Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 8664302" data-attributes="member: 467">Not really, because the new stat block still includes spells you have to look up. You haven't solved the problem, just slightly lowered the bar.I don't think there is any such thing as an out of the book stat block for anything more complex than a bag of hit points with multiattack. If you want any tactical complexity at all, it requires some degree of examining the stats and considering how they will interact with the PCs, the environment and other monsters.I think one of the kinds of modularity D&amp;D could do with is what I'll call JRPG vs CRPG combat. That is, straight forward standing in ranks choosing attacks, versus full tactical movement and terrain etc. Note that I am not making a value judgement between these things, just that not everyone wants full tactical depth, while others do. In a perfect world you would have two MMs, lean versus robust.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 8664302, member: 467"] Not really, because the new stat block still includes spells you have to look up. You haven't solved the problem, just slightly lowered the bar. I don't think there is any such thing as an out of the book stat block for anything more complex than a bag of hit points with multiattack. If you want any tactical complexity at all, it requires some degree of examining the stats and considering how they will interact with the PCs, the environment and other monsters. I think one of the kinds of modularity D&D could do with is what I'll call JRPG vs CRPG combat. That is, straight forward standing in ranks choosing attacks, versus full tactical movement and terrain etc. Note that I am not making a value judgement between these things, just that not everyone wants full tactical depth, while others do. In a perfect world you would have two MMs, lean versus robust. [/QUOTE]

Verification