Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint

[Nebulous]

I will say there are a few things I want to improve about monster design in 4E.

*snip*

Clark

Oh, i'm so gonna buy your book. One thing i'd like to see changed in the art, and this isn't a big deal, but it bugged me in the first edition: some of the pics were just sketches, while most were completely finished b/w pieces. Maybe the artists ran out of time before the deadline, but if every single pic was complete (and awesome) it would really make the book shine. Not that it won't anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If TOH breaks away from this atavistic viewpoint, it might just replace, not supplement, the MM if I ever run a 4e game.

Friggin' word, man.

I may skip the MM entirely and just grab myself the new TOH. I liked the original TOH better than most of the WotC 3e MMs, anyway.

What are your guys' positions on "non-evil" monsters, wildlife, and monsters for use as PCs? What about bizarre monsters like the Flumph or the Adherer or other such high fantastic oddity?

 

[Orcus]

Friggin' word, man.

I may skip the MM entirely and just grab myself the new TOH. I liked the original TOH better than most of the WotC 3e MMs, anyway.

What are your guys' positions on "non-evil" monsters, wildlife, and monsters for use as PCs? What about bizarre monsters like the Flumph or the Adherer or other such high fantastic oddity?

You cant skip the MM It looks too awesome, and has too many core monsters.

Our position on non-evil "monsters" is that we love them. There is room for the blink dog in our book if we can do it. And we love the flumph and the adherer. And we will definately be designing monster races that can be PC races. In fact, I was working on the 4E version of the Asaatthi last night (from the Creature Collection), and I sent Scott an email saying I wanted him to make a short list of a few "monster as PC races." I put some "placeholder" text in the asaatthi entry for PC details, since that is one part of the rules that we have no clue about. Oh, and the asaatthi are evil.

And we also think that animals need to be statted. I dont know what the MM will do. Or maybe the other books. But you need stats for wolves and lions and bears and boars and tigers and birds and snakes and stuff like that. Many of us old schoolers have natural creatures (or buffed versions of natural creatures) as important wilderness encounters. And if the MM doesnt provide them, we will. And you will get various level versions of them.

Again, we dont take the position that monsters are just XP pinatas. Monsters are more than that. (of course, we love cool deadly combat monsters too). The 4E MM certainly seems to only provide the combat specific information and none of the description or ecology or background or lesser powers or story-based weaknesses of the monsters.

Our book will mimic the MM layout, but will include extra info. So you will get "Name, short text description, stat block for monster version 1, tactics section, Lore, encounter groups" just like in the MM. Then you will also get some more descriptive text. We also intend to provide several sample monsters of each type over various levels. Which means, very likely, that each "monster" will be a two page spread.

Clark

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains. But assuming that it's at not more then we had in the 3E MM, I absolutely see room for variant/additional monster books that provide more details.

The MM has the great advantage that it can contain a lot of monsters. Which means it will give you a lot of options what monsters you use, but you might come up with a few "fluffy" parts on your own. *)

A book like a 4E Tome of Horrors could contain more information on each monster, and thus giving you more story elements.

I think both are valid approaches, and it depends on each individual what is "more appropriate".

I think for a core book, I want as much material to work with then possible. But other supplements might or should go in more details.

Oh, and interesting approach here would be to write a "Tome of Horrors" in the style of an actual tome written by a sage of the fictional world. But then, it might feel necessary to separate monster description and statistics for "immersion", but reduce usability... Maybe that's more something for a Dracomoninum (sp?) or similar book with in-dept information on a more limited (focused) set of monsters.


*) by the way: This might be a little inconsistent with the whole idea of the Implied Setting and the "fluffy" feats we know. On the other hand, maybe not. The details of the implied setting are very vague, and a brief monster description should manage the same. In both cases, you still have to figure out the details on your own, if they ever come up.

 

[Orcus]

We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains. But assuming that it's at not more then we had in the 3E MM, I absolutely see room for variant/additional monster books that provide more details.

Sure we do. And it is very, very little.

