Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="occam" data-source="post: 4516811" data-attributes="member: 39815">Yeah, I noticed this when I started going through the MM comparing every monster to the design guidelines. Hit points, initiative, and (barring racial bonuses) skills are strictly according to formula, but defenses, attacks, and damage are all over the place.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'm OK with moving away from 3e's slavish devotion to monster construction rules, but when the majority of monsters don't work according the creation guidelines provided, I think it's time for different guidelines, perhaps something forthcoming in the virtual pages of Dragon.I'd be interested, too, but I don't want to help bombard you with another email request. Could you post it in a blog here or something?</blockquote>