Will Iconic Monsters be re-buffed for levels 15-30?

[howandwhy99]

3.0 and 3.5 monster manuals buffed up some of the Iconic Monsters like dragons and giants, but most stayed the same power level. That meant: PCs level 1-14 were well covered by traditional D&D monsters, but levels 15 and above needed mostly new monsters.

Will we see a large new array of new and 3E-created monsters for levels 15-30?

Or will the Iconics be buffed up to higher CRs?

 

[Scribble]

Sounds like a little of both...

Seems like they're trying to make a monster's ability to monster easily scalable.

So at higher levels you might fight another orc, but with higher level powers...

 

[Lord Zack]

I hope to see a CR 30 Tarrasque, but the Balor and Pit Fiend ought to remain around CR 20.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think it's more like "30 is the new 20." The impression I get is that the new level range means that they can spread the power curve over more levels, is all.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Seems like they're trying to make a monster's ability to monster easily scalable.

Where is your source for this? I've seen this posted a lot, and I saw it sort of come out of a clear misunderstanding a few days ago. Just because the R&D crew uses terms like "Basher" and "Mastermind" and design monster kind of like, 8th level basher with 2 action per round (Ettin) Doesn't mean it's f(x)=Ettin of CR x.

I'm gaining a sense that monsters are LESS scalable, or at least neutral.

 

[Szatany]

I hope to see a CR 30 Tarrasque, but the Balor and Pit Fiend ought to remain around CR 20.

Players go to lvl 30, so I hope monsters to 35 . Tarrasque should be exactly there, a CR 35 beast.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think it's more like "30 is the new 20." The impression I get is that the new level range means that they can spread the power curve over more levels, is all.

Multiple R&Ders have stated that 21-30 is epic. I trust WotC's opinions on 4e more than yours.

 

[Scribble]

Where is your source for this? I've seen this posted a lot, and I saw it sort of come out of a clear misunderstanding a few days ago. Just because the R&D crew uses terms like "Basher" and "Mastermind" and design monster kind of like, 8th level basher with 2 action per round (Ettin) Doesn't mean it's f(x)=Ettin of CR x.

I'm gaining a sense that monsters are LESS scalable, or at least neutral.

Wish I could garner a concrete source... (does anyone have one on anything though??? )

I'm basing it off of stuff I've read, from the various designers and the sneak peaks.

Seems like they are using the Monster's is for Monsterin approach. From some other quotes they mentioned no longer is a monster a collection of just stats and memorizable abilities.

Which led me to believe that Monsters will scale, but not in the same way characters do. (as they've said only a few will be easily used as a playable race...)

IE an advanced form of a monster won't be a monster plus umpteen classes. It'll be a monster with access to more monster stuff, plus maybe more HD and all.

Shrug. I could be completely wrong.


man... I just wrote the word MONSTER so much... it sounds so silly now... monster monster moooonsterrrrr...

 

[howandwhy99]

I've had the idea of really, really big creatures. Say 100', 200', even 500' tall.

I've been rolling this idea around in my skull for over a year now. These earth-shattering creatures could be rolled in with vehicle and mass combat rules for equivalent size and damage. I think Wizards should add them for levels 21+ as epic characters in D&D are akin to comic supers anyways. I believe this was the custom even in BECMI's 26-36 master levels. Check out the M series for examples.

 

[A'koss]

I just hope non-unique dragons top out at ~CR 24 and fiend lords *start* at CR 30 on up. And I agree that the Tarrasque should be clearly more powerful than any non-unique dragon (CR 35 is a good place for him). It should be all but unstoppable as it doesn't have any cohorts and underlings to back it up.