Here is a link to this month's Design and Development, where the designers are talking about some thoughts on the direction of 4E monster design.
I thought it was a pretty good article myself. I definitely think 4E's monster design is a good improvement.
Does anyone else like the new Recharge mechanic introduced in 4E?
Discuss! :)
|
Does anyone else like the new Recharge mechanic introduced in 4E?Discuss! :)
Meh. I would rather see it go. It's like the old breath weapon mechanic where you roll a d4 and to see if the dragon's breath is back. I liked the old "3 times per day" a little better. A think a better approach would be for recharge to be set numbers.
A solo brute will last maybe 10 rounds ( of equal level). so a 4,5,6 recharge is basically 50% of 10 rounds...meaning on average the solo brute will be able to a power 5 times...so just say "5 per encounter" and be done with it. If the encounter goes longer, the creature runs out which is good since unlimited powers over many rounds favor the monsters. if the battle is short, good again, the party killed it before it could use up all of its power attempts.
This does mean that some DMs might "stack" certain powers all in the opening rounds...but I think 4E is much more tactical and that may be less frequent than first blush might suggest.
Despite saying that, I actually don't care enough about recharge to re-write monsters, or to figure out set numbers, etc. It works. SO crack open a homebrew and let's roll some dice.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I do indeed like the new recharge mechanic.
A note, though: Peter: Technically, there's a 25% chance it recharges the first round, a 33% chance the second round, a 50% chance the next round, and a 100% chance the last round. It averages out to a 40% chance each round, which isn't the same thing. I'm picking nits, but getting the math right is my job.
Well, "technically" there's a 25% chance of the first round, and then a 33% chance on the second round, premised on the condition that it didn't already recharge, and so on. Averaging those four numbers and getting "40%" really doesn't make much sense, because they're not the same kind of probabilities.
Changing the conditional recharge to a flat 40% changes the recharge model to something called a Poisson Distribution. (This is also the model for real-world things like the lifespan of a light bulb.)
That's fine, and I do indeed like the ease and intuitive feel of the mechanic. But this interview doesn't convince me that the developers understand what the math is doing.
A straight 40% recharge on a dragon's breathing ability makes it more likely that the dragon will get several shots off in a 4-round combat. (It also makes it more likely that a dragon will only be able to breathe once in a very long fight.)
For what it's worth, I don't like the term "recharge". It sounds modern and, forgive my saying, video-gamey. Electrical things hold a charge. Iron Man's armor recharges. The Black Seers of Yimsha shouldn't "recharge". Neither should unicorns.
(Yes, I know. I'm also probably the only person on Earth who doesn't like the Third Edition use of the word Feat to mean "Talent".)
I think they know what they're talking about, but perhaps don't state it the best. I'm not top notch with statistics and even I noticed that a straight 40% means it is more likely to get the recharge right away, but not assured to ever get it again as soon as I read it. :)
Do you have any suggestions on what you'd rather call it besides Recharge? I'm trying to think of one but I'm drawing a blank ...
I'm torn a little. I *like* the streamlined monster design, however, I find a lot of fault with the logic WotC used to come up with it. Third Edition's monster design was not at all easy, but it did work. It did need to be streamlined and 4th did that wonderfully.
However, the baseline assumptions and sacrifices they made still concern me. When you read a designer say something like:
Rob: "Aberrations were supposed to have aberration HD. Devils carried a variety of formatting instructions derived from their status as Lawful Evil outsiders, as well as a raft of standard devil abilities. Unfortunately none of these standardizations actually helped DMs design better encounters."
Of course they didn't. What those sorts of things were designed to was create an internal consistency in the world and at that they did. Monster design and encounter design are not the same thing at all.
And, we lose a lot of flexbility with 4E monsters by design. As both of them point out, and as WotC said often leading into 4E launch, monster powers were trimmed to focus "on the small number of abilities that really mattered for a monster."
