Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7143580" data-attributes="member: 12731">No, implying that the word gargantuan requires the DM to rebuild the monster is the wrong conclusion. There's none of that in this edition.As I said, the writer probably indents you to do as much homework as if he'd use the description &quot;moth-eaten&quot;. That is, none.Sure, the designer might have forgotten &quot;gargantuan&quot; is an official size category. But it's quite possible it's not a mistake - in 5e you can easily have a monster that's very weak and fragile for its size. It's just not a big deal in 5e.Thinking there's a class of terms that instruct DMs to rebuild monsters on the fly is a 3e:ism. As I showed, expect any modifications to monsters to be spelled out.And even that's kind of unusual. The non-lazy approach, of course, would be to include the finished stat block as a unique monster, complete with all changes.In my opinion (and slight SPOILERS for an old module) the only reason OotA gets away with it is because in two cases, the monster isn't really meant to be fought in combat, while the third is really a simple modification.Sent from my C6603 using <a href="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205" target="_blank">EN World mobile app</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7143580, member: 12731"] No, implying that the word gargantuan requires the DM to rebuild the monster is the wrong conclusion. There's none of that in this edition. As I said, the writer probably indents you to do as much homework as if he'd use the description "moth-eaten". That is, none. Sure, the designer might have forgotten "gargantuan" is an official size category. But it's quite possible it's not a mistake - in 5e you can easily have a monster that's very weak and fragile for its size. It's just not a big deal in 5e. Thinking there's a class of terms that instruct DMs to rebuild monsters on the fly is a 3e:ism. As I showed, expect any modifications to monsters to be spelled out. And even that's kind of unusual. The non-lazy approach, of course, would be to include the finished stat block as a unique monster, complete with all changes. In my opinion (and slight SPOILERS for an old module) the only reason OotA gets away with it is because in two cases, the monster isn't really meant to be fought in combat, while the third is really a simple modification. Sent from my C6603 using [URL=http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205]EN World mobile app[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification