PDA

View Full Version : And... the magic items!



Kurald Galain
2014-06-24, 07:22 AM
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62355&d=1403603166

Information on magic items. Characters can attune up to three items, but none of the items shown so far require attunement. Of note are the classic Boots of Striding (which raise your speed to the default speed of a standard character) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (which raise your strength to the same bonus as a level-1 fighter).

There's also information on how monsters look like, such as this one. The main point of interest here is that it lists average damage for an attack, which could speed up gameplay.

Ogre
Large giant, chaotic evil
Armor Class 11 (hide armor)
Hit Points 59 (7d10+21)
Speed 40 ft
Str 19, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 7, Cha 7
Senses: darkvision 60 ft., passive perception 8
Languages: Common, Giant
Challenge 2 (450 XP)
ACTIONS
Greatclub Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft. one target
Hit: 13 (2d8+4) bludgeoning damage
Javelin. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., range 30 ft./120 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6+4) piercing damage


Finally, we have a spell (http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/command.jpg), which looks pretty much the same like it did in 3E, except that "target" and "saving throw" are no longer part of the template, they are instead spelled out in the rules text.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 07:47 AM
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62355&d=1403603166

Information on magic items. Characters can attune up to three items, but none of the items shown so far require attunement. Of note are the classic Boots of Striding (which raise your speed to the default speed of a standard character) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (which raise your strength to the same bonus as a level-1 fighter).

There's also information on how monsters look like, such as this one. The main point of interest here is that it lists average damage for an attack, which could speed up gameplay.

Ogre
Large giant, chaotic evil
Armor Class 11 (hide armor)
Hit Points 59 (7d10+21)
Speed 40 ft
Str 19, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 7, Cha 7
Senses: darkvision 60 ft., passive perception 8
Languages: Common, Giant
Challenge 2 (450 XP)
ACTIONS
Greatclub Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft. one target
Hit: 13 (2d8+4) bludgeoning damage
Javelin. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., range 30 ft./120 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6+4) piercing damage


Finally, we have a spell (http://www.enworld.org/newsimages/command.jpg), which looks pretty much the same like it did in 3E, except that "target" and "saving throw" are no longer part of the template, they are instead spelled out in the rules text.

Oh good, command at higher levels looks fun. I can make a whole group of fighters fall down instead of just 1. Trip lock may not work, but grovel lock might...

obryn
2014-06-24, 08:05 AM
Yeah, I'm not thrilled how the saving throw is listed in the text rather than in the header, where it should be.

pwykersotz
2014-06-24, 08:26 AM
Yeah, I'm not thrilled how the saving throw is listed in the text rather than in the header, where it should be.

Agreed, that seems unnecessarily frustrating.

captpike
2014-06-24, 02:01 PM
the text is like 3x as long as it should be. it has too many fiddly bits, like not working on undead, stuff that has no real mechanical reason to exist and will just get in the way.

this is how I would do it:

Command
enchantment
Level: 1+ (see targets)
targets: one target per spell level used
duration: 1 round
save: wisdom
range: 15ft(3sq) radius sphere within 60ft(12sq)

the target(s) uses it's next turn to follow your command, so long as that command does not directly cause it damage.
approach: the target uses its movement to come to you in the most direct route possible
drop: the target falls prone then ends its turn
flee: the target runs from you as far as it can get.
halt: the target does nothing

Morty
2014-06-24, 02:13 PM
The ogre looks like a big pile of hit points and attacks and nothing more. That's a shame.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 02:16 PM
The ogre looks like a big pile of hit points and attacks and nothing more. That's a shame.

Well I'm sure most people will use them as such.

I also hope that the MM or DMG will have a pool of abilities you can choose from to customize of upgrade monsters.


Not really feats and such but like powers from 4e.

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 02:31 PM
I screencapped (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/RHO1/Ochre_zps9216a3e4.png) a portion of the Starter Set Unboxing video that had the Ocher Jelly and the Nothic.


The ogre looks like a big pile of hit points and attacks and nothing more. That's a shame.

The devs had said that they do not want to over-think particular monsters. Some are just going to be sacks of hit points that hit you with a club. Mike Mearls talked about how giving an Ogre a few levels of Fighter dramatically changed the play experience (specifically Improved Crit).

captpike
2014-06-24, 02:36 PM
sigh

I REALLY don't want to have to take the time to add PC levels to creatures who will just die in half an hour

is it too much to ask for every pre-made creature be awesome and cool and self-contained?

pwykersotz
2014-06-24, 02:40 PM
sigh

I REALLY don't want to have to take the time to add PC levels to creatures who will just die in half an hour

is it too much to ask for every pre-made creature be awesome and cool and self-contained?

Sadly, probably. :smallfrown:

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 02:41 PM
sigh

I REALLY don't want to have to take the time to add PC levels to creatures who will just die in half an hour

is it too much to ask for every pre-made creature be awesome and cool and self-contained?

To be honest, all you really need to do is just take the cool ability you want and give it to him, especially if it is reasonable for the monster to have that power/ability. That isn't that different than 4E, which encouraged power swapping to spice things up.

It seems some monsters are very basic, especially the brutish thug monsters. Other monsters have cool and unique abilities because that is part of their gimmick (like a Ochre Jelly's ability to spider-climb or split in two, or a Nothic's gaze attack). Having different complexities for monster is never a bad thing. Some times all you need is a big sack of HP that hits people with a stick.

Morty
2014-06-24, 02:52 PM
Well I'm sure most people will use them as such.

I also hope that the MM or DMG will have a pool of abilities you can choose from to customize of upgrade monsters.


Not really feats and such but like powers from 4e.

One of the things I liked in 4e was that monsters all had some sort of ability to make them stand out, if only a little. Big piles of HP are dull.

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 02:59 PM
One of the things I liked in 4e was that monsters all had some sort of ability to make them stand out, if only a little. Big piles of HP are dull.

A lot of the time that special power amounted to "I twirl around with my stick and hit everyone near me." That's pretty boring too. The most exciting monsters were the ones who were either innately magical or weird (i.e. would always have cool abilities, regardless of the edition).

pwykersotz
2014-06-24, 03:02 PM
One of the things I liked in 4e was that monsters all had some sort of ability to make them stand out, if only a little. Big piles of HP are dull.

They don't necessarily need a special attack to make them interesting, but they DO need fluff.

Morty
2014-06-24, 03:11 PM
A lot of the time that special power amounted to "I twirl around with my stick and hit everyone near me." That's pretty boring too. The most exciting monsters were the ones who were either innately magical or weird (i.e. would always have cool abilities, regardless of the edition).

Then give them powers which don't amount to that. And even such attacks are better than running on automatic.


They don't necessarily need a special attack to make them interesting, but they DO need fluff.

We've only seen the stat block, so I'm assuming the fluff is there and we just haven't seen it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 03:11 PM
They don't necessarily need a special attack to make them interesting, but they DO need fluff.

Meat bags don't need special abilities but cool monsters do.

I actually don't need fluff, I know way to many people who ignore fluff. Fluff is nice but not neccisarry. Put it in the game but I won't bat an eye about it being gone.

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 03:21 PM
Then give them powers which don't amount to that. And even such attacks are better than running on automatic.

Some monsters are just more vanilla than others. The great thing about vanilla is that you can add a lot of different flavors to it to make something even more yummy. Take an Ogre and give him levels of Barbarian or Cleric, boom instantly more exciting.

Lokiare
2014-06-24, 03:58 PM
Some monsters are just more vanilla than others. The great thing about vanilla is that you can add a lot of different flavors to it to make something even more yummy. Take an Ogre and give him levels of Barbarian or Cleric, boom instantly more exciting.

Don't forget tripling your preparation time. :smallsmile:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 04:05 PM
Don't forget tripling your preparation time. :smallsmile:

Unless you slim down the class levels to templates.

Barbarian Template
HP: +6/Level
Attack: +x/y levels
Rage: 1 round/level

Something quick and simple should work.

pwykersotz
2014-06-24, 04:13 PM
Meat bags don't need special abilities but cool monsters do.

I actually don't need fluff, I know way to many people who ignore fluff. Fluff is nice but not neccisarry. Put it in the game but I won't bat an eye about it being gone.

See, I find the fluff fascinating. I don't always use it, and I sometimes change it, but it's inspiring. It's true that it's not technically needed, but I find the game is a richer experience when I base the tactics and behavior of the bad guy off something deeper than a personality I thought up off the top of my head. My players definitely notice it, even if they don't always make use of it. But that's fine, their immersion is that much higher. Like any person you meet off the street, you KNOW they have a past, even if you don't know what it is. The same applies to these creatures.

Good fluff is hard. I find I have much more room to design my custom fluff when the rest is pre-written.

Envyus
2014-06-24, 04:17 PM
As they said the Ogre is pretty basic. They are big dumb brutes that hit people hard with a stick. If you want to make them more then that add some class levels.

An Orge is a very simple monster to customize and very easy to use as simple big fodder.

Also there is going to be fluff. It will be in the monster manual and it may be in Basic d&d when there are monsters in it. The fluff just does not have to be in the starter set.

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 04:42 PM
Don't forget tripling your preparation time. :smallsmile:

I am not sure it would triple prep time but it does take more prep time. Of course you could just generate your own templates (or find them online) and just keep a copy in your MM, which would allow a DM to change monsters on the fly. That is assuming such templates will not be in the MM or a future supplement (I know the idea for very simple templates has been floating around since the first playtest packet was released). :smallsmile:

Morty
2014-06-24, 05:08 PM
Take an Ogre and give him levels of Barbarian or Cleric, boom instantly more exciting.

That's assuming non-magical classes get any actual options...

Lokiare
2014-06-24, 05:51 PM
Unless you slim down the class levels to templates.

Barbarian Template
HP: +6/Level
Attack: +x/y levels
Rage: 1 round/level

Something quick and simple should work.

You have to remember they are putting everything but spells into the stat blocks. So your 2 levels of Barbarian template is going to look more like:

Barbarian Template
HP: +7/Level
Attack: +1 and +1 per 4 levels past 2
Armor: Light, Medium, Shields
Weapons: Simple, Martial
Tools: Mounts(land)
Save prof: Str, Con
Skills (1): Athletics, Intimidation, Survival

1st
Rage
Advantage on Strength saves and checks
+2 damage and +1 damage per 8 levels
Gain 2x Barbarian level in temp hp.
Lost reactions, except for opportunity actions.
Ends if the creature takes not damage or makes no attacks for 1 turn.

Thick Hide
When not wearing armor or using shields add Con mod to AC.

2nd

Feral Instinct
Advantage on initiative checks.

Reckless Attack
The creature can choose to have advantage on attack rolls, if its not raging attackers get advantage against the creature.

and on and on and on...

1337 b4k4
2014-06-24, 07:39 PM
Sorry, can someone explain to me whats wrong with if you think your ogre is bland, simply adding whatever features and widgets from whatever class you want to the ogre? Why do we need to be bothered with the whole process of adding class levels?

Felhammer
2014-06-24, 07:43 PM
Sorry, can someone explain to me whats wrong with if you think your ogre is bland, simply adding whatever features and widgets from whatever class you want to the ogre? Why do we need to be bothered with the whole process of adding class levels?

People dislike that he does not have a cool power/ability and so call him bland.

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 08:05 PM
Out of curiosity, what did 4e do to make Ogres interesting?

DeltaEmil
2014-06-24, 08:21 PM
Out of curiosity, what did 4e do to make Ogres interesting?It depends on the role and the level. From the Monster Vault, we have the following abilities for the several types of ogres.
They gave the normal ogre the ability to make a devastating slam attack that pushes the target away and makes it prone (or at least deals some damage and makes the target prone on a miss). The ogre hunter (a skirmisher) had the ability to throw its javelins, and then immediately follow up with a charge, or push the target, and follow up again. Ogre mercenaries did have a close sweeping attack to knock everyone prone and they marked because they had the soldier combat role (but no special opportunity attack thing to follow up on the marking, so it's just a tiny debuff). Ogre juggernauts pushed and knocked a target down, dealing more damage the farther the target was pushed, fitting to its name. Arena-trained ogres didn't have fancy knock-downs or push attacks. They just dealt massive damage, and had a special attack which dealt some ongoing damage in addition.

The generic theme was that ogres charge a lot, and deal lots of damage, and knock enemies prone, because they're large and strong.

It's mostly just one, at most two special attacks that are given to a monster so that it doesn't just always do its basic attack.

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 08:34 PM
It depends on the role and the level. From the Monster Vault, we have the following abilities for the several types of ogres.
They gave the normal ogre the ability to make a devastating slam attack that pushes the target away and makes it prone (or at least deals some damage and makes the target prone on a miss). The ogre hunter (a skirmisher) had the ability to throw its javelins, and then immediately follow up with a charge, or push the target, and follow up again. Ogre mercenaries did have a close sweeping attack to knock everyone prone and they marked because they had the soldier combat role (but no special opportunity attack thing to follow up on the marking, so it's just a tiny debuff). Ogre juggernauts pushed and knocked a target down, dealing more damage the farther the target was pushed, fitting to its name. Arena-trained ogres didn't have fancy knock-downs or push attacks. They just dealt massive damage, and had a special attack which dealt some ongoing damage in addition.

The generic theme was that ogres charge a lot, and deal lots of damage, and knock enemies prone, because they're large and strong.

It's mostly just one, at most two special attacks that are given to a monster so that it doesn't just always do its basic attack.

So they "fixed" the problem by publishing 20 monsters called "Ogre". I suppose that makes things varied, but it doesn't strike me as better than giving them class levels or an arbitrary ability with the exception that they're pre-rolled. It also means my Monster Manual devotes a ton on pages to Ogres instead of something else. It's not that difficult to advance a monster on the fly and as long as it has the abilities I want it to have then it's good enough.

DeltaEmil
2014-06-24, 08:42 PM
So they "fixed" the problem by publishing 20 monsters called "Ogre". I suppose that makes things varied, but it doesn't strike me as better than giving them class levels or an arbitrary ability with the exception that they're pre-rolled. It also means my Monster Manual devotes a ton on pages to Ogres instead of something else. It's not that difficult to advance a monster on the fly and as long as it has the abilities I want it to have then it's good enough.Only 5, and the Monster Vault is one of the best D&D Monster Manuals that WotC produced. The fact that the 4e Demonomicon-style statblocks are more compact than their MM4-style 3.5 counterparts helps save lots of space, which is then filled with pretty pictures and some background information or behavior. Most monsters inside have three versions. Lots of options.

Thrudd
2014-06-24, 08:55 PM
I can't believe people have a problem with this. The only thing that shocks me is that an ogre is now 7HD! Holy moly.
In the Basic set, I assume they will be keeping it very simple, not a lot of special abilities, both for monsters and characters. Most things are not going to be much more than hit points and an attack value, that's on purpose, to teach people the basics of the game.
The more advanced PHB version of the game should include more tactical combat options like charging, tripping, bull rush, overrun, that sort of thing (I know they didn't have all of these in the playtests, but I can't believe the final product will leave them out). An ogre should be able to do just about anything they could do in 4e, so can any humanoid creature with a weapon. If you want a javelin throwing ogre that charges, you can give the ogre some javelins and have it charge. If you want a tripping ogre with a reach weapon, give an ogre a reach weapon. This isn't hard.

The only slightly valid complaint is that you won't be able to just pick a stat-block out of a book and plug it in, the DM does actually need to design things if more variety is wanted, and may need to refer to the contents of more than one book for things such as weapons and special attacks (until the rules are memorized). You just won't have "javelin ogre" "tripping ogre" and "smashy ogre" separately statted with average attack values in the MM. This has worked fine in every edition other than 4e.

Knaight
2014-06-24, 09:40 PM
The ogre looks like a big pile of hit points and attacks and nothing more. That's a shame.
Were it just about any other monster, I'd have a problem with that. An Ogre? No problem. Particularly as they have ability scores that you can use for stuff.


I can't believe people have a problem with this. The only thing that shocks me is that an ogre is now 7HD! Holy moly.
In the Basic set, I assume they will be keeping it very simple, not a lot of special abilities, both for monsters and characters. Most things are not going to be much more than hit points and an attack value, that's on purpose, to teach people the basics of the game.

Honestly, I think part of this is the whole "ogre" thing. They're big dumb brutes. That doesn't really call for that much complexity.

Envyus
2014-06-24, 10:55 PM
I just looked at the Ogre's in the original monster Manuel from 4e. And they really are not anymore complicated then this Ogre it's pretty much hit things hard. Honestly you can do more with this Ogre then the original 4e ones.

Sometimes a monster just hits things.

Chaosvii7
2014-06-25, 01:09 AM
Don't forget tripling your preparation time. :smallsmile:

Small price to pay. If people actually think it's too taxing to add a level to a something in this game then I question how anybody who plays this game maintains any relative amount of focus or interest in it.

obryn
2014-06-25, 06:25 AM
I just looked at the Ogre's in the original monster Manuel from 4e. And they really are not anymore complicated then this Ogre it's pretty much hit things hard. Honestly you can do more with this Ogre then the original 4e ones.

Sometimes a monster just hits things.
The original 4e monster manual is terrible. Monster Vault is where it's at. :)

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 09:33 AM
You have to remember they are putting everything but spells into the stat blocks. So your 2 levels of Barbarian template is going to look more like:

Barbarian Template
HP: +7/Level
Attack: +1 and +1 per 4 levels past 2
Armor: Light, Medium, Shields
Weapons: Simple, Martial
Tools: Mounts(land)
Save prof: Str, Con
Skills (1): Athletics, Intimidation, Survival

1st
Rage
Advantage on Strength saves and checks
+2 damage and +1 damage per 8 levels
Gain 2x Barbarian level in temp hp.
Lost reactions, except for opportunity actions.
Ends if the creature takes not damage or makes no attacks for 1 turn.

Thick Hide
When not wearing armor or using shields add Con mod to AC.

2nd

Feral Instinct
Advantage on initiative checks.

Reckless Attack
The creature can choose to have advantage on attack rolls, if its not raging attackers get advantage against the creature.

and on and on and on...

Nope.

Make monster versions of each class as a template. They don't have to be made the same as a PC and you know what, I don't think you should make monsters the same way as PCs. Monsters don't live long.

You don't have to copy the Barbarian but emulate the barbarian.

Dr.Starky
2014-06-25, 11:04 AM
Ogres were intended to be the quintessential "dumb muscle" monster. Most you can complicate them is just giving them a few variants of "hit hard". Get ogre it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 12:04 PM
Ogres were intended to be the quintessential "dumb muscle" monster. Most you can complicate them is just giving them a few variants of "hit hard". Get ogre it.

Well that is one way to do it.

But bags of meat don't always cut it, sometimes you need something better to mix things up and all you have to work with (due to plot) is ogres.

I reckon if that is why Ogre Mages were created.

Yorrin
2014-06-25, 12:19 PM
But bags of meat don't always cut it, sometimes you need something better to mix things up and all you have to work with (due to plot) is ogres.

And that's where DM creativity comes in. Because they can't account for every variation of Ogre that you'll need for your plot. 5e is more like 2e than 4e in the sense that it's not going to hold your hand as a DM. DMs are supposed to put a lot into their prep, especially when they've got a cool custom-built plot with matching custom built monsters.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 12:25 PM
Well that is one way to do it.

But bags of meat don't always cut it, sometimes you need something better to mix things up and all you have to work with (due to plot) is ogres.

I reckon if that is why Ogre Mages were created.
The Ogre Mage is a pretty straightforward adaptation of some Japanese Oni. That said, they work in the role.

As for Ogres not being able to do much - the rook in Chess is capable of moving only in straight lines, along the grid, excluding diagonals. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting. The pawn can move one forward, attack one diagonal, and has two niche case actions (moving 2 forward on the first turn, which is at least a really common niche, and en passant), and pawn use is a huge part of competitive chess. Complex tactics can emerge from fairly simple things. To use something closer to D&D, consider Fire Emblem. There are a few actions (attack, shove, pick up, drop), everyone does straightforward damage, and there's two defenses that see use, one for physical attacks and one for magic. It still manages to be an interesting strategic game. Much like with the chess example, part of it is the number of pieces/characters (32 in chess, 9 in the smallest Fire Emblem map I can think of with 20-60 being more common).

Basically, I don't see the ogre being this simple as a problem. It does mean that a fight wherein all the PCs gang up against one ogre in boring terrain probably won't be that interesting. I really don't see that as a system failure.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 01:25 PM
The Ogre Mage is a pretty straightforward adaptation of some Japanese Oni. That said, they work in the role.

As for Ogres not being able to do much - the rook in Chess is capable of moving only in straight lines, along the grid, excluding diagonals. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting. The pawn can move one forward, attack one diagonal, and has two niche case actions (moving 2 forward on the first turn, which is at least a really common niche, and en passant), and pawn use is a huge part of competitive chess. Complex tactics can emerge from fairly simple things. To use something closer to D&D, consider Fire Emblem. There are a few actions (attack, shove, pick up, drop), everyone does straightforward damage, and there's two defenses that see use, one for physical attacks and one for magic. It still manages to be an interesting strategic game. Much like with the chess example, part of it is the number of pieces/characters (32 in chess, 9 in the smallest Fire Emblem map I can think of with 20-60 being more common).

Basically, I don't see the ogre being this simple as a problem. It does mean that a fight wherein all the PCs gang up against one ogre in boring terrain probably won't be that interesting. I really don't see that as a system failure.

I agree in principal with what you mean however...

In chess everyone is playing by the same rules, I'm sorry but in D&D monsters and PCs font play by the same rules.

A monster's role is to be entertaining in some way. Now yes, I can use tactics and really give it to my players but that has been happening since I started DMing 3.5. Monsters should evolve and have interesting things to do. I don't always play with new players, to all the veterans this will be a "been there seen that" sort of deal.

Each meatbag should be able to have options added on, like if a pawn gets to the other side of the board, they get to upgrade and use new tactics.

Ogre Mage: yeah I'm sure Japan had an influence on that, however why upgrade the ogre into an ogre mage in a game if all you need is the meet bag and some tactics? Because giving this huge brute new options can be fun. Ogre Mages are pretty much Ogre+ after all.

I want a win-win situation here.

Give all of us the meatbag boring monsters if you must, but give me options to upgrade my monster. Simple add ones and templates can work just fine.

People who want normal meat bags get what they want and I get what I want. Win win.

Unless giving DMs options to upgrade monsters is a bad thing that will ruin the game? Yeah that ain't going to happen.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-25, 02:13 PM
Give all of us the meatbag boring monsters if you must, but give me options to upgrade my monster. Simple add ones and templates can work just fine.

People who want normal meat bags get what they want and I get what I want. Win win.

Unless giving DMs options to upgrade monsters is a bad thing that will ruin the game? Yeah that ain't going to happen.

Why can't you do this yourself? If you do it yourself, your bookworm players won't know what to expect because it isn't actually in a book. Its not defined.

Personally, I've never seen much use in buying anything other than the core three. What else do you need really? I don't need 1001 options to customize monsters. I can do that in my head. I don't need 107 different feats to work with. I can do that on an as needed basis by working with my players.

I guess I can get away with this because I don't really care about the math, or the most potent options. I can make anything potent and useful. ex) Magic missile used to save a man from being hanged. Having a mage pick up a frog and tell the small town how he turned the man who crossed him into a toad. Using rock to mud to drop the evil mages tower, before even attempting to walk inside.

I just strongly believe all you need is the basic stuff. Half my fun is making it up as I go.

rlc
2014-06-25, 02:21 PM
The only slightly valid complaint is that you won't be able to just pick a stat-block out of a book and plug it in, the DM does actually need to design things if more variety is wanted, and may need to refer to the contents of more than one book for things such as weapons and special attacks (until the rules are memorized). You just won't have "javelin ogre" "tripping ogre" and "smashy ogre" separately statted with average attack values in the MM. This has worked fine in every edition other than 4e.
And maybe we will have that stuff. This is just one monster that's (probably) from the starter set. I'm sure there will be other monsters that are special towards the end of said starter set, but also I'm pretty sure they can do something else in a monster manual that we haven't even seen anything but the cover of yet (i think? We've seen the cover, right?)

Lokiare
2014-06-25, 02:25 PM
Small price to pay. If people actually think it's too taxing to add a level to a something in this game then I question how anybody who plays this game maintains any relative amount of focus or interest in it.

Except when you have to do it to every monster in the game. That starts adding up to a lot of time and effort that shouldn't be required. I've known a few DMs that just quit DMing 3.5E for this same exact problem.


Nope.

Make monster versions of each class as a template. They don't have to be made the same as a PC and you know what, I don't think you should make monsters the same way as PCs. Monsters don't live long.

You don't have to copy the Barbarian but emulate the barbarian.

That was the short version of 4 levels of Barbarian.


And that's where DM creativity comes in. Because they can't account for every variation of Ogre that you'll need for your plot. 5e is more like 2e than 4e in the sense that it's not going to hold your hand as a DM. DMs are supposed to put a lot into their prep, especially when they've got a cool custom-built plot with matching custom built monsters.

In this day and age DMs are not going to put a lot of time and effort into their prep, especially if it isn't necessary. They'll just go play something else. 5E really needs to be super easy to DM. It needs to be a game where new and mediocre DMs can run great games and at the same time not get in the way of experienced DMs.


Why can't you do this yourself? If you do it yourself, your bookworm players won't know what to expect because it isn't actually in a book. Its not defined.

Personally, I've never seen much use in buying anything other than the core three. What else do you need really? I don't need 1001 options to customize monsters. I can do that in my head. I don't need 107 different feats to work with. I can do that on an as needed basis by working with my players.

I guess I can get away with this because I don't really care about the math, or the most potent options. I can make anything potent and useful. ex) Magic missile used to save a man from being hanged. Having a mage pick up a frog and tell the small town how he turned the man who crossed him into a toad. Using rock to mud to drop the evil mages tower, before even attempting to walk inside.

I just strongly believe all you need is the basic stuff. Half my fun is making it up as I go.

Yes, some play styles are not yours. Some of us don't want to spend hours prepping or wing it during play and make stuff up. Some of us want to be able to put together a complete interesting adventure that encompasses one level of play in under 30 minutes. We know its possible because 4E and other games do it all the time.

captpike
2014-06-25, 02:31 PM
And that's where DM creativity comes in. Because they can't account for every variation of Ogre that you'll need for your plot. 5e is more like 2e than 4e in the sense that it's not going to hold your hand as a DM. DMs are supposed to put a lot into their prep, especially when they've got a cool custom-built plot with matching custom built monsters.

the thing is that the game needs to also work for DMs who have minimal prep time, or when your players just go out into left field and get into a fight you had no way of knowing they would get into.

so I need to be able to flip through the MM and throw a fight together that is cool and interesting, but that you did not have 2 hours to make.

Lokiare
2014-06-25, 02:35 PM
the thing is that the game needs to also work for DMs who have minimal prep time, or when your players just go out into left field and get into a fight you had no way of knowing they would get into.

so I need to be able to flip through the MM and throw a fight together that is cool and interesting, but that you did not have 2 hours to make.

Yeah. Tell me about it. Last week my players went into a monster infested market to spy on what was going on at an auction. I told them up front starting a fight would probably be suicide. Guess what happened? Go ahead and guess!

Yep, they started a fight so now at level 4 they are facing several level 6 trolls, a couple half-ogres, and some assorted goblins, kobolds, and hobgoblins, and this is 4E without scaling the monsters level up or down.

Took me all of 5 minutes to set the thing up with no prep.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-25, 02:57 PM
Yeah. Tell me about it. Last week my players went into a monster infested market to spy on what was going on at an auction. I told them up front starting a fight would probably be suicide. Guess what happened? Go ahead and guess!

Yep, they started a fight so now at level 4 they are facing several level 6 trolls, a couple half-ogres, and some assorted goblins, kobolds, and hobgoblins, and this is 4E without scaling the monsters level up or down.

Took me all of 5 minutes to set the thing up with no prep.

And why do we think we can't do this in 5e?

Lokiare
2014-06-25, 03:02 PM
And why do we think we can't do this in 5e?

Because in 5E you either have to add class levels or template to the monsters or you end up with a grind fest where players are only grinding away at hit points, no matter how fancifully you describe the action. Guess how much time it takes to add class levels and templates to 6 trolls, 2 half-ogres, and a bunch of goblins, hobgoblins, and kobolds? Way more than 5 minutes.

captpike
2014-06-25, 03:04 PM
And why do we think we can't do this in 5e?

because adding class levels to everything takes too much time to do at the table. it needs to be possible to flip through the MM and pick out creatures you need, and to have them be cool and interesting.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-25, 03:14 PM
Because in 5E you either have to add class levels or template to the monsters or you end up with a grind fest where players are only grinding away at hit points, no matter how fancifully you describe the action. Guess how much time it takes to add class levels and templates to 6 trolls, 2 half-ogres, and a bunch of goblins, hobgoblins, and kobolds? Way more than 5 minutes.


because adding class levels to everything takes too much time to do at the table. it needs to be possible to flip through the MM and pick out creatures you need, and to have them be cool and interesting.

Why do we have to add class levels? What feature of 5e prevents you from slapping whatever random ability you want onto your monsters? I get it, in 3e monsters were built like PCs. They aren't in 5e, so why are we acting like they are? For that matter, why are we extrapolating from a single stat block how interesting or uninteresting all monsters will be?

da_chicken
2014-06-25, 03:24 PM
Adding class levels should be reserved for monsters I want to stand out. A marketplace full of mooks is perfectly fine to be a marketplace full of mooks. I don't need every one to have a snowflake attack. That just adds tempo overhead as I reread every monster every round. Variety isn't that compelling in combats that aren't supposed to be memorable. Worse, since everything is different there is no standard. That means when I want the combat to be special it's much more difficult. Once everything is special, nothing is special.

I already have infinite variety of terrain and combinations of generic monsters to more than keep my players engaged. I can change up weapons and tactics. I can apply pressure from the environment or situation.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 03:30 PM
Why do we have to add class levels? What feature of 5e prevents you from slapping whatever random ability you want onto your monsters? I get it, in 3e monsters were built like PCs. They aren't in 5e, so why are we acting like they are? For that matter, why are we extrapolating from a single stat block how interesting or uninteresting all monsters will be?

Also why does a monster have to have every PC ability in order to emulate that PC class?

Hogwash.

Barbarian (Monster)
Add rage
(Advantage on Strength saves and checks
+2 damage and +1 damage per 8 levels
Gain 2x Barbarian level in temp hp. (Can be whatever DM wants it to be)

Lost reactions, except for opportunity actions.
Ends if the creature takes not damage or makes no attacks for 1 turn)

Advantage on initiative checks.

Boom, barbarian template. Want to add Barbarian subclasses? Easy but not needed to emulate a barbarian.

That Ogre starts to rage and your players will gulp.

Lokiare
2014-06-25, 03:34 PM
Adding class levels should be reserved for monsters I want to stand out. A marketplace full of mooks is perfectly fine to be a marketplace full of mooks. I don't need every one to have a snowflake attack. That just adds tempo overhead as I reread every monster every round. Variety isn't that compelling in combats that aren't supposed to be memorable. Worse, since everything is different there is no standard. That means when I want the combat to be special it's much more difficult. Once everything is special, nothing is special.

I already have infinite variety of terrain and combinations of generic monsters to more than keep my players engaged. I can change up weapons and tactics. I can apply pressure from the environment or situation.

I was thinking more of the trolls and ogres might have one special attack each and the rest of the guys would have nothing. So trolls might have:

Regeneration: The troll regains 5 hit points at the start of its turn. If the troll is damaged by acid or fire, they don't regain hit points in this way for 1d2 rounds.

Double attack: The troll can make two claw attacks each round. They can be against the same or different enemies within reach.

Rend: if both troll attacks hit, deal ongoing 5 damage until the player makes a DC 13 constitution save, they can make this save at the start of each turn. Alternatively they can take an action to bandage themselves and end the effect immediately

The half-Ogres might have:

Ogre Smash: Once per encounter the ogre can muster its strength to hit the target and knock it back 10 feet out of reach. The target must make a DC 12 strength save or be thrown back 10 feet and fall prone.

Ogre Endurance: When an Ogre falls to 0 hp they continue to act until they fail a DC 15 Con save, which they make at the end of each round. During this time, the Ogre only attacks the nearest creature it can see in a wild rage.

Of course I'd have to run the math to see what the DCs should be to challenge but not TPK the party, and that could take a while.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 03:43 PM
I agree in principal with what you mean however...

In chess everyone is playing by the same rules, I'm sorry but in D&D monsters and PCs font play by the same rules.

A monster's role is to be entertaining in some way. Now yes, I can use tactics and really give it to my players but that has been happening since I started DMing 3.5. Monsters should evolve and have interesting things to do. I don't always play with new players, to all the veterans this will be a "been there seen that" sort of deal.

Each meatbag should be able to have options added on, like if a pawn gets to the other side of the board, they get to upgrade and use new tactics.
The same rules thing is completely and utterly irrelevant. The point is that fairly simple rules can produce complex tactics, nothing more. This frequently happens in strategy games - you've got a bunch of units, which might be separated by relatively little, there's the terrain, and strategy happens. Hence the Fire Emblem example, which has such huge differences as "guy who dodges well and attacks twice for low damage" and "guy who takes less damage and attacks once for moderate damage" and "guy with a fat sack of HP that they will burn through as their defenses are terrible, with one high damage attack". In practice the number of attacks is slightly more complex, but that's basically how they work out. Yet it still has engaging tactics.


Ogre Mage: yeah I'm sure Japan had an influence on that, however why upgrade the ogre into an ogre mage in a game if all you need is the meet bag and some tactics? Because giving this huge brute new options can be fun. Ogre Mages are pretty much Ogre+ after all.

I want a win-win situation here.

Give all of us the meatbag boring monsters if you must, but give me options to upgrade my monster. Simple add ones and templates can work just fine.
It's not that the ogre was upgraded. It's that they seriously just grabbed an Oni, stuck on some terminology that was more recognizable, and called it a day.

Having the options there is good, I'm just saying that meatbag boring monsters can still be tactically interesting as part of a greater whole. One ogre in a 10 foot by 10 foot room? Not so much. A fight in an underground river and it's surroundings involving that ogre as muscle, a couple orcs with javelins as skirmishers, and a large river serpent who'll bite anyone who gets near, ogre, orc, or PC? Potentially interesting.

rlc
2014-06-25, 03:57 PM
Guys...we're comparing a monster manual to a starter set. They're not even for the same purpose. Apples and oranges.

captpike
2014-06-25, 04:02 PM
Why do we have to add class levels? What feature of 5e prevents you from slapping whatever random ability you want onto your monsters? I get it, in 3e monsters were built like PCs. They aren't in 5e, so why are we acting like they are? For that matter, why are we extrapolating from a single stat block how interesting or uninteresting all monsters will be?

it still takes more time then it should. what is wrong with the MM having cool, interesting and self-contained stat blocks that I don't have to touch to use?

if I have to change a large amount of the stat blocks to make them useable then why am I even paying them for the book?

Morty
2014-06-25, 04:07 PM
Having the options there is good, I'm just saying that meatbag boring monsters can still be tactically interesting as part of a greater whole. One ogre in a 10 foot by 10 foot room? Not so much. A fight in an underground river and it's surroundings involving that ogre as muscle, a couple orcs with javelins as skirmishers, and a large river serpent who'll bite anyone who gets near, ogre, orc, or PC? Potentially interesting.

That's a good point. While the ogre as presented would be quite dull as a solo fight, it can be less so when used in conjunction with other enemies and tactical factors.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-25, 04:08 PM
it still takes more time then it should. what is wrong with the MM having cool, interesting and self-contained stat blocks that I don't have to touch to use?

if I have to change a large amount of the stat blocks to make them useable then why am I even paying them for the book?

Let's drop the hyperbole. How is the ogre as presented "unusable"? And how are you extrapolating from one stat block from a starter set to an entire monster manual? And to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything wrong with having some monsters that are just big sacks of HP designed to soak damage.

DeltaEmil
2014-06-25, 04:08 PM
Guys...we're comparing a monster manual to a starter set. They're not even for the same purpose. Apples and oranges.Hopefully, the monsters from the 5e Starter Set are written in the same statblock format and with the same "complexity" as the Monster Manual for 5e, and not be somehow different in any aspect.

captpike
2014-06-25, 04:10 PM
Let's drop the hyperbole. How is the ogre as presented "unusable"? And how are you extrapolating from one stat block from a starter set to an entire monster manual? And to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything wrong with having some monsters that are just big sacks of HP designed to soak damage.

if there is only one every 5 levels its fine. but its too easy to make a creature with just basic stats for it to be worth paying money for more then a few in the MM.

and of course a cool and interesting creature is easy to turn into a boring slog if you want to. the reverse is not true. no reason not to give him one or two abilities, it would only take up a couple lines.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 04:11 PM
Let's drop the hyperbole. How is the ogre as presented "unusable"? And how are you extrapolating from one stat block from a starter set to an entire monster manual? And to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything wrong with having some monsters that are just big sacks of HP designed to soak damage.

I know it isn't unplayable for me, my group will be running through a modified tuckers kobold game soon.

But they could have easily added something like

optional abilities


Ogre Song: Ogre sings and blah blah blah

Ogre Rage: Ogre gains rage

To at least show us that they aren't just going back to pre-4e style monsters.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-25, 04:17 PM
Hopefully, the monsters from the 5e Starter Set are written in the same statblock format and with the same "complexity" as the Monster Manual for 5e, and not be somehow different in any aspect.

OTOH, one might find only one type of Ogre in the starter set, but if the Monster Manual had multiple role monsters a la 4e it would have more. And again, one monster being a meat bag doesn't imply all monsters are meat bags.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 04:40 PM
if there is only one every 5 levels its fine. but its too easy to make a creature with just basic stats for it to be worth paying money for more then a few in the MM.

Sure. It's easy to make a creature with just basic stats. It's less easy to make a whole bunch - and it's safe to say that abilities will be in there (seriously, the Ogre is the best candidate out of the entire D&D bestiary to just have basic stats). It's even less easy for new GMs, who are likely not even familiar with a number of the creatures. On top of that you get the art, whatever flavor text makes it in, the convenient formatting, etc. It probably isn't worth it to you, because you're enough of a veteran to just make stats. It isn't worth it to me, because I favor settings in which the antagonists are almost always groups of humans, and on the rare occasion they aren't they're probably animals (wild or domestic), so a big book of monsters does nothing. To newer GMs who actually use monsters? Even if it's relatively basic stat blocks, it's helpful.

captpike
2014-06-25, 05:43 PM
Sure. It's easy to make a creature with just basic stats. It's less easy to make a whole bunch - and it's safe to say that abilities will be in there (seriously, the Ogre is the best candidate out of the entire D&D bestiary to just have basic stats). It's even less easy for new GMs, who are likely not even familiar with a number of the creatures. On top of that you get the art, whatever flavor text makes it in, the convenient formatting, etc. It probably isn't worth it to you, because you're enough of a veteran to just make stats. It isn't worth it to me, because I favor settings in which the antagonists are almost always groups of humans, and on the rare occasion they aren't they're probably animals (wild or domestic), so a big book of monsters does nothing. To newer GMs who actually use monsters? Even if it's relatively basic stat blocks, it's helpful.

Such DMs could just ignore most of the powers the creatures have, make an interesting ogre, those who want it have it, those who want a creature with only a basic attack just ignore the powers.

also the math should be clearly layed out. I exspect to have it clear in the MM how much hp per level creatures should have saves ect. so if I want to make a creature I can do so quickly

Knaight
2014-06-25, 07:09 PM
Such DMs could just ignore most of the powers the creatures have, make an interesting ogre, those who want it have it, those who want a creature with only a basic attack just ignore the powers.

Alternately, powers don't have to be jammed into the stat blocks of every single monster. There's an entire manual of the things, it's not like there's an absence of options.

Also, it doesn't have just a basic attack. It has these fancy things called "ability scores" which it can use to do "ability checks". Just because a special attack isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean it can't pick up a rock and throw it.

Felhammer
2014-06-25, 07:14 PM
Alternately, powers don't have to be jammed into the stat blocks of every single monster. There's an entire manual of the things, it's not like there's an absence of options.

Also, it doesn't have just a basic attack. It has these fancy things called "ability scores" which it can use to do "ability checks". Just because a special attack isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean it can't pick up a rock and throw it.

Don't forget all the combat maneuvers, like tripping, sundering, disarming, bull rushing, grappling, etc.

captpike
2014-06-25, 07:46 PM
Alternately, powers don't have to be jammed into the stat blocks of every single monster. There's an entire manual of the things, it's not like there's an absence of options.

Also, it doesn't have just a basic attack. It has these fancy things called "ability scores" which it can use to do "ability checks". Just because a special attack isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean it can't pick up a rock and throw it.

if you don't have such things in the stat block then why have a MM? you might as well have something like this (http://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/printablemm3businessfront.gif) and just do the math yourself

the reason to have a MM is so you don't have to make up the creatures, don't have to have a second book open to look up how to do maneuvers, or spells.

da_chicken
2014-06-26, 12:30 AM
if you don't have such things in the stat block then why have a MM? you might as well have something like this (http://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/printablemm3businessfront.gif) and just do the math yourself

the reason to have a MM is so you don't have to make up the creatures, don't have to have a second book open to look up how to do maneuvers, or spells.

If you can't calculate a basic ranged attack on the fly from a stat block, then D&D might be too complex for you to DM. It doesn't matter the edition. It doesn't matter the monster. You fail at DMing.

DeltaEmil
2014-06-26, 01:39 AM
The ogre already has a basic attack, called javelin, where it simply throws javelins, so just substitute that with rock throwing, and say it's bludgeoning damage instead.

It becomes more interesting if the rocks thrown by an ogre are so big that they cause tiny earthquakes and can make everyone be knocked prone, or split apart in the air and can hit multiple opponents, or deal damage and immobilize the target by using the grapple mechanics to symbolize how the rock is on top of the target, or can deal damage and knock down and push the target all with one roll instead of multiple strength contests, or the ogre still holds on the thrown rock to propel itself towards the target (perhaps dealing a little bit of damage to itself, while causing big damage to the target, because ogres are too dumb to let go of rocks). Those are the relevant special attacks that tell monsters from each another apart and make them memorable.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-26, 03:07 AM
It becomes more interesting if the rocks thrown by an ogre are so big that they cause tiny earthquakes and can make everyone be knocked prone, or split apart in the air and can hit multiple opponents, or deal damage and immobilize the target by using the grapple mechanics to symbolize how the rock is on top of the target,

I believe 5E was trying to move away from mechanics that don't make sense :smallbiggrin:

Arzanyos
2014-06-26, 03:19 AM
I believe 5E was trying to move away from mechanics that don't make sense :smallbiggrin:

Eh, probably, but I could see it having more "rule-of-cool" type attacks than, say, 3e. I'm not saying to the level of "throw a rock your own size with out letting go of it", but I could see, for example, Ogre champion Orgak hitting an adventurer and sending them flying backwards, maybe even taking more damage if they slam into something. Or Grueg the Hill Giant chieftain being able to slam the ground hard enough he attacks with a shockwave that hits every square adjacent to the one he targets. Stuff like that. On a sidenote, little abilities like this are really easy to come up with, and can add a lot to a fight.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-26, 07:56 AM
Eh, probably, but I could see it having more "rule-of-cool" type attacks than, say, 3e. I'm not saying to the level of "throw a rock your own size with out letting go of it", but I could see, for example, Ogre champion Orgak hitting an adventurer and sending them flying backwards, maybe even taking more damage if they slam into something. Or Grueg the Hill Giant chieftain being able to slam the ground hard enough he attacks with a shockwave that hits every square adjacent to the one he targets. Stuff like that. On a sidenote, little abilities like this are really easy to come up with, and can add a lot to a fight.

Hey now... The dungeon crasher fighter was way to OP and broken, some may call it cheating.:smalltongue:

Lokiare
2014-06-26, 12:15 PM
Eh, probably, but I could see it having more "rule-of-cool" type attacks than, say, 3e. I'm not saying to the level of "throw a rock your own size with out letting go of it", but I could see, for example, Ogre champion Orgak hitting an adventurer and sending them flying backwards, maybe even taking more damage if they slam into something. Or Grueg the Hill Giant chieftain being able to slam the ground hard enough he attacks with a shockwave that hits every square adjacent to the one he targets. Stuff like that. On a sidenote, little abilities like this are really easy to come up with, and can add a lot to a fight.

Everyone keeps mentioning "rule of cool". In most development circles the rule of cool is well known as being a trap. Its the equivalent of saying "hey hold my beer and watch this". Its something that sounds cool when you think of it, but it totally destroys the game (and not in a good way) because it isn't fully thought out.

http://geek-related.com/2009/01/06/why-the-rule-of-cool-is-not-cool/

I can't find the other article, but essentially it boils down to this:

Player "I pick up a handful of sand throw it in the Ogre's eyes. Then charge him and try to stab him with my sword."

DM "That sounds cool! Ok you get advantage on the attack and its an automatic crit, because rule of cool."

Player "Nice! I'm going to have to get me a bag of sand to carry around and use on every monster out there."


So something that sounds cool, can be game breaking unless you check out what it will do to the game.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-26, 12:31 PM
I can't find the other article, but essentially it boils down to this:

Player "I pick up a handful of sand throw it in the Ogre's eyes. Then charge him and try to stab him with my sword."

DM "That sounds cool! Ok you get advantage on the attack and its an automatic crit, because rule of cool."

Player "Nice! I'm going to have to get me a bag of sand to carry around and use on every monster out there."


DM: Ok great, you're going to need to buy a pouch, which will have to wait until you're back in town. And we're going to need to track how many handfuls you have in the pouch. Given common pouch sizes, we're probably going to be looking at 2 or 3. And you know it won't work on things that don't need their eyes. And we'll need to account for where you're getting your sand from. I mean sure, the desert is great and all, but when you're 30 ft uderground in a limestone cavern or walking through a dark forest with nothing but loam on the ground, it's going to be much more difficult. And pouches aren't really designed for quick access in a fight, so we're going to have to account for that. And obviously you won't be able to use this with shields or two handed weapons. Also, it's probably going to only have the effect of giving you advantage on the attack going forward because let's face it, if you're doing it every turn, it's no longer cool.

In short, once your player wants to take a "rule-of-cool" action and make it into a class feature, then you get to apply class feature rules and restrictions to it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-26, 12:52 PM
Everyone keeps mentioning "rule of cool". In most development circles the rule of cool is well known as being a trap. Its the equivalent of saying "hey hold my beer and watch this". Its something that sounds cool when you think of it, but it totally destroys the game (and not in a good way) because it isn't fully thought out.

http://geek-related.com/2009/01/06/why-the-rule-of-cool-is-not-cool/

I can't find the other article, but essentially it boils down to this:

Player "I pick up a handful of sand throw it in the Ogre's eyes. Then charge him and try to stab him with my sword."

DM "That sounds cool! Ok you get advantage on the attack and its an automatic crit, because rule of cool."

Player "Nice! I'm going to have to get me a bag of sand to carry around and use on every monster out there."


So something that sounds cool, can be game breaking unless you check out what it will do to the game.


Or... Better yet, and this is something a player did in my game.

As I charge the enemy I run my weapon along the ground, just enough to get the bare surface and then when I attack I fling my weapon up to get the dust in the Orc's eyes.

(This also works on stone walls or wooded walls... splinters to the eyes).

So many sessions of D&D set up the environment as painted on and untouchable, allowing stuff like this makes the environment part of the game and rewards tactics, cunning, and being cool/badass.

One thing a friend of mine is running is you get advantage on the attack but disadvantage on the damage. Low levels this works out pretty well so far. So far it hasn't slowed down their game.

