D&D 5E (2014) Monster Manual Question

[Blackthom]

In going through the Monster Manual, I was struck with the absence of the old "Number Appearing" that used to show how many monsters would be encountered. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this removal? I found it a very helpful guideline and was curious if the matter ever came up somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

I don't remember it ever being mentioned in any of the podcasts or articles.

However, I wouldn't say the information isn't there at all - the flavor text for monster gives you a general indication if it's important to the monster. I think that's fine and in keeping with empowering DMs to craft the story the way they see fit.

The new way is more "naturalistic" I think and less ... mechanical for lack of a better term. Now I don't think "how many orcs normally work together" it's how big is this orc band from a story perspective.

In addition, for most creatures it simply doesn't add a lot of value. We know orcs are tribal because the descriptive text tells us so. How many ankhegs do you encounter at any time? As many as you need. Why add the numbers if it's only going to be useful for a handful of monsters, and potentially misleading?

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[Jester David]

Generally the "number appearing" will be fall into one of three options:
a) the number the PCs can reasonably expect to beat in a fair fight
b) the number the PCs can potentially be expected to beat in a sneaky and unfair fight
c) so goddamn many even a suicidal PC will think twice about attacking

Anything else doesn't need to exist. Because if it's >a but <b then the players might try and heads up fight and get killed. And if it's >b but <c it's not obvious it's a suicide mission, and they might charge in anyway.

Since those numbers will vary depending on the level and number of PCs, it's left to the DMs.

 

[dave2008]

I don't remember it ever being mentioned in any of the podcasts or articles.

However, I wouldn't say the information isn't there at all - the flavor text for monster gives you a general indication if it's important to the monster. I think that's fine and in keeping with empowering DMs to craft the story the way they see fit.

The new way is more "naturalistic" I think and less ... mechanical for lack of a better term. Now I don't think "how many orcs normally work together" it's how big is this orc band from a story perspective.

In addition, for most creatures it simply doesn't add a lot of value. We know orcs are tribal because the descriptive text tells us so. How many ankhegs do you encounter at any time? As many as you need. Why add the numbers if it's only going to be useful for a handful of monsters, and potentially misleading?

Your mileage may vary of course.

As a follow up, I think this is the type of information that should be in the flavor text and not the stat block. I do think it could be a bit more explicit though.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Personally, I think it's omitted because 5e uses (or tries to use) encounter balancing. In AD&D, it really wasn't a big deal, so # appearing was just how many where typically there, regardless of party level or # of party members. In 5e, it completely changes the encounter balance if you have random numbers of monsters. So they are leaving it up to you to decide how many appear based on what difficulty encounter you want.

Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but just my hunch as to why

 

[dave2008]

Personally, I think it's omitted because 5e uses (or tries to use) encounter balancing. In AD&D, it really wasn't a big deal, so # appearing was just how many where typically there, regardless of party level or # of party members. In 5e, it completely changes the encounter balance if you have random numbers of monsters. So they are leaving it up to you to decide how many appear based on what difficulty encounter you want.

Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but just my hunch as to why

And that is why it should probably just be hinted at / suggested in the flavor text and not in the stat block

 

[Shiroiken]

Personally, I think it's omitted because 5e uses (or tries to use) encounter balancing. In AD&D, it really wasn't a big deal, so # appearing was just how many where typically there, regardless of party level or # of party members. In 5e, it completely changes the encounter balance if you have random numbers of monsters. So they are leaving it up to you to decide how many appear based on what difficulty encounter you want.

Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but just my hunch as to why

Playstyles have changed over the decades, and while there are still a bunch of DMs like me that are more concerned with logical organizational habits and ecology of monsters, most DMs don't really care. As a 4E DM put it to me, the only thing about monsters that matters is how they challenge the PCs. While it kinda sucks, I still have access to my 1E and 2E books, so I can pretty much figure it out for myself (I do have to make up stuff for new monsters).

Another thing that I liked, and was pretty much part of this was monster rarity. This would give an idea of how often certain monsters should be encountered in the course of a campaign (way more orcs than dragons, for example).

 

[Blackthom]

Thanks guys for the feedback and insights. Being an old school player I got used to seeing it. I liked that the stat blocks used to show (gangs of 4-12, warband of 12-24 and tribes of 30-50 for example). It wasn't so much about numbers per say to me but about encounter development. It was a starting off point (along with the rarity issue Shiroiken mentioned) that I used to think about the encounters. Kobolds for example in the MM don't mention any numbers at all in their flavor text. This leaves it to me to come up with those numbers on my own (which is fine).

I see your point Sacrosanct about Adventure Balancing being the focus of the edition but those references in the old books were, to me, helpful in encounter planning. For example, if it offered several groupings for a creature that was often tribal, then I found it would help prompt me to think about various types of encounters: ones that they could walk through, ones they could be challenged by and ones they should avoid. Things change, I get that.

Please understand that I am not disparaging the system for this absence but was rather wondering if there was ever any official acknowledgement of this decision to drop it. I am grateful for the feedback. Thanks again!