D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[TwoSix]

That's simply not the case. If there are general systems, players are perfectly capable and interested in extrapolating from them. Not knowing the precise details of any specific NPC does not preclude them from making inferences from what they do know. If nothing else, a player should be able to judge that an enemy wielding a greatsword in two hands will likely do more damage per hit than an enemy wielding a longsword and a shield.

You could go even further in the 3e days. Two-handed manufactured weaponry on an enemy that is supposed to be a skilled combatant means Power Attack, which means avoiding letting the enemy do full attacks, debuffing the enemy's accuracy, or buffing your AC are all probably more effective than usual. You can imagine a step further still, with specific DCs to make knowledge checks to determine what other abilities might modify the opponent's damage, and combat actions that aren't as miserable to use as Power Attack and Combat Expertise.

There's obviously a loss of information if you render the relationship between the enemy's fictional description and mechanical output into a black box, or a CR calculation.

Principle wise, I think I fall into a somewhat underdiscussed middle.

For monsters like a beholder or an aboleth or a nycaloth, I really don't care how the "sausage is made", stat-wise. Those kinds of monsters are built specifically to concept, and don't really have any sort of grounding in PC-facing rules.

Humanoid NPCs, on the other hand, those which have a strong fictional resemblance to PCs, I do think should follow similar build principles to PCs, although they don't have to be slavishly followed. Any humanoid opponent that's in the higher CRs is, narratively, almost assuredly an important individual within the fiction, and should be created and treated as such.

 

[TiQuinn]

Principle wise, I think I fall into a somewhat underdiscussed middle.

For monsters like a beholder or an aboleth or a nycaloth, I really don't care how the "sausage is made", stat-wise. Those kinds of monsters are built specifically to concept, and don't really have any sort of grounding in PC-facing rules.

Humanoid NPCs, on the other hand, those which have a strong fictional resemblance to PCs, I do think should follow similar build principles to PCs, although they don't have to be slavishly followed. Any humanoid opponent that's in the higher CRs is, narratively, almost assuredly an important individual within the fiction, and should be created and treated as such.

So much this.

3e tried to solve this by leveling monsters and giving them classes and while it works, the downside is it does add a lot of mechanical complexity to the game when you just want to add some monsters to your game but are now having to level them up to make them challenging. We had a perfectly fine solution in the Volos guide - there are standard hobgoblins, and then there are elite hobgoblins, your Iron Shadows, your Devastators. It’s abstracting the leveling, and saying that you have a more powerful Hobgoblin as a result.

 

[Remathilis]

no, that is the problem when they have to do so with a sword

The problem is no matter what they would have done, people would find fault in it.

The 24 Aarakroca has a magical javelin that deals thunder damage and returns to its hand, but only the aarakroca can use this magical weapon and people complained it can't be looted and used by PCs.

The 24 hobgoblin uses a mundane longsword that can be looted but deals more damage when used by a hobgoblin to account for it's CR and people complain about that. You could say that they have special hobgoblin fey metal longswords, but the PCs would absolutely want to loot those for 2d10 damage.

So no matter which way you go with weapons, you lose. Magical weapon tied to the monster? No good. Mundane weapon scaled to appropriate damage per CR? No good. I guess give every monster claw and bite attacks? Or maybe give every creature over CR 1 three or more weapon attacks per round that do minor damage and hope you can win by attrition? (And drag each fight out to multiple round grinds)

Yeah, something has to give.

 

[mamba]

The 24 Aarakroca has a magical javelin that deals thunder damage and returns to its hand, but only the aarakroca can use this magical weapon and people complained it can't be looted and used by PCs.

that is the same problem as the sword of the hobgoblin

It has to be an ability of the monster that accounts for the difference, not Schrodinger’s weapon stats

 

[ezo]

As per @Remathilis request:

 

[Remathilis]

that is the same problem as the sword of the hobgoblin

It has to be an ability of the monster that accounts for the difference, not Schrodinger’s weapon stats

That's what I mean about audits. What does it do to have a trait that says:
"Wind Weilder: any weapon an aarakroca skirmisher weilds gains the ability of a returning weapon and does an extra 1d4 thunder damage on a hit."

Did we answer how the aarakroca is doing that? No? How about:

"Wind Weilder: do to the blessing of the Wind Dukes of Aqua, any weapon an aarakroca skirmisher weilds gains the ability of a returning weapon and does an extra 1d4 thunder damage on a hit."

Oh, is that too lore-specific? And we continue this dance. There is no solution that will satisfy.

 

[Distracted DM]

As per @Remathilis request:
View attachment 396907

I both respect and boggle at your use of Light Mode.

Considering that HP and damage is abstract anyway, yeah it makes sense that a warrior could end up doing more than 1d6 with a shortsword. Perhaps 2d6!
BUT one must question designer intent behind More Attacks vs More Damage: do we get More Attacks because it's more fun for players to roll more dice? More chances for crits = more fun?
But also yeah, rolling more to-hit dice = more time per player turn :'( screw that

 

[ezo]

From the other thread, concerning hobgoblins, here is my re-write for the Hobgoblin Warrior.

Their Exceptional Arms and Armor trait grants them bonuses. If their armor or weapons are taken after their defeat, the bonues last for 24 hours or until a long rest or whatever. The idea is the hobgoblins have knowledge on how to tend their armor/weapons that give them this bonus, but it is the constant care which allows them to have it as part of their statblock.

 

[Maxperson]

So, it's totally believable that you absolutely cannot kill someone with a sword if they have enough HP? How does one narrate that? Someone is sleeping, totally incapacitated, but, if they have enough HP, you literally, no matter what, cannot ever kill them with a single blow of an axe or sword. And that creates no inconsistencies.

Rulings over rules. In my game if someone or something is helpless and unable to move, if someone or something wants to kill it, it dies with one stroke of the sword, dagger or whatever.

But, a hobgoblin does the same damage as a fighter, and that's totally inconsistent unless we start to build the monster the way that PC's are built.

Here's a hint:

MONSTERS ARE NOT BUILT USING PC RULES IN FIFTH EDITION D&D

But some things need to be consistent or it makes for in-fiction contradictions which are bad. One of those things is, "My longsword does 2d10 damage, but yours only does 1d8, even though they are identical weapons."

 

[ezo]

I both respect and boggle at your use of Light Mode.

LOL it is intense, huh?

Considering that HP and damage is abstract anyway, yeah it makes sense that a warrior could end up doing more than 1d6 with a shortsword. Perhaps 2d6!
BUT one must question designer intent behind More Attacks vs More Damage: do we get More Attacks because it's more fun for players to roll more dice? More chances for crits = more fun?
But also yeah, rolling more to-hit dice = more time per player turn :'( screw that

It can be accomplished either with more attacks (e.g. fighters), more damage (rogues), or a combination of both.

FWIW, one of the few house-rules I use for a few years now is Critical Damage, not critical hits... so rolling more damage dice leads to criticals being more likely--the d20 doesn't matter for us in this respect.

Granting advantage on damage of course increases the chance of critical damage.

A few of my homebrew fighter class write-ups includes Improved Weapon Damage: you have advantage on weapon damage rolls.

So, I guess we have the best of both worlds: more chances to crit, and not more to-hit rolls. (Frankly, these are practically pointless in 5E anyway giving how often attacks hit... but that is a different issue.)