Monster Design in D&D Next, Part 2

Minigiant said:

I understand the fact that sending the heroes rather than the army saves lives,but it does remove some of the heroics. The heroes aren't "needed", they are "economical". They are medieval nukes. I am fine with that sometimes. But I'll miss the "Help me,Hero. You're our only hope.""You're going to trust these misfits,my lord/king.""Yes Bishop/Advisor/Councilman,We have no other choice." feeling.

I like the sense but I'll miss being in another tier of existence.

Click to expand...

This is still applicable - will the 200 militiamen sign up to get half-slaughtered by a dragon? There are also plenty of quests where it makes no sense for 200 people to turn up (fighting a lich for instance).

I'm pretty jazzed with the idea of moving the unique fighting styles of humanoids to the leaders. It seems like a nice, graceful idea, and one that makes it possible to create a lot of variety in monster behavior in a much simpler way than 4e does.

I'm a huge 4e fan, and love the unique abilities that each monster gets, but this looks like it could be a very cool alternative.

-rg

Minigiant said:

I understand the fact that sending the heroes rather than the army saves lives,but it does remove some of the heroics. The heroes aren't "needed", they are "economical". They are medieval nukes. I am fine with that sometimes. But I'll miss the "Help me,Hero. You're our only hope.""You're going to trust these misfits,my lord/king.""Yes Bishop/Advisor/Councilman,We have no other choice." feeling.

I like the sense but I'll miss being in another tier of existence.

Click to expand...

I don't see why you need to "miss" it - 4e will still be there.

I think you are right about the dissimilarity - I think 5e is (already) looking a totally different beast from 4e - but I don't think of it as a matter of "better" or "worse". It's just a case of "different", in which one or other may suit you better, but both may also be very acceptable alternatives.

They certainly are looking different in outlook. Taking "story" and "game":

Story: 4e - the PCs are heroes; the story will be about them, the question is, what will they do? 5e looks more like the PCs are kinda talented Joes in a tapestry of world context that all "lives" without them - the question is, will they get to be heroes?

Game: 4e has the PCs as a team game against the forces of antagonism in the world that array against them - either they win or they lose. 5e is starting to look like the PCs moving around within the world context tapestry trying to position themselves to best advantage according to their own idea of "success".

Both of these have strengths and weaknesses - 4e has focus and clarity in which the players have precise control over their characters' destinies. 5e has wider context and situation implicit which the players can explore, has more of a gritty "feel" implicit and arguably more inbuilt "verisimilitude". These two are going to play very differently - and both could be fun in different ways - so playing both would make perfect sense. Feeling forced to choose would be a bit like having to choose between steak and chocolate; I'm fine with choosing which I want now, but if you ask me to select one or the other for life I'll just think you've terminally lost it!

Radiating Gnome said:

I'm pretty jazzed with the idea of moving the unique fighting styles of humanoids to the leaders. It seems like a nice, graceful idea, and one that makes it possible to create a lot of variety in monster behavior in a much simpler way than 4e does.

I'm a huge 4e fan, and love the unique abilities that each monster gets, but this looks like it could be a very cool alternative.

-rg

Click to expand...

Agreed. Its a best of both worlds approach: simple kobolds, or shifty kobolds with the Kobold Komandant .

But I liked everything in this...flatter math, standard monster maneuvers, units, shield walls and pike hedges...

I look forward to starting to see it.

On the contrary, this might actually solve a particular logical problem that has afflicted dragons for a while: a dragon in the open was considered to be at its strongest, and was also mostly unassailable by weaker foes. Now that it is assailable by weaker foes in the open, there is actually a reason for it to park itself in a lair: because it can probably kill an infinite number of weaker foes if they are only coming from one or two directions and cannot use tons of ranged weapons.

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]

You said it right. It's not bad but it is different.
When I want sense, I'll play 5E and fight their monsters.
When I want to be the Necessary Awesome, I'll play 3E or 4E and fight their monsters.

I really like a lot of the thoughts in both this article and the preceding one.

Unfortunately, though, the single biggest impression I got was: I really want those "encyclopedia versions" of the Monstrous Compendia!

(And even better would be an all-edition version that gives the stats for 1st, 2nd, 3e, 4e and 5e, of course.)

Minigiant said:

...Although I like the idea that the mechanics work in the background (the militia can kill the dragon), it does minimize the importance of the heroes. It stabs at their necessity a lot. Why do you need the heroes if you can take out the dragon?

It creates the "Elminister Excuse"

"I'm too busy running the city. Kill the goblins for me. I'll give you
gold."
"I'm too busy running the kingdom. Kill the dragon for me. I'll give you
gold."
"I'm too busy running the plane. Kill the demigod for me. I'll give you
gold."

Click to expand...

john112364 said:

The reason is because even though say a hundred or two militia may be able to kill a dragon, how many of them will die in the attempt. Probably a good percentage. Then you don't have your militia for the next threat. Which ironically leaves you open for another threat. However, if you hire a band of mercenaries (i.e. the PCs) you minimize the loss of life and keep yourself strong. I still see a need for heroes.

Click to expand...

Another reason along these lines is that giving these more formidable *heroes something to do. *(to a leader, "Heroes" reads as: dangerously unpredictable mercenaries with abilities beyond the common man...) It's kind of like how chivalry was used to yoke the burgeoning warrior class of Knights in Medieval Europe. Give them constructive things to do so they aren't (usually) overthrowing Kingdoms and Countries.

Minigiant said:

I understand the fact that sending the heroes rather than the army saves lives,but it does remove some of the heroics. The heroes aren't "needed", they are "economical". They are medieval nukes. I am fine with that sometimes. But I'll miss the "Help me,Hero. You're our only hope.""You're going to trust these misfits,my lord/king.""Yes Bishop/Advisor/Councilman,We have no other choice." feeling.

I like the sense but I'll miss being in another tier of existence.

Click to expand...

I like the idea that there are practical and economic reasons for using adventuring heroes, but it doesn't necessarily negate that there is also an "you're our only hope" aspect. The Hero sees it as they are the only one that can get the job done. The King sees that also, but also considers the other aspects also. Kings see the big picture...usually...and that's why they're the King (and it's good to be the King).

I think "another tier of existence" stuff can be added in pretty easily.

You just take your standard Red Dragon,

And then say that he can only be hit by the mythical Dragonslayer Sword (or whatever). That mythical sword can only be retrieved from the Tomb of Magical Billy by a true heir to his legacy OH I GUESS THAT'S YOU PC!

Boom-de-yada.

It makes the mythicness something you can opt into, rather than a consequence of the maths. Which is for yay.

My fixation is on this:

Mearls said:

On top of that, one of our goals is to create a general set of stunts that monsters can attempt, usually drawing on their high ability scores, size, and so on

Click to expand...

If I can give this to everyone who has played the 5e fighter so far, I will be a happy camper.

Hell, EVERY PC could probably benefit from this.

Some folks are good with being creative with the environment, others need a bit of prodding, and a list of stunts that are good for certain high ability scores....yes. Me want.

It didn't occur to me until reading the above, but there has been a subtle change in focus recently. 4E thinks of the PCs as heroes. Earlier editions think of them as adventurers. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they do represent a somewhat different place in the world.