Two Sets of Rules, the Good and Bad?

[Eldariel]

Creating monsters, now, that was an ungodly mess that required far too much cross-referencing. I had some fun spending afternoons homebrewing creatures, but it is needlessly complicated. As I said above, 5e simplifies the process and corrects many problems in a way I think is very satisfying.

Meh, given the sole purpose of monster creation rules was to produce CR, which was even at best a total crapshot, those rules were basically just not there. At least I never used them; if I created a monster, I just wrote it up off my head. I don't see how 3e requires following those rules any more than 5e. I have actually yet to see an edition with good monster creation rules but I have yet to see any use in such rules too, so it kinda evens out; chances are that even if someone found the Grail,I just wouldn't use it.

[jas61292]

Personally, I think that the rules for PCs and NPCs being different is one of the best things about 5e. It allows the game rules to be game rules, and not world rules. They facilitate the game, they don't run your world.

I frequently see things such as "how does X existing logically effect the world" with X being something a player can do. And while those can often lead to interesting discussions, my first thought is usually "it doesn't do much, because that is a PC ability, and PCs are incredibly rare". The rules presented in the players handbook are not the physics of the game world, and the game is better for it.

And, of course, on the flip side, this means that monster abilities are not some universal system that players can also get. I like it that the answer to "why can that NPC do that but I can't" is that "he is an NPC with special training/anatomy/backstory/etc. that lets him do that", and not "well, he has class X and racial feature Y and special item Z." This makes worldbuilding so much easier.

Also, for what its worth, while I understand that everyone is different and I'm certainly not saying anyone is doing anything wrong, I don't really understand that point of view that things like legendary actions take you out of the game. To me, the entire idea of epic creatures having special mechanics and extra abilities draws me further in. But, to each their own.

[Doug Lampert]

I think they are less complex than most people seem to think, and experience with the system makes (N)PC creation and control more intuitive (as well as picking up some tricks for streamlining character creation). No disagreeing that they're more complex than both previous and successive editions, it'd be a pretty ridicolous position.

I also recognise I seem to have a very different experience with 3e than the majority of this forum, in the sense that the people I've played with always kept the game far simpler and less optimised (saw very little "dipping", a very conservative ACFs, think I've seen only... three or four PCs that were non-standard races), so a lot of the NPCs even at high level could be "[Base class] X/[Prestige Class] Y" (or even pure base class, or simply dual-classing for simplicity) and remain competent, because that was the baseline level of complexity for PCs too.

(I also find Pathfinder NPCs to have far much more "noise" due to some design choices of that game. If I ever ran a game in that system again, I'd probably be tempted to backport some 5e design into NPC creation just so I could cut down all the pointless clutter)

Creating monsters, now, that was an ungodly mess that required far too much cross-referencing. I had some fun spending afternoons homebrewing creatures, but it is needlessly complicated. As I said above, 5e simplifies the process and corrects many problems in a way I think is very satisfying.

I think I can agree with this. A new monster in 3.x is HARD, hence the silly number of mistakes in the various monster manuals. (Like virtually every fractional HD or 1 HD animal having a feat it didn't qualify for which they errataed to be a bonus feat requiring all those creatures to get another feat that didn't have any real impact.)

Advancing a monster either by HD or class levels is not easy (and frequently results in being forced to take cross-class skills), and things like the claim that you don't get retroactive skill points are ignored by the designers in the rules for things like creating dragons because it's blatantly too difficult.

An NPC wizard has the same problem. But most NPCs aren't nearly as bad as a custom or advanced monster.

[MaxWilson]

Meh, given the sole purpose of monster creation rules was to produce CR, which was even at best a total crapshot, those rules were basically just not there. At least I never used them; if I created a monster, I just wrote it up off my head. I don't see how 3e requires following those rules any more than 5e. I have actually yet to see an edition with good monster creation rules but I have yet to see any use in such rules too, so it kinda evens out; chances are that even if someone found the Grail,I just wouldn't use it.

We should probably call them "monster evaluation rules" because that's all they are, pre-cached steps in an encounter difficulty calculation procedure, and that's why they're doomed to failure (monster difficulty isn't really reducible to a scalar).

[Tanarii]

5E character design isn't nightmarishly complex and so using the Gygaxian approach to NPCs works well in 5E.

Given I can build any non-warlock in my head through level 6 or so, except for full spell lists, I'm inclined to agree. There's no way I could do that for 3e or 4e.

But it's not building which is the issue. It's execution. PCs usually have far more features to keep track of. Excluding spells, which are just as bad when it comes to mental overhead on Monster-NPCs as they are on PC-NPCs.

