The Devil's in the Details: Slavicsek reveals the Pit Fiend in all its glory

Rechan said:

Yes, REALLY.

Mearls has said that monsters Can Take Class Levels because, and I quote, "That's just too fun not to do."

Click to expand...

helium3 said:

Where did he say that? I guess there's a new design and development article that I need to read. Is it in there?

Click to expand...

Rallek said:

All in my opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

frankthedm said:

IIRC he said it a while back. It might of been a podcast or a board post, but Mearls has mentioned that already.

Click to expand...

helium3 said:

Where did he say that? I guess there's a new design and development article that I need to read. Is it in there?

Click to expand...

"We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).

Third edition gives the illusion of fairness by giving you formulas to rely on, but you can use all the formulas perfectly and easily end up with an unfair or unfun monster. Advancing monsters by hit dice is a great example. Depending on its type and ability scores, the CR raise you give it according to the formulas might work out okay, but just as often the monster ends up too tough for its CR or too weak.

CR is often just a shot in the dark. We usually get it right, but I'm betting you can think of some critters that are way out of their weight class.

For each level of play we're devising a range of numbers for monsters that provide fairness and fun. Those numbers are based on what the PCs bring to the fight in terms of their potency and defenses, and upon the general role in the fight a monster is likely to be in.

Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."

Click to expand...

Rallek said:

So to recap;
Designers saying one particular thing amongst many being presented is "cool" = acceptable AND potentially useful.
Designers saying everything is "cool" = assumed and therefore redundant.
Designers saying everything is "cool" multiple times = just plain weak


All in my opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."

Click to expand...