Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Doorhandle]

I hope they do what legend does and use the same system for both players and monsters.

Granted, it COULD lead to taking "levels in beholder..."

As for the feats things, I... don't have great faith in that, but neverless maybe making one version of a monster with and without feats would work? I dunno.

[Scowling Dragon]

Actually I like the idea of characters being built EXACTLY the same as monsters.

I just hope its a bit more clever and vertisile than in legends.

Because in legends in order to achieve balance lots of monster uniqueness was stripped away.

Size became inconsequential, and lots of type specific abilities and immunities where gone to ensure balance.

I want balance, but not by stripping things away.

I hope they do this thing that some racial things (Like undead) would either come with lots of penalties to make up for the large power boosts (Like in return for my undead immunities I get lower HP, and easier to mind control and get a penalty to my ability scores) or automaticaly counts for more (So taking a level in Undead is actually worth 4 levels in return for all the immunities)

[bokodasu]

My big concern with all of this is how they'll balance this all out on the monster design end of the spectrum: A character who has feats (a module confirmed to be in the core book) is strictly superior to a character without feats. How do you design a monster that both the group WITH feats and the group without them can handle? I can think of a few answers but none of them sound like attractive options.

There are two ways I can see it going - the first would have your base monster, with power options. So at green, which everybody gets, you've got your stats and maybe a grapple attack or something, then at yellow its stinger does poison damage, and at red level it's incorporeal. Or whatever. That could be pretty cool, if done well. The second would be to group monsters - so you could use "green" monsters for any group, "yellow" ones for groups who use the theme/background packages, or "red" monsters for all out optimizers. This would be less good, I think.

But if you compare it to the 3.5 CR system - I'm running two groups through the same campaign. One is very powergamey, reading charop boards, scouring books for an extra +1 to this or supercombo for that. I give them encounters that are about 2-4 levels above what the math says they should be handling, and it takes them about 4 before they need to rest. The other group is a combination of newbies and people who still miss 1e, who just play when they play and don't think about it any other time. I give them encounters at or slightly below their level, and they need to rest after 2 or 3. And this is all stuff I've had to figure out on my own; some guidelines that take into account relative power level based on playstyle would be pretty handy.

[navar100]

Actually I like the idea of characters being built EXACTLY the same as monsters.

I just hope its a bit more clever and vertisile than in legends.

Because in legends in order to achieve balance lots of monster uniqueness was stripped away.

Size became inconsequential, and lots of type specific abilities and immunities where gone to ensure balance.

I want balance, but not by stripping things away.

I hope they do this thing that some racial things (Like undead) would either come with lots of penalties to make up for the large power boosts (Like in return for my undead immunities I get lower HP, and easier to mind control and get a penalty to my ability scores) or automaticaly counts for more (So taking a level in Undead is actually worth 4 levels in return for all the immunities)

Too often people equate "balance" as low power, low optimization so they take away the nifty stuff because players doing "powerful" stuff is broken. When balance is understood as different characters having equivalent contribution, "power" is irrelevant. Power level becomes a matter of taste, not One True Way.

[Craft (Cheese)]

As for the feats things, I... don't have great faith in that, but neverless maybe making one version of a monster with and without feats would work? I dunno.

This was one of the unattractive solutions I had in mind. A few reasons why I find it suboptimal:

1. When you want to balance a monster by including different parts used with different modules, you don't have to just balance one monster, you have to balance every possible module combination. Unless the number of modules is very small, this is an insane amount of work. And if you don't do it, then you inevitably get the types of situations where there's monsters who are, say, reasonable without Module X but once you apply Module X they become walking TPKs just ready to happen. I can totally see a situation where an otherwise fun and challenging monster gets completely neutered when you take its feats away.

2. What if they want to add new modules that change how players/monsters work? Like, say, 4E-style themes (obviously they'll have to be called something else)? Do you update the old monsters to work with this new module?

