D&D 4E 4E vs 5E: Monsters and bounded accuracy

TheCosmicKid said:

As long as the advanced menu doesn't calcify and lock out options for the core game. I do not want to see "Sand in the Eye" as an option exclusive to 7th-level and higher rogues.

Click to expand...

True dat.

This concern is, unfortunately, real. I remember that recent UA where MMearls brings up this exact subject, and then promptly forgets about his own advice - adding feats that does precisely this.

On the other hand, it should not be used as an argument to not change or add things. Only as an argument to say "better not add a thing, than to add a poor broken thing".

CapnZapp said:

True dat.

This concern is, unfortunately, real. I remember that recent UA where MMearls brings up this exact subject, and then immediately adds feats that does precisely this.

On the other hand, it should not be used as an argument to not change or add things. Only as an argument to say "better not add a thing, than to add a poor broken thing".

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the easiest way to get around this is to allow creatures to do a "signature move" for free or as a bonus action. To use an example already floating around the thread, the nalfeshee's "Horror Nimbus" is baked into its multiattack action. Or for the hippogriff mentioned earlier, just lift the "charge" ability from the giant boar. (Heck, give the giant boar Fly 50' and you've got a perfectly workable hippogriff.)

Really the main thing that makes shove/trip/disarm sub-optimal choices for monsters is having to give up attacks to do them. So if you want a monster to be doing a particular move, don't give them bonuses to the math, just let them do the move without losing a turn to do it.

-The Gneech

CapnZapp said:

But one thing was lost.

The idea to have "elite warrior" stats for many monsters was still a good one.

I would have loved a second Ogre stat block, for an "elite Ogre" of perhaps CR 7.

Click to expand...

The_Gneech said:

There are a few of these, primarily among the monstrous humanoids, but yes, I would like to have seen more. I was a fan of them in 3E Monster Manual IV days, and I'm still a fan now! I don't know if WotC was hedging their bets, trying to hold off content for future releases, or what.

The already-mentioned reskinning of blocks from the NPC section can be very effective, but I can see it getting stale if you do it a lot.

I also agree that 5E doesn't need minions. My players tend to one-punch anything below CR 1/2 as it is. 5E's low-skewed monster CR selections mean that you can have appropriate "minions" (in the form of low CR allies) for anything.

You do kinda have to throw the encounter building guidelines out the window when considering them, tho. My group (six players @ 2nd level) went through something like 20 kobolds, which was theoretically a "deadly" encounter even accounting for the group size, without ever being in serious danger. [1]

-The Gneech

[1] There were a lot of factors at work here besides raw math. Well-placed illusions, sleep, and thunderwave spells, a narrow corridor that allowed the PCs to establish and hold a front line, etc. I've got a smart and experienced group.

Click to expand...

I imagine that's one of the things included in Volo's Guide to Monsters. And will slowly be expanded in the adventures (to say nothing of the DMsGuild).

4e had so many variants at a cost of monster diversity and lore. There was a cost for those extra ogres. While a few more variants would have been nice (kobolds for one), I know each new monster would have come at the cost of another monster...

Jester Canuck said:

I imagine that's one of the things included in Volo's Guide to Monsters. And will slowly be expanded in the adventures (to say nothing of the DMsGuild).

4e had so many variants at a cost of monster diversity and lore. There was a cost for those extra ogres. While a few more variants would have been nice (kobolds for one), I know each new monster would have come at the cost of another monster...

Click to expand...

Certainly true! And a core Monster Manual does kinda have to hit all the high notes first.

-TG

Something I'd like to add to the "codified vs freeform abilities for monsters" discussion is what I like to call the "Giant Octopus Riddle".

The giant octopus monster is an iconic fantasy encounter. It goes something like this:



This is the artwork for the 4E Silt Horror, a Darksun variant of the big bad that I consider particularly successfull.
When you think "giant octopus encounter", a few things come to mind:

- it moves underwater, unseen most of the time
- its tentacles attack from every direction
- it grabs people, pull them into the air, and drag them underwater, to the creature's mouth, or drop them from high altitude
- it swallows people whole
- it has ways to evade location

etc.

The 4E SH manages to do all that by bending (never breaking) the rules of the system a bit, and being implemented as an Elite monster (for the core) and a cadre of Minions (the tentacles). All tentacles have different abilities, that let them do all that stuff from above.


Now, let's assume we want to do the same in a game where those abilities mustn't be unique to this specific monster, and you have to go by with the same abilities players use.

