Some bits about Monsters from the WotC boards

[WhatGravitas]

I think HD-based effects will be gone entirely, and HP will be the new "hit dice".

For example, Cause Fear affects creatures of 5HD or lower -- why not just have it affect creatures with under 25 hitpoints? Not only does it make the spell more versatile, it also makes a lot of sense, as creatures brought to a low number of HP from taking damage should be more likely to get scared off by a magical effect than they were at 100 hp.

Oooh! That's a cool idea! And it makes a lot of new tactics more viable! Suddenly spreading out damage makes much more sense, since it allows the spellcasters to do mean things!

Sounds cool! Like it!

Cheers, LT!

 

[Frostmarrow]

I wonder if monsters will be programmed in seven steps? The seven steps vary from monster to monster. Simple monsters would have seven steps of 'move up to and make a melee attack aginst the closest enemy'. But a big bad dragon would have convoluted steps like 'Breath fire, tailslap, spit fireball, and move to advantageous position'.

That way WoTC can keep churning out new monsters and even release new behaviours for old ones. -That would be cool.

To continue my own post...

Something like this:

Hobgoblin 15hp AC 15.

1. Form a shieldwall with comrades. Set spear to receive charge. +2 (1d8; 1d8x2).
2. Move in formation against melee opponents and attack with spear +2 (1d8).
3. If wounded draw shortsword and move for a flank attack +4 (1d6). Otherwise stay in formation and attack with spear +2 (1d8).
4. If unit is below half starting capacity flee. Otherwise keep flanking and attack with short sword.
5. If unit is below half starting capacity flee. Otherwise keep flanking and attack with short sword.
6. If unit is below half starting capacity flee. Otherwise keep flanking and attack with short sword.
7. If unit is below half starting capacity flee. Otherwise keep flanking and attack with short sword.

 

[Philip]

...will be hard as hell to advance as a consequence of all stated above (this would be a great turnoff and reason NOT to buy 4E for me)

They would be very easy to advance. Need a tougher version of a monster? Just add more hit points and leave everything else the same. No juggling with raising HD, Con scores and all derived statistics as result.

I never understood why D&D made plant-eating dinosaurs have far superior fighting skill to experienced gladiators. It was just a function of the linking of lots of abilities to HD.

 

[Li Shenron]

If the monsters are going to have fixed XP, maybe there would simple guidelines like "for each additional feat, add 5% more XP", "for each ability increase, add 2% more XP" and things like that. You'd just add these % together, get a final +X% and adjust the XP. But maybe it just won't work...

 

[avin]

...will be hard as hell to advance as a consequence of all stated above (this would be a great turnoff and reason NOT to buy 4E for me)

Same here.

It seems they will allow just a few monsters to be playable as characters. Already complained on WOTC boards.

 

[avin]

They would be very easy to advance. Need a tougher version of a monster?

Some people do not want "tougher monsters". Some people want to be able to make them interact with players and have some twists. I want to be able to build a Planar Psionic Ogre myself.

Maybe the party attack him.
Maybe the party just talk things out.

That's how my campaigns works.
That's why I used to choose GURPS over AD&D.

 

[Sammael]

They would be very easy to advance. Need a tougher version of a monster? Just add more hit points and leave everything else the same. No juggling with raising HD, Con scores and all derived statistics as result.

What if I don't want the monster to be tougher? How will I objectively measure the increase in the monster's challenge if I add some non-combat abilities to it and make it a social encounter by default instead? I hope they'll answer this question eventually, but I am afraid that their answer will be "use a different monster instead."

I never understood why D&D made plant-eating dinosaurs have far superior fighting skill to experienced gladiators. It was just a function of the linking of lots of abilities to HD.

That's a whole different ball game.

 

[hong]

What if I don't want the monster to be tougher? How will I objectively measure the increase in the monster's challenge if I add some non-combat abilities to it and make it a social encounter by default instead?

By assessing its likely impact on your game, and making decisions accordingly. You were expecting?

 

[hong]

Some people do not want "tougher monsters". Some people want to be able to make them interact with players and have some twists. I want to be able to build a Planar Psionic Ogre myself.

Maybe the party attack him.
Maybe the party just talk things out.

That's how my campaigns works.
That's why I used to choose GURPS over AD&D.

Such people should have the knowledge and expertise to be able to juggle numbers to arrive at a suitable result without needing the handholding of a concrete numerical framework, then.

 

[Sammael]

By assessing its likely impact on your game, and making decisions accordingly. You were expecting?

That the preparation will be sped up. If I have to assess each monster separately, what am I gaining by converting to 4E, exactly?