I think I'm missing a lot by not looking on the Wizards boards more often. Some of these may be familiar to you... others may not be.
Mike Mearls on the "Megadungeon" - This thread - 21st Nov 2007
The megadungeon is more viable. We expect that PCs can tackle a broader spread of monsters, leveling up is a smaller incremental increase in power, and the encounter focus of powers makes it more viable to stay in the dungeon for longer periods of time.
It's funny I spotted this thread today, because in talking over the treasure system in the DMG with James Wyatt this morning, I kept thinking about how much easier it makes designing dungeon levels. It also ties into giving monsters XP values, rather than using CR.
For instance, let's say I want to build dungeon level 3, aimed at level 3 PCs. I can determine a total XP value of monsters for the entire level based on pushing the party from level 3 to 4, then use that to determine a total treasure value, and then allocate those monsters and treasures however I wish. I might pay attention to the XP and treaure in specific areas to make sure I have harder and tougher fights within a level.
Now, my personal approach for a dungeon level is this:
1. I assume that the dungeon level = the expected level of the party when they start bashing around there. Let's call that X. Of course, a party can end up in a dungeon level sooner due to a trap, bad luck, or simple foolish bravery, but that's my basic assumption.
2. The total monster XP floating around the level is 120% of the total needed for the party to go from level X to X + 1. That's my personal bias to account for encounters the PCs miss.
3. The total treasure in the level is 120% of the expected haul for a party that goes from X to X + 1. Again, to account for stuff the party misses and to hide a few bigger than average rewards in treasure troves and such.
I can then spend that XP budget however I like, probably with an eye toward avoiding monsters that are too high in level above the party. For treasure, I simply do a table look up or roll some dice to determine the loot on the level and allocate as I wish.
Maybe it's just the difference in approach, but I've found this method more inspiring than the CR system. I can build a level with a really big dragon in the middle, lots of little guys on the edges of the level, a few treasures hidden in secret rooms, and so on, without worrying about going too far above the party's level.
Now, if you wanted a more dangerous campaign, you could take you monster allocations by level and, rather than sort them by level 1, 2, 3, and so on, you could seed them throughout the dungeon. One of your level 9 encounters might be right near the dungeon entrance. Foolish (or brave) PCs might try taking on that monster. If they win, your game isn't distorted much at all, because the incremental increase in leveling a bit faster isn't as huge.
One of the things I've been happiest about with 4e, and something that I realy hope holds up when you guys get your hands on it, is that DMs can and should let the PCs get in over their heads. With far fewer save or dies, the PCs can afford to spar with a really tough critter for a round or two before figuring out that running away is the best option. One of the things that frustrated me about 3e was that the too tough encounter might kill a PC before the players figured out they were in over their heads. The window of time you have to decide to run is a little wider.
Mike Mearls on Monster Design - this thread - 26th August 2007
Querent: Part of design focus is to have less monsters able to become PCs, of course we do not know which monsters they will be.
That's not completely true. The focus is on making cool monsters that work well as opponents and villains, rather than forcing monsters to behave as both playable characters and opponents.
Given the vagueries of ECL and LA, 3e has a system that promises you a lot but delivers very little. We don't want to repeat that in 4e. We'd rather be honest with you and create balanced, workable racial write-ups for monsters.
IMO, 3e gave the worst of both worlds. The mechanics behind monster design were as arduous and detailed as PC design, yet the end result was rarely a playable PC without heavy houseruling. Frankly, LAs simply don't work except in a few cases (mainly vanilla, beater monsters or monsters that were pretty much spellcasters).
In 4e, if you want to play an ogre you don't simply copy the ogre's stats, write down an LA, and start playing. Instead, you'd look up the ogre racial entry and use that just as you would any other race. The ogre might have some stuff going on to compensate for his higher strength, size, and hit points, but otherwise he's just another race you can choose. The big difference is that we'd rather design an ogre race entry that has all the cool parts of playing an ogre without trying to shoehorn the ogre's AC, hit points, and other basic stats into a PC.
I think LA and ECL look good on paper, and in theory they open up the entire MM to player use, but in practice they caused more problems than they solved. It's one of the very few areas of 3e that has widespread, systematic problems.
and more - this post - 26 Aug 07
In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.
PCs are a slightly different story. We'd rather create a specific PC write up for a monster that reins in any potential issues at the table or for game balance.
even more - this post - 26 Aug 07
Querent: Do I wave my hands and say "Suddenly, the Ogre Warrior in front of you can't take a punch as well, and also has for some reason forgotten how to use Awesome Blow, and maybe has gained a barbarian's Rage! Poof!"
