Bloody annoying - 5e monster format

[Waazraath]

Warning: rant.
Disclaimer: I love 5e. I really do. I think it's probably the best edition up to date. I love the way it's balanced, and allows for a great number of concepts.

But after so many years playing (and specificly: DM'ing), I'm starting to get bloody annoyed with the monster format, in the MM, but also in the other monster books (volo's, mordenkainen's).

Fail no1: no pictures, with a lot of monsters. Why, bloody why? Not everybody knows how a monster is supposed to look, and supporting visuals are great for enhancing the playing experience for the players. Especially with obscure stuf, like 'starspawn' (from Mordenkainen's): 5 different types, and only 1 picture. Descriptions tell me the monster looks monstrous. Bloody great. Now hope everybody at the table has a good imagination.

Fail no2: the stat block. How much space would it really have taken to include a line for initiative and saving throws? Yeah, I know I can look at the ability modifiers, but that is more effort. To make things worse: I have the strong impression that, because a default line saying 'saving throws' isn't there, they sometimes are simply forgotten, leading to powerful monsters with relative weak saves (even weaker then lesser creatures of the same type).

Fail no3: descriptions. No weights, no heights. This stuff matters sometimes. Players want to know if they can climb a monster, or lift it. A DM doesn't want to make up stuff like this on the fly (and then remember it or write it down - needless extra administrative work).


If I look at the information provided in (mainly) 3.x, 5e is simply much weaker in this regard. Shame, the good practice was already there, why not take it?


/rant.

[Scripten]

I'd love to see pictures of every variety of monster in the book, too, but with the amount of creatures in each book, I don't imagine we're going to get that any time soon. Paper/ink ends up getting pretty pricey after a while at those scales.

As for the rest...

1) Initiative is just the Dex bonus. I haven't seen anything that needs a separate Initiative stat. What would you use that for?

2) Saving throws are streamlined for monsters: either a creature has magic resistance (or an equivalent feature) or it doesn't. Monsters also don't have proficiency bonuses, so saving throw proficiency would be useless anyway. This all comes down to asymmetric design for PCs/NPCs, which, whether that's your preference or not, is one of the design goals for 5E.

3) Size is handled with size classes (tiny, small, huge, etc.) because of that whole aforementioned streamline design facet. The DMG has rules on climbing creatures and grappling/shoving rules (from the PHB and the DMG) cover a wide range of needs.

It seems like you might just not like some of the design ethos of 5E. Which is fine! Preferences are cool and good. But that doesn't mean that these are failures of the system so much as divergent ideas on what's important.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd love to see pictures of every variety of monster in the book, too, but with the amount of creatures in each book, I don't imagine we're going to get that any time soon. Paper/ink ends up getting pretty pricey after a while at those scales.

As for the rest...

1) Initiative is just the Dex bonus. I haven't seen anything that needs a separate Initiative stat. What would you use that for?

2) Saving throws are streamlined for monsters: either a creature has magic resistance (or an equivalent feature) or it doesn't. Monsters also don't have proficiency bonuses, so saving throw proficiency would be useless anyway. This all comes down to asymmetric design for PCs/NPCs, which, whether that's your preference or not, is one of the design goals for 5E.

3) Size is handled with size classes (tiny, small, huge, etc.) because of that whole aforementioned streamline design facet. The DMG has rules on climbing creatures and grappling/shoving rules (from the PHB and the DMG) cover a wide range of needs.

It seems like you might just not like some of the design ethos of 5E. Which is fine! Preferences are cool and good. But that doesn't mean that these are failures of the system so much as divergent ideas on what's important.

They do, its just hidden, pretty much every creature in the MM, Volo's and Mordenkainen has proficiency bonus as if its CR was its LVL, thus CR <4 has prof +2, 5-8 +3, etc, and it follows the +1/4lvl trend, so 21 is +7, 25 +8, 29 +9.

There are selected few that don't follow this for attack bonus, maybe some that don't follow for Saving Throws (though none that I can think of right now). DCs are the only stat were its somewhat common for it not to follow the same pattern as PCs (8 + Prof + Stat).

