Ahnehnois
First Post
Okay.
It is not clear to me whether or not you are a DM. In any case, you do not speak for all of us. Preparing monsters and NPCs is the primary form of preparation I do. I would struggle to run a game without a small library of stats that I made myself. And I don't find it excessively time-consuming, because I know the rules and I work fast. If I wanted, I could limit the sources that I used (instead of referencing dozens of books) and do it even faster. If I needed to, I could buy premade stats from various sources (though I personally wouldn't),
Moreover, PF has done something rather nice in creating simplified templates that are easy to apply quickly, which addresses exactly this issue. It shouldn't be a time-consuming process.
A monster isn't a task. It is a character in the story. A more interesting monster makes for a more interesting story (up to the point where the monster detracts from the story because the DM is showboating). An 'average' monster is not worth the game time for me that I would spend running it. If I'm going to spend time out of my busy life to fight a D&D battle, it had better be more interesting than mowing down some orcs straight out of the monster manual.
I prodoundly disagree with this sentiment. Quality trumps quantity every time. If the DM has read a monster entry, picked all of that monster's skills/feats/etc., and had substantive thoughts regarding that monster beforehand, he can use it much more intelligently.
Moreover, as I alluded to above, what else is there to work on? There is campaign prep, getting the setting ready and such, but I don't know what else there is to spend time on outside the game once that's done, and that's mostly done before the 1st session. D&D is primarily an improvisational game. Looking at published adventures, I can't imagine why a DM would waste time creating that much information in advance. D&D rules are mostly about representing living creatures through character stats; it follows that most prep should take the form of character stats of some sort.
All of this reasoning misses the real problems with using monster stat blocks as written. If a monster entry says for example "8 HD, Advancement: 9-24 HD" I would assume that even if distribution is not even across that level range, less than 10% of that species has the basic 8 HD. Similarly, I assume that essentially none of them have the average ability array, or have chosen the average feats or skills. I also assume that every monster who is eligible to take class levels will if it lives long enough. Why wouldn't it? How many level 1 human commoners with all 10's and 11's are there in the world? Saying that any creature is 'average' is pretty demeaning to that creature and it is a reductionistic way of thinking.
Beyond the purely philosopical backing, the reason to change monster stats to surprise the PCs; many players are quite familiar with the monster manual. It's not good if the player knows the basic stats of whatever he's fighting before the battle starts. It also allows for a more tactically engaging game, because more of the rulebooks comes into play.
It sure is.
However, I wouldn't blame any failure in this regard on the size of the monster stat blocks or the amount of prep a DM needs to do. You can run an improv game and modify stats on the fly if you need to. Or you can sit down and try to create an epic. It's up to the DM to do these things, and to know what the parameters of his own time are. It is not up to the game writers to assume those parameters, because they are quite variable. It is up to them to make a flexible set of rules that everyone can use.
As always, feel free to play the game of your choice.
But also remember that we are in the 5e forum, and 5e is being designed for many reasons. Extremely valid reasons. Customizability is one of the major goals; and monsters should be easier to customize than in previous editions, not harder.