Nope. In all the situations you cite, the ogre would be an ogre.
The only case where the ogre might not get a theoretical Awesome Blow ability is if, for some reason, it caused problems in the hand of a PC. However, that is much more likely to be the case for beholders, mind flayers, and other critters with really weird, powerful abilities that would be big problems if used every round throughout an adventure.
I think this discussion points out the flaw in 3e's handling of monsters as PCs. LA works fine for *some* monsters, particularly those like giants, ogres, and minotaurs, who don't have any outlandish abilities. It breaks down for really magical, weird critters.
I think the ogre is a bad example, because he's on the very simple scale for monsters. He's basically a big, dumb fighter, and I imagine that a PC write up for him would be close to, if not precisely, just taking his stat block and playing as a level X character.
However, take the troglodyte as a counter example. Let's say I create a level 1 troglodyte fighter, the equivalent of a level 6 character. He probably has around 30 hit points, not great for a fighter at that level, but not too awful. His attack bonus is 4 points behind the equivalent human fighter. That's not so good, a 20% lower chance to hit on average.
In return, the trog has an AC of about 30 or so if he carries a shield. That's before any buffs. Thanks to the wonders of a +6 natural AC bonus, he is 30% less likely to be hit than the equivalent human fighter.
So, the trog gains +6 AC for -4 on attacks and 12 to 15 hit points.
Is that an even balance? Who knows. It might be. It probably isn't. But the key is, there's no design here. It's just numbers chosen to make a good CR 1 monster clumsily converted into a character.
In the future, we'd rather *design* this stuff to do what it does, so that when you play a trog you have a fun, interesting, reasonably balanced character.
The monster trog works fine as an NPC. He can join the party, follow you as an ally, gain character levels if the DM wants a trog wizard or fighter, and so on. The key is that, to form a fun play experience over session after session, that trog doesn't work. You need a different tool.
Some monsters are much closer to being playable. Others are farther away. We'd rather create mechanics to deal with each situation, rather than try to manufacture a one size fits all solution when it's plain that monsters need wildly different changes from case to case to become usable PCs.
###
Hope you find this summary useful!
Cheers,
Merric
Mike Mearls on the "Megadungeon" - This thread - 21st Nov 2007
The megadungeon is more viable. We expect that PCs can tackle a broader spread of monsters, leveling up is a smaller incremental increase in power, and the encounter focus of powers makes it more viable to stay in the dungeon for longer periods of time.
It's funny I spotted this thread today, because in talking over the treasure system in the DMG with James Wyatt this morning, I kept thinking about how much easier it makes designing dungeon levels. It also ties into giving monsters XP values, rather than using CR.
For instance, let's say I want to build dungeon level 3, aimed at level 3 PCs. I can determine a total XP value of monsters for the entire level based on pushing the party from level 3 to 4, then use that to determine a total treasure value, and then allocate those monsters and treasures however I wish. I might pay attention to the XP and treaure in specific areas to make sure I have harder and tougher fights within a level.
Now, my personal approach for a dungeon level is this:
1. I assume that the dungeon level = the expected level of the party when they start bashing around there. Let's call that X. Of course, a party can end up in a dungeon level sooner due to a trap, bad luck, or simple foolish bravery, but that's my basic assumption.
2. The total monster XP floating around the level is 120% of the total needed for the party to go from level X to X + 1. That's my personal bias to account for encounters the PCs miss.
3. The total treasure in the level is 120% of the expected haul for a party that goes from X to X + 1. Again, to account for stuff the party misses and to hide a few bigger than average rewards in treasure troves and such.
I can then spend that XP budget however I like, probably with an eye toward avoiding monsters that are too high in level above the party. For treasure, I simply do a table look up or roll some dice to determine the loot on the level and allocate as I wish.
Maybe it's just the difference in approach, but I've found this method more inspiring than the CR system. I can build a level with a really big dragon in the middle, lots of little guys on the edges of the level, a few treasures hidden in secret rooms, and so on, without worrying about going too far above the party's level.
Now, if you wanted a more dangerous campaign, you could take you monster allocations by level and, rather than sort them by level 1, 2, 3, and so on, you could seed them throughout the dungeon. One of your level 9 encounters might be right near the dungeon entrance. Foolish (or brave) PCs might try taking on that monster. If they win, your game isn't distorted much at all, because the incremental increase in leveling a bit faster isn't as huge.