Knaight
2014-06-26, 02:52 PM
I believe 5E was trying to move away from mechanics that don't make sense :smallbiggrin:

I figure the "split apart in the air one" is basically the end result of picking up a handful of gravel and lobbing it, particularly as "gravel" for an ogre can still consist of rocks with some heft.

captpike
2014-06-26, 04:05 PM
If you can't calculate a basic ranged attack on the fly from a stat block, then D&D might be too complex for you to DM. It doesn't matter the edition. It doesn't matter the monster. You fail at DMing.

the point is that if that is all the MM gives me: HP, saves, basic attacks. then why have the MM I can do that myself for any level of creature

the reasons to have and use the MM is for the special powers, and so I can have everything already done for me, everything I need in the stat block.

captpike
2014-06-26, 04:08 PM
DM: Ok great, you're going to need to buy a pouch, which will have to wait until you're back in town. And we're going to need to track how many handfuls you have in the pouch. Given common pouch sizes, we're probably going to be looking at 2 or 3. And you know it won't work on things that don't need their eyes. And we'll need to account for where you're getting your sand from. I mean sure, the desert is great and all, but when you're 30 ft uderground in a limestone cavern or walking through a dark forest with nothing but loam on the ground, it's going to be much more difficult. And pouches aren't really designed for quick access in a fight, so we're going to have to account for that. And obviously you won't be able to use this with shields or two handed weapons. Also, it's probably going to only have the effect of giving you advantage on the attack going forward because let's face it, if you're doing it every turn, it's no longer cool.

In short, once your player wants to take a "rule-of-cool" action and make it into a class feature, then you get to apply class feature rules and restrictions to it.

so you want to be a **** to any player who does the same trick twice? its a bag of sand, not hard to get or use.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-26, 04:13 PM
so you want to be a **** to any player who does the same trick twice? its a bag of sand, not hard to get or use.

"Do the same trick twice" != "Player "Nice! I'm going to have to get me a bag of sand to carry around and use on every monster out there.""


Edit
-----------

Think of it like this. In the soul calibur games, there's a character (Raphael I believe) who has a fencing sword with a quick high attack, that while doing minimal damage, is sufficient to knock down any air strike and briefly stuns the opponent. You can do very well against other players simply by using that same attack over and over and over again and just staying back out of range. It's a perfectly legal attack, and a perfectly legal move, and there's no rule which says you have to use any move other than one. That said, using that move over and over to your advantage is still considered both a **** move and in violation of the spirit of the game, and if you do so, you'll eventually find no one wants to play with you anymore.

The same social code applies to DMs/Players and the Rule of Cool. If a DM grants you rule of cool, and especially if the granted rule of cool is absurdly good (auto crit? seriously?) then the unwritten social code states that the player will not consistently and absolutely abuse that maneuver over and over. In part because it's supposed to be assumed that these sorts of things happen to be situational. If your player insists on abusing that which they have been given, especially to the point that the abuse is upsetting the game, it's not a **** move to put limits on that ability until it's either no longer worth using, or reduced to the same level as any other basic power.

Edit 2
-------------

That isn't to say that if the new ability isn't breaking things, and you have no problem with your player using the ability over and over (like a 4e at will, seriously, no one used basic attacks in 4e unless they had to) then go for it. I was responding to the implication that the player using this ability over and over again was going to be a problem for the game.

Arzanyos
2014-06-26, 04:27 PM
I think I misspoke when I said rule of cool. I wasn't meaning "X player did Y cool thing, and gets a bonus for it being cool" I guess I was more meaning acceptable break from reality, where, say, you're designing a special ability for an ogre and you think "This probably wouldn't work in real life because physics, but, eh, close enough." And then you get cool abilities dungeoncrasher ogres.

Knaight
2014-06-26, 05:17 PM
the point is that if that is all the MM gives me: HP, saves, basic attacks. then why have the MM I can do that myself for any level of creature.

That's funny, I see several things in that stat block beyond those. It looks more like:
Name, Size, Alignment, HP, AC, Speed, 6 Ability Scores, Senses, Challenge, Experience, and then the listed attacks. It lists 3 pieces of gear on top of that.

This has plenty of implications beyond HP, saves, and basic attacks. For instance, how hard is this ogre to trick? HP, saves, and basic attacks is completely useless here. That the intelligence and wisdom are both terrible is a good indicator that it's doable. How hard is it to sneak by the ogre? Well, they can see in the dark, but their perception isn't exactly amazing, and they don't have anything like tremor sense. What about out running them? Well, the speed comes up here, as does the size - they're faster than the party, but they're also big enough that tight tunnels and such will be useful to get around them. They're also slower than a horse.

Then there's the matter of just thinking up the monsters in the first place. Yes, Ogres are pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the fantasy genre (mostly from the video game end. That's not going to be true of every monster, which makes them useful for inspiration. Even if it was all art and flavor text and you had to make your own stats, that much would be true. With actual stats, it's much more true.

Talakeal
2014-06-26, 05:29 PM
The original 4e monster manual is terrible. Monster Vault is where it's at. :)

I must agree.

Despite my overall disgust with 4E, I think the Monster Vault is one of the finest D&D books of all time. It actually took a bunch of iconic monsters and made them all seem like they had a unified role in both the game and the setting rather than the usual fantasy kitchen sink approach D&D usually takes.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-26, 06:05 PM
In short, once your player wants to take a "rule-of-cool" action and make it into a class feature, then you get to apply class feature rules and restrictions to it.

Yes. Furthermore, systems with a "rule of cool" mechanic generally have a rule that pulling the same trick over and over again isn't "cool" any more.

Tvtyrant
2014-06-26, 06:18 PM
and of course a cool and interesting creature is easy to turn into a boring slog if you want to. the reverse is not true. no reason not to give him one or two abilities, it would only take up a couple lines.

The first time the Ogre hits an opponent with a club strike it throws them 15 ft. and the are prone. The first time it succeeds on a grapple it hooks the characters head through its belt loop and keeps fighting normally while they strangle.

captpike
2014-06-26, 06:29 PM
That's funny, I see several things in that stat block beyond those. It looks more like:
Name, Size, Alignment, HP, AC, Speed, 6 Ability Scores, Senses, Challenge, Experience, and then the listed attacks. It lists 3 pieces of gear on top of that.

This has plenty of implications beyond HP, saves, and basic attacks. For instance, how hard is this ogre to trick? HP, saves, and basic attacks is completely useless here. That the intelligence and wisdom are both terrible is a good indicator that it's doable. How hard is it to sneak by the ogre? Well, they can see in the dark, but their perception isn't exactly amazing, and they don't have anything like tremor sense. What about out running them? Well, the speed comes up here, as does the size - they're faster than the party, but they're also big enough that tight tunnels and such will be useful to get around them. They're also slower than a horse.

Then there's the matter of just thinking up the monsters in the first place. Yes, Ogres are pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the fantasy genre (mostly from the video game end. That's not going to be true of every monster, which makes them useful for inspiration. Even if it was all art and flavor text and you had to make your own stats, that much would be true. With actual stats, it's much more true.

if I can use a half page of math to create in toto (health, stats saves ect) the creature in the MM then it failed. creatures need to be more then the math that made their basic stats.

a good creature is more then just math any spreadsheet could it it has cool things, it works with others of its ilk to do things together they could never do apart.

Arzanyos
2014-06-26, 06:44 PM
if I can use a half page of math to create in toto (health, stats saves ect) the creature in the MM then it failed. creatures need to be more then the math that made their basic stats.

a good creature is more then just math any spreadsheet could it it has cool things, it works with others of its ilk to do things together they could never do apart.

But I thought math was the game.:smallwink:

Anyway, not everyone is good at creating monsters. Some people don't want to go through the math just to make a basic monster, and so thus, there should be basic monsters in the MM.

Also, you're right that creatures are more than the math of their stats. Because tactics. Monsters, even vanilla monsters like the ogre, are what you make of them. Get creative, and don't worry so much about the math.*

*if you don't trust your gut feeling about the difficulty of a fight after you've souped it up, I'd suggest playtesting it with copies of your groups PCs. But that's just me.

captpike
2014-06-26, 06:48 PM
But I thought math was the game.:smallwink:

Anyway, not everyone is good at creating monsters. Some people don't want to go through the math just to make a basic monster, and so thus, there should be basic monsters in the MM.

Also, you're right that creatures are more than the math of their stats. Because tactics. Monsters, even vanilla monsters like the ogre, are what you make of them. Get creative, and don't worry so much about the math.*

*if you don't trust your gut feeling about the difficulty of a fight after you've souped it up, I'd suggest playtesting it with copies of your groups PCs. But that's just me.

if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.

also if the game is made well it should be easy to know how hard a fight is without having to test it was fake PCs. you should at least be able to tell the difference beween easy, medium, hard, and possible TPK without having to test it yourself.

Arzanyos
2014-06-26, 07:03 PM
if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.

also if the game is made well it should be easy to know how hard a fight is without having to test it was fake PCs. you should at least be able to tell the difference beween easy, medium, hard, and possible TPK without having to test it yourself.

That's why I said if you don't trust your gut feeling, then playtest. Also, if the game is well made, then it should be easy to make and add abilities to monsters. Then, everyone gets what they want, because they can give the monster exactly what special touch they want it to have.

Knaight
2014-06-26, 07:25 PM
if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.

There is limited practical page count, limited development time, and limited funds. That list of powers after every monster cuts down on the number of monsters in the book, or the size of the art, or the amount of fluff. Alternately, it makes the book longer and heavier, increasing search time, along with weight.

captpike
2014-06-26, 08:03 PM
There is limited practical page count, limited development time, and limited funds. That list of powers after every monster cuts down on the number of monsters in the book, or the size of the art, or the amount of fluff. Alternately, it makes the book longer and heavier, increasing search time, along with weight.

there is no reason a power for the simpler creatures should take more then 2 lines, the simplest of creatures need only twoish special powers.

Envyus
2014-06-26, 11:32 PM
if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.

also if the game is made well it should be easy to know how hard a fight is without having to test it was fake PCs. you should at least be able to tell the difference beween easy, medium, hard, and possible TPK without having to test it yourself.

