D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next

[Yora]

The "XP budget" is an interesting idea. But I sense the potential to be even more hit and miss than CR.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a side issue, but the Rage ability states "If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage". I don't have a problem with the fluff, but I'm confused by the terminology. If a miss is a glancing blow and a hit can also be a glancing blow (when hit points are abstracted that way instead of a large axe blade embedded through plate armor and 5 inches into flesh and bone), then what's the difference between a miss's glancing blow and a hit's glancing blow?

The miss is the minotaur's fault for poor accuracy
The hit is when the fighter made the minotaur miss

 

[vagabundo]

As a fan of 4e monster design I endorse where this is going.

Crunchy, yet light and fluffy. A delicious combo. Seems easy enough to actually create monsters from memory with only a little reference to tables.

And I look forward to some kick ass monster creation tools. I hope that they allow for class templates and monster themes (something like their 4e versions). It was annoying that I couldn't use them in the 4e monster tools, or pick from the PC power list either.

 

[Underman]

The miss is the minotaur's fault for poor accuracy The hit is when the fighter made the minotaur miss

The article "Hit Points, Our Old Friend" states that hit points partially models "Energy and experience, which is measured by a creature's ability to turn a direct hit into a glancing blow". So follow that through, when the minotaur accurately strikes the fighter, the fighter has the energy and experience to make the minotaur miss. When the minotaur misses due to poor accuracy, the fighter lacks the energy and experience to make the miss into a miss. No, I'm still confused.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

This is a side issue, but the Rage ability states "If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage". I don't have a problem with the fluff, but I'm confused by the terminology. If a miss is a glancing blow and a hit can also be a glancing blow (when hit points are abstracted that way instead of a large axe blade embedded through plate armor and 5 inches into flesh and bone), then what's the difference between a miss's glancing blow and a hit's glancing blow?

2d12!

No, seriously, I think they just need to adjust the language a bit, though you are reading both parts literally rather than interpretatively. I wonder if we'll see a change to the Slayer ability so that a 10+ is required to deal the automatic damage.

 

[FireLance]

The dissonance I am experiencing is as follows:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> bad

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> good

Maybe it because I'm more results oriented than process oriented.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a side issue, but the Rage ability states "If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage". I don't have a problem with the fluff, but I'm confused by the terminology. If a miss is a glancing blow and a hit can also be a glancing blow (when hit points are abstracted that way instead of a large axe blade embedded through plate armor and 5 inches into flesh and bone), then what's the difference between a miss's glancing blow and a hit's glancing blow?

The model of combat allows us to get the same effect in different ways. This isn't that new, is it? I mean, sometimes a Longsword inflicts 10 hit points of damage but since the target has 100 total hit points, you describe it as a glancing bow - 3 rounds later, when it has only 1 hit point left, you may describe 10 hit points of damage as a deadly strike to the heart.

Or alternatively:

The article "Hit Points, Our Old Friend" states that hit points partially models "Energy and experience, which is measured by a creature's ability to turn a direct hit into a glancing blow". So follow that through, when the minotaur accurately strikes the fighter, the fighter has the energy and experience to make the minotaur miss. When the minotaur misses due to poor accuracy, the fighter lacks the energy and experience to make the miss into a miss. No, I'm still confused.

In both cases, the fighter has energy and experience to make the minotaur miss. But against this attack, it's so aggressive and powerful, that it always costs some of that energy to evade it or have your armor absorb the blow.

 

[Underman]

The model of combat allows us to get the same effect in different ways. This isn't that new, is it? I mean, sometimes a Longsword inflicts 10 hit points of damage but since the target has 100 total hit points, you describe it as a glancing bow - 3 rounds later, when it has only 1 hit point left, you may describe 10 hit points of damage as a deadly strike to the heart.

I can wrap my head around that okay. A longsword always has the potential to do 10 points of meat damage. Hit points are a buffer or that converts some or all or none of those 10 points from wounds to something else.

And hit points are muddled enough as is, with tons of arguments over the years about how to model hit points for a preferred playstyle. Adding this exception-based rule is muddling the one clear line that there was and I'm concerned that this pops open a door to a plethora of even more hit point confusion just when we were all starting to coalesce into a hit point paradigm over the last few editions.

 

[vagabundo]

The dissonance I am experiencing is as follows:

Look at level, get attack expected bonus -> bad

Start with ability score, look at level, get expected attack bonus, add in extra bonus or penalty to get ability score bonus to line up with expected attack bonus -> good

Maybe it because I'm more results oriented than process oriented.

There is a small bit of extra information in the second step that could be useful for the narrative.

For myself, I like both methods. They are both similar enough not to give me a headache.

 

[Minigiant]

The article "Hit Points, Our Old Friend" states that hit points partially models "Energy and experience, which is measured by a creature's ability to turn a direct hit into a glancing blow". So follow that through, when the minotaur accurately strikes the fighter, the fighter has the energy and experience to make the minotaur miss. When the minotaur misses due to poor accuracy, the fighter lacks the energy and experience to make the miss into a miss. No, I'm still confused.

I think you are confused on what HP and AC represent. AC is passive defenses that do not diminish during battle. HP is active defense than diminish. A miss miss is an inaccurate attack that the fighter does not have to do anything to make miss.

A hit that does not kill is an attack that the fighter had to spend stamina/experience/focus/concentration/morale/luck in or to keep it being lethal.

---

I don't get it. If the Minotaur has tough hide, shouldn't its AC be equivalent to hide armor and not chain mail?