They showed the galley proofs of the MM at DDXP. You can find links to pics of teh page spreads all over ENWorld. So we have seen several actual pages--gnolls, grick, grell, bodak, choker, chuul, etc. We have seen exactly how the pages are laid out and what content they contain.

I can post a few links if you want, though they are relatively easy to find.

Clark

 

[I'm A Banana]

You cant skip the MM It looks too awesome, and has too many core monsters.

Pfft, I'll get 'em all on the D&D Insider Rules Database.

Everything else you've posted makes me think that you guys might be the reason I go over to 4e. You're addressing all the concerns that I have with WotC's apparent monster philosophy, which is one of my biggest sticking points so far. It's always possible that the appearances are decieving, but I like that you guys are deliberately taking a compatible but slightly "richer" take on a monster book.

We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains.

Well, we do have hints. The bodak/boneclaw page, for instance. That's part of what's giving me a sinking feeling about 4e monsters. Seeing the bodak's eerie compelled evil against the will of a barely-sentient soul still trapped within it turned into "kills because it likes killing" is pretty disappointing, like the 4e team thought that the only interesting part of the bodak was it's death gaze. The stats probably make for some fun encounters, and the rest of the fluff sets up future encounters pretty well, but the bodak would probably function more rewardingly for me as an elite or solo creature with that "slight twinges of memory" aspect than as a soldier in the shadow army of nightwalkers.

I think for a core book, I want as much material to work with then possible.

I'd agree, but the material I need is more than just sweet stats. I need sweet stats, but I need monsters that exist beyond the five rounds you kill them in. Which is why a "monsters are more than just XP speedbumps" philosophy is very resonant to me.

It looks like each standard MM entry is a single page, with the stats for a version or two on each page, along with a kickin' picture and a blurb of text. Humanoids and dragons and beholders and illithids and other prominent baddies probably get more versions and more pages.

From the sounds of it, the new Tome will have quite a bit more in the way of inspiration for the use of these monsters in roles other than "Adversary."

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, we do have hints. The bodak/boneclaw page, for instance. That's part of what's giving me a sinking feeling about 4e monsters. Seeing the bodak's eerie compelled evil against the will of a barely-sentient soul still trapped within it turned into "kills because it likes killing" is pretty disappointing, like the 4e team thought that the only interesting part of the bodak was it's death gaze. The stats probably make for some fun encounters, and the rest of the fluff sets up future encounters pretty well, but the bodak would probably function more rewardingly for me as an elite or solo creature with that "slight twinges of memory" aspect than as a soldier in the shadow army of nightwalkers.

4e bodak has more lore and information than the 3e bodak, so I'd call that a step up from before.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Those thinking monster entries have so little fluff

Hi all!

One thing that caught my eye is how the Knowledge Lore Text within monster entries does add extra fluff to them. But does so in a way thats also mechanically useful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e bodak has more lore and information than the 3e bodak, so I'd call that a step up from before.

Quality trumps quanity.

4e: "Bodaks kill because they like to kill! And sometimes they kill because more powerful monsters tell them to!"

3e: "Bodaks are corrupted mortals who retain vague memories of their life."

IIRC, the 2e fluff on the bodak was even better, and 4e should be striving for a similar quality as it had in 2e. The few sentences in 3e were a step down, but they retained the essential "calling cards" of the bodak. The 4e description removes it entirely in exchange for giving the bodak lore that links it to another monster, and makes it become part of the faceless hoarde of evil things the PC's have to kill.

The noncombat difference between a bodak and a zombie? Or the bodak and a goblin enslaved by hobgoblins? Or the bodak and an orc? They're all things that kill 'cuz they like killin', and occasionally do it in the service of something bossing them around.

By pegging the Catoblepas, for instance, as a creature that exists beyond their death gaze, the new Tome seems to be ripe for a broader, more unique consideration of a monster's role outside of when the PC's kill them.

 

[Orcus]

Hi all!

One thing that caught my eye is how the Knowledge Lore Text within monster entries does add extra fluff to them. But does so in a way thats also mechanically useful.

I agree that is an interesting way to provide information with a mechanic. I like it. We intend to do that. But I still want a bit more depth. We'll see how it works out.