I just have one argument about removing passive traits such as "Brute". For DMs, like myself, that don't just use the weapons detailed for each monster it is there to let us know that if I gave that Bugbear a longsword or club that I should add another die. Newer DMs might not get that.
Monsters don't have to follow the same rules as players, but it's important for them to follow system rules so that DMs can homebrew and improvise. A 2014 Bugbear doesn't "cheat" because system rules allow for special abilities to enhance damage and the Brute trait has clearly defined rules that show how much damage is added. This allows me to add the "Brute" trait to my own homebrew monsters and more importantly, if a Bugbear picks up a Greataxe, I can easily tell that it should do 2d12 damage plus the Bugbear's strength modifier. The problem with Drelnza and the 2024 Knight that you mention is that I have no idea how much damage they should do if they pick up another weapon. If players are able to disarm Drelnza, how much damage does she do? I can kinda extrapolate that as a vampire, her unarmed strikes do 1d8 damage by looking up the vampire stat block, but what if she picks up another longsword? Is it only with Heretic that she can do 6d10 damage? It's not as bad because Drelnza is a named NPC in a very specific adventure, but I use humanoid stat blocks like the Knight all the time as NPCs, town guards, and many other places where using a weapon other than a Heavy Crossbow could come up frequently. To a lesser extent, using specific Monster traits that follow specific rules also helps me as the DM communicate to the players how strong a monster is. If my players are familiar with the "Brute" trait, I can use it to describe an "Ogre bouncer with the Brute trait" and my players will have a better idea of what they're dealing with.
Some of my most impactful encounters for my players came when i misread a statblock making the creature unintentionally more deadly, yet my players still rose to the occasion. This is good
Hahaha absolutely. A friend of mine ran a mini campaign for us once and misread a trap that dealt "5(1d10) damage" as dealing "5d10" damage. We were like level 3. We still laugh about it to this day. Made for one hell of a trap lol.
@ try running will-o-wisps and thinking the dc 10 save or flat out die happens with each successful attack rather than when you go unconscious… whoooops
For several years i have been both playing and DMing in Adventurers League. But since I started playing Vampire: The Masquerade and Earthdawn, i learned how much more immersive games are that place worldbuilding and -design over combat balance. I don't wand to play WoW but offline, but ever since MotMV DnD feels more like an online game than a real RPG!
Asymmetrical design is all well and good, so long as it's spelled out as being so. This style of removing keywords (presumably in order to save printer/writer costs) makes monster design far more opaque than it should be. Which is a bad thing over all, even if some highly experienced DM with a different book published over 10 years ago knows about the secret sauce they used. Making custom monsters was already more of an arcane art than a science in 5e, and hiding the info only makes the process of onboarding fresh DMs harder.
What's important in monster design is the actual effect. How you get there really isn't that important. The 5E DMG already spells out how much average damage a monster of different levels should be doing. It's not like monsters are picking class levels and feats like players. Honestly I think it just becomes harder for DMs if you get away from the numbers and obfuscate things like 3E did, where monsters are picking feats and class levels and all that crap. DMs really don't want to go through the backflips of designing monsters like PCs, it's why they moved away from that after 3E, because ultimately it becomes far harder to judge difficulty. The 5E monster revision seems good as they're moving more towards questions like "what does this monster actually do?" as opposed to trying to give you this menu of mostly useless options.
I would hate to play at a table where a player was trying to make us think about this. Like we are playing a fantasy game where I'm trying to challenge you
1:58 I… I would assume he’s using his Strength. Yeah it’s a ranged weapon, but honestly ranged weapons are a little stupid in D&D that way. There’s an argument to be made that almost all weapons should switch Dex and Strength. It takes a lot of arm and back strength to pull back a bow and a lot of dexterity to swing a sword. So I just assume the Knight is using Strength to overcome the Heavy property
I agree with the video and most of the comments I read. I would add that I'm constantly adding things to monsters. If a group of monsters are used to working together, I might add Pack Tactics. I'll add extra damage types or other abilities as well to add more thematic elements to the encounter and the campaign as a whole. The monsters are still never powerful enough to TPK parties, despite the fact that some of the encounters are many times deadly according to CR trackers, but they do make the encounters fun and engaging. About the only time I'm really careful is when the PCs are in the 1st Tier of play, especially levels 1 and 2.
Ok, I'm on the same page as this entire video. Let's talk about the Knight's Heavy Crossbow some more. Fire elementals are immune to fire because they're fire elementals, Bugbears and Giants deal more damage with weapons because they're big. Why does a Knight do more damage with a Heavy Crossbow? There is nothing in the fiction or fantasy of a knight that supports this, which is probably why it got focused on so much. Not to mention that because the Knight is a humanoid creature, much like the PCs, there's a higher expectation that they should work similarly to a character. The extra radiant damage is easily accepted because the knight is heroic, maybe a Paladin. But throwing 2d10 on the crossbow just seems to ensure that they deal about the same damage at range as they do in melee. Why? This feels like a mistake, or a misguided attempt to balance the ranged damage to melee. I would swap out the heavy crossbow with a light crossbow, and remove the multiattack capability with the ranged attack. I would add a Mounted Combat Trait that would let a mounted Knight deal more damage after moving, and have advantage against unmounted opponents to give it a little extra oomph. The statblock as-is just doesn't work right, even if the criticism levied at it is coming from the wrong angle. Enemy statblocks break the rules all the time, but they have to follow the fiction of what the statblock is meant to represent or it makes people question it.
Monsters in 2014 didn't play by the same rules either. Which was a huge contention for me. I have a Goose and Gander rule. Basically it says that anything they players can do the monsters can do all things being equal. Example: a watchman that is a fighter/warrior can do most of the things a PC Fighter can do at a given level. This does NOT mean that the same warrior can do what the wizard does etc. imho, the combat section of the PHB applies to ALL combat PC and NPC alike so all the same options are there for both. If they have deviations they should indicate why they have such deviation, like Extra Spectacular Expertise or something in their stat block. We will give 2024 a shot but there is a LOT of stuff I dislike thus far (there are more things that I do like than I thought I would though), but I am leaning toward Shadowdark which means I will likely lose 2 players, but oh well. The DM needs to have fun too and if the system is atrociously overpowered then I need to level that playing field.
The balance thing is from 3.x and pathfinder 1. They give rules for many more things. NPC where players but normaly had NPC (commoner, expert and I got the 3rd.) They could have PC classes but they where stronger. Monster where also built this way and had (race Levels or Hit die) and then could have more classes added.
Someone would only demand NPCs playing by the rules if they haven't seen the horror that is 3.x NPC design upfront. Those rules meant you spent hours building NPCs that player characters annihilated in seconds. And your only way of making them competitive was to overload them on magical bling. Which, when looted, unbalanced the game even further... Monsters absolutely cannot and should not play by the same rules as PCs. That doesn't mean a 4E style design is good where this is blatantly obvious. Breaking the rules yes, but in a measured and semi-fair manner.
@@user-wm3hu7lo1g I Do agree it was alot of work. in many way 5x is like simple mode and 3x was advance. Mind you I still like it but it did need alot more work.
The knight also makes 2 crossbow attacks without crossbow expert. Which is fine. Monsters need simple stats that are competitive with players without making the dm confused
Another thing to remember: it’s your campaign, and questions like this can add interest if it becomes distracting. If a PC (not necessarily just the player, a PC) notices that the legendary weapon doesn’t do the same massive damage when they use it as when it was used on them - and this is something a PC might well find disturbing and confusing and wonder about - they *can* acknowledge that it happened and pursue that question in-game. Look for lore, consult sages, study the nature of the power behind the weapon, and as they discover things, decide it it’s worth whatever cost they would have to pay, of whatever kind, to be able to tap into more of the weapon’s power. This could become a part of the character’s journey and even, if the GM goes with it, a meaningful plot element, all because the character was affected by something mechanical in the game system. I had a character in one game who fruitlessly studied the characteristics of vampire blood for years, and while he never found the kind of answer he was looking for, he did accomplish a lot of other stuff and built important relationships in the attempt. Maybe a fighter is really curious about why that bugbear did extra damage with its greatclub, and makes it his personal mission to learn bugbear fighting techniques. Then you figure out what that means mechanically, and lore-wise, in-game. Maybe he befriends a bugbear tribe and has the chance to learn a new (not free, but not normally available) Feat, or gets a new subclass feature option he can choose instead of his next subclass feature. Or maybe he just has bugbear friends now.
