Player experience with varying monster HP/AC combinations

[PhoenixPhyre]

The title is probably horrible here, but...here's what I meant. I've been a forever DM, so my experience as a player is somewhat limited and skewed. As a player, how do you feel about facing monsters of each of the following types: (all relative to the level you're normally facing them at)

1. "Damage Sponge". Low AC, high HP. Examples--any of the oozes. Hill giants (high HP for their CR).

2. "Hard to Hurt, But Fragile". High AC, low HP. Examples--lich. Will-o'-wisp (AC 19, 22 HP). Even the Knight (CR 3, 18 AC, 50-ish HP).

3. "Gimmicky". Not necessarily high HP or AC, but some weird trait that makes them defensively way more hard to kill. Example--the damage transfer mechanic that cloakers have. Zombies (at low level) and their Undead Fortitude.



1. It feels like these are somewhat annoying to fight. And frequently blur the lines of the abstraction--AC isn't entirely about connecting, it's about damaging. Elephants, for example, only have a 12 AC. Despite notoriously having thick skins and being hard to really hurt. Oozes are mostly jelly, so most blows don't even do anything, despite not being able to dodge at all. But stupid-low AC.

2. Even more annoying, at least when taken to extremes. Whiff/whiff/whiff/splat means the dice are the ones controlling the pacing, and it can be anything from "dies on round 1 turn 2" or "lives for a really long time and is really annoying"...with the same tactics.

3. Meh. Depends on the gimmick. I'm not fond of puzzle monsters for a steady diet, but they can be interesting in small doses occasionally.

[tKUUNK]

good question.

First of all, variety is nice. Too much of any one type is going to get stale. But you know this already.

Personally, I enjoy fighting against glass cannons. Something that has me running for cover from round 1, praying I can finish it off or somehow mitigate its horrifying abilities just long enough to earn party survival. Your lich example qualifies. Every round it gets to take an action is dangerous. Dragons are like this too.

I enjoy gimmicky monsters, particularly if their abilities and defenses are telegraphed a little before initiative is rolled.

[sithlordnergal]

I have a decent mix of player and DM. My thoughts are:

1) Damage Sponge: Good in moderation. These are the monsters where you can really pump out as much damage as you can just to see how much you can do without having to worry too much about strategy. A nice little break if you've been dealing with complicated encounters. But they can quickly wear out their welcome because mindlessly doing the same thing gets very, very boring very, very quickly.


2) Hard to Hurt but Fragile: I enjoy facing these types of enemies more than I like damage sponges. They can force a person to start thinking outside of the box, and maybe change up your strategy. Can't hit through the AC? Time to use saving throws and skill checks to give yourself and the party some kind of advantage. These force you to think and plan a little bit.


3) Gimmicky: My bread and butter. My favorite type of encounter. My number 1 on the books. These force you to adopt some kind of strategy. Heck, you can have an entire session centered around planning for the fight before the fight even starts! If you go in without a plan, you'll die, I love it. Its like a game of chess, with a potential puzzle thrown in. That said, the DM needs to make sure the players are aware of what they're getting into, and a chance to plan ahead.

[stoutstien]

Honestly I'm bout done with the modern paradigm of Npc design. Not only do you basically fall into these categories consistently you also have painfully long/short combat where supposedly it's over in 3-4 turns but those turns take an increasingly longer time because of feature stacking.
Feels like every got ya game where you go from fighting crabs to shiny crabs with laser eyes. No sense of progress besides shiny buttons.

Sponges - waste of table time if there isn't a time crunch in game. Just tick of the time spent if you have a sound tactic that would likely avoid risk.

Whift or splat - ok if turns are measured in seconds not minutes. The Chance of doing nothing should almost be inverse to the time it takes to go around the table.

Gimmicks- depends on the GM which I'm all for until it feels like it's just random for the sole purpose of false challenge. Gambling isn't a challenge if you don't know the stakes or rules.

