D&D 5E Hard Core Monster Manual

[aco175]

The only thing I would not include is PC class templates to add to monsters. I would give another suite of abilities that are similar, but leave the PC classes to the players. You can have a warrior template/suite which gives d10 HP and second wind. This way you can modify things a bit and give super second wind that gives d10+ double the level rather than d10+level. A mage template could give an at-will spell and empowered staff attack (similar to 4e hobgoblin caster).

 

[Blue]

Sounds like the 13th Age monsters in the core book and the 13th Age Bestiary. To start with, while streamlined almost every monster has special abilities. 13th Age puts in unpredicability and keeps action flowing by using the natural roll on the attack die, such as "16+" or "natural odd miss". Since the same mechanic is used in many places (such as maneuvers for fighters) it becomes a natural thing to look at. Also, since the triggering of many specials is when situations are right as set by the die, it doesn't slow down DM having to make a lot more decisions for the monsters, especially when you are running three or four different foe types at once.

But the idea that really fits the OP is that most monsters have a customized "Nastier Specials" section to make it tougher by giving it iconic additional abilities. Sometimes a class of monsters like Dragons will also have a bunch. Plus the Nastier Specials mean that fighting a Dire Bear isn't the same if you do it again - maybe it has some, maybe it has others, who knows. And if you're using them en masse as mounts you don't have to worry about it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

How hard is it give your orcs great weapon master? This is not hard to do on your own. What is the value of it being in "the book"?

Snark deleted.

Instead I'll just say that your comment is completely disrespectful.

 

[transtemporal]

I agree in principle, but in practice I think things can operate differently. My mind keeps going back to the 2e module Dragon Mountain, which was a terrifying meat grinder of a dungeon designed for high level characters. The main opponents? Kobolds. Measly little 2 HP apiece kobolds. And they were slaughtering parties of high level PCs.

Used innovatively, even the most pedestrian of monsters can pose a challenge to a vast level range of player characters.

Yeah, that module is mostly smoke and mirrors. Most of the kobolds in that dungeon rely on higher level monsters to hurt the heroes, or they hit trap switches. You can replicate that adventure now by having a goblin activating a 20d20 pit trap when the PCs walk over it. That might be a CR20 trap but its not the same as a CR20 goblin.

 

[transtemporal]

As a lover of dark sun I thought those stat blocks were amazing... right up until my players started pulling phones out, it was taking that damn long planning his turn! They understood that a sorcerer king should be using every ability to perfection but if iI see a phone/book whatever I have failed as a dm.

And the statblocks were really cool and flavorful and a big step up from the 3e statblocks but yeah, still too many options. To be fair, that was a problem with most high level monsters.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, but I wasn't talking about "mega monsters". I was talking about Orcs that have unexpected abilities, Trolls that have alternative vulnerabilities or strategies, etc.

I'm going to recommend Volo's Guide to Monsters. There is expansion on Beholders, Demons, Dinosaurs, Giants, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Mind Flayers, Orcs, and Yaun-Ti. They also added an abjurer (CR 9), archdruid (CR 12), archer (CR 3), blackguard (CR 8), champion (CR 9), conjurer (CR 6), diviner (CR 8), enchanter (CR 5), evoker (Cr 9), illusionist (CR 3), martial arts adept (CR 3), master thief (CR 5), necromancer (CR 9), swashbuckler (CR 3), transmuter (CR 5), warlord (CR 12), etc. The champion and warlord are a progression of the guard and knight, martial NPC, a player might run into.

One of the things that I was thinking of putting together was a list of each feature a monster has. For example amphibious, ambusher, pack tactics, etc. This would help me increase the variety of the monsters with a little work, but then I would do less paging through the MM reading these features and then going, "Ah ha. That is the feature this creature needs for effective xyz tactics to make the encounter interesting."

Absolutely, but as I think you know, this is different from the request at issue because those kobolds were not Infernal Kobolds of the Adamantine Fist (CR 14).

They are just kobolds. And they will ruin your day.

It's easy to run monsters in this way in 5e, and, in my opinion, more fun than just having constantly upscaled higher CR versions of previous monsters.

Absolutely. I saw the need for greater variety / surprises as soon as I read the Monster Manual. And I did something about it for kobolds.

My move there wasn't to make CR 14 kobolds of doom, but to introduce greater variety of abilities that really spoke to their "kobold-ness" and immediately grabbed a DM's attention about how the monster might be used.

For example, simply adding Trap Savvy ("...the kobold's movement does not trigger pressure plate or tripwire-triggered traps it is aware of.") & Tunnel Crawling ("The kobold suffers none of the normal disadvantage or speed hindrance when squeezing thru Tiny-sized passages.") to a kobold indicates all kind of nasty @#$% the DM can pull when the PCs go exploring the kobold warrens.

