Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lazybones" data-source="post: 9574010" data-attributes="member: 143">When I first came into 5e after having not played for a decade or so (I skipped 4e entirely), I was confused that the monsters didn't seem to follow the same rules as player characters in terms of how the math behind them worked. In 3e, monster design was codified to the extent that you could easily add PC class levels to them (and were kind of expected to do so, if the published adventurers were any guide). It took me a while to get used to the 5e philosophy, but I kind of see the logic of it now (and I find 5e, with its &quot;simpler&quot; design philosophy, to be much more engaging than 3e). I think that this latest decision is an extension of that trend.I think ENWorld's user population reflects a philosophy that is a minority perspective in the TTRPG sphere. I have a feeling that most of the folks here are heavily into homebrew, are familiar with multiple RPG systems, and expect to do a lot of customization in their games. Heck, after playing 5e for 6 years I use custom monsters more often than &quot;stock&quot; ones, and I expect I'll be doing the same with 2024. At the higher levels in particular you were almost required to use custom monsters, since competent players could easily breeze through most of what was in the default MM. This is one area that I am glad to see the 2024 rules addressing.I do agree with most of the posters here and I would have preferred to have had both a) monster building guidelines and b) a table of how to modify NPC stat blocks based on existing PC species in either the DMG or MM. However, I also think it's not an issue for most people who play the game, and frankly I expect that ENWorld and/or the rest of the D&amp;D community will rectify those absences quite swiftly once the MM is out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lazybones, post: 9574010, member: 143"] When I first came into 5e after having not played for a decade or so (I skipped 4e entirely), I was confused that the monsters didn't seem to follow the same rules as player characters in terms of how the math behind them worked. In 3e, monster design was codified to the extent that you could easily add PC class levels to them (and were kind of expected to do so, if the published adventurers were any guide). It took me a while to get used to the 5e philosophy, but I kind of see the logic of it now (and I find 5e, with its "simpler" design philosophy, to be much more engaging than 3e). I think that this latest decision is an extension of that trend. I think ENWorld's user population reflects a philosophy that is a minority perspective in the TTRPG sphere. I have a feeling that most of the folks here are heavily into homebrew, are familiar with multiple RPG systems, and expect to do a lot of customization in their games. Heck, after playing 5e for 6 years I use custom monsters more often than "stock" ones, and I expect I'll be doing the same with 2024. At the higher levels in particular you were almost required to use custom monsters, since competent players could easily breeze through most of what was in the default MM. This is one area that I am glad to see the 2024 rules addressing. I do agree with most of the posters here and I would have preferred to have had both a) monster building guidelines and b) a table of how to modify NPC stat blocks based on existing PC species in either the DMG or MM. However, I also think it's not an issue for most people who play the game, and frankly I expect that ENWorld and/or the rest of the D&D community will rectify those absences quite swiftly once the MM is out. [/QUOTE]

Verification