[Mastikator]

1) I think these pair well with other types, but don't can get tedious if it's just them. One or many hill giants is gets boring, but accompanied by other types of monsters and I think they're fine. I think they can turn combat into slog.

2) I tend to prefer this more to #1 as they tend to make the players strategize. However I have seen players get super frustrated and even cheat to deal with them. Personally as a player I enjoy them.

3) I enjoy these a lot, I don't think they get boring since each one has a unique gimmick. So just using these still feels like there is variety.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My big issue with gimmicks is when they're of the "trivial once you identify the weakness, nearly impossible if you don't." It's like bare traps where identifying "there is a trap" is the same as "the trap is bypassed."

For example, damage resistance per se. Especially with magic weapons involved. Have X (the thing that bypasses the immunity)? Gimmick gone, now the monster is a pushover. Don't? You're screwed. And gimmick monsters tend to only work as solos...and solos are stupid and bad 90% of the time. Great as a tiny spice thrown in occasionally in otherwise cinematic fights, horrible 90% of the rest of the time.

I like the "meat and potatoes" of my fights to be fairly normal, with complexity and interest coming from other things than just the monsters. Composability of monsters makes building fights way more reliable. And gimmicks are non-composable.

There is a 4th option, which is my personal preference--having AC and HP be "balanced". Most monsters should be hit between 60 and 80% of the time (including crits). They should survive (by having enough HP) long enough even under direct fire to do their "cool thing" at least once, unless they're way outclassed (like a CR 1 against a level 20 party).

[da newt]

IMO a good campaign includes all 3 so there is some nice variety. Some combats may be all of one type, but the more interesting encounters include multiple types. I will also say that I don't like too much of the 'keep guessing until you figure out the only thing that works or die trying' type of combats. They feel too much like a gottcha moment / adversarial DM vs the party if they are not handled well.



1. Nice every now and again to help make the PCs feel powerful (unless the foe is just toooo much).

2. A bit more interesting as a bit of strategy can make a real difference - but sometimes it feels too arbitrary / reliant on the roll of the dice - aka very little Player agency, too much luck.

3. I like these, especially when I feel like I've figured them out so I have a decent chance to use good strategy to turn things in my favor. If I don't figure it out in real time, I really want to have that 'oh yeah' moment afterward when it's revealed - something where I feel like I definitely could have solved the riddle if I'd just looked at it right. There's nothing worse than hearing the 'answer' and feeling like it was completely arbitrary / illogical.

[Dr.Samurai]

The title is probably horrible here, but...here's what I meant. I've been a forever DM, so my experience as a player is somewhat limited and skewed. As a player, how do you feel about facing monsters of each of the following types: (all relative to the level you're normally facing them at)
This will be coming from predominantly a melee perspective.


1. "Damage Sponge". Low AC, high HP. Examples--any of the oozes. Hill giants (high HP for their CR).
Annoying. Mostly because the options are limited. Attack, attack, attack. There is no degradation in monster abilities the more wounded they become, so you can nova all you want, if the monster survives, your sweet moves don't feel all that sweet because it's still coming in swinging like nothing happened. Story-wise, the DM has to describe how "you grazed it" or "you impaled it but it's still coming forward".

This is mostly to do with how attacks and HP work.

2. "Hard to Hurt, But Fragile". High AC, low HP. Examples--lich. Will-o'-wisp (AC 19, 22 HP). Even the Knight (CR 3, 18 AC, 50-ish HP).
Annoying. Enemies that are difficult to hurt sometimes suggest that they are far tougher than they are, and resources may be spent to kill any enemy that would otherwise just need a few good dice rolls.

3. "Gimmicky". Not necessarily high HP or AC, but some weird trait that makes them defensively way more hard to kill. Example--the damage transfer mechanic that cloakers have. Zombies (at low level) and their Undead Fortitude.
I'm okay with this; it keeps things interesting. Though none others are coming to mind at the moment. Can probably be annoying if the gimmick results in attacking ad nauseum.



