D&D 5E Starter Set: Except 7

[Thaumaturge]

People new to the game are going to play the adventure before using the monster stats to make up their own stuff. And I will be flabbergasted, gobsmacked, and dumbstruck if the monsters aren't described when they appear in the adventure.

Also, nonplussed and bewildered.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Agamon]

We also haven't read the remaining 63 pages in the module; it is entirely possible the nothic's description is in some flavor text in the adventure itself.

Wouldn't it be weird to include a monster hardly anyone's heard of, in a product where space is at a premium, and not actually use said monster in an adventure that came with said product?

I love how people take these out of context preview pages and proclaim judgement on them as though they are complete products. They must think the designers of the game are a bunch of monkeys banging on typewriters. My forehead is red from all the facepalms reading this thread.

 

[Dausuul]

That's a pretty stat block - easy to read, very easy to find everything.

But, I'm a little surprised that the lack of flavour text has not been commented on. I mean, I have no idea what a Nothic looks like. It used to be a wizard, but, now it's an aberration. That's it. Considering the massive negative reaction 4e got for being sparse with flavour text, I'm wondering how this version fares.

I give the Starter Set a pass because they've got to cram DM guidelines and treasure and monsters and a full-fledged adventure into a 64-page book. Considering the constraints they're working under, I think the details given for the nothic are more than generous. Though it would have been nice to get at least a hint of what they look like... but as others have pointed out, that might appear in the adventure.

If the Monster Manual, with five times the page count devoted entirely to monsters, is equally sparse, then I'll be annoyed.

 

[thundershot]

Aww... I was hoping every monster would get art again...

Oh wait, this isn't the Monster Manual.. There's still hope.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You know, I'm disappointed that all three creatures have the same XP total, matching their CR. I was kind of hoping that they'd decoupled the two - wouldn't it be better to have the ability to say "we recommend throwing these against a 3rd level party, but against a higher level party you'll need twice as many dire boars as you would firenewts" or something?

I thought they wanted to get rid of a strict mathematical relationship between CR and encounter building. CR was supposed to be the guideline, and the XP budget the framework. Now I think they're just two looks at the same number.

 

[Boarstorm]

Keep in mind how small our sample size is, Wombat. The two may yet be disconnected and we just happened to get a non-representative sample.

 

[the Jester]

So what happens if you have less players? We regularly play with only 2-3 players and one of our complaints with 4E was the long combats and low damage to hit point ratio. Seems like 5E is going to give us the same issue.

The adventure building guidelines talk about this, I'm pretty sure. I think it's pretty simple, probably cribbing from the 4e technique (which boils down to, "You have x players of level y? Use monsters worth a total xp of (x) times (the xp value of a monster of level y)."

There is one thing I hope they fix, and that's the formatting of the ability stat block. They should remove emphasis of the stat, since it won't be used most of the time.

Instead of writing
Str
18 (+4)

They should have written:
Str
+4 (18)

I disagree. This is a matter of taste, obviously, but I prefer the raw value being emphasized. Not that there's a right or wrong on this one, just personal preference.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I agree, would someone know to google it?

There's all sorts of ways that we, as posters on this board, can be condescending to People Who Aren't Us (heck, we're even condescending to people who are us!), and obviously some people find value in looking for problems when there is insufficient information on which to base a judgement. That's all to be expected. This deserves a prize, however.

Is this a sincere concern? If so, then I will offer a guess: the designers expect players will know what google is.

Keep in mind how small our sample size is, Wombat. The two may yet be disconnected and we just happened to get a non-representative sample.

Exactly -- compare the play test bestiary, where Ogre and Ochre Jelly had the same CR, as did Mummy, the one immediately before it. It's an artifact of the page selected.

 

[Dausuul]

I disagree. This is a matter of taste, obviously, but I prefer the raw value being emphasized. Not that there's a right or wrong on this one, just personal preference.

While it is a personal preference, emphasizing the modifier over the raw value has clear utility. It makes it easier for newbies to get into the game, and when you're in the middle of running a game and need to make a Dex check for the monster, your eye is drawn to the number you need. I have trouble imagining any scenario in-game where you would need to know the monster's raw Dex score.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree. This is a matter of taste, obviously, but I prefer the raw value being emphasized. Not that there's a right or wrong on this one, just personal preference.

I think there is kind of a right - the actual value you'll be using is the + or - one. The number is going to be used far less often (almost never). So not emphasizing it (despite them doing so on the character sheets!) is a bit silly.

Plus, as Dausuul says, it helps newbies. I have seen, many times, less able or newer players confused by stuff like "add your ability score modifier", especially if shorthanded to something like "plus your STR", and thinking they use the "big number". So the bit that actually matters should be emphasized. Pretty sure it's just grognard-pandering to go the other way.