A single PC-NPC wouldn't be too bad, especially a non-caster. But several would be a bit of a pain. (Like, I'd hate to do evil opposites.)

[MaxWilson]

Given I can build any non-warlock in my head through level 6 or so, except for full spell lists, I'm inclined to agree. There's no way I could do that for 3e or 4e.

But it's not building which is the issue. It's execution. PCs usually have far more features to keep track of. Excluding spells, which are just as bad when it comes to mental overhead on Monster-NPCs as they are on PC-NPCs.

A single PC-NPC wouldn't be too bad, especially a non-caster. But several would be a bit of a pain. (Like, I'd hate to do evil opposites.)

This is an excellent point, and one of my major gripes with 5E as a whole: execution is often a nightmare because so many rules are exception-based.

However, I'm having trouble thinking of a specific example of an execution problem, and furthermore execution issues with NPCs cause less trouble with players than execution issues with PCs. (If the DM forgets that the NPC Conjuror shouldn't have to roll a concentration save on his Web spell, no player will complain, but if you ask a PC Conjuror to roll a concentration save and he fails it, you are probably going to have to deal with either a retcon or sad players, once the players realize you did it wrong.)

Likewise, it's not an issue if the DM forgets to use Second Wind on a Fighter NPC because the fighter is so busy using his Crossbow Expert. The DM doesn't get stressed about playing NPCs non-optimally.

So... what kind of nitpicky complexity are you thinking of that would cause problems in play, and is there a reason you couldn't just build NPCs that choose different subclasses with less complexity? I didn't even realize until you mentioned it that I can't build warlocks in my head, either, because I usually make NPC wizards and fighters instead.

[EggKookoo]

So... what kind of nitpicky complexity are you thinking of that would cause problems in play, and is there a reason you couldn't just build NPCs that choose different subclasses with less complexity? I didn't even realize until you mentioned it that I can't build warlocks in my head, either, because I usually make NPC wizards and fighters instead.

NPCs created like PCs work as long as you're only dealing with one or two of them. PCs are as complex as is reasonably handled by a single player. I mean that's kind of how they're optimized, complexity-wise. But as soon as the DM has to juggle a decent number of them, it behooves him (or me, anyway) to have a kind of simplified view into each.

Basically, if the DM can handle multiple NPCs that are as complex as PCs, then players should be able to handle more complex PCs, which then compounds the issue.

[Skrum]

I very much agree with this sentiment. I totally understand WHY the game was made this way (kind of a practical vs completionist method), it bugs me that the PC's work entirely different than NPC's and monsters - especially intelligent monsters. It's like a life-hacky thing, when it could've been done properly with full continuity of mechanics. For that reason, I really do like 3.5 (at least in theory....the outcome had some, uh, notable holes).

[Silly Name]

Meh, given the sole purpose of monster creation rules was to produce CR, which was even at best a total crapshot, those rules were basically just not there. At least I never used them; if I created a monster, I just wrote it up off my head. I don't see how 3e requires following those rules any more than 5e. I have actually yet to see an edition with good monster creation rules but I have yet to see any use in such rules too, so it kinda evens out; chances are that even if someone found the Grail,I just wouldn't use it.

It doesn't require it, but it's the method the game does suggest you use. I agree that you could create a perfectly serviceable monster in 3.5 by using a less rigorous method than the one outlined in the DMG, but then you have to do it all on your own, and that's hard especially for newbie DMs. The DMG offers a step-by-step guide and various suggestions, so most DMs will follow the method they are presented with.

If 5e suggested you should tie Proficiency bonus to number of hit dice rather than fiddle with the numbers in order to get close to the desired CR, a lot of DMs would follow that advice simply because they'd be under the impression that's how the system works and deviating from it means risking doing something out of balance.

[MaxWilson]

@EggKookoo I didn't see a response to my answer to your question about NPCs in 1E (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...Bad&p=24999861). Did you overlook it or just not consider it worth responding to?

Anyway...

NPCs created like PCs work as long as you're only dealing with one or two of them. PCs are as complex as is reasonably handled by a single player. I mean that's kind of how they're optimized, complexity-wise. But as soon as the DM has to juggle a decent number of them, it behooves him (or me, anyway) to have a kind of simplified view into each.

But MM monsters aren't necessarily simpler to run than PCs are. I'd rather run a team six Barbearians (easy, make twelve attacks per round and move 40', and track HP) than two Mind Flayers (lots of expendable abilities to keep track of uses, have to roll recharge every round on mind blast, plus making sure players reroll their saves every round and/or every time they're damaged, depending on which ability they're affected by) and a Dybbuk (completely different set of abilities).

