D&D 4E I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters

[CapnZapp]

But mostly it's just that everyone dies faster, making combats shorter. Adding more combat options wouldn't really make combats a lot slower, but it might end up being pointless, if the more-complex creature dies before availing itself of those options.

This is of course not a great argument against more sophisticated boss monsters, since their role isn't to die fast.

Just the possibility the stat block won't be fully used is a poor argument for not making the stat block robust enough to handle a less quick fight, such as a tense exciting boss fight for example.

Not all monsters need such stats. And nobody ask asked for all monsters getting more complexity, of course.

 

[CapnZapp]

The intended consequence is you'll have to customize the game a bit to match your DMing style, campaign tone, and the preferences of the group you run for. And that's across the board, going for a lot more than just monsters.

The issue is that the gulf between what's on offer, and what power gamers need, have not been so great since a long time ago.

Customizing a bit - sure, no problem.

Completely overhauling all CR 11+ monsters just to add in tricks to overcome or withstand the tactics and tricks available to high level players, not so much.

Of course, it is generally harder to come up with functional new material from scratch than to cut material you don't want, but the game could have made the latter easier. For instance, if monster stats (some of 'em at least) had 'advanced' actions towards the end of the block that could be ignored when wanting to run it more simply, or utilized when it was more the star of the encounter.

We're probably talking about less than two dozen creatures that should have been given two or three more "sneaky" abilities.

No need to make such a huge deal about it, by sectioning off parts of the statblock.

I'm sure if the designers had gotten this right the first time, nobody would have minded much at all. Remember that none of this needs to impact new gamers still in single-digit levels.

The other thing the MM dropped the ball on, unhelpful spell lists, would probably have been entirely welcomed: underlining spells with Concentration, and handpicking three spells as a suggested round 1-2-3 routine.

There are very few monsters with actual spells, so this would have had a negligible impact on percieved complexity.

That's the saddest part. Everybody tries to use hyperbole to defend the simplicity in the MM, but a more nuanced design would not have made anything harder, just easier and better.

 

[CapnZapp]

But the more relevant thing is that points like this exhibit the fiddly bits pretty well. One of the things that really didn't mesh with my playstyle in 4e - on both sides of the table - was this focus on "build." If I have an encounter with ogres they won't be really significant unless I also pair them with Options B, X, and Q? That's too fiddly for me. The decision to fight some ogres should carry a lot of impact on its own without 3-4 higher-order decisions also influencing whether or not I really got the real effect of some ogres.

It's of course easy to attack many discussion threads floating by for being too complex.

But remember that the core complaint is that perhaps two dozen iconic high-CR critters needed a couple of tricks up their sleeve.

Compared to the above, it's two completely different discussions. Please don't let the theoretical and complex one overshadow the other - the one saying "The MM fell short of even providing token recognition of what abilities and tactics a high level party will bring to bear".

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's of course easy to attack many discussion threads floating by for being too complex.

But remember that the core complaint is that perhaps two dozen iconic high-CR critters needed a couple of tricks up their sleeve.

Compared to the above, it's two completely different discussions. Please don't let the theoretical and complex one overshadow the other - the one saying "The MM fell short of even providing token recognition of what abilities and tactics a high level party will bring to bear".

The idea is that the critters are complex enough already for me, and probably for a lot more people than me! That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some more opt-in complexity for those who want it, but it does mean that going the simple route at launch is something I appreciate - and a lot of the newbies I game with appreciate it, too. Lower bars to playing and DMing = more players and DMs = a more healthy hobby, all told.

The question for WotC is, "what % of our potential audience would buy/use something that was more complex?" If that % is too small, you might never really see it in an official form. If that % is big enough, though, you might - the game's been out a few years, it's entirely possible that they add another layer of complexity after that, if the market's there.

In as much as most of the WotC products seem to be targeting as broad as possible, I wouldn't necessarily count on it, but their agenda has been to surprise, so that expectation certainly is reading tea leaves.

 

[CapnZapp]

The idea is that the critters are complex enough already for me, and probably for a lot more people than me! That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some more opt-in complexity for those who want it, but it does mean that going the simple route at launch is something I appreciate - and a lot of the newbies I game with appreciate it, too. Lower bars to playing and DMing = more players and DMs = a more healthy hobby, all told.

The question for WotC is, "what % of our potential audience would buy/use something that was more complex?" If that % is too small, you might never really see it in an official form. If that % is big enough, though, you might - the game's been out a few years, it's entirely possible that they add another layer of complexity after that, if the market's there.

In as much as most of the WotC products seem to be targeting as broad as possible, I wouldn't necessarily count on it, but their agenda has been to surprise, so that expectation certainly is reading tea leaves.

If by "critters are complex enough already" you specifically mean monsters like the Marilith, you need to say so.

Because, once again, I'm not suggesting any low-level critter be changed.

