|
I seems that 4E edition monster design is more easy and balanced. That's a think I like. But makes me wonder if all that lineal progression issues (it seems that everthing is scaled to 1/2 level) will kill the advancement sensation.
I mean. ¿Will this rules make playing at level 1 feel the same that playing in level 10 but scaled?
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.
Min-Maxing works both ways. Nothing says you have to use the feats the monster comes with in RAW and there are some nasty feat combo's out there.
The DM always has an advantage in the min-maxing department. First off he can more easily learn from experience. If the monster fails there is always next session. Beyond that the DM tends to have a pretty good idea of what the players are likely to do and can design monsters that will limit those sorts of tactics.
Players also get complacent - if something has worked historically they tend to assume it will work again. Last character I killed was the party cleric. I was filling this guy full of holes with a Minitour fighter min-maxed to use a Large Composite Strength Bow, Cleric was wounded and fell back behind other players and some cover as this, historically, has caused me to shift targets - but I took a feat with this Minitour that allowed him to fire through cover with almost no penalty and was able to nail the cleric to the wall - poor sap never saw it coming until I started rolling to hits against him and by then it was too late.
|
I seems that 4E edition monster design is more easy and balanced. That's a think I like. But makes me wonder if all that lineal progression issues (it seems that everthing is scaled to 1/2 level) will kill the advancement sensation.
I mean. ¿Will this rules make playing at level 1 feel the same that playing in level 10 but scaled?
This is exactly my point and has been echoed by some of the DDX players. I am also concerned that having monsters with specified ranges for AC, HP, special attacks and whatnot will make every monster seem the same at a given level and that once a monster is encountered (especially the higher level monsters), the monster does the same thing over and over again. The pit fiend and the black dragon are examples of this, where they always do the same things each time you meet one in battle.
Types: I have really grown to dislike the 3rd edition monster type system, specifically the tightly integrated "features" (HD, BAB, skill points, and saving throw progression). When people complain about the inflexibility of 3rd edition monster design, I think many are invariably referring to this part of the system. Now, that's not to say that I don't see some benefits to types for such things as ajudicating certain spells and abilities (the most obvious examples being turn undead or charm person), limited shared abilities (immunities, resistances, etc.), and Knowledge checks.Why don't I like it? Well, first, the different types are not balanced against each other (especially when its features are coupled together with traits), and second, and more importantly, with the exception of 1HD humanoids (since they trade the HD for class-levels), types exist independent of the roles that the monsters play (3.5e definitely has a vestigal role system, its even mentioned in the MM). For example, to borrow terms from 4e, its difficult to create a low-level fey brute or soldier using the 3.5e system because I have to pump its HD higher to compensate for its miserable d6 HD and poor BAB, which in turn escalates its saving throws and skills (which I probably don't want or need).
Very insightful. I had not really thought of this before but you seem to be on the money here. Certainly I never really trued to make Fey Brutes as clearly a d6 for hps made that problematic.
Good post - even those planning to stay with 3.x come away with a bit more knowledge about the game.
This is exactly my point and has been echoed by some of the DDX players. I am also concerned that having monsters with specified ranges for AC, HP, special attacks and whatnot will make every monster seem the same at a given level and that once a monster is encountered (especially the higher level monsters), the monster does the same thing over and over again. The pit fiend and the black dragon are examples of this, where they always do the same things each time you meet one in battle.I seems that 4E edition monster design is more easy and balanced. That's a think I like. But makes me wonder if all that lineal progression issues (it seems that everthing is scaled to 1/2 level) will kill the advancement sensation.
I mean. ¿Will this rules make playing at level 1 feel the same that playing in level 10 but scaled?
My hypothesis on how this is going to work is that essentially everything is based off of some kind of a standard. Standard damage for a level 1 monster will be X, Standard AC will be Y etc. Now the variability will come about because you can increase one by taking away from another. So you can boost damage but at the cost of AC or hps or having weaker special abilities. PCs will be designed the same way but it will be built into their classes.
The purpose of all of this is that this allows one to create and maintain a 'sweet spot'. AC can't be allowed to get to high or the players just won't be able to hit, damage can't get too high or the monster gets to lethal for its level etc. If abilities range very widely - as they can in 3.5 - its difficult to get into and maintain this sweet spot. Of course one faces the danger of the encounters potentially all feeling somewhat the same. If their are enough variables to play with the cookie cutter feel may be avoidable.
I don't think the system will feel completely the same as one levels up becuase the kinds of powers both the PCs and the monsters will be using will get a lot more extreme but, since we know that the concept of a sweet spot persists, I think we may well find that there will be some feeling that a first and 10th level encounter is the same but scaled up.
