Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Grimstaff]

Yay Clark! Now if you could just convince the guys on your own forum. The Necromancer board has gotten so anti-4e that I hate going there anymore. :\

QFT! It says a lot that Clark is posting more here (as are we!) than back at home...what a bunch of whiners over there...

Edit: Ironically, half of the whiners don't even play 3x, they play C&C, True20, or older editions, so why do they care? And the other half just gripes about having to buy more books (um, you bought $1500.00 worth of splat and you have the nerve to compain about buying a new PHB!?, gimme a break!).

 

[Lizard]

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.

Define "set in stone".

Nothing in 3e is set in stone, either. I can write up a 1HD Fey with a +10 BAB. The Game Ninjas won't kill me.

From what I've seen and been able to gather, 4e *will* say, "Third level brute will have STR X to Y". If you go above or below that, you are "breaking the rules" to the same extent ignoring the limits of monster levels does, however you wish to interpret that. Some people will care, some won't. Some formulas, like hit points by monster level/role, seem pretty solid -- A monster of Level Y in Role Z will have X hit point, *A for elite and *B for Solo. I see the same people nitpicking over skill points in 3x nitpicking the numbers in 4e.

 

[Lizard]

Y'know what 4 monster design reminds me of more than anything?

Lords Of Creation.

Really!

Anyone remember that game? Amazing, wacky, fun. It had a pretty simple system for statting out monsters, and was really big on Noun Verber style 'families' of monsters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I'm just saying they WILL be used that way. I'd prefer it if 4e openly aknowledged that and made it easy for me to do it when needed, rather than saying "No, you REALLY shouldn't! Don't do it! It's bad! Go play a different game instead! We don't want you to! Oh, please, no!"

Not that they ARE saying that, just that if they did, it would be lame. A monster isn't just a bucket of XP waiting to be awarded, and I'm pretty sure the 4e designers know that.

What I want isn't a monster that works as X, Y, and Z. What I want is a monster that works as a monster, and working as a monster includes doing X, Y, and Z to varying degrees depending on what kind of monster you are.

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.

It'll PROBABLY be fine, then. What concerns me is the improper siloing of things that shouldn't be in silos, and should instead remain on the field.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Well, we shall see. We pretty much know that numbers like HP and defenses are via formula. I don't think that ability scores will be "regulated" but their effects could be. I.e. a level 10 artillery should be doing damage in the X-Y range, less if there are side effects, etc. so if it has a high prime stat its base damage should be lower. Playtesters have said you can build a monster from scratch in minutes, which you can do in any game - just make up numbers - if you don't care about its effectiveness, so I assume that means creating a "correct" monster from nothing. That does imply a certain level of same-ness to to numbers behind all level 10 artillery monsters, or whatever.

There's also the encounter design aspect. Too much deviation from an established norm, and we're back in 3e territory with inexact challenge ratings.

I think the answer to deviation will probably be to increase or decrease the actual level of the monster until what you want it to do falls into the proper range. Instead of making a level 10 artillery monster that does more than normal damage, you simply make it level 11 instead.

 

[The Little Raven]

So, uh, what happens if a monster joins the party? ...and gets Healing Word used on it?

Depends on the exact circumstances of joining the party.

If it's an NPC I'm using for some reason (guide, trap, whatever), then it's still an NPC under my control, and I can arbitrarily decide whether it gets affected by the Healing Word, despite whether or not it has healing surges. Narrative > Gamism (for that situation)

If it's a PC that will be played by one of the players, then he needs to be remade as a PC, using kobold monster-as-PC stats and all that jazz, in which case he will get healing surges because he's now a PC.

Either way, I don't need rules for it, since I'm perfectly capable of adjudicating the situation, just as I have been for the past 15 years.

 

[The Little Raven]

People actually complained about monsters having abilities that they couldn't obtain?!

And still do. When the Bugbear Strangler's meat shield ability was mentioned, the forums exploded with complaints about how a monster could do that, but there wasn't a way for PC to do the same.

 

[Orcus]

QFT! It says a lot that Clark is posting more here (as are we!) than back at home...what a bunch of whiners over there...

Edit: Ironically, half of the whiners don't even play 3x, they play C&C, True20, or older editions, so why do they care? And the other half just gripes about having to buy more books (um, you bought $1500.00 worth of splat and you have the nerve to compain about buying a new PHB!?, gimme a break!).

Dont go hating on my grognards I love my grognards. They just need special care and handling.

Yes, there are some "edition resisting" people there. But they will soon be hypnotized by my funkadelic 4E groove.

I am more convinced than ever that 4E will let me inject it with 1E goodness. In fact, it is going to be easier to do 1E feel monsters with 4E than it was with 3E, I think.

Things are looking good!

 

[PeelSeel2]

Which one has the boobs? Also, we need to invent a race called Flumphborn.

I want that race as core in my campaign!!

 

[PeelSeel2]

Most of the d20 companies that have survived the years diversified and became businesses. People like Erik Mona and Chris Pramas are game company owners first and gamers second. They have to weigh the business reasons for going with 4E because a lot of people depend on their company staying viable.

If they where weighing the business decision instead of the emotional decision they would reach the conclusion of going with 4e as a publisher. I am here to say I think it will be their death if they do not. That is an opinion of mine.