D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[flametitan]

Honestly the better design (for myself as a DM) is to have 1 or 2 monsters that can do something "cool" and then the rest be cannon fodder. The cannon fodder doesn't need many abilities, as their presence is to simply keep the players from focusing down the "cool" monster.

Now, there is a little more room to expand on these "cool but you're not fighting too many of them at a time" monsters, as Volo's guide shows us. That said, I do not believe every monster needs to fit on this paradigm of having cool moves (EDIT: Though I do believe more unique monsters with a cool feature is welcome, there may be a lack of leader-esque variants).

 

[Shiroiken]

1. Ramping up humanoids. In 5e, pretty much every natural humanoid monster is an appropriate monster for 1st level characters to fight. Bugbears, duergar, and thri-kreen top the humanoid pecking order at CR 1, and below those we have gnolls, svirfneblin, hobgoblins, lizardfolk, orcs, and sahuagin at CR 1/2, bullywugs, drow, goblins, grimlocks, kuo-toa, and troglodytes at 1/4, and kobolds and merfolk at 1/8. The only ones going beyond that are gith, lycanthropes, and quaggoths. In 4e, you had a progression of humanoids starting with kobolds and goblins at level 1-2, then moving up to orcs and hobgoblins at level 3-4, bugbears, gnolls, and lizardfolk at level 5-6, and shadar-kai and troglodytes at level 6-8. Sure, 4e had a different level scale than 5e does, but it would have been nice to have the humanoids spread out a big more over CR 1/4 to 5.

Monsters, especially humanoids, are usable (without modification) at many more levels than in any previous edition due to bounded accuracy. The only difference is the number you use, so at level 1 you throw a single Bugbear at the party, and at level 10 you send a score or more.

2. Variety in monsters. 4e usually provided multiple variants of a particular monster. In some cases it was just a higher-level version of the same thing (Iron Gorgon and Storm Gorgon), but (particularly among humanoids) often they were differently "classed" monsters - e.g. goblin blackblade for the sneaky ones that stab you in the back, goblin warrior for the relatively straight-forward fighters/skirmishers, goblin sharpshooter for the archers, and goblin hexer for the magical support. Volo's Guide to Monsters helps out with this a little, but nowhere near enough.

I somewhat agree, BUT the problem is less this than the lack of overall monsters. I've found several really good upgrades monsters on the DMs Guild (all either Free or Pay What you Want). As has already been pointed out, you can also do the modifications yourself using the DMG to make these monsters. As for "classed monsters," I usually find they limit the monsters, rather than helping.

3. Monsters that do cool stuff. A lot of 5e monsters are just big bags of hit points and damage. By comparison, most monsters in 4e at least had a little something extra - and in 13th age, almost all the monsters have something cool to do. Perhaps one does not need to go that far, but it would be cool with monsters with more abilities.

This is a style issue. WotC needed to appeal to the broadest base possible, and so a lot of thing can feel "vanilla." Personally, I'm happy with the overall amount of monster abilities, with one exception. I really like the "(not so) Legendary Actions" found on the DMs Guild that has options for using the Legendary Action setup with less powerful creatures. I feel that this was a wasted opportunity by WotC.

 

[cbwjm]

If I want something unique like an orc back stabber then I will just add sneak attack and stealth to the base orc. I tend to see them as a base which van be built upon to create different versions as needed.

Also, I like the way that the PCs can take on ever increasing numbers of certain humanoids which still remain a threat into later levels due to the numbers of 5e.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

This is a style issue. WotC needed to appeal to the broadest base possible, and so a lot of thing can feel "vanilla." Personally, I'm happy with the overall amount of monster abilities, with one exception. I really like the "(not so) Legendary Actions" found on the DMs Guild that has options for using the Legendary Action setup with less powerful creatures. I feel that this was a wasted opportunity by WotC.

And when you're using a score of bugbears against your players, you really don't want complicated monsters.

 

[Dualazi]

And when you're using a score of bugbears against your players, you really don't want complicated monsters.

