fact that people see a generic, non-spellcasting, humanoid enemy and automatically think “random nobody.” But CR10 and “random nobody” just don’t compute together. This is a character who is supposed to be able to pose a challenge to a group of 4-5 10th level PCs, by himself.

“OMG, why is this nameless warrior NPC stated out like he’s Conan the Barbarian?” My sibling in St. Cuthbert, he’s the same challenge rating as a young red dragon. He should be stated out like Conan.

What you have a problem with is not this individual NPC’s stats. What you have a problem with is the entire concept of a generic NPC being CR10.

THIS!

This to me is the source of some of the issues.

For maybe 50% of the community, they don't have the concept of a NPC able to duel a young red that doesn't have an Iconic name.

But MOTM has a Champion at CR 9. And in fantasy every nation, king, or major power has a Champion.

Warrior Commanders and Champions are ye old conveniently absent national celebrity hero. And every major nation's got or had one.

 

[SkidAce]

I feel like the argument about the Warrior Commander’s stats is coming from the fact that people see a generic, non-spellcasting, humanoid enemy and automatically think “random nobody.” But CR10 and “random nobody” just don’t compute together. This is a character who is supposed to be able to pose a challenge to a group of 4-5 10th level PCs, by himself.

“OMG, why is this nameless warrior NPC stated out like he’s Conan the Barbarian?” My sibling in St. Cuthbert, he’s the same challenge rating as a young red dragon. He should be stated out like Conan.

What you have a problem with is not this individual NPC’s stats. What you have a problem with is the entire concept of a generic NPC being CR10.

Yeah, i was trying to say this also many pages ago.

 

[Steady Vane]

That's fair. From my perspective, it's relatively easy to generate supporting fiction from rules inferences (like magically empowered humanoid monsters being fiends or elementals), but I can understand a desire to have some of those inferences be more concrete and detailed.

I do have less sympathy when complaints are not "These rules aren't generating a fiction" but in reality are "These rules are generating a fiction I don't like", which is how I view the "ranger spirit pet" complaints. Rangers as a class using magical rituals to summon spirits in the shape of animals makes perfect sense for D&D-like fantasy; if you don't like it, that's a personal preference, not a failure of the game design. Creators are always going to make aesthetic choices we might not like!

It is a failure of the game design when it no longer caters to the community that used to play it. This is the 4e arguments all over again. No matter how much it is belittled, not "feeling" like what you want out of D&D is a valid complaint, and always has been.

Perhaps I am a grognard, but I remember when the 4e defenders spoke until their faces turned blue about how people saying it felt like an MMO was not a valid complaint. Same vibes today about 2024. People still leave the game, and take their tables with them. Turns out when people say they don't like something, telling them their complaints are ignorable doesn't help much.

An Ennie-award winning blog that published an Ennie-award winning supplement for 5e D&D should perhaps be taken seriously when they say why they won't be switching to the 2024 edition of the game, because it no longer feels like D&D they are interested in in any way. The post author even lays our how 5e used to be a big tent everyone could find room in, but the new edition is so narrow it excludes them. People not being excluded in the new edition saying "nothing changed for me so nothing changed for you" doesn't really add anything.

If a game makes a choice we don't like, we can theoretically always leave. But it does raise the question of why 2024 is making both blogs and highly awarded third-party publishers leave when 5e did not. And when people tell you for what reason they left, ignoring them all saying the same thing won't change their opinions. That's what I learned from 4e, but what do I know.