log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E 5e EPIC MONSTER UPDATES

CapnZapp

Legend
I'm new to this thread, and so apologies if this has already been discussed in its many many pages...

1) Are there any introductory threads, where you discuss your starting point for this project.

I mean: could I assume you started by becoming dissatisfied with the official CR 20+ monsters in WotC products? That discussion, if available, would be very interesting for me - where you and others critique the WotC monsters, and perhaps point out that they're not worth their CR. (Example: I'm looking at Juiblex in OotA and am concerned he can be taken down by a much MUCH lower party than level 23, with only 300 hp and no real ranged attack). I understand this thread to be the next step, and so I don't want to retread old subjects here.

2) Is your material available in any other format than images? I find them spectactularly unhelpful to read, and use?

3) Have there been a discussion on Out of the Abyss in conjunction with dave20008s stuff?

I can certainly use the explanation that the demon lords yanked over to the Underdark are avatars/exarchs etc rather than the real deal, but still - the power difference between the diffirent demon lords is much larger here: if I were to use your stats, wouldn't that just produce a still-going-strong Orcus or Demongorgon that's way too strong to fight?

Again, it's a long thread and so I thought I'd rather ask than to try to comb through it all on my first visit...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
Again, I feel a bit lost - like I'm intruding upon a discussion that's been going on for a long while already... Sorry if I've missed the obvious.

You caution the reader we can't use your monsters in "our standard games", and say we need your advice and materials. But the link goes to an empty post in a mostly empty thread. What, exactly, do DMs need to add to their game in order to use these threats? And are you talking about epic boons, or tactics discussions, or what?

Moving on, I have now read the first few pages (of this thread), and in a post you refer back to giving your opinions on why epic threads needed to be updated. But I can't find any of that in your first post? (Could it be that it has got lost during updates, perhaps with the light text/dark text malarkey?)

In general, I think the project is great, but that it desperately needs a proper introduction.

Cheers and good luck! :)
 

dave2008

Legend
I'm new to this thread, and so apologies if this has already been discussed in its many many pages...

1) Are there any introductory threads, where you discuss your starting point for this project.

I mean: could I assume you started by becoming dissatisfied with the official CR 20+ monsters in WotC products? That discussion, if available, would be very interesting for me - where you and others critique the WotC monsters, and perhaps point out that they're not worth their CR. (Example: I'm looking at Juiblex in OotA and am concerned he can be taken down by a much MUCH lower party than level 23, with only 300 hp and no real ranged attack). I understand this thread to be the next step, and so I don't want to retread old subjects here.

2) Is your material available in any other format than images? I find them spectactularly unhelpful to read, and use?

3) Have there been a discussion on Out of the Abyss in conjunction with dave20008s stuff?

I can certainly use the explanation that the demon lords yanked over to the Underdark are avatars/exarchs etc rather than the real deal, but still - the power difference between the diffirent demon lords is much larger here: if I were to use your stats, wouldn't that just produce a still-going-strong Orcus or Demongorgon that's way too strong to fight?

Again, it's a long thread and so I thought I'd rather ask than to try to comb through it all on my first visit...
CapnZapp,
1) The only introduction is OP really. There has been some discussion on whether or not to continue to increase proficiency above 30, but not on the qualities of WotC epic monsters. Personally, my biggest issue with them is that they don't hit hard enough. That was the main reason I started this thread and to, hopefully, provide more tactically interesting epic monsters.

2) I have everything in PDF and Word doc. I plan to eventually post the PDF files, but I was waiting for the final edits (these are drafts) and revisions. However, many people of asked for PDFs so I think I will be adding those soon (just can't update them as frequently). If you want something specific, just PM me your email address and I can send it to you. If you can wait a little bit I will probably post PDF files next weekend (I've got a deadline this weekend).

3) No. I made the demon lords and princes because I like them to be more god-like in power (like 4e) than the official 5e versions in conjunction with I fell the WotC monsters are too soft. For most groups I think these are to strong for OotA, but I know you play the optimization game, so you might be able to use the CR28 and below demon lords. I didn't really make these for OotA, so if you want to use them for that you will unfortunately have to make some modifications based on your group. If I remember correctly, the final battle included some significant nerfs of the demon lords already. If you apply the same concept to these demon lords/princes they might work.
 

dave2008

Legend
Again, I feel a bit lost - like I'm intruding upon a discussion that's been going on for a long while already... Sorry if I've missed the obvious.