3. So this one's a more minor complaint, but the best way to display monster information is to have everything in one place. However, if you have monsters where stuff only applies depending on what modules are in place, you have worthless bloat when those modules AREN'T in place (of course they could just completely disregard the players who want to leave some subsystems out, but that kinda misses the whole point of this "bring everyone together" theme). And if you separate the information, it just leaves you with having to flip back and forth. Though I guess that would be a great push for DDI tools...

[Scowling Dragon]

Too often people equate "balance" as low power, low optimization so they take away the nifty stuff because players doing "powerful" stuff is broken. When balance is understood as different characters having equivalent contribution, "power" is irrelevant. Power level becomes a matter of taste, not One True Way.

Im not talking power. Im talking fluff/crunch interaction. I just dislike legends for stripping to many things away.

[Eric Tolle]

This forum needs a +1 button.

Except that I like sexy females in my fantasy. Its fantasy for christs sake. If you fill it with ugly people it becomes reality. And getting away from that is exactly the point of the game.

Once again, there is a difference between having attractive characters and having sexist art. Hell, there's a difference between having sexy characters and having art that promotes sexual stereotypes. BUt if you want to have sexy females in your fantasy art, then it's only fair that the men should be wearing similar outfits and be in similar poses. Note- Conan and He-Man aren't really sexually posed. If you want men depicted the way women are depicted in games you'll want something like

This

Spoiler

Show

Or This

Spoiler

Show

See the difference between this and the usual pictures of He-Man and Conan? The difference in posing and expression? That's the difference between a power fantasy and a "sexy" fantasy.

A little too sexy you say? You don't like that kind of posing in your fantasy? Well that's what female gamers have to put up with constantly.

[Yora]

People are making this all much too complicated. It really is easy:

"Does the image evoke sexuality in a situation where it would not happen in real life"? If yes, don't use the image in the books.

Easy, nothing more to say about that.

[Seerow]

Actually I like the idea of characters being built EXACTLY the same as monsters.

Oh god no. This was the absolute worst part about D&D3.5 and Legend. Monsters should NOT be nearly as complex as PCs, and this means they NEED to follow different rules to function.

PCs need to have a lot of complexity to keep their players interested. If you have a PC without unique powers or a resource system, you have a Fighter, a boring character that can't contribute to much of the game that anyone else can't contribute better. Managing resources, action economy, and large power sets is what keeps a player engaged in combat, rather than just saying "I hit it" they have to weigh their options, and often need to pay attention even when it is not their turn.

Trying to make a monster that follows the same rules doesn't work, because if it's a solo monster the result will be too squishy and not have quite enough action economy to pose a threat to 4 or more enemies that can do the same thing. If you try to jack up the level, while the one may become more durable, it can also quickly become a TPK due to power scaling and pushing the RNG further in their favor.

On the other end, if you try to send a group at the PCs, now you are overwhelming the DM, because each individual monster has the same abilities that is intended to keep an player occupied by itself. He's effectively trying to run four full characters simultaneously, this is not easy, and quickly leads to either DM burnout or the DM playing sloppily ignoring the majority of the monsters' abilities anyway to make life easier on himself.

On top of that complexity, the DM also doesn't have time to ease into it. Play a character from 1st to 10th level, then create a brand new character at 10th level. You are basically guaranteed to know the one you played from first level better. You will have had time to get to know all of the feats and powers available to you. This is why complexity is able to keep rising as level goes up (and I believe why 4e was so unsatisfying, because the complexity didn't really rise at higher level). But just statting up a new character straight at 10th level? It takes years of experience with a system before you're familiar enough to do something like that and be able to play it competently. This means years of playing 5e with GMs taking it slow and playing sloppy while they try to get the hang of all these different abilities.

And all of this for what? To ensure that monsters whose intended lifespan is an hour or so, if that, is built the same way as a PC, whose intended lifespan is months or years? Yeah, no thanks. They need to be different because they're being made for different purposes. Sure the DM might occasionally want to break out a full blown wizard, or fighter, or whatever, as a important NPC. But for 99% of situations, a stat block that gives you defenses, and a handful (like 2-5) of powers is all they really need. Giving more than that is simply extra unneeded information that bogs the game down in an attempt to appease people who think having a fully written stat block somehow translates into better immersiveness or stronger worldbuilding.

