On the philosophy of monster design in the playtest

[Trolls]

I was about to write a longer reply, but then I noticed the time! Sleep needed! Apologies if this isn't entirely clear!

The Combat-as-War or -as-Sport is a great thread, thanks!

Simple war-style encounters are great, I've glossed over, shortened or cut out many of my 4E encounters using that style of gaming. But I enjoy sport-style too, and as a popular way of playing the game it should be built into the system early on to make sure it works, and is fun. But I think adding a few more abilities here and there can serve the war-style too. Think what you could do if you knew those kobolds were carrying pots of glue!

 

[Umbran]

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.

I think perhaps you are missing a major point - this is a playTEST.

Whenever one tests, one should in on exactly what it is that they want information about. In a proper test, other elements are simplified, to limit the number of variables that will impact the test. The more variables, the more difficult it is to untangle what the problems are. They are going to want feedback on some facets first, and other facets later.

I posit that the monster design may not have been a major focus for the very first open playtest. I would expect them to focus on basic resolution mechanics, and leave the complexity of monster design and tactics for a later packet.

 

[mlund]

There are some neat bits at the beginning of the section I overlooked for the Kobolds - Strength in Numbers in particular. I'll be more on the look out in the next session - like with Furious Charge for the Orcs. Still, it was probably just as well for my players since they were only using 4 characters. They really missed having that Human Fighter backing them up.

Something similar for classes of monsters or terrain in a particular area could be useful - some suggested special attacks that could be used like Gluepot or any ability like "Off You Go!" in an area with icy cliffs that players or monsters can use.

- Marty Lund

 

[nnms]

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.

I think instead, the sooner we try it out in play and then have a discussion the better.

-No attention has been paid to the roles a monster might take in combat.

Yay!.

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)

Option 1, 5 minutes

Option 2, Upwards of an hour.

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.

Have you tried it and found out how it feels? Or are you just assuming? Maybe it's up the DM's description to inform the shared fiction of his leadership?

The 4E model of encounter design is one of the edition's best contributions.

Up until about 6 months ago, I would have strongly agreed with you. Now I see it as one of the worst things about the game. The harsh game mode change is really hard to mitigate as combat starts. The results are all contained within the context of the encounter and linking stuff that happens in a 4E fight to the larger narrative is not the easiest thing to do. And all the monsters were designed with such a strong link to PC power levels that their own characteristics in the fiction were meaningless.

 

[jshaft37]

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.

I DM B/X and 4E and I disagree that 4E is more limiting on DMing monsters. In B/X I may choose to have monsters do something unique when the situation or environment warrants, but in 4E the monsters are always doing something unique via powers PLUS whatever else I may come up with due to situation or environment. The 4E monster design has actually helped improve my combat improve actions when I apply them to B/X monsters.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The 4E model of encounter design is one of the edition's best contributions.

I just spent like 10 minutes trying to write a post that could express how much I disagree with that, but I was unable.

Suffice to say: I intensely disagree with that. I am of the exact opposite opinion.

 

[Kinak]

-Mundane, non-spellcasting monsters in particular have been relegated to having nothing but weapon attacks, or a sneak-attack-esque bonus damage.

It's funny. That's exactly what I love about the monster design. Except I wish they'd get rid of the sneak-attack-esque bonus damage.

The rank-and-file monsters just don't need special abilities at all. It may sound weird from a 3e/4e perspective, but it makes the game run faster and frees up complexity for other things.

The basic monsters are like the canvas you're working on. It's nice and blank, maybe a little texture. Then you add some complex elite/caster/boss monsters, tactics, traps, terrain, and other linked encounters.

If we have dozens of kobolds on the board (and we very easily might in the Caves), they'd better be dead simple to run or it's going to be a long night. And, as a bonus, it leaves us brainpower and time to actually play the NPCs and keep track of all the things that make combat great.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Thraug]

I favor Next's simpler monsters over 4es power heavy monsters. After a long 4e campaign I never want to see a non-solo monster with more than 1 or 2 powers that do something more than just damage. It's just too much to keep track of and adds to the slowing down of 4es combats. As a DM and player, I found most DMs, including me, ignored many monster powers. It just took way too long every initiative to look over a monsters stat block and figure out the best power and recharge others. Just not worth the pain.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Cool monster powers mean more when every monster doesn't have 4.

I like the trend I'm seeing with rank-and-file monsters having one clear schtick, and their leaders getting 1-2 additional abilities.

 

[Transformer]

There's a balance to be struck here, and I think the playtest doc errs just a tad on the light side of it. I want some basic monsters to have, maybe, one stand-out ability, perhaps two in rare cases. I don't want every mook to be a small bag of melee-attacking hitpoints.


We definitely need 4e statblocks back, though. They're super practical. Those, combined with fewer abilities, would make 5e combat a breeze. Come on Wizards, have a solid combat statblock and monster ecology and lore in smaller print afterward. Is it so hard to get both right?