It's a better place to live

Except for liches and beholders

Although I did install the FO4 mod Tales of the Common wealth and will enter that world soon

Hey, chat, can you help me find a picture of an elephrog that feels suitably elephant-sized, rather than cutely frog-sized?

Wow, the Raven Queens Fortress of Memories would be a great mid to late campaign trip.

@BESW too creepy and toady?

Toady is fine, but... yeah, that's a bit much.

too toddler/Ms paint cute?

And I know that first one was too much, but found the artist and her process

I'm looking for something similar to D&D monster art style.

Is this an elephrog

No, that's a a froggophant.

What are the defining features of an elephant? Trunk? Tusks? Frog legs? Frog tongue?

I'm looking for something predominantly froggy in shape but with some elephant features, and sized more like an elephant than a frog.

I guess... giant frog with some elephant facial features.

I would also accept owl or bear instead of elephant for the secondary features.

...I guess for owl or bear then frog could be secondary? [shrug] It's a sort of "I'll know it when I see it" thing.

Working on an adventure with a mutated creature.

@HellSaint I feel like your objection to the bee stats run a little afoul of the MM's explicit guidance that I'll paraphrase "we obviously didn't try to stat everything mundane, if you need a different creature grab something nearby and modify if necessary." Yes, dndwiki+ReallyAWookie is a bad mix, but I think your assertion that one can't wildshape into a bee by RAW because there's no statblock goes a little too far.

@nitsua60 That's up to the DM to decide, though. Usually "up to the DM" and "RAW" don't mix well.

The MM by itself is for the DM, not for players.

that ^^ seems to me a playstyle statement, not anything in the rules

The DM is the one describing and creating creatures - I don't see how this is a playstyle thing.

The character exists in the world that those creatures do. Some of them may have had childhood fascinations with dinosaurs and would know more about an allosaurus than any GM describes at the table, for example. How your table chooses to tackle that--players can or cannot see the MM, for instance--is a playstyle thing.

Literally the "How to use this book?" section in the MM says "The best thing about being a DM"

"The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master's Guide, is a book for DMs. "

Do you forbid players at your table who also DM?

@nitsua60 I think the idea is to prevent metagaming - i.e., avoid scenario where players look at the MM and suddenly their characters know all the monsters' strengths and weaknesses. If the players can refrain from that then there's no reason to "hide" the MM from them IRL.

Nope, but it seems pretty clear to me who is supposed to be the "you" on the statement " if you need a different creature grab something nearby and modify if necessary."

@MikeQ The notion that metagaming must be prevented is also a playstyle thing.

The MM is, explicitly by the book's own writing, a book for the DM. When it states "you need a different creature", it is saying "the DM needs a different creature".

Going against what is written in the book is a playstyle, but the question literally asked for as written. As written (which is a playstyle, I agree), the one creating these new creatures are not the players.

@HellSaint And I'm saying that's a playstyle thing. I, for instance, have always tasked my druids' players with the work of statting anything that isn't in the book. I don't like to hoard worldbuilding.

@nitsua60 Fair enough, I just try to keep in-game and out-of-game knowledge separate. If there's a strong reason that a PC would know about a certain creature, then sure, show it to the player for reference.

There's also the understanding (or assumption, maybe?) that the players are controlling PCs while the DM is controlling all the monsters... So it's "for the DM" in the sense that the DM may need it to run the game, and the players don't.

Your playstyle is going against what's explicitly written. Asker explicitly asked for what's written. I agree with you that not going RAW is a playstyle. I'm just saying that my answer focus on the playstyle defined by the asker.

(This may just be another example of how badly "RAW" and nitsua60 mix.)

And btw, no, RAW is not my favorite playstyle. Actually it's the one I less frequently play :P

I mean if we want to get into the Elemental Plane of Semantics, I'd point out that "for the DM" and "for the DM only" are not the same, so players are not explicitly forbidden from using it

@HellSaint Where is it written that players may not participate in worldbuilding? To say my position isn't what's written is one thing... to say I'm going against it? I dunno, man.

In any case, I've got maps to draw. Some time @HellSaint I'd be interested to hear the troubles you're having in bullet 3 of your adjusting encounters question. But, alas, it can't be tonight.

"The DM creates a world for the other players to explore,", DMG, fifth page :P

But yeah, my players literally created 3 cities inside the forgotten realms until now

@nitsua60 First try: Goblin Ambush, LMoP. 4 players, 4 goblins. 6 players, 6 goblins, right? Right? 6 goblins surprising the dumb barbarian who decided to go alone = more than 30 damage against a 1st level character in one surprise turn. He was not even raging yet.

Btw, 2 critical hits.

@HellSaint That sounds right, honestly. PC goes off on their own, gets trucked. Player should learn to not do that and let the recon specialists be the ones to go ahead.

Well, if I didn't Deus Ex, he would literally have died in his first combat interaction. While I agree that players have to learn things, killing the character for that, that soon, felt wrong :P

It's like "yeah you should check for traps" - and to teach them that we put them through Tomb of Horrors.

(By the numbers: I ballpark all monsters hitting PCs at ~2/3 frequency, unless something's remarkably high or low. So that'd be 4 goblins hitting in the first round, doing about 5 dmg each, so that's enough to take down any L1 if they focus. Normally the whole party's there, so they wouldn't have focused like that, and I'm sure 6 goblins would have been fine.)

ok actually I felt that was a bad idea but it might be a great idea instead

@HellSaint It might be a learning moment about stealth, perception, &c? I mean, the goblins' passive stealth has to be something like 13, maybe someone in the party would have noticed them around the same time as the barbarian blundered into them, allowing them to get off some ranged shots or even a warning cry?

(Anyone proficient in perception, for instance?)

They are actively hiding though, and I rolled like a 19 in the d20 for stealh :P

I mean, goblins are notorious for sitting there giggling and razzing on each other when they're "hiding."

@HellSaint So 3 of your first 7 d20 rolls were 19 or 20. (The stealth and the two crits.) I guess by the time the second goblin hit the barbarian I might have had later ones start to take up positions to start sniping the other five PCs.

@nitsua60 Yeah, pretty much I had insane rolls.

[should get back to maps]

The ranged ones were attacking with advantage (unseen) though, and they were the ones critting.

hey there @Ben

hey there @nitsua60

o/

@HellSaint "You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building" — DMG, p.4

@SPavel And for good reason, as I now know: I just made some variant of General Tso's Cauliflower, and it won't be the last time.

Hi. Anyone here?

solamente yo

Uo

Here you go, 5 px for speaking spanish

Muchas gracias. What's going on? Just checking for chat activity (spoiler alert: there is none) or did you want to talk about something?

I wanted to ask something quickly-ish

o/

I'm DMing now. I improvised a guy that has a magic shirt, that gives him the power to camouflage like a chameleon or something like this

Is there an spell or similar item?

D&D 5e?

Yes

Cloak of Elvenkind

(upvote)

Great!

Have fun!

So fast. So good. I owe you a dinner

aww :D