WotC Blogs II

[WayneLigon]

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.

To a lot of people I've talked to, it would be insight. I have seriously had people tell me that each and every monster they do is fully statted up and leveled just like it was a PC. They have a full stat block, advanced and customized skills, etc, simply because they see the examples in the PHB and it never occurs to them that it could be done differently.

Now, to me it's insight of a different kind. I doubt very seriously that this is what the MM is like, but if you had a set of generic damage and BABs for each level such as that you would be creating a level appropriate encounter, then you could reduce the stat-block space a monster entry takes up to a couple of lines. That would be a huge and interesting change to me. Then you'd just need the fluff text and the description of any special abilties it had that were not covered in the generic special powers. You could probably put seven or eight monsters on a page that way and cut the size of the book down to about 40 pages or less.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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 think good DM's know how to handle this, but the game needs to work equally well for those who don't have that insight - whether because they're not as quick on the uptake as others, or just because they're new to the ruleset.

 

[Rechan]

4e is being structured so that there are rules to allow DMs to do things that only very seasoned DMs could do by their familiarity with the system and their experience as DMs.

To use another example, Monte Cook when discussiong how 3e was built, said that 3e used Magic: The Gathering as a source of rules construction. Namely that some cards are better than others, and the experienced Magic player is rewarded by figuring this out and using the Better cards. Thus Toughness and Whirlwind are bad feats, but only someone familiar with teh system and experienced would realize this and thus ignore those feats.

The "Look at a table and guestimate" may seem pretty obvious to you. I'm sure that lots of stuff in the DMG, namely that tells you how to run the game, is also obvious to you. It's not there for you. And just as you ignore the "How to make a town and handle DMing", you can ignore the "How to guestimate monsters on the fly".

 

[Imaro]

4e is being structured so that there are rules to allow DMs to do things that only very seasoned DMs could do by their familiarity with the system and their experience as DMs.

To use another example, Monte Cook when discussiong how 3e was built, said that 3e used Magic: The Gathering as a source of rules construction. Namely that some cards are better than others, and the experienced Magic player is rewarded by figuring this out and using the Better cards. Thus Toughness and Whirlwind are bad feats, but only someone familiar with teh system and experienced would realize this and thus ignore those feats.

The "Look at a table and guestimate" may seem pretty obvious to you. I'm sure that lots of stuff in the DMG, namely that tells you how to run the game, is also obvious to you. It's not there for you. And just as you ignore the "How to make a town and handle DMing", you can ignore the "How to guestimate monsters on the fly".

You missed the point of my post. In your first paragraph you state alot of what the designer's are doing...now show me something in the article that supports that assertion. That is my point, telling me if you only use hp's, attk, defense, damage and a few qualities you want for a monster speeds up designing the monster, I wholehartedly agree, AD&D/C&C/OD&D/etc. all use this as default monster design anyway. What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this? Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.

Your second paragraph...not really getting where you're going with this since it has nothing to do with monster design.

Third paragraph...well see what my point is in the first paragraph and you'll understand. You're assuming there will be a table, chart, etc. Where did this assumption come from? I think alot of people are projecting their own ideas on what the designer's are saying and this is a prime example. He says nothing about 4e and how it facilitates this methodology. Are we back to simple monsters with only what the designer's deem necessary? Will all monsters of a certain challenge level have the same attk, defense etc. will there be a system to balance one of these factors by subtracting from another?

 

[Rechan]

What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this? Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.

And they aren't telling us what they're doing at all. Thus far, WotC has said: "Here's what we want. But we're not going to show you the mechanics until December."

Your second paragraph...not really getting where you're going with this since it has nothing to do with monster design.

That 3e's emphasis was "We'll just give you the system and let you figure out what's good and what's not" and it's been stated that for 4e it's "We're going to make it obvious for you how to get the best mileage out of x y and z."

Third paragraph...well see what my point is in the first paragraph and you'll understand. You're assuming there will be a table, chart, etc. Where did this assumption come from? I think alot of people are projecting their own ideas on what the designer's are saying and this is a prime example. He says nothing about 4e and how it facilitates this methodology. Are we back to simple monsters with only what the designer's deem necessary? Will all monsters of a certain challenge level have the same attk, defense etc. will there be a system to balance one of these factors by subtracting from another?

So you're basically complaining because there's not enough information to go on?

 

[HeinorNY]

Another clue that robots may be in phb

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13849270&postcount=4

"And, let me tell you, it was a good thing that I was of that opinion. Our party was pitifully short of defenders or anything with hit points and armor class, so answering the call of duty, I decided to play a warhammer-wielding warforged fighter."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What I want to know is in what ways will D&D 4e facilitate this? Without anything to back it up it really is just hyperbole.

Going off of the quote (and the other monster info we have), my guess is that there will be a table in the MM, somewhere, that says:

If you need a quick Bruiser monster type, here's the stats to give it:

CR  |  HP   | Attack | Fort | Ref | Will
1    |  10   |  +2     |  12   | 11  | 10
2    |  15   |  +3     |  13   | 11  | 10

....

etc.

 

[blargney the second]

Another clue that robots may be in phb

Once again, warforged are not robots. If you need examples of constructs that are not robots, look at stone golems, Pinocchio, or Sergeant Schlock. (Okay, I'll cop. The last one was just for gratuitous fun. But Schlock is technically a construct.)
-blarg

 

[HeinorNY]

Once again, warforged are not robots. If you need examples of constructs that are not robots, look at stone golems, Pinocchio, or Sergeant Schlock. (Okay, I'll cop. The last one was just for gratuitous fun. But Schlock is technically a construct.)
-blarg

But I think they are robots.
Am I wrong? Why?

 

[Rechan]

But I think they are robots.
Am I wrong? Why?

I think you're using the word "Robot" a little too loosely.

Undead are robots. They aren't alive and are powered by a source not their own.

If you agree with that, then you shouldn't have a problem with Warforged.