D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Reynard]

It depends on the use. Most monsters go down in a round or two, so having lots of options is not helpful IME. If a monster does stay around longer I can easily improvise with the tools 5e [snip] provide. Now for big solo boss fights I do like more options. However, I tend to do those myself as they will suit my needs better than A5e, 5e, ToV, or anything else.

I am curious what 5E tools you are talking about. 5E is notoriously light on maneuvers and other adhoc abilities that allow monsters to do interesting things in a fight without actually manipulating their stat block.

 

[Reynard]

No, that is not the obvious fix. They tried that with some monsters in 4e and I've tried it in 5e. To much work IME. The legendary monsters work better. Now, prehaps having two turns might work, but more than that was a hassle IME.

My solution of the legendary monster being a composite creature worked very well for me.

 

[dave2008]

Agreed. I have wondered what was the thinking shifting from 4e solo design to 5e legendary monster system, as I agree it seems like such an easy idea to have the monster go at multiple initiatives.

did they find it was too complex, the monsters too powerful, they were just really trying to go "this isn't 4th edition we promise", I have always wondered what pushed that changed.

4e monsters didn't get extra turns generally. A few did, but it wasn't standard practice. Now in late 4e "instinctive" actions became a thing and they allowed a specific action at your initiative +10, but that is not a full turn. Unless you are talking about action points which I always forget about (and did in play too) and can't remember how exactly they worked.

 

[dave2008]

I am curious what 5E tools you are talking about. 5E is notoriously light on maneuvers and other adhoc abilities that allow monsters to do interesting things in a fight without actually manipulating their stat block.

This is from the 5e14 DMG, but I believe these are in the 5e24 DMG too (There is also the area of effect rules but they are tucked into my houserules section so I didn't include it in the snip of my DM cheat sheet):

I simply determine the difficulty of the task, use the DC, and then use the damage from the Improvising damage table or damage severity and level table. The only thing I need to determine is the range and any effects / conditions I might apply.

 

[Stalker0]

4e monsters didn't get extra turns generally. A few did, but it wasn't standard practice. Now in late 4e "instinctive" actions became a thing and they allowed a specific action at your initiative +10, but that is not a full turn. Unless you are talking about action points which I always forget about (and did in play too) and can't remember how exactly they worked.

It was more common in later 4e monsters to have monsters go at initiative 20, 10, etc. Now often these monsters could only do a standard action at that initiative (not a minor), but you still got the notion of the monster going multiple times in a round. I actually just looked back at a few myself to check myself. You are correct taht not all solos used that mechanic, which again I think plays into 4e;s strength....we saw more different designs of monsters to shake things up...whereas legendary monsters all fit a very predictable format.

Beyond that, here are some of the things I liked about that model:

1) Solos that went multiple times had multiple chance to get over conditions and effects. If I knock out a legendaries action....it loses everything. Solos could only lose a portion. 4e solos also had big saving throw bonuses to get over conditions faster.

2) Action Points were very simple but created a BIG boost in threat if used properly. The fact that at any point I could just slap in another big action that 2nd its needed right on top of the last one can change the battlefield. Its a sword of damocles held over the players that I can use when the iron is hot.

Or...I often used this with what I called the "recurrent villain power". I would spend them as a retreat option to get the villain away quickly, live another day and go after the party again.

3) Simplicity: I think the solo monster model is just easier on the stat-block. I have X options, and I have Y turns per round. No "well this option takes 2 legendary actions, and this one takes 1, and this action is only when the monster truly goes not for a legendary, etc".

 

[dave2008]

My solution of the legendary monster being a composite creature worked very well for me.

Yes, I think probably the hardest thing is, much like all of D&D, there is not one answer to cover what everyone wants / needs in a monster. You can't please everyone. What works for one DM may not work for another - we are all different.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My group ultimately rejected A5e because of the added complexity too. I like a lot of it design-wise so I still buy a lot of the books, but they don't get any use. Currently I am looking at even less complex version of 5e, that is why I am very interested in Mike Mearl's Odyssey. It seem like it might 90% of what I want 5e to be and which case I might use it has the basis for our next campaign (with some required homebrew of course - nothing is perfect). That depends on the final product of course, but most of what he discusses makes a lot of sense to me.

A5e I found valuable from a GM perspective not the player.
Our homebrew already adds a nice complexity - fattening feats, HD usage to refresh powers, odd numbered abilities counting for something, subskills etc.

Monster and encounter design are what interest me these days, downtime, innovation with skill usage AND lots of tables (be they trinkets, madness, diseases, wild magic, NPC personalities...etc.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, I think probably the hardest thing is, much like all of D&D, there is not one answer to cover what everyone wants / needs in a monster. You can't please everyone. What works for one DM may not work for another - we are all different.

In a single monster I agree...but you can with multiple models.

to your point from earlier, 4e's solo wasn't a one size fits all. Different solos approached the problem in different ways. Some split into multiple monsters, some gave you a bloodied immediate action, some gave you multiple turns on different intiatives, etc.

Part of it is perhaps just putting in some differentiation into the designs. Not every boss monster has to have the exact same core format. Its ok to experiment, maybe I hate monster X and you love monster X...but then I have monster Y that has a different style.

 

[Remathilis]

they both publish one setting only, it would be weird for them to have options that they exclude from that setting

I was going to retort how KP has both Midgard and Primeval Thule, but apparently the latter is only published and not designed by KP.

Still, that means WotC is the fool for trying to juggle so many at once. Honestly, I almost would prefer one Golarion like D&D setting to 10 distinct ones (even if several are ones I love) for no other reason than fostering unity across the brand. But that ship sailed long ago...

 

[AnotherGuy]

I ran an entire combat with the solo dragon being reactionary in a sense.
I used degrees of success/failure on character actions to determine how and who the beast attacked or damage taken.
Essentially, the dragon was built as if it were an AI using it traits, the rules were mostly player-facing.

IMO that kind of design space should be where WotC should be with options in the MM or DMG but I feel they are still trying to figure out how rests should work and designing broken subclasses like their Twilight Cleric. They're a decade or more behind.