D&D 5E (2014) FGG/Necromancer Games teases 5th Edition Foes

I like these 'deviation from the curve' monsters. I am sure I will get a mego-ton-GB load of balanced threats from WotC and others. GIVE ME THE CRAZY! But, as this is also the first MM out, also give me some standard monsters too., which I guess is the plan?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I like these 'deviation from the curve' monsters. I am sure I will get a mego-ton-GB load of balanced threats from WotC and others. GIVE ME THE CRAZY! But, as this is also the first MM out, also give me some standard monsters too., which I guess is the plan?

Mach - The MM from WotC comes out September 30th. Our estimated release date is November.
 


Finger of Death really stands out as the scary thing about this monster, build-wise.

Art wise, I like how he's eating with his pinky out. :D
 


Machpants, you will have seen them before if you've got Monstrosities and Tome of Horrors. The new material is all in the Adventure Book, Quests of Doom, unless you count Steve's conversions to 5th edition as being new. Wizards says that they will have conversion guides eventually, so if you have our earlier books and you're willing to wait, you can actually do the conversions using the old books. We're not trying to hide that, and we're trying to put it front and center. This is for new Necromancer fans or for those who want the conversions early, or those who don't want to mark up a book with conversion notes.

That said, the old school types already know our response to the "monster balance" issues. We don't just write tactically-balanced monsters (we write them, but not just them). We also write monsters that have a "ring" to them, something that grabs you and makes you want to use them in an adventure. It's not the same for everyone; Bill and I have different opinions on flail snails, for example.

There's a limit to that, of course, the point about goblins with meteor swarms is not only correct, it's absolutely relevant to a discussion of this monster. But it's the extreme example of where (hopefully) I was just pushing the envelope with this monster's original design. The goblins with meteor swarm go beyond the envelope. I think there is room for some powerful adventure-making fuel at the borders of balance, where it's close but the imbalance ITSELF can create that spark of creativity. Imbalance, at least when it's done right, can be the fuse that drives the flower.

There's absolutely room for disagreement -- but I think it's wrong to conclude that just because something is subject to the "goblins with meteors" test, doesn't mean it necessarily fails the test. Indeed, I think that risking "goblins with meteors" is one of the many approaches that SHOULD be taken with some of the monsters in a book of many monsters. As long as it works, and that can be subjective. Look, though, at how many people, even some of the people who criticized the chassis of the monster, immediately got ideas about how to use it.

That's the real test. Because it plays to the strength of 5th edition as opposed to 3 and 4; you can customize a monster to fit an adventure like lightning. Taking a rigid approach to monster-construction is to instantly brush away one of the edition's stronger attributes, IMO.

*"Fuse that drives the flower" isn't mine, I think it's Dylan Thomas.
 

I like these 'deviation from the curve' monsters. I am sure I will get a mego-ton-GB load of balanced threats from WotC and others. GIVE ME THE CRAZY! But, as this is also the first MM out, also give me some standard monsters too., which I guess is the plan?

I would have thought the idea be to take the standard balanced threats and tweak them to get your own flavour of crazy that matches your situation.
It certainly makes more sense to me than taking someone elses crazy and try to squish it into my own setting/campaign/etc.

To that end I personally want the balanced starting point from a MM/bestiary etc.
 

It may be Vancian-esque, but it's not the same Vancian. This stat block has things like the same spell prepped multiple times, which is a meaningless concept in 5e, and it doesn't call out things like slots.

It's not "the worsest thing evar!!" by far, but it is in error where 5e is concerned.

Intricate rules details aside, i see the monster as if "oh, it can do this, this and this a couple times." The how and why of the mechanics behind it don't really matter to me, the thing won't live that long anyway.
 

Hmm I don't really like it, just from a monster design perspective. It's got one really powerful spell which prevents me from using it unless the players have levels in the double digits. However it's not otherwise scaled for players of that level and has low hit points and weak attacks. That combined with the fact that it ignores the way spell casting works in 5e reminds me of why I rarely used 3rd party source material in 3E.

I like it, art and format included. I don't mind it being different at all. The only thing i do not like and do not understand is the exclusion of a Challenge Rating. Hopefully that is just an oversight or something they deliberately left out because it's still being debated (?)
 

Steve's good people. If he says these are things Necromancer's deliberately left out while they're calculated, as opposed to accidental omissions--and that the odd spell-casting is deliberate, if perhaps confusingly presented--that's enough to assuage most of my concerns. :)


Me too, his post addressed all my concerns and I would 100% buy this product. I can't wait to see it actually. You know, especially if they're soliciting feedback and willing to change things. I would like to see the Finger of Death have a few limitations and quirks rather than a straight-up spell clone. I don't mind it being super powerful, i like that actually. A monster to me does not have to be built out of a boxed template, they're more fun when they break those rules actually.
 

Remove ads

Top