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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5237526" data-attributes="member: 78116">That is probably more than true. Yes it can, because I can take those mechanics and make that monster into anything else I want. For example a humanoid creature can be just made an Orc chieftain or something else. Depending on what its powers and similar is. Fluff can be much harder to transfer from creature to creature, plus is often not required anyway. I already take a monster with X mechanics, call it something else and call it a day. Very often this works brilliantly for a wide variety of monsters and makes generating creatures for an encounter very easy.Additionally, a monsters fluff is irrelevant often to what it does in combat. A fire creature doesn't need exceptional explanation as to why its in a volcano. An evil humanoid doesn't need exceptional explanation as to why it is under the thrall of an illithid. Fluff is more likely to be invisible or irrelevant to a PCs interactions with a single monster than its actual mechanics. The illithids who are the villains of the campaign are a different story of course, but the random humanoid monster that they have as a thrall is probably not going to need much fluff justifying him.It is easy to put a monster into an encounter despite its fluff.Alternatively, it's just there as a logical part of the encounter and has no further interaction at all. Requiring absolutely zero fluff.I find when a creatures mechanics are incapable of backing up its fluff PCs are either underwhelmed or wonder what all the fuss is about. I'm very careful now that if I describe something as an almighty badass to be feared and give it say, black oily tar its mechanics actually back up that fluff. Mechanics can support fluff, but fluff doesn't inherently support mechanics.   I actually disagree here. If the monster is in an encounter and there isn't some unusual reason that would ping it for not being there, such as an aberration in the middle of paladins of Bahamut or something strange - how it acts in combat establishes how a monster is to the PCs.For example the Dracolich is a creature with awesome fluff. The mechanics of the monster are beyond terrible. It's arguably one of the worst monsters in all of 4th edition. It's not fun, it relies on constant stun locking to make up for its terrible action economy and nobody is going to have fun fighting it. Even with all the lore and fluff on Dracoliches I gave PCs (I really built the encounter up) the mechanics were so bad it just made all that utterly irrelevant.Now another creature I put into the campaign, which had NO fluff whatsoever before it and no built up is still my finest hour as a DM. It was a zany book golem, that threw books at the PCs, could generate random magical effects at whim, was difficult to just stun lock or daze (or anything else). It was such a mechanically whacky monster but had absolutely no fluff - I made it up out of thin air for that encounter. My PCs absolutely loved it! It was fantastic fun, it was well balanced, it challenged the party and its mechanics were very original compared to other monsters I'd used. In addition it didn't rely on cheaply (and boringly) stunning, dazing or whatever all the PCs constantly.I mean, one of these things is an iconic creature in dungeons and dragons with piles of fluff and lore to draw on. The other is a creature I spent roughly 2 afternoons designing the mechanics of without a single drop of lore or fluff. One was a massive disappointment and the other is the model I've used for every single solo battle in 4E afterwards.If "no fluff" is the equivalent of horrible, what exactly was ruined with using a creature that had no particular fluff at all (except being basically a golem really). The encounter logically justified and supported the creatures existence. That's what truly matters. If I had made tons of lore about its creation, where it came from and such then the PCs fought it: If the mechanics were bad do you think they would say "That was the most fun solo we ever fought in 4E" afterwards?Why? A creature doesn't have to interact with the story at all. A giant centipede is a giant centipede. A chuul is a chuul. These things really aren't there to deepen and make your story more compelling, they are obstacles or creatures that are just there. An Illithid? I agree. Dragons? I agree. But every monster? Now you're overreaching your argument massively.  This is the reason we have DCs by level and such. In simple terms, we already have rules for this.  If they are particularly excitable, medium to hard DC by encounter level.If they aren't or are known to be a bit lazy, sleepy or whatever then easy DC by encounter level. If they are known to be obnoxious, medium to hard DC by encounter level.If they are likely to understand there could be a fight if they do anything, easy DC by encounter level (or easily bribed with candy or whatever they want).Noting again, these are simply derivations from whatever fluff I'm using for these monsters - it allows me to quickly and easily adjudicate anything I need to know to run them in this manner. Stats in a MM I don't need, ironically the fluff I would say so but if I'm the DM, I'm making this then I either have the fluff or am making it. So I don't see why my decisions on this need to be published in a MM if I'm the one making this dilemma for myself. Doesn't really matter in the long run, I would make them minions and have the PCs explode them. The PCs can bear the consequences of that in the combat or whatever else. Their defenses can simply be set by DC in the book, or just make them skirmishers (roughly the default monster type). Plants aren't automatically immune to poison either, so there isn't a particular reason that they should have it (EG Myconids are not immune to poison).I am failing why I need this in a MM when I can adjudicate all this using the DCs by level presented in the DMG. I would simply make it a reward to the PCs for convincing them in the first place, meaning they automatically succeed and making this irrelevant. Playing chess against myself is incredibly boring, it's far more interesting adjudicating how the PCs interact with them. If they convinced them to do that, I would allow the PCs the satisfaction of having come up with a non-violent solution and even directly skip a potential encounter with the bandits.They are small fungus people, what's to say the Bandits if they are familiar with them pay them any attention even if they do see them? Does it particularly matter? No creatures in 4E tell you that specifically anyway and it's not really that relevant to me. If I had to adjudicate it I'd rule it similar to a creature picking up something small ala around what mage hand can grab. The bandits can just boot them or stab them or whatever. The poor little critters have to escape or be slaughtered, alternatively the PCs can jump in and save the day, distracting the bandits from their fungicidal madness. You're going to find in discussions with me incidentally, that I don't care how monsters interact beyond it being logical. I don't play DnD to play chess against myself (it's terribly boring I can tell you that). If my PCs don't step in the poor creatures are killed, there is no requirement to work out how the bandits dispatch them. If my PCs interact the bandits cease killing the fungus people for the mage who is trying to cook them alive in their armour (priorities are important).If they need stats I can default to my knowledge of monsters (which is standardized in 4E) and just give them a skirmisher defense array + level, then make them minions. Done, just like that and I'm back to focusing on how my PCs choose to deal with the situation: Not chess against myself.Not all monsters need stats. If I make a situation where I need to know something, I can easily and trivially make it. Especially because their actual interaction is more or less "What do I need to roll to make them die" rather than anything else. That's not a significant amount of work on my part IMO, not like making an entirely new monster from scratch.This doesn't sound very plausible to be honest, but if the little guy wants to be malicious but isn't a particular threat and he's discovered, he's doomed. The PC needs to hit an even level skirmishers AC and given I would make him a minion, that's his goose cooked.But then I would likely make that a skill challenge, with him darting in and out of holes in the ground. I can imagine the comedy of the PCs have to run from hole to hole trying to whack this sinister mushroom trying to alert the bandits. None of this requires his actual combat stats though - I can set DCs by level for the skill challenge from the DMG. And 90% of them are simply solved by using two tables in the DMG and some common sense IMO <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I absolutely agree, but as my dracolich vs. random book golem shows, great lore and being invested in somethings destruction doesn't always make for the best and most memorable battle. If fighting it sucked nobody cares about your lore, they just remember the fact it died hilariously in 3 rounds without bloodying or damaging most of the party - or worse - they remember the TPK they suffered with no chance to do anything. PCs are fickle like that from my experience. The best monsters of course have great lore AND solid mechanics. But solid mechanics are solid mechanics and in a game that's paramount (IMO).</blockquote>

Verification