D&D 5E Let's talk about monster design philosophies, by way of examples.

[Reynard]

I very much liked how the 4e MM was organized. The start of a section would offer up some lore as an intro for the DM. The stat blocks were very easy to run for a DM. Minions! Each would have some suggested combat tactics, and at the end would be some lore based on the DC of a die roll by the players.

Knowing that a monster’s offensive style was based around brute, controller, skirmisher, lurker would absolutely help a DM know how that particular creature might also behave in a role-play situation.

In fact, if you wanted to emphasize lore/role-play style alongside the stat block…why not add a line out to the side with 3-5 keywords that emphasize the personality style of the monster? Something like:

Over-bearing, abusive, disrespectful
Cautious, sneaky, opportunistic
Voracious, predatory, lurking
Social, cunning, predatory
Daring, intelligent, tactical
Cowardly, brazen in numbers, selfish

View attachment 259052

I think the strongest part of the entire 4E design was the monsters.

 

[Voadam]

A quick note: I was casually flipping through MotM last night and noticed that there are new Kobolds and Hobgoblins 9I didn't check orcs or gnolls) but there are no new goblins. That feels weird to me.

Volo's had new statblocks for hobgoblins, kobolds, orcs, and gnolls, but no new goblin stat blocks. MotM was redoing stuff from Volo's and Mord's (and others) so it traces back to Volo's. Volo's and MotM do both have nilbog entries.

 

[delericho]

That's a long winded introduction to what i would like this thread to be about. What are your preferences for monster design? What monsters do you think are well designed -- and what are some you think are poorly designed?

In many ways, I thought 4e had the best approach - by clearly specifying the monster roles they helped construct easy encounters, and the minion/elite/solo thing was really useful.

I do think there's a bit of a problem in D&D in that the classic humanoids are all so very low level, which means there's not a great deal of room to move with them - like @Celebrim, I'm inclined to think that each monster should try to have a unique 'thing' that sets them apart (so fighting a goblin feels different from fighting a dwarf), but at those low levels that's tricky.

I also think the CR system is a massive problem, largely because it is too granular, and therefore gives the illusion of a control that the system just cannot possibly deliver. It would probably be better just to label monsters by tier (so a standard goblin becomes a tier 0 minion, or something). By not pretending it's too exact, they forewarn the DM that more care is needed.

Combine the loosely defined tiers with the better-defined and stated roles, and you potentially get something very powerful.

Oh, and to finish with an example that I really do like, but feel falls somewhat flat in 5e as implemented: Lair Actions. I like them, and I like the monsters that have them. The problem, for me, is that they're almost always tied to upper-CR monsters, but the majority of games take place in levels 1-10, which means they barely get a chance to be used. (Indeed, I've only ever managed to get one 5e campaign to double-digit levels, that one ended at 10th level, and there was therefore one monster that had Lair Actions.)

 

[Reynard]

Oh, and to finish with an example that I really do like, but feel falls somewhat flat in 5e as implemented: Lair Actions. I like them, and I like the monsters that have them. The problem, for me, is that they're almost always tied to upper-CR monsters, but the majority of games take place in levels 1-10, which means they barely get a chance to be used. (Indeed, I've only ever managed to get one 5e campaign to double-digit levels, that one ended at 10th level, and there was therefore one monster that had Lair Actions.)

Lair actions for lower CR things should definitely be a thing. Just as an example, I would be inclined to give an Owlbear encountered in its cave a couple cool lair action:

Deafening Hoot (Recharge 5-6): The cries of the owlbear reverberate off the walls of the cave. Enemies inside the lair take 2d6 thunder damage and are stunned. Those who make a successful DC 13 Constitution saving throw take half damage are are not stunned.

Awful Offal: All the fighting has kicked up the ages of bones and spore left by the owlbear. Enemies must make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of their next turn.

 

[Voadam]

Awful Offal: All the fighting has kicked up the ages of bones and spore left by the owlbear. Enemies must make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of their next turn.

Don't you dare turn the owlbear into a stinky monster!

 

[Reynard]

Don't you dare turn the owlbear into a stinky monster!

Have you ever been near an animal den? Eww.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The 5E MM goblin can be viewed here at 5esrd.com and it's pretty basic: it has a melee attack, a ranged attack, and an ability to take the Disengage action as a bonus action. Since it has no other possible bonus action available to it, the goblin should never be standing still. Of course, it does not have any extra movement, so its movement won't amount to much unless the GM builds the encounter to reward mobility. This goblin is our baseline.