Inversely, you don't want the capstone fight to be a series of repeating auto-attacks, either. The thing is that it's always less work to dumb something down than it is to increase its difficulty/options. Even in 4th edition if you wanted the most basic use of a monster you could just have it make basic attacks.

Additionally, even many of the tougher/more singular monsters are relegated to either slapping spellcasting ability on it ('cause that never gets old, right?), or having it be a passive ability such as a medusa/basilisk stone gaze or the rakshasa's cursed claws. The number of creatures with a genuinely unique active abilities is annoyingly small. Even other kinds of passive abilities, like auras, are strangely absent.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only thing better is that 4e uses monster level instead of challenge rating.

Best thing of 4e is reatined: iconic monster abilites. Orcs have aggressive. Goblins stealthy. Kobolds pack tactics etc. Easy to use and iconic.

Reskininning is now done well: to make a high level strong goblin, just use gladiator stats, and add the iconic goblin traits. You also may change some equippment and make some AC modifications. In 4e you just called it goblin which was lacking in my opinion because you created a dissociation between outlook and abilities.

What I do miss sometimes are some immunities or traits that were lost from earlier editions. Tarrasque regeneration is one big nasty offender...

 

[Leatherhead]

4e has the most transparent monster math, and I do miss being able to stat up a monster in a matter of seconds. But hotswaping monster stats more or less makes up for that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Transparent for DM but not for players.

 

[Staffan]

Um, I think you're making a mistake on how you're interpreting CR, because the monsters you listed when the PCs expected to face them in 4e is almost the same as in 5e. A CR 1/2 monster is not meant for a level 1 PC. It's meant for TWO level 1 PCs. In 5e, you aren't meant to fight orcs and hobgoblins until level 3 or 4 either, so it's the same. Humanoids are almost never alone, so a squad of CR 1/2 orcs is, even by the book, an appropriate encounter for 4ea level 3-4 PCs. Putting level 1 PCs against orcs won't typically end well for the PCs.

Sure, but my point was more that almost all the humanoids are squished into two CRs: 1/4 and 1/2, with some outliers at 1/8 and 1. I would have liked to have them spread out a little more, so you can use small group of humanoids as enemies into the Heroic tier. I mean, if you want to use lizardfolk to challenge a 6th level party, you need a group of at least 10 to even make it a Moderate challenge (and Moderate is really "pushover" - that's something a 6th level party will deal with in 2 rounds and barely take any damage).

I would have liked to see humanoids spread out up to, say, CR 3-5 or something like that. I get why they didn't do that (primarily compatibility with pre-4e material), but I wish they had.

This is objectively not true. What determines what cool things a monster can or can't do is up to the DM. They are not just bags of HP. Each monster has valued for INT and WIS and a description of their ecology. For example, a monster with a halfway decent intelligence will do lots of things not in it's statblock (strategy, tools, traps, items, etc). If you said, "monster stat blocks don't have extra powers" then I'd agree with you, but the game isn't played by comparing stat blocks. It's played in a game world with an environment, so those monsters can in fact do cool stuff limited only by your imagination. This is an incredibly important distinction, because how the game is actually played is critically important because it gives the context. Just comparing stat blocks? Yeah, you're right. But no one I know plays the game where there is only stat blocks and no environment or in game world context. I fully get how people would like more unique powers for monsters, but saying they are nothing but bags of HP and can't do cool stuff is objectively not true.

OK, they don't have cool stuff in their stat blocks. I can always add things in the environment, but I kinda like it when my monsters have abilities that live in their stat blocks and not just in my head.

One thing they could have done to mitigate this would have been to add more monsters with legendary and lair actions (and to make those actions more interesting than the dragons'). I think the lowest-level monster with those is the unicorn at CR 5 (and I reckon that a unicorn as a boss monster will be a rare thing), and then the next one is at CR 10 or so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can use cr 5 lizardmen. Use the gladiator statblock.