Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Doug McCrae]

But... but... they're supposed to lawful good! Have the flumphs deceived us all?

Evil flumphs?!! Now the world is doomed.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e still has certain max and min limits for monsters of level X so it's not totally free and easy. For example a level 10 brute might have a max damage of, say, 2d10+10.

Would you feel comfortable breaking those limits? For example would you ever create an 'eggshell armed with a sledgehammer'. Level 10, 10d10+50 damage per hit (ah... 3e nostalgia), 20 hit points.

Personally I don't think I would, after all those limits are there for a reason. It would be turning the game into 'highest initiative wins', which is a lot less interesting than it was before.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.

If you want a different range, change the level. Easy! And as a player you'll never be sure the DM hasn't put you up against a dragon 3 levels above the party.

Those levels are an information source for the DM. A very useful one, better than CR. To preserve that usefulness the stat range *must* be strict. Then the DM will know an encounter is overpowered or underpowered. He won't just be guessing. Armed with that information he can choose to sic it on the PCs or not.

 

[Kishin]

Clark, welcome to the dark side. We have ale and whores.

I think you're starting to get a sense of how much stuff I've wanted to tell you about, but can't.



This, to me, is a major strength of 4E. I'd much rather a game that does what it's intended to do excellently than one that does everything adequately.

Sure, there's room in the middle, and I'm not saying that 4E has found the "perfect" sweet spot. But I like and support the intention.

Ari pretty much nailed my thoughts. If RPGs have taught me anything, its that having a specialized tool for a job is better than than having a tool that does multiple jobs adequately. Don't me wrong, I still wholeheartedly enjoy the flexibility of 3.5E (The players in my current game have come up with some amazingly creative character builds, and given me the opportunity to flex the same sort of muscle with encounter design), but as an unabashed fan of monster design and ability, this is the stuff that;s got me most excited.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am going to embrace a countervailing opinion: in 4e monster design flexibility is going to take a nose-dive. As I realized when posting in the Noonan playtest thread, because 4e PCs cannot nova, the 4e xp/monster system *has* to be more accurate than the 3e CR system (math-wise they are the same, there is no quantum leap in game design). This means that monster design will be straightjacketed. Rapidly people will go: oh, its an artillery foe, I wonder what (very short duration, minor effect) debuff this one will have? Sure, the *fluff* will vary wildly, but the mechanical effects? They will be clones of one-another.

Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.

I am not that sure about the range of viable encounters. Doubling the number of monsters might be too much, but there still seems some leeway. From what Noonan described, it looked to me as if good tactics can affect the difficulty of an encounter more then in 3E - at least compared to the influence of the monsters. (Though if people learn how to optimize their tactics quickly, this might become neglible?)
8 Kobolds against 4 4th level character will rarely be a problem in 3E. You can't do that much wrong. As long as the Fighter and Rogue do not forget to roll their attack rolls each round, they will beat them. In 4E, this seems to be a bit different, since the combat power differences aren't that big, and it is important to ensure to attack the enemy where it hurts.

 

[Knight Otu]

I think I said that one of the first things I'd do is create a 4E erinyes. I guess I can whip up a first draft now.

[B]Erinyes					Level 8 Artillery
Medium immortal humanoid (devil)	XP[/B] 350
[B]Initiative [/B]+8		[B]Senses [/B]Perception: +7, darkvision
[B]HP [/B]68 [B]Bloodied [/B]34; [I]Also see cold vengeance[/I]
[B]AC [/B]19 [B]Fort[/B] 16, [B]Ref[/B] 18, [B]Will [/B]17
[B]Resist [/B]5 cold, 5 poison
[B]Speed [/B]8, fly 8
[B]r Longbow [/B](standard, at-will)[B] * Weapon[/B]
+8 vs. AC; 1d10+2 damage; Range 20
[B]R Arrow of Vengeance [/B](standard, at-will)[B] * Weapon[/B]
Targets a marked creature or a creature that dealt damage to a devil
this encounter;
+10 vs. AC; 1d10+6 damage; Range 20; requires bow
[B]R Binding Arrow [/B](standard, encounter)[B] * Weapon[/B]
+8 vs Reflex; 1d6+2 and immobilized (save ends); Range 20; requires bow
[B]  Cold Vengeance[/B]
The erinyes' weapon attacks deal +1d10 cold damage while it is bloodied.
[B]Alignment [/B]Evil	[B]Languages [/B]Supernal
[B]Skills[/B] Intimidate +11, Religion +9
[B]Str [/B]14 (+6)	[B]Dex [/B]18 (+8)	[B]Wis [/B]16 (+7)
[B]Con [/B]14 (+6)	[B]Int [/B]12 (+5)	[B]Cha [/B]16 (+7)
[B]Equipment[/B] Leather armor, longbow