Now, the first thing we see is that the Octopus has to be able to grab people. How does he do it? Well, it's really big, and strong, and that must play out in Grapple checks, right? So, we follow the general guidelines for grappling and we either find out:

A) being big and strong is very good for grappling, and grappling is a viable, useful strategy.
B) being big and strong doesn't matter much for grappling
C) being big and strong is very good for grappling, but grappling is generally a waste of an action, expecially for a very big monster

A) is 3E. What happens here is that since grappling isn't a "contextual" ability, and the octopus isn't any better at it or doesn't get anything out of it, then every big monster will go for grappling. Same-ness here happens because the option is there, available to all, and if you can pull it off you should. So all big monsters grapple, and the uniqueness of the giant octopus is gone.

Now, 5E is a bit of B and C. Big creatures aren't as good as they were in 3E at grappling (at least, players have a more solid escape chance than before, as you basically never get truly impossible DCs) but they also get very little out of it. Sure, the big octopus can grab people and maybe pull them up - but he's simply immobilizing them. And if I want him to do stuff with the grappled creatures, it's pretty hard. I have to reference the books over and over, and things I could do with the 4E, exception based version can't be done here. For example the 5E octopus can drag the grabbed player, but only at half speed, during its action, and in one direction. Since in the 4E version I have tentacles as individual creatures, I can have them drag people in different directions, at different times and doing different things when they do. The octopus-specific bits add both complexity and freedom to the encounter.


Let's look at the zombies from above. Sure we picture zombies as grabbing people, and then biting and devouring them. So, let's play with that a bit, ok?
Now, the zombie does his grapple check and... the target is grabbed. So, what happens now?

Really nothing. Nothing that wouldn't happen if a goblin had grappled him. Or an orc.
If "now the target is immobilized" is an interesting effect, then those creatures should aim at pull this off the same way. Anything "interesting" that comes out of the "the zombie has grabbed you and is dragging you in the middle of the horde" would apply to "the goblin grabbed you and is dragging you in the middle of the orcs".
So, we're still gonna pull that off because it's tematic and good role, but we may be making the encounter less scary in the process.

Let's look at how the exception based handled it.
The first iteration of the zombie is equally terrible. He gets a grab action, but that's that. And he wastes an attack using it, to do pretty much nothing. He suffers the same problem.
So, the designers wise up and introduce variants like the Grasping Zombie. Here we start reasoning - he has an attack that does damage AND grabs you, and if you're grabbed, his basic attack does A LOT more damage. These zombies will aim at grabbing you, and for a good reason. The Tainted Zombie is another interpretation: here you have one round to escape the grab, or he'll bite for massive damage.
But let's move further down the line. The Silt Zombie is even better: here you have attack, grab, and mechanics for what happens while you're grabbed and he's trying to chew your face off (ie, each turn you fail to escape you take some damage) built into a convenient, easy to use package. No referencing multiple books and different rules, all numbers and DCs in one place, everything happens in a single, specific attack.

This is, in my opinion, the best of both worlds: you're not overcomplicating the base rules to make sure DMs can leverage them in specific cases, you're not asking DMs to go back and forth among books, you're getting precisely what the encounter evokes with all the rules and numbers you need in a few lines of text. 5E definitely needs a lot more of this, and I hope future MMs will show it.


As someone who works on designing roleplaying games, I often joke (but it's half a joke) saying that my ideal system should have 3 pages devoted to actual rules, 30 pages devoted to player options, and 300 pages devoted to monsters. Put all the rules inside the monsters, and the player abilities, and keep the basic system lean, flexible and easy to understand. This way all the complications are invoked only when a player or a monster ask for it, and thus only when absolutely needed.

Visanideth said:

Something I'd like to add to the "codified vs freeform abilities for monsters" discussion is what I like to call the "Giant Octopus Riddle".

The giant octopus monster is an iconic fantasy encounter. It goes something like this:

View attachment 77163

This is the artwork for the 4E Silt Horror, a Darksun variant of the big bad that I consider particularly successfull.
When you think "giant octopus encounter", a few things come to mind:

- it moves underwater, unseen most of the time
- its tentacles attack from every direction
- it grabs people, pull them into the air, and drag them underwater, to the creature's mouth, or drop them from high altitude
- it swallows people whole
- it has ways to evade location

etc.

The 4E SH manages to do all that by bending (never breaking) the rules of the system a bit, and being implemented as an Elite monster (for the core) and a cadre of Minions (the tentacles). All tentacles have different abilities, that let them do all that stuff from above.


Now, let's assume we want to do the same in a game where those abilities mustn't be unique to this specific monster, and you have to go by with the same abilities players use.

