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

[Unoriginal]

Giant Apes have 7 int. They are basically people in terms of sapient status. Rock throwing is in their stat block, thus they have it. Debris from the battle was the narrative reason. Otherwise they are just pulling rocks from the ground.

True, but two apes throwing one rock each at disadvantage, when the enemy has resistance against that type of damage, aren't going to be much of a threat.

Monk was majority monk, but he probably misread when he got wall run. He didn't have evasion. We were level 8 not 7.

If he didn't have Evasion, how come the Fireballs and the Wall of Fire did nothing to him?

I guess this is a good example of problems when people are so invested in making a "hard" encounter impossible.

The system estimate puts this fight as merely a heavy resource drain. IDK why you guys dislike 5e so much that it NEEDS to be a TPK or the DM did it wrong. Seems our encounter went exactly as the DMG predicts it would.

Ahaha whoa.

Dude, you're the one telling us your Monk/Fighter was using power(s) he shouldn't have had, and that the Pit Fiend acted stupidly.

Also, keep in mind that this Hard encounter, solo vs 7, still had the Pit Fiend down two adventurers despite you using that amount of ressource, even acting as dumb as it did. And it's you again who uses this fight as an exemple as to why 5e monsters are less interesting than Pathfinder's and that says you enjoy the campaign much more now that it's using PF's rules.

And then you come here and pretend that it's *us* who dislike 5e?

Just whoa.

Again, the encounter didn't need to be a TPK, but given that the encounter was only Hard instead of far beyond Deadly because you were 7, and that one of you cast their best spell then ran and hid, you can say you're lucky you only got 2 PCs down because the DM made the Fiend act dumb.

[Aett_Thorn]

I guess this is a good example of problems when people are so invested in making a "hard" encounter impossible.

The system estimate puts this fight as merely a heavy resource drain. IDK why you guys dislike 5e so much that it NEEDS to be a TPK or the DM did it wrong. Seems our encounter went exactly as the DMG predicts it would.

Nobody is saying that the fight needed to be a TPK. I think that it probably should have been, but we're not saying that it needed to be. What we are saying is that this seems to have been made much more of a cakewalk for your party than it should have been, mainly because the intelligent enemy did not use good tactics. It also seems that either you are misremembering how things went, or that your other party members are doing things that they shouldn't be doing/granting themselves abilities that work differently than they should. In addition to this, your DM seems to not know or apply correctly how certain spells work, which is making it easier for your party.

Monk: doesn't have wall climbing at this stage, but did it anyways. Also, this only allows them to not fall during their move, it doesn't let them stay on the wall.

Wall of Fire: Doesn't allow a saving throw when you walk through it or end your turn near it. You just take the damage. This is crucial because it would basically double the damage the party took from it.

Oath of the Ancients Aura: Only goes out to 10 feet, meaning that if the apes walked through the fire more than 10 feet away from the Paladin, they wouldn't be protected and have resistance. Unless the DM put the Wall of Fire right on top of them in the first round (which is again bad tactics), then the aura wouldn't apply when the apes moved through.

Giant Apes: I know that the attack says "rock", but it's going 7d6 damage. That's not a pebble that it is picking up. Unless there are a ton of big huge rocks laying around, it would be tough for the apes to constantly have ammo for this. Also, the Pit Fiend should have resistance to any of their attacks, meaning that they were absolutely not a threat to it, and it shouldn't have stayed and tried to engage them at all.

A 100' high dome should ABSOLUTELY have allowed the Pit Fiend to fly over the apes to get to the Monk without allowing for any sort of grapple effect from the apes. All it needed to do was be 10 feet above them.

[Unoriginal]

Monk: doesn't have wall climbing at this stage, but did it anyways. Also, this only allows them to not fall during their move, it doesn't let them stay on the wall.

Also, apparently not taking damage from Fireball despite not having Evasion.

[MaxWilson]

How did the Monk wall-fun? You say they were a Monk-Fighter multiclass, and furthermore, that they were an Arcane Archer, so they were at least Fighter 3. Monks don't get wall-running till level 9. They also don't get Evasion till level 7.

