I'd post it on every thread, it's relevant to every discussion on this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
Nah, it's just that PC resource economy is based around the long rest cycle and around having to tackle tons of different scenarios, and monsters don't need all that because they tend to exist for the length of one encounter. There's no reason, for example, to choose skills for your monster unless it's Stealth or, if your party grapples a lot, Athletics/Acrobatics. There's no reason to select ritual spells for a monster unless it's stalking the player characters for a long time. Etc.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
Nah, it's just that PC resource economy is based around the long rest cycle and around having to tackle tons of different scenarios, and monsters don't need all that because they tend to exist for the length of one encounter. There's no reason, for example, to choose skills for your monster unless it's Stealth or, if your party grapples a lot, Athletics/Acrobatics. There's no reason to select ritual spells for a monster unless it's stalking the player characters for a long time. Etc.
The Archmage statblock has spells you don't need for an encounter. Statblocks are just badly made especially for spellcasters.
As game designers ourselves I asked if the Systems Reference Document would receive an update. There are many monsters in that resource also appearing in the Monster Manual and I wondered if the SRD would integrate these new designs but unfortunately the answer was no.
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.
I'm certain the intro blurb for this book is going to explain how these critters are not meant to wholly replace, or something. It'll be like, "these are intended for groups who prefer X, so feel free not to use them if you prefer Y." And just like with flanking, potion crafting, identifying spells as they're being cast, and floating ability score increases, people will either not listen, or incorrectly guess what's best for their groups. Because most people aren't game designers. And most people don't think much about D&D when they're not playing it. And most people are bad at recognizing exactly why they don't like something, and at communicating that to others. But none of these are new problems, and this is not a new phenomenon.
It would really be nice if that blurb was part of the marketing though. I feel like hardly anything has been officially said about this book.
As game designers ourselves I asked if the Systems Reference Document would receive an update. There are many monsters in that resource also appearing in the Monster Manual and I wondered if the SRD would integrate these new designs but unfortunately the answer was no.
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.
The context that's missing from my excerpt is that it's a questions regarding people using the SRD and OGL for creating their own content, meaning third party creators might not have access to legal use of MMMonsters for new content. I can see why they might think that to be unfortunate.
As game designers ourselves I asked if the Systems Reference Document would receive an update. There are many monsters in that resource also appearing in the Monster Manual and I wondered if the SRD would integrate these new designs but unfortunately the answer was no.
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.
I'm certain the intro blurb for this book is going to explain how these critters are not meant to wholly replace, or something. It'll be like, "these are intended for groups who prefer X, so feel free not to use them if you prefer Y." And just like with flanking, potion crafting, identifying spells as they're being cast, and floating ability score increases, people will either not listen, or incorrectly guess what's best for their groups. Because most people aren't game designers. And most people don't think much about D&D when they're not playing it. And most people are bad at recognizing exactly why they don't like something, and at communicating that to others. But none of these are new problems, and this is not a new phenomenon.
It would really be nice if that blurb was part of the marketing though. I feel like hardly anything has been officially said about this book.
Well if you're using the SRD to publish dnd content and then you're blocked from using the newest versions you will have an increasing gap between your content and the WotC content. In the end SRD content will not resemble WotC content at all. Even if you wanted to stay close to the core rules. That's why I understand the usage of the word. What I get out of this is that we will get two different statblocks at the same time undermining every reason they gave in the past about why it was impossible to do that for errata. And then I'm going to take a holiday from all dnd forums because I don't want to participate in that shitstorm of legendary proportions.
As game designers ourselves I asked if the Systems Reference Document would receive an update. There are many monsters in that resource also appearing in the Monster Manual and I wondered if the SRD would integrate these new designs but unfortunately the answer was no.
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.
The context that's missing from my excerpt is that it's a questions regarding people using the SRD and OGL for creating their own content, meaning third party creators might not have access to legal use of MMMonsters for new content. I can see why they might think that to be unfortunate.
Certainly. Especially because he notes that the content therein is intentionally more powerful than other content -- meaning that third party devs are going to have to figure out the new power level and design new stuff to match, rather than just using what exists in the SRD. That's gotta be annoying.
