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

[Sacrosanct]

Let me add one line to this "definition":

A "well built" monster displays evidence the designer is aware of what tricks level-appropriate heroes might have up their sleeves.

Here's the problem. This is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not a monster/bad guy is aware of tricks by opponents has nothing to do with the level or power or it or the party, but the monster's intelligence and experience. A moderately intelligent CR 1/8 creature/NPC will know that tougher looking opponents are more dangerous and have more options available to them. Conversely, a very low INT CR15 creature won't have a clue because it doesn't have the mental capacity to recognize such things. Therefore, it's not up the designer to hard code in reactions into monsters for every possible level appropriate PC that monster might face. For one, that's your job as the DM because every table of players have different "tricks' they may or may not use and only you, not the designers, know your table. Secondly, "level appropriate' is not nearly as important in 5e with bounded accuracy. CR1 monsters are still effective against higher level PCs depending on who they are used.

Or in even blunter terms: any out of the blue ambush is a weak ambush, or the game isn't fun.

This is an unstated agreement or unwritten contract. Normally we don't like to talk about it since it kind of kills the illusion. But when people tell me I could have used my NPCs in a much more deadly fashion, my only response is:

Maybe so for you, but then don't create a thread presenting your experience as a poor game design problem when it's you who is intentionally neutering the abilities of the bad guys so the players always win.

Let me only add that this is why solo boss encounters have so little support in 5E.

"More monsters" solve nearly every niggle we might be having with the 5E combat model, but it also means kissing goodbye to the very cool image of all the heroes fighting a fearsome epic monster on its lonesome for, say, half a dozen rounds, the fight waxing and waning, until the heroes finally manage to obliterate the monster, with half their numbers lying dead and scattered around.

I am personally convinced this won't be solved until WotC relents and makes changes to the way spells are an all or nothing proposition (except numeric effects like damage)...

We've already established how it's entirely possible to have long running heroic encounters, but your playstyle is what's preventing that by effectively neutering the bad guys in your OP's example. That's on you, not WotC, so there's nothing for them to solve. WoTC can't solve individual player's problems.

 

[robus]

Like this:

Cantrips (at will): fire bolt, light, mage hand, prestidigitation
1st level (4 slots): detect magic, mage armor, magic
missile, shield
2nd level (3 slots): misty step, suggestion
3rd level (3 slots): counterspell, fireball, fly
4th level (3 slots): greater invisibility, ice storm
5th level (1 slot): cone of cold

Actions:
Cast Cone of Cold: 60 foot cone dealing 8d8 cold damage (Con save for half)
Cast Ice Storm: 20-foot-radius, 40-foot-high cylinder within 300 feet deals 2d8
bludgeoning damage and 4d6 cold damage (Dex save for half)
Cast Greater Invisibility: You or touched creature becomes invisible while concentration up to 1 minute

Reactions:
Shield: The mage gains +5 AC until the start of his next turn, including against the triggering attack, and becomes immune to Magic Missile.
Counterspell: The mage automatically counterspells a spell of 3rd level or lower, or makes a spellcasting check to counterspell (d20+6 vs 10+spell level) if the spell is of higher level.

As you can see stat blocks should make no attempt to reproduce spells in every detail.

I really like this and as I abbreviate stat blocks for use at the table I'll be adopting this style in future. Though I will note which spell slot the Spellcasting Actions are sourced from.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I really like this and as I abbreviate stat blocks for use at the table I'll be adopting this style in future. Though I will note which spell slot the Spellcasting Actions are sourced from.

I guess it's all about preference, because I find that totally redundant. You already have the spell list above. All that additional info does is repeat what's already there. 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? For me, save the space for other more important information.

 

[CapnZapp]

I generally agree with this design approach, however, I would also note that higher level you go the more tricks you need and the more cumbersome this style of stat block becomes. Finally, if the action is describing a cast spell I think it should say so in the description. As you have it now it appears like an at-will cone of cold, etc.

Note how I'm suggesting only three pre-written actions. After all, there is little reason for the 3E style stat blocks where monsters had dozens of spell like abilities, when it will on average live only for 1-3 rounds of combat.

So I'd like to argue that things would be much more helpful than cumbersome

PS. Yes, this is a crude draft made for illustrating my point only, and should be refined before entering print. (I agree to your point to such a degree I won't even bring up the fact the three example actions do state they're cast actions...)

 

[robus]

I guess it's all about preference, because I find that totally redundant. You already have the spell list above. All that additional info does is repeat what's already there. 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? For me, save the space for other more important information.

But I also have a spell sheet to refer to as well because I haven't memorized the spells yet (if ever) and I don't want to be flipping through the PHB at the table. So I think having the "action" spells summarized will be very helpful and efficient.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's the problem. This is fundamentally flawed. Whether or not a monster/bad guy is aware of tricks by opponents has nothing to do with the level or power or it or the party, but the monster's intelligence and experience.

