As we know, the DMG2 will likely to present reviewed rules for monster/NPC customization/creation. The rules from DMG1 are nice, but it's clear that they have problems. This is my list of things that I would like to see reviewed:
- Class template powers. Class templates are a great idea. But, the truth is, they don't work. Simple assignment of class powers to monsters most of the time makes these powers with very low hit rate and damage compared to monster powers and NPC powers. My house rule for this is:
Class powers attack: 4 + monster's level + weapon prof bonus (if applicable)
Class powers damage bonus : +4 + 1/2 monster's level
- Class template class features. Why monsters with class templates have more class features than NPCs of same level? This doesn't make much sense.
- Monster leveling up and down. It would be nice to have rules for unlimited level up or level down. I know that Monster Builder does that, but it doesn't seem to work well: monster damage scales very slowly (much slower than by the DMG1 rules), and monster skill bonuses never change with level, which is plain weird because ability scores change. It isn't much logic for a monster to increase his Strenght by 10 points and still have the same Athletics bonus. Besides, on Monster Builder all ability scores change when the monster changes level, while as per the DMG1 only the highest ability score of each pair should change.
- Minions/Elite/Solos. Well, how to properly make these guys? Beyond that, paragon/epic Minions and Solos from MM2 seems very different from MM1 (minions do more damage, solos have less hp but do more damage), which indicates that there were changes on monster creation guidelines. How to modify MM1 monsters for these new guidelines?
- NPCs. I really hope that DMG2 will clarify if we should add racial features or not to NPCs, and what racial features should be applied. The assignment of class powers to NPC should also be clarified, since no single example NPC has powers as written by the rules. Finally, I hope for guidelines on how to apply Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies on NPCs, perhaps requiring them to level up or making them Elite.
I don't think most of these are needed... and honestly, would rather they not fill the book up with more and more complex formulas. There is room for some areas of clarification, sure, but I think most of these issues are fine already.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Class template powers. Class templates are a great idea. But, the truth is, they don't work. Simple assignment of class powers to monsters most of the time makes these powers with very low hit rate and damage compared to monster powers and NPC powers. Are you sure you are calculating these correctly?
Let's say I take a Cyclops Rambler (opening to a random page in the MM). I apply the Warlord template to make him a Warlord. For his At Will Power, I choose Wolf Pack Tactics. To calculate his attack bonus, one could either go by the standard "Attack Bonus based on Monster Level and Role" chart, or go by the more in-depth method in the NPC guidelines - or simply base it off the attacks he has to begin with.
The simple method: Skirmishers get Level + 5 for attacks against AC. As a level 14 Skirmisher, his attack would be +19.
Basing it off his default attacks: His basic attack with a Greatsword is +20 vs AC. Let's copy that for all his Warlord powers that attack AC.
Going by the NPC stat rules for calculating attack roles for monsters with class powers: 1/2 level (7) + Str Mod (6) + NPC Bonus (5) + Proficiency (3) = +21 to attack vs AC.
All of these come out pretty close together, and the two book methods are both within 1 of his normal attacks.
Using your house rule also gives us +21 to attacks - it certainly seems a quick method that gets us to the same place as the one in the books, so it seems fine for use! But... I don't see where there is any failing with the methods presented in the DMG to begin with.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Class template class features. Why monsters with class templates have more class features than NPCs of same level? This doesn't make much sense. Monsters with class templates are elite, as compared to NPCs that are (by default) standard enemies. You could certainly build a monster as an NPC to avoid making it elite, with a little bit of innovation for their base stats.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Monster leveling up and down. It would be nice to have rules for unlimited level up or level down. Well, they already exist - they just recommend you don't go too far in either direction. You can do so, but you'll want to start making much more significant changes the farther you go. Adjusting damage dice as you switch tiers, as well as how many powers a monster gets, what conditions they can inflict on PCs, how complicated they are, whether they have auras/flight/etc...
I mean, I wouldn't mind more general guidelines with advice about this - how many abilities they recommend monsters get per tier, etc. But a lot of that advice is in the DMG in the areas on designing monsters. The method on increasing/decreasing level, though, is designed to be as simple as possible. The goal is to keep it very quick and easy.
If a DM wants to really overhaul a monster to a completely new tier, their best bet is simply reworking it from the ground up as a completely new monster (using the monster design rules), and adding in the key elements of the old monster as appropriate.
I think the approach they have now - of giving general guidelines and leaving DMs free to experiment, while stressing the importance of comparing the monster to existing ones to keep it balanced - is pretty much ideal. Trying to define things too much by formula only invites those formulas to be abused, and encourages DMs to feel like they aren't doing anything wrong when that happens.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Minions/Elite/Solos. Well, how to properly make these guys? Beyond that, paragon/epic Minions and Solos from MM2 seems very different from MM1 (minions do more damage, solos have less hp but do more damage), which indicates that there were changes on monster creation guidelines. How to modify MM1 monsters for these new guidelines? I'd like to see Minion rules. The Elite/Solo advice in DMG1 is pretty solid. I would like to see the new guidelines, and this is something they have said will be addressed in DMG2. The basics have already been shared, though - Solos now are at about 80% of their former hp, but tend to get more damage output, especially when bloodied.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: NPCs. I really hope that DMG2 will clarify if we should add racial features or not to NPCs, and what racial features should be applied. The assignment of class powers to NPC should also be clarified, since no single example NPC has powers as written by the rules. since no single example NPC has powers as written by the rules. Finally, I hope for guidelines on how to apply Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies on NPCs, perhaps requiring them to level up or making them Elite. NPCs get Racial traits, by the standard rules in the DMG. I'm not seeing any confusion here.