What I get out of this is that we will get two different statblocks at the same time undermining every reason they gave in the past about why it was impossible to do that for errata.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable. And it will remain that way for run of the mill errata regardless of M³. If we get two different statblocks next to each other, and owning one on DDB doesn't confer ownership of the other, that means they won't be considered errata - they'll be considered separate products, even if they cover the same content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What I get out of this is that we will get two different statblocks at the same time undermining every reason they gave in the past about why it was impossible to do that for errata.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable. And it will remain that way for run of the mill errata regardless of M³. If we get two different statblocks next to each other, and owning one on DDB doesn't confer ownership of the other, that means they won't be considered errata - they'll be considered separate products, even if they cover the same content.
Lets forget the whole discussion about alignment and the demands people had to have both of the old and the new versions shall we?
What I get out of this is that we will get two different statblocks at the same time undermining every reason they gave in the past about why it was impossible to do that for errata.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable. And it will remain that way for run of the mill errata regardless of M³. If we get two different statblocks next to each other, and owning one on DDB doesn't confer ownership of the other, that means they won't be considered errata - they'll be considered separate products, even if they cover the same content.
I think MMM is a not only a preview of, but fully a part of 5.5e coming in 2024. Meaning, it could be a sly way to pad the amount of content available with the launch of the next edition ahead of time while making money off of it now AND then be able to sell revised 5.5e versions at a later time. Now, this is just info that I have heard in the Chempeople circles, but I think if you follow the Lizardtrails, you will come to the same conclusions.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable.
And remains highly undesirable, at least from the point of view of making electronic tools functional, but hard to avoid as long as WotC wants to actually make a profit from M³.
I'm curious as to why people are disliking the idea of ASI's being allocated by choice (based on the characters background or, in some cases, powergaming) rather than "because she's a dwarf"?
I mean, if you like the idea of a character being sturdy because they are a dwarf, then you can assign constitution for them. But if your dwarf is an acrobat who is fired out of a catapult in a travelling show, then you may choose dex & charisma instead.
As far as I'm aware, the fixed ASI's only serve to limit the likelihood of powerful characters in races not ideal for it - EG gnome barbarians or half-orc bards. It's not that the ASI is a balancing feature of the race, it just directs them towards fixed roles, which can only ever be less interesting, surely?
One of the best things about being a DM using D&D Beyond is I can say "Hey, go ahead a role a character on D&D Beyond" and my players can basically role up a character that fits my campaign world. I *want* my players to be able to roll a Half-Orc with +2 Str, +1 Con *without* having to TELL them where to put their ASIs. ASIs illustrate the wonderful diversity of ability among the different peoples of D&D. Yes, a Half-Orc as described above might be a better barbarian or fighter than something else, but I would think it's *more* interesting to play a Half-Orc bard that struggles with their deficiencies for that class. (Not that having a 5-10% difference in ability is *actually* struggling.) The Half-Orc bard that *only* has a 15 Chr, not a 17? But now you have a 10 Str and a Con of 14! The strongest Half-Orc *should* be stronger than the strongest Gnome. If you want your Gnome to "drink protein shakes and workout everyday" as part of their backstory, put the 15 in Str! That already makes them stronger than the vast majority of Gnomes and they're not "weak" by any measure of the word. It's also a lot easier for a DM who doesn't like standard ASIs to say "Hey, go ahead and put your ASIs anywhere and we can adjust out the standard ASIs," than it is for one who likes to use standard ASIs to create "custom races" to prevent players from assigning random ASIs.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable.
And remains highly undesirable, at least from the point of view of making electronic tools functional, but hard to avoid as long as WotC wants to actually make a profit from M³.
Quite so. Honestly, it's still undesireable for WotC too. It's just that there is now more reason for them to blur the lines and hope the overal outcome is good for their bottom line, so they're trying a tightrope act with M³.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The point of the various stats being of different values to different classes, and the point of the various races having different assigned ASIs was to showcase that the various strengths and weaknesses that we are all born with and have to accept IRL...
At the very least _I_ don't accept them IRL.
...An Orc Wiz with +2 Str and +0 Int was still just as good a Wiz as that High Elf, just a different kindle of Wiz.
Nah, it's pretty definitively not "just as good." The numbers don't lie. Call that an artifact of the game design if you'd like, or even an artifact of how dump stats work (as discussed), but it's real.
You don't accept that different species are better at different things IRL, and that those differences are in some significant way genetic? That's kinda wierd, because it's objectively true. No matter how much a mouse works out, it will never be stronger than a elephant. A turtle will never be faster than a rabbit. A earthworm will never be smarter than a human.
And I for one, like my dwarven War Mage, because there is more to fighting than raw energy output. There is also surliness, and making the loser pay the bar tab.