I dont, know if i fully agree. Its broadly right i think, asymmetrical design, but it can be a bit weird, cause thats game design talk, not in universe talk. So what degree of abilities a creature has is i think, more accepted depending on how much "sense" it might make in universe. Like, a bugbear dealing extra damage? sure, they big and scary, but why the knight? what makes a knight different? because a knight seems to me a lot more mundane, a knight working closer to PC rules seems more logical in universe, more "immersive". The radiant damage makes some sense, if fits the vibe of a knight, but ultimately i feel like, some people want to be immersed, and therefore they want to understand how things work. I can see why, a big boss deals a lot more damage with the same sword, they are beyond regular people, but in the specific case of NPCs who are meant to be regular people, i personally appreciate more the sense of immersion given by being similar to the PCs, who are also sort of just people, perhaps not "regular" but more mundane than a dragon or an ogre. In the knights case for example, i dont see why we would need at all for its damaged to be balanced that way, a knight is, in the first place, not a creature i would expect to be super good at ranged, if anything, a weaker range damage from just a normal crossbow feels a lot more fitting for the concept this NPC is meant to have? I guess i just have a preference for a sort of symmetry not universally, but special with the more human adjacent stat blocks. If i am fighting a great warrior, why should they work fundamental differently from a PC warrior? you could justify it, but without ANY explanation it can feel a bit out of place, hence why it seems more obvious with the knight as opposed to the bugbear, a bugbear has a vibe that matches, being able to deal more damage, a knight doesn't, so it feels unfair. There is an element of immersion i think, in the desire for symmetry, it can still be, a sort of fake immersion, like even just in universe explaining this as, a creature super trained at crossbow so they can deal more damage, that sort of justification helps i think, truly feel like it isn't just a game where stats are arbitrarily put based on necessity, even though they ARE.
Our group always complains about "DM Shenanigans" anytime the DM does stuff where it clearly breaks the rules, and sometimes even when they are working within the confines of the rules its still "DM Shenanigans" haha.
NPC creatures need to “break the rules” in order to be of any use to the GM in providing meaningful combat encounters for their players. They are literally built different so they can keep up with the ever increasing amount of power that PCs gain as they level up.
@@RicardoSR I think that is the best part: you never know what an npc can do because they don't have to follow the same rules... Talking about the knight: they have 1d8 radiant damage extra and this make me assume that they can be used both as fighter npc or as paladin npc, and if radiant damage doesn't fit with the idea of the npc you can swap it with every other damage type you like, even another extra weapon dice The npc need to be different and easier to use for a DM
I’ve never understood this sentiment. Why do we need to design monsters different from player characters to make them challenging? I understand monsters cannot currently keep up but if you designed an evil crew to oppose your players using a twilight cleric as the centerpiece and a random assortment of basic player character classes they would be hard pressed very easily. I understand why people say they have a hard time for normal monsters but they’re normal monsters? If you are designing a big bad why wouldn’t you pluck characteristics from the classes of what you know dominates?
@@NotYourCitizenAnymore but you can add everything you want on your monsters to make them more challenging, there's no reason to not change whatever you want, but npc need to be powerful enough to challenging the players without having a long stat block full of abilities that dm must learn before every fight, that's why npc need different rules
Couldn't agree more! Asymmetrical design is a powerful but important tool for DMs to have at their disposal. I think there are certain aspects that people have a hard time abstracting. The 6d10 mace is a good example of how EFFECTIVE a creature is with a weapon, but not a LITERAL translation of JUST the mace's power. It's all contextual.
Precisely! They're just THAT good with that weapon. It's innate to them, they have that implicit understand and connection with it, magical or otherwise.
PCs are also designed to be complex and interesting (and generally do Tons of damage), while monsters are designed to be streamlined. The thing I don't get about the Knight in particular, is that the Ranged attack is less accurate, but hits harder... Is the knight supposed to be Ranged, or melee combatant? One would think melee based on Str vs Dex, but then why don't they get the bonus die on the Greatsword attack..??
Some of these extra boosts could also be unlisted abilities that were left off of the stat block to simplify it. Like the acrylic could have an ability similar to a feat that gave an extra spell use but was simplified. (In the case of the brute feature, it was probably included to stop the player from thinking that the weapon was better)
I feel like traits like Brute make monsters easier to hack and modify. They also give easy solutions or just inspiration to DMs when it comes to loot and similar. Conversely they create bloat you need to go through when using the monster in an encounter. So to me it's a balance between preparation clarity and use clarity. I'd rather still have those features just placed later though in some 'extended' section that explains more what's going on behind the screen.
I don't know why humanoid enemies in particular have this double standard applied to them. No one is like "a dragon shouldn't have a breath weapon more powerful than a dragonborn it's not FAIR!", but if you have a dragonborn NPC suddenly people expect their Breath Weapon to behave exactly like a PCs would? Well my dragonborn NPC might be some kind of runt (weaker breath weapon) or prodigy (stronger breath weapon), or have some kind of unique draconic ancestry (mismatched breath weapon with scale colour). It is only very specifically humanoid creature type enemies people have these weird opinions on. Humanoid enemies are just like any other monster in the Monster Manual, aside from the obvious.
Agreed. Monsters and NPCs are built differently than PCs. Monsters and NPCs generally don't get death saves like PCs, and I don't think you'll find many players complaining that monsters aren't following the same rules in that situation.
I don't only love the way the npc "break the rule" but they need to for a simple reason: they're weaker than the players Bugbears deal an additional weapon dice since 2014, it makes sense for a knight to deal more damage though Plus, the non explicit rules that npc use in their stat block make them more unpredictable for players and THAT makes the combats really interesting, nothing better than not knowing what to expect from an enemy and learn how to deal with it
A monster is a terrifying creature in the minds of people in the real world. Power creep has turned most monsters into nerf hurdles over the years. I'm VERY MUCH in favor of making all monsters more powerful. A monstrosity by definition should defy the rules. And, since creatures of all types are presented in any Monster Manual, the word monster is a blanket term for all enemies.
I do not like it, but it makes sense to reduce confusion. When my DM ran his 1st bugbears he misinterpreted brute and had them do 4d8 damage vs lvl1 PCs.
I always explained away differences between player and monster power as magic items or innate abilities. I've never seen a problem with monsters being stronger or different from player characters. The reason the player can't use the magic item is because when the creature dies the item self destructs or the god the creature followed revoked it's power, whatever feels right in the moment. If done right, it can work as a hook too.
The same Players who complain about Monsters "cheating" will be dead silent should the DM say, "So you also want them to have Death Saving Throws? What about Weapon Masteries? Oh and let us not forget a plethora of Magic Items. It is only fair, right?".
I know monsters don't have to follow the rules players have to, but I will say that a fun thing I like to do is make a PC and then make them into a stat block to see how they would fair.
As a player and DM 2014 was on easy mode to me. I agree and don;t thing it would be "breaking the rules or cheating" to make challenging adjustments. I had to all the time as DM with 2014 rules.
