D&D 4E 4e monsters Spycraft 2.0 style?

Dragonblade · Aug 27, 2007

From Matt Sernett's blog:

Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.

Nice, so this would seem to make a system akin to Spycraft 2.0. There is probably a set of stats for each monster role that determines its BAB, saves, etc at each challenge level/rating. This probably corresponds to PC level. So for example, a "Brute" would have one set of stats, an "archer" another.

Monsters themselves are then probably more like a template, providing a few special abilities or other "flavor". So if I want an axe-wielding ogre to challenge a 10th level fighter, I take the "Brute" stats at level 10 and apply them to the Ogre template. Bam, presto! I know have a hulking ogre "brute" fully capable of challenging a 10th level fighter. No need to advance the existing ogre or waste time slapping on class levels. Nor do I have to worry about the monster needing magic items either.

As a DM this system would rock!! This means, I can easily create challenges for players. Even on the fly. Don't have to worry about accounting for every last skill point, feat and whatnot, and when I give out magic items, its because I want to as a DM, not because monsters need them to survive.

MoogleEmpMog · Aug 27, 2007

IF this is indeed rather like Spycraft, as Matt Sernett's blog seems to indicate, I mind that a great deal less. While it's somewhat inelegant from a design aesthetic perspective and puts a huge workload on the GM if he doesn't want to play Not-Lord-of-the-Rings,-honest, at least it does indeed provide a HUGE time savings. I actually use the Spycraft table as-is when designing mooks for many d20 games, even though it doesn't synch up exactly.

Dragonblade · Aug 27, 2007

I think the Spycraft 2.0 NPC and mook rules are brilliant. This is a huge plus for me for 4e, if this is how it works. And like you said Moogle, it would be a HUGE time savings as a DM.

Hot damn, I have never been super enthused at DMing 3e due to the time investment even though I have lots of cool stories to tell. But this gets me chomping at the bit. 4e cannot get here fast enough.

This just solves so many issues with the game if this is how it works.

Whizbang Dustyboots · Aug 27, 2007

I don't know if this is how it's going to work, but yes, choosing one from Column A and one from Column B seems like a pretty easy system.

4E: Back to the Chinese restaurant!

Dragonblade · Aug 27, 2007

And thinking about this again, you could have a "sorcerer" role with a list of predefined "at will" abilities. They may have stuff like xd6 eldritch blast per every other level or something, they may have teleport 30 ft as a move action. Or whatever.

So if I want to harry a 10th level party with a couple of kobold shamans and his minions, I take the base kobold template and apply it two 10th level "sorcerers" and maybe some "warriors" or whatever that role might be called. I choose some special magical abilities from the list available to sorcerer monsters at that level and I'm done.

Within minutes I have created an interesting encounter where the PCs fight a tribe of kobolds while the tribe's two shamans teleport in and out, blasting the PCs.

I don't need to choose spell lists, I don't need to worry about what their casting or when. I don't need to worry about their levels, or their gear. I just create the encounter and go.

If this is how it works, awesome!

Dragonblade · Aug 27, 2007

Not trying to spam my own thread or anything, but this system is just growing on me!

If monsters are in a sense, statless templates, that provides several advantages. Every monster in the book is effectively useable at any challenge level, for example! That's awesome!

Also, for those players concerned about not being able to play monsters as PC races, like goblins (or gnomes

) then this model works fine. It seems like it would be easy to slap on PC class levels and stats to a statless monster template if you so choose.

The base goblin template for example, probably lists their base special abilities plus I suspect other racial abilities that become available depending on the monster's role and challenge level.

A DM could easily extrapolate these other abilities into racial abilities gained as you level up in a PC class. We already know that additional racial abilities are available at higher levels for the PC races, it makes sense for monsters to do the same.

For example, a 20th level beholder probably has special eye attacks that a 10th level beholder does not, in addition to the abilities granted from whatever role the DM assigns them.

Dragonblade · Aug 27, 2007

New information from Matt Sernett on my thoughts in the other monster thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204956&page=10&pp=40

That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

Hmm, I guess it seems that the so-called roles will be somewhat pre-built into the monsters. I guess my theory of divorcing stats from monsters entirely won't be quite the way it works. I kind of liked the elegance and scalability of the Spycraft 2.0 method, but I'll reserve judgement until I see WotC's method. I really would have liked it to work as a I described it in this thread however. I think it would have been a great system.

Whizbang Dustyboots · Aug 27, 2007

Dragonblade said:
Hmm, I guess it seems that the so-called roles will be somewhat pre-built into the monsters. I guess my theory of divorcing stats from monsters entirely won't be quite the way it works. I kind of liked the elegance and scalability of the Spycraft 2.0 method, but I'll reserve judgement until I see WotC's method. I really would have liked it to work as a I described it in this thread however. I think it would have been a great system.

I can almost guarantee you that Crafty or someone else will create an OGL supplement that works this way.

D&D 4E 4e monsters Spycraft 2.0 style?

Dragonblade

Adventurer

MoogleEmpMog

First Post

Dragonblade

Adventurer

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

Dragonblade

Adventurer

Dragonblade

Adventurer

Dragonblade

Adventurer

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

Similar Threads