I'm not sure I get how level is supposed to work for monsters. When the idea was first pitched I thought the idea was that a level 1 monster was supposed to be equivalent in power to a 1st level character. An idea that was pretty nice in contrast with the exausting hoops required to understand CR (an encounter where a group of four adventurers will be expected to succeed through expenditure of roughly half of their resources, with a number of creatures in addition the number of which is less than the total CR of the encounter, no single creature being of a higher CR than the creature in question...bleah.)
The idea that a level 1 troglodyte and a level 1 fighter, if put into a jar and shaken, would be a pretty fair fight seemed like a beautiful, simple idea (if horrendously hard to arrive at.)
That said, I've seen some 4e stuff now and am totally confused. Apparently encounter "level" is tied to a five member party and varies wildly from one encounter to the next. Monster levels seem hugely out of scale with what I'd imagine (a level 12 starting kuo toa?). So I have no idea whatsoever what is even meant to be a balanced encounter or not.
Somebody please help! How does this stuff work?
I'll admit the DMG is probably the book I've read the least from, but I think your initial impression IS indeed correct. A monster's level does represent an equal challenge for a character of said level. Note two things though: A) minions, elites, and solos change this formula around by counting as less or more than one monster and B) you don't always want an "even" fight, which is what encounters are supposed to provide.
Also, in general the players ARE assumed to win, so an even fight does favor them. Some monsters are only statted at higher levels to represent that they are threats of higher tiers as well. Yuan-ti, for example, don't really appear very much until high Heroic, then spread out through Paragon. Without looking Kuo-Toas up, it sounds like they're similar.
Sorry for the vague answer ... maybe if you rephrased your question I could possibly give something more focused. What is it you're not getting specifically?
Cheers! :)
|
Try not to get caught up in the "this CR is worth this lvl of pcs"
The Devs want to create encounters that were varied ie: Instead of putting 4 CR1s against a lvl 2 party which in 3E would have been equivalent yet for the most part an easy fight. You now have 10 "types" of the same templated creature. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and thier own specialized roles. Some such as the Minion are to be used as cannon fodder and swarm the PCs where some are Elite for one on one battles.
What I found esspecially at higher lvls in 3E is encounters were either too easy ie: lots of low lvl opponents that easily were handled OR one on one encounters that either went very easy or were near total PKs. Personally I blame monster design for this problem in 3E, they may have fixed it in 4E time will tell.
Monster level matters for its abilities, defenses, and damage and such, though I'm unsure if they can be treated as directly equivalent to an equal level PC.
The thing I like, though, is how you build encounters in 4E. First you decide on the encounter level (lower than the PCs' level for easy encounters, equal for normal, and higher for difficult). Then you multiply the standard xp reward given for a monster of that level by the number of PCs in the party. Then you simply treat that value like an "XP Bucket". You add whatever monsters you want to fill the bucket.
Let's say you want a difficult encounter for your 3rd level party and choose an encounter level of 5. A 5th level monster is worth 200 XP. Let's say you have 6 PCs so you would multiply 6 by 200 for a "Bucket" size of 1200 XP. Choose monsters to fill whatever roles you want for the encounter until you reach a total of 1200 XP, either lots of slightly weaker monsters, some stronger monsters with minions, or a couple powerful monsters. :-)
All in all it's fairly simple and is a lot of fun. I'm planning on setting up about a dozen interesting encounters to keep to one side and pull out while they're on the road for sidetreks.
The XP value of a monster is also its cost to purchase it when building an encounter. You determine your encounter budget by taking a monster equal to the level of the party, and multiplying it by the number of people in the party. I guess a more accurate statement is that "one monster per character".
A level 1 monster is worth 100 XP. Against a three-man party, you get 300 XP per encounter. If there are four people, you get 400.
If the party is 8th-level, you instead get 350 XP per character (since a 8th-level mob is worth 350 XP). The general assumption is a five-man party, but its much easier to scale up and down now.
XP budgets are used in case you want to use minions, elites, and solo critters, as well as creatures that are a level or two higher (or lower).
This is why you can get a level 5 encounter (valued at a 1000 XP budget) that contains the following:
1 rage drake (level 5 brute)
1 greenscale marsh mystic (level 6 controller)
1 greenscale darter (level 5 lurker)
2 greenscale hunters (level 4 skirmisher)
You get a nice mix of critters, some higher than 5, some less. Its not as drastic of a scaling, so its easier to get away with it.
I really like that system. I just wish the bucket was a bit bigger. Most of the stuff I would like to run for my group is so big I could put the bucket under it and the bucket would split and be crushed flat.
A lot of things in the new Monster Manual look really sweet, but the level ratings are just crazy. Take a drider for example. Tougher than an first level adventurer, right? How about a party of ten of them? Ten 4e adventurers would stomp a drider into the dirt. The level on a baseline drider is 14. That's nuts. Yuan-ti are pretty cool. They're not level 13 cool. They just aren't that tough. Chuul aren't level 10. Displacer beasts aren't level 9--that's nine guys with PC starting abilities! A single baseline drow is worth 11 characters, and they suggest them as a possible starting PC race!
