Monsters and Armour...

[MeMeMeMe]

Step 3: Determine Ability Scores. It tells me to work on ability scores in pairs and tells me how to determine the highest ability score of each pair. Good. However, it doesn't even mention the lower ability score of each pair. I ended up stealing the stats for a Goblin Skullcleaver, a level 3 goblin brute.

You can set the lower score to any score you want, as long as it is less than the higher score.
You aren't using point buy here. You just choose a number that seems to fit the monster and its roll in the adventure.
This single point answers all your other points of complaint in the example you post, except one:

Step 6: Calculate Other Defenses. These are always level+12 and "for every 2 points the ability score varies from the average, adjust the defense by +1 or -1". Well enough... but what's "the average"?

I agree this is more vague than it should be. I'm pretty sure the 'average' being referred to here is actually the calculated stat from step 3. Since that is telling you the high score in each pair, it is the average, or at least, typical score for this monster.
So, if for some reason, the monster creator has altered the high score from this value, then you need to factor that difference into the defences.

 

[Zurai]

That still doesn't provide us with a viable example monster. Following the steps provided and assuming the "average" is as you describe, then it would have to have an 8 or less in both Cha and Wis to get a 12 Will defense. It has a 13 Wis.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So we have a major breakdown on everything that has to deal with ability scores. We aren't told how to handle dump stats (which DO matter, initiative, skills, perception, hp are all examples). We aren't given a clear explanation of how to handle stat modifiers to defenses (refers to an undefined "average" stat). Finally, we aren't given any actual example of how to use the rules.

The average ability score is 13 + 1/2 level. The best stat is 16 + 1/2 level. So the "good defense" is 1 to 2 points higher.

The dump stats might matter, but they matter not enough to change the level of the creature. That's why they are ignored.

The only real problem I see is that there is simply no example of using the guidelines. That would undoubtedly be helpful.

 

[Spatula]

No. Wrong.

Ah, now that I bother to look at it, I see that you are correct. My mistake.

Step 3: Determine Ability Scores. It tells me to work on ability scores in pairs and tells me how to determine the highest ability score of each pair. Good. However, it doesn't even mention the lower ability score of each pair. I ended up stealing the stats for a Goblin Skullcleaver, a level 3 goblin brute (which do not conform to the rules, for the record).

Well, aside from CON, the lower score doesn't isn't going to affect anything, so set it to whatever. Even CON doesn't affect much - most monsters seem to have around 14, but a few points up or down is only a handful of HP from the monster's total.

Step 6: Calculate Other Defenses. These are always level+12 and "for every 2 points the ability score varies from the average, adjust the defense by +1 or -1". Well enough... but what's "the average"? 10? If so, his defenses are going to be MASSIVE. They have a base of 15, and the least score is 13 + 1/2 level, or 14, for a +2 bonus, giving us an AC of 15 and 17s in the other three defenses. Looking at the Goblin Skullcleaver's 16/15/14/12 defenses, I'm left utterly stumped. There is no possible interpretation of the rules as presented that leaves me with 16/15/14/12 defenses.

The average would be what step 2 gives you ("on average, the highest ability score..."). As for monsters in the MM not conforming to the above, it's a set of guidelines, not an exact science. It even says right off the bat, "following these steps won’t result in a fully designed and developed monster, but they’ll provide a good approximation."

 

[Zurai]

That's my point, though. You cannot use the rules it gives you to come up with an actual, finished, usable monster.

What, then, is the point of having it at all?

 

[Spatula]

A quick approximation, just like it says. A fully fleshed out monster would properly require playtesting to see if the overall numbers fit into some acceptable range.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

The system isn't meant to create finished, usable monsters.
It is meant to give you the ballpark figures that you should build your monster around, and then - using those and looking at monsters similar in role and power to the one you create, you then finesse those numbers to create your monster.

This is exactly how monsters were created in 1e and 2e, and its exactly how monsters are created in the vast majority of other fantasy games (and, for that matter, most scifi and horror games).
In fact, most of these other games aren't as helpful as 4e (including 1e and 2e), because they don't give you the baseline power level to build off, you just have to invent numbers and hope they work.

 

[hong]

That's my point, though. You cannot use the rules it gives you to come up with an actual, finished, usable monster.

What, then, is the point of having it at all?

Because a rough map is better than no map at all.

And in 1E/2E, which were also about creating monsters by pulling numbers out of the air, you really were using no map at all.

 

[Zurai]

Comparisons to 1e and 2e are useless. This isn't 1e or 2e. It's a strawman - "look at this over here! At least you have it better than them!"

Devoting a section of the DMG to rules that aren't intended to be used - which is what you all are saying in this thread - is a waste of space and, therefor, a waste of my money. I dislike people wasting my money. I especially dislike people wasting my money while pretending to be helpful.

 

[hong]

Your ability to go from "I don't understand these rules" to "these rules weren't intended to be used" is fascinating.