Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 6385177" data-attributes="member: 1288">The problem isn't that it's hard to do,  [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]. But what would you like them to have cut to make room for it?What you have there is (going by averages) over a half-page of text by word count. Actually a bit more, because lists aren't space-efficient.(Well, over half a page by 3e and 4e formatting. I can't swear they're using the same figures in 5e, but I can't imagine it's too different.)So which monsters should be cut back a similar amount?I'm not being snide. I would love to see more options/suggestions of the variety you've suggested. But where do you draw the line? Do all humanoids get that? That's going to massively impact word count.I would also argue that there should be some monsters that are dirt-simple. Sometimes the DM just wants to throw a handful of sword-wavers at the party. And new DMs need to work up to more complex options.Now, if you feel the monsters in 5e have too many simple options, that's certainly something to be discussed. But I don't think the fact that kobolds (who have always been cannon fodder unless they had a trapped complex to work in) are simple is necessarily a bad thing.You know what, though? "Combat Tactics" would be a great recurring feature in a reborn Dragon Magazine. Kobolds one issue, krakens the next, vrocks the issue after, etc. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification