The New Design Philosophy?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I think I like the ogre mage redesign overall, but I do think that the game should have some monsters with a glass jaw, for dungeon design reasons.

Sometimes, it's good to have a known bad guy that the PCs have a strong reason to sneak up on, rather than confronting openly. Giving that creature a strong offensive power, but weak defense, is a good way of accomplishing that.

In the very first 3E game I ever played in, we were fighting a village of goblinoids ruled by a trio of ogre mages (this fact was well known to our characters). We knew that we had to avoid the ogre mages until we were confident that we could get the drop on them, because there was no way we were going to survive 30d6 of cone of cold at mid levels. So we were forced to be subtle in our goals, and use stealth.

Ken

What's interesting is that the monsters are being designed with the goal of greater simplicity to run in combat - something directly counter to Kormydigar's point.

I think this is an admirable goal. (Try running 4 Vrocks in an encounter one day, and you'll see what an overcomplex creature is.) What is important is that the monsters do not lose the hooks that can give them roles in an adventure. As is pointed out in the Ogre Magi thread, the addition back of a domination/charm ability restores the "boss" ability of the OM for purposes of story construction, while not impacting on the difficulty of running the monster in combat.

The primary use of a monster in D&D is in combat. Monsters should be designed so that they're effective in combat (per the level for which their intended). They should also be desinged so they don't suffer from coin-flip and glass jaw syndrome.

Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.

The Ogre Mage in 3e/3.5e suffers from that syndrome. The combat is over in one or two rounds. It's a forgettable creature. If you send it against a party to which its AC and HP are comparable, the cone of cold causes instant death for at least one party member (probably the wizard).

(Ogre Mage: AC 18, HP 37 vs. Ogre: AC 16, HP 29. Not much of a difference. CR difference, 8. Oh dear).

Is the CR system flawed? Well, yes. However, in the Ogre Mage's case, it's not the CR system that creates the flaw, it's the design of the monster itself. Glass Jaw and Coin Flip syndrome. (The OM has a CR that allows the party to survive it, but not for it to put up a fight against the party!)

There needs to be a balance between the CR and the effectiveness of the monster: it is able to participate in combat for a few rounds, and it needs to give the players something they have to work to defeat. One or two signature abilities that distinguish it from other monsters are also essential.

The other aspect of monster design to consider is this: does the monster appear alone or with other monsters. Most interesting fights require more than one opponent, but in such cases, the monsters must be simple enough so that the DM can handle each of them.

Cheers!

 

[el-remmen]

The combat is over in one or two rounds.

Don't mean to single out MerricB, because quite a few people have made this statement - and while it is totally possible I don't see that being the norm in an encounter with an ogre magi (as written) unless the DM is having it just jump in and fight toe-to-toe.

Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .

I know I am beyond the average in terms of combat length in 3.xE - but I think making changes based on what happens in one or three rounds of combat is ill-advised.

 

[satori01]

I'm not agreeing with the cry and the contention here. Focus in monsters is a good thing in my opinion. First off, the online web articles are Mike being allowed to play, they are not official.

I like the changes to the Rust Monster. Mike nailed it right on the head, the Rust Monster is supposed to be an encounter and NOT THE GAME STOPPING THING THAT IT IS. I doubt the point of an adventure is to stop the terrible Rust Monster from eating Home Depot...but to stop the evil priest before completing the Ritual of Doom and so forth. A Rust Monster's power to destroy Ferrous items, including Magic Items, means it is more a menance to high level groups than low. If I as 2nd level character lose my Longsword and my Banded Mail to the Rust Monster...it sucks, it is inconvienet....but the next humanoid we kill will probably yield replacements,(and it the wildly different dungeon design build of many 1e monsters entirely likely). However as an 8th level character, how upset as a player am I going to be when a bad save results in the Mithral Large Spiked shield the player used Armor Smithing skills to create, and had his Druid partymate enchanct with Craft Arms/and Armor. As a DM, I am loath to destroy cherised magic items on a monster that is nothing more than an encounter, and not likely to be a plot point...especially as in my campaign at least 1/3 of the players loot is self created, and I do not throw a lot or "replacement" or "upgrade" items randomly into treasure hordes. Items are important in any game, but the damage a Rust Monster does in destroying magic items is incalculably more destructive than mere hit points to high level players. Lets face it many players would rather die and be raised than lose a magic item.

The Ogre Magi is poorely designed. I have used the MM1 Ogre Magi as a CR 5 creature, that is what it's HP really peg it at, and let me tell you, using the Cone of Cold was scary, TPK with a good roll scary, it is realisticaly too much against a 5th level party. The creature can use some tweaking. Mearls, made a nice Ogre Ninja, and I would use that creature, but it needs some charming power.

The CR system I think is fine for non combat abilities as well, just keep the the abilities in line. CR becomes a measure of what "the roll needs to be". A Diplomat adversary might only have 4 HP, but Might have a Bluff Modifier +10 against a 3rd level party for a CR 3 encounter...as challenging as an Ogre but in a different way.

