Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 8559855" data-attributes="member: 83242">Yes, and IMO (and WotC apparently) they should be accounted for in the CR calculation.You are not weakening monsters by adding legendary actions. I think a see your perspective, but I don't agree with that viewpoint. The idea of "adding LA" is a meta viewpoint that doesn't have anything to do with the actual monster design IMO.If you don't count LA in the CR, then your CR is meaningless. You are essential making a new type of monster (like a 4e elite or solo or 5e mythic) at the same CR.  Are you adjusting the XP of these monsters if you are not adjusting the CR? Are you calling it something than Legendary Actions since they impact the monster differently?I actually don't mind these changes and they could be good.  However, I hope you are clear that:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You are not using the DMG guidelines</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You making new monster type</li> </ol>If you don't do that, then your are basically lying and confusing your users / players. So go with your design changes, just make it clear that these are changes / a different paradigm.That is not how that works IMO.  You don't need to nerf anything, you just admit they are more powerful. Right now you are saying: hey you have all of these new actions, but really these don't make you any stronger wink, wink.  They do make you stronger so that should be reflected by increasing the CR IMO.I will also add that I think LA for players is a mistake, but I will be interested to see how it works. I tried that route at first, but it lead to nearly incomprehensible game play for my test group.I disagree.  Actions that effect DPR should be included in CR.OK, it doesn't seem that random to me, but more structure would make it easier to design. I don't have an issue assign them personally, because I understand how they impact CR! I also like the flexibility of changing things up. Teleport being one action for one monster, may be 3 actions for another. I hope that flexibility remains.I always like more dragons and I've seen many versions of 5e dragons. So far mine are still my favorite, but I think I may need to do a simplification pass.I don't necessarily see a lot of value in that.Sure, but that is the same for the DMG guidelines. The only difference is a bit higher.I disagree. From actual play experience, so secondary modifiers can have a big effect on the challenge of a monster.I don't see any advantage in your system for existing monsters. I will see when the full rules are in my hand. I see some value for new monsters as long as your clear these are different as previously mentioned.I don't have an opinion on what the CR is. The CR is what it needs to be to express the design intent.  For me, demon princes should not be able to be defeated by lvl 20 characters. You need characters beyond level 20, either with boons or 3PP products. So, when I initially redesigned the demon princes they were CR 31-34. I did another design of demogorgon for someone else and it is <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/5e-updates-monstrous-compendium.672508/post-8076996" target="_blank">CR 28 mythic / elite</a>. But for my own work I would make it higher CR.I'm sure it will have a bunch of good ideas.  I look forward to it!</blockquote>

Verification