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

[JoeGKushner]

Cough, cough... Ahem!

You are a bad man.

In A good way.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I'm not trying to sund stupid here, but doesn't the Monster Manual 'build' them? Isn't the real problem the 'customization' aspect?

Yes and no. Running monsters in play is simpler when the monster's abilities are more tersely defined. So there is an element to abbreviated NPC/monster design that functions in play as well as at the build stage.

Sounds like they'll be going the Everquest rotue where instead of making levels and what not they'll just be different monsters.

Possibly, but not necessarily. It is potentially easier to rack a monster up or down if the stat block is built on slimmer lines.

 

[Knightfall]

Not in my games. Feats make many of the monsters in my experience. Things like Large and in Charge, Empower Supernatural Ability, Adroit Flyby Attack, Rending Constriction...all these have made for memorable encounters.

I really pray that monsters continue to gain feats, and that the flexibility to modify monsters via template and increased Hit Dice remain. I'd much rather run an advanced existing monster than a baseline higher-CR creature (flavor notwithstanding). I just really groove on the flexibility.

I agree with you 100% on this one Shade.

Adding different feat arrays to monsters gives me a great way to make beholder A different from beholder B. This change in design has me a little concerned because it sounds like monsters are going back to being like they were in 1E and 2E.

It sounds like they won't have feats, skills, or even ability scores. After all, if their special abilties aren't based on HD or ability scores then why would the designers include those elements? This, if true, is a mistake, IMO.

To me, it seems like the designers are taking this step backwards because they don't want to have to worry about getting the monsters "bulletproofed" before going to print. We won't know if the stat blocks have errors in them unless WotC tells us there are errors. (Unless something is so glaringly wrong that they simply can't deny it.)

It "smacks" of lazy design, instead of trying to simplify the design process. I'm all for simplifying the design of monsters, but there should be a better way to do it than handcuffing DMs who want to create their own monsters.

That was one of the major problems of 2nd Edition. Many fans didn't know how TSR came up with new monsters, as there wasn't a "detailed" blueprint that everyone could use. This was one of the greatest innovations of 3rd Edition, and the thought of throwing it away makes me sick.

It sounds like WotC wants to keep the 4^E monster design blueprint "in-house". That would be a Huge mistake! Once they start down that road, it will lead the gaming community back into the Dark Ages of mistrust and legal action that was the 1990s. Sure the new SRD will have the monsters in it, but if there isn't a blueprint then it makes that part of the SRD useless.

I might be overreacting, but the more I read about how the game is changing, the more it pisses me off. Yes, many things needed fixing but how monsters are built wasn't one of them. Simplified, yes. Totally revamped to make every monster design in 3E obsolete, no!

Just my 2 cents,

Knightfall1972

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I suspect NPC classes will go the way of the dodo in Fourth Edition, at least in their current form as "fully-realised but not PC-quality classes".

 

[JoeGKushner]

This may sound strange, but as a GM, it doesn't piss me off. Heck, easier to use monsters is all good.

It's just thinking about the dsign that makes me scratch the old head.

 

[Gentlegamer]

[The second part of your post is a response to me, not Glyfair]

Why should that be the first consideration?

Why should using monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons be the first consideration of monsters in the D&D Monster Manual?

If D&D is to be "highly specific D&D fantasy set in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk with very tight setting-based restrictions on PCs" - then it's no longer a game I'm interested in. It will almost certainly be better designed than AD&D, and more to my tastes mechanically than Castles and Crusades, but from a flavor perspective I might as well be playing those games.

I tried not to bring it to this, but this seems to mean you aren't really interested in playing D&D. You mention Shadowrun, World of Darkness . . . wouldn't you rather use those game systems and the flavor they contain?

3.5 has a lot of problems, but, as the wealth of d20 games attests, its moddability was one of its greatests strengths.

I think the implication in this discussion that originated with Mearls's quote is that this moddability has hindered the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. That is, the moddability in this area isn't the strength it seemed to be.

It's currently the only version of D&D I would consider playing, because it's the only version that can handle the kind of settings and playstyles I'm interested in without houserules sufficient to be a system unto themselves.

It's the only version of D&D you would consider playing because it's the only version that can handle settings and playstyles that originated in other role-playing games?

Like I said, I think the "all things to all people" concept has encumbered many of the core things about Dungeons & Dragons in 3e. I think this is exactly what Mearls is addressing.

You bolded my suggestions of Final Fantasy, World of Darkness and Shadowrun - yet Final Fantasy could be run reasonably well, though not perfectly, with humans as the only playable race, and Shadowrun is fairly close to D&D in its PC racial choices (trolls being the big question mark).

Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer, all of which are D&D settings, present considerably more problems.

In the past incarnations of those settings (none of which originated with 3e), rules for expanded player character races were included. If a setting is to use "monsters as PCs," there ought to be more work done than just pulling stats out of the Monster Manual. In those specific cases, you as a DM need do no work because the authors of the setting have done it during the setting design phase.

Why should each monster in the Monster Manual be encumbered because some DM, someplace, sometime, might want to use a monsters as a PC race?

Mearls is citing the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. The design side of the game is going to be taking this as its central premise which ought to make monsters in D&D even better.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that

1) They're simplified from 3E, and

2) They don't work the same way as PCs.

That's it. Done deal. The notion that the above somehow translates into "random abilities thrown together" or "built without any sort of guidelines, rules, or blueprints" is both reactionary and silly, I think.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.

Oh, a depressed guy like Mouseferatu! Of course! It all makes sense now. (I guess I'll never be his friend now? )

But no, seriously, in terms of spellcasting, Elric would be a conjurer no? And a fighter with a dang powerful sword.

Honestly, I don't think he's modelled accurately by being a Conjurer/Fighter using 3e-as-is. There's a bunch of things that the game adds to being a Conjurer that aren't true of Elric. And I don't like specialist wizards in the first place.

(Best specialist wizard in 3.5e? The 3.5e Bard - it's a combination enchanter/illusionist).

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that

1) They're simplified from 3E, and

2) They don't work the same way as PCs.

That's it. Done deal. The notion that the above somehow translates into "random abilities thrown together" or "built without any sort of guidelines, rules, or blueprints" is both reactionary and silly, I think.

I played a lot of 1st and 2nd edition and if that wasn't how they were put together then in their 'simplier' days I'm a three eyed monkey. And I sir, am no three eyed monkey!

No admidetly they may not be going that rotue but I suspect the path of least resistance. I'll be curious to see more information as it becomes available.

But even if there are rules for advancement and what not, it's not the core of my arguement. My arguement is that people play games like Hero, M&M, BESM, GURPS, etc... where rules are rules, regardless of player or NPC status (because a monster is just a specialized NPC no) and that going away from that is going the wrong way. Making the game engine easier to use so that things like ECL and Level Adjustment work would be the way to go.

 

[MerricB]

Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that

1) They're simplified from 3E, and

2) They don't work the same way as PCs.

That's it. Done deal. The notion that the above somehow translates into "random abilities thrown together" or "built without any sort of guidelines, rules, or blueprints" is both reactionary and silly, I think.

Oh, definitely.

One thing I got from one of the interviews is that they really want to make monsters easier for the DM to use (which is why I bring up Awesome Blow... it's one of those shorthand abilities that I always forget about at the table). They've also said that they want monsters to be more distinct, and they'll do that by creating special abilities *especially* for that monster.

Cheers!