I believe wanting the monsters to follow the same rules as pcs is part of simulationist gaming. For some people it breaks immersion if an ogre minion has one hp etc. It's associating the game rules with the rules of the in game universe. These need not be realistic but should be internally consistent. You could play a simulationist cartoon game for example. 3e really focused on this wirh monsters having skills and feats and even class levels. 4e was explicitly gamist. 5e took some retrograde steps like giving full casting levels to npcs rather than just what they might use in a scenario. hope mm24 reverses this (again) and signs are that it will. Hmmm saying retrograde there shows what side of this i am on now. I loved the formal monster rules back in 2000 though and I wouldn't dream of playing Runequest without at everyone playing by the same rules so i have some sympathy for the "simulationist" position
I think 3rd edition gave players the impression that player characters and monsters should operate by the same rules and procedures. 4th edition might have done something similar? But 5e and the Anniversary Edition go back to the early eras of D&D by giving the monsters their own rules.
1e Monsters are monsters. 3e Monsters have the same rules as PCs. Mostly. Me. Monsters CHEAT. Always. I do hope the 2024MM gives GREAT monster creation rules. Much more than the DMG 2024.
I found the "the monster stat blocks are cheating" comments absolutely hysterical because it's clear those people have never DM'd or at least never really thought about monster creation . Stat blocks have never played by the same rules as character creation. They don't even HAVE fixed rules. How can you cheat when you make your own rules? You can literally slap whatever you want on monsters when you make your own, tweak, or reskin. The rule is their statblock can do what it says it can so if it says it can use multiattack with a heavy crossbow, it can use multiattack with a heavy crossbow.
Newsflash. If you don't like what they did to a monster, as a DM, you can change it. Monsters have never followed "The Rules". They are just monsters, stat blocks and abilities, to be defeated.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way you can play a TTRPG "Wrong" is to not have fun. If the rules being "Broken" results in more fun then it's fine. Also, if it's in the rulebook, it's not breaking the rules is it?
There is only one thing i consider cheating and its how certain player features flat out don't work because enemy magical attacks or debuffs are "abilities" and not "spells". This is exactly like how in 3.5 people hated psionics because it was magic but not "magic", so things wouldnt work. They complained so much they eventually retconned it into be magic. This is why im glad they are giving spellcasting back for some monsters to make it feel more fair and interacting for players vs oops all abilities go screw yourself.
Its not "because". Essentially monsters have feats. In older versions of D&D they would list all the feats a monster had along with the stats, etc. These monster feats would circumvent what the players had. They would also create a lot of lore and ffeat trees to allow players to get these, but no one ever did. They basically just saved space and time by applying an upgrade to the monster. If you play a lot of other games, such as Dragonbane most recently, monsters are essentially "special" creatures that have their own game mechanics.
Agreed, in addition, previous versions had a million traits baked in into their monster type. All undead were immune to this or that, every construct had a bunch of other traits, and sometimes you had to dig even deeper, because monster type X was a subset of monster type Y with extra traits, which itself was a subset of monster type Z. You needed to figure out the monster's entire type family tree to figure out if they could be Charmed. 5e (thankfully) got rid of that, something is classified as Undead only because sometimes you need to know that, but any immunity or special thing they had was just in the monster stat. It ALSO meant not EVERY undead was immune to bleeding or poison or whatever. Traits like "Brute" feel like they're trying to justify something that doesn't need to be justified. "This monster is Brute therefore it deals extra damage" explains nothing, is completely unnecessary, just put the additional damage in the attack.
If I ever had someone at a table tell me I was "breaking the rules" as the dm, by having cool monsters or antagonists, that would probably be the end of them in the group.
Yeah for sure. It can make encounters so predictable or monotonous without it. The surprise elements are a huge part of what makes the encounters so exciting!
If you don’t like the asymmetrical design, just try playing with a DM that makes all his NPCs using player classes and rules. It sucks. I’ll give you a referral 😂
I.. have had a DM like this. accept he went WAAAY further, not only did his creation have player levels and abilities, some of those abilites had no restraints... For example.... We were level 6, and we were chased down by an 'Angel' 100ft fly speed 25 AC (while using a two hander and had the ability to cast SHIELD) like 300hp or somin crazy. oh and he could cast 24 (Yes thats TWENTY FOUR) 3rd level spells... Cloudkill was one of those spells he could cast 23 times. Oh it was also a FULL paladin, with Arura and smites and extra + radient damage every hit (1st lvl smites on EVERY hit without rescourse use, and this for ANY weapon he picked up, so we could disarm him, and he could just pick up a beer mug and get his weapon smite back) Oh and his lowest save was a +9. Then we faught it again at level 9... And he BUFFED IT. edit, oh and did I mention, +12 to hit.
Trying to make monsters like players always leads to problems, they need to exist for 1 encounter and follow monster design parameters, they don't have iron clad stat spreads, HP, 12 features, 25 spells etc.
For me, I think this is all about Balance and Immersion. I agree that the power scaling and CR system of 2014 was out of whack and 2024 needed to bolster monsters/ come up with a new encounter balancing system (added bonus for giving them more interesting features). And it looks like this is the intent of these changes (although as you explained, it’s not really a complete change). That said, there is also the Immersion factor. I don’t want players to reverse engineer every the stat blocks but I also don’t want them feeling cheated when every piece of equipment works differently on a monster vs when they try use it. I think as the exception, it’s fine, great in fact. A boss monster having a legendary sword that does more damage than when a player uses it, perfectly good. But if a player gets that sword and it is a normal short sword, that’s not gonna feel great. But hey, that’s just like my opinion man 😁
On a side note... some of the art in 2024 is just cringe, some for just reasons and others for the artist not understanding the material. The image of an Illithid "whispering" into the Fire Giant's ear is just silly. They don't "talk" so why would they need to hold their hand up and get close?
So there's a lot of text missing from the Knight stat block. "Where is the Radiant damage coming from? Nothing here says that they have magic weapons or a divine ability." "Why can it fire twice with a Heavy Crossbow, it doesn't have the Crossbow Expert feat." Except, all of those _are_ written down in the stat block: in the attack descriptions. You know that the Knight is a holy warrior _because_ their attacks do Radiant damage. You know that they must have special training with H X-bows _because_ they can do things that player normally can't. The MM is a big book that needs to fit as much information in it as possible. And DMs don't want _or need_ to have a single stat block take up two pages just so that they can see a full paragraph for each special ability the NPC has. The attack description tells you the attack deals Radiant damage. That's what you need to know. Bonus points: now the DM can decide _why_ they deal Radiant damage. Is this a magic weapon that a PC could use? Is this from a divine favor? Is it because of an oath? The DM can use the same stat block for different NPCs because it doesn't say too much. A well designed stat block is efficient. From a design standpoint, NPCs don't have to be the same as players. (NPCs _shouldn't_ be the same as players, that makes the PCs less special. And this is a game about feeling special (together, not selfishly).) But the rules also don't have to _explain_ every single way that the NPCs are different. They expect the players and DM to be competent enough to infer things.
The starblocked creatures “break the rules” by virtue of this being an exclusion based game regarding rules. The Knight does what ever the statblock says it can do, along with everything else the general rules already allow for. Only problem I see with any of this is the knight does seem to make those Heavy Crossbow ranged attacks with disadvantage. General rules apply unless there is an exclusion.
It’s important to remember that Jeremy Crawford and others have said, “It’s not a PvP game.” The game is not meant for players characters fighting each other, so monsters can’t work exactly like a player character. There has to be things that are different.
I feel you are reaching here. The new bumps to damage are new as they only started showing up late 2023 and 2024. Poison is fairly simple to explain on weapons since the ones using them are poisoners like drow so their crossbow having the same effect as the drow poison is fine. Using monster weapons to buff martial is a common practice and is even preached by larger youtubers than yourself like Pack Tactics. Does that make it right? No but it shows that the setting is becoming vastly more magical for no reason. Why does a knight deal extra radiant damage but not have spellcasting? A knight is a warrior or fighter not a paladin so why the increase in damage? Why buff the knight’s ranged damage? Who was finding it nessasary to improve their ranged damage ability in that way?