You'll be okay if you don't use too many different KINDS of characters/monsters in the same encounter, but that's not related to how you build an individual NPC.

NPCs using PHB rules are also more discoverable to the players. If your NPC casts Hunger of Hadar, you're implicitly communicating to the players that it's a warlock so they can react accordingly. That reduces a different kind of complexity: communication overhead.

[EggKookoo]

@EggKookoo I didn't see a response to my answer to your question about NPCs in 1E (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...Bad&p=24999861). Did you overlook it or just not consider it worth responding to?

Anyway...

Sorry, I was satisfied that we weren't quite talking about the same thing and that you confirmed it. Didn't intend to come across as dismissive.

But MM monsters aren't necessarily simpler to run than PCs are. I'd rather run a team six Barbearians (easy, make twelve attacks per round and move 40', and track HP) than two Mind Flayers (lots of expendable abilities to keep track of uses, have to roll recharge every round on mind blast, plus making sure players reroll their saves every round and/or every time they're damaged, depending on which ability they're affected by) and a Dybbuk (completely different set of abilities).

You'll be okay if you don't use too many different KINDS of characters/monsters in the same encounter, but that's not related to how you build an individual NPC.

NPCs using PHB rules are also more discoverable to the players. If your NPC casts Hunger of Hadar, you're implicitly communicating to the players that it's a warlock so they can react accordingly. That reduces a different kind of complexity: communication overhead.

5e's NPC rules aren't perfect for sure. I would have preferred NPC spellcasters to work differently. No spell slots, just abilities, perhaps with a recharge mechanic at most.

My gripe from 3e comes from custom monster building, where I felt like I couldn't give a monster a feature or ability if it wasn't already available to PCs. And if I invented such a feature, I felt obliged to justify how it could be available to some PC class somewhere. 5e felt like it didn't care about that.

[MaxWilson]

My gripe from 3e comes from custom monster building, where I felt like I couldn't give a monster a feature or ability if it wasn't already available to PCs. And if I invented such a feature, I felt obliged to justify how it could be available to some PC class somewhere. 5e felt like it didn't care about that.

If that's how 3E worked, that does sound pretty nightmarish. I'm baffled why they would do that. It's generally been the case in D&D for over forty years that monster descriptions are always chock-full of things like breath weapons and petrifying gazes which would be totally bizarre on a PC, and even certain classes are NPC-only (Oathbreaker).

Out of curiosity, where did that 3E expectation that PC Ability === Monster Ability come from? Is it part of 3E's rules, or just part of the general idiom in the way it feels "wrong" (un-idiomatic) for a 5E monster to destroy magical weapons while they are being wielded, or inflict wounds or negative conditions that last longer than a long rest?

[OldTrees1]

If that's how 3E worked, that does sound pretty nightmarish. I'm baffled why they would do that. It's generally been the case in D&D for over forty years that monster descriptions are always chock-full of things like breath weapons and petrifying gazes which would be totally bizarre on a PC, and even certain classes are NPC-only (Oathbreaker).

Out of curiosity, where did that 3E expectation that PC Ability === Monster Ability come from? Is it part of 3E's rules, or just part of the general idiom in the way it feels "wrong" (un-idiomatic) for a 5E monster to destroy magical weapons while they are being wielded, or inflict wounds or negative conditions that last longer than a long rest?

I played 3E and that was not the expectation.

Sure 3E had a lot more content so it had PC options for things like Earth Elemental PCs or Totemist's collection of curated monster abilities. The "bizarre" stuff was only used when groups were okay with it (I ran one of those groups). Although Dragonborn got popular enough to have Breath Weapons in the 5E PHB. Odd.

However you could always create a new feature and have it be just on that monster. Unless you were playing at a high enough optimization level that the Monster Manuals became part of the Wizard spellbook. Polymorph used to be a problem if allowed to be a problem. (Our group did not want that issue so we didn't have that issue.)

So when I created Elder Evils with unique abilities, there was no expectation they would become PC abilities.


All in all 3E had 2 sets of rules, they just shared more of the core engine. Too much in all honest. I still want the ability to play monstrous PCs that feel like their species. However I do value faster NPC generation.

[EggKookoo]

Out of curiosity, where did that 3E expectation that PC Ability === Monster Ability come from? Is it part of 3E's rules, or just part of the general idiom in the way it feels "wrong" (un-idiomatic) for a 5E monster to destroy magical weapons while they are being wielded, or inflict wounds or negative conditions that last longer than a long rest?

I played 3E and that was not the expectation.

Sorry, I think I conveyed the wrong position. Default monsters in 3e definitely had a simplified presentation compared to PCs.