As to whether this is a problem or not ... that we won't know until a year or so after the books are released since the real danger is that things might start to feel stale after many sessions. We'll need to get those sessions under our belts before we can reasonably decide if it ever starts to get stale.
|
|
Types: I have really grown to dislike the 3rd edition monster type system, specifically the tightly integrated "features" (HD, BAB, skill points, and saving throw progression). When people complain about the inflexibility of 3rd edition monster design, I think many are invariably referring to this part of the system. Now, that's not to say that I don't see some benefits to types for such things as ajudicating certain spells and abilities (the most obvious examples being turn undead or charm person), limited shared abilities (immunities, resistances, etc.), and Knowledge checks.Why don't I like it? Well, first, the different types are not balanced against each other (especially when its features are coupled together with traits), and second, and more importantly, with the exception of 1HD humanoids (since they trade the HD for class-levels), types exist independent of the roles that the monsters play (3.5e definitely has a vestigal role system, its even mentioned in the MM). For example, to borrow terms from 4e, its difficult to create a low-level fey brute or soldier using the 3.5e system because I have to pump its HD higher to compensate for its miserable d6 HD and poor BAB, which in turn escalates its saving throws and skills (which I probably don't want or need).
This also struck me as insightful when I read it and while it does not have the same level of "badness" as the CR system does for me, I agree now that you mention it that it is likely another source of 3e monster design issues.
The only counterpoint I can raise to this is that when I have decided to do something radically different from a type (eg fey brute plays against the literature upon which D&D is based in the same way a weak and ineffectual dragon does) I have simply substituted one HD type (or changed what the Good saves were) to get what I wanted. I have always treated Type as a guideline rather than a rule set in stone.
|
|
I don't think the system will feel completely the same as one levels up becuase the kinds of powers both the PCs and the monsters will be using will get a lot more extreme but, since we know that the concept of a sweet spot persists, I think we may well find that there will be some feeling that a first and 10th level encounter is the same but scaled up.
This is what I think of as the WoW effect - monsters have different suits, but they basically do the same things for about the same damage for a given level range, albeit the graphics are different. After a while it all blends together and nothing truly exciting/unexpected happens with a given monster.
The purpose of all of this is that this allows one to create and maintain a 'sweet spot'. AC can't be allowed to get to high or the players just won't be able to hit, damage can't get too high or the monster gets to lethal for its level etc. If abilities range very widely - as they can in 3.5 - its difficult to get into and maintain this sweet spot. Of course one faces the danger of the encounters potentially all feeling somewhat the same. If their are enough variables to play with the cookie cutter feel may be avoidable.
I think there will be enough variables (or more correctly potential variables, since no system can prevent bad DM'ing). Off the top of my head I can think of three major ones:
1. Monster Powers - This ones has been discussed a lot, so I won't get into any great detail, but the fact that you can mix and match powers introduces a lot of potential variables with IMO less work.
2. Terrain/Traps - 4e is putting a lot of emphasis on movement during combat, so I can see how adding terrain and traps can add a lot of dynamism to a combat encounter. We've already seen examples of some sort of poisonous fungus (I don't remember the exact name from the WoTC preview anymore) and the rolling boulder traps from DDXP.
3. Monsters Fight in Groups - Teamwork and synergy are the name of the game in 4e encounter design, and most encounters should feature a mixture of monsters with different roles. If each role plays differently, you add a lot of variety to the encounter.
|
The DM always has an advantage in the min-maxing department. First off he can more easily learn from experience. If the monster fails there is always next session. Beyond that the DM tends to have a pretty good idea of what the players are likely to do and can design monsters that will limit those sorts of tactics.
Players also get complacent - if something has worked historically they tend to assume it will work again. Last character I killed was the party cleric. I was filling this guy full of holes with a Minitour fighter min-maxed to use a Large Composite Strength Bow, Cleric was wounded and fell back behind other players and some cover as this, historically, has caused me to shift targets - but I took a feat with this Minitour that allowed him to fire through cover with almost no penalty and was able to nail the cleric to the wall - poor sap never saw it coming until I started rolling to hits against him and by then it was too late.
It's great how players squeal, when a tactic gets used against them, that they've been milking for all it's worth every session, isn't it?
Creating a low-level fey brute wouldn’t be that hard.
And there's already a type for fey brutes: it's called "giant." In folklore, ogres and trolls are magical creatures like leprechauns, but they're more often brutes instead of tricksters.
Creating a low-level fey brute wouldn't be that hard.
Or use a satyr (without pipes, CR 2; Str 13, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 13 using the alternate 13/12/11/10/9/8 array), possibly with barbarian levels. A dryad (CR 3) with ranger levels could make an interesting fixed location encounter. Heck, any of the sprites can be scary with a few class levels. Think of a pixie fighter 4 (CR 8) with Dodge (bonus racial feat), Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)... gets really scary at 6th level with Shot on the Run and Spring Attack coupled with 60 ft fly speed.
And this is just from the MM and using the PHB.
Or use a satyr (without pipes, CR 2; Str 13, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 13 using the alternate 13/12/11/10/9/8 array), possibly with barbarian levels.
<chuckles>
I think I may just run with this one for a villain concept.
Or use a satyr (without pipes, CR 2; Str 13, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 13 using the alternate 13/12/11/10/9/8 array), possibly with barbarian levels. A dryad (CR 3) with ranger levels could make an interesting fixed location encounter. Heck, any of the sprites can be scary with a few class levels. Think of a pixie fighter 4 (CR 8) with Dodge (bonus racial feat), Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)... gets really scary at 6th level with Shot on the Run and Spring Attack coupled with 60 ft fly speed.And this is just from the MM and using the PHB.
However, I would argue that these are not examples of brutes (toe-to-toe melee fighters that dish out and soak up a lot of damage), but of skirmishers that emphasize precision ranged attacks (unless the dryad was suicidal and like TWF) and/or movement. Your satyr barbarian is the closest thing to a pure brute (its more a hybrid between the two roles given the satyr's feats and the barbarian's additional movement), but the base satyr is not going to be a sustained effective melee combatant with 22 hit points and a +2 BAB.
|
I don't think the system will feel completely the same as one levels up becuase the kinds of powers both the PCs and the monsters will be using will get a lot more extreme but, since we know that the concept of a sweet spot persists, I think we may well find that there will be some feeling that a first and 10th level encounter is the same but scaled up.This is what I think of as the WoW effect - monsters have different suits, but they basically do the same things for about the same damage for a given level range, albeit the graphics are different. After a while it all blends together and nothing truly exciting/unexpected happens with a given monster.
Actually WoW is filled with "HOLY CRAP" moments when you realize that, even though this critter looks like that other one, it is acting very differently and is doing some seriously wacky things.
I see the ability to create vast diversity in 4E critters given the exception based design model. I also see a kind of power cap that makes the encounters difficulty easier to predict during the scenario creation process.
That is the philosophy at any rate - whether or not it works in practice has yet to be seen.
However, I would argue that these are not examples of brutes (toe-to-toe melee fighters that dish out and soak up a lot of damage), but of skirmishers that emphasize precision ranged attacks (unless the dryad was suicidal and like TWF) and/or movement. Your satyr barbarian is the closest thing to a pure brute (its more a hybrid between the two roles given the satyr's feats and the barbarian's additional movement), but the base satyr is not going to be a sustained effective melee combatant with 22 hit points and a +2 BAB.
Or use a satyr (without pipes, CR 2; Str 13, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 13 using the alternate 13/12/11/10/9/8 array), possibly with barbarian levels. A dryad (CR 3) with ranger levels could make an interesting fixed location encounter. Heck, any of the sprites can be scary with a few class levels. Think of a pixie fighter 4 (CR 8) with Dodge (bonus racial feat), Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), and Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)... gets really scary at 6th level with Shot on the Run and Spring Attack coupled with 60 ft fly speed.And this is just from the MM and using the PHB.
A CR 2 satyr compares fairly well with with a CR 2 bugbear, given the same equipment. In fact, I'd give the satyr the edge. The bugbear has a higher Str, but the satyr is tougher (better Natural Armor, more hp, DR) and can actually do more damage (with a head butt in a full attack).
Granted, a dryad ranger would be more likely to act as a ranged skirmisher than a brute, but with a 15+ Str, 14 Con, Power Attack, and a two-handed weapon (they can afford to put a 10 or 12 in Dex with a +8 racial adjustment), they're no push-over in melee. Plus, their spell-like abilities can give them a big advantage (entangle as an at will ability and charm person, deep slumber, and tree stride 3x/day).
The pixie fighter is built more as a skirmisher than a brute, but with a 60 ft fly speed it makes sense to use that mobility. Also, the CR 4 doesn't come with any racial HD, so the pixie will be low on hp. A nixie (CR 1) fighter, however, could make a fairly effective brute.
