High overhead monster abilities

[PhoenixPhyre]

For the DMs: what monster abilities (or even classes of abilities/mechanics) are particularly high overhead to run? That is, things that require way more effort and attention to handle usefully than others.

For me, the list is (in no particular order):
1. Spells
2. Things that trigger off turn that aren’t visible “zones”, especially if they trigger multiple times (damage auras, legendary actions, etc). For some reason, state transitions (ie phases) and things with defined initiative counts don’t have this cost.
3. Anything that takes multiple rolls to resolve on the monster’s part.

[LudicSavant]

For the DMs: what monster abilities (or even classes of abilities/mechanics) are particularly high overhead to run? That is, things that require way more effort and attention to handle usefully than others.

For me, the list is (in no particular order):
1. Spells
2. Things that trigger off turn that aren’t visible “zones”, especially if they trigger multiple times (damage auras, legendary actions, etc). For some reason, state transitions (ie phases) and things with defined initiative counts don’t have this cost.
3. Anything that takes multiple rolls to resolve on the monster’s part.

If anything, I often find that I'd like monsters with more to do, rather than less. Give me a choice between a Drider and the Spellcaster Variant Drider and I'll choose the latter every time. Same for dragons, I'll always use the variants (be it from core or fizban's) that give them more to do.

I'm apparently not alone in this either, stuff for adding more layers to 5e monsters is evidently popular content.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If anything, I often find that I'd like monsters with more to do, rather than less. Give me a choice between a Drider and the Spellcaster Variant Drider and I'll choose the latter every time. Same for dragons, I'll always use the variants (be it from core or fizban's) that give them more to do.

I'm apparently not alone in this either, stuff for adding more layers to 5e monsters is evidently popular content.

I prefer encounter complexity to come from composition of simple pieces rather than using more complex pieces. Complex pieces are fragile and mean the dm spends more time being boring (figuring out what to do). Complexity is a necessary evil, to be used only to the degree it can’t be avoided without breaking things. As simple as possible, but no simpler.

But that’s neither here nor now. Surely there are ways of being more complex without needing high overhead. Having to do a little dance or some calculus to cast a spell is more complex but not more engaging. You can have the same effect with less effort, and I’d say that’s always better. DM overhead is always on the cost side of the ledger.

[LudicSavant]

I prefer encounter complexity to come from composition of simple pieces rather than using more complex pieces

At some point, you need to make the pieces move differently than checkers if you want to make chess.

It's one thing to say you want to remove anything that unnecessarily slows down the process, but it's another to suggest that complexity is an evil in general. There's good complexity too; the sort that lends depth and substance.


But that’s neither here nor now. Surely there are ways of being more complex without needing high overhead.

Indeed there are!


Having to do a little dance or some calculus to cast a spell is more complex but not more engaging. Yeah, that sort of unnecessary complexity is bad. You want things to be as snappy as possible for the degree of depth they provide.

[Notafish]

Spells are a problem, especially if I don't have time to prepare notes on the encounter and I just have the list of available spells. If I've done my homework, it's tracking voluntary off-turn actions. I like lair effects; legendary actions, not so much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At some point, you need to make the pieces move differently than checkers if you want to make chess.

It's one thing to say you want to remove anything that unnecessarily slows down the process, but it's another to suggest that complexity is an evil in general. There's good complexity too; the sort that lends depth and substance.

Complexity is a (common, often negative) side effect of depth, not a cause of depth or a necessary attendant of depth. Encounter depth comes much more effectively and is less fragile when it comes from combining individually simple pieces. An encounter with an archer and a melee guy, both simple, is deeper than one with one someone who can do one or the other, but only on different turns.

And simple does not mean homogeneous, so your analogy fails on its own terms.

And again, that's all completely off topic here.

[LudicSavant]

An encounter with an archer and a melee guy, both simple, is deeper than one with one someone who can do one or the other, but only on different turns.

A game with 2 different types of units is more complex than a game with only one.

Complexity isn't always a bad thing. If it were, then we wouldn't have things like, say, more than one class, more than one monster, etc.

[Mastikator]

Ongoing status effects that allow players to resist by making saving throws is a big one. I much prefer hunger of hadar over slow for that reason.

[Tanarii]

Monsters with spells are the number one offender. It definitely needs to go.
Having a wide variety of monsters is probably the second. Running 7-12 of one enemy is easier and faster than 2 different ones.

PCs casters is probably the third, this necessitates tons of monster saving throws. Ideally spells (which should be a PC thing) should be attacks. Monster attacks should really be a player rolled defense. Otoh I can roll about 3 saving throws or attacks in the time a player can roll one. But mainly all cantrips should be attack rolls. That's just a feel bad for players casters at low levels, they're doing them often and don't get the visceral feeling of rolling to hit when all they're (mostly) doing is damage. At least save leveled spells are usually something interesting or target many enemies, so they feel better.

[Kyovastra]

For me, the most mentally taxing are unique abilities that depart from how other abilities tend to work in some way. At least if there's a spell and I have to look up the exact rules on how it works, I probably have a general idea of what it will do in general, and that's what I need to know for decision making; I don't need to remember the rules for every spell in advance. So I like spellcasters. Likewise, most monster abilities follow some general patterns in how they work.

When they don't or deviate from those patterns, that's when I find it potentially becomes most taxing, obviously with it being dependent on how significant that deviation is and how complex the ability is, and if it's just the one ability or everything the monster does is that way. In the worst cases, it gives me serious information overload and I can't run the monster as written well.

One example of this that looks like a nightmare to run is the oinoloth, which has complex abilities that all do their own thing and are like spells, except not general like a spell is because only the oinoloth's abilities do what they do. Some of the effects of them are general and follow the patterns I mentioned, but break patterns in the way they're combined in the oinoloth's abilities. Contrast with the yagnoloth, where it has several unique abilities, but they all work in ways that are common to how other abilities in the ruleset do and are similar to what you may find on some other monsters. Monsters from Van Richten's tend to have many unique pattern-breaking abilities like this, where you need to make sure you closely read each one and remember what they do.

I tend to struggle with monsters with legendary actions, regional effects, and especially lair actions at times because of this. Sometimes the former are fine, especially when they are things like casting a spell, movement, or other abilities the monster already has. But some get complex while being very specific to that monster. Lair actions tend to be all very specific and unique, and a lot to take in and remember. I like dragons, they have all of this without being too much for me to take in. On the other hand, I'm wary of even running something like a balhannoth.

[LudicSavant]

Things that increase the number of "call and response" type interactions can increase resolution time. For example, a DM can immediately resolve an attack roll on their own (barring Reactions), but a saving throw requires them to have an interaction with a player, and possibly to wait for a response before they continue resolving the monster's turn.

Also, things that make you have to separate out parts of a roll. For example, (while not a monster ability) Great Weapon Master according to Sage Advice "only affects the weapon's damage," so all of a sudden not only do you have to start rerolling 1s and 2s (increasing the number of non-simultaneous rolls), but you also have to separate the weapon damage rolls from the extra damage from smite or whatever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Things that increase the number of "call and response" type interactions can increase resolution time. For example, a DM can immediately resolve an attack roll on their own (barring Reactions), but a saving throw requires them to have an interaction with a player, and possibly to wait for a response before they continue resolving the monster's turn.

Also, things that make you have to separate out parts of a roll. For example, (while not a monster ability) Great Weapon Master according to Sage Advice "only affects the weapon's damage," so all of a sudden not only do you have to start rerolling 1s and 2s (increasing the number of non-simultaneous rolls), but you also have to separate the weapon damage rolls from the extra damage from smite or whatever.

Yeah. Especially the latter part--its one reason I have a love-hate relationship with damage resistance and vulnerability[1], especially as you start getting more multi-type effects. Having to do operations on different parts of the damage roll...sucks. Yeah, it's thematic (in a lot of cases). But it's just annoying to run and basically just boils down to "has more HP, not always predictably."

I'll say that prismatic spray is probably the absolute worst case of the first half of the statement I've seen in a long time (albeit from a player, not a monster). Huge aoe, each target needs at minimum 2 rolls (a ray type and a save) and possibly 3. And you can't fast-roll unless the entire table chimes in to help. And since the saves need monster info, the DM has to be part of each and every single resolution. Ugh. Fun spell conceptually...absolute nightmare to resolve once you have more than 1-2 targets in the effect.

[1] immunity doesn't trigger that part as much, because ignoring stuff is much easier. Still have to keep the different damage types separate, but that's (comparatively) easier.

[stoutstien]

Im mostly fine if everything that is needed is located in the block itself and not in wall of text or spread out across a half dozen sections.

I'm partial to moderately complex NPCs options but with limited action requirements. If they need a special circumstances to trigger Something whatever but if it's just a repeative bonus action or whatever just build it into a single action and save the space and load.

[Tanarii]

Im mostly fine if everything that is needed is located in the block itself and not in wall of text or spread out across a half dozen sections.
That's what makes spells the worst. Especially full spellcasting monsters, because they have a lot of them.

Of course, just as with PCs, spell cards mitigate this a lot.

[Kyovastra]

Funny everyone always says that about spellcasting monsters, since while I respect most people's being different, my own experience is the opposite. I like how you have to reference spells and look them up as needed, since I find it overwhelming when the monster sheet itself has too much information on it. The new style of design where you get these different abilities that are like spells, but all work their own special way and are each printed on the statblock, is honestly hard for me to process and genuinely makes the game less accessible for me.

[stoutstien]

Funny everyone always says that about spellcasting monsters, since while I respect most people's being different, my own experience is the opposite. I like how you have to reference spells and look them up as needed, since I find it overwhelming when the monster sheet itself has too much information on it. The new style of design where you get these different abilities that are like spells, but all work their own special way and are each printed on the statblock, is honestly hard for me to process and genuinely makes the game less accessible for me.

The new(er) stat blocks are different but not better.

I think it comes down to how one like to pace encounters at a given table. I shoot for 30 sec Max from start to finish for any given NPCs turn so if it's not on the same page it's already a low chance that's happening.

[GeoffWatson]

That's what makes spells the worst. Especially full spellcasting monsters, because they have a lot of them.

Of course, just as with PCs, spell cards mitigate this a lot.

They should add a very brief summary of each spell to the monster's spell list (Casting time, range, Concentration or not, damage or effect); having to flip through the PH to find the details of each spell wastes time and effort. Separate the non-combat spells and abilites from the combat stat block.