Mearls redesigns the Ogre Mage

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Well, yes. You'll notice that these are MM1 creatures he's hacking.

True enough. But its not the critter selection I'm quibbling with, its the underlying philosophy.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't agree with a philosophy that suggests all creatures should be designed with (or stripped back to) only a simple set of component features. It seems to assume if a creature can't use all of it's features in a small number of rounds, head-to-head with PC opponents, then those unused features are probably unnecessary to the design of the creature.

 

[Greg K]

I always viewed the MM1 Ogre Mage as a different species. In the case of the redesign, I agree with those stating a preference for just adding a spellcasting class to the ogre. Since ogre is just a race as is dwarf, elf, human, etc. I see no reason to have a different rule apply to spellcasting ogres.

 

[Scribble]

I don't agree with a philosophy that suggests all creatures should be designed with (or stripped back to) only a simple set of component features. It seems to assume if a creature can't use all of it's features in a small number of rounds, head-to-head with PC opponents, then those unused features are probably unnecessary to the design of the creature.

If we want to assume the monster is "real" in the context of the game, then you have to assume it knows how to use its abilities in the best way possible.

Many DMs (even "seasoned" ones) won't always know this, especially in the heat of battle.

So if you crowd the monster with a bunch of abilities that won't really have much of an effect, then you're opening the chance for the DM to use these and in essence waste a round of action...

So the players gain XP, but without any real challenge...


(at least, that's what I assume...)

 

[ken-ichi]

I agree with Scribble. Plus if I really need a creature to have the ability to do something minor, like a charm person a day, bam, this one has the ability to do so. If the ability is useful in battle, then bump the Cr of just a +% of XP.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Another one that immediately leaps to mind is the Flind. A Flind is a more powerful gnoll, that uses flindbars - which are essentially nunchakus. So, rather than make him a seperate monster, why not make him a gnoll-monk? That's what I did when I needed one, back in the 3.0 days.

I always thought Flind should be a gnoll-only prestige class, myself.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, if I want an ogre mage 2.0 to have Charm Person, I'll give him a level of sorcerer or enchanter.

 

[BryonD]

While I am thinking of it, does anyone know where you might find writeups of the AD&D 1e versions of the rust monster and ogre magi online? I would like to see those and adapt them myself.

Not AD&D but from the 1976 D&D Sup I Greyhawk:

OGRE MAGI: These are properly Japanese Ogres, far more powerful than their Western cousins! An Ogre Mage has the following special abilities in addition to those of a normal ogre" 1) become invisible; 2) fly, as a Flying spell allows; 3) cause darkness in a 1" radius; 4) polymorph into a human form; 5) Regenerate at 1 point/melee round; 6) employ a single Charm Person and a single Sleep spell once per day; and 7) use a Cold spell fo 8 dice value once per day. These abominations typically lure or raid for human victims to pillage, devour or enslave.


So, if you want a 3X version, I think the MM has you covered. Except you'd need to change type to abomination.



As to this effort. It is a terrible Ogre Mage. It is not even really an Ogre Mage at all.
but, as a mystical ogre leader it may be a better monster than the 3X Ogre Mage.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I don't agree with a philosophy that suggests all creatures should be designed with (or stripped back to) only a simple set of component features. It seems to assume if a creature can't use all of it's features in a small number of rounds, head-to-head with PC opponents, then those unused features are probably unnecessary to the design of the creature.

I remember reading an article somewhere (don't remember where) where they compaired the 3.0 and the 3.5 version of a couple of monsters. I don't even remember what monster it was (Merilith or Succubus I think - I can tell this post isn't going to help much already).

The idea was to try and quicken combat a bit by streamlining the abilities listed in the stat block. They cut the number of abilities in almost half (from 9 abilities to 5 or something like that) so the DM wouldn't have to spend so much time deciding what to do and have fewer things to try and keep track of. If a merilith is supposed to be tornado of death from her swords, why have a half-dozen abilities that don't assist her being a whirling blade of death? (Just so it's said, one or two would be fine, but the stat block from the article stripped four or five that didn't fit the concept of... whatever it was). Does having a sleep abilty really add much flavor to the critter if it is never used? If the PCs don't know it has the ability does it add to the flavor?

 

[Imp]

Streamlining's a pretty good thing, I suppose, but it removes some opportunities for creative monster-running... I sometimes wonder if that sort of thing could be cordoned off into an optional secondary abilities section for some magical monsters - ogre magi, genies, dragons & such. Like, at DM's option, choose from two of these five low-level spell-like abilities, or something.

I don't really have any problems with the new ogre mage, but I would give them shape-changing abilities, squeamishness about mechanics nonwithstanding.