D&D 5E 5e EPIC MONSTER UPDATES

[dave2008]

However, I would be more likely at this point to see about increasing the depth of legendary actions, by increasing the number of points they get and allowing for more versatile ways to spend them. This would hopefully make the monsters much more unpredictable, since they can react to each player's turn as needed, and can't get swarmed and focused as easily.

Yes, I think that is where I am heading as well. Thank you for the input!

 

[CapnZapp]

If you happen to be open to more revisions of your design decisions, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your epic bonuses.

The 5E monster model has several deficiences, but that even epic monsters can be hit at least-semiregularly by a high-level fighter with a semihumble +1 weapon is not one of them. I can certainly sympathize with the desire to make something like a Demon Lord need a "more magical" weapon, but your requirements are out of scope for 5th Edition. If Magic Weapon cast at 6th level (producing a +3 weapon) isn't enough, the game can't handle your stats. One possible idea would be to require a combination that is unusual to the point of being rare, but still possible to achieve with the rules of the PHB. For instance, requirements such as "a +2 radiant weapon" that can be achieved by, for instance, a 5th level Magic Weapon combined with Divine Favor. (Or any other number of combinations that are possible within RAW).

I find that while I am attracted to your versions much more than the official ones, the main reason is that you have (quite brilliantly I might add) handed out the necessary abilities epic monsters should and must have. Area attacks. Mobility options. Battlefield control spells.

But all the rules-overhead of requiring especially magic weapons, sky-high AC and other bonuses, is not needed and in fact makes it mandatory to play the game in a decidedly 3E/d20 way. For my purposes those rules are an obstacle, a throw-back to an earlier era, a legacy way of thinking. Not that this is bad.... it's just not as directly useful as it could have been

Especially since just making sure the monster has sufficient hit points (very roughly: double that of the official monsters) is all you need in that department. I know I have asked for this before, but now I do it with actual play experience: I don't want to switch paradigms when I reach the top levels, and suddenly hand out significantly more significantly more powerful items.

I know you have said you prefer the gods to be essentially untouchable, and I can't argue with that. But what I can say is: it's a shame your statblocks become mere curiosities. Battling gods and demon lords is part of D&D, and your statblocks are simply unattainable by heroes brought up to high level by official modules.

If I can instead offer a suggestion where your experience really is needed, there is one rules area that really needs some development: legendary saves. I would much prefer that my monsters doesn't "cheat", but instead aren't taken down by a single failed save. Somehow.


In the hopes you interpret my efforts in writing this as support and encouragement,
Zapp

 

[dave2008]

If you happen to be open to more revisions of your design decisions, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your epic bonuses.

I am absolutely open to suggestions! Thank you for sharing. One of the things I am thinking about is revising the epic bonus / proficiency bonus to fit more kindly within the confines of BA, bit I am not 100% sure yet

The 5E monster model has several deficiences, but that even epic monsters can be hit at least-semiregularly by a high-level fighter with a semihumble +1 weapon is not one of them. I can certainly sympathize with the desire to make something like a Demon Lord need a "more magical" weapon, but your requirements are out of scope for 5th Edition. If Magic Weapon cast at 6th level (producing a +3 weapon) isn't enough, the game can't handle your stats. One possible idea would be to require a combination that is unusual to the point of being rare, but still possible to achieve with the rules of the PHB. For instance, requirements such as "a +2 radiant weapon" that can be achieved by, for instance, a 5th level Magic Weapon combined with Divine Favor. (Or any other number of combinations that are possible within RAW).

One of the goals of my redesign is to more closely align with RAW so I think these are good suggestions. I could also provide damage resistance, but not outright immunity. There are lot of these type of hoops that I was trying to jump through to accommodate the low HP of RAW monsters. I am now think that the easy solution is to bump up HP and worry less about fiddly bonuses. Still work to do, but thank you for the suggestions.

I find that while I am attracted to your versions much more than the official ones, the main reason is that you have (quite brilliantly I might add) handed out the necessary abilities epic monsters should and must have. Area attacks. Mobility options. Battlefield control spells.