In addition, let me ask you this-what should the odds of player death be in an encounter? Just average it, across all encounters. Does 5% sound reasonable? 5% chance of someone dying per encounter?

Because, if it does...

So, you want to make it to level 20? That's 215 encounters. Assuming an aggregate 5% death rate per encounter, that's just over 10 dead PCs over a campaign, or, assuming a standard 4-man group, the entire party replaced twice. Plus change.

I.e. 10 deaths * 300 gold per Revivify = 3000 gold spent on Revivify, before everyone reaches 20th level. In 5E, resurrection is guaranteed to work (100% resurrection survival), and you don't even lose a point of Constitution.

Frankly, if anything that death rate is too low. Getting to 20th level should be a momentous event, a great achievement, not an expected outcome of play. You'd get a pretty good power-law distribution over levels if there were, say, a 30% chance of any given PC perma-dying at every level over 10th. That way, only 0.7^10 = 3% of all 10th level PCs would eventually make it to 20th level, and 20th level PCs will seem appropriately epic. Given how bounded accuracy works in 5E, it's not like you can't take 10th level PCs on 20th level adventures anyway if you have enough of them. As we've seen from this thread and elsewhere, 10th level PCs can indeed fight Pit Fiends.

Using JNAProductions' math (10.3 encounters per level), and for a four-man party, that corresponds to a 12% chance of someone perma-dying every encounter, which isn't the same thing as a 12% chance of someone dying every encounter. You'll need to use monsters which either destroy/disintegrate bodies, or use hit-and-run tactics to isolate victims before killing them (e.g. a dragon which grapples the wizard and flies away with him before eating him alive in midair).

In any case, 5% death rate per encounter clearly doesn't cause any real difficulties in 5E's ruleset.

[Rhedyn]

With people purposefully misinterpreting what I've said. I'm done.

I have no desire to clarify the same points over and over again.

You either understand how a mere resource draining encounter was defeated by an appropriate party or you don't.

If that makes you think monsters should have more abilities in 5e to be interesting, great. If it doesn't, then every encounter I've had across 5 DMs and two groups leads me to a different conclusion.

Or perhaps an interesting combat just means something different to you. Great. Enjoy your games, but keep in mind that the current state of 5e monsters is"just boring bags of HP" for many people.

My favorite rules light system is Savage Worlds. Monsters don't even have HP. Every basic bruiser can still mix and match tactics and take multiple actions a round by leaning purely on the core combat rules. Monsters can't really just stand their and take attacks because one good hit kills them. Even though NPCs aren't built like players, they don't have to be different. The Combat rating estimate is based on certain stats and abilities. PCs will have different ratings depending on their focus but it also makes editing NPCs easy without risking a TPK.

For example, I could add spell casting to a bear and get a rough numerical estimate of how much stronger it is now. IDK how that effects 5e monsters. I can't really add druid casting to a bear (well you shouldn't give player abilities to monsters in 5e for one) and know how that effects the difficulty of the encounter.

In Savage worlds you can build a monster that just has all the parties abilities and enough actions to use them and it would be a doable encounter against an Eldritch abomination and the system gives you a way of estimating if the encounter is too hard or not.

Oh and Savage worlds with it's horror, fantasy, and sci-fi companions is a lower page count than 5e's PH, DMG, and MM (fair comparison since each SW book includes PC and GM material along with a Bestiary).

[MaxWilson]

For example, I could add spell casting to a bear and get a rough numerical estimate of how much stronger it is now. IDK how that effects 5e monsters. I can't really add druid casting to a bear (well you shouldn't give player abilities to monsters in 5e for one) and know how that effects the difficulty of the encounter.

In Savage worlds you can build a monster that just has all the parties abilities and enough actions to use them and it would be a doable encounter against an Eldritch abomination and the system gives you a way of estimating if the encounter is too hard or not.