There is no change in "the simple route at launch".
There is no need for "opt-in complexity"
There is no threat to "lower bars to playing and DMing"
This is not about questions for WotC like that.
This is not about targeting less broad customer segments.

This is entirely about surgically fixing the most egregious dropped balls in the MM.

I am confident that if the MM shipped with these improvements already in place, nobody would have complained the edition would have been complex. Most people would probably simply be grateful for the extra layout on spells. Lots of new excited gamers would probably not even come into contact with the fixes, at least not for a very long time, enough to shed their newbie status and not be overwhelmed by the very humble stat block additions.

The biggest change would be way less complaints, and much less wistful comparison to 4th Edition. Sure, orcs and ogres would still be simple, but since there would be two dozen more examples of sneakily good design that oodles confidence of the design teams insight into what they themselves have endowed high level parties with, this would be enough to dilute any criticism.

You're entirely targeting a way overblown scenario here IMO. Sure you can have all those concerns and make it seem difficult and problematic, but what's the point.

I'm merely saying that I see that the MM dropped the ball here and there, and quite needlessly so. Doesn't mean you hate the entire edition if you acknowledge this point, you know...

 

[I'm A Banana]

If by "critters are complex enough already" you specifically mean monsters like the Marilith, you need to say so.

Yes. The marilith is complex enough for me.

This is entirely about surgically fixing the most egregious dropped balls in the MM.

I don't see it as a dropped ball - I see it as a deliberate choice that corresponds well with some of the big goals of 5e, and some of the things that make me like 5e much more than previous e's.

You're entirely targeting a way overblown scenario here IMO. Sure you can have all those concerns and make it seem difficult and problematic, but what's the point.

Not really targeting anything! I hope that when the designers consider adding a thing to the game, they consider complexity to be a cost to it, to help steer the design away from complexity for the sake of it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't see it as a dropped ball - I see it as a deliberate choice that corresponds well with some of the big goals of 5e, and some of the things that make me like 5e much more than previous e's.

Very much this. It's obvious the MM design was intentional, and based on information as to what bests fits the design scope of 5e, and what most people wanted. Heck, Mearls has said more than once about how the design of 5e is heavily influenced by playtest feedback even to the point of them omitting some things Mearls personally liked.

So if I could have my magic wish, it would be that people would stop with this argument that the design team is incompetent in some way (dropped the ball, didn't think of this, put not effort, etc) and that you are being punished (suffer the consequences) by the current game. It simply is not true, and the design team certainly doesn't deserve to be constantly insulted. They knew what they were doing, and had a clear goal in mind. Looking at the success of 5e, they made the right decision. Does it make everyone happy? No, but "not exactly to my preferences" does not mean they screwed up, and frankly needs to stop being the go-to excuse.


As an aside, this seems to be the only industry where we have these types of arguments. For example, I hang out on car forums, and if I went into the Ford Raptor forum and kept saying how the Ford design team dropped the ball, were incompetent, and are idiots because they didn't put out an option right out of the factory for everything I wanted on the Raptor, the rest of the people there would act like I lost my dang mind. And I can tell you what the responses would be.

"You want a rooftop tent? Here's where you find one, there is no need to have that as an option right out of the factory."
"You want a bullbar and warn winch? Here's where you get them."

No one, and I do mean no one, seriously expects that Ford would put out a factory option that covered all options, especially when getting those options is very easy in the aftermarket (which is what the DMs Guild essentially is). In fact, if Ford did that, they would lose a ton of money, because the sales numbers wouldn't justify the time and effort to create those options from them. Like D&D, they said "here is the base F150 (basic rules), and here are all the options that are most popular (FX4, Raptor, King Ranch in the form of all the optional rules like feats and multiclassing)

 

[Rhenny]

I would get bored of them, but I change them all the time. They are easy to work with, and CR of augmented monsters is actually pretty elastic as long as there are 4 or more PCs in the group and not too many monsters have the augmentations. It gets more dicey with smaller parties of 3 or less.

Here is a d100 chart I made (and a few other mods) to inspire me when I want to throw in a few curveballs.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1375

 

[CapnZapp]

Very much this. It's obvious the MM design was intentional, and based on information as to what bests fits the design scope of 5e, and what most people wanted. Heck, Mearls has said more than once about how the design of 5e is heavily influenced by playtest feedback even to the point of them omitting some things Mearls personally liked.

So if I could have my magic wish, it would be that people would stop with this argument that the design team is incompetent in some way (dropped the ball, didn't think of this, put not effort, etc) and that you are being punished (suffer the consequences) by the current game. It simply is not true, and the design team certainly doesn't deserve to be constantly insulted. They knew what they were doing, and had a clear goal in mind. Looking at the success of 5e, they made the right decision. Does it make everyone happy? No, but "not exactly to my preferences" does not mean they screwed up, and frankly needs to stop being the go-to excuse.

I am positive the success of 5th edition is completely independent on the stat block of a few high level critters, none of which will feature in a new campaign for many, MANY sessions.

