[MONSTERS] Design Discussion and Preview

[GlassJaw]

Stat Block - A bit bulky, but that's sort of unavoidable. It does actually look really usable, though. Enough white space to scribble notes, enough information to need just the stat block and the spell effects.

The stat block did get bigger, no doubt. But the reason for that was to make the stat block more informative and to reduce the need - as much as possible - for additional rules lookup.

Every ability description is also getting a rewrite. And while the entries still may be shorter in the stat blocks than they are in the rules section, they should be a lot more informative.

There are some things that are still "left out", namely the size modifiers to attack rolls and Stealth that I mentioned above. I'm also still debating whether to include the actual die types and Con modifier for hit points rather than just the number of hit dice.

 

[GlassJaw]

Why does the trike need to be CR9?

I think part of the problem here is putting the CR too early in the calculation. Forget the CR and make the trike be what the trike should be and then assign a CR that fits after you are done. And any landbound, melee only, bag of hit points is going to be limited in the level of challenge it can be.

Wulf and I have talked a lot about what Hit Dice actually mean. Is it just pure meat? Is it innate talent? Is it training? Or is it a combination of the three? And if it is a combination, is each component weighed equally for every creature?

Does the CR9 triceratops have the same amount of meat, talent, and training as a level 9 human fighter?

I agree that some values can be assigned, and I think we've started to do that with our new skill system, Quick Templates, etc. However, at some point, you have to choose a value to use as a basis for determining the "power" of a creature or encounter.

Essentially you are proposing a point-buy system for every value: hit dice, base attack bonus, damage, saves, skills, etc.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Racial bonuses are ok. But really they are just a fudge factor to fix the reality that the SP/HD system doesn't work. If you are going to apply a fudge factor to fix a busted system, why not build a better system?

Honestly? It's outside the scope of what I want to do. The Spine is part and parcel of the level-based (and HD-based) system. It's the smallest quantum I want to deal with.

Why does the trike need to be CR9?

Well that's another question. It doesn't need to be CR9. But it is CR9, which is why I'm satisfied with its Reflex save.

But since you bring it up... This came up recently when GlassJaw and I were discussing racial Hit Dice.

Below a certain threshold, hit points lose their abstract nature and become a more and more literal measurement of "mass" and "toughness." Some subsystems like Wounds and Vitality address this directly.

If we put a more concrete measure on those "lower threshold" hit points-- say, for example, all hit points equal to CON, plus a fixed value for size, say +2/+4/+8/+16 across the increasing sizes, then it may be that a triceratops only "needs" about 30 hit points to satisfy a more simulationist approach. So you could certainly build a more "realistic" triceratops down around the CR4 or CR5 range.

If the trike's ref save simply represents an ability to "eat" fireballs, then why does the capacity of fireballs to erode the trike's abstract HP get arbitrarily discounted, while the capacity of greatswords to erode the trikes abstract HP is not changed.

The trike has a lot of HD, which is why it has a lot of HP, which is why it can eat a lot of fireballs. And yet it ALSO gets to make more saves against fireballs because it gets a lot of HD. It is circular logic.

But you could make the argument that the wizard's fireball gets more and more abstract the more damage it deals. You're assuming that the fiery damage keeps a fixed, realistic ability to deal damage against a moving, abstract total of hit points; in fact both the damage and the hit points get more and more abstract as the totals increase.

And it's also worth noting that Trailblazer does increase the fighter's ability to deal "abstract" damage as he levels up. A 10th level fighter deals more damage than a 1st level fighter, despite the fact that the greatsword doesn't change.

I think part of the problem here is putting the CR too early in the calculation. Forget the CR and make the trike be what the trike should be and then assign a CR that fits after you are done.

But you define "be what the trike should be" from a simulationist approach; we can do that: see above.

But from a gamist approach, the trike already IS what a trike should be: a CR9 critter. The starting point for the gamist approach is exactly that: let's make a CR9 challenge.

And any landbound, melee only, bag of hit points is going to be limited in the level of challenge it can be.

Agreed-- the average meatbag perhaps isn't the ideal creature to discuss this, because it begs to be seen from the simulationist's point of view.

The same thought experiment with a mind flayer might be more instructive. If you were going to make the mind flayer "be what it should be," how would you start?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If we put a more concrete measure on those "lower threshold" hit points-- say, for example, all hit points equal to CON, plus a fixed value for size, say +2/+4/+8/+16 across the increasing sizes, then it may be that a triceratops only "needs" about 30 hit points to satisfy a more simulationist approach. So you could certainly build a more "realistic" triceratops down around the CR4 or CR5 range.

I did want to note that one of the things our new statblock will provide is "Spine CR."

For the meatbag creatures, Spine CR will be very close to its listed CR, because almost all of its CR "cost" is its HD, with very little spent on anything else. For Animals, "anything else" usually just means size and attack sequence. (Perhaps, poison, constrict, trample, etc.)

But with this extra information provided, you could subtract out the Spine CR, leaving the DM with a benchmark CR for its other abilities. Then you could, for example, "de-level" the triceratops to a lower HD rating and still have a good idea what CR it represents as a matter of its threat.

 

[BryonD]

And it's also worth noting that Trailblazer does increase the fighter's ability to deal "abstract" damage as he levels up. A 10th level fighter deals more damage than a 1st level fighter, despite the fact that the greatsword doesn't change.

More later, both of you have good comments I want to reply to, but no time now.

