Mearls Monster Makeover: Beholder

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Frankly, looking at the material appearing on the WotC site this year, I've come to the conclusion that the entire design team is spending way too much time looking at the trees and missing the forest.

Your knack for generalizing against the entire designer team (in the above quote and numerous other insults flung not excerpted) based on a few public statements by a handful of persons is unimpressive.

Or is this another one of those "if you're not outraged you're not paying attention" things? Getting so worked up over thought experiments and an individual's comments about things they have problems with themselves... I don't understand it. And to go condemn an entire team based on individuals. *shrug*

 

[Benimoto]

They boast about "fixing" the marilith so that she can't do anything except beat the out of you. Because, after all, why would you want a major demon who could raid the local graveyard and raise undead minions to serve her whims? Or desecrate the local shrine of the PC cleric's god?

I support the simplification of the Marilith. Part of the point of 3rd edition D&D is that there are systems by which any intelligent monster can acquire the ability to raise a horde of undead. You don't need to build it in to the base monster if that's not the monster's primary schtick. Keep the base monster simple so that they can do one thing well. Then, if you want a more complex monster, add class levels or templates.

While I agree that not every monster has to fit into the "kick down the door and take their treasure" paradigm, I think that if you want a monster to pose a more complex threat, there are tools available to do so. If the basic monster is simple, then it's easy to customize it to your liking.

That's what I see Mearl's articles as doing well. Getting the focus back on what the monster does best, and not loading them up wiht unnecessary features.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I support the simplification of the Marilith. Part of the point of 3rd edition D&D is that there are systems by which any intelligent monster can acquire the ability to raise a horde of undead. You don't need to build it in to the base monster if that's not the monster's primary schtick. Keep the base monster simple so that they can do one thing well. Then, if you want a more complex monster, add class levels or templates.

I agree with your sentiment, but there's a problem with the implementation. Adding enough class levels to a marilith to allow her to effectively raise a horde of undead would push her well over the epic level barrier. If you want a marilith whose schtick is undead minions, there's no easy way to do it other than grant her a spell-like ability wth a caster level tied to her hit dice.

But how about if there were such things as "schtick templates": little packages of abilities you could mix and match to provide monsters with an alternative focus to the standard. A necromantic template would provide just such a spell-like ability, along with other spooky powers. Assume that a marilith already has one or two templates that make her marilith-y, and you can remove and add templates in a way that allows you to preserve HD and/or CR among monsters with the same base creature but with different templates.

Just an idea, but that's what this thread is about, right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The correct way to fix the rust monster (by removing his save-or-die ability) is simple:

On a successful melee touch attack, the rust monster's rusting ability deals 1d10 points of damage to a single metal object carried or worn by the target, bypassing that object's hardness.

... done.

I vote Justin for the 4e design team.

EDIT: And Dr. Awkward for the shtick template idea!

RC

 

[Justin Bacon]

I think you can take 20 on search- it'd disable device that you can't take 20 on. I always think of someone rolling all the numbers in succession; if nothing bad happens on a 1 (like something exploding in your face) then you can continue.

I think D20 Modern allowed you to Take 20 on Search checks. In general, I think your ability to successfully Take 20 on a trap search will depend on whether or not your search would trigger the trap. The description of the Search check in the 3.5 PHB suggests that the default assumption is that a failure to find the trap WILL result in the trap being triggered.

But, as you say, the best way to handle it is to imagine the results in sequential order.

Although even if we accept D20 Modern's decision that you can take 20 without consequence on all Search checks, you've still got a glitch with the designer's belief: The take 20 mechanics are designed to speed up resolutions. Your characters are taking 20 on every single room? That takes even less time than having them actually roll the checks. In terms of time at the game table, the resolution is practically instantaneous.

And if they want to make that a part of their SOP -- and you've eliminated consequences from the time spent rigorously searching every inch of a complex by creating a static dungeon (as the designers suggest) -- then it's even quicker: They don't even have to announce. You describe the room and then go on to describe the results of their laborious Search in there.

This actually gets back to another trees-and-forest problem the designers are suffering from: They apparently don't want people making Search checks because this "bogs down play". So they eliminate traps.

Problem? Traps aren't the only thing that requires Search checks. So in order to stop your players from having their characters search everything they can to make sure they haven't missed anything, your next stops are going to be secret doors, hidden treasures, and the like.

You might as well just get rid of the Search skill altogether at that point.

Or more broadly: If you honestly think that characters using their skills is so boring, the problem lie with traps -- it lies with the skill resolution system.

Frankly, I don't think the system has the problem the designers think it does.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Some really good points about changing the mechanics of "save or die" effects, Justin. I could totally see doing something like that for Flesh to Stone- you could make it a gradual effect for a failure (within "X" rounds, you will turn to stone; character is slowed in the meanwhile) or something.

PHB2 is where I first saw WotC actually considering something along these lines, in the spell call of stone:

druid/sorc/wiz4
VS
Medium
target = one creature
duration 1 round /2 levels
fortitude partial
SR yes

This spell slowly transforms a creature into an inanimate stone statue. The target must make a Fort save each round for the duration of the spell at the start of its turn or take a cumulative 10ft penalty to speed and -2 penalty to Dex. If the targets speed drops to 0 feet it can't move. if the target fails four or more saves it permanently transforms to a statue as if by flesh to stone.

I'd like to see this kind of mechanism for ALL 'save or dies'. It heightens the sense of impending doom, allows the affected character to attempt to save themselves (or heroically press the assault etc) - it is an all-good solution to my mind.

 

[delericho]

I generally agreed with your post, and particularly liked your 'fix' for the Rust Monster in the post before.

However...

For starters, you can't take 20 when the check carries penalties for failures. If after six years you, as a professional D&D designer, can't remember one of the most basic rules in the bloody game, you should probably be fired for gross incompetency.

There are no consequences for failing a Search check - you just don't find whatever it is that is hidden. As such, you can take 20 on the check.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

PHB2 is where I first saw WotC actually considering something along these lines, in the spell call of stone:

The heck? Get Out Of My Brain WOTC!!!!!!

(That's a pretty cool spell, though. Definitely taking the place of Flesh to Stone IMCs. May have to go out and buy the PHBII now...)

 

[Knight Otu]

There are no consequences for failing a Search check - you just don't find whatever it is that is hidden. As such, you can take 20 on the check.

Besides, I've just checked it uot of curiosity - The 3.0 PHB gives an example of Taking 20 with the Search skill (pg 61), and the 3.5 PHB not only has the same example, it even goes a step further and says that Search is a "common 'take 20' skill." (pg 65)

Also note that per the skill description, you must be within 10 feet of the searched object or surface. You likely won't touch the trigger while taking 20, and notice (if the Take 20 is successful) the trap long enough before you move into the trap. And if the Take 20 isn't enough, well then the trap wouldn't have been found anyway before it is triggered.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I generally agreed with your post, and particularly liked your 'fix' for the Rust Monster in the post before.

I like his posts too. I want to be the first to voice the theory that Justin Bacon is really a famous game designer posting under an alt. He even put in a deliberate mistake about taking 20 with search in order to throw us off. Otherwise we'd go all fan-boy because of name recognition and not because of the quality of his ideas.

Or if not currently famous, maybe someday famous.

[edit] Drat. I see Raven Crowking is already promoting him as a designer for 4th edition. So let me be the *second* to sing his praises.