I think that might just be the near-sighted limitation being worked into the stat block for convenience. Because all other 2014 giants with a thrown rock attack have a short range of 60 ft, even hill giants who are otherwise weaker than cyclops.
Thank you for providing strong critique of the way these changes may effect both the utilitarian aspects of play and also demonstrate both opportunities and shortcomings to the recontextualization of some of the monsters. I understand the criticism of the changes, or lack there of, to the Cyclops and the Kua-Toa. This level of detailed analysis is valuable for all systems, Shadowdark included. (I really enjoyed that series of videos). This kind of detailed deconstruction of wording and it’s potential effects is a boon to anyone interested or even curious about designing for RPGs, where the game is really driven by diction and how that impacts how our players collectively imagine the scenario.
My feeling on why they changed the monster abilities table is to benefit newer players and DMs. Many times I have seen someone look in the 2014 Saving Throws section of a creature and not find the save listed and not know what to do. And even if you do know what to do, the new layout means you look in one place. I like it 😊
For the characters always aiming for the eye, I would do something similar to what they did in Breath of the Wild with the Hinox. After you hit it the first time in the eye, it anticipates you are going to do it again and quickly covers its eye when you aim. This could maybe translate to the cyclops having advantage.
I think they are trying to make combats less samey by adding additional rules that are just going be easier to break, instead of leaning in to rulings and giving DMs advice on how to give combats goals, stakes, and narrative elements.
Question: Looking at the 2024 DMG's nine Tracking Sheets, I don't think I'll be using them as is, but I appreciate what they are presenting as important for a DM to keep track of. However, as my group tries out Bastions, that tracker may get used. Do you use tracking sheets of any kind for your games, other than pen & paper notes?
I’d be curious to hear the answer. As a relatively new GM, I’m using a binder with print outs of my adventure content, with loose leaf paper between my anticipated session stopping points to keep notes (no session ends where I expect it). There’s been no play mechanics which require long term tracking for my group, except for one player who is trying to craft a scroll which will eat up perhaps the entire campaign’s worth of their downtime. I’m curious how the type of campaign and play style might cause one to use different sheets. Do you need to keep track of the machinations of certain factions? Is there some macro clock for a doomsday scenario? Do you use tracking sheets for recording travel progress and resources? It’s a good question.
Biggest silly thing I noticed with the old Cyclops and Disadvantage on ranged attacks beyond 30ft was the fact the Rock attack was 30/90 so it would be Disadvantage anyway, right? 😆
I am torn about the singling out creators to show stuff. I get that it makes sense from a marketing perspective. And it makes sense for the creator as it gives them a unique edge in the algorithm markedplace in terms of viewers. But I also sort of feel that it is a little dirty... as I am not sure I can quite trust the review. EVEN if the reviewer/content creator honestly beleive they are honestly reviewing... they will be unconsciously influenced by how lucky they are to be selcted to review. And they will want to do a good job to be slected for that unique opportunity again - because "we" are interested in the content etc... I'd like to see the content... But I am torn about the way WotC has mechanised the influencers - I think the WotC marketing department has really done well. I am not sure the content creators really understand how much they are being used... But I understand why they allow themselves being used...
It is hard. When either of us has had the opportunity, it does feel like you want to be positive, but also accurate and that balance is hard to strike. To be honest, we face it anyway because at times we work with or for WotC, so all our reviews are ones where we work hard to be fair.
it'll be a tragedy if you guys don't get to do an exclusive flumph preview. it is fun to see the evolution of monsters in 5e. can see them trying new things every time they get to make a new monster book and even in adventures. it's like they want to really shake things up but for reasons can't
“But be careful with the d4 because it will put your eye out.” Said the divine being to the young cyclops as it played with its miniatures. Only through experience having disadvantage encountering like every adventuring party did the youngster come to know the wisdom of the gods.
38:00 “no way we can shoot the cyclops in the eye” Yes. You. Can. The strength of D&D over any video game is that you can change the rules whenever it makes sense to do that. They take pains to say “there’s no called shots” because it makes the game tedious if you allow them everywhere. But you can and absolutely SHOULD break that rule when it makes sense to do so, when it gives a great narrative moment for a player who has read something and remembered it.
