Monster Design in D&D Next, Part 2

Wizards of the Coast · Jun 18, 2012

In this week's Legends & Lore, Mike tackles monsters again, but this time he focuses on complexity, numbers, and presentation.

Read Monster Design in D&D Next, Part 2 on D&D Insider here!

frankthedm · Jun 18, 2012

It provides a better fit with world building. The orc warband that can threaten an 8th-level party is still too few in number to sack a town. A great wyrm can attack the town and destroy it, but it still risks death if the town guard can turn catapults, ballistae, and massed crossbow fire against it.

Great to hear the rules serve the setting!

Minigiant · Jun 18, 2012

A world where the monsters' place in the world and their stats make sense?

What is this heresy?!

If they can get high level spellcasters to make sense in the world....

Herremann the Wise · Jun 18, 2012

Well Mike's saying lots of things that I'm nodding to. Good stuff again.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Blackwarder · Jun 18, 2012

I also like it, I just wish the tactical module will have a grid less subset as well as rules for using a grid.

Warder

Minigiant · Jun 18, 2012

Addition to my above post.

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."

john112364 · Jun 18, 2012

Minigiant said:
Addition to my above post.

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."

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.

Blackwarder · Jun 18, 2012

Minigiant said:
Addition to my above post.

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."

Not really, I don't think that the militia could survive it unscathed and they will need to be extremely well equipped to pull it off...

Not to mention that they won't be suited to the high risk tasks advanturers often do.

Warder

Minigiant · Jun 18, 2012

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.

Blackwarder said:
Not really, I don't think that the militia could survive it unscathed and they will need to be extremely well equipped to pull it off...

Not to mention that they won't be suited to the high risk tasks advanturers often do.

Warder

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.

Blackwarder · Jun 18, 2012

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.

I don't know man, I think that you're reading too much into this and projecting your fears into your reasoning.

In the end this is D&D, you should be able to play however you'd like.

Warder