Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7213846" data-attributes="member: 12731">That is abundantly clear, at least when you look at your epic monster thread... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But seriously, monster design walks a fine line between meh offense and offense that makes "tanking" meaningless. What I mean is that I have found that when you try to use the MM critters as is, and thus throw a monster several CRs higher than the party level at them, they tend to be able to one-shot a character, any character. (One-shot meaning "if it hits with all its principal attacks")And that's not good. You want the monster to perhaps be able to one-shot a wizard, but not the fighter. And I'm not talking about only the minmaxxed Panzer Tanks here (barbarians with their "double hp" or defensive fighters with sky-high AC).So generally I found that when it comes to deficiencies in 5E monster design, there is a clear hierachy of weaknesses:1st: hit points. Monsters have hopelessly few hit points. The design team simply cannot have understood how deadly well-optimized high-level characters can be. Since a single PC in her early teens can dish out over a hundred damage all by herself, a monster with no special protection would probably need 500 hp extra on top to be able to function as a solo.(Note: the second you add more monsters to the fight, this number drops drastically, since the party often loses its ability to focus-fire. Still, my level 15 party did away with Graazt in three rounds, if it wasn't two, in a fight where he wasn't alone. I let the players assume he was a weakened avatar or something, since there is clearly something wrong with a Demon Prince with only 378 hit points.2nd: partial saves. Even with Legendary saves it's easy for a party to bombard a solo with enough save or suck spells that the fight ends in the first rounds. And there's something fundamentally off with the meta aspect of that mechanic. Namely that as soon as players understand how it works, they "throw away" medium-power spells and let the DM decide whether to spend my Legendaries on them, or save them for the Feebleminds or Banishments. I intensely dislike this "game within a game". I'd MUCH rather have a rule of Three Strikes, where a given caster needs to successfully cast three spells at a Solo before the first one "sticks". See the difference? I can use up my legendaries at any time, since each time I save I stay away from that "third strike" no matter what the spell is. And only at 3rd place do we get: better offense. Yes, certain monsters are simply underpowered. The example I have in mind right now is the Nalfeshnee. A sad excuse for a medium-heavy demon, whose aura is both too small and too weak, and like pretty much everyone else lacks a toolbox. The way player characters with class levels completely overshadow regular humanoids is of course much a matter of "better offense". The odd bandit captain or thief guild's leader do need a feat or an action surge to even manage a single offensive action against the powerful multitude of tricks a 5th edition party has at its disposal. So many times I've just doubled a monster's attack in order for the encounter to not just be a joke!But still I would say that the toolbox is more important than actual stronger offense. If only the monster had the powers to semi-reliably deliver its (often melee) attack routine, that monster could appear to be sufficiently frightening to get a passing grade.The designers have severely and critically underestimated the way delaying or kiting tactics combined with ranged attacks can completely shut down many many monsters. Not to mention the many MANY ways 5e Pcs can use luck and inspiration and what not to turn their misses into hits, and the monster's hits into misses...In contrast, monsters and NPCs display an almost total lack of similar tools. It gives off a very wonky feeling, where players start wondering why other people can't do what they can do. Sure there are the odd exception - the way goblins get "cunning action":ish is just a single example. But generally they are very far and few between.To end back on topic: yes 5th edition has very weak design support for solo monsters. In fact, monster design overall is one of the edition's main weaknesses. I almost get the impression the MM writer wasn't aware of all the tricks that the PHB writers ended up giving the player characters...</blockquote>

Verification