D&D 5E Low CRs and "Boring" Monsters: Ogre

[pemerton]

How is that not an RPG?

Because the fiction doesn't matter to resolution.

Now, I'm not getting that understanding of RPGing out of the meaning of "roleplay" - n my view that an arid semantic semanitc exercise that leads to an uninterestinf dead-end.

I'm getting that understanding of RPGing from thinking about what actually made classic D&D - the original RPG, which all later ones more-or-less set out to emulate or build on in some fashion or other - different from board games (then and now).

Here's a simple illustration of the point: in Wrath of Arshadeloon (sp?), if a player decides s/he want to tunnel through the walls to move from tile A to tile B, s/he can't. The game defines the permissible moves for each "role". (Games like Forbidden Desert, in which each player takes on a particular functionally-identified persona, are similar.)

Some wargames are open-ended in a way that board games are not - eg it's likely that the Chainmail rules for sapping had their origins in some player at Gygax's table announcing a sapping attempt - but in a wargame eahc player doesn't occupy some distinct role. Each is manipulating an entire army.

A RPG combines the open-endedness, fiction-matters-to-resolution, no-finite-list-of-permissible-moves of a Chainmail-style wargame with taking on the role of an individual persona within the shared fiction. This is as true in a cutting-edge game of (say) Over the Edge or DitV as it is of a grognardian dungeon crawl, or a 2nd ed era railroad.

playing a fighter built around tanking that never utters a word or improvises actions is still roleplaying

Provided the player is engaging the fiction via his/her action declaratins (eg having regard to the terrain, the location of walls, etc) then I would agree. There can be marginal cases - which were discussed quite a bi in the 4e era - where all the fiction becomes subsumed into the mechanics (eg via concepts like "difficult terrain", "blocking terrain", etc). If the player of the fighter doesn't think about the fiction until it has been "mechanised" in this way, then the sense in which s/he is RPGing is pretty thin.

And let me add for the sake of clarity: none of the above means that I agree with [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] as to what RPGing consists in. Based on both the descriptions and the examples provided, Sacrosanct seems to identify RPGing primiarily with "colour", with evocative descriptions and elucidated motivations.

Personally, I don't see this sort of stuff as of the essence of RPGing (as I explained in a relatively recent thread) - I prefer it to emerge out of engaging the ingame situation understood in terms of goals, functions (along the lines of the "required duties of a manager" that you referred to), obstacles, etc.

In the case of the ogre, for instance, I'd ask first what it's narrative purpose is - why am I (as GM) placing an ogre in my game at all? If the point of the ogre is to do nothing more than highlight the threat posed by bestial chaos, that gives a reason to have it throw a half-eaten cow at the PCs. But this narrative purpose and logic is what would then inform my descriptions and evocation of colour at the game table; not the other way around.

 

[pemerton]

To be ever so slightly nitpicky, "Push" meant each square they were to was further from you than the last.

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Character A is on space 8 and character B is on space 5. A "push one square" effect could move them to point 1, 2, or 3. Unless I'm grossly misremembering things.

You're not.

A push can't take you through blocking terrain, though, so you can't push through a wall. Exactly how you can push depends on the fiction. There is the passage from the DMG that I quoted earlier (about forced movement from a giant's club knocking a victim clean over a pit). And there is this from the Essentials Rules Compendium (p 213):

Forced movement is normally two-dimensional; all the squares of the movement must be on the same horizontal plane. Forced movement can become three-dimensional when the target is flying, is moved through a substance such as water, or is on a non-horizontal surface, such as an incline, that supports it. This means an earthbound target cannot normally be pushed to a square in the air, but a hovering target can be. Similarly, a target can be pulled down a flight of stairs, and it can be slid in any direction underwater.​

Incidentally, this also relates to my reply to [MENTION=6855537]Dualazi[/MENTION] about "what is RPGing" - we can see from this discussion that adjudicating forced movement depends upon the fiction. It seems pretty clear to me that if A has grabbed B, and is then able to push B, then (provided A is strong enough to lift B) A can "push" (ie, in this context, lift) B up. That is how you would hurl someone over a rampart in 4e.

