You're assuming the characters are on the ground. Even mid-level PCs have multiple flight options, entire species have wings, and then there's all the magic item options that allow flight - some can even support multiple PCs.
Resistance just means it takes longer, the Tarrasque still doesn't have any type of regeneration; and let's not forget that many subclasses can change their damage type or add additional damage to their attacks (that the Tarrasque is neither resistant nor immune to). Not to mention that the reflective hide only reflects if the spell rolls the attack, spells that add damage to weapon attacks are not reflected.
As for fights not starting until closer than 600', I take it you only play in dungeons without ever venturing above ground? Unless you happen to be standing next to the Tarrasque when it wakes up, you'll have a LOT of notice and can pick your engagement range. It isn't a stealthy beast, it is a rampager that destroys all in its path. You don't think a rampaging Tarrasque is going to be seen before melee range? Unless you're in a forest, it isn't hard to get 600' (or more) visibility on a gargantuan sized creature (and again - just engage it from the air)
Here's how they could have fixed it. Give it resistance to all damage, and 20pts of regeneration per round. Give it a 600' range cone ability that disrupts flight (earthbind-like ability if fail save). THEN it will be the type of challenge that the Tarrasque should be.
In my example, even low level winged archers can kill the Tarrasque or force it to flee (even if underground) - now imagine 15th level + characters and the resources they have. I have fought Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition, and never failed to kill it, even fighting one TWICE in the same adventure (Bloodstone Pass, 1st Edition)). I have used Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition). I am well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
It was one of 2 Mythical creatures I used near the end of my last campaign. Six 15th level characters and I threw them up against an Undead Tarrasque and Undead Ancient Dragon Turtle at the same time. They nearly defeated both without even taking a single hit, luckily one made a wrong choice and others swooped in to try to help them, which finally allowed the Tarrasque to melee something. I even put a cap on how high they could fly, by having lots of flying creatures and a violent thunderstorm overhead - and they still nearly managed to take out both without getting into melee range of either.
Anyway, we can still homebrew/houserule whatever we like, it would just be nice if they'd make a Tarrasque without such an easily exploited weakness - it is after all supposed to be the apex monster in the game. The idea that even a single low level character with just a couple magic items (bag of holding for arrows, and a magic carpet) can kill one without fear of harm is IMHO wrong.
There are however other threads on the Tarrasque, so I won't respond further regarding it here.
It was a 2021 - 2025 campaign. Many creatures had to be re-tuned to address the near broken optimized characters in order to create a believable and enjoyable power struggle. If the PCs get rolled, Player won't have fun, if the NPCs get rolled, DM won't have fun.
If neither side can 100% certain guess the end result, that creates excitement, suspense, etc. However, that was hard to do, tiring and things like certain spells are accessible too early that trivialize many situations that would be, well then, suspenseful.
I think I've spotted your problem
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So, I will note that they said the CR wasn't going to change for any of the existing monsters -- and it hasn't -- but a Dire Wolf is a lot tougher a foe because of how you use it.
How? The only thing I see where the Dire Wolf (2024) is better than the Dire Wolf (2014) is that it auto-prones on a successful attack instead of a check, while having 40% less health. It's not really any stronger, to the contrary...
I didn’t say it was stronger, though.
I said it was a tougher foe, and that was based on how one uses it.
tougher is not synonymous with stronger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It was a 2021 - 2025 campaign. Many creatures had to be re-tuned to address the near broken optimized characters in order to create a believable and enjoyable power struggle. If the PCs get rolled, Player won't have fun, if the NPCs get rolled, DM won't have fun.
If neither side can 100% certain guess the end result, that creates excitement, suspense, etc. However, that was hard to do, tiring and things like certain spells are accessible too early that trivialize many situations that would be, well then, suspenseful.
I think I've spotted your problem
They optimized within the mechanical rule set of the game though. Meaning there are broken aspects built into the game that were never corrected or addressed.. one of those being, access to spells that should be at a higher level tier of magic for starters. Newer spells make older spells garbage / useless too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
So, I will note that they said the CR wasn't going to change for any of the existing monsters -- and it hasn't -- but a Dire Wolf is a lot tougher a foe because of how you use it.
How? The only thing I see where the Dire Wolf (2024) is better than the Dire Wolf (2014) is that it auto-prones on a successful attack instead of a check, while having 40% less health. It's not really any stronger, to the contrary...
I didn’t say it was stronger, though.
I said it was a tougher foe, and that was based on how one uses it.
tougher is not synonymous with stronger.
Ok well, perhaps instead of playing word games, you'd care to explain how it is tougher, given that the only advantage it has is the auto-prone while it has 40% less health?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So, I will note that they said the CR wasn't going to change for any of the existing monsters -- and it hasn't -- but a Dire Wolf is a lot tougher a foe because of how you use it.
How? The only thing I see where the Dire Wolf (2024) is better than the Dire Wolf (2014) is that it auto-prones on a successful attack instead of a check, while having 40% less health. It's not really any stronger, to the contrary...
I didn’t say it was stronger, though.
I said it was a tougher foe, and that was based on how one uses it.
tougher is not synonymous with stronger.
Ok well, perhaps instead of playing word games, you'd care to explain how it is tougher, given that the only advantage it has is the auto-prone while it has 40% less health?
Well, ok, let's go.
Dire Wolves are mostly woodland area and transitional woodland to grassland types. They are pack hunters, like their smaller cousins, and packs will be between 12 and 24 members. Typical tactics will have them harry, using trees as cover (too big to use grasses for cover) -- that is, they will move in, move out, do quick ins and outs typically in pairs,, one going to down any slower, smaller prey, the other grabbing and dragging away.
Fighting back, they will dart back, hide, wait to strike again.
Depending on the general availability of food or the potential for being controlled or in service to something/someone else, they might have different tactical approaches, but this is a fairly standard pattern.
They will keep this up for several hours, usually starting late afternoon, and continuing through the night -- fire doesn't intimidate them. Sleeping prey will be the first to be attack -- already prone, a few fast bites, being kept prone, being attacked, fighting from prone is at a a disadvantage and they always have advantage on every attack.
If they feel like they have a shot at dragging one victi away, and there is someone being successful enough to down one of their own, that person is going to get four wolves suddenly in on them -- and the same attack and withdraw pattern continues as needed -- they are animals, not smart beings, they are acting in the interest of getting a good meal, and they attack people because they have to.
So, you have a bunch of bites over time; the use of magic only makes them mark you, the use of powerful weapon attacks only means they target you; they harry, so if the party speeds up they get exhaustion, and if they don't then they slow down, prolonging the experience. When they do attack, they knock you down and keep you down, attacking and attacking slowly wearing you down. No spells because you can't effectively move, and getting up knocks out movement speed unless someone else helps you -- and they may have htier own pair to deal with.
You don't want to pursue them because then you get swarmed, they use cover, and the best part of a is they do it at night, when they can see, when others are limited, they are great at stealth, and so they are very hard to track and hit during their peak period and they stop a long rest from happening unless someone burns a spell slot (because they won't wait to attack while you do a little shambling dance and look like a wounded bird).
They are faster than the party, as well, and wolves are great at ambush hunting -- so when they harry, it is often with surprise.
