Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 3720280" data-attributes="member: 10913">I agree with both sides, but ultimately I'm rooting for Mearls' position.Player characters should be fairly hard to run efficiently and their advancement should include difficult and interesting choices. That's fun for the player.Monsters should be very easy to run and advance or modify. That's fun for the DM.These two goals aren't compatible.Modularity in 3e was great. I love it. I'm willing to throw odd-PCs out the window, however, to make room for easier DMing. DMing 3e is too hard, it isn't worth the modularity. It would be better to live with decreased modularity and purchase or hack together rules for my pixie paladin PC.That said, monsters should not be confined to narrow combat-only niches. If a minotaur doesn't have stats that make it clear how well he climbs a cliff, it isn't well-designed. Monsters and NPCs should be easier to build, advance, and modify - but they should still be well-rounded. I have trust in D&D's design team to make it so.Monsters should also function well within the setting, not just in combat. I have faith in D&D's design team on that front too. Indeed, I think I've heard somewhere that the MM will place greater emphasis on the ecology of the entries.</blockquote>