Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4533901" data-attributes="member: 2067">Kamikaze Midget: Dangerous Design.I'm going to get that on a business card!I'll fully agree with you on the "unnecessarily elaborate" thing. But, then, why not have the fluff match the crunch? If it's too elaborate for a single combat, make it a huge setpiece. If you can't do that, simplify the fluff.Penalizing the "wrong strategy" only occurs of you take a 3e-ish approach and assume everyone's going to do the best thing all the time. If you just let it be a little reward -- let this monster be a little easier, if the players are clever -- then you reward the players without hurting anything. Except maybe a DM who wanted to use it as the boss, but it's not SOLO, so that should twig a DM that using it as a boss is probably not recommended, ya?Those questions are going to get asked in many campaigns anyway. By anticipating them and giving us an answer, WotC will be designing for use at the table. They do give us an answer here, it's just the D&D equivalent of "I'm the Mom, that's why!" It's really unsatisfying y'know?It'd be nice if the monster pointed out Page 42 and gave some suggestions for what "creative tactics" PC's might choose. That'd even address that issue.But it doesn't, so it's not addressed. It'd just be more awesome if the fluff reflected the crunch.This is probably something you can say for a whole bucketload of things from 4e, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification