Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[GM Dave]

Monte Cook's new blog with a poll.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Thoughts?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

high 5 for all!

 

[MortalPlague]

I just want to say that Monte Cook said "some sort of Challenge Rating system". He did not say "we're going to use 3E CR system". Just to head off the doomsayers right there.

Personally, I think it's pretty important to have a way to gauge a monster's toughness just by looking at a number. My preference would lean towards 4E's monster xp values, but so long as there's something there that I can tell how hard a monster will hit a given party, that's fine by me. Even in a sandbox, I want to know how tough a given monster will be so that I can give the party ample warning before they stumble onto its lair.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I liked the guidelines in both 3E and 4E. At least for monsters. But everyone should know they're still guidelines, not constraints.

My problem with the treasure tables in 3E was that the treasure table was curved such that you couldn't get anything interesting until you were high level. But that's a problem with item pricing and design, not guidelines for DMs.

 

[Boarstorm]

Personally, I think it's pretty important to have a way to gauge a monster's toughness just by looking at a number.

This is, to me, vital. And, honestly, far more important than encounter-building guidelines.

Give me an idea of how nasty each critter is, and I can take it from there. Only a DM knows the actual capabilities of his PCs.

 

[Hassassin]

3, 5, 5, 3

I can imagine playing without any way to balance monsters or with no random encounters or treasure. However, DM freedom and player choice of risk vs. reward are both essential.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Treasure tables were always stupid.

I mean: which random monster has 1000 gp in its pocket... or in its lair.
I am all for smaller treasures.

CR and level/xp were a great guideline for the DM. With flatter progression, I guess the xp variant will be most useful.

 

[Minigiant]

DMs needs to know what the game was designed to work around. With that information then and only then, could a DM change the game to match his style and realize the consequences.

If the game is designed for 6 level 1 classless goblins is a moderate challenge for 4 level 1 PCs and 30 gold is an appropriate reward. Then a DM wont be surprised when he drops in 8 level 1 goblins and a level 2 bugbear with an 100 gold purse changes his game.

If the game is designed for every PC to have a major magic item by level 10, then he'll know why his magicless party was TPKed by the adult dragon and why he should have used the "low magic module"

 

[KidSnide]

Treasure tables were always stupid.

I used to think that. After having spent the last several years assembling treasure parcels by hand, I would love a nice, well thought out, random treasure table.

And that's not a flip remark. There are times when I'm going to intervene in treasure allocation and decide that this cool item goes here, or this character needs something appropriate, etc. But, at the same time, I'd like the ability to have an organic system so I can leave things to chance when I don't want to make those calls.

-KS

 

[n00bdragon]

I just want to say that Monte Cook said "some sort of Challenge Rating system". He did not say "we're going to use 3E CR system". Just to head off the doomsayers right there.

Be that as it may there's no real way to vote "I hate CR calculations with the burning passion of a thousand dying suns but monster levels are okay." Bad poll is awful. You either agree to something that sounds like the most backwards way of rating monsters and handling XP ever invented or you give the finger to DMs everywhere.