But, by doing this, you are deciding for *every game* what abilities are important. But, if my game has a different style then yours does - and from the talks on this board, many games are very different from WotCs own internal ones - then you may remove the monster from use for me.
I wish most monsters had gotten the simple treatment while some - the normal heavy hitters - had gotten detailed workovers that made them feel epic, cause right now, they don't feel that way to me. They feel like a tougher ogre.
So, overall, what I'm saying is I like the end result, but the logic that got use there is troubling.
Interesting article. Should have come out months ago prior to the release.
Interesting article. Should have come out months ago prior to the release.
Posters at ENWorld reflected that similar comments are available in the preview book World and Monsters, but never having read it, I can't vouche for that claim.
Cheers! :)
Interesting article. Should have come out months ago prior to the release.Posters at ENWorld reflected that similar comments are available in the preview book World and Monsters, but never having read it, I can't vouche for that claim.
Cheers! :)
Yup, but those comments are worth more as they cost money ^_^
Yup, but those comments are worth more as they cost money ^_^
We get the abridged version for free. ;)
Interesting article. Should have come out months ago prior to the release.
They must have more or less done this as nothing in this article is new to me really. Hence I heard their design philosophy at some point previously.
I'm torn a little. I *like* the streamlined monster design, however, I find a lot of fault with the logic WotC used to come up with it. Third Edition's monster design was not at all easy, but it did work. It did need to be streamlined and 4th did that wonderfully.
However, the baseline assumptions and sacrifices they made still concern me. When you read a designer say something like:
Rob: "Aberrations were supposed to have aberration HD. Devils carried a variety of formatting instructions derived from their status as Lawful Evil outsiders, as well as a raft of standard devil abilities. Unfortunately none of these standardizations actually helped DMs design better encounters."
Of course they didn't. What those sorts of things were designed to was create an internal consistency in the world and at that they did. Monster design and encounter design are not the same thing at all.
And, we lose a lot of flexbility with 4E monsters by design. As both of them point out, and as WotC said often leading into 4E launch, monster powers were trimmed to focus "on the small number of abilities that really mattered for a monster."
But, by doing this, you are deciding for *every game* what abilities are important. But, if my game has a different style then yours does - and from the talks on this board, many games are very different from WotCs own internal ones - then you may remove the monster from use for me.
I wish most monsters had gotten the simple treatment while some - the normal heavy hitters - had gotten detailed workovers that made them feel epic, cause right now, they don't feel that way to me. They feel like a tougher ogre.
So, overall, what I'm saying is I like the end result, but the logic that got use there is troubling.
I know what you mean and I share some of the same concerns. While they don't come out and say 'all monsters have 3 powers' outright they do seem to be leaning on that idea a little heavily. Maybe more then is warranted.
I'd argue that we don't want to make something as diverse as aberrations all fit into any kind of specific formula but on the other hand Bugbears should be Bugbears. I think they may have taken the idea that there is no such thing, really, as type a little to far. Thus I somewhat agree with you in terms of internal consistency
I'm also concerned that the heavy hitters may be stripped a little thin. This is especially concerning as big solo's can last 9 or 10 rounds. They need more then 3 interesting abilities or the combat begins to go stale. That said I'm not sure they need more then say 5 abilities.
There is definitely a back story 'gap' in the sense that the monsters no longer explain how it is they do some of the things they do.
So Illithids still take over the minds of minions and control them for, effectively, ever? I'd think they do but they can't really do that at the table. This is the kind of problem that can be gotten around with by the use of more fluff text. As a DM I'm willing to hand wave most of the details of how they dominated creature X to be their slave but I definitely need fluff to tell me that they do this sort of thing. The stripped down fluff text for most creatures makes my job some what more difficult. 2nd edition had monster design by fiat as does 4E, but 2nd edition had wonderfully long and detailed fluff pieces on all the monsters.
