Ultimatecalibur
Explorer
It is a thematic ability. It is to help present the Minotaur as a wild, if not feral, combatant that is sometimes not in complete control of its powerful attacks.
D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next
- Thread starter Wizards of the Coast
- Start date
It is a thematic ability. It is to help present the Minotaur as a wild, if not feral, combatant that is sometimes not in complete control of its powerful attacks.
The reaction to this article reminds me of that old adage about trying to please all the people and in the end pleasing none of them. I think monster design might be a wedge issue for the 4e vs. 3.x crowds since it is so different between editions. This approach seems to aim for a middle ground, and upset the 4e players for having to many 3.x-isms, and upset 3.x players for having too many 4e-isms.
I'm a little confused with the talk of skill bonus to AC and Attack. Is he saying there there will be actual skills that do this (as in skills that the PCs can take)? Or is he just suggesting that we can add some sort of modifier to the bonus that represents the monster being skilled with the weapon? (I really hope its the latter, because I don't like combat resources taking of the same space as out of combat resources).
Another thought, if a size increase adds another weapon die, will PCs get the benefit from enlarge person? If so, I see it being rather popular.
I'm a little confused with the talk of skill bonus to AC and Attack. Is he saying there there will be actual skills that do this (as in skills that the PCs can take)? Or is he just suggesting that we can add some sort of modifier to the bonus that represents the monster being skilled with the weapon? (I really hope its the latter, because I don't like combat resources taking of the same space as out of combat resources).
Another thought, if a size increase adds another weapon die, will PCs get the benefit from enlarge person? If so, I see it being rather popular.
KidSnide
Adventurer
My math confirms yours. I wonder if rage is missing a component? Should it give the minotaur a few more hp? Or maybe they should just replace rage 5/5 with rage 6/6? With rage 6/6, it is advantageous for the minotaur to rage against an AC of ether 18+ or 12-.
Either way, "putting disadvantage on this opponent is useless" is a perfectly reasonable special ability, provided that the abilities that impose disadvantage seem like the kind of things that should be less effective on a raging opponent.
-KS
Crazy Jerome
First Post
If every character and monster just had a "power" stat (or several such stats that all worked the same but never crossed), then you'd be onto something. But in D&D, they don't. Hit points are somewhat independent of AC. Damage is somewhat independent of attack bonus.
Thus given the bounded accuracy attempt in Next, having some kind of mechanical thing like "elite" and "solo" makes even more sense than it does in 4E. Namely, they seem to be sticking to the idea that attack bonuses and defenses stay within rather narrow but still increasing bands, while increasing hit points and damage are the main representation of overall power. (In 4E, with no real limits on any of the factors, a few named stages didn't really cover all the ground.)
So "level" of a creature is where it more or less follows that overall formula. Elite and solo is when a creatures misses out on whatever minor but real increasing attack and defenses would go with a higher level, but nonetheless gets a big boost in hit points and/or damage. (Damage is the one they have been most inconsistent with yet. I'm not sure they've got it fully hashed out.) Presumably, elite and solo also are the ones to get the abilities that make them more of a threat against multiple PCs at once and/or change the nature of the encounter by their very presence.
The closest anyone has ever come to using multiple dimensions of power and rolling them up into a single scale that actually works is when they do something similar to Hero System, where the "Active Cost" of a power is a guided balancing factor, being a product of both relevant dimensions. That mostly works in a rough and ready way, but it's unwieldy and very self-referential (i.e. only has meaning as a short-hand once you've grokked the nature of the dimensions). I suppose one could do that for "level"--with it being the multiplication of factors derived from defense, attacks, hit points, and damage, but I suspect most people would find it far more foreign and counter-intuitive than the proposed method.
Ahnehnois
First Post
No kidding. I own some of the late 3.5 monster books, which took big steps backward with their hard-to-use stat blocks, bloated, flavorless descriptions, and unimpressive ideas. The 5e stat blocks remind me way too much of those.
I think the idea is that attacking is an attribute check, just like everything else. If you're trained in streetwise, you get a +3 bonus to ability checks involving streetwise (whether it be a charisma check to gather information, or intelligence check to quickly plot out an escape route). If you're trained in attacking, you get a +3 bonus to ability checks involving an attack (whether it be a strength check to swing a greataxe, or intelligence check to shoot an acid orb). Naturally all PC's are trained in the attack skill. But I guess what they are saying is that not necessarily all monsters and NPC's will be trained.
Dark Mistress
First Post
I was just thinking the same thing.
I am not a fan of the article, the str for something large size only being 18 same as a strong PC was not a fan of, hill giant being mentioned at a str 20. Then con only adding once, which seems to make high con less important for higher "level" monsters at least for hp. Other things discussed just seemed a bit wonky to me. Just was not impressed by the article.
KidSnide
Adventurer
How is that different from the example hill giant with an inaccurate but damaging attack? I understand that it uses the term "rage", but the mechanics are fiddly and it's not clear what purpose they serve.
-KS
Fiddly mechanics aside, I assume the rage would alter the dramatic ebb-and-flow of combat. The hill giant is predictably dumb and inaccurate for the entire encounter. Whereas you think you got the minotaur figured out and then it goes bullsh*t on you (get it, not apesh*t, but bull... oh never mind). I'm not sure if that difference is too subtle to be noticeable amidst all the random die rolls.
Similar Threads
