Bashing bags of hitpoints

[Quickleaf]

So

I'm running the module "Gates of Firestorm Peak" which is converted from 2nd ed. Some of the monsters are converted in 5e already (gibbering mouther, trolls) and some are not (but thankfully, I found a decent 3rd party conversion on DMs guild). The thing I've noted while converting from 2nd ed is that there is a significant HP inflation in 5e, while the ACs tend to be worse -in some case much worse.

The party, in the damage dealing department, consists of a warlock (EB wih the Cha damage boost, Hex), a monk (order of the fist, spear +1), a cleric (knowledge) and a paladin (oath of the ancient, shield and board, viscious tulwar (a one handed only D8 weapon), all level 6. So there is not greater weapon twink build, but they can dish it out.

... and well, they feel like they are wailing on giant bag of hitpoints. They are almost always hitting, but the 5e versions of monsters have so much HP that it feels like it's taking forever. The paladin player loses patience, novaes with smithing, then he can't keep going because he's out of juice etc etc.

This was particularly noticeable in a fight vs 3 gibbering mouthers (AC 9, HP 67) and a living wall (HP 207 (!) AC 12). The living wall at least was interesting because it could cast spells at them. The gibbering mouther fight was just a chore.

Has anyone else noted this?

Yes, it's why I have burned the following things into my DMing style:

1. Not all fights are a race to 0 hit points. Half or more of the fights in an adventure should involve more interesting goals / means of victory.

2. Something changes each round. Without resorting to fiddly rules, my imaginary battlefields get full of arrows (that might be used by a climber later), swinging booms of sailing ships, changing enemy tactics, and other dynamic elements.

3. Average HP are only a guideline. For example, if PCs are on a stealth mission attempting to silently kill a bunch of 5d8 hit dice gnolls, I as DM can facilitate that by making the gnolls have below average hit points for their HD. Conversely, I can have an "elite" NPC have above average hit points for their HD so they can last long enough to do something interesting.

Generally, as long as you address 2 of these 3 points, you'll avoid "the grind."

For example, I'd treat a living wall as an obstacle/challenge to overcome with creative thinking & in-game resources, rather than a monster.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

I have found that parties deal out large amounts of damage so when they do focus fire even big monsters don't last long, so having big bags of hit points is often needed, I have even increased hit points during a fight so the players actually feel like have defeated something tough and not had the whole thing end in an anti climax.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is correct that monsters in 5e tend to have more hp and worse AC. This was a deliberate design decision, because players get frustrated if lots of their attacks wiffle.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This was particularly noticeable in a fight vs 3 gibbering mouthers (AC 9, HP 67) and a living wall (HP 207 (!) AC 12). The living wall at least was interesting because it could cast spells at them. The gibbering mouther fight was just a chore.

Has anyone else noted this?

Monsters in 5E primarily scale by Hit Points. The main difference between a level 1 monster and a level 2 monster is that the level 2 monster doesn't die in one round, unless you are way higher level than it is. If a fight has more than one monster that's higher than level 1, then that fight is going to drag on; it's the way the system is designed.

If you don't want fights that take forever, then don't put multiple high-level hostiles in the same room. Consider instead that you might have one high-level enemy with many low-level minions, or even just the low-level enemies without a boss. Not every encounter needs to be challenging, after all, as long as it expends resources.

 

[Lanefan]

It is correct that monsters in 5e tend to have more hp and worse AC. This was a deliberate design decision, because players get frustrated if lots of their attacks wiffle.

Can't be any more frustrating than hitting all the time but seeing the damage amount to no more than a drop in a bucket.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Can't be any more frustrating than hitting all the time but seeing the damage amount to no more than a drop in a bucket.

It's better to see the bar move a fraction than watch it not move at all.

I remember in 1st edition a roll of 17 or 18 was often required for an attack to hit, or natural 20 if it was a tough enemy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can't be any more frustrating than hitting all the time but seeing the damage amount to no more than a drop in a bucket.

Between the two extremes, nearly-always hitting (for trivial damage) is moderately less frustrating than nearly-never hitting (for overwhelming damage). If nothing else, this way allows each combatant to respond to the changes in their status.

Honestly, though, a middle road would probably have been preferable. If not for that thrice-cursed Bounded Accuracy, they could have had higher-level monsters that suffered from a much smaller increase of HP alongside a larger increase in AC.

 

[CapnZapp]

So

I'm running the module "Gates of Firestorm Peak" which is converted from 2nd ed. Some of the monsters are converted in 5e already (gibbering mouther, trolls) and some are not (but thankfully, I found a decent 3rd party conversion on DMs guild). The thing I've noted while converting from 2nd ed is that there is a significant HP inflation in 5e, while the ACs tend to be worse -in some case much worse.

