Are 5e monsters boring bags of HPs? PROVE IT!

[Unoriginal]

It has more interesting mechanics and can deal with a wider variety of situations.

Which mechanics are you referring to, and how can the dropbear deal with a wider variety of situation.

It's less of a sack of HP than the 5e one.

How is it less of a sack of HP than the 5e one?

[Rhedyn]

I think your too antsy about how adding rogue levels and 4 feats to bear is all you need to do and doing so comes with a baked in way to adjust the CR and that the CR itself is enough to build an encounter around.

You could just alter a bear in 5e but you still have to reference the monster creation chart for CR and then calculate exp into the encounter. Sure you can make it quickly, but it takes longer to quantify in the system than it would in 3.P.

In Savage worlds the core rules and some skill points get most of what you need and then a racial ability and a "feat" perfectly mimic what you want with roughly CR 22 (which doesn't translate to 5e/3e lingo).
CR is half max damage from one attack + every point of toughness over 5 + 1 per special ability.
Encounter difficulty is estimated by party total CR vs encounter total CR. Not a perfect estimate but gets the enough in the ballpark of what you want.

[Rhedyn]

Which mechanics are you referring to, and how can the dropbear deal with a wider variety of situation.



How is it less of a sack of HP than the 5e one?

Can resist grapple from a commoner.
Has working skill rules
Has skills.
Has evasion for when the wizard fireballs the tree
Can steal picnic baskets
Can't be caught flat footed
Has skill unlocks via unchained rogue
Also debuffs on SA

Overall more combat and rules legal narrative ability.

[strangebloke]

I think your too antsy about how adding rogue levels and 4 feats to bear is all you need to do and doing so comes with a baked in way to adjust the CR and that the CR itself is enough to build an encounter around.

You could just alter a bear in 5e but you still have to reference the monster creation chart for CR and then calculate exp into the encounter. Sure you can make it quickly, but it takes longer to quantify in the system than it would in 3.P.

In Savage worlds the core rules and some skill points get most of what you need and then a racial ability and a "feat" perfectly mimic what you want with roughly CR 22 (which doesn't translate to 5e/3e lingo).
CR is half max damage from one attack + every point of toughness over 5 + 1 per special ability.
Encounter difficulty is estimated by party total CR vs encounter total CR. Not a perfect estimate but gets the enough in the ballpark of what you want.

Ok, can you be quiet about savage worlds for a moment? Nobody here plays it. It's probably great, but it isn't a useful talking point.

"adding rogue levels and 4 feats to bear is all you need to do." That's a non-trivial effort! There are feat chains, class features, skills,

Can resist grapple from a commoner.
Has working skill rules
Has skills.
Has evasion for when the wizard fireballs the tree
Can steal picnic baskets
Can't be caught flat footed
Has skill unlocks via unchained rogue
Also debuffs on SA

Overall more combat and rules legal narrative ability.

...All for a fricking bear that drops out of trees to eat people! It doesn't need nuance! It's a drop bear! Can it drop out of trees? Can it eat people? Good! Why should a bear be able to evade fireballs? What natural stimuli lead to it evolving that ability? Why is it a good thing that dropbears are never caught flatfooted? The 5e dropbear can never be caught flatfooted! The 3e dropbear's flexibility is connected to things wholly unconnected with it's core concept. This thing is going to die in like two rounds. What is the added value?

[Rhedyn]

Hey this thread is about how other systems have monsters with more "interesting"(subjective term) abilities. So I'll keep shoehorning Savage Worlds because it's the better argument than yammering on about how an infinitely more complex game has more complex monsters. Cause everyone already knew that.

I would also say that as a player "filler" fights in 5e get old REALLY fast. If the dropbear isn't the terror of Yellowstone stealing everyone's picnic baskets and the party isn't a special squad hired to end its rampage, then I'd rather not arse with it.

[Unoriginal]

I think your too antsy about how adding rogue levels and 4 feats to bear is all you need to do and doing so comes with a baked in way to adjust the CR and that the CR itself is enough to build an encounter around.

