Tweaking monsters

It could go either way for HD, but I'm leaning toward making it a function of creature type because (for example) a giant, no matter what his "role", is going to be tough. Or, let's take undead - if you give them d6 for a caster role, you're pretty well gimping them because they don't get Con bonus to hp; that's WHY they have d12 HD.
Caster undead could always get unholy toughness (Cha bonus to hp at each HD) perhaps. Then again, a real caster/mastermind should stay back from melee.

That's the way it is now - if you take character levels, you can't advance in racial levels.
Well, there are quite a few monsters that start with racial HD but can advance by character class. There are even some that can advance either by extra racial HD or by character class.

BTW, I forgot dragons, but they're an oddball case - they're both brawlers and casters. I'm not sure how I'd deal with them.
Yeah, might need a separate class for them. They can really take all roles.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Way, way back, when 3.0 was pretty darn fresh, Kenzer & Co came out with their Kalamar stuff, in which several of the critters would have little notes in them like, 'Unlike other Aberrations, this critter has Blindsight instead of Darkvision' or whatever.

To me, that was the way it was *supposed* to be. Yes, Undead have good Will saves, poor Reflex saves and poor BAB, *except* if I say so, because this Skeleton Warrior has Full BAB.

The type thing, IMO, was supposed to be a quick and easy 'pre-template' that the monster designer would just modify to suit this particular creatures design needs. Entirely too many people, unlike the Kenzer & Co crew, seemed to regard creature types as a straightjacket. Instead of saying 'This undead has a better BAB' or 'this Aberration has no darkvision,' they seemed to feel utterly helpless to modify the monsters they were creating, to the point where it was regarded as almost revolutionary when, years later, somebody made undead that had bonus hit points from 'Unholy Toughness' or whatever.

Maybe I was spoiled by that Kalamar stuff, but I always thought that Type was supposed to be a guiding framework for me to build off of, and that if I wanted a monster to have bigger or smaller HD (a more martial fey brute or a less physically imposing slender willowy 'wisp dragon'), then I was free to do so without having to kludge together stuff like class levels or special compensatory magic items or 'unholy toughness.'

Creating a whole new tier of 'types' based on 'role,' is, IMO, just another step down the false path of tying the hands of the monster designer. Maybe this creature is both a spring *and* an autumn, and can serve as a leader to it's minions *and* is still a kick butt melee combatant when they fall and it's down to the wire.
 

Way, way back, when 3.0 was pretty darn fresh, Kenzer & Co came out with their Kalamar stuff, in which several of the critters would have little notes in them like, 'Unlike other Aberrations, this critter has Blindsight instead of Darkvision' or whatever.

To me, that was the way it was *supposed* to be. Yes, Undead have good Will saves, poor Reflex saves and poor BAB, *except* if I say so, because this Skeleton Warrior has Full BAB.

You said a mouthful.

90% of the problems folks have with 3e can be solved by the simple expedient of the DM shrugging off the self-imposed straitjacket.
 

Any ideas on how these combat roles for 3.x might look like?

Mostly the same as in 4e.

Take chart 12-6 page 294 of pathfinder beta and do one for each role or have quickplate adjustments for role (possibly modified by CR).

I.E.
Soldiers have higher AC, higher attack accuracy, lower damage.
Brutes have lower AC, higher hp, lower attack accuracy, higher damage.
Lurkers have lower AC, lower hp, higher damage,
Strikers have lower AC, higher damage
Artillery have X
Controllers have Y
Leaders have Z
etc.

These would provide good stat bases for monsters based on desired role and CR.
 

You said a mouthful.

90% of the problems folks have with 3e can be solved by the simple expedient of the DM shrugging off the self-imposed straitjacket.

Agreed.

If I need full BAB I just a special quality, "Combat Trained", and there's the full BAB that's required.

As for rewriting stat blocks, I tended to do that anyway for 3.5E and not just because of the inordinate number of errors (few of which were particularly material): I just have my own format, house rules for saving throws and my own take on ability score arrays amongst other things.
 

You said a mouthful.

90% of the problems folks have with 3e can be solved by the simple expedient of the DM shrugging off the self-imposed straitjacket.

Yeah, that's totally the right attitude to have until your editor redlines your stat blocks because they're "wrong."

Personally, I've always been extremely torn on this issue. On one hand, I like the idea of having a consistent universe. On the other hand, there is a certain appeal to just filling in the stats according to what you think they should be rather than what the designer of the system thinks they should be.
 

Yeah, that's totally the right attitude to have until your editor redlines your stat blocks because they're "wrong."
Heh.

Personally, I've always been extremely torn on this issue. On one hand, I like the idea of having a consistent universe. On the other hand, there is a certain appeal to just filling in the stats according to what you think they should be rather than what the designer of the system thinks they should be.
Most stats (ability scores, natural armor, etc.) have a little bit of leeway, but types don't, unfortunately. I like having consistency - it lets designers and DMs know what to expect - but customization and flexbility are good too. I wonder if there's a way to accomplish both goals here.
 

Yeah, that's totally the right attitude to have until your editor redlines your stat blocks because they're "wrong."

Personally, I've always been extremely torn on this issue. On one hand, I like the idea of having a consistent universe. On the other hand, there is a certain appeal to just filling in the stats according to what you think they should be rather than what the designer of the system thinks they should be.

Well, BAB, HD and whatever being by role/class rather than type is more consistent with PC advancement rather than less.

A good example of the disconnect as it stands is the Commoner NPC class - why don't Commoners just advance according to their Humanoid hit dice?
 

...Or, let's take undead - if you give them d6 for a caster role, you're pretty well gimping them because they don't get Con bonus to hp; that's WHY they have d12 HD...

...BTW, I forgot dragons, but they're an oddball case - they're both brawlers and casters. I'm not sure how I'd deal with them.

Would d8 HD across the board really be so bad? It has "old school" charm, for one thing. And when you average a dragon's hit points over it's ECL to take LAs into consideration, I think you end up with about 8HD worth. As pointed out upthread, type-specific special qualities could further modify this base. The bonus hit points Constructs get by Size is a good example. If you *really* wanted, hit points could even be reduced in the same fashion.

There isn't a heck of a lot of attempt to "balance" monster power per-HD in the same sense as 3.X tries to balance class abilities per level. Stripping the "features" down to bare bones (d8, Poor BAB and Saves, and 2 skill points per level) and then building back with templates that define per-HD changes and additions might be one way to address this. These "monster classes" could define "roles" in the (ugh) 4e sense, creature stereotypes (i.e., a "typical" specimen), or something more specific or focused (like many existing templates do.)
 

Yeah, that's totally the right attitude to have until your editor redlines your stat blocks because they're "wrong."

True, but it's also true that my campaign doesn't have an editor other than me.

:)

So, when the group's rules lawyer whines, "That monster can't do that!", I respond with, "Obviously you're wrong."
 

Remove ads

Top