[DMThac0]

2) Saving throws are streamlined for monsters: either a creature has magic resistance (or an equivalent feature) or it doesn't. Monsters also don't have proficiency bonuses, so saving throw proficiency would be useless anyway. This all comes down to asymmetric design for PCs/NPCs, which, whether that's your preference or not, is one of the design goals for 5E.

This is not entirely accurate:

Saving Throws are based on the creature's Ability scores, just the same as a PC. Also creatures do get Proficiency bonuses. Let's look at the White Dragon Wyrmling:

Attributes: STR (+2) | DEX (+0) | CON (+2) | INT (-3) | WIS (+0) | CHA (+0)

Saving Throws Dex +2, Con +4, Wis +2, Cha +2

This creature shows Saving Throws, which means it has proficiency. The reason you can see this is because of the difference in Ability Score and Saving Throw. The Dexterity modifier is +0 but the Dexterity Save is +2, the only way to get this is through proficiency. Every monster which does not have the Saving Throw field listed uses the base Ability Score Modifier when rolling the requisite Saving Throw.
---

To further support Proficiency for creatures:

Bite: +4 to hit. 7(1d10+2) damage.

When looking at this, and comparing it to the Attribute scores, one can see that Strength is the attribute used for this attack. However, Strength has a +2 , so how do we get +4 to hit? Proficiency.
---

Magic Resistance is a completely different function on a creature, something added after the Ability Score Modifiers are taken into account, after Saving Throws are taken into account. It is a creature Trait, not an inherent function of the creature.
---

Much of this information can be found by looking into the DMG and reading up on how to create/modify creatures. It's very helpful to understand why creatures are created the way they are, and it helps understand the Stat Blocks much easier. You'll find this information starting around page 273 of the DMG.

[Chronos]

OK, so I can lift 200 pounds. The monster is Medium. Can I pick it up (or its corpse)? The problem is, weights aren't abstracted away in other contexts, and in a game as complicated as D&D, contexts overlap sometimes.

And monsters do have a proficiency bonus (based on their CR), and sometimes do apply it to some saves.

What I really miss, though, was some of the information from the 2nd edition monster books. Those included entries for "diet" (carnivore, herbivore, scavenger, rocks, emotions, whatever) and "activity cycle" (diurnal, nocturnal, awake one week every millennium, etc.), and usually had a section on ecology (how it interacts with other creatures, what parts of the corpse of one are useful, etc.). That was all useful information for world-building.

[Millstone85]

Especially with obscure stuf, like 'starspawn' (from Mordenkainen's): 5 different types, and only 1 picture. Descriptions tell me the monster looks monstrous. Bloody great. Now hope everybody at the table has a good imagination.I found unused art for the grue and seer.
https://i.imgur.com/5elZaHQ.jpg
source: The Art of Mike Sass (http://www.sassart.com/traditional.php) (click on D&D)

Maybe WotC hoped we would have better imagination than them? :smalltongue:

I much prefer the 3.5 art for these creatures, back when they were called ushemoi.

https://i.imgur.com/vlxlaYw.jpg


You'll find this information starting around page 273 of the DMG.Well, it is not like the MM says nothing on the matter. The saving throws and skills of a monster are explained on page 8, which also has a table titled "Proficiency Bonus by Challenge Rating".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say most of them do have pictures, at least for ones that aren't obvious.

And initiative/saving throw bonuses would be redundant for the ultra-vast majority of cases. They do list the ones that are not just the ability score modifiers, and you'd need a much larger box to write them all out.

And as for heights and weights--they do include height for giants, but most of the rest are either super variable or you don't need more than the size category. How often are your players actually picking up a dead creature that's not Medium/Small? Height shouldn't matter beyond the size category, really.

[TripleD]

Two biggest issues are size context and encounter building.

The problem with a lot of art is that they aren’t in any kind of context. It’s really hard to get a feel for how big or small a lot of them are supposed to be if the aren’t standing next to anything.

This is minor, but I really feel that encounter building (i.e calculating CR) should be in the Monster Manual, not the Dungeon Masters Guide. What else is the Monster Manual for if not building encounters? Granted there’s a whole rant on the PH/MM/DMG split if we go down that road.

[Tawmis]

Fail no1: no pictures, with a lot of monsters. Why, bloody why? Not everybody knows how a monster is supposed to look, and supporting visuals are great for enhancing the playing experience for the players. Especially with obscure stuf, like 'starspawn' (from Mordenkainen's): 5 different types, and only 1 picture. Descriptions tell me the monster looks monstrous. Bloody great. Now hope everybody at the table has a good imagination.


Wait... what? I feel like the majority of monsters DO have images attached to them. There are some where there's multiple variations of a monster, where we don't get an image... like the Starspawn... but there's some that we do (Slaads, for example). But I'd definitely say it's more common to find monsters with images, than without images. And if the concern is for the party at the table - are you showing them the monster via the Monster Manual (but covering up the stats with your hand)? Nothing wrong with this theory (I've done it a few times). I typically try - as the DM - describe the monster they're facing without showing them the photo from the Monster Manual. (For example for a troll, I might say: "You see a large, humanoid creature - its skin as green as an emerald, but dotted with warts and other blemishes, that you may not even want to think about. It's jet black hair, is matched only by its eyes, that seem to be empty pits. It gnaws on a bone, with it's sharp, yellow teeth. The odor coming from it is repulsive. As soon as it sees you, it stands and growls - towering just over seven feet tall. You can now see it's lanky arms have hands with long black talons. Roll initiative."

Describing, to me, is better than showing a picture. Everyone may have a slightly different idea, based off my description what a troll might look like - but I've narrowed down all the main aspects and planted this gruesome image in the mind of all of my players.

But not every DM likes this - and not every player wants their DM to droll on about what a monster looks like - so a quick picture may be beneficial in those cases. If it's not in the Monster Manual for 5e, it was probably in one of the previous versions (4th, 3.5, 3rd, or 2nd) - and you could find it on the internet, and if you bring a laptop - just have that image ready. Sure, it's just ONE more thing to bring is a laptop... But for me, I tend to bring my laptop anyway, because I use tabletopaudio.com almost ALL the time to set the mood music/ambient sound.



Fail no2: the stat block. How much space would it really have taken to include a line for initiative and saving throws? Yeah, I know I can look at the ability modifiers, but that is more effort. To make things worse: I have the strong impression that, because a default line saying 'saving throws' isn't there, they sometimes are simply forgotten, leading to powerful monsters with relative weak saves (even weaker then lesser creatures of the same type).


If it doesn't list a specific type of resistance or immunity, I simply tend to use their Stat bonus if they have one. Yes, there's some where you'd think they might have a better chance at doing a Savings Throw - but for those, you can customize it a little, as long as it doesn't change the monster's CR drastically, I'd say.



Fail no3: descriptions. No weights, no heights. This stuff matters sometimes. Players want to know if they can climb a monster, or lift it. A DM doesn't want to make up stuff like this on the fly (and then remember it or write it down - needless extra administrative work).


Well, the size is generalized - "medium humanoid", "small fiend", etc.
https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/dm-basic-rules

That at least tells you the size. As for being able to lift them - I don't think weight was ever in previous editions either? So that's always been up to the DM, unless I am not remembering something? (Which being the old man that I am, that may be the case!)

EDIT: Looks like 3.5 did this? I don't even remember that! But this has some info:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/77207/which-monsters-fall-within-the-500-pound-limit-for-levitate

[Laserlight]

I'd like more on tactics and morale. Do they cooperate with any other similar monster, or only with their family group, or is it every mob for himself, or backstabbing and betrayal? Does it mindlessly rush in no matter what, or does it change its approach once it has lost 25% of HP, or 75%, or its leader? Does it challenge you with a threat display or attack from ambush?

[JackPhoenix]

I'd like more on tactics and morale. Do they cooperate with any other similar monster, or only with their family group, or is it every mob for himself, or backstabbing and betrayal? Does it mindlessly rush in no matter what, or does it change its approach once it has lost 25% of HP, or 75%, or its leader? Does it challenge you with a threat display or attack from ambush?

That's the kind of information that either change depending on individual or situation, or is already mentioned in the description. Bugbears are ambushers and have a tendency to run away or even betray others if it saves their life, kobolds prefer overwhelming numbers and traps and eagerly serve chromatic dragons, zombies mindlessly attack and pursue any living thing they encounter.

[Bjarkmundur]

I loved creating custom monsters for 4e. The math was streamlined, the archetypes (soldier, Brute, elite, solo, skirmisher, swarm, ethereal etc) were consistent and effective. I felt a bit cheated when I had to do a LOT of digging to find this (http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338#together). Even doubly so when I asked around about creating custom monsters and everyone just replied "take a monster and reflavor it". No thanks, I'm not gonna pause a session because I need a monster on the fly, and now have to find something that fits and reflavor and tinker.

By the end of 4e I had taken the formula and put it I to an excel sheet, and that was the only monster stat block I used for months.

I do also agree with you that some "baseline traits" would help cement some of the monsters, regarding tactics and tendencies in combat.

But then again, I have to remember that combat in 5e is as different from 4e as ketchup is from coffee. I'm still getting used to 20 minute 2-3 round combats of 5e, as opposed to the 1 hour 6-round combats of 4e.

[detro]

Warning: rant.
Disclaimer: I love 5e. I really do. I think it's probably the best edition up to date. I love the way it's balanced, and allows for a great number of concepts.

But after so many years playing (and specificly: DM'ing), I'm starting to get bloody annoyed with the monster format, in the MM, but also in the other monster books (volo's, mordenkainen's).

Fail no1: no pictures, with a lot of monsters. Why, bloody why? Not everybody knows how a monster is supposed to look, and supporting visuals are great for enhancing the playing experience for the players. Especially with obscure stuf, like 'starspawn' (from Mordenkainen's): 5 different types, and only 1 picture. Descriptions tell me the monster looks monstrous. Bloody great. Now hope everybody at the table has a good imagination.

Fail no2: the stat block. How much space would it really have taken to include a line for initiative and saving throws? Yeah, I know I can look at the ability modifiers, but that is more effort. To make things worse: I have the strong impression that, because a default line saying 'saving throws' isn't there, they sometimes are simply forgotten, leading to powerful monsters with relative weak saves (even weaker then lesser creatures of the same type).

Fail no3: descriptions. No weights, no heights. This stuff matters sometimes. Players want to know if they can climb a monster, or lift it. A DM doesn't want to make up stuff like this on the fly (and then remember it or write it down - needless extra administrative work).


If I look at the information provided in (mainly) 3.x, 5e is simply much weaker in this regard. Shame, the good practice was already there, why not take it?


/rant.


Initiative is dexterity
Saves are the attribute modifier.
Height and weight are a good point, but you usually you can go with something like: you can lift something smaller than your size, and attempt grapples on something one size larger than you. Things that double your virtual size or expertise in athletics each increase the lifting size by 1 tier.
So a bugbear with expertise in athletics could lift large sized creatures.
I would rule that you can climb any creature that you normally couldn't grapple, with a grapple check. Almost like a replacement effect.

[loki_ragnarock]

It's become a running joke in the game I run where I give a description of the monster based on the picture provided, as there is no text to read to give a narrative description of the beasts in question.

And then I show them the picture and ask how I did.


I'd really appreciate a paragraph of text description to read that describes what the heck is in front of them. The art is great, but some proportion of the thousand words would be appreciated. 2e probably had the best formatting for the fluff side.



I find that the actual stat blocks are easy to read at a glance, and fairly simple. The creatures in the MM tend to be below the example trends they give for CR, and not giving them proficiency with at least one saving throw seems like a bit of an oversite. Otherwise, perfectly serviceable.

[Waazraath]

Don't have time to get into detail into all the replies (though I appreciate them), to point out a few things:
- yeah, I'd also love some more info on tactics;
- initiative, ay, ok, that really isn't a big deal, but saves are; some monsters do get their proficiency bonus added, and only then is there an extra line for saves. This makes that if you want to know saves, there are 2 places Linces) in the table where they might be, and this is imo simply bad (table) format. And which monsters get their proficiency and which not seems rather random; in general, higher CR monsters get them, but that's not always the case. Races like Yuan-Ti, where the big boss Anathema doesn't get any but the Abomination does, is plain weird imo.
- for me, it would be best if each monster would have and a picture and a much more detailled description.

[JackPhoenix]

- for me, it would be best if each monster would have and a picture and a much more detailled description.

Of course, then there would be lot less monsters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course, then there would be lot less monsters.

