Working in the Game Mine

Fifth Element · Jul 14, 2012

Steely_Dan said:
Sounds about right.

It does, doesn't it? So if it's fine for humans (or dwarves or elves) to have different hit points based on their class or what have you, then why isn't it all right for ogres to have the same?

JamesonCourage · Jul 14, 2012

pemerton said:
A sneakier ogre can have more hp than a brutish one if you like; it's just that it will be higher level (because having the same number of hp, plus sneakiness, makes a monster tougher, and toughness is described by level).

I've tried to stay out of this thread since the mod warning, but wouldn't this also increase the AC, "saves" (Fort, Reflex, and Will defense), attack, etc. of the creature? And, if one wanted merely "same HP and sneaky", isn't that an unwanted side effect?

Balesir · Jul 15, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I've tried to stay out of this thread since the mod warning, but wouldn't this also increase the AC, "saves" (Fort, Reflex, and Will defense), attack, etc. of the creature?

Not automaticaaly, no. You could build a lurker of slightly higher level than the brute with higher than average HPs and lower than average defences - job done. You could even make it so that the defences and HPs happened to be the same as the lower level brute. As I said earlier (in this thread? I'm getting confused with them all...), monster role isn't a hard and fast set of prescriptions for statistics - it's an attempt to give a framework to guide power assessment and coherent combat capability. Nothing else. Non-combat powers and characteristics are handled outside the stat block*.

*: and, as an aside, I prefer it this way, as it means that combat roles and non-combat roles can be mixed-and-matched.

Tovec · Jul 15, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Similarly, I expect a human fighter will have a d10 or d12 hit die and a human wizard a d4 or a d6. But that's all right, is it?

Fifth Element said:
It does, doesn't it? So if it's fine for humans (or dwarves or elves) to have different hit points based on their class or what have you, then why isn't it all right for ogres to have the same?

Because the human fighter is a class and not a role.
Because the "role" of defender doesn't affect its stats the same way as "fighter" does.

I'm fine giving ogres class levels to customize them in that way. I'm fine giving other creatures class levels to define them in those ways. I dislike when monsters are automatically built towards a single "role" such as "sneaker" and then given HD/saves/etc. to match. Especially when the creature right beside it is built towards "brute" and have the HD/saves/etc. to match. If they are the same creature, with different levels and no class levels (or "monster levels" if you like), then I see no reason why the two ogres should be so vastly different.

In 3e terms, they have their monster HD and class HD. Let's say their monster HD are d10 and class HD vary (either d8 or d12). With the role defining HD method of 4e they will suddenly have their racial d10s turned into d8s just because the role prescribes it not because they have class levels - so instead of having 4d10 + 4d8 they would have 8d8, because they are a lurker.

I find this extra annoying because I think there are 3 categories of monsters. Ones who "need" class levels (or monster levels) to advance - with a base creature at the core - ogres, orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. Monsters that are effectively races.

Then I think there are monsters who are fairly unique, or that have a common set of abilities that might make them a "lurker" and should not be subjected to having to fill out the various different types and roles based solely on how the PCs might face them. A giant spider should be a giant spider (probably a lurker), but not a lurker at lower levels and a "solo/elite/boss" at higher ones. A rust monster is going to have rust monster HD (and abilities) all the way unless it is somehow trained as a fighter.

Then I think there should be a category, mostly including outsiders and similar creatures, that are both a race and a unique monster, that should be BOTH. I can understand there being a lurker type of devil, and then a brute type, then a defender, and a healer or whatever types they want. I can understand this because generally I don't see those as being the same monster with different abilities, I see that as being a legion of different kinds of devils with different abilities.

Now on top of that if they give me some way to scale these creatures, either with these creatures at different levels or with a template that can be applied to SIMPLY AND EASILY level them up, then I'll be happy.
But if I see that every orc has to be a different kind of orc to balance out the encounter, I won't be happy.

That is my thought process everyone I hope that makes things clearer.

Roles =/= Classes (for a reason)
And they are only descriptive and not prescriptive when applied to the unique category. They BECOME prescriptive when applied to the racial category or having the same kind of elementals or outsiders with different abilities.

JamesonCourage · Jul 15, 2012

Balesir said:
Not automaticaaly, no. You could build a lurker of slightly higher level than the brute with higher than average HPs and lower than average defences - job done. You could even make it so that the defences and HPs happened to be the same as the lower level brute. As I said earlier (in this thread? I'm getting confused with them all...), monster role isn't a hard and fast set of prescriptions for statistics - it's an attempt to give a framework to guide power assessment and coherent combat capability. Nothing else. Non-combat powers and characteristics are handled outside the stat block*.

*: and, as an aside, I prefer it this way, as it means that combat roles and non-combat roles can be mixed-and-matched.

But, if you approach it this way, doesn't that make it slightly more prescriptive?

Personally, I prefer a "here are the stats it has; what level is it?" approach. I think a good chart can handle both well, though. For example, I have such a chart in my game. If I decide that this particular creature is probably hit die 4 (hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" according to the chart), I can look up "attack bonus" for "professionally skilled" and see that it's bonus should be about +7.

On the other hand, if I see that hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" and decide to start there, I can build it from scratch (a longer process than "it gets +7"). When I do, if the attack bonus ends up at +7 naturally (which it likely will if significant resources are put there), I can then label it as "professionally skilled" for its hit die at attacking.

This chart has served me and my players well: I can build something from scratch, and describe its qualities based on the chart afterwards; on the other hand, I can say "I need a hit die 12 creature right now to threaten them with, so what attack bonus do I need?" and wing it as I go (this isn't my approach, but I think many do something like this).

Basically, trying to manipulate role types ("switch it from brute to lurker") to make it work seems a little clunky to me, if not just a little inelegant. I'm sure that with practice it makes sense, and can be done quickly enough, but the same can be said for a lot of non-intuitive systems.

Thanks for the reply, though. You guys have a lot more experience in using the monster roles than I do, and so you definitely know more about it (from actual play experience, if nothing else). Personally, I would like to see monster roles be purely descriptive. I'm not against advice on saying "lurkers tend to have these sorts of abilities; brutes tend to have these; etc." I think that would help a lot of people out, but it's basically an optional "prescriptive" method, as far as I can tell. As always, play what you like

pemerton · Jul 15, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I've tried to stay out of this thread since the mod warning, but wouldn't this also increase the AC, "saves" (Fort, Reflex, and Will defense), attack, etc. of the creature? And, if one wanted merely "same HP and sneaky", isn't that an unwanted side effect?

Then, as Balesir said, tweak it a bit. If you're very concerned about the maths, you can do the calculations fairly easily (balancing hp across defences across damage). More likely, you can do it by intuition, or by comparing it to a published monster or two (if you trust that those monsters have been playtested and proven).

If you think just adding a Stealth bonus to your monster doesn't change it's level at all, because it doesn't change it's combat prowess, then that's fine too (like the Nightcrawler I mentioned upthread).

If it's crucial to your monster concept that an attack against Reflex from a typical PC of the same level can hit it on a 6 (on d20) but an attack against Fortitude can hit it only on a 16 (on d20) then you're certainly pushing the limits of the 4e monster building guidelines, and 4e play more generally. How often is this going to come up?

pemerton · Jul 15, 2012

Tovec said:
I'm fine giving ogres class levels to customize them in that way. I'm fine giving other creatures class levels to define them in those ways.

<snip>

Now on top of that if they give me some way to scale these creatures

<snip>

That is my thought process everyone I hope that makes things clearer.

Not really. What's the difference between taking an ogre and adding on 6 levels of thief, or building a 10th level (or whatever) lurker ogre? Either way you're going to end up with an ogre with fewer hit points but better backstabbing than an ogre built with 6 levels of fighter or built as a 10th level brute.

Tovec · Jul 15, 2012

pemerton said:
Not really. What's the difference between taking an ogre and adding on 6 levels of thief, or building a 10th level (or whatever) lurker ogre? Either way you're going to end up with an ogre with fewer hit points but better backstabbing than an ogre built with 6 levels of fighter or built as a 10th level brute.

As I tried to explain - one way has a BASE ogre and one doesn't. If I take the thief-ogre and remove his thief levels and put in cleric then I then have a cleric-ogre at roughly the same level.
If I have to rebuild the entire monster because ALL his levels are lurker then it is harder to tell where the lurker part stops and where the ogre begins.

One has to do with making a sneaker theme* with a lurker build the other is a sneaker theme with the thief build. One can attribute where abilities come from one can't. One assumes that the role is all entangled with the monster and one doesn't.

You can certainly stretch or reskin both versions but the thief-ogre is something explained in class levels that the lurker form ogre isn't. That is until lurker BECOMES a class (perhaps a monster class as I suggested).

It also doesn't satisfy the solo/elite problem that I have if you just make the same creature a higher level but the same type and call him a boss JUST because he has "boss immunity".

If you still don't get me then please let me know exactly what you find confusing.

It ends up different because if you have a "defender" type class and build a defender type class because he has taunts (or whatever) then it is going to be different from building a fighter-type class that happens to be a defender.

I couldn't care less about monster roles as long as they remain descriptive. And so long as those descriptions are correctly demonstrated and taught to new people.

*theme NOT used in the 5e theme way.

JamesonCourage · Jul 15, 2012

pemerton said:
Then, as Balesir said, tweak it a bit. If you're very concerned about the maths, you can do the calculations fairly easily (balancing hp across defences across damage). More likely, you can do it by intuition, or by comparing it to a published monster or two (if you trust that those monsters have been playtested and proven).

I'm pretty much okay with this approach to monster design, but not necessarily to monster labeling. We seem to be talking about both, though, so let's say I don't disagree.

pemerton said:
If you think just adding a Stealth bonus to your monster doesn't change it's level at all, because it doesn't change it's combat prowess, then that's fine too (like the Nightcrawler I mentioned upthread).

Right. Then you can label a monster as "stealthy" or something, but if it has actual stealth powers, maybe label is as a "lurker" or something.

In my RPG, I make use of a [Tier] concept quite often. Your [Tier 1] ability might later upgrade to [Tier 2], or you can improve your reputation from [Tier 1] to [Tier 2], or you might get an ability that you can use in tiers for various penalties (Tier 1 does X, but you take Y penalty; Tier 2 does X+1, but you take Y+1 penalty; etc.).

For monsters, they might have a quick key for them as well; a "Lurker 1" might only have a decent stealth score (goblin?), while a "Lurker 2" might have a decent stealth score and a couple stealth abilities (kobold, maybe?), while a "Lurker 3" might be based completely around stealth (darkmantle? mimic?).

pemerton said:
If it's crucial to your monster concept that an attack against Reflex from a typical PC of the same level can hit it on a 6 (on d20) but an attack against Fortitude can hit it only on a 16 (on d20) then you're certainly pushing the limits of the 4e monster building guidelines, and 4e play more generally. How often is this going to come up?

Depends on what you're trying to build. Some people like the idea of a creature with a big Fort bonus, but a small Will or Reflex bonus (think ogres as common, elephants as uncommon). I like things a bit closer together, but that's my preference. I'm not sure how often this comes up for other people, but I'd guess often enough for it to be a concern. As always, play what you like

Aberzanzorax · Jul 16, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I think this is incorrect, honestly. You don't have to assign a role before designing a creature. I could go through the 3.5 MM right now and describe them via a "role" if I wanted to, and many would be one role, some would be two, some would be more.

THIS, I think is the crux of it!

I have no problem with descriptive roles (particularly if the words to describe them are somewhat evocative..."brute" I like; "controller" notsomuch).

But, if they're going to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, then monsters must (perhaps quite frequently) fall into: more than one role.

If a monster is made to "be a striker"...that's highly prescriptive...it's there as a game piece; it does damage - that is its alpha and omega, its reason for being.

If a monster is an "ogre"...and it does a lot of damage and has a healthy amount of hit points, then we can describe it as "full striker, part brute" or somesuch. Or maybe we do it cereal box style...where the most plentiful ingredient is listed first (no percentages/quantifications necessary). "striker, brute."

This, I think, is a major point that people are missing when talking past one another. Being provided only A SINGLE role as an option is both descriptive, but also prescriptive and pigeonholing. If a monster is to be "fleshed out", then more than likely it can act as a brute, or controller, or even fall as a minion in some circumstances (e.g. fire mephits in the arctic?).

Going full bore with this mentality would then involve, in the description, talking about HOW it is a brute and HOW it is a striker. What differentiates these tactics? Why might it act one way versus another? Does it have abilities that lend toward one or the other: e.g. Defensive stance brute for protecting the young'uns, Power attack for slaying intruders with no young'uns around.

The thing is, if we look at monsters beyond single encounters, they WILL be able to have more than one role. They may excel at a single role (or two, or three), but they'll have elements of others. That's part of the fun of monsters. Goblins might attack en masse (strikers or brutes? I dunno). They might drop a landslide and shoot with arrows (archers or controllers?) They might be minions for a powerful leader. But these goblins can all use the same stat block, and can still be interesting, maybe even moreso, because players know what to expect of the monster's capabilities, but not what the monster will do with those capabilities.

Sometimes player knowledge of monsters is a GOOD thing. When surprises happen it's not because "oh it's a templated goblin (3e)" or "oh it's a goblin brute elite warlord (4e)." Nope. It's just a goblin. He's wearing plate and has a bunch of other goblins using polearms to protect him. FEAR HIM!

EDIT TO ADD: One more thing. It's ok for monsters to suck at something.
If the party is engaging a group of ogres, and they don't have "artillery ogres" or "ogres with the nimble template"...then the players capitalize on a known weakness of the species, their lack of dexterity/clumsiness. If "ogre" becomes so malleable that there is an inevitable "good archer group" of them, then we get more monster blandness, because the strengths of a given monster type are drowned out by the lack of weaknesses of that type and across the board with all monster types.