[Ichneumon]

It's strange, but after watching their video and reading some of the stuff, I got to say I'm excited for this next edition! I stopped playing D&D soon after 4th edition came out (we liked it as a good designed game, but it just wasn't D&D for us any more) and started playing other RPGS, but what they say about the modularity, how you can keep things simple and add what you like, I like that. They even mentioned not having to use a map, if you don't want to. Personally, I really like that, since I often play online.

[Dienekes]

This

Spoiler

Show

Or This

Spoiler

Show

See the difference between this and the usual pictures of He-Man and Conan? The difference in posing and expression? That's the difference between a power fantasy and a "sexy" fantasy.

A little too sexy you say? You don't like that kind of posing in your fantasy? Well that's what female gamers have to put up with constantly.

To be honest, these pictures doen't bother me. I don't exactly see anything wrong with titillation in general. If it sells more books, good on you, you came up with a way to make more money. I would suppose you're aiming for a more female demographic, and I would likely be curious how the mechanics and fluff of the system would reflect the feminine target audience, and if "feminine game mechanics" is even possible.

[Clawhound]

3.X had a sham that said "monsters are built like characters." After the monsters were "built", the designers then piled on abilities scores until the monsters came out "right". In other words, the monsters were often just as arbitrary as ever, except that we pretended that they weren't.

The rules for characters and the rules for monsters really serve two different purposes, and those purposes are at odds with one another. Character rules should be tuned to creating interesting and engaging characters, while creature rules should be tuned to making interesting and engaging opponents.

[Johnny Sunshine]

So, new topic. I'm lamenting all of this focus on mechanics (as are, I feel, many in the pre-3.x crowd).

Now, I enjoy crunch as much as anyone. My favorite (rules-wise) edition is 3e. I understand the satisfaction from all of the optimizing, tactical combat, and other crunchy meaty aspects. I realize 4e has some interesting ideas that improved on various parts of 3rd. I have opinions on all of the points being discussed now in anticipation of 5th, and will enthusiastically examine the new system when it's revealed. But despite this, I think we're losing focus.

D&D is primarily a cooperative storytelling game, where the purpose of rules is to simply provide some loose representation we can use to avoid disputes, a-la Cowboys and Indians. ("I shot you!" "No you didn't!") Gygax himself said something along the lines of "The secret is...that they don't need any rules."

This view was much more prominent in the game's early days - even with all the complexity and confusing piecemeal rules - and I feel this ability to easily personalize the game is the primary reason why D&D became a phenomenon.

Alan Lee, famous Tolkien illustrator, shares this sentiment:

"The illustrations that I enjoy looking at most are those which strengthen, rather than replace, the imagery which the author is creating, and often sketches do this with a greater potency than highly finished paintings. The graphite or charcoal lines suggest, rather than dictate, and the picture is completed in the viewer's mind. The looseness of a sketch...often creates a more immediate connection with the viewer."

The DM and players are the authors, the game mechanics are the paints and brushes. They should be tools to outline an idea, while the true art exists within the imagination.

Today? No more. The debate over mechanisms and balance, options and precise numerical values, has overwhelmed the game, and clamoring over what D&D “truly is” is to miss the point of roleplay completely, in my opinion.

Today's DM and player "artists" are standing at their canvases, wearing a robotic suit that controls their arms and brushtrokes. They enthusiastically welcome this, and are concerned only with the design of their controling robot masters. The idea of tossing the robot and only keeping the paints and brushes - you know, creativity? - is seen as a laughably childish idea, or backwards and quaint at best.

I find it ironic that those who profess to play RPGs because they stimulate the imagination are often the least imaginative people, who spend hours eagerly waiting for the official word on how their fantasies should play out, and spending even more hours arguing with others over how their fantasies should conform to another’s ideal.

