As a result, you had creatures that were 30th level goblins, which would decimate any party below level 25 because of the power of their attack and defenses, but would still die in one blow. Where is the logic here ? What are these creatures, exactly, where do they come from, how do they relate to the general population of goblins ? No-one knows, they are just pawns to be pushed on a grid to occupy the adventurers for a few rounds.
Minions are not for having level 30 goblins. The highest-level minions in the 4e MM1 are the Lich Vestige (level 26), Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon (23), Grimlock Follower (22), and the Angel of Valor/Legion Devil legionnaires (both 21).
Lich Vestiges are remnants of destroyed liches. They still channel immense arcane power, but are very fragile. They're the kind of thing you'd find floating around Orcus.
Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidons are the minionified version of the level 16 Abyssal Ghouls.
Grimlock Followers... yeah, I got nothin. They're basically filler for powerful underdark encounters.
Legion devils are fiendish footsoldiers that exist in various ranks from 6 to 21, meant to fill out encounters with devils or devil-aligned opponents. Angels of Valor fill the same role for divine servants (notably, in 4e angels are more mercenary, and can work with/for any god, so e.g. Bane probably has legions of angels at his disposal just like Bahamut does).
Simple. Minions in 4ed were great for cinematic narrative. We do not have these in 5ed. Minions hit as much as the main monster of the same type and level but with only one hp. Monsters in 4ed had clearly defined roles and usually more than one way to damage the players or if they had only one, they hit like a truck. The higher the level, the more the monster would have "tricks" or the more damage it would inflict and the scale at which both was increasing was on par with the players.
5ed. The main difference between high and low level is exactly the amount of HP monsters of the same type have. Yes higher CR monster hit harder, sure, but not on the curve we had seen in previous edition and character's HP scale way faster than what monster hit will inflict. Yes there are a few exceptions and guess what? These are exactly the same monsters that players have feared in all editions. The others though...
I will admit though that the addition of mythical monsters in Theros was a great inspiration.
I am trying to parse how this means 5e's monsters are bags of hp impacts in combat healing. So am I correct that your argument of 5e monsters are only bags of hp is actually that monsters do less damage in 5e combats than 4e ones did so 5e needs less in combat healing?
4e combat roles and whether the hp of an encounter are spread among minion/standard/elite/solo sized bags of hp or whether they have interesting combat tricks and moves does not seem that relevant, just how much damage the bags dish out over a combat.
That last line is probably a bit of the disconnect in communication. When I pointed out how 3 level 17 fighters could roflstomp that CR17 solo monster you noted I didn't 1-2 rounds didn't include the use of any abilities gained beyond level 11 other than proficiency increases. That's important because 11 is when fighters get their third attack. It's so bad that the 7 to hit at level 17 jumps to an 8 from 13-16 & a 9 from 9-12. If flanking is being used that's a 7 8 or 9 rolled with advantage.
Things are ok at very low levels like tier1 & some of tier2, but high tier2 starts falling apart & the bolts fly off with greater frequency each level as soon as you hit tier3 simply because the PCs continue getting stronger while gaining better gear even though the monsters are all tuned to lower tier adventurers with weaker abilities & weaker gear.
Thanks to damage beyond zero going away wackamole healing & trivialized(fast/easy/safe) overly generous out of combat recovery options the party doesn't really even need to be concerned about hp depletion or resource consumption used in that round or two.
I wonder how my old group would have fared against the Goristro. For SKT, which is how I got to 11 (or 12, but I only have my level 11 sheet), we had a Champion Fighter who used two weapons (one of which was a sunblade) and he had an AC of 19 with a cloak of displacement (which he thought made him invincible- it didn't). I don't remember what his off hand was, but it had to be at least +1.
So that's...4 attacks, 5 with action surge, at probably +11 to hit with the main hand and +10 with the off hand. I'm going to assume he has the sword blade lit (he was really bad at remembering it cost a bonus action). So...4d8+9 and 1d6+8 with a 35% chance to miss, so call that what, 36-37 damage?
I would make 3 attacks using Action Surge at +12 to hit for 1d6+6 (+1 shortbow) 3d6 Sneak Attack, and, I guess if I was going all out, 3 superiority dice (though I was usually more frugal with them, since I liked the effects more than the damage). So that's only 36-37 with my 30% chance to miss.
Our Zealot Barbarian/Paladin would then come in for 2 attacks for 2d6+5+2d6 fire (Flametongue sword). His chance to hit would be +9, but he'd be attacking with advantage. I have no idea what his highest level spell slots were, but I think he had 2nd level, so if he burns those...let's see....call that what, 25% chance to miss for 35-36 damage (a little more with Rage).
Our Evocation Wizard didn't have great single target spells, so it's probably magic missile upcast to 6th for 24-25 damage.
