Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
For all the encounters, I'd just use one of the online generators, most likely Dingle's or Monster Advancer.; if I cant use those, I'll likely just cut-n-paste something from the SRD. I'll tweak the resulting stat blocks to suit the situational needs &/or my own taste. So it's not really "by the book", and the books that have the most influence IMC is any thing cut-n-pasteable.
For minion types, I'd make maybe two or three stat blocks with different schticks (eg, AC, weapons, spell focus). Each would likely take around 5 to 15 minutes depending on complexity.
For BBEGs, I generate the basic stat-block, then tinker with spell selection, items, abilities, feat, etc until I get what I want. I don't sweat the rules here; if I need a new power, i'll yoink from somewhere else, liberally reshin, or just make it up based on similarly powerful effects (eg, the marilith's tail sweep would likely come from the very similar dragon's attack). Doing a BBEG can take me a while, more if I intend/expect it to survive the fight; most of that time is figuring out background, tactics, personality, items, spells, etc.
I actually enjoy making monsters. I find having all the numbers in front of me makes them more "real" in that they all become adjectives in some sense and can guide RP, even if they're not actually used mechanically. Frex, a low Ref save might indicate the NPC is "slow & lumbering", whether or not he ever actually makes a Ref save in combat.
As for this:
Exactly where those numbers come from, though, isn't terribly important, except to the most OCD of rules lawyering players. As long as things feel consistent, and reflect an appropriate level of difficulty, it's all good.
That said, I think the "sweet spot" depends on the DM (and to a lesser extent on the players). Experienced DMs can just wing it because they know what consistency feels like; they are, in fact, using the rules, just not explicitly. Less experienced DMs (like me!) need that framework of rules as a reference point; it's how I gauge approximately how "balanced" a given encounter is against a party, if that's important in the game's context.
Could those rules be simpler? Sure; I understand that's one of the philosophies behind 4e's encounter generation. But the more complex 3e way has the advantage (to my mechanistic way of thinking, at least) that all those numbers become details that I can tune into focus or out of focus as needed. Oddly, to me they are inspirational. Ymmv
For minion types, I'd make maybe two or three stat blocks with different schticks (eg, AC, weapons, spell focus). Each would likely take around 5 to 15 minutes depending on complexity.
For BBEGs, I generate the basic stat-block, then tinker with spell selection, items, abilities, feat, etc until I get what I want. I don't sweat the rules here; if I need a new power, i'll yoink from somewhere else, liberally reshin, or just make it up based on similarly powerful effects (eg, the marilith's tail sweep would likely come from the very similar dragon's attack). Doing a BBEG can take me a while, more if I intend/expect it to survive the fight; most of that time is figuring out background, tactics, personality, items, spells, etc.
I actually enjoy making monsters. I find having all the numbers in front of me makes them more "real" in that they all become adjectives in some sense and can guide RP, even if they're not actually used mechanically. Frex, a low Ref save might indicate the NPC is "slow & lumbering", whether or not he ever actually makes a Ref save in combat.
As for this:
IMHO, ultimately the DM's job is to provide a pile of numbers for the players the roll against. Those numbers should be in line with the party level and encounter expectation/requirement and have some sort of contextual justification, etc. (That is, if the numbers are high for lowly goblins, there should be a good reason.) In addition, the DM should slowly feed the players info (in the form of hits/misses, RP, counterattacks, etc) so they can adjust their tactics over the duration of the encounter.
Exactly where those numbers come from, though, isn't terribly important, except to the most OCD of rules lawyering players. As long as things feel consistent, and reflect an appropriate level of difficulty, it's all good.
That said, I think the "sweet spot" depends on the DM (and to a lesser extent on the players). Experienced DMs can just wing it because they know what consistency feels like; they are, in fact, using the rules, just not explicitly. Less experienced DMs (like me!) need that framework of rules as a reference point; it's how I gauge approximately how "balanced" a given encounter is against a party, if that's important in the game's context.
Could those rules be simpler? Sure; I understand that's one of the philosophies behind 4e's encounter generation. But the more complex 3e way has the advantage (to my mechanistic way of thinking, at least) that all those numbers become details that I can tune into focus or out of focus as needed. Oddly, to me they are inspirational. Ymmv
