This thread contains a compilation of the Monster Manual 2025 stat blocks which have been previewed publicly so far.
You told me that equipment and AC don't have to correlate so why should daage type?Why would I do that?
And so on. Should work.
Oh, certainly. We've done stuff like this for 5E. We even added the Vitality/Wounds system from d20 SW.Could actually work.
Yeah. The bar for what is D&D and what not is not so high. 4e has suffered from that. 4e essentials might have been better received if it came before 4e.Oh, certainly. We've done stuff like this for 5E. We even added the Vitality/Wounds system from d20 SW.
It is just not "D&D" to people when you make these sorts of changes.
Edit: FWIW it is what is going on with our current project, which is not supposed to be "D&D".
If you want to discuss it further, I suggest starting a new thread since I don't want to derail this one even more. I'll keep an eye out for it if you do. Most of the stuff you posted upthread was stuff we did as well (or close to it).I think it is actually worth a try. It is not hard to convert.
I guess if you are not proficient in armor, you don't get proficiency bonus to your defense score. I also think barbarian unarmkred defense use con as DR. And monks add wis to defense?
Shield spell adds to defense? Mage armor is DR?
Does every single one of this monster type attack with a hammer? Do they never use anything else?Hammer: bludgeoning damage expected.
Or is very good at dodging, like a great many PCs. Or is a monk, or is a barbarian, or has mage armor running or has barkskin running...High AC: some kind of heavier armor expected.
It certainly tells me that it is a universe in which the rules of action movie physics hold sway.Does having higher HP make the game/narration unreliable for you, too?
DR is a mess.Does not help for narration. If you want that, better use AC as damage reduction and have a defense score.
Of course you can change it. That is the point.
Someone said, it does not matter how we get to AC. Because it is a made up number and noonce cares.
That is not my experience: players do care if numbers and descrived visual are matching.
Hammer: bludgeoning damage expected.
High AC: some kind of heavier armor expected.
So when I have an enemy that attacks me with a hammer and deals piercing damage and wears cloth, people are rightfully expecting change self on the enemy. Or at least an illusion on the hammer, IF there is no other explanation.
It could be a barbarian with a claw hammer. In that case I should have described the enemy better. In some way that the players can deduce it.
Yes. Of course. If you descrobe the hammer woth one spike on one side thatvis possible. But not my example.Many real world war hammers could do piercing as well as bludgeoning damage because they had a spike on the back side. But how often does the difference between bludgeoning, piercing and slashing really matter? I can't remember the last time I had to clarify other than that it wasn't some kind of elemental damage such as fire.
Not my example.Does every single one of this monster type attack with a hammer? Do they never use anything else?
If so, spell it out. And describe it. I don't like completely dissociated mechanics.Or is very good at dodging, like a great many PCs. Or is a monk, or is a barbarian, or has mage armor running or has barkskin running...