"How to make a Monster Manual Pt II" article

[Glyfair]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a

Some very interesting observations that, for the most part I agree with. A lot of this grows out of Mike Mearls articles modifying classic monsters to work smoother within the game. I think it shows Mike's real intent wasn't "these monsters need fixing" but "if we had to design these monsters today, how should we approach it."

I definitely like the "more focused" approach. I do find that too many abilities can have the fun ones get lost in a sea of options.

If they continue this approach, I would have the few monsters with many abilities list the uses to which each ability is used. For example, a high level demon might say he uses his "darkness at will" ability for building an ominous atmosphere, while another might have a more tactical use for it.

 

[takasi]

Maybe these articles and "redesigns" are arguments for a new, revised Monster Manual 1....

 

[Sammael]

*shakes head sadly*

So, if it can't be used in 5 rounds, a monster shouldn't have it on its list of abilities? Looks like we're in for a lot of ADD monsters in the future if the current trends continue...

 

[Glyfair]

Maybe these articles and "redesigns" are arguments for a new, revised Monster Manual 1....

Yes and no. I think that they are generally just attempts to show the working of the design team. They want to show why they make certain decisions, and to try to get some D&D players to think in those directions.

Of course, anything they add is work towards a new edition (remember the statement that they started working on 4E the day 3E hit the shelves). In that sense when they get around to making a new edition the things they do and learn will make their way to a new MM1.

 

[Glyfair]

*shakes head sadly*

So, if it can't be used in 5 rounds, a monster shouldn't have it on its list of abilities? Looks like we're in for a lot of ADD monsters in the future if the current trends continue...

I'm sure there will always be exceptions. I'll bet out of combat abilities will be considered as well. But seriously, how many combat have you had that have gone past 5 rounds?

 

[Li Shenron]

Well if I just want to run a game which is a series of random encounters, all of which are 5-rounds fights, then the article is perfectly right.

While I of course agree that having a monster with 20 spells prepared is hard to use unless you prepare yourself, I don't like the approach of "give him 5 spells and forget about the rest". This is IMHO a step backwards to when monsters and PCs were two completely different worlds, in this case: monsters exist only to fight, PCs have a full existence. This may be true in practice, but it somewhat feels sad and metagamey to me.

I much prefer an approach where the DM is left to choose between forgetting the rest and not... And the best way IMO would be to simply highlight in the monster manual entry what special ability is combat-oriented and what is not. Grouping the secondary (non-combat) abilities like "Read Magic at will" into a tiny paragraph at the end of the MM entry is good enough to spare the DM all the confusion, but I kind of like having these "useless" (couple of) abilities, why not? I can still ignore them, but at least it's up to me.

Otherwise I agree with concerns about overly-complicated mechanics, like the example of those bonuses that the DM needs to keep track of durations.

 

[Sammael]

I'm sure there will always be exceptions. I'll bet out of combat abilities will be considered as well. But seriously, how many combat have you had that have gone past 5 rounds?

Not many. But I've had numerous "role-playing" encounters that lasted for much longer than that, in which "monsters" made good use of "useless" abilities.

I positively detest the direction they appear to be going in - that every monster's sole purpose should be just to appear, fight the PCs for 5 rounds, and be killed and looted. To be fair, this is a design paradigm that has been present in D&D since its conception, but it's not a design paradigm I enjoy.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm pretty much right behind both the article and the direction they're taking. Now, if Mr. Noonan et al were discussing the design of the Monster Manual I, I would be extremely worried, because the MMV has a very different job than the MMI, which has to set up a basic clutch of monsters for a new version of the game, and give enough detail to inspire the DM as to how he could use them.

But no new or novice DM is going to pick up MMV as their first monster manual. In MMV I'm quite happy filling in any ecology or non-combat abilities myself. If I want the Stitched Devil to Detect Thoughts on any Evil being, I'll slap it in. If I need to change a creation myth to fit my campaign, I will. Those are easy. Meantime I know that when the PC's kick the door in, it'll give them a helluva good run for their money.

I'm also strongly detecting the dread MMO influence in monsters with different 'phases' during the fight, or interesting synnergies with their minions. Far from making me uneasy (and why should it?), I'm looking forward to throwing my PC's for a loop when they start encountering some of these things.

 

[Robert Ranting]

I'm certainly finding these articles (and MMV itself) entertaining. I can certainly vouch for the comment on spell-like abilities cluttering a statblock and making me waste time while looking up the spell in the PHB (or heaven forbid, some other sourcebook I don't own). Also, despite the seeming focus on making monsters trimmed down for combat purposes, there's still plenty of opportunity to use some of these creatures in roleplaying opportunities besides combat.

But no new or novice DM is going to pick up MMV as their first monster manual.

Actually, I know someone who picked up MM III as their first, so I wouldn't find it unlikely for someone to pick up MM V as their first monster book. I myself picked up the Tome of Horrors I, Creature Collection I, and MM II before finally getting a hardcopy of the MM I. In all honesty, I think the fact that every monster manual contains the information about creature types, the monster feats, etc. seems to suggest that WotC believes each MM should stand on its own.

That said, I think Monster Manual V works on two fronts. The first is by giving the old hands something new to add into their campaigns alongside the old monsters. Secondly, it presents a loadout of monsters that are ideally suited to wait in a dungeon room for a bunch of 12 year olds to wipe the floor with on their first hack-n-slash dungeon crawl. That's how I got my start in D&D, and I think my group could have benefitted from a book like MM5 when we were still getting to know the rules.

Robert "Your Mileage May Vary" Ranting

 

[GQuail]

much prefer an approach where the DM is left to choose between forgetting the rest and not... And the best way IMO would be to simply highlight in the monster manual entry what special ability is combat-oriented and what is not. Grouping the secondary (non-combat) abilities like "Read Magic at will" into a tiny paragraph at the end of the MM entry is good enough to spare the DM all the confusion, but I kind of like having these "useless" (couple of) abilities, why not? I can still ignore them, but at least it's up to me.

This sounds liek something I can get behind. I agree with the general principle of the "only stuff you'll use in your five rounds" thinking, but having a sort of addendum for "not so important stuff" at the bottom of the stats would be cool. Alternatively, perhaps this is something Monster Tactics could pick up: more turn-by-turn combat advice to help GMs understand what the schtick of a critter is.

I dont think anyone is seriously suggesting that's how all monsters should be: even in the article, the sidebar notes than after seven years of books they don't need to design monsters to fill quite so many empty niches. So, I think you will still see future version of the game with Demons who can cast detect spells, or perhaps aghost-like creature with teleknesis at will or whatever. But at the same time, if I don't use it when the monster is in play, it's ultimately wasted space: worse, it makes it harder to find the "good stuff". More than once, after a combat has finished I've realised a monster had a better spell choice or special ability I missed bcause I didn't digest the enormous block o' text properly - I'm happy to sacrifice some stuff for that.