D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column Discussion: May

[Klaus]

True. Of course, that rationale no longer applies, so perhaps it's likewise time for those monsters to be consolidated?



Yes, yes it did. And if you're going to have all those different monsters, that's certainly the way to go.



Ah, but... are they? Personally, I'm far from convinced that I want baseline-D&D to make that assumption.

And, especially if I also have the easy ability to advance monsters, I'm inclined to think that having three distinct monsters that are essentially the same, and that the fluff assumes are essentially the same, is just redundant. Have one monster, that can be advanced. (Oddly enough, that's your "strong differentiation" argument again - if they're related, they're probably not distinct enough, so they can't justify their existence.)

But YMMV, as always.

Birthright went so far as to call bugbears "giant goblins".

Apropos of nothing, I'm posting some hobgoblins by Keith Parkinson:
[sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[Scribble]

Ah, but... are they? Personally, I'm far from convinced that I want baseline-D&D to make that assumption.

Original 1e MM says they are, and describes them as "Giant Hairy Goblins."

 

[Dausuul]

I heartily approve of all of these goals, especially #1. Although I hope #5 will be applied judiciously. Magic stands out by contrast with the mundane, which means you need a fair amount of the latter in order to make the former exciting. To misquote Syndrome, "When everything is magical, nothing is."

 

[DEFCON 1]

Have one monster, that can be advanced.

Only issue with that for me is that just because you advance a goblin's hit dice, doesn't ipsofacto mean the goblin gets bigger in size. A goblin with the hit dice equivalent of a bugbear is still a goblin. He's still of the same small stature and same personality and tendencies.

Just because goblins, hobbos, and bugbears are all species related does not mean they're interchangeable. I wouldn't want to replace stats for the lion, panther, tiger, and cheetah with just one "big cat" statblock either.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Birthright went so far as to call bugbears "giant goblins".

Apropos of nothing, I'm posting some hobgoblins by Keith Parkinson:

I figure you should consider the different species of Homo for ideas on how to make the different goblinoids similar, but different. Goblins are clearly the guinean-pygmy type, hobgoblins more like Habilis and bugbears the dreaded Neanderthal.

 

[Klaus]

I figure you should consider the different species of Homo for ideas on how to make the different goblinoids similar, but different. Goblins are clearly the guinean-pygmy type, hobgoblins more like Habilis and bugbears the dreaded Neanderthal.

Personally, I like using chimpanzees as the basis for goblins.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I like using chimpanzees as the basis for goblins.

It's what Pathfinder does. I think their hobgoblins look a little weird, though.

The problem is that D&D simply has too many poorly-differentiated monsters. Rather than try to differentiate ghosts, shades, wraiths, and all the others in the host (and, for that matter, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and all the other "low-level humanoid" monsters), surely it would be better to declare that these are just the same creature with different names?

I'd dispute this. They may have started off as "Like X, but +1!", but over the last 30+ years, they've gained a lot of interesting diversity in their fiction. A goblin and a hobgoblin and a bugbear and a kobold and a gnoll are all very different creatures these days. Cramming them all into one creature would invalidate a lot of their significant difference.

An art direction that recognizes and emphasizes those differences would be welcome.

An art direction that imposes some artificial differences that remarkably change what that monster now exists as would be a problem, though I imagine that with the whole "reuinification" ideal, they're going to keep this to a minimum.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that's the wrong solution to the problem. The problem is that D&D simply has too many poorly-differentiated monsters. Rather than try to differentiate ghosts, shades, wraiths, and all the others in the host (and, for that matter, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and all the other "low-level humanoid" monsters), surely it would be better to declare that these are just the same creature with different names?

Regardless of whether they're the same monster in various versions, or different monsters, you get the same thing mechanically.

And in exchange for gaining nothing mechanically, you throw away a lot of accumulated history that D&D players have with these monsters.

That doesn't sound like a winning proposition.

You may think of hobgoblins as goblins with 1+1 HD instead of 1-1, but they've had decades of play with thousands of players to build up something of an identity. You shouldn't toss that aside unless you have a really good reason.

 

[Gadget]

Seems to me that someone at Wizards really doesn't like Pathfinder art.

Count me as another!

 

[RangerWickett]

Those sounds like pretty reasonable goals for the most part.

So if I may, I think I will make a list of some of the art test submissions that really stood out to me.

I must have missed these. When did he post them?