cmad1977
Hero
So every monster can have the extra line.
'Don't forget all the things PCs can do. Monsters do those too!'
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
D&D 4E 4E vs 5E: Monsters and bounded accuracy
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
So every monster can have the extra line.
'Don't forget all the things PCs can do. Monsters do those too!'
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jester David
Hero
You can also just add abilities if you want. Like with the giants in Storm King's Thunder or the ash zombies in Lost Mine of Phandelver. So long as it doesn't increase their damage dramatically (i.e. 5 or more extra damage each round), it doesn't affect their CR.
The_Gneech
Explorer
Actually, the only 4E books I kept were Monster Manuals, so I could occasionally skim through looking for nifty abilities to add to the monsters in my 5E game.
What I have found in practice so far, however, is that for all the "cool sounding" names, most of the 4E monster abilities still boil down to "attack with a rider," with that rider being push someone, pull someone, apply a status, or that most boring of results, "take MOAR damage."
Pushing and pulling are less central to 5E due to the "theater of the mind" model, which is why you see less of it. (See also "Why 5E Doesn't Really Have a Warlord".) But if a monster wants to shove someone, they can use an Attack action to do it just like players can.
Applying status effects is still fairly common (often hidden in the Actions block behind "Hit: x damage and..."), but remember that tracking all this stuff slows combat down, which is why any creature that's going to be able to do this had to "earn" it in the design process, so to speak.
That said, just to grab a random example I pulled out my 4E and 5E Monster Manuals to compare the hippogriff. The 4E version has two stat blocks– one "normal" hippogriff and one wearing armor to act as a mount. The 5E has a beautiful illustration that takes up 60% of the page, but only one stat block.
The 4E "normal" hippogriff has a power called Diving Overrun which basically knocks a target over by landing on them, can make a flying attack without provoking AoO, and has a single bite attack, and is a 5th level monster with AC 18 and 64 hit points.
The 5E hippogriff has advantage on Perception checks and two attacks (one with beak, one with claws), and is CR 1, with only AC 11 and 19 hit points.
Honestly? Even skipping over 5E's strange desire to not let monsters be more than CR 2, the 4E hippogriff is a more interesting critter. Sure, a DM could have the 5E griffon use a shove attack, but there's nothing in either the description or the stat block to suggest it, and doing so forfeits doing any damage on that turn (unlike the 4E version), and it's rare that any monster will find knocking a target over in and of itself to be preferable to just doing damage.
On the other hand, the 5E one has a much more streamlined statblock and is something I could throw at players in the first session of the game without too much worry. Now it would be absolutely trivial as the DM for me to give the 5E hippogriff Diving Overrun and if I were using one in an encounter I might do just that, or possibly some sort of Snatch ability to pick up halflings and fly up into the air to drop them, or whatever. But that sort of thing is kinda what we pay the game designers to do for us. ;P
tl;dr version: Yes, 4E monsters do tend to be more interesting than 5E monsters right out of the box, but 5E's monster simplification in service of speeding up play and can be worked around. It's a tradeoff.
-The Gneech
What I have found in practice so far, however, is that for all the "cool sounding" names, most of the 4E monster abilities still boil down to "attack with a rider," with that rider being push someone, pull someone, apply a status, or that most boring of results, "take MOAR damage."
Pushing and pulling are less central to 5E due to the "theater of the mind" model, which is why you see less of it. (See also "Why 5E Doesn't Really Have a Warlord".) But if a monster wants to shove someone, they can use an Attack action to do it just like players can.
Applying status effects is still fairly common (often hidden in the Actions block behind "Hit: x damage and..."), but remember that tracking all this stuff slows combat down, which is why any creature that's going to be able to do this had to "earn" it in the design process, so to speak.
That said, just to grab a random example I pulled out my 4E and 5E Monster Manuals to compare the hippogriff. The 4E version has two stat blocks– one "normal" hippogriff and one wearing armor to act as a mount. The 5E has a beautiful illustration that takes up 60% of the page, but only one stat block.
The 4E "normal" hippogriff has a power called Diving Overrun which basically knocks a target over by landing on them, can make a flying attack without provoking AoO, and has a single bite attack, and is a 5th level monster with AC 18 and 64 hit points.
The 5E hippogriff has advantage on Perception checks and two attacks (one with beak, one with claws), and is CR 1, with only AC 11 and 19 hit points.
Honestly? Even skipping over 5E's strange desire to not let monsters be more than CR 2, the 4E hippogriff is a more interesting critter. Sure, a DM could have the 5E griffon use a shove attack, but there's nothing in either the description or the stat block to suggest it, and doing so forfeits doing any damage on that turn (unlike the 4E version), and it's rare that any monster will find knocking a target over in and of itself to be preferable to just doing damage.
On the other hand, the 5E one has a much more streamlined statblock and is something I could throw at players in the first session of the game without too much worry. Now it would be absolutely trivial as the DM for me to give the 5E hippogriff Diving Overrun and if I were using one in an encounter I might do just that, or possibly some sort of Snatch ability to pick up halflings and fly up into the air to drop them, or whatever. But that sort of thing is kinda what we pay the game designers to do for us. ;P
tl;dr version: Yes, 4E monsters do tend to be more interesting than 5E monsters right out of the box, but 5E's monster simplification in service of speeding up play and can be worked around. It's a tradeoff.
-The Gneech
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
There are a few game design concepts that might lay behind why 5e goes for simpler monsters.
The first is that 5e in general wants a simpler game. Remembering the nuances of a dozen different powers for an adventure is a high demand on the DM, and quickly runs into diminishing returns. One hippogriff with a knockdown attack is one thing - one hippogriff with a knockdown attack among 10 different monster types each with their own special snowflake ability that you have to remember is quite another.
Related, there is the idea of comparative impact. "Normal" monsters don't need super slick special abilities because normal monsters aren't necessarily supposed to be distinctive. The point of the hippogriff in the "hippogriff aerie" dungeon is that there's a bunch of 'em, and they're going to mob you, and they're not all trying slick maneuvers because that gets old fast and then when you meet the Hippogriff Stallion who has a slick maneuver, that encounter stands out more both because it has a unique ability and because the "mook griffons" don't. Your most interesting and distinctive attacks should be used sparingly, so that they remain interesting and special, and don't become quotidian.
Third, coming from the above chain of logic, is that 5e prefers larger numbers of weaker enemies to smaller numbers of stronger enemies as a source of it's combat challenges. When you fight a hippogriff in 4e, you're fighting maybe 4-5 of 'em (and more likely, fighting a hippogriff + 3-4 other critters). When you have a hippogriff encounter in 5e that you're fighting in, you're more likely to be fighting, like, 12 of 'em. At once. So from a "DM management" perspective, it's easier to remember a small suite of basic abilities than it is to remember and apply a unique ability 12 different times.
That's just to give some insight into the gains we get from going "simpler."
There are some things lost, and those things are pretty good candidates to look at closely for bringing back for special occasions. But, I'd preserve them for special occasions, and not make them part and parcel of every encounter with the thing.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
The Hippogriff Aerie dungeon wouldn't be that bad if it weren't for the smell.
Also: points for successful use of the word "quotidian".
The other stuff you said was okay too, I guess.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
I don't think that Bounded Accuracy is what makes the monsters seem similar, or makes them one trick ponies. Really I think what the difference is, and it's not well promoted in the MM, is that you have a pretty endless selection of options. With the 4e approach, you had a bunch of one-trick ponies, but they were really optimized for that trick. So you could build a group of orcs or goblins with several of those tricks.
In 5e, instead of limiting you to those options (and I see them as more limiting), the options are open for whatever your needs are.
Yes, the dragons are all pretty similar, but that's because they are dragons. If you're being attacked by a lion, tiger, leopard, panther, or cheetah, most of the attack methodology is pretty similar. The cheetah stands out as the real outlier, but otherwise they are big cats that use stealth and ambush to make a big deadly attack.
Dragons are flying, strong combatants, with breath weapons. I use the spell casting variant to bring them in line with older editions. I've also made things like demons and devils much deadlier by returning their spell-like abilities that are missing for some reason.
The main way you differentiate monsters is by their actions. Sure, with humanoids you can do more than that, just like the PCs have lots of options. But for regular monsters, it just makes sense to me. A lion, tiger, panther, jaguar, leopard, and cheetah are all pretty similar. I'd say some are more DEX based, others STR based, and the cheetah is an outlier with its speed. On the other hand, they all attack primarily using stealth and ambush, picking out the weakest, or a straggler. And it really doesn't matter how many lions you meet, they all attack pretty much the same way.
Dragons are intelligent, and like all intelligent monsters, that's what really sets them apart. Instead of having different stat blocks for several one-trick variations, just modifiy their actions along with their abilities as needed. So there isn't any problem adding sneak attack to a particular goblin, or an orc with a barbarian rage. Different weapons, etc. On the other hand, most goblins do have the same general tactics and training.
What I do, though, is differentiate between monsters. The special abilities that a goblin has gives you a hint to their tactics, as does the different special abilities of orcs. It is rare for an intelligent being to fight to the death in my campaigns, and goblins in particular will run (or stay just out of reach) like hyenas if they sense they are outmatched. They will use guerrilla tactics to wear the PCs down, using ranged weapons, leading them toward traps, or even more dangerous monsters, to avoid risking themselves. Orcs are more direct. They are fighters who gain status in their clan through strength and force. They don't want to be seen as weak, but they also live in a culture where there's a good chance they are fighting nearly every day. So they are very good at it, and very good at tactics.
I might modify monsters and give them additional abilities if I think it makes sense, like the Trog advantage against creatures who are slowed by difficult terrain. My trogs and lizard folk are equally at home on two or four legs, and have longer torsos than your typical humanoid. Their weapon and armor choice reflects this. A half dozen of these creatures that attack, hide, and move to a new position can seem like a lot more than that. And I don't need any extraneous stats (although I did compile a list of the most common weapon and armor variations).
Here are a couple of examples:
TypicalGoblin Tactics
Goblinshate pain. They will do what they can to set themselves in positions of coverto attack using shortbows, then hide.
Theirposition will allow for at least two escape routes, ideally providing anopportunity to circle behind their opponent to attack then quickly disengageand flee to a hiding place. They have a tendency to scatter, and they aren'tparticularly concerned about putting a fellow goblin at risk if it increasestheir own chance for survival. So they are willing to fire into melee.
Ifhobgoblins are present, the goblins will either fire from cover, or dart in andout of the combat, and letting the hobgoblins do the heavy hitting. Bugbearswill wade right into the midst of battle, looking to single out the strongestmelee combatant.
TypicalTroglodyte Tactics
Troglodytesuse their narrow winding tunnels and stench attack to separate and disableopponents. Troglodytes have advantage on attacks against opponents who areslowed by difficult terrain. When entering battle, a troglodyte will often havea handful (1d4 +2) stone javelins. They will use concealment and cover toattack at range, then hide and use their many tunnels to move to a newlocation. They will attempt to surround their targets to attack from multiplelocations. They will pick up thrown javelins when possible, to avoid closingfor melee.
Theywill also take advantage of narrow openings (that require crawling or squeezingby other races) and make melee attacks by thrusting with their javelins andthen retreating into the narrow passage. When they are reduced to a singlejavelin, they will start to hide and move in to make a melee attack and thenretreat. They will avoid prolonged battles, continuing to follow and makesniping attacks to wear their opponents down. Sleeping in a troglodyte warrenis nearly impossible without magical assistance, as they will continue toattack throughout the night.
Theytry to avoid fighting to the death, but they will continue to follow and attackany intelligent creatures in their territories until they have left theirdomain, or have been killed. Their attacks will also be made in a way to try todrive creatures away from their lairs.
TypicalLizardfolk Tactics
Lizardfolkuse simple stone-age weapons. Spears, javelins, slings, stone axes, stonedaggers, shortbows and clubs (often spiked with stone or bone) are the mostcommon. They will also pick up and use others' steel weapons of similar types.They also make use of natural poisons where available (serpent or frog arecommon).
Intheir home terrain, they are fond of snares that capture a target by both legsor in a net, and then grapple the target and drag them into a nearby body ofswampy water, attempting to drown their victim. Without a trap, they will workin groups, with one group throwing daggers or axes to draw their attention fromthe other group that use the concealment of murky waterways to swim as close aspossible and attack from behind. Against stronger opponents, it's not uncommonfor two or three to work together in grappling the victim. They will eathumanoid flesh, so any creatures killed will be tied by their feet and broughtto their village for food.
Likeany intelligent creature, they will not fight to the death unless there is noescape, or to protect their village. Any attacks will be managed in a way totry to draw dangers away from their village.
Theygenerally don't wear armor, and haven't developed real smithing skills. Butthey will use hard objects to make basic armor (turtle shells, for example),and often use shields made from natural materials.
Theytravel lightly, and can move on two or four legs, along with being strongswimmers. So they rarely wear anything other than decorative straps, belts,etc. War paint and tattoos may occur in certain tribes.
Inand around the kingdom of Najara are more advanced lizardfolk. Many wereenslaved by the yuan-ti (more akin to "domesticated") and given steelweapons and better (usually scale mail) armor. But other than a few that havebrought these technologies back to their homelands (like the Marsh ofChelimber), most find that their lifestlye in the swamps makes it too difficultto maintain such items, and go back to more traditional options.
CapnZapp
Legend
5th edition is superior, if falling short of my ideal mark.
Actual minions (as in level 29 1hp monsters) is a horrible idea.
The way 5th edition allows you to have actual ogres as minions at high level is definitely worth the extra admin (the ogres will fall to a hit, but before everyone realizes that, you will still waste a few seconds calculating damage). The ogres can still hit most if not all characters even if they do not roll a 20. (Since 19+6=25 and even at max level that's still higher than the average AC of the party)
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.