Now I can get around this because I can invent my own fluff for my own home brew but I'd have liked some more help here. Monsters by fiat can be dangerous if the monsters don't feel like they really belong anywhere and instead just exist to hang out until adventures come along and kill them. I'll get past that and give personality to my nasty critters but I can't say the core 4E MM is going out of its way to help me much in this regard.
One aspect of this that will be interesting to see is to watch how this evolves. Given time and feedback the monsters will likely morph and change a bit in future monster manuals to better reflect what we really need for our games.
A note, though: Peter: Technically, there's a 25% chance it recharges the first round, a 33% chance the second round, a 50% chance the next round, and a 100% chance the last round. It averages out to a 40% chance each round, which isn't the same thing. I'm picking nits, but getting the math right is my job.
I'm missing how the math goes to get that, could you provide the formula? It seems to me like a 4,5,6 on a d6 should be 50% the first round, 75% by the second, 87.5% by the third, and so on. But, of course, never reaching 100% since there's always the minute possibility of rolling 1, 2, or 3 over and over. (Or is there some addition on that roll that I'm not aware of... I haven't delved very deeply into the 4e books.)
A note, though: Peter: Technically, there's a 25% chance it recharges the first round, a 33% chance the second round, a 50% chance the next round, and a 100% chance the last round. It averages out to a 40% chance each round, which isn't the same thing. I'm picking nits, but getting the math right is my job.I'm missing how the math goes to get that, could you provide the formula? It seems to me like a 4,5,6 on a d6 should be 50% the first round, 75% by the second, 87.5% by the third, and so on. But, of course, never reaching 100% since there's always the minute possibility of rolling 1, 2, or 3 over and over. (Or is there some addition on that roll that I'm not aware of... I haven't delved very deeply into the 4e books.)
The part your quoting and the stats you give don't seem to be referring to the same thing at all.
I'm missing how the math goes to get that, could you provide the formula?
He's referring to the cumulative change it recharges each round using the 3.x breath weapon mechanic: rolling a d4.
On the first round, the breath weapon is recharged if you roll a 1 on the d4 and not recharged if you roll a 2, 3 or 4, so it's a 1 in 4 chance. On the second round, we know that you didn't roll a 1. The breath weapon is recharged if you rolled a 2 and not recharged if you rolled a 3 or 4, so it's a 1-in-3 chance, 33%. Similarly, you get a 50% chance on the third round and 100% on the fourth.
Technically, this doesn't account in the later rounds for a dragon that rolled well early and then could be recharging a second time, but it's close enough.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
On the one hand, I think the 3 abilities that only show up in combat is a nice, practical decision. I can really applaud it.
But on the other hand, I love Paizo's monsters. A lot. They are pure awesome, some of the coolest monsters designed for 3e. Why are they so cool? Because they are absolutely full of these flavorful, interesting, colorful abilities. Sure, the abilities may not show up in every encounter with the creature, or even the vast majority of encounters with the creature, but they do such a good job of telling you what the creature is and how it functions that I don't really care. Plus, you can use them to foreshadow the creature by showing the after-effects of these abilities on the creature's environment/victims.
4e really makes use-in-play the ultimate end-goal of the products made by WotC. I think that is a good goal, but there is something to be said about achieving use-in-play through less direct methods. All of the goblin dog's abilities may not be used in combat, but my knowledge of those abilities helps me describe the creature and determine how it acts.
Not really a complaint, more of an observation. I think that a potential niche for a third party publisher who is willing to sign the GSL (god rest their soul) would be to use the 4e play-value paradigm, but buff it out just a little more than WotC is currently doing. Move beyond the plain vanilla presentation of "this is a stat block, it's all you need" and back into the more 3e-ish presentation. Yeah, you won't fit 500 monsters in a 250 page book, but you'll get out some flavorful, interesting monsters (or magic items, or powers) that are cool to read and show that the limited format of the 4e MM is a function of the goals of WotC (get out as many monsters as possible and make them as easy to use as possible) rather than the system itself.
|
He's referring to the cumulative change it recharges each round using the 3.x breath weapon mechanic: rolling a d4.
