D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Epic Meepo]

There's no short list of overpowered features that one could ban and end up with weak PCs...

Ban starting ability scores above 12 (before bonuses from backgrounds)? Use point buy stat generation with 9 points instead of 27? I've never tried it, but I suspect it would make life a bit grittier for the PCs without needing to nerf specific features.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ironically due to 10 HD, a guard Captain really should have a proficiency bonus of +4 not +2. So if you increase the proficiency bonus and decrease its strength down to 14 you pretty much have the same attack bonus which will be required for its challenge.

The problem is saving throws as the other topic with Mike Mearls states.

Ever since 3rd edition wears safe and throws became linked with ability scores monsters need ridiculously high ability scores to not be instantly vaporized or mind-controlled by magic spells.

If there's anything formulaic that I might advocate for a 6th edition is for saving throws to not be linked to ability scores because ability scores are two variable for that to work in the math.

He actually made another more relevant post on his patreon a few days back

here's a few things to highlight about this design.

First of all, the scripted nature of its actions went over very well in play. Creating a sense of progression each round allowed the players to make meaningful choices in the face of an enemy. They knew that clumping up was a bad idea. The teleportation effort encouraged them to spread out, but it also meant that they risked being picked off.

The combo of the area push effect with bone spikes' slow allowed the dragon to herd the PCs together to hammer them with its breath weapon.

I use a death saves variant, posted on this Patreon a few months back, where characters at 0 HP stay conscious while they roll death saves. That rule makes D&D deadlier in my experience by keeping PCs who are on the verge of death available as targets for attacks, potentially killing them. On the other hand, that rule also allowed the party to eventually defeat the dragon. A few characters were one roll away from death, but staying on their feet and contributing let the group carry the day.

The dragon's design might seem counterintuitive. Traditionally, D&D post-3e relies on overwhelming variety to try and solve the issue of solo monsters. The idea is that by putting lots of options on a monster, the DM has something to turn to that can counter a group.

I'm not sure that path is viable. In competitive game, a deck or character that tries to do everything always has a weakness that a specialist can exploit. A monster faces four or more specialists! That insight prompted me to consider specializing solos, giving them a relentless script that grinds down the party.

I am not going to say that this is the answer to everything, but I think it's a potentially interesting path. The nice thing is that this approach is far more testable. A simpler plan is easier to adjust in the face of a flaw. Moreover, a simpler plan is also much easier for a DM to execute, as opposed to asking a DM to navigate a full-page stat block.

In any case, this approach has held up across several encounters and monsters, so I am excited to explore it some more

Spoiler

The trouble isn't because the saves were linked to attributes. Problems came in because monsters were trying to dabble at everything and that had mediocre results when facing a party of specialists.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

It might just be that D&D 2024 kind of sucks. Lots of people seem to feel that way. No one bats a thousand. Maybe stop white knighting the massive corporation and actually listen to people you previously agreed with.

Or maybe the new books are actually really good, and I just don't agree with someone whose products I previously liked (and still like). Different people have different opinions

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, I'll use the warrior commander just as some goon who poses a suitable challenge for the party. If they run into him at lower levels, I'll probably use it as a BBEG or something, but at higher levels it might be just a thug. Whatever the story needs.

I don't care at all about the internal logic of levels vs. CR or whatever; that's not even a consideration when I'm building encounters. The thought of counting hit dice to determine what "level" a creature is and therefore whether it is consistent with character levels, attributes, etc....nope. Could care less. How does that have any impact on the game we're playing at the table?

Edit: to give an example, in my home game the players seem to be finally following up on an old plot thread that involves dealing with a syndicate that has taken over a mine. When I originally prepped it, the baddies were all going to be a lot weaker because the party was three levels lower. Now I'm just going to replace them with tougher stat blocks. What matters is the story, which needs a suitable challenge.

 

[HatWearingFool]

The problem is no one defines “low power” (or high power). I guess it just means poorly designed 2014 characters. But even those will romp over many characters from actual low powered settings. Heck being able to cast magic, any magic would make you a god in many low power settings (LOTR?).

As someone who has been through many editions I just find a lot players say whatever edition they started in was just right. And anything below that is low powered and anything above it is super heroes.

I suspect many D&D players would be happier playing a different system. Especially if you think the game falls apart above level 8 (or any arbitrary spot). It doesn’t fall apart it just doesn’t tell the stories you want anymore. And frankly if your stories only fit within a 4 level range of D&D there has to be a better system out there that focuses on that range.

Just to be clear there is nothing wrong with loving the stories you can tell from level 4-8 but if that’s your sweet spot why not play a game that focuses on that?

Saying stuff like Level 10 should be Conan (not to single anyone out, just an example) goes to show how out of sync lots of people are with D&D’s power scale. Conan hasn’t been a threat to most D&D characters for a long time. That’s just not the type of story D&D was made to tell outside of a very low starting range of levels for a long time now.

All in my humble ranting opinion of course. But I say this as someone who isn’t enamoured with D&D. I play and enjoy D&D but I think other systems are better for what I like.

 

[Pedantic]

He actually made another more relevant post on his patreon a few days back

Spoiler

View attachment 425233

The trouble isn't because the saves were linked to attributes. Problems came in because monsters were trying to dabble at everything and that had mediocre results when facing a party of specialists.

That looks a lot more to me like the problem was the monster not having the same number of actions as the party. And as he calls out in the beginning of the post, was viable because the party didn't have any action denial options.

Plus, the problem that's really being solved here is "how do we make fights dynamic and interesting?" The solution proposed here is essential the Slay the Spire approach. Show enemy intent, and let players react to it.

 

[Minigiant]

He actually made another more relevant post on his patreon a few days back

Spoiler

View attachment 425233

The trouble isn't because the saves were linked to attributes. Problems came in because monsters were trying to dabble at everything and that had mediocre results when facing a party of specialists.

That's just solos.

The Guard Captain is not normally a solo.
The Guard Captain however has a strength and Constitution that are over 15 in order to have a above 50% chance of beating a spell casted by an appropriate level spellcasting PC.

Let's go back to D&D saving throw charts.

 

[tetrasodium]

That looks a lot more to me like the problem was the monster not having the same number of actions as the party. And as he calls out in the beginning of the post, was viable because the party didn't have any action denial options.

Plus, the problem that's really being solved here is "how do we make fights dynamic and interesting?" The solution proposed here is essential the Slay the Spire approach. Show enemy intent, and let players react to it.

I think that the two are related and that it's not as simple as saves being linked to attributes. In the original thread minigiant mentioned there was a tangent of discussion about the specialties of a hill(?) giant and a devil of some form (chain?) those two were both specialized in their role and quite good at it but not so hot at filling the other's shoes in an encounter.
Edit:
@Minigiant that dragon pairs with a full on phb he has on the patreon with new spells base classes and all

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No one here should be taking Keith's decision personally. You and he are allowed to go different ways.

 

[Mephista]

This thread is hilarious.

I remember when "The monsters know what they are doing" was a darling.

But Oops! The new WotC books aren't beloved, so this person must be a hater!

It might just be that D&D 2024 kind of sucks. Lots of people seem to feel that way. No one bats a thousand. Maybe stop white knighting the massive corporation and actually listen to people you previously agreed with.

Meh. Edition wars happen with every new edition. Even from 3.0 to 3.5, 4e to 4Essentials, and now 5e14 to 5e24. Some people adapt to the new, others stay with the old.

Its just that going out on a sour grapes rant is ... bleh.

The man doesn't vibe with the new edition. Sucks, but that's life. I don't begrudge anyone that. I do find his complaints weird though. The 18 stat elitism is just odd, imho.