Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5969876" data-attributes="member: 6668292">But, if you approach it this way, doesn't that make it slightly more prescriptive?Personally, I prefer a &quot;here are the stats it has; what level is it?&quot; approach. I think a good chart can handle both well, though. For example, I have such a chart in my game. If I decide that this particular creature is probably hit die 4 (hit die 4 is &quot;an average settled adult&quot; according to the chart), I can look up &quot;attack bonus&quot; for &quot;professionally skilled&quot; and see that it's bonus should be about +7.On the other hand, if I see that hit die 4 is &quot;an average settled adult&quot; and decide to start there, I can build it from scratch (a longer process than &quot;it gets +7&quot;). When I do, if the attack bonus ends up at +7 naturally (which it likely will if significant resources are put there), I can then label it as &quot;professionally skilled&quot; for its hit die at attacking.This chart has served me and my players well: I can build something from scratch, and describe its qualities based on the chart afterwards; on the other hand, I can say &quot;I need a hit die 12 creature right now to threaten them with, so what attack bonus do I need?&quot; and wing it as I go (this isn't my approach, but I think many do something like this).Basically, trying to manipulate role types (&quot;switch it from brute to lurker&quot;) to make it work seems a little clunky to me, if not just a little inelegant. I'm sure that with practice it makes sense, and can be done quickly enough, but the same can be said for a lot of non-intuitive systems.Thanks for the reply, though. You guys have a lot more experience in using the monster roles than I do, and so you definitely know more about it (from actual play experience, if nothing else). Personally, I would like to see monster roles be purely descriptive. I'm not against advice on saying &quot;lurkers tend to have these sorts of abilities; brutes tend to have these; etc.&quot; I think that would help a lot of people out, but it's basically an optional &quot;prescriptive&quot; method, as far as I can tell. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5969876, member: 6668292"] But, if you approach it this way, doesn't that make it slightly more prescriptive? Personally, I prefer a "here are the stats it has; what level is it?" approach. I think a good chart can handle both well, though. For example, I have such a chart in my game. If I decide that this particular creature is probably hit die 4 (hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" according to the chart), I can look up "attack bonus" for "professionally skilled" and see that it's bonus should be about +7. On the other hand, if I see that hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" and decide to start there, I can build it from scratch (a longer process than "it gets +7"). When I do, if the attack bonus ends up at +7 naturally (which it likely will if significant resources are put there), I can then label it as "professionally skilled" for its hit die at attacking. This chart has served me and my players well: I can build something from scratch, and describe its qualities based on the chart afterwards; on the other hand, I can say "I need a hit die 12 creature right now to threaten them with, so what attack bonus do I need?" and wing it as I go (this isn't my approach, but I think many do something like this). Basically, trying to manipulate role types ("switch it from brute to lurker") to make it work seems a little clunky to me, if not just a little inelegant. I'm sure that with practice it makes sense, and can be done quickly enough, but the same can be said for a lot of non-intuitive systems. Thanks for the reply, though. You guys have a lot more experience in using the monster roles than I do, and so you definitely know more about it (from actual play experience, if nothing else). Personally, I would like to see monster roles be purely descriptive. I'm not against advice on saying "lurkers tend to have these sorts of abilities; brutes tend to have these; etc." I think that would help a lot of people out, but it's basically an optional "prescriptive" method, as far as I can tell. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]

Verification