I sort of envision Devil Cults being grander in scale. Demonic cults, because of the chaotic beings they worship are ultimately self-destructive. They may last for a while, gathering more people through sheer potency, but eventually they will implode, largely precluding (to my mind) institutionalization. Devil Cults on the other hand, I could see having a large and widespread following, covert AND overt. They are more systematic in their approach to evangelism because they make use of both...
View full commentI sort of envision Devil Cults being grander in scale. Demonic cults, because of the chaotic beings they worship are ultimately self-destructive. They may last for a while, gathering more people through sheer potency, but eventually they will implode, largely precluding (to my mind) institutionalization.
Devil Cults on the other hand, I could see having a large and widespread following, covert AND overt. They are more systematic in their approach to evangelism because they make use of both carrot and stick. Not to offend anyone, but think of the crusades-era Catholic Church. There are many levels of hierarchy and ascension is gained by right and cunning, not force (to an extent).
Greater Mummies should be immune to fire in a big way due to their magical natures and their power and make sure that the there are different kinds of liches; 2nd edition Ravenloft had several kinds of liches from Defiler Liches, Elemental Liches, Drow Liches, and Psionic Liches as well as Dracoliches I would be really cool to include them in it
Couldn't we just drop colour-coded dragons, please? And while we're at it, forget about fixed alignments for a whole species of intelligent creatures? Dragons encountered by the players should all be individuals, anyway. Dragons should become a toolbox: Provide a general template and pick and choose whatever abilities make sense for the single, unique dragon the party is about to encounter. Make dragons special, rather than just another random monster encounter.
One of the things that should be considered is the Idea of Multi Headed Dragons and that multi Headed Dragons possess a collective Intelligence. in essence all of the heads united together as one mind
I don't think creature types should have much if any mechanical consequence. I'd rather label creatures with keywords, so special effects can work on them. Hide from Undead needs the game to notate what is an undead creature, and an Amulet of Protection from Vegetables needs you to define what is a plant. But I don't want dragons inherently having different stats than bears. The complexity of 3e-era monster creation was WAY too high. 4e monster design suffered from divorcing mechanics from...
View full commentI don't think creature types should have much if any mechanical consequence. I'd rather label creatures with keywords, so special effects can work on them. Hide from Undead needs the game to notate what is an undead creature, and an Amulet of Protection from Vegetables needs you to define what is a plant.
But I don't want dragons inherently having different stats than bears. The complexity of 3e-era monster creation was WAY too high. 4e monster design suffered from divorcing mechanics from narrative a bit too often, but I did very much appreciate that you could decide how challenging you want a monster to be, and then simply fiat the stats to be in the right place. Keep that ideology, albeit with a mild requirement of some justification for stats (sure, the monster is supposed to be a challenge for a 10th level party, but why is its AC 20? is it slow and armored, or fast but vulnerable to being grappled?). Then add monster types as keywords only.
Much preferred the Origin, Type (Subtype) system from 4E than this. I understand that, without the core assumptions that 4E had, there would be problems in labeling something as having a Fey origin in a setting without a Feywild, I think this is one thing that the previous edition just plain got right. Although, when it comes to 5E monsters, I'd be happy just to see the Level and XP value at the TOP of the write-up
View full commentMuch preferred the Origin, Type (Subtype) system from 4E than this.
I understand that, without the core assumptions that 4E had, there would be problems in labeling something as having a Fey origin in a setting without a Feywild, I think this is one thing that the previous edition just plain got right.
Although, when it comes to 5E monsters, I'd be happy just to see the Level and XP value at the TOP of the write-up
I've always been a bit 'meh' about Sahuagin. They don't seem to have anything that makes them disctinctive enough. This description does nothing to change this. In my games I preferred using weresharks in their place. The Bullywug description seems lame. So, they're exactly like goblins except making larger leaps? I liked the 4e approach a lot more. Alternatively, join them with the Grippli to create something entirely new, i.e. a standard, intelligent (psionic?) frog-like race and...
View full commentI've always been a bit 'meh' about Sahuagin. They don't seem to have anything that makes them disctinctive enough. This description does nothing to change this. In my games I preferred using weresharks in their place.
The Bullywug description seems lame. So, they're exactly like goblins except making larger leaps?
I liked the 4e approach a lot more. Alternatively, join them with the Grippli to create something entirely new, i.e. a standard, intelligent (psionic?) frog-like race and their chaotic, mutant cousins.
I think what these descriptions lack is any sense of the culture or identity of these intelligent races. There is a very good article on this here, if it helps: www.thoughtcrimegames.net/gameable-cultu... I think if we want to use these creatures as more than just cannon fodder, we need to have some sense of their motives. Evil beings do not characterise themselves...
View full commentI think what these descriptions lack is any sense of the culture or identity of these intelligent races. There is a very good article on this here, if it helps: www.thoughtcrimegames.net/gameable-cultu...
I think if we want to use these creatures as more than just cannon fodder, we need to have some sense of their motives. Evil beings do not characterise themselves as evil - they have reasons for what they do which to them seem reasonable.
if I recall correctly, in the 1st ed Dungeoneers Survival Guide, it mentions the Drow eating their elderly when they have not enough food, just like baby spiders devouring their parents. It should be clear that Drow are not all drizzt with a profession change, they are trecherous and debauched at best.
Devil Cults on the other hand, I could see having a large and widespread following, covert AND overt. They are more systematic in their approach to evangelism because they make use of both...
View full comment