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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7017228" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>At least you admit it. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>Indeed, all games are. Nothing a game could do can really stop it. In fact, you could even say that 5e primes the pump a bit, /requiring/ some inspiration on the DM's side of the screen.</p><p></p><p> ...like memorizing 80 page of spells (see below)... Not so much with monsters, really. The DM needs to handle the monsters and make them interesting. Some may do that via deep system mastery, others by seat-of-the-pants improve, and many things in-between.</p><p></p><p>But, it doesn't hurt to put a little more into the monsters, especially a few 'extras' at the end of a block say. Could be nice to have. JMHO.</p><p></p><p> I think that's all the thread really calls for from 5e. </p><p></p><p> Everyone doing many of the exact same things is an issue, sure. Not a big one, I don't think - they do them in different combinations, they're still differentiated. (As long as there aren't definite must-have spells, then everyone who has those does 'em a lot, and become defined by them.)</p><p></p><p>In 5e, even with it's slow pace of releases, most of 'em are. There's that elemental supplement with a number of spells, and couple in SCAG. There'll be more, of course.</p><p></p><p>And, yeah, you can get a lot of stuff like that memorized after a bit. If you're new, of course, you obviously haven't, or if you've gone through the process for a few successive editions, you can get them confused (an affliction I like to call 'versionitis,' when I'm making light of my suffering). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> The downside with memorizing much of what everyone can do is that, well, you know what some creature you have no logical reason to know things about can do, if I were overly concerned with immersion I might make more of that, but I'm just noting it.</p><p></p><p>That is the nicest spin on arguing over spell descriptions I've heard in a while. But that's what you're talking about. </p><p></p><p>Yes, long, ambiguous spell descriptions can lead to disagreements, debates, even arguments that can suck up game time and even become acrimonious. </p><p></p><p> That wasn't directed at your opinions about monsters, but at the old edition war saw about fighters casting spells. </p><p>Hazard of multi-quoting. </p><p></p><p> If you can be bothered to memorize 80 pages of spells, but not 5 pages of 'how to read a power,' sure, I can understand how you'd find a list of spells simpler to deal with than a few clearly laid out powers using the terminology from those 5 pages you didn't memorize. It's just a matter of sunk effort. </p><p></p><p> You say that like there's something wrong with PCs being distinctive. </p><p></p><p> I always find it interesting what pushes that button and what doesn't. Every caster on earth using mostly the same spells, whether they're conduits for miracles from the gods or studious bookworms or have power in their blood or whatever? OK? An NPC caster having different spells than the party wizard? A problem? :shrug: Ultimately, of course, as DM's we can give monsters or NPCs whatever we want. </p><p></p><p>But, y'know, there /were/ any number of PC-race entries in the 4e MM that had the same racial ability as PCs of that race, and instances of NPCs of a 'class' using a selection of powers from that class (which, let's face it, any give PC only got a fraction of the available powers) - 4e also left the door open to creating NPCs using the PC rules if the DM felt it appropriate, though it cautioned against it for the reason you site (PCs are created in too much detail), if it were an issue, it was an option. What's more, I don't feel like 5e's gotten as far from that as either you or the OP were suggesting. 5e monster stat blocks /are/ quite different from PC character sheets because monsters need less detail and players need more options and distinctiveness, monsters' multi-attack is different from PCs' Extra Attack, monsters have all sorts of special abilities PCs do not, etc... spells stand out from that by being 'samey,' I suppose, but they're mostly just a short-cut, re-using the closest available system to model something that'd probably be a bit different if the game had the resources to model the monster closer to the 'fiction.' </p><p></p><p>I don't think the OP is wrong for wanting to go that extra mile.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7017228, member: 996"] At least you admit it. ;) Indeed, all games are. Nothing a game could do can really stop it. In fact, you could even say that 5e primes the pump a bit, /requiring/ some inspiration on the DM's side of the screen. ...like memorizing 80 page of spells (see below)... Not so much with monsters, really. The DM needs to handle the monsters and make them interesting. Some may do that via deep system mastery, others by seat-of-the-pants improve, and many things in-between. But, it doesn't hurt to put a little more into the monsters, especially a few 'extras' at the end of a block say. Could be nice to have. JMHO. I think that's all the thread really calls for from 5e. Everyone doing many of the exact same things is an issue, sure. Not a big one, I don't think - they do them in different combinations, they're still differentiated. (As long as there aren't definite must-have spells, then everyone who has those does 'em a lot, and become defined by them.) In 5e, even with it's slow pace of releases, most of 'em are. There's that elemental supplement with a number of spells, and couple in SCAG. There'll be more, of course. And, yeah, you can get a lot of stuff like that memorized after a bit. If you're new, of course, you obviously haven't, or if you've gone through the process for a few successive editions, you can get them confused (an affliction I like to call 'versionitis,' when I'm making light of my suffering). ;) The downside with memorizing much of what everyone can do is that, well, you know what some creature you have no logical reason to know things about can do, if I were overly concerned with immersion I might make more of that, but I'm just noting it. That is the nicest spin on arguing over spell descriptions I've heard in a while. But that's what you're talking about. Yes, long, ambiguous spell descriptions can lead to disagreements, debates, even arguments that can suck up game time and even become acrimonious. That wasn't directed at your opinions about monsters, but at the old edition war saw about fighters casting spells. Hazard of multi-quoting. If you can be bothered to memorize 80 pages of spells, but not 5 pages of 'how to read a power,' sure, I can understand how you'd find a list of spells simpler to deal with than a few clearly laid out powers using the terminology from those 5 pages you didn't memorize. It's just a matter of sunk effort. You say that like there's something wrong with PCs being distinctive. I always find it interesting what pushes that button and what doesn't. Every caster on earth using mostly the same spells, whether they're conduits for miracles from the gods or studious bookworms or have power in their blood or whatever? OK? An NPC caster having different spells than the party wizard? A problem? :shrug: Ultimately, of course, as DM's we can give monsters or NPCs whatever we want. But, y'know, there /were/ any number of PC-race entries in the 4e MM that had the same racial ability as PCs of that race, and instances of NPCs of a 'class' using a selection of powers from that class (which, let's face it, any give PC only got a fraction of the available powers) - 4e also left the door open to creating NPCs using the PC rules if the DM felt it appropriate, though it cautioned against it for the reason you site (PCs are created in too much detail), if it were an issue, it was an option. What's more, I don't feel like 5e's gotten as far from that as either you or the OP were suggesting. 5e monster stat blocks /are/ quite different from PC character sheets because monsters need less detail and players need more options and distinctiveness, monsters' multi-attack is different from PCs' Extra Attack, monsters have all sorts of special abilities PCs do not, etc... spells stand out from that by being 'samey,' I suppose, but they're mostly just a short-cut, re-using the closest available system to model something that'd probably be a bit different if the game had the resources to model the monster closer to the 'fiction.' I don't think the OP is wrong for wanting to go that extra mile. [/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