Standardising monsters

[Kzach]

In my efforts to transport monster stats to cards, I've discovered something about monsters in 4e, that being that there is an extremely large disparity in power and variety even within the same level and role.

One 3rd-level artillery monster is not equal to another.

This really highlights for me the fact that there is really no established system for monster creation. It's all just 'eye-balled'. One monster could have five powers and another of the same level, role and sometimes even race, could have just two.

Contrary to popular belief, this makes monster creation harder, not easier.

So I was wondering if anyone would be interested in creating a homebrew system for standardising monster creation rules. By standardising I don't mean making dull, I simply mean providing a template based on level, role and race.

For instance, the template could say that a 3rd-level artillery monster should have one melee basic attack without any special additions, one ranged basic attack without any special additions, one at-will ranged attack with a special addition, one encounter ranged attack, and one racial special ability. All of these should have damage dice in the range of the level and monster type, ie. minion, standard, elite or solo.

So voila, we've standardised 3rd-level artillery monsters!

You could then go on to provide special circumstance global rules. For example, if you replace the encounter power with a different type, ie. change a ranged to an area or burst, then it should be of lesser or greater power accordingly. Same would go for rechargeable powers.

By creating a set of standard rules for monster creation, we could easily create a balanced and therefore readily usable database of such creatures for common usage.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Contrary to popular belief, this makes monster creation harder, not easier.

I agree. One of my projects is just what you're suggesting. What I have uploaded is mostly just the DMG guidelines, with slight alterations, but I'm working on a codification of common status effects and such. Artillery and brutes are easy because they don't need special stuff, but the other roles (especially controllers) are hard to gauge.

For me, it's been a frustrating and tedious exercise, but maybe you can do better.

 

[Rachel]

@TequilaSunrise

I love what your doing with that document. I read it over and I can't wait to see you expand it. It does go right to the heart of what Kzach is saying with this thread.

 

[weem]

Yea, that's very interesting TS.

Right now I tend to filter down to an appropriate level range (6-10 for example) then look for something that is at least "kind of" what im looking for... sometimes it's as simple as, "it walks upright" and then kind of modify from there, adding/removing what I need. I never start from scratch because I don't have a firm grasp on what to base it on besides completely borrowing from another monster as I mentioned... this could be a good guideline to begin with.

Oh, and thanks for the topic Kzach

 

[Amaroq]

I, too, would like to see something in this vein. Like weem, I've been doing a lot of monster creation for my campaign, and I tend to follow a fairly similar path. I use Monster Maker to take care of all the standard things - defenses, HP, etc, but when it comes to powers we're pretty much on our own, so I'll have a look at other monsters in that role within a level or two of it. Usually I have a pretty good idea what "flavor" I want my monster to have.

What I've found, though, is that monsters within level or thereabouts it doesn't seem to matter exactly what I do with the powers, or not as much as it "feels like" it "should": I'm sure some of my monster-powers have been "unbalanced", but with a party full of well-built PC's and veteran players, I've been challenging them as much as I can. The only time I've had things get a little out of hand was when a L+1 solo had an Immediate Interrupt burst power, which got triggered by a PC attacking immediately after his attack turn, on which he'd also used a burst ..

PC had no way of knowing that he needed to wait until after everybody else got to spend Second Winds, gift surges to each other, etc, and the Interrupt reduced two characters to exactly zero HP .. for an unintended near-TPK.

On the other hand, nobody is going to forget that solo anytime soon, and they did win in the end ...

So, I'm not sure that its worth the effort to codify exactly what each monster-class should have at each level.

From a player's perspective, it certainly keeps them from power-counting or other meta-gaming to guess what unrevealed powers it might yet have.

 

[Kzach]

If I had time, I'd start a wiki or Google Wave on this but lately I'm slammed with my studies so not much chance of that happening any time soon.

 

[Rachel]

So, I'm not sure that its worth the effort to codify exactly what each monster-class should have at each level.

From a player's perspective, it certainly keeps them from power-counting or other meta-gaming to guess what unrevealed powers it might yet have.