Now, that's a random encounter. So you might complain about them being a little too numerous (although, well, random encounters are like that). What about a standard mixed encounter -- the ever popular book Goblins and Wolves. Now you have to deal with an additional attack from a mounted rider (scimitar or ranged bow attack) plus the prone effect and the bite, that gives a pair of riders a chance to take you out while you are down.
These are fewer in number (generally party size plus 1) but they come in pairs, so the party is outnumbered by 2 to 1 by low level monsters that will give even a high level group the willies.
That simple change -- the knocking prone -- is part of a tactical effect that you use to build on, and organize your forces in their own tactical approaches for.
The same setups with the 2014 MM where they lack that prone but have a few more hit points isn't nearly as tough as something that keeps knocking you down and keeping you essentially pinned in place. It is a strategist's ideal situation -- you have highly mobile force that is able to knock down and keep down another less mobile force.
Now, yes, I am resuming this isn't a 1st level party -- they would be hard pressed to handle a single dire wolf, which would probably have fewer hit points than average because it will be starving and likely packless, and so way meaner and more prone to take chances that could end its own life sooner.
Party of four 5th level PCs, with no companions animals or NPC -- that combined planned encounter is 1250 XP from a budget (5 pairs of goblins and wolves), that's supposed to be an easy encounter for them -- the full budget is 2000, so I could add in 3 more pairs of riders and wolves and still only be a Low Encounter Difficulty -- for High I could double that and still be within range.
But I can also tell you that a 5th level party run by tactical, experienced players would be hard pressed -- especially if they ended up staying within the pack's range or the Goblin rider's area for more than a couple days.
As I said -- it depends on how you use them. Throwing them in a white room with just math isn't doing shit to prove them worthy or not -- you have to know how they are used to make them either weak or strong.
My set up is a lot different from someone just saying "there's a half dozen wolves there, and they are charging". Still a valid use case, but the result is going to be very different.
So I wasn't playing word games -- I was using the appropriate word. Tough and Strong have different meanings. I wouldn't argue about "strong" -- it's too subject to multiple variables that are ultimately going to be subjective based on how one uses the given creature.
I hear people talk all the time about how "D&D" is a combat simulation (which I wholly and vociferously disagree with), but when you actually apply combat and behavioral tactics and strategy, they get all angry at me for some reason.
As a DM, I have an incredibly amount of power, because I always control the battlefield -- I used a random encounter first because that's the most probable circumstance in my current setting -- the goblin pairing isn't a standard thing I would do (they are just as likely to eat the wolves).
But my goblins aren't the ones I used, I used book goblins. And just the warriors -- something that is rare since I tend to always toss in a magic user when I use humanoids of any sort. So for the Goblin rider encounter above, add in a GOblin hexer at 700 XP from the budget -- a bit more than a single pair of riders -- call it a single pairing and one Goblin, drop the hexer on the extra wolf, and I'm back where I was before.
A real planned encounter would include the location of the encounter, probably add in a Goblin Boss or two. ANd now, I could do that same set up at 3rd level by trading out the boss for Warriors and the warriors fro minions -- same challenging wolves, but still well within the XP budget -- and, again, for a Low difficulty encounter.
How you use them matters as much, if not more, than the numbers -- something the videos made a lot of mention of, I seem to recall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It was a 2021 - 2025 campaign. Many creatures had to be re-tuned to address the near broken optimized characters in order to create a believable and enjoyable power struggle. If the PCs get rolled, Player won't have fun, if the NPCs get rolled, DM won't have fun.
If neither side can 100% certain guess the end result, that creates excitement, suspense, etc. However, that was hard to do, tiring and things like certain spells are accessible too early that trivialize many situations that would be, well then, suspenseful.
I think I've spotted your problem
They optimized within the mechanical rule set of the game though. Meaning there are broken aspects built into the game that were never corrected or addressed.. one of those being, access to spells that should be at a higher level tier of magic for starters. Newer spells make older spells garbage / useless too.
Still a you problem, though -- you are the one who isn't designing encounters to account for what you allowed into your game.
All of the creatures are designed on the basis of a party of four average PCs.
Not optimized ones. They have never designed them for optimized ones. They design them for average ones. That's been the whole basis of CR since they started using it in 3e.
It is your task, as a DM, to adjust the difficulty of the encounter to match your PCs -- if you have 5th level characters who are equal to 9th level ones, then use a 9th level budget.
And if you don't like that they did it that way, then design your own system or play a different game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So, I will note that they said the CR wasn't going to change for any of the existing monsters -- and it hasn't -- but a Dire Wolf is a lot tougher a foe because of how you use it.
How? The only thing I see where the Dire Wolf (2024) is better than the Dire Wolf (2014) is that it auto-prones on a successful attack instead of a check, while having 40% less health. It's not really any stronger, to the contrary...
I didn’t say it was stronger, though.
I said it was a tougher foe, and that was based on how one uses it.
tougher is not synonymous with stronger.
Ok well, perhaps instead of playing word games, you'd care to explain how it is tougher, given that the only advantage it has is the auto-prone while it has 40% less health?
Well, ok, let's go.
Dire Wolves are mostly woodland area and transitional woodland to grassland types. They are pack hunters, like their smaller cousins, and packs will be between 12 and 24 members. Typical tactics will have them harry, using trees as cover (too big to use grasses for cover) -- that is, they will move in, move out, do quick ins and outs typically in pairs,, one going to down any slower, smaller prey, the other grabbing and dragging away.
Fighting back, they will dart back, hide, wait to strike again.
Depending on the general availability of food or the potential for being controlled or in service to something/someone else, they might have different tactical approaches, but this is a fairly standard pattern.
They will keep this up for several hours, usually starting late afternoon, and continuing through the night -- fire doesn't intimidate them. Sleeping prey will be the first to be attack -- already prone, a few fast bites, being kept prone, being attacked, fighting from prone is at a a disadvantage and they always have advantage on every attack.
If they feel like they have a shot at dragging one victi away, and there is someone being successful enough to down one of their own, that person is going to get four wolves suddenly in on them -- and the same attack and withdraw pattern continues as needed -- they are animals, not smart beings, they are acting in the interest of getting a good meal, and they attack people because they have to.
So, you have a bunch of bites over time; the use of magic only makes them mark you, the use of powerful weapon attacks only means they target you; they harry, so if the party speeds up they get exhaustion, and if they don't then they slow down, prolonging the experience. When they do attack, they knock you down and keep you down, attacking and attacking slowly wearing you down. No spells because you can't effectively move, and getting up knocks out movement speed unless someone else helps you -- and they may have htier own pair to deal with.
You don't want to pursue them because then you get swarmed, they use cover, and the best part of a is they do it at night, when they can see, when others are limited, they are great at stealth, and so they are very hard to track and hit during their peak period and they stop a long rest from happening unless someone burns a spell slot (because they won't wait to attack while you do a little shambling dance and look like a wounded bird).
They are faster than the party, as well, and wolves are great at ambush hunting -- so when they harry, it is often with surprise.
Now, that's a random encounter. So you might complain about them being a little too numerous (although, well, random encounters are like that). What about a standard mixed encounter -- the ever popular book Goblins and Wolves. Now you have to deal with an additional attack from a mounted rider (scimitar or ranged bow attack) plus the prone effect and the bite, that gives a pair of riders a chance to take you out while you are down.
