I see a thread discussing magic in 5e. So I guess some people know little bits of these soon-to-be-released rules eh? As such, I would like to ask what you can tell me about the monsters in 5e. I once found a 5e stat-block (of a bugbear), but I don't know if it will actually be like that. Since I am working on a monster book for my own game (see below), I would like to know more about monsters in 5e, in the hope I could make my monster book usable with it without any conversion work.
Any info?
I don't have any information on what the final stat blocks will look like. I'm assuming they won't be presented the same as in the playtest, as the playtest never really got into ecology, and was really just a simple stat block without an attempt at professional layout you'd see in a final 5e MM.
I imagine the stat fields though would be the same. There might be minor changes to things like HP or attack bonuses, but the fields themselves? Should be pretty stable.
Monsters were the least developed things in the playtest, at least they seemed that way.
Perhaps the ones that appeared in official pre-5E modules are closer to the actual final 5E form?
I don't know. I haven't seen these.
About 30 pages of Dead in Thay is devoted to monsters.
I really haven't paid much attention to 5e besides getting that, but the monsters seem largely OSR compatible, with one big exception: Armor Class.
For instance, the toughest monster in the book is the Pit Fiend, which has 19 hit dice and an armor class of 17.
In 1e, they had 13 hit dice and an AC of -3 (or 23 in ascending terms, or possibly 22 since the MM started at 9, apparently)
In 2e, they had 13 hit dice and an AC of -5 (or 25 in ascending terms)
In 3e, they had 19 (up to 54) hit dice and an AC of 40.
Or another example, of a mid level monster. The Otyugh. In 5e, they have 8 HD and 13 AC
In 1e, they had 6-8 HD and an AC of 3 (or 17 in ascending terms)
In 2e, they were the same as in 1e
In 3e they had 6 HD and an AC of 17
The other thing that might be a stumbling block is 5e does what 3e did - have hit dice, but then add a ton of hit points just for the hell of it, apparently.
Like the Otyugh is 8 hit dice, but it is 8d10 + 40. The Pit Fiend is 19d10 +95. So it looks like they add 5 hit points for every hit dice of the monster
I just hope the stat blocks are short and sweet...
The only game with stat blocks that made me cringe more than 4e was Mythus...
...and I'm pretty sure Gary was just trolling us.
Quote from: JeremyR;754313About 30 pages of Dead in Thay is devoted to monsters.
I really haven't paid much attention to 5e besides getting that, but the monsters seem largely OSR compatible, with one big exception: Armor Class.
For instance, the toughest monster in the book is the Pit Fiend, which has 19 hit dice and an armor class of 17.
In 1e, they had 13 hit dice and an AC of -3 (or 23 in ascending terms, or possibly 22 since the MM started at 9, apparently)
In 2e, they had 13 hit dice and an AC of -5 (or 25 in ascending terms)
In 3e, they had 19 (up to 54) hit dice and an AC of 40.
Or another example, of a mid level monster. The Otyugh. In 5e, they have 8 HD and 13 AC
In 1e, they had 6-8 HD and an AC of 3 (or 17 in ascending terms)
In 2e, they were the same as in 1e
In 3e they had 6 HD and an AC of 17
The other thing that might be a stumbling block is 5e does what 3e did - have hit dice, but then add a ton of hit points just for the hell of it, apparently.
Like the Otyugh is 8 hit dice, but it is 8d10 + 40. The Pit Fiend is 19d10 +95. So it looks like they add 5 hit points for every hit dice of the monster
Thanks for this info. I might have to get this PDF...
As far as hit-points go, I already add bonus hit-points for high Constitution scores. As such, +5 hp per hit-die would be a 20 Constitution (using FH&W stats). Now it's ludicrous to think all monsters would get a Constitution of 20, so I guess it's +5 hp per hit-die for monsters of Large size. Anyway, so far my monsters are still relatively on par. But then there is the AC... AC 17 instead of 23? Mmmmh... do they have something to compensate, such as reduction against weapons, or what not? Or fighters don't get a +1 bonus per level, but less (such as BAB +5 for a 10th level fighter instead of +10)? I can understand this, if zero-level men-at-arms are supposed to be able to hit high level foes, so PCs don't become unkillable...
Okay, will get this PDF.
Quote from: David Johansen;754319The only game with stat blocks that made me cringe more than 4e was Mythus...
...and I'm pretty sure Gary was just trolling us.
You probably won't like the 5e blocks then either. One of the few things that Mearls has praised about 4e is the look of the monster state blocks.
From the one Legends and Lore article I read, I would expect them to be very similar
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;754323You probably won't like the 5e blocks then either. One of the few things that Mearls has praised about 4e is the look of the monster state blocks.
IMO there's a big difference between a 3e/PF stat block and a 4e stat block. Both are huge. But a 3e/PF stat block is full of junk you won't use and references to stuff you need to look up - feats, spells, magic item powers etc. A 4e stat block has everything you need to run the monster, including special abilities. They work very differently in play. For simple monsters my preference is "AC 7 hd 1-1 hp 4 THAC0 20 dam 1d6", but if it's some complicated set-piece end boss thing then the 4e approach is much better than 3e/PF.
Dead in Thay doesn't use statblocks at all.
Dunno if that's the format they plan on using, or if it's because all the monsters are in the back of the module (as the MM isn't out yet)...
Quote from: JeremyR;754313The other thing that might be a stumbling block is 5e does what 3e did - have hit dice, but then add a ton of hit points just for the hell of it, apparently.
Like the Otyugh is 8 hit dice, but it is 8d10 + 40. The Pit Fiend is 19d10 +95. So it looks like they add 5 hit points for every hit dice of the monster
Those are the bonus Hit Points from Con.
Quote from: Turanil;754321But then there is the AC... AC 17 instead of 23? Mmmmh... do they have something to compensate, such as reduction against weapons, or what not? Or fighters don't get a +1 bonus per level, but less (such as BAB +5 for a 10th level fighter instead of +10)? I can understand this, if zero-level men-at-arms are supposed to be able to hit high level foes, so PCs don't become unkillable...
Okay, will get this PDF.
5e uses bounded accuracy, so the total bonuses you get from things is toned down from every other edition (except ability modifiers strangely).
In 5e, the highest attack bonus a fighter gets at level 20 is +6. And magic items are mostly only +1, with +2 weapons being very rare. The purpose is exactly like you said, so larger groups of lower level monster are still a threat to higher level PCs.
As a comparison between 10th level fighters:
AD&D: Needs a 12 on the attack matrix for AC 0 (effective +8 to hit). Probably has a +3 weapon by this point. Another +3 from ability (either naturally has a high STR, or has a gauntlets of ogre power by now). So that's a total of roughly +14 to hit.
5e: +3 proficiency bonus. +4 bonus from ability (probably has 18 STR by now). +1 bonus from a weapon, maybe a +2 tops. Total +9 to hit tops.
So in order to hit a creature with AC -3 (or 23), the AD&D fighter would need to roll a 9 or higher.
In order for the 5e fighter to hit an AC 17, he would need to roll an 8.
So in terms of what's actually needed to roll to hit, it isn't much different
Okay I understand, thanks. I also bought Dead in Thay PDF, in which I could look at the latest play-test rules.
In reading the rules and the monsters, I thought that the whole seemed well done. Nonetheless, it's not retro-compatible with any other edition of the game. Yet, concerning my monster book on the work, it seems it could still be usable in 5e, if I only give the monsters the reduced AC value. Well, that would make for three different stats on the AC line. One for FH&W (and other retro-OSR that make use of ascending AC), another for 1e/2e (i.e. the same AC but descending), and lastly one for 5e (basing my best guess on the monsters presented in Dead in Thay).
