Munsterus Musing- D&D blog 18/04

[Blackwarder]

In here

Personally, I'm all in favor of bringing back ecology and half pages of behavioral and misc descriptions, that was the main thing I loved about 2e being able to read the descriptions and build a complete advanture or even a random encounter on the fly.

Warder

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I definitely liked the 2nd edition entry for each monster about where it lived, so more ecology please. I also liked the idea of finding creature lairs for more rewards.

Pseudo-mechanics were slightly difficult to adjudicate, but I am inclined to say that things intended to be relevant outside of combat should be less codified, whereas those that will come up in combat should be rigorously mechanical. The example of staking a vampire is not intended for in-combat use, so you don't need to define how to do it.

I'm a little torn on the idea of monsters with class levels. I think this only makes sense for certain monsters, and the ones I'm thinking of should be templates (vampire, werewolf, etc.). I prefer the 4th edition approach to demihumans - this is a kobold fighter, this is a kobold rock-thrower, etc. Please though, no 12th level kobold super-shaman chief.

The other thing every monster entry needs is 'what you know about..', using relevant skills or background information. In 4th this usually ended up being a list of their available powers (don't give monsters a load of powers, some of them just like hitting you, end of story). I'd rather it be knowledge of their tactics (and morale if that's used), weaknesses (especially if there are more weaknesses) and ecological considerations. Perhaps even useful things you can harvest from a dead thing..

 

[Blackwarder]

I agree completely, five to eight bullet points going from common to obscure general knowledge about each creature, every DM should be able to change those as he please but it will be really helpfull t running random encounters on the spot and for new DMs.

Warder

 

[Janaxstrus]

I would rather have fewer, but fully fleshed out, monster entries in a book (ecology, knowledge check info, fluff in general) than more monsters in the book yet presented as dry numbers.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another option, probably a non-starter from both a traditional and commercial perspective, is to present no monsters at all, except for a few examples, and maybe normal animals. The DM is expected to create all the monsters himself, to preserve mystery. This is what I want as a player, I'm not remotely interested in meeting any more regenerating trolls, or drow, or traditional vampires, or colour-coded dragons. I know what they all do, and I'm bored with them.

This would also apply to magic items.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I always liked the Ecology and Habitat/Society entries. Though some monsters we don't need to as much. Though should lore check DCs come back? That's a maybe, it depends on how reasonable things are between common knowledge (everyone should know that Cave Bears live in caves) and obscure things or important things about monster's weaknesses.

 

[howandwhy99]

Paragraph 2 really shows a solid understanding of quality game design. I hope they follow it. The first paragraph is also a pretty good overview of what the MM is there to do IMO. The return of environmental and cultural stats would be nice. So would strategies and tactics, but as mentioned they are not necessary for every creature.

The second paragraph of that section states that vampires cannot cross running water under their own volition and cannot enter private property unless invited inside by someone with the proper authority.

Both moving water (which a vampire could fly over) and property (not intellectual property ) are defined with game mechanics for me.

sunlight destroys the vampire after two rounds, as does immersing it in running water for three rounds. Staking the vampire’s heart and then destroying the body also works.

Again, these can all be defined elements in the game. Light, Sun, Piercing, (wood), a heart, the body part of a creature.

vampires will not enter an area laced with the odor of garlic, recoil from mirrors, and recoil from “strongly presented” holy symbols, although none of these three things actually harm the vampire.

Conditions due to foul odors were defined in 3e IIRC. Turning was too, which in this case includes mirrors. The effect might be line of sight, which is one possible definition for why vampires don't hang around in funhouses, not to mention churches, temples, and whatnot.

How close can a vampire come to a mirror or a holy symbol? How much garlic do my PCs need to buy to keep a vampire enemy out of the king’s daughter’s room? How do I know if my PC cleric’s holy symbol was presented strongly?

A lot of this stuff could be more clearly defined. It isn't impossible, but the level of detail does get into certain aspects of how difficult the game is to run and/or play.

Another option, probably a non-starter from both a traditional and commercial perspective, is to present no monsters at all, except for a few examples, and maybe normal animals. The DM is expected to create all the monsters himself, to preserve mystery. This is what I want as a player, I'm not remotely interested in meeting any more regenerating trolls, or drow, or traditional vampires, or colour-coded dragons. I know what they all do, and I'm bored with them.

This would also apply to magic items.

This should be central in the DMG and in the beginning of any collection books, like monsters, magic items, spells, etc.

 

[Ratskinner]

Another option, probably a non-starter from both a traditional and commercial perspective, is to present no monsters at all, except for a few examples, and maybe normal animals. The DM is expected to create all the monsters himself, to preserve mystery. This is what I want as a player, I'm not remotely interested in meeting any more regenerating trolls, or drow, or traditional vampires, or colour-coded dragons. I know what they all do, and I'm bored with them.

This would also apply to magic items.

Actually, I'm all for speed and easy, but I'd be okay with this if:

• they had good, solid rules for making special abilities work well.
• they had some easy example lists or themes to work with.
• the process of creating a new monster was <5 min, after you've imagined the concept.

I agree that this is unlikely from a commercial standpoint as the MM, but I'd sure buy a splatbook for GMs that covered this. It might be a little more work, but it'd be rewarding work with a big payoff in mystery and customization.

 

[Blackwarder]

Another option, probably a non-starter from both a traditional and commercial perspective, is to present no monsters at all, except for a few examples, and maybe normal animals. The DM is expected to create all the monsters himself, to preserve mystery. This is what I want as a player, I'm not remotely interested in meeting any more regenerating trolls, or drow, or traditional vampires, or colour-coded dragons. I know what they all do, and I'm bored with them.

This would also apply to magic items.

Also from playing style, I don't have the time to come up with new monsters for every critter my players might encounter.

Warder

 

[Shemeska]

I like longer ecology and flavor sections for monsters (such as the length of material in monster writeups in PF Adventure Path bestiary entries).

However this is somewhat flagged by a qualifier that I want that longer ecology and lore for 5e, so long as the flavor and lore presented is compatible with mainline historical lore on those creatures from 1e/2e/3e if they appeared in those editions, rather than 4e's left turn with primordials, succubi as devils, archons as evil elementals, etc etc when a lot of presented lore had absolutely nothing to do with prior material even when using the same names.