You could just alter a bear in 5e but you still have to reference the monster creation chart for CR and then calculate exp into the encounter. Sure you can make it quickly, but it takes longer to quantify in the system than it would in 3.P.

Modifying a 5e bear to have one ability then adjusting the CR if the new damages warrant it takes longer than taking a PF bear and adding several level of Rogues and 4 feats to it?

[Rhedyn]

Modifying a 5e bear to have one ability then adjusting the CR if the new damages warrant it takes longer than taking a PF bear and adding several level of Rogues and 4 feats to it?

Do you misunderstand things intentionally?

[Aett_Thorn]

I mean, why not just give a normal bear expertise in Nature and Survival? Would that make it more dynamic to fight? It would certainly be realistic, since it lives in nature and actually survives there.

Adding abilities to make a fight more dynamic can make it less realistic, as well. Adding abilities to make a creature more realistic don't necessarily make it more of a dynamic creature.

[Unoriginal]

Do you misunderstand things intentionally?

No, I did not. I might have misunderstood unintentionally, but you said:

Sure you can make it quickly, but it takes longer to quantify in the system than it would in 3.P.

So unless you meant "calculating the accurate CR of a 5e encounter takes longer than in PF", I don't see how it would mean anything except "modifying the monster and calculating the creature's CR is longer in 5e than in PF"

[Vaz]

The sight may be pointing the wrong way, but hey, at least the gun shoots straight. Saying you can accurately get CR bob on according to maths is a joke, right, and you appreciate the irony of saying that?

Playing the correct notes in the wrong order there tbh.

[Knaight]

Lmao how is "not being able to do a thing" a strength.

Get out of here. You're still terrible.

By this reasoning generic systems are just always better. It's a weakness in D&D for it to not be able to handle space opera well, and it's a weakness in Traveler that it doesn't do fantasy. Specialization is just bad.

Meanwhile the amount of enjoyment people get out of games tends not to bear this out. The higher focus of more specific games tends to make them better for people who like what they're focusing on, and generic games tend to mostly see use with people who either like genre and setting jumping a lot and don't want to always learn new rules, or who want to play specific and highly weird stuff that isn't well supported. I say this as someone who mostly plays generic systems.

5e and 3e are subtly differently specialized in a few ways. They're highly similar games which tend to have their differences blown way out of proportion from people deeply immersed in the D&D bubble with no sense of scale for the variety among RPGs as a whole, but they do specialize differently. Among these specializations is the game philosophies around totally eclipsing arbitrary numbers of weaker enemies. 3.5 embraces it, and is full of abilities that totally shut down weaker entities. 5e shies away, and deliberately avoids those abilities.

More pithily, a game being better at what you want it to do at the cost of being worse at doing something you have no interest in is a strength. It's a subjective strength, but it's a strength. A whole bunch of games that do this in a whole bunch of different ways makes the industry as a whole stronger.

Ok, can you be quiet about savage worlds for a moment? Nobody here plays it. It's probably great, but it isn't a useful talking point.

It's one of the more popular indie games out there - I wouldn't put good odds on nobody playing it. Heck, I've played it before (not a fan personally, but that's more due to a few idiosyncratic preferences about dice distributions than anything else).

[Kane0]

Idle thought: do people get the ‘sack of HP’ feeling in 5e because, at least in part, the system lacks or seriously minimises other ways of dealing with enemies? Less moving parts means that most of the time HP is the first and last resort.
Eg in previous editions you have save or suck/lose with no save again the next round, save or die, ability damage/drain, level drain, etc as well as damage resistance and reduction, spell resistance, miss chance and so on.
Without so many factors involved things almost always just come back to HP, so after a while of course it will feel samey.

[vexedart]

Why don't you guys post examples of what an interesting monster is from these other editions. How is the pathfinder, or 3.5e, or the savage world mind flayer, for example, any more or less interesting than the 5th edition version? Also, every monster is a bag of numbers to beat on, it's up to the DM to spice up the monsters.

Also that pit fiend was played incredibly poorly. What General is ever alone in battle? He should of grabbed the artifact and used the summon devil variant. Because really, why wouldn't a general of hell have his minions in tow? Sounds like your DM runs monster encounters blandly, ironically like a bag of hp. Regardless, sounds like a DM problem, not a 5e monsters are just bags of hp problem.

