New Design & Development: Encounter Design

[Rechan]

I actually like Lurker; it sounds sinister. "Sneak" doesn't give off the same sort of threat. I imagine "Ranged Attacker" will get changed to something more evocative.

What I'm curious of is if monsters have a role that's similar to "Leader". Something that can keep them fighting longer, or make them hit harder, or afford other such "buffs". Or if they have something similar to a controller - like a Harpy, creatures with breath weapons, etc.

 

[Lackhand]

Maybe I missed an announcement, but I've been reading things like Ogre Brute and Lizardman Lurker, or whatever they were, as specific to the race (or at least, mostly specific -- Orcs and Ogres and Giants all have brutes because that's what they *are*, disorganized heavy-hitting brutes; Hobgoblins have the same role, but call them "Soldiers" or something).

Maybe not? I mean, Brute is a fairly general (but well-defined) role.

Also, I quite like "Lurker" more than "Sneak", myself -- which is why I hope I'm right, giving us a concise description of the monster ("Rager", "Lurker", "Assassin", "Cenobite", and "Racially-specific Fighter/Mage") with a variety of taste-dependent labels, varying by race.

I can have my Goblin Stranglers and you can have your Drow Sneak.

Or whatever.

 

[Rechan]

Maybe I missed an announcement, but I've been reading things like Ogre Brute and Lizardman Lurker, or whatever they were

The quote in question:

The second actually one-shotted a tough troglodyte skirmisher; just smoked him outright, full hp to dead in one go.

I think there are too many categories of monsters for them to affix 4 new adjectives to them.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe I missed an announcement, but I've been reading things like Ogre Brute and Lizardman Lurker, or whatever they were, as specific to the race (or at least, mostly specific -- Orcs and Ogres and Giants all have brutes because that's what they *are*, disorganized heavy-hitting brutes; Hobgoblins have the same role, but call them "Soldiers" or something).

My impression is that there are generic monsters for each level (brute, skrimisher, lurker, mastermind, mook, shaman, whatever) that act sorta like villain classes, and that you add to each generic monster the special abilities of a particular race/monster kinda like a template.

So a default encounter for 5th levels might involve 5 monsters, and you can build it something like (#1) 1 level appropriate mastermind (with his 4 'free' mooks), (#2) 1 level appropriate brute, (#3) 1 level appropriate evil adept, (#4) a collection of 6 level appropriate mooks that are treated a single monster, and (#5) an encounter hazard (pool of lava, trap, whatever). In this case, they all might be goblins in which case they all get some goblin appropriate abilities. In another, they might all be lizardfolk. Or you can go crazy and mix and match. But the hit points, defences, attack bonuses, and damage all basically stay the same. Only the specials change.

 

[freyar]

Well, the thread topic has shifted somewhat, but I just want to say that I'm glad the CR system got some props in this article. It was a nice change from the 3e-bashing seen recently. And if the new monster levels system works as advertised, I'll certainly be happy with it!

 

[Zamkaizer]

My impression is that there are generic monsters for each level (brute, skrimisher, lurker, mastermind, mook, shaman, whatever) that act sorta like villain classes, and that you add to each generic monster the special abilities of a particular race/monster kinda like a template.

So a default encounter for 5th levels might involve 5 monsters, and you can build it something like (#1) 1 level appropriate mastermind (with his 4 'free' mooks), (#2) 1 level appropriate brute, (#3) 1 level appropriate evil adept, (#4) a collection of 6 level appropriate mooks that are treated a single monster, and (#5) an encounter hazard (pool of lava, trap, whatever). In this case, they all might be goblins in which case they all get some goblin appropriate abilities. In another, they might all be lizardfolk. Or you can go crazy and mix and match. But the hit points, defences, attack bonuses, and damage all basically stay the same. Only the specials change.

You propose an interesting system, but I don't believe it's the one we'll find in the Monster Manual. Your equation starts to break down when, for instance, you introduce monsters without limbs or brains. A beholder might make a great master or blaster, but it's particularly unsuited for being a brute. Similarily, a gelatinous cube is only really qualified to be an obstacle.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think there are too many categories of monsters for them to affix 4 new adjectives to them.

Yeah, my thought is that it doesn't make sense to have all the adjectives to every monster. A Beholder may never be a Brute, for instance.

However, they can apply them to some of the creatures it DOES make perfect sense to apply them to.

I think that originally they started with a very generic system: Figure out what the appropriate stats would be for creatures 1-30. Then figure out what changes from the norm at each level make a creature a "Stalker" or a "Brute", etc. Are stalkers more Dexterous, have better attack bonuses and lower ACs as well as special abilities that allow them to hide and move around better?

