Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[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...

By the way, by posting here I wasnt expressing a preference for these boards over our own. Please understand that. I love our boards. I just happened to be here reading up on DDX updates and monster previews and posted over here. I didnt know this would become a 7-pager overnight I have since linked to this thread over on the Necro boards.

So dont take it as "saying alot" that I posted here and not on my home boards. I've always loved ENWorld and have always posted here.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.

Can I?

I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.

 

[Kordeth]

Can I?

I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.

R Deadly Gaze
Encounter * Gaze
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: 1 Creature
Attack: [Critter Attack Bonus] vs. Will
Hit: Target is weakened (save ends). First failed save: Target loses 1 healing surge. Second failed save: Target is slowed (save ends). Third failed save: Target is reduced to 0 hit points.

 

[helium3]

People actually complained about monsters having abilities that they couldn't obtain?! I mean, I can be nitpicky about numbers, but I won't complain about my human wizard not being a balor. That's really not sane. On the other hand, if my character for some reason is a balor, or the monster in question is a human wizard, then I might be a bit miffed (there might be prestige classes, feats, templates, or other stuff involved, so the differences can come from those, of course).

The only variant of this I've ever actually encountered as a GM is when I have very experienced players that also DM. Sometimes, if a monster uses some sort of an ability that's unfamiliar AND that ability is successful in it's application (ie I hurt one of the characters with it) I'll get all sorts of pointed questions about what the ability is, how it works, etc. The underlying subtext is that they're concerned that I just "cheated" in some sense.

And that's the rub, really. I like what 4E is doing to give the DM more freedom to "make things up" and make the job easier. That being said, I'm under the impression that one of the inspirations for the more mechanistic design of 3E was the rather common occurrence of players getting bent out of shape over design choices made by the DM.

Maybe 4E will score a win by making the design less mechanistic while simultaneously providing the DM with the tools needed to keep from accidentally making monsters too tough. We shall find out in June if this is the case.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.

Now that is simply unfair.

I have already decided to buy the book as soon as it is released based on the bits you showed earlier... now you must tease me with more? I call shenanigans!

 

[BryonD]

R Deadly Gaze
Encounter * Gaze
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: 1 Creature
Attack: [Critter Attack Bonus] vs. Will
Hit: Target is weakened (save ends). First failed save: Target loses 1 healing surge. Second failed save: Target is slowed (save ends). Third failed save: Target is reduced to 0 hit points.

Why would a gaze be an encounter ability? How does that make any sense? And isn't a 1 in 8 chance of death (assuming the attack "hits" in the first place) really trivial? A party of 4 1st level characters would each know that they face less than a 3% chance of dying due to gaze.

(And yes I do realize this is just a quick self made example, not a WotC or Necromancer thing)

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

ByronD: perhaps it is a problem with the nomenclature. Try it as "Debilitating Gaze" - there is an immediate effect, then things get progressively worse until finally the subject dies (if no saves are made).

Just as powers like Crimson Edge are thought as something that is always being attempted, but rarely connects (and the player gets to choose when that occurs), the monster is always trying to lock gazes, but it rarely occurs for long enough to achieve a mechanical effect. Therefore, as an encounter power, the monster can make the gaze attack effective.

 

[Spatula]

I think I remember seeing an "insta-kill" power on some 4e monster, which was basically just reduces hp to zero. Which, given healing surges and whatnot, isn't as big a deal as it might be otherwise.

ah here it is, and its an encounter power:

Bodak Reaver
Medium shadow humanoid (undead)
Level 18 Soldier XP 2,000
Greataxe (standard; at-will) * Necrotic, Weapon
+23 vs. AC; 1d12 + 6 damage (crit 2d12 + 18) plus 1d8 necrotic damage, and the target is dazed and weakened (save ends both).
Death Gaze (standard; encounter) * Necrotic
Range 10; targets a living creature; +20 vs. Fortitude; If the target is weakened, it is reduced to 0 hit points; otherwise, the target takes 1d6 + 6 necrotic damage and loses 1 healing surge.

 

[hong]

I think I remember seeing an "insta-kill" power on some 4e monster, which was basically just reduces hp to zero. Which, given healing surges and whatnot, isn't as big a deal as it might be otherwise.

The new bodak.