D&D 4E I may have had a 4e epiphany...

[Lacyon]

Once it hit me that, basically, every monster/NPC in 4e is effectively built from scratch, not according to a structured system (other than role/level guidelines), my perspective changed dramatically.

Fascinating.

Well, the role/level is hopefully enough structure.

For me, the main thing was realizing that a monster's level is really more of a metagame tag representing it's threat level to the PCs (it serves the same purpose as CR in 3E) than it is a source of that threat level.

The difference is, you can build the monster specifically to meet an intended threat level, instead of building a monster and then attempting to estimate its threat level.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

You know, I thought I sensed you coming around after reading a few of your recent posts Lizard. This is an excellent post, and I think says something about both you and ENWorld that you can create a thread such as this.

I wouldn't have compared it to a point-based system, but I think your analogy is apt. Basically, we'll build what we need from a box of tools to create the monsters we want. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Goobermunch]

One of the things bugging me about 4e is that the monster stat blocks, etc, make little sense from the perspective of modeling races and individuals who are members of those races -- the whole race/class/level paradigm which dominates 3e.

Today, reading through KOTS, it suddenly hit me.

4e is a point-based system like GURPS or Hero...without the points. At least as far as NPCs are concerned.

In Hero, I don't think, "I need a 5th level orc wizard". I think "I need an orc with some magic powers. Here's my pool of points. Let's see, give him this attack power, this for defense, raise his PD more 'cause he's an orc, give him some disads, there, done." The main thing is that he feels like an orc caster and has all the powers/abilities/skills an orc caster SHOULD have.

In 4e, I do much the same thing. "I need a controller...here's the basic orc trait...come up with a nifty power or two to make him memorable...give him +3 to armor, just 'cause...done."

Once it hit me that, basically, every monster/NPC in 4e is effectively built from scratch, not according to a structured system (other than role/level guidelines), my perspective changed dramatically.

Fascinating.

Lizard,

Props for publicly acknowledging a change of heart. Has this epiphany moderated any of your other views on 4e? In other words, are you now leaning toward making the jump, or is this more of a "Well, it's not as bad as I'd thought . . . ." comment?

I think that now that you've "gotten" this, you'll see that encounter design in general seems to follow down that path. Not only are monsters "point based," but so are encounters in general. As far as I can tell from the designers' comments, you do monster design as you described, then do encounter design by adding in terrain and trap elements to compliment (or counter) the monsters you've designed.

Kudos also for not rising to the bait. There's no reason for people to be rude and/or say "I told you so." It's one thing to receive knowledge. It's another to analyze data and achieve knowledge. The latter is more fulfilling.

--G

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, I thought I sensed you coming around after reading a few of your recent posts Lizard. This is an excellent post, and I think says something about both you and ENWorld that you can create a thread such as this.

I wouldn't have compared it to a point-based system, but I think your analogy is apt. Basically, we'll build what we need from a box of tools to create the monsters we want. I'm really looking forward to it.

I think your "basically" is a bit to basic. You also used tools from a box to create 3E monsters. The tools where just very different, and the way you build it.

In 4E, the thought process seems like this: "I need a level 5 monster. Since my adventure theme is about decay and corruption, I think I want some zombie like creature. The monster needs to be good at ranged attacks, I've already got enough melee guys. So, Level 5 Artillery, Undead Humanoid type monster. So, what's its shtick? Throwing rotten flesh at his enemies? I guess that would fit the theme, and that sounds pretty horrible, so maybe I should add some fear effects... Okay, let's take the level 5 artillery monsters, and look at what undeads typically get for special abilities. What's a good fear effect?"

I think the 3E thought process might be very similar, but instead of looking at the CR 5 artillery monster table, you would think more like this:
"how many HD does it need? What's its attack bonus? What strength do I pick? Should it have an INT score? Interesting, if I give it an INT of 14, It has 52 skill points... What skills would he need? Maybe some Intimidate? Oh, it definitely needs Spot, it's fighting at range... It's not so good in melee, I should probably give it Tumble... Though, nah, tumbling Zombies? Sounds too stupid. Let's add Listen and Climb instead... Okay now what's his attack bonus? Is that enough for CR 5? Hmm, maybe I should add some more HD to get a better attack bonus? Or should I just up the Dex? But a dexterous Zombie... How about a "Brutal Throw" as feat, so it can use its Strength, and I can keep the dex low..."

