Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Spatula]

That's just what I was thinking. John Cooper's gonna be out of a job.

Not really, since a monsters HP, AC/Fort/Ref/Will, and possibly ability scores, along with attack bonuses / damage, are all based off formulas. So there's still lots of areas for typos and for math-averse designers to screw up basic addition.

 

[JVisgaitis]

OK maybe I got a little carried away in my enthusiasm, but in my view there is no doubt that monster design for -a designer- (as opposed to home DM) is easier and much, much more fun.

Please, keep the enthusiasm coming. From one designer to another, I get really bummed when I keep coming here reading about how 4e is like WoW and all that other stuff. Reading the stuff from Chris Pramas and that dude from Paizo was a bit disheartening. While I don't expect everyone to be geeked on 4e, its refreshing to read a post where another designer is excited.

 

[Knight Otu]

Scott was winking

I'm aware.

And those are the people you ignore. The MM (the 1st one!) has all kinds of abilities in it that PCs can't have, so I'm not sure where this impulse comes from...

Apparently from White Wolf's Creature Collection that came out before people had the correct impression on monsters. However, even the Player's Handbook had monsters that had such abilities (the Survival Kit), among them the mature adult red dragon with more Hit Dice than a PC could achieve before the Epic rules were published, or the gelatinous cube that could engulf foes. Those people must have been a bit ignorant, I guess.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Clark, welcome to the dark side. We have ale and whores.

I think you're starting to get a sense of how much stuff I've wanted to tell you about, but can't.

It seems things in 4e -- not just monsters, everything -- is really focused on being used for a specific purpose, and it does that job very very well, much better than its 3e counterpart did -- but at the same time, it is less useful when you try to do something else with it. 3e gave you a swiss army knife; 4e gives you a big box of high quality tools. Advantage -- each tool is much better at its job. Disadvantage -- you have to keep swapping tools. (The wolf you fight in the woods isn't the same as the wolf your druid has his animal companion, etc.)

This, to me, is a major strength of 4E. I'd much rather a game that does what it's intended to do excellently than one that does everything adequately.

Sure, there's room in the middle, and I'm not saying that 4E has found the "perfect" sweet spot. But I like and support the intention.

 

[helium3]

I assume it was the general lack of guidelines then, but since I know next to nothing about AD&D, it's hard for me to contribute something substantial here.
The 3E approach was "over-engineering" this. I think their guideline was indeed: "Everything should be created equal. Then we can balance stuff more easily". It didn't work out so well - neither was everything created equal (Compare Dragon HD benefits to Fey HD benefits), nor ended everything balanced out. (Templates can have awkward effect if you base stuff on HD, without linking HD and CR. See also Summon Monster and Polymorph Effects)

Well, we don't really know what their design assumptions were. Perhaps under those assumptions a Fey encounter really was balanced against a Dragon encounter. But, because they didn't communicate those assumptions very well things fell apart.

It might be possible, but it is
- not by the book

The 4E announcement has given me the freedom to throw out the books when I feel like it. Not sure why.

- wonky.

That remains to be seen. I'm quite sure about the numbers (they never lie) but ultimately it's the assumptions that cause the most problems. So, we'll see how things play out.

All your data points can only guide you in the right direction, but none of them will actually fit it. It's probably easier to start from the beginning and describe the "power curve" you want, and then make monsters that fit these data points. (Though instead of a curve, thanks to stuff like "roles" and "minion/elite/solo notations", you might actually have something n-dimensional...)

This is what they're doing with 4E as near as I can tell. I'm messing around with 3.5 to see if I can do something similar. I'm really unhappy about some of the changes they're making to how classes work but I really dig a lot of the higher level "play style" changes. So, I'm trying to see if there's a way to have my cake and eat it to.

 

[Kraydak]

I am going to embrace a countervailing opinion: in 4e monster design flexibility is going to take a nose-dive. As I realized when posting in the Noonan playtest thread, because 4e PCs cannot nova, the 4e xp/monster system *has* to be more accurate than the 3e CR system (math-wise they are the same, there is no quantum leap in game design). This means that monster design will be straightjacketed. Rapidly people will go: oh, its an artillery foe, I wonder what (very short duration, minor effect) debuff this one will have? Sure, the *fluff* will vary wildly, but the mechanical effects? They will be clones of one-another.

Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.

 

[Glyfair]

Please, keep the enthusiasm coming. From one designer to another, I get really bummed when I keep coming here reading about how 4e is like WoW and all that other stuff. Reading the stuff from Chris Pramas and that dude from Paizo was a bit disheartening. While I don't expect everyone to be geeked on 4e, its refreshing to read a post where another designer is excited.

