D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[dave2008]

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.

I agree the flexibility was a good thing. Those extra actions often also often gave an option to remove a condition if you couldn't act at that initiative count. Which was helped, though lose your action, but not better than what I have seen people do with legendary monsters.

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.

I guess it is not explicit, but I give legendary monsters their legendary actions even if their action is knocked out. So that was superior to me. Also, like I previously mentioned: most 4e solos did not have that design.

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.

Yes, I also forget about AP. I almost always forgot to use them too. That is my big complaint about them. I admit they could be a good flexible solution. I need to think about what to do so I don't forget them. Maybe if they took up more real estate on the stat block IDK.

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".

I think simplicity is a good selling point. But again your are advocating for design that was not the norm. So I guess I consider it a 4e experiment, but not a 4e design.

5e24 did standardize LA to all cost 1 action.

The thing is LA and IA (4e instinctive actions - see monster vault dragons) are very similar. The difference is you only had one IA, it often doubles also as a LR, and it has a set initiative count. I think the 5e method is superior, but that is personal taste. I think the best option might be combining them.

1. Combine LA and LR so using a LR cost a LA. This gets rid of the HP cost in CR building and gives PCs a benefit for inflicting a condition or effect and allows the monster to free up its action.
2. Make all LA the same cost for simplicity (already a 5e24 thing)

I have more options, but I would only make the two above standard to leave room for some design flexibility.

 

[dave2008]

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.

To be fair, WotC has tried different things with 5e too: lair actions, legendary actions, legendary resistance (some monsters have it and not LA and vice versa I think), "legendary" resistance (think Vecna and time dragons), and my favorite mythic trait/actions.

 

[Reynard]

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.

View attachment 415565

I see where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking apples and orangutans here. These are valuable bits of design information that are applicable in almost any scenario in which the GM needs something on the fly. They don't have anything to do with monsters. in efect, you are advocating that the GM make up whatever the monster needs at the moment. And while there is some appeal to that, I don't think it would be universally lauded -- particularly by players, who often want some consistency in their opponents capabilities. Or, at the very least, want to be able to pull the same shenanagins.

So I understand the value, I just don't think it is as satisfying as good robust monster design with cool actions, reactions and bonus actions.

 

[Faolyn]

This I an agree with:


This, not so much:


To me, that is akin to saying: make taking meth integral to the game.

Then you either need to get rid of the spells entirely or come up with some really good reasons why they haven't altered the world.

 

[Reynard]

Then you either need to get rid of the spells entirely or come up with some really good reasons why they haven't altered the world.

Or make the world not buckle at the thought of the spells.

 

[Faolyn]

Or make the world not buckle at the thought of the spells.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[Aldarc]

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...

Say goodbye to Eberron then because we all know that WotC will pick Forgotten Realms.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I see where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking apples and orangutans here. These are valuable bits of design information that are applicable in almost any scenario in which the GM needs something on the fly. They don't have anything to do with monsters. in efect, you are advocating that the GM make up whatever the monster needs at the moment. And while there is some appeal to that, I don't think it would be universally lauded -- particularly by players, who often want some consistency in their opponents capabilities. Or, at the very least, want to be able to pull the same shenanagins.

So I understand the value, I just don't think it is as satisfying as good robust monster design with cool actions, reactions and bonus actions.

Strongly disagree, I think some randomness and innovation makes for an exciting combat. Sometimes the stat block alone is not enough to fully flesh out what is happening in the fiction.

Last session a barbarian (15th) decided it would be a good idea to participate in a combat amongst some desert ruins with two gargantuan beasts (a storm giant king and purple worm). Can you imagine the shifting difficult terrain, the falling rubble from the ruins, the lifted desert sand blocking line of sight or disrupting breathing, avoiding the movement of the gargantuan beasts as they battle it out?
Where is all that in the stat block?

 

[Faolyn]

I think it might be an interesting thread to ask "designing 6e: what things from 5e do you keep?"

Funnily enough, with the exception of 1e to 2e, every edition has been extremely different from the previous one.

People should be more willing to throw things out and try new stuff for this hypothetical edition.

 

[Remathilis]

Funnily enough, with the exception of 1e to 2e, every edition has been extremely different from the previous one.

People should be more willing to throw things out and try new stuff for this hypothetical edition.

Yeah, and that's what I would like to avoid for 6e.