[Rhedyn]

Why don't you guys post examples of what an interesting monster is from these other editions. How is the pathfinder, or 3.5e, or the savage world mind flayer, for example, any more or less interesting than the 5th edition version? Also, every monster is a bag of numbers to beat on, it's up to the DM to spice up the monsters.

Did you purposely pick a Wotc copyright monster or were you just ignorant of that fact?

Savage World monsters don't even have hit points so that point is wrong too.

[JackPhoenix]

Did you purposely pick a Wotc copyright monster or were you just ignorant of that fact?

Savage World monsters don't even have hit points so that point is wrong too.

Savage World uses different mechanics. That doesn't make their monsters inherently better or more interesting. "They aren't bag of hit points because the system doesn't use hit points!" may be technically correct, but what's the point of mentioning it in a discussion about monsters in different editions of D&D? The queen in chess doesn't have hit points either, that doesn't make it more interesting or at all relevant to the topic of the thread.

We get it, you've been proven wrong with your Pit Fiend example, so you try to steer the discussion to a different direction so you can still "win"

[Chaosmancer]

So, a lot of the last few pages have been weird for me. I know why, but it leads to a potential derailment. Does everyone here actually use XP? Cause, I don't and in terms of how to homebrew monsters that seems to make the whole issue sooo much easier.

I've never... Okay, since I tried it with Fey Lords and snake lamia, I've never referenced that DMG section on monster creation. I find it a bit of a confusing mess and altering a monster the players are going to fight is just way simpler than messing with all that.

I only vaguely use CR as well, just a quick check to make sure the enemy isn't waay more powerful than the players and move on. So, for me, altering 5e monsters is super simple and can't even be compared to what I've heard of from 3.5.

Did you purposely pick a Wotc copyright monster or were you just ignorant of that fact?

Savage World monsters don't even have hit points so that point is wrong too.

So, I think you're conflating your experience with Savage Worlds into the system as a whole. I've run a supers game, a zombie game, and a deadlands game just off the top of my head (also played in a weird steampunk, a different zombie game, deadlands, sci-fi and i think something else).

I've barely if ever used statblocks for mooks. It just isn't worth it. Standard bandits get 1d8 shooting, parry of 5 or 6, toughness of 5 or 6. Fighting 1d6 or 1d8 depending on setting i guess. And that's more than I've given some enemies. If they need to roll a skill and it makes sense i give them something between a 1d6 and a 1d10. I define them and flesh them out far less than my DnD enemies.

Wildcards are of course the exception, but they are a lot more difficult for me to create than a DnD boss. And I'm never quite sure how often they should show up. Plus, just to make them a threat to a party they need to have really high toughness, otherwise they are ganked in a single turn.

And, that is one of the things that can irritate me about the system. Either a creature is zero threat or it becomes a slog relying on some lucky dice. My deadlands group got the revolving shotgun (3 by end of game), combined with "fan the hammer" and his other shooting edges he could unleash 6 close range shotgun blasts with no penalty. Nothing survived that, if an enemy had a toughness less than 11 it was ripped to pieces. Or he took out six mooks at once. Alternatively, in other games, i had players desperately trying to hurt a toughness 9 big boss, and never once rolling high enough to wound, and barely ever shaking him. Which means zero progress was made in the fight.

At least with DnD hitpoint bags you know you're making progress, but with Savage World toughness walls you're just being futile.

Savage Worlds is a great system, but it can suffer from a lot of the same problems for the same reasons. If the group and the enemies aren't matched well, and the dm understands how to use it all, then the fight is boring and frustrating. It isn't a silver bullet.

[Rhedyn]

So, I think you're conflating your experience with Savage Worlds into the system as a whole. I've run a supers game, a zombie game, and a deadlands game just off the top of my head (also played in a weird steampunk, a different zombie game, deadlands, sci-fi and i think something else).

