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

[TerraDave]

In a long post on SWSE, "WotC Rodney" has good things to say on the less restrictive approach to 4e monster design:

I didn't know it, but at the time I was apparently channeling the 4th Edition design team when it comes to monster design. One of the things I've enjoyed about working on 4E and designing some adventures (for personal use only) is that it takes the other philosophy: take only what you want, and don't worry about the rest. If I want to create a brutish monster that has a ton of hit points but only level appropriate attacks and slightly weaker defenses, I can do so without also giving the monster hugely distorted stats. Sure, you might say that it's just a monster with super-high Constitution, normal Strength, and below-average Dex...but then the monster ends up with ludicrous Fortitude saves and is now hindered when making Balance checks. Changes to individual aspects of the monster don't bring a lot of trickle-down effects or baggage with them, which makes monster design so much easier.

From here

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=34330&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

 

[Voss]

Not sure if I really like monsters by fiat. On either side of the table.

I like <type>hit dice + Con = hit points.
'This lizard has 200 hit points'... worries me. In the hands of someone good at judging appropriate power levels, its probably fine, most of the time. However... in the hands of someone unskilled, it can be a serious problem.

The old formulas had flaws. But to me, that can be solved by new formulas, not... this.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Not sure if I really like monsters by fiat. On either side of the table.

I like <type>hit dice + Con = hit points.

You see, though, how Hit Dice affect more than just hit point totals, in the Third Edition setup. It also affects feats, skill points, attack bonuses, save bonuses . . . and the results of those knock-on calculations can often impede what you're trying to do, as well as introducing unnecessary elements - some monsters simply don't need the feats and skill points that the rules say they do. Conversely, giving some monsters the feats and skill points they need for their concept means giving them extra Hit Dice to "earn" them - and thus pumping up their hit points, BAB, and saves unnecessarily.

If Hit Dice were, in Fourth Edition, not treated as a "monster class" with implications for saving throws, BAB, skill points, and feats, then both your problem and everyone else's are solved.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like it.

The old formulas had flaws. But to me, that can be solved by new formulas...

Not really, but the continued attempt to try to solve the issue with new formulas means that the game gets a lot more complex than is necessary--one band aid slapped on another. There are really only two ways out: 1) Go to something similar to point-based (e.g. Hero System, GURPS, M&M), or recognize that there will always be exceptions, and design to embrace the exceptions rather than try to sweep them under the rug.

There is always room in a system for the unskilled to make mistakes. It's merely a matter of where you allow those mistakes, and how much hassle you want to put the skilled person through in order to minimize the effect.

 

[A'koss]

I've always had the impression that monster design was going to remain forumla-ized, it's just that they are looking at them by role now. The monster roles being - brute, soldier, artillery, controller, lurker & skirmisher.

And Rodney just seems to be describing how "Brutes" work in 4e - lots of HP (relative to monsters with different roles), but level appropriate attacks, saves and so on.

 

[D_E]

Eh, I don't know. As I've gained more experiance making monsters, I've found myself adding more and more "because I said so" bonuses and penalties when making new stats. The formulas were really useful as training wheels, and are still quite useful as guidlines, but I think being able to depart from the formulas is a critical bit of monster design.

From what I've heard about the 4th ed monster system, it's basically like this, where monster level gives you some starting stats which you modify to taste.

 

[RodneyThompson]

'This lizard has 200 hit points'... worries me. In the hands of someone good at judging appropriate power levels, its probably fine, most of the time. However... in the hands of someone unskilled, it can be a serious problem.

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?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Not sure if I really like monsters by fiat. On either side of the table.

I like <type>hit dice + Con = hit points.
'This lizard has 200 hit points'... worries me. In the hands of someone good at judging appropriate power levels, its probably fine, most of the time. However... in the hands of someone unskilled, it can be a serious problem.

The old formulas had flaws. But to me, that can be solved by new formulas, not... this.

The problem with your argument is that hit dice has no direct relation to a monster's power level. It takes someone who is good at judging appropriate power level to get the current system to work, and it is easy for an unskilled DM to break the current system and get a wildly weak or overpowered creature. In this regard, the 3E system needs improvement that the 4E system may provide (based on other things we have heard). Meanwhile, what WotC_Rodney is describing here will add options for all DMs, and remove a lot of tedious work.

Overall, I really like this design strategy. As it is, I can't even stand to design NPCs when I DM. I mostly just ad hoc a few stats (usually poor guesses) and throw on a few special qualities, just to get it all done faster. I hate using the core system of adding hit dice, figuring out levels, etc, especially when it takes me just as much time to make a single NPC for a single adventure as it takes a player to make a full character. It has been the death of my many short-lived campaigns.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

You see, though, how Hit Dice affect more than just hit point totals, in the Third Edition setup.

See also "Hm... This should be a pretty durable aberration, hitting reliably for moderate damage." "Well, I hope you like Will saves then, because that's what you're getting."

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Not sure if I really like monsters by fiat. On either side of the table.

I like <type>hit dice + Con = hit points.
'This lizard has 200 hit points'... worries me. In the hands of someone good at judging appropriate power levels, its probably fine, most of the time. However... in the hands of someone unskilled, it can be a serious problem.

The old formulas had flaws. But to me, that can be solved by new formulas, not... this.

I'd say there's probably some sort of formula at work. Each role will probably have a set of guidelines for advancement. Giving more freedom to DMs in regards to creature design is a great thing, IMHO.