The 3E system is very explorative. That can be fun, in a while, but it's not so well suited for fast creation of monsters or NPCs.

(It actually looks to me as 3E and 4E are reversed in their treatment of monsters and classes. Creating a new class in 3E can be very fast - you don't need more then 20 class abilities, and you can easily reuse existing spells and even entire spell lists, if you want. PrCs are even easier. But monsters and NPCs require a lot of work and fine-tuning. 4E classes require ~60 powers (assuming 2 per level as a minimum), but monsters just need level, type (artillery/soldier etc.), weight (minion, normal, elite, solo) and a single shtick (fires radiant energy, explodes in a burst of flames when bloodied, knocks down foes), maybe a bit more. And you can re-use a lot of the "shticks" by creating different monster types and weights to cover more levels and have some variety.

I think we'll see a lot more new fan-created monsters in 4E then in 3E, but a decline in new classes (though Paragon Path, Epic Destinies and new powers might cover that sufficiently well...)

 

[Wormwood]

In 4E, the thought process seems like this: "I need a level 5 monster. Since my adventure theme is about decay and corruption, I think I want some zombie like creature. The monster needs to be good at ranged attacks, I've already got enough melee guys. So, Level 5 Artillery, Undead Humanoid type monster. So, what's its shtick? Throwing rotten flesh at his enemies? I guess that would fit the theme, and that sounds pretty horrible, so maybe I should add some fear effects... Okay, let's take the level 5 artillery monsters, and look at what undeads typically get for special abilities. What's a good fear effect?"

Honestly, that is *all* I want or need in terms of 4e monster creation.

Anything less would be insufficient, anything more would be unnecessary.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Before any f4nboys get too excited, I'll note that 4 pages into this thread Lizard hasn't actually said that he's stopped being a h4ter - just that his point of view changed in one respect. As to whether or not Lizard is h4ter or f4nboy, I take no position.

Today, reading through KOTS, it suddenly hit me.

4e is a point-based system like GURPS or Hero...without the points. At least as far as NPCs are concerned.

Yeah, they call it "exception based design", but there really are only so many ways to skin a cat. Each monster is a Base Monster (Role & Level) + Exceptions (aka, Powers).

It's not quite point buy though because you have to look at the monster holistically. Point-buy systems are replete with "broken combos" while "exception based design" implies a designer who is expected to use common sense. The 4E MM is a collection of sample creatures which have been playtested. Mix and match at your own risk.

See, I like creating *characters*.

Me too. We probably go about it in different ways (I usually don't care much about the rules aspect and spend 95% of my time on the background, motives, etc) but I think you'll be fine.

 

[Will]

The heretical notion occurs to me that it would have been interesting if PCs were designed the same way...

 

[Lacyon]

(It actually looks to me as 3E and 4E are reversed in their treatment of monsters and classes. Creating a new class in 3E can be very fast - you don't need more then 20 class abilities, and you can easily reuse existing spells and even entire spell lists, if you want. PrCs are even easier. But monsters and NPCs require a lot of work and fine-tuning. 4E classes require ~60 powers (assuming 2 per level as a minimum), but monsters just need level, type (artillery/soldier etc.), weight (minion, normal, elite, solo) and a single shtick (fires radiant energy, explodes in a burst of flames when bloodied, knocks down foes), maybe a bit more.

And that's a good thing. A single class write-up gets used for the lifetime of a PC, but a single monster write-up gets used for only a small fraction of that.

 

[DaveMage]

Before any f4nboys get too excited, I'll note that 4 pages into this thread Lizard hasn't actually said that he's stopped being a h4ter - just that his point of view changed in one respect. As to whether or not Lizard is h4ter or f4nboy, I take no position.

I think he's saying he likes it, but it's not D&D.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Before any f4nboys get too excited, I'll note that 4 pages into this thread Lizard hasn't actually said that he's stopped being a h4ter - just that his point of view changed in one respect. As to whether or not Lizard is h4ter or f4nboy, I take no position.

Well, by my definition of a h4ter Lizard cannot qualify simply because he actually made an effort to try and understand the design process. At worst I would call him a 4e skeptic.

Lizard, thank you for posting your epiphany, you said what I mostly understood about the monster design, but had not been able to articulate myself.