The problem with this line of reasoning that tends to come up fairly often is the following: Of course you can make up your own rules and rulings on called shots or poking the cyclops in the eye. But should it really be on you, the person who bought a TTRPG book to design the game's obvious bits? With this sort of argument any flaw, any shortcoming and any glaring omission can be rationalized away with a "just make it up yourself, there's nothing stopping you". People make up whole games all the time, after all (and they do mod videogames, too). It's still reasonable to measure the quality of professionaly produced books by what they offer so you (and especially inexperienced DMs) don't have to put in the work yourself and can instead focus on all the other work a DM can do to make the game awesome for everyone.
Absolutely. It isn't explicit in the rules, so every group has to make their own house rule. That's either a strength or not, depending on what you like in rules.
@davec1 I disagree. The rules/stat blocks are there to set the “default state” for the game, and any table you play at you can have certain expectations for how the game should play. But anything they write in a stat-block is one more burdensome detail that the DM has to keep in mind, and handcuffs the DM into going along with it, or if they don’t, it seems like the DM is cheating. I know a lot about mythology and folklore, but I don’t know everything- and when a player inadvertently or purposefully meta-games and says, “I saw a movie about this! Vampires are weak to stakes through the heart!” Lets pretend I didn’t know that as the DM; If “weak to stakes in the heart” is written into the stat block, it seems like I’m cheating if I say, “oh not this one… it’s… ah… a carnivorous vampire that is not allergic to stakes/steaks!!” I want the freedom to make my vampires weak to stakes through the heart, or not... I don’t want every vampire hereafter to be 1 shot by players trying to put a stake in its heart. I want to be able to add little tidbits like that when I feel like it, and not feel like “i’m contradicting the designers” if I take it out. Its incredibly simple to add things- it is notoriously difficult to take them out. And if new DMs want to add their own little twists, it provides that much more incentive to go out and read about history and folklore. My vampires can’t cross running water. I don’t want every vampire I face to have that same weakness. That’s what makes my vampires cool- I read some folklore and incorporated it into my own game… I don’t want it written into the stat block so everybody else’s vampire does the exact thing that mine does, and I especially don’t want every DM-Turned-Player metagaming and saying “they can’t cross water!” if their characters would have no way of knowing that. Leave "Cyclops can be blinded" out of the stat block - let me add it if I feel like it.
@ThatsMe-s6g it really depends what parts of the game we're talking about, but when it comes to modifying monsters, imho, it's really clear: It is super easy to just ignore something in a monster stat block you don't like. It won't affect other parts of the game like it would if you fiddled with resting rules, the magic system or what have you. And you won't face resistance from your players like you would if you messed with their part of the rules. That's why there's so many monster books and people love them: they can contain all sorts of crazy things and it won't mess up the game. Coming up with your own monster rules is way harder than just ignoring elements that are there, all that takes is going "nope, not in my game". Try doing that with player-facing content and you may have to have difficult discussions with your players. As for "contradicting the designers", if that bothers you: you're doing that whether you add or cut. Though almost all designers will tell you it's absolutely fine and intended. And you're even free to do it on a case-by-case basis. Though there are upsides to being consistent, too, if they face some monsters many times. But even there, you're free to keep all skeletons in your world exactly the same and have each vampire have individual weaknesses and it will be fine and make sense, if you explain why. The only meta-gaming you might encounter is players studying the monster manual and going "why are our monsters not exactly like in the monster manual?!", which will hopefully inspire a fruitful conversation about how they're wrong to expect that in the first place (unless that expectation was agreed upon). If they come with expectations from a movie they saw or a book they read or a videogame they played: explain how the game is its own world and maybe inspired, but not based on Twilight, or Blade or folklore.
The new Monster Manual, from what I've seen so far, doesn't seem worth the purchase. From a new / Updated Monster point of view. However, the art alone is probably worth the purchase.
One of the most memorable encounters I ran in AD&D was a Dragon with Spider Climb 15:08
Loved the discussion about the Cyclops. Really thankful for the insights from both of you
The Cyclops eye thing didn't matter. The rock throw had a short range of 30ft. So regardless anything over 30ft is at disadvantage.
Good point. It's a simplification but still plays the same in practice
Great point!
I think that might just be the near-sighted limitation being worked into the stat block for convenience. Because all other 2014 giants with a thrown rock attack have a short range of 60 ft, even hill giants who are otherwise weaker than cyclops.
