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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6293274" data-attributes="member: 1465">This is a great post, I can totally relate to your way of thinking!Some DMs want to play D&D as a game of combat, so they are not interested in out-of-combat stuff, and even find annoying to have them in the monsters description.OTOH, focus on combat only, and half of the gamers won't like that kind of game, or get bored by monsters designed too narrowly.IMHO the solution lies in how monsters are presented in the books. Instead of writing down a description by stats, they should have thought about a description by usefulness: have an "encounter section" in the monster description with all (and only) what can be used in combat, then have another section presenting what the monster does actually most of the time.For instance, it is not hard to design spellcasting dragons in 5e. In 3e, going by the rules the designers had to assign an equivalent spellcaster level ("this dragon casts spells as a 10th level Wizard..."), and then fill all the daily slots with spells. In 5e, they could just write down how many slots by level, and indicate a small number of spells prepared, all of which should be combat-useful spells. This is all a DM of the "D&D as combat" style wants to have, in one place.Then separately, in another section, write down additional known spells. Maybe the dragon prepares them sometimes, or maybe he can cast them as Rituals from known spells (rather than from prepared spells). A DM like you or me will have great use of this section, and still have all the combat stuff conveniently grouped.</blockquote>

Verification