Monster Design in D&D Next

Neonchameleon said:

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?

Click to expand...

By "wounds" I just meant the physical interpretation of HP. I was thinking that in this case a good old save-or-die roll would be close enough.

TerraDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to start again the HP discussion. I just wanted to point out that if the rules are supposed to serve the game, in this case they perhaps serve balance and playability but certainly not the meaning of the description. Which made me think: why am I telling my players that this monster is dreaded because it impales its victims and then bites them alive, but what actually happens is using up 1d10 of your daily luck?

Admittedly, it's simply a matter of gaming style... in a tactical game this monster is perfectly balanced, but in a game like ours would present a rift between the fantasy description and the rules outcome.

I just wanted to highlight that perhaps monster design should consider things like this too, especially since the article started exactly from the purpose of using monster stats and abilities to represent its story and nature.

Gold Roger said:

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.

Click to expand...

Or he could have written it knowing that many of the people reading the article don't know that it has been written about elsewhere, and thus for them this is the first time they are being told about it.

The articles on the D&D website are meant for general consumption to the base audience... not additional details to the hardcore audience.

Li Shenron said:

I didn't want to start again the HP discussion. I just wanted to point out that if the rules are supposed to serve the game, in this case they perhaps serve balance and playability but certainly not the meaning of the description. Which made me think: why am I telling my players that this monster is dreaded because it impales its victims and then bites them alive, but what actually happens is using up 1d10 of your daily luck?

Admittedly, it's simply a matter of gaming style... in a tactical game this monster is perfectly balanced, but in a game like ours would present a rift between the fantasy description and the rules outcome.

I just wanted to highlight that perhaps monster design should consider things like this too, especially since the article started exactly from the purpose of using monster stats and abilities to represent its story and nature.

Click to expand...

In my game..they are stuck on the hook. Just like they are set on fire, burned by acid, dropped from a height...

But I guess that is the hp discussion...

Gilladian said:

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).

Click to expand...

I'm playing in the playtest rather than running it, so I haven't looked at the DM stuff. Does it tell you when to level up?

Stormonu said:

It's interesting to note monsters, at this time, aren't given skills.

Click to expand...

I don't know that's true. The hook horror isn't given skills, but that's because the hook horror's only cognizable skill is climbing, and it was given a climb speed to reflect that. That simply wasn't a focus of this article.

I really like that Mearls use the 2e MM as a point of reference. While I was never a huge fan of the binder format, I still think that 2e had the superior monster manuals, with the hardcover 2e MM being the best. I do prefer some aspects of the 4e monsters, though, but more on that later.

I also like that he explains about the choice for stats, "level" and so on, but I think he skips a lot of steps, ignoring a lot of explanations that would be relevant. I mean, we do not get the full monster, only some thoughts about the story and story elements, and the stat-block. So one must assume the stat-block is the important part, the part that we are supposed to talk about.

If the Hook Horror is roughly the same "level" as the troll from the playtest, why does it have 72 hit points less?

How does he arrive at an AC of 17?

What is the math behind the +5 to hit?

Is the 1d10+4 damage per hook attack arbitrary? Does he follow some sort of equation?

Speaking of the hook damage, it might be smart to explain just exactly when the auto-damage is dealt. Because it could be on the players or on the monster's turn.

Why is it a STR check DC12 to get out of the hook. The Hook Horror has an 18 STR, so shouldn't it be a DC14 check?

How about the automatic 2d6+4 from the beak attack? How is the damage derived? Would it have been different if the attack wasn't an automatic hit?
Will this be the standard for monsters? As in, will monsters who grab have automatic hits? If not, why was this a special case?

Now, had the questions above been answered, I feel it would have been a much more relevant article. Something in which we could have sunk our teeth.

Stormonu said:

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.

Click to expand...

To quote the piece:

"We might save noncombat abilities for its complete write up."

It seems the statblock is for quick reference in a combat, and should not be considered to be a full condensation of all the creature's abilities.

What about BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia monsters?

Mearls says he looked through the 2e, 1e, 3e, and 4e versions of the hook horror. What about the Classic D&D version?

The CD&D monsters, though their stats are more streamlined, sometimes have ecological or cultural details that were not ported over to AD&D.

And the two iterations of the Creature Catalogue (AC9 and its slightly revised replacement, DMR2) have their own illustrations to consider when re-depicting the monsters.

Yay for random encounter tables!

Boo for no "no. encountered"/"organization" and "treasure" lines!

Huh for alignment not mentioned at all?

Gilladian said:

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??

Click to expand...

Pretty sure "special action" means the creature has to spend its action to do the twist-n'-bite.

TerraDave said:

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.

Click to expand...

So what salad (convoluted justifications) should we invent if the hook horror impaled a high level character that would be stark naked? I would say probably pierce the hook part of the anatomy where the injury would be less lethal as a leg or foot, but I think sincerely that such justifications are sometimes acceptable, and at other times, just the opposite. So there is a problem. Fortunately, such cases are not so frequent.

It should attack twice with its hooks, and, if the hook horror hits, the target is skewered on a hook.

Click to expand...

It seems a little easier. Thoughts?