WotC Blogs II

[FreeXenon]

I think it has been sort of stated that a monster that fits a certain role will have a certain range of stats: A level 5 Defender will have HP: 40-60; BAB: +5; with the following saves. Most likely chart oriented like and the PC's level advancement that way a monster's stats should always be about right for each level with their special abilities listed in the monster entry, which will most likely scale with CR.

Or something like that...

 

[Badkarmaboy]

This is from Shoe's quote:

"Generally, you need to know numbers for hp, defense, attack, and damage.."

I suppose this means that AC as we know it is out and that a SWSE-style defense system is in. Was this confirmed earlier and am I behind the power curve?

 

[Imaro]

Am I missing something here? Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities. I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight. I've done this on numerous occasions, though it can break down if PC's try unexpected things against the opponents. I mean in my oppinion he's taking an appropriate NPC challenge against the PC's(like those listed in the DMG) base stats and disregarding their abilities then adding a couple special abilities he wants to use.

I'm not trying to be snarky but people have been able to do this with all editions of the game(if they were willing to use only the necessities of a basic encounter). It's only when you get into specific/official monster design that it gets complicaed and that isn't addressed in the blog. I'd rather hear how involved or fast the creation of an acceptable monster for a Dungeon magazine article would be.

 

[Rechan]

I was very interested at seeing this. Heck, you could have an entry that says:

Spider, large lvl5; AC 14, 1 Bite+3, 2 Claws +1, Poison/A, Webs

where there is a simple table that lists generic attacks for a lvl 5 creature:

LVL BAB Primary Damage Secondary Damage
5 +4 1d8 1d4

True, but flipping back and forth between the tables to get the hit and the damage could get bothersome.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Am I missing something here? Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities.

Generally speaking, I can do this now and do it rather well.

But then, I've been DMing for a long time and playing for even longer.

Making it easier for new DMs to do this is a good thing.

 

[Imaro]

Generally speaking, I can do this now and do it rather well.

But then, I've been DMing for a long time and playing for even longer.

Making it easier for new DMs to do this is a good thing.

I totally agree here...but nothing stated in that blog makes a point of why this is easier than in 3.5. It basically just seems to tout the idea that guesstimating is a new and innovative thing. It seems a little like hyperbole for hyperbole's sake without anything really backing it up. He doesn't say there's a system for it in 4e, just that it's easier to do when you realize you only need certain things in a particular encounter(I mean to me this is a no-brainer, most things in life are easier when you only focus on what you feel is absolutely necessary to accomplish a given task). The problem I see in this is only that PC's often do the darndest things so you also gotta be willing to roll with the improvisation if you go that route. If the monsters stated fully, you don't have to worry so much about that, but yes it's more work.

 

[JamesM]

Yeah, that's why I never got all the Greyhawk grognard complaints about Greyhawk not really being the default setting in 3E. Default setting has nothing to do with giving out campaign info, it has to do with where it draws its flavor.

To be fair, often when so-called grognards say this, their complaint is not that 3E's use of "Greyhawk" isn't of sufficient depth that you could play in the World of Greyhawk with only the core books. Rather, it's that 3E's use of it is superficial at best and outright contrary to the actual content of the Greyhawk setting at worst. Erik Mona has talked at length elsewhere about how 3E changes and misuses Greyhawk concepts to no good mechanical end.

It's fine not to care about such things or to think they're trivial, but longtime fans of the setting don't feel the same way.

 

[WayneLigon]

I suppose this means that AC as we know it is out and that a SWSE-style defense system is in. Was this confirmed earlier and am I behind the power curve?

I think he means the term generically. One of the earlier articles mentioned a dragon as having an armor class, but so far nothing has really come out about any difference in AC.

 

[WayneLigon]

True, but flipping back and forth between the tables to get the hit and the damage could get bothersome.

I would think if such a thing existed, it would be just a single small table. You could easily have it on a 3x5 card with room left over.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Am I missing something here? Why is it so hard to do this in D&D 3.5 if you're just limiting yourself to..hit points, attks, AC, DMG and one or two special abilities. I find it kinda of strange that basically he's describing guesstimating basic attributes and it's heralded as insight.

I take it that he implies that there are now tools for doing so, and that they produce good results without a lot of fuss.