On the first round, the breath weapon is recharged if you roll a 1 on the d4 and not recharged if you roll a 2, 3 or 4, so it's a 1 in 4 chance. On the second round, we know that you didn't roll a 1. The breath weapon is recharged if you rolled a 2 and not recharged if you rolled a 3 or 4, so it's a 1-in-3 chance, 33%. Similarly, you get a 50% chance on the third round and 100% on the fourth.
Technically, this doesn't account in the later rounds for a dragon that rolled well early and then could be recharging a second time, but it's close enough.
Not to divert, but . . .
That is not how you check for a dragon's breath recharging in 3.5.
You roll 1d4 once, and that is how many rounds before the dragon can breathe again. You do not roll and try to get a 1, then roll again and try to get a 1 or 2, etc.
That means there is simply a straight 25% chance that it will recharge any particular round, with a cumulative chance that it has recharged by a particular round.
Switching to a recharge roll every round so you do not have to keep track of time gives you the same infinite regression of potential that you have with 4E saving throws to determine duration. A recharging power could recharge every round, or it could never recharge for 100 rounds during a combat. Probability distribution may give a reference to when it should likely happen, but gambler's fallacy will always keep the specific chance the same every round, no matter what.
As for the rest of the article, given that 4E has a design process and tables to tell you exactly what ability scores, hit points, armor class, defenses, attack bonus, and damage a monster will do by level and role, I find it rather absurd that they complain about 3.5 had so many tables you had to refer to.
What is worse is that while 3.5 required you to make an effort to select skills and feats, 4E throws you completely out on your own to scour the Monster Manual for some power effect that you want to imitate, leaving it to the DM to decide how to modify such a power for his new monster.
Between the two, each process is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Mechanically monster design is almost identical in terms of how much calculation you have to do. The same shortcuts could, and have been, set up for 3.5, yet for some reason they are excessively onerous when done with 3.5.
Yeah.
Right.
I'm missing how the math goes to get that, could you provide the formula?He's referring to the cumulative change it recharges each round using the 3.x breath weapon mechanic: rolling a d4.
Ah, ok. No wonder it seemed so wonky--I thought it was in reference to the poster above the one I quoted that was talking about the 4e recharge system.
What is worse is that while 3.5 required you to make an effort to select skills and feats, 4E throws you completely out on your own to scour the Monster Manual for some power effect that you want to imitate, leaving it to the DM to decide how to modify such a power for his new monster.
Every monster I've ever made for 3.5 involved having to come up with abilities, either super natural, spell like or exceptional.
Now I could, I suppose, make a fey bruiser that did nothing but slam attacks and had no other abilities. However , with so many bruisers already available, I've never found the need. Instead the usual use for a new monster, at my table anyway, is for a creature that does something or fits some kind of a niche thats not already been covered and this invariably means it has some kind of special abilities. Most special abilities involve scouring the rules to find out how, mechanically, those abilities have been handled in the past or writing up a super natural or exceptional ability from scratch.
In other words 3.5 also throws you out to scour the game books to find out how abilities similar to this one have been handled by the rules in the past.
Not to divert, but . . .
That is not how you check for a dragon's breath recharging in 3.5.
You roll 1d4 once, and that is how many rounds before the dragon can breathe again. You do not roll and try to get a 1, then roll again and try to get a 1 or 2, etc.
That means there is simply a straight 25% chance that it will recharge any particular round, with a cumulative chance that it has recharged by a particular round.
Yes, of course. I was giving the cumulative odds. Maybe I didn't explain it well.
|
|
Do you have any suggestions on what you'd rather call it besides Recharge? I'm trying to think of one but I'm drawing a blank ...The power returns. Renews. Refreshes. Rekindles. Reinstates.
Renews and Rekindles both sound kinda cool.
