|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
unfortunately innitial info suggests you may be out of luck on that one
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also concerned about this. Having a unified ruleset that applies the same way to all creatures is something I like about Pathfinder. I do realize that there is a rather steep learning curve with that, and why something would be done about it. I just hope we don't lose all the benefits of having a unified rules system that applies equally to all actors.
(with that said, I for one welcome our new diminutive green overlords)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already wrote that elsewhere. sometimes PCs die and sometimes former NPCs become the new PCs. To NOT use the same creation rules would be incredibly counter intuitive. To NOT use the same creation rules for monsters basically means I have to learn two different rules to run the game.
I don't see how that streamlines anything
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.
No. 100 times no. As a GM I’m done with Pathfinder because dealing with all the stupid details with feats and skills and class abilities and blah blah blah that I need to do just to scale different monsters is fatiguing.
Simplify the monsters so they can be easily run on the fly would be a win. Monsters following the same rules as player characters is good in theory, but in actual practice isn’t.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
Aasimars & Tieflings would have been more traditional.
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful.
Actually, once you get your head around it, the Starfinder creature system is not that bad.
I still disagree with the "balance" that Starfinder chose, but that isn't quite the same as the system. What I mean is that when the system first appeared in Pathfinder Unchained (pages 194 to 253) it had the "normal" Pathfinder combat balance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.
No. 100 times no. As a GM I’m done with Pathfinder because dealing with all the stupid details with feats and skills and class abilities and blah blah blah that I need to do just to scale different monsters is fatiguing.
Simplify the monsters so they can be easily run on the fly would be a win. Monsters following the same rules as player characters is good in theory, but in actual practice isn’t.
This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.
I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.
Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.
simplified monsters were one of the things I really hated about 4E.
I'm ok with it for Mobs but when it comes to a major enemy I want to make something that is robust and detailed every bit as much as the PCs. Simple monsters just doesn't cut it
simplified monsters were one of the things I really hated about 4E.
I'm ok with it for Mobs but when it comes to a major enemy I want to make something that is robust and detailed every bit as much as the PCs. Simple monsters just doesn't cut it
Have you looked at Starfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you looked at Starfinder?simplified monsters were one of the things I really hated about 4E.
I'm ok with it for Mobs but when it comes to a major enemy I want to make something that is robust and detailed every bit as much as the PCs. Simple monsters just doesn't cut it
not really but I have seen the simple monster rules in Unchained and those are not what I want when I am making my Big Bad Evil Overlord.
not really but I have seen the simple monster rules in Unchained and those are not what I want when I am making my Big Bad Evil Overlord.Have you looked at Starfinder?simplified monsters were one of the things I really hated about 4E.
I'm ok with it for Mobs but when it comes to a major enemy I want to make something that is robust and detailed every bit as much as the PCs. Simple monsters just doesn't cut it
Starfinder uses something very similar to the Pathfinder Unchained rules. But, in my opinion, the Starfinder rules are actually inferior to Unchained.
now you see that is not encouraging for me
Catfolk, aasimars, tieflings, a tree people race, half faerie dragons, some other planar-touched race, kobolds, androids, wood golems, ... I'll take just about anything over a goblin.
As someone that worked with both the regular monster rules and the unchained rules, please don't make me go back to the default Pathfinder rules. I haven't put out a monster book since unchained because those rules are just so much better and I don't want to go back to the old monster book for anything other than a monster here or there of adventures (and even then I don't WANT to).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Catfolk, aasimars, tieflings, a tree people race, half faerie dragons, some other planar-touched race, kobolds, androids, wood golems, ... I'll take just about anything over a goblin.
As someone that worked with both the regular monster rules and the unchained rules, please don't make me go back to the default Pathfinder rules. I haven't put out a monster book since unchained because those rules are just so much better and I don't want to go back to the old monster book for anything other than a monster here or there of adventures (and even then I don't WANT to).
That’s the problem with Starfinder monster rules: they’re designed for designers, not players and GMs.
It’s designers job to do the hard work which lets me have a fun play experience.
Reducing the play experience so that a handful of people who profit from the game have an easier job is not something that excites me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Catfolk, aasimars, tieflings, a tree people race, half faerie dragons, some other planar-touched race, kobolds, androids, wood golems, ... I'll take just about anything over a goblin.
