D&D 5E I Hope I Hate 5e

[M.L. Martin]

What don't you like about Paizo's monster choices? I've never seen one of their monster books.

I was actually thinking more of their run on DRAGON and what I heard about the DUNGEON APs--I was getting tired of "Demons! Demons! Demons!" by the end there.

 

[Jawsh]

It's not the circle; the circle is the veneer. It creates an illusion of planar symmetry that looks great, but breaks down once you start thinking about it.

For example, the elemental planes aren't opposites of each other. Earth opposing air makes a certain amount of sense, but fire and water? One's a chemical reaction, the other's a state of matter. Wtf? And the para- and quasi-planes; don't get me started!

For examples from the outer planes, take a look at the exemplars. Demons are a random assortment of bizarre mongrel creatures, which makes sense for the exemplars of a chaotic plane. Now take a look at the archons; they're prettier but no less bizarre and varied. What are they doing as the exemplars of LG? And what about those eladrins, the CG exemplars: every one of them can be described as a super elf who can turn into a ball of light. Wth?

I won't get you started on the para- and quasi-planes. They are silly indeed. But the classical elements have some grounding in historical views on alchemy. Of course fire isn't an element. Everybody knows that. Except the ancient Greeks, but we all know how dumb they were.

I will take a quick look at the LG exemplars: hound, lantern, trumpet, throne, warden, owl; they might be varied, but they all have a connection to human ideas of heraldry and officialdom and regalness and kingliness. If you want a truly Lawful order of planar beings, you've got modrons right next door, which follow much more specific patterns.

And what about the eladrins? So they're kind of elf-like. So what?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's mention has brought up a flood of memories of this and other little things similar. Either way, I like that an elf is able to find secret doors, but I think it should be represented in a fixed way (bonus to Perception checks, etc...)

Not to be a buzzkill, but I don't imagine that working out very well in play either:

Player: I'm searching this room for anything interesting.
DM: Okay, roll Perception and add your elf bonus for secret doors...
Player: *Giggles*
DM: ...but you don't know what's there. Er, I mean, what may be there...
Other Players: Hey, let's help the elf find the secret door!
DM: Dammit, that was out of character!

Either that, or the DM has to mentally tack on the bonus every time an elf rolls against a secret door...which brings me back to an old issue with this: Why are elves so good at noticing secret doors? There can't be many of 'em in elvish forests. Are they an integral part of the elvish feng shui tradition?

I will take a quick look at the LG exemplars: hound, lantern, trumpet, throne, warden, owl; they might be varied, but they all have a connection to human ideas of heraldry and officialdom and regalness and kingliness. If you want a truly Lawful order of planar beings, you've got modrons right next door, which follow much more specific patterns.

Modrons are awesome. My last 4e adventure involved rescuing a rogue modron from one of the Lady's mazes.

I suppose the varied archon forms might make sense if some planar king wrote the blueprints, but I don't recall mention of such a creator.

And what about the eladrins? So they're kind of elf-like. So what?

The problem is that they're all elf-like, in the same way. I'd expect chaotic exemplars to vary widely in appearance and function. Like one kind shooting lightning from its blue arse, or something.

 

[Jawsh]

The problem is that they're all elf-like, in the same way. I'd expect chaotic exemplars to vary widely in appearance and function. Like one kind shooting lightning from its blue arse, or something.

That would be Aweeeeesommmmme!!!!!

So if I follow your logic, we're hoping that WotC doesn't make such a cool eladrin, because we don't want to like 5E, because we want to keep on playing our current favourite edition/iteration...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

AC should be partially realism based... giving monster appropriate equippment to achieve this... better... you should be able to guess from sight, which one is the tougher opponent maybe.

I think, that 4e did a little bit too much to balance monsters. You can use the roles... but if you look at newer books, not all artillery share the low AC anymore, but some lurkers do.

Monster roles may also be changed a bit in 5e. I hope, 5e has assigning monster roles just the other way around (actually I do design them that way):
IMHO you should assign:
AC, HP, Defenses, Attack bonus, Damage expression ranged, damage expression melee, consult a chart with appropriate level for the monster. Dress it up with PC advancement rules, and you get a certain number of hp, armor etc., look at the chart and know how much xp it is worth.
Guidelines should help:
Just say: here are 5 possible combinations that result in balanced monsters that can fullfill a cetain combat role very well: brute, lurker, skirmisher...
i hope you get the point.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Here's hoping for the Weapon vs. Armour Type table, with the armour type of cause give as AC instead of name.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

That would be Aweeeeesommmmme!!!!!

So if I follow your logic, we're hoping that WotC doesn't make such a cool eladrin, because we don't want to like 5E, because we want to keep on playing our current favourite edition/iteration...

Exactly. Let 5e be for the traditionalists who want the ol' homogenous eladrins from PS. I'm sure players like Shemeska would be ecstatic!

AC should be partially realism based... giving monster appropriate equippment to achieve this... better... you should be able to guess from sight, which one is the tougher opponent maybe.

I think, that 4e did a little bit too much to balance monsters. You can use the roles... but if you look at newer books, not all artillery share the low AC anymore, but some lurkers do.

Yeah, I write most of the monsters I use and I don't always follow the guidelines. NPC enchanters (controller) have low HP, because PC controllers do. I often give brutes average AC because it often doesn't make sense to make a monster clumsy just because it's a brute.

That said, I don't think 4e's guidelines are too balanced. Better to have a solid set of guidelines that can be freely ignored than half-arsed guidelines that don't help anyone.

Monster roles may also be changed a bit in 5e. I hope, 5e has assigning monster roles just the other way around (actually I do design them that way):
IMHO you should assign:
AC, HP, Defenses, Attack bonus, Damage expression ranged, damage expression melee, consult a chart with appropriate level for the monster. Dress it up with PC advancement rules, and you get a certain number of hp, armor etc., look at the chart and know how much xp it is worth.
Guidelines should help:
Just say: here are 5 possible combinations that result in balanced monsters that can fullfill a cetain combat role very well: brute, lurker, skirmisher...
i hope you get the point.

I don't think I do. I know you're a foreign speaker, so here's one word of advice: ellipses (...) are annoying and confusing when used often. Use them less, and your posts will become more readable.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Here's hoping for the Weapon vs. Armour Type table, with the armour type of cause give as AC instead of name.

Only if there are Weapon Speed adjustments, too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I was very tired when i wrote my last post, so here I try again.

In 4th edition, you assign a level and a role to the monster. As a result, monsters have a certain number of HP, AC, attack bonus and damage numbers and so on.
You can have monsters with rather high hp and low AC and vice versa. So you get nice and well balanced monsters, without having to deal with feats.

The main concern is: how do you assign equippment, that those stats are plausible.

In my opinion you should reverse the process:
First, chose Armor and Weapon. Then assign a some stats and a level. Assign attack, defenses, damage and hp.
Then you need to consider how much magical gear your players have.

And then you look up in a chart, what the encounter level of the monster is, which may be higher or lower as the monster level.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In my opinion you should reverse the process:
First, chose Armor and Weapon. Then assign a some stats and a level. Assign attack, defenses, damage and hp.
Then you need to consider how much magical gear your players have.

And then you look up in a chart, what the encounter level of the monster is, which may be higher or lower as the monster level.

Ah, so you'd like 5e to go back to challenge ratings. Well here's hoping you get your wish, because it'll make 5e that much less appealing to me!