Custom Monster

[LucasC]

Feedback welcomed. Here's the process I used to create these.

• Created base race (STR 4 AGI 3 END 4 INT 3 WILL 4 CHA 2 LUC 0 PSI 0)
• Selected 3 racial skills (Unarmed Fighting, Running, Carrying)
• Selected careers
  • Navy Brat (marksman)
  • Military academy (melee weapon daggers)
  • Marine cadet (hardy)
  • Tour of duty (marksman)
  • Tour of duty (perception)

That gave me the "rookie" version. For each bump up I added 3 more careers.

Experienced - I wanted to focus on AGI w/this set to bring that to a good number

• Scout (perception)
• Sniper (marksman)
• Sniper (marksman)

Veteran - tried to make the monster 'feel' like someone that had been in the field a while

• Assassin (intimidate)
• Tour of Duty (leadership)
• Tour of Duty (marksman)

I didn't expect adding just 3 careers to pump the XP like it did. Very interesting.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, he's quite the monster! I think it highlights the skill stacking effect - x5 in a skill is supposed to represent an acknowledged leader in a field. Those marksman skills are stacking up there.

The attributes feel right to me. Equipment feels right. Other than the skill issue (which we've discussed before) I think these are very solid designs.

15 xp or so looks like a rough benchmark for a starting PC and may be a good starting point for balancing fights. That said, the current XP calculation is - as you've observed - too unwieldy for regular use.

 

[Morrus]

For that third one, it may be worth checking out the new tiers. Instead of adding new careers and skills, you could increase him to "Heroic". Lets him use d8s instead of d6s. I haven't adjusted the XP calculation to accommodate that yet though.

 

[LucasC]

For that third one, it may be worth checking out the new tiers. Instead of adding new careers and skills, you could increase him to "Heroic". Lets him use d8s instead of d6s. I haven't adjusted the XP calculation to accommodate that yet though.

On that thought...

What is your intent with damage when you move between the forthcoming tiers?

Will damage dice increase as well or will they remain static? If you'll be introducing different dice could that be a way to get some variety and distinction into different types of weapons?

Also, somewhat unrelated. I think a column in the equipment/weapon tables that lists minimum tech level would be a good add.

 

[Morrus]

On that thought...

What is your intent with damage when you move between the forthcoming tiers?

Will damage dice increase as well or will they remain static? If you'll be introducing different dice could that be a way to get some variety and distinction into different types of weapons?

Also, somewhat unrelated. I think a column in the equipment/weapon tables that lists minimum tech level would be a good add.

Check out yesterday's hot fix - the page was missing a paragraph on that, plus increased DEF, HEALTH, etc.

 

[LucasC]

Check out yesterday's hot fix - the page was missing a paragraph on that, plus increased DEF, HEALTH, etc.

Got it. Quick point of clarification. Aim and Deadly Strike used to be just things you could do, now they have to be chosen as tricks correct?

 

[Morrus]

Got it. Quick point of clarification. Aim and Deadly Strike used to be just things you could do, now they have to be chosen as tricks correct?

Yup. You get one free (I would expect most to take Aim).

 

[LucasC]

Also, I see you have the new lower defense table for derived scores. Do you want us to keep using those lower numbers or go back to AGI x2 + 10 and use positioning to hit when needed.

 

[Morrus]

Also, I see you have the new lower defense table for derived scores. Do you want us to keep using those lower numbers or go back to AGI x2 + 10 and use positioning to hit when needed.

I want to try them a little longer. There were weeks of people consistently saying DEFENSE is too high. Now I have only two data points on the new values (since they only went public yesterday) - you and one other, and you're both saying the opposite. Which confuses me mightily!

So I figure the answer is "more playtesting needed!"

 

[LucasC]

Roger