"How to make a Monster Manual Pt II" article

[Wik]

I'm sure there will always be exceptions. I'll bet out of combat abilities will be considered as well. But seriously, how many combat have you had that have gone past 5 rounds?

I know others have contributed to this, but I'll add my own experiences.

In my STAP game, the statement is absolutely correct. Whether it's a boss fight or against Mooks, 5 rounds is the upper limit; most fights are over in three.

In the Eberron game I play in (and we keep a turn indicator ready), that's not the case. I've seen several fights (from different categories - one boss fight, and a lot of set-piece fights, as well as the smaller combats) run into 8 or 9 rounds. I think we had one that lasted till round 12 or so!

I have my theories why the two groups behave so differently in combat - I think it's because in Eberron, we lack a cleric, and our big bruiser often gets hit by some spell-like ability that takes him out of the fight halfway through, while in STAP, that just doesn't happen.

 

[Evilhalfling]

If I say that these oozes are spawns of Juiblex, then many DMs who use a cosmology without Juiblex feel like they’d somehow be playing “wrong” or “out of canon” if they put one in their next game session. I find this attitude both ridiculous and infuriating, but I can’t deny its existence. If you need my permission, you have it: Use Monster Manual V monsters however the heck you want. You aren’t doing it “wrong” if you change stuff.

Of course we will -
specifically a spawn of jubleix appeared in the famously polluted harbor that the PCs were wreck diving in tonight. Jubliex the demon lord doesn't exist but these are great pollution monsters. esp once I gave it a 40' swim speed. Nearly killed at least 2 7th lvl PCs.

The Spirit Riders are great too - just the thing for a corrupted order of knight phantoms (taken from Ebberon, then dropped.)
One challenged the party to a joust of champions on a bridge, and encouraged them to buff their champion with as many spells as they liked. When the PC fell through the weakened bridge, the Rider charged safely across to the parties cleric, melting his holy symbol.
I could disagree with the philosophy behind the monsters - but these monsters are A LOT of fun to use.

 

[Felon]

The only absolute here is "The players will never ask, and the characters will never need to know." However, that's clearly not meant to be taken literally. Sometimes in writing you make absolute statements to make a point, when clearly meaning it figuratively and not literally. Do really think he doesn't believe that no player, anywhere will ever ask this question?

I think if you've read enough web articles, forum postings, and podcasts, it is easy to get that very impression you state, because while they spend a lot of time saying things like "until the moment [the monsters] interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done", they don't seem the cross over to other side of the fence very often. Moreover, it's often with a sort of weird regret that they don't. Again, many times their advice to DM's is that focusing on deep storytelling instead of combat generally winds up being a matter of one's reach exceeding one's grasp. They may even feel badly saying it, but they believe it.

Have you listened to any D&D podcasts? I think they're particularly noteworthy, because their Q&A format is to read each other questions on the spot, so the answers come right off the top of their heads. Check out the last couple of them. Oh, and the "Roll Initiative!" article from a few months back is also illuminating.

EDIT--And I guess I'll wander off on a tangent for a second and explain that what I really love about RPG's is the way that it engages to so many different parts of the brain. It has that element of improvisational theatre that provides a very different form of stimulation than meticulously building the ultimate battle spell list for your evoker that accounts for every contingency, and that in turn is very different from the stimulation provided by that gambler's thrill of letting life-or-death stakes ride on the roll of a d20.

Of course, that's the waterloo of gaming as well, because you wind up with folks looking for conflicting sets of stimuli. One guy comes to the table to shut off the problem-solving his brain for a few hours and just unleash the aggression that's pent up all week long, while another guy has been intellectually bored all week long and wants mental challenges.

The impression I sometimes get from the developers--and it's happened with increasing frequency--is that they've lost some sight of the diversity of their player base, or worse, that they just don't think it's in their interests to appeal to it in its entirety.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Although the new version is stronger in many ways, the old version could raise an undead army. Desecrate and animate dead is a good combo, and inflict serious wounds can repair damaged undead, and cloudkill doesn't hurt undead minions.

Any party that is going to survive more than a round or two against the Marilith will easily smash through her zombies, though. Losing the animate dead won't affect the fights much, I think, and for campaign use (if you want your Marilith villainess to have hordes of zombies attacking helpless villages, for example) it is easily handwaved.

Polymorph Self has good disguise and mobility functions (especially 3.0 polymorph self). Good for spying and deception.

