DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Einstein vs. Ninjas is one of those images that will never stop being awesome. I still can't believe it exists...

Anyways, I like today's preview. The new template scheme works really well, and I like both the Lich and the vampire Lord. My only complaint is that the description about how to switch out armor is noticeably less elegant than most other things we have seen about the game. It doesn't sit well with me. Fortunately, I see little need to actually use those rules very often.

BTW. Is this the only pic that exists, or is there an actual comic book for it?

 

[med stud]

Yeah, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Seemed pretty glaring. It seems more like that should be a sidebar "behind the scenes" for *why* they instituted that rule.

I wonder if there is going to be a similar mechanic for players. Only powerful heroes can get the most out of their magic weapons and armor, which makes as much sense as anything else, and works well from a balance perspective. Also, it allows the DM to place some super powerful quest weapon in the PCs hands or for a character to inherit the sword of his powerful father use it without it taking over the campaign.

I think the swords may have higher attack-bonuses than greatclubs. It might be that in combination with the magic bonus he refers to.

About the sword of your father: Even if it's not in the rules, it is a nice touch to a character and since wealth/level isn't the balance factor it was, I think it might be easier to add such a rule this time.

 

[prototype00]

Anyone else notice that monsters get +1 to damage for every two levels? Certainly bodes well for PC damage increasing with level (ala the str mod +1/2 level SWSE rules).

Awesome.

prototype00

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree. It seems like it should be +2 to hit and damage rolls from wielding +3 greatswords, due to the +1 threshold. It is also possible that the ogre usually uses a greatclub and the greatsword has +1 proficiency and average damage when compared to the greatclub. If that is the case a +3 greatsword would provide +3 hit and damage. Even so the example should be a little more clear about the details.

That makes sense!

There is still some room for rules mastery, after all

 

[charlesatan]

I'm sure someone well tell me I've overlooked something, but there's what seems to be a big inconsistency around the middle of the page, talking about monster magic threshhold. In one paragraph, it says

"For example, if you give that 8th-level ogre savage a +2 magic greatclub, you add only a +1 bonus to its attack rolls and damage rolls, since its magic threshold is +1."

But almost immediately thereafter it says

" For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal."

Ok, the +3 to AC I get... That's from the upgrade to plate armor. But we were just told, not two paragraphs earlier, that they would NOT get a +3 to attack and damage because their threshhold allows only a +1.

So how could the author then go on to make such a mistake? Like I said, I'm sure I'm overlooking something, like I did when I failed to notice the entire Constitution score added to PC hitpoints and not just Con modifier.

Edit: I see now that the threshhold is *subtracted* from the enhancement bonus, but the numbers still don't add up. +3 -1 = +2

I know it can get confusing but you have to understand the entire paragraph rather than just those single sentences. Basically, they're saying in

" For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal."

The "three points higher than normal" refers to if you don't apply the threshold.

Instead, it recommends "If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level." in the statement preceding this, and then "That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits." after the quoted message.

 

[fba827]

This is probably old news, but I see in the preview that it labels it as
Lich Elite Controller or Artillery
and
Vampire Lord Elite Controller or Skirmisher

Are there different role classifications (Artillery and Skirmisher) for monsters or something (rather than just the controller, leader, etc that we've been talking about for the PCs)?

 

[Spatula]

Umm, I don't think so. That would mean that high level monsters would get *less* use out of their magic items.

Yes, that's the point. The idea is that a monster's numbers should fall in a certain range for its level, (mostly) regardless of what equipment it has, so that the DM knows how well it will fare against the PCs (or vice versa). If that's not true, balanced encounter design becomes much more difficult.

 

[charlesatan]

This is probably old news, but I see in the preview that it labels it as
Lich Elite Controller or Artillery
and
Vampire Lord Elite Controller or Skirmisher

Are there different role classifications (Artillery and Skirmisher) for monsters or something (rather than just the controller, leader, etc that we've been talking about for the PCs)?

Yes. There are even keywords like Mastermind and the like.

 

[Lurker59]

No, the threshold basically explains why you can't just give all your war devils +1 tridents for an extra +1 to hit and damage. Since they are 22nd level monsters they need at least a +5 trident to gain any benefit to their attacks due to a +4 threshold. You don't need to dump a bunch of minor magic items on an NPC or monster to make them effective. Basically any equipment that an opponent has should be of some value to the PCs. "Equipment shouldn’t be random but should serve some purpose in the design of an encounter. Make sure to include any such items as part of the overall treasure you’re giving out for the adventure."

 

[Vaeron]

Instead, it recommends "If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level." in the statement preceding this, and then "That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits." after the quoted message.

Yes, the 11th level monster would have +3 to hit (1 per level) and +1 to damage (+1/2 level). But I'm referring to the part that talks about their bonuses resulting from the use of enchanted items. If these 11th level beasties were using the +3 greatswords they would get an additional +1 to hit and +1 to damage (+3 weapon -2=+1). (this subtracting the + number is a bit counter-intuitive here).

"Giving all your ogre savages plate armor and +3 greatswords may seem like a reasonable change, but now they have the attack, damage, and defense numbers of a higher-level monster—which makes them a tougher challenge than other 8th-level brutes."

This statement, and the one I quoted previously, seems to defy the previous magic threshold rules laid out. Sure, he says to just adjust the level up. But the math he quotes doesn't mesh with the math quoted just a paragraph before.