Any word yet on what's happening to monsters?

[Shade]

I'll write flavor if someone else does the numbers

I'll be happy to contribute to both.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It made for a more consistent game, sure, but also a far slower and more difficult one for the DM. I much prefer to have PCs and Monsters follow seperate rules. Monsters should be designed to challenge the PCs and be easy to run and advance or modify on the fly. PCs should be designed to be worth the player's full attention, with a horde of options and a fair degree of book-keeping. Totally different purposes, totally different requirements. Trying to shoehorn monsters into the PC's rules make the monsters less usable which is a far too high a cost.

After thinking about it: I think it's the right direction. Monsters are no PCs, and in fact, I've learned, that whenever run monsters, I only use a handful of their stats.

While being consistent is a thing of kind of design-aesthetic, it serves no end in its own right, so... away with it, if it makes my life as DM easier!

It just... itches in me to abandon such a principle, because it sounds good - but the execution often isn't.

Yeah, realizing that the one opinion was just geekery hurts, but sometimes personal sacred cows have to go the way of the hamburger!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Aloïsius]

After thinking about it: I think it's the right direction. Monsters are no PCs, and in fact, I've learned, that whenever run monsters, I only use a handful of their stats.

This is the question : what will a monster statblock be ?
* Hit dice ? probably. Hit dice : certainly.
* ability scores ? without them, it's impossible for PC to use ability damaging effects against monsters
* saves/defense : certainly
* offense/attack : certainly
* skills ? At least, those who can be used in combat (concentration, bluff, sense motive, detection...)
* feats ? Will monsters have feats ? probably, because a giant mus have power attack and cleave
* special ability, special attack : certainly
* face-reach : certainly

I don't think there could be less in 4e. But this is nearly what we have in 3.5, so...

 

[AllisterH]

This is the question : what will a monster statblock be ?
* Hit dice ? probably. Hit dice : certainly.
* ability scores ? without them, it's impossible for PC to use ability damaging effects against monsters
* saves/defense : certainly
* offense/attack : certainly
* skills ? At least, those who can be used in combat (concentration, bluff, sense motive, detection...)
* feats ? Will monsters have feats ? probably, because a giant mus have power attack and cleave
* special ability, special attack : certainly
* face-reach : certainly

I don't think there could be less in 4e. But this is nearly what we have in 3.5, so...

That's the thing I always wondered about. When people said that statblocks were too complicated/too much I was wondering what they could lose and still have a full monster. The only thing I can see being eliminated from the statblock are non-combat skills and even there, most monsters already didn't bother statting those out.

re: Mouseferatu's blog has another interesting point. The seminar mentions that it would be harder to metagame the monster for the PC and it would be easier for DMs to run.

I'm thinking we might lose the type line. Trying to build a high level monster for an encounter was really hard based on trying to remember the type.

 

[Shade]

I may have overreacted on the beholder. The pic I looked at was difficult to see the 9th and 10th eyestalks, but I've since been pointed to screenshots from the presentations which clearly show 10 eyestalks.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled 4e speculation...

 

[Scribble]

I think you're close. Here's my hypothesis:

All monsters will be built like PC races, with racial abilities that increase with class levels.
Monsters will take NPC classes like Warrior, Expert and Adept (if those are still around, or something similar), or PC classes. Types like "Monstrous Humanoid" and "Undead" will describe traits and abilities rather than HD, attacks and saves.
An "Ogre Brute" will be an Ogre Warrior of whatever particular level you'd like him to be, and an "Ogre Shaman" will be an Ogre Adept, with all the abilities that come along with their class. An Ogre Berserker will have Barbarian levels. There's no such thing as just an Ogre.

I like this idea because it uses the exact same mechanics that character creation does, and it allows all monsters to be used at all levels of play. I'd expect to see fewer monsters in the MM because they'll need to devote more space to the stats, but at the same time you'll have a lot more flexibility in choosing what you want. You'll be able to look for monsters that are appropriate and interesting instead of monsters with the right CR.

Eh... Not sure Ia gree with this... They've already said the stats are going to be much smaller, with multiple monsters (sometimes) to a page...

Also add to that the fact that they said, some monsters will be relatively "easy" to figure out how to use as a playable race, but there will be an explansion of how to use others later on down the line.. 4e version of the humanoids handbook/savage species...

My guess is less will really depend on the stat block. They'll simply have different options you can choose at different "levels" of the monster.

Maybe something like:

Stuff like HD and Saves and BAB will be level Dependant.

There will be options that a monster can take based on what level it is. The higher the level, the more powerful the option.

 

[jgbrowning]

And I'm all for it. Why?

{snip...}

And frankly, anything that cuts down the complexity of stat blocks is a good thing.

I agree with the distinguished undead rodent.

I'm interested in how monsters will be treated under the new rules.

joe b.

 

[Scribble]

Also to add to the above, they've also said a monster's "role" will be important as well..

So a lot of the abilities they can choose from will probably be based on this idea...

Like maybe the ones deemed Masterminds will have a list of abilities strickly for reinforcing the monsters they mastermind...

So maybe a Mastermind orc will have Inspire Hate... or something that when used, will give all of the "mobster" Orcs under it a bonus to hit/damage...

Bringing about the idea that all monsters will work "as a group" rather then monster for monster...

 

[Mercule]

Snipped from Mearl's blog

Wow. That's possibly the most depressing thing I've read about 4E, yet.

It seems like Mearls is great at designing something according to stated goals. Unfortunately, I disagree with pretty much every goal I've heard him ever state.

 

[Scribble]

I'm guessing Monster Manual 5 is probably a close preview as to their mindset for 4e...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a

I'm thinking 4e Monsters will be developed in the same way...

Mooks work well with mooks, Masterminds get power/give power to mooks...

Monsters have a smaller number of abilities in favor of what the designers feel are more useable in combat abilities...