My problem came when trying to create custom monsters, especially at high tiers. If I wanted a custom, high-power monster, the 3e MM (or DMG? it's been a while) suggested adding PC class levels to it. That's where the complexity came in, as with feats and multiple scaling BAB and things like AC tightly bound to ability scores, it became hard to make a creature that hit as hard as I wanted it to without giving it some ridiculous AC, or perhaps the reverse. Every number seemed tightly bound to another. Tweaking one thing caused a cascade where a bunch of other values were affected. A big part of this problem was that 3e PCs themselves were fairly complex.

I don't want to suggest that this was my biggest problem with 3e. It was manageable, as most of the work was done pre-game and just amounted to a lot of homework (which I enjoyed, to be honest). But it fed into another problem with 3e regarding the speed and cognitive load of combat. These high-tier PC-like NPCs had so many numbers to deal with...

Games like D&D don't spell everything out. As a DM, you often have to look at the rules as presented, as much as you can cram into your head, and derive a philosophy on how to extend them based on what you've read. For me, 3e seemed to imply it ran a pretty tight ship. Things hook into other things, and you don't just change them without considering how that hits everything else. I found when switching to 5e that the monsters had their own subset of mechanics. at least in some senses. If I wanted a (custom) creature that attacks multiple times in 3e, I had to work with the BAB, which implied working out a functional level and all that. In 5e, I just say it has Multiattack and makes X melee hits or whatever. Nothing else about the creature is affected, and all I have to do is keep an eye on CR, to the extent that I think CR means anything of precision.

Other things help this. Bounded accuracy keeps things in a tighter channel, so to speak, and it feels like 5e's balance is more around overall monster HP and monster-to-PC ratios than individual monster CR (with some caveats -- damn CR 2 Intellect Devourers!). So it's not just about NPC complexity.

Regarding the original topic, I've long been an advocate of the idea that rules only exist at the table. Multiattack and Extra Attack aren't actually two different things from the perspective of the creatures in the game. They're not aware of them as such in either case. Having two sets of rules matters at the table, where there are two distinct roles (player and DM), but doesn't matter within the game itself.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, I think I conveyed the wrong position. Default monsters in 3e definitely had a simplified presentation compared to PCs.

My problem came when trying to create custom monsters, especially at high tiers. If I wanted a custom, high-power monster, the 3e MM (or DMG? it's been a while) suggested adding PC class levels to it. That's where the complexity came in, as with feats and multiple scaling BAB and things like AC tightly bound to ability scores, it became hard to make a creature that hit as hard as I wanted it to without giving it some ridiculous AC, or perhaps the reverse. Every number seemed tightly bound to another. Tweaking one thing caused a cascade where a bunch of other values were affected. A big part of this problem was that 3e PCs themselves were fairly complex.

Don't worry, I saw the word "custom" in your previous post.

There were a few ways to create custom monsters in 3E. But they provided the most support for the most complicated (add levels). Less support for the middle (add RHD or templates). And even less support for the least complicated (just change it to what you want).

Monster Manual 3.5 Appendix 4 was the first place a 3E DM would go for advice on changing a monster and calculating a new CR. It talks about 3 methods:
1) Class levels (The symmetric method is very complex)
2) Increasing the hit dice of the creature. And 3E's equivalent to Proficiency was tied to HD (just like 5E) but Feats were also tied to HD.
3) Add templates

For creating a custom monster I would use step 2, add some unique abilities, and then estimate the CR based upon the increased hit dice and my estimation of the unique abilities I added. This is only a bit more complex than 5E DMG but did not provide guidance on estimating those unique abilities.

There was a 4th option of "just increase/add what you want increased/added" but it did not provide advice or even a section on that in the monster manual.

I am a bit surprised by "it became hard to make a creature that hit as hard as I wanted it to without giving it some ridiculous AC". Use Str to hit and Dex for AC? Give it misc attack bonuses?

Games like D&D don't spell everything out. As a DM, you often have to look at the rules as presented, as much as you can cram into your head, and derive a philosophy on how to extend them based on what you've read. For me, 3e seemed to imply it ran a pretty tight ship. Things hook into other things, and you don't just change them without considering how that hits everything else. I found when switching to 5e that the monsters had their own subset of mechanics. at least in some senses. If I wanted a (custom) creature that attacks multiple times in 3e, I had to work with the BAB, which implied working out a functional level and all that. In 5e, I just say it has Multiattack and makes X melee hits or whatever. Nothing else about the creature is affected, and all I have to do is keep an eye on CR, to the extent that I think CR means anything of precision.

The 3E Multiattack and 5E Multiattack work similar. The proficiency bonus was more complicated in 3E but you did not use 3E's BAB based Extra Attack during 3E Multiattack.

However in 5E I can easily make an enemy that attacks 5 times with a sword (so not multiattack). I just have to calculate the expected damage per round. In 3E there was the question of how it got the extra attacks. Was it from BAB which meant the attacks got less accurate after the first? Was it a flurry making all attacks less accurate? Was it just free extra attacks representing speed/haste? Or was it a new feature that monster has? 5E skips to that final answer.



Hopefully this provides some extra context. You could have monster abilities that were not PC abilities. You could use the asymmetric building process rather than add class levels. However 5E did increase the support for those processes.

5E also broke the smooth power curve which hampers my ability to estimate CR, added bounded accuracy which hampers my ability to estimate encounters, and has not allowed monstrous PCs. So you take the good with the bad.

[EggKookoo]

Monster Manual 3.5 Appendix 4 was the first place a 3E DM would go for advice on changing a monster and calculating a new CR.

Was that true for the original 3e MM? I never had the 3.5 books.

I am a bit surprised by "it became hard to make a creature that hit as hard as I wanted it to without giving it some ridiculous AC". Use Str to hit and Dex for AC? Give it misc attack bonuses?

My memories are fuzzy but it might have been with regard to ranged attacks. I also won't assume I wasn't making mistakes, but I seem to make less of those kinds of mistakes with 5e.

The 3E Multiattack and 5E Multiattack work similar. The proficiency bonus was more complicated in 3E but you did not use 3E's BAB based Extra Attack during 3E Multiattack.

Also possibly a 3e/3.5e thing. I don't recall a Multiattack feat but I don't have my old 3e books handy. A quick SRD search suggests it came in with 3.5.

Interesting if it turns out much of my beef with 3e was with the pre-3.5 stuff.

5E also broke the smooth power curve which hampers my ability to estimate CR, added bounded accuracy which hampers my ability to estimate encounters, and has not allowed monstrous PCs. So you take the good with the bad.

Always true!

[NorthernPhoenix]

At the very high level of mechanical analysis, "monsters" and other creatures do use the "same rules" as the players. Nearly all monsters can have their heart represented by a table such as this (or a slightly tweaked 3rd party equivalent, there are many).

Spoiler: Table

Show

Which along with stats (which cannot exceed 30, normally), create a "character" that exists within the same core dice-rolling rules in the same way player characters do.

What's different from 3.5 or similar games however, is that monsters (or NPCs) do not need to be confined to or defined by the "classes" or abilities available to player characters. I think the conflict when it comes to this stems from the assumption (subconscious or not) that the "classes", spell lists, and ability choices available to players represent a totality or even a majority of the powers, abilities, and talents that exist in a given fantasy world or game setting. Under the assumption of 5e and similar games, they don't. The "classes", spell lists, and abilities merely represent a sub-set that the game deems appropriate for player choice. Within the confines of the table above (the heart of the equal rules), "monsters" or NPCs can have any ability, spell, magic or power that i can think of. If I'm being "fair", these abilities should comply with the action resolution rules and rolls (ideally including "saves"), but can otherwise serve any function for the story or encounter.

[MaxWilson]

For creating a custom monster I would use step 2, add some unique abilities, and then estimate the CR based upon the increased hit dice and my estimation of the unique abilities I added. This is only a bit more complex than 5E DMG but did not provide guidance on estimating those unique abilities.

Note that 5E gives very little guidance on custom abilities either. It gives guidance on mimicking some MM abilities, but nothing on how that guidelines were derived, so if you have a monster with a non-damage-based ability that isn't listed (e.g. paralyzing breath weapon; or the ability to alter the parameters of spells cast by creatures they can see, such as the spell's target; ability to puppeteer PCs a la Crown of Madness), you have to wing it completely.

[OldTrees1]

Was that true for the original 3e MM? I never had the 3.5 books.

I don't have a 3.0 Monster Manual handy and I don't trust the online pdfs I found since they had nothing about advancement at all.

My memories are fuzzy but it might have been with regard to ranged attacks. I also won't assume I wasn't making mistakes, but I seem to make less of those kinds of mistakes with 5e.

Ah ranged attacks did use Dex and AC for high Dex creatures used Dex. That situation still exists in 5E. In both editions we use other modifiers (even ad hoc modifiers) to fine tune.

I am assuming you were not making mistakes. I am assuming it was too complex for you to easily navigate. So whether it was fewer mistakes, or 5E just being easier to navigate, you feel more in control with 5E.

Also possibly a 3e/3.5e thing. I don't recall a Multiattack feat but I don't have my old 3e books handy. A quick SRD search suggests it came in with 3.5.

