D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know, this just doesn't work so well for me, because it contradicts the myth. Can there not be something else done to make it more appropriate? It eats humans, so maybe it should have bite attack that restores it hit points or something like that.

I mean, it's kinda like saying: "If you kill a Medusa, it turns into stone". Sure, something turns into stone, and there is a creature with snakes for her hair, but something is ... off.

 

[Destil]

Meh. Sounds like the 4E core is still there but you use it as a reference along the way rather than a starting point. It's nice to hammer home that exceptions are allowed, but this is one of the make or break issues for me and it's way to close to 3E's hot hit die mess.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd prefer it if the minotaur's defining characteristic was a complete lack of sense of direction: actual zero chance of escaping maze, and even having trouble navigating an average dungeon. That's why they live underground: they can't find their way out.

Anyway, to everyone voting for the maze immunity in D&D Next, check your playtest bestiaries. It's there.

 

[pemerton]

I'm therefore wondering the purpose of rage - is it protection against guardian and debuffs ("I'm already taking Disadvantage so you can't slow me more")? Because except in very rare circumstances it seems to be a bad choice fro the minotaur and add needless complexity. Or is it just fluff that slows the game down and makes it nastily swingy?

Good question.

It is a thematic ability. It is to help present the Minotaur as a wild, if not feral, combatant that is sometimes not in complete control of its powerful attacks.

That's not enough of an answer, though - if, mathematically, raging makes the minotaur weaker than it is very misleading, and likely to lead to misplays by the GM given it is presented as something to make the minotaur wildly threatening.

Either way, "putting disadvantage on this opponent is useless" is a perfectly reasonable special ability, provided that the abilities that impose disadvantage seem like the kind of things that should be less effective on a raging opponent.

The minotaur should use rage when...
1) It's ticked off cause it's having trouble hitting the super-defensive character
2) It's ticked off cause someone is giving it disadvantage with attacking

Eh, good enough.

This is all fine, but I want GM's text to tell me it. I don't want to have to do the calculations myself. And I don't want misleading flavour text.

I am not a fan of the article, the str for something large size only being 18 same as a strong PC was not a fan of, hill giant being mentioned at a str 20.

This seems to be going back to AD&D standards: Ogres at 18/00, Hill Giants at 19.

 

[pemerton]

And its odd you say that you wish to cling to 4e, because the majority of those stat blocks were "devastating" in combat abilities only.

When reading 4e statblocks for monsters, it can be helpful to remember that 4e uses a very different action resolution out of combat (namely, the skill challenge). And the stats for that are in the DC-by-level table.

This can mean that there are weird interactions around the marginal overlaps between combat and non-combat encounters. DMG2 has a bit of hand-wavey advice on how to handle this - more advice that was less hand-wavey would improve the game in this respect.

 

[FireLance]

The dissonance I am experiencing is as follows:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> bad

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> good

Maybe it because I'm more results oriented than process oriented.

There is a small bit of extra information in the second step that could be useful for the narrative.

Would it have hurt WotC to say something along the lines of:

"One of the great things about 4e was the way that the monsters' attack bonuses were closely linked to their level, so that you don't get high-level monsters that were unable to hit the characters or low-level monsters that almost always hit.

Now, some people didn't like this approach because sometimes, there didn't seem to be any relationship between a monster's ability scores and its attack bonus. In 5e, we're going to improve things for these people by explaining why a monster's attack bonus is lower or higher than its ability scores would suggest. For example, ..."

That way, it would be a case of:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> good

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> better

Then again, maybe WotC has assessed that publicly acknowledging the design influence that 4e had on 5e will cost them more sales than keeping silent on the subject.

 

[Pickles JG]

Not everybody builds their NPC villains the way you described. And its odd you say that you wish to cling to 4e, because the majority of those stat blocks were "devastating" in combat abilities only.

But so were the PCs stat blocks. Even if you do design 3e NPC wizards with a load of utility spells by some low level they will still have more spells to cast than rounds they can survive. It's the other side of ECL - some class abilities are not as much use in a one off fight as they are in extended play.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Would it have hurt WotC to say something along the lines of:

"One of the great things about 4e was the way that the monsters' attack bonuses were closely linked to their level, so that you don't get high-level monsters that were unable to hit the characters or low-level monsters that almost always hit.

Now, some people didn't like this approach because sometimes, there didn't seem to be any relationship between a monster's ability scores and its attack bonus. In 5e, we're going to improve things for these people by explaining why a monster's attack bonus is lower or higher than its ability scores would suggest. For example, ..."

That way, it would be a case of:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> good

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> better

Then again, maybe WotC has assessed that publicly acknowledging the design influence that 4e had on 5e will cost them more sales than keeping silent on the subject.

