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

[Celebrim]

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

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

I don't know if that is the case. Consider the White Dragon's Ice Walk ability: "Ice Walk: The dragon can move across and climb icy surfaces without needing to make an ability check. Additionally, difficult terrain composed of ice or snow doesn’t cost it extra moment." How difficult a White Dragon is to fight depends then on part on whether or not it is encountered in icy terrain, since only in icy terrain would the White Dragon be able to make use of that ability. I would never assume that fighting the White Dragon on an ice covered slope inside a glacial fissure in hip deep freezing water cascading down and a nearby precipice one might be washed over was figured in to the base CR. I wouldn't even assume fighting the creature in 2' of snow during a windstorm was figured in. Both situations add difficulty, but especially add difficulty to the extent that the monster has an ability that overcomes this difficult.

Now consider that examining other monsters we decide that making them 'interesting' involves adding more 'fiddly' abilities like the White Dragon's ice walking ability in addition to whatever rebalancing we want to make to make their calculated CR more correct.

Let's imagine for example that we are creating the new Yeti entry for an upcoming Monster Manual. And we decide to add Ice Walk, and also an ability like, "The Yeti never suffers disadvantage on perception checks as a result of snow or icy weather, but can see, hear, and smell clearly even in a blizzard." This potentially boosts both challenge and interest, but I think it would be a mistake to figure in to the CR that all Yeti's are encountered in blizzards unless one of the powers of our new Yeti was 'Blizzard Aura' and the area around a Yeti was also a snow storm.

The point is that CR is always based on certain assumptions, and in a game as free form as D&D, it's always more of an art form than something that can be directly calculated as anything more than a ballpark figure. The fiddly things eventually add up and in practice increase both challenge and interest.

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.

Yes, but D&D has almost never been that specific, and I certainly would not expect it to start in an era when the designers are promoting 'rulings not rules'. D&D has never spent a lot of time detailing how noticeable an ability is. For example, in the fireball description it mentions that it makes a 'low roar'. How easy is it to hear the 'low roar'? Are we meant to infer, since the lightning bolt description mentions no peals of thunder, that it makes no sound? If it makes a sound, is it more or less than the sound of the fireball? How loud is Poison Spray? Is the noxious gas visible? This has always been an area subject to common sense rulings that vary from table to table. It makes common sense to me that a psychic evil eye attack has no readily visible or audible component. Another DM might rule differently.

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

It better well be the concern of designers. It's a massive mistake to make too many assumptions regarding how a monster will be used by other DMs.

 

[Jer]

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".

That's not what I said. I said you CAN increase the challenge by just making rote numerical increases. And that you CAN ALSO add more powers to a monster (which I personally call "fiddly bits" - they're all fiddly bits. Some are more fiddly than others. I like fiddly bits.[*]) which make it more challenging. Or maybe you add more fiddly bits and it keeps the challenge the same but gives the GM more options and makes things more interesting.

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.

Okay, now I'm the one not accepting your definitions. I can absolutely make a monster more interesting without making it more challenging. I can also make it more challenging without making it more interesting. I've done both - many times in pretty much every edition of D&D that I've been a DM for. You are arguing that you don't want more challenging monsters that aren't more interesting and that's fine. I'm all for that as well. But these things actually are on axes and are somewhat independent of each other and that is precisely the point the OP was attempting to make.

(I can make a monster less challenging but more interesting as well. Mostly by taking a monster and slashing its AC and hp and giving it different powers. Stand and be amazed at the power of the fiddly bits of game design!)


[*] (I also call player fiddly bits like feats and spells "cookies". I like cookies too.)

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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...

No leniency involved whatsoever. The build a monster section of the DMG specifies 3 rounds of offense. If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, I opined that that isn't a good thing for every monster.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I think the biggest issue is that the basic resolution system doesn't include alternate rules for making things more interesting without needing to alter the monsters themselves. If there was a page or page and a half to 'players and DMs making stuff up on the fly' without needing to read all over the core books, then we wouldn't have the Numbers Vs. Complexity issue in the first place. If every monster, and PC, was encouraged to come up with interesting actions on the fly, then altering the monsters stat block by stat block wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

 

[ProgBard]

I think the biggest issue is that the basic resolution system doesn't include alternate rules for making things more interesting without needing to alter the monsters themselves. If there was a page or page and a half to 'players and DMs making stuff up on the fly' without needing to read all over the core books, then we wouldn't have the Numbers Vs. Complexity issue in the first place. If every monster, and PC, was encouraged to come up with interesting actions on the fly, then altering the monsters stat block by stat block wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Weeeeell, I do harbor some doubts that such a ruleset would really eliminate the need or desire to tinker with statblocks, gamers being who we are; nor would I wish for such a thing. Bring on more monsters - monster variants, tough monsters, complex monsters, tough and complex monsters, the lot. I'm a monsters guy (semi-professionally, even!), so I'm in the More Monsters Is More Better Gaming camp, all around.

Nonetheless, your point is well taken - one of the aftereffects of the design choice to keep combat fast-moving and simple is that there is, at least in practice if not by intent, an artificially limited menu of things to do in a fight. Expanding that (which there's definitely room to do with, say, a set of optional rules) would go some ways toward fixing the we-hit-them, they-hit-us rut of many combats.

Out of curiosity, what sort of things would you want to see on such a list?

 

[NotActuallyTim]

3 things:

1. A complete explanation of how to adjudicate improvised actions on the fly, quickly and fairly.

2. An example or two of players and a DM improvising actions for characters rather than using listed actions.

3. A caution that improvisation, while useful and entertaining, doesn't necessarily mean that every player or DM idea for an improvised action must be treated as inherently better than the listed actions in the core books.

 

[iserith]

I think that matter is covered just fine via the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules page 3) and the chapter on ability checks. Nowhere does it say players are limited to just the standard options listed in the Combat section or that monsters are limited to their stat blocks. You just say what you want to do and the DM handles the rest. Or the DM just says what the monsters do.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I think that matter is covered just fine via the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules page 3) and the chapter on ability checks. Nowhere does it say players are limited to just the standard options listed in the Combat section or that monsters are limited to their stat blocks. You just say what you want to do and the DM handles the rest. Or the DM just says what the monsters do.

Nope.

No examples, no explanations and no warnings. That section is missing the three things I want.

 

[iserith]

Nope.

No examples, no explanations and no warnings. That section is missing the three things I want.

Too late for what you want. Guess you'll have to make do!

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Too late for what you want. Guess you'll have to make do!

NEVER! I will complain on the internet instead!