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
...halflings should return to their origins -hobbits- if we want that the power-of-the-genre-archetypes concept which D&D is based upon since it came to life spread its magic; it seems they do so and I'm very happy!
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 am thinking mostly spelljammer which was part a riff on Classical metaphysics and and part a vision in black light and velvet in a wood paneled basement.
I am liking how these are shaping up. This is much more similar to the theme I had mentioned when I read John's article, that of loss of identity. I had included the wraith in that originally but these are more of less the parameters I had in mind when I spoke of ghosts and spectres. Useable possessions rules rule! I was very excited to hear in this article and see in the new playtest some kind of possession rules. I feel like that it one of the few ways to really unnerve players! My one...
View full commentI am liking how these are shaping up. This is much more similar to the theme I had mentioned when I read John's article, that of loss of identity. I had included the wraith in that originally but these are more of less the parameters I had in mind when I spoke of ghosts and spectres. Useable possessions rules rule! I was very excited to hear in this article and see in the new playtest some kind of possession rules. I feel like that it one of the few ways to really unnerve players!
My one point of contention with the above article and the new playtest monsters listed above comes from their incorporeality.
I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I feel like 'insubstantial' and 'phasing' should still be separate traits, if for no other reason than it creates a wider palette of abilities that can be used when making monsters. Perhaps a creature with both of these traits could be called 'incorporeal,' but personally, I like the broader term, 'ethereal' as the binary of 'ethereal/non-ethereal' has, I think, broader application and thus, more utility than 'corporeal/incorporeal' Just personal preference but might as well make my voice heard.
The bigger issue I have is with incorporeal creatures taking/dealing half damage from/to non-ethereal sources. This makes no sense to me and spoils some of the immersion. This was something new that was done in 4e but personally, I think it was completely counter-intuitive. I understand that it was done because ethereal creatures could make extremely frustrating opponents to unprepared adventurers, but that is ALWAYS the fault of the DM, not the game designers imho. If you want to mitigate some of that frustration, just make it double blind normally (they can't 'physically' hit you and vice versa) and allow adventurers with magical or silvered (the poor-man's magical) weapons deal damage... perhaps silvered weapons deal half damage and magical weapons deal full.
I like a big dumb ogre as much as the next guy, but the occasional cunning ogre makes for great story telling. Someone has to lead the band/tribe. I am totally OK with ogre mages being a separate thing, but they should be a subspecies of ogre, related to onis but not 100% identical there either. Possibly born as ogres under great auspices.
View full commentI like a big dumb ogre as much as the next guy, but the occasional cunning ogre makes for great story telling. Someone has to lead the band/tribe.
I am totally OK with ogre mages being a separate thing, but they should be a subspecies of ogre, related to onis but not 100% identical there either. Possibly born as ogres under great auspices.
Ogre magi aren't that difficult if you make one slight tweak: they act like Sorcerers instead of Wizards. Their powers are innate and come from practice & natural skill, rather than education.
In my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without...
View full commentIn my opinion, there are a few things the wrong with this gnoll; a) the little braids near the ear, need to go, this is, in a sense, a bipedal, humanoid hyena, so the ear hair, looks unnatural, b) they need to look dumb, but not like Quasimodo, the hunchback thing is weird and awkward, it needs to look hyena like, so have their back straighter, but give them sloping shoulders, c) their knees do not ALWAYS have to be bent, they are humanoids, so give them something that says 'feral' without saying 'unevolved' or 'underdeveloped', d) they need to be muscular, but not so bulky, they're hunters, not lumbering oafs, so their necks do not have to bee 4 feet in circumference, and lastly, e) their faces need to be a tad more humanoid, they should be distinctly hyena like, but not so much it looks like someone cut out a hyena head and stuck it on a body.
I prefer the way 4e handles climb. It's very simple. This way just complicates things needlessly. But the biggest flaw with this example is it doesn't account for weight. Climb is more of a strength/weight thing. Many children are better climbers than adults even though the adults are stronger because a child weighs so much less.
View full commentI prefer the way 4e handles climb. It's very simple. This way just complicates things needlessly.
But the biggest flaw with this example is it doesn't account for weight. Climb is more of a strength/weight thing. Many children are better climbers than adults even though the adults are stronger because a child weighs so much less.
4e climb doesn't account for weight, either. There has been a disconnect between Strength, Agility, Mass, and Speed since D&D began. It's not going to get tacked on in the 21st century.
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 comment
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 comment