That's the stuff that's bothering me. There's tons of cool things in the book, but for dumb reasons that have nothing to do with what the creatures are or what they're capable of they are leveled way higher than makes any sense.
I hear there's stuff in the DMG to retool monsters to make them different or tougher. Is there a way to peel off some of the cheese and get some of these creatures down to a managable size? Take the level 16 kuo-toa and scale him back to a nice level 1 or 2 maybe?
I don't think a level monster is equal to a level 1 PC. After all 5 1st level PCs are supposed to fight 5 level one monsters and pretty much win almost every time. This is closer to CR where 5 level 1 monsters represent a worthwhile challenge not a coin toss over who's going to win.
I'm not certain about your more extreme examples but its not really impossible since 1st level PCs are really powerful but they don't really get all that more powerful when they become 2nd level.
Its been stated that a 1st level 4E PC is something akin to a 5th level 3.5 character and thats probably right - but I suspect you'll find that an 18th level 4E character is actually weaker then an 18th level 3.5 character (this is only a hunch but its the feeling I'm getting). Your constantly getting new powers and feats in 4E but they usually only grant a slight benefit or are just a little more powerful then the lower level powers.
I think your essentially thinking of this in terms of a 3.5 gradient scale between levels but thats not what we have here - your just not getting that much more powerful when you go up a level.
Fundamentally this is required if 4E was to achieve its goal of having it so that Orcs are still notable even if your five levels higher then them.
So your fundamentally right - that Troll terrorizing the village better hope that a platoon of the kings men don't show up. 10 first level fighters will make mince meat out of it.
Same deal with the town militia of 25 1st level fighters. Until your into Paragon levels you'd better show those guys some respect. Those guys are dangerous. You don't have 10 times their hps - closer to three times their hps and with magic armour and shields so expencive your AC is probably not out of their reach, its hard to really raise your AC. They'll probably still be able to hit on 18+ or so. You'll have a handful of daily's and Encounter powers that will lay a few of them low quickly but then your down to your at will stuff which won't be able to kill a 1st level fighter in one hit. Bottom line - don't piss off the town guard until your into the Paragon levels.
Some posters in this thread need to read the relevant sections of the DMG (page 56 and 57). I'm reading a lot of incorrect commentary.
A normal 14th level monster is worth 1000 xp. That is as much as 10 1st level monsters (or 5 6th level monsters), but that does not mean it's a good challenge for 10 1st level characters. Let's take a Drider Fanglord. His defenses are incredibly high against 1st level characters (Will 23 is the lowest, AC is 26), he would almost always hit (attacks are +19 vs. AC, +16 vs. Reflex), and any 1st level characters who get caught in his web have very little chance of escaping (DC 25 Acrobatics or DC 27 Athletics). A party of 10 1st level characters might kill him, but I'd guess at least half of them would be dead. Where's the fun in that?
The DMG says "Monsters or traps more than four levels below the party’s level or seven levels above the party’s level don’t make good challenges. They’re either too easy or too hard, even if the encounter’s level seems right." If you want a hard fight, use a solo monster around the party's level.
Take the level 16 kuo-toa and scale him back to a nice level 1 or 2 maybe?
Page 174 of the DMG has instructions on adding or removing levels from monsters. The one caveat is "This process works best for adjusting a monster’s level up to five higher or lower. Beyond that, the monster changes so much that you’d do better to start with another creature of the desired role and level range."
So if you want to make a level 1 or 2 kuo-toa, I'd recommend creating one from scratch using the DMG (page 184-185) and basing their powers on other heroic-tier monsters (trogs, goblins, kobolds). I think they set kuo-toa, driders, drow and others at their current levels because they want to make the Underdark a paragon level destination (along with the Feywild).
One thing to bear in mind is how easy it is to lower or increase the example monsters (details are in the DMG, in the DM's Toolbox chapter). One of the monsters I wanted to use for the first session was level 8 in the MM, but 5 minutes later I had level 3 version ready to go.
I really like that system. I just wish the bucket was a bit bigger. Most of the stuff I would like to run for my group is so big I could put the bucket under it and the bucket would split and be crushed flat.
A lot of things in the new Monster Manual look really sweet, but the level ratings are just crazy. Take a drider for example. Tougher than an first level adventurer, right? How about a party of ten of them? Ten 4e adventurers would stomp a drider into the dirt. The level on a baseline drider is 14. That's nuts. Yuan-ti are pretty cool. They're not level 13 cool. They just aren't that tough. Chuul aren't level 10. Displacer beasts aren't level 9--that's nine guys with PC starting abilities! A single baseline drow is worth 11 characters, and they suggest them as a possible starting PC race!
I'm afraid you've misunderstodd the level of monster vs the level of players here.
A level 10 monster is supposed to be used in an encounter again 11th level PC's. You don't stack 10 1st level PCs up against one.
You put five 10th level driders up against 5 PCs of 10th level. (Give or take, i don't have their xp number sin front of me.)
And, you also need to consider that the levels have different meanings then they did in 3rd edition. Level 12 in 4E is like what level 8 was in 3.5 this comes form the way they strestched the levels of 1-20 to 1-30, and smoothed out the power curves across those levels. (You're stronger at 1st level, but there is no longer a huge power jump with each level.)
No, what you want to do when creating your encounters is take your XP bucket, and choose monsters close to the level of our PC's to fill that bucket. If you want to put the PC's up against a really tough monster, like a dragon, spend all your points on one monster.
I really like that system. I just wish the bucket was a bit bigger. Most of the stuff I would like to run for my group is so big I could put the bucket under it and the bucket would split and be crushed flat.
A lot of things in the new Monster Manual look really sweet, but the level ratings are just crazy. Take a drider for example. Tougher than an first level adventurer, right? How about a party of ten of them? Ten 4e adventurers would stomp a drider into the dirt. The level on a baseline drider is 14. That's nuts. Yuan-ti are pretty cool. They're not level 13 cool. They just aren't that tough. Chuul aren't level 10. Displacer beasts aren't level 9--that's nine guys with PC starting abilities! A single baseline drow is worth 11 characters, and they suggest them as a possible starting PC race!
That's the stuff that's bothering me. There's tons of cool things in the book, but for dumb reasons that have nothing to do with what the creatures are or what they're capable of they are leveled way higher than makes any sense.
I hear there's stuff in the DMG to retool monsters to make them different or tougher. Is there a way to peel off some of the cheese and get some of these creatures down to a managable size? Take the level 16 kuo-toa and scale him back to a nice level 1 or 2 maybe?
The levels for some monsters function under the presumption of when the characters will likely go to certain areas. For example, the Underdark is a "paragon" level place, hence the drow are all over 10th-level from what I remember.
Outer planes are generally paragon-to-epic, so thats why a lot of the stuff is high-teens or in the twenties.The level ranges arent as extreme, so its possible for you to throw higher level stuff at your party and not obliterate them.
If you want to make things lower levels, its pretty easy to reverse engineer the levels: reduce a drider to level 5 or so if you want your characters going into, or starting in, the underdark at low levels.
I guess the problem isn't that I'm misunderstanding the rules and ACTUALLY trying to send 14 1st level characters after a level 14 monster. It's more of a demonstration of what's wrong in my opinion. Trying to run a game for 14 people would KILL me--so no, that's not what I'm up to.
That said, the whole point of making beefier 1st level characters, and slowing down growth, was supposed to be to create a wider range of "sweet spot" play. It was supposed to aleiviate the whole problem where first level characters are forced to fight rats, goblins, and skeletons because anything else would kill them. But now looking at the Monster Manual, it looks like everything has gotten power shifted to account for the more powerful characters--and I worry that this will mean that nothing will change and characters will be fighting the same old orcs and kobolds.
The idea that areas of play have been divided artificially into high and low level "zones". Guys in the underdark, or in the astral sea, seem to have artificially high stats in order to try and force level appropriateness--not by virtue of the creatures deserving the higher stats, but as a hedge to keep people from playing in certain areas before they are "supposed to". I don't even know what to say about this. I've always been a status quo gamer. I hate the idea that the world levels up with the players, or that different areas of the world con at different difficulties. I'd like to see a game much more like the D&D novels--where the characters fight just about anything. I'd like the stats to reflect more or less what the thing is and what it's capable of. Goofy frog guys with spears having a level akin to a basilisk or a bulette--both of which are massive creatures with huge special abilities that should really take characters down left and right? That doesn't feel right to me at all. That the reason for that is that they're from an area you aren't supposed to go to yet? Like in Final Fantasy? Argh. That's got problems.
I think when I get a hold of the DMG I'll probably take a knife to a bunch of the creatures in the book and cut them back till they make sense. If people are interested I'll post a couple and see what people think. I honestly don't see the point in leveling the power scale of the game and then bloating the monsters like they're doing. Doesn't make any sense to me at all. *sigh* Just sayin'.
Grim, I think of it as "there are some places in the world man was not meant to tread". Or maybe a "there be dragons" on a map. Some areas of the world are far removed from civilization and the things that lurk there are really nasty (or, have become nasty in order to cope). In 4E the Underdark is supposed to be one of those places.
That said, I can get where you're coming from, and would be interested in seeing whatever you come up with. Post away; I'll certainly take a look!
Cheers! :)
Which, yeah I totally get. Don't go to the place with the Balhannoths because that place is BAD. I like that. It's when it's like, don't go to that place, because even the frogmen and toadstool people and cricketmen with swordarms will superkill you that my eyes get to rolling. Populate the underdark with Tarrasques and you bet I won't go near there! Populate it with stuff that's no bigger or meaner than anywhere else but which have huge stats because of where they live and I do have a problem.
That said, isn't it just more fun if you can run a game for your PCs in all these new fun places--regardless of level? Wouldn't it be fun to take on some low level stuff in the Shadowfell? Wouldn't it be neat to be able to take your group into the astral sea and fight some githyanki pirates--not a god or an angel even, just some cool looking pirates? Wouldn't it be neat to go spelunking around in the feywild version of the underdark and have meaningful discourse with a giant hookah smoking caterpillar sitting on a bioilluminescent toadstool? Why does that require a high level? Now granted, you want to take on a dragon--you better have the hooah to get the job done. That's a tough fight. But it should be what you're going after and how you go about it, and when you fight the thing (or really however you interact with the thing) the stats it has should try and reflect it as it exists in this story world you're describing.
I get what you're saying but I tend to look at it from the other side of the coin.
They could have statted up all of the "humanoid" like races as lower level challenges, but then what would people have to fight in the higher levels? Realize that the stats appearing for Drow or Kuo-Toa or Yuan-Ti aren't just Drow Commoners or Kuo-Toa Cooks. These are their elite soldiers, tasked with hunting down and slaying the infidels (that's the PCs, natch) or protecting their unholy shrine from defilement (anything named Bildoolpoolooldoop probably deserves to have its shrine defiled ...)
Their less skilled members don't often venture far from their cities 'since the surrounding flora and fauna is super nasty.
In the end, I believe the designers wanted 4E players to face a variety of monsters over the span of their adventuring careers, which required some monsters be slotted high and some low. I'd have liked low and high options for the more iconic monsters as well, but real world books suffer from real world space restrictions. :(
Of course, that is why I'd be interested in checking out some pared down Drow/Kuo-Toa/Whatever you feel like writing up.
Cheers! :)
Grim, I like your arguments...
Same arguments that people used arguing FOR planescape against its detractors. I'm not sure others remember (Russ Taylor might), but back on r.g.f.d when planescape was announced, there was a big flamewars about how 2e was "killing" the game by allowing low level characters into te planes.
Dunno what r.g.f.d is supposed to be, but I do remember people making those charges against PS. Ah, I loved PS back in the day. Hopefully that is one of the old campaign settings that gets touched on again in 4E.
Cheers! :)
Try one or two out on some PCs in a test game and see what you think before going wholesale with that cutting room knife.
Time will tell how tough things are.
I've run a drow-only campaign in Forgotten Realms a couple times, and if I wanted to do it in 4th Edition I would just drastically scale things back to where I need them. The characters would still be 1st-level, and so would a lot of the other drow.
Underdark monsters would likewise be scaled back to wherever I need them to be.
I really dont think of it as "all drow are 14th-level", just the ones that happen to be fighting the party. If they went into a drow city the children wouldnt be 9th-level and working on their paragon path, they'd go down in one hit like any other kid. Likewise, the...I dunno, websmiths arent all 11th-level either.
I just got a peek at the DMG. I think I will end up getting that book after all. That said, now that I know the rubrick for adjusting monster level, I took the chainsaw to our frind the Kuo-toa.
This is what you get. I'm not sure how to deal with it's initiative or stats...but this stuff here is the most important anyhow.
Kuo-Toa Marauder: Level 2
HP 39/20 bloodied
Fort 12 Reflex 13 Will 11/15 bloodied
Spear: +7/+9 bloodied (1d8-1 damage)
Sticky Shield: +5 counterstrike, disarms if successful
Slick Manuver: can shift to any adjacent space before or after attack.
Isn't that great! Look at that nice trim Kuo-toa. I love it.
I was going to do the same with the drider we were talking about, but it hit me that becoming a drider only happens to the very best drow warriors, and more or less at the top of their game. It's more of a paragon class (if you can call being mutated into a spider-person a class). So I decided on second thought, that it probably is about where it needs to be. Still hunting around though for more critters to cut on. I am really liking how this works.
For ability scores/initiative, it should be easy. Just reduce them by 1/2 the levels you removed.
That is, a level 12 Kuo-Toa is getting +6 to all the ability mods and to its initiative. Reducing him 10 levels to 2nd means now he should only be getting a +1. The mods work just the same as in 3E otherwise. And not a bad low-level Kuo-Toa btw. I like!
Cheers! :)
Here's that githzerai pirate I was talking about. You sail into the astral sea and arrr! avast! here come a bunch of these guys.
Githyanki Warrior: Level 1
Initiative: +8
HP: 30/15 bloodied
AC 17, Fort 14 Ref 12 Will 11
+2 versus charm
Silver Greatsword +6 (1d10 +1d6 psychic/3d6 if immobile)
Telekinetic Grasp: range 5, +4 versus Fort, immobilize
Telekinetic Leap: range 10, githyanki or ally can fly 5
Y'know I really like how these are turning out. I like that they can be turned way down low (this guy dropped 11 levels!) and still not lose their flavor. But yeah, see this is the kind of thing I was talking about.
Anyway this all has pretty much sold me on the DMG. Normally in the last two editions, the book was of tremendously little value to me. This time around it's looking to have some really genuinely good stuff in it.
I definitely agree Grim, this is by far one of the best DMGs I think I've ever seen. That said, any thoughts on minion Githyankis? Or do you not really see them as having too many hordes of easily defeated soldiers (at least not at lower levels?)
Cheers! :)
Love the idea of githyanki minions--though my personal feeling about minions (and this is just totally me) is that something shouldn't become a minion unless they are significantly less powerful than you. I like the idea that "minion" status is less a factor of the target than of the attacker. Call it a coup de grace on the run. Instead of hammering on each other's defenses and rolling with each other's blows, you just find the weak spot and stab the thing dead.
That said, I am looking forward to using minion status against the players too. If there's a creature five levels higher than you, it can just pick you up and pop you in it's mouth and crunch-crunch goodbye character. I like the idea that the paladin calls the dragon to justice for all the evil it's done an FAAWHHOOSH--big charcoal mark where the paladin was. I dig that. It's evil.
You round down...always. 1/2 of 39 is 19 in 4E.
Really? I'd read the opposite--that you always round up, and thought it was a nice change. Granted I only saw it in passing, mind you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until I know better.
You round down...always. 1/2 of 39 is 19 in 4E.Really? I'd read the opposite--that you always round up, and thought it was a nice change. Granted I only saw it in passing, mind you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until I know better.
Yeah, it's one of the 3 primary rules of the system:
1. Simple rules, many exceptions.
2. Specific beats general.
3. Always round down.
Page 11 of the PHB.
I really like your monsters by the way. I'm glad you're having fun whacking away at them and making them into what you want. :)
Thanks. I'm really suprized how fun and easy it is once you have the book to work from. It's funny too. The more I stop being mad about how high level everything is and how little prose there is for any of the monsters, the more I see how much fun stuff is said about the monsters by the way they work. I love the fact that githyanki fight like a bunch of Russian circus performers. One githyanki guy throwing another one through the air with his mind, while the other one uses his telekinesis to hold the victim in place, and the third one charges up his sword with psychic energy and splits the poor target like a pumpkin. That's so cool. And that the kuo-toas feel like the best monks we've ever seen! A blade whiffs over it's head, it grabs the arm, breaks it and drops the weapon, then monkey leaps behind the guy and hits him from behind. That's just awesome.
I'm sorry, but, there's just one thing I do not understand about 4th Edition monsters at all---
And that's the monsters themselves.
Ok, so we have several different versions of orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. right? Each is unique in abilities, level, etc. Now, it's the part about the abilities that confuse me.
In the great 3rd Edition system, each monster had a specific BASE set of abilities, hit dice/levels, ability scores, feats, and skills. To get the version of the creature you want, you simply change around those areas. Change the skills around and increase Hide and Move Silently instead of the original skills, grant a few levels of rogue, switch the feats around, etc. and boom, you had a roguish-whatever!
In 4th Edition, each monster is unique. There is no BASE stats. A kobold slinger and a kobold potthead have two distinct different sets of scores. How do you determine its BASE ability scores, its ability score adjustments, what set of skills it can have, how many skills can it be trained in, and most important of all, how do you determine special abilities and how to adjucate those abilities as proper for a specific level?
So, can someone please kindly and without starting a flame war with me because of my name and post, explain to me the purpose behind 4th Edition monsters? It seems to be it's HARDER to create the monster you want. How do you determine which ability is a level 4 monster ability or which is suitable for a level 7 or level 13? Why isn't there a huge table of monster abilities or suggestions to use?
Also, why does a monster have to have "class templates"? Why can't I just give it class levels like any other creature? Why not just replace Artillery 4 on a goblin with Ranger 4? (I know there are quick-stat racial entries in the back of the 4E MM, but that is besides the point, for example, how about a Oni Mage Fighter 10 instead of Level 10 Brute?)
And why can't monsters take feats? There's a table of feats in the PHB unlike the lack of monster abilities in 4E entirely, why can't they have access to it?
This is why I enjoyed 3rd Edition so much. The monsters used the same rules as PCs. Not only did it enhance D&D by making monsters suitable for actual RP and game play, but it made things really easy to determine and set up. I like to see what a monster has at its CORE, and then use other material to add in as I see fit. If I want the monster more formidable, increase HD or add Fighter levels. If I want it to be able to bull rush easier, give it the feats to do so.
As an experiment, let's take an illithid.
Give me a 3E illithid that's both an lurker and sneak and great with arcane magic and then give me the same for a 4E illithid. All within the rules now, no homebrew stuff. Use only core books, too.
I already did mine really easily, an Illithid Rogue 4/Sorcerer 10. Done. Now 4E's turn.
Go.
Heh. Argh. This will be a lot easier when I own the DMG, but here's the principles behind it at least.
Every monster has a base progression that you can ramp up or down based on its level, so if you want it more or less powerful you just add on or lop off a certain amount to its attacks, damage, AC and whatever. It's pretty intuitive.
There's a whole section on customizing monsters, adding and swapping powers between them. What it does to level is something I won't have until I've got the book.
More or less though your Illithid Lurker with Arcane Magic would look something like this:
Mind Flayer Umbramancer: Level 15 (just a guess...)
