D&D 5E 5e Hardcore: Monster Manual

[dave2008]

I'm not a huge fan of stat inflation so I don't know that I will use any of the monsters as Dave has presented them--I tend to favor keeping the MM stats largely the same and just adding more tactical and strategic abilities like Teleport Without Error for fiends, which leave bounded accuracy intact.

FYI, a lot of these updates will just be monsters with more tactical options. I just felt the Balor, Marilith, and Goristro needed a bump. I also feel this approach leaves BA intact as I am not messing with the AC and to hit numbers much if at all. The "elites" just modify HP and DPR

I also have some misgiving about the name of this project ("AD&D") because it's misleading--I opened this thread expecting to see either old-school monsters or else monsters inspired by old-school, with non-combat-related considerations like habitat, ecology, and social structure playing a greater role.

Me too, I wish I could go back and change it. I prefer the "Hardcore" title that Elfcrusher used. However, I don'y 1e AD&D had much more habitat, ecology and social information. That really took off in 2e.

But it's definitely an interesting thread, and when I do see a genuinely-anemic monsters like the Balor for which I do want to inflate the stats, it is useful to have a writeup that I didn't create myself. Thanks, Dave.

Your welcome! And if you do make a monster yourself, please feel free, if you want, to send it my way and I will upload.

 

[dave2008]

To do it, you'd need to dramatically buff high level monsters. Or, what you should really do: recognize that as the party gets higher level, challenging "solos" will become harder to find, so make more of them. A solo for a level 15 party isn't a CR 19 monster. It's a CR 25 monster. By 15th level, if the party wants to be challenged and killed by a solo monster, they need to be going after demon princes and stuff like that. Level 20 isn't really the gateway to "Epic play" like in 3e and 4e. It's the end.

The party that wants a more grounded, less epic game, can do one of two things: accept that high level PCs need multiple threats, or accept that they don't want to play at high level.

Some of these revisions are for those groups who want to play high level, but don't always want to have lots of threats. Variety makes the game better IMHO. There is no problem with multiple threats, but I don't think it is a problem to have some solo's (or nearly solo) too. However, the existing MM doesn't give you a lot flexibility for high level solos.

Your goal is basically to buff monsters so that you can always have that "solo a couple CRs above the party" feel. Since damage and HP don't scale in a way that allows this, you have to supercharge damage and HP. But when you supercharge monster HP and especially damage, you can create a "Level X Need Not Apply" barrier the same way monsters with AC 47 did in 3rd and 4th edition. So now we're back to no ability to punch super high above your weight class, regardless of tactics.

To clarify, the goal is not to buff (more HP and DPR) all monsters, those are just the ones I've posted so far. The next batch (Ogres) will not all be buffed. They will have more tactical options though.

I see your point about damage and DPR, but that makes sense to me. An ancient dragon should be a serious threat to kill any PC below 5th lvl with one strike IMHO. However, these options do not replace the MM, but stand next to them. You will notice that I am giving them all unique names. It is not a marilith but a maralith battlemaster. It is a tougher marilith. It is just more options, not replacing anything. Heck you could have a party face a group of marilith's lead by a battlemaster.

As a DM who favors open worlds without sculpted encounter zones and scaling CR story quests, a lack of "Level X Need Not Apply" signs is especially important to me. I get that my style isn't for everyone, and more tightly scripted games that employ Level Appropriate Encounters could find this useful. But that's what I meant when I said I felt the design was a betrayal of the spirit of Bounded Accuracy.

I see your point, but like i said the intent is not to replace anything, but offer options.

 

[MostlyDm]

As is always the case when someone complains about something being changed/added/expanded/etc, on some level, they must know that the thing they like still exists and isn't being changed. The change is just an option.

Doesn't stop me from complaining about all the terrible unnecessary changes from the books in the Game of Thrones TV show, though.

So yeah, I know you're not really replacing the monsters in the book, you're just adding to them. I just wanted to expound a bit on why I think HP and Damage don't scale the same with level, and aren't, IMO, supposed to.

You do what you want. I think you have some good design sensibilities, and lots of cool ideas, so as always don't take my criticism as an attempt to shut you down.

Although I do think the Marilith with 2 shields and a bow is kind of... silly. I dunno. I'll probably just give my marilith some spells and a straightforward magical ranged attack that they can fling, since I prefer the visual aesthetic of a Marilith sporting 7 huge terrifying blades.

 

[dave2008]

As is always the case when someone complains about something being changed/added/expanded/etc, on some level, they must know that the thing they like still exists and isn't being changed. The change is just an option.

Doesn't stop me from complaining about all the terrible unnecessary changes from the books in the Game of Thrones TV show, though.

My son just started reading them. I plan to pick it up after him. I've seen the show, so now I wonder what unnecessary changes the made in the book

So yeah, I know you're not really replacing the monsters in the book, you're just adding to them. I just wanted to expound a bit on why I think HP and Damage don't scale the same with level, and aren't, IMO, supposed to.