I did not complain when I had to homebrew a lack of ASI into the game and they all seemed content with the status quo--it seems a bit hypocritical for them to complain now that the shoe is on the other foot, and they have to do what the rest of us had been doing for years.
Erm... Assuming you're talking about floating ASIs, it's rather easy to say "they go wherever you want rather than where the book says they go based on race". It's quite a bit harder to homebrew fixed ASIs for races that never got them (especially if the player looking at such a race for their next character is hoping for you to decide on other fixed ASIs than the ones you have in mind). It's not really comparable.
This. Having set ASIs plus a optional rule for putting them where you like is not the same as the reverse just reversed, because the ASIs won't be set the same at different tables. No one has been able to explain what was wrong with the situation as of Tasha's. Every race had set ASIs & a optional rule in big text with neon lights saying optionally just put them where you like. Everyone was happy it seemed. Now fewer people are happy because there are no longer set ASIs. To what benefit? The "as you like" people are exactly where they were, and the setters were disenfranchised. Seems like a clear loss.
Love that they're putting even more freedom into the fantasy dragon game, even though I respect that some prefer the more realistic dungeon. Just wonder how it will work on the site. 33 "new" races on top of the ones already listed makes for a few extra seconds of scrolling during character building!
There aren’t any new races jacquixote - it’s all the same races with removed base stats, some tweaks to cantrips, and a little darkvision and speed for some.
There aren’t any new races jacquixote - it’s all the same races with removed base stats, some tweaks to cantrips, and a little darkvision and speed for some.
I understand. But as far as how it displays on dndbeyond, that's a "new" race if it doesn't overlap the pre-existing versions already listed on the character builder. And that's really my only question about the changes. From a source upthread, it's insinuated that these changes might not be errata'd in automatically. So I wonder, when I buy the book, will they be then, or will there be 33 new options to choose from?
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Then it would be those types of traits that make an Elf an Elf, and the mechanical traits that only really function as part of a game can be as diverse as they like and have something or nothing in common between the various elves.
Ok, but what if I wanted to use two or three of these elves in my campaign, and they have nothing meaningful in common? Are they still all (called) elf, and if so are they supposed to be related even if they're nothing alike?
Sure, why not. You can have a Mastiff, a Poodle and Pomeranian and call them all Dogs. Why can't you have a three types of Elves?
The point I am trying to make is the Game Mechanics are NOT all there is to a race. All elves can be elves and have different Game Mechanics.
Edit: The Lore explains how the Elves are related in a given world. The Mechanics just tell you how to play the game.
But there are traits that they have in common by virtue of being a canine. Not every trait, but those that are the definition of being a dog. Same with cats, horses, humans, lizards, birds, & fish.
Why would elves be different?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd post it on every thread, it's relevant to every discussion on this.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Nah, it's just that PC resource economy is based around the long rest cycle and around having to tackle tons of different scenarios, and monsters don't need all that because they tend to exist for the length of one encounter. There's no reason, for example, to choose skills for your monster unless it's Stealth or, if your party grapples a lot, Athletics/Acrobatics. There's no reason to select ritual spells for a monster unless it's stalking the player characters for a long time. Etc.
The Archmage statblock has spells you don't need for an encounter. Statblocks are just badly made especially for spellcasters.
Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.
I'm certain the intro blurb for this book is going to explain how these critters are not meant to wholly replace, or something. It'll be like, "these are intended for groups who prefer X, so feel free not to use them if you prefer Y." And just like with flanking, potion crafting, identifying spells as they're being cast, and floating ability score increases, people will either not listen, or incorrectly guess what's best for their groups. Because most people aren't game designers. And most people don't think much about D&D when they're not playing it. And most people are bad at recognizing exactly why they don't like something, and at communicating that to others. But none of these are new problems, and this is not a new phenomenon.
It would really be nice if that blurb was part of the marketing though. I feel like hardly anything has been officially said about this book.
The context that's missing from my excerpt is that it's a questions regarding people using the SRD and OGL for creating their own content, meaning third party creators might not have access to legal use of MMMonsters for new content. I can see why they might think that to be unfortunate.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Well if you're using the SRD to publish dnd content and then you're blocked from using the newest versions you will have an increasing gap between your content and the WotC content. In the end SRD content will not resemble WotC content at all. Even if you wanted to stay close to the core rules. That's why I understand the usage of the word. What I get out of this is that we will get two different statblocks at the same time undermining every reason they gave in the past about why it was impossible to do that for errata. And then I'm going to take a holiday from all dnd forums because I don't want to participate in that shitstorm of legendary proportions.