I've barely if ever used statblocks for mooks. It just isn't worth it. Standard bandits get 1d8 shooting, parry of 5 or 6, toughness of 5 or 6. Fighting 1d6 or 1d8 depending on setting i guess. And that's more than I've given some enemies. If they need to roll a skill and it makes sense i give them something between a 1d6 and a 1d10. I define them and flesh them out far less than my DnD enemies.

Wildcards are of course the exception, but they are a lot more difficult for me to create than a DnD boss. And I'm never quite sure how often they should show up. Plus, just to make them a threat to a party they need to have really high toughness, otherwise they are ganked in a single turn.

And, that is one of the things that can irritate me about the system. Either a creature is zero threat or it becomes a slog relying on some lucky dice. My deadlands group got the revolving shotgun (3 by end of game), combined with "fan the hammer" and his other shooting edges he could unleash 6 close range shotgun blasts with no penalty. Nothing survived that, if an enemy had a toughness less than 11 it was ripped to pieces. Or he took out six mooks at once. Alternatively, in other games, i had players desperately trying to hurt a toughness 9 big boss, and never once rolling high enough to wound, and barely ever shaking him. Which means zero progress was made in the fight.

At least with DnD hitpoint bags you know you're making progress, but with Savage World toughness walls you're just being futile.

Savage Worlds is a great system, but it can suffer from a lot of the same problems for the same reasons. If the group and the enemies aren't matched well, and the dm understands how to use it all, then the fight is boring and frustrating. It isn't a silver bullet.

My players are learning to use the various accuracy and damage boosting actions. I recommend getting your player one of the ”Combat Survival Guides" online.

Yeah if you just keep smacking something and waiting for an exploding dice chain, combat can slog.

But I've found the risk of one shotting forces me to add creative elements. Like a bad guys defense can't only be toughness. They should have cover or invisibility or some other factor. But I also like how combats can be quick and my GM bennies are a great way to decide if a creature really does die in round one or if an enemy really does do 46 damage.

Have you looked at the CR estimate in SW? I find it a good way to keep an eye on interparty balance and for crafting encounters. In your situation of someone pulling way ahead, I would use that to give me a clue that something needs to be addressed. Yeah the game isn't like Pathfinder in that you can just trust the mechanics to more or less take care of themselves, but I've found the onus on me as a GM to be far less and easier than 5e.

I find the loss of needing to keep track of hit points has out weighed the incremental accomplishment they added for a rules light game. It's great for me as a GM to run larger encounters and not have to keep track of 8 or more hp totals and I find eating up player bennies more satisfying as a DM than doing x damage. Players too seem to feel more threatened by near misses than losing half their HP. I had a player spend 4 bennies on agility rerolls against fire attacks. He felt that he nearly died, but he never took a wound. Meanwhile when he walks out of a 5e fight without taking damage, the encounter wasn't a threat to him.

I agree that Savage Worlds suffers from much of what any rules light system does when compared to games like PF. My argument is that compared to something like 5e, the complexity, depth, robustness, and ease to run/play are all higher. I know that they are both really rules medium games, but I'd argue that Savage Worlds does it better.

Comparisons of Savage Worlds to 3.x suffer many of the same problems as 5e vs 3e, you can like both and one is not clearly better than the other do to incomparables. But for a more focused question like "what has more interesting monsters" I feel that SW and PF beat 5e from a mechanical perspective. As for SW vs PF? I'm not sure, my go to examples for why 5e seems boring are not applicable. Like a bear is good at wrestling in both systems and each have working skill rules. Both have ways for higher order outsiders to not be threatened by new players.
Hmm, I guess outside of a supers campaign or setting rules, I would give it to PF for how utility magic comes standard. So far my SW bbeg is casting circles around the party with horror rituals to extend duration, but I also have setting specific item creation rules that also gives him narrative power beyond Fiat.
Interesting here means mechanically. You can refluff anything to be anything, so I consider aesthetics or fluff to be nonfactors to this discussion.

[Chaosmancer]

My players are learning to use the various accuracy and damage boosting actions. I recommend getting your player one of the ”Combat Survival Guides" online.

Yeah if you just keep smacking something and waiting for an exploding dice chain, combat can slog.