Refresh is pretty vanilla.
Reinstates is right out! :)
The time between could be called an interval or span, perhaps.
|
|
I really love making monsters in 3.5. You all may have noticed given my numerous critter posts that this is my own little source of geekly elation.
Granted, making battle interactives that cover all 20 levels of play, really helps you build out those skills sets. 3.5 monsters could be horribly complex. I have built my share of 3 page stat blocks. However, the rules were fully developed and arcane, but complete.
4.0 really needs to build out its monster design rules. There is clearly more art than science in the process. Most of the monsters in the Monster Manual cannot be recreated throughs strict adherance to the rules presented in the DMG.
I have made some good stuff and had a fun time running fast and loose within the guidelines, but I don't know how organized play is going to handle this. The current bandwidth of creatures is truncated compared to 3.5 coming right out of the gate, as encounters with "leveled NPCs" become showcase as opposed to standard encounters.
The available pool of bad guys reminds me of the pool of bad guys available in the old Basic/Expert Etc. lines. It is sufficient but limited.
I am really hope the spectrum of options is built out and would be quite pleased to see more fluff. I really miss the 2nd ed. monster entries in that Monster Manual.
Anyhow, my $.02
|
|
I am really hope the spectrum of options is built out and would be quite pleased to see more fluff. I really miss the 2nd ed. monster entries in that Monster Manual.
I think that will definitely happen. Third party publishers will surely beef up critter depth and diversity. Heck, WotC has already done a bit of this with the articles on kobolds and goblins.
|
|
Yes, of course. I was giving the cumulative odds. Maybe I didn't explain it well.
I do not think it is your explanation, I think it is just the whole concept of looking at it as such a cumulative chance.
The die roll is not a blind chance repeated each turn. You do not roll it and then have to wait for it to be revealed to the DM. The DM rolls the die. He knows, with absolute certainty, whether there is a 0% chance or a 100% chance that the breath weapon recharges on each specific round, and indeed whether the chance is irrelevant for a particular round because the breath weapon has already recharged.
Those probabilities are only relevant from a player's perspective when the DM does not reveal the recharge roll. To a player, not knowing what was rolled, he must estimate that yes, there is a 1-in-4 chance that the die produced a recharge on the first round, a 1-in-3 chance of the remaining options on the second round, and so forth.
So yes, to a player, there is a perceived 40% averaged chance that the dragon will be able to breathe again each round. To me, that is a thoroughly bizarre perspective to use as the basis for a game system. Why not have a die roll to determine when PCs level?
"I perceive, from an external viewpoint with no foresight as to the specific contents of each encounter, a 40% chance of leveling each encounter after the third. Therefore I shall a d6, and on a 5 or 6 after each such encounter I gain a new level. That way I no longer have to track experience."
(Cue channeling Mark Twain.)
|
|
In other words 3.5 also throws you out to scour the game books to find out how abilities similar to this one have been handled by the rules in the past.
So then what is the big improvement with 4E?
Superior hype?"Making monsters like PCs is no good. By using an equally complex system that produces creatures not like PCs, even the ones without character levels, we have made it more fun!"
Unfortunately, I keep failing to recharge my "Accept All Hype" power, so I am immune to their ad copy.
|
|
In other words 3.5 also throws you out to scour the game books to find out how abilities similar to this one have been handled by the rules in the past.So then what is the big improvement with 4E?
Superior hype?
"Making monsters like PCs is no good. By using an equally complex system that produces creatures not like PCs, even the ones without character levels, we have made it more fun!"
Unfortunately, I keep failing to recharge my "Accept All Hype" power, so I am immune to their ad copy.
. Did have a bit of spin to it, I agree. Sort of; This is our design philosophy, and it is new, so it is the best ever! Cue trumpets.
Different, not better. I see 3.5 and 4.+ as competing for market share moving forward.
|
|
In other words 3.5 also throws you out to scour the game books to find out how abilities similar to this one have been handled by the rules in the past.So then what is the big improvement with 4E?
