D&D General Reworking the MM Stat Block

[Scott Christian]

After all the ASI discussion and other discussions, I was reflecting on the MM stat block. Here is my thought:

Why have the attribute scores in their at all? What purpose does it serve?

For example, a hill giant. For verisimilitude purposes, when a 16' tall huge creature smashes a tree near or on you, it should do a lot of damage. +5 is what they get. Why not just make their damage without the attribute modifier. Want wide ranges, do 4d8. Want tight numbers, use 18. Same is true for saving throws. With this, there is no comparison of a hill giant to the halfling with 20 strength. A monster is a monster, not a PC.

Removing attributes from the MM allows for more growth and whimsy within monster design. It also removes the comparisons that might upset a player's verisimilitude. Lastly, it can allow for more swingy combat for those that prefer that style of play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some people might want to entreat with the monsters and ability scores let us know what to roll for ability checks.

 

[Rabulias]

Not a fan of taking them away. Back in AD&D 1st and 2nd edition days, when we began to add in non-weapon proficiencies, I wanted monster ability scores in their entries to figure out a monster's use of skills, among other things. I was quite pleased to see them as standard in 3rd edition to date.

The stats do not take up much room at all. Without the stats, you would need to spell out every saving throw and every skill for each creature. And monsters are more than just combat!

They provide another avenue for minor tweaking of encounters. It's also easier to adjudicate all ability-affecting magic (bonuses and penalties) on monsters.

 

[GMMichael]

The stats do not take up much room at all. Without the stats, you would need to spell out every saving throw and every skill for each creature. And monsters are more than just combat!

Doubtful. Monsters without attributes need two things:

• An Everything bonus equal to half of their level, and
• Flaws, like PCs have. If it's in the flaw list, it doesn't get the Everything bonus.

 

[Blue Orange]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't saves made against attributes now? Dex save, Con save, etc.? So any spell that requires a save (which is most of them) requires attributes.

As Rabulias says, 1e and 2e didn't have them, and one of the 2e handbooks (Epic Level, I think) had a table for rolling Wis and Cha based on listed intelligence (which was there) and Str, Con, and Dex based on size (Str and Con went up, Dex went down).

 

[aco175]

Could I get rid of the actual number and just have the modifier, sure. Instead of listing Strength 16 (+3), I just say Strength +3. The number itself is not needed, but it also does not take up much space and new players/DMs may find it helpful.

Damage could go either way. If I want more swingy combat, the Str16 monster- or the Str+3 monster can deal the normal 1d8+3. It can do average of 7. It can also deal 2d8 which may be close enough to 7, but be able to swing higher or lower and just leave the +3 off. I would think higher level PCs could stand up to the swings better though. Heck, you could also make up more random combos like 3d8-4 to get closer to the average it is normally dealing. You gain 1 HP it is deals negative damage, or gain advantage since the monster deserves it.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Ability scores are for players, not for NPCs. All monsters need is HD and "saves as fighter."

Honestly, ability scores are a bit of unnecessary overhead for monsters, even 5e monsters. Give them a proficiency bonus, a few things at which they excel, and a few things at which they're terrible. DC to do anything is 11 + Proficiency (+/- 4 if the NPC excels/stinks at something). If it's the NPC making an attack or save, drop the 11. Season with special powers to taste. That alone would cover the majority of the game's needs.

Example:

Generic Unintelligent Brute
Proficiency: +2.
HD: 3d12+12 (33 HP).
Armor Class: 15 (Hide).
Attacks: Large Weapon (2h). +6 to-hit. 1d10+5 damage. Big Rock (2h). +6 to-hit, 1d8+4 damage. 30 ft range.
Good At (+6 Proficiency, DC 17): Intimidation, reckless charges, brute force.
Bad At (-2 Proficiency, DC 9): Sneaking, riddles and puzzles, enchantments.

Big Smash: The Generic Unintelligent Brute performs a melee attack with advantage. If the attack hits, it does 1d10 additional damage. Recharge on a 5-6.

Obviously a bit simplistic, and the math isn't perfect, but it's pretty close.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Seems like this, as outlined, either creates video game monsters, incapable of doing or having done to them anything outside of what the designers specifically programed them for, or just requires a lot more information in the stat block. The ability scores plug monsters into general system mechanics for ability checks and weapons beyond whatever specific actions are included. Particularly in a game with 6 separate ability bonus based saving throws it doesn't gain you anything in terms of economy of space to not have the abilities but still have to assign them saving throw bonuses for each ability.

That said, I think your goal is served perfectly fine by just accepting that monsters can have attacks which, through whatever particular abilities they have, are modified from the normal mechanics of hitting things based on ability score, which is already possible. A bugbear, for example, has the "brute" feature, which gives them an extra damage die with melee weapons. This allows them to hit harder, while still letting them have a respectable but not particularly high 15 strength. It also creates a generally applicable rule for them, so if the DM decides to swap out the morningstar for a greatsword, or whatever, they just have to calculate out how the different weapon would work based on the normal game mechanics modified by the particular rule.

Generally I think there are probably a few monster stat blocks that would be stronger if the desired to-hits bonuses, damage averages, and skill bonuses were achieved with the help of special critter specific features, rather than trying to make everything conform to what ability scores and proficiency bonuses would determine. The current system leads to practically every dumb animal having fairly strong wisdom, because they want them to be perceptive.

I also think there is no good excuse for not listing the proficiency bonus in monster stat-blocks. The value in stat blocks having ability scores is in letting the DM determine how they interact with various game mechanics and to make it clear why they operate the way they do, but then you have to extrapolate from listed attacks, saves, and skill bonuses what their proficiency bonus is before you can actually use this ability score information much of the time.

 

[Scott Christian]

Thanks for the insight. I suppose I am oversimplifying it a bit.

 

[Rabulias]

I also think there is no good excuse for not listing the proficiency bonus in monster stat-blocks. The value in stat blocks having ability scores is in letting the DM determine how they interact with various game mechanics and to make it clear why they operate the way they do, but then you have to extrapolate from listed attacks, saves, and skill bonuses what their proficiency bonus is before you can actually use this ability score information much of the time.

Hear, hear! The Proficiency Bonus looks to be added to the standard stat block going forward, thankfully. I would very much like to see the future printings of older books (especially the Monster Manual) include the PB in the stat block, but I doubt we will see WotC do so.