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

[Kraydak]

Compare what he proposes with statting up an NPC in 3e; to me 4e sounds like it saves much more than a few seconds. Is your suggestion not analogous to 3e NPC creation? If not, could you clarify the difference?

Monster or NPC creation?
The main difference between 3ed and my suggestion is that in 3ed, the type HD have no special abilities linked to them. So the special abilities (the hard part of monster design, basic stats are easy) are done ad hoc. This is part of the reason why LA exists (and sucks).

Now, both the design team and my suggestions differ not in the amount of choices made, but the order. (remember, the fact that a goblin shaman and a goblin warrior and a goblin rogue are in the MM is a matter of MM inflation, and does not reflect on the design procedure). I want the relationship of each HD to the abilities gained to be made clear. This allows one to tie monster design and usage into the multiclassing system. But the choices made in the design process are the *same*. Its just that you *know* that the "large" size category came form the talent choice at lvl 3, the SLA blah came from the talent choice at lvl Y. Because the choices are the same, the time is the same.

Except, perhaps, that I'd like some more precision made. In 3ed, facing a mage, you know that 1 good dispell magic will drop a lot of defenses. Facing a fighter, you know you have good odds that sunder/disarm will bypass a lot of his feats. Because the numbers have *provenance*, you can choose your tactics to match. Does this matter for NPC really? Well, what if your players succesfully negotiate with the goblins to jointly raid the kobolds. Does the goblin shaman's AC include Mage Armor (or any other source for an armor bonus to AC)? Can you help him by buffing him? Can you hurt him by debuffing him? Are there problems if you wait out the duration? (I know that some of these questions are probably made moot in 4th, but other questions will arise).

Of course, precision in these matters is also complexity. Which makes design take longer. Trade-offs...

 

[Gentlegamer]

It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair. It's just that they were pretty much static.

It's not that monsters in past editions could not be modified, or scaled, it's that it was only illustrated in the various adventures rather than in the DMG or the MM, so the "art" of monster modification wasn't always obvious from the information in the rulebooks.

I'm thinking that 4D&D will attempt to combine the best of both worlds: the freedom to modify monsters from past editions with the systemization sensibilities of the 3e/d20 era.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.

Well, it kind of makes me think of the catoblepas. There was a monster that was designed to hose the PCs.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, it kind of makes me think of the catoblepas. There was a monster that was designed to hose the PCs.

It was a monster Gary Gygax found described in a medieval bestiary. He designed it in line with its "real" description.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It was a monster Gary Gygax found described in a medieval bestiary. He designed it in line with its "real" description.

Well, the cockatrice was said to have a poison breath and a poison glance. It got nerfed down to merely turning you to stone if you touch it (save vs. petrification). I also remember reading somewhere that the catoblepas was actually designed to hose his players, for whatever reason. But even without that tidbit, it's clear that you can pick and choose which "real" abilities you port over to the game without modification, and which you bring into line with the desired power level.

 

[IanB]

Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.

Maybe, but it is absolutely true.

What is fun or fair about the ear seeker? It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)

What is fun or fair about the rust monster or bodak? About the disenchanter? About any monster that inflicts permanent unfixable hp drain (there were several of these in the old days)?

Mind you, this is not a problem that 3E is immune to, but most of the unfair/unfun 3E monsters are legacy entries from the old days.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Maybe, but it is absolutely true.

What is fun or fair about the ear seeker? It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)

What is fun or fair about the rust monster or bodak? About the disenchanter? About any monster that inflicts permanent unfixable hp drain (there were several of these in the old days)?

Mind you, this is not a problem that 3E is immune to, but most of the unfair/unfun 3E monsters are legacy entries from the old days.

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the ear seeker. Good example. I suppose that rot grubs and green slime also fall into a similar category of things that are put there to wreck the party without much warning.

 

[Gentlegamer]

What is fun or fair about the ear seeker?

To make the players cautious and not take things for granted. As a player, circumventing unknown hazards is thrilling. Occasionally, you'll take your lumps, but those are usually the most memorable of the whole session.

It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)

It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the ear seeker. Good example. I suppose that rot grubs and green slime also fall into a similar category of things that are put there to wreck the party without much warning.

They only wreck rash and incautious parties.

 

[IanB]

To make the players cautious and not take things for granted. As a player, circumventing unknown hazards is thrilling. Occasionally, you'll take your lumps, but those are usually the most memorable of the whole session.

It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?

But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.

Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.

It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.