Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Here you go:


EFREETI Level 10 Skirmisher
Large outsider (fire)

Large elemental humanoid (fire)?

 

[Orcus]

Yeah, no one really knows how the types are all going to work in 4E yet

 

[Soel]

Orcus, here's one definite buyer of Necro's 4e monster book.

Also, some cool critters there Keterys! (good to see some Dreamblade lovin!)

 

[Orcus]

By the way, I posted this in the Publishers forum:

Promise: We will have a monster book out for early 4E. We will be paying the $5k. We will be early adopting. Scott Greene and I are concepting out monsters as I type this.

See this thread: [edit: removed link to this thread]

Hopefully, WotC will allow the GSL to work with OGL content (or will give us permission) so we can redo some of the classic monsters from our original Tome of Horrors. But even if they dont, we will have a monster book.

Count on it. And count on it kicking butt.

I am so geeked about 4E monster design I cant even see straight right now. They did an awesome job on the 4E monsters. These sample monsters are so great and the exception based approach really makes every monster so much fun and so unique. Scott and I are absolutely going crazy right now!

So you heard it here--Necro, early adopter, Tome of Horrors 4th Edition will happen. Period. With or without the old monsters.

Clark

Oh yeah!!!!

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh yeah!!!!

I imagine you dancing and bouncing around in your computer chair as you type this.

Your level of excitement is infectious, and I only hope that other quality outfits like yours can get this jazzed.

 

[keterys]

Not sure I was clear on what I meant by secondary tail attack so, to explain:

m Bite (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 14) and secondary tail slap attack and slows bloodied target (until target no longer bloodied). Secondary: +9 vs AC; 1d6 + 4 damage.

There are pluses and minuses, but kinda interesting how much you can streamline and still be 'cool!'

 

[JesterOC]

In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. t.

I recall hearing from one designer about 3E (Actually I think it was a game designer who had spoken with 3E guys when making a PC game off of the new 3d edition rules so technically this is hearsay (sp?)).

Anyway I heard that the prime reason they went with set powers and cookie cutter abilities was that 1st and 2nd edition had several monsters with the same abilities but had very different game mechanics. 3E by unifying them they were able to add consistency to the game.

I think 4E monsters are great but there is a possibility that we will end up with the same problems over time.

 

[Orcus]

Yeah, and in 3E there would have been "one nitpicky right way" to do it. As you have showed, you could do the same thing several ways. And that is just fine.

Oh man, I love this!!!!

They've given me back my D&D from the horrible rules lawyer minions!!!!!!!!

No more arguing skill points and if the feats add up and piling on 4 different classes on a monster base. UGH! Hey, we did it cause we had to, but this 4E approach is so much better.

The normal D&D DM and player just got their game back from the arcane rules golems!

This is so sweet.

 

[keterys]

Honestly, _this_ is the reaction I had at D&D Experience. I walked away from my two playtest sessions and was like 'I could run this right now. Take your playtest characters, I will make up monsters on the fly, and it will be fun' and I really had some steam let out of me on seeing what felt like overall negative reviews from industry folks who just didn't feel the same way.

So glad we feel the same about it

 

[Orcus]

I recall hearing from one designer about 3E (Actually I think it was a game designer who had spoken with 3E guys when making a PC game off of the new 3d edition rules so technically this is hearsay (sp?)).

Anyway I heard that the prime reason they went with set powers and cookie cutter abilities was that 1st and 2nd edition had several monsters with the same abilities but had very different game mechanics. 3E by unifying them they were able to add consistency to the game.

I think 4E monsters are great but there is a possibility that we will end up with the same problems over time.

Yes. That problem does exist. But in my view, the cure was worse than the disease. Hey, I dont care if there is a snake that has a better written constrict power than a behir. Should it be that way? No. But forcing the cookie cutter solution took the spirit and life out of monsters. And the uniqueness. I appreciate the problem they were trying to solve, and I agreed it with it. And they tried to solve it. But I just think this way is better.

That is why games evolve. That is why people need to not fear new editions. You should be free to try to fix a problem with the game and fail--hell, fail GLORIOUSLY. 3E made some amazing advancements. I cant, for example, ever concieve of going back to non-cyclical initiative (and boy did I resist that when 3E came out). I love the balance issues they added to 3E. I love the "back to the dungeon" and the clarity to the combat rules. I laud their attempt to find a rule for everything. In the end, some of that succeeded and some of it didnt. Now there is a new edition. Every edition moves us closer to a better game, in my view. And guess what, 4E will screw some stuff up, just like 3E made monster design a horrific, creativity squashing nightmare (ok, I'm overstating it, yes, you could still make real cool monsters, but it became more of a rules laywer-y cookie cutter solution which I dont favor). 4E will do things wrong. Maybe it will be that 1st level characters will be too powerful. I dont know. But experimenting is the way to do it--and, as it so happens, it is the TRADITION of D&D. Gary, god rest his sould, didnt stop with the white box. He did Greyhawk. Blackmoor. He added new classes. Psionics. New monsters. Eldritch Wizardry. Then he tried to unify it all with AD&D. If D&D has a tradition, its change, growth and expansion. If it didnt, we'd all just have STR INT and WIS.

Wow, I really digressed from your point, didnt I?