This, I agree on.

 

[satori01]

I absolutely love the design philosophy of each monster being an interesting and "memorable encounter"....I would argue that so many of the classic, "complicated" monsters are often clones of each other.


An Ogre Mage is not that much different in terms of game play than a Vampire.
"Puzzle" monsters keep things interesting....to tell a player after a particularly hard blow "you crack the monster's shell revealing a gooey eye and a squirming mass of tentacles" is cool, especially with the mechanics behind it .

 

[Faraer]

Again, many times their advice to DM's is that focusing on deep storytelling instead of combat generally winds up being a matter of one's reach exceeding one's grasp. They may even feel badly saying it, but they believe it.

I get that impression too, and it's the circular self-fulfilling-prophecy aspect that galls me. Assuming that most players are infantile rules-manipulating egotists is (apart from being very insulting) not going to lead to a game that attracts a broader range of people. Of course this is no new thing in RPG publishing, a phenomenon of the 'sell lots of books to a few people' strategy.

Similarly, they talk of magic items being fungible -- interchangeable commodities -- as if it's some necessary thing rather than a design decision. And one of them seemed to argue that magic items shouldn't have interesting abilities, because that confuses the players when they have too many.

 

[Yair]

I like their ideas. Won't be purchasing their MMV anytime soon, but they got me interested.



I REALLY like the idea of cutting down on book-keeping. I'm having enough trouble as it is.

I also like the idea, looming in the background there, that NPCs aren't PCs. MMs should be designed to present NPCs (monsters) to be run by the DM, not as possible PC races or creatures that follow the same rules for PCs. Goes against the 3e spirit a bit, I know, but really I don't care how to play a Succubus as a PC. I want to present her in the game in an interesting and effective manner, and allowing for the option of playing her as as PC hurts this goal. I'm all for anything that makes my DMing easier and better; I much prefer that than support for crazy PC ideas, or some imaginary "even playing ground" where everyone plays by the same rules.

So I like the new paradigm of focused monsters, not over-bloated with abiltiies that won't come out in the fight, and designed to give one memorable fight. It should be the rule for every monster, but the article doesn't claim it should - for most monsters, especially past the most typical monsters (presented in MMI), it's a damn fine idea.

 

[Glyfair]

I also like the idea, looming in the background there, that NPCs aren't PCs.

I agree with this idea, and have been discussing off and on for a while. One of the biggest complaints about 3E is the complexity, especially where it adds to DM prep time. On the other hand, one of the biggest strengths is the options in character design (admittedly, one that can be abused when taken to extremes). At first glance the two issues are incompatible. I don't believe they have to be.

One of the mantras I hear occasionally here is "if it can be used by the players, it can be used against the players." That has been taken where now every single PC detail is expected in NPCs/monsters. I don't think it has to be taken that far.

Personally, I'd like to see a paradigm where there are two levels of NPCs. One would be the "PC" level, with all that detail. The other would be the "simplified" level. Cut down on unnecessary details like skills, feats, etc.

It doesn't even need to have any rules changes. Assume most higher level "simplified" NPCs have used many of their feats and skill points in things that won't come out in an adventure. Sure, that the guard at the gate to the enemy city has maxed out Craft (painting) and skilll focus might come up in the game. It's going to be rare, and is better left out and improvised during play. Sure, the John Cooper's of the world who need every single skill point spelled out for them will be annoyed, but I think it will make a smoother game.

 

[catsclaw227]

I think that this design theory is certainly applicable if they are approaching a stat block for a monster as "What can this creature do in a pinch if it was attacked.

Maybe then a paragraph or two about some possible non-combat abilities could sneak into the description, or made as part of a series of specialized ecology articles. If 90% of the time, a monster is used in an encounter for 5 rounds, then the book gets more utility if looked at as a "Combat Guide to Monsters". If you want to make the monster an NPC or do more with it, then flesh it out yourself, or allow third parties to brew up some Ecology style articles. In one sense it opens up the door to more products for WOTC if the enter into the next edition with this thinking.

Note that I make no judgement on whether this is a good or bad thing.

 

[Hussar]

Felon - I just listened to Episode 13 of the D&D podcast. After a rather lengthy discussion on how to get players role playing, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that they come down heavily on the mechanics side of things. If anything, they sound like very heavy rp players and DM's. To the point of assigning weekly homework? That's some pretty hardcore rp stuff going on there.