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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Tucker's kobolds approve of this. (Link in case any one doesn't know the epicness of said kobolds.... http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/ )

The myth of Tucker's kobolds is such BS. They werent kobolds, they were killer DM traps with kobold based flavor text. All it proves is that PC's lose when the DM is out to get them. It's dirty pool to put tiny explosive runes on a trap so that anyone trying to search to disarm it also triggers the runes, or a trap that triggers 10 feet away from the trigger so anyone probing gets hit, or a bunch of arrows of slaying on a stick (hi Dragon Mountain).

 

[Sacrosanct]

The myth of Tucker's kobolds is such BS. They werent kobolds, they were killer DM traps with kobold based flavor text. All it proves is that PC's lose when the DM is out to get them. It's dirty pool to put tiny explosive runes on a trap so that anyone trying to search to disarm it also triggers the runes, or a trap that triggers 10 feet away from the trigger so anyone probing gets hit, or a bunch of arrows of slaying on a stick (hi Dragon Mountain).

Kobolds are intelligent, and have a natural aptitude and expertise for traps. The only thing that's BS is someone assuming they wouldn't be able to create traps like that and it must be a bad DM. The DMs job is to play the monsters up to how they would normally behave up their capability, which most if not all of those traps in TK were. I also find your argument to be highly disingenuous because it tells you right there in the monster entry that kobolds can do things like that and your essentially blaming the DM (Tucker) for playing them as they should be played.

Then again, you are the same person who thinks monsters are boring unless they have cool powers in their stat blocks, when what makes a monster boring or not is how the DM plays it. You do realize there's entire section before the stat block that is invaluable to show a DM how boring or not a monster can be, right? If you ignore that information, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on when you call the monster boring. That's 100% on you as the DM in how you played them.

It never fails to amaze me that for the majority of D&D's existence, it's official motto was "Products of Your Imagination", and yet so many players refuse to use their imagination and instead think monsters/PCs are limited to what's in an official statblock as to what they can do and nothing else is allowed.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Kobolds are intelligent, and have a natural aptitude and expertise for traps. The only thing that's BS is someone assuming they wouldn't be able to create traps like that and it must be a bad DM. The DMs job is to play the monsters up to how they would normally behave up their capability, which most if not all of those traps in TK were. I also find your argument to be highly disingenuous because it tells you right there in the monster entry that kobolds can do things like that and your essentially blaming the DM (Tucker) for playing them as they should be played.

No, I'm sying the PC's essentially auto lose when you use realistic tactics. Kobolds are aware of their environment, and where they put their own traps. Its relatively simple to invent more things to screw over PC's pixel bitching, like the aforementioned tiny explosive runes. Follow that up some grimtooth level crap, and eventually you have a TPK. How clever. The guy with unlimited in game power and endless resources beat his friends. He's king of the lunch table!

Then again, you are the same person who thinks monsters are boring unless they have cool powers in their stat blocks, when what makes a monster boring or not is how the DM plays it. You do realize there's entire section before the stat block that is invaluable to show a DM how boring or not a monster can be, right? If you ignore that information, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on when you call the monster boring. That's 100% on you as the DM in how you played them.

Well, actually I said they were pathetic in the stat department, because everything is designed for the stupid 6-8 encounter day of speedbumps.

It never fails to amaze me that for the majority of D&D's existence, it's official motto was "Products of Your Imagination", and yet so many players refuse to use their imagination and instead think monsters/PCs are limited to what's in an official statblock as to what they can do and nothing else is allowed.

This is rich from a guy who cant even wrap his brain around marking or other narrative sim mechanics...

 

[dave2008]

The myth of Tucker's kobolds is such BS. They werent kobolds, they were killer DM traps with kobold based flavor text. All it proves is that PC's lose when the DM is out to get them.

Then I guess you didn't read closely enough, the PCs didn't loose and the players had a very memorable and exciting time. Sounds like a win to me.

We do need to realize that monsters are more than the stat block. I mean how many 4e threads (on the WotC forum at least) were there about how boring 4e fights were. That monsters were just big bags of hit points. Quite a few I can tell you.

The fact is, 5e, like 4e, requires the DM to make the monsters come alive.

