D&D 5E Wandering Monsters- playable monsters

[Sunseeker]

Now this I do disagree with. If monsters have to follow the same math as PC's, it's massively more complicated than if you have two sets of rules.

Case in point - the monster creation rules for 4e fit on the back of a business card. That's it. All monsters in 4e D&D can be created from the rules that fit on a business card. The monster creation rules in 3e were several A4 pages 8 point type long. Every monster type was different from each other and had to reference rules in the PHB and other places in order to be created.

That's much, much more complicated than having separate rules.

I think your last point is probably the most telling. "It will make putting monsters together as simple as building a character." How long does it take to make an 11th level wizard in 3e D&D? Building characters in D&D is hardly a simple thing.

I was under the impression DDN was striving for making character creation rules about as complex as 4e monster creation.

I sincerely have been trying not to think of DDN as the reincarnation of 3e.

 

[Tovec]

Now this I do disagree with. If monsters have to follow the same math as PC's, it's massively more complicated than if you have two sets of rules.

Case in point - the monster creation rules for 4e fit on the back of a business card. That's it. All monsters in 4e D&D can be created from the rules that fit on a business card. The monster creation rules in 3e were several A4 pages 8 point type long. Every monster type was different from each other and had to reference rules in the PHB and other places in order to be created.

That's much, much more complicated than having separate rules.

I think your last point is probably the most telling. "It will make putting monsters together as simple as building a character." How long does it take to make an 11th level wizard in 3e D&D? Building characters in D&D is hardly a simple thing.

So, let me get this straight. In 5e in your mind the monster creation rules should be 4e's model but the character creation rules should be 3e. And the problem with making monster-PCs is that they would have to follow 3e's model to make that possible? Wow. Yeah, I disagree with you too.

Also, again in PF as it is the best model for 3e I have so far (most expansive to cover most creatures) the rules to turn a monster into a PC is 1 page. That is the real issue here. Yes there are other rules for creating new monsters from scratch but that isn't the topic of the conversation and it really falls more under the other half I was saying, that something is a bad option on both sides of the screen. It shouldn't take 4 pages (in PF's Bestiary) to create monsters, even though that's still FAR less than the core book for PCs. It could have advanced rules perhaps but it shouldn't be necessary.

I was under the impression DDN was striving for making character creation rules about as complex as 4e monster creation.

I sincerely have been trying not to think of DDN as the reincarnation of 3e.

THIS.

I want certain elements of 3e but there is no way I want the same power levels or huge complexity of 3e. 5e doesn't seem to want that either. So, so far at least, we're going down the right path.

 

[Sunseeker]

THIS.

I want certain elements of 3e but there is no way I want the same power levels or huge complexity of 3e. 5e doesn't seem to want that either. So, so far at least, we're going down the right path.

I really enjoy 3e's flexibility and creativity. 4e was a little too rigid in that regard. Monster races, templates and the like were a big reason I still enjoy creating characters in 3.X.

 

[Hussar]

I was under the impression DDN was striving for making character creation rules about as complex as 4e monster creation.

I sincerely have been trying not to think of DDN as the reincarnation of 3e.

Now that's fair. If the chargen rules in 5e are as simple as the 4e monster creation rules, then sure, no worries. But, from what I've seen, chargen rules in 5e are significantly more complicated than that. But, I could be mistaken.

Like you say, if the chargen rules are that simple, then sure, fair enough, use them for creating monsters as well. I doubt it's going to look like that at the end though.

 

[thundershot]

Wow. This thread is dizzying...

My group is one of the ones that wants playable monsters. My groups rarely have "normal" races. If the player is having fun, all is well so long as it doesn't detract from anyone else's fun.. And that wouldn't be the fault of the race, but the player.

Having said that, we prefer simple ones for the most part. Rakasta are a huge part of my world. We also have a Giff that hasn't seen much action since 2E.

They should have "watered down" PC versions of many races. A medium size Giff, for example. Kinda like how the Minotaur was handled in 4E. After all, if the player wants the character for the flavor, the statistical advantages being limited shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Starfox]

My group is one of the ones that wants playable monsters. My groups rarely have "normal" races.

My group is one of the ones that wants playable monsters too. It is rare for anyone around here to play anything but human, with about one "exotic" character per campaign - and by exotic I mean things like elf, asimaar, or faun, not really "monsters". But we still want the option to be there.

Its fun how different we can be and still the same in some regards.

 

[thundershot]

Looking back, we've had Lizardfolk, Kercpa, Rakasta, Hengyokai, Giff, Weretiger, Avariel, Tengu, a Hoop (from Gamma World)...

 

[HeroForge]

Poll question 2 sums up my position on how they should be presented: You play a "lesser" version of the creature, be it younger, inexperienced, or raised outside it's natural culture/habitat.
I don't like the way question 4 was phrased, but it seems to be asking something similar.

I enjoy monstrous PCs, I really do. Either gaining monstrous levels, or monster races gaining class levels, it's a fun and different approach to the game. But, as much as I love these things, they are by no means a mandatory part of the regular game. They are IMO, entirely accessory and while it's something I'd like to have, there's no rush to get it out asap.

Yep, there's no point in prohibiting something that is legitimately fun for everyone (including the DM). But there simply doesn't seem to be a satisfying way to work this in simply. At least, not a simple enough adding a whole 'nother book...

 

[Savage Wombat]

What's the ECL adjustment on a zombie thread?

 

[Argyle King]

For some reason I cannot see the voting options?