I still have other questions. Saves of monsters, and BAB of monsters: how are they determined? Is it enough for saving throws to just list their stats (Str, Dex, etc.)? Concerning BAB it looks like I should also propose a reduced BAB?
Quote from: Turanil;754596I still have other questions. Saves of monsters, and BAB of monsters: how are they determined? Is it enough for saving throws to just list their stats (Str, Dex, etc.)?
That has certainly how it has been for the latter stages of the playtest, and I cannot see them changing it now. You could always give something a special rule if you wanted it to be immune or better than normal against some form of effect.
QuoteConcerning BAB it looks like I should also propose a reduced BAB?
BAB for monsters in the play test seemed all over the shop, and looking at Dead in Thay I am still not really sure how its calculated (or indeed if it even is calculated). What is clear is that most creatures are in the range of +4 to +8.
Quote from: jadrax;754603BAB for monsters in the play test seemed all over the shop, and looking at Dead in Thay I am still not really sure how its calculated (or indeed if it even is calculated). What is clear is that most creatures are in the range of +4 to +8.
What do you think about this: Since all the playtest classes have the same proficiency progression (e.g. reach +3 at 7th level), give this as the base BAB for monster in relation to hit-dice as if they were levels; then add the strength bonus. I will try to see if this method fits with what
Dead in Thay lists in their stat-blocks anyway.
Quote from: Turanil;754596Okay I understand, thanks. I also bought Dead in Thay PDF, in which I could look at the latest play-test rules.
In reading the rules and the monsters, I thought that the whole seemed well done. Nonetheless, it's not retro-compatible with any other edition of the game. Yet, concerning my monster book on the work, it seems it could still be usable in 5e, if I only give the monsters the reduced AC value. Well, that would make for three different stats on the AC line. One for FH&W (and other retro-OSR that make use of ascending AC), another for 1e/2e (i.e. the same AC but descending), and lastly one for 5e (basing my best guess on the monsters presented in Dead in Thay).
I still have other questions. Saves of monsters, and BAB of monsters: how are they determined? Is it enough for saving throws to just list their stats (Str, Dex, etc.)? Concerning BAB it looks like I should also propose a reduced BAB?
FWIW, last year I ran A1-4 using 5e's rules. One guy really wanted to play but was only familiar with AD&D, and didn't want to figure out or spend the time on creating a PC in 5e. So he ran his AD&D1e cleric with the rest of the group of 5e characters. The
only thing we changed was converting his AC to ascending, and replaced saving throws with ability checks. Still used AD&D's spells per level and spell descriptions, still used xp and hit point progression, etc. That was it. He was a little underpowered compared to his 5e companions, but it still worked.
Personally, I don't see how you could get more backwards compatible than that outside of just rewriting AD&D all over again, which obviously can't happen. I imagine monsters would be the exact same--just convert AC to ascending and replace saving throws with ability checks. Lower level monsters would probably be more of cannon fodder in 5e than they are in AD&D, but higher level monsters would be tougher I think, due to he higher AC values. An AC -3 (23) in 5e is nearly unhittable.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;754636FWIW, last year I ran A1-4 using 5e's rules. One guy really wanted to play but was only familiar with AD&D, and didn't want to figure out or spend the time on creating a PC in 5e. So he ran his AD&D1e cleric with the rest of the group of 5e characters. The only thing we changed was converting his AC to ascending, and replaced saving throws with ability checks. Still used AD&D's spells per level and spell descriptions, still used xp and hit point progression, etc. That was it. He was a little underpowered compared to his 5e companions, but it still worked.
This is a great thing to hear!! It means my own game won't become obsolete when 5e is released. If I understand well, character made in my own game could be ran in 5e. Great!
Quote from: Turanil;754787This is a great thing to hear!! It means my own game won't become obsolete when 5e is released. If I understand well, character made in my own game could be ran in 5e. Great!
Tabletop games aren't software. If you enjoy playing them, then they never become obsolete. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;7544055e uses bounded accuracy, so the total bonuses you get from things is toned down from every other edition (except ability modifiers strangely).
In 5e, the highest attack bonus a fighter gets at level 20 is +6. And magic items are mostly only +1, with +2 weapons being very rare. The purpose is exactly like you said, so larger groups of lower level monster are still a threat to higher level PCs.
As a comparison between 10th level fighters:
AD&D: Needs a 12 on the attack matrix for AC 0 (effective +8 to hit). Probably has a +3 weapon by this point. Another +3 from ability (either naturally has a high STR, or has a gauntlets of ogre power by now). So that's a total of roughly +14 to hit.
5e: +3 proficiency bonus. +4 bonus from ability (probably has 18 STR by now). +1 bonus from a weapon, maybe a +2 tops. Total +9 to hit tops.
So in order to hit a creature with AC -3 (or 23), the AD&D fighter would need to roll a 9 or higher.
In order for the 5e fighter to hit an AC 17, he would need to roll an 8.
So in terms of what's actually needed to roll to hit, it isn't much different
This bounded accuracy thing is pure gold, in my opinion.
I think it is a huge improvement.
Quote from: Turanil;754787This is a great thing to hear!! It means my own game won't become obsolete when 5e is released. If I understand well, character made in my own game could be ran in 5e. Great!
Heh, I'll be honest and say what I'm most likely to use FH&W for is as a source of interesting character classes, so that'd probably what I'll end up doing.
Quote from: Bill;754825This bounded accuracy thing is pure gold, in my opinion.
I think it is a huge improvement.
Me too. I can't tell you how awesome it is to feel like you have the entire stable of monsters at your disposal for adventures that might normally seem to be higher level than what you want to use. It makes the dungeon feel way more organic. In my current dungeon, the levels where the PCs will probably be around level 7 or 8, it just made sense from an organic/worldbuilding/continuity sense to have a cavern home to a clan of kobolds. You really couldn't do that in previous editions without it being a cakewalk for the PCs unless you threw a ton of them in there and loaded the place up with traps or something, and still have it as a combat challenge*.
Now, with 5e? A simple squad of a half dozen kobolds and a dozen giant rats will cause an experienced party to hesitate pretty seriously.
*story time. Once, a long time ago, one of my buddies PCs was a barbarian with a girdle of giant strength. We were in tunnels leading to a dragon's lair and were beset upon by a horde of kobolds. They could only fit through the tunnel two at a time. My buddy just said, "I flick them as they come in." Didn't even do a regular attack. they were so weak compared to us that each flick killed one automatically, and he just kept doing it until the rest ended up fleeing. Sort of boring
Quote from: Sacrosanct;754830Me too. I can't tell you how awesome it is to feel like you have the entire stable of monsters at your disposal for adventures that might normally seem to be higher level than what you want to use. It makes the dungeon feel way more organic. In my current dungeon, the levels where the PCs will probably be around level 7 or 8, it just made sense from an organic/worldbuilding/continuity sense to have a cavern home to a clan of kobolds. You really couldn't do that in previous editions without it being a cakewalk for the PCs unless you threw a ton of them in there and loaded the place up with traps or something, and still have it as a combat challenge*.
Now, with 5e? A simple squad of a half dozen kobolds and a dozen giant rats will cause an experienced party to hesitate pretty seriously.
*story time. Once, a long time ago, one of my buddies PCs was a barbarian with a girdle of giant strength. We were in tunnels leading to a dragon's lair and were beset upon by a horde of kobolds. They could only fit through the tunnel two at a time. My buddy just said, "I flick them as they come in." Didn't even do a regular attack. they were so weak compared to us that each flick killed one automatically, and he just kept doing it until the rest ended up fleeing. Sort of boring
I will probably prefer the 5E 'power curve'
'Mighty Hero' is fine for me; I don't really play dnd to be a 'Greater God'
Can someone tell me what "bounded accuracy" means?