I have to agree that I have been very disappointed in the lack of any enthusiasm for 4E from the various major publishers. I don't expect that every one would be excited, but you do think there would be more excitement. I'm not sure I've seen any besides from Clark and you at this point. (Maybe Goodman Games, but I'm not sure if they really post here).

Perhaps because...

I'm a gamer first and a game company owner second. Its the philosophy that I have always used with Necro.

Most of the d20 companies that have survived the years diversified and became businesses. People like Erik Mona and Chris Pramas are game company owners first and gamers second. They have to weigh the business reasons for going with 4E because a lot of people depend on their company staying viable.

Necromancer Games seems to have been at that sweet spot that while successful and respected, they didn't seem to become a "corporation" and that gives Clark the ability to dive in with both feet.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not surprised that they've gone back to the earlier way of doing it (although I wonder when someone came up with the fancy name for it )

No, exception based design has a different meaning than the old way of doing it.

Exception Based Design is all about having a general rule and having each rules item be an exception to it.

For example:

Rule - It takes a standard action to make 1 attack
Exception - This creature can attack twice with a standard action
Rule - Creatures move up to their movement rate as a move action
Exception - None for this creature

The 1st and 2nd Edition method was not to establish any rules at all and just give you all the rules in the text of the monster. This meant that there was no similarity between monsters at all(or VERY little).

In 4th, all the monsters are united by the general rules on monster, the rules of the game, and their format. So, when you look through a creature you are mainly looking for the couple of things that makes it different from the "average". Oh, this creature move 10 instead of 6 and it's attacks are a ranged attack that sets people on fire and a melee attack with its claws.

The idea being that once I've noted those things, I basically understand how to run the monster. So, even if it is the first time I've seen it I can read it in 30 seconds and run it how it is supposed to work.

I mean an attack that immobilizes the target in 4th probably said something like this in 1st and 2nd: "Anyone hit by the slime attack is stuck to the ground. It can be broken out of by doing 34 damage to it with slashing weapons. All other weapons do not damage it. The slime also dries up and becomes brittle if fire is used on it. It takes about 2 rounds for an average torch to have this effect. The slime also provides some protection to the creature hit by it. It lowers its AC by 4 at anyone attacking it has to get through the slime first."

Sure, a lot more detailed. Way more difficult to figure out on the fly, however.

 

[Incenjucar]

So this thread inspired me a bit, and, since I've barely touched monster design since 2e (I used to have the Monster format memorized, and I have a TERRIBLE memory), and pretty much haven't touched an MM book since Fiend Folio came out ( ), I came up with this in about an hour, flipping through various pieces of information on this board:

The dessicated, almost skeletal corpse of an axe-hurler whose arms have been ripped from his or her body, with axe and shield held aloft by unseen "phantom limbs."

Deadarm Axeman Level 3 Brute
Medium natural animate (undead)
Initiative +3 Senses Perception: +3, darkvision
HP 46 Bloodied 23
AC 16 Fort. +15, Ref. +15, Will +15
Immune Disease, Poison; Resist 10 Necrotic; Vulnerable 5 Radiant
Speed 6
m Hand Axe (standard, at-will) * Weapon
+5 vs. AC; 1d8+3 Damage
m Shield Push (standard, at-will) * Shield
+5 vs. Ref; Push target 1 square if small, medium, or large, and can shift into the space that the target occupied.
M Iron Tide (standard, at-will) * Weapon * Shield
The deadarm axeman makes a standard melee attack and pushes the target 1 square if small, medium, or large and can shift into the space that the target occupied.
r Hand Axe (minor, at-will) * Weapon
Range 5/10; +4 vs. AC; 1d8+3 Damage; weapon immediately returns to hand.
R Project Anguish (immediate reaction; when first bloodied; encounter)
Range 5; +4 vs. Will; target is dazed (save ends).
Alignment Unaligned Languages Common
Str 14 (+3) Dex 14 (+3) Wis 14 (+3)
Con 14 (+3) Int 4 (-1) Cha 4 (-1)
Equipment: Leather armor, light shield, hand axe

I'm sure it's off here or there, but I definitely like its ease compared to what I remember of 3E.

Can't wait to get ahold of the actual rules.

 

[fafhrd]

Anyone hit by the slime attack is stuck to the ground. It can be broken out of by doing 34 damage to it with slashing weapons. All other weapons do not damage it. The slime also dries up and becomes brittle if fire is used on it. It takes about 2 rounds for an average torch to have this effect. The slime also provides some protection to the creature hit by it. It lowers its AC by 4 at anyone attacking it has to get through the slime first.

Wow, that brings back memories. Bad memories.
Perfectly nuanced to replicate the original stuff there, man.