Instead of imagination, we get tomes of rules and hundreds of options. Yet another ironic twist in how RPG'ers think of themselves as more intelligent than average, yet being dependant on official protocols and geting uncomfortable in the face of unstructured or contradictory rulings. Hasbro thrives on this inability of players to use their own damn brains and imaginations. Like any company producing a product, they rely on our insecurities. This is especially pronounced in today’s world of submitting to "higher authority."

How many people design adventures for themselves anymore? Design monsters? And even if they do, how often do they take hours painstakingly trying to make their efforts conform to the rules, or to make them “balanced”? (yes, yes; I'm guilty of this myself )

The game has a built-in balance mechanic, which works much more simply, reliably and quickly than any rules system: the players and Dungeon Master.

/rant

[Scowling Dragon]

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

in an attempt to appease people who think having a fully written stat block somehow translates into better immersiveness or stronger worldbuilding.

And EXCUSE ME I AM one of those people.

If it sells more books, good on you, you came up with a way to make more money.

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

[Seerow]

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Why? Why does this need to be a viable PC concept? Hell an Undead Demon Beholder I don't think is something that is even a viable monster concept.

Either way here you're talking about something totally different, the ability for PCs to use monstrous races. This is a completely different argument, and you can make playable monsters without making monsters PC level complexity. Basically once they switch which side of the screen they're on, you let them regain some of the complexity that gets chopped off for DM ease of use. For example you might have a Vampire who is attuned to the Arcane Power Source, his default powers might be a couple of level appropriate spell-like abilities he can use. But when a player plays a vampire, they get those abilities, and can add their Vampire hit dice to their arcane caster level.

It would require some playing around and fine tuning to get the balance right, but it is possible and doesn't require having fully fleshed out characters for a DM to play.

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

How so? Are you saying it is impossible to have a single monster that is stronger than a single PC? Why is it impossible to imagine a dragon that is strong enough to fight off a whole party of PCs? The [solo] tag is there to allow challenges for a whole group from just one monster without needing to up the level dramatically thus destroying the RNG. This makes it easier to predict how the fights will play out, easier to balance for the DM.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

Keeping a couple numbers in their heads would be keeping defenses, hp, attack bonuses, etc. They'd be doing this anyway. You're completely glossing over not just keeping numbers in their head, but available resources. A mid level PC should have anywhere from 10 to 30 powers at his disposal. A high level PC even more. Not to mention any special effects or modifications from feats, any special abilities granted from skills, etc. Also these various powers should have various action type and resource costs. You need to know that one ability is an immediate action and takes a 6th level slot, or 11 points, or whatever the resource is, while that other ability is only a 2nd level/3 points/whatever and is a standard action. You need to be aware of this for all 30 of your abilities, particularly for any swift action or immediate action abilities, and you need to be aware of this for every monster on the field.

No, that is not something an average person can do. It is not something every DM should be expected to do. It is not something that actually increases immersiveness, because 90% of the time the PC won't even know the difference if you take the majority of those options away from the monster. If the Monster has 4 abilities instead of 20, does it matter to the PC if the monster with 20 abilities only actually used 4 anyway? The only thing it did was cut down on the headache of the DM and make things simpler for him.

And EXCUSE ME I AM one of those people.

What's your point? You're one of the few that they would be trying to appease by using overcomplicated rules for monsters. Monsters and PCs serve different purposes in the game, they should be treated differently.

[Fatebreaker]

-essay-

Johnny, I like your argument. It's well phrased, well supported, and well thought out. High five!

That said, a little bit of devil's advocate: the people who can make up their own stuff are able to do so with or without the permission of the rules. The folks who can't (or don't want to), however, need rules to fill in for what they cannot or will not do. Note that there's nothing wrong with being unable to write your own script or rules -- we all start somewhere, or maybe we just don't have time, or maybe you want to direct your energies towards another aspect of the game.

In other words, folks pay money for the game. Imagination is free. If the book tells me to use my imagination... what did I pay for?

I ENJOYED the monster rules (I want them to be even MORE equal in nature).

If I wanted to play a dam undead demon fighter/rouge/Beholder squid I should be able to play as one!

Its also immersion breaking when a monster is just

"Solo monster". If they are built like PCs the world is more immersive.

