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

[Tony Vargas]

Oberoni Fallacy Territory is way over there (waves hand vaguely), where they play that 3.5/PF D&D.

I think it's marked by posts topped with the skulls of enemies who failed their saves or something. And spikes, there must be spikes involved.

 

[flametitan]

It's not the monster powers at the moment. Is the monster math. Heck, that's in the player math too, but it could be fixed simply by giving more hp.

Adding monster powers does spice them up. But that's teetering on Oberoni Fallacy territory there.

Yeah, 5e's flatter math is not friendly to single large beasts, like dragons. But I don't know if the math is what needs to be changed either. I think it's the action economy that's the problem. It seems that if a creature only gets 1 turn/round, then either it doesn't last on the field long enough to be interesting, doesn't do enough damage to be threatening, or can simply kill a player, which isn't fun either. So then the solution would be to have multiple creatures, but that isn't necessarily the best idea either.

Perhaps making a creature that can actually take multiple turns/round while still being one creature? This way its damage per turn can be toned down to something appropriate to the party, but have its overall threat level heightened enough that you can get by with only one.

(I don't know if Oberoni applies here. It's the idea that a problem doesn't exist because it can be houseruled, whereas what I'm trying to do is acknowledge there's a problem, and offering suggestions to how to go about it)

 

[dave2008]

threatening / interesting

Yeah, 5e's flatter math is not friendly to single large beasts, like dragons. But I don't know if the math is what needs to be changed either. I think it's the action economy that's the problem. It seems that if a creature only gets 1 turn/round, then either it doesn't last on the field long enough to be interesting, doesn't do enough damage to be threatening, or can simply kill a player, which isn't fun either. So then the solution would be to have multiple creatures, but that isn't necessarily the best idea either.

Perhaps making a creature that can actually take multiple turns/round while still being one creature? This way its damage per turn can be toned down to something appropriate to the party, but have its overall threat level heightened enough that you can get by with only one.

(I don't know if Oberoni applies here. It's the idea that a problem doesn't exist because it can be houseruled, whereas what I'm trying to do is acknowledge there's a problem, and offering suggestions to how to go about it)

Isn't that what Legendary actions do? However, the problem is eitherl

1) the monsters don't last long enough to be threatening / interesting, or

2) the monsters cannot do enough damage to threatening / interesting, or

3) some combination of 1 & 2.

I've tried fixing #3, but I found it more swingy (not surprisingly). Thus I am currently trying out a modified version of 4e monster roles (elite =2 monsters/champion = 3 monsters/solo= 4 monsters). I up the monsters HP and damage and XP to match the # of monsters it is supposed to represent and I;m good to go.

So far it is working well.

 

[flametitan]

threatening / interesting

Isn't that what Legendary actions do? However, the problem is eitherl

1) the monsters don't last long enough to be threatening / interesting, or

2) the monsters cannot do enough damage to threatening / interesting, or

3) some combination of 1 & 2.

I've tried fixing #3, but I found it more swingy (not surprisingly). Thus I am currently trying out a modified version of 4e monster roles (elite =2 monsters/champion = 3 monsters/solo= 4 monsters). I up the monsters HP and damage and XP to match the # of monsters it is supposed to represent and I;m good to go.

So far it is working well.

Yes, the legendary actions are supposed to fill that role, but I'm thinking of ways to fill the same niche (solo monsters getting over their action economy limitations) but differently. For example, a goblin "superboss" might have the total statistics of four goblin bosses, but because its damaging abilities are spread out over four turns, it should be a "reasonable" fight to somebody who'd find four goblin bosses a "reasonable" fight, it's just obscured the underlying math so it looks like one creature that gets four turns.

The idea is that by combining multiple monsters into one, you get the total DPR and the health needed for a solo to stand against a party, but the individual damage per turn is divided up so it doesn't result in a one turn kill as soon as it attacks, which is the usual problem of throwing higher CR solos.

It sounds like we're approaching a similar solution, though we may be expressing it differently.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, the legendary actions are supposed to fill that role, but I'm thinking of ways to fill the same niche (solo monsters getting over their action economy limitations) but differently. For example, a goblin "superboss" might have the total statistics of four goblin bosses, but because its damaging abilities are spread out over four turns, it should be a "reasonable" fight to somebody who'd find four goblin bosses a "reasonable" fight, it's just obscured the underlying math so it looks like one creature that gets four turns.

The idea is that by combining multiple monsters into one, you get the total DPR and the health needed for a solo to stand against a party, but the individual damage per turn is divided up so it doesn't result in a one turn kill as soon as it attacks, which is the usual problem of throwing higher CR solos.

It sounds like we're approaching a similar solution, though we may be expressing it differently.

The only difference really is that I prefer the flexibility (in the initiative order) of legendary actions to multiple turns. it is the same effect really, but I find it to less overhead.

Though I would never make a "solo" goblin.

 

[flametitan]

The only difference really is that I prefer the flexibility (in the initiative order) of legendary actions to multiple turns. it is the same effect really, but I find it to less overhead.

Though I would never make a "solo" goblin.

Fair enough. Multiple turns is a bit of a hack. I prefer legendary actions too, I was mostly using this as a concept in case legendary actions didn't have enough "oomph" to them.

And I can understand why you might not want a super goblin.

 

[The_Gneech]

I keep posting this, but it keeps being relevant!

Angry DM: Unsuck Your Boss Fights http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

-The Gneech

 

[dave2008]

I keep posting this, but it keeps being relevant!

Angry DM: Unsuck Your Boss Fights http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

-The Gneech

Thanks for link, I didn't have it saved. His approach is similar to what I am doing, but I use legendary actions, and don't use the HP/ conditions break. I don't find those are really needed for elites (what he calls paragons).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I keep posting this, but it keeps being relevant!

Angry DM: Unsuck Your Boss Fights http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

-The Gneech

Wow, that is hilarious.

 

[jasper]

"solo" goblin... +6 with hand crossbow 3 levels of rogue. +5 handle animal (milliumen falcon).
Note will die in first tier 2 adventure due to Harry has to fly home to Indiana.