A CR 2 satyr compares fairly well with with a CR 2 bugbear, given the same equipment. In fact, I'd give the satyr the edge. The bugbear has a higher Str, but the satyr is tougher (better Natural Armor, more hp, DR) and can actually do more damage (with a head butt in a full attack).Granted, a dryad ranger would be more likely to act as a ranged skirmisher than a brute, but with a 15+ Str, 14 Con, Power Attack, and a two-handed weapon (they can afford to put a 10 or 12 in Dex with a +8 racial adjustment), they're no push-over in melee. Plus, their spell-like abilities can give them a big advantage (entangle as an at will ability and charm person, deep slumber, and tree stride 3x/day).
The pixie fighter is built more as a skirmisher than a brute, but with a 60 ft fly speed it makes sense to use that mobility. Also, the CR 4 doesn't come with any racial HD, so the pixie will be low on hp. A nixie (CR 1) fighter, however, could make a fairly effective brute.
You know, looking at the bugbear in the MM (actually the SRD, since I'm at work), its description and some of its abilities (the section on tactics, the racial bonus to Move Silently, rogue as a favored class, etc.) kind of push the bugbear into a skirmisher role, but you're right, the satyr would be given the edge.
That said, all of your examples have been creatures with class levels added to them, instead of their HD being derived from their type. I have to concede your point that you can tailor a monster towards a role more easily using class levels, but that is not surprising given that the class system is more role-based then the monster design system (and even then, the monster types still kind of exerting some influence on the design decisions).
IMO, one of my favorite features of 3.x design, when contrasted with earlier editions, is the ability to add class levels to monsters as a fully supported, core option. However, I do have two caveats. One, the associated/non-associated level rules need major work (principally, because they are basically centered on role, but 3.x roles are a lot fuzzier than 4e roles in terms of rules and mechanics), and two, re-engineering the base monster with the elite array, new skill point total, etc. is a chore (at least in my book), with the fun coming afterwards.
In my view, based on materials released so far, it appears that the 4e system can be used to achieve these same practical results with less overall work. Personally, I think that this is something to be excited about.
Well looking over what is known about monster design in 4th and monster design in 3.5. My take is that neither method is really better or worse than the other.
They both have there strong points and downsides so it really is a matter of style preference than anything else. As for myself my favorite part of being a dm is creating the monsters and NPC'S and ill happily spend several hours working on one so I'd say my style is more geared towards 3.5 monster making.
My style is also geared for 3.5e
We don't know anything yet, but I do know I do not like the fact that I need to create a totally separate stat for one specific type of orc from the bottom up in order to get what I want. With 3E, I can add PC or NPC class levels, templates, or advance the Hit Die if it's not humanoid.
This also creates a world of inconsistency the way 4th Edition does it. Orcs are known to be brutish and savage. But if every or orc in 4E is tailored a different way, then the only similarity orcs have is a high Strength score and a player loses the verismilitude of orcs in their campaign setting. (e.g. "I don't know what these orcs can do to us, it seems every orc we face does something great and special now...what's the point of knowledge checks?")
I like creature types. Fey are supposed to be physically weaker than dragon creatures. So the HD and BAB and saving throws of both reflect that. 4E changed creature types like crazy...from what I see there's Natural, Shadow, Animate, Elemental, Fey, and Aberrant types followed by whether it's Humanoid, Magical Beast, or Beast (so far) and then subtypes Dragon and Undead. I'm sure there's many more, but this is already confusing me. 3E took one creature type, paired it with subtypes. Done. 4E is pairing two creature types (abberant humanoid, shadow magical beast, etc.) and then adding subtypes...this is simpler?
Also, I see a lot of..."monster classes"? I can deal with that, kinda, but can have, say, create an Orc Brute/Skirmisher? Do the "monster classes" allow "multiclassing?" If not, that will really suck...hardcore. And I prefer creature types, again, over monster class names like Soldier, Elite Soldier, Controller, Artillery, Skirmisher, Minion...these sound like horrible titles to represent video game opponents on an MMO...(oh wait, 4E is an MMORPG on paper...duh!)
Which makes me really appreciate the way 3E handles monsters. If I want an Orc "skirmisher", throw levels of Scout class on it. Or a (using a 4E term) "Controller" I can simply make that Orc a Warlock or whatever.
And...glossing over the monster write-ups in the Monster Manual...it's nothing but stats and small blurbs. I love descriptive text with monster special abilities. It really is just beefed up Miniature Cards...
So will the 4e stat block on the pit fiend may have three or four versions of a pitfiend yet with colorful names/titles/power/attack options?
So will the 4e stat block on the pit fiend may have three or four versions of a pitfiend yet with colorful names/titles/power/attack options?
You know, that's a great question. Will it be 4 or 5 versions of the Pit Fiend (which I'll like), or is the Pit Fiend one of the 4 or 5 versions of a Devil (which i won't like)?
Actually WoW is filled with "HOLY CRAP" moments when you realize that, even though this critter looks like that other one, it is acting very differently and is doing some seriously wacky things.I must have missed that somewhere in my runs. Can you give me an example of where this happened to you?
I think the first time of running into the disarm or getting kicked over in Westfall prompted some tactical revision for me, as did the basilisk stun effect in Tanaris and some of the DoT from some of the fire elementals and those walking flowers in Un'Goro. And oh yeah, if you're just grinding worgen near the sepulchre and target a son of whatshisname by accident, that can be fun (if short).
With 3E, I can add PC or NPC class levels, templates, or advance the Hit Die if it's not humanoid.
You can also do this in 4E. In addition to just giving it almost anything appropriate you want to.
Orcs are known to be brutish and savage.
What makes them brutish and savage in 3e, other than description? I've seen plenty of 'genteel' orc bards and such, to go with 'Generic Orc #173 (with Falchion, causes Greataxe crits suck, or something)'
But if every or orc in 4E is tailored a different way, then the only similarity orcs have is a high Strength score
Look at the stats for gnolls and kobolds for 4E, for instance - as a race they get abilities, not just a +2 or -2 to a stat... same with the player races. Dwarven Fighters play very differently, with stability and swift second wind. Races in 4E get actual racial abilities that make them play differently at the table, instead of just have a different description. That's a good thing.
Whereas in 3.x, the only similarity is... well... that they have a high strength score.
Anyhow, based on a lot of your other points I'm guessing you don't know a lot about the 4E monsters and monster design. Help can be offered, if needed. We actually know a _lot_ at this point, since over 60 monsters have been released over a wide variety of levels.
Certainly I never really trued to make Fey Brutes as clearly a d6 for hps made that problematic.whoever it was that first considered this as "problematic" certainly wasn't very creative. Here's a completely legitimate CR 1 fey brute using the rules of 3.5. Lets see how long it takes me to make... 4:00 pm now.... GO!
Fey Brute Thing from Somewhere or Something
Size/Type: Medium Fey
Hit Dice: 2d6+17 (24)
Initiative: -1
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares),
Armor Class: 16 (-1 dex, +7 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 16
Base Attack/Grapple: +0/+5
Attack: Claw +6 (1d6+5)
Full Attack: 2 Claws +6 (1d6+5)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: none
Special Qualities: Low-light vision
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +1, Will +2
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 8, Con 20, Int 5, Wis 11, Cha 9
Skills: Jump +10, Climb +10, Survival +5
Feats: Weapon Focus (claw), Toughness (b), Toughness (b), Toughness (b)
Environment: i dunno, fairyland I guess
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: None
Alignment: Usually chaotic evil
Advancement: 3-6 (medium), 6-10 (large)
Level Adjustment: —Super Tough: Fey Brutes Things from Somewhere or Something gain toughness x3 as a bonus feat
There. Its 4:10. took me 10 minutes to make a fey brute from scratch. Was that really so hard? No wierd "cascading" effects that certain designers like to harp about. If only they actually knew the tools that 3.5 gives them to make monsters, maybe they wouldn't end up looking dumb in their articles on why 4e is so great
I'm not sure just giving Toughness several times is a good solution to the problem of having too few hit points for the creature type. It solves the problem, but I think it is too clunky and that is makes the Hit Dice of the fey meaningless.
Also, what is it's reach? It says 10 ft. but right next to it the space it is given is that of a huge creature. One more thing, I believe that nearly all fey get dr X/cold iron.
Edit: Sorry, I also noticed the Base Attack Bonus was one lower than it should be. They same with the Will save and the Ref save. They seem to be for a fey with one Hit Die. Also I think the jump check needs to be modified based on the fey's lower speed.
I disagree, one of the fastest ways to make a monster 'tougher' for it's CR is to Maximize it's hit points (instead of using 1/2).
The Fey's HD would matter for various spell and ability effects. The "Fey Brute Thing from Somewhere or Something" would still be affected by the Sleep spell, which is appropriate for it's 'level.' A damage reduction of 10/cold iron would push it to the upper range of damage for most 1st level PCs. It also turns it into a problem for the spell caster in the party to deal with, since it still has very few HP. That's not really the point of the Brute, which is supposed to match a party warrior blow for blow as far as understand.
The 'problem' is that HD doesn't really measure what it should. I've come to the conclusion that breaking this link between Level and HD would be an excellent first step in improving both PC mechanics and Monster (as leveled creatures) mechanics. HD should really only determine on thing about a PC or monster, how many Hit Points they have.
*Edit* That Space/Reach entry seems a bit large for it's size, are you sure that wasn't supposed to be a Huge or Large fey?
I disagree, one of the fastest ways to make a monster 'tougher' for it's CR is to Maximize it's hit points (instead of using 1/2).
The Fey's HD would matter for various spell and ability effects. The "Fey Brute Thing from Somewhere or Something" would still be affected by the Sleep spell, which is appropriate for it's 'level.' A damage reduction of 10/cold iron would push it to the upper range of damage for most 1st level PCs. It also turns it into a problem for the spell caster in the party to deal with, since it still has very few HP. That's not really the point of the Brute, which is supposed to match a party warrior blow for blow as far as understand.
The 'problem' is that HD doesn't really measure what it should. I've come to the conclusion that breaking this link between Level and HD would be an excellent first step in improving both PC mechanics and Monster (as leveled creatures) mechanics. HD should really only determine on thing about a PC or monster, how many Hit Points they have.
*Edit* That Space/Reach entry seems a bit large for it's size, are you sure that wasn't supposed to be a Huge or Large fey?
I agree that maximizing the hit points is a often a good way to quickly boost CR, but I don't think that it should be used for monsters because it seems, to me at least, that it should be done when you quickly want to make something stronger instead of when you are writing up a monster that other people will use.
I didn't mean the number of Hit Dice was meaningless with the Toughness-es. I feel it makes the size of the Hit Dice meaningless.
I think that dr 5/cold iron would be hard enough for the party to get through for this low level, but it seems odd for a fey to not have it. Also I think it has enough hit points for it's CR, without the Toughness feats, that any spellcaster would not be able to destroy it by casting all their spells (sleep though is a different story). Sorcerers might have enough spells to do it, but the others would run out quickly after dealing thier bit of damage.
It may have been a large or huge at one point, but the AC and attack bonuses are for a medium creature, along with the creature type and the advancement which says they go from medium to large.
The 'problem' is that HD doesn't really measure what it should. I've come to the conclusion that breaking this link between Level and HD would be an excellent first step in improving both PC mechanics and Monster (as leveled creatures) mechanics. HD should really only determine on thing about a PC or monster, how many Hit Points they have.
I tend to agree, and the decoupling of hit dice and all they represent (saves, BAB, effect of certain spells, advanced monster CR by the book) from hit points was one of the things that really sold me on the 4th edition monster design system.
But the real advance from my perspective was adding solo, elite and minion monsters to the general monster pool. I generally like big, complicated fights, so the 4th ed concept of basing fights by default on about as many monsters as PCs appeals to me. But, I still like some fights to be against fewer, more powerful monsters. So I have some experience in 3rd ed trying to design monsters to fit what would be the standard and the elite/solo roles in 4e. The challenge in 3rd edition is that you're designing monsters for two different purposes, but using the same general system. Standard monsters should have enough HP, BAB, saves and damage output to be a threat. Solo monsters need way more, perhaps 3-6x as many HP so that they aren't overwhelmed immediately, but they don't need 3-6x the attack bonus or saves. You can manipulate the system to get the results you want, but having the system designed from the ground up to support it, as the 4th edition system is supposed to, can't but be an advantage.
I like 3rd edition monster design, and how it finally pulled all of a monster's stats into a unified system. It's just that having used the system for the last 8 years (and having had a great deal of fun with it) I think it may have been a little too much. A few too many stats interconnected in ways they don't always need to be.
whoever it was that first considered this as "problematic" certainly wasn't very creative. Here's a completely legitimate CR 1 fey brute using the rules of 3.5. Lets see how long it takes me to make... 4:00 pm now.... GO!
Certainly I never really trued to make Fey Brutes as clearly a d6 for hps made that problematic.
Yeah - but what I think is being said is that the Fey Type does not really support the concept very well. If I take your Fey Brute and advance him 16 HD I'll find that he really can't keep up with the PCs. Sure I get a bunch of feats for advancing him and some stat boosts but in the end that d6 for hps is making this guy far to weak for his level.
Its not that I can't make a Fey Brute at CR 16 its simply that the being Fey does not support that concept. I'll need to go through the exceptional powers route and give it some kind of a hp boost in terms of powers or alternatively I'll need to find a template or class to help out the Fey - Barbarian being the obvious choice with its big beefy d12s for hps.
giving bonus feats to a creature is totally legitmate and tons of the MM monsters have bonus feats. In fact the zombie has toughness as a bonus feat
But none that I can remember give the same feat multiple times. It just seems to me that a system that doesn't tie Hit Dice with every other ability would be a better place for this type of monster construction.
I think there will be enough variables (or more correctly potential variables, since no system can prevent bad DM'ing). Off the top of my head I can think of three major ones:1. Monster Powers - This ones has been discussed a lot, so I won't get into any great detail, but the fact that you can mix and match powers introduces a lot of potential variables with IMO less work.
I agree though I think this is at the heart of what makes monsters interesting in 3.5 as the levels go up.
2. Terrain/Traps - 4e is putting a lot of emphasis on movement during combat, so I can see how adding terrain and traps can add a lot of dynamism to a combat encounter. We've already seen examples of some sort of poisonous fungus (I don't remember the exact name from the WoTC preview anymore) and the rolling boulder traps from DDXP.
If they pull this off that has me excited as well. I've been doing this more with my 3.5 game recently in any case but it essentially means I've been making up the rules myself in order to make terrain, hazards and furniture more a part of the combat. I'll not complain if this concept is increasingly integrated into the design.
3. Monsters Fight in Groups - Teamwork and synergy are the name of the game in 4e encounter design, and most encounters should feature a mixture of monsters with different roles. If each role plays differently, you add a lot of variety to the encounter.
Again I agree but I think your missing one of the more interesting aspects here. The power curve is a lot more shallow. That means that one of X creature might be a challenge at one level - then you introduce a few at a later level and then a bunch and finally a whole friggen mess of the things. Since it apparently takes longer for a creature to be 'out dated' by player power numbers have a lot of meaning. Your also likely to get more effect from mixing mooks with bosses since it appears that the players will have a much more difficult time with basic mooks.
I've found myself tending toward a multiple enemies that are equally dangerous in my current 3.5 designs in part because that presents the players with a more interesting dilemma then 'how do we bypass these irrelevant mooks?'. It works sure, but if they can make it so that there are more ways one can get interesting match ups that'd be cool by me.
|
|
Actually WoW is filled with "HOLY CRAP" moments when you realize that, even though this critter looks like that other one, it is acting very differently and is doing some seriously wacky things.I must have missed that somewhere in my runs. Can you give me an example of where this happened to you?
Sure the air elementals in nagrand. The dust ones just beat you up, the regular air ones zap you, and the storm ones drag you into melee. That last one was truly a HOLY CRAP moment because my pet had just died and I was already beat up. It was an unpleasant way to die.
Again I agree but I think your missing one of the more interesting aspects here. The power curve is a lot more shallow. That means that one of X creature might be a challenge at one level - then you introduce a few at a later level and then a bunch and finally a whole friggen mess of the things. Since it apparently takes longer for a creature to be 'out dated' by player power numbers have a lot of meaning. Your also likely to get more effect from mixing mooks with bosses since it appears that the players will have a much more difficult time with basic mooks.
Very true.
BTW, I went back and re-read the Design & Development article on terrain and its a clear signpost, along with the delve format, of where WoTC is pushing terrain in terms of encounter design. And, I finally fully understand doomspore and it doesn't seem that daunting anymore!
BTW, found this little tidbit from Mearls over on EN World:
In any event, 4e offers the same level as customization as 3e, so it's a pointless argument. If you liked making goblin rogues and troll fighters, you can still do that.
However, it is worth pointing out that having a complete array of humanoids in different roles dramatically reduces the time needed to create an adventure. I've also noted that, as a DM, I find myself more and more often forgoing class-based NPCs for exceptions based ones.
For instance, in my ToEE game, I wanted a half-orc assassin. My first impulse was to stat him up as a rogue, but I ended up making him a servant of the water temple, gave him all sorts of water-based attacks (he turns into a water form to sneak into places; he kills by grabbing his quarry and generating water in the victim's throat and lungs to drown them; etc.) and building him as a monster rather than a levelled NPC.
I'll be curious to see which method DMs are using a year after the game's release.
I do like the flexibility; I suspect that I will likely end up following Mike's lead except in rare cases.
Hmmm. From a DM perspective, with regard to the half-orc assassin, I can imagine some players saying 'what class is it which does that? Why can't our characters do that?'
'Water Temple Assassin'
'The same reason he can't do Tide of Iron or Sleep. Everybody has their own special abilities.'
The really cool part? They really do.