It was an interesting thought and a perspective I had not considered, but I don't know if it was intentional. 4e had the same damage issues and no BA. I think it is simply a byproduct of an old philosophy making more sense when coupled with BA. However, some things that you didn't mention are healing and AC. As PCs get higher in level they not only have more HP, they also have access to higher AC (equipment, spells, or both), resistances, save bonuses, and greater healing. IMO, those resources so far out pace the damage done by monsters that it has to be adjusted.

Take the red dragon. The breathweapon is extremely deadly to low lvl characters (it is a "need not apply" type damage), but trivial for high level characters. If we bumped up the damage of the breathweapon it wouldn't change anything at low levels (deadly is deadly) and would just make higher levels more exciting. And that is what I want, more high level fun options (with this aspect of the project). From my perspective your philosophy is sacrificing high level fun for low level inclusion. This seems backward to me. There are not many high CR monsters. If these few monsters are too deadly for low level PCs that seems like much less of a sacrifice than making the few monsters of high CR so weak that your always having to use hordes of monsters to challenge a high level party.

Although I do think the Marilith with 2 shields and a bow is kind of... silly. I dunno. I'll probably just give my marilith some spells and a straightforward magical ranged attack that they can fling, since I prefer the visual aesthetic of a Marilith sporting 7 huge terrifying blades.

Ya, I did this a while ago and when I revised it for this project it struck me as a bit odd as well. It was inspired by a picture of a marilith I found that was wielding several different types of weapons and at least on shield. It just seemed more versatile. In addition, I pictured wielding 4 swords and 2 shields with 2 bows strapped to its back. It would use the bows when it wasn't using its swords (or 1 bow and 2 swords). I guess I should have explained that better or just given it version of "dual wielder" instead of the shields. That would have been simpler and look better. Though I do like the synergy between shield bash and attacking prone targets.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because, I think due to the last 2 D&D editions and a healthy dose of video game advancement design

I know 'video game' gets tossed around like a pejorative, but the sad reality is that it's a market & a medium that is just vastly larger than that of TTRPGs, so more folks of higher paygrades burn out more brain cells pondering the imponderables of designing them - and, sometimes, there are valid insights to be gained from what they come up with that can be gleaned by the TTRPG hobby. Because TTRPGs don't rate the resources to come up with those sorts of things on their own.

people assume the game is supposed to fundamentally play the same at all levels. At high level you have Bigger Numbers and more widgets and doodads, but it's all the same thing really.

Hopefully it's still fundamentally the same game in some sense. But the assumption is presumably that the game would still work at all levels (work the same or work differently, but work)...

But I think this is a faulty assumption for 5e.

It'd be a faulty assumption for almost every edition, sure.

Level 20 isn't really the gateway to "Epic play" like in 3e and 4e.

Or just the middle of the 'Companion' levels in BECMI...

It's the end.

As variously problematic and/or disappointing as capstones can be, it may well be sooner. I'm not sure the last few levels are even meant to be played. Or, rather, I suspect that they're designed with the idea that the fun of playing those levels won't come from the mechanics read off the class advancement table.

The party that wants a more grounded, less epic game, can do one of two things: accept that high level PCs need multiple threats, or accept that they don't want to play at high level.

The latter seems to have a good track record.

I get that my style isn't for everyone, and more tightly scripted games that employ Level Appropriate Encounters could find this useful. But that's what I meant when I said I felt the design was a betrayal of the spirit of Bounded Accuracy.

So BA simply can't deliver 'level appropriate encounters?' That approach to play constitutes an un-supported style?

It was an interesting thought and a perspective I had not considered, but I don't know if it was intentional. 4e had the same damage issues and no BA.

BA isn't that big a change. It's just making some factors smaller on both sides of an equation, really. It has ripple effects, though...

 

[Krachek]

This is for people who don't want to use the nerf bat.

Of course what a fool am I, why nerf them when you can give them to monster too.
Fire giant, with a better attack bonus, add reckless attack and huge weapon master can be a fierce opponent.
Of course huge weapon master allow to trade -5 to hit for + 20 damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You will notice that I am giving them all unique names. It is not a marilith but a maralith battlemaster. It is a tougher marilith. It is just more options, not replacing anything. Heck you could have a party face a group of marilith's lead by a battlemaster.

I see your point, but like i said the intent is not to replace anything, but offer options.

Yes, this is really great! Keep it up with the unique names.

 

[MostlyDm]

I know 'video game' gets tossed around like a pejorative, but the sad reality is that it's a market & a medium that is just vastly larger than that of TTRPGs, so more folks of higher paygrades burn out more brain cells pondering the imponderables of designing them - and, sometimes, there are valid insights to be gained from what they come up with that can be gleaned by the TTRPG hobby. Because TTRPGs don't rate the resources to come up with those sorts of things on their own.

Not intended as a pejorative, really... did it come off that way, or did you read it that way due to other conversations you've had? I love video games, and a couple of friends of mine are in video game design. I also played more 3e and 4e than all of the oldschool editions combined, by a wide margin.

