FormerlyHemlock
Hero
If a level 1 wizard can defeat the Tarrasque, why not an ogre too? ;-)
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Are solo monsters weaker in 5e?
- Thread starter Ilbranteloth
- Start date
If a level 1 wizard can defeat the Tarrasque, why not an ogre too? ;-)
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I've found that adding Dragon Sorcerer levels to a Dragon is not only thematic but is also sufficient, when combined with their powerful base chassis/high AC/blindsight/Stealth/etc., to make them powerful and effective solo monsters. Aside from the ancient red who lurks in the background of my campaign, I've run a couple of conflicts with the same adult red/Dragon Sorcerer 10, and the level 8-14 PCs are terrified of him (partly for RP reasons involving vampire phobias but I think the players are genuinely skeptical that they could take him on, although I think they could if they played it smart).
If your powerful monsters require lots of lair preparations and minions around them in order to be frightening, you lose out on a lot of roleplaying opportunities. A bad guy who is going all out to kill you with genius tactics and traps is actually less frightening than one who casually bats aside all of your defenses, comes within 3 HP of inst-killing you with incineration, and then completely ignores any threat you could possibly pose to him and commences calming talking to you about how he wants you to get him "this much gold [gestures vaguely]" by "tomorrow". (My dragons are murky on the concept of time, so I roll a d20 every game day to see if the dragon has realized yet that it is now "tomorrow".)
Tony Vargas
Legend
Interesting observation.
A group using a group stealth check can actually be pretty stealthy, too, though without that rule an individual does have a much better chance of being stealthy (or rather, groups of even very stealthy individuals have little chance of success). When running, OTOH, a group can scatter, while a lone enemy cannot. I guess mobility can also be relative. A roper isn't mobile, a dragon in mountainous region vs land-bound PCs certainly is, etc.
Those quibbles aside, stealth and hit-and-run can be solid tactics, certainly, but it isn't exactly in character for every 'boss' monster a DM might want to challenge his party with.
Cool detail.
Last edited:
I think it was a level 5 wizard.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
No, you can do it at first level. The Tarrasque has 40' speed (140' total movement if it Dashes and uses three Legendary Actions to move 20' each time) and no ranged attacks. Use your starting gold to buy a riding horse (60' movement) and cast Longstrider on it to give it 140' for an hour. During that hour, the Tarrasque cannot close the range to you, and you can cast Acid Splash 600 times. The Tarrasque has +0 on Dex saves but advantage because of Magic Resistance, so it will succeed on its DC 13 saving throw 384 out of 600 times, which means that it takes 216d6 = 756 HP of damage during the first hour, and it has only 676 HP.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
One thing that has been changing for some time is the number of attacks for a lot of creatures. Creatures with more than one attack used to use a claw/claw/bite routine. Now it's usually claw/bite, or occasionally claw/claw. Yes, each attack tends to cause more damage nowadays, but it's not the same sort of trade-off. Having an extra opportunity to hit makes a difference some times.
For example, a bear now has a claw/bite attack. The claw does double the damage in 5e as it did in 1e. But if that claw attack misses, then it causes no damage on the claw attack, where before it would still potentially cause damage by its second claw attack. So I might consider separating those claw attacks again where possible.
Ilbranteloth
For example, a bear now has a claw/bite attack. The claw does double the damage in 5e as it did in 1e. But if that claw attack misses, then it causes no damage on the claw attack, where before it would still potentially cause damage by its second claw attack. So I might consider separating those claw attacks again where possible.
Ilbranteloth
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I'm fine with that change. PCs in AD&D only get one attack per turn but your average dumb bear gets three attacks just because it happens to have pointy fangs and claws on each paw? Lame. One of the things 5E gets right is that tool-users are better than dumb animals. Opposable thumbs FTW.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
So, here's a rough stat comparison. I have to figure out my prior edition character stats....and it's been sooooo long!