The word I was technically looking for was rampart, not parapet. Bull Rush does not work because it is explicitly limited to a push effect - limited to the direction away from the opposing combatant. To push somebody off a rampart, they need to be moved laterally - perpendicular to the combatants - in addition to moving them over any safety wall or parapet.

So you're envisaging a (say) shoulder-high wall, and then picking an enemy up and throwing them over it?

In 5e, that looks like a grapple attack (to take hold of the victim) followed by a shove attack - although in this case it's not literally a shove but rather hurling someone. (I don't think that throwing someone over a wall counts as a free object interaction, does it?)

In 4e that looks like a grab action (to take hold of the victim) followed by a bull rush-type action (pushing 1 sq, but not following the victim into its square).

I'm missing what the functional difference is. (Yes, they have different action economies of "attack" vs "action" which engage with the "extra attack" ability, but 4e characters have access to powers that change their individual action economy - eg first grab the victim, then use the 2nd lvl fighter utility Forceful Drag to slide the victim over the rampart.)

 

[Xeviat]

You're not.

A push can't take you through blocking terrain, though, so you can't push through a wall. Exactly how you can push depends on the fiction. There is the passage from the DMG that I quoted earlier (about forced movement from a giant's club knocking a victim clean over a pit). And there is this from the Essentials Rules Compendium (p 213):

That snip you caught seems to be a change on original 4E stuff. I seem to remember a rule on getting an extra saving throw to avoid forced movement when it would push you into hindering terrain, like over a cliff or into lava. I gave all of my non-essentials 4E books to a friend and I don't think the online compendium has that in there, but that's neither here nor there. That's definitely a situation where page 42 would step in. I wouldn't require a grab first; the point isn't to hold the person still (the condition inflicted by a grab). The point is to push them. If the height of the wall his hindering your ability to push them, then you take a penalty on the check.

This whole side path is ignoring half of my first post, but it does speak to the "boring" half of my OP. Improvised actions can add spice and flavor to any monster, especially if the system gives you halfway decent guidelines on such actions. Case in point, I found the hydra to be a little lacking in 5E after coming off of 4E. I wasn't familiar with the 4E Hydra, but I was familiar with monsters having special actions to make combat with them unique. So, I had the hydra use two of it's bites to grab two of the PCs and pull them under the water. A little drowning did a whole lot to add urgency to the fight (and the bard ended up using his shiny new "cause fear" spell to get the hydra to "drop what it was holding", the players). But, the thing about the hydra is ...

Hydra, CR 7

HP: 172 (CR 7)
AC: 15 (default for CR 7)
Damage: 50 (CR 7)
Attack: +8 (2 higher than CR 7, so +1 to offensive CR)

Modifiers
Regeneration: Sort of has regeneration 20. Regeneration says to add effective HP equal to 3x the regeneration amount. That would be +60 HP. That would raise it's defensive CR to 11, baseline 17 AC, so now it has 2 less AC, for a final defensive CR of 10. Since (10+8)/2 is 9, and the Hydra's CR is 8, I think they didn't count it's "Multiple Heads" ability as full fledged regeneration.

The thing about the Hydra is that it's not weak for it's CR. Against a group that isn't prepped for a Hydra (isn't metagaming or doesn't happen to have a wizard whose bread and butter was fireball and scorching ray), the hydra is a little strong for it's CR.

The ogre is not strong for it's CR. The bandit captain's damage is 17 compared to the Ogre's 13, but at least the bandit captain can spread those attacks across multiple targets when used as a low level "boss" type creature. The bandit captain has 65 HP compared to the ogre's 59. The bandit captain has AC 15 compared to the Ogre's 11. Reducing the Ogre to CR 1 would be "mathematically" appropriate by the DMG guidelines. Heck, damage 13 isn't even that outlandish for a CR 1 creature. The hobgoblin does 12 when it has a buddy near by, and it's CR 1/2. The bugbear does 11, or 18 with ambush (with ambush, it's average is 13), and it's CR 1. Quasit can do 10 with it's claws, but that's gate kept behind a really low save DC. Imp can do 15, but same story. A copper wyrmling is CR 1, and can pop you and your friends with a damage 18 breath weapon. Duergar do 11 when enlarged ...

