I read the monster customization. It really wasn't too different from the way 3E handled it. Howeverm my only thoughs is---
What the hell is up with the fact that so much lore and tradition was taken away from so many creatures? The vampire lord has...nothing. Charm, blood drain, mist form...whatever happened to summoning night creatures, it's weaknesses, climbing on walls, shapeshifting, skill bonuses...what freaking gives? Least it has resistance, immunities, and even a regeneration quality at least.
And what's the deal with armor not stacking with natural armor? That makes no damned sense. If you're scales are as strong and thick as steel, and you combine that with another layer that IS strong, thick steel wouldn't it be that much harder to land a solid blow? After all, you need to get through the armor chinks AND the natural armor weak spots...how does one cancel out the other?
And...monsters don't get FEATS?! That's plain lame. They talk about customization, but they took away one of the top mechanics to use when customizing a creature and that's feats.
|
I read the monster customization. It really wasn't too different from the way 3E handled it. Howeverm my only thoughs is---
What the hell is up with the fact that so much lore and tradition was taken away from so many creatures? The vampire lord has...nothing. Charm, blood drain, mist form...whatever happened to summoning night creatures, it's weaknesses, climbing on walls, shapeshifting, skill bonuses...what freaking gives? Least it has resistance, immunities, and even a regeneration quality at least.
And what's the deal with armor not stacking with natural armor? That makes no damned sense. If you're scales are as strong and thick as steel, and you combine that with another layer that IS strong, thick steel wouldn't it be that much harder to land a solid blow? After all, you need to get through the armor chinks AND the natural armor weak spots...how does one cancel out the other?
And...monsters don't get FEATS?! That's plain lame. They talk about customization, but they took away one of the top mechanics to use when customizing a creature and that's feats.
I don't like the fact that monsters don't get feats either, but WOTC seems to think feats should be reserved for PC's and only PC's. If you were to give monsters feats, it could wind up breaking an encounter.
On the subject of the templates from the article. They were...alright. I do miss old abilites. And why doesn't the Vamp. have the ability to create spawn? I mean don't vampires traditionally create spawn out of those they feed on?
I dont really care that monsters dont get feats. If I want to give them feat-specific abilities, I will.
I dont need to juggle feat slots around to give them something that I wanted them to have in the first place, and I dont have to pick random feats to fill out empty slots.
Well, I can understand the problem about vampire spawn (which I think they have thought about and that they only wanted to show a template and how it works).
What I like is that armor and natural armor does not stack (which I find logical since both of them do the same job).
Plus the templates seem easy and quick to handle.
And now it seems quite easy to quickly change the lvl(CR) of a creature.
So, I can understand why Clark Peterson was so happy about it!
Creative Director
|
Monsters are my favorite part of the game. And part of the reason they're my favorite part is the flavor that goes along with them. That's a HUGE part of why the monsters in Pathfinder each get 2 pages of info, and why we're going to start doing the same treatment to the module monsters in a few months as well. And to be honest... I honestly enjoy complex monsters. I like that some monsters have powers and abilities that aren't intended to be used in the 4 or 6 rounds they're expected to be in play, since that implies that the monsters are still a part of the world when those crucial rounds of combat AREN'T going on. Also... the similarities of how monsters are built to how PCs are built in 3rd edition is a strength as well, in my view, since it allows for a lot of customization and creativity.
That said... the 4th edition method does as well. And since it's so simple to create a monster in 4th edition, you can whip one together at a moment's notice for whatever role you need it to perform at the time. The 4E monster creation methods certainly lend themselves VERY well to an off-the-cuff improvised D&D game.
Still... I actually like the complex version of 3rd edition's monster creation rules a lot more than the simpler version. Monsters are, in a way, the GM's characters. It's no fun for me if my characters are simple, no more than it is for me as a player to have a PC that has only enough tricks to fill a few rounds of combat before going into rerun mode.
Still... I actually like the complex version of 3rd edition's monster creation rules a lot more than the simpler version. Monsters are, in a way, the GM's characters. It's no fun for me if my characters are simple, no more than it is for me as a player to have a PC that has only enough tricks to fill a few rounds of combat before going into rerun mode.
Well, thank you for being with us, YOU guys rock.
I respect how you view it James and you certainly make some points. Certainly the flavor that accompanies a monster is very important but I think that the flavor should be setting specific as you guys are doing with your monsters for Pathfinder. Now, I am able to construct the monster for each setting without having to remake the stats, just add things that I like.
But perhaps it is also a matter of preference.
Razz: Vampires are, in fact Razz, still vulnerable to sunlight. They take about 1/4 of their hit points in damage from being in sunlight and cannot use any of their abilities. As for feats, you can add on whichever ones you feel the monster needs. Part of what feels, for me at any rate, nice about this system is how fluid it seems to be. I feel very creative when working with these monsters.