There were 1-2 multiattack feat trees but I was talking about before feats. When a creature had multiple natural weapons, they got to attack with all of them on a full attack. This is the same as 5E multiattack.

Brown Bear
Full Attack: 2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4)

The bear has 2 claws and a bite, so it attacks with all 3.

So if I wanted to create a custom manbearpig creature in 3E or 5E I would give it a multiattack.

Note that 5E gives very little guidance on custom abilities either. It gives guidance on mimicking some MM abilities, but nothing on how that guidelines were derived, so if you have a monster with a non-damage-based ability that isn't listed (e.g. paralyzing breath weapon; or the ability to alter the parameters of spells cast by creatures they can see, such as the spell's target; ability to puppeteer PCs a la Crown of Madness), you have to wing it completely.

Agreed. 5E only has guidance on DPS abilities. That was useful when I recently created some bosses, but only if they were only damage based threats. For the rest I have to rely on my own judgement (which was impaired in 2 ways in 5E).

[PhoenixPhyre]

There were 1-2 multiattack feat trees but I was talking about before feats. When a creature had multiple natural weapons, they got to attack with all of them on a full attack. This is the same as 5E multiattack.

Brown Bear
Full Attack: 2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4)

The bear has 2 claws and a bite, so it attacks with all 3.

So if I wanted to create a custom manbearpig creature in 3E or 5E I would give it a multiattack.

Except that in 3.5e, that was a guarantee. Your full-attack routine always included all your natural weapons (assuming you used them). Whereas in 5e it's a design choice. For instance, dragons don't Multiattack with their tail.

3e had relatively rigid expectations for how monsters were built. HD correlated with lots of things (CR, to some degree, skills, etc), adding class levels always increased HD, templates had limits based on all sorts of parameters. Different HD types were different, not just in size (humanoid vs monstrous humanoid vs undead vs ...), you had non-abilities and curlicues based on that (ie Undead used CHA for a bunch of things that normally CON was used for), etc. Adding HD added feats at a particular rate, etc.

Whereas in 5e, I can do what I'm about to do tonight. I've got a bunch of wight stat blocks representing (now undead) adventurers that I'm going to assign different weapons, armor, and adjust the HP. I might recalculate the CR, but there's really no need for that since I don't use XP[1]. I can do this entirely on the fly, even. This one gets sneak attack and uses daggers, that one has plate and a sword and shield, plus action surge, this other one can cast spells XYZ like a warlock. Done. Heck, I can flat out give them human-level intelligence.

I can make a dragon into a spellcaster by...adding spells. Instead of trying to figure out how to staple on X numbers of Y class levels, plus prestige classes and deal with the change to HD, skills, etc. plus the inevitable breakage because X is only available to Y, except under conditions Z (found in an entirely separate book).

Could you do this in 3e? Sure. But you'd be fighting the system to do so. And any players who were detail-oriented are going to get irritated because you're breaking the normal rules. And heaven help you if they get access to polymorph and want to assume the form of one of those custom monsters.

3e and 5e are both "game-turing complete". You can (generally) get to the same point in either of them. But they're very different in the work required to get there and how much the system helps vs hurts. And in different ways depending on what you're trying to do--it's not a pure X > Y. 3e has a lot more content and a lot more fiddly bits you can twiddle. 5e makes doing the majority of things WAY simpler and less error-prone.

[MaxWilson]

I might recalculate the CR, but there's really no need for that since I don't use XP[1]. I can do this entirely on the fly, even. This one gets sneak attack and uses daggers, that one has plate and a sword and shield, plus action surge, this other one can cast spells XYZ like a warlock. Done. Heck, I can flat out give them human-level intelligence.

I can make a dragon into a spellcaster by...adding spells. Instead of trying to figure out how to staple on X numbers of Y class levels, plus prestige classes and deal with the change to HD, skills, etc. plus the inevitable breakage because X is only available to Y, except under conditions Z (found in an entirely separate book).

Could you do this in 3e? Sure. But you'd be fighting the system to do so.

Making a dragon into a spellcaster in 5E is fighting the system too, because there's little to no guidance on how non-damage-oriented spells like Quickened Hypnotic Pattern should affect CR. You're not engaging with those 5E rules so it doesn't matter you, and when I do it I generally just shrug and err on the side of more XP, but RAW there isn't any real guidance. The forum kids would say "Oberoni fallacy" here if someone tried to claim that 5E supported dragons as spellcasters. It's fighting the system to use them.

