Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7014791" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>Sure. And 5e ogres are more potent when coupled with the 5e version of a leader. They're also plenty potent on their own.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>also</em> 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 <em>really</em> got the <em>real</em> effect of some ogres.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I DMed and played throughout 4e's lifespan, so I'm sure there was a mixed bag of MM3/MV critters as well as earlier critters. That +25% damage thing comes directly from the post-MM3 math. </p><p></p><p>If it takes a monster three separate steps to be a Brute, including 4-5 attacks, sliding, an ongoing effect, and tracking three different heads at once, it's making me think WAAAAAAAAAY too much about it. 5e ogres do it in one: dealing <strong>massive damage with a friggin' club.</strong> Everything else is unnecessary cruft. That's what I'd call effective, elegant design, a joy to use, across multiple levels and even at scale. </p><p></p><p></p><p>As I pointed out, I don't think the differences between the Adults in 4e are really all that MORE noticable than the distinction between Adults in 5e. The big thing a lot of players are still going to remember is: that one breathed lightning at us in a desert, that other one breathed fire at us in a volcano. They're about the same in terms of distinction from each other (ie: not very), 5e's just simpler about it. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The 5e dragon bites you, deals phyiscal/lightning damage to you, then trades one of its claws for a shove. The 4e dragon bites you and shoves you and knocks you down. This is the same thing in essence - the differences there are subtle and nuanced and so end up often being mostly irrelevant in practice IMXP. At least when compared to "that blue thing breathes lightning" and "that red thing breathes fire." </p><p></p><p></p><p>A big part of my point is that if you have to start talking about "synergies" you're starting to admit that the thing on its own isn't distinct. 5e dragons can be mobile when they need to be. I don't feel like it's a problem that this ability isn't reserved for certain <em>flavors</em> of dragon, and forbidden to other flavors, because one dragon doing that and one dragon not doing that isn't really that big of a difference in play IMXP. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, more "builds," higher requirements for system mastery, more "you're doing it wrong," etc. All for very little effect when the players mostly remember the lightning vs. the fire. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Adult Blues with their BW recharged are choosing between a breath weapon that's "a lot of damage to a single target vs. AC" or an area attack that's significant damage to a cluster of targets vs. Reflex. The areas and targeting and damage values don't lead to a lot of distinction in practice IMXP. It might as well not be there. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nondescript is fine. Just having a different breath weapon shape/damage is a significant distinction when combined with their fiction elements. They don't <strong>need</strong> unique and particular powers that speak to specific combat roles to achieve distinction. They never really have needed that. The difference that everyone knows between red dragons and blue dragons is that one shoots fire and one shoots lightning, and adding to that is a lot of cruft for very little value. </p><p></p><p>Again, I'm cool with that being an opt-in element that 5e could certainly stand to add to its monsters. But I'm happy with 5e monsters as they are - straightforward - and if the option to make them more complex was available, I don't think I'd actually use that option much. It's not a thing I want or need from my monsters, so adding it to my games would be adding a lot of work for little reward. So I'm glad the base versions of these creatures aren't complex like that - I don't have to "build" my monster's identity out of 4-5 disparate parts assembled <em>just so</em>. I can just say "my blue dragon breathes lightning," and it's fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 7014791, member: 2067"] Sure. And 5e ogres are more potent when coupled with the 5e version of a leader. They're also plenty potent on their own. 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 [I]also[/I] 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 [I]really[/I] got the [I]real[/I] effect of some ogres. I DMed and played throughout 4e's lifespan, so I'm sure there was a mixed bag of MM3/MV critters as well as earlier critters. That +25% damage thing comes directly from the post-MM3 math. If it takes a monster three separate steps to be a Brute, including 4-5 attacks, sliding, an ongoing effect, and tracking three different heads at once, it's making me think WAAAAAAAAAY too much about it. 5e ogres do it in one: dealing [B]massive damage with a friggin' club.[/B] Everything else is unnecessary cruft. That's what I'd call effective, elegant design, a joy to use, across multiple levels and even at scale. As I pointed out, I don't think the differences between the Adults in 4e are really all that MORE noticable than the distinction between Adults in 5e. The big thing a lot of players are still going to remember is: that one breathed lightning at us in a desert, that other one breathed fire at us in a volcano. They're about the same in terms of distinction from each other (ie: not very), 5e's just simpler about it. The 5e dragon bites you, deals phyiscal/lightning damage to you, then trades one of its claws for a shove. The 4e dragon bites you and shoves you and knocks you down. This is the same thing in essence - the differences there are subtle and nuanced and so end up often being mostly irrelevant in practice IMXP. At least when compared to "that blue thing breathes lightning" and "that red thing breathes fire." A big part of my point is that if you have to start talking about "synergies" you're starting to admit that the thing on its own isn't distinct. 5e dragons can be mobile when they need to be. I don't feel like it's a problem that this ability isn't reserved for certain [I]flavors[/I] of dragon, and forbidden to other flavors, because one dragon doing that and one dragon not doing that isn't really that big of a difference in play IMXP. Yes, more "builds," higher requirements for system mastery, more "you're doing it wrong," etc. All for very little effect when the players mostly remember the lightning vs. the fire. Adult Blues with their BW recharged are choosing between a breath weapon that's "a lot of damage to a single target vs. AC" or an area attack that's significant damage to a cluster of targets vs. Reflex. The areas and targeting and damage values don't lead to a lot of distinction in practice IMXP. It might as well not be there. Nondescript is fine. Just having a different breath weapon shape/damage is a significant distinction when combined with their fiction elements. They don't [B]need[/B] unique and particular powers that speak to specific combat roles to achieve distinction. They never really have needed that. The difference that everyone knows between red dragons and blue dragons is that one shoots fire and one shoots lightning, and adding to that is a lot of cruft for very little value. Again, I'm cool with that being an opt-in element that 5e could certainly stand to add to its monsters. But I'm happy with 5e monsters as they are - straightforward - and if the option to make them more complex was available, I don't think I'd actually use that option much. It's not a thing I want or need from my monsters, so adding it to my games would be adding a lot of work for little reward. So I'm glad the base versions of these creatures aren't complex like that - I don't have to "build" my monster's identity out of 4-5 disparate parts assembled [I]just so[/I]. I can just say "my blue dragon breathes lightning," and it's fine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters
Top