Paul Farquhar
Legend
"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.It would have nipped that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.It would have nipped that argument in the bud.
But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? If the Flumph is non-aligned, doesn't have a label and with only a wee bit of fluff text, it may not be an easy task for a new DM to decide how to use it in an encounter.Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things."The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
I didn't say I liked the change. But it doesn't really affect me, since I stat up monsters however I like.But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? I
I paid good money for 1st edition!DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete
If the DM thinks something is absurd then their ruling is to disallow it. Simple. Meanwhile, on a different table, the DM can rule that shield-surfing down a staircase whilst shooting a bow is just fine.when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.
WHOA. You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED."The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
I think one of the interesting troubles WOTC ran into is that people change, swap, or play with different DMs a lot more now. And a lot more new DMs.In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.
Pretty sure I didn't. I've always been a rulings person.You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED.
Original ones, created by Gygax. D&D is literature too.What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?
Sorry, no. You are just wrong here.
I'm tempted to say "More fool you" especially as 1e was the most shameless cashgrab in D&D history, written to take Arneson's name off the rulebook. But that isn't fair and design standards have moved on - instead I'll say that what was acceptable for a game, a car, or a computer in the 1970s isn't in the 2020sI paid good money for 1st edition!
So that's nonsense.
LOL. An "original" archetype is something of a contradiction in terms. If it's original, it's only an archetype if other things start following along in a similar vein. A rust monster isn't an archetype at all. Nor is a beholder.Original ones, created by Gygax. D&D is literature too.
Recent studies have revealed that 1e may be up to 3 editions removed from the modern era and perhaps as many as 10% of all D&D players are not actually you.I paid good money for 1st edition!
So that's nonsense.
Mod Note:But we can 1 billion percent call what happened back in the day lies.
I'm going to take it a step farther and argue that WotC's intention is for it to function how you(general you) want it to function. That's why they are constantly drilling in that it's "rulings over rules", and "the rules serve the DM, not the the other way around", and "check with the DM to see if there are any rule changes", and the "DMG is just guidelines", and...The reason is simple. If WotC stays silent about their intentions, everyone can argue that WotC supports "their conclusions" about how the game is meant to function- ie, the way they want it to function. Thus 5e is "their kind of game, not yours".
If they communicate what their intent is, it could become "not their kind of game" and they won't be happy, and possibly not buy their product.
So vagueness = success when your game plan is to try and appeal to the broadest base of consumers possible.
As do I. But since a beginner friendly D&D that generate DMs that has confidence in the material is good for the hobby I wish WotC would be more consistent in what they aim for. Or how it manifests in the newer material.I didn't say I liked the change. But it doesn't really affect me, since I stat up monsters however I like.
I mostly run modules but I still rely upon monster manual monster entry characterization a lot for how I portray the monsters in a module.If monster stat blocks and fluff doesn't hold the DMs hand in at least some way the newer gamers will be more dependent on readymade adventures and campaigns - which can be fun and all, but I think most of us older gamers have fond memories from our homegrown campaigns. Those will be harder to make and play if you for example don't know what an Otyugh is supposed to be.