Level Up (A5E) Do you want more monster complexity?

[Arilyn]

13th Age has really interesting "4e like" monsters, that are fun and easy to run. They have "nastier specials," optional abilities which the GM can use to up the danger level. Something like this might help, so the GM can run a more straight forward critter, or up the ante with a more complicated and/or dangerous encounter. This can also help keep players on their toes, because they won't initially know exactly which version of the monster they are dealing with.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't want more complicated monsters. I want monsters with more fun, tactical abilties. I want more 4e monsters. That was the amazing part of 4e: the monsters! I want action-oriented monsters:


I don't want more complicated monsters. In fact, I want monsters without freaking Spellcasting blocks. Spellcasting blocks suck as a DM. The spell selection is always garbage. There's always spells that do nothing, spells that are extremely complex, and spells that don't suit the NPC at all. It's frustrating and dumb. Give me spellcasters with 3-5 "spell" abilities and that's it. That's all I want.

I agree! 4e did that well. My assumption is that spellcasters have more spells they can use out of combat, the ones in the blocks are for combat. And, it is easier to run them if they are actions, not spells. But, that takes up a ton of space.....

 

[CleverNickName]

The only complexity I want for 5E monsters: Templates. I would buy the book for the monster templates alone.

 

[Xeviat]

I hate 5E monsters. I hate them so much. The only thing interesting about high level dragons is their lair actions, otherwise they're all identical. Fights are offer too fast, they don't offer time for tactical play.

4E, for all it's faults, had an amazing monster system. Building encounters, or even whipping up custom monsters, was a snap! 5E encounter building bores the life out of me and makes me prefer playing over DMing.

F$&% CR, There’s a Better Way (Part 2)

You know what? I’m sick of dealing with all the overly complicated, overly precise mathematics of encounter and custom monster design in D&D 5E. So I’m going to design an easier way to handle …

theangrygm.com

This article has great ideas on how to adjust monsters.

 

[jayoungr]

I like this guy's model for dealing with spellcasting NPCS:


(The first few minutes are just complaints, so skip to 6:27 to start hearing his method for improving them.)

Thanks to whoever it was on this board that originally linked to this video.

 

[tetrasodium]

I like this guy's model for dealing with spellcasting NPCS:


(The first few minutes are just complaints, so skip to 6:27 to start hearing his method for improving them.)

Thanks to whoever it was on this board that originally linked to this video.

He makes some good points. I'd much rather see mutiple spellcaster baddies with a tight focus that really makes them fit a niche rather that one overly spread out npc that poorly fills a dozen with a random selection of spells they will never use unless they are elevated to named npc status & as a result bestowed the power to break their statblock shackles. Most of the fancy customized monster with class/prc levels stuff I used to make & see other GMs make back in the 3.5 days was to create baddies that would clearly dominate their little niche in a viscerally apparent way the party could see in the few rounds it survived.

 

[Charlaquin]

More complexity is never something I want in the game. Complexity by itself is a negative. The question is if more complexity is an acceptable tradeoff for some feature you want to add. And the answer depends on the feature. In general though, I think monsters in 5e could use some improvement, and a little more complexity would probably be acceptable.

 

[Stalker0]

He makes some good points. I'd much rather see mutiple spellcaster baddies with a tight focus that really makes them fit a niche rather that one overly spread out npc that poorly fills a dozen with a random selection of spells they will never use unless they are elevated to named npc status & as a result bestowed the power to break their statblock shackles. Most of the fancy customized monster with class/prc levels stuff I used to make & see other GMs make back in the 3.5 days was to create baddies that would clearly dominate their little niche in a viscerally apparent way the party could see in the few rounds it survived.

Yep I like his ideas, honestly I think you could streamline even further, I think some of his monsters still had too many spells. I also liked the way he spelled out offensive vs defensive vs control in a statblock, that would be a nice way of organizing things.

 

[TheSword]

As a minimum I would like to see spellcasting variants of most Devils and Demons. It was a rare fiend back in AD&D or 3e that couldn’t influence its surrounding with magic. I would like to see options for adding this back in, possibly with some options for vile or diabolical magic.

 

[CapnZapp]

I hope and trust the Level Up team isn't going to repeat Paizo's mistake of ignoring the competition.

By that I mean "look at Pathfinder 2".

That game has superior monsters to 5E. It's probably that game's best feature. It offers great inspiration on how to solve the issue discussed in the thread.