The Ogre is a simple creature. Your complaints about it are stupid. The first 4e book to feature them had them even less complicated. Sometimes a rock is just a rock. The other monsters are the same page have some cool powers. The Ogre is just a simple brute if you want him to be more then that then make him more then that.

pwykersotz
2014-06-27, 12:19 AM
The first time the Ogre hits an opponent with a club strike it throws them 15 ft. and the are prone. The first time it succeeds on a grapple it hooks the characters head through its belt loop and keeps fighting normally while they strangle.

These are excellent ideas. I might borrow them.

Millennium
2014-06-27, 07:27 AM
if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.
It's just as easy to add one or two powers to a base template, with the added bonus that you'll inevitably get greater variety among your monsters, which makes the game more fun.

also if the game is made well it should be easy to know how hard a fight is without having to test it was fake PCs. you should at least be able to tell the difference beween easy, medium, hard, and possible TPK without having to test it yourself.
That can't be done without making assumptions about the makeup of the party, the intelligence of the players, how ruthless the DM is, and a large number of other factors that no game maker can predict in advance. They try, and they even manage some very rough success, but their assumptions break down if your table deviates even slightly from whatever the game maker has deemed "typical". Many tables do.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-27, 07:45 AM
if I can use a half page of math to create in toto (health, stats saves ect) the creature in the MM then it failed. creatures need to be more then the math that made their basic stats.

a good creature is more then just math any spreadsheet could it it has cool things, it works with others of its ilk to do things together they could never do apart.

And yet, in another thread, you were arguing that fluff should always be 100% separated from mechanics.


if it was an either/or situation sure, but its not. a complex and interesting creature becomes a simple one when you take out all the powers. no reason everyone cant have what they want.

There's also no reason every creature in the book has to be a unique snowflake with special powers. Sometimes you just want a big dumb brute.



also if the game is made well it should be easy to know how hard a fight is without having to test it was fake PCs. you should at least be able to tell the difference beween easy, medium, hard, and possible TPK without having to test it yourself.

And why do you feel this won't be possible with 5e?

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-27, 08:56 AM
The Ogre is a simple creature. Your complaints about it are stupid. The first 4e book to feature them had them even less complicated. Sometimes a rock is just a rock. The other monsters are the same page have some cool powers. The Ogre is just a simple brute if you want him to be more then that then make him more then that.


If you can't calculate a basic ranged attack on the fly from a stat block, then D&D might be too complex for you to DM. It doesn't matter the edition. It doesn't matter the monster. You fail at DMing.

These quotes come off as incredibly elitist and condescending. So you've been playing DND for years and are comfortable with rules and contingencies - guess what, you are only a portion of the user base. The design team has specifically stated they are trying to create an inclusive game that could expand the hobby to new audiences as well as recapture that feel that made DND special to older gamers too.

If it's up to the DM to modify the monster then hopefully they have included some tables to calculate damage from things like a thrown rock or references for the tripping rules - basically I hope I don't need to flip through the PHB to design an encounter. I really like the monster stat block that 4E used post MM3. That doesn't mean that I need 5 different entries for Ogres but maybe a couple paragraphs with some various types you could find and some suggested powers?

Envyus
2014-06-27, 12:54 PM
These quotes come off as incredibly elitist and condescending. So you've been playing DND for years and are comfortable with rules and contingencies - guess what, you are only a portion of the user base. The design team has specifically stated they are trying to create an inclusive game that could expand the hobby to new audiences as well as recapture that feel that made DND special to older gamers too.

If it's up to the DM to modify the monster then hopefully they have included some tables to calculate damage from things like a thrown rock or references for the tripping rules - basically I hope I don't need to flip through the PHB to design an encounter. I really like the monster stat block that 4E used post MM3. That doesn't mean that I need 5 different entries for Ogres but maybe a couple paragraphs with some various types you could find and some suggested powers?

Actually I have only be playing for a few years I don't have a ton of experience. The Ogre is just a simple creature.

Palegreenpants
2014-06-27, 01:03 PM
I'm fine with sacs of HP and damage, like the ogre. I just use them as base guidelines for awesome monster behaviors, like hooking living players onto your belt. :smallamused:

captpike
2014-06-27, 04:08 PM
The Ogre is a simple creature. Your complaints about it are stupid. The first 4e book to feature them had them even less complicated. Sometimes a rock is just a rock. The other monsters are the same page have some cool powers. The Ogre is just a simple brute if you want him to be more then that then make him more then that.

there is no reason to detail a rock, its just a rock. you should save page space for interesting creatures, if you want a rock its easy to make one with the outlined math, or to ignore 2 or 3 powers from the simpler creatures.


It's just as easy to add one or two powers to a base template, with the added bonus that you'll inevitably get greater variety among your monsters, which makes the game more fun.

no its not, it takes time to add in such template to 3-5 creatures. time I don't have during a session.

also why would I pay for a book that requires me to do all the work of making the stat blocks?



That can't be done without making assumptions about the makeup of the party, the intelligence of the players, how ruthless the DM is, and a large number of other factors that no game maker can predict in advance. They try, and they even manage some very rough success, but their assumptions break down if your table deviates even slightly from whatever the game maker has deemed "typical". Many tables do.
4e did this and did it well. so it is very possible. I would go so far as to say its necessary for the game to function.



And yet, in another thread, you were arguing that fluff should always be 100% separated from mechanics.

I am talking about powers the creature has not fluff. mechanics are a power it was given to push and prone. fluff is weather that is a sweep of a weapon, slamming the ground, or a spell.




There's also no reason every creature in the book has to be a unique snowflake with special powers. Sometimes you just want a big dumb brute.

they should not and in reality can't but any creature that can only basic attack is a failure. no reason not to use two lines to give it something else it can do. if you don't like the powers you can ignore them.



And why do you feel this won't be possible with 5e?
I state it mostly because its a requirement for the game to work.

but personalty I doubt it because I did not get the sense it was a priority in the playtest, and it requires the people making the game to be more competent then we have been shown.

Envyus
2014-06-27, 04:16 PM
they should not and in reality can't but any creature that can only basic attack is a failure. no reason not to use two lines to give it something else it can do. if you don't like the powers you can ignore them.
.

Why. Whats wrong with having a basic creature. The point of the Ogre is that it is a basic and simple creature that can easily be expanded upon to make it more then that. There is no problem with it.

Arzanyos
2014-06-27, 04:17 PM
Okay, captpike, let me ask you a few questions. First, how many monsters should be in a monster manual? Second, how many monsters should there be to a page in a monster manual.

Also, whether an attack is a tail sweep, a weapon attack or a spell is not fluff. If it is a spell, it can be countered, cannot work in an anti-magic field, if it is a weapon, the attack is lost should the creature be disarmed. If it is a tail sweep, you could probably jump over it easier than if it were a spell. Stuff with mechanical concerns like this ain't fluff. Fluff is like the ecology or history of a creature. What you were describing is flavor, the heart of the game.

captpike
2014-06-27, 04:17 PM
Why. Whats wrong with having a basic creature. The point of the Ogre is that it is a basic and simple creature that can easily be expanded upon to make it more then that. There is no problem with it.

because an ogre with a push and prone power becomes a simple ogre when you ignore the push and prone power.

its not like 2 lines is too much to ask for

Envyus
2014-06-27, 04:22 PM
because an ogre with a push and prone power becomes a simple ogre when you ignore the push and prone power.

its not like 2 lines is too much to ask for

You do know that the Orge already has those powers. It's called Bullrush and Trip.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-27, 04:24 PM
because an ogre with a push and prone power becomes a simple ogre when you ignore the push and prone power.

its not like 2 lines is too much to ask for

2 lines times 200 creatures. Plus explanation of what Push Prone is. Plus explanations of what all other modular abilities are (assuming you want to minimize page space, you print once in its own section where it can be referenced because multiple creatures will have similar abilities). And on, and on.

You're request is not unreasonable, but it may be beyond the scope of either what WotC wants to do with 5e, or their budget, or any number of other reasons.

Envyus
2014-06-27, 05:01 PM
2 lines times 200 creatures. Plus explanation of what Push Prone is. Plus explanations of what all other modular abilities are (assuming you want to minimize page space, you print once in its own section where it can be referenced because multiple creatures will have similar abilities). And on, and on.

You're request is not unreasonable, but it may be beyond the scope of either what WotC wants to do with 5e, or their budget, or any number of other reasons.

Plus as I pointed out it already has those powers anyway.

DeltaEmil
2014-06-27, 06:36 PM
Okay, captpike, let me ask you a few questions. First, how many monsters should be in a monster manual? Second, how many monsters should there be to a page in a monster manual.Not the poster you asked, but at the bare minimum, as many as in the Monster Vault. Which is of course a trick answer, since there are many variations of the monsters in the Monster Vault, making it as full as any other pre-4th edition Monster Manual.

Arzanyos
2014-06-27, 06:47 PM
Not the poster you asked, but at the bare minimum, as many as in the Monster Vault. Which is of course a trick answer, since there are many variations of the monsters in the Monster Vault, making it as full as any other pre-4th edition Monster Manual.

Okay. I've never seen the Monster Vault, so would you mind giving me a rough monster/page count.

Envyus
2014-06-27, 07:05 PM
http://community.wizards.com/sites/mtgcommunity/files/BrFYxZVCQAAM3xP.jpg New monster.

Gadora
2014-06-27, 07:22 PM
there is no reason to detail a rock, its just a rock. you should save page space for interesting creatures, if you want a rock its easy to make one with the outlined math, or to ignore 2 or 3 powers from the simpler creatures.

