Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8746878" data-attributes="member: 4937">Rather than get to deep into the specifics, I prefer to step back a bit and look at the general principles that govern my monsters.My fundamental design philosophy on monsters tends to be &quot;defenses are better than offenses&quot;.&nbsp; Monsters as encounters need to last long enough that player's felt they made some choices, but not quite so long that the players felt that it became a grind.&nbsp; I hate designs that are glass cannons, of which one of the worst is the 1e D&amp;D Death Knight.&nbsp; I'm looking for 3-5 rounds of combat on average, with the expectation that I can make epic fights more epic if basic fights can give me that in some fashion.I likewise hate designs that are just bags of hit points.&nbsp; I like monsters to do things, and often different things in different rounds or different circumstances.&nbsp; I also like a design to a monster that suggests that they exist outside of combat.&nbsp; Give me skills and abilities for the monster it uses when it's not fighting things, especially if the monster is alive and somewhat intelligent.&nbsp; Not every spell-power needs to be a combat power.&nbsp; Explain how the monster lives and thrives in the world.&nbsp; [USER=20323]@Quickleaf[/USER] above talks about how &quot;rat keepers and wolf riders&quot; is given no mechanical force or implementation to support it.&nbsp; This is exactly what I don't want to see.&nbsp; Tell me how goblins can treat wild rats an wolves as domesticated animals for the purpose of animal handling checks or whatever is needed for that flavor to happen, and so forth.As the monster gets higher level, I tend to like designs that deal explicitly with the action economy.&nbsp; An example of this is that my version of the Ankylosaurus has both a bonus against ranged attacks from its armored shell, and &quot;attacks back&quot; anyone that attacks it in melee with its array of defensive spikes.&nbsp; This partially negates the advantage that a party has in actions versus a single foe and stops the otherwise simple creature from being a &quot;bag of hit points&quot;&nbsp; And again, this follows from the &quot;Defenses are better than offenses&quot; principle.&nbsp; Finally, I prefer write ups that stress the individuality of the monster.&nbsp; Yes, tell me what the most common sort is like, but also what other common and even a few uncommon variations are like.&nbsp; Tell me or at least inspire me a bit on what the monster is like when it's not just a combat obstacle and is an NPC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8746878, member: 4937"] Rather than get to deep into the specifics, I prefer to step back a bit and look at the general principles that govern my monsters. My fundamental design philosophy on monsters tends to be "defenses are better than offenses". Monsters as encounters need to last long enough that player's felt they made some choices, but not quite so long that the players felt that it became a grind. I hate designs that are glass cannons, of which one of the worst is the 1e D&D Death Knight. I'm looking for 3-5 rounds of combat on average, with the expectation that I can make epic fights more epic if basic fights can give me that in some fashion. I likewise hate designs that are just bags of hit points. I like monsters to do things, and often different things in different rounds or different circumstances. I also like a design to a monster that suggests that they exist outside of combat. Give me skills and abilities for the monster it uses when it's not fighting things, especially if the monster is alive and somewhat intelligent. Not every spell-power needs to be a combat power. Explain how the monster lives and thrives in the world. [USER=20323]@Quickleaf[/USER] above talks about how "rat keepers and wolf riders" is given no mechanical force or implementation to support it. This is exactly what I don't want to see. Tell me how goblins can treat wild rats an wolves as domesticated animals for the purpose of animal handling checks or whatever is needed for that flavor to happen, and so forth. As the monster gets higher level, I tend to like designs that deal explicitly with the action economy. An example of this is that my version of the Ankylosaurus has both a bonus against ranged attacks from its armored shell, and "attacks back" anyone that attacks it in melee with its array of defensive spikes. This partially negates the advantage that a party has in actions versus a single foe and stops the otherwise simple creature from being a "bag of hit points" And again, this follows from the "Defenses are better than offenses" principle. Finally, I prefer write ups that stress the individuality of the monster. Yes, tell me what the most common sort is like, but also what other common and even a few uncommon variations are like. Tell me or at least inspire me a bit on what the monster is like when it's not just a combat obstacle and is an NPC. [/QUOTE]

Verification