Init +16
HP 113/56
AC 28; Fort 26 Ref 28 Will 29
Tentacles: +19 (2d6+6 and grappled)
Bore into brain: +18 Fort (3d6+6 and dazed/rd until save or 0 HP)
Mind Blast: blast 5 +19 Will (2d8+8 and dazed/half dmg on miss, no daze)
Shadow Ray: range 20; 19 Reflex (1d8+7 necrotic damage)
Reactive Stealth: if injured, considered hiding until next turn
Shadow Skulk: still hiding even if misses an attack roll
Done...more or less. Could make a few other types of hiding/blasting Illithids too. That by no means is the only kind.
That said, the purpose behind 4e monsters was to try and avoid having to do full multi-level chargen for a creature that was only going to be alive for an hour or so. Picking feats is fun, but exhausting--and that's for a character you dearly love and play every week. The way they do it in 4e is designed so if you know more or less what you want a critter to do, you can emulate it in the rules without having to worry about whether it has the prerequisite dexterity modifier to get Dazzling Tenticle Strike, or if it's taken Improved Tenticle Strike yet. You want some critter to do something, you hunt around and find a mechanic that does the same kinda' thing and you're all set.
That said, the whole point of making beefier 1st level characters, and slowing down growth, was supposed to be to create a wider range of "sweet spot" play. It was supposed to aleiviate the whole problem where first level characters are forced to fight rats, goblins, and skeletons because anything else would kill them. But now looking at the Monster Manual, it looks like everything has gotten power shifted to account for the more powerful characters--and I worry that this will mean that nothing will change and characters will be fighting the same old orcs and kobolds.
I think you misunderstood the design goal here. In fact I think that the goal was actually closer to the reverse of what your feeling was. Its not that low level characters don't fight goblins - its that goblins don't, so quickly, become irrelevant.
The idea that areas of play have been divided artificially into high and low level "zones". Guys in the underdark, or in the astral sea, seem to have artificially high stats in order to try and force level appropriateness--not by virtue of the creatures deserving the higher stats, but as a hedge to keep people from playing in certain areas before they are "supposed to". I don't even know what to say about this. I've always been a status quo gamer. I hate the idea that the world levels up with the players, or that different areas of the world con at different difficulties. I'd like to see a game much more like the D&D novels--where the characters fight just about anything. I'd like the stats to reflect more or less what the thing is and what it's capable of. Goofy frog guys with spears having a level akin to a basilisk or a bulette--both of which are massive creatures with huge special abilities that should really take characters down left and right? That doesn't feel right to me at all. That the reason for that is that they're from an area you aren't supposed to go to yet? Like in Final Fantasy? Argh. That's got problems.
I totally see where your coming from here though I don't actually agree with you. Good luck with your conversions BTW - I don't feel we have to be on the same page (there is no right or wrong way to play after all) in this I just have a different take then you.
Anyway, I view this from the opposite direction. My 3.5 players are getting up there in levels and I'm thinking of taking them to Hell where they can do battle with horrible Devils. So I'm flicking through the various monster manuals including the absolutely excellent Fiendish Codex II and I'm getting more and more frustrated. The damn books are absolutely chalk full of all these bloody weak Devils. I can't use them - CR 6 or even 9 is useless to me. My players are far to powerful for that. It'd just waste both our time. Not only am I frustrated that there are actually only a handful of really powerful Devils but I actually have huge story problems now. I mean Hell, according to the really flavourful write ups in Fiendish Codex II, has all these cool places and all these cool devils are doing stuff in, on around and above them. Thing is the vast majority of the Devils can't really be allowed to interact with my players. My players could crush them. I need high CR Devils but there are only a handful and the whole story is breaking down when every fight is against a Maralith 'General of a Legion of Hell' but the legionaries themselves can't be allowed to interfere because their so low CR that they'd just clog up the game. The very existance of all these really weak Devils actually makes my job a lot harder. A few low level ones for players to summon or to act as Fiendish currency are cool and flavourful but most monsters in this local should be stuff that my high level players should be weary of. Its a problem for my adventure design if only 1 in 10,000 Devils are something actually worth me and my players time.
I suspect that the same sorts of issues crop up with the Underdark. If you have all these weak monsters why didn't the get slaughtered by the big nasty monsters long before now? I need some way to explain how the Derro hold their own against the Drow and the Illithids. Furthermore once I'm making adventures about fighting Illithids I don't actually want really wimpy Kuo-Toa clogging up the adventure. Places like the Underdark and Evil Planes make great places to stash lots of really powerful creatures. Most things in the Underdark either cannot or simply prefer not to stay long above ground. Thus its fairly easy to explain why weaker surface races (both monstrous and otherwise) hate and fear the creatures of the Underdark but are not conquered whole sale by the really powerful monstrosities found down there. Plus it makes it easy for me to design my mid level adventure for the area. Its a little odd but if one actually looked at most of the 3.x adventures set in these locales I think you'd find that, while weak Kuo-Toa theoretically existed in reality at the game table they were actually really nasty . Its just that all the ones the players encountered while spelunking in these nether reaches where pumped full of class levels so that they were viable challenges to the players and it was reasonable that they could hold their own against the nasty Driders that (according to the wandering monster table) hunted in the area.
