D&D 5E Monster Creation in D&D Next

[Wizards of the Coast]

So, how does one create monsters in D&D Next? Mike walks you through some statistics for the minotaur this week.

Read Monster Creation in D&D Next on D&D Insider here!

 

[Manbearcat]

Easily the most enlightening and heartening article I've read to date. Clear and concise yet granular in detail. This article gives the impression of some quality accounting going on.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm completely confused by this. First you create stats, and then you add different "skill" and "natural armor" modifiers to transform those stats to conform to expected ranges for their level? They recognize that level is an important number to know for judging a monster's strength, but you're just supposed to use its XP value for building encounters? The connection between hitpoints and hit dice is backwards from older editions? They keep on the idea of elites and solos, but now they link them to size, drop minions, and introduce the terrible name of "mook" for normal monsters?

This is some twisted 3E/4E hybrid that misses the point of both of its parent systems. It lacks the simulationism of 3E, and all the balance, ease of use, and variety of 4E's system. I don't know what they're trying to do with this.

 

[Markn]

I suspect the terminology will see some changes before the light of day (release).

After the initial read it sounds like it could work. For me, I would have to do some designing myself before giving it my stamp of approval.

Color me cautiously optimistic!

Edit: Some of the stuff is a bit klunky, but its the first kick at the can and a reasonable one to me.

 

[Minigiant]

HP is nerfed to the sum of HD + Con mod? Interesting. And low.

Nice to see everything is not so arbitrary.
Mook, elite, and solo, eh?

Aw crap.
Page 2 of the Return to CoC document. New Arrivals and Reinforcements.

 

[billd91]

Easily the most enlightening and heartening article I've read to date. Clear and concise yet granular in detail. This article gives the impression of some quality accounting going on.

It does? I'm having a hard time drawing the connections from one statement to another.

• Large creature = elite? All the time?
• Equivalent to 5th level PCs, and that means 10d10 hit points? Each level is worth 2 hit dice? Does elite tie in with that somehow?
• The minotaur has 10 hit dice but doesn't gain any attack bonus from that at all? His bonus might be the same as a 1st level character with an 18 strength? Should the math get flattened that much?
• Armor doesn't stack with other types of armor? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Natural armor no longer stacks with armor?
• A hill giant with only +3 to hit? That's no better than the orcs in the play test Caves of Chaos.

This really just raises more weird questions than it answers. I don't have much insight into the rationale behind these statements.

 

[RangerWickett]

Yes, I definitely think the math should be flattened that much. A brutish, unskilled but strong monster shouldn't be better at hitting you just because it's big. Even a low-level mathematician chaotician was able to dodge the bite attack of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Improved attack bonus should be skill based (and even then pretty flat). Big things should be scary because of the damage they can do, not just because they have a high attack bonus.

Oh, and mook is NOT a word I'd like to see in the actual mechanics.

 

[RangerWickett]

Also, if large creatures are elite, and elite creatures are supposed to be equivalent to 2 PCs, it makes good sense for large/elite creatures to a) have twice as many HP as medium creatures like PCs, and b) do twice as much damage because their weapons are bigger. I like it.

 

[Markn]

One thing that seems to be a major plus in the monster system for HPs is scalability.

Mearls says that the typical 5th level elite should be in the 50s for HPs. He arrives at this using the Minotuar's 10d10 (average HD being 5.5) + the con bonus.

This is a huge range from the expected average to the max it COULD have. If the PCs managed to get a little over powered its pretty easy to just up the HPs the monster has, thereby making the fight last longer, thereby making the fight more difficult since more damage would be dished out to the PCs before the end of the fight.

That seems to be a simple and elegant way to "toughen" encounters without a lot of work on the DMs part.

 

[Stasis_Delirium]

I am glad to see some of these things outlined, though I share a bit of the confusion.

I'm glad to see the idea of 'Elite' and 'Solo' returning, something I loved from 4e to give boss monsters that extra 'oomph'. I know 'mook' is a working title, as its stated as such, but I am a little sad to see the lowly minion disappear. However I'd need to see just what the power difference is between levels. Perhaps 1st level goblins will fit the bill of 'minion' well, though in a way that as of right now feels clunky, especially this early in the playtest cycle.

I'm a little worried about the notion that size category might instantly bump creatures up to elite or solo status. I personally truly hope they don't return an idea that creatures that advance in hit dice might increase in size as well. This was something from 3e that honestly baffled me. I'm also confused if this is something that is always done for larger creatures, or just picked on a case by case basis. Sometimes I'd like to have 'Krynnish' minotaurs that travel in bands, instead of being solely province of being low number creatures.

I'm on the fence about hit dice size being raised or lowered by size category. Its something I'd have to see in play. I'd imagine huge creatures would use a d12 then. And small perhaps a d6? But does this translate over to player characters as well?

If its true larger creatures get d10 HD, I wonder why the large zombie in the Chaos article linked in the L&L column uses only d8's for HD. That could actually just be an error, or from a document that was an earlier draft perhaps.

I'm hoping there really are clear rules for adding and subtracting from chances to hit as well. I'm okay with some DM fiat, but when it comes to monsters I'd like to have a really solid base to start from. I like the idea of at a glance stats/HD/power levels for creatures and the idea that things can be customized however. But again, I think this is still so early in its development that I truly need to see it in action to get a good idea of it.