I once had a "guest DM" let the party's orc loot the Dao's maul to deal 4d8 or whatever the MM said it was. I had to step in and the guy was genuinely surprised when I explained that wasn't how monster weapons worked. Eventually the barbarian was wielding that magic hammer for 2d8 but he had to work for it.
as a DM I say "waaaaaaaa" cry me a river. I have played since 1975 and this is just precious. HaHaHa.....power creep clearly favors the players so get over it.
May I ask a question. As I have recently run into a small issue. (Player here btw 1.5 years) I made a charecter, a female warforged made to look and pass as human. (her flesh is plant based, her skeleton metalic) She is designed to be a kinda of gaurdain/sentinal type charecter, she is learning, nad has a fun backstory thats sweet, and recently she's discovered she can love and she indeed has a soul. The problem, My DM has basically said he can't deal with passive perception, My charecter was going to have Observent and was being given an item made by a player that boosted her passive perception higher. This would amount to a passive of 28 by level 11. I got a little upset as this was her thing she was really good at outside of combat. (the other 3 people are casters with out of combat utility, and my charecters stealth and lock picking are matched by our Druid, (no shade on the druid) Now I'm taking either, just to becasue my DM dislikes this mechanic and that it can make ambushes almost useless against my charecter. (Im giving up a lot to get it that high, prof, feat, item slot and multiple levels) And he also doesn't agree with Passive perception being the counter to getting ambushed. I feel like I've just lost half of my charecter.
Somebody has already mentioned it but yeah, 3e/3.5/PF1 monsters have symmetrical design! I remember the first time I read a 3e monster statblock and it filled me with terror! You mean I have to know *all that* just to run a ::checks notes:: bugbear?? Also making your own monsters was a whole character creation process except potentially worse because many monsters had many more hit dice than a pc would have. With that said, it is easy to rag on 3e (and fun too!) but I think there's a reason why no other edition of D&D has done monster design the same way before or since!
This take supports the designers' laziness. It's good for monsters to have unique mechanics, but "normal" humanoids just handling weapons better than PCs is not a unique mechanic, it's bad design. Imagine, if everything that worked for monsters worked for the PCs as well. Cultists having strange powers? Start worshipping their god. Drows having unique poisons and ways to handle them? Learn/buy from them. The Tarrasque's reflective armor? Take down the big boy, make a similar armor for your fighter. Old version had a few thousand mosters that feel roughly the same and the new MM is a copy of that, just with more nonsense. Make it a 100, hell, even less, but with clearly different weapons/knowledge/powers, define 1-2 mechanics of obtaining loot from each one and every encounter will be simple, unique, fun and engaging. And DMs wouldn't have to come up with how to deal with loot or read n paragraphs with minor differences of how a single monster can bonk.
Monsters are cheating, they didn't go adventuring for 10 sessions to get XP to level up to the level they are at! I didn't see the DM running a game for them, did you? /s
As long as it has a trait to explain the extra damage dice - like Brute - then I don't care if a monster deals more damage with weapons of the same type as what players use. as for 2024 monster. meh, I've already written that edition off as a mess not worth the paper it's printed on.
No. The Monster Manual is the rules. Monsters are stat blocks, not characters. It's not cheating, they are created using a different method. I do think monsters using weapons should do base damage for that weapon and have abilities that add to damage, but it's not a big deal. The players do not need to know the mechanics behind a creature's damage and honestly, shouldn't know it.
As a DM I have a fundamentally different view I'm fine with asymmetry in /monsters/ anything that's humanoid and using weapons should be achievable by players otherwise the world feels fake. Which is frequently my experience with 5e
To me it's the other way around. If everyone is the same, or potentially the same, it feels fake. That's not how the world works. Not everyone is the same. That guy there can do things you can't do, and you can do things he can't. Makes sense to me. I don't get why people complain about asymmetry with humanoids. Do you give them all feats, class levels, etc.? At least the MM doesn't, and I very rarely see anyone complain about that.
I’m pretty sure that the Heavy trait on a weapon requires a 13 in STR, regardless of weapon type. That’s why the Knight having a lower DEX doesn’t matter
DMing it always bothered me that monsters and creatures could just do stuff they shouldn't just because. A simple text should sufficice, but they would just do it
I think it does suck if the way things are described feel as if it does all this cool stuff due to the magic of the weapon, then when the PCs get it its a +1 longsword, or even just mundane longsword. I remember having those moments in 4e. But if its just extra damage then its fine. Like in Vox Machina, Grog got that bloodsucker sword from the vampire. But it would have been lame if it was just the vampire's ability with that sword, Grog picking it up would be worthless. I definitely don't mind monsters just hitting hard because if you gave them classes they WOULD hit hard, but it sucks when monsters have classes.
But the radiant damage makes no sense.... Where is it coming from, if its specific to them that's fine it just needs an explanation. The only thing that would make less sense is if it did psychic damage
The monster can just do it. The item isn't magic, and the 'why' isn’t actually that important. It just can. If you NEED a reason, you can say that they're paladin-ish
Why not? Knights are often portrayed as holy warriors or those for "good". But again, it can be any damage type you want which speaks to the "signaling" I mentioned at the end. I see no issue with the radiant damage.
@@CooperAATE a lot of DMs and players need reasons for things like thos because they don't just see this as a game they see it as a world that abides by customs patterns and rules. If something just happens randomly its going to break the immersion and make it feel less real. If you don't care about that that's fine but I do and so do a lot of other fans of ttrpgs.
@@InsightCheck If that checks out within their lore block sure, but I don't like it when we have to fill in the gaps for them. It should be intuitive. And it might be, but I doubt every case of "phantom damage" will be.
@@yunusahmed2940 I agree! Especially in this case where the stat block doesn't seem to imply any specific order of knights, why they'd do radiant damage by default is very strange. If I saw holy power emanate from a knight and suddenly smite me, I'd assume the knight is part of some religious order or at least affiliated with a deity of sorts (which could very well be made the case in your game if you want, of course). This sort of stuff is very important for maintaining immersion in a game as it makes these things feel more plausible.
Asymmetric design is okay as long as it doesn't break verisimilitude and the power fantasy. When a NPC type monster has more power than characters it creates envy that breaks the power fantasy.
I’m not sure how true that is. Maybe to some extent but certainly not universally. I’ve both ran and seen run plenty of NPCs that are distinctly more powerful than players. It’s never been an issue as most players recognize that there are entities that have power beyond their own. Those types of creatures are exceptionally cool to have as maybe allies that reside in town and provide specific types of aid to a group.
I would disagree with that. In fact, I expect enemies to be stronger than the PCs at times and to have abilities they don't. Just because a player doesn't have rules to become a demi-lich, I don't feel that breaks the fantasy illusion. A knight hits hard? Makes sense. They are a knight.
I just have one argument about removing passive traits such as "Brute". For DMs, like myself, that don't just use the weapons detailed for each monster it is there to let us know that if I gave that Bugbear a longsword or club that I should add another die. Newer DMs might not get that.
It would make sense to have the 'Create a monster' part in the monster manual.
10:59 Is me! 😊
It is! :)
Monsters don't have to follow the same rules as players, but it's important for them to follow system rules so that DMs can homebrew and improvise. A 2014 Bugbear doesn't "cheat" because system rules allow for special abilities to enhance damage and the Brute trait has clearly defined rules that show how much damage is added. This allows me to add the "Brute" trait to my own homebrew monsters and more importantly, if a Bugbear picks up a Greataxe, I can easily tell that it should do 2d12 damage plus the Bugbear's strength modifier.
The problem with Drelnza and the 2024 Knight that you mention is that I have no idea how much damage they should do if they pick up another weapon. If players are able to disarm Drelnza, how much damage does she do? I can kinda extrapolate that as a vampire, her unarmed strikes do 1d8 damage by looking up the vampire stat block, but what if she picks up another longsword? Is it only with Heretic that she can do 6d10 damage? It's not as bad because Drelnza is a named NPC in a very specific adventure, but I use humanoid stat blocks like the Knight all the time as NPCs, town guards, and many other places where using a weapon other than a Heavy Crossbow could come up frequently.
