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

[The Crimson Binome]

Hey, the game provides guidelines. If the guidelines consistently deliver challenges the PCs can't handle, you can say they're arguable 'too weak.' Considering that 5e guidelines tend towards the opposite issue by all accounts - when they're not just varying wildly, anyway - it's hard to paint 5e PCs as 'too weak.'

I didn't say that PCs in 5E were too weak for the tasks expected of them. I said that the tasks expected of them are somewhat underwhelming, relative to the tasks expected of PCs in 3E and 4E.

So you want nothing but TPKs and rollovers? Design your scenarios that way and enjoy. But accept that others might want something else from a game.

Emphasis on the role-playing. Remember that a game is defined as a series of meaningful choices. The game in an RPG is that your decisions are made as your character would make them. You don't win an RPG by vanquishing your enemies. You win by doing what your character would do, and thus creating a meaningful story through the sum of all choices.

Balanced encounters are only necessary if fighting is a foregone conclusion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The real question is how they stack up to objective threats, because 'appropriate' threats are contrived and irrelevant. Nobody cares about some ridiculously-unlikely scenario where you only encounter things that are 'appropriate' for you.

Objective metrics are the only objective metrics.

Saelorn, I run my own games in your style, but I'm still giving the XP here to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. Because he's the one not accusing anybody of badwrongfun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't say that PCs in 5E were too weak for the tasks expected of them. I said that the tasks expected of them are somewhat underwhelming, relative to the tasks expected of PCs in 3E and 4E.

The range of monsters is certainly similar, even if the range of numbers modeling them is nominally 'bounded.' Similarly, while the range of DCs may be narrower in terms of numbers, checks conceptually range from the easy to the nearly impossible.

(OK, Maybe Epic 3e or 4e shaded into outright impossible checks, at an extreme.)

I guess it also depends on how flexible the DM is with statting out challenges. You could, in 3e or 4e, stat out a whole unit of, say, orcs or goblins, as a single monster, a swarm or mob or the like. It'd make fighting a 'large number' of conceptual enemies a more workable in the small-unit scaling typical of D&D. Nothing stops you from doing the same in 5e. Well, nothing about 5e stops you.

Remember that a game is defined as a series of meaningful choices.

Maximizing meaningful, viable choices, is the mark of a balanced game, anyway.

The game in an RPG is that your decisions are made as your character would make them.

Yes, I've heard that restrictive definition of RPG from you before. It may work for you. I find it too limiting to be of value. Heck, I find GNS excessively limiting, and even the 'S' part of that theory is less restrictive than what you propose as a OneTrueWay.

Balanced encounters are only necessary if fighting is a foregone conclusion.

Balanced encounters are an option, it's up to the DM whether to use guidelines to create such encounters, or ones imbalanced in one direction or another, for whatever reasons drive his campaign.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's fine if someone wants to treat D&D like a board game, at their own table, but it is first-and-foremost an RPG and meaningful discussion should take that into consideration. If someone starts ignoring the basic premise, then there's no common ground left for anyone to talk about.

Yes, I've heard that restrictive definition of RPG from you before. It may work for you. I find it too limiting to be of value. Heck, I find GNS excessively limiting, and even the 'S' part of that theory is less restrictive than what you propose as a OneTrueWay.

If my definition is too limiting, then your definition is too broad to have any use. If anything can count as an RPG, then the word is meaningless.

If you can't even agree that RPGs are about role-playing, then there's no point in further discussion, and I'll just go back to ignoring you.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It has the advantage of not requiring a separate write-up, however simple & easy that write-up may be. Aside from that, though, I'm not seeing how it's better for the goal of keeping lesser foes relevant to have them automatically wiped out by anything that inflicts half damage.

Instantly defeated by one fireball (or perhaps even the threat of one) is instantly defeated, whether they satisfyingly burn up or just scatter like cockroaches, they've been rendered irrelevant.

Goblins, orcs and other monsters are much more effective in groups, combined with bounded accuracy, makes them more effective against higher level characters. It's the same dynamics that makes a lot of people complain that the single Boss isn't as effective anymore. Given good tactics, a handful of weaker creatures can take out a higher level creature/character.

In terms of the goblins scattering, the party had a specific purpose. By capturing the one goblin, they had an opportunity to meet that goal without moving further into the goblin's territory.

The goblins didn't pursue, and didn't have a need to. Had the party continued, then they would have had a tough time with the goblins, just like they have in the past. The goblins know their terrain, they have their special ability to disengage or hide, and (at least in my campaign) frequently use ranged weapons. Usually short bows. They set up ambushes and traps, and make it very difficult on the PCs. Hidden goblins that can make a quick attack and then use Nimble Escape to get out of melee range if possible. With several descending on each character, along with missile fire between the ambushes and traps makes for a challenging and ongoing encounter.