Ogre (1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th)
AC: 5/5/16/23/11
HP:21/21/29//59
#Attacks: 1/1/1(+6)/+14/1(+6)
Damage Attack: 1d10 or 1d6+6 (club)/1d10 or 1d6+6(club)/2d8+7 (club)//2d8+4 (13)(club)
Armor class and to-hit is tough to compare. If you assume that AC simply ascends, then these would be the following for 1e/2e
Shield 11
Leather 12
Studded 13
scale 14
chain 15
banded 16
plate mail 17
plate mail and shield 18
These don't match the current definitions, though.
I can't even begin to make sense of 4th edition. Which ogre? The ones that cause similar damage, are the savage causing 1d10+5, and has 111 hit points, or the one more in line damage wise with 3e/5e is the war hulk causing 2d6+8, but has an AC of 25 and 286 hp.
At first level, the 1e/2e characters have a 20-25% chance of hitting the ogre with a melee or ranged attack. The fighter would cause 1d12 damage with a longsword, other characters range from 1d4 to 1d8 damage. If all the PCs hit in a round, then the ogre is done. But the ogre has 50% chance of hitting a 5 (15) AC, or chain mail in that edition. For those armored with less, it's higher. Even assuming maximum hit points at first level (which was not the rule), that's 1d4 for the wizard, 1d6 for thief (rogue), 1d8 for the cleric, and 1d10 for the fighter.
I've always felt that 5e feels very similar to 1e/2e in its combat, and this shows that a straight combat between a single ogre and a party of 4 is entirely dependent on good die rolls and the ability bonuses of the party. Their best bet is to get off as many ranged attacks as possible, because a single shot with the club will, on average, kill a PC.
By the numbers, 3e and 5e look very similar, and they don't look all that different from 1e/2e in terms of balance. I think the main difference is the options that they have in combat. The hit points are considerably higher in 5e, probably to help compensate.
For 4th edition. Good lord. I don't even know where to start. What's a 'standard' fighter? With healing surges, all of the potential abilities and such I don't really know the system well enough to do it justice. Overall it looks like the ogre (at least one that causes the same amount of damage per attack as 5e) is much tougher. Of course, there are a number of weaker options, including a minion ogre (yes, that's an ogre that's guaranteed to die by a single hit. In 1e/2e a party would have been extremely lucky to kill it in a single round).
So this is far from a scientific comparison, but right off the bat I'm wondering if people that are finding solo monsters in 5e too easy are used to 4e. From a cursory look at this, I think the 1e-2e/3e and 5e look relatively close to each other. The 3e might be the weakest of the three since with feats and new abilities the PCs had become a bit more deadly.
I think that with an average of 59 hit points, it's going to be tough for a 5e party of 4 to beat the ogre outright. The biggest change here, though, is that anemic AC. The extra hit points help, but I'm not sure it offsets it altogether since all 4 PCs are more likely than not to hit each round. But in melee, the ogre would be fearsome and likely to drop just about any 1st level PC in a single hit.
Putting an ogre in a subterranean lair, with narrowish windy natural passages to largely eliminate the threat of ranged weapons helps but I think the AC is just too low to make it an equal to the 1/2/3e ogre.
Increasing the AC even partway to 3e levels would help make it really a deadly foe. So my initial reaction - perhaps natural armor values are too low? Time to go look at some other monsters...
Ilbranteloth
Ogre (1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th)
AC: 5/5/16/23/11
HP:21/21/29//59
#Attacks: 1/1/1(+6)/+14/1(+6)
Damage Attack: 1d10 or 1d6+6 (club)/1d10 or 1d6+6(club)/2d8+7 (club)//2d8+4 (13)(club)
Armor class and to-hit is tough to compare. If you assume that AC simply ascends, then these would be the following for 1e/2e
Shield 11
Leather 12
Studded 13
scale 14
chain 15
banded 16
plate mail 17
plate mail and shield 18
These don't match the current definitions, though.
I can't even begin to make sense of 4th edition. Which ogre? The ones that cause similar damage, are the savage causing 1d10+5, and has 111 hit points, or the one more in line damage wise with 3e/5e is the war hulk causing 2d6+8, but has an AC of 25 and 286 hp.
