So, in this theoretical minimalist D&D, we don't choose human, dwarf, elf, etc for PCs? We choose a Body Plan (usually Humanoid) and a Size (usually Small or Medium). The superficial stuff like pointy ears or lives under mountains goes into an ecology blurb on the side.
D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Creepy and Crawly—Simultaneously!
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
urLordy said:
Hell, why do we even need to do that? Take a hypothetical hyper-intelligent planet-sized ooze PC. Is it really much different from a human PC, by the rules? It can take classes and have feats just like anyone else.
What we have rules for and what we leave up to reskinning is largely arbitrary.
Actually a human, dwarf or elf do not even exist without class levels. They need to be defined by the class system first to become creatures in the system.
Well yes I can see entries for humans in the bestiary but they have integrated some kind of role in them. None of them depict a race. Otherwise if say, a human commoner was the base human, then all human characters should have access to pack tactics, right?
What I am saying is, we need monster design to be significantly more clear because DMs love to create their own versions of critters. What I personally prefer and I understand it is not everyone's cup of tea is a building blocks design; this is what a medium humanoid can do in this system; make it an elf and it will get a couple of bonuses and/or penalties. Add class levels on top of that (because an elf wizard is first a medium humanoid, then an elf, then a wizard, and all those blocks add up). Right now, players and monsters are completely separate and at least as far as we know we don't have tools to build monsters; indeed NPCs that should be fairly much like PCs actually have their own individual statblocks. Several "chiefs" for instance get the commander aura, can I too as a PC? (I should, what's special about them).
There are other ways to do this. You can have a base block for each creature by role and level like 4E did. You can have creature types and level define what a monster can do like 3E did. BUt I really don't want to go back to AD&D were the monster system is not transparent at all and every monster is designed by exception with no chassis.
I never said we should have no separate entries for different types btw. I just said that we should save space by having a central area for the part of the rules that are common and then on each entry give the extra parts of the block. In the end I am giving even further emphasis on differentiation than in a system that reprints near identical stat blocks time and again because my way the differences are what is emphasized.
5th Ed is the easiest when it comes to conversion friendly, I have now converted tons of classes, monsters, and spells, etc, from previous editions with ease and accuracy.
I can whip up a cool creature in 5th Ed quicker than any previous edition
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I still don't get the claim that wasps / bees / hornets basically attack the same (or even have the same motivations, or whatever). Or that dragons are. Or giants are. I kind of get canines, mechanically, depending on breed.
I'd rather they give stats that actually reflect the creature, not say "here's your wasp / bee / hornet." Because, if I did that, then, at best, I'd have something accurate for one of them, but not the other two. If it was "here's your wasp / bee / hornet, and here's how you turn the dials to the whichever you select," then I think I'd have zero problem with that. The wasp paralyzes you, the bee dies after the sting, the wasp bites and stings you (with potentially pretty poisonous venom). Or, if it was "here's your dragon, and here's how you turn the dials to the whichever type you select," then I think I'd have zero problem with that, as well.
I don't mind saving space, where it's appropriate. I do mind the mechanics not accurately reflecting the fiction. I'd rather them say "we made a giant wasp, but we didn't make a giant bee or giant hornet, sorry" than "we made a giant wasp; if you want a giant bee or giant hornet, just call it that, because they're all basically the same." Well, no, they're not. Neither are giants, or dragons, or whatever. I can see saying "up this dragon's damage die by one step" or "change this sting to a bite" or the like, but I do object to "eh, they're basically the same."
Just my take, obviously, but if you're going to give us mechanics, make it match the fiction. That was my problem with the hook horror, a while back. It could impale you and keep you in place (escape on a Strength check); okay, sure. But, HP isn't necessarily getting skewered, is it? Oh, is it physical damage, then? Enough to impale you? If a stone giant throws a boulder at me, and it does HP damage, does that mean it was physical damage, then? Enough to crush me?
The problem, of course, is we're getting mixed signals about what things represent. Do hook horrors and poisoned weapons just physically connect more often than other things? It's things like this I want resolved within the system. The mechanics don't necessarily match the fiction, nor do they necessarily work well with other mechanics. Because of HP, I can get lightly brushed by boulders, but hook horrors and poisoned weapons hit more often, and jumping off a cliff means I'm the Assassin's Creed guy jumping into hay (as long as I have enough HP). And that's a problem for me, personally.
I'd like to see them fix these things. Only want one stat block? Fine; either say "it's not all three, and we didn't make the other two" or say "here's how to tweak it to make it one of the other two." But, please, don't say "it's all three!" when it's clearly not. Please, define HP in a way that works with the mechanics you put into the game, like falling damage, boulders, hook horrors, poisoned weapons, and healing. It would be much appreciated. As always, play what you like
I'd rather they give stats that actually reflect the creature, not say "here's your wasp / bee / hornet." Because, if I did that, then, at best, I'd have something accurate for one of them, but not the other two. If it was "here's your wasp / bee / hornet, and here's how you turn the dials to the whichever you select," then I think I'd have zero problem with that. The wasp paralyzes you, the bee dies after the sting, the wasp bites and stings you (with potentially pretty poisonous venom). Or, if it was "here's your dragon, and here's how you turn the dials to the whichever type you select," then I think I'd have zero problem with that, as well.
I don't mind saving space, where it's appropriate. I do mind the mechanics not accurately reflecting the fiction. I'd rather them say "we made a giant wasp, but we didn't make a giant bee or giant hornet, sorry" than "we made a giant wasp; if you want a giant bee or giant hornet, just call it that, because they're all basically the same." Well, no, they're not. Neither are giants, or dragons, or whatever. I can see saying "up this dragon's damage die by one step" or "change this sting to a bite" or the like, but I do object to "eh, they're basically the same."
Just my take, obviously, but if you're going to give us mechanics, make it match the fiction. That was my problem with the hook horror, a while back. It could impale you and keep you in place (escape on a Strength check); okay, sure. But, HP isn't necessarily getting skewered, is it? Oh, is it physical damage, then? Enough to impale you? If a stone giant throws a boulder at me, and it does HP damage, does that mean it was physical damage, then? Enough to crush me?
The problem, of course, is we're getting mixed signals about what things represent. Do hook horrors and poisoned weapons just physically connect more often than other things? It's things like this I want resolved within the system. The mechanics don't necessarily match the fiction, nor do they necessarily work well with other mechanics. Because of HP, I can get lightly brushed by boulders, but hook horrors and poisoned weapons hit more often, and jumping off a cliff means I'm the Assassin's Creed guy jumping into hay (as long as I have enough HP). And that's a problem for me, personally.
I'd like to see them fix these things. Only want one stat block? Fine; either say "it's not all three, and we didn't make the other two" or say "here's how to tweak it to make it one of the other two." But, please, don't say "it's all three!" when it's clearly not. Please, define HP in a way that works with the mechanics you put into the game, like falling damage, boulders, hook horrors, poisoned weapons, and healing. It would be much appreciated. As always, play what you like
Similar Threads