The 5E system likewise gives you a way of adding abilities to a monster and numerically estimating if the encounter is too hard or not. Unfortunately the estimate it gives is worthless garbage because it is based almost entirely off of HP x DPR to the entire neglect of tactics. The estimate is only worthwhile if you assume that PCs and monsters will spend the whole conflicts hammering away at each other in melee, which is both boring and suboptimal tactics. I.e. 5E CR is an estimate that gives a rough ceiling on encounter difficulty, but in practice you want a floor.

[Knaight]

My favorite rules light system is Savage Worlds. Monsters don't even have HP. Every basic bruiser can still mix and match tactics and take multiple actions a round by leaning purely on the core combat rules.

Meanwhile a group of creatures in 5e can do the same thing (which also applies to a lot of Savage Worlds monsters, as SW does have minion mechanics for swarms). This gets back to my point of how the questions of difficulty, complexity, interest, etc. have to do with the entire system being looked at and not any one element of the system. Individual monsters are one element of the system, and as they're reasonably locked down you generally have to develop the rest in accordance with them.

Oh and Savage worlds with it's horror, fantasy, and sci-fi companions is a lower page count than 5e's PH, DMG, and MM (fair comparison since each SW book includes PC and GM material along with a Bestiary).

I'm not really seeing the point here. If you were arguing that 5e isn't a rules light game this would be a decent argument (although it's easy enough to get complete systems in at a lower page count than any one of the 5e books). This isn't relevant to the question of whether the monsters are boring.

[JNAProductions]

Advances tactics, at least use of terrain, increases difficulty of an encounter by one.

Eh... I'd say it depends on the monster. If the Tarrasque, at Int 3, is using advanced tactics, then bump his difficulty up. But a Pit Fiend should be EXPECTED to use good tactics.

Now, if they're in favorable terrain, that CAN bump difficulty up. Only, this terrain did not favor the Pit Fiend. And he was played tactically inept. So what should, by the books, be a Hard encounter, was probably more like Medium.

[Rhedyn]

I just like that a system has comprehensive rules for castle sieges, sealing Eldritch horrors, small talk, and mech warrior combat all in fewer pages than what is allegedly the simple version of DnD.

Lots of different monsters that can have a wide range of mechanically different abilities (though you can get away with re-flavor of things enough that players can't tell it's not completely different)

[Unoriginal]

I just like that a system has comprehensive rules for castle sieges, sealing Eldritch horrors, small talk, and mech warrior combat all in fewer pages than what is allegedly the simple version of DnD.

It's the simple version of *D&D*.

It's like saying a NPC is prude by succubi standards.

[Talakeal]

Imo The story about the pit fiend has nothing to do with how interesting monsters are or how good or bad the DMs tactics were.

It has everything to do with bounded accuracy. In 5E low level characters and monsters are still a threat to high levels, and as a result of this flattened curve quantity is more important than quality. Thus a seven person party will be able to take out end game monsters designed for a four person party much earlier in their career, and the DM is going to have to either stop using solo monsters or homebrew stronger monsters to keep things novel and challenging for such a large party at higher levels.

This would not happen in 3E not because it is more interesting but simply because it has a bunch of "you must be this tall to ride" encounters. A simple grey box that had a pit fiends DR, regeneration, and cast blaspheme at will would also wipe out most any mid level party that wasnt highly optimized or specifically prepared to defeat it.

[Vaz]

It's the simple version of *D&D*.

It's like saying a NPC is prude by succubi standards.

But is he wrong though? And no, 5e is babies first dnd, because of how easy it is to pick up, like how duplo is lego for babies.

Noone is saying you can't enjoy it, but you can't get upset that dnd for dunmies is exactly that.

[Unoriginal]

But is he wrong though? And no, 5e is babies first dnd, because of how easy it is to pick up, like how duplo is lego for babies.

Noone is saying you can't enjoy it, but you can't get upset that dnd for dunmies is exactly that.

You realize you're disagreeing with Rhedyn, right?

He's saying that a rule-light system is far simpler than 5e (at least, this is how I get his "number of page to cover more ground" argument). Which is true, but also like saying water is wet.