Lazaro: The ability to create spawn isn't one which is dealt with her but we know there are vampire spawn in the game, so vis-a-vie, vampires can spawn away. It's just an ability which is either handled via DM fiat or is taken care or elsewhere, such as in the entry for vampires. My gut reaction is the latter.
James: I would foremost like to say that I truly respect your opinions on the state of gaming - the Savage Tide Adventure Path is probably the best 3rd edition material I've ever seen for D&D. However I would like to point out an analogy on Monster building - based solely upon the rules without any leeway or swing, building monsters in 3rd is a tough prospect. In the same way that if you ask a professional computer programmer what version of Windows they prefer you'll only get laughter as an answer, Linux is something that is going to be a mystery for most casual users. When you're really deep into the ins and outs of the 3.X system it all flows and you can probably whip up a monster with no problems at all. For myself at least, I found the entire process erudite and rather aggravating. The entire monolithic process of creating a monster from the ground up felt like too much effort for me to undertake, only to see that monster killed off by a lucky critical hit, or even worse, wipe out the party and know that I was directly responsible and their tactics and strategies didn't make a difference.
For my two cents, the customization of 4th edition monsters and really making them feel like a part of the world will be found in Rituals. These out of combat abilities aren't specifically addressed here, but will be pretty easy to include into a monster's stat block and represent at least some of what a monster is doing outside of its doing battle with the PCs.
I certainly think there's a difference between simple and elegant. As has been expressed in a post at ENWorld, many of the sundry abilities higher level monsters need in 3rd edition to be viable are simply ones to counter PC abilities. No matter how many hit points a monster has, if it has no ranged attacks or means of dealing with flying creatures around 15th level when the entire party can easily take to the air, it's a bum ticket. The true complexity and tactical milieu of 4th edition isn't going to be found with individual monster entries anymore. Instead it will be found in Encounter groups.
What monsters can do on their own then pales to what they can do in a group. Taking the earlier example of a vampire's henchmen, a large group of Vampire Spawn get bonuses when attacking a target adjacent to another Vampire Spawn. A simple enough encounter, but removing some of those Vampire Spawn and adding in a Chillborn Zombie, a creature who immobilizes you, suddenly makes the encounter much more dangerous. Replacing a few more Vampire Spawn with wolves serving your evil Vampire Overlord who knock foes prone suddenly turns a dangerous encounter into a fight to stay alive, all for the same Experience budget.
As the PCs try to stave off the Vampire Hordes, the cold hands of undead reach for them and steal their ability to flee, while wolves keep pulling their legs out from underneath them and the Vampire Spawn surge into melee.
By looking at monsters individually and believing them to be simple, it is similar to looking at the individual pieces of a machine and commenting that they don't seem to do much. On their own they don't necessarily, but once combined together you get a completely different animal.
Just my humble opinion and we'll need to see the game once it's in action to know for sure, but the experiences I've had with it so far have been very positive and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the matter.
~ Bryon Kershaw ~
Razz: Vampires are, in fact Razz, still vulnerable to sunlight. They take about 1/4 of their hit points in damage from being in sunlight and cannot use any of their abilities.
Well, I can't see the part where that is said. Could you please point the source?
Lazaro: The ability to create spawn isn't one which is dealt with her but we know there are vampire spawn in the game, so vis-a-vie, vampires can spawn away. It's just an ability which is either handled via DM fiat or is taken care or elsewhere, such as in the entry for vampires. My gut reaction is the latter.
As it's explictly said that "They can create armies of dominated vampire spawn or pass on their powers to chosen mortals.", I suppose that vampires can either create spawn or other lords through rituals, and how these rituals work is left to DM's fiat.
This may be good or not. But it should be noted that inumerous undead and aberrations from 3rd/3.5 never mentioned the exact processes of their creation (liches including). There was some mention of "crazy magical experiments", "unspeakable pacts" or "punished by greater powers", but that's all. Vampires were the exception, not the rule.
I find actually cooler that a vampire needs to perform some horrid ritual in order to create another vampire, rather than simply "deal X negative levels" or "reduce the victim's CON to 0". I also found weird that on 3.5, one must be at 5th-level in order to become a true vampire; why a vampire can't choose a humble, teenager farm girl as his bride?
I hope that there will still be explicit rules for creating golems, however. =)
Razz: Vampires are, in fact Razz, still vulnerable to sunlight. They take about 1/4 of their hit points in damage from being in sunlight and cannot use any of their abilities.Well, I can't see the part where that is said. Could you please point the source?
Well, I think it is below or above resistances where it says "vulnerability radiant 10".
And...monsters don't get FEATS?! That's plain lame. They talk about customization, but they took away one of the top mechanics to use when customizing a creature and that's feats.
Well from my perspective, what are the feats actually doing? A lot of what feats were meant to do is to let you break the rules in some minor way. In other words, a lot of feats just let you have permission to do something you normally couldn't, like wield an exotic weapon, wield two weapons at once, or make more attacks of opportunity than normal. Some of the other feats just added a few bonuses here or there, like +2 to Will saves.
