Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeelSeel2" data-source="post: 4095794" data-attributes="member: 35016">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!!</blockquote>

Verification