It no longer matters if some other power or ability does what you want yours to do. You simply make the critter the way you want. The DMG gives some play balance guidelines and that's all you need.
Really? I find designing for intent much more liberating than designing for type. A Fey Brute, for example, is now doable, something that wasn't workable in 3E.
Plus, while there are tables to consult, there is much less arthimetic to do, calculations to pursue, and feats/skills/spell choices to make. Sure you might have to look around to find a power that does something similar to what you want, but in 3E you have feat slots to fill, skill points to add, size increases to factor in, and after all that you STILL have to look around to find a power that does something similar to what you want. The process seems faster and much more simplified for me.
I do wonder how it'll work for organized play though, since it does seem to be a more fast and loose system than 3E's heavily codified ruleset. Of course, I don't play a lot of organized play so my wonder if mostly academic.
Cheers! :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In that, it's a throw-back to earlier editions.
"I want a dog that explodes when stuck, doing 16d6 of blunt-force damage to adjacent creatures, with the damage decreasing by half with every square of distance." Done.
"Also, every magical liquid it touches turns to ingested poison, DC 18." And done.
Just estimate a new CR for the critter, and go.
In that, it's a throw-back to earlier editions.
"I want a dog that explodes when stuck, doing 16d6 of blunt-force damage to adjacent creatures, with the damage decreasing by half with every square of distance." Done.
"Also, every magical liquid it touches turns to ingested poison, DC 18." And done.
Just estimate a new CR for the critter, and go.
How'd you know about Fallout Dog! :O!
|
|
It no longer matters if some other power or ability does what you want yours to do. You simply make the critter the way you want. The DMG gives some play balance guidelines and that's all you need.
You could do that in 3.5 quite easily. There are many monster abilities that duplicate feats or powers without saying they do.
And if anything, using existing mechanics means not having to reinvent the wheel every time you want to do something.
You could do that in 3.5 quite easily. There are many monster abilities that duplicate feats or powers without saying they do.
And if anything, using existing mechanics means not having to reinvent the wheel every time you want to do something.
Technically, if you don't adhere to the rules, you can do ANYTHING in any edition of any game. By the rules of 3E's monster design though, you can't really just make any critter you want. There are some hard defined processes you have to follow, and once you stop following them, you're not really using 3E's monster design ruleset anymore.
|
|
It no longer matters if some other power or ability does what you want yours to do. You simply make the critter the way you want. The DMG gives some play balance guidelines and that's all you need.You could do that in 3.5 quite easily. There are many monster abilities that duplicate feats or powers without saying they do.
And if anything, using existing mechanics means not having to reinvent the wheel every time you want to do something.
If 3e were as free form as you suggest then why are there such rigid rules for adding levels to critters, adding classes to critters, etc., etc.?
The free form exception based design in 4e is not about re-invention, rather it is about improvisation. I can take a critter and riff on it or I can take a concept and quickly frame it out.
Don't get me wrong - the 3e methods are great at creating consistent detailed critters. For some GMs that is the only way they can deal with the game. I have a hard time with the methodical nature of 3e and prefer the free form, exception based nature of 4e. It suits my style as a GM - but that is not a style that fits everyone.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Do we really need to have yet another 3e/4e back and forth like this? I don't see much merit in Sam's arguments, but I see even less merit in going back and forth on them. He's not going to suddenly change his mind, and I doubt anyone who likes 4e will change their minds either. You're not going to objectively prove that 4e monster design and development is "better" or "eaiser" than 3e monster design and development, the most you can say is why you do/don't like it better. Let him think what he is going to think, you're not going to convert him or be proven right, you're just going to take yet another thread down the well traveled path of the edition war.
