Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Orcus]

Except in FR, there are herds of catoblepases (catoblepi?) living in the Farsea Marshes.

Why not stat up the regular catoblepas as a normal brute, and have a Bull Catoblepas (separated from the herd, similar to bull elephants) as a solo brute?.

We intend to. The Solo, as it is concepted now, has the more bodak like two step gaze which is deadlier (but with a twist). The "normal" catoblepas has something like the 3 step death gaze.

Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E ) the creature auto-recharges and uses its gaze as that surprise action. This mimics the text from the original creature: "Complete surprise means one of the party encountering the monster has met its gaze."

He he. I had so much fun working on this monster.

And the mechanics just came so easily. That is what I am digging about 4E. I dont have to try to cobble together feats and figure out I cant give a monster that feat to do XYZ. I love it!

 

[Jack99]

Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E

They do.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The new bodak.

The new bodak sucks.

What if my players are being idiots and ignoring the bodak in the well?

How is he going to sneak into the inn and wake them up to kill them.

 

[Pinotage]

That is nice. But I added a little twist. I gave it recharge 5, 6. AND --here is why I love 4E-- I invented a new mechanic: the power starts UNCHARGED, in other words, he has to successfully recharge to use it. Why? The description of the catoblepas has always included that he has a long neck and has a hard time bringing his head up. Now, there is no real 3E way mechanically to reflect that, other than the non-3E-ish 25% chance mechanic from the original description. So I am using this recharge mechanic to simulate that.

The recharge mechanic, as I understand it, is just a clever name for a probability. In other words, recharging on a 5 or 6, means a 33.3333% chance of using the ability. It's absolutely no different from saying 25% (other the the value of course). It essentially does away with the d100 and changes it to a d6, but the nature of the beast remains the same. There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.

Pinotage

 

[Lizard]

Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E ) the creature auto-recharges and uses its gaze as that surprise action. This mimics the text from the original creature: "Complete surprise means one of the party encountering the monster has met its gaze."

He he. I had so much fun working on this monster.

And the mechanics just came so easily. That is what I am digging about 4E. I dont have to try to cobble together feats and figure out I cant give a monster that feat to do XYZ. I love it!

Perhaps we just have different design styles, but I don't see why this couldn't be done in 3e. I tended to:
a)Come up with cool concept for monster.
b)Work out type/hd
c)Give it Cool Powers which seemed appropriate
d)Give it feats/skills which synergized with the powers

So I didn't worry about feats to do things; I worked on the assumption "This monster can belch acid; what kind of feats would it want to take to make it a better acid-belcher?" I never felt constrained to limit cool monster powers to mimicing spells (though spells were good guidelines for power).

For example, the Eye Mire. It was an ooze which could *rip out a caster's eye* and then cast any spell which the caster could have cast, chosen randomly. (Each "eye" held a spell and dissolved when the spell is cast; you would meet one with a collection of eyes embedded in itself..) This isn't anything which can be modeled using the feats/powers in the PHB, but it didn't take me very long to a)think of it, and b)write it up, using the standard 3x mechanics (Grapple, then opposed Str check to take the eye). Might it be more compact in 4e? Maybe, but it still has a lot of fiddly bits.

Maybe I was doing it wrong, but I never felt the shackles you did, except w/the 'monster levels' making it hard to build butch fey or wussy dragons, and I do think getting rid of them in 4e will be an improvement, as will simplfying a lot of the fiddly bits like multiple/iterative attacks with natural weapons, which I *never* got right on the first try, esp with monsters who wielded swords and had a bite. Augh!

 

[PeelSeel2]

.....There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.

Pinotage

It's not that you couldn't. You could. Easy. But previous to the concept of 4th edition monster design, it would not gain easy acceptance from the community. If you are actually publishing your work for general consumption, you need to stay as close to the 'mean' as possible in order to take advantage of the wider market place. The average player of any edition does not want stuff too far off from 'The Rules' or 'mean'. Sure their are house rules, but you house rule too much and then your playing a different game. Changes such as these in 3.x are more house rules than anything else. Not fit for general consumption because the ideas (use to) deviate too far 'acceptable' monster design.

