On the philosophy of monster design in the playtest

[Trolls]

Having read the playtest documents, particularly the bestiary and adventure, I'm seeing a problem in monster design that seems fairly fundamental to the game.

Another issue brought up with monsters on this forum (spell lists in stat blocks) is largely (but not entirely) a formatting issue, so I don't fundamentally have a problem with that. Its something that can almost certainly be worked out through playtesting and formatting once the rules are finalised.

The problem I have is closer to the fundamental philosophy the designers have taken to this initial run at monster design, so I think the sooner we have this discussion the better. The issue I think is two-fold:
-Mundane, non-spellcasting monsters in particular have been relegated to having nothing but weapon attacks, or a sneak-attack-esque bonus damage.
-No attention has been paid to the roles a monster might take in combat.

This isn't simply an issue of installing a grid-tactics module, since nothing prevents giving interesting abilities to monsters that don't require a grid.

To illustrate the point, let's compare some basic, 1st level encounters with kobolds between Next and 4E.

Next:
Take the chieftain room, A5, on page 7 of the Caves of Chaos.
-5 kobolds
-1 chieftain

4E:
A typical encounter might include:
-2x Kobold Slingers (artillery)
-8x Kobold Minions (skirmisher minion)
-1x Kobold Dragonshield (soldier)

In Next, the encounter from the DM's side of the screen is just a series of attacks. Even the chieftain is just a larger bag of hit points and a second attack. He doesn't feel like he's leading his crew while he fights, he doesn't feel like he's commanding authority, he's just stronger. The dragonshields in other encounters are a nice exception.
In 4E, there are a much largely variety of interactions between kobolds and PCs, and many of them aren't even reliant on the grid. I have the option to chuck sticky pots to slow down my opponents, set them on fire, stink up the place to grant "disadvantage", interpose a defender to protect the weak and so on. The monsters feel like they have a place in the society as well as a place in the fight. The leaders (wyrmpriests) even have an ability to incite their allies to bravery. Then there's "Shifty", the defining power of kobolds. It gives them a clear, shared identity in a fight which is also clear to the PCs. Obviously for grid-less combat Shifty would have to change (perhaps disadvantage against them after they move?), but it can be done for Next.

I can see some attempts have been made to test more complex encounter ideas, such as the gnoll pack lord, elite kobold (dragonshield), medusa, hobgoblin warlord and orc chieftain, but the take-away message from this post is that those examples should be the norm, not the exception. Mooks need love too! On the other end of the spectrum, the ogre needs serious attention - why not add some knock back/down or sweeping blows?

The 4E model of encounter design is one of the edition's best contributions. Let's not let it fall to the wayside because it's a little more complex. A little bit of complexity adds a lot more fun.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The 4E model of encounter design is one of the edition's best contributions. Let's not let it fall to the wayside because it's a little more complex. A little bit of complexity adds a lot more fun.

I think the issue is that a little complexity adds a decent amount of TIME to resolve. One of the primary goals of this edition appears to be trying to change the average combat time back to what it was in 1e or 2e(i.e. 15-20 minutes).

The only way this works is if most combats are simply an exercise in rolling to hit and damage. If you start adding in a bunch of abilities that modify the battlefield and add modifiers to people, it takes time to adjudicate those and increases combat time.

I believe the idea is that only monster that would be considered "boss monsters" will have any sort of complicated special ability.

 

[Trolls]

I think the issue is that a little complexity adds a decent amount of TIME to resolve. One of the primary goals of this edition appears to be trying to change the average combat time back to what it was in 1e or 2e(i.e. 15-20 minutes).

I have to admit the time issue isn't something I had considered, and its a fair point, but I still think the balancing point is still better off a little closer to the complexity side.

I think it's worth having an extra 10-15 minutes of combat encounter with one or two more complex abilities on our monsters if the DM gets to have fun during the encounter as well.

If we're not going to reduce PC complexity to simply trading attack rolls, I don't think it's fair to ask that of the DM.

 

[mlund]

Modular complexity, my friends - modular complexity.

This is Keep on the Borderlands and a playtest to boot. You're looking at almost entirely CORE components. The complicated stuff is supposed to be layered onto this kind of thing to player taste.

"This is too fast" and "this isn't complex enough" complaints really have to be weighed against the reality that this is a floor to the level of complexity and time consumption that monsters and encounters can involve.

