Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Orcus]

So, monsters have three points of differentiation.

Two of them are axis.
Role - Artillery, Brute, Controller, Lurker, Skirmisher, Soldier
PC Value - Elite, Minion, "Normal", Solo

One of them is a binary - Leader

So in converting monsters, what are you guys looking for in the original source to determine what characteristics the new converted monster should have?

We go back to the original source text, not even our conversion. What was this monster designed to do. Often, we found the monster had some cool flavor but no real viable mechanic to realize that flavor. So we asked, what makes this monster different? Then we asked what role (as we understand them) does it play based on your list above. We reviewed the Design and Development articles from WotC for MM5 which talk about these roles (though the names have changed slightly). That was very helpful. Then we did our best. As we are scratching out the monsters, some get a ??? by the role, since we arent sure. Same with types. We have no idea what all the types and subtypes will be yet. So those get our best guess. But that is what we look at.

 

[DaveMage]

Equipment leather armor

Heh!

 

[FunkBGR]

How do the stat mods work?

I thought they were the same as 3.0/3.5 - but even the DDXP monsters are all over.

Is it indeed the same?

 

[Grazzt]

How do the stat mods work?

I thought they were the same as 3.0/3.5 - but even the DDXP monsters are all over.

Is it indeed the same?

Ability score mods are the same as 3.x. They are just notated with + 1/2 level.

For example, Str 16 is still +3. On a Level 8 monster , it would be noted as "Str 16 (+7)".... +3 ability score mod, +4 from level.

 

[Nebulous]

For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.

It works out rather well, IMO.

Hell, you should post that Mike!

 

[Wiman]

Summon Beat Down (standard; encounter)
If threatened, a saucy tart can summon other saucy tarts, brazen strumpets, wanton wenches, or a sly pimp to her aid.

Summon a sly pimp eh, if he has a feather in his cap I think Scott has just given birth to the Bard in 4e.

Mike Mearls - Me = big fan.

 

[Spatula]

I'm just another "groupie" on this thread I would like to add that those that have defended 3.x(I mean this loosely) monster design; give us a new 3.x monster that you stat'ed up correctly. I would hope the time it takes would at least allow you to see the reason most of us "lesser" DM's(I being one) enjoy the opportunity to do our own monster design. In 3.x I just said to heck with it and went to find that which was as close as possible to what I envisioned in my mind for the encounter. Unhappy DM meant unhappy group Not saying you can't post and have a different viewpoint, just wondering why it is to bring nothing to the table other than-"You could do that in 3.x!"

I don't think correcting mistaken logic is bringing nothing to the table. There are problems with creating 3e monsters, which have been gone over already. Not being able to make an creature that's defined by shooting an energy ray, or a monster ability that only works some of the time, etc. aren't in that list, because you absolutely can do those things, and futhermore they appear in the first MM! So saying that 3e was somehow restrictive in that regard is absurd.

If you are publishing your creations then the added complexity of the 3e stat block is obviously a detriment, in that it requires more work on your part for potentially little gain (depending on the monster). 4e is definitely a step forward as far as that goes. If we're talking about just inventing something for your home game, who cares if the skill points are correct? Who cares if it even has skill points? No one but you is ever going to see it.

 

[Flynn]

This has been a most interesting thread. I had already decided to buy the 4E Tome of Horrors, but it pleases me greatly to read that it is still under way. I have the utmost of confidence in both Orcus and Grazzt here, so it should be a fantastic product.

Looking Forward To It,
Flynn

 

[Orcus]

I will say there are a few things I want to improve about monster design in 4E.

1. More description. Right now, due to space limits is my guess, there is almost no description of the monster and how it acts away from the battle mat. Our Tome of Horrors will add in a bit more of that content. Monsters should be more than just a mini pic and a stat block of encounter info--at least the way I play D&D they are. Monsters are not just adventure road bumps.

2. Weaknesses. Not everything is about how much damage a monster can deal out. Some monsters have unique weaknesses (like the old alley reaper from the creature collection; grab its cloak and you could destroy it and thus the monster--temporarily). We like those kinds of things. We intend to add them in to our monsters.

3. Plot stuff and lesser powers. Sure, some monsters were either traps or poor excuses for adventure plots. The monster itself was almost never encountered. 4E seems to be avoiding these monsters totally. But, I think in doing so it is omitting all the "story" kind of powers. Plus, some monsters have lesser powers, like light or minor charms or cantrips or things that are neat for understanding the monster but might not make their way into a combat stat block. Nevertheless, they are important to the monster. That stuff will be noted in our monsters. Just because a minor power doesnt lend itself to combat doesnt mean it isnt important for a monster description. I think those types of things help DMs--who are the ones who have to run the monster and be inspired by the monster--help to understand the monster and how it fits in that particular DMs game world.

Luckily, with the flexibility of 4E that stuff will be easy to add in. And, I should add, that stuff isnt a failure of 4E, it is more (in my view) a failure of the MM to include that stuff, not the rules. In fact the 4E rules let me model those weakenesses better than I have been able to before.

Clark

 

[Lizard]

3. Plot stuff and lesser powers. Sure, some monsters were either traps or poor excuses for adventure plots. The monster itself was almost never encountered. 4E seems to be avoiding these monsters totally. But, I think in doing so it is omitting all the "story" kind of powers. Plus, some monsters have lesser powers, like light or minor charms or cantrips or things that are neat for understanding the monster but might not make their way into a combat stat block. Nevertheless, they are important to the monster. That stuff will be noted in our monsters. Just because a minor power doesnt lend itself to combat doesnt mean it isnt important for a monster description. I think those types of things help DMs--who are the ones who have to run the monster and be inspired by the monster--help to understand the monster and how it fits in that particular DMs game world.

This is my biggest gripe w/the 4e design philosophy and the biggest thing turning me off to the game -- the "Monsters is fer killin'" attitude, explicilty expressed in dev articles as "Monsters exist for 5 round of combat; nothing else matters". If TOH breaks away from this atavistic viewpoint, it might just replace, not supplement, the MM if I ever run a 4e game.