Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 8747609" data-attributes="member: 22424">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&amp;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 [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER], 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.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 8747609, member: 22424"] 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 [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER], 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 [I]one[/I] monster that had Lair Actions.) [/QUOTE]

Verification