D&D 5E 5e EPIC MONSTER UPDATES

[Olrox17]

@CapnZapp I admit that mine is an overly simple approach. It's supposed to go hand in hand with 5e's design philosophy of fast play, but I totally get and understand your critique.

Yes, the real problem lies in the "all or nothing" spells. I remember when 5e was still in playtesting, and the idea of HP thresholds for spells was suggested. Now that was a nice idea that, sadly, wasn't followed through.
For example, what if Hold Monster was written like this:


Choose a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration. If the target’s current hit point are more than 100, its speed drops to 10 ft. for the duration, instead of being paralyzed (creatures that are immune to being paralyzed are also immune to the speed drop).
At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 5th. The creatures must be within 30 feet of each other when you target them. If you're still targeting a single creature, increase the hit points the target must have to avoid the paralysis by 30 for each slot level above 5th.

 

[dave2008]

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).

Ideally yes, but it is not practical to come up with a thematic condition for every spell or effect that triggers a save. I used to do this sometimes in 4e, reduce stun to dazed or immobilized to slowed. Maybe a blanket loss of HP and loss of some speed, say 10' or something.

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...

I don't think there is one solution. I think for some monsters it is OK for it to completely ignore a certain amount of attacks (legendary saves), others could spend HP (legendary resistance), and there could still be more options (like spending reactions or bonus actions). I think the method should, if possible, be thematic to the monster itself.

I want to develop several options and then use them all, just placing the specific option with the specific monster

 

[dave2008]

I have added the Court of Stars: Morwel, Faerinaal, & Gwynharwyf, by MechaTarrasque to the Demigods & Celestials section.

Thank you MechaTarrasque for your hard work and contribution!

P.S. I'm back!

 

[dave2008]

I have added Sathia, Vhara, & Manath (Companions of Prince Talisid), by MechaTarrasque to the Demigods & Celestials section.

Thank you MechaTarrasque for your hard work and contribution!

 

[dave2008]

I have added Pazuzu to the Demon Princes section. This Pazazu is a slightly modified version of Olrox's Pazuzu. Olrox's original stat block for Pazuzu can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?489333-Stats-for-the-demon-lord-Pazuzu

P.S. I know I said I would finish the Arch Devils first, but they take me longer and I need to work up to them a bit. I will get to them soon!

 

[MechaTarrasque]

dave2008,

Thanks for posting the Court of Stars and the members of the Companions that I have finished with. Hope to have the last 3 in the next couple of weeks.

 

[dave2008]

dave2008,

Thanks for posting the Court of Stars and the members of the Companions that I have finished with. Hope to have the last 3 in the next couple of weeks.

I look forward to them and I will get them posted a lot quicker from now on!

 

[dave2008]

I have added Levistus to the Arch-Devils section. Thank you to szymanski808 and MechaTarrasque of their help!

 

[dave2008]

I have posted the Arch-Devil Geryon, former ruler of Stygia. Let me know what you think.

 

[Gwarok]

dave2008,

Thanks for posting the Court of Stars and the members of the Companions that I have finished with. Hope to have the last 3 in the next couple of weeks.

That is awesome work, thanks!