• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Monster Study: The Aarakocra

So!

Here's the stab at making a 4e-able aarakocra PC race.

This doesn't address the other side of the question, really (about aarakocra being NPCs who aren't typically violent), but it does, I think, address the concerns about flying PCs. It does this by ensuring that a newbie or flight-phobic DM who decides to allow an aarakocra PC knows how to handle their flight. It also puts some pretty hard limits on that flight: it can only be used where there's room to spread the wings, and, when used, it makes the PC more vulnerable (as a six-foot flying bird-man is hardly a small, agile target). I didn't want to penalize their attack rolls, since part of their schtick is good vision, but I think especially the requirements that adjacent spaces be free helps with enforce the claustrophobia with a rules element.

Let me know what you think! Especially those of you who have had trouble with flight -- do you think you could theoretically use this version of the aarakocra as a race? If you saw the aarakocra presented like this in a WotC book released tomorrow, what would your big complaints be?

ed: [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] ! I can't say I really dispute your central thrust. The trick, though, is to help teach these skills to more DMs who maybe don't have them, without overwhelming them. Something like flight dropped into a newbie's first DMing experience, or into a game where the DM might not be a great tactical thinker, might go really, really poorly because they might not have those skills, and even old hats don't always remember the lessons they once knew by heart. If the best way to help a DM deal with flight is to teach them good encounter design, I'd like to bundle the two together: you can opt into having flying PCs, and, if you do, here's some practical advice on how to keep the game interesting while you do it. It certainly seems like a pretty "advanced" technique, though -- you could probably run dungeon crawls with elves and dwarves in the first 10 levels of the game your whole life and never worry about the problems flight can present, but I think it would sort of suck if the game didn't allow you to have a flying PC if you wanted, simply because it wasn't sure if you could handle one. If the game is a toolset to build fun times out of, I'd like to give the DM the instruction manual to the more advanced tools when he gets them, rather than just handing the DM the game-rule equivalent of an industrial lathe and saying "HAVE FUN!" ;)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I perhaps just don't see the big difference you're seeing between a "monster manual" full of combat stats, and a "setting book" like the MV: full of combat stats, with more fluff. The books seem very similar in audience and in purpose to me.
*shrug* For me it's a literally a world of a difference.

Simply adding random fluff to a generic monster is different from providing a stat block for a monster that is firmly embedded in a setting in which it has an important role to play.

E.g. 3e's PHB2 had a bunch of generic organizations. I've never felt any of them worth including in e.g. Eberron, because they're still 'generic'. Eberron organizations, however, are a vital part of the setting, they have a role to play.

It might be a bit easier if your setting is basically 'generic' anyway, e.g. there's nothing really special about Nentir Vale. Nobody would bat an eye if you placed it unchanged somewhere in Greyhawk or the FR setting. But Dark Sun and Eberron? I just wouldn't do it; it simply doesn't fit.
 

*shrug* For me it's a literally a world of a difference.

Simply adding random fluff to a generic monster is different from providing a stat block for a monster that is firmly embedded in a setting in which it has an important role to play.

The reverse is true as well. Taking a setting book and adding random generic monsters to it, doesn't make for a better monster manual.

When I look at a monster book, I'm usually looking at ideas to import into existing games. So if the book contains large amounts of setting specific fluff that's a major turn off as well. It's one thing to say that the monster prefers to live in temperate forested hills and give me details of monster behavior, life cycle, and other ecological details. It's quite another to spend time describing the specific locations in your setting that it lives in, the specific events in your world's history the monster has influenced, the specific characters it has interacted with and to make the monsters backstory tied intimately to specific non-generic aspects of your setting. That's a setting book; not a monster book.

Some of the worst monster books I've read attempted to take mechanically drab and generally generic monsters with special abilities copied from canonical monsters, and dress them up behind a mountain of non-generic narrative information. It managed to hit that unhappy ground of being too wordy to be a good rulebook, and to breezy to be a good source book.

Returning to the subject, what a monster manual needs to do is provide something of a tutorial on encounter design for a novice DM in a suitably terse format that will neither get in the way of finding the crunch when you are using the entry as a reference during a game nor waste so space that the veteren game master feels like he got poor value for his money.

What a setting book needs to do is inspire the novice game master to tell stories. The best setting books ever printed are for that reason modules.

In many ways, I think that the 1e MM was - even with its numerous editting and formating problems - the best ever printed, and the 2e monstrous manual is I think unfairly maligned and had several good ideas. If I was trying to write a MM now, I would be trying to take the best of both.
 

Flight isn't really such a big deal when it comes to D&D, as a channel I frequent puts it "If flying can be mitigated with something as accessible as rope, it's not a game breaking issue".
Aarakroka are a lot more versatile than I thought, they can be other plainer weirds looks with unknown ends, sages, or protectors of elemental summoned creatures, like if your Druid keeps summoning Air Elementals, maybe some big birds show up to ruffle some feathers.
Video here for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79wptWpH7MA
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top