1. It feels like these are somewhat annoying to fight. And frequently blur the lines of the abstraction--AC isn't entirely about connecting, it's about damaging. Elephants, for example, only have a 12 AC. Despite notoriously having thick skins and being hard to really hurt. Oozes are mostly jelly, so most blows don't even do anything, despite not being able to dodge at all. But stupid-low AC.

2. Even more annoying, at least when taken to extremes. Whiff/whiff/whiff/splat means the dice are the ones controlling the pacing, and it can be anything from "dies on round 1 turn 2" or "lives for a really long time and is really annoying"...with the same tactics.

3. Meh. Depends on the gimmick. I'm not fond of puzzle monsters for a steady diet, but they can be interesting in small doses occasionally.

I think we're generally like-minded here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3. I like these, especially when I feel like I've figured them out so I have a decent chance to use good strategy to turn things in my favor. If I don't figure it out in real time, I really want to have that 'oh yeah' moment afterward when it's revealed - something where I feel like I definitely could have solved the riddle if I'd just looked at it right. There's nothing worse than hearing the 'answer' and feeling like it was completely arbitrary / illogical.

Drilling down here a bit--I think there are several types of "defensive gimmicks" that feel different to me, personally.

1. Actual puzzle bosses. Where you can research them ahead of time AND reason through the weakness during the fight. Often this is tied to something that's only notionally combat--no matter how much you hit them, they won't go down unless you do <gimmick>. But once you do <gimmick>, the fight is over (the puzzle is solved).

2. Non-max-HP/AC defenses that otherwise interact normally with combat. For example, the cloaker's damage transfer ability. You can just kill it through massive damage (although it effectively has resistance to all damage)--you're just likely to also kill whoever it's attached to. Another example is high values of regeneration that doesn't actually keep it from dying at 0 (so less like a troll, which is closer to a #1-style fight).

3. Completely plot-related gimmicks. The boss who is weak to the Holy McGuffin of McGuffinness and nothing else. These are different from #1 because you can't reason them out while fighting them and they are more or less arbitrary. This is "must have plot coupon to advance" or the standard Zelda-style keys.

4. A variety of #2 is resistance/immunity that eats so much of the defensive budget of the monster that if you can pierce it, the monster just falls apart with one or two thwacks. Or worse, vulnerabilities that are easily exploited. If a skeleton was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage (without other changes), then there's no real strategy. Push win button, win.

5. Maybe others?

Edit: one other type is the awful gimmick that requires metagaming and puts really bad incentives on things. I'm looking at you, False Hydra...

-------------------

1. This can work, but like non-combat puzzles, are something I like in small amounts. These compose very badly, IMX. Mixing a puzzle boss and a regular fight just frustrates everyone.

2. These might work, but usually just become a slog. I'd rather just give the monster more HP and an actual active ability a lot of the time. Like #1, these do not compose well--you basically have to build the fight around this particular monster, and having more than one is rarely a good idea.

3. Meh.

4. These I hate. Just give the creature more/less HP and be done with it. When I see a CR <big number> monster with a base defensive rating of <small number>, I groan. They're likely to not work well at all and just be disappointing. If they have a thematic "weakness", have hitting them with it do something else. Like weaken their attacks. Etc.

[Rafaelfras]

I like all 3.

Damage sponge though I think sometimes overstay its welcome. It is not a danger anymore but simply dont die. More than once i had to go and "Yes, yes, he is dead fight is over guys" before the monster was really dead.
That said my party is level 17 now and we are 9. So even when we are at half of our force everything dies way too fast.

My favorite monster was my Iymyrith from Storm King Thunder that I made for then at level 16. She was everything at once. Ancient blue dragon with max HP, high AC, and a ton of gimmicks. 1-9 level spells and lvl 3 spells as legendary action. She could do blur and mirror images for defense, had shield and counter spell and if her defenses where up she spammed fireball. For her turn at the beginning she used high level spells and then her physical attacks. It was a blast and I finally could put real pressure on the group. They screamed a lot when she died.

