D&D (2024) Hobgoblin warriors

[Charlaquin]

At the end of the day, you either trust them to put in whatever numbers they think work, OR you want to see an algorithm from which those numbers are derived.

And without seeing a stated algorithm (like the monster design of 3e), people who want the assurances of a formula try to derive an algorithm from a data set (the MM) that may not even use an algorithm at all!

Well, I don’t know about an algorithm, I’m just saying the Martial Advantage trait was a line break and three lines of text just to tell you what amounts to “no, the longsword doing 2d10 is not a typo,” and given all the other instances of page space saving methods we’ve been seeing in the 2024 books, I’m not surprised they seem to have opted to omit that “unnecessary” text.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The strangest thing for me (and I'm no simulationist either) is that it seems to me that they really intend the Hobgoblin to have an 18 AC, and to use 2d10 for the longsword, and to use their bow, all at once, and that they (WotC designers) leave it up to us to worry about whether we doff a shield (knocking the AC down to 16) or one-hand the sword (knocking it down to d8s) or just ignore all that and run it as-is.

The simple fact of the matter is: We care about these details more than they do.

 

[dave2008]

I'm fine with "sneak attack with any weapon" as a general bonus humanoid trait. But I don't want it to be 2d6 on a 2 HD creature, they should be at least 3 HD for that (since a 3rd level rogue does 2d6 sneak).

As a general rule, I don't let humanoid creatures (NPCs that seem roughly analagous to PCs) break the normal boundaries of what a PC class could accomplish at that level (or if they do, there are heavy tradeoffs involved), although I don't "give them a class" or anything like that.

Just to be clear CR =/= level

 

[dave2008]

Being similar to an earlier trait that was also bad is not good.

subjective

And if it's meant to be a manuever, it should have some fiction for why it's so high.

I think that is a matter of taste. I used to think that way myself, but the young kids these days tell me they like the freedom to make up whatever fiction they want. I resisted a first, and still can't get all the way there, but it is a pretty liberating mindset.

 

[TwoSix]

Just to be clear CR =/= level

I don't use it that way, but for humanoids, HD should be equivalent to level.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

subjective

No, actually, not at all subjective.

A lot of stuff is, but that's just wrong.

Being similar to a previous trait is never an excuse for a balance issue. That's not subjective.

I used to think that way myself, but the young kids these days tell me they like the freedom to make up whatever fiction they want. I resisted a first, and still can't get all the way there, but it is a pretty liberating mindset.

If there was any suggestion, hint, sniff of a fictive basis at all for this, I might buy it, but there isn't. It's just double 2H damage for no reason at all.

 

[dave2008]

I believe that, but I also would suggest it's truly ludicrous that they don't think we're fit to be privy to the actual system, and decided to "express it for mass consumption" lol.

The issue is the system the used was several linked spreadsheets and, within the time they had, they had difficult translating that process to a guideline. Do they have the time to do that, even with updated math, I would say yes. That is why I suspect it is being held off for a DnD Beyond exclusive feature.

Also, I'm not convinced whatever internal system they have is very good, if they're really sticking to it lol. Whereas the 4E system was incredibly, almost disturbingly reliable (once the math got fixed), and so workable you didn't even need to know it, you could literally have the DDI do it for you when making new monsters or adjusting old ones.

The 4e monster guidelines had flaws as well. I know, I made a lot of monsters for 4e, particularly a lot of epic monsters were the failures of the 4e system were more pronounced. Let me just say this: they never fixed the monster math. Monsters always did way to little damage. If you look at a 4e ancient red it has 3x the HP and does less DPR than the 5e ancient red. That math just did not work. There are issued with the guidelines beyond the simple math too.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let me just say this: they never fixed the monster math. Monsters always did way to little damage.

I disagree.

If you look at a 4e ancient red it has 3x the HP and does less DPR than the 5e ancient red.

That literally proves nothing at all, because the math involved in both games is completely different. You might as well compare 1E and 5E, or PF2 and 5E.

Damage-wise monsters could do pretty well if you played them right. The major issues the system had were:

A) Before adjustment, inflated monster HP.

B) Too many healing surges on the PCs to the point where attrition didn't really work right.

In any individual fight, PCs could get really messed up or downed, moreso than 5E even I'd suggest. But they'd pop back to 100% easily because there were so many HSes around.

 

[dave2008]

I don't use it that way, but for humanoids, HD should be equivalent to level.

But it can't be. If you calculate a level 20 PC as a monster you typically get around CR 12 or so.

Oh wait, you said HD. I can see were you are coming from, and I tend to agree, but I haven't really look at it closely

 

[Lazybones]

My initial reaction to this thread (I had to go back and double-check the stat block, as I missed it in my first read) was the same as most here: it's weird, it's overpowered, it doesn't make sense. I almost submitted a post saying what others have, that I would tone down the weapon damage for the base warrior and maybe change the armor as well. But on thinking more about it I might keep it as written in the 2024 campaign I'm developing right now, and adjust the lore of the campaign a bit. The hobgoblins in that campaign are the remnants of a larger force that was defeated in a big war against the neighboring human kingdom decades past, and now hire themselves out as mercenaries to all of the local factions. I think it could work that the survivors are all these hard-edged veterans who aren't that much tougher than the average warrior in terms of absorbing damage, but who fight in phalanxes and other close formations and have skills that make it both harder to hit them and allow them to deal heavier damage than one might expect. I think this could help with the image of them being both scary and people that you don't want to casually mess with.

I am also going to probably change them from Fey to Humanoid (fey ancestry) since I want both hobs and goblins to be playable in this campaign, but that's a separate topic that I know has gotten about 1,000 pages of discussion on this board.