I know our Cleric didn't use Bless, and I'm not sure if they'd use spirit guardians on a single enemy. Really, we didn't fight single enemies, like, ever, there were almost always some extra enemies laying around. Flame Strike would be bad, Harm is no good against the creature since it's almost sure to save...well I guess they could Banish it, since it's from another plane, the encounter would probably end there, lol.
But other than that, it would probably last two rounds. It would charge the poor Fighter and hit him because it only has to roll a 5, disadvantage or no, and the 80 something hit points of damage would be significant, but without a crit, even if it attacked him on both turns, it's not going to kill him. And a Heal could erase all that damage.
So yeah, if going all out, and assuming the monster is not blinked back to it's home plane on round 1, I guess I have to admit it. One Goristro is not a good challenge. It can, however, use up a lot of resources, so it does sort of depend on when during the adventuring day it's encountered.
I am trying to parse how this means 5e's monsters are bags of hp impacts in combat healing. So am I correct that your argument of 5e monsters are only bags of hp is actually that monsters do less damage in 5e combats than 4e ones did so 5e needs less in combat healing?
4e combat roles and whether the hp of an encounter are spread among minion/standard/elite/solo sized bags of hp or whether they have interesting combat tricks and moves does not seem that relevant, just how much damage the bags dish out over a combat.
Honestly, I think 4e monsters do less damage compared to 5e. If I compare the Goristro vs. a Level 17 Elite Skirmisher (a Drow Werespider), I'm looking at 2 attacks a turn for 4d8+32 for about 50 damage. Granted, the Goristro is a Brute, so it would do more damage, but I rather doubt the 4e version would have a 7d10+7 (basically encounter power) attack, and brutes generally had terrible attack bonuses.
This kind of makes it an apples to oranges discussion, but apparently 5e combat may very well overall be less lethal than 4- monsters can hit harder, but you are way less limited in ways to heal. In 4e, generally, when you run out of healing surges, you're done.
But in 5e, there's healing magic and Hit Dice, and basic healing potions, while generally ineffective in combat, are cheap as heck. It's a weird way to go about things, IMO, but that's the game WotC made.
Likely yes. In 4e, attacks and defenses increase directly with level, but they don't do that to anywhere near the same degree in 5e. Monster level in 5e is more about damage dealt/sustained than accuracy/defenses – part of the whole "bounded accuracy" thing.
That's also why PCs, once they're out of the first few vulnerable levels, often can punch way above their supposed weight – particularly in a large party. If you look at @Helldritch's example fight, that's a seven-person party with four characters dedicated to dealing damage and three buffing them. In a more standard four-person party, we're probably looking at more like half the damage, meaning the demon sticks around longer and deals more damage. In 4e, a party seven levels below their opponent would essentially be acting at -7 to all their rolls meaning they only hit like one in 4-5 attacks while the opponent is hitting them with every attack, and there's no way adding a couple of players will compensate enough.
@Staffan
You are absolutely right. 5ed assumes pretty much a 4 character party. But the 7 character party is only 10th level. A four man party would face the gorgistro at around level 16? At this level, we probably would see the barb in giant ape form with a giant axe dishing about double damage. He would still take a quarter damage from the gorgistro, suffering about 16 points per round. At this level, the barb will surely have the sentinel feat, preventing the Gorgistro to even go after the back rank. After the second round the cleric would be able to dish out damage on her own and the arcane trickster would have a much better sneak attack. The wizard would then be able to participate in the damage dealing too with strong spells or even cantrip. The Gorgistro would last maybe 4 round for around 64 damage.
Why would you use healing magic then? During the fight that is. You do not need to use it. Then a short rest medic feat and up you go.
The barb would dish out about 100 damage per round the rogue would be around 60 to 65. Adding the damage from the mage and cleric on the second round, I doubt the Gorgistro would last more than two rounds, three top. Meaning the damage suffered by the barb would be even less and probably on par with my first case.
Ouf course, this is a.white room analysis bit in play, big monsters were getting trash in the same amount of time before I applied my homebrew rule to give solo monsters a fighting chance against group with more than four characters. With such a low potential for damage the gorgistro isn't the threat it used to be.
I wonder how my old group would have fared against the Goristro. For SKT, which is how I got to 11 (or 12, but I only have my level 11 sheet), we had a Champion Fighter who used two weapons (one of which was a sunblade) and he had an AC of 19 with a cloak of displacement (which he thought made him invincible- it didn't). I don't remember what his off hand was, but it had to be at least +1.
So that's...4 attacks, 5 with action surge, at probably +11 to hit with the main hand and +10 with the off hand. I'm going to assume he has the sword blade lit (he was really bad at remembering it cost a bonus action). So...4d8+9 and 1d6+8 with a 35% chance to miss, so call that what, 36-37 damage?
