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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5237469" data-attributes="member: 64209">I agree with much of what you've stated Aegeri. In fact, we might be arguing the same points in some cases, but from different perspectives. I'll try and highlight the points on which we don't agree.  A non-compelling monster cannot be saved by good mechanics, IMO. It can be saved by a good DM giving it a good compelling description (fluff), motivation (fluff), and personality/way of acting with the pcs (fluff). On the other hand, a monster that is not particularly interesting (e.g. a standard goblin) can become VERY interesting with good fluff. In a game I ran, I had goblins crawl out of shadows, be swathed in black, their hands dripping with some oily black tarlike substance. They had a very specific story/background, but the description made this a compelling encounter for the players, not the 1d4 ranged attacks with fishing spears. On the flip side, so too can a monster with "tight" mechanics be ruined by horrible fluff.     I agree with you strongly that illithids and the like are more deserving of fluff than something "real" I could look up in an encyclopedia. I also agree that if the illithid is un-fun to use that's a veto. But un-fun for story is also a veto.  and  Because sometimes you need to interact with those stats. This is the reason we have rules at all.  Take the campestri. Imagine a party has met them before and the campestri are friendly (very helpful in their way) to the party but are very excitable and burst into song whenever the party sees them. The party is trying to sneak attack some bandits and there are campestri just next to the bandit camp.  What is the campestri perception/spot check? If players make themselves known to them, what is their intuition/intelligence/sense motive/wisdom to understand they should remain quiet and be able to act upon that? The players want to use an area poison attack. Will they kill their little allies, or are they immune to poison (since they're fungus dudes)? The campestri want to help. They agree to sneak into the camp when the bandits are sleeping. What is their move silently/stealth? The campestri want to steal the bandits weapons and gear that is laying around the campsite. What is their strength/carrying capacity? The bandits discover them. Sure they're easy to kill...but there are a bunch of them. Is it a swarm? Do they just die? The bandits use daggers. Is this an effective method of solving the challenge? There is a lone campestri villian. He knows about the pcs and wants to rat them out to the bandits. He heads for the camp, but he's pretty far away when this is discovered. Since he's mushroom sized and at a distance of 50 feet, what's the likelihood the players can kill him with a bow and arrow?   Any one of these questions could be potentially solved via DM fiat/ad hoc rulings. However, the questions add up.    I don't think anyone is arguing for monsters to not have stats here. I think people are arguing for things that "don't need stats" to be included. I personally am arguing that any intelligent life form probably would benefit from stats...even if its purpose isn't for the players to kill it.  In the end, at least the way my group and I game, exciting battles usually come from the players being invested in destroying the great evil. Neat tricks are fun and keep battles interesting, but battles that advance the story and keep players' imaginations and emotions running on overdrive seem to be the most exciting for my group.</blockquote>

Verification