D&D 5E 5e Hardcore: Monster Manual

[FormerlyHemlock]

TECHNICALLY, by the RAWest of RAW, a creature in a sack has total cover against everything, and everything has total cover against it.

No sane DM would rule that way though. I agree with MostlyDM--you don't need a "condition" to say, "You can't see outside the sack" any more than you need one to say "You can't see around corners." If you want to take inspiration from the way darkness is worded in the PHB you could say "you are blinded with respect to things outside the sack," but really that's redundant.

 

[dave2008]

I have updated the Ogre Collector to update the sack action per [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6788973]MostlyDm[/MENTION] 's suggestion

 

[CapnZapp]

In fact, I'd make the argument that a true advanced player/DM doesn't need more defined stat block abilities to make monsters interesting, but that argument has been done to death, so no point in repeating the whys here.

Feel free to call it the bad and lazy DMs monster manual, if that helps you from derailing the thread.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Compared to the monster design in the Monster Manual, it is definitely "advanced" when you can tell the designer has actual awareness of what a party of tricked-out characters run by veteran gamers can actually do.

Please stop underestimating the work and skill that goes into this.

You keep using that word, but it does not mean what you think it means. Adding more abilities is not advanced because you're not adding any complexity to the rules system. If I came out with a book of 500 weapons to use in 5e, it's not an "Advanced" book over the existing weapons, it's just more.

And stop with the constant insults of the design team. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve there. I'm pretty sure they are more than aware of how some people optimize. But guess what? They don't care. Why? Because that's not what the game is designed to be, and they probably realized that hard core optimizers are a minority and a lot of people really, really have bad feelings over how 3e rewarded system mastery and punished people who didn't, so they are staying away from it.

I'll ask you for a third time. Since you think 5e is clearly lacking in the options you want, and you've spent a lot of time and effort into talking about it, where are your solutions? Where are your products on the DM's Guild that people can use to fix the same problems you're having?

If you're going to armchair quarterback and sling insults about the competency of the designers, put up or shut up. Show me how what you have to offer is better.

 

[MostlyDm]

A post that no longer exists, it seems.

Yeah, that's precisely why I picked CR1. Tough enough that even as a speed bump, they're one of those sharp angle speed bumps that cause your car to bounce uncomfortably regardless what speed you drive over them.

To deal with them quickly at high level you're likely to use up either a lower level concentration spell or a higher level damage spell. Not a low level fire and forget damage spell. Which means there's some meaningful resource expenditure.

That can be mitigated if you have time and energy, e.g. Kiting them and whittling them down with ranged or whatever. That costs different resources: time, attention, actions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Feel free to call it the bad and lazy DMs monster manual, if that helps you from derailing the thread.

How am I derailing the thread? I replied to the conversation you and Hemlock were having. So unless you were derailing your own thread first, I can't see why you would say that. Between this and the other thread, you seem to be under this impression that everyone has to agree with you, or they are derailing. That's not what derailing means.

 

[CapnZapp]

I believe [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] 's point is that there already exist and AD&D player's guide - it is called the Player's Handbook." The free Basic PDF (4 classes, no multiclassing, no feats) is the Basic D&D. However, the MM is geared to be used with "Basic D&D," not the options available in the PHB, aka AD&D. Thus the need for an AD&D monster manual.

I do wish I had a chosen a different name, but it was CapnZapp's post that inspired me to start the thread.

I think you should identify if a poster's aim is to talk about other things that your monster stats, and simply ignore them. We've seen enough threads being derailed and shot down by mods as it is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, that's precisely why I picked CR1. Tough enough that even as a speed bump, they're one of those sharp angle speed bumps that cause your car to bounce uncomfortably regardless what speed you drive over them.

To deal with them quickly at high level you're likely to use up either a lower level concentration spell or a higher level damage spell. Not a low level fire and forget damage spell. Which means there's some meaningful resource expenditure.

That can be mitigated if you have time and energy, e.g. Kiting them and whittling them down with ranged or whatever. That costs different resources: time, attention, actions.

Sorry, I edited that post out of existence because I didn't want to fight about the subject--then I repurposed it to talk about something else. Now nobody else will know what you were originally quoting.

(I said that I assumed that 10 CR 1s were picked on purpose, because they typically have enough HP to be difficult to clear out with AoEs.)

 

[MostlyDm]

How am I derailing the thread? I replied to the conversation you and Hemlock were having. So unless you were derailing your own thread first, I can't see why you would say that. Between this and the other thread, you seem to be under this impression that everyone has to agree with you, or they are derailing. That's not what derailing means.

In fairness to Zap, I think he wants people to agree with the basic premise of the thread and then disagreements within that framework are okay.

Sort of like a rabbinical theological disagreement: other rabbis can argue their cases, but a catholic priest might not be welcome.

But it's a public forum and Dave seems confident in his positions and welcomes all forms of criticism, so... I think we should keep posting if we think we have something useful to say.

 

[dave2008]

TECHNICALLY, by the RAWest of RAW, a creature in a sack has total cover against everything, and everything has total cover against it.

No sane DM would rule that way though. I agree with MostlyDM--you don't need a "condition" to say, "You can't see outside the sack" any more than you need one to say "You can't see around corners." If you want to take inspiration from the way darkness is worded in the PHB you could say "you are blinded with respect to things outside the sack," but really that's redundant.

Yep, already corrected and re-posted.