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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5749579" data-attributes="member: 6685059">Ideally (and unfortunately it's not like that in D&D), I'd like to see a direct correlation between size and hit point/damage for normal physical creatures. Bigger massive monsters are more dangerous, period.Then you've got musculature and thick hide/scaling to signal extra toughness. Sharpness and size of teeth, claws and fangs. Body spikes and other biological/'evolutionary' warning signs that signal 'I am dangerous, don't screw with me'. Ferocity (although some animals fake it and act more fierce than they are, cats arching their backs and raising of fur). I think all of these cues will signal a danger level to the PC, which can then be communicated in character to the player (IF the game world is coherent that way).For easy 'stereotyping', I'd like to see goblins that are goblins. No 1st level goblin and 20th level epic goblins. If a goblin is more powerful, there are visual cues (plate armor, musculature, unusal size, goblin chief surrounded by guards, etc.) If monsters are classifiable that way, monsters by tier can be threat-classified simply by reputation.Coherent 'ecosystems'. A dungeon with no low-level threats may mean that high-level monsters have eaten them all or scared them away, leaving only the small nuisance critters to hide in the corners. Or you see orcs and goblins in chains and slave collars working the ore mines, and goblinoid skeletons with teethmarks littering the area.Truly supernature creatures that don't have ordinary flesh and blood bodies, however, break all those laws, with no direct correlation between physicality and threat level. This makes them especially scary. Perhaps clerics or druids can detect these blasphemies as It That Does Not Belong To This World.Anybody else?</blockquote>

Verification