On the plus side, I'm happy that the article had much more concrete information about things planned. Even if they might change. Its hard to keep up any enthusiasm when articles start becoming little more than nebulous thoughts about design processes.

Here is hoping for more articles like this. Even if I don't always agree with the direction I'm seeing.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Just as you make a character by merging the four pieces race, class, background and theme I expect you form monsters in the same way.

I guess we have size, quality, theme, and type. The minotaur is a large, elite, bull, humanoid.

A spinx migh be described as a huge, solo, riddling, m.beast.

A cat is a tiny, mook, feline, animal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting, I could probably live with these rules. They seem a mix of 4E simplicity and 3E simulation approach. It acknowledges that at a certain leve, the enemy must have certain stats, but also acknowledges that these stats must come from somewhere (even if "hide and fure" is a bit flimsy as source for the AC bonus. But that is not more flimsy then giving some random outsider a +22 natural armor bonus. At least you can gather a narrative out of the stats).

 

[Connorsrpg]

Well, I am another that likes what I am hearing. I love that stats are based on what the creature really is in the world (as opposed to just level).

I especially love the idea of big clumsy giants having a poor attack bonus, but, if it hits you, you are in trouble.

That was an idea we had to get used to in Savage Worlds (and one I loved). At first a fellow GM who tried couldn't believe ogres etc had such low Fighting die, but when explained this way it made perfect sense...and DnDNext does to me.

The HP thing didn't seem confusing to me. Normally the minotaur would have 5HD, but b/c it is Large it gets the benefits of being elite and they therefore double. I too would like to see Large non-elites though. Especially creatures that are big but not bulky, etc.

I can't wait to start converting a heap of monsters to try this out

 

[Underman]

I like the organic versatility of this monster design. Yet the top-rated comments under that article include complaints that monster design in D&DN is confusing/complicated compared to 4E's simplicity. Those would support the argument that 4E monster roles are prescriptive and not descriptive, and I'm glad that D&DN is moving towards monster metagame elements that truly are descriptive and not prescriptive.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Hm, without reading the guidelines he has to create that minotaur from, it's hard to judge.

I am a big fan of an integrated mechanical system that makes it clear where each of the relevant modifiers is coming from. In this case, the minotaur has a to-hit bonus and damage that are clearly derived. His mention of hobgoblins confused this though - mentioning that they were being given a higher bonus because they are a martial race. Will this be clearly described? +1 to-hit if trained as a soldier, +2 if trained as an elite, +3 if you are the world's greatest swordsman. Should these bonuses be for specific weapons?

He also discusses the minotaur's special abilities and makes mention that some of these will be represented in other monsters - Rage for instance. Finally! An end to the tyranny of monsters having wholly unique, but incredibly similar abilities. In fact, here's a suggestion if it doesn't already exist - harking back to the (broken) build-your-own-class rules I remember from 2E - give us a laundry list of abilities to choose from, and suggest a cost for each one. You want a 5th level monster, here, have 5x points to spend on things and you won't go far wrong:

+1 to hit costs 1
+2 to hit costs 3, discount of 1 for single weapon
+3 to hit costs 5, discount of 1 for single weapon

Armor costs 1 per point up to the recommended AC, 2 beyond that.
Similarly for extra damage.

Rage costs 3
Keen senses costs 2
And so on..

I'm just worried about the use of mechanical derivations for some things ("the attack bonus is about right because of his strength") vs. non-sensical fixes to bring things into line with expectations ("this creatures isn't strong enough so I guess he has weapon training to get his to-hit up to scratch").

 

[GX.Sigma]

Sounds cool. I like the little tidbit that each role+level will have a set of "generic" stats that you can just slap a few abilities onto and mash go.

As a side note, what's the deal with having elites and solos? I thought the flat math was supposed to make it possible to use higher-level monsters as elites/solos?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds cool. I like the little tidbit that each role+level will have a set of "generic" stats that you can just slap a few abilities onto and mash go.

As a side note, what's the deal with having elites and solos? I thought the flat math was supposed to make it possible to use higher-level monsters as elites/solos?

Hmm, good question. It has 10d10 hit dice, though, so maybe it's a 10th level monster technically, but could also be described as Level 5 Elite?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would much rather see a system in which a creature twice your level is an appropriate elite, 4 times your level an appropriate solo, than explicit elite and solo creatures of your level. It all depends on how XP values and damage output increase with level though. If it's flat/linear, this works, if it's higher than linear it doesn't.

 

[Jack99]

Hmm, good question. It has 10d10 hit dice, though, so maybe it's a 10th level monster technically, but could also be described as Level 5 Elite?

Nah, it's a 5th level monster with double HD and double CON-modifier of a 5th level monster because it is elite. It's AC damage are based on the 5th level template, not the 10th level template, so it can't be technically a 10th level monster. Such a monster would (presumably) do more damage, better AC, and probably have a bit more to hit?

 

[Underman]

This is a side issue, but the Rage ability states "If that attack misses but either die roll was 10 or higher, the attack is instead a glancing blow that deals 5 damage". I don't have a problem with the fluff, but I'm confused by the terminology. If a miss is a glancing blow and a hit can also be a glancing blow (when hit points are abstracted that way instead of a large axe blade embedded through plate armor and 5 inches into flesh and bone), then what's the difference between a miss's glancing blow and a hit's glancing blow?