You're saying that 5e is easy to pick up. Which is true, but because 5e is simple *by D&D's standards*.

Also, nice rhetoric attempt, to compare people who like 5e to dummies and toddlers.

D&D 5e is simple by D&D standards, and easy to pick up, but it certainly doesn't make it the most rule-light system ever nor does it make it exclusively for people who start D&D.

[Rhedyn]

It's the simple version of *D&D*.

It's like saying a NPC is prude by succubi standards.

Haha fair enough. But 5e is rules light enough to inherit all the flaws of a rules light system while losing what makes rules heavy games good.

Monsters that are sacks of HP is just one of those problems. The lack of skill rules also hurts monsters because the whole system is such an afterthought that most monsters just don't have skills.

Let's look at grappling in both 5e and Savage worlds. In 5e an ancient red has a +10 to avoid being grappled. A commoner can beat that by rolling high. A really lucky commoner can just hold down a dragon for multiple rounds (if the dragon is only trying to out wrestle a peasant).

In SW a soldier would have at least a d6 fighting vs an "extra version" (weaker than normal) dragon fighting of d10. He can easily latch onto the dragon.
The dragon must beat the soldiers d6+4 with his d12+9 to effortlessly escape the grapple.
The chance to actually grapple a dragon is 1/72 (roughly exploding die get trickier to calculate) and the dragon still escapes you just ate up an action of his to do it.

[Knaight]

Also, nice rhetoric attempt, to compare people who like 5e to dummies and toddlers.

D&D 5e is simple by D&D standards, and easy to pick up, but it certainly doesn't make it the most rule-light system ever nor does it make it exclusively for people who start D&D.

The tendency of fans of rules heavy RPGs to act like that preference is somehow virtuous and indicative of superior intelligence never gets old.

[JNAProductions]

Haha fair enough. But 5e is rules light enough to inherit all the flaws of a rules light system while losing what makes rules heavy games good.

Monsters that are sacks of HP is just one of those problems. The lack of skill rules also hurts monsters because the whole system is such an afterthought that most monsters just don't have skills.

Let's look at grappling in both 5e and Savage worlds. In 5e an ancient red has a +10 to avoid being grappled. A commoner can beat that by rolling high. A really lucky commoner can just hold down a dragon for multiple rounds (if the dragon is only trying to out wrestle a peasant).

In SW a soldier would have at least a d6 fighting vs an "extra version" (weaker than normal) dragon fighting of d10. He can easily latch onto the dragon.
The dragon must beat the soldiers d6+4 with his d12+9 to effortlessly escape the grapple.
The chance to actually grapple a dragon is 1/72 (roughly exploding die get trickier to calculate) and the dragon still escapes you just ate up an action of his to do it.

Actually, you can't grapple something more than one size category larger than you. I'm not a fan of that, but that's RAW.

[Rhedyn]

You realize you're disagreeing with Rhedyn, right?

He's saying that a rule-light system is far simpler than 5e (at least, this is how I get his "number of page to cover more ground" argument). Which is true, but also like saying water is wet.

You're saying that 5e is easy to pick up. Which is true, but because 5e is simple *by D&D's standards*.

Also, nice rhetoric attempt, to compare people who like 5e to dummies and toddlers.

D&D 5e is simple by D&D standards, and easy to pick up, but it certainly doesn't make it the most rule-light system ever nor does it make it exclusively for people who start D&D.

Savage Worlds is more complex than 5e but it does it in less pages and rules.

So simpler to learn, harder to master.

I personally have problems appreciating anything about 5e changes from PF/3.5 when Savage Worlds exist as a system. 5e somehow manages to both be more clunky and simpler than SW (though it did start in 2003 and has had 14 years of development)

[Rhedyn]

Actually, you can't grapple something more than one size category larger than you. I'm not a fan of that, but that's RAW.

That's not actually true per PH errata. That ability of the grappler feat was removed because it referenced a non-existent restriction.

[JNAProductions]

That's not actually true per PH errata. That ability of the grappler feat was removed because it referenced a non-existent restriction.

MORE THAN ONE size category larger.