Their will be plenty of 3.x players that start using a more '4e' theory of monster design now that the process is more main stream.

I have always designed my monsters for their roles and the challenge I want to produce. I have made spot brutes before when they where called brutes. One Hill Giant I wanted to be real challenging for most of the party, so I said it was like a hill giant version of Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. I gave it dual wielded clubs, arbitrarily set its attack bonus high for each weapon, doubled the damage dice and upped them by one category plus strength, and tripled it's hitpoints. It was one bad-a$$ stupid giant that giggled during battle (play). The Hill Giant Chief was his 'father' figure. Coupled with the other Giants, it made one hard fought, fun battle in 3.5e that challenged the party to the end of it's resources. Could I publish that for general consumption? No. It would have been ripped apart by the community hags and forgotten on RPGNow.

Now I can make him how I envision him AND he is acceptable by community standards. Awesome!!

 

[malraux]

The other issue I've had with 3e monster design is that often its hard to grok what it is a monster does. For example, with this catoblepas's gaze power, it would be a bit harder to get how it should work. The 25% chance each round mechanic is nonstandard and you'd have to explain it out. The 4e version reads better and fits into a set framework. Monster power is really just code for the cool thing this creature does and the design of powers makes it a bit easier to see how this creature deviates from the norm. So telling me the power starts uncharged tells me how he works differently from everything else I've seen.

There's also something to be said for the self contained nature of the powers over something that references a spell.

 

[Sunsword]

Clark, I wanted to say thanks for sharing your exuberance & impressions for 4E Monster Design. As a fan, it really jazzes me & I'm glad to know 4E's Tome of Monsters is a Go. I'll admit I'm Pro-4E.
Also, as a Games Retailer, I'm jazzed too. Its great to let customers know that Necromancer is digging at least one aspect 4E & will support it. Hearing that Necromancer & Goodman are onboard is extra help in educating customers about what 4E is & isn't & helping them figure out which Edition (I carry all editions) will be best for them.

Your opinion is much appreciated & in my case greatly respected.

 

[Sunsword]

The recharge mechanic, as I understand it, is just a clever name for a probability. In other words, recharging on a 5 or 6, means a 33.3333% chance of using the ability. It's absolutely no different from saying 25% (other the the value of course). It essentially does away with the d100 and changes it to a d6, but the nature of the beast remains the same. There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.

Pinotage

I don't think the percentage is missed by most of us or the swapping out of one die for another. I can express that a d6 "feels" different than percentile dice, IMHO. I also think that all Clark is saying is he's enjoying making monsters under 4E more than making monsters under 3.X. Perhaps the amount of work & material that Clark & Necromancer have produced under 3.X should be a factor.

 

[Pinotage]

But previous to the concept of 4th edition monster design, it would not gain easy acceptance from the community. If you are actually publishing your work for general consumption, you need to stay as close to the 'mean' as possible in order to take advantage of the wider market place. The average player of any edition does not want stuff too far off from 'The Rules' or 'mean'. Sure their are house rules, but you house rule too much and then your playing a different game. Changes such as these in 3.x are more house rules than anything else. Not fit for general consumption because the ideas (use to) deviate too far 'acceptable' monster design.

I think by far the biggest constraint with 3e was the types, but beyond that there's nothing from stopping you designing a monster with cool abilities, as long as it stuck to the guidelines of type and the design rules. I'm just mystified that people keep saying you can't design cool monsters in 3e because the mechanics won't allow you to go beyond 'spells'. That's just weird. Within the admitedly poor framework of types (though I like the concept of types), you could anything as 'cool' as you can in 4e without having to break the rules.

Even with types there's leeway to design special abilities that accomplish what you want. Want a 12 HD outsider to give it more hp? Just give it a special ability. Nothing wrong with that, or impossible. I'll agree that some had a rather narrow-minded view on monster design. All you needed to do was expand the rules, not be constrained by them. What I'm seeing now is that 4e has open the shutters of the windows that blinded people within the 3e framework. I never thought those shutters were there in the first place.

Pinotage