One of the things I've been happiest about with 4e, and something that I realy hope holds up when you guys get your hands on it, is that DMs can and should let the PCs get in over their heads. With far fewer save or dies, the PCs can afford to spar with a really tough critter for a round or two before figuring out that running away is the best option. One of the things that frustrated me about 3e was that the too tough encounter might kill a PC before the players figured out they were in over their heads. The window of time you have to decide to run is a little wider.
Mike Mearls on Monster Design - this thread - 26th August 2007
Querent: Part of design focus is to have less monsters able to become PCs, of course we do not know which monsters they will be.
That's not completely true. The focus is on making cool monsters that work well as opponents and villains, rather than forcing monsters to behave as both playable characters and opponents.
Given the vagueries of ECL and LA, 3e has a system that promises you a lot but delivers very little. We don't want to repeat that in 4e. We'd rather be honest with you and create balanced, workable racial write-ups for monsters.
IMO, 3e gave the worst of both worlds. The mechanics behind monster design were as arduous and detailed as PC design, yet the end result was rarely a playable PC without heavy houseruling. Frankly, LAs simply don't work except in a few cases (mainly vanilla, beater monsters or monsters that were pretty much spellcasters).
In 4e, if you want to play an ogre you don't simply copy the ogre's stats, write down an LA, and start playing. Instead, you'd look up the ogre racial entry and use that just as you would any other race. The ogre might have some stuff going on to compensate for his higher strength, size, and hit points, but otherwise he's just another race you can choose. The big difference is that we'd rather design an ogre race entry that has all the cool parts of playing an ogre without trying to shoehorn the ogre's AC, hit points, and other basic stats into a PC.
I think LA and ECL look good on paper, and in theory they open up the entire MM to player use, but in practice they caused more problems than they solved. It's one of the very few areas of 3e that has widespread, systematic problems.
and more - this post - 26 Aug 07
In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.
PCs are a slightly different story. We'd rather create a specific PC write up for a monster that reins in any potential issues at the table or for game balance.
even more - this post - 26 Aug 07
Querent: Do I wave my hands and say "Suddenly, the Ogre Warrior in front of you can't take a punch as well, and also has for some reason forgotten how to use Awesome Blow, and maybe has gained a barbarian's Rage! Poof!"
Nope. In all the situations you cite, the ogre would be an ogre.
The only case where the ogre might not get a theoretical Awesome Blow ability is if, for some reason, it caused problems in the hand of a PC. However, that is much more likely to be the case for beholders, mind flayers, and other critters with really weird, powerful abilities that would be big problems if used every round throughout an adventure.
I think this discussion points out the flaw in 3e's handling of monsters as PCs. LA works fine for *some* monsters, particularly those like giants, ogres, and minotaurs, who don't have any outlandish abilities. It breaks down for really magical, weird critters.
I think the ogre is a bad example, because he's on the very simple scale for monsters. He's basically a big, dumb fighter, and I imagine that a PC write up for him would be close to, if not precisely, just taking his stat block and playing as a level X character.
However, take the troglodyte as a counter example. Let's say I create a level 1 troglodyte fighter, the equivalent of a level 6 character. He probably has around 30 hit points, not great for a fighter at that level, but not too awful. His attack bonus is 4 points behind the equivalent human fighter. That's not so good, a 20% lower chance to hit on average.
In return, the trog has an AC of about 30 or so if he carries a shield. That's before any buffs. Thanks to the wonders of a +6 natural AC bonus, he is 30% less likely to be hit than the equivalent human fighter.
So, the trog gains +6 AC for -4 on attacks and 12 to 15 hit points.
Is that an even balance? Who knows. It might be. It probably isn't. But the key is, there's no design here. It's just numbers chosen to make a good CR 1 monster clumsily converted into a character.
In the future, we'd rather *design* this stuff to do what it does, so that when you play a trog you have a fun, interesting, reasonably balanced character.
The monster trog works fine as an NPC. He can join the party, follow you as an ally, gain character levels if the DM wants a trog wizard or fighter, and so on. The key is that, to form a fun play experience over session after session, that trog doesn't work. You need a different tool.
Some monsters are much closer to being playable. Others are farther away. We'd rather create mechanics to deal with each situation, rather than try to manufacture a one size fits all solution when it's plain that monsters need wildly different changes from case to case to become usable PCs.
###
Hope you find this summary useful!
Cheers,
Merric