Needs lots of work, obviously.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In general, I think I'm coming around to 4e monster design, because I think they've approached it carefully enough to pass a sort of minimum threshold for me.

I like the idea that you can quickly grok a monster's exceptional traits and thus use them effectively.

I like that they've spelled out what a given X of level Y should be capable of.

But there are some failings so far.

The first is the idea of a specialized tool being used for something it's not intended for. This is pretty much assured to happen. There's a lot of believable scenarios in which a mosnter that is designed to be a deadly encounter suddenly gets used to the player's advantage (they team up with it, or someone decides they want to play as it, or they make the monster teach them their super-special attack). As a DM, I want to be able to SAY YES to these without (a) unbalancing my party, or (b) inventing a whole new tool and somehow retconning the existing tool and the new tool to be the same thing. It's possible that the guidelines solve this pretty nicely, so this might not be a problem when the thing is actually out there.

The second is a bit more freaky to me, and that is the idea that monsters are becoming boring. This is a purely fluff issue, so it's easy to fix, but it's also pathetic to see it happening. The case in point is the Bodak, which has gone from "A spirit slain by ultimate evil who still may retain flashing memories of the past" in 2e/3e to "It kills because it likes to kill and killing is what it likes to do! Also it may be a sidekick!" in 4e. It's easy to avoid this, but if I see much more, my 4e MM may make better mulch than gaming material.

Part of the issue with the tool analogy is that a monster is so much more than a single-purpose implement. It is, by it's nature as a creature in the game-world, a multi-purpose implement. There are multiple intentions. If the siloing is so strict that it only serves a single purpose, it doesn't do it's job as a monster very well. Now, I do believe it's possible to fullfill all these intentions. 4e believes otherwise and isn't really trying to fill them all. Maybe it's trying to do one well and do the rest "good enough." If they succeed, it will be good enough. If they fail, I may have to take a brutal claw hammer to this.

 

[BryonD]

I'd much rather a game that does what it's intended to do excellently than one that does everything adequately.

I completely agree with this statement.
Of course there is vast room for disagreement on what is "adequate" and what is "excellent".

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's a lot of believable scenarios in which a mosnter that is designed to be a deadly encounter suddenly gets used to the player's advantage (they team up with it, or someone decides they want to play as it, or they make the monster teach them their super-special attack). As a DM, I want to be able to SAY YES to these without (a) unbalancing my party, or (b) inventing a whole new tool and somehow retconning the existing tool and the new tool to be the same thing.

So you want monsters to work as opponents and allies and player character races simultaneously? You want the moon on a stick, you do.

Part of the issue with the tool analogy is that a monster is so much more than a single-purpose implement. It is, by it's nature as a creature in the game-world, a multi-purpose implement. There are multiple intentions. If the siloing is so strict that it only serves a single purpose, it doesn't do it's job as a monster very well.

The 4e monster retains all the 3e-style game-world interfaces such as the six attributes and so forth. In fact the stat blocks are extremely similar, the main difference is the way one arrives at the numbers.

 

[Grazzt]

Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.

Im fairly certain that if there are tables in the DMG that say "4 HD monsters have:"

and it lists ability scores, defense scores, AC, etc...those will be guidelines only. Not "set in stone" ranges allowed. Which means, we can deviate.

And if they are actually set in stone numbers, then first we smack the designers for being goofy for even thinking that's a good idea. That would eventually make all monsters seem cookie-cutter I believe ("oh, its another 4th level monster. that means its Str is XX to YY, its Dex is XX to YY, etc"). And then second, well, Im guessing we can still deviate from the ranges...just have to answer to the reviewers who knock points off for not playing 100% by the rules.