This....thing...is....AWESOME!
I think his point was the low hp, not any actual ability to lurk. He mentioned lurkers because they have low hp, and to implicate that ALL monsters better lurk in 5E unless they have a death wish.I think "brute" is probably more accurate than "lurker", since not many of them are that sneaky.
Or, in other words, support the game they offer in the PHB.I do think that hps should have been one of those "dials" that they were talking about in the playtest, possibly via templates (to avoid the "it's too much like 4e" complaint where the monster gets more powerful just because it is fighting 8 PCs with 24 magic items) --something like horde breaker--add 100 hps to a large-size giant* who can do horde breakers stuff (sorry I haven't seen one in a while so I forgot the specifics of what they do)
<snip>
He meant official discussion and support.They already are on a dial; any monster can have anywhere between its minimum and maximum HP. This thing can have anything from 84 to 216 without having to alter its stat block.
Not the number, no, but the spell list and abilities should be a clue. This beastie has modest HP, but then he isn't going to need too much if played well. Turn around is fair play, of the party plota and optimizes why not their enemies?That's what irks me the most.
I'm supposed to come up with this brilliant plan... Based on what? Seeing the number 20 in a particular ability field in the stat block!? Come on!
Magic items aren't in the PHB, and I think it would have been better to leave out Feats and multiclassing for other material (more spells, Backgrounds or Subclasses, maybe). But, variant rules are not something that needs to be assumed, that is literally why there is a DM to adjudicate and tweak the game to an individual table.Or, in other words, support the game they offer in the PHB.
Saying "if you use feats, Mc and magic items, you're on your own" is a piss-poor approach.
If there had been an Advanced Monster Manual released maybe two years after 5E came out, we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions.
Not entirely true. Having more or less HP does affect the CR (per the DMG), and thus the stat block. Now, what they should have done (could do) is explain how different groups abilities change the CR calculus and how you can adjust for that by modifying the HP within the range.
Thus, for groups who are chewing through Deadly encounters like no tomorrow; adjust the HP to the maximum, but leave the CR and XP the same.
I don't think its intended that you apply the 'Modifying a Monster' rules in these circumstances; average Hit Points are pretty clearly labeled as 'average hit points'. Which to me implys that members of the same stat block can differ. After all, why even bother listing the dice expression if that is not the case?
Of course, generating Challenge for official monsters often deviates significantly from either f the two DMG monster generation system sin the DMG as well, anyway - so I don't think doing it either way is a huge deal.
Tweaking hp within the HD range is likely to have a much less significant effect on an encounter that tactical circumstances - surprise, terrain factors, and so on.
But I think people set to much store by "CR". It's not a magic number that will magically guarantee a fun encounter. It's a very very rough estimate. Look at the monster, look at the party, and decide for yourself if a creature is suitable at is, needs some modding (after all, even monsters are individuals, unless they at modrones) or if a different creature would be better.