Heck, the giant centipede has a 14 damage bite and is CR 1/4, and the giant poisonous snake's is 16 for the same CR.

But, I would want the ogre to be CR 2. If one shows up for a level 1 party, I want them to be terrified. I want them to run. They can't take this. As it stands ... with 59 HP ... (hiding some quick check for a basic party), they could take the ogre in 2 rounds, and as long as the fighter is the one taking the big hit (and the cleric uses a handy healing word to keep them up), be non the worse for wear. I want them to feel the ogre. Doubling it's damage, like I originally suggested by giving them multiattack, would probably be a bad idea, but DMG guidelines set 15-20 as appropriate CR 2 damage so a little bump could be good to make them worthy of their CR 2. Some weight to their attack would be good, like a prone or a knockback, but I'd say that about all giants; I cannot imagine a cloud giant kicking someone and them not going flying like a football (okay, most adventurers aren't full of air, so not quite as far). But ... all the fun improvisation doesn't help improve a monster's bad stats that don't match up to what a CR 2 monster should be.

 

[pemerton]

That snip you caught seems to be a change on original 4E stuff. I seem to remember a rule on getting an extra saving throw to avoid forced movement when it would push you into hindering terrain, like over a cliff or into lava.

Correct. If you hurl your enemy over a parapet or rampart, s/he gets a saving throw to hang on, prone. I'm not sure which "snip" you mean, but if you're talking about the one from the DMG that is not a change to anything. It's an example where, instead of the person getting a save to avoid being knocked into the pit, the GM can rule that the person goes flying clean over the pit.

It's "rulings not rules" before that was cool!

I wouldn't require a grab first; the point isn't to hold the person still (the condition inflicted by a grab). The point is to push them. If the height of the wall his hindering your ability to push them, then you take a penalty on the check.

Sure, that's another option. I was putting weight on the idea of throwing or hurling them over the wall, which made me think of grabbing them first. If it's a parapet rather than a wall, then absolutely a single push should do the job, perhaps with a -2 because the wall is the equivalent of cover.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION], of all the posts of mine that you've laughed at (now 150+? I'm in the top 20 for laughs on the XP stats page, and no one else thinks I'm funny!), this has to be the strangest. It's a purely factual correction of the availability of some 4e material:

No you didn't. I got forced movement as a rider on p 42 of my DMG. I got terrain powers, which include examples of riders, in my DMG2. I got a more systematic treatment or improvised conditions by [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION] as a free article from the WotC website.

 

[guachi]

But, I would want the ogre to be CR 2. If one shows up for a level 1 party, I want them to be terrified. I want them to run. They can't take this. As it stands ... with 59 HP ... (hiding some quick check for a basic party), they could take the ogre in 2 rounds, and as long as the fighter is the one taking the big hit (and the cleric uses a handy healing word to keep them up), be non the worse for wear. I want them to feel the ogre. Doubling it's damage, like I originally suggested by giving them multiattack, would probably be a bad idea, but DMG guidelines set 15-20 as appropriate CR 2 damage so a little bump could be good to make them worthy of their CR 2. Some weight to their attack would be good, like a prone or a knockback, but I'd say that about all giants; I cannot imagine a cloud giant kicking someone and them not going flying like a football (okay, most adventurers aren't full of air, so not quite as far). But ... all the fun improvisation doesn't help improve a monster's bad stats that don't match up to what a CR 2 monster should be.

Lots snipped except your summary.

As Hemlock showed (and contrary to what I had assumed) a party of four 1st level PCs (well, four simple martial PCs) at full health have a better than average chance to take on a CR2 Bandit Captain. And we know a Bandit Captain obliterates an Ogre 100% of the time with 60% health remaining. So we can assume that a party of 4 1st level PCs (at least four simple martial PCs) would destroy an Ogre. I'd be interested to have Hemlock run a simple cage match fight.

Meh, maybe I should just make an Ogre CR 1.5 and adjust its XP to 300. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Marketing, if I had to guess. Gets the product into places it wouldn't otherwise be and keeps it separate and distinct from mainline D&D. Since I'm not overly familiar with it, a quick google search reveals this description:

"A cooperative game of adventure for 1-5 players set in the world of Dungeons & Dragons.