 

[painandgreed]

Consider a 1 HD monster with a death attack. If you look at it, you must make a Fortitude save or die. The problem with this monster is that it has a glass jaw. There's no interest in the actual combat - it's just a coin-flip. Heads, you win. Tails, you die. That's bad design.

Rot grub. Funny thing is, I like the rot grub. It's one of the reasons I bought Tome of Horrors along with the core three books. It served it's purpose. It taught players not to go jumping around in trash heaps and other situations without checking them out first. A little poking with a stick and some fire and the threat was usually avoided. It may be have been a coin toss but the toss was easy to weight heavily in your favor if you were prepared and had some wits. Reducing all challenges to "actual combat" is bad design for an RPG. It makes for a boring, uninspired RPG even if its a good miniatures wargame.

The design philosophy I seem to be detecting that I have issues with is the desire to make "balance" the overriding factor. Things are being designed for CR rather than designed and having an appropriate CR assigned to them. Balance and CR are nice tools to have, but they should not be primary design criteria. They might be design primary design criteria for some or even most monsters, but others also need to be provided to keep things interesting, keep characters thinking, and provide the one trick ponies to keep things from becoming a neverending grind of losing CR appropriate levels of resources, healing, repeat.

 

[Mad Mac]

Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .

Charmed...person. Sorry, but this just seems to keep popping up. As written, the Ogre Mage can only charm a single person for a few hours for a single day, and can only disguise itself for a few minutes each day. If you go back to the 3.0 version, it's charm abilities are just as limited, though it can keep up a disguise for longer.

(Keep in mind though, that the Ogre Mage isn't a doppleganger. He's no genius with mind-reading skills or domination spamming Vampire or even any social skills that are going to create an effective disguise. He can only change his form)

Incidently, I've got no grude with the rot grub. It is basically an organic trap though, like green slime.

 

[el-remmen]

Charmed...person. Sorry, but this just seems to keep popping up. As written, the Ogre Mage can only charm a single person for a few hours for a single day,

Yeah, you're right - the specific example is a bad one - though if I were gonna change the ogre mage (which I would/will if/when I included one) i would make charm person into charm monster.

Also, your social skills don't need to be so great if you are just assuming a generic form as opposed to someone specific, in terms of fooling the average person.

Hmm, that is another issue - should every monster's abilities be assumed to have to be useful against equivalent CR group it might face? Is it enough that a monster might be good at tricking and bilking the townsfolk, but not as good (in terms of that strategy) against adventurers?

 

[satori01]

Don't mean to single out MerricB, because quite a few people have made this statement - and while it is totally possible I don't see that being the norm in an encounter with an ogre magi (as written) unless the DM is having it just jump in and fight toe-to-toe.

Also, it is a matter of whether you only count the fighting as the encounter, not the discovery of a monster in human (or whatever guise), the various charmed folks it might have helping it, etc. . .

I know I am beyond the average in terms of combat length in 3.xE - but I think making changes based on what happens in one or three rounds of combat is ill-advised.

You make good points, the Ogre Mage as written is a good infliltrator and hit and run artist....unortunately the flavor text of the creature and it's skill points do not support that. A Vampire can fullfill much the same role as Ogre Magi, and I think is a bit hardier in combat to boot.

 

[Rothe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothe
First let me say I like the new OM, more of the oni I always loved, never read of an oni that used cold, but lightening, flame yes. I also like the new rust monster. So the end result doesn't lose flavor for me.

Nevertheless, the above quote is just the point raised about focusing on toe-to-toe combat as the sole touchstone of design, as opposed to combat that requires a bit more tactical thinking. Yes the OM against a party with comparable HP and AC is going to lose someone IF they face it toe-to-toe. Thus, don't face it toe-to-toe. You are going to need to surprise it

You can't surprise it if you didn't see it first. Who is likely to be surprised, you or the creature that can change its appearance? How do you know it's coming? How do you know it's hostile?

So its tough is that the problem? There are no ways to counter invisibility to give you an edge besides magic? Yes you are going to need to prepare, use intelligence gathering, where is it, who is it disguising itself as. You will need to investigate and not just rush in. Are these things easy, no. Do they take planning and care, yes. Is it something men have been doing for millenia, certainly. Read Sun Tzu, advanced knowledge is everything. Fighting on ground of your choosing or prepared ground is everything. These are the things the OM requires, not brute force. My point was there is nothing wrong with having a monster where brute force is not the best option, not that brute force does not have a place in a D&D adventure.

Quote:
attack from range

Is melee not valid? Wow, that fencer concept gets trashed.

You know I didn't say that. These are the many options to brute force melee. The counter snarky remark: is ranged attack not valid? Wow, that archer just got trashed. The assumption in the design philosophy that every encounter should be amenable to straight up melee is exactly what raises concerns. Maybe this is bad if the whole idea of combined arms and a balanced party, able to attack by ranged, melee or magic gets thrown out the window.

Quote:
trick it into burning that cone of cold

Without metagaming, you don't know its abilities. Even if you make your Knowledge check, it has a wide range of abilities, so you might not know it can cast Cone of Cold. (And it can move up on you invisible and then blast you with a Cone of Cold.)

What an assupmtion. Maybe in the setting the characters don't know about OM. But if they are fairly common there should be at least tales about what they can do. Again, maybe this encounter takes brains, advanced knowledge. If you recall, I said the OM makes a nice boss guy, he's not going to be the first encounter when you walk in the room, but set up so their is time for the party to get information if they decided.

Quote:
get some protection against that cold

Ditto.

Ditto.

Quote:
have healing ready

That always happens.

Well then if you have enough, getting wacked by a cone of cold is no problem. The assumption seems to be the OM cone of cold is too powerful. Implicit in that view is that he is too powerful for the healing that is normally carried. Carry more then if your going to face this guy.

Quote:
make sure only your toughest fighter type faces it

So if your party has a rogue, they're not allowed to go near it? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun.

Again you know I didn't say that nor is it the logical consequence of what I said. I listed one of many non-brute force strategies. One is that your fighter might be able to take the full brunt of the cone of cold while others may not. A logical tactic is then to try to get the OM to burn their one cone of cold on that guy. Meanwhile the rogue is sneaking up from behind.

But if your looking for the snarky reply: Your right, wow, if not every class is equally adept at toe-to-toe combat and they all don't have the same hit points that's not fun. I guess the whole class system is not fun where some classes are better at sneaking, others at magic and yet others at toe-to-toe melee and taking larger amounts of damage.

Quote:
The underlying assumption seems to me to be, combat=rush in and swing. If so the OM is a poor design from that point of view.

A monster is supposed to be easy for an equal CR fight, regardless of how it's defeated. I would give the PCs bonus XP if they beat it "smart", though. This is in addition to other advantages (eg taking less damage, using up less healing, etc).

You just stated the assumption: easy no matter how defeated even if just by walk in the room and start swinging. Thus, it should always be easy to defeat by brute force with little or no advanced knowledge. Yet it can be defeated by brute force, it is just going to really hurt your party requiring extra healing. Again, I position him as the BBEG for the party. Are not the end encounters supposed to be more difficult? But that gets off what my posts are about, its not about appropriate CR, EL etc., it was about a design philosophy that might say there is no place for a glass-jawed monster with a one use death attack.

If your players never use cool tactics, this is a problem with the players and DMs, not a problem with the monster.

Ahhh then end with the thinly disguised insult. Man, we've never exchanged posts before and you end with this? You somehow think that becasue I like the idea of a monster that requires a little more than brute force to take down easily I must be missing the use of non-brute force this from my game or players? Quite the opposite, that's why we've never had a problem with one shot death dealing monsters.

Did I say I had a problem with the monster? I recall I said I like the new OM. It's the problem with the design philosophy. Admittedly we only have two samples from WotC, but I think there is a place for a glass-jawed monster and explained where and why. My concern is that the philosophy presented becomes the only design philosophy. I agree that the new OM is a better toe-to-toe foe and feel that a majority of the encounters should have toe-to-toe as a good option.

Quote:
IF the design philosphy is there should be some monsters that while readily defeatable can cause the loss of a party member if tactics and/or trickery are not used, then the original OM is not so bad.

Isn't that called a mage? I think an ogre mage should be tougher than that. Otherwise, why bother making it an ogre?

If the use of an original OM as I describe is already filled by another creature, well maybe it is a duplicative creature and needs to be redefined to expand the list of options. No problem. But that other creature then just fills the glass-jawed one shot killer spell role I discussed. I can always say it's called an ogre mage with emphasis on the mage and the view that mages have a limited number of deadly spells but if you can close in with them they go down easy.

 

[Scribble]

I doubt the point of an adventure is to stop the terrible Rust Monster from eating Home Depot...

haha... that sounds like a bizarely awesome plot for a X-Filesesque Modern adventure...

 

[Rothe]

I think I like the ogre mage redesign overall, but I do think that the game should have some monsters with a glass jaw, for dungeon design reasons.

Sometimes, it's good to have a known bad guy that the PCs have a strong reason to sneak up on, rather than confronting openly. Giving that creature a strong offensive power, but weak defense, is a good way of accomplishing that.

In the very first 3E game I ever played in, we were fighting a village of goblinoids ruled by a trio of ogre mages (this fact was well known to our characters). We knew that we had to avoid the ogre mages until we were confident that we could get the drop on them, because there was no way we were going to survive 30d6 of cone of cold at mid levels. So we were forced to be subtle in our goals, and use stealth.

Ken

Quoted because this is all I'm trying to say, just not so well.