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

[Knightfall]

Ah, I gotcha.

Well, I can't say for sure. I have very little inside access to 4E, and what little I have, I can't talk about.

But I can say, just from knowing the people involved and the aspects of the game that are popular, that I'd be surprised if monster creation rules weren't available in some way, shape, or form.

That's what I'm hoping for too, I guess we'll both have to wait and see.

(And I agree the new design and development team seems a solid group.)

I just hope there will be some basic guidelines for converting 3rd Edition monsters to 4E.* I have made A LOT of custom monsters and if I decide to move to 4E then I will insist on bring the monster designs with me. Plus, I'd want to be able to convert my favorite official monsters to 4E, as I need them. And that is a lot of critters.

I think the idea of 4E invalidating 3E monster design is what Shade and the other Creature Catalog addicts have a problem with. They've worked long and hard to convert old creatures from previous editions and come up with new monster designs for the pages of DRAGON Magazine, and now they are a little pissed off.

*I already know there isn't going to be any guidelines for converting characters, which annoys me a little bit. Characters can be re-envisoned pretty easily, but monsters need more work, IMO.

 

[Knightfall]

Now mhacdebhandia is talking to himself.

At least I'm still as sane as the next man!

Cheers!

You and me both, MerricB.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I know I quoted myself; I was just expanding on a point.

 

[MerricB]

*I already know there isn't going to be any guidelines for converting characters, which annoys me a little bit. Characters can be re-envisoned pretty easily, but monsters need more work, IMO.

Actually... you might be surprised.

I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.

Cheers!

 

[Knightfall]

Unless, I suppose, you resent the mere idea of Wizards of the Coast publishing something in a format you don't want before they publish it in a format you do want.

Which is irrational and selfish, but I suppose some people do feel that way.

Okay, I understand your point of view, but you don't seem to be getting mine.

Sure they have stated that they will compile things and publish them in print format, but how can you be certain they will publish everything that goes up on D&D Insider? No one can make that claim, not even WotC can promise themselves that. And if that's what they're thinking then they're kidding themselves.

And I don't resent the idea of WotC using a digital format. That's a great innovation. I do dislike the cost factor, but I understand why they feel the need to charge money to use their online toys.

What I do resent is that these toys (character generator, virtual gametable) can only be accessed online. There isn't a version of these toys that I can use just on my own PC without having to deal with hundreds of thousands of other users accessing it at the same time.

It's going to be slow and it's going to break down, a lot.

If these toys were installed on my PC then I'd have a measure of control over them, but as online tools I must suffer the slings & arrows of Internet outages and D&D Insider servers failing. (I've worked in the computer industry so I know what I'm talking about. I won't say I'm an expert, however.)

Plus, DRAGON and DUNGEON Magazine being forced down our throats in an online format just makes me mad. (I'd rather they'd cancelled the mags completely.)

And remember that not everyone had Internet access. I do, and a few of my player's do, but a couple of them don't have the option to be connected. It is elitist to think that all D&D gamers have Internet access.

It makes me worry that there will become a segment of D&D gamers who are treated as being second-class because they're not "connected". And those with access to D&D Insider may come to see themselves as being more in tune with the game than those who can't use it (or won't use it).

Now, at this point, we don't know what the future will hold, but it makes me nervous. D&D is a social game, and it must remain so otherwise it's not D&D anymore. WotC has assured us that you don't need access to D&D Insider to enjoy every aspect of the game, but I wonder if that will still be true 2 or 3 years from now.

Anyway, I've ranted enough on this issue. Back to the monster discussion.

 

[Knightfall]

Actually... you might be surprised.

I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.

Cheers!

Excellent news! Thanks MB.

 

[Glyfair]

I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.

Yes, that's what I heard. As I said elsewhere, I think they are going for the "artistic" conversion process rather than the "scientific" one.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But that's just me.

No, it isn't.

I would like greater symmetry in a new edition, not lesser. The advances made in this direction for 3rd edition were, I thought, excellent. It would be a shame to lose that advancement of a sudden, for whatever reason.

IMO, and all that.

 

[Syltorian]

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

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

I don't care about monster PCs, but I do care about them as NPCs. And that includes being able to give them classes, modifying their feats, skills, and so forth. I want to have a dryad druid, a satyr enchanter, an ogre scout, heck: even a dragon archivist for the players to meet. I want to have some surprises in store by giving the monsters unexpected feats. I want my monsters to be individuals, not run of the mill Minotaur #12, and I want more freedom than simply having to use the limited number of monsters-with-class-levels that have appeared in the latest Monster Manuals (IV ad V).

That seems to be either impossible or difficult now, from what (little) we know so far. It's both for the roleplaying and combat. I want to be able to challenge my PCs with a monster below the CR (or whatever that turns into), by adding class levels, going up with the hit-die, keeping some surprises in store as the centaur turns out to be able to cast sorcerous magic. I don't want monsters that can only be used at a certain level of the party, or else have to be used in combinations with others if I want to challenge a higher level party.

Please tell me monsters will be as customisable as they were in 3.5. The current system may not have been perfect. But it's (to me) much preferable than the what you see is what you get model. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what I have read so far. I can only hope so.

 

[Yair]

I agree with both sides, but ultimately I'm rooting for Mearls' position.

Player characters should be fairly hard to run efficiently and their advancement should include difficult and interesting choices. That's fun for the player.
Monsters should be very easy to run and advance or modify. That's fun for the DM.

These two goals aren't compatible.

Modularity in 3e was great. I love it. I'm willing to throw odd-PCs out the window, however, to make room for easier DMing. DMing 3e is too hard, it isn't worth the modularity. It would be better to live with decreased modularity and purchase or hack together rules for my pixie paladin PC.

That said, monsters should not be confined to narrow combat-only niches. If a minotaur doesn't have stats that make it clear how well he climbs a cliff, it isn't well-designed. Monsters and NPCs should be easier to build, advance, and modify - but they should still be well-rounded. I have trust in D&D's design team to make it so.

Monsters should also function well within the setting, not just in combat. I have faith in D&D's design team on that front too. Indeed, I think I've heard somewhere that the MM will place greater emphasis on the ecology of the entries.