Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5885508" data-attributes="member: 58197">There is some validity to this, but remember that even in 3E, monsters mostly run on arbitrarium. What feat or class power enables the troll to regenerate? The dragon to breathe fire? The annis hag to grapple on a claw hit? Where do all those natural AC bonuses come from? Answer: Pulled out of the developer's rear end, just like 4E. You can't know what a monster will be able to do until you see it in action.And as for objections to the third-level orc fighter having Whirlwind Attack, that is far too much. It goes way over the line from "in-world consistency" to "obsessive nitpicking." The rules are approximations of the game world, they are not absolute freaking laws. Otherwise there would be no need for Rule Zero or DM adjudication.To me, a good rule of thumb is that if the characters could reasonably act on a given piece of information, it's worth keeping it consistent in the mechanics--or at least calling it out when you're inconsistent. But if not, screw it. The characters know that a wizard casting a spell can be disrupted, so monster wizards should have disruptable casting. But the characters have never heard of a "third level fighter." They might recognize a Whirlwind Attack, but they don't know from feats or prerequisites.</blockquote>