With Chris Perkins behind the monsters (IIRC), I was expecting each monster to be a bit more unique than what was given. I expected more and still want more and as the system ages I think monsters will become a bit more complex. I totally get that less is more and that adding powers and encounters design are easily done. For me, comments made by BryonD and RangerWickett are in line with my thinking. Monsters somewhere between 4e and 5e would be my sweet spot (without any fiddly bits that depend on this or that).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Do you like the simplicity of 5E monsters?
- Thread starter MightyZehir
- Start date
This is the laziest of criticisms.
I have no problem with the fact that you don't like how they've decided to do monsters in this edition, but this kind of statement is a cop-out. It has little meaning, and isn't true. I've seen fans of complex systems resort over and over to referring to simple systems as "lazy design". It's easy to say; but it's on par with saying something is "dumb" because you don't like it or can't appreciate it. It's not an actual criticism, because it's not backed up by anything of substance. In this case it's back by only the extreme hyperbole that they're just different sized bags of hit points.
The good news is that you should have little trouble adding complexity; and anybody who wants the complexity and isn't lazy can go ahead and do that. It's easier to build on a good framework than tear things down.
Once again, to reiterate, I have no issues with folks who want more complicated monsters, and who are disappointed with the route they've decided to go. I totally get that. I totally get that for many people, out of the box, this design decision might not allow for the style of play they want. But personal preference shouldn't lead one to casting insults. And that's what you're doing here.
Just looking through the Feats and looking at Kobolds.
Kobold Sentry = Kobold with Alert Feat
Kobold Alchemist = Kobold with Magic Initiate Feat (at will Acid Splash, Poison Spray, 1x Burning Hands, DC 9)
Kobold Dragonshield = Kobold with Sentinal Feat
Kobold Komando = Kobold with Sharpshooter Feat and a Light Crossbow (+4 to hit, 7 (1d8+2) Damage, Ammunition (range 80/320), loading, two-handed)
Kobold Kommander = Kobold with Inspiring Leader Feat
That's five variants there, they may need a CR adjustment (Komando in particular) but you could easily do that on the fly, rather than needing a Page of the Monster Manual taken up with variants for every humanoid.
Kobold Sentry = Kobold with Alert Feat
Kobold Alchemist = Kobold with Magic Initiate Feat (at will Acid Splash, Poison Spray, 1x Burning Hands, DC 9)
Kobold Dragonshield = Kobold with Sentinal Feat
Kobold Komando = Kobold with Sharpshooter Feat and a Light Crossbow (+4 to hit, 7 (1d8+2) Damage, Ammunition (range 80/320), loading, two-handed)
Kobold Kommander = Kobold with Inspiring Leader Feat
That's five variants there, they may need a CR adjustment (Komando in particular) but you could easily do that on the fly, rather than needing a Page of the Monster Manual taken up with variants for every humanoid.
Sacrosanct
Legend
ExploderWizard
Hero
Ranes
Adventurer
I mentioned in the Bone Devil preview thread that I was surprised to see that the 5e version (at least as far as the preview goes) seemed to have been stripped of features I'd been familiar with since 1e AD&D and I did say that this made it intrinsically less interesting than its predecessors. It also, naturally I think, messed with my preconceptions of something called a 'bone devil' in D&D. So I was a little concerned about that. But I didn't - and wouldn't - use the term 'boring'.
I don't object at all to a streamlined approach to MM entries in 5e, if the MM contains guidance for making easy and quick modifications to this or that creature. That's fine and good. I'm all for it.
I loved 3e's detailed MM entries and methods for modifying creatures (many of which are really quick and easy to do, contrary to some of the hyperbole that I've read recently) but I'm happy to see attempts being made to make every possible modification quicker and easier.
I am still a little undecided about the lack of ecological, environmental and behavioural context for the MM entries I've seen so far, even while I understand the potentially liberating effect of the absence of such detail.
But I am also definitely in the give-5e-the-benefit-of-the-doubt department.
I don't object at all to a streamlined approach to MM entries in 5e, if the MM contains guidance for making easy and quick modifications to this or that creature. That's fine and good. I'm all for it.
I loved 3e's detailed MM entries and methods for modifying creatures (many of which are really quick and easy to do, contrary to some of the hyperbole that I've read recently) but I'm happy to see attempts being made to make every possible modification quicker and easier.
I am still a little undecided about the lack of ecological, environmental and behavioural context for the MM entries I've seen so far, even while I understand the potentially liberating effect of the absence of such detail.
But I am also definitely in the give-5e-the-benefit-of-the-doubt department.
I like complexity where it really matters, but I like simplicity where it doesn't. For example, I think it just clutters things up to have 6 different varieties of orc fighter each with AC ranges between 15-17 and to-hit bonuses of +4 through +6. I'd rather give them all the same statistics for an encounter and use descriptions to make them different. On the other hand, I loved the old-school demons and devils with extensive SLA lists, because it created so much tactical flexibility and each encounter with them wasn't shoe-horned into the same tactical approach. In that case, reducing SLA lists just made them more boring to me.
Having said that, I have no problem with dragons having the same base stats, but I'd like to see more variety in special abilities and, hence, more options. I think monsters may have been oversimplified.
Redbadge
Explorer
I agree with the sense that the 5e stat blocks are a fine baseline. I often deviate anyways, and "go nuts with special abilities." For example, I'm mocking up a re-run of Burnt Offerings from the Paizo AP Rise of the Runelords, only this time in 5e. Here are the statblocks I have worked up for some of the encounters from the AP (goblins reflavored, Paizo style):
Last edited:
I think its done the simplified way so we have flexibility for tweaking them ourselves. To fit into our campaigns.
A baseline as it were.