Thank you for providing strong critique of the way these changes may effect both the utilitarian aspects of play and also demonstrate both opportunities and shortcomings to the recontextualization of some of the monsters.
I understand the criticism of the changes, or lack there of, to the Cyclops and the Kua-Toa. This level of detailed analysis is valuable for all systems, Shadowdark included. (I really enjoyed that series of videos). This kind of detailed deconstruction of wording and it’s potential effects is a boon to anyone interested or even curious about designing for RPGs, where the game is really driven by diction and how that impacts how our players collectively imagine the scenario.
Comment for the algorithm
We thank you!
My feeling on why they changed the monster abilities table is to benefit newer players and DMs. Many times I have seen someone look in the 2014 Saving Throws section of a creature and not find the save listed and not know what to do. And even if you do know what to do, the new layout means you look in one place. I like it 😊
We wish they had gone further on that, such as including spell attack bonuses.
For the characters always aiming for the eye, I would do something similar to what they did in Breath of the Wild with the Hinox. After you hit it the first time in the eye, it anticipates you are going to do it again and quickly covers its eye when you aim. This could maybe translate to the cyclops having advantage.
Good point. It really shouldn't be a concern to introduce weaknesses in a monster stat block.
I think they are trying to make combats less samey by adding additional rules that are just going be easier to break, instead of leaning in to rulings and giving DMs advice on how to give combats goals, stakes, and narrative elements.
That could be.
Enjoyable debate and discussion gents. ❤
Question: Looking at the 2024 DMG's nine Tracking Sheets, I don't think I'll be using them as is, but I appreciate what they are presenting as important for a DM to keep track of. However, as my group tries out Bastions, that tracker may get used. Do you use tracking sheets of any kind for your games, other than pen & paper notes?
I’d be curious to hear the answer. As a relatively new GM, I’m using a binder with print outs of my adventure content, with loose leaf paper between my anticipated session stopping points to keep notes (no session ends where I expect it). There’s been no play mechanics which require long term tracking for my group, except for one player who is trying to craft a scroll which will eat up perhaps the entire campaign’s worth of their downtime.
I’m curious how the type of campaign and play style might cause one to use different sheets. Do you need to keep track of the machinations of certain factions? Is there some macro clock for a doomsday scenario? Do you use tracking sheets for recording travel progress and resources?
It’s a good question.
go Teos! I agree with the rant (?) on the monster manual needing a bit more depth on context on monster mechanics matching their ecology
Thank you! Teos does love his ecologies!
Biggest silly thing I noticed with the old Cyclops and Disadvantage on ranged attacks beyond 30ft was the fact the Rock attack was 30/90 so it would be Disadvantage anyway, right? 😆
I am torn about the singling out creators to show stuff. I get that it makes sense from a marketing perspective. And it makes sense for the creator as it gives them a unique edge in the algorithm markedplace in terms of viewers. But I also sort of feel that it is a little dirty... as I am not sure I can quite trust the review. EVEN if the reviewer/content creator honestly beleive they are honestly reviewing... they will be unconsciously influenced by how lucky they are to be selcted to review. And they will want to do a good job to be slected for that unique opportunity again - because "we" are interested in the content etc...
I'd like to see the content... But I am torn about the way WotC has mechanised the influencers - I think the WotC marketing department has really done well. I am not sure the content creators really understand how much they are being used... But I understand why they allow themselves being used...
It is hard. When either of us has had the opportunity, it does feel like you want to be positive, but also accurate and that balance is hard to strike. To be honest, we face it anyway because at times we work with or for WotC, so all our reviews are ones where we work hard to be fair.
it'll be a tragedy if you guys don't get to do an exclusive flumph preview.
it is fun to see the evolution of monsters in 5e. can see them trying new things every time they get to make a new monster book and even in adventures. it's like they want to really shake things up but for reasons can't
Agreed. We can't wait to speak to the book as a whole.
Hasbro said they they were going to use AI as a way to mine their many years of IP. Not too access outside of that
SHOCKING GRASP!!! I’m so frustrated that the “advantage against metal armor” was taken away.
Right? A surprising change.
“But be careful with the d4 because it will put your eye out.” Said the divine being to the young cyclops as it played with its miniatures. Only through experience having disadvantage encountering like every adventuring party did the youngster come to know the wisdom of the gods.
