toucanbuzz
No rule is inviolate
Been playing since AD&D and totally recognize every edition has pros and cons. Having run several years with 5E now, I find myself missing the puzzle-like nature of some, not all,older edition monsters as, nowadays, most monsters feel like large bags of hit points with few unique abilities. For example: golems. In prior editions, they were a puzzle in that they were immune to almost all magic, so to be solved, your fighter classes would shine and your casters would have to opt for creative use of spells (e.g. Grease the floor or Dig a hole). Now, a wizard with cantrips can ding one down.
Many monsters, especially demons, had spell-like abilities that could spice up encounters, especially the Teleportation game. Now, demons are largely like everything else: run in and do a multi-attack melee.
In summary, I understand the design to allow all players to contribute at all times, but I always believed D&D to be premised off every class having something unique to offer. There would, and should, be times that "we're going to need a rogue," or "this is a job for the fighter."
Has anyone examined the pros/cons of home-brewing iconic monsters to more resemble their original forms?
Many monsters, especially demons, had spell-like abilities that could spice up encounters, especially the Teleportation game. Now, demons are largely like everything else: run in and do a multi-attack melee.
In summary, I understand the design to allow all players to contribute at all times, but I always believed D&D to be premised off every class having something unique to offer. There would, and should, be times that "we're going to need a rogue," or "this is a job for the fighter."
Has anyone examined the pros/cons of home-brewing iconic monsters to more resemble their original forms?
