Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9558605" data-attributes="member: 20323">Hey Dave! Likewise, I always am interested in your approach and respect the effort you put into your own monster making process. I have a lot to learn from you!It might be easier if we talk about a specific monster…if that’s not derailing this thread…Because the overall argument I have can be distilled at a high level to “universal assumptions about monster design in 5e often fail by misunderstanding the important essence of the specific monster they are trying to capture.”IOW they lose the diamond in the copy+paste details and layout.But I mostly agree that short form text of a spell & interesting attacks are desirable. For me it’s  a question of HOW and WHY and TO WHAT EFFECT, not a question of whether those two design principles are “good.” I think they are embodying good design thinking, but that gets back to my comment about pitfalls of universally saying “any monster with three Rend attacks is failing to be great design.” There’s a whole lot of context that matters there. For instance if the monster has an aura triggering an interesting effect anytime a foe in the aura takes damage? That works. Or if the monster is designed really as a potential ally to the PCs (or a tragic mistake to fight where the juice isn’t in tactics but in emotions). That also works.</blockquote>