While these tactics were always possible (and I've been using them since 1e), things like Nimble Escape make them even more effective.

The minion approach seemed to be designed to have the hundreds of goblins (a la Peter Jackson's Hobbit) attacking at once, and the heroes mowing through them. That's a different and perhaps cinematic approach, but usually feels more like waves of just mindless combat rather than an interesting tactical situation that makes the PCs work to find a way to survive/win.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's fine if someone wants to treat D&D like a board game, at their own table, but it is first-and-foremost an RPG and meaningful discussion should take that into consideration.

Meainginful discussion does, by taking into account a range of approaches to RPGs rather than labeling any style you don't care for 'like a board game.'

If someone starts ignoring the basic premise, then there's no common ground left for anyone to talk about.

There's plenty of ground, feel free to explore more of it.

If you can't even agree that RPGs are about role-playing, then there's no point in further discussion, and I'll just go back to ignoring you.

The RP and the G are both equally important to RPGs. Ignoring either could cause the play experience to fall short of its potential. Though that depends a lot on the players seeking the experience.

Just as the 'game' aspect doesn't limit one to playing like a board game, the RP aspect doesn't limit players to only one 'stance.' I'm free to RP a character in something like a 'director stance' - declaring his actions in the third person, summarizing what he says rather than speaking at length in character, and making decisions with an eye towards genre, plot, character development, and entertainment. You're free to RP a character more immersively if that's what floats your boat.

 

[Xeviat]

After reading all of this, I find myself wishing that single attacks scaled and that attacking multiple creatures was a maneuver, like in one of the playtests. Outside of Great Weapon Mastery, attacks don't really go above 13 damage or so without magic weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ilbranteloth]

An ogre has 7d10+21 hit points in 5E. I guess you might have one with only 29hp, if it was young and had a blood-deficiency, but that's hardly a typical ogre for the purposes of this discussion. If you can one-shot a baby ogre, then that's nothing to brag about.
The inherent meaning of a hit point or a point of damage is not consistent across all editions of all games, so you have to pick things that are consistent to use as reference points. Goblins and ogres are consistent in their representations across large varieties of media.

Most PCs can one-shot a goblin in most editions of most games. Goblins are chumps.

A high-end character can one-shot an ogre in some games, but not other games. The PCs in 5E are weaker than the PCs in 3E or 4E, because they can't do the same sorts of things that those characters in those other games can do.

But again, if you use the System Shock rules, that standard 59 hp ogre becomes a 30hp ogre, provided you can deal that much damage in a single hit. Sure they get a saving throw, but it's a DC 15 saving throw and an ogre has a +3 to Constitution saves. It's a rule that I think covers most of what you're looking for, but keeps it from being automatic. If it fails, it has a 30% chance of dying outright, and another 20% chance of being stunned which means the rest of the party will be able to finish it off quite easily.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Myself though, I draw the practical limit at whatever Spirit Guardians can kill off.

If the monster needs to run up to you in order to claw your face off, it better have more hit points than twice the average Spirit Guardian damage, or you can throw an almost endless stream of foes at the party without anyone ever scoring a hit.

I know this because I pitched five squads of a dozen Gnolls each at my level 9ish party. They did need to lay down a Wall of Fire, in addition to the Cleric's Spirit Guardians, but that was it really. Sure the cleric took a couple of hits, but only because the Gnolls are equipped with a ranged (thrown) weapon.

So once the party reaches level five, 30 hp or so becomes the "minion threshold". Then this slowly rises, of course. The problem is; this spell alone utterly invalidates all those CR 1/2 statblocks of the MM. (I too note how 4E minions could squirm their way past area spells like this!)

We desperately need "elite" versions of many many more humanoids, with CRs reaching (and sometimes surpassing) CR 5. Gnolls, Dwarves, Grimlocks or what have you. The Orc War Chiefs and Drow Elite Warriors are just a start. We need more. Many more.

I'm just curious as to what sort of tactics the gnolls used. I don't have a problem with making more "elite" versions of monsters, particularly intelligent ones, because in whatever society the gnolls, goblins, orcs, etc. have, there will be those that are stronger than others. I actually treat goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears more like a single race, rather than separate races. So there are a lot of mixed groups which gives a larger spread of CRs.

The bigger problem I have with the MM is that they don't have any templates. Templates for skeletons and zombies are the obvious ones. It's fairly easy to reverse engineer it, but why not present them as a template to start?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

After reading all of this, I find myself wishing that single attacks scaled and that attacking multiple creatures was a maneuver, like in one of the playtests. Outside of Great Weapon Mastery, attacks don't really go above 13 damage or so without magic weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sneak Attack is the biggest one. Really it seems to be a design decision. Rogues specialize in the precise shot that does significant damage, and the fighters can do decent damage, but spread it among multiple targets where needed.