You can, as a medium person, grapple a large ogre. You cannot grapple the Tarrasque, for instance.

Again, that's an aspect I don't like. If it ever came up in one of my games, I'd adjust it (with advantage and disadvantage as appropriate) but it's RAW.

[Rhedyn]

MORE THAN ONE size category larger.

You can, as a medium person, grapple a large ogre. You cannot grapple the Tarrasque, for instance.

Again, that's an aspect I don't like. If it ever came up in one of my games, I'd adjust it (with advantage and disadvantage as appropriate) but it's RAW.

Hmm don't have my book on me, but the online sources agree with you.

[Rhedyn]

Well let's look at a 5e bear then. +4 Athletics vs a cripple Commoner's -1, commoner with crutches still has a good shot at wrestling this bear.

In SW a bear has a d8 fighting and a d12+4 str.
So a soldier can easily latch on with a d6 but the bear must beat a d6+4 to effortlessly escape or a d6 to lose an action to escape with a d12+4. So the soldier has roughly a 5% chance to keep the bear grappled each turn.

[strangebloke]

Eh... I'd say it depends on the monster. If the Tarrasque, at Int 3, is using advanced tactics, then bump his difficulty up. But a Pit Fiend should be EXPECTED to use good tactics.

Now, if they're in favorable terrain, that CAN bump difficulty up. Only, this terrain did not favor the Pit Fiend. And he was played tactically inept. So what should, by the books, be a Hard encounter, was probably more like Medium.

Let's point out, as, well, that this encounter was still *just* Hard. Not Deadly, not Overwhelming. The sorcerer spent ALL of his fourth level spells and most of his sorcery points. The party lost HP, and the paladin used a smite. When you add in that the party had a VERY RARE item, that the monk was doing impossible things, and that the Pit Fiend was using Tarrasque-level tactics... this was barely a medium encounter, but the PCs had some silly strategies as well, and had to expend lots of resources. THE RULES ARE FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED.

A solo boss vs a huge pack of PCs is a stupid fight in any edition.

Also, let's remember a little spell called shivering touch, which in 3x allowed a sixth-level wizard to kill an ancient red dragon in one turn with pretty good consistency. Now, which is more boring? The DM forgetting to give his dragon resilience to cold damage and the wizard winning the encounter with a single button? Or a pack of players all using their abilities to contribute to a complex tactical situation?

[Unoriginal]

Well let's look at a 5e bear then. +4 Athletics vs a cripple Commoner's -1, commoner with crutches still has a good shot at wrestling this bear..

And then the 5e commoner dies because being grappled doesn't affect the chances of attack by itself?

also, define "good shot". The Commoner is closer to the 75% of failure than of 50%

[UrielAwakened]

How did this topic get so dumb.

[Jack Bitters]

Dude if that commoner can outwrestle the bear I think we all win. Root for the underdog!

[Rhedyn]

And then the 5e commoner dies because being grappled doesn't affect the chances of attack by itself?

Circus bear trained to wrestle.

It's a contest to win prizes!

Example still shows that the skill rules are not very immersive and monsters should have more skills.

[Rhedyn]

FYI

8 str commoner has a 23% chance to out wrestle the brown bear for each attempt in 5e.

[Gardakan]

FYI

8 str commoner has a 23% chance to out wrestle the brown bear for each attempt in 5e.

If the commoner gets the upper edge by any means, the bear will get rid of hold quite fast and procede to multiattack him to likely kill it.

I'm not so sure the commoner would outwrestle a brown bear (unless it has been sedated or something).

The odds of winning the first check at Grappling is something. Seems fair... I mean... he could be slippery and evade, why not. The bear's faster, bulkier and got two attacks with some strenght.

[JNAProductions]

And every system (at least of D&D) has its weirdness. For instance, a house cat can kill your average commoner in 3.5.

[Gardakan]

And every system (at least of D&D) has its weirdness. For instance, a house cat can kill your average commoner in 3.5.

It's not because it has stats that it automatically kills anything.

The weirdness is coming from the players after all.