But, I did want to point out that this point actually favors my side of the debate.
I'm complaining that the wizard's damage is arbitrarily discounted while the fighter's is not. Your rebuttal is that the fighter actually gets a boost.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly? It's outside the scope of what I want to do.

That is certainly a very fair point. What I'm talking about is pretty fundamental. On the other hand, I think being locked to a per HD model will limit a lot of your goals.

Essentially you are proposing a point-buy system for every value: hit dice, base attack bonus, damage, saves, skills, etc.

To an extent, yes. But I don't think that would handle it. For one thing, I think you could say that a "75 point" creature is CR6 and then proceed to build three 75 point creatures that would reasonably be considered as CR3, CR6, and CR9.

I think it would have to be a series of criteria. How hard is it to hurt and how much hurt can it take. What is it's best melee attack? What is its best ranged attack? What cool tricks does it have?
Then it has to have "this much" killing power to qualify for CRX. But it must also have "this much" lasting power" to qualify for CRX. And if it doesn't meet this or that criteria, it CAN'T be above CRX. (The trike here, a landbound striker. I don't think any trike you build could ever be a true challenge to a L9 party. Put it in a narrow, enclosed, anti-magic field tunnel, sure, but as a creature on its own merits? No.) Also you limit certain powers so that their presence automatically puts in a minimum CR. (Give your trike the ability to cast "Wail of the Banshee" 1/day and now in it is a CR10+ TRAP with an otherwise negligible monster window dressing)

Obviously, this is already unwieldy and I've not put a single real number on it. As was said, way out of scope. The question is can you find a balance?

The point buy / power level structure of Mutants and Masterminds applies. But that again gets into proscribing potency based on predefined PL (CR in hero tights), rather than building as should be and deriving and answer.

As an aside, the best way to build a good trike with what we have right now would be to take an solid CR4 Elephant or similar analog and then make it be a TB solo monster and scratch off the name.

And yes, the system MUST also handle Mind Flayers as well as HP bags.

But from a gamist approach, the trike already IS what a trike should be: a CR9 critter. The starting point for the gamist approach is exactly that: let's make a CR9 challenge.

But is it really? I doubt it. The overwhelming asymmetry of abilities possessed by a L9 party against this type creature trumps everything else. My distaste for gamist approach aside, I think in this case the gamist approach fails even by its own standards.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Divorcing monster design from HD requires a complete rewrite of the monster system. Which means, among other things, that people using TB can't use their dozen (or more) d20 monster books, instantly negating one of the advantages of playing a 3.x derivative system. That's a failure as a business product tapping into the d20 market.

Separating monster abilities from HD is possible (though the ripple effects are large, going into skills and numerous spells) and might be worthwhile from a game play perspective. That doesn't make it appropriate for the scope of Trailblazer. And maintaining scope focus is key to any project.

The point buy / power level structure of Mutants and Masterminds applies. But that again gets into proscribing potency based on predefined PL (CR in hero tights), rather than building as should be and deriving and answer.

[tangent] That's how you assign PL as a Game Master of M&M (2E). You build the challenge as it should be built then look at the skills, saves, abilities, save DCs, attack bonuses, and defenses, then compare it to the PL chart to find what PL it is.
Then compare it to the level of challenge you want it to be (i.e. compare to the PCs), and decide how else to modify the encounter to get the desired challenge.

The only reasons to assign PL first is if you want to grant X power points per PL (which is how PCs are generally handled, so a lot of people mistakenly believe that's how it has to work) or because you want something to be in a specific challenge / power category and you assign that so that you remember how badass it is supposed to be.
A PL 7 dude is so cool that it is difficult for most folks to comprehend his amazing ability. A PL 10 dude is a powerful demi-god that can challenge most anything, or is a low-power god. A PL 15 is equivalent to a high-power deity, master of all he surveys. A PL 20 is equivalent to a over-god that could reshape all of reality at his whim and dictates terms to the High Gods. (Cthulhu was defeated by a fishing trawler; he's PL 8, PL 12 tops.) [/tangent]

 

[BryonD]

Divorcing monster design from HD requires a complete rewrite of the monster system. Which means, among other things, that people using TB can't use their dozen (or more) d20 monster books, instantly negating one of the advantages of playing a 3.x derivative system. That's a failure as a business product tapping into the d20 market.

Well, Wulf already said that this was out of scope. So it is pretty settled.

However, I disagree with what you are saying. My Utopian system would divorce monster design from HD as a requirement. However, it would still just calculate CR based on whatever final design the monster took. Therefore, a monster that happens to have its SP tied to its HD would still function just the same.

In other words, all existing allowable builds would still work, but the current domain of allowed builds would become a subset of the new domain of allowed builds.

 

[GlassJaw]

Hey guys, I pseudo-forked this thread and started a thread in General about monster customization and prep time, which is very much tied to our discussion. Check it out here.

 

[Primal]

Have you guys considered tying monster skills, saves and HPs more strongly into level and roles, as 4E does? I know it's bad for backwards compatibility, but as you're already apparently willing to try new approaches and divorce monster/NPC stats from 3E conventions, I don't see that as a problem (naturally, people who *do* want to use 3E monster books alongside TB might oppose this). What I mean by this is that rhino might be, say, a 5th level animal "brute", and thus get (on top of 5th level animal "base" stats) +4 to AC, +8 to STR and CON, -2 to REF Saves, +4 to Fort Saves, and +2 to Will Saves (I'm just dropping these numbers without any actual rhyme or reason). In fact, these roles could work as TB Quick Templates (some already remind me of 4E monster design).

Just some thoughts...