But I've found the risk of one shotting forces me to add creative elements. Like a bad guys defense can't only be toughness. They should have cover or invisibility or some other factor. But I also like how combats can be quick and my GM bennies are a great way to decide if a creature really does die in round one or if an enemy really does do 46 damage.

Have you looked at the CR estimate in SW? I find it a good way to keep an eye on interparty balance and for crafting encounters. In your situation of someone pulling way ahead, I would use that to give me a clue that something needs to be addressed. Yeah the game isn't like Pathfinder in that you can just trust the mechanics to more or less take care of themselves, but I've found the onus on me as a GM to be far less and easier than 5e.

I find the loss of needing to keep track of hit points has out weighed the incremental accomplishment they added for a rules light game. It's great for me as a GM to run larger encounters and not have to keep track of 8 or more hp totals and I find eating up player bennies more satisfying as a DM than doing x damage. Players too seem to feel more threatened by near misses than losing half their HP. I had a player spend 4 bennies on agility rerolls against fire attacks. He felt that he nearly died, but he never took a wound. Meanwhile when he walks out of a 5e fight without taking damage, the encounter wasn't a threat to him.

I agree that Savage Worlds suffers from much of what any rules light system does when compared to games like PF. My argument is that compared to something like 5e, the complexity, depth, robustness, and ease to run/play are all higher. I know that they are both really rules medium games, but I'd argue that Savage Worlds does it better.

Comparisons of Savage Worlds to 3.x suffer many of the same problems as 5e vs 3e, you can like both and one is not clearly better than the other do to incomparables. But for a more focused question like "what has more interesting monsters" I feel that SW and PF beat 5e from a mechanical perspective. As for SW vs PF? I'm not sure, my go to examples for why 5e seems boring are not applicable. Like a bear is good at wrestling in both systems and each have working skill rules. Both have ways for higher order outsiders to not be threatened by new players.
Hmm, I guess outside of a supers campaign or setting rules, I would give it to PF for how utility magic comes standard. So far my SW bbeg is casting circles around the party with horror rituals to extend duration, but I also have setting specific item creation rules that also gives him narrative power beyond Fiat.
Interesting here means mechanically. You can refluff anything to be anything, so I consider aesthetics or fluff to be nonfactors to this discussion.

Yeah, printed that sheet out and added to it. They had access to all the rules, but that didn't help much. Only way to increase ranged damage (that i remember) is called shots or rapid attacks, both of which lower accuracy

But this is not the point. Bandits in SW can be broken down into shooting rolls, the "4 to hit" and toughness, Bandits in 5e can be broken down into AC, attacks, and hp. How is one inherently more interesting than the other?

Sure, i can give the bandits Knowledge (ambushes) and 1d6 in gambling in SW but none of that is getting used in combat. Could try taunts or supressing fire to shake people, or add in cover and all that, but I can easily do many of the same things in 5e (getting an equivalent to shaken might be difficult since the errata, but we are talking a radically different combat set)

Sure, in DnD 5e, the d20 can swing the entire match up of skills, but we accept that about the game. And nothing about bears versus commoner wrestling A) matters at all or B) is not trivially fixed.

Remember, 5e has the rule that the DM does not call for skill checks unless the narrative feels like it is in doubt. Can a commoner wrestle a bear to the ground if he's sickly and weak. No, so instead of rolling the bear's d20+4 with advantage (because he is larger than the commoner) versus the commoners d20-1 we just say the commoner loses. And if we really need numbers to justify it we look at the commoners passive 9 versus the bears passive 19 (advantage gives a +5 to passive checks) and call it a day.

5e does what it is designed to do. It is a far cry from perfect and there are lots of things I wish it did better, but fights are only boring if you let them be. Like the zombie ogre you stopped discussing. There are plenty of dials and knobs to make things interesting, and homebrewing stuff by adding in new abilities from other monsters is incredibly simple. The only thing you might mess up is XP, but i find it to be a bad system anyways and never use it, since it prioritizes combat even more and makes my life far too complicated.

[Rhedyn]

Yeah, printed that sheet out and added to it. They had access to all the rules, but that didn't help much. Only way to increase ranged damage (that i remember) is called shots or rapid attacks, both of which lower accuracy

But this is not the point. Bandits in SW can be broken down into shooting rolls, the "4 to hit" and toughness, Bandits in 5e can be broken down into AC, attacks, and hp. How is one inherently more interesting than the other?