At first level, the 1e/2e characters have a 20-25% chance of hitting the ogre with a melee or ranged attack. The fighter would cause 1d12 damage with a longsword, other characters range from 1d4 to 1d8 damage. If all the PCs hit in a round, then the ogre is done. But the ogre has 50% chance of hitting a 5 (15) AC, or chain mail in that edition. For those armored with less, it's higher. Even assuming maximum hit points at first level (which was not the rule), that's 1d4 for the wizard, 1d6 for thief (rogue), 1d8 for the cleric, and 1d10 for the fighter.
I've always felt that 5e feels very similar to 1e/2e in its combat, and this shows that a straight combat between a single ogre and a party of 4 is entirely dependent on good die rolls and the ability bonuses of the party. Their best bet is to get off as many ranged attacks as possible, because a single shot with the club will, on average, kill a PC.
By the numbers, 3e and 5e look very similar, and they don't look all that different from 1e/2e in terms of balance. I think the main difference is the options that they have in combat. The hit points are considerably higher in 5e, probably to help compensate.
For 4th edition. Good lord. I don't even know where to start. What's a 'standard' fighter? With healing surges, all of the potential abilities and such I don't really know the system well enough to do it justice. Overall it looks like the ogre (at least one that causes the same amount of damage per attack as 5e) is much tougher. Of course, there are a number of weaker options, including a minion ogre (yes, that's an ogre that's guaranteed to die by a single hit. In 1e/2e a party would have been extremely lucky to kill it in a single round).
So this is far from a scientific comparison, but right off the bat I'm wondering if people that are finding solo monsters in 5e too easy are used to 4e. From a cursory look at this, I think the 1e-2e/3e and 5e look relatively close to each other. The 3e might be the weakest of the three since with feats and new abilities the PCs had become a bit more deadly.
I think that with an average of 59 hit points, it's going to be tough for a 5e party of 4 to beat the ogre outright. The biggest change here, though, is that anemic AC. The extra hit points help, but I'm not sure it offsets it altogether since all 4 PCs are more likely than not to hit each round. But in melee, the ogre would be fearsome and likely to drop just about any 1st level PC in a single hit.
Putting an ogre in a subterranean lair, with narrowish windy natural passages to largely eliminate the threat of ranged weapons helps but I think the AC is just too low to make it an equal to the 1/2/3e ogre.
Increasing the AC even partway to 3e levels would help make it really a deadly foe. So my initial reaction - perhaps natural armor values are too low? Time to go look at some other monsters...
Ilbranteloth
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
It will drop a PC to 0 HP, but the implications of dropping to 0 HP are very different in 5E vs. 2nd edition. In 2nd edition (and also I think in 1st edition, but I never played 1st edition) dropping to 0 HP kills you outright, and if you use the widely-used "Death's Door" rules it doesn't kill you until you hit -10 HP but it does wipe your mind clean of all spells and IIRC made you unable to fight or otherwise exert yourself for a lengthy period of time thereafter (a day?). In contrast, in 5E you can be back on your feet and fighting at full efficiency after a single bonus action spell (Healing Word) or even a completely free-except-for-gold usage of a Healing kit by someone with the Healer feat. At first level, there's still a chance the ogre could roll high and instantly kill you, but that risk rapidly fades as you gain levels.
Without insta-kill, it is impossible for the Ogre to win a fight against a party with two healers in it.
My point: looking at game stats in isolation, independent of rule changes, can lead you to believe in similarities which don't really exist.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
OK, the AC is definitely a thing. I get that in bounded accuracy part of the idea is that even 1st level characters have an opportunity (not matter how small) against just about any creature.
Part of the justification I've seen for this is the situation where the town guard can't defend the town against higher level creatures. But this is a case where I think that should be true - that a town guard can't defend it single-handedly.
Take a hill giant, for example. That should be, in my mind, a challenge for your typical town guard to handle. 3rd to 5th level adventurers? Maybe not. How does it pan out?
Well, with an AC of 13 and 105 hit points, it will take a bit of time to take down, but with everybody having at least a +2 proficiency bonus, everybody has a 45% chance minimum of hitting for damage. It does a lot of damage, pretty much killing a guard with every hit.