Now, the first thing we see is that the Octopus has to be able to grab people. How does he do it? Well, it's really big, and strong, and that must play out in Grapple checks, right? So, we follow the general guidelines for grappling and we either find out:

A) being big and strong is very good for grappling, and grappling is a viable, useful strategy.
B) being big and strong doesn't matter much for grappling
C) being big and strong is very good for grappling, but grappling is generally a waste of an action, expecially for a very big monster

A) is 3E. What happens here is that since grappling isn't a "contextual" ability, and the octopus isn't any better at it or doesn't get anything out of it, then every big monster will go for grappling. Same-ness here happens because the option is there, available to all, and if you can pull it off you should. So all big monsters grapple, and the uniqueness of the giant octopus is gone.

Now, 5E is a bit of B and C. Big creatures aren't as good as they were in 3E at grappling (at least, players have a more solid escape chance than before, as you basically never get truly impossible DCs) but they also get very little out of it. Sure, the big octopus can grab people and maybe pull them up - but he's simply immobilizing them. And if I want him to do stuff with the grappled creatures, it's pretty hard. I have to reference the books over and over, and things I could do with the 4E, exception based version can't be done here. For example the 5E octopus can drag the grabbed player, but only at half speed, during its action, and in one direction. Since in the 4E version I have tentacles as individual creatures, I can have them drag people in different directions, at different times and doing different things when they do. The octopus-specific bits add both complexity and freedom to the encounter.

Click to expand...

I'll cover this and look at the zombie example in a moment.

First off, monsters that can grapple do not make a grapple check, a successful hit starts the grapple automatically. This is important in a moment. I forget where this was clarified

Second, the octopus thingy is at least huge, if not gargantuan, so it can move the grappled creature anyway it wants to, not at half speed (PHB 195).

So, back to the fact that it's already grappled. It's simple to add a second ability like:

If it grapples a creature, it can use a bonus action to:
Lift/move the creature up to 30 feet off in any direction, including up.
Fling the creature up to 60 feet (From Storm Giant's Thunder).
Make a Bite attack. Use the Purple Worm Bite attack since it has a good chance of swallowing whole.
Drag the creature underwater, in which case they must make a DC??? Constitution saving throw or fall unconscious from suffocation. If they start their next round where they cannot breathe, they are dying.

We'll reskin a Displacer Beast ability:
Misdirection
While concealed underwater, it is difficult to determine the location of the body. Attacks against the body are made with disadvantage. If it is hit by an attack, this trait is disrupted until the end of its next turn. This trait is also disrupted while the Giant Octopus is incapacitated or has a speed of 0.

For that last point its important to understand that only a grappled creature has a speed of 0, not the grappler. It's not very clear in the PHB.

None of these so much as bend the rules and is largely a reskinned roper to start with. It also has false appearance and rules to handle the tentacles. The roper makes four attacks with its tentacles, a hydra gets as many attacks as it has heads. So you the giant octopus has 8 tentacles and 8 attacks.

To address your issue with the fact that large creatures don't get any significant advantage when grappling I will most likely add a house rule:
If the creature you are grappling is two or more sizes smaller than you, you have advantage on your grapple attempts, and the target has disadvantage on their escape attempts.

Did I miss anything?

Just remember that the giant octopus focuses its attacks on Frodo because he's got the Ring.

*nods sagely*

-TG

Visanideth said:

Let's look at the zombies from above. Sure we picture zombies as grabbing people, and then biting and devouring them. So, let's play with that a bit, ok?
Now, the zombie does his grapple check and... the target is grabbed. So, what happens now?

Really nothing. Nothing that wouldn't happen if a goblin had grappled him. Or an orc.
If "now the target is immobilized" is an interesting effect, then those creatures should aim at pull this off the same way. Anything "interesting" that comes out of the "the zombie has grabbed you and is dragging you in the middle of the horde" would apply to "the goblin grabbed you and is dragging you in the middle of the orcs".
So, we're still gonna pull that off because it's tematic and good role, but we may be making the encounter less scary in the process.

Let's look at how the exception based handled it.
The first iteration of the zombie is equally terrible. He gets a grab action, but that's that. And he wastes an attack using it, to do pretty much nothing. He suffers the same problem.
So, the designers wise up and introduce variants like the Grasping Zombie. Here we start reasoning - he has an attack that does damage AND grabs you, and if you're grabbed, his basic attack does A LOT more damage. These zombies will aim at grabbing you, and for a good reason. The Tainted Zombie is another interpretation: here you have one round to escape the grab, or he'll bite for massive damage.
But let's move further down the line. The Silt Zombie is even better: here you have attack, grab, and mechanics for what happens while you're grabbed and he's trying to chew your face off (ie, each turn you fail to escape you take some damage) built into a convenient, easy to use package. No referencing multiple books and different rules, all numbers and DCs in one place, everything happens in a single, specific attack.