Then you apply those changes to the base stats. Then you apply changes on an individual creature level. So, if you have a standard stalker made up for level 1. If this is a Kobold Stalker, then you want to emphasis their size and agility more than even normal stalkers, give him 1 more bonus to hit and 2 more dexterity and 4 more to their move silently. Then apply the standard abilities of a kobold to it. Now put it into the Monster Manual under Kobold along with the other Kobolds you've made.

I get the impression that they keep throwing around language they use in the office when creating creatures that won't end up actually getting put in the monster manual. I think that they are using an internal chart of numbers for the "generic monster stats". There's been one mention of the formula used to calculate that chart being changed due to playtesting and then the numbers needing to be plugged back into every creature but that it was easy since they didn't have to change anything about the creatures except the numbers.

I get the impression that we will get the end result of the final tweaking on each monster and we will be told "This monster is a stalker, so it's job is to sneak up and attack people from behind." However, I doubt we'll actually be told "To make a stalker, take these numbers and apply these modifiers to it." I think this is because there is at least a small step near the end where the designers basically say "What changes do I need to make to the default stats at the end to make this more...like a kobold and less like a generic set of stats." And since this final step will be simply made up by the individual designer, there won't be a chart or anything they can point us to.

They keep saying how they managed to fit 300 creatures into 288 pages worth of monster manual. Assuming a good 30 pages of description about how to use monsters and such, it means their stat block is very small to fit that many monsters in about 250 pages. I think a decent number of them will be monster variants, so they only have to list "Kobold abilities" once followed by 5 or so kobold types to save space.

 

[Celebrim]

You propose an interesting system, but I don't believe it's the one we'll find in the Monster Manual. Your equation starts to break down when, for instance, you introduce monsters without limbs or brains.

It doesn't really break down, it just creates a new never before seen monster. Gelatinious Cube skirmisher doesn't make sense, but how about I call it a Gelatinious Cube Squirmisher.

Seriously though, your complaint is easily enough solved. In the entry of each monster, I put down the villain classes that it most commonly qualifies for. I probably also - in the style of recent monster manuals - have a couple of finished examples with different 'villain classes'.

The reason I think this likely, is that it is very much in the Mearls style.

I get the impression that we will get the end result of the final tweaking on each monster and we will be told "This monster is a stalker, so it's job is to sneak up and attack people from behind." However, I doubt we'll actually be told "To make a stalker, take these numbers and apply these modifiers to it." I think this is because there is at least a small step near the end where the designers basically say "What changes do I need to make to the default stats at the end to make this more...like a kobold and less like a generic set of stats." And since this final step will be simply made up by the individual designer, there won't be a chart or anything they can point us to.

You might want to take a look at this. I very much think that they intend to put these tools in the DM's hands.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You might want to take a look at this. I very much think that they intend to put these tools in the DM's hands.

Yeah, the part I got out of that was:

Of course, it helps that I'm currently very familiar with the structures we are using for building monsters - but to me it highlights what is important about a monster in the context of an encounter. Generally, you need to know numbers for hp, defense, attack, and damage, and then you need the one or two special abilities that make the creature unique in combat. It seems obvious, really, and wasn't a novel realization, but was just something that I was thinking about last night.

The big thing is it helps that he's very familiar with the structures they are using for building monsters. I gather he is saying that he has all the tables and knows how the formula's came about so its easy to come up with new ones.

However, as he points out, the key to coming up with new monsters is that you need to know the numbers and then give it one or two unique abilities to make the monster stand out. As a DM, it's easy to come up with numbers that likely your players won't know you used. Turn the Monster Manual to any monster in the book around the right level and use their numbers. Then make up 2 abilities that say "spider" to you. Like, say, a range attack roll to entangle someone and a poison bite.

They MIGHT give us the tables, but I have a feeling that if they disguise the table slightly in the finished product less people will complain about the fact that monsters' stats have so little difference between them. I'm not ruling out that they will be in there. I just get the feeling that they are all excited about the things they are doing to create monsters behind the scenes that they are talking about it.

In the end, I feel that we'll get a "Creating a monster is more art than science, so we didn't include actual monster creation rules in the Monster Manual. If you need a quick and dirty method of creating a creature, turn to a page in the book with a monster about the level you want and the role you want and then give them 2 abilities that make them seem like a different creature. Or, simply wait until the Monster Manual 2, 3, and 4 when we give you real stats on all the creatures you want."

 

[delericho]

I think you have the idea. They are moving toward a system where the monster's appearance is mostly flavor.

Oh, I sincerely hope not. A monster's appearance should play an integral part in the determination of its stats. Appearance, powers, and even such things as ecology and social structures should all be a part of a holistic design process that makes a monster what it is.

Otherwise, there's a terrible danger that they just become playing pieces on a board, and then we really are in WoW territory.

IMO, of course.