FitzTheRuke
Legend
I agree entirely. The fighter is ALWAYS trying to do stuff like that, this is just the times that they pull it off.
D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!
I agree entirely. The fighter is ALWAYS trying to do stuff like that, this is just the times that they pull it off.
Let's try it this way. Is a Monster Manual a rulebook? It certainly has rules in it. But is it more of a DM reference than an actual rulebook?
If it were a rulebook, I'd expect to see detailed rules on how to create a monster of a given CR, with examples of special abilities and how higher or lower attack bonus, AC, hit points, and powers affect CR.
But we don't really get that, at least not in any in-depth way. Instead we are told "this is a monster, here is it's challenge rating and abilities". A stat block certainly contains rules, and it can contain rules unique to the monster/enemy in question, found nowhere else.
I will agree that a stat block isn't a rule, any more than your character sheet is a rule. And rules are used to create both.
The problem with monster stat blocks is that we don't know all the rules used to create them! We are left to guess at them, and it's part of why CR seems like such a terrible metric- why is this monster CR 17 if a 10th level party can destroy it in two rounds? Why does this monster have double digit Hit Dice, but is only CR 3?
I would make the case against fudging monster stat blocks simply on the merits that we don't know what metrics are used to (supposedly) balance them. We have to assume that the makers of the game think they are balanced for any player character made using their rule books (up to and including using rolled ability scores, as it is the default method in the PHB).*
That by adjusting monsters, we're now using our own judgment to decide if they are still an appropriate challenge or not, and we don't have good metrics for how this works. We have some confusing rules in the DMG, but they obviously don't cover new monster abilities. At what CR should we find, for example, abilities that automatically damage players nearby them? How do such abilities affect a monster's CR?
I don't know. You may feel you have a good handle on it, maybe by deconstructing other monsters, but you can't really know either until you see your modified creation in action. And note, "the party won" isn't by itself a metric of whether or not the modified creature was truly worth it's CR or not.
*Of course, this brings up another question. How balanced are monsters if players have access to Feats, Multiclassing, and magic items? All three are considered "optional". Where are our rules for adjusting monsters based on the presence of such things? Are monsters balanced with the idea of facing a multiclassed Barbarian/Druid, or a Fighter with Great Weapon Mastery or a PAM/Sentinel build?
The fact that the answer could be "no", but we have no reasonable metric for adjusting these creatures is also telling.
TLDR, since I know I can be long winded: as much as I dislike fudging, in a lot of ways, the DM is left in the dark as to how to balance the game. Or even to know that the game has any balance to begin with, other than WotC saying "hey, we sold you this book, trust us!". This kind of puts all of the arguments about things like "it's not fair to give monsters too many hit points" and "monsters/players have too many hit points" in perspective. We're all really just playing Marco Polo in a fog.
If it were a rulebook, I'd expect to see detailed rules on how to create a monster of a given CR, with examples of special abilities and how higher or lower attack bonus, AC, hit points, and powers affect CR.
But we don't really get that, at least not in any in-depth way. Instead we are told "this is a monster, here is it's challenge rating and abilities". A stat block certainly contains rules, and it can contain rules unique to the monster/enemy in question, found nowhere else.
I will agree that a stat block isn't a rule, any more than your character sheet is a rule. And rules are used to create both.
The problem with monster stat blocks is that we don't know all the rules used to create them! We are left to guess at them, and it's part of why CR seems like such a terrible metric- why is this monster CR 17 if a 10th level party can destroy it in two rounds? Why does this monster have double digit Hit Dice, but is only CR 3?
I would make the case against fudging monster stat blocks simply on the merits that we don't know what metrics are used to (supposedly) balance them. We have to assume that the makers of the game think they are balanced for any player character made using their rule books (up to and including using rolled ability scores, as it is the default method in the PHB).*
That by adjusting monsters, we're now using our own judgment to decide if they are still an appropriate challenge or not, and we don't have good metrics for how this works. We have some confusing rules in the DMG, but they obviously don't cover new monster abilities. At what CR should we find, for example, abilities that automatically damage players nearby them? How do such abilities affect a monster's CR?
I don't know. You may feel you have a good handle on it, maybe by deconstructing other monsters, but you can't really know either until you see your modified creation in action. And note, "the party won" isn't by itself a metric of whether or not the modified creature was truly worth it's CR or not.
*Of course, this brings up another question. How balanced are monsters if players have access to Feats, Multiclassing, and magic items? All three are considered "optional". Where are our rules for adjusting monsters based on the presence of such things? Are monsters balanced with the idea of facing a multiclassed Barbarian/Druid, or a Fighter with Great Weapon Mastery or a PAM/Sentinel build?
The fact that the answer could be "no", but we have no reasonable metric for adjusting these creatures is also telling.
TLDR, since I know I can be long winded: as much as I dislike fudging, in a lot of ways, the DM is left in the dark as to how to balance the game. Or even to know that the game has any balance to begin with, other than WotC saying "hey, we sold you this book, trust us!". This kind of puts all of the arguments about things like "it's not fair to give monsters too many hit points" and "monsters/players have too many hit points" in perspective. We're all really just playing Marco Polo in a fog.
Voadam
Legend
It's actually a relevant question if we are also asking "what is a rule?"Is one of the three iconic D&D core rulebooks a rulebook?
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Is one of the three iconic D&D core rulebooks a rulebook?
It's an iconic core book, but I would describe it primarily as a sourcebook.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Ask your DM.
That's too simplistic and bypasses a really interesting question. I have never really thought of it before, but I would say that no, the MM is NOT a rulebook in the sense that it doesn't establish rules. It establishes game elements within the rules framework.
I would suggest that there are rules in the MM, but that the stat blocks are not among them.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I think the semantic argument has become silly. If I ask you in what book the rules for Beholders are, what will you say?
Similar Threads
