5th Edition

[Fizz]

Too much bloody crunch. That much granularity would just get in my way as a GM.

Ah i see. I didn't think of it as being too much crunch, but that is a slippery slope, so point taken.

-Fizz

[Tadhg]

One thing i do like that 5E (well, from 3E onwards) has given full ability stats for monsters. I wish C&C did that. I don't think C&C needs the full giant skill list that 3E provided for every monster, but the P/M prime split seems a bit too simple.

Otherwise, i miss having magic schools defined. But i always liked specialty wizards from 2nd Ed AD&D, so that's probably why.

-Fizz

Any chance for you or someone to post an example of the full ability stats for a typical monster?? Not being familar with 5e, I'm just curious and would like to see how they look.

[Captain_K]

STR 49, DEX 10, CON 35, INT 28, WIS 25, CHA 29
Those are the base stats for TIAMAT
Sorry, first book I grabbed in the stack at the bottom of the box in the closet.. dusty thing..
For comparison... Thor
STR 92, DEX 29, CON 32, INT 25, WIS 28, CHA 28

[Tadhg]

STR 49, DEX 10, CON 35, INT 28, WIS 25, CHA 29
Those are the base stats for TIAMAT
Sorry, first book I grabbed in the stack at the bottom of the box in the closet.. dusty thing..
For comparison... Thor
STR 92, DEX 29, CON 32, INT 25, WIS 28, CHA 28

Thanks for posting!

Dex 10 for Tiamat?? He prolly couldn't fly or would bounce off structures or crash into low trees and burn hisself!!!

Mistype?

Anyway, it's fun to see the ability stats and humorous for sure - and I would have no problemo if TLG added a line for them.

[Spade Marlowe]

All the time it took to just to stat out some goblins is what drove me from PF to C&C. You really don't need ability scores to make a monster interesting. Add an extra attack bonus, mix in a class ability or two, maybe adjust AC or HP is all it takes.

[Lord Dynel]

All the time it took to just to stat out some goblins is what drove me from PF to C&C. You really don't need ability scores to make a monster interesting. Add an extra attack bonus, mix in a class ability or two, maybe adjust AC or HP is all it takes.

Yep, I can understand that. At first, when 3e first came out, I thought it was pretty cool to have the various stats and scores for all the monsters. As time went on, I found that I didn't need to have all that stuff. It's more like I "remembered" because Basic, 1e, and 2e didn't have all that clutter. C&C monster stats are perfect. Do I have a barghest's strength score? Nope. If I need it, I'll make it up.

[Rigon]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

True, and i agree with the sentiment. But sometimes it's nice to have certain things predefined. I guess at least defining primes for each attribute instead of just physical/mental was one i would have liked.

-Fizz

I think what we need to remember is that monsters are not PCs, therefore they function differently than PCs. The same thing goes for NPCs. - paraphrased comment/discussion from Serleran made some time ago in the by and by (at least I remember it being him).

Since then, I've run monsters however I need them to be to be a challenge to my players. That goes for NPCs also. Sometimes monsters have stats of whateverI need them to be. Sometimes they don't. NPCs may follow class/race rules, but don't necessarily have to. Sometimes NPCs function like monsters.

R-

[Buttmonkey]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

True, and i agree with the sentiment. But sometimes it's nice to have certain things predefined. I guess at least defining primes for each attribute instead of just physical/mental was one i would have liked.

-Fizz

For me, this outlook carries two issues:

1. If the monster stats are mechanically relevant to the game system, then it's in my way. Yes, I could ignore it and house rule around it, but then why am I playing that game instead of a game I want to play like C&C. I am okay with converting from crunchier systems to C&C, but I don't want that crunch built into my game engine.

2. If the monster stats are not mechanically relevant to the game system, then why are they there in the first place?

[Buttmonkey]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

True, and i agree with the sentiment. But sometimes it's nice to have certain things predefined. I guess at least defining primes for each attribute instead of just physical/mental was one i would have liked.

-Fizz

I think what we need to remember is that monsters are not PCs, therefore they function differently than PCs. The same thing goes for NPCs. - paraphrased comment/discussion from Serleran made some time ago in the by and by (at least I remember it being him).