This is, in my opinion, the best of both worlds: you're not overcomplicating the base rules to make sure DMs can leverage them in specific cases, you're not asking DMs to go back and forth among books, you're getting precisely what the encounter evokes with all the rules and numbers you need in a few lines of text. 5E definitely needs a lot more of this, and I hope future MMs will show it.

Click to expand...

Zombies - fun. The D&D zombie is still rooted in the old, slow zombie that is more thematically horrifying than combat horrifying. And to a seasoned gamer, there is usually no horrific aspect at all. In my current campaign, very early on, one of the characters found himself fighting the zombie of his father, whom he saw murdered by his brother. That was horrifying and effective. "How can I kill my father?" "But he's not your father anymore"

So building off of my prior example, when monsters have a grab attack, they automatically succeed in the grapple as part of their Attack action. So it's simple to add a bonus action to allow something to occur before the grappled target can do anything. That's pretty powerful.

So without any exception, you can have your extra attack, drag, etc. One of the most powerful options? Knocking the grappled creature prone. You can allow a saving throw, but being prone in the middle of a group of zombies (or goblins) for that matter is deadly. Normally you can be surrounded by 8 creatures, although in this case, one of the space is taken by the zombie grappling you. That leaves 7 attacks, with advantage, against the creature.

However, it makes me consider another house rule: Grappling creatures occupy the same space.

If that's not enough, consider this house rule (which I think I'll add myself):
If you and at least one ally grapple a creature, then all of you are restrained.

I already have an option while grappling:
I require a grapple check with disadvantage to attempt something like this:
· Hold - Restrain. You can restrain the target. You are both restrained.

But for zombies, along with hordes of goblins, I've made a swarm type.

So here's another option:
Horde (Swarm) of Zombies

Swarm: The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa, and the swarm can move through any opening large enough for a medium creature. The swarm can't regain hit points or gain temporary hit points.

Blood Frenzy: The swarm has advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that doesn't have all its hit points.

Slow Movement: Moving through the Horde acts as difficult terrain. You can choose to make this straight difficult terrain, in which case a class like the Ranger gains a sizable benefit, or you could change the wording to just slow creatures. Another thing I could see is that Concentration checks for a creature in the swarm are made with disadvantage.

Biting and Clawing: Melee Weapon Att: +5 to hit, reach 0 ft., one creature in the swarm's space. Hit: ?? (?d?) slashing damage, or ? (?d?) slashing damage if the swarm has half its hit points or fewer. On a successful hit the target must make a DC?? saving throw or be knocked prone.

You could eliminate the blood frenzy (came from the quippers) and stick with the advantage if they knock the target prone. The way swarms are described, each one occupies one 5-foot square. All of the described swarms are tiny creatures. But by using the same mechanics, you can create a swarm that occupies a larger space, targets multiple creatures, and describe the actual combat resolution in a cinematic way, without bending or breaking any rules.

I would also recommend that the swarm bursts from the ground, rather than just coming down the hall where a fireball or lightning bolt​ will eliminate the horde altogether.

Saelorn said:

It's an argument for scaling AC instead of HP, because scaling just the HP means you never get to a point where you can one-shot an ogre.

Just like with real solo-type boss monsters, it's a problem that they could have addressed with better math, but either they didn't care about making that possible or they couldn't be bothered to make the math work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem I have with this is it doesn't make sense to me. At least not how the game is designed. Plate Armor should be a particular AC, that is, plate armor on a 17th level character shouldn't provide greater protection than that on a 1st level character.

Adding some measure of skill can make some sense, but it's very difficult to scale that well.

Various abilities (like sneak attack and assassination), along with spells do scale pretty well with escalating hit points. But not everybody has a similar ability. Although I'm mostly OK with that.

One-hit kills are a real challenge in general, because giving the characters the ability to one-shot a higher level monster also means that higher-level monsters will have an ability to one-shot the PCs.

I do have called shots (including the ability to decapitate a creature), but it is made with disadvantage, they gain a saving throw, and the save must fail by a significant amount (right now I have it set at 10). If you score a critical, the failure is only by 5. The point is, it should be very hard, but possible. And this scales well with the skill of the two combatants. That is, it's much easier for a higher level character to use against lower level creatures, but not against an equally matched opponent.

pukunui said:

I find many 5e monsters boring too, but not because of bounded accuracy. More because they don't have any cool tricks. A number of them had interesting things they could do during the playtest, but for whatever reason those things got removed. Stuff like giant frogs having a long reach "sticky tongue" attack, and dragons being able to knock people away with their tails. I've been adding those things back in, and also doing stuff like giving giants the ability to knock back/prone smaller creatures with their melee attacks and the like. Makes things a bit more dynamic.

Click to expand...

I'll have to dig through the playtest to see what's there. I've also mined a few things from earlier editions (spell-like abilities for demons and devils in particular).