[Unoriginal]

The title is probably horrible here, but...here's what I meant. I've been a forever DM, so my experience as a player is somewhat limited and skewed. As a player, how do you feel about facing monsters of each of the following types: (all relative to the level you're normally facing them at)

1. "Damage Sponge". Low AC, high HP. Examples--any of the oozes. Hill giants (high HP for their CR).

2. "Hard to Hurt, But Fragile". High AC, low HP. Examples--lich. Will-o'-wisp (AC 19, 22 HP). Even the Knight (CR 3, 18 AC, 50-ish HP).

3. "Gimmicky". Not necessarily high HP or AC, but some weird trait that makes them defensively way more hard to kill. Example--the damage transfer mechanic that cloakers have. Zombies (at low level) and their Undead Fortitude.



1. It feels like these are somewhat annoying to fight. And frequently blur the lines of the abstraction--AC isn't entirely about connecting, it's about damaging. Elephants, for example, only have a 12 AC. Despite notoriously having thick skins and being hard to really hurt. Oozes are mostly jelly, so most blows don't even do anything, despite not being able to dodge at all. But stupid-low AC.

2. Even more annoying, at least when taken to extremes. Whiff/whiff/whiff/splat means the dice are the ones controlling the pacing, and it can be anything from "dies on round 1 turn 2" or "lives for a really long time and is really annoying"...with the same tactics.

3. Meh. Depends on the gimmick. I'm not fond of puzzle monsters for a steady diet, but they can be interesting in small doses occasionally.


It's all a question of presentation, IMO.

Hitting the enemy 15 times and it having seemingly no effect can be frustrating. Never hitting the enemy can be frustrating. Having to figure out the puzzle can be frustrating.

But at the same time, hitting the enemy 15 times and the enemy being visibly hurt yet still able to go on because they're tough is rewarding. Finally landing a hit on the hard-to-hurt enemy and seeing them wheeze in pain from the blow is rewarding. Figuring it out the puzzle and seeing the "oh damn" reaction of the enemy as they realize now they are in trouble is rewarding.

I would say that they're rewarding because they can be frustrating, even.

In any case, it's all a question of either a) making it so the players are aware of the effect of their actions or b) making it so the players are frustrated to the point that defeating the challenge feels great, and not more.

[Mastikator]

Drilling down here a bit--I think there are several types of "defensive gimmicks" that feel different to me, personally.
4. A variety of #2 is resistance/immunity that eats so much of the defensive budget of the monster that if you can pierce it, the monster just falls apart with one or two thwacks. Or worse, vulnerabilities that are easily exploited. If a skeleton was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage (without other changes), then there's no real strategy. Push win button, win.
.

This one I really personally hate, it's way overdone and the answer is always the same "have a magic weapon". I wish there were fewer of these. Personally I am tempted to give werewolves double hp but vulnerability to all damage if it has taken damage from a silvered weapon since it's last turn. That would IMO fix them, but there are so many monsters with this problem.

On the flip side I really love situational resistance/immunity. A ghost that is invulnerable in darkness, a golem that is invulnerable when not engulfed in flame. Though it is a simple gimmick to overcome, the monster can try to undo the player's effort by moving.

[RSP]

They’re all fine, but variety is good. Type 3 is swingy-est. Type 1 is fine but generally the least interesting (viewing this in a vacuum): hitting a wall continuously isn’t necessarily the most fun. Type 2, out of the three choices is probably the most interesting (again, not considering other encounter factors): you need a little more strategy relative to the easy hit type 1.

I agree with PP on the “gimmick” issue: if you know you need acid or fire to stop the troll’s regeneration, and have access to that, it’s a moot ability. If not, then it’s a much tougher fight.

In general, I like when, as a player, I’m surprised by what tactics an enemy can use. It forces the group to change tactics. However, I think this needs to be used less than the other types of monsters in order to have that “surprise” factor.

Overall, I think good combats can be constructed using any type of monster: but there’s more to good encounters than just what’s put on the board. How enemies (and PCs) are arranged in combat, what environmental factors are present, as well as what enemies are used, can each be big swing factors in a good encounter.

We just had a big combat (10+ rounds), with 4 different minion enemies, and a boss that had some tricks. The encounter mostly took place under water, which, along with the variety of enemies, helped create a memorable encounter.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

a golem that is invulnerable when not engulfed in flame. Though it is a simple gimmick to overcome, the monster can try to undo the player's effort by moving.

I would love this one, given that we have a way to figure it out. My Create Bonfire is ready.

[Rukelnikov]

Damage sponges are the worst, they feel like a complete waste of time usually.

[Skrum]

There is a 4th option, which is my personal preference--having AC and HP be "balanced". Most monsters should be hit between 60 and 80% of the time (including crits). They should survive (by having enough HP) long enough even under direct fire to do their "cool thing" at least once, unless they're way outclassed (like a CR 1 against a level 20 party).

This is absolutely the "correct answer" in the sense that most monsters should fall into this category. Players' attack should generally hit but still have a meaningful chance of missing (same for spells/saving throws too), and the monster should be sturdy enough that it can use its Main Tactic.

In a way, the other 3 options are all varieties of gimmick - breaking up the bread-and-butter formula for (reasons). If the reason is good, it's probably going to be a fun fight. If the reason is bad, well, hopefully we all learned something there.




1. "Damage Sponge". Low AC, high HP. Examples--any of the oozes. Hill giants (high HP for their CR).

2. "Hard to Hurt, But Fragile". High AC, low HP. Examples--lich. Will-o'-wisp (AC 19, 22 HP). Even the Knight (CR 3, 18 AC, 50-ish HP).

3. "Gimmicky". Not necessarily high HP or AC, but some weird trait that makes them defensively way more hard to kill. Example--the damage transfer mechanic that cloakers have. Zombies (at low level) and their Undead Fortitude.

1) I think this one is character-specific. IME a GWM barb or fighter that can dish out prodigious amounts of damage "resource free" tend to enjoy these fights. They get to go toe to toe and really shine as the character that does 40-50 damage, round after round. A smiter or spellcaster is most likely going to find this fight annoying, if the monster is still standing after round 3

2) At least in my group, this is not a popular monster type. And I can understand that. Going turns without accomplishing anything can definitely be frustrating - especially if the monster also has threatening offense. Hit points get dangerously low, the players can't hit the damn thing, emotions start running hot. For this reason, I generally cap off AC at about 20, and that's only for very powerful bosses.

3) This is a very large category so I think there's good and bad ways to gimmick, but one method I will say from experience that players *don't* like is fast, kiting monsters. Getting bopped and then spending a turn closing the distance, only for the enemy to race away again, that was not appreciated lol

[Yakk]

Monsters should vary.

There should be monsters that are hard to hit; Soldiers. They should appear to be hard to hit -- be nimble, have visible armor, etc. ~40% hit rate, 6 hits to drop (15 PC actions)

There should be monsters that are hard to drop; Brutes. They should appear to be bulky and meaty -- ogres, giants, etc. ~75% hit rate, 11 hits to drop (15 PC actions).

There should be tricky monsters. They should telegraph their weakness, as (given how long a good 5e combat is) nullifying 1-2 rounds of combat by the PCs not knowing the weakness is equivalent to doubling their toughness. Once solved, 75% hit rate, 6 to drop (8 PC turns, doubled due to puzzle).

