Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)

[Sernett]

Nice! This reminds me a lot of Spycraft 2.0. It looks like the GM will decide the role he wants the monster to play in a battle, and that determines the appropriate modifiers.

I like this a lot.

That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

 

[Korgoth]

I thought some of it sounded a bit silly.

"fairness and fun"
"fair and fun"
"fair and fun"
"great results"
"easier and more fair"

FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND GREAT RESULTS AND EASIER AND MORE FAIR! DID I TELL YOU IT'S FUN? AND FAIR TOO!?!

That was about the most irritating WOTC blog entry I've read so far (most of them I've enjoyed). Monsters in 1e and 2e were... unfun? Unfair?

Wow. I guess my fun, fair games have been some kind of weird mishap all these decades. Nice to have some guy who's probably younger than me and has played the original games less than me set me 'straight' about them.

The single most annoying thing about the WOTC communications is the self-congratulatory attitude most of them have. I even get that from Mike Mearls sometimes, which is too bad because I think he's a sharp guy. But I don't need any group to constantly tell me how smart they are. I need them to show me.

 

[Abisashi]

Snip

Thanks for stopping by. I think that sounds excellent.

 

[Dinkeldog]

That was about the most irritating WOTC blog entry I've read so far (most of them I've enjoyed). Monsters in 1e and 2e were... unfun? Unfair?

It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair. It's just that they were pretty much static. And I really like OD&D, 1e, and 2e. But I liked the feeling of freedom that I felt with 3e. However, that freedom came at a price--it became much more difficult to just put together an adventure on the fly in 3e. Not impossible, just more difficult. So if 4e can keep that feeling of freedom and make things less complicated to run adventures on the fly, I'll be really happy to see that.

 

[Shade]

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

Oh, bother.

I know what it can do in the woods, but I'm not sure we'd want to explore that as a monster "role".

 

[Korgoth]

It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair. It's just that they were pretty much static. And I really like OD&D, 1e, and 2e. But I liked the feeling of freedom that I felt with 3e. However, that freedom came at a price--it became much more difficult to just put together an adventure on the fly in 3e. Not impossible, just more difficult. So if 4e can keep that feeling of freedom and make things less complicated to run adventures on the fly, I'll be really happy to see that.

I appreciate that point. I just thought that Mr. Sernett was claiming too much in his blog:

We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).

Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.

 

[Kraydak]

That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

So in monster design, you are taking the numbers and abilities at the end (choosing hp/AC/damage etc... based on the target level, and choosing a few abilities from column A and maybe some from column B)? While this will shave some *seconds* off of stating up something from a "Type class progression" where you take your target level (which exists in both systems) and taking your abilities from columns A and B, it removes the ability to interface with the multiclassing system. (if you aren't choosing abilities from columns A and B, you loose any monster flavor, if columns A and B don't exist, you lose any claim of powerlevel design).

Having type based "class progressions" (with different choices) allows for easy templating (rather than 1 half-dragon template with its LA evilness, you could mix 1, 2, 3, 7 or maybe 15 levels of "dragon" with your normal class or racial levels). It allows for easy PCification. It still allows for easy monster design and advancement. In fact, for the more complicated (non-brutish) monsters, its probably *faster* for anything but the barest bones result as the grunt work goes into the talent trees.

 

[Abisashi]

So in monster design, you are taking the numbers and abilities at the end (choosing hp/AC/damage etc... based on the target level, and choosing a few abilities from column A and maybe some from column B)? While this will shave some *seconds* off of stating up something from a "Type class progression" where you take your target level (which exists in both systems) and taking your abilities from columns A and B, it removes the ability to interface with the multiclassing system. (if you aren't choosing abilities from columns A and B, you loose any monster flavor, if columns A and B don't exist, you lose any claim of powerlevel design).

Having type based "class progressions" (with different choices) allows for easy templating (rather than 1 half-dragon template with its LA evilness, you could mix 1, 2, 3, 7 or maybe 15 levels of "dragon" with your normal class or racial levels). It allows for easy PCification. It still allows for easy monster design and advancement. In fact, for the more complicated (non-brutish) monsters, its probably *faster* for anything but the barest bones result as the grunt work goes into the talent trees.

Compare what he proposes with statting up an NPC in 3e; to me 4e sounds like it saves much more than a few seconds. Is your suggestion not analogous to 3e NPC creation? If not, could you clarify the difference?

 

[frankthedm]

Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.

Part of the unfairness was a monster could be worth 1000s of XP more for a few trivial spell like abilites than some thuggish monster with lots of damage and AC. Giants vs. minor demons for example

 

[Dragonblade]

That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.

Interesting. I have some comments in my other thread on having monsters be Spcyraft 2.0 style:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205626