The New Design Philosophy?

[MerricB]

Yes it is.

Indeed. Vrocks are a pain to run.

My groups use a *bunch* of optional material for their characters. In just the Ulek campaign, we have a Druid/Wizard/Arcane Hierophant with a large bear as his familiar/companion, a Bard/Rogue/Druid, an Incarnate, a Knight, a Dwarf Soulknife and a Elf Soulborn.

There's a bunch of interacting abilities there, but the players have it all in hand. I just have to worry about the monsters.

Vrocks? Ugh. One vrock is a fine opponent. Multiple vrocks? Not so good.

Cheers!

 

[The Shaman]

The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat.

The primary use of a monster in D&D is to present a challenge to the players and their characters. Challenges should be about more than how many rounds a monster can go toe-to-toe with the adventurers.

IMO.

 

[Glyfair]

I just don't think the long-term interests of the game are served by removing all the quirks, or by reducing it to a spreadsheet.

I agree. However, I'm all for removing most or all of the "bad" quirks. If non-human level limits were retained because the developers were afraid of removing the quirks, I likely wouldn't be playing D&D right now (the rule I hated the most in D&D).

One thing to note about these articles is Mike has pointed out that usually he would have to run things buy the other developers, and they'd debate the various points. I'm sure they have different points of view, and probably express more POV than they have ("there are a group of players that won't like this, is that a reason not to do this). Remember, Mike is the guy who trashed the Keep on the Borderlands as a bad module

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The logic of this new philosophy is lost on me. Since some creatures, like the ogre mage, were essentially gutted by the revision of certain spells during the switch to 3.x and as they are now ineffectual because their CR is too high for them to be combat threats, the plan is to individually revise each creature based on what can transpire during a five or six round combat? I would have thought it better to address the perpetually enigmatic CR system. Or to bulk up the abilities that are used in and out of combat to keep the creature special and not turn it into a large fighting creature with class levels. I like the idea of leveling spells so that they do more than simply increase in range/duration/etc. when cast by more powerful casters. If I wanted to just throw an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer toe-to-toe with an adventuring group can't I already do that using an enlarged Fighter/Sorcerer (and wouldn't it be a better challenge anyway)?

I'm going to disagree with you, at least on the specific ogre mage issue. The thing had the ability to Charm Person and acted as a "mastermind" for ogres and other such creatures. Charm Person doesn't work on ogres!

I like the new ogre mage, I just think it could use Charm Monster as a spell-like ability so it could continue to be a mastermind (retain concept). IIRC Charm Person didn't work on ogres in 2e.

Furthermore, ogre mages didn't have a "CR" in 2e. The 3e ogre mage were designed with the 3e spells in mind. I don't blame the change in spells for the ogre mage being a wimp.

Right now, only two monsters have been re-created. It's been my experience that DMs just don't use monsters like the ogre mage anyway because it didn't fit its concept, nor did it pose a challenge.

Edit/PS: I don't recall the new OM having a Charm or Domination ability, but if it does, that would remove my only objection to the re-design.

 

[MerricB]

The primary use of a monster in D&D is to present a challenge to the players and their characters. Challenges should be about more than how many rounds a monster can go toe-to-toe with the adventurers.

Consider which part is a challenge because of the monster and which part is a challenge because of adventure design. You don't need Charm Person to create an adventure where a town lives in fear of a Big Bad Evil Guy.

The CR of a monster directly relates to how difficult it is to defeat in combat. Any further challenges it has created as part of the adventure are dealt with by their own challenge ratings.

An encounter where a PC dies if he or she loses initiative, and the monster dies if it loses initiative is not a good encounter.

Cheers!

 

[Rothe]

...
The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat. Monsters should be designed so that they're effective in combat (per the level for which their intended). They should also be desinged so they don't suffer from coin-flip and glass jaw syndrome.

....
The Ogre Mage in 3e/3.5e suffers from that syndrome. The combat is over in one or two rounds. It's a forgettable creature. If you send it against a party to which its AC and HP are comparable, the cone of cold causes instant death for at least one party member (probably the wizard).

...

First let me say I like the new OM, more of the oni I always loved, never read of an oni that used cold, but lightening, flame yes. I also like the new rust monster. So the end result doesn't lose flavor for me.

