Clark Peterson kicked off an interesting thread on EN World, which you can read in full here. Here's the first post (there's a lot more):
Sure, I dont have all the rules, but seeing these 4E monsters is getting me excited!Scott Greene and I have been going crazy making monsters. 4E is SO much easier and so much more liberating from the standpoint of monster design. The exception based design is awesome. The monsters, in my view, are far and away better in 4E. You can actually give the monsters fun powers without having to worry about making everything match some spell power. And no cheesy skill points. Ugh! DMs will be able to put monsters together so much faster. And now all the interesting monster flavor can actually be translated into combat.
I love it! I am so geeked.
Scott and I have already done the conceptual mapping out of about 50 or more monsters (we have a list of 250). We are finding the theme of the monster and the things we want it to do. We are thinking through impact on movement, threshold triggers, cool powers, ways a monster is different. There is no need for another undead that just has more hit points--but if it has different powers or abilites, then that is a cool monster. We've even been updating some older monsters. Just for kicks, today he and I updated the Bonesnapper. I updated the Charfiend from the old Creature Collection. Fun, fun, fun!!!
I dont know what the new GSL will hold, but I promise you this: Necro WILL have a monster book out for early 4E. Guaranteed. 200+ monsters. Hardback. Kick ass. Fun stuff. New stuff. Not just retreads, though you all know that if WotC will let us (either via compatibility with the OGL or by special permission) we will update the older monsters that are cool that get left behind.
Scott and I are in design overdrive right now. We cant stat or power them all out, but we can concept them, and that is a big first step. And he and I are doing it furiously.
And we are having more fun than we ever had in 3E.
Monsters ROCK in 4E! My hat is off to the people at WotC for how they did monsters.
Clark
I haven't designed any monsters yet in 4e, but Clark's comments confirms much of what I thought monster design would be like. It looks like I'm going to have to dip into my banking account for his promised book!
The new monster design method looks much more flexible and intuitive than before. Rather than going through the books trying to find a way to make it do something, it just does whatever you wanted it to do in the first place.
The "exception-based design" sounds easier and faster than before, where you had to give it Hit Dice, which determined other factors for you to fill in (most of which you wouldnt need for a combat encounter).
Jeez.
I won't tank Pathfinder for a second.
But I might have to do both.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
DISCLAIMER: All i write is derived from my as-yet incomplete understanding of 4th Edition
I think this way of designing monsters is inferior to 3.5 because it does it only gives you a single monster at a time - instead of a reusable principle. If i want an Orc Chieftain in my 3.5 game, i know exactly how to get there, and know that (baring some exploits) i will roughly arrive at the power level i am gunning for.
In what i have seen of 4th Edition, it is a wild guess, where you have to start from scratch each time you want to have something not explicitly on the list.
Of course, it is "sexy" in the beginning, since you enjoy a greater freedom of design. But it's coming back to haunt us the moment we step out of the ring.
|
4E is SO much easier and so much more liberating from the standpoint of monster design. The exception based design is awesome. The monsters, in my view, are far and away better in 4E. You can actually give the monsters fun powers without having to worry about making everything match some spell power.Every time I read someone saying this, I have the same thought:
"These 4E designers must be either lazy or stupid. Or both."
Or the system is truly liberating and creative. Why should a monster or series of monsters come out of the churn of an equation? Design is a creative process and it sounds like the 4E monster design has infused art back into the process.
Nothing lazy or stupid about that.
I'm not going 4E, but I can assure you that Scott Greene (the primary author on the ToH) is neither lazy nor stupid. In fact, I'd wager that his critters will be equal, if not superior to those in the 4E Monster Manual.
I wouldn't take any comments from Necromancer Games seriously. Their products usually lack in both quality and design. No matter what they design, WoTC will jazz it up and call it the official version. I wish Necromancer games would stop licing off the scraps of WoTC.
Their products usually lack in both quality and design.
= Fallacy
Not wanting to rain on Clark Peterson's enthusiasm, but if monster design in 4E really is so easy, then all I need to do if I buy 4E is redesign my earlier edition monsters for 4E, and save the money for the WotC core rule books due out every year.
Fluff? Why would I need fluff about 4E monsters when everything being show-cased about 4E so far tells me that there is minimal point to monsters in 4E having fluff? Again, if I need it, I can dig out my older edition fluff.
