Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9559935" data-attributes="member: 20323">There’s a few things I like in the new stat blocks but tons that I don’t like. Specifically in regards to the Shapechange qualifying text, I really don’t like it. Because the spell shapechange (a) is a total stat block swap out, and (b) the (2014) spell language is really player facing in a way that doesn’t translate to monsters 1:1 - “you retain the benefits of your class, race, or other source…you can’t use special senses…” Instead of it being bad at the level of having to check the PHB, now it’s introduced a second stopping point of then incorporating the exceptions text in the MM.If they’re designing  a game intended for experienced players who are assumed to know the gist of how the shapechange spell works, that’s a design choice that at least has a rationale. With the new “edition” being marketed for newer folks, and most campaigns not seeing 9th level spells ever get used (acc to Hasbro’s own data), it seems like the wrong move.Also… You mention shapechange as a non-combat spell. Thing is that line between combat/non-combat gets blurred when there’s a shapechanging enemy. One can become the other real quick, and now I’m scrambling to figure out the spell text (and the qualifying text) as my players have rolled initiative and are waiting for me.I would actually consider streamlining any switcheroo powers (stealth is another example) as of special importance for gameplay.Here’s how: Analysis paralysis comes from assessing a suite of too many choices that are codified. At least for me, when I’m operating from “pure” imagination, there are no options I’m weighing in that way. I just implement without hesitation or comparison. It’s a different process.I am curious why despite preferring standardized stats, you were content with the green slime change? That’s a big change ( at the design paradigm level). What about that worked for you? And why would that not work for other monsters like a unicorn, or shrieker, or what have you?Yeah, Brotherhood of the Wolf (and Witcher) were huge influences on me when I was GMing 4e. Silly movie, but lots of fun, good acting, and knocks it out of the park with atmosphere.Yeah, I think you’re describing the argument for simulationism, at least applied to monster stats. That’s been the D&D way as long as monster manuals have been published.Hopefully I’ve communicated what for me are the downsides of adhering completely to that approach to monsters.But your view is valid, actually it’s more than valid because you definitely describe the majority view by a huuuge margin. Most conversations I have with GMs about monster design can’t even touch on these finer points because the conversation is ONLY happening within that simulation-focused bandwidth (maths, combat powers, how this monster compares to that monster, and so forth).</blockquote>

Verification