There should also be mooks. Mooks are not hard to hit, and drop quickly. 75%+ hit rate, 1 hit to drop. (1.3 PC actions)

There should also be grunts. Grunts are moderately hard to hit, and moderately hard to drop. 40%-60% hit rate, 2 hits to drop. (4 PC actions)

There should also be elites. Elites are both hard to hit, and hard to drop. ~40% hit rate, 10 hits to drop. (25 PC actions)

(Here, hit means "1 PC doing an attack routine hitting with all attacks, but not critting". If you have 2 attacks at 10 damage per attack, that is 20 HP.)

If we have a party of 4, we get (per party):

Soldier/Brute: 1/4 per turn
Puzzle: 1/2 per turn
Mook: 3 per turn
Grunts: 1 per turn
Elites: 1/6 per turn

Grunts are the mainstay. With Grunts, combat changes each round -- the PCs are clearing out a foe. You can have a wave of Grunts, then another one the same size 2 turns later. Tactical positioning matters. AOEs matter, because a strong AOE spell can either drop a bunch of Grunts or render them all nearly dead.

And the large number of foes and attacks makes the fight challenging.

Adding in a single Soldier or Brute to a mixture of Grunts and Mooks, especially if you have it show up slightly delayed, has great narrative impact. The PCs are used to dropping foes, and suddenly this foe shows up and shrugs off their attacks like they aren't doing anything.

Because it is used as spice and not the mainstay, the fact the foe doesn't drop isn't a boring grind but a serious threat.

Even the Puzzle monster in this situation is interesting instead of frustrating, because the Mooks/Grunts around means that a PC who doesn't figure it out can still make progress (in clearing out the other threat).

[Oramac]

I'm going to buck the trend here and say "it depends".

It depends on the table, the players, the characters, and the DM. Some people like a super easy tank-n-spank damage sponge fight. They don't want complicated gimmicks or missing 80% of their attacks. Other people are the opposite. Some DMs run one type better than the other, and vice versa.

================================================== ================

Now, having said that, in my experience "fun" is the most important thing at the table, and missing a bunch of attacks is not fun. For this reason, I tend to reduce AC (usually by -1 or -2) and increase HP (usually +15-20%). As you said, I think a balanced AC/HP ratio is generally better all around.

This is one of my big gripes with 5e monsters in general. IMO, the devs put too much effort into monster design when they should have focused on encounter design.

[Dalinar]

Novelty is probably more important here than any attempt to divide monster defenses into categories and call some better designed than others--especially when you get to mix-and-match different monsters (or non-monster opposition like environmental features).

It's still possible for individual monster design to be a problem. One way to do this is to create a lock-and-key situation by putting broad immunities on something that you know the party will struggle to come up with. "Nonmagical BPS immunity" is controversial for this reason--either your party has good access to magic weapons or spell-based solutions to the monster, effectively making that immunity pointless, or they don't, and you have to find some way to make the situation fun for the player to work through despite them not really having a great way to fight against the monster. It's possible to do that well, but it's also possible to do that badly.

Or the monster might pose a narrative problem rather than a mechanical one. Someone already brought up the false hydra here, which was a fantastic story the first time someone did it, and then became a joke when it became well-known enough that you can solve the problem it presents immediately with metagame knowledge. It's got a lock-and-key problem, but it also really mucks with the players' sense of agency, especially if they have said metagame knowledge but are trying to be good PCs by not using said metagame knowledge.

But doing the same thing over and over with an overly narrow and safe definition of monster design is also a great way to run into issues, IMO.

[Witty Username]

I overwhelmingly prefer gimmick.

Damage sponges aren't particularly effective at much, at least the low CR ones. high HP within what bounds the system can reasonably tolerate just doesn’t last very long.

High AC enemies don't need alot of extra misses to perfeom similarly, but also encourages things like generating advantage, which tends to get more teamwork related things going. It doesn't really do much interesting things though.

Gimmick stuff tends to have decision points before and during combat. Also it allows for monsters to play differently, and gives some uniqueness. I do think 5e's monsters are lacking in the department, no notes just vulnerability is pretty lackluster. Gray ooze with its weapon destroying body is more what I would call good gimmick defense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Gray ooze with its weapon destroying body is more what I would call good gimmick defense.