Since then, I've run monsters however I need them to be to be a challenge to my players. That goes for NPCs also. Sometimes monsters have stats of whateverI need them to be. Sometimes they don't. NPCs may follow class/race rules, but don't necessarily have to. Sometimes NPCs function like monsters.

R-

I'm right there with you. It's been years since I put together an NPC like a PC (i.e., class, race, level, attributes, etc.). All of my NPCs are monsters. Switching to that mentality was one of the happiest evolutions in my gaming I can think of.

[Rigon]

Monsters have whatever attributes I want them to have. I don't need any rules set to tell me what they are. Same goes for Prime Versus Mental. Rules are just a suggestion. Following them, making up my own, or ignoring them completely, is my choice.

True, and i agree with the sentiment. But sometimes it's nice to have certain things predefined. I guess at least defining primes for each attribute instead of just physical/mental was one i would have liked.

-Fizz

I think what we need to remember is that monsters are not PCs, therefore they function differently than PCs. The same thing goes for NPCs. - paraphrased comment/discussion from Serleran made some time ago in the by and by (at least I remember it being him).

Since then, I've run monsters however I need them to be to be a challenge to my players. That goes for NPCs also. Sometimes monsters have stats of whateverI need them to be. Sometimes they don't. NPCs may follow class/race rules, but don't necessarily have to. Sometimes NPCs function like monsters.

R-

I'm right there with you. It's been years since I put together an NPC like a PC (i.e., class, race, level, attributes, etc.). All of my NPCs are monsters. Switching to that mentality was one of the happiest evolutions in my gaming I can think of.

Yeah, I feel like that switch was a major improvement in how I run games.

R-

[Fizz]

1. If the monster stats are mechanically relevant to the game system, then it's in my way. Yes, I could ignore it and house rule around it, but then why am I playing that game instead of a game I want to play like C&C. I am okay with converting from crunchier systems to C&C, but I don't want that crunch built into my game engine.

Well, all the stats are mechanically relevant in some way. Monsters have hit dice, which determine hit points and their bonus to hit or any other action. Then you've got stats for damage, movement, treasure, etc. In theory, you could make all of those up on the fly for every monster.

So the question is at what point does the mechanic become too much crunch.

One way i have read about how to define this boundary is the importance of the monster/npc. An important recurring npc would justify the extra work to know those fine details, whereas a run-of-the-hill goblin meant as fodder would not. In that sense, most monsters would not have predefined scores. The only cases might be exceptional, iconic, or unique critters.


More than the ability scores (which i agree is crunch), i think what i miss is each prime separated by ability rather than physical/mental. It feels like a short step (no crunch) that would give a lot more insight into the monster (ie, strong vs fast vs tough, etc).


-Fizz

[Captain_K]

As an engineer, when I pick monster I sometime want to know, which giant is stronger.. is the clay golem stronger than a frost giant? Is a fighter with a belt of fire giant str able to out wrestle a fire giant? So in this case a ref STR could help me.. now with all the experience in the world, wing it. But new CK/GMs might want or need that. Or a new monster is written up.. no one knows this creature... so guidepost could be helpful.

I fully agree too much is too much if its needed just to play, my time is valuable.

[Fizz]

As an engineer, when I pick monster I sometime want to know, which giant is stronger.. is the clay golem stronger than a frost giant? Is a fighter with a belt of fire giant str able to out wrestle a fire giant? So in this case a ref STR could help me.. now with all the experience in the world, wing it. But new CK/GMs might want or need that. Or a new monster is written up.. no one knows this creature... so guidepost could be helpful.

Yes, i've had this occur too. I find this particularly tricky to guesstimate if the creature is supernatural that may not obey the normal laws of physics.

For example, a hag looks scrawny and frail but are actually strong. In M&T, it describes the annis as "very strong", but how strong is that? As strong as an average fighter, or as the strongest human? In 3E, the annis has a strength of 25, so like a Hill Giant. Other hags in M&T don't mention strength, but in 3E they have strengths scores of 19; a value totally unexpected based on their appearance.

Even if the mechanic is not used (that is, i'm not saying to add ability modifiers to anything), having the score is useful if only for understanding the nature of the beast.


-Fizz