Sure, i can give the bandits Knowledge (ambushes) and 1d6 in gambling in SW but none of that is getting used in combat. Could try taunts or supressing fire to shake people, or add in cover and all that, but I can easily do many of the same things in 5e (getting an equivalent to shaken might be difficult since the errata, but we are talking a radically different combat set)

Sure, in DnD 5e, the d20 can swing the entire match up of skills, but we accept that about the game. And nothing about bears versus commoner wrestling A) matters at all or B) is not trivially fixed.

Remember, 5e has the rule that the DM does not call for skill checks unless the narrative feels like it is in doubt. Can a commoner wrestle a bear to the ground if he's sickly and weak. No, so instead of rolling the bear's d20+4 with advantage (because he is larger than the commoner) versus the commoners d20-1 we just say the commoner loses. And if we really need numbers to justify it we look at the commoners passive 9 versus the bears passive 19 (advantage gives a +5 to passive checks) and call it a day.

5e does what it is designed to do. It is a far cry from perfect and there are lots of things I wish it did better, but fights are only boring if you let them be. Like the zombie ogre you stopped discussing. There are plenty of dials and knobs to make things interesting, and homebrewing stuff by adding in new abilities from other monsters is incredibly simple. The only thing you might mess up is XP, but i find it to be a bad system anyways and never use it, since it prioritizes combat even more and makes my life far too complicated.

I'm not following your argument that bandits you homebrew are as interesting as 5e bandits. Actual SW bandits can climb, fight, notice, shoot, sneak, and throw. 5e bandits have no skills. So at a minimum, SW bandits are mechanically more interesting because they can climb, notice, and sneak. They can actually set up ambushes, climb to good vantage points, and notice when PCs enter the trap.

You as a DM can do whatever you want with 5e skills. Wotc didn't write them. But I find DMs call for rolls pretty often and Wotc APs ask for skill checks at the same frequency. So the normal game has 8 str peasants wrestling large bears successfully 23% of the time.

I feel that anything I want for 5e is more easily done by editing Savage Worlds. As a consumer, SW has edged out 5e's point in my gaming. 5e can be exciting, but I feel that to do so is far to much work on the DMs part. Monsters being "bags of HP" are only part of that problem.

[JNAProductions]

I'm not following your argument that bandits you homebrew are as interesting as 5e bandits. Actual SW bandits can climb, fight, notice, shoot, sneak, and throw. 5e bandits have no skills. So at minimum, SW bandits are mechanically more interesting because they can climb, notice, and sneak. They can actually set up ambushes, climb to good vantage points, and notice when PCs enter the trap.

You as a DM can do whatever you want with 5e skills. Wotc didn't write them. But I find DMs call for rolls pretty often and Wotc APs ask for skill checks at the same frequency. So the normal game has 8 str peasants wrestling large bears successfully 23% of the time.

I feel that anything I want for 5e is more easily done by editing Savage Worlds. As a consumer, SW has edged out 5e's point in my gaming. 5e can be exciting, but I feel that to do so is far to much work on the DMs part. Monsters being "bags of HP" are only part of that problem.

So go enjoy Savage Worlds. No one is forcing you to play 5E.

But the thing is, they can climb (climbing, by default, does not require a check), they can fight, they can notice (at a small bonus, to be sure, but get, say, 5 bandits actively searching and your odds of sneaking past are slim), they can shoot, they can sneak (again, not especially well, but nothing's stopping them from trying-no more than a PC without good Dex couldn't try to sneak) and they can throw. (Admittedly, they don't come stock with any throwing weapons, but eh, they don't NEED any when they have regular ranged weapons.)

Edit: A difference between 3.5 and 5E is that a +0 modifier in 5E is perfectly serviceable, especially at low levels. It's not great, but it's not bad-it's just average. In 3.5, you need something like +8 at level one to be competent. That's not true in 5th.

[Rhedyn]

So go enjoy Savage Worlds. No one is forcing you to play 5E.