[EggKookoo]

Note that 5E gives very little guidance on custom abilities either. It gives guidance on mimicking some MM abilities, but nothing on how that guidelines were derived, so if you have a monster with a non-damage-based ability that isn't listed (e.g. paralyzing breath weapon; or the ability to alter the parameters of spells cast by creatures they can see, such as the spell's target; ability to puppeteer PCs a la Crown of Madness), you have to wing it completely.

My experience with 5e makes me think they expect you to mostly work backwards, at least conceptually. Find your CR, give the monster the abilities you want either by stealing them from other monsters or whipping up your own. Do the damage/defense calculations and compare to your target CR. If it's too far off, tweak the numbers until you get where you want. Unfortunately, it sometimes feels like the actual instructions in the DMG can't decide which angle you should come at it, but once I finally grokked what CR actually meant, it became very simple to build just about anything to any CR (now there's the question of the value of CR itself, but that's something else...).

I don't remember 3e having this basic approach, but I suppose it could have been there as well. Just buried under a lot of nuts & bolts.

In both editions we use other modifiers (even ad hoc modifiers) to fine tune.

To be honest I don't really remember the specific of my anxiety over ad hoc modifiers. I just remember struggling with it and finding the game didn't really offer clear guidance. Maybe I was approaching it wrong, and moving to 5e broke my preconceptions simply because it was a new edition.

3e and 5e are both "game-turing complete". You can (generally) get to the same point in either of them. But they're very different in the work required to get there and how much the system helps vs hurts. And in different ways depending on what you're trying to do--it's not a pure X > Y. 3e has a lot more content and a lot more fiddly bits you can twiddle. 5e makes doing the majority of things WAY simpler and less error-prone.

That was it, really. Whether through my own deficiencies or the system itself, building custom monster felt like a garden full of rakes just waiting to be stepped on. And then in the middle of the game, when I realized I had inadvertently built in a trap, undoing that mistake just triggered more rakes. In 5e, the rakes are there, but it's easier to avoid or move them.

[OldTrees1]

Except that in 3.5e, that was a guarantee. Your full-attack routine always included all your natural weapons (assuming you used them). Whereas in 5e it's a design choice. For instance, dragons don't Multiattack with their tail.

Dragon broke that rule in 3E too. They did not get their Tail Sweep if they wanted to use their Bite/Claw/Wings

3e had relatively rigid expectations for how monsters were built.
-snip-
Whereas in 5e, I can do what I'm about to do tonight.
-snip-
3e and 5e are both "game-turing complete". You can (generally) get to the same point in either of them. But they're very different in the work required to get there and how much the system helps vs hurts. And in different ways depending on what you're trying to do--it's not a pure X > Y. 3e has a lot more content and a lot more fiddly bits you can twiddle. 5e makes doing the majority of things WAY simpler and less error-prone.

Agreed.


Warning Tangent Not meant to derail:
Honestly I would rather build 6E monster rules off of 5E's model than off of 3E's model. I would just need:
1) Monstrous PCs (like a Savage Species splatbook with example and guidance to help DMs make more)
2) A smoother power curve. No special levels that are meant to be worth more.
3) An exponential power curve rather than bounded accuracy. You cannot begin to understand how massively useful this is for designing encounters. It takes me seconds to design a 3E encounter (using existing creatures) and minutes to design a 5E encounter. The simple guideline that 2 creatures of CR X are roughly as threatening as 1 of CR X+2 is amazing for creating detailed encounters with different types of creatures.

Do that with the simple generation 5E has (with maybe more guidance for non damage related abilities) and you have a nice 6E in my opinion.

[EggKookoo]

The simple guideline that 2 creatures of CR X are roughly as threatening as 1 of CR X+2 is amazing for creating detailed encounters with different types of creatures.

There is the issue of action economy, though. In order for one CR 6 creature to be the same threat as two CR 3 creatures, that CR 6 creature has to basically function like two creatures. Otherwise it just gets piled on. So in the end you have something that, mechanically, is two CR 3 creatures. I believe that was the impetus behind Angry's paragon thing.

I get pretty good mileage in 5e out of always aiming for rough CR/APL parity, and adjusting the threat by adding more or fewer monsters. Can make for some pretty big fights, though, especially as the PCs get up around 7th/8th.

[Silly Name]

I get pretty good mileage in 5e out of always aiming for rough CR/APL parity, and adjusting the threat by adding more or fewer monsters. Can make for some pretty big fights, though, especially as the PCs get up around 7th/8th.

This is where I'd bring back 4e style minions. Very useful for inserting mooks into a encounter without increasing complexity, and still useful to balance actions and resource attrition.

[MaxWilson]

My experience with 5e makes me think they expect you to mostly work backwards, at least conceptually. Find your CR, give the monster the abilities you want either by stealing them from other monsters or whipping up your own. Do the damage/defense calculations and compare to your target CR.

