|
One of the things I really loved about 3.0/3.5, was the ability to take any critter and level it and make it a threat at every level. Writing battle interactives for LG and Blackmoor was often about finding a good theme and pushing it "up-scale." This was great fun and also informed my homegame.
For example, in 3.5, I was able to make orcs a serious threat at all levels, because I could always design some very "orcy" NPCs. I am not seeing the same ability in 4.0. In many ways this feels more like old school AD&D in that monsters have a certain relevance at each level, but are not relevant at higher levels. I remember my players meta-gaming like crazy about humanoids and their reletive threat back in the day in AD&D. I anticiapte the same thing in 4.0. Are monsters limited to a certain bandwidth of threat again? Is this fixable?
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Can we make orcs that can challenge at the higher tiers and still have them feel like orcs?
Well, I can think of three relatively easy ways to boost orcs into the paragon and epic tiers. First, you can advance several of the MM orcs into the paragon tier following the DMG guidelines. Second, you can take the NPC stat write-ups in the MM appendix and create NPCs using the rules in the DMG. Finally, you can also create new, higher level versions of the orcs by taking their racial abilities from the MM appendix and combining them with the rules for monster creation from the DMG.
One of the things I really loved about 3.0/3.5, was the ability to take any critter and level it and make it a threat at every level. Writing battle interactives for LG and Blackmoor was often about finding a good theme and pushing it "up-scale." This was great fun and also informed my homegame.
You can do this in 4th Edition, and I would say that its not only easier, but also more reliable.
For example, in 3.5, I was able to make orcs a serious threat at all levels, because I could always design some very "orcy" NPCs. I am not seeing the same ability in 4.0. In many ways this feels more like old school AD&D in that monsters have a certain relevance at each level, but are not relevant at higher levels. I remember my players meta-gaming like crazy about humanoids and their reletive threat back in the day in AD&D. I anticiapte the same thing in 4.0. Are monsters limited to a certain bandwidth of threat again? Is this fixable?
Nope. Rules on making your own monsters as well as upgrading them are in the DMG, and I would say that 4th Edition is more capable of allowing you to use a lower-level monster at higher levels throughout the entirety of the campaign. For example, the article on kobolds has them up to, what, 6th-level now?
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Can we make orcs that can challenge at the higher tiers and still have them feel like orcs?
Just take an orc and check its role (likely brute or skirmisher) and then build a brute, skirmisher, or whatever you want at the level you need. 10? 20? 30th-level? Its extremely easy to do. All you need to do after that is attach the orc abilities to the monster and you're basically done.
Warrior's surge lets them make a melee attack and restores a quarter of their hit points. Easy!I would scale up blood for blood so that it deals more damage, and restores more, probably by 5 and 10 points per tier respectively.
Perhaps the hardest one is the eye of Gruumsh, though ramping up the damage and using the tables in the DMG is a pretty safe and easy bet.
As has been pointed out you might get the most bang for your buck by simply making the high level Orc from scratch. While you can take an Orc and add fighter levels to it like crazy your really going to end up with a fighter that happens to be an Orc. That probably essentially defeats the whole point.
I'd say you try to envision what it means to be an Orc, especially some kind of Orc Warlord or Orc Champion and rebuild the monster with this theme in mind using the rules in the DMG. Make sure your build really engages the essence of what you feel a powerful Orc is in its fluff as well as mechanics.
That's an interesting experiment. One of the things I like most about the 4e monster abilities is they don't feel contrived--but are almost like the mechanical extentions of how the creature should feel in a fight. Applying that to orcs is just fun.
How about this one? You remember in Lord of the Rings when that big uruk-hai Lurtz takes Aragorn's sword and drags his way up it to get to him?
That's just cool--and orcy.
What about an orc who whenever he's successfully attacked, reflexively responds by first wretching away from the character who hit him, disarming him (weapon still sticking out of him) and then makes a grab attack to get the little human geek by the throat and lift him into the air doing continual choke damage until the human escapes the effect. I kinda' like that.
What about an orc who whenever he's successfully attacked, reflexively responds by first wretching away from the character who hit him, disarming him (weapon still sticking out of him) and then makes a grab attack to get the little human geek by the throat and lift him into the air doing continual choke damage until the human escapes the effect. I kinda' like that.
I keep thinking 'illegal face gouging' when thinking of a high level Orc. Sort of fighting dirty with a viscousness one would not expect from a more civilized opponent. I'd have to work out the mechanics of course, but I'd start by looking up Mind Flayer as they have a face attack.
What about an orc who whenever he's successfully attacked, reflexively responds by first wretching away from the character who hit him, disarming him (weapon still sticking out of him) and then makes a grab attack to get the little human geek by the throat and lift him into the air doing continual choke damage until the human escapes the effect. I kinda' like that.
Ferocity
When reduced to 0 points, the orc [whatever] makes a basic attack before dying.Note: This is taken from the minotaur.
[Grimcleaver Maneuver] (immediate reaction; when the orc is first bloodied)
The orc disarms the character and makes a grab attack. If the orc succeeds, the character also takes 5 points of damage each round the orc maintains the grab.
I'd have to work out the mechanics of course, but I'd start by looking up Mind Flayer as they have a face attack.
Wow. Heh. Brain-eating orcs! You really do play for keeps!
...okay I really do know what you meant.
...but the orc grabbing a guy and then eating his brain out if he doesn't get away is still pretty fun.
I'd have to work out the mechanics of course, but I'd start by looking up Mind Flayer as they have a face attack.Wow. Heh. Brain-eating orcs! You really do play for keeps!
...okay I really do know what you meant.
...but the orc grabbing a guy and then eating his brain out if he doesn't get away is still pretty fun.
What about a half-illithid zombie orc?
SNIP
Awesome post!
I had just falled back into just picking similar mobs of the MM adn re asigning powers. But recently I have delved into the Monster creation and it's actually easy and fun.
1 more point for lazy GMs ( or GMs with no much free time, I inclume myself in both camps)
Ferocity
When reduced to 0 points, the orc [whatever] makes a basic attack before dying.
Note: This is taken from the minotaur.[Grimcleaver Maneuver] (immediate reaction; when the orc is first bloodied)
The orc disarms the character and makes a grab attack. If the orc succeeds, the character also takes 5 points of damage each round the orc maintains the grab.
Consider this joinked!.
(Heh..the Grimcleaver maneuver will strike fear into my pcs!)
Would you consider to add a 'save ends' to the maneuver, meaning that the character finally could escape from the orc's death grip?
Ferocity
When reduced to 0 points, the orc [whatever] makes a basic attack before dying.
Note: This is taken from the minotaur.[Grimcleaver Maneuver] (immediate reaction; when the orc is first bloodied)
The orc disarms the character and makes a grab attack. If the orc succeeds, the character also takes 5 points of damage each round the orc maintains the grab.Consider this joinked!.
(Heh..the Grimcleaver maneuver will strike fear into my pcs!)
Would you consider to add a 'save ends' to the maneuver, meaning that the character finally could escape from the orc's death grip?
Its not really needed. The rules for escaping a grab cover that.
|
|
@#$%!
Just when I think I am getting it.
I just tried to zero sum build the Orc Raider in preparation for building my orc javelin tossing machine and my orc archer.
Help me see what I am missing.
Skirmisher's defenses from the MM:
AC 17; Fortitude 15, Reflex 14, Will 12
Stats from the same source:
Str 17 (+4) Dex 15 (+3) Wis 10 (+1)
Con 14 (+3) Int 8 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)
The DMG says a skirmisher's defenses should be should be: AC at level +14 and other defenses at level +12 with "For every 2 points the ability score varies from the average,
adjust the defense by +1 (if higher) or –1 (if lower)."
Let's look at AC:
Following the MM, AC should be AC 17. I get this also using the DMG calculation. However, the stat block says the orc wears leather armor. Do we ignore this when building the AC? Is it just flavor?
Let's look at the other defenses.
MM says the Fortitude defense is 15. Hoever, the DMG tells me to build it as 17. Why level 3 + base of 12 + 2 as a 14 con is 4 points higher than the average of 10.
MM says Reflex efense is 14. DMG says it should be 17 for the same reasons Fortitude is 17.
Has anyone else done work like this? Is this just a problem with the stat blokc or is there something else going on here I am not seeing. Have I blown a skill check?
I am having similar problems with calculating to hit bonuses for powers by the way.
|
@#$%!
Just when I think I am getting it.
I just tried to zero sum build the Orc Raider in preparation for building my orc javelin tossing machine and my orc archer.
Help me see what I am missing.
Skirmisher's defenses from the MM:
AC 17; Fortitude 15, Reflex 14, Will 12
Stats from the same source:
Str 17 (+4) Dex 15 (+3) Wis 10 (+1)
Con 14 (+3) Int 8 (+0) Cha 9 (+0)The DMG says a skirmisher's defenses should be should be: AC at level +14 and other defenses at level +12 with "For every 2 points the ability score varies from the average,
adjust the defense by +1 (if higher) or –1 (if lower)."Let's look at AC:
Following the MM, AC should be AC 17. I get this also using the DMG calculation. However, the stat block says the orc wears leather armor. Do we ignore this when building the AC? Is it just flavor?Let's look at the other defenses.
MM says the Fortitude defense is 15. Hoever, the DMG tells me to build it as 17. Why level 3 + base of 12 + 2 as a 14 con is 4 points higher than the average of 10.MM says Reflex efense is 14. DMG says it should be 17 for the same reasons Fortitude is 17.
Has anyone else done work like this? Is this just a problem with the stat blokc or is there something else going on here I am not seeing. Have I blown a skill check?
I am having similar problems with calculating to hit bonuses for powers by the way.
I have also noticed that the numbers don't always jive. I can only assume the designers made certain changes because they knew what they were doing. So, they removed some points from defense x and y to give creaure power z. Or something like that.
I haven't done an in-depth analysis to see if I am right but it does seem that creatures with lower numbers than what the DMG tells me they should have gain at least one more power (or a more effective power) than what the book suggests.
Either that or I totally missed something as well.
Most of the monsters in the MM break the guidelines in the DMG in some fashion (and they are explicitly guidelines), so feel free to tweak your monsters in whatever fashion you wish. Personally, I've found that as long as you don't deviate from the target numbers too much, you won't create a totally unbalanced monster.
The since damage and AC are divorced from a monster's equipment, the adition of weapons is kind of cosmetic. However, if you upgrade the equipment, this kind of information can be important (see DMG pg 174).
|
|
Most of the monsters in the MM break the guidelines in the DMG in some fashion (and they are explicitly guidelines), so feel free to tweak your monsters in whatever fashion you wish. Personally, I've found that as long as you don't deviate from the target numbers too much, you won't create a totally unbalanced monster.
The since damage and AC are divorced from a monster's equipment, the adition of weapons is kind of cosmetic. However, if you upgrade the equipment, this kind of information can be important (see DMG pg 174).
Building was such a regimented process in 3.0/3.5 by comparison. I can thumbnail anything into approximate shape, and it seems like design rules are more design guidelines.
I have zero problem with that for a homegame. When you are justifying designs in a Living Campaign things can get ickier.
Most of the monsters in the MM break the guidelines in the DMG in some fashion (and they are explicitly guidelines), so feel free to tweak your monsters in whatever fashion you wish. Personally, I've found that as long as you don't deviate from the target numbers too much, you won't create a totally unbalanced monster.
The since damage and AC are divorced from a monster's equipment, the adition of weapons is kind of cosmetic. However, if you upgrade the equipment, this kind of information can be important (see DMG pg 174).
Building was such a regimented process in 3.0/3.5 by comparison. I can thumbnail anything into approximate shape, and it seems like design rules are more design guidelines.
I have zero problem with that for a homegame. When you are justifying designs in a Living Campaign things can get ickier.
I'm interested in how the RPGA will handle new monsters and NPCs in their organized play adventures. I'm assuming they need to be vetted by someone.
From my understanding, the rules in the DMG are merely guidelines. Though I have generally followed them pretty darn closely (if not to the letter), I myself have "broken" them from time to time when I felt that a monster should have a slightly higher Defense, attack bonus, or damage output.