If you tell your audience that you're going to make a D&D game based on the 5e ruleset, as faithfully as possible
I believe i still didnt see even single example of advertisement of any sort that would contain such promise. O_o
necessary to make the game work.
Wich should still be your call ...
In other words: In any and i mean ANY case, when you get feeling that game doesnt work ... and i repeat once more in ANY way ... you have all right to change it aproprietly.
Thats the hard life of game developer ...
You are standing between two groups and each decision that will please one, will most likely angry the other.
Sometimes it seems like decision if you wish to be shot to left, or right knee ... everybody would prefer not be shot at all, but that option is not on the list.
Whoever is telling you that they've done an 80-90% faithful rendition of the ruleset is straight up lying to you.
Aswell as anyone who will tell you exact oposite, since too many things are still hidden from us ...
In other words, such judgement is impossible until game will be fully out and we shall have all classes at max level fully explored. :P
The problem is that setting a game in particular setting, using (or claiming to use) a particular ruleset, and placing within it creatures that are the defined property of that game's licence with representations within that ruleset... all creates an expectation that what is presented will actually be the thing that it is claiming to be - not something else that uses its name and (sometimes) appearance, but is functionally completely different.
I would dare to presume most people gathered as much from this topic ...
The real question tho isnt "what" is a problem ... but "why" is that a problem?
The only answer i have found so far is that people are pissed off that they cant metagame their enemies ... that is something i would expect from some around here aswell, but not you, Niara. O_o
If they want a creature to do a certain thing, and they don't find an appropriate D&D monster to fit that niche the way they want (unlikely, to be honest), then they absolutely have the freedom to make a new monster that DOES fit exactly what they want! They HAVE that freedom!
Nobody ever said they dont.
So ... im not quite sure why even mention that. :-/
As long as they don't call it a "Troll". As long as they call it a name that suites the new creature that is - call it an Emberwrack Troll, or something of that nature... fine; that's a-okay.
I hope this is a joke ...
As long as the creature have over its head written "A troll" its horrible disrespect for the source material ... but once its changed to "B troll" all is fine, nobody gets offended, and everyone are happy with that beautifull perfect creature. -_-
What's not okay is placing iconic D&D monsters into the space for players to fight, but then not having them actually be those creatures; it adds nothing of extra value to those who don't know better, and only makes those who do know better annoyed
Disagree ... i dont know monsters from DnD too well, and fighting with Intellect Devourers on the beach certainly ADDED soemthing extra for me ... fighting there with some giant rats, wild dogs, or huge crabs would be mechanicaly exactly the same ...
But fighting there Intellect Devourers, even for someone so oblivious to DnD there was direct link between the creature and the ship! Its called narrative immersion. :-/
I could understand it, if that would be other way around ...
Like if someone would clain that Beholder can scrath you with his claws ... or if someone would clain that jelly blob can shoot beams from his eyes ... or i dunno, that Kobold hit you with his Fin ...
Then i would totaly understand that people are pissed off.
But what exactly restrict devourer to attack with his claws? o_O
Same goes for Imps ...
Same goes for Phase Spiders (and their poison spitting attack) ... there are spiders that can spit poison you know
- you say you're fine with how they've been rebalanced, but you admit yourself with your own comment that you don't actually know how they've been rebalanced, or how they are meant to be in the first place. That's okay, but what it illustrates is that you'd have been happy either way; you'd have been happy if the creatures presented in their current state looked a bit different and had a different name. You wouldn't even know the difference.
Your conclusion is wrong here ...
I also admit that im totally fine how they have been rebalanced ...
I also didnt know (before this whole topic started ... GM4Him is talking about this for some time, so i catched something in the process) how they have been rebalanced ... so indeed i was also unaware of how they are meant to be ...
But no, i would certainly NOT be happy if the creatures would look different and had different name. :-/
(Unless you are talking about trivial differences as having one less tentacle and therefore being new sub-species, or slightly different collors and therefore being new sub-species ... as it usualy goes in biology)
re-skin and block-borrow would not suffice
It seems to me that it was sufficient enough.
They Didn't do that, and they are Not doing that, and by and large that is the problem.
But why i that problem?
This means that they've had to build monsters to suit their scenarios and situations.
What kind of monsters are you fighting there?
I didnt play Solasta and i only endured it for few minues, when Wolfheart streamed it ... but all enemies i have seen were wolves, bears, and some lizards ...
Cant quite imagine how would anyone make such creature inaproprietly.
---
I dunno ... i gues im unable to see the problem bcs im used to homebrewing mobs ...
Just in our last session we have fought
Giant Lizard ... that attacked us with his claws, jaws, tail, and even pressed our fighter to the wall with his hind leg ...
It was fun ... nobody cared that half of those attacks were "not by the book" ... and nobody even mentioned that the Lizard had aproximately thrice as much HP, and quite certainly different stats.