You caution the reader we can't use your monsters in "our standard games", and say we need your advice and materials. But the link goes to an empty post in a mostly empty thread. What, exactly, do DMs need to add to their game in order to use these threats? And are you talking about epic boons, or tactics discussions, or what?
CapnZapp, the warning in the OP applies to typical gamers, not optimizers really. Though some of these threats are beyond the range of even the best optimizers. The important thing to remember is that this is a work in progress. This was also made before the DMs Guild so things have change a little. There are a couple Epic Charactere advancement options on the DMs Guild that would allow you to fight these beasts. However, they both use increased levels (to lvl 30), while my approach (in the other thread) is to expand boons to allow players to become gods.

So, my epic character's thread is where I am posting my concepts to allow PCs to become gods, or god-like, and fight the epic threats in this tread. The only thing really started over there is the expanded epic boons. I've only gotten feedback from one poster who said he had good success using my revised and additional epic boons to fight some of these monsters. I do plan on putting more info on that thread, but I wanted to get the monster drafts up first, then update the character thread, then finalize the monsters, then finalize the character options. A long process.

Moving on, I have now read the first few pages (of this thread), and in a post you refer back to giving your opinions on why epic threads needed to be updated. But I can't find any of that in your first post? (Could it be that it has got lost during updates, perhaps with the light text/dark text malarkey?)

In general, I think the project is great, but that it desperately needs a proper introduction.

Cheers and good luck! :)
Sorry, I don't remember what your talking about! What do feel is missing in the introduction? I agree it is brief and could use some updating, but I didn't want to make a fall of text. Specific items you think would be helpful in the intro would be appreciated and I can get it update. Thanks for the input!
 

CapnZapp

Legend
A very brief reply, Dave2008:

What's wrong with the official monsters?

Hp, damage, resistances etc, what's your rationale for changing it up.

What do DMs need to give their players' characters if they want them to have a fighting chance? Give an example, both of a monster aspect that's unwinnable for regular PCs, and the boon or tactic you provide that makes it winnable again.
 

dave2008

Legend
A very brief reply, Dave2008:

What's wrong with the official monsters?

Hp, damage, resistances etc, what's your rationale for changing it up.
I can do that, maybe on my lunch break.

What do DMs need to give their players' characters if they want them to have a fighting chance? Give an example, both of a monster aspect that's unwinnable for regular PCs, and the boon or tactic you provide that makes it winnable again.
DM advice is going to be harder. The more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize how vastly different people play the game. For some, the MM is fine as is. But for others the monsters are just to weak to justify their CR. However, within that 2nd group there is a huge range. A MM CR 10 is fine for the first group; however, the 2nd group could need anything from CR 12 - 17 to be a challenge. I'm trying to provide something for that group, but at this point I am at a loss of how to provide advice when there is such large range to design for. The advice for the CR12 end would not be the same for the CR 17 end of the spectrum.

I can probably add something very basic for now, and just have to update as more research and evidence comes to light.
 

Faenor

Explorer
Group 1: RP playstyle with ranger, wildshape druid, bladelock, rogue, valor bard
Conditions: stat point buy, 6-8 encounters/day, low or sub optimal magic items, every man for himself in combat- no buffs, everyone doing their own thing like polymorphed druid, soloing warlock and bard, adventure style is lots of sneak/surprise shenanigans.
Group 2: 2 vengeance paladins, sorcerer, life cleric, lore bard
Conditions: Roll stats (fudge a little), leomund's and later MMM to break the encounters/day math, more optimal magic items, and earlier in the tiers, optimal buffs (double haste, bless all). Adventure style is walking into the layer and wack the monsters.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
A very brief reply, Dave2008:

What's wrong with the official monsters?

Hp, damage, resistances etc, what's your rationale for changing it up.

What do DMs need to give their players' characters if they want them to have a fighting chance? Give an example, both of a monster aspect that's unwinnable for regular PCs, and the boon or tactic you provide that makes it winnable again.
CapnZapp,
I updated the OP with an intro and explanation. If you get a chance, let me know what you think / if it is helpful.
 

dave2008

Legend
Group 1: RP playstyle with ranger, wildshape druid, bladelock, rogue, valor bard
Conditions: stat point buy, 6-8 encounters/day, low or sub optimal magic items, every man for himself in combat- no buffs, everyone doing their own thing like polymorphed druid, soloing warlock and bard, adventure style is lots of sneak/surprise shenanigans.
Group 2: 2 vengeance paladins, sorcerer, life cleric, lore bard
Conditions: Roll stats (fudge a little), leomund's and later MMM to break the encounters/day math, more optimal magic items, and earlier in the tiers, optimal buffs (double haste, bless all). Adventure style is walking into the layer and wack the monsters.
That's about it. The level of challenge the two groups can handle is vastly different.
 