As someone that worked with both the regular monster rules and the unchained rules, please don't make me go back to the default Pathfinder rules. I haven't put out a monster book since unchained because those rules are just so much better and I don't want to go back to the old monster book for anything other than a monster here or there of adventures (and even then I don't WANT to).
That’s the problem with Starfinder monster rules: they’re designed for designers, not players and GMs.
It’s designers job to do the hard work which lets me have a fun play experience.
Reducing the play experience so that a handful of people who profit from the game have an easier job is not something that excites me.
I completely disagree that it's not for GMs. I love stuff that lets me whip together encounters faster, or homebrew creatures faster. Those are huge GM tools IMO.
It's absolutely 0 change to the play experience from a player perspective (unless you tell them all the monster/NPC stats) and from a GM perspective, why are you worrying about any of that? The way you RP monsters/NPC isn't based on numbers, it's the characterizations and backgrounds that make them who/what they are.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).
My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.
No. 100 times no. As a GM I’m done with Pathfinder because dealing with all the stupid details with feats and skills and class abilities and blah blah blah that I need to do just to scale different monsters is fatiguing.
Simplify the monsters so they can be easily run on the fly would be a win. Monsters following the same rules as player characters is good in theory, but in actual practice isn’t.
This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.
I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.
Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.
Sooo ye, saying that people who think NPCs shouldn't follow PC rules aren't allowed to express their opinion here?
I myself have actually hardtime grasping how npc rules in unchained and starfinder work as it is true when they follow pc rules they are easier to grasp, however, npcs already don't follow pc rules in pathfinder: They can have organization without leadership, they can have and create artifacts, they can have racial hds or templates that most of pcs aren't allowed to have and sometimes they can use power of plot to perform things that rules don't strictly allow you to do without gm fiats.
Also, monsters following pc rules makes it really hard to build custom built monsters without spending a looooooot of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
Thirded. The only reason I put up with it in Starfinder is because I can go back to PF and avoid it. I want my PCs to be a part of the world, with the same abilities and mechanics as the other creatures inhabiting it. I want to be able to hand a monster or NPC to a player and let them play it exactly as they might a PC. I want to be able to build hypothetical characters and then use them as mechanically interesting NPCs while GMing if I don't get a chance to play them. I want to be able to give templates to my players and not have to do any fiddling with converting "NPC" abilities to "Player" abilities.
I also don't want my PCs to see a monster or NPC do something cool, but have no way to do it themselves. That's not fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still create NPCs with PC rules though. D&D 5e even notes that when you create NPCs you can choose whether you use NPC rules or PC rules. There is nothing preventing you in Starfinder choosing to use PC rules for NPCs.
Also, monsters' special abilities are almost always something players can't do so bit confused about what you mean there?
Gauntlets of Rust?!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
rusting grasp and RM's attack are not the same.
And I can go for miles with examples of monster abilities that you cannot replicate using player-side material (short of wish or miracle). The "monsters are made from the same set of Lego bricks as PCs" thing was never true to begin with - took me some time to realise that, but once I've played 5e, I fell in love with its monster/NPC design paradigm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s the problem with Starfinder monster rules: they’re designed for designers, not players and GMs.It’s designers job to do the hard work which lets me have a fun play experience.
Reducing the play experience so that a handful of people who profit from the game have an easier job is not something that excites me.
I disagree. A GM is a designer! The less time I have to spend to write and compile a monster like computer code, or have to refer to a whole page of stats to get the relevant info about a monster, rather than having a simple set of math formulas to refer to, it works dramatically better for me as a GM. I can instead spend that time figuring out how the monster will interact with the PCs, or more time as can devote to thinking about story, or, heck, even something non-game related!
The default Pathfinder monster creation is too much like homework to me. If I’m doing it for my one character, that’s one thing, but doing it for EVERY creature in the game? That’s a lot of work for a creature who is going to last for all of half an hour, tops.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, monsters following pc rules makes it really hard to build custom built monsters without spending a looooooot of time.
Wonderful anecdote that I’m sure I’m not alone on:
For Jade Regent, an NPC enemy from an early book escaped the PCs, and I wanted to bring them back as a higher-level challenge. So, I took their stats from the book, added class levels, templates, etc. and make them an absolute beast, complete with minions. Took me about two hours of prep to add the levels and optimize them.
They show up, dramatically, having followed the PCs, planning their revenge, making dramatic speech, etc.
Initiative rolls out, some of the PCs go first due to a crappy initiative roll.
The Witch PC rolls out a baleful polymorph. I laugh because the enemy has like a +17 or so on the save.
I roll a natural 1.
Enemy is now a toad.
I’d rather not spend an hour on something that will likely die inside of an hour, and possibly quicker.
EDIT: just looked it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can still create NPCs with PC rules though. D&D 5e even notes that when you create NPCs you can choose whether you use NPC rules or PC rules. There is nothing preventing you in Starfinder choosing to use PC rules for NPCs.
Also, monsters' special abilities are almost always something players can't do so bit confused about what you mean there?
Hmm, I was pretty vague about "monster abilities". I guess what I really want is a system where PCs and NPCs (and I'm using NPC here to mean 'Non-Player-Creature', monsters as well as non-player-characters with class levels) aren't on different scales. A level 5 NPC and level 5 PC should hit the same benchmarks, so there's no huge issue with me handing a monster to a player to use as a PC.
My games make frequent use of monsters as PCs, Player Characters with templates, PVP, and past PCs returning as NPC combatants. There's certainly balance issues that come up from time to time (issues my group has spent a lot of time addressing), but there aren't many issues with the rules supporting this. This is largely because monsters aren't fundamentally different from PCs, and mechanics are designed with the assumption a player will be fighting monsters with stats on a similar scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "monsters are made from the same set of Lego bricks as PCs" thing was never true to begin with - took me some time to realise that, but once I've played 5e, I fell in love with its monster/NPC design paradigm.
This is interesting, because I've found in my games that the opposite is true. By breaking down the artificial barriers between PC and NPC, I think my game has benefited. My group loves mixing PC classes with monster hit dice, and using villains built with Player Character rules. Obviously this isn't gonna be true for everyone, but it's definitely true in my Pathfinder.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the moment you spend 1 hour statting up an NPC in Hero Lab (and heaven knows how long it takes if you were to do that by hand) just so that the PCs can brutalize her in 3 rounds you know that there's some time lost there which you could use better.
I'm probably in the minority here, but taking time to build a good NPC is something I really enjoy. Creating them can be its own reward, for me at least, even if players kill them off in only a few rounds. There's definitely merit to the quick system that Starfinder uses, (and it makes building disposable mooks a breeze) but I'm still bothered by the fact it uses different benchmarks than the ones PCs have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I don't see much benefit to a hit dice/BAB/saving throw/feat progression system for monsters. In theory everything runs off the same rules, but in reality they just throw on whatever stats and Natural Armor bonus make it feel right. And it causes a lot of problems in terms of balancing one enemy against four PCs.
In D&D5E, you can create an enemy NPC using the player character rules, or you can achieve something similar quicker by throwing some abilities together to make an appropriately challenging encounter.
This seems more flexible than the Starfinder "Fighting a PC is nothing like fighting an NPC because PCs have much lower damage output and higher resilience" system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like 5E system which basically ties monster saves, attacks skills etc to CR instead of HD and the size of the HD to the size of the monster.
I actually really like it, its a lot more simple than PF and doesn't hurt as such as you can still plug in things like feats or whatever to it.
|
|
Ye, thing about custom building ncps for hours has the problem of "they don't live for even minute in the actual combat" :D And I never use herolab myself because I like to make sure rules are right instead of trusting programming to do thinking for me.
Also, you do realize that even with Pathfinder's system, CR 4 creature doesn't equal level 4 PC? It equals 4 level 4 PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you do realize that even with Pathfinder's system, CR 4 creature doesn't equal level 4 PC? It equals 4 level 4 PCs.
Huh? In Pathfinder, a CR 4 creature is roughly equal in power to a level 4 PC.
If it was equal to 4 level 4 PCs, then a CR 4 creature would have a 50% chance of TPKing a level 4 party.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How long they last in combat had always been immaterial to me, since there's a lot of factors involved there outside of the statblock.
There's also the fact that if I'm building a NPC it's usually for more than just a simple fight, it's for interactions. If it's just for a single one adn done fight I can pull something out of Bestiary and tweak it on the fly.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you do realize that even with Pathfinder's system, CR 4 creature doesn't equal level 4 PC? It equals 4 level 4 PCs.Huh? In Pathfinder, a CR 4 creature is roughly equal in power to a level 4 PC.
