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

[Maxperson]

And it's also trivial to explain that the ability is any combination of special training and attunement, such that the PC can't simply equip and use the looted items.

Which is a weak and unsatisfactory justification after the fact. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not something that is satisfactory to either me or my group. We don't mind reasons(pre-written explanations for how) for things, but justifications after the fact are off the table for us.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is a weak and unsatisfactory justification after the fact. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not something that is satisfactory to either me or my group. We don't mind reasons(pre-written explanations for how) for things, but justifications after the fact are off the table for us.

I don't do it after that fact. My campaign is littered with items engraved with cheap runes that are "attunable by X race". I also have a ton of "feats" that are based on giving bonuses to using very niche items. It's how I keep humanoids feeling "PC-like", which still being customizable and bespoke.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't do it after that fact. My campaign is littered with items engraved with cheap runes that are "attunable by X race". I also have a ton of "feats" that are based on giving bonuses to using very niche items. It's how I keep humanoids feeling "PC-like", which still being customizable and bespoke.

That's fine, too. If you have pre-established these things, that works. I also don't want to have to go through the entire 5.5e MM and write in abilities for these things. That's a lot of work that I don't want to, and shouldn't have to do.

 

[Remathilis]

we were comparing how 2014 got it right and 2024 got it wrong. You just found another example for it

Here is some straight comparisons:

Hobgoblin 14: AC 18, HP 11. Atk: +3, Damage 5 + 7 = 12 if another hobgoblin is next to them. (Alone or separated, their damage is just 5).

Hobgoblin 24: AC 18, HP 11, Atk +3 (advantage if another hobgoblin is next to them), damage 12.

So what is different? Well, the AC and HP is consistent. The difference is that the 14 hobgoblin needs allies to deal the proper amount of damage. A hobgoblin without other hobgoblins next to them is doing half the damage of his CR. Whereas the 24 hobgoblin is consistent in his damage and only gets an advantage (literally) to hit with allies. It keeps the "dangerous in groups" element but doesn't turn a lone hobgoblin into a non threat.

For versimillitude's sake, you would prefer the hobgoblin's damage to be inconsistent and often times worse than other creatures of its CR. I mean, you can believe what you want, but then shut up about how 5e monsters hit like wet noodles and PCs don't fear death.

 

[TwoSix]

That's fine, too. If you have pre-established these things, that works. I also don't want to have to go through the entire 5.5e MM and write in abilities for these things. That's a lot of work that I don't want to, and shouldn't have to do.

I found a very easy solution to that in not buying the new MM.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd be good with that. You don't really need stats for low-level mooks, and high-challenge humanoids should be unique and created with some forethought.

Oh, I thought the "where are the orcs and drow" threads were bad, the "where are the orcs, drow, kobolds, goblinoids, gnolls, aarakroca, lizardfolk, merfolk, skeletons, ogres, etc.." would be spectacular...

 

[Maxperson]

For versimillitude's sake, you would prefer the hobgoblin's damage to be inconsistent and often times worse than other creatures of its CR. I mean, you can believe what you want, but then shut up about how 5e monsters hit like wet noodles and PCs don't fear death.

The bolded is flat out incorrect and you know it. How many times do we have to tell you that there are other acceptable ways for them to do the damage that 5.5.e has them at?

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, I thought the "where are the orcs and drow" threads were bad, the "where are the orcs, drow, kobolds, goblinoids, gnolls, aarakroca, lizardfolk, merfolk, skeletons, ogres, etc.." would be spectacular...

If I were in charge (O Glorious Day!), a "Faction Manual" describing the core concepts of all the various races, with examples of both a "standard" approach and setting variants would be the defacto "Fourth Core Book".

Skeletons, though should just be a bog-standard CR 1/4-CR 1/2 creature with damage listed "As weapon wielded".

 

[Maxperson]

I found a very easy solution to that in not buying the new MM.

Yeah. I'm not buying any of the new books. However, my friend who owns a game store needed an emergency replacement for his D&D 101 session the other night. I get $50 in store credit and think I will use it on the DMG for the Greyhawk and Bastions. It is free after all.

 

[ezo]

For versimillitude's sake, you would prefer the hobgoblin's damage to be inconsistent and often times worse than other creatures of its CR. I mean, you can believe what you want, but then shut up about how 5e monsters hit like wet noodles and PCs don't fear death.

I would prefer an explanation in the statblock for why a hobgoblin does 2d10 with a longsword one-handed... Something, anything, but there is no rhyme nor reason for it.

Any why the poison damage with the longbow? Just to artificially inflate the damage. I mean, if the Gear section included poison... which the PCs could get, then fine I suppose, but it doesn't.

And AC 18 without justification as well. We assume half-plate, shield, and DEX +1. But then what about with the longbow? Should be AC 16, right? You would think so, but again, with things like a 2d10 longsword why assume they need the shield for AC 18?

These are nonsensical changes made from 2014 where information was included and you knew why it was the way it was--even if you didn't like it.

I mean, the new statblock could have had a feature like Martial Excellence: The Hobgoblin deals one additional die of damage with any weapon it wields (included in the attack).