D&D (2024) Hobgoblin warriors

[dave2008]

I disagree.

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

Fine, the blog DMG 42 proved it a long time ago: A Boot on the Face of Level 1 Damage...Forever!

Take a look and then we can discuss if you want. I mean if you played as much epic 4e as I did you didn't need that blog to tell you the issues. FYI, I have my own revised 4e damage tables that I have posted on this website, that go beyond what the did in that blog because, by there own admission, they didn't take into account all the counter measures epic level PCs have.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Saying a previous trait is bad is subjective - that is what was my point.

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.

That is my point, some people (and IME it is mostly younger people, but I am 51 so that covers a lot of bases) don't want any reason given. I dislike that dragons no longer have discrete physical attacks, but was told directly by someone that they prefer the generic rend because they can describe it any way they want. The freedom to do what you want trumps having an explanation for some. I want to be clear, it is not my preference - I am just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'll probably reduce the dice type from 2d10 to 2d8 and leave it at that. Nice thing is, I can choose to have a 2 hander variant without a shield (reduce AC by 2 and we're done). That's fine. There's some flexibility.

 

[Horwath]

Not any ranged attack, 150 ft ranged attack, outranging most PCs. It is totally TPK material.

I mean, that is pretty much default range. If I were going to give a monster a ranged weapon, it WILL be a longbow.
But, with +1 bonus form ability, how does it use it without penalty, being Heavy weapon and all that?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'll probably reduce the dice type from 2d10 to 2d8 and leave it at that. Nice thing is, I can choose to have a 2 hander variant without a shield (reduce AC by 2 and we're done). That's fine. There's some flexibility.

Since their damage bonus is only +1, you could also just give them multiattack. Two attacks for 1d8+1 damage each is only one less average DPR than one attack at 2d10+1 damage, and then you still have the option to two-hand, swapping 2 AC for 2 DPR and still being within 1 DPR of the RAW.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I mean, that is pretty much default range. If I were going to give a monster a ranged weapon, it WILL be a longbow.
But, with +1 bonus form ability, how does it use it without penalty, being Heavy weapon and all that?

13 (+1) dex is all it needs. And it has only 12...

Ok. That stat block is more than wrong in many ways.

 

[Horwath]

Since their damage bonus is only +1, you could also just give them multiattack. Two attacks for 1d8+1 damage each is only one less average DPR than one attack at 2d10+1 damage, and then you still have the option to two-hand, swapping 2 AC for 2 DPR and still being within 1 DPR of the RAW.

multiattack can scale too much if you want to "upgrade" the monster. I.E. to have 20STR as a kind of chieftain or something.

 

[Charlaquin]

multiattack can scale too much if you want to "upgrade" the monster. I.E. to have 20STR as a kind of chieftain or something.

Well then don’t do that. Make a different stat block for your chieftain instead of just increasing the warrior’s stats and expecting it to work out fine.

 

[Horwath]

Well then don’t do that. Make a different stat block for your chieftain instead of just increasing the warrior’s stats and expecting it to work out fine.

sure.
I mean, it can work both ways.

I believe that they wanted simple one attack per turn monster for low level CRs.

Is scout still in 2025 MM? it was low level CR with multi attack.

 

[TwoSix]

That is my point, some people (and IME it is mostly younger people, but I am 51 so that covers a lot of bases) don't want any reason given. I dislike that dragons no longer have discrete physical attacks, but was told directly by someone that they prefer the generic rend because they can describe it any way they want. The freedom to do what you want trumps having an explanation for some. I want to be clear, it is not my preference - I am just playing devil's advocate here.

And that's totally fine, I have no argument with that.

My point is an extremely specific one. Humanoid NPCs that are fictionally comparable to low-level PCs shouldn't have basic abilities that exceed options available to PCs, without significant tradeoffs. For example, a 2 HD NPC guard shouldn't have multiattack, because that's a signature PC ability that no one can get until 5th level.