To a lesser extent, using specific Monster traits that follow specific rules also helps me as the DM communicate to the players how strong a monster is. If my players are familiar with the "Brute" trait, I can use it to describe an "Ogre bouncer with the Brute trait" and my players will have a better idea of what they're dealing with.
Some of my most impactful encounters for my players came when i misread a statblock making the creature unintentionally more deadly, yet my players still rose to the occasion. This is good
Hahaha absolutely. A friend of mine ran a mini campaign for us once and misread a trap that dealt "5(1d10) damage" as dealing "5d10" damage. We were like level 3. We still laugh about it to this day. Made for one hell of a trap lol.
@ try running will-o-wisps and thinking the dc 10 save or flat out die happens with each successful attack rather than when you go unconscious… whoooops
LOOOOL
That’s amazing
For several years i have been both playing and DMing in Adventurers League.
But since I started playing Vampire: The Masquerade and Earthdawn, i learned how much more immersive games are that place worldbuilding and -design over combat balance. I don't wand to play WoW but offline, but ever since MotMV DnD feels more like an online game than a real RPG!
Asymmetrical design is all well and good, so long as it's spelled out as being so.
This style of removing keywords (presumably in order to save printer/writer costs) makes monster design far more opaque than it should be. Which is a bad thing over all, even if some highly experienced DM with a different book published over 10 years ago knows about the secret sauce they used. Making custom monsters was already more of an arcane art than a science in 5e, and hiding the info only makes the process of onboarding fresh DMs harder.
What's important in monster design is the actual effect. How you get there really isn't that important. The 5E DMG already spells out how much average damage a monster of different levels should be doing. It's not like monsters are picking class levels and feats like players. Honestly I think it just becomes harder for DMs if you get away from the numbers and obfuscate things like 3E did, where monsters are picking feats and class levels and all that crap. DMs really don't want to go through the backflips of designing monsters like PCs, it's why they moved away from that after 3E, because ultimately it becomes far harder to judge difficulty.
The 5E monster revision seems good as they're moving more towards questions like "what does this monster actually do?" as opposed to trying to give you this menu of mostly useless options.
I would hate to play at a table where a player was trying to make us think about this. Like we are playing a fantasy game where I'm trying to challenge you
It would just feel like PC vs PC combat lol. Not the most exhilarating thing if you ask me.
1:58 I… I would assume he’s using his Strength. Yeah it’s a ranged weapon, but honestly ranged weapons are a little stupid in D&D that way. There’s an argument to be made that almost all weapons should switch Dex and Strength. It takes a lot of arm and back strength to pull back a bow and a lot of dexterity to swing a sword.
So I just assume the Knight is using Strength to overcome the Heavy property
I agree with the video and most of the comments I read. I would add that I'm constantly adding things to monsters. If a group of monsters are used to working together, I might add Pack Tactics. I'll add extra damage types or other abilities as well to add more thematic elements to the encounter and the campaign as a whole. The monsters are still never powerful enough to TPK parties, despite the fact that some of the encounters are many times deadly according to CR trackers, but they do make the encounters fun and engaging. About the only time I'm really careful is when the PCs are in the 1st Tier of play, especially levels 1 and 2.
Ok, I'm on the same page as this entire video. Let's talk about the Knight's Heavy Crossbow some more. Fire elementals are immune to fire because they're fire elementals, Bugbears and Giants deal more damage with weapons because they're big. Why does a Knight do more damage with a Heavy Crossbow? There is nothing in the fiction or fantasy of a knight that supports this, which is probably why it got focused on so much. Not to mention that because the Knight is a humanoid creature, much like the PCs, there's a higher expectation that they should work similarly to a character. The extra radiant damage is easily accepted because the knight is heroic, maybe a Paladin. But throwing 2d10 on the crossbow just seems to ensure that they deal about the same damage at range as they do in melee. Why?
This feels like a mistake, or a misguided attempt to balance the ranged damage to melee. I would swap out the heavy crossbow with a light crossbow, and remove the multiattack capability with the ranged attack. I would add a Mounted Combat Trait that would let a mounted Knight deal more damage after moving, and have advantage against unmounted opponents to give it a little extra oomph. The statblock as-is just doesn't work right, even if the criticism levied at it is coming from the wrong angle. Enemy statblocks break the rules all the time, but they have to follow the fiction of what the statblock is meant to represent or it makes people question it.
No... next question
Monsters in 2014 didn't play by the same rules either. Which was a huge contention for me. I have a Goose and Gander rule. Basically it says that anything they players can do the monsters can do all things being equal. Example: a watchman that is a fighter/warrior can do most of the things a PC Fighter can do at a given level. This does NOT mean that the same warrior can do what the wizard does etc.
imho, the combat section of the PHB applies to ALL combat PC and NPC alike so all the same options are there for both.
If they have deviations they should indicate why they have such deviation, like Extra Spectacular Expertise or something in their stat block.
We will give 2024 a shot but there is a LOT of stuff I dislike thus far (there are more things that I do like than I thought I would though), but I am leaning toward Shadowdark which means I will likely lose 2 players, but oh well. The DM needs to have fun too and if the system is atrociously overpowered then I need to level that playing field.
The balance thing is from 3.x and pathfinder 1. They give rules for many more things. NPC where players but normaly had NPC (commoner, expert and I got the 3rd.) They could have PC classes but they where stronger. Monster where also built this way and had (race Levels or Hit die) and then could have more classes added.
Someone would only demand NPCs playing by the rules if they haven't seen the horror that is 3.x NPC design upfront.
Those rules meant you spent hours building NPCs that player characters annihilated in seconds. And your only way of making them competitive was to overload them on magical bling. Which, when looted, unbalanced the game even further...
Monsters absolutely cannot and should not play by the same rules as PCs. That doesn't mean a 4E style design is good where this is blatantly obvious. Breaking the rules yes, but in a measured and semi-fair manner.
@@user-wm3hu7lo1g I Do agree it was alot of work. in many way 5x is like simple mode and 3x was advance. Mind you I still like it but it did need alot more work.
The knight also makes 2 crossbow attacks without crossbow expert. Which is fine. Monsters need simple stats that are competitive with players without making the dm confused
Exactly. It just "does" and that's fine!
Another thing to remember: it’s your campaign, and questions like this can add interest if it becomes distracting. If a PC (not necessarily just the player, a PC) notices that the legendary weapon doesn’t do the same massive damage when they use it as when it was used on them - and this is something a PC might well find disturbing and confusing and wonder about - they *can* acknowledge that it happened and pursue that question in-game. Look for lore, consult sages, study the nature of the power behind the weapon, and as they discover things, decide it it’s worth whatever cost they would have to pay, of whatever kind, to be able to tap into more of the weapon’s power. This could become a part of the character’s journey and even, if the GM goes with it, a meaningful plot element, all because the character was affected by something mechanical in the game system. I had a character in one game who fruitlessly studied the characteristics of vampire blood for years, and while he never found the kind of answer he was looking for, he did accomplish a lot of other stuff and built important relationships in the attempt.
Maybe a fighter is really curious about why that bugbear did extra damage with its greatclub, and makes it his personal mission to learn bugbear fighting techniques. Then you figure out what that means mechanically, and lore-wise, in-game. Maybe he befriends a bugbear tribe and has the chance to learn a new (not free, but not normally available) Feat, or gets a new subclass feature option he can choose instead of his next subclass feature. Or maybe he just has bugbear friends now.
I dont, know if i fully agree. Its broadly right i think, asymmetrical design, but it can be a bit weird, cause thats game design talk, not in universe talk. So what degree of abilities a creature has is i think, more accepted depending on how much "sense" it might make in universe. Like, a bugbear dealing extra damage? sure, they big and scary, but why the knight? what makes a knight different? because a knight seems to me a lot more mundane, a knight working closer to PC rules seems more logical in universe, more "immersive". The radiant damage makes some sense, if fits the vibe of a knight, but ultimately i feel like, some people want to be immersed, and therefore they want to understand how things work.
