Something Awful leak.

[Janaxstrus]

Yeah, I'm not sure "power source" ever took off in 4e. Like someone had an idea, and then it just fell down on execution (I'm guessing because everyone but that person ignored it). The funny part is, I think it was them trying to inject setting fluff into it, instead of rules-ish - there's some real story around Primal.

Anyhow, re: Arcanoloths - That's a decent example of a creature that should generally have "wizard" casting or whatever. But at the same time, I don't want the system to require using the PC character creation system to use them, except when I choose to do so. I want the ability to lay a "wizard" template or whatever on a monster, or just selectively swap a few spells, but I don't want the PCs in a planescape game to "go off rails" and I suddenly need an Arcanoloth and I need to call a 30 minute pause so I can fill out his spellbook

I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs. Thats why they are rules.
I want the monsters to have stats and mean the same as.pcs as well.

Basically monsters and pcs should follow the same rules in general

 

[Halivar]

If monsters are as complicated as 3E, I have two choices:

1. Retire from DM'ing due to time constraints.
2. Keep playing 4E.

I would much rather have the complicated "universal rules" aspect be an option.

 

[The Little Raven]

If monsters are as complicated as 3E, I have two choices:

1. Retire from DM'ing due to time constraints.
2. Keep playing 4E.

I would much rather have the complicated "universal rules" aspect be an option.

Agreed.

Monsters and PCs using all the same rules sounds nice. But then I realize that while my players only have to deal with building and maintaining a single character using the complex character building system, I have to deal with dozens to hundreds, and if I'm going to spend that much time on a second job, I want it to be one I get paid cash money for.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have come around in general to the 4e "get the maths right" philosophy to monsters for me personally. It's a lot like [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] recommended above: "make it up as you go." It's some combination of leather armor and quick speed and rock hard hide, or skill and magic and speed and aggressiveness and sharpness, or whatever, that happens to constitute the right numbers. The specifics of how one critter happened to reach that number doesn't often matter.

Of course, I don't like how 4e in general presented monsters, or how it conceived of them as only things to fight and kill in minis combat. I think the 4e monster philosophy was one of the most problematic aspects of the e for me. I just like what they did with the math there.

Of course, I think it should ALSO be build-able. If you want to a la carte your monster, building it from the ground up with stats and equipment and spells, and take the long way around, you should be able to wind up with the same results as someone who just fills in the math. There's no reason those can't be compatible without forcing someone to do one or the other.

And then people like me can fill in the math quick when things get challenge-y, and worry about the fluff, motives, and interesting interactions the party can do in every other circumstance.

 

[catastrophic]

While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.

That seems to be a common theme in people's requirements for 4e- mutually exclusive requirements.

This of course emphasises how important a genuine modular design is, and why it's absence in 1.0 is so damming.

Especially with so many people demanding things like 'allow me to build a monster like in 3e and have it end up the same as a monster in 4e', which is a huge task if the goal is genuinly to have those monsters work as well as they do in 4e.

Of course, the implied conclusion of a lot of this stuff is that 4e style design rigor ends up getting lost in the rush to appease older fans. A lot of care was taken building 4e, and it's clear a lot of people just don't really care if fans of 4e can find a place in 5e- even if they pay lip service to the idea that they should.

That said, while 1.0 certainly suggests that that is the case in general, when it comes to monster design the issue is more complex and the irony is that one of the newer bits of design- the 7 defences and how they work- is a bigger part of why monsters fall down, at least in 1.0.

 

[keterys]

I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs. Thats why they are rules.
I want the monsters to have stats and mean the same as.pcs as well.

Basically monsters and pcs should follow the same rules in general

I'm okay if PCs used the same stats as, say, 4e style monsters... if I could make PCs that quickly and easily and customize them so thoroughly? Absolutely.

I've put my hundreds of hours into statting things up in 3e style, though, and I will never do so again. I'm content to spend a significant amount of time developing a character I will play for a very long time, but such time is wasted on all but the most prevailing and connected NPC. Even then... having to justify every feat, stat point, hit die, etc? No, I have no interest in requiring anyone to follow the same level of rules as PCs. I don't even really want _PCs_ having to follow that same level of rules

At the tail end of 3rd edition, actually, I stopped using the spell system in its entirety and started making my monsters with whatever felt appropriate for its intended challenge. Similarly, I had each PC tell me what they wanted to play, and they got a custom class with custom spells. Amusingly, not long after that they launched the stuff about 4e that pretty much did enough of what I was doing that I moved on.

My top preference would actually be closer to picking a few FATE-like Aspects and mechanical guidelines for the level I want (there's an making 4e monster index card out there that's fairly illustrative), then let me do whatever I want.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs. Thats why they are rules.

I want my monsters to not obey the same rules of magic as PCs. That's why it's magic.

 

[avin]

Seriously, no matter what edition we are talking about, having to create monsters as npcs is a waste of my time.

It was hinted by Wotc that creating monsters will be similar to how it works on 4E. It will please some, and don't please others. In any case, I suggest you guys try it. It's sliced bread.

Been creating monsters like that since ever, in any system I've tried.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Put me down as not wanting to worry about monsters obeying character creation rules and please no 4E monster statblocks either. If 5E cannot be prepped and run without either software or being a major PITA then I can leave it rather than take it.

Core monster creation shouldn't get more complex than AD&D 1E.

As for NPCs, if they are adventuring classes then they should be built as such. If not then freeform like monsters works fine.

 

[mcintma]

I don't mind monsters not fully following PC rules, but they should have the basics like ability scores so there is at least some common baseline for comparison.

One thing I do want is fluff back in the MM ... 4e MM was the blandest most uninspiring D&D monster book ... I mean I love reading monster books so something is wrong when one is syphoning-off my will to live as I read it.