Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 8746926" data-attributes="member: 467">Generally speaking I prefer a design paradigm where every creature has traits, actions, bonus actions and reactions and some have special/lair/legendary/villain actions. Traits are passive, things that are just true. Actions are offensive, and multi-attack is common for enemies that have a cool thing they can do once versus a couple of whacks with the standard things. Most of the time I put movement and/or crowd control under bonus actions, and defensive (and maybe movement) under reactions. This is the result of a lot of playing and testing and it is the best action economy balance I have found. That isn't to say some creatures don't break those &quot;rules&quot; but by and large I think it works best set up that way. &quot;Boss&quot; monsters that get special actions are a little different and their special actions can be any sort of thing as is appropriate to their fiction, but the primary goal of those special actions is to mitigate the overwhelming force of asymmetrical action economy between a boss and a party of PCs. Sometimes that means those special abilities are tied to hordes of minions, and sometimes it is just more stuff to do not on its turn.I am only just now beginning to experiment with &quot;elite&quot; designs (monsters that &quot;transform&quot; at bloodied) and I like the idea but haven't perfected any design yet.On another note, my copy of Monsters of the Multiverse just arrived and after I have some time to digest it I will comment on a creature that strikes me as particularly good or bas design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 8746926, member: 467"] Generally speaking I prefer a design paradigm where every creature has traits, actions, bonus actions and reactions and some have special/lair/legendary/villain actions. Traits are passive, things that are just true. Actions are offensive, and multi-attack is common for enemies that have a cool thing they can do once versus a couple of whacks with the standard things. Most of the time I put movement and/or crowd control under bonus actions, and defensive (and maybe movement) under reactions. This is the result of a lot of playing and testing and it is the best action economy balance I have found. That isn't to say some creatures don't break those "rules" but by and large I think it works best set up that way. "Boss" monsters that get special actions are a little different and their special actions can be any sort of thing as is appropriate to their fiction, but the primary goal of those special actions is to mitigate the overwhelming force of asymmetrical action economy between a boss and a party of PCs. Sometimes that means those special abilities are tied to hordes of minions, and sometimes it is just more stuff to do not on its turn. I am only just now beginning to experiment with "elite" designs (monsters that "transform" at bloodied) and I like the idea but haven't perfected any design yet. On another note, my copy of Monsters of the Multiverse just arrived and after I have some time to digest it I will comment on a creature that strikes me as particularly good or bas design. [/QUOTE]

Verification