I am not contesting the MM design was not intentional.

I am postulating they took it one step too far. Quick simple orcs and ogres? Great!

Equally simple "captains at the head of a demonic horde" with "keen minds and a finely honed
sense of tactics"? Sorry but "simple" now turns into "simplistic".

An Ogre does not need a way to overcome the many and varied ways a high level party can prevent you from charging into battle to shish kebab you with six blades, because it is not meant as a credible high level foe.

A marilith however, needs to if it is to be able to challenge veteran players. But the only tools that separate it from the Ogre are:
- it can gain AC 23 against one attack per enemy
- it can teleport
- it can grapple at the same time as it attacks with weapons

To me, that's a demonic grunt, not a demonic captain. Contrast the d20 Marilith, that mirrors a high-level fighter in that it gets what we now would call extra attack, it sees through illusions and invisibility, it can even throw up a blade barrier for some battlefield control of its own.

The teleport is nice - at least it isn't once per day. But the problem is that it takes the Marilith's entire action. A party will not be able to keep away from the "demonic captain", but they have ample opportunities to deny it any attacks. Just giving it the fighter's action surge would considerably up its threat level, because then it can at least once both teleport into range AND unleash its full barrage of attacks.

None of this means I'm advocating a return to 3E - there are a lot of fiddly details in the d20 stat block that none of us wants to see come back.

Fixing this would NOT have impacted 5E's success. There is NO grounds for making broad sweeping claiming this is "what most people wanted" or relativize things with rhetorical and dismissive questions like the old chestnut can everyone be happy - that just makes it look like you want to sweep fair criticism under the rug.

 

[Dualazi]

See how those mechanics are tied to story-telling aspects? Some mechanics don't fit into story-telling aspects as well, for sure. But 4th edition has many more of those kinds of mechanics that are detached from immersive story-telling explanations, for me. Why can a fighter only do a brutal strike or a crushing foot attack once per day? Umm ... because it's a daily power, that's why, don't ask questions. At least in 5th the fighter can only do his second wind and action surge once per short rest because it takes a lot out of him to push himself to those levels. There, explanation given that fits into the storytelling nature and has a level of verisimilitude. And there are only a few of those kinds of things, you're not hit over the head with a hundred of them that are daily powers just because each class needs a certain number of daily powers for the sake of the mechanics.

This is what I was getting at earlier in the thread when I said they just disguised things that are essentially similar/identical. Hell, your descriptions themselves are the same justifications posited by people defending 4e: “At least in 5th the fighter can only do his second wind and action surge once per short rest because it takes a lot out of him to push himself to those levels”, yeah, kinda like a fighter in 4e can only do certain attacks once per encounter or day because of the effort required. What’s weird to me about all this is how blithely people accept the justification worded one way, but reject it when described in a different fashion.

Playing card powers; Having each class have as many "powers" as any other; everything being aligned tightly to a grid ... it all just became more of a board game feel than an immersive role-playing game.

Obviously I can’t speak for you or your players but I had little issue with this. Mechanically I had players make less trip/shove options outside of powers that did so, but from an RP standpoint there wasn’t a conflict as a result of system mechanics.

Like, why in the world do "minions" with 1 hit-point exist? I know why the exist in terms of the game mechanics, but how does that fit into the world? Creatures that can do a good bit of damage, but are always on the verge of dying if you blow on them? It's such a game mechanic detached from the verisimilitude of the world the characters are living in; it's a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Minions exist as a narrative aid. They’re mooks that the heroes blow through on the way to the big bad, and are also a way of showing character progress. An example is that an Ogre might be a solo at level 2, a regular brute at 5, and a minion at 10. In the world at large, it’s still the same ogre, but the players have advanced sufficiently that its stats have changed in relation. FWIW, 5e pretty much still has minions. It’s just a result of bounded accuracy, that CR ½ nobodies can still get the occasional hit on high level PCs, but are typically cleaned out with 1-2 hits or middling AoE. This yet again goes back to the point I keep hammering away at, that many things are still functionally the same, just a little more opaque about it.

In 5th edition, if feels like I am casting an arcane ritual using my spellbook. In 4th edition, it feels like I am playing a card on the table. Everything was too meta-game mechanics wise in 4th.

This is just bizarre to me, because of all the sweeping changes made to class structure in 4e, casters probably changed the least in my opinion, save having fewer spells than before. (and even then, wizards still got extra dailies from their book). 4e was also the first to experiment with separated rituals, which lead to the compromise of ritual casting in 5e, which was an excellent change in my opinion. Pretty sure spell cards have become pretty popular for casters as well, and there’s no functional difference between that and a power card.

Tl;dr: Presentation isn’t meaningless, but I find a lot of the complaints about it to be strange and borderline hypocritical. That’s not directed at any individual either, just what I’ve seen here on enworld and elsewhere.