That said, video game design, particularly the design that strives to create a sweet spot treadmill, is optimizing for a different thing than TTRPGs are.

And they lack a fundamental asset that TTRPGs have. Video games need to work without a human referee/dictator/overlord driving them.

Hopefully it's still fundamentally the same game in some sense. But the assumption is presumably that the game would still work at all levels (work the same or work differently, but work)...

I think it works, but the play experience changes.

It'd be a faulty assumption for almost every edition, sure.

Or just the middle of the 'Companion' levels in BECMI... As variously problematic and/or disappointing as capstones can be, it may well be sooner. I'm not sure the last few levels are even meant to be played. Or, rather, I suspect that they're designed with the idea that the fun of playing those levels won't come from the mechanics read off the class advancement table.

Sure... is the fun of playing any level primarily coming from the mechanics on the class advancement table? I wouldn't say so...

So BA simply can't deliver 'level appropriate encounters?' That approach to play constitutes an un-supported style?

No, that's not what I said at all. Bounded Accuracy can easily deliver level appropriate encounters... but it perhaps can't easily do so if you assume all of the following:

1: Straight up fight without substantial battlefield control, mobility, and tactical acumen executed by the DM.
2: Fight is with an individual monster
3: Monster is PartyLevel+X=CR where X is a static number (e.g. 2)

If number 1 is violated, so it's not a straight up slugfest, then all bets are off.

If number 2 is violated, creating a difficult, challenge is pretty easy.

Number 3 is mostly what I have been opining on. I think, for the classic "solo" monster, you are chasing a proverbial dragon. You can't use a rule that works at level 1 (e.g. Party level+2 CR) and expect it to work at level 15. The increase in CR required to maintain the "solo" feel will go up at a faster rate than the party's level will.

BA isn't that big a change. It's just making some factors smaller on both sides of an equation, really. It has ripple effects, though...

I disagree immensely.

Bounded Accuracy does a decent job of recreating the best D&D edition ever (3.5 E6) in a more traditional, player friendly 1-20 package.

And it can easily be dragged even further into an E6 style of game, without actually implementing E6. The core mechanics of 5e are so well suited to this style of play that the number of modular changes to really nail it are relatively small, and all of them feel natural and fitting within the 5e framework. For example, some of the truly superb low magic suggestions you yourself made in another thread (either dropping spell slots or dropping spells known, for different tones that achieve similar overall results)

 

[Quickleaf]

Some of these revisions are for those groups who want to play high level, but don't always want to have lots of threats. Variety makes the game better IMHO. There is no problem with multiple threats, but I don't think it is a problem to have some solo's (or nearly solo) too. However, the existing MM doesn't give you a lot flexibility for high level solos.

Dave, did you see my thread about the secret planescape origin of legendary / solo monsters? Definitely worth perusing. The TL;DR version: Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix II originated the idea of a "monster of legend"; compared to 5e's legendary monsters these "monsters of legend" had vastly greater defenses, though they lacked the boosted action economy of lair actions & legendary actions.

To clarify, the goal is not to buff (more HP and DPR) all monsters, those are just the ones I've posted so far. The next batch (Ogres) will not all be buffed. They will have more tactical options though.

Ooo! I've done a lot of ad-libbing with ogres in my game. I actually think the expanded options I'd give them map really well to the MM's paragraph headers under the "Ogre" entry (e.g. furious tempers, gruesome gluttons, greedy collectors, legendary stupidity, primitive wanderers). Some more specific things I've done:

• Gave an ogre a version of barbarian Rage, and gave another ogre an additional albeit random attack when reduced to 50% hit points or according to a specific trigger of that ogre's personality.
• Added a bite attack to an ogre's multiattack, but it was only usable against incapacitated enemies, and indicated the ogre bit a hand, foot, finger, ear, or other limb off the creature. I try to avoid giving monsters healing powers in my own design, but this would be an appropriately grisly place to do that.
• Gave an ogre a "sack" attack to grab a creature and stuff them into a sack and cinch it shut. While stuffed in the sack, the creature was blind to anything outside the sack. Cutting it free was possible as an action using a slashing weapon, which deposited it prone next to the ogre.
• Made an ogre so stupid that it misinterpreted all enchantment spells in the worst imaginable way possible. This was pretty hilarious, but then my group enjoys funny bits like this.
• Added automatic pushing and knocking prone to an ogre's Greatclub attack, describing it as getting thwacked by an uprooted tree.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Take the red dragon. The breathweapon is extremely deadly to low lvl characters (it is a "need not apply" type damage), but trivial for high level characters. If we bumped up the damage of the breathweapon it wouldn't change anything at low levels (deadly is deadly) and would just make higher levels more exciting.

Prince Rupert the 3rd level half-orc might disagree with you there. Any higher damage on that breath weapon and he would have been vaporized.

Right now, 3rd-5th level PCs can face an adult red dragon with some hope of surviving, especially with Healing Word and similar spells. If you bump it up to 20d12+40 (170) it becomes truly hopeless, "need not apply" as you call it.