D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next

jmucchiello · Jul 23, 2012

Wait a minute:

the article said:
the math that our system uses assumes an adventuring day that lasts a number of rounds

What? A "day" lasts a number of rounds? "Oops, it took 12 rounds to kill those goblins, we need to rest." "Yeah, twice."

And the miss that is a not a hit but still does damage:

The attack still counts as a miss for determining other special effects or abilities.

So if my fighter has some cheesy armor ability that does d6 electrical when hit, if the Minotaur hits, he takes the damage, but if he rages and misses so furiously that the fighter loses 5 hp, he doesn't take the electrical damage. Huh? Who does this make sense to?

B.T. · Jul 23, 2012

It's interesting to me to note that they are trying really hard to make big creatures dangerous. In 3e, a creature's damage really depended on its Strength score and its level (which let you Power Attack), whereas in 4e, a creature's damage output was largely determined by its role (so you could have a tiny striker ladeling out the pain). 5e seems to be trying to go with more big equals more damage. Although this makes sense, forcing every minotaur into BOSS MONSTER status seems foolish.

Upper_Krust · Jul 23, 2012

Really enjoyed the article. This is the first to make me interested in 5E.

Like that Large creatures will always be Elites (and Huge+ will be solos)...totally makes sense.

The big advantage will of course be the flattening math.

(Large) Monster Damage looks interesting (+1 die). I wonder will Huge monsters get +2 and Gargantuan +3...?

mlund · Jul 23, 2012

That's a very nice set of monster design guidelines. You get a general notion of damage output and HP as far as a certain challenge class of monster go. You get some examples of how to give monsters distinction in the framework while working from a common root. It'll take some tweaking between now and press but I like the direction it is going.

- Marty Lund

tlantl · Jul 23, 2012

jmucchiello said:
And the miss that is a not a hit but still does damage:

So if my fighter has some cheesy armor ability that does d6 electrical when hit, if the Minotaur hits, he takes the damage, but if he rages and misses so furiously that the fighter loses 5 hp, he doesn't take the electrical damage. Huh? Who does this make sense to?

With any luck there will not be any armors that cause damage to attackers on a successful hit.

I see it as the huge axe might not have actually penetrated your physical armor but it certainly hit your AC 10 self. The hit points loss is the portion of your hit points that are not actually physical damage, or are only a fraction actual damage, the rest is being (luck endurance and/or skill) used to avoid that huge splat it's going to make on you when it makes solid contact. Solid contact being what triggers that cheesy d6 electrical damage in the first place.

I'd be thankful that such attacks don't knock you back a few feet and lay you out on your back (opposed by a strength or dexterity saving throw of course).

KidSnide · Jul 23, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
Like that Large creatures will always be Elites (and Huge+ will be solos)...totally makes sense.

(Large) Monster Damage looks interesting (+1 die). I wonder will Huge monsters get +2 and Gargantuan +3...?

I'm not entirely sure about the specifics, but I do like the idea that you can look at a large monster and know that (1) the monster will hit hard and (2) the monster will have a bunch of hit points.

This captures one of the strengths of the 3e monster approach: the physical description of a monster implies some basic facts about its mechanics.

-KS

SkidAce · Jul 23, 2012

Mengu said:
...A DM wizard doesn't care about feather fall, identify, and comprehend languages, he'll just pick whatever is most devastating in combat, and whoop your bee hind.

The more articles I read, the tighter I want to hang onto 4e.

Not everybody builds their NPC villains the way you described. And its odd you say that you wish to cling to 4e, because the majority of those stat blocks were "devastating" in combat abilities only.

Manbearcat · Jul 23, 2012

billd91 said:
It does? I'm having a hard time drawing the connections from one statement to another.

Yes, it does. I was probably too brief but I didn't care to parse the entirety of the article and break it down. I outlined the below in my DM expectations thread (forgive the self-reference but I don't want to rephrase):

2) Monsters

I expect my monsters to mechanically represent my expectations of their physiology, their tactics/abilities, and their roles/place within their tribe hierarchy or their ecology/behaviors if they are a non-social creature. I want a diverse and tactically compelling set of monsters to work with. I want their combat relevant abilities/stats self-contained to small blocks. As important, I want their functionality (such as the case with my PCs) and their math to consistently produce in-line with their XP value, CR (however it will be defined in Next) so that my built encounters (from a dynamism and a difficulty standpoint) meet my preconceptions as predicated on the rules text. I already know pretty much every monsters' lore (and I am very independent in my flavor needs) but obviously this must be fleshed out as concisely as possible.

I will have to wait for the finished product to examine the Monsters in print to confirm if they have stayed true to their design goals (and if those design goals produce consistent, expected output), but the 3rd paragraph in the preface and the section entitled, "Determining Level and Power", give me hope that there is both an element of top-down monster design and bottom-up adventure budget design (with tools and guidelines that assist in breaking the adventure day down to the micro-level into encounters) in play in their design goals. These are both my preference so how can I not be heartened? At least I know they're on the radar if not in play.

Upper_Krust · Jul 24, 2012

KidSnide said:
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics, but I do like the idea that you can look at a large monster and know that (1) the monster will hit hard and (2) the monster will have a bunch of hit points.

This captures one of the strengths of the 3e monster approach: the physical description of a monster implies some basic facts about its mechanics.

...while marrying it with one of the strengths of 4E monster approach: monster ranks such as Elite and Solo.

Sir Brennen · Jul 24, 2012

keterys said:
The minotaur should use rage when...
1) It's ticked off cause it's having trouble hitting the super-defensive character
2) It's ticked off cause someone is giving it disadvantage with attacking

Eh, good enough.

3) It's ticked off 'cuz someone just hit it for a lot of damage