D&D 5E Separating challenge and complexity in monster design

[wedgeski]

Hmm. On the subject of monster complexity, I do not find myself missing the (admittedly wide variety of) 4E monster design vectors, because the cost of those complexities is combat that lasts long enough for them to matter in the action economy. 5E combat is snappier than its predecessors, and I don't really need a plethora of choices for an enemy that is going to last a couple of rounds at most.

Larger foes, designed with resistances and lair actions in mind, need more and can make use of more. They're sometimes not well-served by the game in this respect.

You can however add complexity to the *encounter* quite easily, either with other creatures, or with terrain features, and it's the encounter that matters IMO, not the creature.

On the whole, I find CR's useful but pitched too low for my standard group. During monster design I'm 50% tables and 50% comparison/feel anyway.

 

[ProgBard]

You can however add complexity to the *encounter* quite easily, either with other creatures, or with terrain features, and it's the encounter that matters IMO, not the creature.

I tend to agree. Even the most "boring," bucket-of-HP monster becomes interesting if it makes interesting moves during the battle, and that's not always something you can account for with an exhaustive list of actions in the statblock.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

As long as the fight is supposed to be over in 3 rounds, complexity won't matter too much, unless we had something like 4e's bloodied mechanics going (or some kind of even or odd round thing like 13th Age does).

Something like: round 1 is the current MM entry. Round 2 (even complexity mechanic kicks in). Round 3 (even mechanic disengages, use odd mechanic instead).

Also, it wouldn't hurt to have some explicit categories based on how many rounds the fight was supposed to last (and the monsters clearly built to meet that goal): regular (3), tough (4), legendary (5), epic (6). So a fight against a cannon fodder goblin should take 3 rounds (or less), but Tiamat should go 6 (I don't think WotC would built anything longer than 6 rounds, as long fights were something that even people who liked 4e [like me] found tiresome). That way complexity could be pushed onto the monsters that will use it, while not gumming up all the monsters (it also means certain monsters might have more than one version--I could see a regular hydra, a tough hydra, a legendary hydra, and an epic one).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would take it a step further and suggest that what makes a monster "more challenging" in this respect is anything that lengthens the number of rounds it stays in combat (both increasing AC, saves and hp do this, though so does regeneration, effects that let it blink, etc.) or anything that increases the damage it does to the PCs (both increasing its attack bonus and increasing its damage on a hit do this, but so do things like giving it an area attack or an effect that does ongoing damage). This can come from a straight boost in stats as above, but also from adding powers to the monster.

It can even come from a simple change in tactics with no stat tweaks at all. That platoon of twenty goblins is dead meat against a 7th level party if they all just clump up and shoot arrows at the party down a dungeon corridor. They'll die to a couple of Fireballs, though they'll do some damage to the PCs in the process. If they spread out and catch the PCs in a courtyard while the goblins fire from the walls surrounding the courtyard, they'll last much longer (it may not be efficient to Fireball them at all).

And if the goblins ambush the PCs, fire a couple of volleys (losing say 6 out of 22 goblins in the process), and then drop down behind the walls and Hide, they remain a force in being to threaten the PCs. The PCs can attempt to pursue the retreating goblins over the walls and possibly into an ambush, or they can play it safe and stick together. Now the PCs know there's a bunch of goblins in the area, and everything they do for the next hour or so is going to be more tense unless and until they've dealt with the goblins with finality.

Stuff like this is why I say that I sometimes have "encounters" that take hours of game time. By remaining a force-in-being, you've got a monster that's interacting with the PCs for potentially hours at a time. Sometimes the monster even has the chance to get one or more short rests in, in between strafing the PCs. (Or sometimes the PCs just run away and I'm left with a bunch of tactics I wanted to use but didn't get the chance to. Le sigh.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Not really.

Yes, really.

I don't accept your definitions - that "more challenging" is rote numerical increases that just increase frustration and boredom, and that "more interesting" requires the bits to be "fiddly".

There is an alternative, and that is confident self-assured monster design, where the knobs are turned just right, and where the monster is given just a few more abilities.

The goal is for the monster to stand some chance of overcoming standard player tactics, to have a small chance of catching them by surprise.

Also that the designer clearly understands how much AC and HP a monster needs to have given real party DPR.

So - really.

By making a monster "more interesting" you make it "more challenging". All without making it "fiddly" to run. All without making it a slog to defeat.