I would make 3 attacks using Action Surge at +12 to hit for 1d6+6 (+1 shortbow) 3d6 Sneak Attack, and, I guess if I was going all out, 3 superiority dice (though I was usually more frugal with them, since I liked the effects more than the damage). So that's only 36-37 with my 30% chance to miss.
Our Zealot Barbarian/Paladin would then come in for 2 attacks for 2d6+5+2d6 fire (Flametongue sword). His chance to hit would be +9, but he'd be attacking with advantage. I have no idea what his highest level spell slots were, but I think he had 2nd level, so if he burns those...let's see....call that what, 25% chance to miss for 35-36 damage (a little more with Rage).
Our Evocation Wizard didn't have great single target spells, so it's probably magic missile upcast to 6th for 24-25 damage.
I know our Cleric didn't use Bless, and I'm not sure if they'd use spirit guardians on a single enemy. Really, we didn't fight single enemies, like, ever, there were almost always some extra enemies laying around. Flame Strike would be bad, Harm is no good against the creature since it's almost sure to save...well I guess they could Banish it, since it's from another plane, the encounter would probably end there, lol.
But other than that, it would probably last two rounds. It would charge the poor Fighter and hit him because it only has to roll a 5, disadvantage or no, and the 80 something hit points of damage would be significant, but without a crit, even if it attacked him on both turns, it's not going to kill him. And a Heal could erase all that damage.
So yeah, if going all out, and assuming the monster is not blinked back to it's home plane on round 1, I guess I have to admit it. One Goristro is not a good challenge. It can, however, use up a lot of resources, so it does sort of depend on when during the adventuring day it's encountered.
Solo monsters are rare, but it takes jumping to those for monsters to put up any meaningful hurdle. That's why 5e combat gets described as a slog chipping away at giant bags of HP. Sure 3 fighters can mow down one310hp monster in a round or two & a full party can just flat stomp it but those same groups & parties can handle a few of them with mild risk of someone possibly getting executed with two attacks while down depending on how fast they slog through all those HP.
Bounded accuracy doesn't only make weak monsters a threat, it also means that players need groups of solo monsters to fill out the 6-8 encounters per encounter day outside of very specific conditions like a mega dungeon grindfest with a tight doom clock. Toss in the lack of resource depletion plus shift in healing's role & suddenly anything much below groups of solo monsters is just pointless filler that doesn't even need to consume PC resources to be swatted like flies.
I don't think bounded accuracy make solo monster a non threat. It is their innate design spec that makes them so. Most monster have an AC no higher than 20. The average is more around the 15 mark than anything else. As soon as a monster or player bypass that mark, BA starts breaking down. The designer quickly saw this and brought up the HP count for solo monster where an increase in AC would have suffice. But theybfeared that with lower HP, casters (read here wizards and sorcerers) would have too much any easy time to mow these down. Again the HP bloat was retained.
For my solo monsters, I do not hesitate to raise their AC by 1 for each players above 4. You can't imagine how this simple change wreak players plans. I give them 1 more legendary action per players above 4 and all of a sudden, these solo monsters becomes a terror to behold. If said monster can use protective spells and magical items in its hoard, so much the better. Feats like GWM and SS become dead weight against these. I had a lich with an AC of 25 and the players are still talking about it 5 years later. They remember the fight as vividly as if it was yesterday. It was hard to hit, could dish a lot of damage and it almost TPK a group of 18th level characters almost single handedly. All it had with it was a shield guardian. Even Strahd became a terror with these modifications.
Bounded accuracy is great, but solo monsters need a tweak or they just fall short both in damage and the threat they represent. It is also why, as it stands with standard rules that healing in combat is sub-par compared to full aggression. It isuch more convenient to remove the threat than to mitigate its effect.
My combats lasts around the 6 to 7 rounds mark with really tough combat going for 13 to 15 rounds. The fight with the lich lasted 20 rounds! Even Strahd lasted 9 rounds not counting the hit and run tactics he had used and the group was absolutely terrorized as Strahd would retreat to heal and come back fully healed. The drain on the player's ressources was the main line here. With such long combats, healing during the fight becomes a necessity and a more than viable strategy. But YMMV.
You're right, but sometimes it's worse, I opened E3 at random and I have:
Fathomal Gnaw: Att +33, 4d8+10 poison and psychic damage and the target is slowed (save ends)
Fathomal Blight: Att +33, 10 psychic damage and the target is stunned (save ends)
So although it does less damage, the effect is far worse, a minion will deprive you of one complete turn and he will have no more difficulty hitting you than a non-minion.
And they are, in 5e, but not in 4e, since they have the save AC and defense as the regular monsters, sometimes higher (from the above, the Gnaw has AC 42; Fortitude 38. Reflex 41. Will 38 and the Blight has AC 42; Fortitude 38. Reflex 42. Will 40), and if I'm not mistaken a minion that makes his save is unscathed.