But the thing is, they can climb (climbing, by default, does not require a check), they can fight, they can notice (at a small bonus, to be sure, but get, say, 5 bandits actively searching and your odds of sneaking past are slim), they can shoot, they can sneak (again, not especially well, but nothing's stopping them from trying-no more than a PC without good Dex couldn't try to sneak) and they can throw. (Admittedly, they don't come stock with any throwing weapons, but eh, they don't NEED any when they have regular ranged weapons.)

Edit: A difference between 3.5 and 5E is that a +0 modifier in 5E is perfectly serviceable, especially at low levels. It's not great, but it's not bad-it's just average. In 3.5, you need something like +8 at level one to be competent. That's not true in 5th.

Yes 5e bandits are relatively incompetent next to SW bandits.

Large swaths of 5e monster mechanics are table specific. Because skills are important, but Wotc phoned it in. Maybe one of these masterful good DMs can publish their skill rules? Until then, a good chunk of 5e monsters are just bags of HP that really can't do much beyond eating table time.

[JNAProductions]

Okay. I have not played Savage Worlds, so I can't really comment further. I'm sure it's a good system.

One thing I would like to point out, though-a PF Bandit can Climb (poorly-they have only a 50% chance of climbing a tree), can fight just fine, suck at noticing (worse than a 5E Bandit-they have -1, and the players can sneak with far bigger numbers, as opposed to a 5E bandit's +0), can shoot just fine, can't sneak worth a damn (+2 to stealth is nothing, compared to, say, a Cleric with 1 rank in Perception and an 18 Wisdom for +8 total), and can probably throw just fine, but come stock with no throwing weapons.

So, really, calling a 5E Bandit a boring sack of HP is unwarranted if you consider a PF Bandit to be interesting.

[Unoriginal]

Because skills are important

Not really, no.

Bandits can do just fine at their tasks when they do an Ability check.

Maybe one of these masterful good DMs can publish their skill rules?

I don't see why some DM publishing skill rules would do anything.

Until then, a good chunk of 5e monsters are just bags of HP that really can't do much beyond eating table time.

And here you are wrong. They can do plenty.

[JNAProductions]

And here you are wrong. They can do plenty.

For instance, your average 5E bandit can grapple without getting a sword to the face. They can attempt to shove someone without getting a sword in their face. Following the DMG's optional extra rules, they can do other things, like attempt a disarming, without getting a sword in the face.

[Rhedyn]

Okay. I have not played Savage Worlds, so I can't really comment further. I'm sure it's a good system.

One thing I would like to point out, though-a PF Bandit can Climb (poorly-they have only a 50% chance of climbing a tree), can fight just fine, suck at noticing (worse than a 5E Bandit-they have -1, and the players can sneak with far bigger numbers, as opposed to a 5E bandit's +0), can shoot just fine, can't sneak worth a damn (+2 to stealth is nothing, compared to, say, a Cleric with 1 rank in Perception and an 18 Wisdom for +8 total), and can probably throw just fine, but come stock with no throwing weapons.

So, really, calling a 5E Bandit a boring sack of HP is unwarranted if you consider a PF Bandit to be interesting.

You missed that those bandits can ride and handle animals.

Which means they can be on horses or even train Hawks to aid in their raid or communicate messages.

See I find all these examples really easy to say that 5e is worse because I believe skills are important and Wotc didn't.

[Unoriginal]

You missed that those bandits can ride and handle animals.

Which means they can be on horses or even train Hawks to aid in their raid or communicate messages.

See I find all these examples really easy to say that 5e is worse because I believe skills are important and Wotc didn't.

5e Bandits can do those things just fine.

Also, "it's worse because it doesn't fit my tastes in game mechanics" isn't an argument.

[JNAProductions]

You missed that those bandits can ride and handle animals.

Which means they can be on horses or even train Hawks to aid in their raid or communicate messages.

See I find all these examples really easy to say that 5e is worse because I believe skills are important and Wotc didn't.

Okay. They have Handle Animal +3 and Ride +5.

They have an 80% chance of successfully guiding their mount in combat. You know what the odds of success are for a mounted 5E bandit? 100%.

