DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[Mathew_Freeman]

I really like that article - it seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

I'm sure the final text in the DMG will be proof-read again and hopefully the inconsistency that people have noticed will be cleared up.

REALLY liking the idea that monsters should only have 'relevant' magic items - they've solved the "old adventurers have bucketfuls of magic weapons" problem.

 

[FireLance]

REALLY liking the idea that monsters should only have 'relevant' magic items - they've solved the "old adventurers have bucketfuls of magic weapons" problem.

It's an interesting inversion. One of the ideas that was previously tossed around to maintain "the math" in a low-magic campaign was for the PCs' equipment to gain a bonus equal to 1/4 (or whatever is the relevant fraction) of the PCs' level which would not stack with the item's bonus (if any). Hence, a 10th-level PC would have a +2 to attack and damage rolls regardless of whether he used a normal, +1, or +2 weapon.

It appears that this same philosophy is being applied to monster equipment in order to remove the need for them to be magical unless the DM specifically decides otherwise.

 

[Knight Otu]

* blink *

Class templates

* blink * blink *

Class templates allow you to add features of a specific character class to a monster.

* blink * blink * blink *

I knew I should have posted one of my class-based templates at some point. Sometimes I feel like someone implanted a mind probe in my head.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I... seems strange that switching from heavy to light armor allows a monster to suddenly use its DEX/INT, but switching from light to heavy doesn't seem have the opposite effect. The ogre from the example switches from hide (light) to chainmail (heavy) without losing its DEX bonus to AC.

Yep, I hope that is errata. I reckon we are going to see a rather large amount of errata but I really hope I am wrong! There is a couple already on this single excerpt. There is also a lot on the minis as well, already published.

 

[med stud]

A message to all involved: The last paragraph of my last post was a bit offensive. It wasn't meant to come across like that. Apologies if I came across as rude.

 

[vagabundo]

I've always like templates, such a cool idea from 3e. But, like so many cool ideas in 3e, they just didnt work well.

I like the new templates better, but the Monster customising rules really are good. No BS, I just tweak them for what I need.

Now to create a spreadsheet that will print the results onto a 6x4 cards.

 

[Mirtek]

Sunlight I won't miss killing vampires,

Who says anything about sunlight no longer killing vampires?

This is the vampire lord we're talking about, he could also walk in dayligh in 3.x, the normal vampires have to hide from the sun

 

[Plane Sailing]

And again we have

a. Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
b. Fluff text and game rules mismatch

And the templates are also rather bland.

Derren, I'm going to have to ask you to post something substantial or leave the thread. This may go for the 4e forum too, as nearly everything I've seen you post here recently has been a kind of "drive by shooting".

If you want to post, don't just make assertions - back them up with the data which you are concerned about. Give examples of which rules you consider to be gamist and illogical. Give examples of mismatch between fluff text and game rules.

You don't need to get into arguments, but if you've got a case that you think is worth stating, state it well and then people will make up their own minds.

Thanks

 

[Khaalis]

I knew I should have posted one of my class-based templates at some point. Sometimes I feel like someone implanted a mind probe in my head.

I'm with you here. I can't even begin to count the number of times my friends and I have had to look for our tin foil hats since the news of 4E features started coming out. We've been working on a home-brew world and houserule set that we have pretty much seen stripped to its bones by much of what they have done with 4E. They have spies among us I tell you. Spies!



As for the rules on Gearing a monster... I really like it. I no longer have to have a bunch of monsters walking with the proverbial Xmas trees effect just to be able to handle a party geared at the expected bonuses for their level. It makes it much easier to pick and choose when to add that item drop without breaking balance.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm with you here. I can't even begin to count the number of times my friends and I have had to look for our tin foil hats since the news of 4E features started coming out. We've been working on a home-brew world and houserule set that we have pretty much seen stripped to its bones by much of what they have done with 4E. They have spies among us I tell you. Spies!

What do you think all this "marketing research" is about? Did you think they really just relied on some surveys and feedback cards? Isn't it more likely they have planted spies and use telepaths? Think of the recent DDI videos - do you think the Mind Flayer is just an actor they hired for the video?

As for the rules on Gearing a monster... I really like it. I no longer have to have a bunch of monsters walking with the proverbial Xmas trees effect just to be able to handle a party geared at the expected bonuses for their level. It makes it much easier to pick and choose when to add that item drop without breaking balance.

It also seems to provide nice options to introduce tons of magical items, or none at all, in your campaign. Since most monsters don't rely on magical items, and having them won't change their stats much (or at all), this gives DMs lot more leeway.