On class powers, I don't see any need to clarify - the DMG guidelines are pretty straightforward. Sure, example NPCs in products don't match it perfectly since these are only guidelines, and not absolute formulas...
As for Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies... like feats, I do feel these are often best avoided as something too complicated to really add in to most NPCs. On the other hand, I do want to see more Templates, and could easily see some Paragon Paths being customized for use as that.
I don't think it would be an efficient use of space for them to draw up a template for every single one, certainly. It is easy enough to already work these abilities into NPCs anyway - just snag some Paragon Path powers instead of your Class powers, and figure out the most distinct paragon path feature for the NPC to have, etc. But seeing some common sense guidelines discussing just that would be easy enough for them to do, and I'd have no objection to it.
Really, that's what I want more of - not specific rules on making monsters, but just more advice, guidelines, general ideas and principles that will help DMs easily modify things on their own.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Going by the NPC stat rules for calculating attack roles for monsters with class powers: 1/2 level (7) + Str Mod (6) + NPC Bonus (5) + Proficiency (3) = +21 to attack vs AC. As per the DMG, you don't use the NPC bonus for monsters with class templates, only for NPCs (althugh it would make sense to apply the NPC bonus).
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Monsters with class templates are elite, as compared to NPCs that are (by default) standard enemies. You could certainly build a monster as an NPC to avoid making it elite, with a little bit of innovation for their base stats. Well, but monsters with class templates are elites because they have the class abilities besides their monster abilities, which can be quite powerful by themselves. Conversely, a NPC with a funcional template is also an elite because it has monster abilities besides his class abilities. I don't see reason for a, say, mind-flayer sorcerer to have more sorcerer abilities than a human sorcerer devastator (who is also an elite).
Matthew Koelbl wrote: If a DM wants to really overhaul a monster to a completely new tier, their best bet is simply reworking it from the ground up as a completely new monster (using the monster design rules), and adding in the key elements of the old monster as appropriate. Well, if you analyze the math involved on statting a fresh new monster, you can see that it's possible to create rules for adjusting a monster to any level and have stats consistent with this math (with exception of power selection, obviously). That's why I don't think it's "hard" to make an arbitrary adjust on monster's level without restatting him completely. In fact, Monster Builder does that, but inconsistently with the DMG1 guidelines, which is weird.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: NPCs get Racial traits, by the standard rules in the DMG. I'm not seeing any confusion here. They don't.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I don't think it would be an efficient use of space for them to draw up a template for every single one, certainly. It is easy enough to already work these abilities into NPCs anyway - just snag some Paragon Path powers instead of your Class powers, and figure out the most distinct paragon path feature for the NPC to have, etc. But seeing some common sense guidelines discussing just that would be easy enough for them to do, and I'd have no objection to it. Truly, it would be totally unnecesary to have a template for every paragon path, but a more-or-less systematic way of turning paragon paths into templates would be nice.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: As per the DMG, you don't use the NPC bonus for monsters with class templates, only for NPCs (althugh it would make sense to apply the NPC bonus). Ah, I do see that (though the wording is somewhat vague) - but given it also says to use the standard method (based on level/role) if that would give a higher value. So you shouldn't be ending up with anything that has a 'very low hit rate' compared to normal monster powers.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Well, but monsters with class templates are elites because they have the class abilities besides their monster abilities, which can be quite powerful by themselves. Conversely, a NPC with a funcional template is also an elite because it has monster abilities besides his class abilities. I don't see reason for a, say, mind-flayer sorcerer to have more sorcerer abilities than a human sorcerer devastator (who is also an elite). I think the issue there is more than the non-class templates don't tend to give out perhaps as much as they should.
I think it is definitely appropriate for them to give a slightly higher level of power to an enemy that they know will be Elite, compared to one that will be Standard. I agree that it might be reasonable to include a statement that, if you upgrade your NPC Warlock to an Elite, they get more the same Class Features as someone with the NPC Class Template... but I also think that is getting into a tricky level of complexity and exceptions, solely to address such a relatively small issue.
If they were able to come up with a simple way to address it, sure, that would be nice. But I think the default logic is perfectly sound, and the issue that arises from it relatively minor.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Well, if you analyze the math involved on statting a fresh new monster, you can see that it's possible to create rules for adjusting a monster to any level and have stats consistent with this math (with exception of power selection, obviously). That's why I don't think it's "hard" to make an arbitrary adjust on monster's level without restatting him completely. In fact, Monster Builder does that, but inconsistently with the DMG1 guidelines, which is weird. I think there are certainly elements you could do so with - stats, damage, skills, etc. You could easily have a more robust amount of advancing/decreasing level... and it still wouldn't easily address the number of powers or specific capabilities of the monster, nor offer the ease of use currently exhibited by the current method.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on this point, honestly - I think there is room for them to share a bit more in this vein, as long as it is clear it is not intended to override the normal method, but just supplement it for DMs who want to spend the time to go that extra step.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: NPCs get Racial traits, by the standard rules in the DMG. I'm not seeing any confusion here. They don't.