Well, on that we disagree. Yay, it hits melee hardest, in ways you can't really predict ahead of time and you can't do anything about other than just turning back entirely. And it's also fiddly as heck (adjusting numbers in a stacking fashion, rather than using advantage/disadvantage).

It's an adversarial gotcha monster, like so many other gimmick ones. And adversarial gotchas are, IMO, bad DMing.

Personally, I'm rewriting those oozes to instead impose disadvantage until repaired (which requires a rest and proficiency in/access to the appropriate tool, usually smith's tools). Similarly, the armor-dissolve is modeled with granting people advantage to hit them.

-----------

One of my favorite gimmicks involves some trees. Basically, they're wild magic treants--instead of Animate Trees, they have the following ability:

Spell Echo
As a reaction when a creature casts a spell of 5th level or lower within 30 feet of the tree, the spellwarper can replicate the spell, using the spell's original modifiers (including DC and spell attack), picking new targets. The spellwarper will always echo the first eligible spell it senses as long as it has a reaction available.

The look on the players' faces when they were facing two of these in a wild magic zone and the wizard cast steel wind strike within 30 feet of both of them...but there's counter-play--you can bait it with something innocuous, and once it uses that, it can't OA.

Of course, this works when they know that there's something different about them--in this case, they'd been warned about magic behaving oddly in that region and the fauna and flora treating magic in unusual ways.

[Witty Username]

It's an adversarial gotcha monster, like so many other gimmick ones. And adversarial gotchas are, IMO, bad DMing.

Personally, I'm rewriting those oozes to instead impose disadvantage until repaired (which requires a rest and proficiency in/access to the appropriate tool, usually smith's tools). Similarly, the armor-dissolve is modeled with granting people advantage to hit them.


How does changing one weird number to another weird number change any of those complaints though? I don't think I would require a rest for most weapons, 10 minutes with a sharpener would probably be fine for me.

Spell rebounding is a fun one, I think the thing doing heavy lifting there is how much forwarning you can get though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How does changing one weird number to another weird number change any of those complaints though? I don't think I would require a rest for most weapons, 10 minutes with a sharpener would probably be fine for me.


Advantage/disadvantage doesn't stack. And has counterplay--a barbarian can Reckless, etc. Stacking maluses don't have counterplay. And stock, there's no repairing it. You're just SoL. Get a new weapon, fool. Oh, it was silvered? Yup, there's 100+ gp down the drain. And then it's completely ignored by magical weapons and armor, making it feel even more imperative to get them.

With the stock behavior, there's nothing you can do. Your weapon is just permanently worse. Ok, you can drop your weapon and punch it, for 1 + STR damage. Yay. And your (potentially expensive) armor is getting permanently destroyed. And that you can't replace without going all the way back to civilization and dropping a bunch of cash. Yay. Much counterplay. Such fun. Meanwhile, the casters don't care. But that's as intended--gotta let the martials know early that they screwed up by picking something other than wizard, cleric, or druid.

[Witty Username]

[I]there's nothing you can do.

I mean, if you have never heard of backup weapons, or ranged combat at all.
They only have 4 attacks worth of hp about. Use one of your dozen Javelins you use for ranged combat sometimes, you will lose maybe one. Or heck, use an improvised torch, it doesn't even degrade because it isn't metal.


And the counter example here is a random tree in the woods that is intended to blow up the party with an AoE?
And has counter play because you can choose to not cast spells?

I get casters should suffer,
--
As for repairing damaged weapons, I mean, stock magic item creation is impossible with similar arguments.

But in fairness I see ochre jelly right next to it, which on the one hand its spliting can get out of hand if stumbled across but has interesting things to exploit as it makes AoEs more effective. I think we could both agree that is a better example with some notes.

