Am I missing something in monster design?

[DNH]

Given the new maths for monster design (ie post-MM3/Essentials), am I right in thinking that things have become a little ... flat? What I mean to say is this: take an 8th-level monster, a hulking thug of an oroc that attacks with a greatsword. As per the tables, he does ... 2d8+7 damage on a single target with an at-will attack. Now take a different 8th-level monster, a wily but weedy goblin with a dagger. As per the tables, he does ... 2d8+7 damage on a single target with an at-will attack. Hmm.

Or how about one single 8th-level monster. When he attacks with his longsword, he does 2d8+7 damage. When he fires off his crossbow, he does ... 2d8+7 damage.

Is that right?

Also, looking at some older (MM1) monsters, they have a varied range of values for their defences ("AC 27; Fortitude 25, Reflex 22, Will 23" is not unusual) but the new maths state "Level + 12" for all defences, with some monster roles receiving a bonus. The monster from whom the above defences was quoted (a Level 11 Soldier) would now be "AC 27; Fortitude 23, Reflex 23, Will 23".

Is that right too?

Like I say, maybe I am missing something. To be fair, *I* am not the one designing these monsters from scratch; I am merely updating some older monsters to use the new maths before I use them in my upcoming game. It may well be that there are further considerations that come into play in ground-up design and that an attempt to update like this is going to miss that.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dice4Hire]

If you go by averages and do damage only, yes, you are pretty much right.

But for the reedy guy, why not drop his damage to 2d4+5 and add a nasty condition, like immobilize, or such. Or add +2d6 damage when he has CA.

I am not expert on monster design. Those guys will show up soon, I imagine.

Monsters can be boring, I know I goof up encounters a lot and make them so, but with a bit of creativity, most monsters will be memorable.

 

[Kingreaper]

Given the new maths for monster design (ie post-MM3/Essentials), am I right in thinking that things have become a little ... flat?

Not really. The guidelines are flat, but that's because they're just guidelines.

What I mean to say is this: take an 8th-level monster, a hulking thug of an oroc that attacks with a greatsword.

Sounds like a Brute to me.

As per the tables, he does ... 2d8+7 damage on a single target with an at-will attack.

For brutes, the damage should be 25 percent
higher.

Guessing you missed that point?
So 3d10+4 would be my preference. But 2d10+9 could also work.

Now take a different 8th-level monster, a wily but weedy goblin with a dagger. As per the tables, he does ... 2d8+7 damage on a single target with an at-will attack. Hmm.

That's only if you're keeping things simple. He could do 3d4+9, or 2d4+7 and an additional 2d6 with CA, or any number of other things that amount to the same average.

Or how about one single 8th-level monster. When he attacks with his longsword, he does 2d8+7 damage. When he fires off his crossbow, he does ... 2d8+7 damage.

Is that right?

Only if you can't be bothered to customise it at all.

If so, yes. If you customise, you might decide the monster only has a pathetic melee attack (especially for artillery, this is a good idea) but a better than average ranged one.

Also, looking at some older (MM1) monsters, they have a varied range of values for their defences ("AC 27; Fortitude 25, Reflex 22, Will 23" is not unusual) but the new maths state "Level + 12" for all defences, with some monster roles receiving a bonus. The monster from whom the above defences was quoted (a Level 11 Soldier) would now be "AC 27; Fortitude 23, Reflex 23, Will 23".

The advice from the DMG (increase one NAD, but drop another to compensate) still applies. It's giving you the averages, not the final values. How could it give you the final values? That's customisation.

Any thoughts?

You're looking at the simplified rules, without the extra bits which say "Then tweak it, like so" and assuming that's all there is to it. The tweaking is very important; but it can't be put in the table because it wouldn't make any sense there.


EDIT: In other words, what you're missing in monster design is, mostly, the fact that it involves design. The tables can't do it for you, unless you want a bland, flat, monster. And they never have been able to do it for you. The tables are a starting point; from that starting point you use your own thoughts to create an interesting monster.

 

[DNH]

Good reply, Kingreaper; thanks. First off, I didn't actually intend that first monster (an oroc, what's that? a cross between an orc and an orog?!) to be a Brute in mechanical terms, but that's largely by-the-by.

Okay, let me rephrase the question then. Given that I have a length campaign set up that uses older adventures (and therefore older monsters), how can I ensure that the encounters in them are up-to-date and challenging? I was literally going through them all to update the numbers in the monsters (I use a VTT - FG2 - so this is actually less of a problem than you might think, but it's still a long process). But what you're suggesting here, really, is that while I *could* do that, I would really need to tweak these monsters (re-design them, essentially) or else, yes, they will end up bland and flat.

 

[Derulbaskul]

For your goblin example, how I handle it would depend on what role the goblin played.

Firstly, average damage for an 8th-level monster is 16 points (L+8). The lower average damage would be 12 points and higher average damage would be 20 points (-25%/+25%, respectively).

How I would handle the damage would depend on the goblin's role:

- if artillery, then its main ranged basic attack would deal 16 points of damage (or, more likely for monsters I design, two attacks that cause an average 20 points of damage in total [eg, two sling bullets for average of 10 points each so probably 2d4+5]) but its melee basic attack would deal an average of only 12 points of damage.

- if a controller, then I would be working off 12 points but having "control riders".

- if a lurker I would be aiming for a total of 20 points of average damage but that would probably include +2d6 (average 7) for combat advantage.

- if a skirmisher, I would be aiming for a double attack with a shift in between doing total average damage of 16 points (so two daggers for 8 each, or 2d4+3).

Anyway, just a few ideas for you.

As for defences, I think they can also vary if the "controlling" ability score is higher or lower than the average expected for that level. If you have the offline monster builder this part of it still works very well.

 

[Kingreaper]

But what you're suggesting here, really, is that while I *could* do that, I would really need to tweak these monsters (re-design them, essentially) or else, yes, they will end up bland and flat.

Do you have access to the old monster guidlines?

If so, what I would recommend is to compare the monsters to the old guidelines. See how the monsters differ from those guidelines (these differences are the "tweaks") and then apply those tweaks to the new guidelines.

All the design work of tweaking has already been done for those monsters, but it was done from the wrong basis. So apply that design work to the new guidelines, and it should work.

For an example: if the old guidelines were, say, 1d8+9 damage, and a monster actually dealt 1d10+10 damage, that monster is dealing 2 extra damage. So, apply the new guideline (2d8+7) and add 2, or even 3, extra damage to it.

 

[Jhaelen]

Okay, let me rephrase the question then. Given that I have a length campaign set up that uses older adventures (and therefore older monsters), how can I ensure that the encounters in them are up-to-date and challenging? I was literally going through them all to update the numbers in the monsters.

That's what I did:
I first checked in which range the original numbers were, then I used the respective values from the new rules. This means, monsters keep their individual flavour, e.g. hobgoblins end up having better than average AC but deal lower than average damage to compensate.

It's not really difficult, either. It took me about an hour to update every encounter in one of WotC's modules. Replacing all of the treasure for stuff that was interesting for my PCs required more work!

 

[the-golem]

Doesn't damage still vary by role?

I'd imagine the first, a hulking brute of an orc, is well... a brute.
The goblin, I think, would be a skirmisher. IMO, his damage should be different. Of course, I don't really know how everything works with the new rules, so I could be talking outta my rear.

EDIT: This is what happens when you don't hit refresh. You come off from being the second answer, to being the slow guy. Sheesh. So ignore everything I said, and listen to Kingreaper ;D

 

[S'mon]

I take the target damage (L+8, usually) but how I get there will depend on the monster. If it has a weapon, I'll aim to use the weapon's normal damage die & any SFX such as high crit or brutal, factoring those in to the target damage along with limited powers etc.

So, for target L8 = 16 damage:

If I'm statting a huge hulking (but non-brute) L8 orc I'll likely give him a great axe, 1d12+9 would work, 1d12+21 on a crit. Rounding the 0.5 down here for high-crit.

For the dagger-wielding weedy goblin I'd definitely make him a skirmisher or lurker type and give a Thief's Trick or two so he usually has Combat Advantage, with Sneak Attack +2d6 and if a Lurker he'll get a rechargeble Backstab too. For his 'regular' sneak attack, 1d4+2d6+7 looks right, rounding the 0.5 up as he may not always have CA.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just a reminder:

don´t assign brute status to goblins. At least not usually. Goblins tend to be skirmishers by design. Add in a soldier, and you never have to worry, that your goblin does as much damage as your average orog (who is a soldier or a brute some level higher or of elite status)