D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Micah Sweet]

1. How high? Level 10? 6? Where do you cut off game play to serve versimillitude

2. Every player in the world then is going to farm aarakroca to get free returning javelins that do +1d4 damage. They are only CR 1/2 creatures, after all. Then I will hunt down the hobgoblin's fey sword for that sweet 2d10 damage.

3. They are treated like specialists. The stat block is just not announcing that "this monster is using a specialized skill that PCs can't use".

Versimillitude is all well and good until you're building monsters with 8 HD, 5 levels of fighter (complete with skill points and feats every 3 HD) and magical gear fit for a 5th level NPC (+1 weapon, +1 armor, +1 cloak, etc) to make them a challenge.

1. I like 14 personally, and make spells higher than 5th rituals that are expensive, rare and time-consuming for all classes.

2. Yup, That doesn't bother me.

3. I see no reason by any metric I care about that a humanoid creature (dictionary definition, not WotC definition) can have an ability like that PCs can't possibly learn, nor do I accept that the entire warrior contingent of the entire species of hobgoblins are "specialists" in any meaning of the word that makes sense to me.

You want a high challenge humanoid opponent? Make them, at least in broad strokes and concept, like a PC. Otherwise, use monsters.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm willing to accept that the math for CR might fail for humanoid NPCs because a portion of their abilities is built around sustainability, rather than pure offense and defense capability.

It's not a "PC vs NPC" issue for me. It's a "people versus monsters" issue. Or a "tool-using, weapon and armor bearing humanoid versus everything else" issue.

Perhaps the issue is the Monster Manual needs to not just remove humanoids, but any weapon welding creatures? They didn't go far enough by adding claws and natural armor to goblinoids and Kobolds?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This would depend on the game design and DM:

• Other editions and have games for "master craft" items and such, so it could be a limited way of introducing them.
• Or it could be something PCs can learn from hobgoblings but it might take months or even years, something hobgoblins are taught from a very early age and take years to perfect.
• Or it could be some varnish created by hobgoblin spittle.
• Or it could be something else...

Take your pick--whatever works best for your game. As for the game's design, whatever works best for the designers I suppose.

I would want one of those explanations explicitly used, or at least the concept of PCs learning these kinds of abilities explicitly covered in a, "yes, you can do this" kind of way.

 

[Remathilis]

1. I like 14 personally, and make spells higher than 5th rituals that are expensive, rare and time-consuming for all classes.

The creatures being discussed are literally under CR 2. We're talking monster math that fails at level 4, not 14.

You want a high challenge humanoid opponent? Make them, at least in broad strokes and concept, like a PC. Otherwise, use monsters.

Yeah, that seals it. No more weapon and armor using monsters. Everything the PCs fight has natural attacks and natural armor.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The creatures being discussed are literally under CR 2. We're talking monster math that fails at level 4, not 14.

Yeah, that seals it. No more weapon and armor using monsters. Everything the PCs fight has natural attacks and natural armor.

Or you do like I suggested.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you willing to accept that at the cost of long sloggy fights where monsters make dozens of attacks and do middling damage to PCs?

That's a False Dichotomy. It's not, "Long sloggy fight with middling damage" or "Attacks that make no sense within the fiction." There's the third option of, "Has a written special ability in the stat block that lets it do more damage."

 

[ezo]

I would want one of those explanations explicitly used, or at least the concept of PCs learning these kinds of abilities explicitly covered in a, "yes, you can do this" kind of way.

And you could completely do that. Take your pick of explanations and roll with it.

 

[mamba]

I mean, it's still a javelin. PCs can use them, but they aren't getting 1d4 extra damage and returning it to hand.

I thought you said they did not drop as part of their loot. Might have misunderstood you

The 24 Aarakroca has a magical javelin that deals thunder damage and returns to its hand, but only the aarakroca can use this magical weapon and people complained it can't be looted and used by PCs.

So it is exactly like the Hobgoblin’s sword, a weapon with two sets of stats, depending on who wields it.

If this were true for all weapons (a mage wielding a sword deals 1d4, a rogue 1d6, and a fighter 1d8, as mentioned earlier) that would be one thing (and it would not limit the hobgoblin to dealing extra damage with a sword…), but it isn’t.

I rather have this consistent than the game shouting from the rooftops ‘this is all made up nonsense, there is no rule but to match the CR, and you should not care that it is’. If it shouts this loud enough, then I end up not caring about any of it…

 

[Micah Sweet]

And you could completely do that. Take your pick of explanations and roll with it.

My stance is that a game that does not provide any explanation or states that they aren't needed because the numbers are what's important is not a game I'm interested in playing. That design philosophy does not appeal to me.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem is no matter what they would have done, people would find fault in it.

The 24 Aarakroca has a magical javelin that deals thunder damage and returns to its hand, but only the aarakroca can use this magical weapon and people complained it can't be looted and used by PCs.

I missed this, but the bolded is a problem, yes. It should be lootable and able to be sold to other aarakocra, and should 100% be usable by aarakocra PCs. They were right to complain.

The 24 hobgoblin uses a mundane longsword that can be looted but deals more damage when used by a hobgoblin to account for it's CR and people complain about that. You could say that they have special hobgoblin fey metal longswords, but the PCs would absolutely want to loot those for 2d10 damage.

So no matter which way you go with weapons, you lose. Magical weapon tied to the monster? No good. Mundane weapon scaled to appropriate damage per CR? No good. I guess give every monster claw and bite attacks? Or maybe give every creature over CR 1 three or more weapon attacks per round that do minor damage and hope you can win by attrition? (And drag each fight out to multiple round grinds)

And the bolded is back to the False Dichotomy. I've already explained(several times now) a third option for how it could be done without complaint.