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

[Ranes]

False equivalency. Firstly, have there been DMs who have said they can't handle monsters with a bunch of complex moves baked in?

Several poster have admitted that they would forget some or all of the SLAs and other features of creatures when running them. Does that make them bad DMs? I don't believe so but the answer to your question remains an affirmative. Is a DM who only looks at what's written in a stat block and bases the actions of a creature on that a poor DM? That was your assertion and I think it's tosh. Sorry. There are more things to good DMing than taking the effort to come up with more than what appears in a stat block. DMs who don't have time to do otherwise, just for example, can still be excellent DMs.

There have been several people who said that without those, the monsters are uninteresting.

Indeed. If I tell you I am a scuba diver, you can run with that and imagine all sorts of things about me. That's fine. If I tell you I'm a scuba diver who also speaks Navajo, that adds another dimension. You might have imagined I did. But when I tell you specifically, you have more to work with. You can still add or subtract but it's hard to suggest that my ability to speak Navajo makes me less interesting.

DMing requires at least some sort of work, and ideally, and imagination.

Thanks for the tip.

If you (general you) think that giving a humanoid the option of actually acting like it would and do other things besides swing a sword is too much work because it's not a hard coded and defined ability, then I don't know what to tell you.

Agreed. But how would you know how I'd act, specifically how I'd respond to a native Navajo speaker if you knew only that I was a scuba diver? Yes, I know you could have just imagined that I might be a Navajo speaker, and that's great (whether I am or not, and sadly of course I'm not). But...

Because to me, that's zero extra work. That's just thinking outside of the box beyond what is written in a stat block.

Thinking outside the box means having an idea. And having ideas is both good and not always zero extra work. Sometimes, it's nice to already have some ideas to work with from the start, so that the ideas you then come up with don't have to emerge from a vacuum.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Several poster have admitted that they would forget some or all of the SLAs and other features of creatures when running them. Does that make them bad DMs? I don't believe so but the answer to your question remains an affirmative. Is a DM who only looks at what's written in a stat block and bases the actions of a creature on that a poor DM? That was your assertion and I think it's tosh. .

Firstly, forgetting about powers or not using them is not the same as "not being able to handle them."

Secondly, my assertion was very much not that a DM who only uses written powers on a stat block is a poor DM. My assertion is that a DM who thinks they can't do anything else unless it's written on a stat block is a poor DM.

So far you're 3 for 3 on fallacies.

 

[Ranes]

Firstly, forgetting about powers or not using them is not the same as "not being able to handle them."

The 'them' in this case applies to the creatures with the abilities, not the abilities themselves, you realise? Sorry if that was unclear.

Secondly, my assertion was very much not that a DM who only uses written powers on a stat block is a poor DM. My assertion is that a DM who thinks they can't do anything else unless it's written on a stat block is a poor DM.

That I'd misread. Agreed.

So far you're 3 for 3 on fallacies.

Nah.

 

[Aribar]

I wouldn't really call 5E monsters simple... The 3E/5E style stat blocks are still relatively complex, especially since the "natural language" makes it really hard to glean information at a glance and they've once again committed the cardinal sin of forcing DMs to look in the PHB for spells. It looks harder to run than any previous edition I've seen.

Only the lair stuff is new to the monster design, although that is pretty nice.. Everything else still has the bland 3E style with little to meaningfully, mechanically differentiate monsters. That kind of sucks since we're paying the designers to make neat stuff for us to use. I get the feeling that if I were to DM 5E, I'd be forced to change and add all kinds of things to actually make combat interesting.

Fourth edition allowed a huge amount of diversity with monsters, the monster math worked, it was easy to make new stuff and it was easy to use. Basic/Rules Cyclopedia monsters were simple to use and their design was clearly focused. In my opinion, fifth edition is a huge failure compared to its predecessors; it's a poor toolkit for DMs.

 

[Ranes]

In my opinion, fifth edition is a huge failure compared to its predecessors...

