"How to make a Monster Manual Pt II" article

[deClench]

There's two major monster-entry design issues in the article, both geared toward making gaming "easier." I haven't seen the actual MM5 yet, and this is based solely on the two articles.

1) Making monsters more streamlined and easier to play--most notably by stripping away spell-like abilities. I'm all for this as long as the monsters are still interesting, and anything that makes my life as a DM easier is better. However, it's interesting that that sentiment is in the same article as the introduction of "thresholds" and other potentially time-consuming new abilities. They sound interesting though.

2) Reducing the content of ecologies and backgrounds for the monsters to make them less irrelevant to players. While I support streamlining the mechanics for the monsters, I hate the idea of losing so much of the background. I love the ecologies and backgrounds. That's what helps me understand a monster and utilize it well. That's why I purchase the monster manuals in the first place.

To my thinking, the monster entries should be equal parts mechanical information and background information. In my opinion, why bother with the manuals otherwise? Does this mean we'll get more focused products like Lords of Madness or ecology articles (ala Dragon)? I don't need a monster generator. I need interesting material. I don't want to have to make it all up myself.

With this design philosophy, would we ever have gotten something as cool as the shadar-kai? It would have just been a fey from the Plane of Shadow that does some cool stuff. There's no soul in that.


Just my thoughts.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'd like to point out that the more streamlined MM4 and MM5 have given us monsters with far more expanded ecologies and background material than the first three. Most of the monsters in MM5 are linked to existing Monsters or others in the same book.

Of all things, you can't really say that the MM5 lacks depth on it's critters.

 

[deClench]

I'd like to point out that the more streamlined MM4 and MM5 have given us monsters with far more expanded ecologies and background material than the first three. Most of the monsters in MM5 are linked to existing Monsters or others in the same book.

Of all things, you can't really say that the MM5 lacks depth on it's critters.

That's great to hear! I have only had the WotC design articles to go by so far for MM5. I look forward to reading it.

 

[MerricB]

If you want ecologies and stuff, get the monster ecology books: Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, Draconomicon, etc.

Cheers!

 

[woodelf]

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?

Um...most of them? Maybe i'm giving the players too tough of challenges, or maybe they or i am not very efficient in using the character's abilities, but if combats typically ended in 5 rounds, i'd probably find them much less boring. The only ones that seem to be that short are encounters that're intended to be just flavor, and not any real challenge--and those are usually 2-3 rounds.

And this is true for D&D3E, Arcana Unearthed, and Iron Heroes, over a total of 4+ years of [roughly-weekly] play.

 

[MerricB]

Here's the big thing: How many of those 5+ round combats actually have the monsters doing something different in every single round?

One thing that I really like about the new monsters is that they are strongly themed. They have two or three strong abilities which distinguish them from other monsters.

When you fight fire giants, they're not casting a different spell every round. They're throwing rocks or hitting you (possibly with flaming weapons).

When you fight inferno spiders, they either bite you (with poison) or throw a flaming web at you... and they have Spring Attack as well, giving them a particularly different style of combat than Fire Giants. (As a DM, I love it when a PC is trapped in a burning web with a spider Spring Attacking him.)

I recently ran a combat with 8 ogres, two Fomorians, and a high-level Eldritch Knight. I could do this because the ogres and Fomorians were easy to run.

Ogres - 10' Reach and strong melee
Fomorians - 15' Reach, strong melee, trample.
Eldritch Knight - good ranged & spells... adding variety

Cheers!

 

[woodelf]

Other could be [snip] 2 sentence of plot/adventure hooks.

You know, i definitely love more of that. It's precisely that sort of stuff that makes Fantasy Bestiary (D20 System, Atlas) and Medieval Bestiary (Ars Magica, WWGS) two of the best monster books ever.

 

[Hussar]

WHile I'm very sure that those who have longer fights actually do so, I'm also fairly certain that when David Noonan says that most fights last around 5 rounds, he's basing that on observations made across hundreds, if not thousands of gamers, that WOTC deals with at conventions, playtesting, etc. I'm fairly sure they're not making this up out of thin air.

 

[pawsplay]

Having read this and the previous, I've come to a conclusion: there is a systematic cause why I don't like the look of the MMV. All those combinations and niches that weren't covered? They weren't covered for a reason. A lot of the stuff looks more like refugees from Dreamscape than a Monster Manual. I'm left saying... where do we put all this crap? Where does a clockwork tongue-golem live? etc.

But then, I get more use out of the "worst" MM (MMII) than I do the rest, and I like using rakshasas and mind flayers. So perhaps my opinions are the product of a warped mind.

As far as five rounds go... it's like the idea never occured to the design team that a monster that could choose from five things each round would be more potent and interesting than one that does just five things. Going by these articles, some of the worst monsters you could run are liches, high level dragons, and drow fighter/rogues... which have been some of the most satisfying fights I've participated in.

 

[green slime]

WHile I'm very sure that those who have longer fights actually do so, I'm also fairly certain that when David Noonan says that most fights last around 5 rounds, he's basing that on observations made across hundreds, if not thousands of gamers, that WOTC deals with at conventions, playtesting, etc. I'm fairly sure they're not making this up out of thin air.

And yet... somehow, this is self-perpetuating.

WotC writes adventures, sets the appropriate CR for monsters with regard to a balanced party level, designs the monsters, runs conventions...

Somethings stand out here.
1) An adventure designed for a convention, can't have a four hour fight. It needs an encounter to be finished in 5 rounds, or the entire adventure will just be that one fight. The convention format itself is self-restricting in this regard.

2) So standing around, observing the effect of the CR-appropriate encounters you have designed, specifically to have them finish in 5 rounds, and when they finish in 2-7 rounds, you say "Look, almost all fights finish within 5 rounds!"

3)Playtesting isn't there to test battle-length/duration, but to test how new rules fit into the whole.

4) People emulate what is already done. It is very easy to do. It requires less thought. So it is easier to emulate the small, pint-sized battles present in most modules and adventures.

5) If every battle ended in 5 rounds or less, I'd be bored to tears. That isn't a desperate battle, its a speed bump.

6) If every battle dragged on for hours, it too, would be tedious.

7) Short and sweet battles only become desperate by introducing "save or die" effects. From 1st level's sleep, through disintegrate to power word: Kill Which actually, a large number of players say they want to get away from. I wonder.

There are a multitude of ways to create interesting, longer lasting fights. But you are highly unlikely to see them at a convention.