These are fewer in number (generally party size plus 1) but they come in pairs, so the party is outnumbered by 2 to 1 by low level monsters that will give even a high level group the willies.
That simple change -- the knocking prone -- is part of a tactical effect that you use to build on, and organize your forces in their own tactical approaches for.
The same setups with the 2014 MM where they lack that prone but have a few more hit points isn't nearly as tough as something that keeps knocking you down and keeping you essentially pinned in place. It is a strategist's ideal situation -- you have highly mobile force that is able to knock down and keep down another less mobile force.
Now, yes, I am resuming this isn't a 1st level party -- they would be hard pressed to handle a single dire wolf, which would probably have fewer hit points than average because it will be starving and likely packless, and so way meaner and more prone to take chances that could end its own life sooner.
Party of four 5th level PCs, with no companions animals or NPC -- that combined planned encounter is 1250 XP from a budget (5 pairs of goblins and wolves), that's supposed to be an easy encounter for them -- the full budget is 2000, so I could add in 3 more pairs of riders and wolves and still only be a Low Encounter Difficulty -- for High I could double that and still be within range.
But I can also tell you that a 5th level party run by tactical, experienced players would be hard pressed -- especially if they ended up staying within the pack's range or the Goblin rider's area for more than a couple days.
As I said -- it depends on how you use them. Throwing them in a white room with just math isn't doing shit to prove them worthy or not -- you have to know how they are used to make them either weak or strong.
My set up is a lot different from someone just saying "there's a half dozen wolves there, and they are charging". Still a valid use case, but the result is going to be very different.
So I wasn't playing word games -- I was using the appropriate word. Tough and Strong have different meanings. I wouldn't argue about "strong" -- it's too subject to multiple variables that are ultimately going to be subjective based on how one uses the given creature.
I hear people talk all the time about how "D&D" is a combat simulation (which I wholly and vociferously disagree with), but when you actually apply combat and behavioral tactics and strategy, they get all angry at me for some reason.
As a DM, I have an incredibly amount of power, because I always control the battlefield -- I used a random encounter first because that's the most probable circumstance in my current setting -- the goblin pairing isn't a standard thing I would do (they are just as likely to eat the wolves).
But my goblins aren't the ones I used, I used book goblins. And just the warriors -- something that is rare since I tend to always toss in a magic user when I use humanoids of any sort. So for the Goblin rider encounter above, add in a GOblin hexer at 700 XP from the budget -- a bit more than a single pair of riders -- call it a single pairing and one Goblin, drop the hexer on the extra wolf, and I'm back where I was before.
A real planned encounter would include the location of the encounter, probably add in a Goblin Boss or two. ANd now, I could do that same set up at 3rd level by trading out the boss for Warriors and the warriors fro minions -- same challenging wolves, but still well within the XP budget -- and, again, for a Low difficulty encounter.
How you use them matters as much, if not more, than the numbers -- something the videos made a lot of mention of, I seem to recall.
You've written a lot of text based on a false premise - that 2014 Dire Wolves "lack that prone", they don't. They have it. The difference is that you don't get the Save. If you're launching 12-24 Dire Wolves at a party of average size of five, then they're going to fail the DC13 Dex Save. Their only hope is to kill the wolves, trim their numbers so they're manageable...except '14 ones have nearly double the health. Your prose tells us what the Statblock is saying - when you're fighting a pack, as you should be, the 14DW is going to be the harder fight. Both will be attacking in packs, and while 24DW is more likely to knock you prone, sue to Pack Tactics, the main effect is to halve your Speed. You don't need to do that to every single party member every single round - just have to get enough of them to persuade them the ones that don't get knocked down that they can't just run (or maybe they can, a bit of party PTSD and all that). 14DWs can do that just fine. The big difference is once you get knocked down, 14DWs can last basically twice as long as 24DWs. That means that, assuming that it's not going to end in a TPK, I have to have more 24DWs in an encounter than a 14DWs.
The only scenario where 24DWs are tougher than 14DWs is when there are small numbers of DWs, where a successful Save really does matter because you can't just keep going for attacks to make up for lucky rolls. The opposite scenario to what you posit as how DWs should be used, as a pack.
And yes, it was a word game. Rather than actually answering my question, you evaded by quibbling over my word usage and not answering. I'd show you more respect than that, please do the same in return.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The new monster manual follows along a pretty long-standing tradition and core design premise of D&D[Redacted]
[Some players]think the game is about storytelling, in-character role-playing, deep exploration of character's motivations etc, while being experts at optimization, tactics and rules manipulation. They want D&D to be focused on this aspect of play. Meanwhile, [others] still play D&D the same way they always have, as a game about exploring, killing monsters, finding loo,t, and leveling up. These players are not experts at optimization or tactics, to them, the game is plenty hard.
That's why we still have a Monster Manual, its why every adventure is filled with Dungeons and it's why we are getting a 3d VTT that helps us to execute tactical combat is focused on streamlining the rules. WOTC is just focusing on designing what sells to the majority of people.
So the Monster Manual is exactly as it should be. It's filled with monsters you get to fight and the reason these monsters are seen as "too easy" [to the first group]. Like the average D&D player is not an expert in character building, optimization and tactics. The monsters in this book are plenty challenging for most groups.
I would imagine it's very difficult to design for these two very distinctively different categories of players. How do you create a monster manual that fits most players who have no idea how to play tactical battle games and just want to chuck dice and have fun which is in fact, most people who play D&D and those that play all the time, study the game and learn it's nuances, strengths and weaknesses optimizing their characters to maximum performance? In the end, these would be two very different monster manuals and I think WOTC just makes the type of book they think they will sell the most of and leave the fiddling and adjustments to make the game harder to more advanced players to do on their own and the 3rd party publishing community to produce material.
As a DM that entertains both types of players, to me the Monster Manual monsters are both too easy and also way too hard, depending on which group I'm running for that week.
The vocal minority (which is very vocal) thinks the game is about storytelling, in-character role-playing, deep exploration of character's motivations etc, while being experts at optimization, tactics and rules manipulation. They want D&D to be focused on this aspect of play. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of players still play D&D the same way they always have, as a game about exploring, killing monsters, finding loo,t, and leveling up. These players are not experts at optimization or tactics, to them, the game is plenty hard.
D&D is played by 10’s of millions of people all over the world. There is no way you know what playstyle is used by the “overwhelming majority.”
Beyond that, are you trying to argue that the people who are into in-depth role player are the optimizers? Because that’s not been my experience. I find that role playing and optimizing exist on two separate continuums where people may be better at both, one or the other, or neither. Of course, I’ll freely admit my experience is not broad enough to be universal.
You're assuming the characters are on the ground. Even mid-level PCs have multiple flight options, entire species have wings, and then there's all the magic item options that allow flight - some can even support multiple PCs.
Resistance just means it takes longer, the Tarrasque still doesn't have any type of regeneration; and let's not forget that many subclasses can change their damage type or add additional damage to their attacks (that the Tarrasque is neither resistant nor immune to). Not to mention that the reflective hide only reflects if the spell rolls the attack, spells that add damage to weapon attacks are not reflected.
