WotC_Dave: You will be able to make monsters...weaker...

[Cam Banks]

I wonder if it's going to have something to do with the notion of monster roles and unified charts to generate monsters. So, for example, if you know that a zoobo, being a 6th level skirmisher, generates stats of X, Y, and Z plus the traits of a zoobo, then you could take the stats for a 3rd level skirmisher and add those zoobo traits to make a less-powerful zoobo.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tend to agree with

Oh, and the propaganda posters didn't suck.

Except I'd say they looked really good and I wish I'd come up with such stuff, had the time for it and make it only half that good looking.

 

[Klaus]

Actually, dumbing down the numerical stat block has always been satisfying to me. I don't mind if they want to implement an actual system, but it probably won't stop me from just eyeballin' it and reducing the numbers slightly.

Me too.

Either that or using Savage Species at a level lower than max.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I like that dea. Not so much for the idea of a "lesser beholder"...

You have heard of a gauth, haven't you?

Save-or-die was also mentioned (in a totally unrelated manner), but it does stand as one of those things that really doesn't scale well. A DC 10 Slay Living is still a Slay Living, and scaling it back really doesn't change much. If the system is more unified towards killing stuff through HP damage, ye olde number deflation should work well across the board.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

You have heard of a gauth, haven't you?

I used a Gauth against a group of low level PCs. It was a fun and
frightening fight for them.

 

[TerraDave]

I wonder if it's going to have something to do with the notion of monster roles and unified charts to generate monsters. So, for example, if you know that a zoobo, being a 6th level skirmisher, generates stats of X, Y, and Z plus the traits of a zoobo, then you could take the stats for a 3rd level skirmisher and add those zoobo traits to make a less-powerful zoobo.

Cheers,
Cam

If they actually revealed the underlying numbers like that...I would consider that to be a Big Deal.

 

[Piratecat]

I've always liked weakening monsters in 3e. Weakling ogres, lame owlbears, venerable giants, and the like can make for a fun change of pace.

 

[Jack99]

That strikes me as an improveable situation...but we'll see. Can't make any claims about the 4e technique until I write it, can I? In any case, I'm also writing a warning: Don't downshift your monsters too often. Part of the thrill of D&D is seeing that mind flayer or beholder come around the corner for the first time--and it's a thrill because you know those are dangerous monsters. But if every monster becomes widely downshiftable, then that mind flayer coming around the corner feels less thrilling, because for all you know, he's pretty weak. And that beholder hovering over the treasure hoard isn't a big deal if you've been facing beholders of increasing difficulty throughout your adventuring career.

I agree 100% - In that spirit, please make dragons a formidable foe, even the least of them. No more CR3 and 4 dragons, I think that is one of the few things you guys got wrong in 3.5.

 

[Derren]

Oh great. Now players can fight iconic D&D monsters even earlier...

I do get the impression that D&D is evolving into the completely wrong direction (for me).

 

[Cam Banks]

Oh great. Now players can fight iconic D&D monsters even earlier...

Can, not will. It's an option, right?

Cheers,
Cam