The party, in the damage dealing department, consists of a warlock (EB wih the Cha damage boost, Hex), a monk (order of the fist, spear +1), a cleric (knowledge) and a paladin (oath of the ancient, shield and board, viscious tulwar (a one handed only D8 weapon), all level 6. So there is not greater weapon twink build, but they can dish it out.

... and well, they feel like they are wailing on giant bag of hitpoints. They are almost always hitting, but the 5e versions of monsters have so much HP that it feels like it's taking forever. The paladin player loses patience, novaes with smithing, then he can't keep going because he's out of juice etc etc.

This was particularly noticeable in a fight vs 3 gibbering mouthers (AC 9, HP 67) and a living wall (HP 207 (!) AC 12). The living wall at least was interesting because it could cast spells at them. The gibbering mouther fight was just a chore.

Has anyone else noted this?

Weak-hitting monsters need many hp to stick around long enough to do any actual damage.

The way players get advance warning their characters are about to go down is friendly to newbies.

Of course, it's death to us veterans, who crave real danger.

Since my players have feats, multiclassing and magic items the monsters die very quickly, but I still suggest:

* have "simple" brute monsters deal twice as many damage dice, or do two attacks instead of one
At higher CRs monsters actually do decent damage, and since "more hp" is one of the few things a minmaxer can't change, the issue is instead one of actually getting to the hero in order to bash him, rather than doing too little damage. (Good players make monsters attack with disadvantage and at AC 21+ so they hit rather seldom. If they allow the monsters to close into melee at all, that is)

* more complex monsters instead need to get rid of severe action restrictions. Essentially, let them do all their special stuff as bonus actions (or even free actions) instead of as an action, so they can do something cool AND attack.

Otherwise they simply die before they get the chance to show off their signature abilities. In some cases, it's a matter between useless and fearsome.

Take Teleport for instance. A monster that needs to spend its action on Teleport is pathetic. A monster that can bonus teleport AND THEN bite off the wizard's face is awesome. Exact same stat block, just adding the word "bonus" in front of the word "action" makes all the difference.

 

[delericho]

... and well, they feel like they are wailing on giant bag of hitpoints. They are almost always hitting, but the 5e versions of monsters have so much HP that it feels like it's taking forever.

Yep. That's pretty much intentional - large hit point totals have replaced high AC as the preferred marker of a tough opponent. And for the most part, that's a good thing.

The key, I think, is to keep things lively and interesting while that bag of hit points is being whittled down - make sure that the monsters have something interesting to do, do something to change the tactical situation every couple of rounds, push players to declare and resolve actions quickly, and then cut the scene as soon as it gets boring.

To expand on those:

Where you have a monster with special abilities, make sure you use them. And don't keep spamming the same ability - if it has several powers, make sure you at least alternate between them. When using multiple monsters, it's generally best to use different monsters (and look for useful synergies between monster types). And for goodness sake, don't use lots of monsters that are just a big bag of hit points with one attack! (Or if you do, use them very sparingly.)

With regard to the tactical situation, look at the possibility of having the monsters arrive in waves, so that after a couple of rounds the PCs have a second target to deal with. Or maybe some stray attack damages the environment, so that now it's flooding. Or litter the place with terrain traps that trigger after a round or two. Or maybe the monsters' objective shifts after a couple of rounds (from 'capture' to 'kill', or whatever). Basically, you want to change something so that the players have to respond (especially in longer fights).

As others have mentioned, with PC actions you should be pushing for a quick declaration of action followed by a quick resolution. That's really one to discuss with your players before combat starts, and I'd advise against a hard rule ("you must declare your action within 10 seconds"). But if a player is just waffling over an action, move on.

And finally, if despite your best efforts the combat is turning into a grind, and especially if you have players losing patience, it's time to move on. Either just narrate the end of the combat, or invisibly cut the monster hit points so that the next hit is a kill, or have the monsters retreat, or something. (Just be careful: some players spend the first few rounds setting up a good tactical situation and then unleash hell. If that is your group, you probably don't want to cut the combat short just before they get their chance to shine! But observing your players will probably indicate whether they're preparing or they're bored. )

 

[Lanefan]

It's better to see the bar move a fraction than watch it not move at all.

I remember in 1st edition a roll of 17 or 18 was often required for an attack to hit, or natural 20 if it was a tough enemy.

Oddly enough, I don't mind this as much - it's a bit more believable and realistic, if nothing else.

And if it's your front-line fighter needing to roll 18+ to get through the opponent's AC either said fighter needs some serious juping up, or the rest of the party needs to find ways to help, or the foe has an insane AC. If it's a secondary combatant e.g. a cleric or a non-backstriking thief then I don't have as much sympathy.

Lan-"and if the enemy is that hard to hit maybe it's time to give thought to dealing with it by means other than combat"-efan