If you think I mean any old blob or goon should have sophisticated scry and teleport abilities just because they're high CR you're mistaken.

Of course I mean for the monsters that have the mental capacity to use them convincingly.

That said, you can take "realism" too far. It is a game, after all.

You can never excuse or justify how a "battlefield general" isn't equipped to deal with the most basic of kiting strategies.

Juibilex is perhaps the perfect example. He's basically just a huge giant blob with no strategy to speak of. Surely it's correct to not give him spells or battleplans?

Sure, but it is still a grave error to not let him(?) project a threat to parties capable of the most basic of control tactics.

As a designer you could have done your work without giving him things only intelligent creatures should be able to utilize.

For instance, I had to improve the Juibilex stat block or even my then mid-level party could take him out without breaking a sweat.

I have him two essential upgrades:
a) the ability to eject an ooze that flies across the room, like popping a zit
b) the mystical ability to switch places with any ooze, described as the essence of Juiblex suddenly moving into the ooze expanding and deforming it, while the old one is reduced to a mostly empty husk
(details available on request)

Together they vastly increase the threat level of the Juiblex stat block to truly match its CR 21(?) rating. Do note neither requires any "intelligence" beyond a basic hunger. They operate on "mystical instinct".

Point is: there is no reason to abandon the goal of making D&D a good game, just because you desire it to make sense too

Yes, that's true. I'm not increasing his rating when I give him these abilities. Instead I'd say his published CR is vastly overrated.

Yes, against a standard hack and slash party that insists on meeting him face to "face" he's dangerous. But any real level 15ish party will not defeat him that way. And my party would probably have killed him back when they were single digit level:
- one character to negate regeneration (trivial with chill touch)
- one character to make sure a continual retreat isn't problematic, and/or making sure Juiblex never catches up to the heroes
- three characters pouring everything they have into ranged fire

Do note that even adding a handful of allies changes the equation dramatically! Sure it sounds awesome to kill a demon lord at level 9, but add even half a dozen other critters (even low CR oozes) and such a party does not have the stamina to complete the victory before starting to take unacceptably high risks.

But as a SOLO monster (remember I'm mostly discussing BBEGs here. If the MM had had any CR 19 run of the mill henchmen they would probably be alright) it does not function.

With my quick two changes, it stands a much greater chance of actually projecting any danger to a level-appropriate party. Now it can 1) create its own allies and 2) use them to reach its enemies in a way that is 3) not immediately easy to shut down

Not even Forcecage can defeat it, since with no allies there's no point to the spell. (You could use it to flee the scene though, which is a use I have no problems with). Point is, with no ranged attacks or teleport Forcecage is an instawin button.

There should be no instawin buttons on epic demon lords. Conversely, if there are instawin buttons, the monster isn't epic, and should have a CR lower than 21.

 

[dave2008]

Note how I'm suggesting only three pre-written actions.

I think I can get on board with that as a baseline.

I have been doing something similar, though I typical give a line or two to a unique signature spell/magical effect and have the listed spells as extra flavor. I do think the underlining is a good idea and though providing a line for reactions takes up a lot of real estate it is still probably worth it in general.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But I also have a spell sheet to refer to as well because I haven't memorized the spells yet (if ever) and I don't want to be flipping through the PHB at the table. So I think having the "action" spells summarized will be very helpful and efficient.

That's part of DM prep though--to be at least somewhat familiar with the abilities of the creatures you're controlling. 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. I don't want to run an adventure that's 130 pages long when it could be 75 pages just because monster stat blocks take up an entire page in the adventure. Christ, if I did that with Felk Mor, that would be a 400 page adventure lol. And speaking of turning pages, I don't want to flip through 100 pages of adventures to get to different areas when I could be flipping only through half that. Also, as you play more of the game, you remember more and more of these things, and it ends up where not even you are using those additional descriptions because you don't need them.

Again, a preference issue, I get that. But I'm glad they don't do that in 5e, because it keeps page count (and costs) down for things I don't need.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess it's all about preference, because I find that totally redundant. You already have the spell list above. All that additional info does is repeat what's already there.

Its not there, it's in the Players Handbook. Had it been there I would not need to make this suggestion.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's part of DM prep though--to be at least somewhat familiar with the abilities of the creatures you're controlling. Knowing how shield, or counterspell works, isn't an unreasonable expectation I don't think.

You're missing at least half my point.

The half you're missing is that it is incredibly easy for an overworked DM to forget about a monster's reactions unless they're spelled out right in front of you.

The other half is indeed mostly geared towards beginning Dungeon Masters. But I would gladly help them out even if it means having to read about Shield a couple of times.

As I see it, casting Shield is no different from the way a Knight or Drow Elite Warrior has access to a Parry reaction, and should be equally visible to the DM.