Some people can handle keeping a couple of numbers in their heads. Monster layout is another thing, and it DOES need to get better.

Most monsters exist for a brief moment in time for the purpose of being defeated. They are obstacles, not characters. The narrative does not require their life history or a massive stat-block, because they're not going to live long enough to use it.

And let's not forget about monsters who really are solo creatures, the monster-monsters, the lone beast prowling the wilderness, without any larger thoughts to rattle around in their brain than "food is tasty." Or the massively powerful monsters (like dragons!) who don't need anyone else. How is it immersion-breaking for them to be solo creatures when that's what they are?

Of course, having options to build fully fleshed-out monster characters is a positive thing for those times when they are more than just a chunk of xp on the road to godhood, but does every kobold, goblin, and zombie really need the kind of intricate detail given to the players?

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

Well, there's a world of difference between fantasy artwork and porn.

A combat photographer buddy of mine used to say, "A statistic is like a bikini. What it reveals is interesting, but what it doesn't show is vital."

[Scowling Dragon]

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

[Dienekes]

Lets just sell porn then. Bring back the chainmail bikinis and every scene will be filled with smut.

That's the equivalent of me saying, because they get armor wrong they should just dress everyone up like He-Man. The goal is to draw in buyers. to be clear, they're selling the game system, the words on the page, and the fluff they create. Everything else is there to make people want to buy it. If selling hardcore porn would do this, I personally have no problem with them trying. But I believe that would actually hinder their profits by a wide margin, as D&D is being sold to younger folks and being forced to be put in the special back room of a bookstore will definitely hurt their market.

Speaking of, is there a "special back room?" I wonder how bookstores would sell that, or if it means they would just not pick up the book at all, which would hurt the profits even further.

[Scowling Dragon]

I really don't get some people.

A company that needs to flash softcore porn in order to lure buyers shows me that it has no self respect. I feel insulted when In an anime Im flashed fanservice.

But whatever.

[Fatebreaker]

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

Well, why don't you explain why having large stat blocks of information which most monsters won't use in most games creates a greater sense of immersion for you?

Speaking of, is there a "special back room?" I wonder how bookstores would sell that, or if it means they would just not pick up the book at all, which would hurt the profits even further.

I used to work in a Borders, right across from the magazine section. They put that sort of thing out in the open. Special sleeves let you see the title without seeing anything else, and it was on the top shelf. We always got a kick out of watching teenagers pretend to not be trying to scope out the porn section. One of our female employees always made a game out seeing how well she could sneak up on them before they managed to open the sleeve. Hilarity ensued.

Well, hilarity for us. Embarrassment for them.

[Scots Dragon]

Well, why don't you explain why having large stat blocks of information which most monsters won't use in most games creates a greater sense of immersion for you?

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

[Oracle_Hunter]

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

Could you unpack this a bit?

Is the problem that the stat block does not include "+2 when tracking in New Jersey after a rainstorm?" Or a piece of text that says "Jersey Goblins are master trackers in their native terrain and can talk to moist objects to learn where their prey has gone?"

Basically, what exactly is it that you desire in monster rules and where do you get it?

[Dienekes]

I really don't get some people.

A company that needs to flash softcore porn in order to lure buyers shows me that it has no self respect. I feel insulted when In an anime Im flashed fanservice.

But whatever.

I'm a practical guy. A business' goal is to make money for itself. That's it. How they go about it is their own problem so long as they don't break any laws. Wizards had the largest share of the rpg gaming market by a huge margin until 4e. If they want that back I'd assume they would try every method possible to get it. Respect doesn't go into the equation, especially since I've found what some people believe lowers their self respect others find does not bother them at all.

Now personally, I've only watched a handful of anime and never took note of the appearance or absence of fanservice. If the fanservice in question increased their profits, then good on them. Of course if the implementation of fanservice lost them an audience, for shame. It's a balancing act, just like the game. I'll take a note for a show I'm watching, Game of Thrones. Personally I find the use of a brothel in every other episode actually detracts and causes abrupt halts in the story. While it has not caused me to abandon the show, it's going just a bit too far to potentially lose my interest if it grows further out of control. However, I would bare them no ill will if they do decide to expand it and they end up making more money off of the show. Once more good on them for making a show with an expanding audience.

