Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 8061819" data-attributes="member: 63">How satisfied are you with monster design, mechanics, and gameplay experience in 5E as is?I will say, 5E does a great job giving you enough rules to resolve a fight and let you remember a cool story afterward. Kobolds are not complex at all, but I have fond memories of an early 5E playtest where we ended up with two dwarves in a chokepoint, the one in front wearing plate armor and with the condition 'drunk' (which gave damage resistance in exchange for disadvantage on your attacks) and dodging so he was nearly impossible to wound, the one in the back stabbing repeatedly with a longspear, both of them laughing as they held off a horde . . . until the kobolds grabbed the drunk dwarf and dragged him away to his death.But I know some people - myself included - like tactical combat with more decision points, and 5E's monsters in my experience don't often call for diverse tactics. If you're a fighter, and a pack of wolves attack you, you hit them with your sword until they're dead, and if you're lucky maneuver into a narrow spot so only one can attack at a time. If you're a fighter, and a giant attacks you, you hit it with your sword until it's dead. Fire elemental? Use a longspear if you have one so you don't get burned, but you still hit it until it's dead.By contrast, video games like Monster Hunter and Horizon: Zero Dawn have creatures that have different weak points, and that change their tactics, which can force you to change yours. I try to throw at least a bit of discoverable weaknesses into prominent combats that I run. For instance, I put my party up against an angel with mechanical wings. When she wasn't flying, the wings acted like a shield that gave her a monk's deflect arrows ability, but because they were mechanical, cold damage could freeze the joints and make the wings nonfunctional if she failed a save. And I teased that by having other mechanical critters earlier in the adventure have that same vulnerability, and had a nearby alchemist lab with some 'frost grenades.' The players thought they'd figured out the fairly obvious trick, but after the angel made her save, they realized the room they were fighting in had a pressure hose. So one PC blasted her with water, after which I said she had disadvantage on the saves. They felt clever for doing that.Another design conceit I like is posing dilemmas. If you telegraph what a monster is going to do, and if that thing is sufficiently bad but can be mitigated with the right action, it can force players to adapt.For instance, trolls have regeneration, so what if we said their blood could reattach a recently severed limb . . . and then we give them the ability to rip limbs off. If a troll hits with both claw attacks, it grabs onto the target and starts to tug. Tell the PC that he knows that at the start of the troll's next turn, he's going to have to make a Strength save or get an arm or leg ripped free. How do he and the party respond? Try to free the PC? Try to chop off the troll's arm (which should totally be an option)? Aid the PC so he has advantage on his Strength save? Set the troll on fire so he panics and focuses on putting himself out?Finally, I like provoking movement. If a hellhound breathes fire, okay, whatever, you take your lumps. But if the cone it burned remains burning for the rest of the encounter, the PC will need to move out of that area. If you put some interesting terrain in the battle, and have a pack of hounds cutting off the PCs' available terrain, this can make the fight more mobile.Personally, I think a bit of this mentality would make combat more interesting, but maybe you'd think it'd slow things down, or not be fun. I'm curious.</blockquote>

Verification