Understanding the design quirks behind Monster Creation in 4e

[catsclaw227]

Given the errata so far (especially the Big Erratum for DMG p. 42), and the history of errors in 3.x Monster Manuals where the numbers weren't even supposed to be arbitrary, these observations don't inspire me with confidence about how trustworthy the new math of 4e really is. How would we even know if numbers in the MM are off balance? If I use the DMG guidelines to create monsters, will I unintentionally create unbeatable opponents, or paper tigers?

I have been working with what we have in the DMG with some good results so far. I am converting Age of Worms and have scaled the adventures so that they follow a 1-30 range instead of a 1-20 range. Therefore, my Champion's Belt adventure normally in line for 9th level PCs is set for about 13th level.

I have to admin, the scaling has worked fairly well. Using reskinned monsters from the MM, the guidelines from the DMG and some of Jester's Monster conversions has been awesome.

I have had to make some adjustments to the "playable area" in each encounter, but not that much and nothing that erodes any verisimilitude.

 

[rowport]

TS-

Hey, with this much demand, you should self-publish a pdf and *sell* your guidelines!

But in the meantime, please add me to the email request list. Heh.

rowport (at) yahoo (dot) com

Thanks!

 

[GMSkarka]

Hey, with this much demand, you should self-publish a pdf and *sell* your guidelines!

I agree. Adamant would be interested in publishing it. Drop me a line at gms@adamantentertainment.com and we can talk further.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Holy hellbeast, Alhandra! I never knew so many people were into monster design! Here is my Manual of Monster Creation for those of you who, like me, didn't know until today that Enworld had a downloads page.

TS

 

[El Mahdi]

Thank you sir. Very nice.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

Thanks Tequila! This is very well done.

 

[WampusCat43]

Allow to say "well done" also. I did have a question, though. The very last paragraph states:

Converting Monster Statistics
If you want your monsters to follow these guidelines but don’t have the time to write up entire stat blocks, there is a quick and dirty way to convert published monsters to match these guidelines. Simply subtract 1 from all of a monster’s defenses and all its attacks that target NADs (non-armor defenses) for each 5 levels. For example if you want to convert the tarrasque, change its AC to 37, its Fortitude to 43, its Reflex to 32, its Will to 26, its Tail Slap to +26 and its Trample to +27.

What exactly are you describing here? I'm not following for some thick-headed reason.

 

[Henry]

What exactly are you describing here? I'm not following for some thick-headed reason.

All he's saying is for every 5 levels of the creature, subtract 1 from fort, reflex, and will defenses. If it's a level 5 hobgoblin shaman or whatnot, make his fort, reflex, and will from the monster manual 1 lower. If it's a Manticore, say, make his fort, ref, and will each 2 lower.

--------------

It's an interesting guide, but I don't know if I agree with it. All the discussion about high level monsters being a good 4 or 5 points off from the PC capabilities seems to not take into account a lot of conditional effects that WILL make a difference in the game; things such as aid another, the warlord's and cleric's powers that give anywhere from a +2 to +5 to hit to another character, etc. will make up the difference between PC hit scores and monster defenses at higher levels. Several paragon paths alone can make the difference that seems to be missing. I just think that lowering the monster's defenses to this perceived difference will actually make the monsters TOO easy to hit, once this conditional stuff is counted in.

 

[Plane Sailing]

All the discussion about high level monsters being a good 4 or 5 points off from the PC capabilities seems to not take into account a lot of conditional effects that WILL make a difference in the game;

I've not read any of the guidelines (official or unofficial), but reading this point of Henry's made me wonder whether it is assuming +1 to +6 weapons being available at certain points too - or has that already been taken into account in assessing the 'problematic' situation?

 

[occam]

It's an interesting guide, but I don't know if I agree with it.

Yeah, me neither. There are claims made that seem based on a look at the obvious math of PCs, without taking into account effects that are harder to quantify. I don't think there's been enough time to gather 4e play experience that invalidates the 4e math, as was eventually done with much of the 3e CR system.

I was hoping for more examination of why the MM monsters have attack and defense numbers that are so far out of alignment with the monster creation guidelines in the DMG. Are better or worse numbers actually compensated by power effects (I hope so), or are they errors? Is there an alternative set of more comprehensive guidelines that could generate numbers more like those in the MM, without the need to conduct extensive playtesting?

As much of a pain in the butt as 3e monster creation is, at least you knew you could create a monster that would end up with numbers like those in a Monster Manual or other WotC product by following the rules. The only real tricky part was assigning a CR, but even that wasn't too bad; you could get within +1 or -1 CR by eyeballing published monsters.