That seems, to me, just as hand-wavey as the 4E approach. I read it rather as, start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, consider whether it's appropriate to apply a bonus (hobgoblin martial training) or penalty (clumsy giants) and if you choose to steer away from the expectation then be aware of the consequences (which in flat-mathland, shouldn't be as severe).

 

[Pickles JG]

I am pretty pleased with the article. One of the few pervading principles I disliked about 4e was the complete dissociation between a monster's game stats & it's description. I like levels/HD & a fudge factor to tie everything together so the "story" & numbers both work.

I am pleased to see solos & elites back together with "commons" as Arcanis calls them. It is much better for a Hobgoblin Warlord to be a level 5 elite/solo than for him to be level 10/20. However bounded the maths are +15 levels would no doubt push the flatness & having level 20 hobgoblins running low level warbands feels wrong.

While I am at it I am unsure of the bounded maths in general. All of the benefits of being highly skilled defensively have to be put into HP. This really emphasises how much they are not meat which, while it is exactly what I want, is clearly something a lot of people have issues with. I love getting away from the relentless levelling +1 treadmill though.

I do not like the Goring charge power. The fact it needs a clause to prevent you standing up as normal highlights how irrelevant being prone is in general, although I guess if it cancels disadvantage then having one Minotaur knock someone prone & his mates rage on the poor fellow is a good idea. Of course the damage gain from rage is usually less than that from having advantage. I think this is me feeling that the power should be as effective as it is withoutt needing a special case rule.
It's also very easy to charge about with no AOs or similar.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

That's not enough of an answer, though - if, mathematically, raging makes the minotaur weaker than it is very misleading, and likely to lead to misplays by the GM given it is presented as something to make the minotaur wildly threatening.

There is a difference between optimal tactics and viable tactics.

As it stands Rage is not optimal in most situations from a dpr perspective, but that does not mean that it is not a viable action.

Remember also that this minotaur has an int of 6, it is not supposed to be making the most tactically sound decisions all the time.

 

[Ratskinner]

The article "Hit Points, Our Old Friend" states that hit points partially models "Energy and experience, which is measured by a creature's ability to turn a direct hit into a glancing blow". So follow that through, when the minotaur accurately strikes the fighter, the fighter has the energy and experience to make the minotaur miss. When the minotaur misses due to poor accuracy, the fighter lacks the energy and experience to make the miss into a miss. No, I'm still confused.

Maybe when the minotaur "misses" with his main attacks, he is still so large and in charge that dodging them takes something out of the fighter?

 

[vagabundo]

Would it have hurt WotC to say something along the lines of:
...

Then again, maybe WotC has assessed that publicly acknowledging the design influence that 4e had on 5e will cost them more sales than keeping silent on the subject.

Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here. WotC are dancing the PR dance and they have be soo careful about what they say and how they say it. For some segments for the gamer public ideas/mechanic are tainted by association.

It's all cool to me. As long as we get a good game out of it.

 

[Pickles JG]

That seems, to me, just as hand-wavey as the 4E approach. I read it rather as, start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, consider whether it's appropriate to apply a bonus (hobgoblin martial training) or penalty (clumsy giants) and if you choose to steer away from the expectation then be aware of the consequences (which in flat-mathland, shouldn't be as severe).

I agree with you assessment of the design. I fail to see why flat maths makes the consequence of creatures not having par values less severe. You are just as far from being able to hit things as you are with increasing maths using level appropriate monsters.

The differences as I see it are
1) You will more routinely fight critters who are lower/higher level & who have worse/better attack bonuses, so you will be used to having trivial/frustrating encounters ()
2) There are fewer hit points floating about so the combat is more swingy so differences are more likely to be swamped by randomness.

The first is a characteristic of the never obsolete monsters that requires flatter maths but will be less pronounced the flatter the maths is. The second explains why 4e needed math fix feats for differences that are absolutely drowned out by other factors in 3e.

 

[Libramarian]

The monster design system sounds alright. The XP budgeting system sounds terrible. Are they actually going to advise DMs to plan out an exact itinerary of encounters every day? That sounds even more sim-y (simulating the "perfect adventure") than 4e.

Heh, talk about "obfuscation". Why not just skip to the end of the adventure since it's predetermined beforehand exactly what the party's chance of survival is and exactly what percentage of their resources will be lost.

Maybe DDN will be the first edition where you can DM without needing any players.

 

[FireLance]

Maybe DDN will be the first edition where you can DM without needing any players.

Nah, we've had that since the early days of D&D. It's called "writing a module".

