The New Design Philosophy?

[The Shaman]

The original wasn't designed badly, but the game has evolved since then and some of its abilities didn't have the same impact as before....The only thing that bothered me about it was that instead of updating those powers to be more effective against the modern adventure party, they were almost summarily discarded in the interest of making it a sort of ogre chieftain with magical powers -- something that could have been handled better, as many in that other thread have suggested, by just giving an ogre a few levels in sorcerer.

QFT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There's something else that I'm noticing here: there seems to an assumption that every monster should be designed to fight to the death.

Because there are enough situations where the monster can no longer control wether it fights to the death or not. Since you can't use Diplomacy against PCs, all the talk in the walk and all your hidden knowledge cannot avoid that the PCs want to kill you and can ensure that you can't get away, unless you beat them to death.

That doesn't mean that a monster generally can't try to escape its death, and that a DM shouldn't use that option. But if CR is supposed to have a meaning, you have to measure it to a standard baseline. If you change the parameters of the fight to something unusual, you might want to change the Encounter Level and modify the XP award accordingly.

Maybe the next edition will have multiple challenge ratings listed, depending on "purpose": Combat CR, Social CR, Mastermind CR and so on. But, honestly, I doubt it.

 

[The_Gneech]

Agreed. But if that is going to be the guiding design principle, that all monsters require the same basic tactics (ie. peasant rush) to defeat, then what is the point? Why do we need 4 MMs if that's all there is to it?

...

The original wasn't designed badly, but the game has evolved since then and some of its abilities didn't have the same impact as before. That's why the redesign didn't set me off like the rust monster did, even as a hypothetical. The only thing that bothered me about it was that instead of updating those powers to be more effective against the modern adventure party, they were almost summarily discarded in the interest of making it a sort of ogre chieftain with magical powers -- something that could have been handled better, as many in that other thread have suggested, by just giving an ogre a few levels in sorcerer.

Well said.

-The Gneech

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What we really need are Grim Tales-like skull ratings for complicated mobs. One-skull = 10d6, save for none; Two-skull, 10d6, save for half, Three-skull, save-or-die, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't know what the best method for a CR system is.

But I'd dislike it if all monsters were built for Kick-in-the-Door style play. One of the best things about monsters is that they can be used to teach new players different tactics. The old "learning by example", so players aren't bowled over with superior play by smarter monsters. This is especially true at high levels when creatures have multiple options effective against the PCs. Maybe foes like the Ogre Magi, Dragons, and Mindflayers could have Strategies written in their MM entry in place of the round-by-round Tactics?

This holds doubly true for spells and spell-likes. I agree with Belen above that most have lost their utility outside the 30-second combat. Instead of fun play with long durations (a spur for creative strategy), each has been relegated to round-by-round play only.

 

[eyebeams]

The only problem I see is that most of these developments are based on the needs of single encounters instead of multiple encounters or game sessions. The Orge Mage redesign was great for a single tactical encounter, but it didn't cover abilities meant to lead people to ambushes and the like. The classic ogre mage encounter is really where the disguised O-M charms a party member and leads everyone into a trap set by their dumb, standard ogre cousins.

Unfortunately, there's a tendency to favour single encounters because it's easier to judge a design based on that than any other criterion. Other considerations are "soft" development skills that were deemphasized in favour of balance based on hard mathematical and design principles. We now know, of course, that many of these "fact-based" designs involved a wee bit more guesstimation that previously thought.

I think that the best solution might be to go the other way around. Design monsters, items and so forth for raw single-encounter qualities *first*, then elaborate the design to include other factors. Certainly, I like the Ogre Mage redesign as a starting piont better than the original.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe foes like the Ogre Magi, Dragons, and Mindflayers could have Strategies written in their MM entry in place of the round-by-round Tactics?

Good idea.

Mark CMG suggested that educating game masters was a better approach than simplifying monsters as combat engines, and I concur.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As to the next point. Should a first level character have access to say, power word kill?

It's not that some bosses shouldn't be able to stand head to head against a group of adventurers. It's just that the CR should match the abilities, and if one or two abilities are throwing the monster way out of whack, then the monster needs to be looked at. Just like if I were to create a base class with a power word kill ability as 1st level... I bet I could come up with a lot of stories to explain that... But does that mean good "game" design?

Nah, but how about a properly leveled character?

Lets have a look at Sorcerer X. Sorcerer X has a great Charisma (18/+4), a good Dexterity (16/+3), a mediocre Strength (11/0) and an above-average Constitution (12/+1). His spells known are (without 0 level spells) 4/2/1, and his spells per day are 7/6/4. He has 6d4+6 hit points, which averages out to 21 hit points. For some reason, he also has taken the necessary feat to handle a Greatsword. His spells known are
1st: Mage Armor, Charm Person, Sleep, Enlarge
2nd: Darkness, Alter Self
3rd: Lightning Bolt
We'll be nice and hand him a Ring of Invisibility (which is roughly 7000 gp above his recommended wealth by level, but we're in a generous mood ).

Now this is a CR 6 encounter. Of course, it's just the bare bones, there are 3 feats missing, one attribute raise, a familiar, and a handful of skills. Feel free to stat him out as you wish. But it still is a valid CR 6 encounter. Of course, also feel free to point out any errors I made by pulling this out of thin air.

Now add to that Regeneration 2, Spell Resistance 18, 10 points of Strength, Flight ability and 16 hit points, +4 melee attack bonus. On the other hand, change the Charm, Darkness & Sleep to once per day, as well as the 6d6x4 Lightning Bolt to a 9d6x1 Cone of Cold, the Alter Self to a Polymorph Self 1/day, and dump Magic Armor & Enlarge because they are not needed, and you will arrive roughly where the 3E Ogre Mage is.

Now, the question is, do the changes make the Ogre Mage only a CR 6 encounter, comparable to Sorcerer X, or do the additions make it a higher-CR encounter?

And yeah, a CR 1 creature with Power Word Death would be silly...except if it's a cleric with the Death domain, who at first level can walk around killing the average commoner simply by touching him.

And the overarching point in all this? How well is the CR system really balanced, then, and should all design center around a CR fitting to a few-rounds long combat, or maybe try to incorporate more factors than "how well does it measure up to a standard adventurer group in physical combat"?

 

[Treebore]

I viewed the CR system as tool to use until I figured out 3E well enough to balance the encounters myself.

Besides it isn't as if the CR system can account for every variation of party size, composition, and magic items possessed. Its always going to need the DM to figure out how to balance things eventually.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Balance defined from a combat-centric perspective is not exactly new. A number of peculiarities of 1e magic balance go away if you assume that PCs spend most of their time kicking in dungeon doors. For example, 1e long duration Invisibility is campaign-world bending if played to the hilt (Wizard/Thieves would be swimming in ill-gotten lucre!) but is a reasonable 2nd level spell in a combat heavy game because it is primarily defensive.