Monster Design in D&D Next

jadrax · Jun 11, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And this is what they use as a Showcase?

It is not supposed to be a showcase in that sense, they are illustrating the current method of design. The game is currently months away from release.

Li Shenron · Jun 11, 2012

I think it's an interesting showcase of the process of monster adaptation from previous editions.

The only thing that doesn't resonate with me right now is that after all the talking about HP not really being wounds, being "impaled" by one of these hooks just costs a bunch of HP... maybe they are rubber hooks? Sucker limbs? One minute you're impaled and the next you take a short rest and you're good to go

jadrax · Jun 11, 2012

Li Shenron said:
I think it's an interesting showcase of the process of monster adaptation from previous editions.

The only thing that doesn't resonate with me right now is that after all the talking about HP not really being wounds, being "impaled" by one of these hooks just costs a bunch of HP... maybe they are rubber hooks? Sucker limbs? One minute you're impaled and the next you take a short rest and you're good to go

Yes. To be honest, I do not think the mechanic for the Hook Horror as present here really work very well.

Neonchameleon · Jun 11, 2012

jadrax said:
It is not supposed to be a showcase in that sense, they are illustrating the current method of design. The game is currently months away from release.

At least a year I'd have said. But when illustrating your method of design you almost always do it with what you consider your best examples of design to be.

Li Shenron said:
I think it's an interesting showcase of the process of monster adaptation from previous editions.

The only thing that doesn't resonate with me right now is that after all the talking about HP not really being wounds, being "impaled" by one of these hooks just costs a bunch of HP... maybe they are rubber hooks? Sucker limbs? One minute you're impaled and the next you take a short rest and you're good to go

On the other hand it doesn't resonate with hit points being wounds either. You've been impaled and have a four inch hole in you and somehow this isn't life threatening? And you can keep going without any penalties?

Gilladian · Jun 11, 2012

In my reading of this, I am as confused as always with monster multi-attacks. When he hits, he does normal to hit damage, and the foe is impaled. Does the impale damage happen in the same round? the next round? Every round thereafter? The bite is automatic... does it happen the same round as the hit? The next round? Does the poor victim take BOTH impale and bite damage every round? Huh??

Otherwise, I'm willing to say that the lack of skills is a beta-test stage issue, and the fluff may well change also. The xp, I never use anyway, so what it says is meaningless to me, but I do wonder if it is a bit high for ALL creatures, so far.

DEFCON 1 · Jun 11, 2012

Blackwarder said:
Seems interesting, I still think that the XP is too high though.

One thing that jumped up was the talk about encounter design, I thought we were moving away from that to advanture design.

Warder

Just because the focus of the game is on the complete adventure, and thus making sure all characters have abilities that are balanced across multiple events within that adventure, does not mean they don't have to keep track of what can happen in any specific individual encounter or fight.

The adventure may dictate for example 3000 XP spread over its length... but that doesn't mean a good or balanced design with that 3000 XP is eight fights worth 25 XP each, followed by an 1800 XP monstrous shitkicker. Which, if you don't talk about that in the DMG... means some newer or less-experienced DMs might actually think that's as valid a way to design an adventure as any other. Which they would unfortunately find out is not to be the case when the players are bored with those first 8 and then absolutely decimated in that final battle.

So giving helpful tips on designing adventures and individual fights or encounters is a good idea. You don't need to forsake one for the other.

Gold Roger · Jun 11, 2012

So, mearls gives us an example how the current monsters where designed, which we already know is just an improvised placeholder, and then puts some tiny paragrphs in what they want to do in the long run, pretty much all of which was already said elsewhere.

Well, I guess he doesn't have much time for L&L with the first wave of the survey in. Because he could just as well written nothing.

TerraDave · Jun 11, 2012

I liked it...

Stormonu said:
The design sounds pretty straight-forward; for the purposes of designing a monster for a combat encounter, should work fine.

It's interesting to note monsters, at this time, aren't given skills. As broad as skills are going to be, I think that's a shame. I'd like to see kobolds with skill at trapmaking, bugbears with stealth, gnolls with tracking, sphinxes with skills in riddles, etc., to at least suggest uses beyond straight-up combat.

I think he mentions adding non-combat abilities later.

Li Shenron said:
I think it's an interesting showcase of the process of monster adaptation from previous editions.

The only thing that doesn't resonate with me right now is that after all the talking about HP not really being wounds, being "impaled" by one of these hooks just costs a bunch of HP... maybe they are rubber hooks? Sucker limbs? One minute you're impaled and the next you take a short rest and you're good to go

Are the Wotcies saying this? Anyways, this is always the issue, has always been the issue....remember, people are getting set on fire, covered with acid, bit by dragons, hit by halberds...

In this case, its easy, for the low level charecter, they are about to die (and may use a lot of healing to recover), for a high level one, the hook is caught in armor, robes, a belt, etc.

Morrus · Jun 11, 2012

Blackwarder said:
Seems interesting, I still think that the XP is too high though.

Gilladian said:
The xp, I never use anyway, so what it says is meaningless to me, but I do wonder if it is a bit high for ALL creatures, so far.

Interesting position to take. Which level advancement chart are you basing that on?

Gilladian · Jun 11, 2012

Morrus asked about the XP being too high and what I was basing my judgement on;

Just a general feel for how fast PCs went up during the playtest, and how much of a chunk this is. I thought PCs in the playtest advanced a bit quickly, and this monster seems in line with that rate (which was about 10-12 encounters). I like MUCH slower advancement myself, though, so maybe I should clarify my preferences first; I tend to advance my pcs "by plot" and spend about a real 3-4 months per level (weekly game, 3 hour sessions).