Maybe because I'm old, I never had a problem with minions- when I started playing the game, Kobolds had 1-4 hit points, and Fighters got 1 attack per level against such creatures, so I never had an expectation that a horde of them would remain dangerous at higher levels.
If anything, the fact that you stopped encountering weaker creatures at a certain point was the weird thing to me in those days.
I agree, and it's something that 5e corrected properly, by still making them relevant (at the cost of making heroes less heroic, which is also a point of view that I understand).
Now, if you want to keep using goblins, kobolds, or what have you at higher levels, and make them credible threats, sure, making level 20 goblins might seem odd. But at the same time, keeping Goblins relevant threats to level 20 characters seems just as odd- these are characters capable of tangling with ancient dragons, powerful extraplanar beings, and liches- shouldn't they be above goblins at that point?
They might be, but at the same time, I have no problem making characters (and players) feel good by letting them plow through hundreds of orcs just to show how far they have come. It's also part of the genre.
You can't do that with minions, they would tear you to shreds, because their relevancy has been maintained in a purely technical fashion by modifying them in a way that makes no sense in terms of the world.
For me, the minions of 4ed are the prototype of the bounded accuracy we got in 5ed. They were a great way to have easily killable opponents that were not main protagonists and they would more of a nuisance than a real threat.
No, you could not ignore minions, in most cases you really had to dispatch them first otherwise their combined attacks would be totally unbearable, and it was actually not that easy to do, even with AoE.
Minions always reminded me of that scene in Excalibure where Lancelot kills enemies by the score while screaming Arthur! They were a threat, but they could not be ignored. Bounded accuracy gave us the same as minions. We can now have the :"Flee! You fools!" That I love so much in the Lord of the Ring. Is bounded accuracy better than minions? Of course it is. But minions were not bad. They were a step toward the right direction.
It gave it to us, but better, because Lancelot always killed the minions on first strike, as it should be, something that you cannot do with a minion which you have roughly a 50% chance to do.
As for the solo monsters, even I had a homebrew for them and it worked for any level and any group. I shared it on this forum too. So far people using it in my area prefer it to the mythical, but combining the two makes for truly memorable encounters.
On this point, I completely agree, mythical is OK and has the advantage of being official and supported by DDB, but I liked the multi-part monsters even more at least for some encounters.
Yes, they do, it's nothing to do with bounded accuracy, it's just part of the "streamlining of the fights" of 5e to make combats quicker, while having "whack-a-mole" healing to take care of "accidents".
Likely yes. In 4e, attacks and defenses increase directly with level, but they don't do that to anywhere near the same degree in 5e. Monster level in 5e is more about damage dealt/sustained than accuracy/defenses – part of the whole "bounded accuracy" thing.
See above, not only. But I agree that it's one of the difficulties of 5e, since they are streamlined the game so much to make it less complex, but also since there are fewer lingering effects (harder and longer to track across rounds, and also not necessarily fun), and fewer "positioning effects" (because these require a grid which is not the default option of 5e), 5e is actually almost completely HP=centric, and attacks and defenses are mostly around this.
It certainly makes the monsters and the fights less interesting tactically, I completely agree, but as it makes it incredible faster, it's compensated by more variety in fights.
That's also why PCs, once they're out of the first few vulnerable levels, often can punch way above their supposed weight – particularly in a large party.
This problem is not one of bounded accuracy, but of action economy, compounded by the "everything is about hit points" phenomenon above. It is "sort of" compensated by the increasing difficulty of encounters when encountering more monsters than there are adventurers, but if you offset the rather delicate balance of "4-5 PCs" vs "fewer monsters than PCs", you will have trouble balancing things so that the fight does not become one-sided.
And this is where healing creeps back in through the side door, if you are also extending the fights through healing, it's even harder to make balanced.
It's action economy more than anything else. Because there are very few "shut down" powers, it's really hard to compensate for the 4-5 actions per round of a standard party. This is supposed to be compensated by legendary actions, but people hesitate to use legendary monsters all over the place.
Bounded accuracy is great, but solo monsters need a tweak or they just fall short both in damage and the threat they represent. It is also why, as it stands with standard rules that healing in combat is sub-par compared to full aggression. It isuch more convenient to remove the threat than to mitigate its effect.
My combats lasts around the 6 to 7 rounds mark with really tough combat going for 13 to 15 rounds. The fight with the lich lasted 20 rounds! Even Strahd lasted 9 rounds not counting the hit and run tactics he had used and the group was absolutely terrorized as Strahd would retreat to heal and come back fully healed. The drain on the player's ressources was the main line here. With such long combats, healing during the fight becomes a necessity and a more than viable strategy. But YMMV.
This is way longer than most fights that we are having, which is not at all a problem for us as combat is really the pillar that we like to spend less time on, but I wonder how you make it that balanced to last that long.