Why would I pay for a book that requires me to do all the work of making the stat blocks? :smalltongue:

DeltaEmil
2014-06-27, 08:00 PM
Okay. I've never seen the Monster Vault, so would you mind giving me a rough monster/page count.There is 62 monsters (by my quick counting) in the Monster Vault (animals are not included), and on average, each monster entry has 4 pages devoted to it, two which are fluff text and a picture of how the monster(s) (in the case of multi-entries like devils, demons, dragons, elementals, archons, and angels) look like, and the other two are combat stats. Some monsters have one or two pages more devoted to them split among fluff and statblocks. Most monsters have 3 to 5 statblocks, more in the case of beings like the devils, demons, dragons, and so on.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-28, 12:13 AM
http://community.wizards.com/sites/mtgcommunity/files/BrFYxZVCQAAM3xP.jpg New monster.

AC 18

Can 1/turn deal 7 extra damage (1d8+1 + 2d6)

And Challenge Rating is 1/2?

My god if you have more than one... +3 to hit and on average 12.5 damage...

I guess only 1 is challenge rating 1/2, if you got a few of these at a time... Holy slaughtered PCs batman!

I'm quite tired, am I missing something here?

Envyus
2014-06-28, 12:52 AM
AC 18

Can 1/turn deal 7 extra damage (1d8+1 + 2d6)

And Challenge Rating is 1/2?

My god if you have more than one... +3 to hit and on average 12.5 damage...

I guess only 1 is challenge rating 1/2, if you got a few of these at a time... Holy slaughtered PCs batman!

I'm quite tired, am I missing something here?

Indeed only 1 is cr 1/2. They are only really dangerous if there are more then 1 of them. If two of them do count as CR 1 then I would say they fit the role of a moderate to dangerous opponent to a 1st level party of 4. They are worth a 100 exp each so 4 of them should be more or less the equal of a single Ogre for a group of 4 level 2 PC's to fight.

Thrudd
2014-06-28, 01:06 AM
AC 18

Can 1/turn deal 7 extra damage (1d8+1 + 2d6)

And Challenge Rating is 1/2?

My god if you have more than one... +3 to hit and on average 12.5 damage...

I guess only 1 is challenge rating 1/2, if you got a few of these at a time... Holy slaughtered PCs batman!

I'm quite tired, am I missing something here?

I know, that seems excessive. Hobgoblins will always be found in numbers, that's sort of their thing isn't it? And 18 AC is higher than almost anything from the playtest, which makes me think the final game might have inflated numbers compared to what we were seeing before. I also don't like the mechanic of extra damage dealt because you have a friend standing next to you. I know it's meant to make them more effective as a group, but I don't see any way to explain it via in-world actions, which is a big no-no for me. I could see a bonus to-hit awarded because the target is being threatened by more than one enemy, but damage doesn't make sense unless the ally was giving up their attack to add an assist, or something. Like multiple hobgoblins attacking the same target can combine into one coordinated attack roll that will do more damage.

da_chicken
2014-06-28, 06:17 AM
I know it's meant to make them more effective as a group, but I don't see any way to explain it via in-world actions, which is a big no-no for me.

It's Sneak Attack. It's worded almost identically. You word it as fighting dirty.

Angelalex242
2014-06-28, 09:29 AM
...Why does the ogre need to be improved?

If you want a special monster, just use a Beholder. Or a Wyrmling Dragon. Or a shocker lizard. Or a dretch.

Use ogres for simple encounters. Use other monsters for complex ones. Every monster in the monster manual has its place in the world. Don't try to make them something they are not.

Palegreenpants
2014-06-28, 10:28 AM
...Why does the ogre need to be improved?

If you want a special monster, just use a Beholder. Or a Wyrmling Dragon. Or a shocker lizard. Or a dretch.

Use ogres for simple encounters. Use other monsters for complex ones. Every monster in the monster manual has its place in the world. Don't try to make them something they are not.

I second this point.

SiuiS
2014-06-28, 10:43 AM
Don't forget tripling your preparation time. :smallsmile:


I am not sure it would triple prep time but it does take more prep time. Of course you could just generate your own templates (or find them online) and just keep a copy in your MM, which would allow a DM to change monsters on the fly. That is assuming such templates will not be in the MM or a future supplement (I know the idea for very simple templates has been floating around since the first playtest packet was released). :smallsmile:

I don't agree.

9/10 times, when I do this? I decide "this ogre is a cleric!" And have it cast a heal on itself. It the. Blasts someone, and heals again. It's wearing armor. And all of that came spontaneously from knowing what cleric did; if you can make a character from memory ("I recall clerics having, like, a smite power? And armor") then you can add that in almost by accident.

You don't have to sit down and plan out every skill point to make a monster with class levels.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-28, 12:18 PM
...Why does the ogre need to be improved?

If you want a special monster, just use a Beholder. Or a Wyrmling Dragon. Or a shocker lizard. Or a dretch.

Use ogres for simple encounters. Use other monsters for complex ones. Every monster in the monster manual has its place in the world. Don't try to make them something they are not.

Why should I use a shock lizard or beholder when I want to use an Ogre?

What does it hurt the game to give the Ogre special things? This seems like the same argument against giving the Fighter nice things.

Dr.Starky
2014-06-28, 01:19 PM
What does it hurt the game to give the Ogre special things? This seems like the same argument against giving the Fighter nice things.
The difference is that you have to actually play as a fighter.

Thrudd
2014-06-28, 01:33 PM
It's Sneak Attack. It's worded almost identically. You word it as fighting dirty.

I guess that's true, that's how sneak attack works now.

Angelalex242
2014-06-28, 01:33 PM
Your lack of flexibility isn't the game's problem. Use the right tool for the right job. Failing to do so is on you.

In the DM's toolbox, the ogre is a hammer. It is under no obligation to be a socket wrench or a screwdriver.

And if the ogre is a hammer, understand the PCs are nails. Hammer them.

Palegreenpants
2014-06-28, 02:18 PM
And if the ogre is a hammer, understand the PCs are nails. Hammer them.

Hammer them. That is why we have ogres.

INDYSTAR188
2014-06-29, 12:25 PM
I think the ogre's special feature is a huge amount of HP/hit dice. Strong and resiliant to a huge level, seems appropriate. I'm glad to see from the hobgoblin and other examples that monsters due have features, its a fun way to make them more dimensional (imo).

captpike
2014-06-30, 11:17 AM
2 lines times 200 creatures. Plus explanation of what Push Prone is. Plus explanations of what all other modular abilities are (assuming you want to minimize page space, you print once in its own section where it can be referenced because multiple creatures will have similar abilities). And on, and on.

You're request is not unreasonable, but it may be beyond the scope of either what WotC wants to do with 5e, or their budget, or any number of other reasons.

you have to define conditions regardless, so that does not add space. also you would not need 200 creatures if they are just simple brutes you would need one per level.

all I want would be something like:

orge push (reach 2): +10vAV 1d8+5 damage, push 2 or prone

done


You do know that the Orge already has those powers. It's called Bullrush and Trip.

I would not pay for the book if all it did was reference things. stat blocks should be self contained, I should no more have to look up what "trip" and "bullrush" are then I should have to look up spells.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-30, 11:46 AM
you have to define conditions regardless, so that does not add space. also you would not need 200 creatures if they are just simple brutes you would need one per level.

all I want would be something like:

orge push (reach 2): +10vAV 1d8+5 damage, push 2 or prone

done



I would not pay for the book if all it did was reference things. stat blocks should be self contained, I should no more have to look up what "trip" and "bullrush" are then I should have to look up spells.

Wait, since you keep claiming it isn't the game they promised, why would you buy the monster book anyways? If this game is so far away from your taste, what does it matter what the monsters have in store for PCs? (Edit: To you)

Anyways,

Now that I've seen the other monsters, and they all aren't bare bones I know I can grab an ability from another monster and make that ogre special. Hey I might even give that Ogre the split ability for a "science experiment gone wrong fight (immunity to acid + split = Jelly Ogre).

pwykersotz
2014-06-30, 01:08 PM
you have to define conditions regardless, so that does not add space. also you would not need 200 creatures if they are just simple brutes you would need one per level.

all I want would be something like:

orge push (reach 2): +10vAV 1d8+5 damage, push 2 or prone

done



I would not pay for the book if all it did was reference things. stat blocks should be self contained, I should no more have to look up what "trip" and "bullrush" are then I should have to look up spells.

You speak a strange language. Reach 2? AV? What madness is this? :smalltongue:

You know that you're being unnecessarily hyperbolic, right? Even if you had to add ALL your own special abilities to EVERY monster, the statblocks are a fantastic starting point. I'm glad they aren't doing that, but I don't think you are giving the foundation that the statblock provides its due.

captpike
2014-06-30, 03:28 PM
You speak a strange language. Reach 2? AV? What madness is this? :smalltongue:

You know that you're being unnecessarily hyperbolic, right? Even if you had to add ALL your own special abilities to EVERY monster, the statblocks are a fantastic starting point. I'm glad they aren't doing that, but I don't think you are giving the foundation that the statblock provides its due.

if that was the case you would only need one stat block per level, maybe less given the nature of the semi-bounded accuracy they are using

pwykersotz
2014-06-30, 04:04 PM
if that was the case you would only need one stat block per level, maybe less given the nature of the semi-bounded accuracy they are using

Possibly, if you want to go that far. Or maybe 6 statblocks if you want one for each type of ability focused monster. Or maybe three times that if you want three separate size categories with the relevant number crunching pre-done for each of the ability types. Per level, that's about 360 monsters, or enough to fill a monster manual.

But that's not my point. I'm just saying that you're simplifying the point too much and making it unrelatable. It probably expresses your vexation better to do it your way, but it's less likely to lead to productive conversation.

Knaight
2014-06-30, 05:21 PM
if that was the case you would only need one stat block per level, maybe less given the nature of the semi-bounded accuracy they are using

Unless they are, say, starting with a monster archetype and not a tactical role, in which case the "one stat block per level" thing is nonsense.