And yet, for custom abilities there is no guidance for those damage/defense calculations. They don't even explain where their formulas for existing abilities comes from. (Why is Legendary Resistance a change to effective HP and not AC, or directly to defensive CR? Why is Nimble Escape effective +4 to hit and AC?) The guidance is very opaque and not useful for custom abilities. That's my point.

[OldTrees1]

There is the issue of action economy, though. In order for one CR 6 creature to be the same threat as two CR 3 creatures, that CR 6 creature has to basically function like two creatures. Otherwise it just gets piled on. So in the end you have something that, mechanically, is two CR 3 creatures. I believe that was the impetus behind Angry's paragon thing.

I get pretty good mileage in 5e out of always aiming for rough CR/APL parity, and adjusting the threat by adding more or fewer monsters. Can make for some pretty big fights, though, especially as the PCs get up around 7th/8th.

Against a 10th level party I could have a 13th level encounter comprised of 1 CR 10 boss, 2 CR 8 lieutenants, and 4 CR 4 minions. A quick encounter calculation for an encounter ranging 9 CRs. This worked due to the smooth exponential power curve that allowed for the CR X+2 = 2 CR X rule of thumb.

That takes seconds. 5E does not have a smooth power curve. Some levels like 4-5 are big power spikes. 5E also does not have as much of an exponential curve so it does not have a nice rule of thumb. What it does have is a flat difficulty multiplier based on the total number of enemies. What level party would my example encounter be appropriate for in 5E? It is a lot of extra math to calculate (which matters even more when designing an encounter rather than just double checking final CR). According to a calculator it is CR 22 in 5E.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making a dragon into a spellcaster in 5E is fighting the system too, because there's little to no guidance on how non-damage-oriented spells like Quickened Hypnotic Pattern should affect CR. You're not engaging with those 5E rules so it doesn't matter you, and when I do it I generally just shrug and err on the side of more XP, but RAW there isn't any real guidance. The forum kids would say "Oberoni fallacy" here if someone tried to claim that 5E supported dragons as spellcasters. It's fighting the system to use them.

Uh, non damage spells don't affect CR. By definition of CR. CR is not how hard a monster will be as a challenge. That's 3e thinking. It's a combination of "will this monster be able to one round ko my PCs" and "will this monster last 3 rounds under pressure." Both under some relatively restrictive assumptions.

CR is not needed. It may be useful in some cases, but I rarely calculate it anymore. I'll use the table to give starting values, but that's it. And that's the intent. Unlike 3e, where CR mattered a lot, here it's entirely advisory and intended to be ignored by experienced DMs.

[MaxWilson]

Against a 10th level party I could have a 13th level encounter comprised of 1 CR 10 boss, 2 CR 8 lieutenants, and 4 CR 4 minions. A quick encounter calculation for an encounter ranging 9 CRs. This worked due to the smooth exponential power curve that allowed for the CR X+2 = 2 CR X rule of thumb.

But 5E CR doesn't really measure threat anyway, so even if 5E CR were exponential instead of quasi-linear you'd still be better off guesstimating.

My own rule of thumb is that CR roughly equates to level, so 4 CR 10 monsters vs. 4 level 10 PCs is a fight that could go either way, and 2 CR 10 monsters is a fight where the PCs outgun the monsters by roughly 2:1 and so will take only 25% as much damage as in a fair fight. It's not really true (calculated CRs for leveled PCs tend to lag their actual level, although they often have lots of abilities not accounted for in CR), but then again it's not even really true that there is such a thing as a generic "level 10 PC" in the first place--a level 10 Shepherd Druid, Necromancer, or Fleshlock (from the Cthulhu book) contributes vastly more to a fight than a level 10 Cavalier or Assassin does.

But the rule of thumb is good enough that I don't feel bad dropping a CR 9 Fire Giant, a CR 5 Giant Crocodile, and a CR 8 Mind Flayer Arcanist into an adventure designed for 10th level PCs. I expect that to be a nontrivial fight but I can also treat it as a speedbump instead of a wall, from the adventure design perspective: I don't need to build in multiple ways to go around it. (Kobold.club says it's Deadly x2 by DMG rules, which seems about right for what I intended.)

[Necrosnoop110]

Personally, I think that the rules for PCs and NPCs being different is one of the best things about 5e. It allows the game rules to be game rules, and not world rules. They facilitate the game, they don't run your world.

Couldn't agree more. I'm not in denial about the rule flaws and gaps that others are rightly pointing out but in the end I'd personally rather see two rulesets: one for the needs of the DM and one for the needs of the PC.