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

[Nadan]

They chucked that approach 17 years ago but went partway back to it in 2014. In hindsight the 2014 move seems to have worked out fairly well for them where the 2008 move did not, so it's a bit surprising to see them leaning toward chucking it again.

Well, the default 2014 general NPC stat block all hit like wet noodle no matter their CR. And that still true for some in MMoM.
The new approach is "It's a CR xx creature first and need to have appropriate general DPR and HP"

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the default 2014 general NPC stat block all hit like wet noodle no matter their CR. And that still true for some in MMoM.
The new approach is "It's a CR xx creature first and need to have appropriate general DPR and HP"

Correlation does not equal causation. Hitting like a wet noodle doesn't have anything to do with verisimilitude, and moving away from verisimilitude wasn't at all necessary to increase monster damage.

 

[Hussar]

100%. I can make a housefly and give it an elephant stat block if I want to. That doesn't mean that there won't be consistency issues with the tiny fly that weighs 12 milligrams, but has a 22 strength, but only a 9 dex. And so on.

Again, consistency is still a part of the NPC creation rules, even if they are different rules than those used to create PCs. Lack of consistency creates problems like the non-magical housefly above that has a 22 strength, but the dex of a stump instead of a fly.

But you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the inconsistency between monsters. Not inconsistency between PC and NPC rules. Your fly is inconsistent since it does not really follow how other monsters are made. It has nothing whatsoever to do with PC rules.

But, since we're talking about consistency, what is the justification for a 2014 bugbear doing 2d8 points of damage with a longsword? Adding in "Brute" is really needed here? True, they do give it the Brute description. That's true. But, why is a Bugbear a brute, but an ogre isn't? How is that consistent? After all, isn't an ogre bigger and stronger than a bugbear? Statswise it is. So, why does a bugbear with a great club deal 3d6 damage, while an ogre only deals 2d6?

How in the world could you possibly narrate that in a consistent and satisfying way? What have you been doing for these past ten years with this massive inconsistency in the 2014 rules?

Oh, right, you ignored it. Just like you ignored the ten thousand other inconsistencies in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

But you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the inconsistency between monsters. Not inconsistency between PC and NPC rules. Your fly is inconsistent since it does not really follow how other monsters are made. It has nothing whatsoever to do with PC rules.

But, since we're talking about consistency, what is the justification for a 2014 bugbear doing 2d8 points of damage with a longsword? Adding in "Brute" is really needed here? True, they do give it the Brute description. That's true. But, why is a Bugbear a brute, but an ogre isn't? How is that consistent? After all, isn't an ogre bigger and stronger than a bugbear? Statswise it is. So, why does a bugbear with a great club deal 3d6 damage, while an ogre only deals 2d6?

How in the world could you possibly narrate that in a consistent and satisfying way? What have you been doing for these past ten years with this massive inconsistency in the 2014 rules?

Oh, right, you ignored it. Just like you ignored the ten thousand other inconsistencies in 5e.

You mean this?

"Brute. A melee weapon deals one extra die of its damage when the bugbear hits with it (included in the attack)."

That's exactly what we are saying 5.5e needs.

 

[Nadan]

I think this argument is hopeless, it is like they will argue skeleton can be suffocated by water because 2024 stop writing Undead Nature in the description. (And this already has happened in Reddlt)

Edit : skeleton is bad example cause they already immune Exhaustion, vampire is more appropriate

 

[Maxperson]

I think this argument is hopeless, it is like they will argue skeleton can be suffocated by water because 2024 stop writing Undead Nature in the description. (And this already has happened in Reddlt)

It's hopeless because it's a matter of preference. Some of us like the monsters to make sense within the fiction, and others don't care if they make sense, liking it to just give numbers. But hey, nice Strawman. Nobody has argued anything like that here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find it amusing that although WotC have discard the verisimilitude approach since 17 year ago already (when 4e came out), some people here still treat it like just happened yesterday and insist the verisimilitude approach is the one true way.

It's certainly not the one true way, but it's the one I prefer, and one that can IMO be done in D&D-style (in 5e even) better than WotC's current offering.

 

[Clint_L]

I think this argument is hopeless, it is like they will argue skeleton can be suffocated by water because 2024 stop writing Undead Nature in the description. (And this already has happened in Reddlt)

Edit : skeleton is bad example cause they already immune Exhaustion, vampire is more appropriate

Actually, a vampire should be vulnerable to water.

 

[Nadan]

Actually, a vampire should be vulnerable to water.

They are vulnerable to "Running water". Things like a swiming pool or a large enough barrel filled with water aren't "running water".
Amusingly a Water Elemental dash through their space technically IS "running water".

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Some of us like the monsters to make sense within the fiction, and others don't care if they make sense, liking it to just give numbers.

I think it would be more accurate to say that some of us prefer that the game make sense in certain dimensions, but are willing to overlook the fact that it doesn’t make sense in other dimensions.

Why don’t monsters make death saves when they reach 0 hit points? What does a hit point even mean when a low-level character has few of them, and a high-level character has a bucket load of them? Why is it acceptable to drastically change the meaning of damage in one dimension (character hit points), while insisting that the meaning of damage remain constant in another dimension (weapons)?

These preferences are arbitrary and based on familiariy and legacy traditions. For what it’s worth I share your general preferences but I don’t assert that they contribute to a sense of realism in any meaningful way.