Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5971522" data-attributes="member: 95493">He is.It is too much diversity in the wrong ways.I have always been talking about the 5e design process for monsters. Not the 4e one that was implemented. In that regard; theoretical because the monster design hasn't really been released in any detail so far.Now I am discussing the theories based on 4e design as far as it extends to the primary topic which was "should roles be first and foremost". I think they should exist but I think there are several problems with having them be the sole or primary descriptor that matters.All of my comments about the birdman, artillery, etc. ogres were due to what YOU were saying about theoretical ogres, not about the MM ogres. Beyond that, YES it is a real complaint, actually it is several ones - none of which you decided to reply to.Once again, that is my mistake. The fault came with how that sentence was arranged, I thought the "any but" was part of the previous part of the sentence and that the "warhulk was typical" was a different thought. That could have been corrected in my last post then.What ogre DO you consider typical - if you could only pick one?Actually unicorns are in that unique monster group I keep talking about and demons and pixies are in the last group - which are a mixture. The reason they take so long to design IS because they have unique or odd abilities. Otherwise I would expect them to be fairly easy to create.Giant levels still give you the core - you know how many feats and what level (as far as prereqs especially), you know if they gain anything racially or if it is solely through level advancement. You know their BAB, saves, skills and HD ALL based on giant levels.I'm glad YOU don't need a blackblade class to tell you where abilities come from. But it is something I need to have to properly understand where abiltiies come from. I don't expect to see 20th or 30th level "humans" walking around either. I expect them to advance by class, either PC or NPC, starting at level 1. I don't understand your aversion to letting me have something similar when it comes to ogres.There is no rogue ogre, so I've never had to come up with that explanation. If I decided to make one then I certainly would have a reason. The same doesn't apply for random variations on nearly ALL monsters in the MM. How often is there only 1 (or perhaps 2 for an advanced version) of a creature in the MM1? (I'm only saying MM1 because fixing it later doesn't really apply or interest me at the moment.)You are the one who mentioned a different build for rockthrowing ogres. I just codified it with a class so that it would make sense to me (that's why I initially put the class part in brackets). Either way the sentiment still applies when removing the class part of the equation.I don't understand why rockthrowing ogres would suddenly be overpowered and needed to be toned down - except the whole "1/10 chance to do a lot more damage thing" which is a completely different discussion.My point is that there IS an artillery role and a brute role, when a brute is doing ranged attacks what is he?Right and it doesn't have to do with the math, per se. It is just that the math is a part of what I don't understand about a role only description.It only has to do with the math as far as the math influences the outcome based on roles. Which is when the math of 4e becomes prescriptive instead of descriptive.You'll notice I'm not even discussing the whole "roles are classes" or "where does this class come from". As we BOTH have said (and I assume we agree) the only thing on a monster block that could be considered classes are just fancy labels. We both said that but somehow you are arguing it over and over. My point, in that last post, was that IF there was a 'skullcleaver' class then it would make a lot more sense to me about how the game gives out abilities. If every skullcleaver could do the same kinds of things then it would make sense, any variation beyond that would be racial in one sense or another. INSTEAD everything on the block is racial, because there is no class and (as we've established) roles aren't even classes to give them these abilities.I'm not an expert in game design. Nor did I come up with 3e's monster design philosophy. It is messy and difficult to navigate. It also works most of the time. I've used it more than once and been able to create unique monsters, racial monsters and outsiders (a mix of the two) very effectively. Monster Class does work to balance things and although it takes time and knowhow it does accomplish its role. Any issue beyond that will be ones of the length of time it takes and how balanced it is - in a linear fighter, quadratic wizard kind of way - which is not unique to the monster design. So I fail to see what is so confusion or troubling about 3e monster design as opposed to any other.What I do like about the 3e design is that I can easily identify where the monster gets everything on its sheet. What comes from its class, or advancement, and what is racial. I can tell immediately what would be there at level one and what would change (or level up) if I advance it.With 4e design, on a practical sense, I can swap out powers or do advancement to get a higher monster but since there is nothing but racial abilities I can't as easily eliminate the racial from the 'skullcleaver' when I want to make a completely unique form of the creature. (I have the skill to do it but having a index of what is 'monsterclass' and what isn't would be more helpful, which is all I've been saying as far as roles =/= class.)So more or less we agree about what is. We disagree about what should be in the 5e design.</blockquote>

Verification