I remember giving one of my kobold wyrmpriests a cantrip to extinguish light sources and a sneaky version of mage hand that let them wrest away things not carried in a creature's hands. That led to a fun mini-battles over the party's light sources...and the terror of facing Kobold Commandos in the dark (who I gave the Assassinate trait, so auto-critical hits when surprising the PCs).

Hmm. Just like there's a sweet spot between "meaningful difference" and "power creep" of a monster design, there's also a sweet spot between "too simple" and "too complex." In general, I've found 5e's humanoid monsters (gnolls, goblins, kobolds, orcs, trolls, etc.) to err towards the "too simple" side...which is great for scenarios facing hordes of monsters...and maybe not-so-great for other scenarios.

Ultimately, good monster design needs to come from a strong sense of the monster's narrative...and I think you really see that happening more in Volo's Guide to Monsters. So, I'd say "recreating the 4th edition wheel" is not advisable. There are many examples in 4e of poor narrative concepts behind the monsters leading to "dissonant" mechanics that were hard for the DM to remember....often they were hard to remember not because they were overly complex but because there wasn't a logical narrative thread bundling those abilities together.

For example: The Immolith.

In the 4e Monster Manual it's described as an undead demon resulting from the deaths of many demons at the same time and their spirits unpredictably fusing together. They despise the living and hang with undead. That's pretty much it. Miserable lore.

However, the art is fantastic and really captures some demonic archetype that speaks to me.

[SBLOCK=4e Immolith stats]

[/SBLOCK]

It can attack with a claw that sets you on fire. And only during its turn (not on opportunity attacks) it can claw you, grab you, pull you next to it, and deprive your fire resistance. The need to differentiate this basic melee attack from a non-basic melee attack was because of 4e's "infinite opportunity attacks" rule. Then it gets a choice each round between two minor actions (or in 4e it could take both minor actions by forgoing its move IIRC): Deathfire Curse or Vigor of the Grave. Hmm. Deathfire Curse slows you and then lights you on fire – what the heck is happening narratively here? Fire slows you down? You're smoking then you catch on fire? Who knows! And Vigor of the Grave applies to undead...but again narratively what is going on? Is the immolith healing "with fire"? If that's the case why couldn't a fire elemental be healed?

If I wanted to convert the Immolith to 5e (and I'm in the process now), I'd want to do a serious reimagining of the monster's concept, probably starting with the name's similarity to "immolate" which means "to kill or offer as a sacrifice, especially by burning."

That's an extreme example, but similar thinking applies to monstrous humanoids.

Part of creating a Monster Book of Badassdom would be rediscovering nuances of the monstrous humanoids that have fallen between the cracks of edition change or are right there in the 5e Monster Manual but haven't been explored mechanically yet.

 

[Awesome Adam]

Don't get me wrong, I must have bought every 2nd and 3rd edition Monster Book, but we made it through 1st edition with just the 2.

5E is taking the less is more approach and not spamming us with books. Not saying I wouldn't buy it, hell I bought the Tomb Of Beasts, but it's not neccesary.

If you want to suprise your players with mosnter variety, simply spice up the existing monsters.

A troll that heals with fire, kobold shield wall fighters with a bonus push action, Goblin's with flasks of tanglefoot/alchemist fire, etc..

 

[Guest 6801328]

My move there wasn't to make CR 14 kobolds of doom, but to introduce greater variety of abilities that really spoke to their "kobold-ness" and immediately grabbed a DM's attention about how the monster might be used.

Yes, this is exactly what I'd like to see.

And, sure (to repeat the caustic dismissal of a previous poster) I could give my Orcs the "Great Weapon Master" feat. But I'd rather have a bunch of really creative minds putting together a fiendish box of fun tools for me to use.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, this is exactly what I'd like to see.

And, sure (to repeat the caustic dismissal of a previous poster) I could give my Orcs the "Great Weapon Master" feat. But I'd rather have a bunch of really creative minds putting together a fiendish box of fun tools for me to use.

That's totally reasonable. Good monster design, like any good design really, require iteration. Is there really that much demand for more complex / mechanically flavorful monsters? Besides on internet forums, the 6-7 people I've regularly gamed with have no problem with the 5e monsters; their complaints are always about character rules.

 

[machineelf]

I love the current monsters in the MM and VGtM. Love. When people say they aren't interesting or deadly enough, it boggles my mind. Dragons and beholders, for example, are extremely deadly when you run them correctly as a DM. They also do all the things that those monsters are supposed to do.

An ogre is just supposed to be a big brute with a club. If you start giving a ton of special gimmicks to every single monster, it starts to get silly in my opinion. And most all of the monsters do have special traits that makes them unique. So like I said, my mind is boggled that people think they are all the same or mundane.