Nevertheless, the above quote is just the point raised about focusing on toe-to-toe combat as the sole touchstone of design, as opposed to combat that requires a bit more tactical thinking. Yes the OM against a party with comparable HP and AC is going to lose someone IF they face it toe-to-toe. Thus, don't face it toe-to-toe. You are going to need to surprise it, attack from range, trick it into burning that cone of cold, get some protection against that cold, have healing ready, make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it, etc. The underlying assumption seems to me to be, combat=rush in and swing. If so the OM is a poor design from that point of view.

IF the design philosphy is there should be some monsters that while readily defeatable can cause the loss of a party member if tactics and/or trickery are not used, then the original OM is not so bad.

 

[Rothe]

....
An encounter where a PC dies if he or she loses initiative, and the monster dies if it loses initiative is not a good encounter.

Cheers!

I'd have to disagree. This is a good boss encounter. The PCs should be prepared and know that death could result if they are not very careful about facing this guy. A nice fear of loss for tension. On the other hand, if they can get the drop on him he goes down and they get the rewards. A calculated risk or gamble some might say. Many people like to gamble especially when they can do things to alter the odds in their favor. If they are good, luck should have little to do with it.

In the end, not everyone is going down. If only one, and the treasure is enough, get them raised.

Finally, why can't we view the OM as just a min/maxed creature? He traded good AC and HP for his level for one very powerful spell.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

First let me say I like the new OM, more of the oni I always loved, never read of an oni that used cold, but lightening, flame yes. I also like the new rust monster. So the end result doesn't lose flavor for me.

Nevertheless, the above quote is just the point raised about focusing on toe-to-toe combat as the sole touchstone of design, as opposed to combat that requires a bit more tactical thinking. Yes the OM against a party with comparable HP and AC is going to lose someone IF they face it toe-to-toe. Thus, don't face it toe-to-toe. You are going to need to surprise it

You can't surprise it if you didn't see it first. Who is likely to be surprised, you or the creature that can change its appearance? How do you know it's coming? How do you know it's hostile?

attack from range

Is melee not valid? Wow, that fencer concept gets trashed.

trick it into burning that cone of cold

Without metagaming, you don't know its abilities. Even if you make your Knowledge check, it has a wide range of abilities, so you might not know it can cast Cone of Cold. (And it can move up on you invisible and then blast you with a Cone of Cold.)

get some protection against that cold

Ditto.

have healing ready

That always happens.

make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it

So if your party has a rogue, they're not allowed to go near it? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun.

The underlying assumption seems to me to be, combat=rush in and swing. If so the OM is a poor design from that point of view.

A monster is supposed to be easy for an equal CR fight, regardless of how it's defeated. I would give the PCs bonus XP if they beat it "smart", though. This is in addition to other advantages (eg taking less damage, using up less healing, etc).

If your players never use cool tactics, this is a problem with the players and DMs, not a problem with the monster.

IF the design philosphy is there should be some monsters that while readily defeatable can cause the loss of a party member if tactics and/or trickery are not used, then the original OM is not so bad.

Isn't that called a mage? I think an ogre mage should be tougher than that. Otherwise, why bother making it an ogre?

 

[The Shaman]

Consider which part is a challenge because of the monster and which part is a challenge because of adventure design. You don't need Charm Person to create an adventure where a town lives in fear of a Big Bad Evil Guy.

By that same logic you don't need monsters, either.

The CR of a monster directly relates to how difficult it is to defeat in combat. Any further challenges it has created as part of the adventure are dealt with by their own challenge ratings.

As Mark already said earlier, that's a weakness in the CR system.

An encounter where a PC dies if he or she loses initiative, and the monster dies if it loses initiative is not a good encounter.

Why not? Why does every encounter have to be about diminishing resources? Why can't some encounters just be plain deadly on the luck of the dice?

 

[MerricB]

By that same logic you don't need monsters, either.

Rubbish. Monsters are required for interesting combats. However, you don't really need the big bad guy to have a special ability saying "has minions". Minions can be assumed by good adventure design.

As Mark already said earlier, that's a weakness in the CR system.

Huh? Something that the CR system already covers is a weakness in the CR system? I really don't understand.

Why not? Why does every encounter have to be about diminishing resources? Why can't some encounters just be plain deadly on the luck of the dice?

Flip-a-coin encounters are rarely fun.

IME, D&D combats are fun when the players need to work to overcome the challenges. The attritional nature of D&D combat is great because they can see they're in danger as their HP and spells are expended.

Cheers!