If it was equal to 4 level 4 PCs, then a CR 4 creature would have a 50% chance of TPKing a level 4 party.
Not quite, a CR 4 creature is an "average fight" for a party of four level 4 PCs.
Ye, thing about custom building ncps for hours has the problem of "they don't live for even minute in the actual combat" :D And I never use herolab myself because I like to make sure rules are right instead of trusting programming to do thinking for me.
Also, you do realize that even with Pathfinder's system, CR 4 creature doesn't equal level 4 PC? It equals 4 level 4 PCs.
It doesn't equal 4 level 4 PCs. It's considered an appropriate challenge for 4 level 4 PCs. And with a group that knows how to optimize, it's not really an appropriate challenge.
An NPC in Pathfinder with heroic ability scores, class levels, and PC-budget gear should have a CR roughly equal to their class level. Though admittedly, determining CR in PF is far more art than science.
I keep seeing mentions of 5e's NPC creation system. I think something like that would be fine (with a set of quick rules as well as support for building an NPC like a PC). I would just want both systems to be hitting the same benchmarks, unlike how things work in Starfinder. I don't really like that in that system my quick-built Kalo Soldier NPC is going to have a radically different armor class, hit point total, and attack bonus than a similar CR NPC built like a PC. I also don't like that the rules are written with the assumption that monsters aren't using the same math as player characters, though I get why that design choice was made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How long they last in combat had always been immaterial to me, since there's a lot of factors involved there outside of the statblock.
There's also the fact that if I'm building a NPC it's usually for more than just a simple fight, it's for interactions. If it's just for a single one adn done fight I can pull something out of Bestiary and tweak it on the fly.
This is my exact feeling. When I build an NPC, they're not just gonna show up in one fight. The abilities and capabilities of my NPCs are also important to how I flavor my world. If I have some legendary figure in my campaign, it's nice when I have a stat block to back it up, and a player can look at and say "Hey, I could accomplish those things too!". It makes things feel more authentic when players are living in a world where all the actors are obeying the same laws.
And then, when I just need a mook, I grab someone from the NPC codex and give him a gun and a bad New Yorker accent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is true CR is more art than science, but either way, point is that CR 4 creature is supposed to be equal challenge to 4 level 4 PCs so clearly you can't say CR 4 npc in Starfinder is supposed to equal one Level 4 PC by itself.
A CR 4 encounter isn't supposed to be equal in power to a level 4 party. The average encounter isn't meant to be a 50/50 shot. The average encounter is supposed to be heavily stacked in the PCs favor. PCs, however, have to fight all day. Monsters only need to fight the PCs once.
I know that NPC CR and PC Class level aren't the same thing in Starfinder, and that's something I take a bit of issue with. They are, however, roughly the same thing in Pathfinder.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.
Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.
This is absolutely the correct thread for me to be in, as it is a thread about monster creation rules. And just because I say something different than the echo chamber, that doesn’t mean that I don’t deserve to be heard. If you don’t like a dissenting opinion, that is very literally your problem, not mine.
But I think there is a misunderstanding on what my wants for monster creation are, so let me clarify.
A 20th Level Wizard BBEG should absolutely be built using the PC creation rules, because it is a wizard—though that doesn’t preclude the GM from giving that BBEG additional abilities on top of the standard wizard stuff.
But there is no reason why an orc should be given feats and class levels. Orc warrior with a feat? Why? If I want to make an orc stronger, now I have to give them more levels, and figure out feats, and other abilities? Why? It’s an unnecessary headache, especially when trying to do it on the fly so that out of a group of 10 orcs, the one stronger leader orc I’ve got to increase its level and figure out feats, blah blah.
No. Tie combat ability/saving throws/XP to the number and type of HD that a creature has. Want to make orc #10 the group commander? Give it 3 HD. Boom. Done. Want it to also be a spell casting orc? Give it the spell casting monster ability, and then add the XP bonus for that ability to the total XP.
But I’m 99% certain Paizo isn’t going in this direction so it’s a pipe dream.
I should probably write my own RPG rules.
|
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
Well the problem with the current system is it completely borks the CR and action economy rules. After awhile, it also pretty much stagnates what's possible. Sure, GMs can create creatures with whatever powers they wish, and many do. I know I do to help alleviate the stagnation. But if they give me a rules system that helps me do that in a more balanced way...