In 3e, it's got nearly the same hit points (102) but causes less damage. It's a lot tougher, though, with a whopping 20 AC. That's a huge difference, and makes that giant rampaging through the village much more along the lines of what I'd expect.
How does it compare historically? Actually they were much weaker in 1e/2e with a 4 AC (roughly equivalent to an AC 16), doing less damage (2d8), and way, way weaker with only an average of about 38 hp.
So I'd say it's stronger than 1e/2e, but weaker than 3e. Again, bumping up the AC would greatly change the stakes against lower level characters, and a much more viable solo monster. A group of angry hill giants with a 16+ AC? Ouch.
I started comparing AC for 3e/5e for monsters labeled with natural armor. It's most of them, though, so I'm not doing the whole thing. But of the ones I've looked at, only the Aboleth is higher (17 instead of 16).
Mid-range AC suffers the least, like a basilisk at 15 instead of 16. Start going up, though, and it's as if they penalized the AC more if they started with a higher AC. An ankheg went from 18 to 14. Behir from 20 to 17 (not bad). Anything that previously had an AC over 20? Ridiculous.
Deva dropped from 29 to 17
Planetar from 32 to 19
Solar from 35 to 21
This would still support the idea that solo monsters are easier, particularly at higher levels.
It makes sense that the higher ACs need to come down more. But I'm not sure I would have touched anything that had less than a 17 AC already.
Then in groups: 18-19 -1; 20-21 -2, 22-23 -3, etc. Using those numbers would end up with:
Deva 29 to 23
Planetar 32 to 24
Solar 35 to 26
Hill Giant and Behir would both be 18, the basilisk would be untouched at 16 and the ankheg would be reduced form 18 to 17.
It's not difficult to do, and I may very well have a bunch of new ACs marked in my MM very soon...
Ilbranteloth
Part of the justification I've seen for this is the situation where the town guard can't defend the town against higher level creatures. But this is a case where I think that should be true - that a town guard can't defend it single-handedly.
Take a hill giant, for example. That should be, in my mind, a challenge for your typical town guard to handle. 3rd to 5th level adventurers? Maybe not. How does it pan out?
Well, with an AC of 13 and 105 hit points, it will take a bit of time to take down, but with everybody having at least a +2 proficiency bonus, everybody has a 45% chance minimum of hitting for damage. It does a lot of damage, pretty much killing a guard with every hit.
In 3e, it's got nearly the same hit points (102) but causes less damage. It's a lot tougher, though, with a whopping 20 AC. That's a huge difference, and makes that giant rampaging through the village much more along the lines of what I'd expect.
How does it compare historically? Actually they were much weaker in 1e/2e with a 4 AC (roughly equivalent to an AC 16), doing less damage (2d8), and way, way weaker with only an average of about 38 hp.
So I'd say it's stronger than 1e/2e, but weaker than 3e. Again, bumping up the AC would greatly change the stakes against lower level characters, and a much more viable solo monster. A group of angry hill giants with a 16+ AC? Ouch.
I started comparing AC for 3e/5e for monsters labeled with natural armor. It's most of them, though, so I'm not doing the whole thing. But of the ones I've looked at, only the Aboleth is higher (17 instead of 16).
Mid-range AC suffers the least, like a basilisk at 15 instead of 16. Start going up, though, and it's as if they penalized the AC more if they started with a higher AC. An ankheg went from 18 to 14. Behir from 20 to 17 (not bad). Anything that previously had an AC over 20? Ridiculous.
Deva dropped from 29 to 17
Planetar from 32 to 19
Solar from 35 to 21
This would still support the idea that solo monsters are easier, particularly at higher levels.
It makes sense that the higher ACs need to come down more. But I'm not sure I would have touched anything that had less than a 17 AC already.
Then in groups: 18-19 -1; 20-21 -2, 22-23 -3, etc. Using those numbers would end up with:
Deva 29 to 23
Planetar 32 to 24
Solar 35 to 26
Hill Giant and Behir would both be 18, the basilisk would be untouched at 16 and the ankheg would be reduced form 18 to 17.
It's not difficult to do, and I may very well have a bunch of new ACs marked in my MM very soon...
Ilbranteloth
Similar Threads