I can see why, a big boss deals a lot more damage with the same sword, they are beyond regular people, but in the specific case of NPCs who are meant to be regular people, i personally appreciate more the sense of immersion given by being similar to the PCs, who are also sort of just people, perhaps not "regular" but more mundane than a dragon or an ogre.
In the knights case for example, i dont see why we would need at all for its damaged to be balanced that way, a knight is, in the first place, not a creature i would expect to be super good at ranged, if anything, a weaker range damage from just a normal crossbow feels a lot more fitting for the concept this NPC is meant to have?
I guess i just have a preference for a sort of symmetry not universally, but special with the more human adjacent stat blocks. If i am fighting a great warrior, why should they work fundamental differently from a PC warrior? you could justify it, but without ANY explanation it can feel a bit out of place, hence why it seems more obvious with the knight as opposed to the bugbear, a bugbear has a vibe that matches, being able to deal more damage, a knight doesn't, so it feels unfair.
There is an element of immersion i think, in the desire for symmetry, it can still be, a sort of fake immersion, like even just in universe explaining this as, a creature super trained at crossbow so they can deal more damage, that sort of justification helps i think, truly feel like it isn't just a game where stats are arbitrarily put based on necessity, even though they ARE.
Our group always complains about "DM Shenanigans" anytime the DM does stuff where it clearly breaks the rules, and sometimes even when they are working within the confines of the rules its still "DM Shenanigans" haha.
NPC creatures need to “break the rules” in order to be of any use to the GM in providing meaningful combat encounters for their players. They are literally built different so they can keep up with the ever increasing amount of power that PCs gain as they level up.
Exactly! They are created differently, serve different purposes and should not be held to the same standard as a PC!
This statement "they are build different" is the worse part of 5e...
Other editions you could follow the same rules for npcs and have good encounters
@@RicardoSR I think that is the best part: you never know what an npc can do because they don't have to follow the same rules...
Talking about the knight: they have 1d8 radiant damage extra and this make me assume that they can be used both as fighter npc or as paladin npc, and if radiant damage doesn't fit with the idea of the npc you can swap it with every other damage type you like, even another extra weapon dice
The npc need to be different and easier to use for a DM
I’ve never understood this sentiment.
Why do we need to design monsters different from player characters to make them challenging? I understand monsters cannot currently keep up but if you designed an evil crew to oppose your players using a twilight cleric as the centerpiece and a random assortment of basic player character classes they would be hard pressed very easily.
I understand why people say they have a hard time for normal monsters but they’re normal monsters?
If you are designing a big bad why wouldn’t you pluck characteristics from the classes of what you know dominates?
@@NotYourCitizenAnymore but you can add everything you want on your monsters to make them more challenging, there's no reason to not change whatever you want, but npc need to be powerful enough to challenging the players without having a long stat block full of abilities that dm must learn before every fight, that's why npc need different rules
Couldn't agree more! Asymmetrical design is a powerful but important tool for DMs to have at their disposal.
I think there are certain aspects that people have a hard time abstracting. The 6d10 mace is a good example of how EFFECTIVE a creature is with a weapon, but not a LITERAL translation of JUST the mace's power. It's all contextual.
Precisely! They're just THAT good with that weapon. It's innate to them, they have that implicit understand and connection with it, magical or otherwise.
PCs are also designed to be complex and interesting (and generally do Tons of damage), while monsters are designed to be streamlined.
The thing I don't get about the Knight in particular, is that the Ranged attack is less accurate, but hits harder... Is the knight supposed to be Ranged, or melee combatant? One would think melee based on Str vs Dex, but then why don't they get the bonus die on the Greatsword attack..??
"How Dare You!?" Thanks, made my day. People were crying for a decade about monsters being too easy...
Some of these extra boosts could also be unlisted abilities that were left off of the stat block to simplify it. Like the acrylic could have an ability similar to a feat that gave an extra spell use but was simplified. (In the case of the brute feature, it was probably included to stop the player from thinking that the weapon was better)
I feel like traits like Brute make monsters easier to hack and modify. They also give easy solutions or just inspiration to DMs when it comes to loot and similar. Conversely they create bloat you need to go through when using the monster in an encounter. So to me it's a balance between preparation clarity and use clarity. I'd rather still have those features just placed later though in some 'extended' section that explains more what's going on behind the screen.
Great video. Clearly and succinctly explained. 👍
I don't know why humanoid enemies in particular have this double standard applied to them. No one is like "a dragon shouldn't have a breath weapon more powerful than a dragonborn it's not FAIR!", but if you have a dragonborn NPC suddenly people expect their Breath Weapon to behave exactly like a PCs would? Well my dragonborn NPC might be some kind of runt (weaker breath weapon) or prodigy (stronger breath weapon), or have some kind of unique draconic ancestry (mismatched breath weapon with scale colour). It is only very specifically humanoid creature type enemies people have these weird opinions on. Humanoid enemies are just like any other monster in the Monster Manual, aside from the obvious.
Agreed. Monsters and NPCs are built differently than PCs. Monsters and NPCs generally don't get death saves like PCs, and I don't think you'll find many players complaining that monsters aren't following the same rules in that situation.
I don't only love the way the npc "break the rule" but they need to for a simple reason: they're weaker than the players
Bugbears deal an additional weapon dice since 2014, it makes sense for a knight to deal more damage though
Plus, the non explicit rules that npc use in their stat block make them more unpredictable for players and THAT makes the combats really interesting, nothing better than not knowing what to expect from an enemy and learn how to deal with it
A monster is a terrifying creature in the minds of people in the real world. Power creep has turned most monsters into nerf hurdles over the years. I'm VERY MUCH in favor of making all monsters more powerful. A monstrosity by definition should defy the rules. And, since creatures of all types are presented in any Monster Manual, the word monster is a blanket term for all enemies.
I do not like it, but it makes sense to reduce confusion. When my DM ran his 1st bugbears he misinterpreted brute and had them do 4d8 damage vs lvl1 PCs.
I always explained away differences between player and monster power as magic items or innate abilities. I've never seen a problem with monsters being stronger or different from player characters. The reason the player can't use the magic item is because when the creature dies the item self destructs or the god the creature followed revoked it's power, whatever feels right in the moment. If done right, it can work as a hook too.
Absolutely, and I've done that kind of thing too where the item sort of vanishes haha. I think we all have :P
The same Players who complain about Monsters "cheating" will be dead silent should the DM say, "So you also want them to have Death Saving Throws? What about Weapon Masteries? Oh and let us not forget a plethora of Magic Items. It is only fair, right?".
I have to remind my rules lawyer of all of this on a semi-regular basis…🤦♂️
I know monsters don't have to follow the rules players have to, but I will say that a fun thing I like to do is make a PC and then make them into a stat block to see how they would fair.
As a player and DM 2014 was on easy mode to me. I agree and don;t thing it would be "breaking the rules or cheating" to make challenging adjustments. I had to all the time as DM with 2014 rules.
How do monsters 'cheat'? Lol monsters aren't PCs
Couldn't agree more!
I believe wanting the monsters to follow the same rules as pcs is part of simulationist gaming. For some people it breaks immersion if an ogre minion has one hp etc. It's associating the game rules with the rules of the in game universe. These need not be realistic but should be internally consistent. You could play a simulationist cartoon game for example.
3e really focused on this wirh monsters having skills and feats and even class levels. 4e was explicitly gamist. 5e took some retrograde steps like giving full casting levels to npcs rather than just what they might use in a scenario. hope mm24 reverses this (again) and signs are that it will.
Hmmm saying retrograde there shows what side of this i am on now. I loved the formal monster rules back in 2000 though and I wouldn't dream of playing Runequest without at everyone playing by the same rules so i have some sympathy for the "simulationist" position
I think 3rd edition gave players the impression that player characters and monsters should operate by the same rules and procedures. 4th edition might have done something similar? But 5e and the Anniversary Edition go back to the early eras of D&D by giving the monsters their own rules.