Do we really need to have yet another 3e/4e back and forth like this? I don't see much merit in Sam's arguments, but I see even less merit in going back and forth on them. He's not going to suddenly change his mind, and I doubt anyone who likes 4e will change their minds either. You're not going to objectively prove that 4e monster design and development is "better" or "eaiser" than 3e monster design and development, the most you can say is why you do/don't like it better. Let him think what he is going to think, you're not going to convert him or be proven right, you're just going to take yet another thread down the well traveled path of the edition war.
Who are you and where have you taken our Sebastian? ;)
|
|
Do we really need to have yet another 3e/4e back and forth like this? I don't see much merit in Sam's arguments, but I see even less merit in going back and forth on them. He's not going to suddenly change his mind, and I doubt anyone who likes 4e will change their minds either. You're not going to objectively prove that 4e monster design and development is "better" or "eaiser" than 3e monster design and development, the most you can say is why you do/don't like it better. Let him think what he is going to think, you're not going to convert him or be proven right, you're just going to take yet another thread down the well traveled path of the edition war.Who are you and where have you taken our Sebastian? ;)
Yeah! { looks around for a pod }
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect, Sebastian, I still feel I'm getting something worthwhile out of this thread.
Let me ask folks: let's say you do add "explosion" or "turns potions to poison" or some-such exceptional ability to a creature in 4th Edition. How do you then evaluate its CR?
And, if you whip up a Midas-like criter with a turn-to-gold touch, how much value would you place in looking up the particular mechanics for a similar ability, like a cockatrice's petrification touch, and deliberately trying to mirror those mechanics?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What can I say? I find the topic of the Dragon article interesting and would like to discuss it. If all we end up doing is debating whether or not 4e monster design is really "easier" with people that have already rejected 4e in its entirety, any discussion of the article will quickly be drowned out.
|
|
What can I say? I find the topic of the Dragon article interesting and would like to discuss it. If all we end up doing is debating whether or not 4e monster design is really "easier" with people that have already rejected 4e in its entirety, any discussion of the article will quickly be drowned out.
You are right.
The "we are the best thing ever" tone always kicks in my edition tourette's syndroome.
It's nice to see how they conceptualize things. The design philosophy is very practical. It operates form teh eprspective of how can we give the Dm simple and effecive tools to sue to speed play.
It did affirm something I have been saying consistently though. That is, that 4.0 is a direct intellectual descendant of D&D miniatures.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
With respect, Sebastian, I still feel I'm getting something worthwhile out of this thread.
Chris, it's largely been a good discussion, I just want to see it stay that way. Going back and forth with Sam is just going to dredge up an edition war. We can compare and contrast the various editions' monster creation tools without having to determine which is objectively "easier" or "better". Most posts on this thread are doing just that.
Let me ask folks: let's say you do add "explosion" or "turns potions to poison" or some-such exceptional ability to a creature in 4th Edition. How do you then evaluate its CR?
As a first cut, you'd use that chart on page 42 for the damage. Also, the design process starts with the CR rather than ends with it, so you should tailor the abilities to be for the CR rather than have the CR derive from the abilities. That would handle the explosion example.
The ability to turn potions to poisons is odd and I don't think there's a good tool to determine how that should be handled. There aren't all that many potions to begin with in 4e. That being said, I think you've touched upon a non-combat ability (unless you mean that the creature actively attacks party items, like a rust monster, in which case I'd dig up Mearls' article about fixing the 3e rust monster which came out right before 4e for some thoughts on how to handle attacks that target PC equipment rather than PC hp).
This sorta dovetails into the point I was trying to make earlier, which is that I'd like to see more non-combat abilities for monsters, and I think the potion to poison one is such an ability.
And, if you whip up a Midas-like criter with a turn-to-gold touch, how much value would you place in looking up the particular mechanics for a similar ability, like a cockatrice's petrification touch, and deliberately trying to mirror those mechanics?