The important part is bag of HP style enemies are just uninteresting, and high AC enemies are similar with an extra step or two. Either way not worth the trouble if they don't have something interesting on the offensive side.

I do agree gotcha enemies are irksome, while I am looking at oozes I see gelatinous cube, which when used as intended is very, you walk in, and get engulfed without much agency in either direction. Invisibility is very hit-miss for me generally, not alot of options to deal with it, and tends to need to be used in unintuitive ways to be reasonable.

[Samayu]

The title is probably horrible here, but...here's what I meant. I've been a forever DM, so my experience as a player is somewhat limited and skewed. As a player, how do you feel about facing monsters of each of the following types: (all relative to the level you're normally facing them at)

1. "Damage Sponge". Low AC, high HP. Examples--any of the oozes. Hill giants (high HP for their CR).

2. "Hard to Hurt, But Fragile". High AC, low HP. Examples--lich. Will-o'-wisp (AC 19, 22 HP). Even the Knight (CR 3, 18 AC, 50-ish HP).

3. "Gimmicky". Not necessarily high HP or AC, but some weird trait that makes them defensively way more hard to kill. Example--the damage transfer mechanic that cloakers have. Zombies (at low level) and their Undead Fortitude.

All of the above. At once. Seriously, those are the most interesting combats. The ones where we need to apply tactics.

[Demonslayer666]

High HP alone makes the combat just take longer. It's not more interesting or challenging.

High AC is interesting, and when people struggle to hit, they tend to start thinking outside the box on ways to defeat them.

I love gimmicky monsters both as DM and as a player, but it can't be something that is way overpowered and makes characters useless in combat. Finding the sweet spot in an appropriate challenge is very rewarding.

[Pooky the Imp]

Damage-sponges can be okay. At least the party will usually feel like they're doing something. However, I think the key point is that the monsters need to be capable of accomplishing something - whether doing damage in their own right or else guarding/blocking access to more dangerous enemies. Otherwise, you can end up with a situation where the monster has all but ceased to pose a threat but you've got several more turns of the party hacking away at it before it finally dies.


High AC monsters can be okay, but a lot of the time they just make things tedious. Doing nothing on your turn because you didn't meet its AC rarely makes for an engaging fight.

Probably somewhat group-dependant as well. Sometimes a caster might have a useful spell for this (or tactics might be able to help - like knocking it prone for advantage). But other times you have groups that just don't have a good way to deal with them (or monsters that are difficult or impossible to flank, can't be knocked prone etc.) and that just makes for a very dull experience.


'Gimmick' monsters covers a very large range and I'm definitely more fond of some than others. 5e's Resistance mechanics are terrible to begin with, and were a huge step backwards from those of 3.5. The most common resistance is bypassed merely by having magic weapons, and it's not particularly satisfying even when it does work.

I like regeneration-type abilities but they're also hard to get right as it's very easy for them to have a negligible impact on the monster's survival. But if the monster has a way to withdraw from the fight without being murdered, they can make it a lot more concerning as the party knows it will soon be back at full strength and ready for round two.

I do have a soft spot for monsters that won't stay dead (though I think them actually getting back up after being 'killed' is more interesting than the Zombie mechanic of simply refusing to give up the last hp).



This one I really personally hate, it's way overdone and the answer is always the same "have a magic weapon". I wish there were fewer of these. Personally I am tempted to give werewolves double hp but vulnerability to all damage if it has taken damage from a silvered weapon since it's last turn. That would IMO fix them, but there are so many monsters with this problem.

Agree to disagree. :smallwink:



On the flip side I really love situational resistance/immunity. A ghost that is invulnerable in darkness, a golem that is invulnerable when not engulfed in flame. Though it is a simple gimmick to overcome, the monster can try to undo the player's effort by moving.

These are really neat ideas. Only thing I'd say is that you'd also need sufficient clues for the party to work out how they're meant to defeat them (as well as working them into the design of the monsters). Otherwise they'll just feel completely arbitrary. :smalltongue: