D&D 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen (D&D Encounters version)

KarinsDad said:

So, you would prefer it if the name of the Beholder was something like Floating Eye Monster?

Click to expand...

No, Beholder is a pun, as in "Eye of," and that tells me what it's all about, as are the many SRD-compliant versions that have been come up with over the years, like Evil Eyes, etc.

It's not that hard to come up with names that suggest what a critter is like -- and, frankly, that's what people in a game world would do, rather than slamming innocent adjectives and nouns together: "Hey, Steve, my farm just got attacked by a Rendclaw Fury!" vs. "Hey, Steve, my farm just got attacked by a Hellbear!"

MerricB said:

Properly it's a Dragonclaw Cultist, the lowest rank of the Cult of the Dragon (after initiate).

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Ah, that makes it clearer. Many thanks, Merric.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

No, Beholder is a pun, as in "Eye of," and that tells me what it's all about, as are the many SRD-compliant versions that have been come up with over the years, like Evil Eyes, etc.

Click to expand...

Except that if you never heard of a Beholder, you wouldn't know this.

The actual phrase is "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Without ever hearing the monster name Beholder before, one could easily interpret a Beholder as some type of creature that is beautiful like a nymph.

You logic doesn't hold here.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

It's not that hard to come up with names that suggest what a critter is like -- and, frankly, that's what people in a game world would do, rather than slamming innocent adjectives and nouns together: "Hey, Steve, my farm just got attacked by a Rendclaw Fury!" vs. "Hey, Steve, my farm just got attacked by a Hellbear!"

Click to expand...

You've just illustrated my point. What's a Hellbear?

Is it like a Hell Hound with fire coming out of its mouth?
Is it like a Hell Cat that's invisible?
Does it give off smoke like a Hell Horse (i.e. Nightmare)?

One might be able to conclude that a Hellbear is some type of bear, but one also might be able to conclude that a Rendclaw Fury uses fast claws as attacks. Either way, one doesn't know much about either creature.

A Hellbear might just be the best description that a farmer has for an Owlbear. Why would a farmer know anything about the names of obscure creatures anyway?

KarinsDad said:

Except that if you never heard of a Beholder, you wouldn't know this.

The actual phrase is "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Without ever hearing the monster name Beholder before, one could easily interpret a Beholder as some type of creature that is beautiful like a nymph.

You logic doesn't hold here.

Click to expand...

Um, I immediately got the Beholder reference the first time I heard it back in '79. It's a pretty clear reference, IMO.

You've just illustrated my point. What's a Hellbear?

Is it like a Hell Hound with fire coming out of its mouth?
Is it like a Hell Cat that's invisible?
Does it give off smoke like a Hell Horse (i.e. Nightmare)?

One might be able to conclude that a Hellbear is some type of bear, but one also might be able to conclude that a Rendclaw Fury uses fast claws as attacks. Either way, one doesn't know much about either creature.

A Hellbear might just be the best description that a farmer has for an Owlbear. Why would a farmer know anything about the names of obscure creatures anyway?

Click to expand...

A "Hellbear" is some sort of scary-ass bear. When I have to describe it to a player on the fly, at least I have a decent chance of remembering what it is, as opposed to "uh, it's got some claws."

[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] Have fun running it!

I was wondering about page count compared to the hardcover "home campaign" version of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. The 96-page book spans about 7-8 levels.

The Encounters version spans 3 levels. How many pages long is it?

Also, I translated 16-18 Encouters sessions as about 8 home sessions of 4-5 hours each, which is still a somewhat slower rate of advancement for low levels (once every 2-3 levels) than what is being reported by others since the late stages of the playtest and with BD&D. People have rocketed thru the first three levels in a matter of 4-5 sessions, sounds like. I wonder what the difference is? Session length? Playstyles?

It is 37 pages long. There are likely extra pages dealing with running it with encounters.

Some of the encounters ate likely optional if you're running the full adventure.

Cheers!

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Um, I immediately got the Beholder reference the first time I heard it back in '79. It's a pretty clear reference, IMO.

Click to expand...

I guess you are missing my point.

Given both the description of the Beholder and the name, sure you could get that reference.

Just given the name, sorry. I don't believe that your DM said "The farmer tells you he saw a Beholder" and your first thought was *Wow, Eye of the Beholder, that must be a floating round bowling ball with eyestalks coming out of it*.

I do not think that anyone could go from the name to the description, even if they thought of the reference.

One could go from the name (Beholder) and the description (floating round bowling ball with eyestalks coming out of it), to the reference (eye of the beholder). But that is not we are talking about here. We are talking about (just like with Rendclaw Fury), just having the name and being able to intuit something substantial from it.

All we have from Rendclaw Fury is the name which has no type of reference other than claws and fury. It could be like the Tasmanian Devil (cartoon version), whirling around with sharp little claws. But, it might be something totally different. The name is not sufficient, just like the name Beholder is not sufficient.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

A "Hellbear" is some sort of scary-ass bear. When I have to describe it to a player on the fly, at least I have a decent chance of remembering what it is, as opposed to "uh, it's got some claws."

Click to expand...

Yup. And if I use the name HellTroll or HellOrc or any name where a part of it is a known creature in D&D, we can pretty much assume scary-ass troll or orc or whatever.

The problem is when the creature has nothing to do with a bear, or a dog, or a troll, or an orc, or some other well known D&D creature.

At that point, it gets a brand new name and people often cannot use it to go from name to reference to even partial description because we have no frame of reference for it.

But, how is WotC supposed to introduce new totally different and unique unknown creatures without using brand new names that do not have known references? According to your preference, they should not do that.

Personally, I am totally ok with brand new names that have nothing to do with anything I have encountered in the past. I'll remember the names of the creatures which are memorable in my game and forget those that are not.

KarinsDad said:

I guess you are missing my point.

Click to expand...

I'm not. I just disagree. In 1979, without seeing the picture or hearing the description, I knew that the Beholder was probably some sort of eye-related monster that "beheld" its victims.

But, how is WotC supposed to introduce new totally different and unique unknown creatures without using brand new names that do not have known references? According to your preference, they should not do that.

Click to expand...

They should probably give monsters descriptions and names based on something other than what sort of box they ticked off during the design process. A monster should be more than "magical beast" "energy damage" "elite." If that requires another 30 seconds of thought to come up with some interesting fluff, I'm OK with that.

In any case, it's interesting to see that critters from later 3E Monster Manuals ended up having enough traction to make it into 5E, which I would not have expected. (Although, names aside, I thought WotC definitely was doing strong work at that point, clearly laying the groundwork for the widely praised 4E monster design.)

Hey, quick question: Is the blue dragon immune to lightning, or merely resistant? (I ask because of the debate currently going on about the Elemental Adept feat--trying to get a sense of whether they've scaled back elemental immunities from the playtest bestiary.)

MerricB said:

For those interested in what monsters are in the adventure (and thus in the MM)

Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll be in the Basic Rules when it gets updated with monsters.

Dausuul said:

Hey, quick question: Is the blue dragon immune to lightning, or merely resistant? (I ask because of the debate currently going on about the Elemental Adept feat--trying to get a sense of whether they've scaled back elemental immunities from the playtest bestiary.)

Click to expand...

MerricB said:

The stats for these monsters aren't yet available

Click to expand...

i'm just here to point at things in the original post.