The usefulness to DMs of having clear guidelines like the ones TS is brewing up I think far exceeds any possible abuse. It's much better than working piece-meal and guessing your way to a monster, to me. So, I must respectfully disagree that it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Amaroq]

Hmm; I wasn't saying it wouldn't be, full stop - I was saying that I'm not sure that it would be worth it. I certainly don't want to discourage TS from going down the path. I'd started thinking of a similar path from the observation that, for a lot of Monster Manual monsters, if I build them exactly as statted, they come up with different hit points and defenses.

I've been asking myself, "Why is that?"

There's three possible answers:

1. The game designers weren't using automated tools, and different designers "eyeballed" monsters of the same role and level differently.

2. The game designers used automated tools, and thereafter carefully adjusted the monsters based on playtesting.

3. The game designers didn't have a good grip on the math.

The work TS is doing would be aimed at 1 and 3 - but what if the discrepancies are built in from 2? .. And the fact that player character power creep invariably leads to monster power creep.

I guess what I'm saying is, in the end, its going to come down to the DM's ability to gauge the difficulty of a monster and its appropriateness to the class, or to adjust same via playtesting ...

... So I'm not sure that the value created via the standardization concept is worth the effort it will take TS or somebody to complete it.

Perhaps the value is much higher for less-experienced DM's: certainly the first time I went to create a 4e monster, I found the instructions woefully inadequate for figuring out if my monster was "balanced", etc .. but once I had my feet wet, it came pretty naturally and my findings were that variations in monster difficulty within a given level/role simply added "flavor" to fighting them.

As in your quote - "stirges suck" - in older versions, especially, they were a pretty low level creature (hit points, defenses, etc) with a "Monopoly effect" such that once they got the upper hand in a fight, they would be runaway winners. Once a player knew that, it added a lot of tension to fighting them: you needed to keep them from tipping past the balance point ... and that's what made them "feel" more "dangerous" than their actual level.

The same thing applies here: DPR, HP, defenses, etc, don't need to be the same for every creature of the same role and same level: a creature can be harder to kill but less likely to injure you, or deal a boatload of damage while going down easily, or do minimal damage but apply debilitating status effects ... all viable builds for a monster of the same role and level ...

... and I'm just not sure how you'd "standardize" that, to be honest.

 

[Rachel]

Hmm; I wasn't saying it wouldn't be, full stop - I was saying that I'm not sure that it would be worth it.

Semantics.

...for a lot of Monster Manual monsters, if I build them exactly as statted, they come up with different hit points and defenses.

I've been asking myself, "Why is that?"

There's three possible answers:

1. The game designers weren't using automated tools, and different designers "eyeballed" monsters of the same role and level differently.

2. The game designers used automated tools, and thereafter carefully adjusted the monsters based on playtesting.

3. The game designers didn't have a good grip on the math.

I'm going to go with a guess of all three (although I always assumed #1 was involved. If you read the Worlds and Monsters preivew book, it plainly states different people took on different monsters. I believe the monsters were divied up between 3 different designers).

Perhaps the value is much higher for less-experienced DM's: certainly the first time I went to create a 4e monster, I found the instructions woefully inadequate for figuring out if my monster was "balanced", etc .. but once I had my feet wet, it came pretty naturally and my findings were that variations in monster difficulty within a given level/role simply added "flavor" to fighting them.

We're not all as gifted as you are! Just playing. Seriously, balancing new monsters may come fairly easy to you, but others may not have such ease. Every gamer/DM has their strengths and weaknesses, and for those who don't eyeball monsters so well, this system of TS's (or one like it) could be a real godsend.

The same thing applies here: DPR, HP, defenses, etc, don't need to be the same for every creature of the same role and same level: a creature can be harder to kill but less likely to injure you, or deal a boatload of damage while going down easily, or do minimal damage but apply debilitating status effects ... all viable builds for a monster of the same role and level ...

... and I'm just not sure how you'd "standardize" that, to be honest.

Great argument there. You just hit on one of the major difficulties of designing such a system. I sure dont think I could do it with any success, so I wish TS all the luck in the world...if he's got the time, moxy and perspective to pull it off, more power to him!

 

[Kzach]

Great argument there. You just hit on one of the major difficulties of designing such a system. I sure dont think I could do it with any success, so I wish TS all the luck in the world...if he's got the time, moxy and perspective to pull it off, more power to him!

Which is why I recommended a Google Wave or a Wiki. It would be less work to set that up and would benefit from lots of people having little bits of time to contribute.