The key to fixing the MM isn't just wholesale doubling everybody's HP or something crude like that. Some monsters should remain fragile and/or glass cannons.

But there are too many monsters that ARE big sad sacks of hp today, that would benefit immensely (both from a game perspective and a story perspective) from getting a do-over, where they're given a few tools to get out of tight spots, and where they're given the stats to actually last long enough to actually do something (especially if they're supposed to work as a "boss" monster).

What you want in an "advanced" supplement is something else than Strahd showing up only to be utterly crushed within the space of two combat rounds by "level-appropriate" parties. That's the opposite of advanced.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think something that gets overlooked in discussions about monsters' toughness or complexity (as it relates to how interesting or fun to run they are) is that an engaging challenge isn't about just the monster in my view. That's just one ingredient. We have to also think about objectives and environment, the latter of which can adjust the difficulty of the challenge higher or lower. So while it's easy to criticize a monster for being a "bag of hit points" with nothing interesting going for them, it leaves out some critical parts of building an engaging challenge as I see it. And notably, the guidelines on XP and CR do include notes on how this affects difficulty.

Tactics are the intersection of weapons and terrain. Leaving terrain out of the environment by having all combat occur in a de facto arena with a flat floor and not obstacles, and an opponent that doesn't in any way interface with the terrain naturally simplifies the encounter. Conversely, if the opponent can interface with the terrain without losing actions or otherwise incurring disadvantage, and you cannot, this vastly increases the difficulty of the encounter.

However, again, this tends to favor complexity and particularly the sort of complexity that doesn't seem to be immediately focused on combat ability. Can a monster balance without paying a penalty? Can it climb particularly well? How far can the monster leap? Does it have movement modes that the party might not have? Does it lack environmental dependencies that the party may have? Does it have modes of perception that the party might lack? All of these effect tactics.

And all of those things allow a monster to punch above its weight as the party level increases without upping hard stats like AC, HD, etc. provided you move the monster into an environment it is perfectly suited for (and the party is not).

Let's keep terrain and other factors out of this.

Why? Becuase they apply equally likely to original and "advanced" monsters.

The only difference is that advanced monsters doesn't rely on anything else than their stat blocks to merit their CR, while the original ones do (and then only in some people's eyes).

 

[CapnZapp]

It would appear we need a better defined definition of 'challenge'. For example, there is one way in which the evil eye attack is vastly more challenging than the firebolt attack - it's stealthy.

If this attack specificed something like "unless you make a DC NN Perception roll you don't even realize the source of the attack" it would apply equally to all play styles.

If it shouldn't add to the challenge - on paper. What you then do in your home game is not a concern.

 

[CapnZapp]

I tend to agree. Even the most "boring," bucket-of-HP monster becomes interesting if it makes interesting moves during the battle, and that's not always something you can account for with an exhaustive list of actions in the statblock.

Though that's not an argument against making stat blocks interesting, is it?

(Note: some monsters are fine as "boring" sacks of HP. That's another issue)

 

[ProgBard]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], I'd like to point out, as gently as I can manage, that your arguments here - which have not exactly been presented in a tone conducive to discussion - hinge on everyone else accepting your personal interpretation of the word "challenge." And yours is a perfectly good and valid definition! But it's not one you get to impose on the rest of the participants in this thread just so you can be right.

I welcome your thoughts on this subject, but I do ask that you offer them while not attempting to be arbiter of the meaning of the terms in play, and that you accept that your fellow conversationalists here have as much claim on what the words we're using mean as you do.

 

[CapnZapp]

As long as the fight is supposed to be over in 3 rounds, complexity won't matter too much

I think this is a far too lenient way to look at the MM stats.

First off: while the monster CAN be vaporized in just a round or three, that's not a reason to abstain from giving it some kind of fallback or comeback option. Perhaps there are two Marilith - even if the first one doesn't have time to do more than just to stand there (and thus there is little need for any abilities at all), the other Marilith might have time to
1) get into trouble
2) use a nifty ability to get out of the PCs power, in enough good shape to give their squishie a bit of a scare

Besides: just because a random goblin fight is over in three rounds, doesn't mean it's okay to assume more epic fights are. It's certainly not okay in my book to give "boss" monsters only enough hp to stay for 3 rounds maximum.

I think you can safely assume that whenever we're asking for more sophisticated stat blocks, we're thinking of a combat that takes at least 3 combat rounds, not at most 3 combat rounds...