As for fights not starting until closer than 600', I take it you only play in dungeons without ever venturing above ground? Unless you happen to be standing next to the Tarrasque when it wakes up, you'll have a LOT of notice and can pick your engagement range. It isn't a stealthy beast, it is a rampager that destroys all in its path. You don't think a rampaging Tarrasque is going to be seen before melee range? Unless you're in a forest, it isn't hard to get 600' (or more) visibility on a gargantuan sized creature (and again - just engage it from the air)
Here's how they could have fixed it. Give it resistance to all damage, and 20pts of regeneration per round. Give it a 600' range cone ability that disrupts flight (earthbind-like ability if fail save). THEN it will be the type of challenge that the Tarrasque should be.
In my example, even low level winged archers can kill the Tarrasque or force it to flee (even if underground) - now imagine 15th level + characters and the resources they have. I have fought Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition, and never failed to kill it, even fighting one TWICE in the same adventure (Bloodstone Pass, 1st Edition)). I have used Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition). I am well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
It was one of 2 Mythical creatures I used near the end of my last campaign. Six 15th level characters and I threw them up against an Undead Tarrasque and Undead Ancient Dragon Turtle at the same time. They nearly defeated both without even taking a single hit, luckily one made a wrong choice and others swooped in to try to help them, which finally allowed the Tarrasque to melee something. I even put a cap on how high they could fly, by having lots of flying creatures and a violent thunderstorm overhead - and they still nearly managed to take out both without getting into melee range of either.
Anyway, we can still homebrew/houserule whatever we like, it would just be nice if they'd make a Tarrasque without such an easily exploited weakness - it is after all supposed to be the apex monster in the game. The idea that even a single low level character with just a couple magic items (bag of holding for arrows, and a magic carpet) can kill one without fear of harm is IMHO wrong.
There are however other threads on the Tarrasque, so I won't respond further regarding it here.
So, what I'm hearing is, you've not used this version of it, but you're basing your opinion on how it ran in the past. I guess that's a take.
That low- to mid-level PC still has no recourse when it starts to burrow. Few higher-level parties have much of an answer to burrowing. You just completely ignore the burrow speed. (Not to mention the thing's AC 25 means most of those low-to mid-level attacks will miss, even when they can target it.). Beyond that, the tarrasque isn't interested in fighting a bunch of PCs; it wants to destroy that town over there. (While, we the brave tarrasque hunters, will let it destroy the first few towns, because they had a less-than ideal engagement distance, I suppose.) Then, if the PCs are going to fly 600' overhead and try to nickel and dime the thing, it goes underground, where it has full cover from attacks and spells, and still it wrecks the town quite easily from underneath. You call it running away. I call it ignoring a trivial enemy, using its powers reasonably, and focusing on its goal. Things like burrow speeds are game-changers if you use them well.
It was one of 2 Mythical creatures I used near the end of my last campaign. Six 15th level characters and I threw them up against an Undead Tarrasque and Undead Ancient Dragon Turtle at the same time. They nearly defeated both without even taking a single hit, luckily one made a wrong choice and others swooped in to try to help them, which finally allowed the Tarrasque to melee something. I even put a cap on how high they could fly, by having lots of flying creatures and a violent thunderstorm overhead - and they still nearly managed to take out both without getting into melee range of either.
Just curious -- did you impose any penalty on ranged attacks being made through a raging thunderstorm? Even a 2nd-level spell like warding wind imposes disadvantage on ranged weapon attacks
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is nothing new about a lot of monsters not working properly in open terrain, and it's not the fault of monster design -- it's the fault of weapon and spell design. The fix is, as you see in games like BG3, is to vastly reduce the range of weapons and spells (BG3 caps all ranged weapons at 60').
As I said -- it depends on how you use them. Throwing them in a white room with just math isn't doing shit to prove them worthy or not -- you have to know how they are used to make them either weak or strong.
This so much. Maybe what we need is a book that specifically focuses on how to use terrain and the environment with monsters, because clearly the DMG isn't hitting it hard enough. Having a dynamic, interactive setting should be at least half of encounter design. Of course a Tarrasque is easy if it's standing in a big open field. You need weather, you need terrain, you need bystanders to save or enchantments to disable or just something other than "reduce the target's hp to 0."
[Some players] think the game is about storytelling, in-character role-playing, deep exploration of character's motivations etc, while being experts at optimization, tactics and rules manipulation. They want D&D to be focused on this aspect of play. Meanwhile, [others] still play D&D the same way they always have, as a game about exploring, killing monsters, finding loo,t, and leveling up. These players are not experts at optimization or tactics, to them, the game is plenty hard.
We have so much more in common than we have differences. Seeing the world through this "us vs them" mindset and blaming pretty much everything on it is not healthy for you and tedious for the rest of us to read. I can't speak on what the "majority" is doing, but the games I know occupy a middle ground between the two extremes you describe.
The vocal minority (which is very vocal) thinks the game is about storytelling, in-character role-playing, deep exploration of character's motivations etc, while being experts at optimization, tactics and rules manipulation. They want D&D to be focused on this aspect of play. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of players still play D&D the same way they always have, as a game about exploring, killing monsters, finding loo,t, and leveling up. These players are not experts at optimization or tactics, to them, the game is plenty hard.
D&D is played by 10’s of millions of people all over the world. There is no way you know what playstyle is used by the “overwhelming majority.”
Beyond that, are you trying to argue that the people who are into in-depth role player are the optimizers? Because that’s not been my experience. I find that role playing and optimizing exist on two separate continuums where people may be better at both, one or the other, or neither. Of course, I’ll freely admit my experience is not broad enough to be universal.
That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people who play frequently and dive deep into the game, get to know the game very well. They become experts on it, generally diving into the mechanics and nuances of playstyle. It's a pretty natural thing that just..happens. It's not that they are intentionally or directly optimizers, but you become very efficient at not just building characters, but simply playing the game (making decisions, using tactics, executing abilities etc..) when you do it often and get lots of practice, you build up this sort of expertise. Such players are naturally going to find the monsters in the monster manual lacking challenge because it's unlikely the game would ever be made with the assumption that everyone that playes has mastery over the rules and nuances of strategy and tactics.
The base assumption of D&D from a design perspective is that it's a game for everyone and I don't need statistics to tell me the overwhelming majority of the player base of D&D is not playing the game at a master or even expert level. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people playing the game, don't even have a full grasp of the rules, let alone the nuances of critical analysis of the mechanics.
I mean the discussions about the nuances of the mechanics on this forum alone are far deeper than any discussions the designers are likely having about the game, not because they don't understand it but its not part of the design goal. D&D really doesn't cater to high level of expertise. It's a simple adventure game about chucking dice and fighting monsters. Its always been that way and it probably always will. The challenge level of the monsters in the monster manual reflects this commitment on the part of the designers. They are perfectly capable of making the game much harder and deadlier, they do not do this on purpose as a design goal.
Such players are naturally going to find the monsters in the monster manual lacking challenge because it's unlikely the game would ever be made with the assumption that everyone that playes has mastery over the rules and nuances of strategy and tactics.
