Standardising monsters

[Nytmare]

My assumption is that, much like magic items and powers, we won't be able to boil things down to one exacting set of rules. Each new batch of published material will hone and refine what bookends a power level, but too much of the creation process is still probably "guess, test, and refine."

 

[Kzach]

I think the thread has veered off course a little.

What I'm suggesting isn't building a set of be-all and end-all rules, with graphs and charts and Excel spreadsheets, I'm just saying we could build a set of solid guidelines that could act as a general reference.

At the moment, there's really only eye-balling and using the auto-calculation of the Monster Builder. That is too general and far too broad.

 

[Amaroq]

We're not all as gifted as you are! Just playing. Seriously, balancing new monsters may come fairly easy to you, but others may not have such ease.

Luv you too, Rache!

More seriously, I'm not claiming that it came fairly easy to me, but that it turned out that precision isn't as important for monsters as it is for player-character powers ..

.. and heck, we all know PC powers aren't created equal, either.

So, my point was just, given the multitude of cases, the span of "difficulty" within a given level for the already-published monsters, and the fact that my experience seems to argue that "precise balancing" is less important than simply making sure the monster "plays fun" ...

... is this worth the time its going to take to do it well?

I think the thread has veered off course a little.

What I'm suggesting isn't building a set of be-all and end-all rules, with graphs and charts and Excel spreadsheets, I'm just saying we could build a set of solid guidelines that could act as a general reference.

At the moment, there's really only eye-balling and using the auto-calculation of the Monster Builder. That is too general and far too broad.

My fault, that veer, and my apologies to you the OP for it; I'll drop the side-track.

You do make the good counter-argument: what we have currently is too general and too broad, and doesn't do a good job of guiding a fairly inexperienced DM through the process of making his first monster; that leaves it being more intimidating than it "should be", which may be preventing people from trying it and discovering that they and their players enjoy it.

So.

Focusing on it, what do we want to touch on?

As I see it, the main components of a monster are:

Hit Points
Defenses
Attack bonuses
Attack powers (limited) - targets, damage, and effects
Attack powers (at-will) - targets, damage, and effects
Controller powers - zones, effects, etc
Movement powers
Healing powers
"Leader" powers - affect allies

What other characteristics do you think we need to balance?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Anyone notice how there are quite a few published monsters that don't seem to fit into any of the six roles (they don't have strong role-defining powers)? The designers tend to label them as skirmishers, I guess because by raw numbers, skirmishers are average. I don't think that makes much sense though; skirmishers are supposed to be able zip around the battle field, which requires special powers.

As I see it, the main components of a monster are:

Hit Points
Defenses
Attack bonuses
Attack powers (limited) - targets, damage
Attack powers (at-will) - targets, damage

This stuff is the easiest to standardize. Personally I'm happy with the numbers I have in my Manual. (Though some may not like the tweaks I've made.)

What other characteristics do you think we need to balance?

The tough stuff are the powers and traits. It is certainly pointless to try categorizing all possibles, or even all published powers/traits, but what I'd like to do is list all the common ones along with a rough gauge of their power. For example, possibly the most common skirmisher power is:

Mobile Attack
(This trait counts as an added Minor effect to all the monster's powers.)
The monster moves its speed and makes an attack at any point during that movement. The monster doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks from the target when moving away from the target.

Also, a big worry of mine are the "extra" elite and solo powers that make those hit-point-bags interesting. (This worries me, because I haven't actually discovered any secret that makes elites and solos interesting.)

 

[Rachel]

Luv you too, Rache!

I swear I really was playing...really really hope you took it that way!

 

[Amaroq]

Oh but of course - thus the tongue, the cheeky spelling of "Luv", and the shortening of your name to an informal/friendly nickname.

Somebody cleverer than I really needs to solve the age-old "conveying tone of voice in text communications" problem!!

.

TS, I definitely agree, "Skirmisher" feels like the "Default" role, to me. That's okay; I'm fine with some Skirmishers having nifty shifty powers, and other being a bit more mundane. Presumably, though, the "mundane" ones need an increase .. somewhere .. damage-per-attack? Plus-to-attack? .. to balance them out, and that's the stuff I have no idea how you're going to do well.

Regarding elites and solos, I think the trick is tension-building elements which make the second half of the fight more interesting than the first half. The two or three items I've found that accomplish that are:

- Changing the action economy once its down to many-against-one: powers which summon additional enemies to the battlefield, powers which utilize Dominate or Stunned, etc.

- Additional damage output once bloodied, such as a plus to hit, an extra damage die, or a power that is only available once bloodied.

- "The clock is ticking" encounters, e.g., the ritual is getting close to complete, the enemy reinforcements are closer, the pendulum blade is drawing ever closer to the hapless prisoner, etc.

Recharge powers seem like they ought to fit that role, but I've never actually seen a party on edge to figure out if the dragon is going to get its breath weapon back and finish them all off.

Instead, I've taken to saving my bad guys' Action Points for after-bloodied, for the most part, as well as reserving at least one Encounter power (often a close burst) for the time when its many-on-one late in the fight.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Somebody cleverer than I really needs to solve the age-old "conveying tone of voice in text communications" problem!!

You could always make use of the percontation point...

 

[Nytmare]

Oh man, could we please get one of those as a custom smiley?

 

[Amaroq]

Okay, I have to admit, I googled percontation point half-expecting an April Fool's result.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

TS, I definitely agree, "Skirmisher" feels like the "Default" role, to me. That's okay; I'm fine with some Skirmishers having nifty shifty powers, and other being a bit more mundane. Presumably, though, the "mundane" ones need an increase .. somewhere .. damage-per-attack? Plus-to-attack? .. to balance them out, and that's the stuff I have no idea how you're going to do well.

As it happens, I raised Brute AC and attacks up to the normal baseline -- which I think makes it a perfect fit for the 'default' role.

Regarding elites and solos, I think the trick is tension-building elements which make the second half of the fight more interesting than the first half. The two or three items I've found that accomplish that are:

Thanks for the tips! I'll use this stuff when I get back to my Manual, one of these days...