Or Grimlocks. Or Gnomes. Or Tigers.
The way all elite guard dwarves are given the same old Veteran NPC stat block gets old, fast. The way all mid-level spellchuckers are given the same Mage stat block, with minor racial tweaks, gets old, fast.
I want specific Grimlock Cannibal CR 5 statblocks, or perhaps a cool CR 15 Gnome Master Illusionist statblock (complete with a three-round spell tactics sidebar), and why not a CR 10 Dire Tiger...
I don't want to reuse the same dozen NPC stat blocks. I don't want to have to create class-level versions of NPCs myself.
I want the 5E rules and the 5E way of thinking, but I also want the wealth of different statblocks that 4E gave us.
(Minus minions)
So, leafing through the 4E Monster Manual at random, I spot the Eladrin section (the High Elf of that edition).
It contains a very satisfying spread of such Elf NPCs:
* the Eladrin Fey Knight (probably similar to a 5E Veteran and thus CR 2-3; level 7 out of 30)
* the Eladrin Twilight Incanter (probably similar to a sturdier 5E Cult Fanatic and thus CR 2-3; level 8 out of 30)
* the Bralani of Autumn Winds (probably similar to a high-level Fighter/Wizard multiclass and I'd peg it at least at CR 8-10 depending on spells; level 19 out of 30)
* the Ghaele of Winter (probably similar to a high-level cold-themed sorcerer and thus CR 15ish; leve 21 out of 30)
4E sure sports impressive NPC class names, huh?
More to the point, here we have a single humanoid race writeup, with no less than four distinct stat blocks, CR 2, CR 3, CR 8 and CR 15; for loads of fun variety!
CapnZapp
Legend
The secret is - at the lowest CR, all creatures look alike.
It is at medium and high CR the need for distinct stat blocks is the greatest, and it is at medium and high CR the designer has the freedom to actually make distinct stat blocks.
The obsession with CR 1/4 and CR 2 stat blocks is oppressive in 5th edition. There are far too many such stat blocks that all sport a +5 or so to hit and less than 10 points of damage, possibly a weak minor secondary effect and that's it.
Perhaps a tad dramatic, but you could argue that all this space could be condensed down to justa couple of stat blocks, and the space given over to CR 2 and above:
* the CR 1/3 stat block
* the CR 1/2 stat block
* the CR 2/3 stat block
* the CR 1 stat block
* the CR 1 1/2 stat block
That's it. Refluff as needed. The real differences in gameplay between a Camel and a Kobold and a Giant Rat and a Merfolk are slim to none. Sorry folks, but repeating page after page after page of essentially the same stats is a fraud.
We need many many more CR 5 to CR 10 stat blocks. And the high-CR stat blocks are for the most part very weakly and crudely done.
It is at medium and high CR the need for distinct stat blocks is the greatest, and it is at medium and high CR the designer has the freedom to actually make distinct stat blocks.
The obsession with CR 1/4 and CR 2 stat blocks is oppressive in 5th edition. There are far too many such stat blocks that all sport a +5 or so to hit and less than 10 points of damage, possibly a weak minor secondary effect and that's it.
Perhaps a tad dramatic, but you could argue that all this space could be condensed down to justa couple of stat blocks, and the space given over to CR 2 and above:
* the CR 1/3 stat block
* the CR 1/2 stat block
* the CR 2/3 stat block
* the CR 1 stat block
* the CR 1 1/2 stat block
That's it. Refluff as needed. The real differences in gameplay between a Camel and a Kobold and a Giant Rat and a Merfolk are slim to none. Sorry folks, but repeating page after page after page of essentially the same stats is a fraud.
We need many many more CR 5 to CR 10 stat blocks. And the high-CR stat blocks are for the most part very weakly and crudely done.
Last edited:
Neither of these are actual arguments, because “the DM can fix it” can be applied to any and all criticisms of a system, and the answer is unhelpful for all of them. The same tired line has been spouted on all manner of topics, from caster supremacy in 3rd edition to magic item lists/prices in 5th and everything in-between. When I pay for an official product I am doing so with a certain expectation of quality and usefulness. If I have to re-write every class and monster, why am I giving Wizards money?
I know from lurking these boards and reading the reviews on the MM itself that I’m not alone in these complaints. The blandness of the monsters can be compensated by DM fiat, but that actively reduces the book’s value to me as a pre-built resource, and more worryingly might be an indicator of the quality of future monster supplements, which I hope is not the case.
This is the sort of thing I’d like to see more of. Both of those actions make perfect sense for the creature to do, and definitely help them stand out from the crowd in encounter design. Sad they didn’t make it in the final product, I hope this is rectified down the line.
CapnZapp
Legend
I agree 100% with everything said here.