They have Handle Animal +3, which lets them order a trained animal with 70% reliability. 60%, if the animal is hurt. They cannot Push an animal, so they have to be pre-trained. And they take an average of slightly over 2 weeks (DC 15) or 5 weeks (DC 20) to teach an animal a single trick, of which the animal can know up to 3 or 6, depending on Int score.

Ride SHOULD come up in combat-but here, they're worse than an equivalent 5E bandit. Due to not needing a skill for literally everything, riding is just something you can do. So even with their +5 modifier, they're worse than a 5E Bandit.

They are better at Animal Handling... Kinda. (+3 in PF as compared to +0 in 5E isn't really that different.) But the only use likely to come up in combat is Push (since most everything else is covered under Ride), which they can't possibly succeed on.

Furthermore, why should every single bandit be trained in animals? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one Beastmaster/Animal Handler in the banditry group, and then the rest of the people are just trained in the animals' use?

[Chaosmancer]

You missed that those bandits can ride and handle animals.

Which means they can be on horses or even train Hawks to aid in their raid or communicate messages.

See I find all these examples really easy to say that 5e is worse because I believe skills are important and Wotc didn't.

Ah, this might be a crux for this discussion.

5e bandits have access to every skill in the game. Need a religion check for some reason? They can do it. They have no limits on what the can attempt. Success is less guarenteed on somethings (they have a +0 and no proficiency after all) but they are also one of the weakest enemies in the game

Also, they all come with the ability to charge, dual-weild, use healers kits to stabilize people, the list goes on for quite a while. None of this requires a feat or class abilities or skill points, its all bog standard.

So you want them to have trained hawks? No problem, they can totally have them. Even if you set a dc of fifteen they can team up and take 10 and succeed (teaming is help action, grants advantage which is +5 as established earlier)

The problem you seem to have is the old thinking from 3.5 which is "if they don't have it, they can't try it". Think of it more like having a 1d4 in every skill via Savage Worlds (ability from supers splatbook called Gifted) because that's what a +0 in this system is most similar to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah, this might be a crux for this discussion.

5e bandits have access to every skill in the game. Need a religion check for some reason? They can do it. They have no limits on what the can attempt. Success is less guarenteed on somethings (they have a +0 and no proficiency after all) but they are also one of the weakest enemies in the game

Also, they all come with the ability to charge, dual-weild, use healers kits to stabilize people, the list goes on for quite a while. None of this requires a feat or class abilities or skill points, its all bog standard.

So you want them to have trained hawks? No problem, they can totally have them. Even if you set a dc of fifteen they can team up and take 10 and succeed (teaming is help action, grants advantage which is +5 as established earlier)

The problem you seem to have is the old thinking from 3.5 which is "if they don't have it, they can't try it". Think of it more like having a 1d4 in every skill via Savage Worlds (ability from supers splatbook called Gifted) because that's what a +0 in this system is most similar to.

Exactly. Creatures in 5e are presumed to be competent at doing things. They can try anything. Even without a checkmark on their sheet that says they can. 3e was completely different (and so is PF)--there you had to have permission even to attempt such things (ok, some things you could attempt, if you wanted to eat AoO constantly and still not have a chance to succeed).

Comparing 5e skills to 3e skills is pointless. They're completely different systems in that regard that happen to use the same terms. In fact, there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks. Which everyone can attempt, proficient or not. Proficiency =/= training.

[JNAProductions]

Exactly. Creatures in 5e are presumed to be competent at doing things. They can try anything. Even without a checkmark on their sheet that says they can. 3e was completely different (and so is PF)--there you had to have permission even to attempt such things (ok, some things you could attempt, if you wanted to eat AoO constantly and still not have a chance to succeed).

Comparing 5e skills to 3e skills is pointless. They're completely different systems in that regard that happen to use the same terms. In fact, there are no skill checks in 5e. There are only ability checks. Which everyone can attempt, proficient or not. Proficiency =/= training.

I'll argue the bolded bit. Generally, if you train at something, you'd be proficient in it. It's not ALWAYS going to be the case, but correlation is strong between the two.

That being said, the meat of your post is spot-on.