Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6214815" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I understand what you're saying, and I agree about using abbreviated stats and filling in details as needed.My contention is that the abbreviated stats need to be easily converted and expanded to PC stats. A monster needs to be inherently "PC-ready." The stats also need to produce similar results to PCs.For instance, it wouldn't be acceptable to me to give a monster a general action bonus, like, say a +3 to all checks, rather than using its ability mods and appropriate proficiency bonus. (I realize no version of the game did that--I'm just providing a conceptual example.) Real examples that I find unacceptable are the AD&D entries that lack ability scores (other than intelligence) and use arbitrary damage values for attacks without reference to the actual weapons being used.Failing to mention things like background traits and tool proficiencies is an example of something that I'm perfectly fine with. The monster entry format for the druid wildshapes in the current packet is fine. The only difference between them and intelligent creatures is that intelligent creatures would probably have more skills.In 3e a full stat write-up was an unwieldy mess, which is why it created the problems. But since Next has much simpler stats, it's not a big problem. For instance, they did a pretty good job of replicating fighters (of the previous packet) in some of the bestiary addenda a few packets back.I also see no reason that a well designer monster stat-block can't be designed to be readily converted to a PC. Let's pull something out of the current bestiary: minotaur.First, the minotaur is one of the creatures that has an arbitrary attack bonus that differs only 1 point from what it would be using character rules. The majority of monsters in the bestiary have attack bonuses that are the same as, or differ by only 1 point from that of ability mod + proficiency bonus based on HD. The exceptions that differ by 2 or more points tend to be high level monsters having attack bonuses that are too low, and a few low-level critters have bonuses that are too high. I'm going to assume that the final product will simply use the same numbers as PCs. Why not? They're virtually identical most of the time and require less work to create--yay for bounded accuracy. I'm also going to assume they will list a couple of skills for the minotaur, just like for the druid wildshape creatures.That is a perfectly PC-ready creature. It uses the same rules--it just doesn't have a character class. All that needs to be listed is the level in a PC class it is equivalent to (which, if designed right, could simply be the same level as listed for its encounter design) and a label as to how exotic it is (which could be on a table at the back of the monster manual). A half-page of rules in the DMG would indicate how to turn it into a PC. Probably by adding a background and adjusting ability scores if desired. Now it is an X level PC, give it the starting XP of a PC of that level, and you simply start adding additional classes through multiclassing as you level up.So basically all I'm asking them to do is give me a number for each intelligent monster, so DMs can have a common frame of reference and everyone doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. I'm not sure how that would hurt anyone's game, as long as there isn't a sense of player entitlement. As a DM who often likes to restrict PCs to PHB races, I'm still interested in having these options.It doesn't sound like we disagree too terribly much conceptually. Where we may differ is on what particulars should or should not make it into the listing. Do you feel that the current bestiary entries or druid wildshape creatures have too much information in their listings?</blockquote>

Verification