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

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.
But, that's utterly pointless. What does it actually mean? How do you narrate that? Why would a bugbear, which is about half the size of an ogre get this but NOTHING else does?

This is exactly what I mean about the thin veneer of cruft that convinced people that this was some sort of simulation. Brute is utterly meaningless. It cannot be narrated, it doesn't actually make any sense, yet, it's what 2024 needs? No, it really doesn't. Because, here's the thing. Bugbears and gladiators both get it. You might be able to make the argument that the big, strong bugbear, which is quite a bit bigger than a human, might get it - you might squeeze by on that one. But let's see you explain what that means with a human.

My raging barbarian with a girdle of giant strength, power attacking, cannot get an extra die of damage. Yet, a gladiator can? Can I be trained? What if I have the gladiator background? How does that gladiator learn to be a brute, but I can't?

On and on. This is why this argument never goes anywhere. What is considered "inconsistent" is ... well... entirely inconsistent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That it's a mage class and not a wizard class means that details will be different. That detail isn't omitted, it's right there in the stat block. 1d8. If they had called it a wizard, the hit dice would have to be d6.

If they could have subclass spells that are different from the stat block, the stat block would have to say it. Unless the DM decided to make an alteration to the NPC and give it a subclass. DMs can modify stat blocks. Same with proficiencies and anything else.

Nothing that is necessary isn't detailed in the 2014 mage stat block. There is nothing it gives me that is inconsistent with how things work with PCs. It's not using a 3rd level slot to cast fireball and do 12d6 damage. It isn't going to be hitting you with a dagger and doing 4d6 damage with no explanation for how.
Why can a PC cleric pick up a weapon and deal an extra 1d8 fire damage at will? Why can a PC fighter score crits on both a 19 and a 20? That's a learned skill, inherent ability, or other such trait, right?

Why does the PC cleric have proficiency in Wisdom and Charisma saves? Learned skill or other similar ability from their cleric training, correct? As detailed in the cleric class description.

So the 2014 mage NPC has proficiency in Intelligence and Wisdom saves, but there's no explanation as to why. Like you say, they just have that, and it's obvious from the stat block. Why is the NPC guard proficient with spears? Well, they just have that ability. A PC wizard doesn't have proficiency in greatswords because the wizard class doesn't grant that, as described in the class description.

So we have many traits that are omitted from the 2014 NPC stat blocks, and no one's complaining really. Why does the mage have a d8 HD and proficiency in Arcana and History? Well, because they just do! Because those are listed on the stat block, it means they get them. Simple as that. Why is this NPC proficient with the greataxe but this other one is not? Why does this NPC have no saving throw proficiencies at all? Well, they just don't. The explanation is right there, they don't, ergo they don't have such an ability.

But suddenly there's a problem when the 2025 update comes along. To me, it just seems that the issue is change. It's done a little different, so that feels wrong. All the omitted traits in the 2014 NPC stat blocks are fine, but the change in the 2025 version is wrong -- even though the 2025 versions follow the exact same logic as the 2014 versions: you don't have to include every single trait that applies an always-on adjustment to the creature's abilities.

The PC cleric can deal extra damage with their weapon and the PC fighter can score more critical hits because they have a learned skill or an inherent ability. The exact same reasoning applies to the NPC stat blocks. The NPC can deal extra dice of damage with a weapon because they clearly have a learned skill or an inherent ability -- but we don't have to spell it out because it's evident just from the fact that it's featured on the stat block, just like their HD, saving throws, ability score totals, skills, vision traits, etc. We don't include a trait "Drow Darkvision: Drow have superior darkvision up to 120 ft." for drow NPCs, because simply having "Darkvision 120 ft." in the vision section is plenty enough. The reason why the drow NPC has 120 ft. darkvision is due to their inherent ability or learned skill, just like this other NPC's higher damage is due to learned skill or inherent ability.

The aarakocra NPC can wield a weapon with extra damage and magic because it can, the same way it has its particular HD or saving throws or other magical abilities: learned skill or inherent ability.

My issue with these complaints is that they are applied incredibly inconsistently. Why is this NPC's inherent ability or learned skill okay to simply state through its stats without a specific trait that spells it out, but this other NPC's inherent ability or learned skill must include a trait that simply says that the creature has that trait?
 

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.
Which just means their CR is set too high. Either that, or PCs have too many hit points. Probably both.
The new approach is "It's a CR xx creature first and need to have appropriate general DPR and HP"
Wouldn't it have made more sense to just lower the CR?
 

Why don’t monsters make death saves when they reach 0 hit points?
Very good and valid question. For non-living foes such as undead and constructs, sure, they're destroyed at 0. Living creatures, though, should IMO all work the same in this regard; thus if PCs get death saves then so should NPCs and living monsters. Pain in the butt for the DM to have to keep rolling all those saves, though, so maybe the solution is either a) no more death saves for PCs or b) find a more elegant system that works for all creatures (unconscious at 0, dead at -10 seems simple enough).
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?
This would be FAR easier to answer if D&D would ever go to a wound-vitality or body-fatigue hit point system. :) Low-level characters haven't built up the skill and endurance to be able to handle the punishment that higher-level types can take; they're mostly relying on their body points - which everyone has and that don't change with level.
 

Which just means their CR is set too high. Either that, or PCs have too many hit points. Probably both.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to just lower the CR?
WotC have a weird commitment about not change CR for old monster. So instead reduce most NPC's CR they boost their states to meet their monster peer. In one case like archmage wotc nerf it by made them cast Lv.9 version Cone of Cold instead of proper Lv.9 spells, due to slamming spells like Meteor swarm or Psychic scream being too powerful for a CR12 creature.

EDIT: But on the other hand, cast things like Time Stop is almost waste of time in most situation.
 
Last edited:

This would be FAR easier to answer if D&D would ever go to a wound-vitality or body-fatigue hit point system. :) Low-level characters haven't built up the skill and endurance to be able to handle the punishment that higher-level types can take; they're mostly relying on their body points - which everyone has and that don't change with level.
Believe it or not, I am actually familiar with the various arguments surrounding hit points.

The thrust of my question - why is it acceptable to change the meaning of damage in one dimension (character hit points) but not in another (weapon damage) still stands. Besides preference, that is.
 

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"
which is not the part anyone is complaining about
 

Something that did just occur to me as well. Since the argument is that having these abilities somehow makes things more consistent, I'm rather curious how it is explained that my HALFLING gladiator (after all, Gladiator's can be any humanoid race) deals MORE damage than an ogre using the same weapon.

I'm rather interested to hear how that is meant to be narrated. After all, I'm told that having the reason explained in the stat block and called out makes it reified and consistent. So, please, anyone, could you clarify how my halfling with a 19 strength deals more damage with a weapon than an ogre can. It's literally impossible for the ogre to deal more damage using exactly the same weapons. In fact, that same halfling with a 10 strength can potentially deal more damage with the same weapon than an ogre can.

Surely that's all explained under the rubric of "brute".
 


which is not the part anyone is complaining about
It, in fact, is all you are complaining about. Longsword hit harder in one NPC's hand than in PC's or other monster? Have extra rider?
It is all about meet the expected DPR for CR. WotC just stop write the fluff text to "justify" why they hit harder, for saving page space I guess.
 

Remove ads

Top