Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Lizard]

As you say yourself, it's a plot device, not a monster.

I remember seeing some of the plot devices masquerading as monsters in earlier editions and thinking "What is this doing in the same section as the things you hack to bits?" That sort of creature doesn't need an initiative score, armor class, etc.

Sure it does, when the PCs finally figure out what it's up to and attack it.

Seriously, giving it mechanics serves a purpose. How good a liar is it? If it's with the PCs and they're hit by a fireball, does it die? How fast can it travel -- will it slow down the PCs on a long march, or not? Can it help carry the treasure? Etc. There's plenty of reasons for statting out such creatures. Maybe they need a different 'template' than monsters, or should be handled differently, but treating them as purely statless incarnations of DM fiat isn't the way to go, esp. in games like D&D.

 

[Mentat55]

One of my favorite creations was the Patron Imp. It was an evil outsider that acted as a sort of 'familiar' to a Bard, granting it bonuses to Perform, Bardic Knowledge, and other checks which increased the longer the Patron was associated with the Bard. It also slowly moved the Bard's alignment to CE. To a large extent, it was a statted out plot device; it had next to no combat abilities, the best it could do was cast suggestion to get someone to defend it and flee back to the Abyss if that didn't work.

From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist. It very explicitly doesn't 'live for 5 rounds' -- it needs to hang out with the bard over the span of several *levels*. It uses Alter Self and the like to make it look like it's something harmless, like a friendly Pixie. It's intended as an NPC, not an 'encounter'.

Not saying "4e is t3h suxx0r!!!!" because this kind of 'monster' no longer fits in the paradigm, but it *is* more narrowly focused. (Unless there's some way to do something like this we haven't seen yet...)

Interesting. It could be written simply as a plot device. However, it is still a creature and it can be killed. I'd stat it out as a 4E minion, give it only a Suggestion-type attack vs. Will, a teleport ability, some sort of aura that grants a single ally bonuses to certain skills, and...if we knew how the social encounter system worked, I'd make all of its other relevant abilities related to those mechanics.

Oh, and give it Skill Training in all the appropriate skills, like Insight, Bluff, Arcane, and Diplomacy.

 

[Steely Dan]

Color me agreeing with this. I hated wuss fey. I ended up giving some arbitrary combat bonuses to make them more macho.

Colour me Badd!

Seriously, yes, all Fey being anaemic wusses was irritating, I mean, should Satyrs, who are know for fighting and fornicating, have such a worthless BAB and Fort just by virtue of being Fey?

*Waits for the 3rd Ed Avengers to explain why it made sense…*

 

[thatdarnedbob]

One of my favorite creations was the Patron Imp. It was an evil outsider that acted as a sort of 'familiar' to a Bard, granting it bonuses to Perform, Bardic Knowledge, and other checks which increased the longer the Patron was associated with the Bard. It also slowly moved the Bard's alignment to CE. To a large extent, it was a statted out plot device; it had next to no combat abilities, the best it could do was cast suggestion to get someone to defend it and flee back to the Abyss if that didn't work.

From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist. It very explicitly doesn't 'live for 5 rounds' -- it needs to hang out with the bard over the span of several *levels*. It uses Alter Self and the like to make it look like it's something harmless, like a friendly Pixie. It's intended as an NPC, not an 'encounter'.

Not saying "4e is t3h suxx0r!!!!" because this kind of 'monster' no longer fits in the paradigm, but it *is* more narrowly focused. (Unless there's some way to do something like this we haven't seen yet...)

What if you could have that same concept, except with an interesting combat once the bard decided not to use the thing anymore? We haven't seen a rule yet that implies that monsters cease existing 5 minutes after the party meets them.

 

[Cadfan]

Although, I have to say... people seriously complained if you gave a published 3E monster a special power that didn't correspond to any spell or PC special ability? That's so bizarre. I can't imagine complaining about such a thing, nor can I imagine any of my group doing so. Who does that?

People complained. The complaints came from two types of persons.

First, the type of person who goes through the monster entries and writes angry rants on the internet about how incompetent WOTC is because somebody forgot a synergy bonus on a skill. These types of persons got especially mad if you started doing things like assigning inexplicable bonuses or penalties to the DC of a power.

The second were people who's players researched monster manuals for shapeshifting options.

 

[Wormwood]

The second were people who's players researched monster manuals for shapeshifting options.

The third were those player's DMs.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

People complained. The complaints came from two types of persons.

First, the type of person who goes through the monster entries and writes angry rants on the internet about how incompetent WOTC is because somebody forgot a synergy bonus on a skill. These types of persons got especially mad if you started doing things like assigning inexplicable bonuses or penalties to the DC of a power.

They weren't even angry rants, a lot of the time. Look at quite a few of John Cooper's reviews/unofficial errata for 3E books; there is a lot of synergy bonus and save DC dickering going on, and those were respected and valued contributions.

 

[Lizard]

What if you could have that same concept, except with an interesting combat once the bard decided not to use the thing anymore? We haven't seen a rule yet that implies that monsters cease existing 5 minutes after the party meets them.

Hmm.

I like the minion idea someone else posted as a way of giving it stats withough making it an effective solo combatant. A minion sans an army of its fellow minions is basically a gas spore.

Combat, combat...

If it has been spurned/discovered, and has been with the Bard more than a level (this is a way of mechanically defining a 'bond'), it can tap into the same primal creative force the Bard uses to call forth a Cacophony Elemental (A Solo Controller with lots of area attacks) of the same level as said Bard to slay the ungrateful musician and bring his soul to wherever souls go in 4e. If it's found out before then, it just vanishes in a huff and the PCs get credit for a social challenge.

 

[Jack99]

Now we just need to jazz up the Carbuncle, Flumph, and Flail Snail.

Giev harcore flumph!


really, JK....

 

[Nebulous]

I've been very impressed by the monster stat blocks, they're one of my favourite aspects of 4e. I see them as very much an evolution from 3e, particularly MM4 and MM5.

I agree about the stat blocks, they're actually FUN to read! From a DM perspective i guess.

You could always create unique, flavorful powers for monsters, from 1e-3e, but 4e has really embraced the idea. Every 4e monster now has at least one interesting ability and often more than that. By dispensing with PHB spell powers, a culture of creativity in monster design is encouraged.

I'm really curious to see how battles pan out when you mix and match a large number of different monsters. Just having orcs, bugbears and some kobolds battling against the PC's could be a vastly different experience than 3e (or 2e, or 1e).

My ultimate hope is that despite the flaws of 4e (which i know they're there) the good stuff outweighs the bad.