Step 2 of the NPC design process includes "Choose Race". Are you saying there is an issue because it does not then explicitly say: "The NPC thus gains the abilities of that race." ?
Or have you found a specific entry that says they don't gain racial abilities?
I mean, the intent is undeniably that they should, since the NPC Races provided in the MM - designed for the specific use of creating NPCs - include Racial Traits. So I don't see any possible argument that you aren't supposed to use those traits, and the explicit direction to choose a race would seems to cover gaining those abilities...
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on this point, honestly - I think there is room for them to share a bit more in this vein, as long as it is clear it is not intended to override the normal method, but just supplement it for DMs who want to spend the time to go that extra step. That's exactly my point. If you are going to adjust the monster level for -5 to +5 levels, and you intent to use it for a single combat, you can use the "normal" method, but if you are going for a higher level adjustment, or if the details (such as Skill bonuses) are important, you could use a more time-consuming, but more robust, method. You would still have to reselect powers, but only if the monster changes Tier, and that's the only decision you will have to make. Still easier that statting a new monster from scratch.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I think the issue there is more than the non-class templates don't tend to give out perhaps as much as they should.
I think it is definitely appropriate for them to give a slightly higher level of power to an enemy that they know will be Elite, compared to one that will be Standard. I agree that it might be reasonable to include a statement that, if you upgrade your NPC Warlock to an Elite, they get more the same Class Features as someone with the NPC Class Template... but I also think that is getting into a tricky level of complexity and exceptions, solely to address such a relatively small issue.
If they were able to come up with a simple way to address it, sure, that would be nice. But I think the default logic is perfectly sound, and the issue that arises from it relatively minor.
I don't think it's a "minor" issue depending on how much you use these rules. I am a huge fan of both Class Templates and Functional Templates; most of the important NPCs from my campaign are either monsters with class templates or NPCs with funcional templates. Perhaps because I'm somewhat lazy to do certain things by myself (such as creating monsters and balancing encounters), but well, the fact is that for me it's important to see these rules clarified as most as possible.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Step 2 of the NPC design process includes "Choose Race". Are you saying there is an issue because it does not then explicitly say: "The NPC thus gains the abilities of that race." ?
Or have you found a specific entry that says they don't gain racial abilities?
I mean, the intent is undeniably that they should, since the NPC Races provided in the MM - designed for the specific use of creating NPCs - include Racial Traits. So I don't see any possible argument that you aren't supposed to use those traits, and the explicit direction to choose a race would seems to cover gaining those abilities...
Well, you would be surprised to see how many people on WoTC boards currently believe that NPCs don't get racial traits. That's because the DMG explictly states that you get class features, but not racial traits. To help on mispreading confusion, many example NPCs also don't possess racial traits, and many other possess them.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: I don't think it's a "minor" issue depending on how much you use these rules. I am a huge fan of both Class Templates and Functional Templates; most of the important NPCs from my campaign are either monsters with class templates or NPCs with funcional templates. Perhaps because I'm somewhat lazy to do certain things by myself (such as creating monsters and balancing encounters), but well, the fact is that for me it's important to see these rules clarified as most as possible. I actually feel bad for arguing on this point, since it seems like I've spent a ton of time on other forums just getting people to acknowledge the NPC templates even exist. :)
I suppose I'm more arguing against your original comment, which was that the discrepancy didn't make sense. I think there was definitely reason for it, and the steps can be logically followed - (a) elites can handle more power/complexity, so more class abilities can be given to something that will be elite than something that will not; (b) putting in a way for non-elite classed enemies to gain full abilities if they become elite would make sense... but would be adding a potentially confusing exception to otherwise simple rules, so wasn't judged to be worth it by the designers.
Now, I do think it is entirely reasonable to disagree on the last point, and feel that the benefits would outweigh any potential confusion. I just think that there is logic in why the system currently is the way it is.
I called it a minor issue more because solving it is relatively easy - since an individual DM doesn't have to worry about any impact on other DMs, it is trivial to just decide that any NPCs you have that become Elite, will gain the same abilities handed out via the Class Templates instead of the more limited ones in the NPC rules.
I know that saying, "A DM can house rule it!" is often a poor excuse for defending game design - but in this case, given such a simple fix, and the reasoning for the original situation, it is why I feel the issue is not as significant as it could be.
Krauser_Levyl wrote: Well, you would be surprised to see how many people on WoTC boards currently believe that NPCs don't get racial traits. That's because the DMG explictly states that you get class features, but not racial traits. To help on mispreading confusion, many example NPCs also don't possess racial traits, and many other possess them. Fair enough. I see the issue as pretty clear myself, but if a sentence or two solves things for those who are confused, I'm certainly not going to object to it.
Recent threads in 4th Edition
|