Certainly. Especially because he notes that the content therein is intentionally more powerful than other content -- meaning that third party devs are going to have to figure out the new power level and design new stuff to match, rather than just using what exists in the SRD. That's gotta be annoying.
It's strange. This whole thing is strange.
It was never impossible. It was highly undesireable. And it will remain that way for run of the mill errata regardless of M³. If we get two different statblocks next to each other, and owning one on DDB doesn't confer ownership of the other, that means they won't be considered errata - they'll be considered separate products, even if they cover the same content.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lets forget the whole discussion about alignment and the demands people had to have both of the old and the new versions shall we?
I think MMM is a not only a preview of, but fully a part of 5.5e coming in 2024. Meaning, it could be a sly way to pad the amount of content available with the launch of the next edition ahead of time while making money off of it now AND then be able to sell revised 5.5e versions at a later time. Now, this is just info that I have heard in the Chempeople circles, but I think if you follow the Lizardtrails, you will come to the same conclusions.
...hopefully I am doing this right this time.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
And remains highly undesirable, at least from the point of view of making electronic tools functional, but hard to avoid as long as WotC wants to actually make a profit from M³.
One of the best things about being a DM using D&D Beyond is I can say "Hey, go ahead a role a character on D&D Beyond" and my players can basically role up a character that fits my campaign world. I *want* my players to be able to roll a Half-Orc with +2 Str, +1 Con *without* having to TELL them where to put their ASIs. ASIs illustrate the wonderful diversity of ability among the different peoples of D&D. Yes, a Half-Orc as described above might be a better barbarian or fighter than something else, but I would think it's *more* interesting to play a Half-Orc bard that struggles with their deficiencies for that class. (Not that having a 5-10% difference in ability is *actually* struggling.) The Half-Orc bard that *only* has a 15 Chr, not a 17? But now you have a 10 Str and a Con of 14! The strongest Half-Orc *should* be stronger than the strongest Gnome. If you want your Gnome to "drink protein shakes and workout everyday" as part of their backstory, put the 15 in Str! That already makes them stronger than the vast majority of Gnomes and they're not "weak" by any measure of the word. It's also a lot easier for a DM who doesn't like standard ASIs to say "Hey, go ahead and put your ASIs anywhere and we can adjust out the standard ASIs," than it is for one who likes to use standard ASIs to create "custom races" to prevent players from assigning random ASIs.
Quite so. Honestly, it's still undesireable for WotC too. It's just that there is now more reason for them to blur the lines and hope the overal outcome is good for their bottom line, so they're trying a tightrope act with M³.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This actually appears to be something of a soft '5.5e', similar to Essentials for 4th edition.
You don't accept that different species are better at different things IRL, and that those differences are in some significant way genetic? That's kinda wierd, because it's objectively true. No matter how much a mouse works out, it will never be stronger than a elephant. A turtle will never be faster than a rabbit. A earthworm will never be smarter than a human.
And I for one, like my dwarven War Mage, because there is more to fighting than raw energy output. There is also surliness, and making the loser pay the bar tab.
This. Having set ASIs plus a optional rule for putting them where you like is not the same as the reverse just reversed, because the ASIs won't be set the same at different tables. No one has been able to explain what was wrong with the situation as of Tasha's. Every race had set ASIs & a optional rule in big text with neon lights saying optionally just put them where you like. Everyone was happy it seemed. Now fewer people are happy because there are no longer set ASIs. To what benefit? The "as you like" people are exactly where they were, and the setters were disenfranchised. Seems like a clear loss.
Love that they're putting even more freedom into the fantasy dragon game, even though I respect that some prefer the more realistic dungeon. Just wonder how it will work on the site. 33 "new" races on top of the ones already listed makes for a few extra seconds of scrolling during character building!
There aren’t any new races jacquixote - it’s all the same races with removed base stats, some tweaks to cantrips, and a little darkvision and speed for some.
I understand. But as far as how it displays on dndbeyond, that's a "new" race if it doesn't overlap the pre-existing versions already listed on the character builder. And that's really my only question about the changes. From a source upthread, it's insinuated that these changes might not be errata'd in automatically. So I wonder, when I buy the book, will they be then, or will there be 33 new options to choose from?
But there are traits that they have in common by virtue of being a canine. Not every trait, but those that are the definition of being a dog. Same with cats, horses, humans, lizards, birds, & fish.
Why would elves be different?