D&D 5E My biggest gripe about 5e so far, as a DM

[Storminator]

Err... but if you're going to use published adventures, why would you care how the monsters are constructed?

The last 3.x game I ran (which is likely the last I'll ever run) had a monster listed as "vrock 67 hp". So I printed out the vrock. And his spells. And his summons. And their spells. And their summons. And their spells. 10 pages later . . . I switched to 4e.

If I get around to running a 5e game I'll probably make up all the encounters myself. As such, I can just never use spellcasters. Easy peasy.

PS

 

[Halivar]

The last 3.x game I ran (which is likely the last I'll ever run) had a monster listed as "vrock 67 hp". So I printed out the vrock. And his spells. And his summons. And their spells. And their summons. And their spells. 10 pages later . . . I switched to 4e.

Oh, yikes. TBH, that sounds like a poorly laid out adventure!

 

[Ainamacar]

The last 3.x game I ran (which is likely the last I'll ever run) had a monster listed as "vrock 67 hp". So I printed out the vrock. And his spells. And his summons. And their spells. And their summons. And their spells.

Not that it would necessarily have made much a difference to your overall experience, but do keep in mind that you only needed to go one level deep.

A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

 

[rastus_burne]

I'll call that "designing" a monster if you let me call my stick figure drawing a portrait.

And yet, that contains all the information you need to run the monster.

 

[gideonpepys]

And yet, that contains all the information you need to run the monster.

What if the rogue wants to sneak past it? Or the fighter tries to hold a door it is trying to push open?

 

[mach1.9pants]

The rogue thief will roll his move silently check and the fighter will roll a strength check as decided by DM's view on how strong the Orc is.

 

[pemerton]

I think designing "encounters" for 5e will be pretty easy. Instead of using multiple versions of the same monster (First as a level 1* Solo, then as a level 4 elite, then as a level 7 normal monster and then finally as a level 11 minion), I can just use the same monster. It will actually have an ok to-hit chance and defenses.

My worries about this would be action economy. The key to a well-designed solo isn't its hit points and attack/defence numbers (which can be derived completely formulaically). It's its action economy (both actions it can use, and ability to withstand single-target debuffs and action denial).

it makes sense that monster spellcasters use the same spells as PCs. This adds to verisimilitude, gives the players a chance to exercise game knowledge ("That was dimension door he just cast, not teleport. He hasn't gone far. If we move fast, we can find him."), and allows a complex, versatile NPC to be described in a small space.

I think the issue of "verisimilitude" is to a significant extent a matter of taste. For instance, I quite like the idea that goblin hexers, or dark cultists, might use magic that is different from that which the PCs are using. ("Magic should be magical" and all that.)

 

[gideonpepys]

The rogue thief will roll his move silently check and the fighter will roll a strength check as decided by DM's view on how strong the Orc is.

So why have a stat block at all? Surely, if you can decide how strong on orc is, you can decide what his AC is, and what his hit points are. In which case, you are not playing D&D but your own version of a fantasy game (which is fine, by the way) and therefore don't need to enter into a discussion about what stat blocks should look like, and what they should include. "As little as possible" could easily mean "nothing" in which case, the MM will be full of monster names and illustrations, or even just blank pages for really clever DMs who like to decide everything.

 

[mach1.9pants]

All creatures have to have a limit to what you give stats for. Different games and game styles have different levels. The stat line listed by Rattus was used for D&D until 3rd edition. WOrks fine, even if it is not some peoples preference.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So why have a stat block at all? Surely, if you can decide how strong on orc is, you can decide what his AC is, and what his hit points are. In which case, you are not playing D&D but your own version of a fantasy game (which is fine, by the way) and therefore don't need to enter into a discussion about what stat blocks should look like, and what they should include. "As little as possible" could easily mean "nothing" in which case, the MM will be full of monster names and illustrations, or even just blank pages for really clever DMs who like to decide everything.

That is not my idea of a stat block. That's the official statblock of AD&D for an orc. It worked from 1974 to 2000. What else do you need to know about an orc? You don't need his strength score for most encounters, but if you must know, it's 12. If in doubt, roll 3d6. There's a whole lot of space between a 10 page stat block and nothing. Excluded middle and all that.