D&D 5E How would you enhance monster entries?

[jgsugden]

What ideas do you have for how to make monster entries in a sourcebook better?

My contribution: Terrain and obstacle suggestions. A paragraph that gives DMs suggestions on how to use the monsters capabilities in interesting ways could be useful. It would encourage newer DMs to learn how to use terrain to make encounters and obstacles feel different.

 

[Eltab]

A bit of "favored tactics". Not as big as the essays in Volo or Mordenkainen but a short paragraph.
Some creatures ambush, some stalk, some barge up to the closest opponent / meal. Monsters might prefer to demand a toll rather than fight, or set up a complex ambush, or hide until the PCs go on their way. Some are alone, some in small groups, others in swarms / armies.

 

[Professor Murder]

A bit of "favored tactics". Not as big as the essays in Volo or Mordenkainen but a short paragraph.
Some creatures ambush, some stalk, some barge up to the closest opponent / meal. Monsters might prefer to demand a toll rather than fight, or set up a complex ambush, or hide until the PCs go on their way. Some are alone, some in small groups, others in swarms / armies.

Something like this. Like a "Typical first 3 actions".

 

[Leatherhead]

Well, basic tactics and how they use the environment are covered, so the next big thing would be Allies. Or more accurately: "If you like this monster, consider using these monsters to compliment them in your encounter."

Also worth mentioning: A Non-combat encounter hook would be great.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

There are multiple books out there created by people who have studied the stat blocks, and run encounters with various monsters. They know the tactics of said monsters far better than anyone at WOTC. I don't know if I am allowed to promote such books, so will not do so here. But they are out there.

 

[Mort]

There are multiple books out there created by people who have studied the stat blocks, and run encounters with various monsters. They know the tactics of said monsters far better than anyone at WOTC. I don't know if I am allowed to promote such books, so will not do so here. But they are out there.

Fairly sure The monsters know what they're doing has been mentioned a lot here. Plenty of web articles and you can find the collected books there too.

 

[Mort]

As for one thing to enhance monster entries:

Since WoTC had changed the stat blocks to move many/most of the offensive spells from the spell section to the actions section - I'd put a short notation next to those abilities:

Such as for ex Arcane Burst (cantrip)... Or sculpted explosion (spell, 4th).

To help DMs deal with effects that block/effect spells (which these are technically not anymore even though they are).

 

[LordEntrails]

Reduce the number of spells fr casters. And then in a brief tactics sections, put powers/spells in order that they would typically be used, or just put them in order in the stat block from most powerful to least.

 

[overgeeked]

What ideas do you have for how to make monster entries in a sourcebook better?

Reduce the stat block. It's wildly oversized. Remove most of the numbers and stats listed. Use that space to include some of the text from older editions that helped with making the monsters more interesting. Like adventure hooks, common goals, tactics, monster roles, lore DCs, number appearing, encounter groups, ecology, etc.

Something like this would more than suffice as the actual statblock.

Gnoll. AC 15. HD 5, hp 22. Attack +4, one per round (bite, spear, or bow). Damage 1d6+2. Move 30 ft. Checks +2/+0/-2. Morale 8.

Rampage. Reduce target to 0 hp, bonus action to move 15 ft and bite.

There's nothing in the full statblock that's necessary to run a gnoll that's not also represented in those two lines. Stats are all +2 to -2, that's the "checks" entry. Pick two stats for each. Should be obvious from the monster. CR is a terrible design. We don't need to waste space on it. Everything has darkvision, especially the monsters. It's not a question of if, rather how far. Almost always 60 ft, 120 ft, or 360 ft. Pick one. Passive perception? It's either 12, 10, or 8. Pick one. Ranges break down to melee, short range, long range. Almost nothing happens at long range in D&D. Listing ranges for the same weapons for every monster in the book is a waste of ink and space. Averaged the damage across the attack types. They're only descriptive differences.

This eliminates redundant information and saves a heap of space...so we can have all the goodies back from older editions I mentioned above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly, before adding any new complexity, I would want to simplify where possible. I know some folks think keywords and pre-defined terms is anathema, but it would honestly be really nice if we could codify some common, simple terms so they don't need full lines (or even full paragraphs in places). Multiattack is a common offender; it could easily be simplified further without any loss of clarity. E.g. "Multiattack: 2x Claw, 1x Wing, 1x Tail; creature may replace 1 attack with Spellcasting." Claw, wing, and tail attacks are already defined, so there's no reason to go full English sentences for things that don't need it.

Really that's one of the biggest issues I have with 5e statblocks. I get that a totally mechanistic presentation isn't ideal for most folks, but if we're going to be asking for things like "Suggested Terrain," "Favored Tactics," or "Common Allies," then reducing the verbiage in the mechanics-focused sections seems reasonable. In fact, I'd almost call it necessary to avoid monsters becoming too unwieldy to easily use.