Talk:5e Monsters Reimagined

Watch'd. --Kydo (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2016 (MDT)

Should this be restricted to only cosmetic customizations? If we're allowing minor mechanical changes, how extensive are such changes allowed to become before we expect a new monster entry to be made? --Kydo (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2016 (MST)

From the pattern I saw when contributing to this, the Reimaginings are for cosmetic customizations, while the Variants are for mechanical changes. The extent of changes allowed might not be quantifiable (how do you compare two creatures for similarity?). The rule I used was that, if you'd need to copy most of a preexisting monster's stat block, then it's better to make it a variant. For instance, I made a variant Tarrasque that, if it was its own creature, would've required a huge stat block for a change that's summed up in a sentence or two. Easier for the editor, and makes the homebrew creatures list less cluttered. Oportet (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2016 (MST)

I agree, that's why I brought this up. Allowing very minor changes here is preferable to a dozen versions of a core rules monster with only one mechanical tweak apiece... but how do we quantify the distinction between an extremely slight variant and an actual revision? --Kydo (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2016 (MST)