D&D 5E Do you like the simplicity of 5E monsters?

[Crothian]

I like it. THe book doesn't need to make an orc and hobgoblin that different, the DM can easily do that.

 

[Charles Wright]

I love them. Easy to create, easy to design. Everything I need is in the fluff text.

Although I wish that "Number Appearing" and "Environment" were still part of the stat block.

 

[Gundark]

After running a 4e game, I longed for the days of simple monsters...

I just wanted Goblins...

Not Bootlicker Goblins (Brute), or Nosepicker Goblins (Soldier), or Goblin Prostitutes (Controller)

Prepping for each session, I dreaded Monsters... It always took far longer than needed. After an hour I wanted to dig my brain out of my head with a rusty spoon... through my rectum...

5e looks to be a return to simpler times as far as monsters go. For which I am very very glad.

I remember feeling this way as well. I remember the frustration of trying to find say a brute (or any role) option that made sense for the encounter and feeling frustrated that I couldn't just throw in "just Gnolls"

I've seen the phrase "boring" thrown around a few times one the forums, and back when I was really into 4e I might have said the same thing. I've sat in 4e fights that were boring because after a while I realized that my Twin Strike or my Sly Flourish wasn't really any different from "I hit it with my sword". I began to see monsters in the same way. Now I think that whether or not an encounter is "boring" is how it's set up and described not whether a creature can shift one square after they attack or do they mark a character, or whatnot.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I like simple monsters. I am currently running a 4e campaign and having three different monster types with a few different attack types and some special stuff actually slows me down as a DM.

I would prefer most monsters to be simple, but with varying hp/damage output combinations, and a few special monsters that I can sprinkle in to get some encounters that are a bit more mechanically interesting.

This way, I can have some encounters that are very quick (maybe 15 minutes real time) and some encounters that are a bit more complex (30-45 minutes real time). In addition, I need some complex monsters (legendary) that creates epic combats lasting 60 minutes+.

 

[Henrix]

At long last I can (again) concentrate on what the critters do, their tactics and how to make them memorable - and not just how to get the best use of their kewl abilities.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have not had the opportunity to DM or play a session of 5E yet, and so have not had the opportunity to see in monsters in action. I like what I have read about them so far, but it will as always come down to actual play.

 

[Blackbrrd]

... Now I think that whether or not an encounter is "boring" is how it's set up and described not whether a creature can shift one square after they attack or do they mark a character, or whatnot.

Well said!

Also remember that 5e lets you vary the count of monster to a much larger degree than earlier editions* due to the slow-scaling bounded accuracy. Instead of using one monster per PC as is the norm in 4e, or one monster per group in 3e, you can use a large variety of fast, weak, slow, powerful, hard-to-kill, stupid and cowardly monsters.

I think a great deal of variation could also be introduced into encounters if you had morale rolls, or something similar. Only completely stupid monsters like undead or over-confident monsters like Trolls should fight to the death. A lot of other monsters should try to get out alive in different ways. Kobolds might run away after the first one dies, while human bandits might retreat when the leader is killed, while Goblins only fight as long as there are Hobgoblins left.

*Without resorting to remaking the monsters

 

[jodyjohnson]

I prefer to start simple then add the complexity I already have with my 3.x and 4e Monster Manuals and Pathfinder Bestiaries for special encounters.

As long as the baseline math are changed to match the 5e books, I'm not worried about balance.
HP: 5e
AC: 5e
Stats: Shifted back towards 5e numbers.
To Hit: 5e
Damage: 5e

Special abilities, defenses, and attacks - go nuts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the OP nailed it. Taking into account natural intelligence, behavior, and the environment are important factors that should be considered.

No, I don't like them. They're just differently-sized HP bags.

They are the laziest of design.

Firstly, most monsters do have additional abilities and they aren't just bags of hit points. Comments like this make me think the laziness isn't with design, it's with the DM if all you think of them are just bags of HP. Between the codified abilities they do have, along with the factors pointed out in the OP, and this comment doesn't make sense if you have even the most basically competent DM.


But this also leads me to another observation. You've done nothing but complain about 5e since the first playtest. All you ever have to say about it are complaints and jabs. So I gotta ask. At what point will you participate in conversations about games you like, and stop the incessant complaining on those you don't? I don't like 4e, but you don't see me going into 4e threads doing nothing but complaining about it. I'd rather spend my time on threads that have topics about games I do enjoy. I mean, obviously I can't make you do anything, but I'm curious why you would continue to subject yourself to a game you don't like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do like that they haven't gone back to the 3e practice of making monsters as detailed as PCs and/or using the same rules as PCs. The stat blocks are fine, reminiscent of 1e (or B/X, I suppose, since they're shorter than 1e MM stats), but still having most of what you need to run the monster in the block (not quite everything, like you had with 4e) you do have to look up spells for monsters that have 'em, but for most monsters it's pretty good.