And a lot of monsters really don't need that much description. And the details can radically differ between settings--go too specific and you risk tying a DM's hand in horrible ways.

[redwizard007]

Personally, I found the MM to be relatively useful for stats and garbage for everything else. As such, it isn't a problem for most experienced DMs, but is lacking in the basic information that newer DMs need to build a coherent world. That seems to directly oppose the design strategy for the rest of 5e. Expansions like "The Complete Guide to ____," or similar works could fill this gap, but I would have preferred a chain of MMs with more information on the creatures and less critters per book.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I found the MM to be relatively useful for stats and garbage for everything else. As such, it isn't a problem for most experienced DMs, but is lacking in the basic information that newer DMs need to build a coherent world. That seems to directly oppose the design strategy for the rest of 5e. Expansions like "The Complete Guide to ____," or similar works could fill this gap, but I would have preferred a chain of MMs with more information on the creatures and less critters per book.

That would require the following:
* Many many more books to buy. This is exactly what they don't want people to have to do.
* only allowing a single setting (because otherwise everything you've printed is useless for the vast majority). This is also directly against design principles.
* Tons more cross-referencing.

I started fresh, without any experience. And I find that the extra information is less valuable than the stats. Adding more information would only help to build the author's world, not help people build their own.

[Tawmis]

Personally, I found the MM to be relatively useful for stats and garbage for everything else. As such, it isn't a problem for most experienced DMs, but is lacking in the basic information that newer DMs need to build a coherent world. That seems to directly oppose the design strategy for the rest of 5e. Expansions like "The Complete Guide to ____," or similar works could fill this gap, but I would have preferred a chain of MMs with more information on the creatures and less critters per book.

I feel like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, kind of does this with some of the monsters (when it goes into the history), and then Volo's Guide to Monsters, really takes a look at a bunch of monsters (Orcs, goblins, gnolls, lizardfolk, Mind Flayers, Yaun-ti, etc). So they're releasing books that do expand on it. And some of the "module" books such as Storm King's Thunder, go into all of the things that deal with Giants.

[ATHATH]

Maybe we could start a fan-made project to make descriptions/draw art/detail tactics for monsters that have poor entries?

[SodaQueen]

Fail no1: no pictures, with a lot of monsters. Why, bloody why? Not everybody knows how a monster is supposed to look, and supporting visuals are great for enhancing the playing experience for the players. Especially with obscure stuf, like 'starspawn' (from Mordenkainen's): 5 different types, and only 1 picture. Descriptions tell me the monster looks monstrous. Bloody great. Now hope everybody at the table has a good imagination.That's a fair point although for the most part I feel 5e did pretty good with this. Way better than 3.5 did. And if someone doesn't have good imagination why on earth are they playing D&D lol


Fail no2: the stat block. How much space would it really have taken to include a line for initiative and saving throws? Yeah, I know I can look at the ability modifiers, but that is more effort. To make things worse: I have the strong impression that, because a default line saying 'saving throws' isn't there, they sometimes are simply forgotten, leading to powerful monsters with relative weak saves (even weaker then lesser creatures of the same type).I mean, I guess but you use initiative precisely once and it takes like an extra half second to find saving throws.


ail no3: descriptions. No weights, no heights. This stuff matters sometimes. Players want to know if they can climb a monster, or lift it. A DM doesn't want to make up stuff like this on the fly (and then remember it or write it down - needless extra administrative work).You just said you didn't like the descriptions. And no, you don't want to come up with it on fly. I'd much rather do that than have the stat block bloated by something I'll rarely if ever, reference.


If I look at the information provided in (mainly) 3.x, 5e is simply much weaker in this regard. Shame, the good practice was already there, why not take it?Whoa, wait what? You actially prefer the bloated, scattered, and sometimes multipage text wall statblocks of 3.5? That edition was also a far worse offender of not including enough pictures. To each their own, but I'm baffled by this sentiment.

And hey, you like what you like and that's fine. I just don't understand your reasoning that lead you here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Whoa, wait what? You actially prefer the bloated, scattered, and sometimes multipage text wall statblocks of 3.5? That edition was also a far worse offender of not including enough pictures. To each their own, but I'm baffled by this sentiment.

And hey, you like what you like and that's fine. I just don't understand your reasoning that lead you here.

Yeah. the 3.5 statblocks required extensive cross-referencing (often between multiple books!) and frequently math just to use the most basic features. 5e stat blocks are much cleaner that way. And more consistent. And better edited. 3.5e statblocks were notorious for being error-ridden and often illegal (taking feats without prereqs, etc). Plus they managed to be the worst combination of terse (hiding behind "defined terms" that had subtle variations) and loquacious (no, I don't need to know most of that for 99.999% of the time).

[Waazraath]

Of course, then there would be lot less monsters.

Or a few more pages in the book. Which would cost a few dollars more, or, just a weird thought, would have slightly smaller profit margin. I wouldn't mind either way.


Maybe we could start a fan-made project to make descriptions/draw art/detail tactics for monsters that have poor entries?

cool idea, but it would require somebody (or more likely: several people) with a lot of time to start and coordinate something like that.




Whoa, wait what? You actially prefer the bloated, scattered, and sometimes multipage text wall statblocks of 3.5? That edition was also a far worse offender of not including enough pictures. To each their own, but I'm baffled by this sentiment.

And hey, you like what you like and that's fine. I just don't understand your reasoning that lead you here.

Hell yes. As for 'not including pictures': examples? In over 10 years playing 3.5 I haven't missed a picture when using a monster once. I might have missed it, but that 3.5 is performing worse in this respect seems extremely unlikely to me.

Further, also in reply to:


Yeah. the 3.5 statblocks required extensive cross-referencing (often between multiple books!) and frequently math just to use the most basic features. 5e stat blocks are much cleaner that way. And more consistent. And better edited. 3.5e statblocks were notorious for being error-ridden and often illegal (taking feats without prereqs, etc). Plus they managed to be the worst combination of terse (hiding behind "defined terms" that had subtle variations) and loquacious (no, I don't need to know most of that for 99.999% of the time).

You have some good points about errors, but the extra text did present tons of adventure or campaign ideas, was often well written, and had creative ideas on how monsters could be used... and if you don't like it, you can ignore it. And stuff like weight and heigth really isn't that niche; for plenty of spells, it's useful to know if a monster fits in the AoE, stuff like forcecage or wall of force, for example. Ideally, you don't want that to be different from DM to DM (as a player), nor do you want to rember all the stuff you made up about that (as a DM).

[PhoenixPhyre]

You have some good points about errors, but the extra text did present tons of adventure or campaign ideas, was often well written, and had creative ideas on how monsters could be used... and if you don't like it, you can ignore it. And stuff like weight and heigth really isn't that niche; for plenty of spells, it's useful to know if a monster fits in the AoE, stuff like forcecage or wall of force, for example. Ideally, you don't want that to be different from DM to DM (as a player), nor do you want to rember all the stuff you made up about that (as a DM).

I'm not even talking about the extra material, I'm talking about the stat block itself. Which were ludicrous and poorly organized and required serious system mastery to even follow at all...even for very basic monsters.

And as for those examples--knowing the size category gives you that information directly, to the resolution of the system (ie everything is done in increments of 5' and you treat monsters as occupying a cube X increments across). Giving more information leads to the ability to game the abstraction, which hurts everyone.

[SodaQueen]

Hell yes. As for 'not including pictures': examples? In over 10 years playing 3.5 I haven't missed a picture when using a monster once. I might have missed it, but that 3.5 is performing worse in this respect seems extremely unlikely to me.I'm inclined to think you haven't actually opened a 3.5 monster manual recently.

But again, you're entitled to your opinion. This is all subjective anyhow.

[PhoenixPhyre]

MM monsters without pictures:
* Humanoid creatures with only equipment differences (bugbear chief, different drow stat blocks, etc) only have 1 picture (except Kuo-toa, which have individual ones)
* True dragons (1 per type, not 1 per age category per type)
* creatures from Appendix A (Miscellaneous Creatures) only have a few pictures, but most of the odd ones have pictures.
* NPCs from Appendix B have only 1 picture per page, but they're humanoid so...meh

Basically every significantly different stat block has a picture attached. Many have several (including concept art). The MM is loaded with elaborate, very expensive pictures. As is the PHB. And the other monster books, if anything, have more pictures.