Some bits about Monsters from the WotC boards

[hong]

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

You are gaining by not having to tweak lots of numerical formulae which usually are of marginal importance to the likely course of the encounter. Basically, you can use the formula-based approach of 3E, or you can wing it. From experience, winging it is much faster (and I never use by-the-book monsters or NPCs, so I know of what I speak).

 

[DonTadow]

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.

So have your people talk to him? I don't think D and D has ever been based around the whole notion of everything must die. What do you as a DM need to turn a combat encounter into a social encounter. Just because monsters don't have "use rope" does not mean that hey won' have stats or abilities that have social implications.

If you're a DM and the pcs approach he bugbear and he's sipping tea and invites them in, all you need is the social ability score to have a meaningful interaction.

 

[Sammael]

You are gaining by not having to tweak lots of numerical formulae which usually are of marginal importance to the likely course of the encounter. Basically, you can use the formula-based approach of 3E, or you can wing it. From experience, winging it is much faster (and I never use by-the-book monsters or NPCs, so I know of what I speak).

My personal preference is not to wing it (or, at the very least, to wing it as little as possible). This preference was supported by the 3.x rules, but the method used increased preparation time because it required the application of a precise numerical method which took an insane amount of time (and wasn't 100% accurate).

I am not asking for rocket physics here. I want to see this guideline somewhere: "Turning a CR X brute monster into a social encounter generally reduces the CR by Y; to retain the same CR, you should add one of the following to the monster: Skill N, Skill M, Ability O, Ability P."

What I don't want to see is this: "Turning a CR X brute monster into a social encounter is not recommended; please use monster Y instead."

 

[DonTadow]

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

You're giving up a heck of a lot of statting and post statting. Simplier monsters can't go wrong when talking about preperation. If there's a different easier mechanic for advancing monsters that is gret too. Perhaps monsters are not set CRs but there are 2 or 3 versions of the monster for different scaling levels. Perhaps there is a page on how to take away and ability and add a skill you want it to have.

 

[hong]

My personal preference is not to wing it (or, at the very least, to wing it as little as possible). This preference was supported by the 3.x rules, but the method used increased preparation time because it required the application of a precise numerical method which took an insane amount of time (and wasn't 100% accurate).

Well, you _did_ say you wanted faster prep time, and that is, indeed, what you're likely to get. You may not get precise adherence to a solid numerical framework that forms a foundation for the entire game world, but they seem to be moving away from that "rules build the world" philosophy. Which is entirely a Good Thing, IMO.

I am not asking for rocket physics here. I want to see this guideline somewhere: "Turning a CR X brute monster into a social encounter generally reduces the CR by Y; to retain the same CR, you should add one of the following to the monster: Skill N, Skill M, Ability O, Ability P."

What I don't want to see is this: "Turning a CR X brute monster into a social encounter is not recommended; please use monster Y instead."

Eh. Even if they did say that, you take recommendations too seriously.

 

[Cassander]

Sounds like 4e is a return to 1e/2e! Where the Monsters had different stats than the PCs/NPCs. Maybe they'll just give us INT for each Monster but not Str, Dex, etc?

Ironically, one of the first things I wanted from 4e was more of a unification of class, race, and monster HD... taking away the weird separation between an orc whose first HD is replaced by a class and a gnoll who has two HD neither of which can be replaced by a class. Maybe give one racial HD to everyone and have that maybe replace NPC classes, or allow any monster to replace some or all of its Monster HD with class levels.

Also was hoping that LA/ECL would be easier to use... so that Monsters would be more viable as player classes. Why do they need to have PC-breaking at will abilities that they won't use more than a few rounds anyway? Basically, I was hoping for a game where there wasn't any separation between "monsters" and "PC/NPCs"... everyone would just be characters. 3.5 went in that direction, which I liked (having all monsters feature LA) and was encouraged that maybe it'd go even more that way in 4e. I can see how the new system will speed things up, but it doesn't sound like it'll model stuff very well in a coherent system. Maybe the time savings will make up for it, but we had those same savings back in 1e and 2e.... is 4e in some part a reaction to the continued popularity of 1e/2e, C&C, etc? Is this a system designed to bring those people back into the fold?

 

[megamania]

Given what Mearls has said about monster write ups not being usable for PC races (no link, sorry), I would expect that Skills would be cut.

Now we'll never know how well the Tarrasque can Use Rope.

nor appraise....


BITE chomp chomp.....Valenar Horses are bony.....


BITE chomp chomp ....Magebred.....Magebred have a lovely tang!

 

[Sammael]

It takes a while to master the game, which is why I would like to see such recommendations in the core books. Of course I don't need them for 3.x now, after 7 years of playing, reading, analyzing, prepping, and customizing them. I know damn well that a 20th level bard isn't a CR20 encounter, and that having 30+ HD zombies as CR5 monsters doesn't always work.

I guess I am trying to say this: devs, please make sure there are easy and consistent options for diverse monster advancement built into the system from the very beginning. The subsystem doesn't have to be the same as the one for advancing PCs, but it would help not having to learn two different systems for what is essentially the same thing.

 

[Horacio]

AS I read this, it means that gnomes, and maybe goblins, will be usable as PCs because in the MM they will be described both as a monster and as a race.

The gno more gnome problem is over then!

 

[megamania]

I find it very hard to take these bits of rumors seriously without something to look at. What makes 4e easier? speculation = They have no idea. . They were told to make it easier and the due date is next week.


Too much speculation..... not enough fact