D&D 4E WotC_Rodney: 4ed "take only what you want" monster design good

[Campbell]

I really don't like this design style. I would much rather have the moster rules put down so that there is some semblance of order. What seems to be happening is they are takling what is already available, which is DM fiat monster changes and making it the only way to do things. I would much rather have rules that I can ignore than not have rules at all.

I expect the monster design portion of the DMG will list benchmarks for monsters of various roles by level, or at least that's what I'd hope to see. The previous monster creation 'system' was flawed because it created unnecessary dependencies between hit points, saves, ability score increases, and feats and because it did very little to ensure that a monster's various factors fit within an acceptable range for its Challenge Rating. If you look closely at a lot of 3e monster's there was a noticeable amount of massaging that was required to get saves, special ability DCs, hit points, and attack bonuses within acceptable ranges. I'm certain I'm not the only one that noticed all those racial bonuses to this or that flying around in the Monster Manuals. I would much rather see monsters built with the end result in mind.

 

[frankthedm]

Fun things like undead and their meager HP.

And how good Con, lots of hit die and a good fort save shows up too damn often on the D&D monster palette.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170345&page=1&pp=50

 

[Mouseferatu]

5. He flat out says you can make changes without them affecting anything else.

Which does not in any way prove, or even suggest, the absence of a baseline system to come up with the starting values, pre-alteration. It simply indicates that such a system, if it exists, is flexible.

 

[Mistwell]

Thats OK. Its balanced out by at least the same amount of people being positive about any change they see. But perhaps this isn't the best line of thought to get started on?

I was not saying it was the same 20% being negative all the time...but you seem to have taken it that way.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I'm amused that people assume that a wider degree of customization automatically means there are no underlying rules or formulas involved.

What's the Jump check on that leap?

I get the feeling that what's really going out the window are the infinite cascades of statistical dependency--where slight deviations in starting points like type or HD can change the entire shape of the creature. Instead, we'll probably see a more 'atomistic' approach to monster design--a given element will be made up of two or three components that can be tweaked without causing shifts elsewhere in the design.

 

[frankthedm]

The previous monster creation 'system' was flawed because it created unnecessary dependencies between hit points, saves, ability score increases, and feats and because it did very little to ensure that a monster's various factors fit within an acceptable range for its Challenge Rating. If you look closely at a lot of 3e monster's there was a noticeable amount of massaging that was required to get saves, special ability DCs, hit points, and attack bonuses within acceptable ranges. I'm certain I'm not the only one that noticed all those racial bonuses to this or that flying around in the Monster Manuals. I would much rather see monsters built with the end result in mind.

Agreed. And just try to make a high damage, low accuracy monster without just having it handicap itself by overusing power attack.

 

[Kraydak]

I get the feeling that what's really going out the window are the infinite cascades of statistical dependency--where slight deviations in starting points like type or HD can change the entire shape of the creature. Instead, we'll probably see a more 'atomistic' approach to monster design--a given element will be made up of two or three components that can be tweaked without causing shifts elsewhere in the design.

Unfortunately, if you are making big changes (big meaning roughly more than 1 CR), you *want* the cascade. It avoid Ogre Mages or their opposite (high hp, no offense), which I will call... hmmm, nibbled to death by ducks... wow, lots of terms for groups of ducks... Duck Paddles!

 

[Kraydak]

Agreed. And just try to make a high damage, low accuracy monster without just having it handicap itself by overusing power attack.

High damage, low accuracy monsters are *hard* to use. In any given encounter, the threat they pose will fluctuate wildly around the average based on their luck with their attack rolls. At the very least, they should come with a DM warning.

 

[drothgery]

But if I told you, "Monsters of level X have a baseline of Y hit points," then also told you that monsters filling a certain role have Z% more/less hit points, and gave you guidelines for how to make it tougher without completely breaking the encounter...doesn't that solve that problem as well as a formula? I mean, if the issue is judging appropriate power levels, and I tell you what the appropriate power levels are, doesn't that resolve the issue?

FWIW, my solution for the specific problem you ran into (creating low-level threats with staying power in Saga) was to take a low-level battle droid and give them pretty good shields.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Unfortunately, if you are making big changes (big meaning roughly more than 1 CR), you *want* the cascade. It avoid Ogre Mages or their opposite (high hp, no offense), which I will call... hmmm, nibbled to death by ducks... wow, lots of terms for groups of ducks... Duck Paddles!

In 4e, attack bonus and defenses are all tied directly to level (for characters anyway), and in Saga damage is tied to level as well, if this is the case with monsters in 4e all you have to do is modify the hp, and maybe change some abilities and you're good to go. No reason to mess around playing Sudoku with HD & str & con & templates to get what you want.