Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7010783" data-attributes="member: 20323">Absolutely. I saw the need for greater variety / surprises as soon as I read the Monster Manual. And I <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?368111-The-Neglected-Kobold" target="_blank">did something about it for kobolds</a>. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />My move there wasn't to make CR 14 kobolds of doom, but to introduce greater variety of abilities that really spoke to their "kobold-ness" and immediately grabbed a DM's attention about how the monster might be used.For example, simply adding Trap Savvy ("...the kobold's movement does not trigger pressure plate or tripwire-triggered traps it is aware of.") & Tunnel Crawling ("The kobold suffers none of the normal disadvantage or speed hindrance when squeezing thru Tiny-sized passages.") to a kobold indicates all kind of nasty @#$% the DM can pull when the PCs go exploring the kobold warrens.I remember giving one of my kobold wyrmpriests a cantrip to extinguish light sources and a sneaky version of mage hand that let them wrest away things not carried in a creature's hands. That led to a fun mini-battles over the party's light sources...and the terror of facing Kobold Commandos in the dark (who I gave the Assassinate trait, so auto-critical hits when surprising the PCs).Hmm. Just like there's a sweet spot between "meaningful difference" and "power creep" of a monster design, there's also a sweet spot between "too simple" and "too complex." In general, I've found 5e's humanoid monsters (gnolls, goblins, kobolds, orcs, trolls, etc.) to err towards the "too simple" side...which is great for scenarios facing hordes of monsters...and maybe not-so-great for other scenarios. Ultimately, good monster design needs to come from a strong sense of the monster's narrative...and I think you really see that happening more in Volo's Guide to Monsters. So, I'd say "recreating the 4th edition wheel" is not advisable. There are many examples in 4e of poor narrative concepts behind the monsters leading to "dissonant" mechanics that were hard for the DM to remember....often they were hard to remember not because they were overly complex but because there wasn't a logical narrative thread bundling those abilities together.For example: The Immolith.<img src="https://davelenton.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/immolith.jpeg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />In the 4e Monster Manual it's described as an undead demon resulting from the deaths of many demons at the same time and their spirits unpredictably fusing together. They despise the living and hang with undead. That's pretty much it. Miserable lore.However, the art is fantastic and really captures some demonic archetype that speaks to me.[SBLOCK=4e Immolith stats]<img src="http://i.imgur.com/xVR2Hix.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />[/SBLOCK]It can attack with a claw that sets you on fire. And only during its turn (not on opportunity attacks) it can claw you, grab you, pull you next to it, and deprive your fire resistance. The need to differentiate this basic melee attack from a non-basic melee attack was because of 4e's "infinite opportunity attacks" rule. Then it gets a choice each round between two minor actions (or in 4e it could take both minor actions by forgoing its move IIRC): Deathfire Curse or Vigor of the Grave. Hmm. Deathfire Curse slows you and then lights you on fire – what the heck is happening narratively here? Fire slows you down? You're smoking then you catch on fire? Who knows! And Vigor of the Grave applies to undead...but again narratively what is going on? Is the immolith healing "with fire"? If that's the case why couldn't a fire elemental be healed?If I wanted to convert the Immolith to 5e (and I'm in the process now), I'd want to do a serious reimagining of the monster's concept, probably starting with the name's similarity to "immolate" which means "to kill or offer as a sacrifice, especially by burning."That's an extreme example, but similar thinking applies to monstrous humanoids.Part of creating a Monster Book of Badassdom would be rediscovering nuances of the monstrous humanoids that have fallen between the cracks of edition change or are right there in the 5e Monster Manual but haven't been explored mechanically yet.</blockquote>

Verification