By the way, by which method is determined a character's attack roll bonus? In Dead in Thay there is several 6th level character stat-locks. At 6th level, they all have a +2 proficiency bonus. The fighter and barbarian get a +7 because of their 20 Strength score. But then, other characters, with much lower strength scores (including two who get a -1 penalty to hit), with classes (druids, mages, etc.) that traditionally had a slower attack roll progression, also get +4, +5 or +8. SO WHAT?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;754830Me too. I can't tell you how awesome it is to feel like you have the entire stable of monsters at your disposal for adventures that might normally seem to be higher level than what you want to use. It makes the dungeon feel way more organic. In my current dungeon, the levels where the PCs will probably be around level 7 or 8, it just made sense from an organic/worldbuilding/continuity sense to have a cavern home to a clan of kobolds. You really couldn't do that in previous editions without it being a cakewalk for the PCs unless you threw a ton of them in there and loaded the place up with traps or something, and still have it as a combat challenge*.
Now, with 5e? A simple squad of a half dozen kobolds and a dozen giant rats will cause an experienced party to hesitate pretty seriously.
I don't see that as a good thing. If I'm 7th or 8th level I'm going to be awfully disappointed at finding a level full of kobolds.
There's a gazillion monsters for D&D. Why make it so you keep fighting the low level ones that people are tired of, over and over and over?
The combat system is based around a d20. It should use as much of that as possible, while it looks like the opposite is true in 5e...
Quote from: Turanil;755021Can someone tell me what "bounded accuracy" means?
By the way, by which method is determined a character's attack roll bonus? In Dead in Thay there is several 6th level character stat-locks. At 6th level, they all have a +2 proficiency bonus. The fighter and barbarian get a +7 because of their 20 Strength score. But then, other characters, with much lower strength scores (including two who get a -1 penalty to hit), with classes (druids, mages, etc.) that traditionally had a slower attack roll progression, also get +4, +5 or +8. SO WHAT?
There is no 'slower attack progression' in 5th edition, you either get the proficiency bonus with your weapon or not. A lot of the Dead in Thay pre-gens use finesses weapons and so add there Dex to attack rather than strength.
Quote from: JeremyR;755026I don't see that as a good thing. If I'm 7th or 8th level I'm going to be awfully disappointed at finding a level full of kobolds.
There's a gazillion monsters for D&D. Why make it so you keep fighting the low level ones that people are tired of, over and over and over?
The combat system is based around a d20. It should use as much of that as possible, while it looks like the opposite is true in 5e...
The part you are missing is that you don't HAVE to keep using the same old monsters. If you want to leave kobolds and rats behind and just use tougher monsters then nothing is stopping you.
For those that like the idea, they can still use weaker monsters in greater numbers if they fit the campaign better.
This gives you more options to play with instead of less.
Quote from: JeremyR;755026I don't see that as a good thing. If I'm 7th or 8th level I'm going to be awfully disappointed at finding a level full of kobolds.
There's a gazillion monsters for D&D. Why make it so you keep fighting the low level ones that people are tired of, over and over and over?
The combat system is based around a d20. It should use as much of that as possible, while it looks like the opposite is true in 5e...
Look at it the other way. At second or third level you can be fighting demons and shit.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;755032The part you are missing is that you don't HAVE to keep using the same old monsters. If you want to leave kobolds and rats behind and just use tougher monsters then nothing is stopping you.
For those that like the idea, they can still use weaker monsters in greater numbers if they fit the campaign better.
This gives you more options to play with instead of less.
This is exactly right. No one says you have to have kobolds. However, if they happen to fit the dungeon ecology for that area, you can have them without worrying about it being just another boring cakewalk for higher parties.
That image in the 1e DMG with the green dragon fighting the kobolds? Now it's actually a thing worth playing out. And I like to have that option.
Quote from: Turanil;755021Can someone tell me what "bounded accuracy" means?
By the way, by which method is determined a character's attack roll bonus? In Dead in Thay there is several 6th level character stat-locks. At 6th level, they all have a +2 proficiency bonus. The fighter and barbarian get a +7 because of their 20 Strength score. But then, other characters, with much lower strength scores (including two who get a -1 penalty to hit), with classes (druids, mages, etc.) that traditionally had a slower attack roll progression, also get +4, +5 or +8. SO WHAT?
In 5e, your bonus to hit is pretty much determined by two main things (3 if you count magic weapon bonuses): proficiency and ability modifier. For weapons you are proficient in, you get to add your proficiency bonus as determined by your level. Then you add the ability modifier that's applicable (strength for most melee weapons, dex for ranged and finesse weapons).
Quote from: LibraryLass;755046Look at it the other way. At second or third level you can be fighting demons and shit.
hehe, well, not exactly. It's not so much true in reverse unless there is a horde of party members. High level monsters like demons often have fear, area of effect and summoning spells that will still make mincemeat of even larger numbers of low level opponents. The only scenarios where I've seen a larger group of low level PCs take out a dejmon is theorycrafting arena battle when only a straight DPR comparison was made. And since the game never actually plays that way, it is sort of moot.
I don't understand what people are talking about when they debate the power balance between monsters and PC's on adventures. The world doesn't owe your characters a series of fights with opponents just-tough-enough-to-hang-around-a-couple-of-rounds-but-not-tough-enough-to-kill-you. The troll who lives under the bridge is a troll whether you are 1st level or 10th.
Quote from: Larsdangly;755069I don't understand what people are talking about when they debate the power balance between monsters and PC's on adventures. The world doesn't owe your characters a series of fights with opponents just-tough-enough-to-hang-around-a-couple-of-rounds-but-not-tough-enough-to-kill-you. The troll who lives under the bridge is a troll whether you are 1st level or 10th.
While I agree with the sentiment, there is I think still a huge advantage to avoiding having fights being utterly one sided if they are not in the right CR to level band.
The problem as I see it is every edition of D&D has made level more and more dominant in terms of power creep. 5th seems to be winding that back so the game feels more like it was in TSR days.
Quote from: Larsdangly;755069I don't understand what people are talking about when they debate the power balance between monsters and PC's on adventures. The world doesn't owe your characters a series of fights with opponents just-tough-enough-to-hang-around-a-couple-of-rounds-but-not-tough-enough-to-kill-you. The troll who lives under the bridge is a troll whether you are 1st level or 10th.
Been away from D&D for the past 15 years have we? The 3E ruleset really kicked off an era of entitled players.
There are several comments above regarding scaling up the power of 'weak' monsters (e.g., kobolds) and scaling down that of 'strong' ones (e.g., demons). But I can't quite figure out what people mean based on this thread. What 5e rules are people referring to here?
Quote from: Larsdangly;755095There are several comments above regarding scaling up the power of 'weak' monsters (e.g., kobolds) and scaling down that of 'strong' ones (e.g., demons). But I can't quite figure out what people mean based on this thread. What 5e rules are people referring to here?
It tends to shift power by level to Damage/hp rather To Hit/AC
So if you look at a 3.5 Iron Golem:
18 HD (129 hp); AC 30; To Hit +23; Dam 2d10+11 (22)
While in Dead in Thay its:
15 HD (157 hp); AC 18; To Hit +8; Dam 4d8+7 (25)
So even if you are a low level character you still have an OK chance of hitting it, rather than needing a crit.
Quote from: JeremyR;755026I don't see that as a good thing. If I'm 7th or 8th level I'm going to be awfully disappointed at finding a level full of kobolds.
There's a gazillion monsters for D&D. Why make it so you keep fighting the low level ones that people are tired of, over and over and over?
The combat system is based around a d20. It should use as much of that as possible, while it looks like the opposite is true in 5e...
