Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7641168" data-attributes="member: 177">The published numbers and game stats are, I think, intended to be a decent general purpose representation.  I don't think they are intended to be "the best" for all scenarios.  When I assemble a particular encounter, I'm going to choose the representation that fits the need of the moment, not necessarily the Monster Manual standard.For the most part, unless there's a good reason, sure.  I'd agree that, once I've rolled initiative, I'm not going to suddenly change it from a standard bugbear to a mook bugbear.  I'll be using whichever representation I started with for the rest of that fight/encounter  to represent the creature.But, if something in the narrative calls for it, I might change the bugbear's status between encounters, especially if those encounters are notably separate in time.  The Mook, if they earn a name, might become a standard bugbear.  And then might even get enhanced stats or even class levels if the interactions with the party warrant a more prominent state in the fiction that calls for a more detailed representation.1) I think the "invalidate the setting" is hyperbole.  You may violate their expectations if the overall and long-term effect is markedly different.  But one encounter is not going to suddenly dash the whole setting on the rocks.  Players are smart.  They can get the idea that a thing may have different mechanical representations.  2) Why we'd do this was noted a long time back.  The full representation *has more bookkeeping*, and bookkeeping is pretty boring, and slows play down.  So, we might choose to ditch the full representation when it doesn't actually add much to the game.  It is a solid reason related to the quality of play for everyone at the table.</blockquote>

Verification