D&D 5E Observations on the Monsters in the Starter Set.

[Dausuul]

I assume you mean this to be your opinion and not something factual?

By definition, anything I say is my opinion. As for whether it's "factual," I'm not sure how you judge that. There is only one factual authority for determining whether something is part of the rules as written, and that's the rulebook. Changing what the rulebook says is a house rule.

Now, there's nothing wrong with house rules! And I totally support encouraging players to propose customizations to their spells and abilities. But it is just as much a house rule to say "My magic missile looks like arrows shot from a bow" as it is to say "My magic missile does 1d6 damage instead of 1d4+1." Either one is a customization that I would be okay with, but they both change how the spell works in play. For example, now a wizard can kill people by magic while pretending to be a magic-less archer. In some campaigns, this won't matter, but in others--say, a campaign that takes place in Dragonlance's Solamnia--it could matter quite a lot.

Or suppose I say, "My magic missile looks like a balor that appears, roars, and slashes the target with its claws before vanishing in a cloud of smoke and flame." At this point, what we've got is no longer an attack spell with flashy visuals; it's a multi-sensory illusion spell with no saving throw, that happens to deal damage! A clever wizard with a decent Charisma can use this to terrorize all manner of foes. You may still be okay with it, but it is a big power boost for a 1st-level spell, even though none of the numbers have changed.

 

[Agamon]

By definition, anything I say is my opinion. As for whether it's "factual," I'm not sure how you judge that. There is only one factual authority for determining whether something is part of the rules as written, and that's the rulebook. Changing what the rulebook says is a house rule.

Now, there's nothing wrong with house rules! And I totally support encouraging players to propose customizations to their spells and abilities. But it is just as much a house rule to say "My magic missile looks like arrows shot from a bow" as it is to say "My magic missile does 1d6 damage instead of 1d4+1." Either one is a customization that I would be okay with, but they both change how the spell works in play. For example, now a wizard can kill people by magic while pretending to be a magic-less archer. In some campaigns, this won't matter, but in others--say, a campaign that takes place in Dragonlance's Solamnia--it could matter quite a lot.

Or suppose I say, "My magic missile looks like a balor that appears, roars, and slashes the target with its claws before vanishing in a cloud of smoke and flame." At this point, what we've got is no longer an attack spell with flashy visuals; it's a multi-sensory illusion spell with no saving throw, that happens to deal damage! A clever wizard with a decent Charisma can use this to terrorize all manner of foes. You may still be okay with it, but it is a big power boost for a 1st-level spell, even though none of the numbers have changed.

I'm just saying I don't think fluff is a rule, so changing the fluff isn't changing the rule. Now if changing the fluff to something that makes little sense if the mechanics isn't changed, then yeah, that's going overboard. The force bow isn't a real bow, the arrows aren't real arrows. They are just a different representation of the missiles in a magic missile spell.

The balor idea, while interesting, goes beyond what the spell is. It should remain fundamentally what it is, individual missiles that strike a number of targets. What it looks like isn't a big deal, as long as the player doesn't expect some extra mechanical effect from the description. Just like the fluff change of the missile being flaming skulls might spook the opponent, but not enough to cause a condition, and the fire's not real, so nothing burns.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

But to your specific point, first, I doubt the ability states that the it makes the soul irretrievable. If it doesn't, then this is just jumping to conclusions rather than RAW, which is counter to your argument. And if the ability says it steals the foe's lifeforce, why must one assume that it completely rips the entire soul away, especially for such small payout? Perhaps it only leeches the lifeforce without annihilating it. Everything makes sense again.

I hope this in how they end up doing it. This is actually how the speak with dead spell is described as working. It does not recall the character's soul--he's still happily (or unhappily) hanging out in the Outer Planes. It simply revives his (body's) animating spirit. (In case anyone doesn't care to look it up, the distinction between "soul" and "animating spirit" is specifically and literally called out in the spell--it isn't my interpretation). So there's that complexity with speak with dead.

By definition, anything I say is my opinion. As for whether it's "factual," I'm not sure how you judge that. There is only one factual authority for determining whether something is part of the rules as written, and that's the rulebook. Changing what the rulebook says is a house rule.

Now, there's nothing wrong with house rules! And I totally support encouraging players to propose customizations to their spells and abilities. But it is just as much a house rule to say "My magic missile looks like arrows shot from a bow" as it is to say "My magic missile does 1d6 damage instead of 1d4+1." Either one is a customization that I would be okay with, but they both change how the spell works in play. For example, now a wizard can kill people by magic while pretending to be a magic-less archer. In some campaigns, this won't matter, but in others--say, a campaign that takes place in Dragonlance's Solamnia--it could matter quite a lot.

Or suppose I say, "My magic missile looks like a balor that appears, roars, and slashes the target with its claws before vanishing in a cloud of smoke and flame." At this point, what we've got is no longer an attack spell with flashy visuals; it's a multi-sensory illusion spell with no saving throw, that happens to deal damage! A clever wizard with a decent Charisma can use this to terrorize all manner of foes. You may still be okay with it, but it is a big power boost for a 1st-level spell, even though none of the numbers have changed.

I'm having flashbacks of debates about the nature of Coincidental Magic and what it can do in OWoD Mage: the Ascension.

 

[caudor]

Patterns

Looking over the monsters, I've noted a pattern:

Monsters that have CR 0 are worth 10 XP (only commoners)
Monsters that have CR 1/8 are worth 25 XP
Monsters that have CR 1/4 are worth 50 XP
Monsters that have CR 1 are worth 200 XP
Monsters that have CR 2 are worth 450 XP
Monsters that have CR 3 are worth 700 XP
One monster that has CR 4 is worth 1100 XP
One monster that has CR 8 is worth 3900 XP

This info may be helpful for converting playtest monsters.

 

[Thaumaturge]

To be fair, humans also tend to carry disease, and are far more effective at spreading it because of their insidious ability to pass through cities unnoticed.

A skeleton is almost antiseptic by comparison.

*cough*

Did you just call me diseased?

Thaumaturge.

 

[77IM]

Another interesting thing: in the text of the adventure it will often say things like, "There are 5 orcs, plus a leader named Gronsh who is an orc wit 27 hit points."

I am worried that simply inflating HP will feel grindy, or provide a tactical disincentive to attack the leader. But, often encounter text will say something like "If Gronsh dies, the other orcs flee," which may make attacking the boss a good idea after all.

 

[pemerton]

In 1e/2e, mummies were powered by positive energy.

But I think that was probably an error in 1st ed, which then got carried over as a legacy issue into 2nd ed. They were still damaged by holy water, for instance, and able to be turned by clerics and paladins.