Tweaking monsters

[Kerrick]

I found this over on the PF forums and thought it was kind of interesting:

I've always thought having monster BAB/HD/Skills/etc. tied to creature type was a huge mistake.

It really has two effects that hurt the monster designs. First, it makes it extremely hard to design certain iconic monsters, like Redcaps, without breaking the rules. Second, to overcome the so so BAB for most creature types, a lot of creatures designed as brawlers either have massively inflated HD (which breaks the balance of saves vs. caster DC's) or they have a massively inflated Strength (which can make them just a bit toooo good at combat maneuvers, admittedly, not as much of a problem because of how weak combat maneuvers are in general).

I'd really like to see all the things currently lumped under type split into types and subtypes. With the Type (Fae, Monstrous Humanoid, etc.) adding special qualities, special abilities, bonuses/penalties to certain stats, alignment restrictions, etc.

And a subtype, something like "Brawler" or "Caster" controlling the creatures BAB, HD type, Saves, and Skill points.

Basically all the information in the SRD under the "Traits" section of a creature type would be a function of it's type, and all the information under "Features" would depend on the subtype.

Added bonus from a designers perspective, it allows a more fine grain control of creature progression, for instance, if in playtesting, melee oriented creatures are noticeably weak for their CR, it would be possible to add additional feats to those specific subtypes, without trying to rewrite/rebalance every individual creature.

Is it practical, though? Leaving aside for the moment the fact that you'd have to rewrite a large number of statblocks to accommodate it... do you think it would make for better flexibility/customizability in monsters?

 

[freyar]

I've thought about this a lot ever since the 4e monster previews started coming out with monster roles rather than types determining things like HD.

Anyway, I think the proposal you quote is a good idea. I would call the "subtype" the monster's "class," though, more in line with PCs. (Keeping "subtypes" being tied to special traits, as in the incorporeal or fire subtypes makes more sense to me.) In particular, I agree with Features being a function of monster class and Traits being a function of type (plus subtype). I'd envision each monster as having a type and class, with racial HD gained in the appropriate class.

In any case, in answer to your question, I do think this would allow you broader flexibility within creature types. I don't think I'd like to use it necessarily to customize individuals of a given monster ("I am pit fiend x, and I have d4 HD because I am an academic!" wouldn't do it for me ), but I think it would help a little with design. I'm not sure it makes a huge practical difference because we're still only talking 1-2 hp extra per HD for average rolls, but it would help a little. Mostly I like the idea because it's a little more like how characters work. I'm really a simulationist at heart.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's worth the effort, since you'd have to rewrite basically every single monster almost from scratch. I certainly wouldn't do it on my own.

 

[Edheldur]

Is it practical, though? Leaving aside for the moment the fact that you'd have to rewrite a large number of statblocks to accommodate it... do you think it would make for better flexibility/customizability in monsters?

It's something I've also been thinking for a while. Given that I already have to rewrite statblocks for my modified 3.5 game, it wouldn't bother me THAT much.

 

[Voadam]

Combat roles are a great 4e innovation.

Giving monsters role classes to determine HD, AC, saves and attacks would be great with type/subtype being for more flavor aspects.

Undead Death knight types should not be weak on their attacks for example, you should not have to trick the system by using templates instead of basic monsters to get what you want mechanically.

Moving 3e monster design closer to 4e roles/Spycraft minion rules/Mastering Iron Heroes villain classes would a good direction IMO.

You can do it for some concepts by RAW monster types or through creative templating, but there is a lot of room for better rules here with less complexity.

Guidelines for monster stat ranges by levels/roles is a good start.

 

[Edheldur]

Combat roles are a great 4e innovation.
Giving monsters role classes to determine HD, AC, saves and attacks would be great with type/subtype being for more flavor aspects.

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

 

[Noir le Lotus]

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

Maybe classes only accessible to monsters ?