Now for me, I really care very little about the pictures in the book when compared to the mechanics. I'd rate that even slightly lower than the fluff in the book (I make my own fluff when I GM, so don't see much a use for theirs except to maybe steal an idea or three). So in order to gain my money they would have to present me with interesting, varied mechanics that seems fun. But I definitely think that someone, somewhere would look into the books view the pictures and be captured by the world present from them. After that it's simply taking note of what demographic is most likely to do that, and making pictures that cater to them yet do not distract too much from their larger gaming market.

I used to work in a Borders, right across from the magazine section. They put that sort of thing out in the open. Special sleeves let you see the title without seeing anything else, and it was on the top shelf. We always got a kick out of watching teenagers pretend to not be trying to scope out the porn section. One of our female employees always made a game out seeing how well she could sneak up on them before they managed to open the sleeve. Hilarity ensued.

Well, hilarity for us. Embarrassment for them.

You know, I spend a lot of time in Borders and Barnes and Nobles and I never noticed sleeved books. But thank you, now I know, and partake in a cackle at the embarrassment of younguns.

[Seerow]

Im feel insulted. I don't care what your opinion on monsters or games or whatever is, but what your doing is telling me is that my opinion (a purely subjective one at that) is WRONG.

Saying something is an opinion doesn't automatically make it so you cannot be incorrect. If someone told you they were of the opinion women were good for nothing other than being sex objects, would you not tell them they're wrong? Sure it's an extreme example, but the point is not all opinions are equal, and if you cannot adequately defend your opinion, shouting "It's my opinion you're insulting me by saying I'm wrong" doesn't actually help you at all.


Objectively, monsters don't need the complexity of PCs. Objectively, giving monsters that level of complexity hurts the game directly by making things harder on the DM, the person at the table already doing the most work, discouraging players from wanting to DM themselves. Objectively, monsters will die long before they have a chance to use more than a handful of these abilities against the PCs in the first place.

Your argument to this is that subjectively, you feel this extra work makes the game feel more real. This is a meaningless statement because it only applies to you, and does not directly argue against the facts that what you are arguing in favor of is detrimental to the game. More importantly, it's impossible to quantify. If you face a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer, and he dies after 3 rounds, does it matter to you if he had 30 spells known instead of 5? Does it matter to you if his abilities had a recharge mechanic rather than spell slots? Without directly looking at his stat block (thus breaking immersion) how would you personally ever know the difference?



I can understand not liking 4e monster building, because they get arbitrary powers that can't be reproduced that aren't drawn from any other source than what the writer felt like coming up with. I can understand disagreeing with that, and wanting a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer actually casting Sorcerer spells. I can understand wanting the Breath Weapon of two different monsters to act in similar ways. Yes, when you have four different abilities of the same name, with no description, that all do different things for different monsters, I can see where that is bad. If these are the issues you have, however, your problem isn't with the idea of simpler monsters, but with 4e design. These are not one in the same.

[Fatebreaker]

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

And that's a fair point. But -- and this is a key but -- due to a variety of limitations, from cost to page count, including one thing means you exclude another.

How many monsters did you not put in the book because you gave room to "block-bloat" stats?

How much artwork was cut? How many magic items? How many spells? How many rules? How many examples? How much fluff?

There's only so much room in the books and only so much money you can spend to make them. So what do you prioritize? And where's the cutoff line?

Something that finds a home in one out of five games? One out of twenty? A hundred? A thousand?

There aren't necessarily any right or wrong answers here, but at some level, something has to be left out.

--

Edit:

You know, I spend a lot of time in Borders and Barnes and Nobles and I never noticed sleeved books. But thank you, now I know, and partake in a cackle at the embarrassment of younguns.

It never got old, man. It made slow days all the better. You could always tell who was going to try and sneak a peek, too, and since we were all on headsets, the game meant that if one person knew, everyone knew.

