Monte Cook: Guidance for Monsters and Treasure

[Blackwarder]

My only wish is to have treasure connected to the monster and not some sort of encounter level.

But it should be as straight forward and easy to use as possible like 4e.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

I think some sort of CR that not only tells you the presumed challenge of each monster but especially it helps the DM combine multiple monsters together, is certainly vital to the game.

As for the treasure... I think treasure tables or formulas should be there for those who want to play the game with expected wealth/equipment level, but personally I also want the option of setting my own expected level on a campaign basis without causing myself huge adventure/encounters design issues, i.e. I don't want the PCs to depend too much on equipment, or alternatively I want the books to help me easily evaluate how should I change the CRs in our adventures.

Random monsters and treasures, I like them and I use them, but I don't need pre-made tables, especially since they tend to always be kitchen-sinks, I rather make my own random tables (although it wouldn't be bad to still have some terrain-based tables).

 

[Mark CMG]

I'd be with you, if I ever managed to play through a campaign long enough to get sick of the magic item treadmill. As it is, the campaigns that I play in usually end before I manage to get that ultra-powerful character decked out with every top-tier magic item he could want that seems to have killed everyone else's fun.

At least give me the chance to get sick of the fun I'm currently having before you force me to move on to some other kind of fun. Please?

The difference being that a system that doesn't have the treadmill built in can still be played in that manner while one that requires the treadmill is the one that forces a playstyle on the group. You can put the treadmill into a game that doesn't require it simply by handing our the rewards in the same manner as if the treadmill were there, but the system with the built-in treadmill actually requires huge adjustments for a game to be played without it.

Furthermore, you might find that a system without the treadmill, which many players consciously or otherwise find tiresome enough that it causes such campaigns to "usually end" might be engendered with a bit more longevity if rather than introducing a series of formulaic, set rewards, they require more effort to achieve a deeper immersion and satisfaction stemming from player driven goals. Those systematic, mechanical rewards are really just a veneer to keep players feeling as if they are satisfied in the moment, and don't really hook players for the longterm anyway.

 

[GreyICE]

Experience budgets will actually work better with flatter math, since you can assume that monsters lower or higher level won't gain flat bonuses or penalties that will severely change the encounter.

They also make it much easier to create things like elites and solos that are just more fun.

I can't imagine them actively going back to a system where it was assumed all CR 7 monsters were the same level of challenge, and you should throw the same number at the party no matter what.

And minions/standards/elites/solos are just FUN. Look at some of the epic encounters that have been made with them.

 

[FireLance]

The difference being that a system that doesn't have the treadmill built in can still be played in that manner while one that requires the treadmill is the one that forces a playstyle on the group. You can put the treadmill into a game that doesn't require it simply by handing our the rewards in the same manner as if the treadmill were there, but the system with the built-in treadmill actually requires huge adjustments for a game to be played without it.

Adjustments, yes. Huge, perhaps not. My rule of thumb for 4e is: a PC without a magic weapon/implement, armor and cloak can take on a monster of 80% his level (round up) without too much trouble. Alternatively, take the PC's level, divide it by 5 (round down) and that is how much lower the monster levels need to be (so if you have a 10th-level party without magic items, 8th-level monsters now present approximately a standard level of challenge).

Yeah, I know. Math is hard. Subtraction is hard. It's so much easier (as mentioned) to add item level to PC level so that it looks like the PCs are able to take on tougher challenges because of their improved gear.

 

[Connorsrpg]

It is all well and good to have these 'recommendations', but then they become more than that. they become default for one of the most important part of the game: modules/adventures.

In fact, I believe this is one of the reasons 4E Adventures were not well received: many slogs vs kobolds (and did anyone do the troll one?) of many fights all at around the correct challenge rating/XP budget and then a +3 level one (or however they worded it) for BB fight. Players could predict the 'level' of the encounter through metagaming - not based upon the description of the creatures they met!

Even worse - adventures were expected to follow these 'recommendations/guidelines' or your module/adventure would not be published. Thus over ALL of the 4E adventure modules and Dungeon articles how many total encounters would have been over 3 levels above the average party, or even worse, 2+ levels below. If it is not a 'fair' challenge it is not considered, though our home games were infinitely more interesting b/c the PCs could encounter creatures well above and below expected.

That is why I don't want a 'set standard' (as well as the reasons mentioned above) - just advice for GM.

 

[delericho]

The game should indeed provide guidance for the DM in assigning both monsters and treasure. However, it should also make it very clear (at least in the DMG, if not also in the PHB) that this is guidance and that the DM can disregard it if he wishes.

Plus, the published adventures should then apply that guidance, including the presence of "overwhelming" encounters if those are discussed. One of the worst mistakes in 3e came after "Forge of Fury", which included the infamous Roper encounter, after which there was a storm of protest at it being overpowered, and after which WotC never again included such an overwhelming encounter in their adventures.

As for which system to use...

The 3e Challenge Rating system was an improvement on what had gone before, but the 4e "XP Budget" and "Monster Roles" system is much better than that. Encounter design was one of the best features of the entire 4e system, and I would advocate that they should just keep that system more or less as-is, with the sole exception of adding a bit more discussion of how to use the system to develop quick-playing encounters, and perhaps some more on the 'proper' use of minions.

As for treasure...

To be honest, I would prefer the system to consider magic items an integral part of the character - that is, Stormbringer is basically a part of Elric's class, rather than just some magic item he has happened to pick up. The consequence of that is that if a player wants his character to have a particular item, he has to buy it with the same "character building points" that he uses to get feats, spells, whatever. (See "Mutants & Masterminds" for an example of what I mean.)

That way, any treasures a character finds during his adventures are considered to be "on loan" - the PC gets to use them for now, but he should expect to lose access to them at any future time... If he wants to keep the item, then next time he levels up he needs to invest enough to 'buy' it.

 

[Lanefan]

1, 5, 5, shrug.

For treasure: as long as magic items are somewhat fragile, giving them out at any level isn't nearly as much of an issue as it's a reasonable assumption they'll sooner or later get broken. Wealth-by-level need only be presented as the loosest of guidelines and ignored if desired.

For monsters: scaling everything to suit the party shatters believability if done too blatantly. If the math in 5e is as flat as the reports seem to indicate (or if there are a lot fewer levels) the issue somewhat goes away on its own as a DM can throw a wider range of monsters at the party without a TPK*.

* - TPK is really the only "fail" result - the other extreme, where an encounter is far too easy for the PCs, is not a problem.

Lan-"and sometimes, as with young Gryphons and the like, the monsters are the treasure"-efan

 

[delericho]

Incidentally, the rule of thumb should be "treasures should be awesome". Finding 1,000 gold pieces gives your character a boost, sure, but it's dull. And the 4e notion of "item wish lists" is likewise problematic - it's like Christmas when you know exactly what you're getting.

PCs should probably discover treasure less often, but when they find it they should probably find more at a time. Additionally, when they find treasure, the players should not know what they're getting, but when they do find out, their response should be "cool!"

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Incidentally, the rule of thumb should be "treasures should be awesome". Finding 1,000 gold pieces gives your character a boost, sure, but it's dull. And the 4e notion of "item wish lists" is likewise problematic - it's like Christmas when you know exactly what you're getting.

PCs should probably discover treasure less often, but when they find it they should probably find more at a time. Additionally, when they find treasure, the players should not know what they're getting, but when they do find out, their response should be "cool!"

I think that most monetary treasure should be physical objects of value - jewellery, art, etc. Give the faceman something to do in town, rather than just 'we sell it for X'. Those that have played Traveller know the joy of making a great deal with a merchant