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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6206467" data-attributes="member: 1465">Read it here:<a href="https://wizards.com/Dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131024" target="_blank">https://wizards.com/Dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131024</a>My comments:1) & 2) Despite some of critiques about re-envisioning classic monsters, I do think that monsters descriptions are very important for the DM. Ideally, I would like to see at least a small description about how each monster behaves in each pillar. E.g. for the combat pillar, something more than combat stats: the general combat attitude (is this monster a coward that prefers hiding or tries to avoid confrontation, how likely to surrender or flee or fights to the death...) and of course tactics (does it ambush, does it use hit-and-run tactics, does it blow his best weapon in first round or saves it for emergency, how does it combine his special abilities, does it team up with others of his kind...).But then also how the monster fits in the world can be really useful. I am not a fan of demographics ("unique", "rare" and "common" are good enough for me, I don't need details about how many Ankhegs live in the world), but certainly the typical habitat and general placement in the food chain are good details (tell me if this monsters is a predator, and if it east humanoids, but I don't need to know more).Generally, there is only limited space for monsters description before it gets annoying or the number of creatures in the book gets too low, so my wish is that they strive for good info rather than a lot of it.3) Ok, we need to talk... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"Prestige classes" in general are going to be tough to design in 5e. The reason is that we have 2 delivery mechanics for them right now: feats and subclasses. Feats are good because they can have prerequisites that in turn require a minimum level (hence a feat can indeed be designed as "prestigious"); but feats might still be too few and too small to cover certain prestige classes archetypes of the past. Subclasses are even more problematic because: (a) while some classes have subclasses with 6-7 features, others have them with 4 features only, it's going to be hard to fit certain archetypes into such a small space; (b) subclasses start at very low level, which isn't "prestigious".That said, today's Q&A focuses on subclasses to represent multiclassed characters which is similar to only some prestige classes of 3.5 which had this speficic purposes (and weren't in fact "prestigious").This sounds certainly like a good idea to me. It remains to be seen how it fits with regular multiclassing... Is this going to end up like we can tolerate "bad" multiclassing combinations (e.g. Fighter/Mage) because we have subclasses to cover the same character concept? I have to say that this will probably work for me, at least it will feel much better to "fix" by choosing a Fighter subclass or Wizard subclass, rather than the awkward 3e solution that required stacking levels in 3 classes to do so!</blockquote>

Verification