I get the impression you haven't played 3E or 4E. In those editions, to hit bonuses, damage, and AC scaled up dramatically for both PCs and monsters. At mid-level, getting a +14 to hit on a monster with a 28 AC isn't at all unusual. Bounded accuracy dials the numbers back closer to AD&D levels of number inflation. And just as in AD&D, orcs are going to still pose a legitimate threat to level 6 PCs.
Quote from: jadrax;755104It tends to shift power by level to Damage/hp rather To Hit/AC
So if you look at a 3.5 Iron Golem:
18 HD (129 hp); AC 30; To Hit +23; Dam 2d10+11 (22)
While in Dead in Thay its:
15 HD (157 hp); AC 18; To Hit +8; Dam 4d8+7 (25)
So even if you are a low level character you still have an OK chance of hitting it, rather than needing a crit.
Ah, so you just mean this movement of 5e back towards an AC/to-hit scaling that looks like pre 3E. I was imagining that people were talking about a sliding scale of monster properties, like kobolds with special powerzzz or nerved demons or something.
Quote from: Larsdangly;755069...The troll who lives under the bridge is a troll whether you are 1st level or 10th.
While I agree with this, it's still not OK to have said troll just pop up and wipe out the party in a series of one-shots (i.e. one shot per character). They should have options that aren't just backed up by the setting, but also by the rules. What I'm hearing suggests one of those options might be "run away (possibly wounded) and come back with the militia" if they are totally out-classed. And maybe even explain why a troll might run from a bunch of low-level militia types rather than eat them all.
Quote from: Brander;755197While I agree with this, it's still not OK to have said troll just pop up and wipe out the party in a series of one-shots (i.e. one shot per character).
It's ok to say:
"You see a TROLL climbing out from under the bridge! Massively strong, it looks like it could easily rip you apart with a single blow."
If they then wanna go die, fine by me.
There is some more monster maths comparison on Raging Owlbear's blog (http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/d-5e-backward-compatibility-and-combat.html), in particular comparing AD&D 2e and 5th.
Quote from: S'mon;755253It's ok to say:
"You see a TROLL climbing out from under the bridge! Massively strong, it looks like it could easily rip you apart with a single blow."
If they then wanna go die, fine by me.
Heck, even before they see it there may be signs of something terrible in the surrounding area. Shredded partially eaten wildlife, large humanoid footprints, etc.
Most monsters, with a few exceptions, are going to have a noticeable environmental impact. Part of the DMs job is to make sure the players have the information that would be obvious to their characters.
" A T-rex!!! Where the fuck did that come from?"
" Oh yeah I forgot to mention, you have been stumbling across piles of poop almost as tall as the gnome for a couple days now."
:mad:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;755267" A T-rex!!! Where the fuck did that come from?"
Yeah, a good GM should give such clues ahead of time, or the campaign can quickly become ludicrous. I remember an adventure, where our players were exploring the narrow corridors of a dungeon, opening doors and progressing forward. So we stop at the door, listen, open the lock, etc... And then, upon opening the door right behind there is a gorgon charging at us. It was the most ridiculous encounter ever. All the DM was able to answer was: "No it's normal: I just rolled on the random encounters table..." :banghead:
Quote from: Turanil;755277Yeah, a good GM should give such clues ahead of time, or the campaign can quickly become ludicrous. I remember an adventure, where our players were exploring the narrow corridors of a dungeon, opening doors and progressing forward. So we stop at the door, listen, open the lock, etc... And then, upon opening the door right behind there is a gorgon charging at us. It was the most ridiculous encounter ever. All the DM was able to answer was: "No it's normal: I just rolled on the random encounters table..." :banghead:
Ah, Dwimmermount...
Quote from: jadrax;755259There is some more monster maths comparison on Raging Owlbear's blog (http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/d-5e-backward-compatibility-and-combat.html), in particular comparing AD&D 2e and 5th.
After some posters on Enworld went a bit hypercritical, Raging Owlbear did a follow up post (http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/d-combat-math-internet-stikes-back.html) taking more factors into account for those interested.