A heavy shadow falls across the land, cast by a dark spire that belches smoke and oozes fiery lava. A cave mouth leads to a maze of tunnels and chambers, and deep within this monster-infested labyrinth lurks the most terrifying creature of all: a red dragon!

Designed for 1-5 players, this boardgame features multiple scenarios, challenging quests, and cooperative game play.
Each player selects a hero; a rogue, thief, warrior, cleric, or wizard. On their turn, each player can explore further into the dungeon (turn over new tiles), move through the already explored parts of the dungeon, and fight monsters. When a new dungeon tile is revealed, there is typically an encounter of some sort, and new monsters to fight are added. Slain monsters reward the players with treasure, and experience points, allowing them to level up and increase their skills during play. Players must cooperate to stay alive, slay the monsters, and achieve the goal of their quest. Each scenario has a different goal - from retrieving a relic, to slaying a vampire lord."

So, we have distinct character classes, experience and treasure gain, exploration mechanics, and typically an over-arching goal. How is that not an RPG? Saying that this isn't an RPG is like saying Final Fantasy games aren't RPGs because the plot and characters adhere to a set script and you (the player) can only adjust their gear and abilities..

I doubt marketing is the reason why some games are designated as boardgames while others are not. There are some clear distinctions between the two. Rather than repeat them, I think permerton already did above. I had asked you earlier what distinction makes a TTRPG like D&D an RPG, while a game like Wrath of A a boardgame. I'd still like to hear your distinction. Followed by, "Ok, if that's your list, and someone ignores all the things that make D&D an RPG compared to the boardgame, then how are they still playing an RPG and not a boardgame?"

 

[Bigsta]

I doubt marketing is the reason why some games are designated as boardgames while others are not. There are some clear distinctions between the two. Rather than repeat them, I think permerton already did above. I had asked you earlier what distinction makes a TTRPG like D&D an RPG, while a game like Wrath of A a boardgame. I'd still like to hear your distinction. Followed by, "Ok, if that's your list, and someone ignores all the things that make D&D an RPG compared to the boardgame, then how are they still playing an RPG and not a boardgame?"

The social piller. A DM who wants to ignore flavor text and instead runs the monsters out of the stat block so he can spend his prep time creating memorable social encounters is playing an RPG, not a board game.

Is a DM who uses the flavor text to create amazing and memorable combats but creates one dimensional NPCs who say nothing more than "speak to the mayor, he has a job for you" playing a video game instead of an RPG?

 

[guachi]

The social pillar - whether social interaction between and among PCs and NPCs or between and among the players at the table is why I would choose to play an RPG over a video game.

A game with a social pillar that is little more than "speak to the mayor, he has a job for you" isn't one I would like to play for long. Though adventures have to come fromsomewhere so "talk to the mayor/lord/innkeeper" is not a bad place to start. I mean, one of my players last week said to the lord "We seek adventure!" after they had just finished their first adventure. But it's a very bad place to finish.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The social piller. A DM who wants to ignore flavor text and instead runs the monsters out of the stat block so he can spend his prep time creating memorable social encounters is playing an RPG, not a board game.

Is a DM who uses the flavor text to create amazing and memorable combats but creates one dimensional NPCs who say nothing more than "speak to the mayor, he has a job for you" playing a video game instead of an RPG?

They aren't mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other. You can be playing the greatest role playing game in your life, but if you toss out all role playing elements as soon as combat starts and play the inhabitants as game pieces, then at that point you're no longer playing an RPG. You're playing a board game, as per what a boardgame is defined as.

This implication that one must suffer if you do the other makes zero sense to me. I don't know where this idea started that makes people feel like the role playing has to stop when combat starts, or that monsters/NPCs sit in a stasis until the PCs show up like they are in pause mode, but it's a shame. It's why we keep having threads about people complaining the game is broken or it sucks because monsters/npcs can't do anything if it's not listed as a defined power, or that encounters were way too easy because the DM ran them like a game piece that didn't do anything in the game outside of the actual encounter. (For example, if a monster lair is attacked by the PCs, and the monsters are alerted, the monsters will do activities even if they aren't part of an encounter. The game world doesn't go on pause because the PCs want to take a rest. That sort of thing).