38:00 “no way we can shoot the cyclops in the eye”
Yes. You. Can. The strength of D&D over any video game is that you can change the rules whenever it makes sense to do that. They take pains to say “there’s no called shots” because it makes the game tedious if you allow them everywhere. But you can and absolutely SHOULD break that rule when it makes sense to do so, when it gives a great narrative moment for a player who has read something and remembered it.
The problem with this line of reasoning that tends to come up fairly often is the following:
Of course you can make up your own rules and rulings on called shots or poking the cyclops in the eye. But should it really be on you, the person who bought a TTRPG book to design the game's obvious bits? With this sort of argument any flaw, any shortcoming and any glaring omission can be rationalized away with a "just make it up yourself, there's nothing stopping you".
People make up whole games all the time, after all (and they do mod videogames, too). It's still reasonable to measure the quality of professionaly produced books by what they offer so you (and especially inexperienced DMs) don't have to put in the work yourself and can instead focus on all the other work a DM can do to make the game awesome for everyone.
Absolutely. It isn't explicit in the rules, so every group has to make their own house rule. That's either a strength or not, depending on what you like in rules.
@davec1 I disagree. The rules/stat blocks are there to set the “default state” for the game, and any table you play at you can have certain expectations for how the game should play. But anything they write in a stat-block is one more burdensome detail that the DM has to keep in mind, and handcuffs the DM into going along with it, or if they don’t, it seems like the DM is cheating.
I know a lot about mythology and folklore, but I don’t know everything- and when a player inadvertently or purposefully meta-games and says, “I saw a movie about this! Vampires are weak to stakes through the heart!” Lets pretend I didn’t know that as the DM; If “weak to stakes in the heart” is written into the stat block, it seems like I’m cheating if I say, “oh not this one… it’s… ah… a carnivorous vampire that is not allergic to stakes/steaks!!” I want the freedom to make my vampires weak to stakes through the heart, or not... I don’t want every vampire hereafter to be 1 shot by players trying to put a stake in its heart. I want to be able to add little tidbits like that when I feel like it, and not feel like “i’m contradicting the designers” if I take it out. Its incredibly simple to add things- it is notoriously difficult to take them out. And if new DMs want to add their own little twists, it provides that much more incentive to go out and read about history and folklore.
My vampires can’t cross running water. I don’t want every vampire I face to have that same weakness. That’s what makes my vampires cool- I read some folklore and incorporated it into my own game… I don’t want it written into the stat block so everybody else’s vampire does the exact thing that mine does, and I especially don’t want every DM-Turned-Player metagaming and saying “they can’t cross water!” if their characters would have no way of knowing that.
Leave "Cyclops can be blinded" out of the stat block - let me add it if I feel like it.
@ThatsMe-s6g it really depends what parts of the game we're talking about, but when it comes to modifying monsters, imho, it's really clear:
It is super easy to just ignore something in a monster stat block you don't like. It won't affect other parts of the game like it would if you fiddled with resting rules, the magic system or what have you. And you won't face resistance from your players like you would if you messed with their part of the rules. That's why there's so many monster books and people love them: they can contain all sorts of crazy things and it won't mess up the game.
Coming up with your own monster rules is way harder than just ignoring elements that are there, all that takes is going "nope, not in my game". Try doing that with player-facing content and you may have to have difficult discussions with your players.
As for "contradicting the designers", if that bothers you: you're doing that whether you add or cut. Though almost all designers will tell you it's absolutely fine and intended. And you're even free to do it on a case-by-case basis. Though there are upsides to being consistent, too, if they face some monsters many times. But even there, you're free to keep all skeletons in your world exactly the same and have each vampire have individual weaknesses and it will be fine and make sense, if you explain why.
The only meta-gaming you might encounter is players studying the monster manual and going "why are our monsters not exactly like in the monster manual?!", which will hopefully inspire a fruitful conversation about how they're wrong to expect that in the first place (unless that expectation was agreed upon). If they come with expectations from a movie they saw or a book they read or a videogame they played: explain how the game is its own world and maybe inspired, but not based on Twilight, or Blade or folklore.
The new Monster Manual, from what I've seen so far, doesn't seem worth the purchase. From a new / Updated Monster point of view. However, the art alone is probably worth the purchase.
We haven't stepped back to really assess it that way, but we will!