 

[Underman]

I see it as the huge axe might not have actually penetrated your physical armor but it certainly hit your AC 10 self. The hit points loss is the portion of your hit points that are not actually physical damage, or are only a fraction actual damage, the rest is being (luck endurance and/or skill) used to avoid that huge splat it's going to make on you when it makes solid contact.

Sort of like a touch attack? This is OK actually, it's in line with my visualization of hit vs AC and damage potential.

An attack that equals or exceeds the armor class is an important abstraction. Call it self-justifying but it works for me...

A hit means your attack has the potential to bypass your opponent's defenses to hurt and kill. The wounds/kill potential is then abstracted as appropriate to the story (converted to a glancing blow, taken as an active real wounds, etc.).

Whereas a miss is exactly is that. It has zero potential to hurt your opponent, and no glancing blow that is meaningly hurtful.

I wouldn't mind if the rage ability was re-worded as so:
Rage +5/5: This creature can choose to take disadvantage on a melee attack. In addition, if the die roll was 10 or higher, the minotaur deals 5 morale damage.

So the die roll is double-dipped to adjudicate 2 results, and the melee attack is decoupled from the +5 damage.

So basically, the minotaur roars and goes nuts. Its opponent is practically tripping over his/her feet to get out of the way. The minotaur effectively has a 50% chance (after the disadvantage) of weakening its opponent, through sheer intimidation, shock and exhaustion of dodging a crazy fast large axe. Furthermore, if the 5 damage reduces the creature to zero hp, maybe the minotaur gets an instant coup de grace on the prone target.

 

[Zaukrie]

I am baffled that people have an issue with using an xp budget to create balanced encounters, if they so desire. I have been dming for decades, and I think using xp to simulate resource consumption makes sense. Of course, sometimes I still build encounters either much weaker or stronger. Can someone explain how having a formula as a guideline to help you understand the relative challenge a party of a certain level will face is a bad thing?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[TwoSix]

The monster design system sounds alright. The XP budgeting system sounds terrible. Are they actually going to advise DMs to plan out an exact itinerary of encounters every day? That sounds even more sim-y (simulating the "perfect adventure") than 4e.

Heh, talk about "obfuscation". Why not just skip to the end of the adventure since it's predetermined beforehand exactly what the party's chance of survival is and exactly what percentage of their resources will be lost.

Maybe DDN will be the first edition where you can DM without needing any players.

Or you just use it to track how much the PCs have been challenged. If they typically can face 1000 XP of monsters a day, and have already faced 900 XP, maybe the 750 XP of dragon might be too much.

Up to you, of course. It's a living, breathing world, kill them if you want.

 

[ren1999]

Monster Sizes
Size of Creatures in Squares
Fine Space 1/5th of a square Reach 1/5
Diminutive Space 2/5 Reach 2/5
Tiny Space 3/5 Reach 3/5 (roughly half a game encounter square)
Small Space 2/5 Reach 2/5
Medium Space 1 Reach 1
Large Space 2 Reach 2
Huge Space 3 Reach 3
Gargantuan Space 4 Reach 4
Colossal Space 5 Reach 5
A fine creature with speed 6 can move about 1 square per round.
A Colossal creature with speed 6 can move 30 squares per round.

Ability Scores
Fine str-4, dex+4
Diminutive str-3, dex+3
Tiny str-2, dex+2
Small str-1, dex+1
Medium dex+0 str+0
Large dex-1 str+1
Huge dex-2 str+2
Gargantuan dex-3 str+3
Colossal dex-4 str+4

Hit Points
Fine con+1d4 per hit dice
Diminutive con+1d4 per hit dice
Tiny con+1d4 per hit dice
Small con+1d6 per hit dice
Medium con+1d8 per hit dice
Large con+1d10 per hit dice
Huge con+1d12 per hit dice
Gargantuan con+1d12 per hit dice
Colossal con+1d12 per hit dice

Racial Traits and Powers
1 trait or power per hit dice

Standard Actions and Reactions
1 to 4 hit dice - 1 reaction or 1 action
5 to 9 hit dice - 1 reaction and 1 action or 2 actions
10 to 14 hit dice - 1 reaction and 2 actions or 3 actions
15 to 19 hit dice - 1 reaction and 3 actions or 4 actions
20 hit dice - 1 reaction and 4 actions or 5 actions

Natural Armor
Hairless or Fine Hair Hide AC+0 (example Panther)
Feathery Skin or Fish Scale AC+1
Tough, Fatty, and or Hairy Hide AC+2 (Bear)
Bristly Hide or Light Scale AC+3 (Snake)
Bony Scale AC+4 (Crocodile, Shark)
Hard Shell AC+5 (Turtle)

 

[Mattachine]

I don't like the idea that you have to "give monsters proficiencies or skills" so that it has the numbers you want.

Just give the monster the numbers you want and be done with it.