Ah, memories.

[Seerow]

There's a repeated word there. 'Most'.

The idea of 'most' monsters not using their ecological benefit as trackers or other such in 'most' games does not mean that it never happens. And those players for whom it does happen suddenly feel marginalised and have to go and use a diffferent system. That good enough for you?

Like others said, what sorts of things are you talking about? I'm talking specifically about building things like PCs. ie the 10th level monster has 10 hit dice, so he must have 40 skill points spent, 4 feats allocated, and powers/resources as a 10th level character. Almost nothing needs that level of detail.

You want a monster who can track as a part of his ecological role, toss on a note that the monster always has track trained, or has a +15 track modifier, or whatever. It doesn't mean you need to spend the other 30 skill points and everything else on the monster. The point is minimalization of detail, you provide as many details as the monster needs to be useful at what it does/what you want it to do. Anything beyond that gets cut.

[killem2]

Is there a compilation of known info about 5E?

[Talakeal]

Stuff. And two pictures.

I am weirded out by those pictures. Not because of sexual content or amount of skin shown, but because I don't understand what they are doing. Why is the first guy taking off his pants before his holster, and why did he stop to put his arms behind his head half way through doing it?

As for the second guy, oh my god what is wrong with your spine?

I am not sure where you find that stuff "constantly" unless you are really into Rob Liefeld comics.

Also, positioning is different between the genders because women don't, as a rule, like submissive men. I am told that it is why male strippers are so rare compared to their female demographic, it is hard to have a man who is paid to take his clothes off and dance for women without appearing submissive.

[Draz74]

New article about the Rogue's design goals. I disagree with their first point -- "Rogues don't fight fair, they're wimpy enough that if they get cornered they should just run away."

But I actually LOVE their last point -- "the Rogue makes routine tasks look trivial" -- talking about how the Rogue should have NO chance of failure except when a real challenge shows up. That's actually a pretty good description of a lot of what makes roguish fantasy characters awesome ... I might have to figure out how to include this concept in my system. It's the first thing I've really liked about these "5e class design" articles.

[bokodasu]

This was one of the unattractive solutions I had in mind. A few reasons why I find it suboptimal:

1. When you want to balance a monster by including different parts used with different modules, you don't have to just balance one monster, you have to balance every possible module combination. Unless the number of modules is very small, this is an insane amount of work. And if you don't do it, then you inevitably get the types of situations where there's monsters who are, say, reasonable without Module X but once you apply Module X they become walking TPKs just ready to happen. I can totally see a situation where an otherwise fun and challenging monster gets completely neutered when you take its feats away.

Not unless you insist on each monster being exactly tuned to a particular party's builds. Monsters have always fallen into a relative "power area", and sometimes having the right spell memorized or having a +1 flaming sword instead of the +1 frostbrand is going to be the thing that turns the tide. Unless every Level X monster has the exact same powers/stats/abilities, there's going to be more variation than can be accounted for by tuning. And if they ARE exactly the same, you still have to worry about DM tactics - a monster who is run intelligently is always going to be harder to fight than one that isn't.

2. What if they want to add new modules that change how players/monsters work? Like, say, 4E-style themes (obviously they'll have to be called something else)? Do you update the old monsters to work with this new module?

If it's how players work, they should be balancing that with how monsters work already. If it's how monsters work, they'd do the same thing they've always done - release more MMs.

3. So this one's a more minor complaint, but the best way to display monster information is to have everything in one place. However, if you have monsters where stuff only applies depending on what modules are in place, you have worthless bloat when those modules AREN'T in place (of course they could just completely disregard the players who want to leave some subsystems out, but that kinda misses the whole point of this "bring everyone together" theme). And if you separate the information, it just leaves you with having to flip back and forth. Though I guess that would be a great push for DDI tools...

I wouldn't call it worthless just because it's not something you want to look at at one particular instant in time. Are CR20 monster writeups "worthless bloat" because you're playing E6? Are the CR1 monsters worthless because you're starting a campaign at L5?