Unless Clark Peterson is being enthusiastic about all the wonderful monsters he's going to be able to make up for his home games. :)
Edit:
Ahem. The fact that I am a UK citizen and that England (the men's side; the women are actually quite good at the moment) have just slid to an utterly smurfy defeat against New Zealand in the first test match at Hamilton, of course has everything to do with wanting to spread a little misery around right now....
Hopefully I will be recovered to a slightly more optimistic frame of mind within a day or two.
Necromancer Games makes good products. The fact that Clark likes 4E won't change that.
I just may start designing my own adventures again. I found it easier
to use adventure paths, because a lot of the work was done for me. If
4e works as advertised, I should be able to dm out of the monster
manual, with a battle mat and an idea again. Something I stopped
during 3rd edition. But simple only works if it is effective, we
shall see.
I just may start designing my own adventures again. I found it easier
to use adventure paths, because a lot of the work was done for me. If
4e works as advertised, I should be able to dm out of the monster
manual, with a battle mat and an idea again. Something I stopped
during 3rd edition. But simple only works if it is effective, we
shall see.
That's the whole idea, and I can't wait for it!
What's with the negativity guys?
Maybe it's easier and better, maybe it isn't.
If it is, great. One thing to consider is that one of the reasons it might be easier is that it is not as easy to screw up the "CR" and have a TPK. (Due to the new increased HP, double bonus saves (STR or For, etc.), lack of instant death effects and "standardized" selection of PC abilities.)
Also I don't appreciate the name calling. If X product has Z draw back or X company has a tendency to do Y then say so, otherwise be nice. Polite isn't an option.
Thank you Clark!
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
|
I just make s#*+ up if I want to. I don't worry about emulating spells or whatever. Then, I'd see if it kicks the s&+! out of the party, or they slide it a beatdown. Then I go, "CR bla bla bla....."
THEN, they b!!#% and say, "NO WAAAAAY! That thing was nigh invulnerable. You're a stinge!" So then, I give them a little more, and they pipe down.
That simple.
It's not like I'm writing for Pathfinder or nothing.
Archlich:As far as I was aware I did not engage in name calling.
I agree.
From time to time, I like to stat things up in d20 terms. Only once did I make the mistake of trying to do this with a creature, and there's some really absurd restrictions the type system imposes. There's nothing wrong with the concept, and it really works for some things; but in a lot of other places, it's really a shoddy system, and if you're trying to do things by the book you'll end up with some really screwy results. You almost have to handwave some things, because if you adhere to the rules there's simply no way to do some fairly simple things.
I just make s%%% up if I want to. I don't worry about emulating spells or whatever. Then, I'd see if it kicks the s%%% out of the party, or they slide it a beatdown. Then I go, "CR bla bla bla....."
THEN, they b~*%@ and say, "NO WAAAAAY! That thing was nigh invulnerable. You're a stinge!" So then, I give them a little more, and they pipe down.
That simple.
It's not like I'm writing for Pathfinder or nothing.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The 3rd edition architecture for monster design works best when you ignore it.
I agree. But, for Clark, that wasn't an option, especially if he wanted his monsters published. Loosening the restrictions and the way Powers and abilities work now opens up a lot of freedom for designers that DMs may have enjoyed at their table, but that were not easily done for published work where the purchaser was going to "check his math", so to speak.
On another note, it's nice to see someone so excited. :)
|
Stupid question but if no one has seen the OGL (or whatever the licence is called?) how can they know for sure that they will be allowed to make this monster book they are talking about? Also he openly admits he hasn't seen all the rules so it may turn out that crating new monsters is not as easy as they think it is. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade or anything just telling it the way i see it.
Exception Based Design is faster to write for. Since each monster is completely unique and there is no consistency to worry about you can have each writer simply plow ahead and write whatever rules they feel like. If something turns out to be horribly unbalanced you can either change it specifically, remove it altogether, or just leave it in and hope no one notices. There are no "combos" to worry about and no effects cascade through the rules. Each petrification gaze is different.
Of course, the drawback comes at the player and GM end. There's no learning curve because the mechanics you used for the basilisk gaze and the mechanics you use for the medusa gaze are totally different. Maybe one is an attack that does damage (and turns you to stone when you hit zero), maybe the other is a automatic effect that immobilizes and weakens you if you don't choose to take an arbitrarily defined "eyes closed" penalty when attacking it. Or whatever. The DM has to learn each new monster completely from the top because there are no consistencies. The player has to learn new tactics each and every time because each critter who is surrounded by an aura of flame works totally differently.
