Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5943035" data-attributes="member: 64209">I'm in agreement with all three posters above me. It's entirely possible that the article was one where he was SOLELY talking about the mechanical conversion, and not writing up a full statblock. That hadn't occurred to me at first. If that's the case, then I certainly wish to reign in my critique of the article, but I'll leave my OP unedited in that regard, because it does address the concern I have that the article (rightly or wrongly) brought about.&nbsp;So, even with that admission (that Mearls might know exactly what he's doing, and the article might have been SOLEY conversion, not a full writeup), I sincerely hope that all of the old ecologies and statblocks and even (especially) the &quot;silly little powers&quot; are considered.&nbsp;For &quot;silly little powers&quot; I include things like:the Hook Horror's carapace as &quot;treasure&quot;a Genie's ability to create food and wine 1/daya Solar's ability to cast continual flame at will&nbsp;and so on.&nbsp;A lot of people defended the removal of these types of things...the out of combat abilites and low level abilites of powerful monsters that they'd &quot;never use&quot;. &nbsp;However, these are a major point that I'm trying to highlight with the OP: that such things can dramatically add to the roleplay and out of combat potential of the creature.&nbsp;I guess, what I'm trying to say (in addition to the motivation components) is that if you remove out of combat abilities...well, you remove out of combat efficacy for the monsters. And hence, most motivation to interact with any monster becomes combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5943035, member: 64209"] I'm in agreement with all three posters above me. It's entirely possible that the article was one where he was SOLELY talking about the mechanical conversion, and not writing up a full statblock. That hadn't occurred to me at first. If that's the case, then I certainly wish to reign in my critique of the article, but I'll leave my OP unedited in that regard, because it does address the concern I have that the article (rightly or wrongly) brought about. So, even with that admission (that Mearls might know exactly what he's doing, and the article might have been SOLEY conversion, not a full writeup), I sincerely hope that all of the old ecologies and statblocks and even (especially) the "silly little powers" are considered. For "silly little powers" I include things like: the Hook Horror's carapace as "treasure" a Genie's ability to create food and wine 1/day a Solar's ability to cast continual flame at will and so on. A lot of people defended the removal of these types of things...the out of combat abilites and low level abilites of powerful monsters that they'd "never use". However, these are a major point that I'm trying to highlight with the OP: that such things can dramatically add to the roleplay and out of combat potential of the creature. I guess, what I'm trying to say (in addition to the motivation components) is that if you remove out of combat abilities...well, you remove out of combat efficacy for the monsters. And hence, most motivation to interact with any monster becomes combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification