3.5 breakdown at high levels?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The average monster is just a bunch of stats. The specific fluff gives it a distinct feel and look. So, it's entirely possible to just grab a bunch of random monsters, and change the look and fluff to what theme you have in mind. A crystall spider, for example, could start as some vrock. The vrock's dance would be changed in description to some crystal web vibration effect, special attacks get a crystal/poison/web look, and so on.

That's not ignoring the system, that's using the system.

Assuming that you find monsters in the level range in question that are suited for reflavoring. I don't know exactly anymore, but I think Vrocks for example would be too high level.

And the finding thing is yet another problem. It works fine if you remember a monster that could work, but if you are skimming through your MMs just to find a monster that might have abilities that can be reflavored, you still spend a lot of time. Especially considering that its not enough to just skim the flavor text - you have to read through the stat block and see if it suits your need.

I just don't work like that. I haven't memorized the contents of the MM (I might know what a monster can do if I see it, but I don't have a mental of index "monster with breath weapons" or "monsters with effects that could be crystalline or web flavored").

 

[Fenes]

I don't have the MM memorized, nor specific monsters (other than those I have recently used). I can just flip until I get a CR that looks ok, then check the stat block quickly. Changing the fluff is done in no time at all. I also don't sweat the details when I adjust the monster. Breath weapon or SA, who cares? Either can be changed to a "web effect", for example.

It's even easier if I have a template (like "Spider flavor") I can simply plop on the monster in question, in exchange for say dropping some stuff I don't like from the stat block.

The trick is to make sure one uses just as much as one needs, not all one could use. One can always assume missing skill points, feats or pwoers are used for flavor choices that don't apply in combat - most monsters won't live long enough to use all their combat powers anyway.

Another option that works well is taking a harder monster, and reducing its powers and resistances. Especially with "brutes", this works very well since one can relatively easily gauge damage output and ACs of party and monster.

Maybe it's the time I spent playing MMOGs, but for me, all monsters are just stats with different skins on them, so modifying/changing them is logical for me.

 

[neceros]

Perhaps I am different, but I've no trouble making stuff up on the fly. I routinely add special abilities and flavor to the monsters without seeking to perfect them. It's just not feasible, and while it's amiable to want to change the system for the better, or find one that is easier to manage in this method, it's easy to design your own monsters.

You've no need to make things perfect before hand. If you like to do that, than no issue to be had: That's the way that's preferable to you. If you don't like being forced to design everything: Dont.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't have the MM memorized, nor specific monsters (other than those I have recently used). I can just flip until I get a CR that looks ok, then check the stat block quickly. Changing the fluff is done in no time at all. I also don't sweat the details when I adjust the monster. Breath weapon or SA, who cares? Either can be changed to a "web effect", for example.

It's even easier if I have a template (like "Spider flavor") I can simply plop on the monster in question, in exchange for say dropping some stuff I don't like from the stat block.

If I have that template, yes. But this means I am creating a template and applying it to my monsters - for each session I run? Usually I don't run the same theme twice.

The trick is to make sure one uses just as much as one needs, not all one could use. One can always assume missing skill points, feats or pwoers are used for flavor choices that don't apply in combat - most monsters won't live long enough to use all their combat powers anyway.

Another option that works well is taking a harder monster, and reducing its powers and resistances. Especially with "brutes", this works very well since one can relatively easily gauge damage output and ACs of party and monster.

I don't know th damage output and ACs of my party. That would require that I kept a copy of their stats with me (that is to be updated every level, which means every 1-2 sessions in my group) - and also require me to identify the "typical buffs" active for the party.
I'd prefer if the system would automatically tell me what ranges to expect, not experience or by running mock combats.

I enjoy building new monsters, even in 3E, but the problem is usually that I end up spending too much time on it, and other stuff suffers from it.

....

Er, okay. That's getting a slightly too off-topic, I think. We're taking about the system breaking down, and I think that was not primarily about the design time spend for adventures.

 

[Mercule]

Moving from a random task, let's look at some I've actually faced. The primary antagonists IMC are is an empire that slants extremely strong on the psionics. Set up the two following scenarios:

1) An advanced group has made contact with several local orc tribes and mobilized them. Craft a command group consisting of only human and elan classed NPCs, minimum four. Properly equip them, and make them an appropriate boss encounter for a five PC group of 15th level characters. Include at least one psion and one other psi-flavored character. For extra credit, add in "lair" guards comprised of either the human/elan mix (emphasizing the psionics, again) or elite orcs. Nothing more monstrous than orcs is permitted, for flavor reasons.

2) Create a competing group racing for the same relic. This group is gnollish and classed, with at least one binder (flavor -- gnoll are the ultimate scavengers, even where divine power is concerned) and one ranger. Ranger pets are permitted, but the encounter has to be weighted toward classed foes. Properly equip and scale to the same party as above.

 

[Fenes]

If I have that template, yes. But this means I am creating a template and applying it to my monsters - for each session I run? Usually I don't run the same theme twice.

As I laid out in my "How to make the most of your prep time" link in my sig, one can reuse just about everything sometime in the future. It's not needed to recreate everything each session.

I don't know th damage output and ACs of my party. That would require that I kept a copy of their stats with me (that is to be updated every level, which means every 1-2 sessions in my group) - and also require me to identify the "typical buffs" active for the party.
I'd prefer if the system would automatically tell me what ranges to expect, not experience or by running mock combats.

Being familiar with the party's abilities is the very foundation for adventure design for me. Also, it's not much work to have the players write down their typical attack, damage and AC/save values (meaning, with their standard buffs in a fight). It also helps speed things along in game if the players have that prewritten, and don't need to recalculate it each combat. And it's really not much of a chore to simply update the sheet at the same time the players update their own sheets.

I also do not believe anything but experience and knowledge will adequately tell you what ranges you can expect of your party.

Er, okay. That's getting a slightly too off-topic, I think. We're taking about the system breaking down, and I think that was not primarily about the design time spend for adventures.

That's part of the system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I also do not believe anything but experience and knowledge will adequately tell you what ranges you can expect of your party.

I believe a good system will predict the mathematical expectations for me, and I only have to deal with the attitude of my players and their personal preferences.

That's part of the system.

Still, discussing "these are Mustrums problems of creating monsters for high level D&D, and how others suggest fixing them" seems awfully specific.

 

[Hussar]

If you chose to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

You can use NPCs as adversaries without using wacky obscure rules that you're not intimately familiar with. Aside from spellcasters, NPCs are only as complex as you, the DM, choose to make them.

How long would it take you to work out a CR 17 dragon? That's not obscure, that's core. Even purely core, that dragon's going to take a while to do.

Look, you're right, it can be done. You can gloss over the details, do as Fenes suggests and either fudge it or get it "close enough". But, at the end of the day, that's NOT using the rules. That's ignoring the rules because the rules say that you should be designing your monsters down to the last skill point.

Again, ignoring the rules is not a strength of a ruleset, it's a weakness. If the ruleset was suited for what I wanted to do, I wouldn't have to ignore it in the first place.

 

[Obryn]

The average monster is just a bunch of stats. The specific fluff gives it a distinct feel and look. So, it's entirely possible to just grab a bunch of random monsters, and change the look and fluff to what theme you have in mind. A crystall spider, for example, could start as some vrock. The vrock's dance would be changed in description to some crystal web vibration effect, special attacks get a crystal/poison/web look, and so on.

That's not ignoring the system, that's using the system.

It's hilarious that this exact methodology was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth when folks were discussing the missing monsters in the 4e MM.

-O

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's hilarious that this exact methodology was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth when folks were discussing the missing monsters in the 4e MM.

-O

Equally hilarious are folks who hail, "YOU CAN WING IT!" as proof of the evolutionary design genius of 4e.