D&D 5E How would you improve monsters?

[billd91]

I honestly don't understand how multiplication and division which are more complex operations that addition and subtraction, especially on double digit numbers that are pretty common on 5+ levels can make game easier to run.

I don't have to keep track of whether it's 5 points, 10 points, 15 points, 20 points - whatever. It's just half - for every monster who has it.

 

[Morrus]

make educated topical points rather than just distracting from your weak argument by asking for someone to repeat them with a pointless "what problems"

I just did a quick search for the term "weak argument" against your username, and you do seem to spend a lot of time accusing people of having weak arguments. I'm going to need you to tone that down, please. Thanks!

 

[loverdrive]

Frankly, this is ideal. Any flat DR low enough to not completely block out the low damage dealer would be barely a speed bump to the damage spikers. Better to affect them all proportionately the same.

I think that it's better to let certain characters shine at certain situations. That's cool and exciting when a PC can accomplish something no one else in the party can.

 

[Laurefindel]

they don't need to be notably be more or less difficult to be more advanced concepts that require more braincells... that goes orders of magnitude beyond just double when the claim is that moving from -N to 50% is "easier" because it & your reply shows that the difference of ease in the calculation is not significant for the vast majority of players & gms while there are concrete harms done by the shift from flat dr & flat resist to always 50%. People have been going over those harms for quite a few posts now, go back & read them tp make educated topical points rather than just distracting from your weak argument by asking for someone to repeat them with a pointless "what problems"

I never tried to make it a "it's not a problem because it isn't a problem for me" argument.

My argument is that going to a subtraction DR system adds complexity to the game, because that's yet more things for the DM to track.

[edit] unless resistance is a flat DR 10, in which case my point is moot. However, having a flat DR 10 would bring its own lot of issues in my opinion.

 

[billd91]

I think that it's better to let certain characters shine at certain situations. That's cool and exciting when a PC can accomplish something no one else in the party can.

And they still can - they're still spiking damage to a proportional degree just like they would against a monster that isn't resistant.

 

[loverdrive]

And they still can - they're still spiking damage to a proportional degree just like they would against a monster that isn't resistant.

There's huge difference between "everyone chip down monster's health, but slower" and "everyone can barely scratch the damn thing and paladin/rogue/wizard" is their only hope".

 

[Gadget]

Jut not a reason you can... you know... say? Got it.... great reason. How could anyone argue with such a slam dunk case.

I had thought the many follies of 3.x design well know. The fact that they changed it from 3.0 to 3.5 is a little bit of hint there. IIRC, initially they had flat out immunity to anything that was of the appropriate type (ex fire) or not of the requisite plus value (+3 weapon or greater to damage at all). This made monsters more of a "you must by this high to take this ride" type of challenge and led to the 'golf bag syndrome' of PC's touting around a 'golf bag' full of different types of enchanted weapons for the appropriate type of encounter. 'A par 4 with a sand trap? Better pull out the 9 iron with sand wedge as backup'. 'Demons you say? better pull out the cold iron plus 4 battle axe, keep the silvered, blessed sword of good on hand in case we're walking into the blood war and some devils show up .'

3.5, iirc, went with a more measured 10/fire, where the first 10 fire damage was ignored, but any damage beyond that was taken by the creature. The same for the required plus of the weapon. The problem here was not only slightly more math involved in calculating from every hit, but the static resistance tended to be either trivial beyond a certain point, or overwhelming before another point. Only in between the two points was it really effective, and still led to the 'golf bag syndrome' and 'magic item Christmas tree' effect that was complained about in that edition.

Applying such to 5e, with the design on much less reliance on magic items than previous editions and much of the damage increase for PCs coming from multiple discrete attacks, would not be a desirable solution, imho.

 

[billd91]

There's huge difference between "everyone chip down monster's health, but slower" and "everyone can barely scratch the damn thing and paladin/rogue/wizard" is their only hope".

We don't necessarily want a single class or type to be their only hope. That kind of undermines the idea that a party could be made up of any classes - now, they have to have a spiker or be hosed by damage resistant creatures. Having some encounters made easier by a "key" factor can be kind of fun sometimes, but damage resistance is (and should be) far too widely distributed for it to be one of those defenses that requires a key to unlock it.

Plus, 50% reduction of damage prevents the two-handed martial from dominating the sword and boarder or fencer as badly as they did in the 3e family of editions.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

On the subject of resistance/weakness, I think my previous idea that I apply to save for my boss monsters could be used in the same way:

Resistance: X-in-6 chance of nullifying specified damage type.
Weakness: X-in-6 chance of having specified damage doubled.

This would make things a little more granular.

A skeleton would have something like this:

AC 13, HP 13 (2d8+4 HD)
Res: Pzn 6/6, Non-Magical Slsh/Prcg 2/6
Wkn: Bldg 4/6

 

[loverdrive]

Also, more monsters should have resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities to only one of S/B/P trio.

Right now there's hardly any difference between wielding a maul and a greatsword.