Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6003813" data-attributes="member: 6688937">This kind of thing has been rumbling around in the back of my head lately. I'm coming to the idea that we need two, or possibly three different ways to build monsters.Firstly, I think there needs to be a distinction between &quot;classable&quot; monsters and &quot;critter&quot; monsters. I mean, we don't have too much trouble imagining a goblin NPC stacking on the same kinds of expertise and abilities that PCs do, but I have a lot of trepidation with the idea that I need to build a catoblepas in the same way just in case it picks up a few levels of bard.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm&nbsp; &nbsp; :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /> Then, there is the 3e problem of spending half and hour to make an NPC...to watch him die in 3 rounds or less.So, without further ado...Method I:&nbsp; For &quot;critters&quot;, basically do the 4e thing.Method II: For &quot;critters&quot; or &quot;classables&quot; Very much like 4e, but a little different. Start with a monster core (possibly with a &quot;racial&quot; bit), and then apply a &quot;theme&quot; to attain diversity. These monster Cores should follow the mathematical lines of &quot;roles&quot; in Method I.Method III: Strictly for &quot;classables&quot;. Start with a &quot;base&quot; level NPC (i.e. a plain goblin, orc, hill giant, etc.) and add levels of classes to reach the difficulty you need. Either Method should produce roughly equivalent combat strengths for roughly equivalent monsters, but they should have different levels of detail. So, for DM A, who needs a level 4 henchmen that he want to be a little memorable, he might create a Method II Orc Thug = Orc(4) &amp; Bruiser(theme). DM B, in the same spot, might use an Orc (2HD) + Barbarian(2). DM C, who is just using the Orc as filler, whips out a Soldier(4) with &quot;orcish&quot; trappings. All those monsters should be about the same effectiveness in combat, but with different levels of detail.As for whether any of the Method III monsters should appear in the MM. I would say &quot;no&quot;, but not very forcefully. I tend to think of customizing monsters at that level of detail as something that should appear in the DMG. I certainly want to consider them as more NPCs than monsters. If it does appear in the MM, it should be as examples. On the other hand, I can imagine a re-tasked MM, that includes less monsters, but more advice on building them and using them. I'm not saying I think that it would be best, but it could be done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6003813, member: 6688937"] This kind of thing has been rumbling around in the back of my head lately. I'm coming to the idea that we need two, or possibly three different ways to build monsters. Firstly, I think there needs to be a distinction between "classable" monsters and "critter" monsters. I mean, we don't have too much trouble imagining a goblin NPC stacking on the same kinds of expertise and abilities that PCs do, but I have a lot of trepidation with the idea that I need to build a catoblepas in the same way just in case it picks up a few levels of bard.:-S Then, there is the 3e problem of spending half and hour to make an NPC...to watch him die in 3 rounds or less. So, without further ado... [U]Method I:[/U] For "critters", basically do the 4e thing. [U]Method II:[/U] For "critters" or "classables" Very much like 4e, but a little different. Start with a monster core (possibly with a "racial" bit), and then apply a "theme" to attain diversity. These monster Cores should follow the mathematical lines of "roles" in Method I. [U]Method III:[/U] Strictly for "classables". Start with a "base" level NPC (i.e. a plain goblin, orc, hill giant, etc.) and add levels of classes to reach the difficulty you need. Either Method should produce roughly equivalent combat strengths for roughly equivalent monsters, but they should have different levels of detail. So, for DM A, who needs a level 4 henchmen that he want to be a little memorable, he might create a Method II Orc Thug = Orc(4) & Bruiser(theme). DM B, in the same spot, might use an Orc (2HD) + Barbarian(2). DM C, who is just using the Orc as filler, whips out a Soldier(4) with "orcish" trappings. All those monsters should be about the same effectiveness in combat, but with different levels of detail. As for whether any of the Method III monsters should appear in the MM. I would say "no", but not very forcefully. I tend to think of customizing monsters at that level of detail as something that should appear in the DMG. I certainly want to consider them as more NPCs than monsters. If it [I]does[/I] appear in the MM, it should be as examples. On the other hand, I can imagine a re-tasked MM, that includes less monsters, but more advice on building them and using them. I'm not saying I think that it would be best, but it could be done. [/QUOTE]

Verification