Faenor

Explorer
I love 5e, but the whole basis of class balance is encounters/day, and they go and build a way to completely break that with Leomunds. You can argue that creative dming can fix that, but head over to the angry dm and read a good rant about how encounters should be party make up agnostic to honor player choices. Ie, don't 're-design to thwart leomunds.
 

dave2008

Legend
I love 5e, but the whole basis of class balance is encounters/day, and they go and build a way to completely break that with Leomunds. You can argue that creative dming can fix that, but head over to the angry dm and read a good rant about how encounters should be party make up agnostic to honor player choices. Ie, don't 're-design to thwart leomunds.
I agree, but I just don't think that is possible with what I see from some people on the forums. Group 2 even with out Leomunds is going to chew threw encounters a lot more easily than group 1. Encounter A may be a fun exciting 3-5 round battle for group 1 and be a 1-2 round snooze fest for group 2. That may be what group 2 wants, but just because a group optimizes doesn't mean they want to chew threw all encounters. Now ideally, an adventure designed for mass consumption would have the flexibility built with tips and or modifications for playing it with both groups
 

CapnZapp

Legend
CapnZapp,
I updated the OP with an intro and explanation. If you get a chance, let me know what you think / if it is helpful.
Excellent - that's exactly the kind of commentary that helps me (and others?) to quickly "get" your hard work.

Zapp

PS The reason I'm asking is that I have my own ideas on how to improve WotC's monsters (not going to go into detail here, this is your thread). And in order to compare your resulting stat blocks I need to understand how you arrive there. So pointing out your changes from official DMG tables, what and where you don't just extrapolate their trends but tweak them, is extremely helpful. DS

PPS. I wouldn't worry too much about how different groups would find your monsters (too strong, not too strong etc). Not now when you clearly set out your goals and your plans for epic characters. At CR 15+ I think you can and should assume any DM interested in not simply using official stat blocks is experienced enough to know her group's strengths and weaknesses in detail.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
Excellent - that's exactly the kind of commentary that helps me (and others?) to quickly "get" your hard work.

Zapp
Great, and thank you for pointing out that this thread needed it.

PS The reason I'm asking is that I have my own ideas on how to improve WotC's monsters (not going to go into detail here, this is your thread). And in order to compare your resulting stat blocks I need to understand how you arrive there. So pointing out your changes from official DMG tables, what and where you don't just extrapolate their trends but tweak them, is extremely helpful. DS
Now you've got my attention! I would love to hear your thoughts about what needs to be improved about WotC monsters and how to do it. This is what I want from this tread, a discussion on how to improve things. Personally I am out of touch with the optimizing philosophy, my group doesn't have an issue with the MM monsters, so I would really like to hear the thoughts of someone with optimizing experience. If you feel like it, I love to here your thoughts.

PPS. I wouldn't worry too much about how different groups would find your monsters (too strong, not too strong etc). Not now when you clearly set out your goals and your plans for epic characters. At CR 15+ I think you can and should assume any DM interested in not simply using official stat blocks is experienced enough to know her group's strengths and weaknesses in detail.
That was generally my thought as well, but it is still a interesting exercise to think about.
 




dave2008

Legend
CR is on my mind lately. I've been having a conversation with CapnZapp on his Juiblex thread and he got me thinking about CR. The goal of this project was to give high CR monsters more punch because they just are not living up to their CR IMO. So I revised the table and beefed up the monsters in this thread.

Now it always concerned me that my creations differed from the official CR. So I had planned on making two versions of each monster, one based my table and one based on the WotC DMG table. However, that would be a lot of work.

So instead I am thinking of having only one version of the monster, but two CR values. One value based on my table and one based on the official DMG table. For example lets look at the Ancient Red Dragon. My version is CR 24, just like the official version. However, mine is a much tougher foe. If I use the DMG table I get a CR of 29. Thus, my revised stat block would read:

Challenge 24/29 (62,000/135,000 XP)

Would that be helpful or confusing?
 

szymanski808

First Post
I think it's an unnecessary complication. I believe if you're using these creature's in battle your probably in an epic level campaign, in which case people just need to step up their game, and it's the DM's job to make sure they understand their group well enough not to put them in deadly situations.

I think you should specify in the introduction that these creatures are not equal to the normal Monster Manual CR
 

dave2008

Legend
I think it's an unnecessary complication. I believe if you're using these creature's in battle your probably in an epic level campaign, in which case people just need to step up their game, and it's the DM's job to make sure they understand their group well enough not to put them in deadly situations.

I think you should specify in the introduction that these creatures are not equal to the normal Monster Manual CR
Good point about the intro, and thank you for your thought about the CR. Definitely not going to make a change now, but it is worth considering.
 

mcninja

First Post
I was going through some of the earlier creations and I noticed the Empyrean entry has a few glaring typos - it's referred to as a solar in the innate spellcasting and as a dragon in the legendary actions section.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top