Fantastic. You've arrived just in time.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Compared to the vim, vigor, imagination and self-directing nature of the monsters in the 13th Age Bestiary I got just before the 5E launch, the previewed monsters are looking pretty cut and dried for me. The vampire is the only one I've been terrifically pleased with, and that's largely because it brings back the mythical weaknesses without also bringing back the level-eating slap-fighter of the pre-4E vampire.

Even the lair actions we've seen feel a bit bland. Take the red dragon, for example: lava bursts, earthquakes, and sulfurous clouds? Not bad, but nothing that makes me sit up and think "Woah. Cool."

That sort of sums up my reaction to 5E as a whole so far: Looks gorgeous, lots of familiarity, comfort and nostalgia, and a solidly put together game (although I want to see how some of those design decisions work out in actual play), but no spark that makes me feel really compelled to invest in it. It's not bad, and it's arguably a better game at being 'D&D' than 4E was, but with five and a half editions and two or more spinoffs in my collection, and a quarter-century's worth of experience playing and following the game, it's not selling itself to me. This is complicated by the fact that I'm an outlier when it comes to D&D--I want different things from the game than a lot of people, and while I enjoy a lot of the IP attached to the game, I'm not terrifically attached to "D&D for D&D's sake", which appears to be the key raison d'etre for 5E.

 

[RangerWickett]

Compared to the vim, vigor, imagination and self-directing nature of the monsters in the 13th Age Bestiary I got just before the 5E launch, the previewed monsters are looking pretty cut and dried for me.

What do 13th Age monsters do that is so cool? I've never seen the bestiary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't really call 5E monsters simple... The 3E/5E style stat blocks are still relatively complex, especially since the "natural language" makes it really hard to glean information at a glance and they've once again committed the cardinal sin of forcing DMs to look in the PHB for spells.

There's really not much comparison between the two. 3e built monsters almost like PCs, right down to feats and skill ranks. 5e stat blocks are much less elaborate.

I can't argue about the issue with spellcasting monsters, though.

It looks harder to run than any previous edition I've seen.

Then you haven't seen, let alone tried to run, AD&D. At least there /are/ encounter guidelines in 5e. And what about 3e? If you use a monster out out of the book it's not exactly easy, but if you go modding or creating them, it gets crazy-detailed. The effort I saw DMs putting into prepping for 3e was daunting (I took the 'easy' way out an improved everything the on 3.x campaign and few con games I ran).

 

[Agamon]

What do 13th Age monsters do that is so cool? I've never seen the bestiary.

The fluff is pretty creative on many of the monsters. As for actual abilities, one example is the owl bear. When it crits, it actually rips a limb off of the PC and retreats to its lair to feed it to its young.

This is the type of thing a game like 13th Age can get away with, but there's no way WotC could be so out there with D&D. The brand is too big. Look at what much smaller changes to the game does to some people around places like here. It needs to be more vanilla to appease the masses and let each game add the flavor.

 

[Aribar]

There's really not much comparison between the two. 3e built monsters almost like PCs, right down to feats and skill ranks. 5e stat blocks are much less elaborate.

I can't argue about the issue with spellcasting monsters, though.

Then you haven't seen, let alone tried to run, AD&D. At least there /are/ encounter guidelines in 5e. And what about 3e? If you use a monster out out of the book it's not exactly easy, but if you go modding or creating them, it gets crazy-detailed. The effort I saw DMs putting into prepping for 3e was daunting (I took the 'easy' way out an improved everything the on 3.x campaign and few con games I ran).

I will freely admit that I haven't deeply looked at 5E DMing yet (November's so far away...). I've played AD&D, but haven't DM'd it; it seemed "simple" enough, but I don't know just how vastly my first DM houseruled things to be easier/different. I think I got into 3E late enough that when I tried DMing it I had decent internet guidelines to try and follow. Apologies, my opinion on the matter may be badly skewed.