Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kwalish Kid" data-source="post: 4105213" data-attributes="member: 446">I, frankly, don't understand what the complaint is here. I mean, I think I understand what the complaint is, but I can't comprehend how someone could have this complaint.From what has been said, it's fairly certain that for a creature like the gnoll:1) The creature is a versatile one that can play different roles,2) The roles that gnolls tend to take, and the way that they enact these roles, is explicitly laid out in the MM,3) The mechanics for creating a gnoll PC, or NPC hero, are laid out in the appendix to the MM.This leaves me with some questions:If there is a problem with wanting to figure out how a gnoll fills a certain role, how much clearer could this be than having the actual roles, with all the suggested mechanics, actually placed before a DM?If there is a problem with DMs figuring out how to make gnolls that fill a different role, isn't the examples of gnolls for other roles an excellent resourse?If there is a problem with creating new gnolls, isn't the information in the appendix enough? (It may be that the gnoll, specifically, isn't a monster with a PC write-up available initially. However, the gnoll is simply one example of the humanoids and we could pick another.)Isn't the information provided in the MM for standard humanoid races exactly what a DM needs for "bottom-up" design?</blockquote>