The more monsters I customized over the course of 3rd edition (and I did a lot, usually 2-5 per game session), the more I came to wonder "why am I even using these? Monsters have such arbitrary abilities anyways. For example, natural armor is just a made-up number. Why am I giving my monster the Improved Natural Armor feat instead of just saying that these advanced monsters have 2 higher natural armor than normal versions?
Why does there have to be a specific number of feats? If I want to create a 30 HD elemental for my high-level party to fight, does it matter that it has exactly 11 feats?
If you want to customize a monster, just do that. You don't need feats for it.
I think all those feat slots and feats for monsters are supposed to help the dm maitain some sort of play balance based on the CR of the monster (i.e if you just take on 5 extra natural armour to a monsters it will be too powerful for its CR). However, since CR is so arbitrary and generally disfunctional, making those kinds of adjustments often proves necessary. I'm finding this more and more when working with highter CR critters. I know my party, and I know what their strengths and weaknesses are, so I have a good idea of what they can handle and what will trounce them. In order to make things challenging, I routinely have to incease hp and/or AC for critters, along with the DCs for special abilities they have and various other tweaks. This is necessary just to get the monsters to the point where the PCs won't trounce it 1-2 rounds. I don't follow the rules to do this, I pretty much just make the adjustments as I please. Therefore, I find monsters having feats to more or less be a waste. However, I do think monsters like Vampire Lords and abominations should have plenty of cool and devastating exceptional and supernatural abilities to put to use, so if 4E is taking many of these away from the critters I won't be overly excited about 4E monsters, and as the dm, monsters are my bread and butter.
And...monsters don't get FEATS?! That's plain lame. They talk about customization, but they took away one of the top mechanics to use when customizing a creature and that's feats.Well from my perspective, what are the feats actually doing? A lot of what feats were meant to do is to let you break the rules in some minor way. In other words, a lot of feats just let you have permission to do something you normally couldn't, like wield an exotic weapon, wield two weapons at once, or make more attacks of opportunity than normal. Some of the other feats just added a few bonuses here or there, like +2 to Will saves.
The more monsters I customized over the course of 3rd edition (and I did a lot, usually 2-5 per game session), the more I came to wonder "why am I even using these? Monsters have such arbitrary abilities anyways. For example, natural armor is just a made-up number. Why am I giving my monster the Improved Natural Armor feat instead of just saying that these advanced monsters have 2 higher natural armor than normal versions?
Why does there have to be a specific number of feats? If I want to create a 30 HD elemental for my high-level party to fight, does it matter that it has exactly 11 feats?
If you want to customize a monster, just do that. You don't need feats for it.
Well, I can't see the part where that is said. Could you please point the source?
While not listed in this article it has been featured elsewhere, namely here:
Quoted from the Vampire Vizier, in the Dungeons of Dread mini's stat card (role-playing side):Hurt by Sunlight Only 1 standard action per turn; no blood drain, dominating gaze or regeneration. 26 damage each round, destroyed at 0 HP.
We were told the minis' stat cards were reflective of the game, so that would make that a precedent: sunlight toasts vamps.
~ Bryon ~
However, I do think monsters like Vampire Lords and abominations should have plenty of cool and devastating exceptional and supernatural abilities to put to use, so if 4E is taking many of these away from the critters I won't be overly excited about 4E monsters, and as the dm, monsters are my bread and butter.
Well, as I was saying on ENworld, I think it's more of the difference between 3e and 4e encounter design. In 4e as I understand it, essentially the ration of cool and devastating abilities for an encounter are all spread out between the 3-5 different types of monsters that go in the encounter.
That's what I think is going on anyways. I guess on June 6th, we'll know for sure.
Well, I can't see the part where that is said. Could you please point the source?While not listed in this article it has been featured elsewhere, namely here:
Quoted from the Vampire Vizier, in the Dungeons of Dread mini's stat card (role-playing side):Hurt by Sunlight Only 1 standard action per turn; no blood drain, dominating gaze or regeneration. 26 damage each round, destroyed at 0 HP.
We were told the minis' stat cards were reflective of the game, so that would make that a precedent: sunlight toasts vamps.
~ Bryon ~
Uhm, you are right. However... the vampire vizier lists "Radiant 10, sunlight" as weakness, while the vampire lord only lists "Radiant 10". The powers of both creatures also have some minor differences.
Perhaps they are different templates? Or one of them is an unfinished version?
Possibly Vampire Lords, being Lordly and all, can ignore sunlight if they wish.
I call Daywalker! :)
Uhm, you are right. However... the vampire vizier lists "Radiant 10, sunlight" as weakness, while the vampire lord only lists "Radiant 10". The powers of both creatures also have some minor differences.
Perhaps they are different templates? Or one of them is an unfinished version?
Certainly possible that are different templates, I hadn't thought of that. I did want to stress though that we are still seeing vampires being harmed by it. As was mentioned, perhaps a Vampire Lord is a more advanced vampire?