Well I mean obviously the real answer is simple. Nobody ever gets so cool they have 210 hit points. There's drow, and illithids, and derro, but an arrow will take out one as good as another. Wars are fought, and a lot of the warriors are really cool, but it's not like a group of them are so super-awesome they could just take over the whole planet.
But this is D&D and in D&D stuff has levels. Particularly PCs, and you gotta' figure out how that works. Fair enough.
So why not just add levels to the devils and stuff? Like a 14th level Kyton ranger, or a 13th level Hamatula monk? It seems fair in a world where things level up after fighting enough, that you could have some higher than baseline devils amid the usual ruck and run.
I mean, if you're going to accept the level conceit in the first place--why's it gotta' be that with a human you have anywhere from a 0-level dirt farmer, all the way up to epic level guys wielding artifacts and smashing gods over their knees?
Well, as I really like Rass, I'm going to reply him without starting a flame war.
In 4th Edition, each monster is unique. There is no BASE stats. A kobold slinger and a kobold potthead have two distinct different sets of scores.How do you determine its BASE ability scores, its ability score adjustments, what set of skills it can have, how many skills can it be trained in, and most important of all, how do you determine special abilities and how to adjucate those abilities as proper for a specific level?
By base stats, I assume that you mean "racial traits" (for playable monsters) and the base monster statblock (for non-playable monsters)?
Now, I see that you are thinking on 3.5E terms. The point is, on 4E, you don't need the base of stats of a monster in order to customize it.
That said, many monsters have racial traits listed on the MM Appendix, if you want to give them PC classes.
So, can someone please kindly and without starting a flame war with me because of my name and post, explain to me the purpose behind 4th Edition monsters? It seems to be it's HARDER to create the monster you want. How do you determine which ability is a level 4 monster ability or which is suitable for a level 7 or level 13? Why isn't there a huge table of monster abilities or suggestions to use?
I suppose that if some monster is level 7 and has a certain ability, it's a level 7 ability. But I agree with you that a table with a summary of monster abilities would be useful.
Also, why does a monster have to have "class templates"? Why can't I just give it class levels like any other creature?
The purpose of class templates is to make a monster tougher than others of its kind. It's an extraordinary monster that learned special abilities beyond what an typical member usually learns. In other words: it's just like adding class levels to a monster with more than 1 HD on 3.5E. However, it's a more robust system.
On 3.5E, giving wizard or cleric class levels to a 12-HD monster is pretty much pointless. All these 1st or 2nd-level spells would be ineffective against a 12th-level party. Functional and class templates on 4E give a monster abilities apropriate to fight a party of equal level, or augment a monster's natural abilities; something that the 3.5E "classed monster" system was never able to achieve - it only worked when you gave melee-type classes to melee-type monsters.
Why not just replace Artillery 4 on a goblin with Ranger 4? (I know there are quick-stat racial entries in the back of the 4E MM, but that is besides the point, for example, how about a Oni Mage Fighter 10 instead of Level 10 Brute?)
What's the point? On 3.5, you also couldn't replace a 12-HD monster racial hit dice with 12 cleric levels.
And why can't monsters take feats? There's a table of feats in the PHB unlike the lack of monster abilities in 4E entirely, why can't they have access to it?
As explained in the DMG, NPCs (and presumably, monsters too) have superior base hit points, base defense and base attack values to compensate their lack of feats or magic items. This frees the DM from the trouble of selecting feats and magic items for every NPC or monster.
On 4E, feats are mostly passive abilities (while powers are active abilities). They augment attack rolls, damage, defenses and like - something that PCs will hardly perceive when they are fighting a monster. Well, if I want a monster to deal +1 damage, I make the monster deal +1 to damage - I don't need to select a feat that allow the monsters to deal +1 to damage.
This is why I enjoyed 3rd Edition so much. The monsters used the same rules as PCs. Not only did it enhance D&D by making monsters suitable for actual RP and game play, but it made things really easy to determine and set up.
I don't know what is the relationship between "using the same rules as PCs" and "be suitable for actual RP and game play". 1E or 2E PCs didn't have feats, and I don't think players were unable to roleplay their characters until 3E.
I like to see what a monster has at its CORE, and then use other material to add in as I see fit. If I want the monster more formidable, increase HD or add Fighter levels. If I want it to be able to bull rush easier, give it the feats to do so.This is why I enjoyed 3rd Edition so much. The monsters used the same rules as PCs. Not only did it enhance D&D by making monsters suitable for actual RP and game play, but it made things really easy to determine and set up. I
The 3.5E "classed monster" system only works when you give melee-type classes to melee-type monsters, and fails miserably on other situations. The ogre mage can cast cone of cold, become invisible and polymorph at will - then you give him a sorcerer level and he can now, uhmm, cast a 1d4+1 damage magic missile?