 

[Kerrick]

Someone over there suggested basing them off the "core four" - cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. Thus, they would translate to something like healer, brawler, sneak, and caster (though I would make those names transparent - they would never appear in the statblock as such; they would just be guidelines for creating the base creature).

For example: Let's say you want to create a brawler giant. Brawler would have Strength as the high score, then Con, with the others assigned as normal (however they are now). If you wanted a caster giant, you'd put the high score in Int or Cha, secondary in Wis (for Will saves), and take the two scores formerly in Int and Wis and move them to Str/Con.

The way I'd do it for traits/features:

Traits:
HD (they're are a function of creature type).
Feats (everyone still gets 1/3 levels)

Features:
BAB
Skill points


Somewhere in the Monster Design section, I'd have a part about how the archetypes (brawler, healer, etc.) are assigned to each type, and how to change them, as noted above. For base types, I'd go something like:

Aberration, Humanoid, Outsider: Any (varies by individual)

Animal, Magical Beast Monstrous Humanoid: Brawler or sneak (varies, usually brawler)

Construct, Elemental, Giant, Ooze, Plant, Vermin: brawler

Undead: Brawler (mindless undead and things like mummies), caster (liches et al), sneak (incorporeal undead). Templated undead like vampies could have a role (which would adjust their stat modifiers), but I'd really let that be a function of the base creature type/class levels.

 

[Edheldur]

Someone over there suggested basing them off the "core four" - cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard.

Personally, I'd prefer to base them more along the lines of the 4th edition roles; but I think that both options are possible.

However, I would tie HD, skill points and saving throws to the monster role and not its type/subtype. Something more like:

Brute:HD 12, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 2, Saving throws: Fortitude Good, Reflex and Will Poor.

Soldier: HD 10, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 4, Saving throws: Fortitude Good, Reflex and Will Poor.

Artillery: HD 8, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 4, Saving throws: Reflex Good, Fortitude and Will Poor.

So you could have, for example, Brutish Outsiders and Lurker Outisders with different features between one another.

Incidentally, it looks like Tequila Sunrise has given this more thought than I have (See his house rules for 3rd. edition monster creation)

 

[freyar]

I'd think one of the points of creating monster roles/classes would be to make HD less dependent on type, right?

Also, per the SRD, features are HD, BAB, saves, and skill points. These would become part of the monster class, like they are for character classes. I think I'd say that a character/monster cannot take a monster class except for racial HD.

I like the general classes you've listed, though I don't know if there's a need for separate healer and caster classes. Maybe "mastermind"?

 

[Kerrick]

Personally, I'd prefer to base them more along the lines of the 4th edition roles; but I think that both options are possible.

I don't want to get too close to 4E, and personally I think the roles are goofy (just the names, and the fact that they're in the statblock).

However, I would tie HD, skill points and saving throws to the monster role and not its type/subtype. Something more like:

Brute:HD 12, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 2, Saving throws: Fortitude Good, Reflex and Will Poor.

Soldier: HD 10, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 4, Saving throws: Fortitude Good, Reflex and Will Poor.

Artillery: HD 8, BAB Good, Skill points per level = 4, Saving throws: Reflex Good, Fortitude and Will Poor.

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.

I think keeping the saves/BAB/skill points as variables is enough to ensure enough difference to satisfy anyone.

Incidentally, it looks like Tequila Sunrise has given this more thought than I have (See his house rules for 3rd. edition monster creation)

I'll have to check that out.

I'd think one of the points of creating monster roles/classes would be to make HD less dependent on type, right?

Also, per the SRD, features are HD, BAB, saves, and skill points. These would become part of the monster class, like they are for character classes. I think I'd say that a character/monster cannot take a monster class except for racial HD.

That's the way it is now - if you take character levels, you can't advance in racial levels.

I like the general classes you've listed, though I don't know if there's a need for separate healer and caster classes. Maybe "mastermind"?

Yeah, probably not. I noticed when I did them that healer never came up, so there's likely no real need for it.

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.