But the basic claim that it is easier to write is totally true. You don't have to communicate with the other people working on your project in any way. You can just do your own thing and write it all up. Hell, you can write 4e Monsters right now just with what we've seen of the preview rules. Since you specifically aren't bothering to make things line up with the rest of the monsters you can just start putting numbers and powers down.
-Frank
Stupid question but if no one has seen the OGL (or whatever the licence is called?) how can they know for sure that they will be allowed to make this monster book they are talking about? Also he openly admits he hasn't seen all the rules so it may turn out that crating new monsters is not as easy as they think it is. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade or anything just telling it the way i see it.
He said elsewhere that they are mainly designing monster concepts, and that once they see the actual rules they will tweak/change things as necessary. They are also basing some design on Star Wars saga edition.
|
|
I just make s*&# up if I want to. I don't worry about emulating spells or whatever. Then, I'd see if it kicks the s*&# out of the party, or they slide it a beatdown. Then I go, "CR bla bla bla....."
THEN, they b!@~@ and say, "NO WAAAAAY! That thing was nigh invulnerable. You're a stinge!" So then, I give them a little more, and they pipe down.
That simple.
It's not like I'm writing for Pathfinder or nothing.
I do this in my face-to-face group and every time they get done fighting something I get to hear 'What CR was that? That thing was totally too strong.' after it gives them a bit of a challenge. See a CR10 creature that challenges a 9th level party a bit should actually be CR 12-13 in my player's eyes, but I ramp up everything by a couple CRs and leave it out for XP because they are munchkins and min-maxers and I got sick of watching them trounce monsters 4-5 CRs higher than their levels. I am getting quite good at adjusting the monsters to challenge them. Bump the Saves by 4, add 2-4 AC, drop an extra 20 hps on them, Add 4-6 to BAB, increase poison DCs, bump up SR/DR, I usually just mix a couple of these options into an existing monster's stats and it works good. I haven't run a RAW monster in a while now, and when I do it is obvious.
If 4E has better monster making rules then Great! I hope it works out well. I may steal some ideas for my 3.5 games. But that would be one positive aspect in a Sea of Negativity for 4E IMO, and not enough to get me to buy it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Aye, that's the rub, isn't it?
We don't know if OGL content (ToH) will be able to be used in 4.x's GSL.
It's been hinted in interviews, but we don't know for certain.
My paranoid conspiracy theories say that is what's delaying the GSL is the legalese way to restrict the products produced.
As to the topic at hand, I like Necro's works, and trust Clark not to be blowing sunshine.
We don't know the formulae used by 4.x to generate XP, type etc. And ironically that's the problem.
Can Clark and his crack team of critter designers make monsters? Yes, they've lots of experience. Can Billy the Magic player make well designed, balanced, mosnters? We'll see.
..Of course, the drawback comes at the player and GM end. There's no learning curve because the mechanics you used for the basilisk gaze and the mechanics you use for the medusa gaze are totally different. Maybe one is an attack that does damage (and turns you to stone when you hit zero), maybe the other is a automatic effect that immobilizes and weakens you if you don't choose to take an arbitrarily defined "eyes closed" penalty when attacking it. Or whatever. The DM has to learn each new monster completely from the top because there are no consistencies. The player has to learn new tactics each and every time because each critter who is surrounded by an aura of flame works totally differently.
Several excellent points, however once the GSL has been released and they have taken a look at the current monster design, similar powers can be modeled off of what they have now. If the Medusa's Stone Gaze is an attack against Reflex that moves you along an Immobilized Condition which will eventually kill you, then you've got something of a base template to go off of if they say, didn't include the Basilisk.
In addition, the Monster Manual can serve as something of a prototype for these basic design choices but I absolutely agree that they don't need to be adhered to. However with monsters focused on survival for only a minimum number of combat rounds, it's no longer nearly so important to memorize statistics. This double edged sword turns nicely on your players, particularly the sort with a photographic memory.
In one of my own games, I told the players I would feel free to change things occasionally without the need to tell them, but the changes would be perpetually consistent. So of course as soon as they encountered trolls, they knocked 'em down and set them on fire. When I said the troll gets up and just looks pissed, and they watched the damage healing up right before their eyes the look on their faces was priceless! There's nothing like altering what a rules lawyer knows, particularly when it's such accepted canon as trolls+fire = dead trolls.
Incidentally, I made my trolls only vulnerable to salt, which would cause them to shrivel up or being reduced to -35 hit points (all while they're healing).
..Of course, the drawback comes at the player and GM end. There's no learning curve because the mechanics you used for the basilisk gaze and the mechanics you use for the medusa gaze are totally different. Maybe one is an attack that does damage (and turns you to stone when you hit zero), maybe the other is a automatic effect that immobilizes and weakens you if you don't choose to take an arbitrarily defined "eyes closed" penalty when attacking it. Or whatever. The DM has to learn each new monster completely from the top because there are no consistencies. The player has to learn new tactics each and every time because each critter who is surrounded by an aura of flame works totally differently.Several excellent points, however once the GSL has been released and they have taken a look at the current monster design, similar powers can be modeled off of what they have now. If the Medusa's Stone Gaze is an attack against Reflex that moves you along an Immobilized Condition which will eventually kill you, then you've got something of a base template to go off of if they say, didn't include the Basilisk.
The thing is that Mike Mearls already said that they weren't going to do that. From the very beginning they've been talking about the Exception Based Design Principles from the perspective of how easy it makes writing the material. That each power will not only be written on the critter and not be a mere page citation to a power list hidden away in another book. And while most of us agree that's a solid idea, Mike Mearls further insists that each such power be unique. And that's where I start having a problem.
Reprinting the Petrification Gaze rules every time you write a monster that has that ability is a good idea all around (if you can spare the page count, it reduces the number of monsters per page/book). Reinventing Petrification Gaze rules every time you write a monster with that ability is a good idea only if your singular concern is how much physical time it takes to write Monster Manuals. Skipping the step where you check through the existing monsters and upcoming work of other authors to see if a similar ability is in use saves a lot of time writing.
I can tell you from the standpoint of having written parts of Shadowrun books that the part of the writing process where you compare similar abilities and effects and universalize the mechanics being used is the longest and least productive looking part of the design process. Mike Mearls announcing that they just aren't going to do it for 4e is an easy way to decrease turnaround time with books. But it does penalize the learning curve of potential players.
Remember, this is the guy who also brought us this chestnut:
The final encounter involves a big, bad, black dragon, a 4th level solo critter. I put it in there because, basically, a lot of 4e doubters have expressed the belief that characters won't die in 4e. I could've put in something a little easier but I figured, nah, let's show them that PCs can still die.
...I seriously don't agree with his design principles a fair amount of the time.
-Frank
If each monster effect is unique, the interactions between effects can't be defined by the system, which is eventually going to lead to masses of house rules (or else an overall house rule of "Nothing interacts," which seems frustrating.
One thing that really works for me in 3.5 is that monster abilities often *do* use the spell system, which means that their interactions are pretty well defined. For example, we know exactly which ones are mind-affecting, and thus what defenses can be used against them.
When the designer makes up unique new stuff, it can be liberating for the designer but extremely hard on the GM. RotRL made up some weird trap-like things and didn't specify whether they worked by illusion, teleportation, or manipulation of spacetime. When my player started barraging them with spells, I had to make a lot of on-the-fly rulings and found it very difficult to be either consistent or balanced. I would have preferred use of the existing rules.
It can also be hard on the players. Many GMs are annoyed with players who, for example, know how to deal with trolls; but the flip side is that if the players don't know how to deal with *anything* they're likely to feel more like bumbling novices than heroes. This, in my experience, leads to players who don't try to plan or figure things out (it's not useful) but instead become obsessed with amassing general-purpose power. I don't like the resulting games as much.
3.5e monster design is badly broken. I would love to see an extensive revision. But "don't have any rules for this" is not the revision I was looking for.
Mary
|
|
For me the greatest thing in Monster design in 3rd edition were the templates.
I love templates. I love that I am able to create a Medusa Vampire with Ogre Spawn as Guards if I wanted to.
It seems that templates are gone form 4th edition.
I do not like the design of the Undead I have seen so far.
Sure, they have some cool abilities and they might be fun to run and fight.
But, I find the idea of an explding intelligent skeleton hard to believe in game terms. The skeleton of this Undead once belonged to a living Creature.
But if there are no templates, we will only get one type of exploding skeleton. There would be no expldong dragon for example.
But as I have not seen the MM yet, the above is speculation.
There are templates in 4e. Accordingly to WoTC, templates raise the power level of a creature from standard to elite; other than that, they have not revealed any of the other mechanics. There will be 20 or 24 (I've seen both numbers and I cannot remember which one was official) and they will appear in the DMG as opposed to the MM. The lich and death knight were example templates.