Hopefully they can come up with a new system that is both easy to use and alleviates stagnation; one that revamps the CR and action economy systems so they actually work as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded so very very very hard.
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
Completely agreed! When monsters and NPCs play with the same ruleset as PCs, that allows me the GM to better gage the power levels involved in the encounter. I hate the CR concept because it's vague and easily prone to creating unbalanced encounters.
Another benefit? I only have to memorize and understand *one* ruleset when I want to create my unique monster, instead of trying to decipher a 2nd set of rules that don't mesh with the rest of the system. Of course, some abilities should be reserved only for monsters, but they should follow the same format as class features. I think the rules to create Eidolons and the rules in the Advanced Race Guide are an excellent first step to what I'd like to see.
And if people are GMs are finding it takes too long to create monsters this way? Then we should absolutely find a way to streamline the process. That means the added benefit is that creating PCs becomes more streamlined at the same time!
I'm fine if there's a ruleset to quickly generate a monster, but that should be optional, and a proper ruleset to build monsters on the same framework as that of the PC should absolutely be core.
So ... how exactly do you get Rust Monster's abilities as a PC in PF? :)
Play as a Rust Monster with PC class levels ;-)
|
|
It is true CR is more art than science, but either way, point is that CR 4 creature is supposed to be equal challenge to 4 level 4 PCs so clearly you can't say CR 4 npc in Starfinder is supposed to equal one Level 4 PC by itself.
An equal CR to the party should you 1/xth of the party's resources to combat it, where X is the number of PCs. So 4 level 4PCs fighting a CR4 encounter should use up about 1/4th of the party's daily resources. 4 CR4s in one day and the party should be pretty much spent. Optimization and dice though have a huge effect.
I just really really hate Starfinder's system. I'm happy with the old system, but if changes must be made, the Starfinder route is not the right direction to go in.
I think paizo can address some of the concerns of those who like to build monsters from hand using the hit die rules, and it wouldn't really be that difficult.
The rules for both systems aren't really anything special, building a dragon from scratch was the same as picking out the dragon "class" and picking how many HD or levels it should have. And then you assigned it whatever abilities you wanted it to have.
The only change that they'd have to fully clarify is what the "values" of the 3 monster roles would be in terms of building a PC. The outsider values shouldn't be the same across the board, dividing it between the roles works fine. A magically inclined rakshasa shouldn't have the same brute power as a an earth elemental of the same challenge rating, disregarding strength.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly just have both types.
Simple Mob monsters and Highly detailed Big Bads. If the Orc entry in the beastiary has a Simple Mob version and "Orc Ancestry" to let you build full Orc characters alongside them both options are addressed.
Since we have Feat Baskets there can be a Monster only Basket or even a BBEG Basket to give the GM some Tools to make a Major NPC with abilities tailored for fighting a party of adventurers.
I'm ok with simple monsters as long as I can also make a full detailed NPC when I need them.
as for the "why waste time on a detailed npc when his is killed in 1 round by a bad save" That's not a monster design problem that's a Save or Suck problem. You fix that by fixing the spell not the monster
Honestly just have both types.
Simple Mob monsters and Highly detailed Big Bads. If the Orc entry in the beastiary has a Simple Mob version and "Orc Ancestry" to let you build full Orc characters alongside them both options are addressed.
Will every monster have an "ancestry" option attached to it? As it stands in Pathfinder 1E, you can slap class levels on anything with an intelligence score. Even monsters without intelligence scores can gain them. In this way, monsters in the bestiaries are often starting points you can used to build up.
Monsters that don't work the same (as in don't have the same abilities as PCs. I've seen systems that claim the build rules are different when all they mean is that you don't have to follow the same careful advancement system) tend to just be too weak, too shallow, and too bland to be interesting.
This is a great example of a way 5e fails to satisfy my consumer needs.
This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.
Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.
This is absolutely the correct thread for me to be in, as it is a thread about monster creation rules. And just because I say something different than the echo chamber, that doesn’t mean that I don’t deserve to be heard. If you don’t like a dissenting opinion, that is very literally your problem, not mine.
No, by all means, you are welcome to have your opinion and voice it,certainly. But this was created as the "please don't do this" thread, and I think it would be far more productive for everyone involved if the people in favor of it would have created their own thread to show their support, rather than come into this one to argue with the people they disagree with.