You know, looking at the bugbear in the MM (actually the SRD, since I'm at work), its description and some of its abilities (the section on tactics, the racial bonus to Move Silently, rogue as a favored class, etc.) kind of push the bugbear into a skirmisher role, but you're right, the satyr would be given the edge.
As far as the bugbear goes, I was trying to find a CR 2 brute to compare the CR 2 satyr (no class levels) with. The satyr is weaker than a CR 3 ogre, but better than the bugbear. Sounds about right to me.
That said, all of your examples have been creatures with class levels added to them, instead of their HD being derived from their type. I have to concede your point that you can tailor a monster towards a role more easily using class levels, but that is not surprising given that the class system is more role-based then the monster design system (and even then, the monster types still kind of exerting some influence on the design decisions).
The fact that fey gain only simple weapons and no armor (unless included in the description) did influence the decision to advance them with class levels. It's hard to be a brute without some armor and a good weapon. For the dryad, giving just one level of ranger (CR 4) can dramatically change the options available. For the sprites, with only 1 HD they fall under the "replace racial HD with class level HD" rule (explicitly stated in the pixie description).
In my view, based on materials released so far, it appears that the 4e system can be used to achieve these same practical results with less overall work. Personally, I think that this is something to be excited about.
I can see where you're coming from. Picking "level x brute" basic stats, applying the fey base abilities, and then giving a fey-themed power or two does sound quicker and easier from a mechanical stand-point. From a campaign/story design standpoint, it seems less rich to me. It also eliminates the "playing against type" scenario if every creature is by precept perfectly suited for their combat role.
The thing that really gets me about people complaining about the 4e monster design process... you can _also_ design monsters like in 3rd, by adding in class levels, templates, feats, etc. Best of both worlds - design on the fly, design by system, bake. spice to perfection.
You know, looking at the bugbear in the MM (actually the SRD, since I'm at work), its description and some of its abilities (the section on tactics, the racial bonus to Move Silently, rogue as a favored class, etc.) kind of push the bugbear into a skirmisher role, but you're right, the satyr would be given the edge.As far as the bugbear goes, I was trying to find a CR 2 brute to compare the CR 2 satyr (no class levels) with. The satyr is weaker than a CR 3 ogre, but better than the bugbear. Sounds about right to me.
Yeah, I agree with you. I was just commenting on the cognitive dissonance that I had between my mental view of the bugbear and its SRD description. I guess I just never looked at it closely.
That said, all of your examples have been creatures with class levels added to them, instead of their HD being derived from their type. I have to concede your point that you can tailor a monster towards a role more easily using class levels, but that is not surprising given that the class system is more role-based then the monster design system (and even then, the monster types still kind of exerting some influence on the design decisions).The fact that fey gain only simple weapons and no armor (unless included in the description) did influence the decision to advance them with class levels. It's hard to be a brute without some armor and a good weapon. For the dryad, giving just one level of ranger (CR 4) can dramatically change the options available. For the sprites, with only 1 HD they fall under the "replace racial HD with class level HD" rule (explicitly stated in the pixie description).
Agreed. However, I would like to point out another, admittedly smaller thing, about the type system that I do not like. That is the armor and weapon proficiencies by type. To me, type seems to be too high of a level to assign such characteristics (personally, racial level is as high as a I would go in D&D), especially since many monsters of the same type really have nothing else in common. Also, there's always the "unless included in the description" exception that undermines the rule in the first place.
In my view, based on materials released so far, it appears that the 4e system can be used to achieve these same practical results with less overall work. Personally, I think that this is something to be excited about.I can see where you're coming from. Picking "level x brute" basic stats, applying the fey base abilities, and then giving a fey-themed power or two does sound quicker and easier from a mechanical stand-point. From a campaign/story design standpoint, it seems less rich to me. It also eliminates the "playing against type" scenario if every creature is by precept perfectly suited for their combat role.
How so? Do you mean because 4e statblocks are apparently stripped of their non-combat abilities, because otherwise, I can see tons of ways that a flexible system can be put to campaign/story design standpoint (look at Mearls's example from his ToEE campaign, there's plenty of story options there). Also, we do know that monsters can have out of combat abilities; for example, we know from the DDM previews that hags (which are now apparently fey) have the ability to assume the form of a humanoid female. In addition, monsters do still have skills, and there's always the nebulous idea of rituals.
As to playing against type, I think this is more a matter of perception rather than mechanics, but I don't see how a flexible system couldn't mechanically represent playing against type. Plus, you could always intentionally design monsters sub-optimally.