Zinegata said:
Yep, they enjoy, and I vicariously through them, looking at the monsters they have defeated at the end of a session.
Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint
- Thread starter Orcus
- Start date
Yep, they enjoy, and I vicariously through them, looking at the monsters they have defeated at the end of a session.
The Little Raven
First Post
Orcus said:
You've been sigged.
And made yourself a new customer.
Clark, you are the man.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Orcus said:
Isn't this essentially how monster design was done all the way up through to 2e?
Give a monster the abilities that it needs.
I think the concept behind 3e was a fine one (gaze attacks should all work the same way, energy drain should all work the same way etc. etc). A grand unified theory of how things work together.
The problem was that in practice it actually ended up hamstringing design, giving very tiny boxes of design space.
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
)Cheers
Belphanior
First Post
Orcus said:
Personally I'd rewrite it a little like so:
m Bite (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 14 and opponent loses one healing surge)
m Savage (standard; at-will)
Make a Bite attack and Followup
Followup
+9 vs. Reflex; 1d6+4 damage.
I really don't mean to be snooty about this, but the Tail Slap attack as it stands is a little superfluous; nobody would ever use it. Making it part of the followup achieves the same goal and trims some fat. The Bite atttack is, of course, a basic attack and thus can be used for an oppy while Savage isn't. But I can't insert that little icon.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Fancy names are important. If you don't give it a name, how should people know that you're doing something sensible and not pulling this out of ... the place where the sun doesn't shine.Plane Sailing said:Isn't this essentially how monster design was done all the way up through to 2e?
Give a monster the abilities that it needs.
I think the concept behind 3e was a fine one (gaze attacks should all work the same way, energy drain should all work the same way etc. etc). A grand unified theory of how things work together.
The problem was that in practice it actually ended up hamstringing design, giving very tiny boxes of design space.
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
Cheers
But there are differences between 2e and 4e, as far as I can see. Special abilities might be "exception based", but there are still underlying numbers that guide what you do. But they are no longer as limiting (or at least feel that way) as they were in 3e.
When I heard 4e was moving to this style of monster design, I immediately whipped up a few monsters for the 3.5e game I was running at the time based on this design philosophy. It proved to be one of the more interesting fights of the entire campaign, so I have to say I'm on board with it most of the way.
The part I'm not on board with is, well, I see three types of NPCs in the game world:
1) People who don't matter. Your average farmer, or blacksmith, or whatever.
2) Monsters who you kill. Bandits, demons, or whatever.
3) Important People who are fully fleshed out characters. Drizzt do'Urden, Lancelot du Lac, or whoever.
People in #1 don't really need a statblock. Sometimes, rarely, they do, but I could handle this in 3e because I knew the rules decently enough to generate a 1st-level commoner on the fly. It's even easier in Mutants & Masterminds. Presumably there will be some sort of baseline to generate on the fly from in 4e.
People in #2 only need stats so far as combat goes, because their part in the game is showing up, fighting, and dying. To that end, being specifically geared for combat is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes a person in #2 unexpectedly becomes more important and needs stats beyond his combat ones. This can sometimes be a problem. For example, if the PCs convince a Kobold DragonShield to join the party for the remainder of the adventure, he needs to have the necessary statistics to be usable as a party member. 3e did this by building PCs and NPCs on the exact same system. 4e has monsters at least having most, if not all, of the same statistics as PCs, but I still have a few concerns until I see the full system - for instance, from the stat blocks we've seen, monsters in 4e don't seem to have healing surges.
People in #3 need full statistics and I really can't think of an exception - no situations where I would care if a PC is able to make masterwork baskets, but not care if Lancelot was capable of making masterwork baskets. If I get 5-round-combat-only, PC-incompatible statistics for Drizzt, I'm likely to be quite unsatisfied with things.
The part I'm not on board with is, well, I see three types of NPCs in the game world:
1) People who don't matter. Your average farmer, or blacksmith, or whatever.
2) Monsters who you kill. Bandits, demons, or whatever.
3) Important People who are fully fleshed out characters. Drizzt do'Urden, Lancelot du Lac, or whoever.
People in #1 don't really need a statblock. Sometimes, rarely, they do, but I could handle this in 3e because I knew the rules decently enough to generate a 1st-level commoner on the fly. It's even easier in Mutants & Masterminds. Presumably there will be some sort of baseline to generate on the fly from in 4e.
People in #2 only need stats so far as combat goes, because their part in the game is showing up, fighting, and dying. To that end, being specifically geared for combat is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes a person in #2 unexpectedly becomes more important and needs stats beyond his combat ones. This can sometimes be a problem. For example, if the PCs convince a Kobold DragonShield to join the party for the remainder of the adventure, he needs to have the necessary statistics to be usable as a party member. 3e did this by building PCs and NPCs on the exact same system. 4e has monsters at least having most, if not all, of the same statistics as PCs, but I still have a few concerns until I see the full system - for instance, from the stat blocks we've seen, monsters in 4e don't seem to have healing surges.
People in #3 need full statistics and I really can't think of an exception - no situations where I would care if a PC is able to make masterwork baskets, but not care if Lancelot was capable of making masterwork baskets. If I get 5-round-combat-only, PC-incompatible statistics for Drizzt, I'm likely to be quite unsatisfied with things.
The Little Raven
First Post
Imban said:
They're not supposed to. They're not the protagonists. If you want one to survive and come back later, then you give him whatever plot protection he needs, and you don't need rules like healing surges to do it.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
Orcus said:
Amen. We're starting to do some preliminary work on a monster book as well. I don't think we'd ever go as crazy and over the top as Denizens of Avadnu (and I mean format, not creatures), but we're definitely taking a good hard look at all of this now. I got to play at D&D Experience, and Clark is right. Monster design is so much better and the game I played was a blast. There is going to be a lot of cool stuff coming out for 4e, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
JVisgaitis
Explorer
Orcus said:
I really don't understand why so many people say this. Yeah, you were constricted within certain confines, but saying that monsters were cookie cutter or anything like that I just don't agree with.
We managed to add almost one cool mechanic to every monster we did in Denizens of Avadnu. Granted, the chains are off now and there is more freedom, but I don't agree with the whole 4e grants me some magical ability to make cool monsters. I just don't see it.
Monsters were cookie cutter because designers were lazy and afraid to push the envelope IMO.