Its a little weird to say specific monsters lack challenge. Any DM can keep adding monsters until the players lose, and their job is to keep adding monsters until they each the balance they want.
Strategy and tactics barely registers, I mean D&D has a dozen choices to be made over a span of minutes. Almost every video game has an order of magnitude more decision making. The main difference in players is that most don't care or don't have the time to read everything. Most 10 year olds can reach the ceiling of D&D "strategic" decision making.
You will see a word next to Monstrosity. (Titan) That is the kkeyword they were talking about. You can now have a proper kaiju fight. BTW the winner will always be
Multiattack. The blob makes two Pseudopod attacks and uses Engulf. It can replace one attack with a use of Restraining Glob.
Engulf. The blob moves up to its Speed and can move through the spaces of Huge or smaller creatures and objects. Strength Saving Throw: DC 23, each creature or object whose space the blob enters for the first time during this move. Failure: The target is engulfed. While engulfed, a target has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the blob, and when the blob moves, the engulfed target moves with it. A nonmagical object is destroyed after spending 1 minute engulfed.
While engulfed, a creature takes 21 (6d6) Force damage at the start of each of its turns, is suffocating, has the Restrained condition, and repeats the save at the end of each of its turns. An engulfed creature that is reduced to 0 Hit Points dissolves into ash, which is ejected into the Astral Sea.
Success: The target escapes and enters the nearest unoccupied space.
But with that insanity what makes the Tarresque a 30? it was easy to kill in 2014...
Reflective Carapace. If the tarrasque is targeted by a Magic Missile spell or a spell that requires a ranged attack roll, roll 1d6. On a 1–5, the tarrasque is unaffected. On a 6, the tarrasque is unaffected and reflects the spell, turning the caster into the target.
Thunderous Bellow (Recharge 5–6). Constitution Saving Throw: DC 27, each creature and each object that isn’t being worn or carried in a 150-foot Cone. Failure: 78 (12d12) Thunder damage, and the target has the Deafened and Frightened conditions until the end of its next turn. Success: Half damage only.
Bonus Actions
Swallow.Strength Saving Throw: DC 27, one Large or smaller creature Grappled by the tarrasque (it can have up to six creatures swallowed at a time). Failure: The target is swallowed, and the Grappled condition ends. A swallowed creature has the Blinded and Restrained conditions and can’t teleport, it has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the tarrasque, and it takes 56 (16d6) Acid damage at the start of each of the tarrasque’s turns.
If the tarrasque takes 60 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, the tarrasque must succeed on a DC 20 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, each of which falls in a space within 10 feet of the tarrasque and has the Prone condition. If the tarrasque dies, any swallowed creature no longer has the Restrained condition and can escape from the corpse using 20 feet of movement, exiting Prone.
Legendary Actions
Legendary Action Uses: 3. Immediately after another creature’s turn, the tarrasque can expend a use to take one of the following actions. The tarrasque regains all expended uses at the start of each of its turns.
Onslaught. The tarrasque moves up to half its Speed, and it makes one Claw or Tail attack.
World-Shaking Movement. The tarrasque moves up to its Speed. At the end of this movement, the tarrasque creates an instantaneous shock wave in a 60-foot Emanation originating from itself. Creatures in that area lose Concentration and, if Medium or smaller, have the Prone condition. The tarrasque can’t take this action again until the start of its next turn.
note there are other abilities that are OP with our big Kiaju but like Godzillia he's the king of the monsters.
You're assuming the characters are on the ground. Even mid-level PCs have multiple flight options, entire species have wings, and then there's all the magic item options that allow flight - some can even support multiple PCs.
Resistance just means it takes longer, the Tarrasque still doesn't have any type of regeneration; and let's not forget that many subclasses can change their damage type or add additional damage to their attacks (that the Tarrasque is neither resistant nor immune to). Not to mention that the reflective hide only reflects if the spell rolls the attack, spells that add damage to weapon attacks are not reflected.
As for fights not starting until closer than 600', I take it you only play in dungeons without ever venturing above ground? Unless you happen to be standing next to the Tarrasque when it wakes up, you'll have a LOT of notice and can pick your engagement range. It isn't a stealthy beast, it is a rampager that destroys all in its path. You don't think a rampaging Tarrasque is going to be seen before melee range? Unless you're in a forest, it isn't hard to get 600' (or more) visibility on a gargantuan sized creature (and again - just engage it from the air)
Here's how they could have fixed it. Give it resistance to all damage, and 20pts of regeneration per round. Give it a 600' range cone ability that disrupts flight (earthbind-like ability if fail save). THEN it will be the type of challenge that the Tarrasque should be.
In my example, even low level winged archers can kill the Tarrasque or force it to flee (even if underground) - now imagine 15th level + characters and the resources they have. I have fought Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition, and never failed to kill it, even fighting one TWICE in the same adventure (Bloodstone Pass, 1st Edition)). I have used Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition). I am well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
It was one of 2 Mythical creatures I used near the end of my last campaign. Six 15th level characters and I threw them up against an Undead Tarrasque and Undead Ancient Dragon Turtle at the same time. They nearly defeated both without even taking a single hit, luckily one made a wrong choice and others swooped in to try to help them, which finally allowed the Tarrasque to melee something. I even put a cap on how high they could fly, by having lots of flying creatures and a violent thunderstorm overhead - and they still nearly managed to take out both without getting into melee range of either.
Anyway, we can still homebrew/houserule whatever we like, it would just be nice if they'd make a Tarrasque without such an easily exploited weakness - it is after all supposed to be the apex monster in the game. The idea that even a single low level character with just a couple magic items (bag of holding for arrows, and a magic carpet) can kill one without fear of harm is IMHO wrong.
There are however other threads on the Tarrasque, so I won't respond further regarding it here.
And you win the prize "How not to run a high level monster with power gamers." prize.
If you set any monster out in the open and let players choose how to fight it, 2 or 3 turns player victory every time.
Instead, set the situation up, don't let the players have a chance to be prepared for that specific challenge. put the Blob of Annihilation in a dungeon crawl, have the players face the Tarrasque in the underdark where the combat space is limited to map size, and they can't fly more than 20 feet higher than the Kiaju. Make your players sweat, as they face other combatants while facing off against the big bad, the cultists who summoned the BoA, the other monsters who follow the Tarrasque looking for easy meals.
Instead of 1950s Godzillia give them Cloverfield.
---
BTW doing it my way I have killed a level 12 (2024) Barbarian with Avernus. It's all in how you set it up, and how you run it. Make them sweat the big battles by not playing it as expected.
Aww, I clicked on this topic hoping it was about a monster named Manuel. I should make him; he's Manuel the Manticore. I think he's a baby Manticore with reduced CR so you can use him as a sidekick.
I must say i'm a bit disapointed as well. There is a lot to like, but then they go and do stuff like:
- Give more creatures Pact Tactics. It was already getting hard to find players willing to play martial characters because although their damage output has increased, they simply don't have the hp to take the hits of level appropriate encounters - and now many of those creatures get advantage on all attacks against that martial character (so much for the protection of a high AC when the monster gets to roll twice to beat it).
- HP - There are some monsters that REALLY needed more hp (like dragons, just to name one). It was too easy in 5e2014 to bring them down before they could get close enough to threaten the group, now with 5e2024's higher character damage output and all the ways to slow enemies (no size limit on the slow weapon mastery), they are even less likely to get in range.
- Eliminated certain creatures. Yes I know you can still fight an Orc, but in the encounter builder it won't say Orc, it will say "Tough" WTF?? Gone are the uniqueness of Orcs and Drow (just to name two). And explain again how a Lizardfolk now uses the Scout statblock (no swim speed), while the Lizardfolk spellcasters have their own statblock with a swimspeed. Yes, as DM you can just say "and they swim", but now they have to go look up in another book what that swim speed is. All because they eliminated "lizardfolk" yet kept "lizardfolk" sovereign and geomancers. Same with gnomes. Just because it is a playable species, doesn't mean it needs to be removed from the Monster Manual (why did they keep Bugbears if that was the case).
- Tarrasque. In a video the Devs said it was no longer possible to just sit at range and bring down a Tarrasque. Wanna bet? Step 1: Give character Sharpshooter (no disadvantage at range), Step 2: Give character a magic bow, Step 3: annihilate the Tarrasque from 600 ft away with an unending shower of magical piercing damage. Better yet, make sure the one firing that longbow has Weapon Mastery to slow the Tarrasque by 10' each round (doesn't have a size restriction). Want it gone even faster? Use more than one archer, or better yet - flying archers to just sit 600' above the Tarrasque and rain down those arrows. The only defense the Tarrasque has against this is to burrow and run away. A couple of low level Aarakocra archers can sell themselves out as Tarrasque killers.
- Prone and Grapple - really not a fan of automatically proning and grappling characters on every hit with no way to resist. 20 STR Barbarian bit by wolf, automatically taken prone.
I thought they were going to balance the monsters to the amount of muscle milk that they fed all the classes in 5e2024, they even bragged during the videos of how they remade the monsters "to bring the hurt" - yet... they didn't.
So i'm a bit disappointed, but like I said, there is a lot to like (I like how Beholders' non-damaging eye rays now inflict at least some damage)...
They kinda did as many PC abilities just happen now as well lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(quoted text isn't displaying)
You're assuming the characters are on the ground. Even mid-level PCs have multiple flight options, entire species have wings, and then there's all the magic item options that allow flight - some can even support multiple PCs.
Resistance just means it takes longer, the Tarrasque still doesn't have any type of regeneration; and let's not forget that many subclasses can change their damage type or add additional damage to their attacks (that the Tarrasque is neither resistant nor immune to). Not to mention that the reflective hide only reflects if the spell rolls the attack, spells that add damage to weapon attacks are not reflected.
As for fights not starting until closer than 600', I take it you only play in dungeons without ever venturing above ground? Unless you happen to be standing next to the Tarrasque when it wakes up, you'll have a LOT of notice and can pick your engagement range. It isn't a stealthy beast, it is a rampager that destroys all in its path. You don't think a rampaging Tarrasque is going to be seen before melee range? Unless you're in a forest, it isn't hard to get 600' (or more) visibility on a gargantuan sized creature (and again - just engage it from the air)
Here's how they could have fixed it. Give it resistance to all damage, and 20pts of regeneration per round. Give it a 600' range cone ability that disrupts flight (earthbind-like ability if fail save). THEN it will be the type of challenge that the Tarrasque should be.
In my example, even low level winged archers can kill the Tarrasque or force it to flee (even if underground) - now imagine 15th level + characters and the resources they have. I have fought Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition, and never failed to kill it, even fighting one TWICE in the same adventure (Bloodstone Pass, 1st Edition)). I have used Tarrasques in various campaigns (in every edition). I am well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
It was one of 2 Mythical creatures I used near the end of my last campaign. Six 15th level characters and I threw them up against an Undead Tarrasque and Undead Ancient Dragon Turtle at the same time. They nearly defeated both without even taking a single hit, luckily one made a wrong choice and others swooped in to try to help them, which finally allowed the Tarrasque to melee something. I even put a cap on how high they could fly, by having lots of flying creatures and a violent thunderstorm overhead - and they still nearly managed to take out both without getting into melee range of either.
Anyway, we can still homebrew/houserule whatever we like, it would just be nice if they'd make a Tarrasque without such an easily exploited weakness - it is after all supposed to be the apex monster in the game. The idea that even a single low level character with just a couple magic items (bag of holding for arrows, and a magic carpet) can kill one without fear of harm is IMHO wrong.
There are however other threads on the Tarrasque, so I won't respond further regarding it here.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I think I've spotted your problem
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I didn’t say it was stronger, though.
I said it was a tougher foe, and that was based on how one uses it.
tougher is not synonymous with stronger.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They optimized within the mechanical rule set of the game though. Meaning there are broken aspects built into the game that were never corrected or addressed.. one of those being, access to spells that should be at a higher level tier of magic for starters. Newer spells make older spells garbage / useless too.
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
Ok well, perhaps instead of playing word games, you'd care to explain how it is tougher, given that the only advantage it has is the auto-prone while it has 40% less health?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, ok, let's go.
Dire Wolves are mostly woodland area and transitional woodland to grassland types. They are pack hunters, like their smaller cousins, and packs will be between 12 and 24 members. Typical tactics will have them harry, using trees as cover (too big to use grasses for cover) -- that is, they will move in, move out, do quick ins and outs typically in pairs,, one going to down any slower, smaller prey, the other grabbing and dragging away.
Fighting back, they will dart back, hide, wait to strike again.
Depending on the general availability of food or the potential for being controlled or in service to something/someone else, they might have different tactical approaches, but this is a fairly standard pattern.
They will keep this up for several hours, usually starting late afternoon, and continuing through the night -- fire doesn't intimidate them. Sleeping prey will be the first to be attack -- already prone, a few fast bites, being kept prone, being attacked, fighting from prone is at a a disadvantage and they always have advantage on every attack.
If they feel like they have a shot at dragging one victi away, and there is someone being successful enough to down one of their own, that person is going to get four wolves suddenly in on them -- and the same attack and withdraw pattern continues as needed -- they are animals, not smart beings, they are acting in the interest of getting a good meal, and they attack people because they have to.
So, you have a bunch of bites over time; the use of magic only makes them mark you, the use of powerful weapon attacks only means they target you; they harry, so if the party speeds up they get exhaustion, and if they don't then they slow down, prolonging the experience. When they do attack, they knock you down and keep you down, attacking and attacking slowly wearing you down. No spells because you can't effectively move, and getting up knocks out movement speed unless someone else helps you -- and they may have htier own pair to deal with.
You don't want to pursue them because then you get swarmed, they use cover, and the best part of a is they do it at night, when they can see, when others are limited, they are great at stealth, and so they are very hard to track and hit during their peak period and they stop a long rest from happening unless someone burns a spell slot (because they won't wait to attack while you do a little shambling dance and look like a wounded bird).
They are faster than the party, as well, and wolves are great at ambush hunting -- so when they harry, it is often with surprise.
Now, that's a random encounter. So you might complain about them being a little too numerous (although, well, random encounters are like that). What about a standard mixed encounter -- the ever popular book Goblins and Wolves. Now you have to deal with an additional attack from a mounted rider (scimitar or ranged bow attack) plus the prone effect and the bite, that gives a pair of riders a chance to take you out while you are down.
These are fewer in number (generally party size plus 1) but they come in pairs, so the party is outnumbered by 2 to 1 by low level monsters that will give even a high level group the willies.
That simple change -- the knocking prone -- is part of a tactical effect that you use to build on, and organize your forces in their own tactical approaches for.
The same setups with the 2014 MM where they lack that prone but have a few more hit points isn't nearly as tough as something that keeps knocking you down and keeping you essentially pinned in place. It is a strategist's ideal situation -- you have highly mobile force that is able to knock down and keep down another less mobile force.
Now, yes, I am resuming this isn't a 1st level party -- they would be hard pressed to handle a single dire wolf, which would probably have fewer hit points than average because it will be starving and likely packless, and so way meaner and more prone to take chances that could end its own life sooner.
Party of four 5th level PCs, with no companions animals or NPC -- that combined planned encounter is 1250 XP from a budget (5 pairs of goblins and wolves), that's supposed to be an easy encounter for them -- the full budget is 2000, so I could add in 3 more pairs of riders and wolves and still only be a Low Encounter Difficulty -- for High I could double that and still be within range.
But I can also tell you that a 5th level party run by tactical, experienced players would be hard pressed -- especially if they ended up staying within the pack's range or the Goblin rider's area for more than a couple days.
As I said -- it depends on how you use them. Throwing them in a white room with just math isn't doing shit to prove them worthy or not -- you have to know how they are used to make them either weak or strong.
My set up is a lot different from someone just saying "there's a half dozen wolves there, and they are charging". Still a valid use case, but the result is going to be very different.
So I wasn't playing word games -- I was using the appropriate word. Tough and Strong have different meanings. I wouldn't argue about "strong" -- it's too subject to multiple variables that are ultimately going to be subjective based on how one uses the given creature.
I hear people talk all the time about how "D&D" is a combat simulation (which I wholly and vociferously disagree with), but when you actually apply combat and behavioral tactics and strategy, they get all angry at me for some reason.
As a DM, I have an incredibly amount of power, because I always control the battlefield -- I used a random encounter first because that's the most probable circumstance in my current setting -- the goblin pairing isn't a standard thing I would do (they are just as likely to eat the wolves).
But my goblins aren't the ones I used, I used book goblins. And just the warriors -- something that is rare since I tend to always toss in a magic user when I use humanoids of any sort. So for the Goblin rider encounter above, add in a GOblin hexer at 700 XP from the budget -- a bit more than a single pair of riders -- call it a single pairing and one Goblin, drop the hexer on the extra wolf, and I'm back where I was before.
A real planned encounter would include the location of the encounter, probably add in a Goblin Boss or two. ANd now, I could do that same set up at 3rd level by trading out the boss for Warriors and the warriors fro minions -- same challenging wolves, but still well within the XP budget -- and, again, for a Low difficulty encounter.
How you use them matters as much, if not more, than the numbers -- something the videos made a lot of mention of, I seem to recall.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Still a you problem, though -- you are the one who isn't designing encounters to account for what you allowed into your game.
All of the creatures are designed on the basis of a party of four average PCs.
Not optimized ones. They have never designed them for optimized ones. They design them for average ones. That's been the whole basis of CR since they started using it in 3e.
It is your task, as a DM, to adjust the difficulty of the encounter to match your PCs -- if you have 5th level characters who are equal to 9th level ones, then use a 9th level budget.
And if you don't like that they did it that way, then design your own system or play a different game.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You've written a lot of text based on a false premise - that 2014 Dire Wolves "lack that prone", they don't. They have it. The difference is that you don't get the Save. If you're launching 12-24 Dire Wolves at a party of average size of five, then they're going to fail the DC13 Dex Save. Their only hope is to kill the wolves, trim their numbers so they're manageable...except '14 ones have nearly double the health. Your prose tells us what the Statblock is saying - when you're fighting a pack, as you should be, the 14DW is going to be the harder fight. Both will be attacking in packs, and while 24DW is more likely to knock you prone, sue to Pack Tactics, the main effect is to halve your Speed. You don't need to do that to every single party member every single round - just have to get enough of them to persuade them the ones that don't get knocked down that they can't just run (or maybe they can, a bit of party PTSD and all that). 14DWs can do that just fine. The big difference is once you get knocked down, 14DWs can last basically twice as long as 24DWs. That means that, assuming that it's not going to end in a TPK, I have to have more 24DWs in an encounter than a 14DWs.
The only scenario where 24DWs are tougher than 14DWs is when there are small numbers of DWs, where a successful Save really does matter because you can't just keep going for attacks to make up for lucky rolls. The opposite scenario to what you posit as how DWs should be used, as a pack.
And yes, it was a word game. Rather than actually answering my question, you evaded by quibbling over my word usage and not answering. I'd show you more respect than that, please do the same in return.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The new monster manual follows along a pretty long-standing tradition and core design premise of D&D [Redacted]
[Some players] think the game is about storytelling, in-character role-playing, deep exploration of character's motivations etc, while being experts at optimization, tactics and rules manipulation. They want D&D to be focused on this aspect of play. Meanwhile, [others] still play D&D the same way they always have, as a game about exploring, killing monsters, finding loo,t, and leveling up. These players are not experts at optimization or tactics, to them, the game is plenty hard.
That's why we still have a Monster Manual, its why every adventure is filled with Dungeons and it's why we are getting a 3d VTT that helps us to execute tactical combat is focused on streamlining the rules. WOTC is just focusing on designing what sells to the majority of people.
So the Monster Manual is exactly as it should be. It's filled with monsters you get to fight and the reason these monsters are seen as "too easy" [to the first group]. Like the average D&D player is not an expert in character building, optimization and tactics. The monsters in this book are plenty challenging for most groups.
I would imagine it's very difficult to design for these two very distinctively different categories of players. How do you create a monster manual that fits most players who have no idea how to play tactical battle games and just want to chuck dice and have fun which is in fact, most people who play D&D and those that play all the time, study the game and learn it's nuances, strengths and weaknesses optimizing their characters to maximum performance? In the end, these would be two very different monster manuals and I think WOTC just makes the type of book they think they will sell the most of and leave the fiddling and adjustments to make the game harder to more advanced players to do on their own and the 3rd party publishing community to produce material.
As a DM that entertains both types of players, to me the Monster Manual monsters are both too easy and also way too hard, depending on which group I'm running for that week.
D&D is played by 10’s of millions of people all over the world. There is no way you know what playstyle is used by the “overwhelming majority.”
Beyond that, are you trying to argue that the people who are into in-depth role player are the optimizers? Because that’s not been my experience. I find that role playing and optimizing exist on two separate continuums where people may be better at both, one or the other, or neither. Of course, I’ll freely admit my experience is not broad enough to be universal.
So, what I'm hearing is, you've not used this version of it, but you're basing your opinion on how it ran in the past. I guess that's a take.
