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

[NewfieDave]

Remember that on the Spined Devil stat block it is listed as level 6. I suspect that monsters will be heavily dependent on your party's level, using monster level as a modifier on saves, AC, skills, BAB, etc.

Want to run skeletons that challenge a level 8 party? Just make them a level 8 monster, describe them however you like, and add the skeleton "Monster Class" (or whatever they choose to call it) to give it skeleton powers.

Seems like a very balanced approach.

 

[helium3]

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.

I think it's mentioned in the November podcast as being a table organized by role and level.

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.

It seemed like the racial bonuses were mostly for skills though.

 

[jeffh]

Unfortunately, if you are making big changes (big meaning roughly more than 1 CR), you *want* the cascade.

You now do that by simply starting with a different level of monster, if I understand what's been claimed about the new system correctly.

 

[Voss]

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.

Or you know, the presence of such as a system. 'Take what you want, don't worry about the rest' doesn't suggest a system.

Knock yourself out with carping about my 'jumping to conclusions', but recognize you're doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction.

 

[bording]

One thing you might want to keep in mind, I'm pretty sure Ari is under NDA and has seen the 4E rules already, so he might just know what he's talking about.

Not to mention Rodney's post on the first page of this thread that pretty much says that there are specific baseline guidelines.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Knock yourself out with carping about my 'jumping to conclusions', but recognize you're doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction.

You could jump to that conclusion...

 

[Mouseferatu]

One thing you might want to keep in mind, I'm pretty sure Ari is under NDA and has seen the 4E rules already, so he might just know what he's talking about.

I can make no official comment at this time.

Not to mention Rodney's post on the first page of this thread that pretty much says that there are specific baseline guidelines.

Yep. He said it doesn't have a lot of trickle-down, not none.

 

[bording]

I can make no official comment at this time.

Hehe, I figured as much. That's ok, Clark's already said as much anyway, since he's said you're working on 4E products for Necromancer and that he can't even see what you're working on for him yet.

Yep. He said it doesn't have a lot of trickle-down, not none.

This is what really excites me about monster design in 4E. Lots of base guidelines that they've established that ties into all the new math that they've worked up, and then you can tweak the baselines and add some cool powers and make a really awesome monster without tons of effort.

I really do hope we get to see all the baseline numbers up front and don't have to spend a ton of time reverse engineering the progressions. That would sort of defeat the point, so I don't expect to have to do this.

 

[Campbell]

Or you know, the presence of such as a system. 'Take what you want, don't worry about the rest' doesn't suggest a system.

Knock yourself out with carping about my 'jumping to conclusions', but recognize you're doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction.

I fail to see how any system besides 'Here's the baseline, violate it at your own peril' does anything but create unnecesarry hoops to jump through. I think the 3e monster creation system, much like its cousin - the magic item pricing guidelines - gave a few of us a false sense of security. They were generally codification for codification's sake and never really offered any sort of appreciable results.

 

[SteveC]

If one were to look at the thread on Necromancer Games' plans, one might get an idea of how Ari might not just be jumping to conclusions about the new edition.

The rules for baseline monsters with the ability to tweak to suit tastes does sound interesting, much in the same way as you can do this sort of thing in Spycraft. Picking from a reasonable number of modifications is likely to suit a lot of players, but you have to remember that there are some out there who want to spend every skill point.

For me, I have always used the rule where if you can get 80-90% of the detail of the full system by using something a lot more streamlined, I go with the streamlining. It's something I've done a lot with third edition, and my players haven't even noticed for the most part.

--Steve