 

[Jester David]

The myth of Tucker's kobolds is such BS. They werent kobolds, they were killer DM traps with kobold based flavor text. All it proves is that PC's lose when the DM is out to get them. It's dirty pool to put tiny explosive runes on a trap so that anyone trying to search to disarm it also triggers the runes, or a trap that triggers 10 feet away from the trigger so anyone probing gets hit, or a bunch of arrows of slaying on a stick (hi Dragon Mountain).

Kobolds are intelligent, and have a natural aptitude and expertise for traps. The only thing that's BS is someone assuming they wouldn't be able to create traps like that and it must be a bad DM. The DMs job is to play the monsters up to how they would normally behave up their capability, which most if not all of those traps in TK were. I also find your argument to be highly disingenuous because it tells you right there in the monster entry that kobolds can do things like that and your essentially blaming the DM (Tucker) for playing them as they should be played.

Smart monster tactics and playing to a monster's strengths are a good DMing tool. But traps and terrain are tricky because they can make a fight much easier or much more difficult, and they're seldom reflected in the CR/level of the encounter. Only 3e really tried to do this, factoring the environment into the Encounter Level. 4e had a lot of awesome terrain and tried to encourage set piece encounters in a location that wasn't a big empty room, but it didn't impact the level of the encounter.
Consider a fight where the PCs are fighting a group of archers behind a barricade that gives them cover, or snipers up on a balcony. That's a much nastier fight than one where the PCs ambush the archers as they pass, despite the exact same experience being awarded for both.

Tucker's kobolds was very much a DM using traps that would/should have been higher level in terms of damage than the PCs. A meatgrinder of gotcha traps triggered by the kobolds.
It makes sense that kobolds should use traps, but they should be somewhat level appropriate...

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, I'm sying the PC's essentially auto lose when you use realistic tactics. Kobolds are aware of their environment, and where they put their own traps. Its relatively simple to invent more things to screw over PC's pixel bitching, like the aforementioned tiny explosive runes. Follow that up some grimtooth level crap, and eventually you have a TPK. How clever. The guy with unlimited in game power and endless resources beat his friends. He's king of the lunch table!

Well, when you have players who don't assume every encounter should be automatically won, then it isn't a problem. They tend to be more cautious in their approach. And apparently the thing you called BS you didn't even bother to read. It wasn't a TPK. You're essentially arguing that the DM shouldn't play monsters up to their abilities because that means the PCs won't automatically win, while also arguing that monsters are boring. Sounds to me that you're cutting yourself off at the knees and then complaining about how you can't see over the wall because it was built too high.

This is rich from a guy who cant even wrap his brain around marking or other narrative sim mechanics...

Do you have any examples of me doing this, or is your only recourse baseless insults now?

 

[Xeviat]

Smart monster tactics and playing to a monster's strengths are a good DMing tool. But traps and terrain are tricky because they can make a fight much easier or much more difficult, and they're seldom reflected in the CR/level of the encounter. Only 3e really tried to do this, factoring the environment into the Encounter Level. 4e had a lot of awesome terrain and tried to encourage set piece encounters in a location that wasn't a big empty room, but it didn't impact the level of the encounter.
Consider a fight where the PCs are fighting a group of archers behind a barricade that gives them cover, or snipers up on a balcony. That's a much nastier fight than one where the PCs ambush the archers as they pass, despite the exact same experience being awarded for both.

Eh, 4th and 5th both have blurbs in the encounter design sections that say a fight becomes "harder" of you give favorable conditions to the monsters. A medium fight becomes hard, a hard fight becomes deadly ...

4E also had Levels for traps and level guidance on how much damage environmental conditions should deal so they were worth the action to push someone into them. It would be super easy to do the same thing in 5th.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cmad1977]

The fact is, 5e, like 4e, requires the DM to make the monsters come alive.

This is pretty much my stance on a lot of these 'ermagerd, X is broken!' Threads.
Bottom line: if your monsters are boring slabs of HP, it's on you. Not the monsters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is pretty much my stance on a lot of these 'ermagerd, X is broken!' Threads.
Bottom line: if your monsters are boring slabs of HP, it's on you. Not the monsters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's also true of every edition IME, not just 4 or 5e. That's what the "role" in "role playing game" means

 

[cmad1977]

That's also true of every edition IME, not just 4 or 5e. That's what the "role" in "role playing game" means

Gotta role play the bad guys too. They have just as much desire to live as anyone else. Or unlive if they're undead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk