Grapple: LIVING SHIELD [mearls]

[mmu1]

So, I thought about this some more, and I decided to invoke the dreaded words... World of Warcraft! (don't worry, I won't say it three times)

Seriously, though - does the talk about the Bugbears remind anyone of, say, Skullsplinter Trogs, Diggers, Scouts, Bonesnappers, Skullthumpers, Seers, etc? This is the WoW way of designing monsters - each pseudo-class within a larger grouping has some combat ability that defines its role in an encounter and gives it its name...

 

[howandwhy99]

double post

 

[Wormwood]

Seriously, though - does the talk about the Bugbears remind anyone of, say, Skullsplinter Trogs, Diggers, Scouts, Bonesnappers, Skullthumpers, Seers, etc? This is the WoW way of designing monsters - each pseudo-class within a larger grouping has some combat ability that defines its role in an encounter and gives it its name...

Not a bit.

I *am* reminded of M:tG, however (Goblin Assassin, Goblin Berserker, Goblin Cavaliers, Goblin Digging Team, etc).

And yeah, I think that's a Good Thing™

 

[howandwhy99]

So, I thought about this some more, and I decided to invoke the dreaded words... World of Warcraft! (don't worry, I won't say it three times)

Seriously, though - does the talk about the Bugbears remind anyone of, say, Skullsplinter Trogs, Diggers, Scouts, Bonesnappers, Skullthumpers, Seers, etc? This is the WoW way of designing monsters - each pseudo-class within a larger grouping has some combat ability that defines its role in an encounter and gives it its name...

Actually, I'm hoping 4e brings a wider monster creation ruleset back to the table so you can fudge these things.. er, at the table.

I know I'm like EB in I design with blank pieces of paper first and fit rules on after the fact. If the monster includes a unique combat option, I can live with that, it's a monster culture thing. But if it's something beyond the learning of a PC, a feat option or whatever, than I'd probably remove it. It's a sim thing, yes. It's not like I'd add in feat rules for breathing like a dragon (actually, I don't prefer feat systems at all...), but it's pretty obvious some things are PC-learnable and others not


EDIT:

This is the WoW way of designing monsters - each pseudo-class within a larger grouping has some combat ability that defines its role in an encounter and gives it its name...

Hey, I don't care. My roman legionnaires are uniquely good at lots of things (link), but it's because of their culture. I'm a Simmie, so as long as it makes sense for me from my characters perspective, it's all good.

...I've even come to think Per Encounter powers can work. Sadly, I can only think of a few cases like Barbarian Rage, Fatigue, etc. Those work like they would in a real world though, so I'm hoping other P/E powers do too. You know, generic setting, easily-adaptable descriptions.

I'm goofy. I work backwards. Description first, rules second. Character description, monster description, spell description..... and then never tell the players the rules.

..that way, if necessary, I can just tell the player an description in character. Not that it'll be all that accurate, but...

 

[Lackhand]

So, I thought about this some more, and I decided to invoke the dreaded words... World of Warcraft! (don't worry, I won't say it three times)

Seriously, though - does the talk about the Bugbears remind anyone of, say, Skullsplinter Trogs, Diggers, Scouts, Bonesnappers, Skullthumpers, Seers, etc? This is the WoW way of designing monsters - each pseudo-class within a larger grouping has some combat ability that defines its role in an encounter and gives it its name...

O for a voice like thunder, and a tongue to drown the throat of (world of) war (craft)!

Is it a problem if this similarity exists? Why?

 

[Lizard]

Not a bit.

I *am* reminded of M:tG, however (Goblin Assassin, Goblin Berserker, Goblin Cavaliers, Goblin Digging Team, etc).

And yeah, I think that's a Good Thing™

I generally don't mind Adjective Noun or Noun Verb monster names -- they can be evocative and are often superior to RandomMixOfSyllables names. They're only a problem when they become a way of "cheating" on things like content.

Over 300 monsters!
Orc swordsman, orc axeman, orc spearman, orc bowman, orc lancer, orc wrestler.....that's 6 right there!

I'd rather "Orc fighter, with interchangeable weapons! (Weapons sold seperately. Not suitable for children under 3.)"

 

[Wormwood]

Orc swordsman, orc axeman, orc spearman, orc bowman, orc lancer, orc wrestler.....that's 6 right there!

And if they play *at the table* like six different monsters without me having to customize them?

Then that's not a 'cheat' to me---that's a value.

 

[Lizard]

And if they play *at the table* like six different monsters without me having to customize them?

Then that's not a 'cheat' to me---that's a value.

I'd rather take five minutes to change a weapon and some numbers, and have six truly different monsters (each of which I could then customize further) in the rulebook.

That sort of thing is best handled by a book which focuses on providing pre-built variants.

Forex, in the game I'm running, the PCs have met about five different "kinds" of Bugbear -- none of which took me more than few minutes to stat out using standard rules. That's a lot of play value out of one monster entry in the MM. I do not see how I would have been better served by 5 bugbear entries which I could easily have done myself. And if monster customization is simpler in 4e, this becomes even more the case.

 

[Wormwood]

I'd rather take five minutes to change a weapon and some numbers, and have six truly different monsters (each of which I could then customize further) in the rulebook.

I understand your point, and while I disagree on a simple preference level, I have no doubt that your approach is superior for your DMing needs.

And I can also appreciate how you could feel like you were 'paying twice for the same monster'.

I think I'm just a fundimentally lazier DM than you are.

 

[olshanski]

Ditto. I'll add that I don't want monsters who are just one cool move. How many times can you fight the bugbear strangler before it becomes old and tired. And how many new and "nifty" bugbears can you fight before all the powers become dull.

Well, I figure each monster should only last a session or two at the most before it becomes old. Fortunately there are lots of monsters in each Monster manual... each monster should be "old and tired" just about the time the next monster manual is published... that way you are always ready with fresh and exciting monsters.
Its also important because come 2009 you don't want to be seen using the boring old 2008 monsters... you need to keep up with the times.

"We fought the bugbear crippler last week, this week we fought the bugbear strangler, next week we'll fight the bugbear poo-flinger. What's that? It's a bugbear but it flings poo at you. If it hits your fort defense, you are splattered with poo that inflicts a -2 on all attack rolls, skill rolls, defenses, and AC. You can recognize a bugbear poo-flinger because it doesn't wear any pants."

Never mind my previous post. I see you already have some insider knowledge about the MM2.