1e Monsters are monsters.
3e Monsters have the same rules as PCs. Mostly.
Me. Monsters CHEAT. Always.
I do hope the 2024MM gives GREAT monster creation rules. Much more than the DMG 2024.
I'm reallllyyyy hoping for more detailed monster creation rule in the new MM that align with their updated design philosophy.
I found the "the monster stat blocks are cheating" comments absolutely hysterical because it's clear those people have never DM'd or at least never really thought about monster creation . Stat blocks have never played by the same rules as character creation. They don't even HAVE fixed rules. How can you cheat when you make your own rules? You can literally slap whatever you want on monsters when you make your own, tweak, or reskin. The rule is their statblock can do what it says it can so if it says it can use multiattack with a heavy crossbow, it can use multiattack with a heavy crossbow.
Newsflash. If you don't like what they did to a monster, as a DM, you can change it. Monsters have never followed "The Rules". They are just monsters, stat blocks and abilities, to be defeated.
Monsters being the same as Characters com from 3.0/3.5
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way you can play a TTRPG "Wrong" is to not have fun. If the rules being "Broken" results in more fun then it's fine.
Also, if it's in the rulebook, it's not breaking the rules is it?
There is only one thing i consider cheating and its how certain player features flat out don't work because enemy magical attacks or debuffs are "abilities" and not "spells".
This is exactly like how in 3.5 people hated psionics because it was magic but not "magic", so things wouldnt work. They complained so much they eventually retconned it into be magic.
This is why im glad they are giving spellcasting back for some monsters to make it feel more fair and interacting for players vs oops all abilities go screw yourself.
Its not "because". Essentially monsters have feats. In older versions of D&D they would list all the feats a monster had along with the stats, etc. These monster feats would circumvent what the players had. They would also create a lot of lore and ffeat trees to allow players to get these, but no one ever did. They basically just saved space and time by applying an upgrade to the monster.
If you play a lot of other games, such as Dragonbane most recently, monsters are essentially "special" creatures that have their own game mechanics.
Agreed, in addition, previous versions had a million traits baked in into their monster type. All undead were immune to this or that, every construct had a bunch of other traits, and sometimes you had to dig even deeper, because monster type X was a subset of monster type Y with extra traits, which itself was a subset of monster type Z. You needed to figure out the monster's entire type family tree to figure out if they could be Charmed.
5e (thankfully) got rid of that, something is classified as Undead only because sometimes you need to know that, but any immunity or special thing they had was just in the monster stat. It ALSO meant not EVERY undead was immune to bleeding or poison or whatever.
Traits like "Brute" feel like they're trying to justify something that doesn't need to be justified. "This monster is Brute therefore it deals extra damage" explains nothing, is completely unnecessary, just put the additional damage in the attack.
If I ever had someone at a table tell me I was "breaking the rules" as the dm, by having cool monsters or antagonists, that would probably be the end of them in the group.
Loooooooooool
3.5 tried to unify monster and player rules
Asymmetrical design is something I love. It's too easy for players to reduce monsters to mechanics when they resemble what they do exactly.
Yeah for sure. It can make encounters so predictable or monotonous without it. The surprise elements are a huge part of what makes the encounters so exciting!
If you don’t like the asymmetrical design, just try playing with a DM that makes all his NPCs using player classes and rules. It sucks. I’ll give you a referral 😂
LOL sounds like you have some real trauma :P
@@InsightCheck haha I’m being dramatic. He learned, but not before my brother ragequit my friend’s campaign.
@pw3829 lol sounds like quite the experience! I’m glad he at least learned and hopefully it made for a better time for everyone!
I.. have had a DM like this.
accept he went WAAAY further, not only did his creation have player levels and abilities, some of those abilites had no restraints...
For example....
We were level 6, and we were chased down by an 'Angel'
100ft fly speed
25 AC (while using a two hander and had the ability to cast SHIELD)
like 300hp or somin crazy.
oh and he could cast 24 (Yes thats TWENTY FOUR) 3rd level spells...
Cloudkill was one of those spells he could cast 23 times. Oh it was also a FULL paladin, with Arura and smites and extra + radient damage every hit (1st lvl smites on EVERY hit without rescourse use, and this for ANY weapon he picked up, so we could disarm him, and he could just pick up a beer mug and get his weapon smite back)
Oh and his lowest save was a +9.
Then we faught it again at level 9...
And he BUFFED IT.
edit, oh and did I mention, +12 to hit.
Trying to make monsters like players always leads to problems, they need to exist for 1 encounter and follow monster design parameters, they don't have iron clad stat spreads, HP, 12 features, 25 spells etc.
monsters dont automatically need to follow all rules for characters.. butt *humanoid* npc's with classes absolutely should.
For me, I think this is all about Balance and Immersion. I agree that the power scaling and CR system of 2014 was out of whack and 2024 needed to bolster monsters/ come up with a new encounter balancing system (added bonus for giving them more interesting features). And it looks like this is the intent of these changes (although as you explained, it’s not really a complete change).
That said, there is also the Immersion factor. I don’t want players to reverse engineer every the stat blocks but I also don’t want them feeling cheated when every piece of equipment works differently on a monster vs when they try use it. I think as the exception, it’s fine, great in fact. A boss monster having a legendary sword that does more damage than when a player uses it, perfectly good. But if a player gets that sword and it is a normal short sword, that’s not gonna feel great. But hey, that’s just like my opinion man 😁
Monsters don’t feel as monstrous when they’re bound to the same limits as the PCs
On a side note... some of the art in 2024 is just cringe, some for just reasons and others for the artist not understanding the material.
The image of an Illithid "whispering" into the Fire Giant's ear is just silly. They don't "talk" so why would they need to hold their hand up and get close?
So there's a lot of text missing from the Knight stat block. "Where is the Radiant damage coming from? Nothing here says that they have magic weapons or a divine ability." "Why can it fire twice with a Heavy Crossbow, it doesn't have the Crossbow Expert feat."
Except, all of those _are_ written down in the stat block: in the attack descriptions. You know that the Knight is a holy warrior _because_ their attacks do Radiant damage. You know that they must have special training with H X-bows _because_ they can do things that player normally can't.
The MM is a big book that needs to fit as much information in it as possible. And DMs don't want _or need_ to have a single stat block take up two pages just so that they can see a full paragraph for each special ability the NPC has. The attack description tells you the attack deals Radiant damage. That's what you need to know. Bonus points: now the DM can decide _why_ they deal Radiant damage. Is this a magic weapon that a PC could use? Is this from a divine favor? Is it because of an oath? The DM can use the same stat block for different NPCs because it doesn't say too much.
A well designed stat block is efficient. From a design standpoint, NPCs don't have to be the same as players. (NPCs _shouldn't_ be the same as players, that makes the PCs less special. And this is a game about feeling special (together, not selfishly).) But the rules also don't have to _explain_ every single way that the NPCs are different. They expect the players and DM to be competent enough to infer things.
The starblocked creatures “break the rules” by virtue of this being an exclusion based game regarding rules. The Knight does what ever the statblock says it can do, along with everything else the general rules already allow for.
Only problem I see with any of this is the knight does seem to make those Heavy Crossbow ranged attacks with disadvantage. General rules apply unless there is an exclusion.
This argument feels like it stems from people being too PVP brained
It’s important to remember that Jeremy Crawford and others have said, “It’s not a PvP game.” The game is not meant for players characters fighting each other, so monsters can’t work exactly like a player character. There has to be things that are different.
I feel you are reaching here. The new bumps to damage are new as they only started showing up late 2023 and 2024. Poison is fairly simple to explain on weapons since the ones using them are poisoners like drow so their crossbow having the same effect as the drow poison is fine.
Using monster weapons to buff martial is a common practice and is even preached by larger youtubers than yourself like Pack Tactics. Does that make it right? No but it shows that the setting is becoming vastly more magical for no reason.
Why does a knight deal extra radiant damage but not have spellcasting? A knight is a warrior or fighter not a paladin so why the increase in damage? Why buff the knight’s ranged damage? Who was finding it nessasary to improve their ranged damage ability in that way?
Exactly!
~_~
I once had a "guest DM" let the party's orc loot the Dao's maul to deal 4d8 or whatever the MM said it was. I had to step in and the guy was genuinely surprised when I explained that wasn't how monster weapons worked. Eventually the barbarian was wielding that magic hammer for 2d8 but he had to work for it.
So defeating the enemy wielding the weapon isn't "working for it"? How so?
Why can’t a player retrieve a weapon from a slain enemy?
@@ultrauncanny4328 They can retrieve it, but that doesn't mean they're going to be able to wield it the same way as the original owner.
as a DM I say "waaaaaaaa" cry me a river. I have played since 1975 and this is just precious. HaHaHa.....power creep clearly favors the players so get over it.
May I ask a question. As I have recently run into a small issue. (Player here btw 1.5 years)
I made a charecter, a female warforged made to look and pass as human. (her flesh is plant based, her skeleton metalic) She is designed to be a kinda of gaurdain/sentinal type charecter, she is learning, nad has a fun backstory thats sweet, and recently she's discovered she can love and she indeed has a soul.
The problem,
My DM has basically said he can't deal with passive perception, My charecter was going to have Observent and was being given an item made by a player that boosted her passive perception higher. This would amount to a passive of 28 by level 11.
I got a little upset as this was her thing she was really good at outside of combat. (the other 3 people are casters with out of combat utility, and my charecters stealth and lock picking are matched by our Druid, (no shade on the druid)
Now I'm taking either, just to becasue my DM dislikes this mechanic and that it can make ambushes almost useless against my charecter. (Im giving up a lot to get it that high, prof, feat, item slot and multiple levels)
And he also doesn't agree with Passive perception being the counter to getting ambushed.
I feel like I've just lost half of my charecter.
Somebody has already mentioned it but yeah, 3e/3.5/PF1 monsters have symmetrical design! I remember the first time I read a 3e monster statblock and it filled me with terror! You mean I have to know *all that* just to run a ::checks notes:: bugbear?? Also making your own monsters was a whole character creation process except potentially worse because many monsters had many more hit dice than a pc would have.
With that said, it is easy to rag on 3e (and fun too!) but I think there's a reason why no other edition of D&D has done monster design the same way before or since!
When you try to claim that the RAW is "Cheating: you've lost all credibility
This take supports the designers' laziness. It's good for monsters to have unique mechanics, but "normal" humanoids just handling weapons better than PCs is not a unique mechanic, it's bad design. Imagine, if everything that worked for monsters worked for the PCs as well. Cultists having strange powers? Start worshipping their god. Drows having unique poisons and ways to handle them? Learn/buy from them. The Tarrasque's reflective armor? Take down the big boy, make a similar armor for your fighter. Old version had a few thousand mosters that feel roughly the same and the new MM is a copy of that, just with more nonsense. Make it a 100, hell, even less, but with clearly different weapons/knowledge/powers, define 1-2 mechanics of obtaining loot from each one and every encounter will be simple, unique, fun and engaging. And DMs wouldn't have to come up with how to deal with loot or read n paragraphs with minor differences of how a single monster can bonk.
Monsters are not characters.
Monsters are cheating, they didn't go adventuring for 10 sessions to get XP to level up to the level they are at! I didn't see the DM running a game for them, did you? /s
As long as it has a trait to explain the extra damage dice - like Brute - then I don't care if a monster deals more damage with weapons of the same type as what players use.
as for 2024 monster. meh, I've already written that edition off as a mess not worth the paper it's printed on.
No. The Monster Manual is the rules. Monsters are stat blocks, not characters. It's not cheating, they are created using a different method. I do think monsters using weapons should do base damage for that weapon and have abilities that add to damage, but it's not a big deal. The players do not need to know the mechanics behind a creature's damage and honestly, shouldn't know it.
git gud
Asymmetrical design is garbage, lazy design. The devs are just bad at their jobs.
3.5 was vastly superior to 5e and 5.24, both of which are terrible
To each their own. 🤷♂️
As a DM I have a fundamentally different view
I'm fine with asymmetry in /monsters/ anything that's humanoid and using weapons should be achievable by players otherwise the world feels fake.
Which is frequently my experience with 5e
To me it's the other way around. If everyone is the same, or potentially the same, it feels fake. That's not how the world works. Not everyone is the same. That guy there can do things you can't do, and you can do things he can't. Makes sense to me. I don't get why people complain about asymmetry with humanoids. Do you give them all feats, class levels, etc.? At least the MM doesn't, and I very rarely see anyone complain about that.
I’m pretty sure that the Heavy trait on a weapon requires a 13 in STR, regardless of weapon type. That’s why the Knight having a lower DEX doesn’t matter
The second sentence specifically mentions 13 Dexterity for ranged weapons.
DMing it always bothered me that monsters and creatures could just do stuff they shouldn't just because. A simple text should sufficice, but they would just do it
I think it does suck if the way things are described feel as if it does all this cool stuff due to the magic of the weapon, then when the PCs get it its a +1 longsword, or even just mundane longsword. I remember having those moments in 4e. But if its just extra damage then its fine.
Like in Vox Machina, Grog got that bloodsucker sword from the vampire. But it would have been lame if it was just the vampire's ability with that sword, Grog picking it up would be worthless.
I definitely don't mind monsters just hitting hard because if you gave them classes they WOULD hit hard, but it sucks when monsters have classes.
But the radiant damage makes no sense....
Where is it coming from, if its specific to them that's fine it just needs an explanation. The only thing that would make less sense is if it did psychic damage
The monster can just do it. The item isn't magic, and the 'why' isn’t actually that important. It just can.
If you NEED a reason, you can say that they're paladin-ish
Why not? Knights are often portrayed as holy warriors or those for "good". But again, it can be any damage type you want which speaks to the "signaling" I mentioned at the end. I see no issue with the radiant damage.
@@CooperAATE a lot of DMs and players need reasons for things like thos because they don't just see this as a game they see it as a world that abides by customs patterns and rules.
If something just happens randomly its going to break the immersion and make it feel less real. If you don't care about that that's fine but I do and so do a lot of other fans of ttrpgs.
@@InsightCheck
If that checks out within their lore block sure, but I don't like it when we have to fill in the gaps for them. It should be intuitive. And it might be, but I doubt every case of "phantom damage" will be.
@@yunusahmed2940 I agree! Especially in this case where the stat block doesn't seem to imply any specific order of knights, why they'd do radiant damage by default is very strange. If I saw holy power emanate from a knight and suddenly smite me, I'd assume the knight is part of some religious order or at least affiliated with a deity of sorts (which could very well be made the case in your game if you want, of course).
This sort of stuff is very important for maintaining immersion in a game as it makes these things feel more plausible.
Asymmetric design is okay as long as it doesn't break verisimilitude and the power fantasy. When a NPC type monster has more power than characters it creates envy that breaks the power fantasy.
I’m not sure how true that is. Maybe to some extent but certainly not universally. I’ve both ran and seen run plenty of NPCs that are distinctly more powerful than players. It’s never been an issue as most players recognize that there are entities that have power beyond their own. Those types of creatures are exceptionally cool to have as maybe allies that reside in town and provide specific types of aid to a group.
I would disagree with that. In fact, I expect enemies to be stronger than the PCs at times and to have abilities they don't. Just because a player doesn't have rules to become a demi-lich, I don't feel that breaks the fantasy illusion. A knight hits hard? Makes sense. They are a knight.
@@shalmdi Then just make them a higher level fighter or paladin than the players, many fighters and paladins imagine their characters as knights.