There are, to me, two key elements of the 5e MM goblin that is a failure of the system that isn't being talked about but makes 5e combat far grindier and more boring than it would otherwise be. The relevant stats that to me make the goblin a problem are below.

Hit Points 7 (2d6)​

• Scimitar: Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) slashing damage.
• Shortbow: Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 80/320 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing damage.

Hit Points 7 is IMO a sucky number. It's too high to be a minion; the low level non specialists aren't going to reliably one shot it (the fighter and barbarian almost certainly will - but the cleric doing 1d6+3 damage with their mace and the wizard doing 1d10 damage with a firebolt really won't). I don't want to track four wounded goblins (I'd rather have minions with a damage threshold so e.g. 8 damage one shots or two hits of any strength; less bookkeeping).

The far more important part is the scimitar and shortbow stats. They are exactly the same (and they are close to the same for most other archers who all carry finesse weapons) meaning that there is little margin in e.g. a monk diving the back line to force the archers into melee. It's not that this is impossible to work tactically (in 4e this would be one of the two types of Skirmisher*) but on its own it's not very interesting. It's especially uninteresting if this is the main type of monster there is.

* For all Skirmishers were officially one monster role in 4e in reality they were two. The first was boring "balanced" monsters (as in the Goblin Warrior above) with no real strengths or weaknesses, and the second was for monsters with situational damage such as Sneak Attack that would do little damage if they couldn't do their thing and a lot if they could.

 

[Reynard]

The far more important part is the scimitar and shortbow stats. They are exactly the same (and they are close to the same for most other archers who all carry finesse weapons) meaning that there is little margin in e.g. a monk diving the back line to force the archers into melee. It's not that this is impossible to work tactically (in 4e this would be one of the two types of Skirmisher*) but on its own it's not very interesting. It's especially uninteresting if this is the main type of monster there is.

I think this view represents a failure to recognize that damage isn't the primary driver here, range is. If all your goblins do is stand there are fire arrows until a melee PC rushes them, sure, they are the same. But your archers should be moving in and out of cover and firing on the casters and opposed archers in the process. Monster design informs us what their use is -- although monster entries could do better about explicitly talking about tactics. Ranged plus Nimble Escape = opportunist snipers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this view represents a failure to recognize that damage isn't the primary driver here, range is. If all your goblins do is stand there are fire arrows until a melee PC rushes them, sure, they are the same. But your archers should be moving in and out of cover and firing on the casters and opposed archers in the process. Monster design informs us what their use is -- although monster entries could do better about explicitly talking about tactics. Ranged plus Nimble Escape = opportunist snipers.

I think that this fails to recognise just how easy cover is to obtain in 5e. Because you can break your move if there is cover (and you're not just fighting in a white room) no caster PC should either start or end their turn out of cover. Either you need to not nimble escape but instead ready actions (which is a very different feel from the one you want), to take disadvantage from cover, or to attack the melee PCs anyway.

And I think this also fails to recognise that goblins are far from the only offender. Even an ogre is minimally different at range from in melee. You use strength to hit and damage in melee and with thrown ranged weapons - or dexterity to hit and damage at range or with finesse weapons.

 

[Reynard]

I think that this fails to recognise just how easy cover is to obtain in 5e. Because you can break your move if there is cover (and you're not just fighting in a white room) no caster PC should either start or end their turn out of cover. Either you need to not nimble escape but instead ready actions (which is a very different feel from the one you want), to take disadvantage from cover, or to attack the melee PCs anyway.

Sure but ostensibly the goblins have home field advantage or set up the ambush most of the time. They (and by that I mean the GM) should certainly be maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses in any given encounter. But I mentioned that in the OP regarding MM goblins.

And I think this also fails to recognise that goblins are far from the only offender. Even an ogre is minimally different at range from in melee. You use strength to hit and damage in melee and with thrown ranged weapons - or dexterity to hit and damage at range or with finesse weapons.

Well, that's design as intended, I guess. 5E chose to make everything flat, so our design has to pull away from that. I think throwing rocks by ogres and giants should be saving throw based and result in damage and conditions (6d6 and prone, save means no prone and half damage or whatever).