Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 3355801" data-attributes="member: 1845">I guess I may have misunderstood the purpose of the modifications done to monsters in those articles - I thought it was as ambitious as HD=CR=ECL (LA is eliminated). Still, I think it is potentially viable. Suppose, for instance, that the flight ability you used as an example is only given to monsters of sufficiently high HD that PCs would be able to have flight through spells and other means. It can work. As I said, though, this may constrain monster design freedom - hence my ambiguous thoughts on the matter. I am as yet unsure just to what degree design freedom would be constrained, hence my only qualified support. (BTW: By the same token, I think per encounter balancing constrains class design freedom and gets rid of interesting trade off options, which is a pity, but it also suffers from other problems) Fair enough - if that is the movement than that is the movement. I have not made up my mind whether this movement is positive or negative yet and will wait for other people's comments to form my opinion. In the specific case of the 1d4 hd monster, it is a good thing, but in more generalized cases... I guess that takes us back to the HD=CR=ECL problem of restricting monster design freedom. Sometimes it may be interesting to have low HD monster with powerful special abilities, relying on something else (e.g. stealth or invisibility or ...) to defend itself. As I said, I will defer judgement. I like strongly themed monsters, so this is probably a step in the right direction, so long as it is not taken too far. The important monsters, for example, such as dragons, demons and devils, should definitely have more than just 2 or 3 special abilities.</blockquote>

Verification