Thank you. Most of that comes from my experience with 4e epic monsters

But all the rules-overhead of requiring especially magic weapons, sky-high AC and other bonuses, is not needed and in fact makes it mandatory to play the game in a decidedly 3E/d20 way. For my purposes those rules are an obstacle, a throw-back to an earlier era, a legacy way of thinking. Not that this is bad.... it's just not as directly useful as it could have been

Especially since just making sure the monster has sufficient hit points (very roughly: double that of the official monsters) is all you need in that department. I know I have asked for this before, but now I do it with actual play experience: I don't want to switch paradigms when I reach the top levels, and suddenly hand out significantly more significantly more powerful items.

I generally agree with what your saying. However, one of my goals is to make truly epic encounters different from normal play. I do not want to extend PCs from lvl 20 to lvl 30+. I want PCs to evolve into deities themselves and throw of the shackles of the level system and embrace the boons! So I that front I don't think what I want and what you want will every completely align. However, my plans/goals are trending in your direction. I think the project as a whole needs some simplification that will mostly result in what you are asking for.

I know you have said you prefer the gods to be essentially untouchable, and I can't argue with that. But what I can say is: it's a shame your statblocks become mere curiosities. Battling gods and demon lords is part of D&D, and your statblocks are simply unattainable by heroes brought up to high level by official modules.

I don't mind if these remain mere curiosities for the time being, but ultimately I would like creatures in the CR 21-30 range to be playable with official PCs. Beyond that and I feel one should expect to go outside official support to get that truely Epic experience.

If I can instead offer a suggestion where your experience really is needed, there is one rules area that really needs some development: legendary saves. I would much prefer that my monsters doesn't "cheat", but instead aren't taken down by a single failed save. Somehow.

That is a tricky one and something I agree needs some attention. We have discussed some ideas in the past that I will have to go back to. That being said I do think legendary saves works for most of the epic threats I've been stating. It feels right for a god-level entity to me. The issue is really lower tier monsters I think. I think maybe we could do away with 'Legendary Saves" and instead have the same thing call "Epic Saves" and then rework the concept for "regular" legendary monsters. Of course whatever solution(s) is developed could be be implemented in epic monsters too. After I get through my back-log of epic monsters I will have to make something with revised legendary save type mechanic.

In the hopes you interpret my efforts in writing this as support and encouragement,
Zapp

I greatly appreciate the input. I think the eventual revisions will be much closer to your liking. I may do a revised draft of one god/ epic monster in the new format at some point in the near future (a proof of concept) and I would love your input. However, I do plan on finishing the first drafts in the current format and then revising them all to the new format. So it will be a while before the new format is implemented.

 

[dave2008]

If I can instead offer a suggestion where your experience really is needed, there is one rules area that really needs some development: legendary saves. I would much prefer that my monsters doesn't "cheat", but instead aren't taken down by a single failed save. Somehow.

CapnZapp,
Quick question regarding "Legendary Saves." Typical it states the monster can choose to succeed on a failure, which feels a bit meta. What if instead a monster simply auto saves on its first three saves after a short rest? This seems to indicate it is tougher/luckier, etc., but that toughness can be warn down. Is that any improvement?

2nd question: what if it only provided advantage and not auto-success?

Still working on other ideas

 

[CapnZapp]

As I understand it, the trick to making legendary saves to work is to not tell the players.

That is - first I read the ability as something like "Tiamat uses up her second legendary and succeeds at the save".

Not doing that and instead having the monster "miraculously" making save after save is essential to making the ability work from a player's perspective (which after all is all that counts).

Not sure if that was even on target for your question....?

 

[dave2008]

As I understand it, the trick to making legendary saves to work is to not tell the players.

That is - first I read the ability as something like "Tiamat uses up her second legendary and succeeds at the save".

Not doing that and instead having the monster "miraculously" making save after save is essential to making the ability work from a player's perspective (which after all is all that counts).

Not sure if that was even on target for your question....?

Not really. I understand what your saying (and that is how I currently do it myself). However, my suggestion is fundamentally different in that there is no choice involved. Tiamat doesn't choose to save if she fails. The first three (or whatever number) saves are auto success and never rolled. Then, from there on out it is standard saves. Tiamat can't cherry-pick her bad rolls, she is simple really tough. However, that toughness can be worn down.

Does that difference improve the concept for you at all? I don't think it is ultimately what your looking for, I just wondering if it is getting closer. Ultimately, i want a kit of parts, not one solution, to solve the single monster vs. party problem. Just wandering if this minor revision would work for you in some situations.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

That will make legendary saves less legendary. Won't even last a round. Just use some save provoking cantrips and there goes the legendary resistance. Then the full casters proceed with the real spells.

The 'wear down' concept needs a different implementation, imo.

 

[Olrox17]

Here's a possible alternative approach to legendary saves:

Legendary Resistance. If the monster fails a saving throw, it can choose to take x damage to succeed instead. If taking this damage would reduce the monster to 0 hit points, legendary resistance cannot be used.

The damage taken obviously depends on the monster's HP. Should probably be between 5% and 10% of the monster's max HP

Reasoning behind this approach:
In 5e, Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Against a legendary monster, a successful spell might not be able to impose its full effects, but it can surely wear down the monster's hit points.
Maybe that dominate monster spell is not powerful enough to outright charm an ancient dragon, but it can surely cloud its mind enough to leave it open to further attacks. In game terms, the dragon just took damage instead of being charmed.

 

[CapnZapp]

A blanket failed-save to damage would perhaps come across as simple or even crude, but in the framework of D&D combat, where (in later editions) hp is the first and foremost indicator of level, it would work very well.

At least conceptually: I still think it should be embellished by the consequence retaining at least some semblance to the actual incoming spell effect. I realize I probably need to explain that - so, example: a banishment spell described as opening up the "usual" vortex but the legendary monster being to awesome to be simply sucked in, instead taking some temporary debilitating condition as well as losing 40 hp (or whatever amount).

As for the other idea - I should probably clarify that it is me as a DM that doesn't like being given the responsibility to decide when and where my monster should cheat. I definitely understand it can only be my responsibility - after all I am the monster. Not being able to choose significantly nerfs the ability, and I never objected it was too strong. So I would say that no, that proposal doesn't really solve the issues (even if it lightens my load).

The real problem isn't, after all, that I'm cheating. The real problem is that the rules empower the DM to handwave away the players hard-earned abilities.

I would much rather meet them half-way:

"okay congrats on sticking your very first spell to the monster. Now, the normal effects would mean an autowin, and that's not fun or dramatic or appropriate for a legendary monster. So how about coming up with an effect that's half as impactful as Banishment or Maze or Feeblemind?"

The real problem is the way spell effects and conditions can't be halved the way damage can. In my ideal world, D&D finally gets rid of its atomic save or die model (where it's either "save" or "die" but never anything in the middle).

Until that happy time, I wonder if Olrox idea (basically allowing a legendary monster to "bribe" its way out of a spell by paying hit points) isn't the most workable...

 

[dave2008]

Here's a possible alternative approach to legendary saves:

Legendary Resistance. If the monster fails a saving throw, it can choose to take x damage to succeed instead. If taking this damage would reduce the monster to 0 hit points, legendary resistance cannot be used.

The damage taken obviously depends on the monster's HP. Should probably be between 5% and 10% of the monster's max HP

Reasoning behind this approach:
In 5e, Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Against a legendary monster, a successful spell might not be able to impose its full effects, but it can surely wear down the monster's hit points.
Maybe that dominate monster spell is not powerful enough to outright charm an ancient dragon, but it can surely cloud its mind enough to leave it open to further attacks. In game terms, the dragon just took damage instead of being charmed.

I think this concept has merit, but this would require even more of an emphasis on increasing HP. I think it is one to add to the tool kit - thank you for sharing!