D&D 5E 5e Monsters....What should they look like?

[Nebulous]

statistically, and layout and description. From what we've seen in the playtest they're still in an early form, fairly simple and very familiar to anyone who played 3.x. I was not a big 4e fan, but one thing i did like was the idea of all monsters having at least one fun gimmick that made them stand out
(my problem is that the gimmick usually ended up being just a battlegrid effect). Anyway, that aside, i think 4e broke a lot of ground in making monsters varied and unique, and i've love to see some kind of variation of that powers system make it into the final monster design.

 

[Dausuul]

statistically, and layout and description. From what we've seen in the playtest they're still in an early form, fairly simple and very familiar to anyone who played 3.x. I was not a big 4e fan, but one thing i did like was the idea of all monsters having at least one fun gimmick that made them stand out
(my problem is that the gimmick usually ended up being just a battlegrid effect). Anyway, that aside, i think 4e broke a lot of ground in making monsters varied and unique, and i've love to see some kind of variation of that powers system make it into the final monster design.

I want 4E-style statblocks with 2E-style descriptions.

The vast majority of monsters should be self-contained and require no outside reference. This was a most welcome 4E innovation. A very few exceptions could be made for actual monstrous spellcasters, e.g., a lich with wizard spells*, but those should be used with great caution--I don't want every two-bit monster shaman to be burdened with PC spellcasting rules. And I really don't want spell-like abilities plastered all over everything like in 3E.

At the same time, 4E's monster "ecology" entries tended to be both overly sparse and overly specific to 4E's implied setting. 2E had the best ecology material of any edition to date--I could spend hours just reading the monster books, and get a ton of inspiration for my games. So I think 5E should combine them.

[SIZE=-2]*And if they do make any caster-monsters, please please please include a prefab spell list. I can always swap out spells if I don't like them, but every monster needs to be usable out of the book with no setup, in case the PCs do something crazy and unexpected.[/SIZE]

 

[Nebulous]

I want 4E-style statblocks with 2E-style descriptions.

The vast majority of monsters should be self-contained and require no outside reference. This was a most welcome 4E innovation. A very few exceptions could be made for actual monstrous spellcasters, e.g., a lich with wizard spells*, but those should be used with great caution--I don't want every two-bit monster shaman to be burdened with PC spellcasting rules. And I really don't want spell-like abilities plastered all over everything like in 3E.

At the same time, 4E's monster "ecology" entries tended to be both overly sparse and overly specific to 4E's implied setting. 2E had the best ecology material of any edition to date--I could spend hours just reading the monster books, and get a ton of inspiration for my games. So I think 5E should combine them.

[SIZE=-2]*And if they do make any caster-monsters, please please please include a prefab spell list. I can always swap out spells if I don't like them, but every monster needs to be usable out of the book with no setup, in case the PCs do something crazy and unexpected.[/SIZE]

I can get on board with that. The vast majority SHOULD be self contained in the statblocks without having to reference spell lists. with the exception sometimes of particular spellcasters, like the lich. And 2e did have really great evocative ecology descriptions that were just fun to read.

I doubt 5e will take the detail this far (in a later module maybe), but it would also be fun to see certain spell components that could be salvaged from slain monsters and how they influence spells.

 

[AstroCat]

I want all the info in the stat block, I don't want to ever have to refer to another source or do tons of monster prep homework to run a game. If we lose 4e style stat blocks I will never DM a 5e game.

 

[Viking Bastard]

How 4e handles monsters mechanically is probably my favorite thing about 4e. When I say probably, I mean definately. So I'd like 5e's monsters to be like that.

 

[Kinak]

Even as a Pathfinder GM, I'd be perfectly content with 4e statblocks. As Dausuul mentioned, 2nd edition ecology would be great.

In my perfect world, basic monsters would tend more towards the OD&D no-frills approach. I want to be able to run twenty kobolds or orcs out of the box without messing around with special abilities.

The 4e approach is just about perfect for "elites" and bosses, though. Just a couple special abilities, nice and self-contained.

So far, formatting aside, Next is within striking distance of my dream monster setup. I'll call that pretty good

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I want 4E-style statblocks with 2E-style descriptions.

The vast majority of monsters should be self-contained and require no outside reference. This was a most welcome 4E innovation. A very few exceptions could be made for actual monstrous spellcasters, e.g., a lich with wizard spells*, but those should be used with great caution--I don't want every two-bit monster shaman to be burdened with PC spellcasting rules. And I really don't want spell-like abilities plastered all over everything like in 3E.

At the same time, 4E's monster "ecology" entries tended to be both overly sparse and overly specific to 4E's implied setting. 2E had the best ecology material of any edition to date--I could spend hours just reading the monster books, and get a ton of inspiration for my games. So I think 5E should combine them.

[SIZE=-2]*And if they do make any caster-monsters, please please please include a prefab spell list. I can always swap out spells if I don't like them, but every monster needs to be usable out of the book with no setup, in case the PCs do something crazy and unexpected.[/SIZE]

This! PREACH ON, Brother Dausuul! This is exactly what I was hoping for. I still love to crack open my 2E Monstrous Manual and read the fluff sections, but when it comes to rules, 4E takes the cake. Melding the two would be wonderful. When I DM'd 4E, I actually used most of the fluff from the 2E MM rather than the 4E one.

I made sure to say this in the survery.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I want all the info in the stat block, I don't want to ever have to refer to another source or do tons of monster prep homework to run a game. If we lose 4e style stat blocks I will never DM a 5e game.

I so can agree with that, It would be painful to revert from a 4e stat block.

 

[whearp]

I want 4E-style statblocks with 2E-style descriptions.

The vast majority of monsters should be self-contained and require no outside reference. This was a most welcome 4E innovation. A very few exceptions could be made for actual monstrous spellcasters, e.g., a lich with wizard spells*, but those should be used with great caution--I don't want every two-bit monster shaman to be burdened with PC spellcasting rules. And I really don't want spell-like abilities plastered all over everything like in 3E.

At the same time, 4E's monster "ecology" entries tended to be both overly sparse and overly specific to 4E's implied setting. 2E had the best ecology material of any edition to date--I could spend hours just reading the monster books, and get a ton of inspiration for my games. So I think 5E should combine them.

This!

 

[BobTheNob]

I like that they did in that they kept the monster info sparse in the playtest. Me brain hurty when too much info.

Though I would have liked the stats to have been included. What to do when save is required, and cant monster improvise too? Dont like needing to go back to the MM for missing mechanics.

If they have special capabilities, make sure those are included as well. Again, going back to the monster manual sux. the monster manual can be the "complete" definition, including narrative/ecology, but for what goes in the adventure, I like that skeletal... especially for skeletons.