Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 1893395" data-attributes="member: 25930">I think it's time we stopped viewing the creature "rules" as inviolate.First, they say flat out in the MM that "Many creatures in this book do not adhere to the guidelines on the table." [Page 296, referring to table 5-1 and recommended HD based on size). In fact, all through the section on creating monsters the book uses words such as "recommend", "guidelines", "suggested". Concerning skill points and feats, the rules specifically suggest ways to tweak the creature when the rules and tables don't generate the desired result.Second, concept is far more important than a slavish adherence to rules which cannot possibly cover every possible eventuality. Even when applying a template, which is a fairly straightforward exercise, it's reasonable for the writer to rule that the resulting creature is not quite right and needs tweaking.Third, legitimate errors should be caught. An example: AC 14 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +2 natural) is an error. Whether or not the creature should have such a high Dex can be argued, but the fact that the AC as written adds up to 15 is clear. But if a dragon has too many skill points - is that really "wrong" or just tweaking? I think it's time we started looking at the rules for creating monsters as guidelines, much as we do with pricing magic items. Otherwise, we just get bogged down in unimportant minutia. Just my two cents'...</blockquote>