And, even if it seems easy... the method extremly time-consuming... On the preparation for the my last session (on 4E), I took me 5 minutes to set up a shadarkai party to fight the PCs (copy and paste the shadarkai from the MM and modify their levels to fight a level 5 party). If I were on 3.5E, how much time I would spent, with only a "shadarkai 1st-level warrior" statblock as reference? Certainly no less than 1 hour.
like to see what a monster has at its CORE, and then use other material to add in as I see fit. If I want the monster more formidable, increase HD or add Fighter levels. If I want it to be able to bull rush easier, give it the feats to do so.
If I want a monster more formidable on 4E, I just modify its level (far easier then adding HD on 3.5E) or add a Fighter class template (far easier than adding class levels on 3.5E). If I want it to be able to bull rush easier, I give him a power that allows him to bull rush his enemies with an attack (and save myself 15 minutes of feat selection).
As an experiment, let's take an illithid.
Give me a 3E illithid that's both an lurker and sneak and great with arcane magic and then give me the same for a 4E illithid. All within the rules now, no homebrew stuff. Use only core books, too.
I already did mine really easily, an Illithid Rogue 4/Sorcerer 10. Done. Now 4E's turn.
I pick the illithid infiltrator from the MM and give it the Wizard class template. If I want him to fight against an entire party alone, I also give him the Devastator or Scion of flame template. Either way, no more than 5 minutes of preparation.
Now tell me, how much time do you need to fully stat your Illithid Rogue 4/Sorcerer 10?
|
The damn books are absolutely chalk full of all these bloody weak Devils. I can't use them - CR 6 or even 9 is useless to me.
The stated design goal of the MMs since the inception of 3rd was that the monsters in the MM represent the weakest of their kind - not necessarily the most common of their kind. Thus every entry has an advancement notation. Increasing HD automatically increases abilities as well. Also, most monsters can take class levels which greatly increase effectiveness.
The damn books are absolutely chalk full of all these bloody weak Devils. I can't use them - CR 6 or even 9 is useless to me.The stated design goal of the MMs since the inception of 3rd was that the monsters in the MM represent the weakest of their kind - not necessarily the most common of their kind. Thus every entry has an advancement notation. Increasing HD automatically increases abilities as well. Also, most monsters can take class levels which greatly increase effectiveness.
The thing is, class levels aren't the answer to all monster customization needs. Monsters are supposed to do things that PCs can't do. Or else, monsters will be boring and predictable as they are no more than PCs with some different stats.
I suppose that when you pit a beholder against your PCs, you want them to feel like they are fighting a beholder. You don't want them to feel like they are fighting a rogue or a cleric who hovers in the air and has some extra hit points.
The 4E MM presents two versions of the carrion crawler: the carrion crawler or the enormous carrion crawler. The "enormous carrion crawler" isn't just a carrion crawler with high stats or with fighter or rogue abilities added on top of its stats. It has extra abilities - not extra class abilities - but extra carrion crawler abilities. It can unleash a wave of paralytic tentacles over all creatures within 15 ft of it - not just make a stronger tentacle attack.
Rass said that you can make a illithid rogue 4/sorcerer 10 on 3.5E. Okay. But how does this characters "feels" like an illithid in combat? Will the PCs feel they are fighting an illithid - or just a sorcerer that ambushes and has some spell resistance?
The "classed monster" is elegant and streamlimed, but isn't flexible at all, and it takes a lot of work. The monster creation method presented on 4E DMG may not be that streamlined, but it allows for endless monster customization - and better, monsters that still feel like monsters.
So why not just add levels to the devils and stuff? Like a 14th level Kyton ranger, or a 13th level Hamatula monk? It seems fair in a world where things level up after fighting enough, that you could have some higher than baseline devils amid the usual ruck and run.
That was what I was thinking of doing but its a heck of a lot of work. My actual solution is to send them to Maure Castle. 4E is partly to blame as I want to wrap up my 3.5 campaign within the next 4 months or so. Plus the very existance of 4E is making the idea of spending dozens (probably close to a hundred) hours statting up Devils with class levels somehow less appealing then it was when I had no other real choice.
That said my real point was that I was finding that a great splat book like Fiendish Codex II made for some fantastic reading but the fluff does not translate on the game table because, in D&D, you have levels and your opposition in any given locale generally needs to be comparable in level.
Thats not to say that I believe that there is no story potential for weak creatures in the underdark. A camp of escaped slaves desperately hiding from the horrible monsters might be really cool or a massive city of 'deep orcs' that hold their own through sheer weight of numbers might make for a good element of the story (though the DM is playing with fire here - recommended only for experienced DMs or ones with very accommodating players). Its just that I want the fluff (when we actually get some - I want my 2nd edition monster binder back!) not to trip me up at the game table after it has gone through all the trouble of getting me all excited about featuring it in my campaign world. I absolutely want great fluff and exciting stories but its also important for it to work, game wise, when I try and translate it into actual play.
So I see your point in terms of authenticity but I feel that what was done with the monsters of the Underdark was done so as to make it easier to create level appropreate stories - because, in D&D, stories essentially come with levels attached. Its probably better for the game to admit that and then try and rationalize it afterword (which does cause quirks, I'll admit to that) then to pretend its not true.
That said your a very experienced DM. You'll have no trouble modifying this to suit your personal needs.