D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[Tony Vargas]

It think you miss 4ed monster. They were designed to live and be functional on a combat grid.
5ed monster are more alive.

Well, not so alive when hit by a big AE spell that kills them even with a successful save for half damage.

Really, though, except for that and other compromises made for fast combat, and the space compromise of listing spells instead of spelling(npi) out what they do in each stat block, 5e monsters are very much like 4e (and PF, and 1e) monsters.

If the NPC has the shield and counterspell spells in their spell list, than of course I as the DM know they can be used as reactions. Why would I need it listed again?

Because the DM might not have those particular spells memorized. He might well be running on an impression of the Shield spell formed before there were reactions, for instance.

The obvious solution, is to look up the spells when you're doing prep, assuming you're doing prep. If you're using digital content, you can always copy/paste together the monster stat block and the spells into a more complete write-up to make reference that much easier.

I really liked that about 4e monsters - for simple ones. But I make a lot of stat blocks for high level / epic monsters and I found that 4e stat blocks became very cumbersome to make add the level of options and creativity that I feel high CR / epic monsters need.

An Epic Solo Kraken I customized for a 26th level party was so over the top that Monster Builder couldn't handle it - well, it could, but it couldn't put it in a legible format - I ended up 'breaking' it into 3 monster write-ups, one with all it's physical powers as a giant octopoid, one with all its magical powers (including reprised 9th level spells obviously cut from 4e with good reason, but fun for a monster), and one with it's psionic powers.

Knowing how shield, or counterspell works, isn't an unreasonable expectation I don't think. That just seems like a lot of wasted space to me.

Nod. For you, it is. For someone else, it might not have been. The game /is/ mostly pointed at long-time and returning players and experienced DMs, accustomed to past editions, and willing/able to go through the manageable number of differences between them and 5e. Especially with a 1st level spell like Shield or a significant one like Counterspell (with Dispel Magic, it contributes to the impression of what magic /is/ in 5e). So it wasn't a bad decision. Just one that makes extra work for new or casual DMs - who are likely in the distinct minority, anyway.

If the BBEG's response to the news of five strangers walking into town is for him and five of his hardest minions to fireball the ing town hall on the off chance that these must be the foretold heroes, then by the time the actual PCs turn up then the town will be a smoking ruin.

Sounds like a highly verisimilitudinous set-up.

 

[dave2008]

An Epic Solo Kraken I customized for a 26th level party was so over the top that Monster Builder couldn't handle it - well, it could, but it couldn't put it in a legible format - I ended up 'breaking' it into 3 monster write-ups, one with all it's physical powers as a giant octopoid, one with all its magical powers (including reprised 9th level spells obviously cut from 4e with good reason, but fun for a monster), and one with it's psionic powers.

I had the same problem with the monster builder too. It definitely couldn't handle my revised Tiamat.

 

[dave2008]

Well I understand your instinctive reaction but aren't you forgetting something here?

My "upgrades" would not make Juiblex be any more powerful against your party.

That is basically true in your example if I chose not to use those abilities as the range attacks and movement definitely make it more deadly, not to mention the slime spawns you mentioned. However, I think I was thinking more about my Juiblex which also does more damage.

In other words, I don't see your concern as a good argument for not making "wellbuilt" epic threats, and I certainly don't buy it as a reason to let the designers off the hook.

In this case you might not need any tricks up your sleeve, but I can't imagine you could go an entire level 1-20 campaign without ever needing them.

And even if you do - what's the harm in adding these tricks.

No, when I'm paying WotC to create epic level monsters, my expectations are higher than the Juiblex we were given.

Listen, I feel your pain and I also think high and epic level monsters are too weak. I was generally disappointed with the demon lords from OotA (that's why a remade them all). However, I think there is a segment of the D&D population for which they are just fine. That makes me lean to them not necessarily being poorly designed, they are just not designed for how I want them.

On the other hand, if you look at the difference between Tiamat and the Tarrasque it seems to be some acknowledgement of a flawed approach in the MM.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - I can appreciate what you are saying here and feel for you that 5e isn't what you want it to be, but I have a very different idea of a cool image.

I don't see why we should have to choose one or the other when the game could be improved to support both

 

[CapnZapp]

It think you miss 4ed monster. They were designed to live and be functional on a combat grid.
5ed monster are more alive.

I can't decide if you're trolling me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't decide if you're trolling me.

Apply fire or acid - just to be sure. ;P

 

[Krachek]

I can't decide if you're trolling me.

Gently!
But yourself present your point with a kind of Trolling underneath.

But go back to your Thread.

Jubilex, a Diviner or an ArchDruid are not only a block of stats.
They lived in a world, have minions, allies, goals, enemies.
Of course you can throw them in a combat just to test their stat block,
but it would be more fun to build a story and a setup around them.
It is the way that 5ed have taken.

 

[dave2008]

Gently!
But yourself present your point with a kind of Trolling underneath.

But go back to your Thread.

Jubilex, a Diviner or an ArchDruid are not only a block of stats.
They lived in a world, have minions, allies, goals, enemies.
Of course you can throw them in a combat just to test their stat block,
but it would be more fun to build a story and a setup around them.
It is the way that 5ed have taken.

Capps' point is that we could have a better stat block and everything you list. They are not mutually exclusive

 

[OB1]

I don't see why we should have to choose one or the other when the game could be improved to support both

There are many ways to improve the game, and choices must be made on how to do so. I'd prefer they continue to improve by maximizing support and improvements for the current encounter system rather than offer a second path.

That said, I think if a second path is desired by enough players, it could be interesting to introduce such an option as a unique alternate campaign setting. It could still be based of the PHB but introduce a new MM/DMG/Setting book that rewrites how encounters are done and provides monsters that work with the new encounter rules.

 

[Rhenny]

I love when the advice in pre-written adventures includes how npc/monsters will act for the encounter or the first 3 rounds,etc. This is a great help. But maybe that type of advice belongs in the adventure itself rather than the monster Manuel/base stat block. Actions of most creatures are influenced by setting/environment/situation. That said, having guidelines in the monster Manuel might be nice, but the extra space required would limit other entries.