An Open Letter: 'Missing the Mark: Mike Mearls’s ‘Revised’ Ogre Mage'

[Henry]

In another nutshell...

Mark me down as one who hasn't liked either the "re-thunk" Rust Monster and Ogre Mage; however, mechanically, I LIKE the Ogre Mage; he's a sweet design (much like someone appreciates a customized car, it's elegant and does its job). I preferred the old Ogre Mage (meaning the OLD ogre mage) because both that eclectic mix of powers and damnably frustrating polymorphing, charming, etc. used to vex my players to no end, which was fun for them.

However, leave my phantom fungus alone! It was the only CR 2 monster that I ever saw that almost caused the deaths of an entire 4th level group by itself, and taught a group of players, singlehandedly, to value the "see invisibility" spell. The first time I brought out 3.0 Darkmantles, it did the same thing with them and Daylight spells. I have to go with the "flavor is subjective" crowd, because half of the new monsters Rounser mentioned I've kinda liked.

 

[Presto2112]

In the end I feel that providing flavour is to a large extent the job of the GM. And every GM is using each tool in the game a little differently. So there is little point for the designers to focus on "good flovour" because that means something else for each group. Good mechanics are much more universal. And the old Ogre Mage never had good mechanics.

QFT.

In fact, in the game I've been playing, my GM has gone so far as to throw out long standing superb flavour for some of his own, and for his and our purposes, it works. The Blood Wars? Never happened. In fact, Demons and Devils all strive for the same goals, if by differing means.

 

[sjmiller]

Sorry SJMiller, I just got tired of reading the same old nag being whacked yet again with a stick. My bad. With that in mind, if you don't object, I'd like to go point by point through your letter.

That's okay, I know how heated online discussions can get. Been there, done that.

When the ogre mage was updated from 2nd edition AD&D to 3rd Edition D&D I believe the ball was dropped. The effects of many of the spells and spell-like abilities changed, often for the worse. This was the time to boost them, but that wasn’t done. Redesigning the ogre mage now shouldn’t involve reinventing it, or changing the focus. The creature had a focus before 3rd edition. Just because the focus was lost in the conversion doesn’t mean you have to take the creature in a new direction.

Now this is something I really disagree with. We should not be making exceptions for abilities for monsters. This runs counter to 3e mechanics. Breaking rules so that a particular creature can retain its former glory is not a good design idea IMO. The spells that were changed were done so because they were very overpowered in earlier editions. Charm person was an extremely powerful spell and far more powerful than a 1st level spell should have been. OTOH, this again is something ofa separate issue. If you think that older versions of the spells were not unbalanced, then you are not going to think that a creature affected by those changes is a good thing.

What I was thinking of here is that since they now include spells like Deep Slumber and Suggestion, Mass, and other spells like them, that those spells could have been used instead of using Sleep, Charm Person, and so on. After all, if this is to be a CR8 creature, or even a CR5 creature, the low level spells are not as helpful. Sorry if I implied that there should be exceptions and rules broken. That way leads to madness.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Now this is something I really disagree with. We should not be making exceptions for abilities for monsters. This runs counter to 3e mechanics. Breaking rules so that a particular creature can retain its former glory is not a good design idea IMO.

Rules are for players. Giving critters abilities that are unobtainable by PCs is not a bad idea; on the contrary, it's a very good idea. Consistent monster design mechanics (as opposed to play mechanics -- everything should follow the basic gameplay rules of d20+mod>target, etc) is the hobgoblin of little minds. If it becomes desireable that a monster have an extra feat to achieve a desired effect, or bypass a prereq, have a higher DC, whatever, then it should be done.

 

[Umbran]

Rules are for players. Giving critters abilities that are unobtainable by PCs is not a bad idea; on the contrary, it's a very good idea. Consistent monster design mechanics (as opposed to play mechanics -- everything should follow the basic gameplay rules of d20+mod>target, etc) is the hobgoblin of little minds. If it becomes desireable that a monster have an extra feat to achieve a desired effect, or bypass a prereq, have a higher DC, whatever, then it should be done.

On the level of an individual DM with a homebrew, sure. But it is not particularly good design for large-scale publication and adoption. Consistency is frequently a strength - if there are lots of exceptions it becomes extremely difficult to tweak, convert, or repurpose a critter, or to even simply guess how it'll interact with your party, in particular.

 

[Harlekin]

I actually would not have a problem with them creating an ogre with sorcerer class levels. It's not an ogre mage, and it's not pretending to be an ogre mage. I guess my point is that if you want to take a creature from a previous edition and bring it into the current edition, why make massive changes to it and make it into something it never was? If you are going to do that, why not just give it a new name and be done with it?

I hope you would agree that the new Ogre Mage and the new Rust Monster still are roughly the same creature as before, so keeping the name has some merrit (compatability to older editions, and you don't have to invent new flavour). If you for example compare how dragons were changed between editions, you will notice much bigger differences than between OM3.5 and OM3.6. Still they kept the same names, colours etc.

Furthermore, the OM and some other monsters were badly designed in any edition; he was always either free XP or a TPK. Before the codifying in CRs it just wasn't as obvious as it is in 3.5.

In the end , one of the strengths of 3.5 is that we have a more structured way of looking at the rules aspect of critters, which allows identifying problematic aspects and redisign them.

 

[Melan]

Furthermore, the OM and some other monsters were badly designed in any edition; he was always either free XP or a TPK. Before the codifying in CRs it just wasn't as obvious as it is in 3.5.

In the end , one of the strengths of 3.5 is that we have a more structured way of looking at the rules aspect of critters, which allows identifying problematic aspects and redisign them.

Strange that fans throughout X editions noticed this "bad design" so rarely. Would you please point us to any substantial Dragon Magazine debate (in the Forum or even the letters section) about how the ogre mage is "badly designed"? Come to think about it, the same would be pretty nice for rust monsters also...

 

[dagger]

I agree with most everyting the O.P. wrote, but this in particular.

My gaming group after almost 6 years of 3e agress, and has left 3rd behind in the last month.

 

[Harlekin]

That's okay, I know how heated online discussions can get. Been there, done that.





What I was thinking of here is that since they now include spells like Deep Slumber and Suggestion, Mass, and other spells like them, that those spells could have been used instead of using Sleep, Charm Person, and so on. After all, if this is to be a CR8 creature, or even a CR5 creature, the low level spells are not as helpful. Sorry if I implied that there should be exceptions and rules broken. That way leads to madness.

I think we all agree that upping its power would have been an other option to update the OM, but to keep it at its CR it would also have required a much higher number of HP better AC and more effective melee attacks, or it would still have been a paper tiger.

I think it works better at the lower CR, because there are already good Mastermind monsters at CR 8, while at CR 5 ,there is little else that is interesting. Furthermore, an OM, that is mostly defined as someone who messes with your mind is very similar to two CR 8 Masterminds, the Mindflayer and the Vampire. Mearl's OM does something few other creatures in the MM do; he is a smart skirmisher that can come out of nowhere, be dangerous without being overwhelming and if in mortal danger can almost always get away to fight another day. Used correctly the party will learn to hate him pretty fast.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Strange that fans throughout X editions noticed this "bad design" so rarely. Would you please point us to any substantial Dragon Magazine debate (in the Forum or even the letters section) about how the ogre mage is "badly designed"? Come to think about it, the same would be pretty nice for rust monsters also...

I think the oft-noted exodus from 2E would be proof enough of design flaws for you. I don't think the deserters were sending in their letters to Dragon. They were probably buying stuff like GURPS and Rolemaster.

For 1E, I dunno. That was before my time.