- Marty Lund

 

[n00bdragon]

Rude post removed by admin. Guys, a reminder: no edition warring, no discounting other peoples' opinion. If you disagree with someone, just discuss it. -- Piratecat

 

[ferratus]

I believe the idea is that only monster that would be considered "boss monsters" will have any sort of complicated special ability.

As long as they reign in spell-casting monsters as well. Low level AD&D is brisk, but spellcasting monsters of higher levels bog down the game too. Something I found out around the mid-levels when my PC's starting fighting Yuanti in my retro game.

I also think that monsters can be special without grinding things to a halt too much. A kobold's weaponized pots do extra damage or glue people to the floor, but that doesn't change the length of the game time to resolve the combat. It just reflects an ethos that monsters need neat things to do to make them stand out in the player's minds. Make the special abilities quick to resolve, not difficult to track, and don't inflate the hp's so that the monster can survive long enough to do 3 or 4 special things.... and you can still have speedy combat.

 

[Ratskinner]

I have to admit the time issue isn't something I had considered, and its a fair point, but I still think the balancing point is still better off a little closer to the complexity side.

I think it's worth having an extra 10-15 minutes of combat encounter with one or two more complex abilities on our monsters if the DM gets to have fun during the encounter as well.

If we're not going to reduce PC complexity to simply trading attack rolls, I don't think it's fair to ask that of the DM.

I'd respond a couple of ways:

a) I think we've been told that monster design isn't finalized, yet. So my guess is that a lot of what's there is placeholder stuff that barely works.

b) I've recently played both BECMI, 3.5, and C&C. Speed cures all ills, is my conclusion. Make it fast and flexible and let the DM be creative with what he's got. That being said, I don't object to modules that increase monster complexity, so long as the unmodified core is simple.

 

[Trolls]

Modular complexity, my friends - modular complexity.

This is Keep on the Borderlands and a playtest to boot. You're looking at almost entirely CORE components. The complicated stuff is supposed to be layered onto this kind of thing to player taste.

"This is too fast" and "this isn't complex enough" complaints really have to be weighed against the reality that this is a floor to the level of complexity and time consumption that monsters and encounters can involve.

- Marty Lund

In that respect. you can consider this a post on where I'd like to see a complexity module implemented, and to what extent.
I think that, given how important monsters are to D&D, the sooner the need for the dial is expressed, the better a job the designers can do in implementing it. This particular module can't afford to be an after thought.

As long as they reign in spell-casting monsters as well. Low level AD&D is brisk, but spellcasting monsters of higher levels bog down the game too. Something I found out around the mid-levels when my PC's starting fighting Yuanti in my retro game.

I also think that monsters can be special without grinding things to a halt too much. A kobold's weaponized pots do extra damage or glue people to the floor, but that doesn't change the length of the game time to resolve the combat. It just reflects an ethos that monsters need neat things to do to make them stand out in the player's minds. Make the special abilities quick to resolve, not difficult to track, and don't inflate the hp's so that the monster can survive long enough to do 3 or 4 special things.... and you can still have speedy combat.

Exactly. There is a happy medium between no abilities and abilities that bog the game down. We just need to make sure the time is spent finding it.

 

[Tehnai]

Have you played much old-school D&D? I mean, the one thing I discovered from playing OD&D is that you really don't need complicated, deep monsters for a fight to be interesting. I mean, when your kobolds looks like (Kobold, 1/2 hd, 2 hp, Pike +1 1d6), you find other ways to make them interesting.

I actually much prefer the simple monsters, I feel like it allows me to play around more, as a GM. In fourth edition, it's really hard to step away from the monster's stats on the fly, it feels very rigid, whereas with a simpler sheet, well, I don't need to give an XP value for every vial of alchemist's fire for fear of hurting game balance.

Also, you can't really compare 4e's encounter building with old school style adventure building. It's not about the individual encounters, but about the grand scheme of things.

See that combat as sport vs combat as war thing

All and all, I like the monster design. It's simple, very AD&D. It pleases me.

 

[ferratus]

Have you played much old-school D&D? I mean, the one thing I discovered from playing OD&D is that you really don't need complicated, deep monsters for a fight to be interesting. I mean, when your kobolds looks like (Kobold, 1/2 hd, 2 hp, Pike +1 1d6), you find other ways to make them interesting.

I can agree with that, but you don't need a whole other kobold statblock like 4e did to give monsters special abilities or ways of fighting. By all means, keep the simple stats, but give more advice, tactics, and something special which can be blended in. Kobold firepots and traps can be added to the 2hp kobold monster stat block too, for those of us who need a little help figuring out how to make kobolds unique and interesting.