Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)

[Dragonblade]

Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.

Nice! This reminds me a lot of Spycraft 2.0. It looks like the GM will decide the role he wants the monster to play in a battle, and that determines the appropriate modifiers.

I like this a lot.

 

[AllisterH]

If it does work like the spycraft method, I can see where the quote of "players will find every monster mysterious" comes from.

If monsters are a collection of special abilities added to a template, a player couldn't figure out easily what the stats for a monster would be.

It would also explain how each monster is classified into a certain role and how that is mechanically expressed.

Interesting.....this would make random monsters pretty easy and allow for DMs to use an ogre as a beastie from level 1-30 without even having to "level up" thus it be easier/quicker.

Raises other questions though. Spycraft doesn't really have "exotic" monsters so how would this template work for some like a illithid or a beholder?

 

[Kraydak]

Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.

The more I think about it, the more disappointed I become. Bleh.

The big problem in DnD monster design in 3ed, like previous editions, is in special abilites (be they ex, su, sla or spells). What the design blogs have been talking about is the easy stuff. The BaB. The hp. The AC. Those numbers are easy. You can have a lookup table, or a racial type HD progression. It doesn't matter. If you are boasting about getting them right, its pathetic. Its not like 3ed didn't get them right (the combat bruisers are well CRed).

The problem with the Type system in 3ed is that the HD aren't treated fully like class levels. Or rather, they are treated like NPC class levels: all empty. If you decided to *elaborate* on 3ed's Type treatement by making the Ex/SLA/SU abilities into D20 modern style talent trees, it would fix the problems. It would also make PCification of monsters easy (just use the normal multi-classing rules). It would make monster advancement easy. It would make monster cross-breeding easy. It would make monster *design* easy because the HARD stuff (the special abilities) would be built in. BaB? HP? AC? Saves? feh. If your system *doesn't* get them right, its time to retire.

(and if you want monsters that break the rules, well, that poses no difficulty. just be warned that balancing them will be far more difficult if possible at all. the 3ed Ogre Magi really *cannot* be well CRed)

 

[ThirdWizard]

The main difference seems to me:

In 3e, stat out a monster then figure out its CR.
In 4e, decide what CR* you want then stat the monster out.

It can obviously be more complicated than that, but it seems to be the general philosophy of what they want to accomplish.


*CR being Monster Level, XP, or similar 4e system

 

[DonTadow]

The more I think about it, the more disappointed I become. Bleh.

The big problem in DnD monster design in 3ed, like previous editions, is in special abilites (be they ex, su, sla or spells). What the design blogs have been talking about is the easy stuff. The BaB. The hp. The AC. Those numbers are easy. You can have a lookup table, or a racial type HD progression. It doesn't matter. If you are boasting about getting them right, its pathetic. Its not like 3ed didn't get them right (the combat bruisers are well CRed).

The problem with the Type system in 3ed is that the HD aren't treated fully like class levels. Or rather, they are treated like NPC class levels: all empty. If you decided to *elaborate* on 3ed's Type treatement by making the Ex/SLA/SU abilities into D20 modern style talent trees, it would fix the problems. It would also make PCification of monsters easy (just use the normal multi-classing rules). It would make monster advancement easy. It would make monster cross-breeding easy. It would make monster *design* easy because the HARD stuff (the special abilities) would be built in. BaB? HP? AC? Saves? feh. If your system *doesn't* get them right, its time to retire.

(and if you want monsters that break the rules, well, that poses no difficulty. just be warned that balancing them will be far more difficult if possible at all. the 3ed Ogre Magi really *cannot* be well CRed)

But the abilities would somehow have to match or balance typical PC ones.

You weaken your potential for monster design when you weaken it initially to try to accomodate something it was not intended to.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you decided to *elaborate* on 3ed's Type treatement by making the Ex/SLA/SU abilities into D20 modern style talent trees, it would fix the problems. It would also make PCification of monsters easy (just use the normal multi-classing rules). It would make monster advancement easy. It would make monster cross-breeding easy. It would make monster *design* easy because the HARD stuff (the special abilities) would be built in.

The worst kept secret of the Challenge Rating system is that PC classes are not CR = Level. It never worked. A Level 5 wizard opponent is not the same as a Level 5 rogue opponent. What you're proposing is ultimately doomed to a failure worse than either the 3e CR system or the 4e system.

 

[Creamsteak]

Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.

I thought some of it sounded a bit silly.

"fairness and fun"
"fair and fun"
"fair and fun"
"great results"
"easier and more fair"

FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND GREAT RESULTS AND EASIER AND MORE FAIR! DID I TELL YOU IT'S FUN? AND FAIR TOO!?!

 

[Mouseferatu]

The worst kept secret of the Challenge Rating system is that PC classes are not CR = Level. It never worked.

Especially given the fact that a PC and an NPC of the exact same class, race, and level would have many thousands-worth of GP difference in their equipment. That alone was enough to throw off the system. If a 6th-level PC was CR 6, then a 6th-level NPC couldn't be, and vice-versa.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions...

I was thinking this the other day and concluded that this is a desireable result of the 4e monster system (at least, given what I know of it ).

At the seminar I attended, Andy Collins said the assumed setting of 4e is "points of light in a dark world." It sounds like it'll be a world of fear - no powerful kingdom of goodness and light is around to bail out civilization, and no great and benevolent archmage will appear to save the day. Peasants and other hapless folk beset by savagery and unknown terrors, with only the PCs standing in the way. At a game mechanics level, this theme of isolation and the unknown is reinforced by making monsters mechanically distinct from PCs - players will never really know the capabilities of the horrors their characters face.

We can argue over whether or not we want D&D to be like this, but I think it's a welcome game mechanics change that moves the theme of D&D closer to it's pulpy, sword & sorcery roots (Conan, Lankhmar, Elric, etc.).

 

[Gentlegamer]

Boring and uninspiring... too much freedom is bad? It's better to want rules for monsters than to actually have them? Am I reading that right?

You'll have the rules for monsters. That is, monsters as monsters, not player characters.