Or the system is truly liberating and creative.4E is SO much easier and so much more liberating from the standpoint of monster design. The exception based design is awesome. The monsters, in my view, are far and away better in 4E. You can actually give the monsters fun powers without having to worry about making everything match some spell power.Every time I read someone saying this, I have the same thought:
"These 4E designers must be either lazy or stupid. Or both."
How is it 'liberating' when it is actually a throw-back to 1e?
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The 3rd edition architecture for monster design works best when you ignore it.I just make s%%% up if I want to. I don't worry about emulating spells or whatever. Then, I'd see if it kicks the s%%% out of the party, or they slide it a beatdown. Then I go, "CR bla bla bla....."
THEN, they b~*%@ and say, "NO WAAAAAY! That thing was nigh invulnerable. You're a stinge!" So then, I give them a little more, and they pipe down.
That simple.
It's not like I'm writing for Pathfinder or nothing.
If only I would have known.
It's not just willy-nilly, though. The final AICN article revealed quite a bit about monster design, I think.
He said that there are simple formulas that you plug the monster's level into to get saves, AC, BAB, etc, and then modify his his hit points by type. He said there ARE guidelines, for instance, if a monster at first level should do 5 points average damage a round (I think they tell you what they should do based on type and role), then you can either make the monster do 1d8+1, 2 attacks at 1d4 each, 1d10, etc. As long as you're roughly in range of the guidelines they give for that level of monster.
So, it's not just making stuff up. They tell you what damage, at what level, makes for a good monster to throw at a certain level party. Then they leave it for you to hit that sweet spot as you see fit. I think it's rather nice, IF they pulled it off right.
A lot will depend on how they write their guidelines and the structure they place on Abilities.
|
|
It is liberating because the process is now creative rather than computational.There are no computations for figuring out what level the creature is?
That is going to do wonders for game balance!
It has a computational aspect to it - there are apparently guidelines for certain stats. But it would seem that the overall system is much more flexible and requires less crunching through leveling, feat selection and the like. Making monsters in 4E seems like an exercise is creative design rather than a build process.
He said that there are simple formulas that you plug the monster's level into to get saves, AC, BAB, etc, and then modify his his hit points by type. He said there ARE guidelines, for instance, if a monster at first level should do 5 points average damage a round (I think they tell you what they should do based on type and role), then you can either make the monster do 1d8+1, 2 attacks at 1d4 each, 1d10, etc. As long as you're roughly in range of the guidelines they give for that level of monster.So, it's not just making stuff up. They tell you what damage, at what level, makes for a good monster to throw at a certain level party. Then they leave it for you to hit that sweet spot as you see fit. I think it's rather nice, IF they pulled it off right.
Hmm... I´m not sure if I understand that right, but instead of thinking about what monster/opponent would be fitting story-wise, you start calculating from average damage per round to set an appropriate challenge? So the critters are exchangeable as long as they do the right average damage? I don´t think I like that kind of thinking (and it does not matter to me if I can tweak some dice variables). I understand the need for a way to calculate the threat an enemy poses, but this sounds very mechanic to me. But perhaps I misunderstand the system.
Stefan
Throwing in my 2 cp: The "Exception Based Design", along with a few other mentions, hints to me that every "Level" of monster, or perhaps Level/Role combination, will be identical at first.
So a 5th level striker will have 60 hp, +10 to hit, Defenses: AC 17, Fort 19, Ref 16, Will 14. Then you add the "exceptions" based on the creature itself (slide powers, sneak attack stuff, whatever).
So for the basic "How tough is this mofo?" for *DESIGNERS*, there's not that much to worry about.
Seems like it'll get extremely repetitive in the mid-term.
How is it 'liberating' when it is actually a throw-back to 1e?
What?!? There's THAC0 in 4E? How is 4E a throwback? I don't see anything here that looks like 1E, or atleast the 1E that I remember.
To me, the easier a monster is made then the more cookie-cutter it is compared to other monsters.
Some complexity to a monster makes it more interesting than others or makes it different and cool in new sort of way. 3rd Edition, I believe, was the best for creating monsters with the use of advanced Hit Dice, classes, prestige classes, feats, and (best of all) templates.
4E looks like miniature cards pasted into the 4E Monster Manual. Nothing exciting about that. Why don't I just play D&D Minis if I want to fight 4E monsters all day?
4E looks like miniature cards pasted into the 4E Monster Manual.
QFT. (oh and on a personal note, nice presentation of your argument without attacking.)