That low- to mid-level PC still has no recourse when it starts to burrow. Few higher-level parties have much of an answer to burrowing. You just completely ignore the burrow speed. (Not to mention the thing's AC 25 means most of those low-to mid-level attacks will miss, even when they can target it.). Beyond that, the tarrasque isn't interested in fighting a bunch of PCs; it wants to destroy that town over there. (While, we the brave tarrasque hunters, will let it destroy the first few towns, because they had a less-than ideal engagement distance, I suppose.) Then, if the PCs are going to fly 600' overhead and try to nickel and dime the thing, it goes underground, where it has full cover from attacks and spells, and still it wrecks the town quite easily from underneath. You call it running away. I call it ignoring a trivial enemy, using its powers reasonably, and focusing on its goal. Things like burrow speeds are game-changers if you use them well.
Just curious -- did you impose any penalty on ranged attacks being made through a raging thunderstorm? Even a 2nd-level spell like warding wind imposes disadvantage on ranged weapon attacks
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is nothing new about a lot of monsters not working properly in open terrain, and it's not the fault of monster design -- it's the fault of weapon and spell design. The fix is, as you see in games like BG3, is to vastly reduce the range of weapons and spells (BG3 caps all ranged weapons at 60').
This so much. Maybe what we need is a book that specifically focuses on how to use terrain and the environment with monsters, because clearly the DMG isn't hitting it hard enough. Having a dynamic, interactive setting should be at least half of encounter design. Of course a Tarrasque is easy if it's standing in a big open field. You need weather, you need terrain, you need bystanders to save or enchantments to disable or just something other than "reduce the target's hp to 0."
We have so much more in common than we have differences. Seeing the world through this "us vs them" mindset and blaming pretty much everything on it is not healthy for you and tedious for the rest of us to read. I can't speak on what the "majority" is doing, but the games I know occupy a middle ground between the two extremes you describe.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people who play frequently and dive deep into the game, get to know the game very well. They become experts on it, generally diving into the mechanics and nuances of playstyle. It's a pretty natural thing that just..happens. It's not that they are intentionally or directly optimizers, but you become very efficient at not just building characters, but simply playing the game (making decisions, using tactics, executing abilities etc..) when you do it often and get lots of practice, you build up this sort of expertise. Such players are naturally going to find the monsters in the monster manual lacking challenge because it's unlikely the game would ever be made with the assumption that everyone that playes has mastery over the rules and nuances of strategy and tactics.
The base assumption of D&D from a design perspective is that it's a game for everyone and I don't need statistics to tell me the overwhelming majority of the player base of D&D is not playing the game at a master or even expert level. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people playing the game, don't even have a full grasp of the rules, let alone the nuances of critical analysis of the mechanics.
I mean the discussions about the nuances of the mechanics on this forum alone are far deeper than any discussions the designers are likely having about the game, not because they don't understand it but its not part of the design goal. D&D really doesn't cater to high level of expertise. It's a simple adventure game about chucking dice and fighting monsters. Its always been that way and it probably always will. The challenge level of the monsters in the monster manual reflects this commitment on the part of the designers. They are perfectly capable of making the game much harder and deadlier, they do not do this on purpose as a design goal.
Its a little weird to say specific monsters lack challenge. Any DM can keep adding monsters until the players lose, and their job is to keep adding monsters until they each the balance they want.
Strategy and tactics barely registers, I mean D&D has a dozen choices to be made over a span of minutes. Almost every video game has an order of magnitude more decision making. The main difference in players is that most don't care or don't have the time to read everything. Most 10 year olds can reach the ceiling of D&D "strategic" decision making.
Handy tool, full blown, advanced, D&D 5e combat simulator: https://dndbattle.com
Here is the headline to the 2024 Tarrasque
You will see a word next to Monstrosity. (Titan) That is the kkeyword they were talking about. You can now have a proper kaiju fight. BTW the winner will always be
Blob of Annihilation
But here are some other names to look at:
Colossus
Kraken
Elemental Cataclysm
and any of the Ancient Dragons:
Ancient Gold Dragon
Ancient Red Dragon
Ancient Blue Dragon
Now don't let the CRs fool you, if run properly any of these will challenge your players, but the Titans are all extra hard even if at lower CRs.
So the BoA is lower CR than the Meme hardest monster in DnD... until you read:
Engulf. The blob moves up to its Speed and can move through the spaces of Huge or smaller creatures and objects. Strength Saving Throw: DC 23, each creature or object whose space the blob enters for the first time during this move. Failure: The target is engulfed. While engulfed, a target has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the blob, and when the blob moves, the engulfed target moves with it. A nonmagical object is destroyed after spending 1 minute engulfed.
While engulfed, a creature takes 21 (6d6) Force damage at the start of each of its turns, is suffocating, has the Restrained condition, and repeats the save at the end of each of its turns. An engulfed creature that is reduced to 0 Hit Points dissolves into ash, which is ejected into the Astral Sea.
Success: The target escapes and enters the nearest unoccupied space.
But with that insanity what makes the Tarresque a 30? it was easy to kill in 2014...
Swallow. Strength Saving Throw: DC 27, one Large or smaller creature Grappled by the tarrasque (it can have up to six creatures swallowed at a time). Failure: The target is swallowed, and the Grappled condition ends. A swallowed creature has the Blinded and Restrained conditions and can’t teleport, it has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the tarrasque, and it takes 56 (16d6) Acid damage at the start of each of the tarrasque’s turns.
If the tarrasque takes 60 damage or more on a single turn from a creature inside it, the tarrasque must succeed on a DC 20 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, each of which falls in a space within 10 feet of the tarrasque and has the Prone condition. If the tarrasque dies, any swallowed creature no longer has the Restrained condition and can escape from the corpse using 20 feet of movement, exiting Prone.
Legendary Action Uses: 3. Immediately after another creature’s turn, the tarrasque can expend a use to take one of the following actions. The tarrasque regains all expended uses at the start of each of its turns.
Onslaught. The tarrasque moves up to half its Speed, and it makes one Claw or Tail attack.
World-Shaking Movement. The tarrasque moves up to its Speed. At the end of this movement, the tarrasque creates an instantaneous shock wave in a 60-foot Emanation originating from itself. Creatures in that area lose Concentration and, if Medium or smaller, have the Prone condition. The tarrasque can’t take this action again until the start of its next turn.
note there are other abilities that are OP with our big Kiaju but like Godzillia he's the king of the monsters.
And you win the prize "How not to run a high level monster with power gamers." prize.
If you set any monster out in the open and let players choose how to fight it, 2 or 3 turns player victory every time.
Instead, set the situation up, don't let the players have a chance to be prepared for that specific challenge. put the Blob of Annihilation in a dungeon crawl, have the players face the Tarrasque in the underdark where the combat space is limited to map size, and they can't fly more than 20 feet higher than the Kiaju. Make your players sweat, as they face other combatants while facing off against the big bad, the cultists who summoned the BoA, the other monsters who follow the Tarrasque looking for easy meals.
Instead of 1950s Godzillia give them Cloverfield.
---
BTW doing it my way I have killed a level 12 (2024) Barbarian with Avernus. It's all in how you set it up, and how you run it. Make them sweat the big battles by not playing it as expected.
Aww, I clicked on this topic hoping it was about a monster named Manuel. I should make him; he's Manuel the Manticore. I think he's a baby Manticore with reduced CR so you can use him as a sidekick.
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
They kinda did as many PC abilities just happen now as well lol.