Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Kordeth]

That is nice. But I added a little twist. I gave it recharge 5, 6. AND --here is why I love 4E-- I invented a new mechanic: the power starts UNCHARGED, in other words, he has to successfully recharge to use it. Why? The description of the catoblepas has always included that he has a long neck and has a hard time bringing his head up. Now, there is no real 3E way mechanically to reflect that, other than the non-3E-ish 25% chance mechanic from the original description. So I am using this recharge mechanic to simulate that. (I'm kinda proud of myself for that one).

Very nice! I had really just been thinking "generic death gaze" attack to make the point that you can do such an attack in 4E without violating the "no save or die" rule, but for matching the flavor of the catoblepas, this is very nice indeed.

4E monster design (well, 4E design in general) is making me seriously consider going back to freelancing for D&D again--for about the past three years I've been working pretty much exclusively with White Wolf because I was just burned out on all the gruntwork that went into designing anything for 3.5. And that's just about the biggest endorsement I can give 4E.

 

[Pinotage]

I see what you are saying, and I agree to some degree. You could simulate the recharge with a percentage roll in 3E. BUT percentage rolls are strongly disfavored as a design idea. Look through the MM. How many percentage rolls do you find?

No argument there. It's always better to use a unified mechanic if possible, which in the case of the d20 system, would likely mean a d20. That said, if you can replace a d100 with a d6 in 4e, it's no different really than using a d20 in 3e as a expanded rule.

I do fail to see, however, just because something has 'core' slapped on it, that it makes it any more elegant than a expanded 3e rule using a d20 for probabilities. I guess that's the human effect - people in 3e see the percentiles as clunky, but fail to see exactly the same clunkiness in 4e simply because it has 'core' written on it, and 3e's version didn't have an official rule behind it.

I agree with you on a few things, though. 4e seems to have shifted the paradigm that 'apparantly' clouded 3e, and that's a good thing because now people won't feel inclined to somehow feel tied down by the system.

Pinotage

 

[keterys]

At the end of the day, the problem isn't that you can't make up cool powers for 3e monsters.

It's that you _have_ to do the rest of it. Use HD and type which determine base attack and saves and impact on CR and hp, and affect skills and feats, etc. The overhead to make a 3e monster is about 5 to 10 times as much work, and here's the really killer part... the work is at least 80% less fun.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Regardless, I am loving 4E monster desing. It is better and more elegant than 3E monster design. From a designer's standpoint.

Agreed. What do you think of the stripped down monster descriptions? I'm on the fence about those, but mechanically I'm loving 4e.

 

[Celebrim]

I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.

Looking at the mechanics, they don't have 'Save or Die' but they do have 'Save or be dropped to 0 hit points.'

 

[keterys]

Well, that and it's pretty easy to give a higher level creature a 'death gaze'.

C Death Gaze (standard; at-will) * Necrotic
Close Blast 10; 3d10+6 necrotic damage and 5 ongoing necrotic damage (save ends).

Bam, normal people dying left and right.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm pleased all monster option rules and monster magic don't apply to the PCs by default. The "layer cake" method of monster creation is far easier than trying to fit them into extreme balance or 3e's methodology. And 4e(1e)'s method is far more flexible so you can make whatever you desire and, with some playtesting, it just works. I'd actually prefer it if they applied the same thinking to spells, magic items, and classes but I maybe we can change those without help?

Saying that, I think learning magic is a real kind of learning for PCs and monster powers are absolutely a big piece of that pie. What do you think of including spells, magic items, and class powers to the monsters you publish?

Like needing mountain lion paws for boots of springing and striding?
Or bartering with ogre magi to learn levitation?
Or studying bonesnappers to pick up the Rampage ability? (tail required)

Those are all classics though. I'd make the powers/magic new and tied together for suggested use. Suggested because if they players didn't learn this through play, but rather through reading, they may never think about all the possibilities such may provide. A lot of the "follow the rules" thinking is still in place.

EDIT:
Now if you say the tail could be sawed off and strapped to the butt of a PC as a magic item, I would have say, "hells yes! That's how players think." Of course, it wouldn't work automatically. Magic item creation does take some learning. I don't hand wave it.

Of course, as I've figured they need nothing but the tail, they will invariably try to wear half the damn bonesnapper as a trousers. It will still work with a penalty and I'll tell them it feels too tight in the legs, but after enough repetitions of that as others try it on they should catch the discrepancy and penalty

I know that many folks will just give the stats of magic items to PCs without that fiddlyness. I don't do that, but apparently I think about magic items differently than most.

--not happy with magic items in the PHB--spikey

 

[Spatula]

I see what you are saying, and I agree to some degree. You could simulate the recharge with a percentage roll in 3E. BUT percentage rolls are strongly disfavored as a design idea. Look through the MM. How many percentage rolls do you find?

One on nearly every demon & nearly every devil.

Regardless, I am loving 4E monster desing. It is better and more elegant than 3E monster design. From a designer's standpoint.

Well, it is certainly stripped down. There's not a lot of extraneous details to fiddle with.

 

[howandwhy99]

You may want to think about bringing back in random HP for monsters. I know it will matter less in 4e with such huge numbers, but 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1 meant quite a bit of variance in OD&D monsters.

I'm just saying the randomness adds a lot, even in the face of pick your own HP (both old school methods), in that players won't know exactly when a creature will drop. It gets boring and predictable when every kobold in that party above has exactly 4 hps y'know? Or in 4e 25 or thereabouts.

I think there are a number of fair and easy ways to do this. Take 45hp for example:
The full variance method (highly random): 10d8
The half & half variance (which may be best): 23+5d8
Or the keep it simple:: 40+1d8

For the latter two, I'd keep the bloodied number at 23 regardless of the total. This isn't rocket science. It feels too much like the trap 3e fell into.

Also, just another suggestion. If you've got your Fiend Folio open anyway you may want to look at a few other stats we've lived without for 8 years now. The one I that pertains right now is the variable XP award. Flat Reward + #/HP. Nice, huh?

But maybe it's too complicated for a beginner DM? I'd stick a variance HP and variance XP in an appendix or something.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Wow, this topic came out of nowhere.

Monster design in 3.x was one of those things that excited me at first, but the more monsters I designed by it, the more I detested it. There were just so many things that had to be done to create a monster that were for book keeping purposes only. Skills for instance - how often did DMs actually have a monster use their skills? Sure, maybe it happened occasionally, but it would be a lot easier to simply give them a one line entry talking about the things that are skill-like that they're exceptionally good at. Like swimming.

Feats were a little more useful in0game, but how many times did monsters get feats just because they had to be given? Hmmm.... IMproved initiative, Toughness, and Power Attack. How many times have I used those because I had already assigned the ones I wanted them to have and simply had to finish fleshing the critter out? And how many DMs forgot about the Improved Initiative when playing the monster? It sounds like monsters are going to be vastly improved.