"How to make a Monster Manual Pt II" article

[Hussar]

Well if I just want to run a game which is a series of random encounters, all of which are 5-rounds fights, then the article is perfectly right.

While I of course agree that having a monster with 20 spells prepared is hard to use unless you prepare yourself, I don't like the approach of "give him 5 spells and forget about the rest". This is IMHO a step backwards to when monsters and PCs were two completely different worlds, in this case: monsters exist only to fight, PCs have a full existence. This may be true in practice, but it somewhat feels sad and metagamey to me.

I much prefer an approach where the DM is left to choose between forgetting the rest and not... And the best way IMO would be to simply highlight in the monster manual entry what special ability is combat-oriented and what is not. Grouping the secondary (non-combat) abilities like "Read Magic at will" into a tiny paragraph at the end of the MM entry is good enough to spare the DM all the confusion, but I kind of like having these "useless" (couple of) abilities, why not? I can still ignore them, but at least it's up to me.

Otherwise I agree with concerns about overly-complicated mechanics, like the example of those bonuses that the DM needs to keep track of durations.

However, there is easily a counter arguement to that - if you need non-combat abilities, add them in. If you want your creature to "Read magic at will", it's certainly not going to change the CR of that creature to tack it on. It's always, always easier to add to a creature than take away, IMNSHO.

One funny thing I took from this article though is how much it parallels that rather lengthy discussion a while back about world building. I find it rather refreshing that the game designers are taking this point of view. MMV is the first monster manual I've read about that I'm seriously considering buying in a very long time.

 

[Li Shenron]

However, there is easily a counter arguement to that - if you need non-combat abilities, add them in.

I don't think so. I'd rather say "if you don't need out-of-combat abilities, ignore them" and the CR is not going to change either, because the CR is really based on combat.

And about "wasting space"... gamers already waste most of the money they spend, the majority of each book is not going to be used by a gaming group, with few exceptions. I'm not suggesting that each monster had 10+ out-of-combat abilities, but the articles is basically proposing that they should have less than what they have now, which is very few anyway.

Out-of-combat abilities can be great suggestions to write adventures. Ok, probably not the "Read magic at will" one And even if they are just for flavor, why not? If you're looking for ideas about your setting, or just a "scene", browsing a MM and reading a couple of lines about a creature's culture or habit can give you a good idea.

I agree otherwise on the fact that having a huge text of stuff that mixes what can be used in combat and what not is indeed a pain for the DM...

One funny thing I took from this article though is how much it parallels that rather lengthy discussion a while back about world building. I find it rather refreshing that the game designers are taking this point of view. MMV is the first monster manual I've read about that I'm seriously considering buying in a very long time.

I found it exactly the opposite as refreshing. If your favorite gaming style is very combat-oriented, it's perfectly ok! But the article is quite implying that the game should go into a direction where everybody plays the same game...

 

[Gold Roger]

I think protesting against 5-round monsters is kinda ignoring the point. The real reason to strip down monsters wasn't the creation of Monster that exist only for combat, it's to avoid the clutter people have been complaining about for years.

Just look at many MM1 monsters and try keeping, for example, the abilities of a Vrock streight. Especially if this isn't a combat with just that one Vrock.

Most of my combats last at least 5 rounds and I enjoy out of combat abilities on my monsters. But I still agree that the new aproach is apropiate and thought the MM5 was an exellent book.

 

[Wiseblood]

I think protesting against 5-round monsters is kinda ignoring the point. The real reason to strip down monsters wasn't the creation of Monster that exist only for combat, it's to avoid the clutter people have been complaining about for years.

Just look at many MM1 monsters and try keeping, for example, the abilities of a Vrock streight. Especially if this isn't a combat with just that one Vrock.

Most of my combats last at least 5 rounds and I enjoy out of combat abilities on my monsters. But I still agree that the new aproach is apropiate and thought the MM5 was an exellent book.

I don't really care about the monsters themselves or what they can or can not do. I detest the layout of 3.x Monster Manuals altogether. Split statblocks, split monster descriptions, irregular picture placement, and so on...

Monsterous Manual in 2e has the best layout and more monsters to boot. I don't feel the slightest impulse to by any more MM. I woul be happier to just make up their stats than try to find them in those messed up books.

I feel like they just handed in a rough draft of monster ideas and someone decided to illustrate it and begin printing. The ruled lines visible in the margins only adds to this impression. It's like trying to read someone else's notes.

 

[Hussar]

I found it exactly the opposite as refreshing. If your favorite gaming style is very combat-oriented, it's perfectly ok! But the article is quite implying that the game should go into a direction where everybody plays the same game...

But, that's missing the point, as Gold Roger very well points out. It's not about being all combat oriented, it's about realizing that creatures in Monster Manuals are there to be killed. At the end of the day, that's what a Monster Manual is for. Sure, you can pick up campaign ideas, and those are still included in the new book. But, when you boil it down, the Monster Manuals are for stuff that needs killing.

Why not realize that truth and work from there?

Just as a side note, my favorite game style is far from combat oriented. My current campaign hasn't had a combat in the last two sessions, and before that only had one. We play pretty high rp games. But, even with that in mind, I still believe that the function of a Monster Manual is to give me creatures that my player's are going to whack.

 

[Sqwonk]

I would like to see the monsters done up with a "stat block" like this

Combat Stats
Combat Tactics
Other cool stuff / adventure hooks

The current stat block is prety much combat stats.

Combat tactics could be simple - "Charge !" to more complicate
Rnd 1 - go invisible Rnd 2 cas X spell Rnd 3 etc.

Other could be the funkier out-of-combat abilitites. Maybe 2 sentence of plot/adventure hooks.

 

[Shade]

First off, let me say that I absoultely love MMV. I think it's the best monster book since the Fiend Folio.

That said, I'm not 100% on board with the new design philosopy. While some of the monsters seem nicely focused while still being versatile (the garngrath and spirrax are prime examples), others feel a bit limited. Take the malastor, for example. It's a CR 16 monster that really has only one ability it can use (the other is completely reactive based on taking damage). While the ability is kinda cool, it also makes it rather bland. It can either do the avalanche wave, or its back to claw/claw/bite. The first thing I'll be doing when I get around to using this monster is slapping on a template or two.

Most of my combats go well past 5 rounds. At low levels, that may have been a different case, but we've been playing high to epic-level campaigns for several years now. In my experience, the more flexible monsters make for the more memorable encounters.

Still, I do agree that some monsters have many unnecessary SLAs, even for outside combat. To me, though, the bigger design flaw with relying on SLAs is the poor save DCs. Since SLAs, like spells, don't factor in 1/2 the monster's HD like other abilities, then the characters nearly always succeed on their saving throws. Artificially inflating the Charisma seems to be the former design method to get around this, but I prefer taking an imprortant SLA and turning it into a supernatural ability, which seems to be the way some of the designers have been going.

I also want to applaud the MMV design team for finally embracing the Improved Toughness feat for monsters. My biggest wish for future MMs is to really round out the feat section, implementing great-for-monster feats like Large and in Charge, Multigrab, Rending Constriction, Empower Supernatural Ability, and so on. I'd also like to see an appendix on easy mix-and-matching of abilities and how they might affect a monster. For example, how to determine the CR if adding Unholy Toughness to pre-MMIII undead.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I like the idea of stripping down the monsters. We've had combats last more than five rounds but we've also had combats last only three rounds (and I'm sure there have been some shorter than that but those are very few and far between). I'd hazard a guess that five or six rounds is where our average length would end up.

Uncluttering the stat block of "extra" abilities may not be the most effective way to go in the long run; but I'm willing to bet that it is a faster and easier way to go so it would make a good first target.

But even the article comments that while 'most' of the critters are there to die horribly, some of them need to be recurring villain types. I see no problem with giving a critter a couple of Out Of Combat abilities. I see no reason why a critter can't Read Magic at Will, but I don't want that along with 6 other abilities that won't do much in combat while it's trying to slaughter the PCs.

I played in high level combat that lasted hours (in real time). Having the DM not have to look in a different book to see what an ability does only to say "well, that's stupid" and then look for something else will cut down on that time.

 

[Lord Zack]

Monsters are definetly not just for combat. If that monster with detect thoughts and telekinesis was used as a BBEG, those abilities would effect play. Let's say the players convince one of it's minions to help them. Oops, the minion was found out by the BBEG monster and now he's sending his minions after the PCs. Later on the Pcs are in a Encounter Trap that the BBEG set up. The BBEG uses his Telekinesis ability to disrupt the PCs ability to escape, tripping, grappling, and attacking them and stealing the keys they need to disable the trap. Only after all that do they encounter the BBEG in his lair, and he uses his combat SLAs.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

*shakes head sadly*

So, if it can't be used in 5 rounds, a monster shouldn't have it on its list of abilities? Looks like we're in for a lot of ADD monsters in the future if the current trends continue...

I think they put enough qualifiers in there for me. So long as they don't adhere exclusively to that rule, I think they'll be fine.