Yeah, that's how I would handle it. I'd use the cocatrice or the medusa as the lowest level where that ability should appear and then use the monster building rules to set the DC and other stats depending on what you want the level of the monster to be.
|
|
What can I say? I find the topic of the Dragon article interesting and would like to discuss it. If all we end up doing is debating whether or not 4e monster design is really "easier" with people that have already rejected 4e in its entirety, any discussion of the article will quickly be drowned out.
That's true. I run into Sam from time to time in RL and he is a very likable, smart, and all around nice guy. I guess I just figured that I was not being as contentious as I was since that is how I would express myself face-to-face. I'll keep it toned down. I am getting tired of the whole edition war and would really love to get on with playing the games I love.
It did affirm something I have been saying consistently though. That is, that 4.0 is a direct intellectual descendant of D&D miniatures.
I'll grant you monster design borrows pretty heavily from DnD Minis, but I don't think 4E as a whole is a direct descendant.
Sebastian has some good points on how to incorporate a petrification attack into a new monster would work (turned to gold, turned to stone, does the inanimate material you're made of really matter?)
In 4E though, you should start with a concept of what you want your new monster to do. Meaning, you should come to the table with a level in mind, as well as a role in combat (including both his rating on the Minion-Solo scale and his combat tactics). From there you can build out the numbers that run his abilities.
Cheers! :)
|
|
It did affirm something I have been saying consistently though. That is, that 4.0 is a direct intellectual descendant of D&D miniatures.
I'll grant you monster design borrows pretty heavily from DnD Minis, but I don't think 4E as a whole is a direct descendant.
Cheers! :)
Well it is not cut whole clothe. It's not descendant ike real genetics works. Bear with me, i think this metaphor may be wobbly and fall over. Help me with it if you can.
We have 3.5. We have D&D minis. They spawn. Way back in their DNA is the regressive gene of Red Box D&D.
4.0 is the love child of D&D minis and 3.5, with the design philosophy old red box D&D emerging as the dominant trait. D&D minis is the baby momma of 4.0...
:-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well it is not cut whole clothe. It's not descendant ike real genetics works. Bear with me, i think this metaphor may be wobbly and fall over. Help me with it if you can.
We have 3.5. We have D&D minis. They spawn. Way back in their DNA is the regressive gene of Red Box D&D.
4.0 is the love child of D&D minis and 3.5, with the design philosophy old red box D&D emerging as the dominant trait. D&D minis is the baby momma of 4.0...
:-)
I think that's pretty accurate. The miniatures game was designed to handle fast and relatively simple combat and be fun without the roleplaying elements that are part of the rpg. Similarly, the 4e combat system is meant to be a fast, simple, and fun system by itself. This design goal is what lead to the increase in the number of monsters in an encounter, the stripped down stat blocks that leave out non-combat abilities, and a greater focus on positioning.
However, unlike the minatures game, there is still an rpg back-end for noncombat encounters and a nice set of tools for building the stories that go into that rpg back-end. I think that the reason the minature game comparison tends to raise hackles is because it's easy to see that comparison as ignoring those non-combat aspects.
|
|
However, unlike the minatures game, there is still an rpg back-end for noncombat encounters and a nice set of tools for building the stories that go into that rpg back-end.
Hmmm. This makes sense. When WotC designs a critter it can be used for both games without much fuss. Additionally any electronic game can also pull from the same stock.
Essentially critters are now transportable object that can be reused without too much rework.
I like it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As a first cut, you'd use that chart on page 42 for the damage. Also, the design process starts with the CR rather than ends with it, so you should tailor the abilities to be for the CR rather than have the CR derive from the abilities.
Thanks. That was a helpful insight. That makes the design process more consistent with my characature of 4th Edition.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Sebastian has some good points on how to incorporate a petrification attack into a new monster would work (turned to gold, turned to stone, does the inanimate material you're made of really matter?)
It matters a lot to the survivors. If my fellow PC were turned to stone, I'd likely spring the gold to have him restored. If he were turned to solid gold, I'd probably melt him down and buy some very expensive magic items!