# Monster Design--from a designer's standpoint



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Sure, I dont have all the rules, but seeing these 4E monsters is getting me excited!

Scott Greene and I have been going crazy making monsters. 4E is SO much easier and so much more liberating from the standpoint of monster design. The exception based design is awesome. The monsters, in my view, are far and away better in 4E. You can actually give the monsters fun powers without having to worry about making everything match some spell power. And no cheesy skill points. Ugh! DMs will be able to put monsters together so much faster. And now all the interesting monster flavor can actually be translated into combat. 

I love it! I am so geeked. 

Scott and I have already done the conceptual mapping out of about 50 or more monsters (we have a list of 250). We are finding the theme of the monster and the things we want it to do. We are thinking through impact on movement, threshold triggers, cool powers, ways a monster is different. There is no need for another undead that just has more hit points--but if it has different powers or abilites, then that is a cool monster. We've even been updating some older monsters. Just for kicks, today he and I updated the Bonesnapper. I updated the Charfiend from the old Creature Collection. Fun, fun, fun!!!

I dont know what the new GSL will hold, but I promise you this: Necro WILL have a monster book out for early 4E. Guaranteed. 200+ monsters. Hardback. Kick ass. Fun stuff. New stuff. Not just retreads, though you all know that if WotC will let us (either via compatibility with the OGL or by special permission) we will update the older monsters that are cool that get left behind. 

Scott and I are in design overdrive right now. We cant stat or power them all out, but we can concept them, and that is a big first step. And he and I are doing it furiously. 

And we are having more fun than we ever had in 3E.

Monsters ROCK in 4E! My hat is off to the people at WotC for how they did monsters.

Clark


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I love it! I am so geeked.




You're not the only one, Clark. My friend and I are having nerdgasms over how flexible monster design is shaping up to be.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 7, 2008)

Glad to hear it! 

I hated using the same monsters over and over in 3.x, but the general difficulty in stating new beasties made it all but required. I am excited to hear that the process is that much easier now.

I am even more excited about the ability to "file the serial numbers off" monsters and use their cool abilities and triggers for new enemies.

Now if only 4e and related supplements could be released sooner... I really need a genie.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Gone are those cheesy voices in my head from 3E that limit everything to replicating spell effects. In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. That is a bunch of BS in my view. I am so glad to see a rule set go away from that.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 7, 2008)

True that, one thing about 4e's philosophy in regards to monster design:

"Because 4e characters are tougher, and because status effects tend to be less debilitating and shorter in duration...its perfectly fine to have monster abilities that just WORK!! No save, no reaction from the player, it just does."

With that in mind, we've already seen a host of wonderful cool monsters with neat abilities. Here's to seeing tons more.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

I am glad that I am not alone in seeing the brilliance in WoTC's monster design. Can't wait to buy your book, Clark.

Cheers,


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

This is the sort of thing we are working on. Note that it has our comments and notes for later revision when we get the rules. 

Even this old Fiend Folio creature is now way more fun then it has ever been in any prior edition. 

*Bonesnapper			         Level 4 Brute* (really a brute?)
Medium aberrant beast (type??)			       XP 175
Initiative +3	Senses Perception +2, darkvision(?)
HP 64; Bloodied 32
AC 16, Fortitude 18, Reflex 13, Will 12
Speed 6
*m Bite * (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 16); on a critical hit, opponent is stunned (save ends). [consider other debilitating effect instead of stun, such as slow or maybe "bone break" or damage to armor when rules available].
*m Tail Slap * (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d6 + 2 damage.
*Sudden Strike * (immediate reaction, when the bonesnapper successfully hits an opponent with a bite attack)
The bonesnapper can make a free tail slap attack against the target of its successful bite attack. [oooh, powerful, I like it! And it finally lets the creature do what its description says it does!].
*Carnage*
+4 on bite attacks against bloodied opponents. [great name!]
Alignment Unaligned		Languages —
Str 18 (+6)	Dex 12 (+3)	Wis 10 (+2)	
Con 14 (+4)	Int 2 (–2)	Cha 6 (+0)


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Come on, how much MORE FUN is that monster now than it ever has been? Lots...


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Come on, how much MORE FUN is that monster now than it ever has been? Lots...




I remember the original bonesnapper as a bit dull, but it has been a while  - this version comes off as something more vicious and aggressive, who will (literally) go for the jugular.

Cheers,


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

It's great to see you guys as excited as the rest of us.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 7, 2008)

I love it!

And I am really liking how it simplifies the ability of the DM to run the monsters. The Bonesnapper makes a ton of sense, and the abilities describe exactly how to use them. The ability for the monster to be completely self-contained in its statblock (as opposed to needing to check feats, spells, SLAs, etc.) is the greatest change I have seen for 4e.

I am 100% buying your book as soon as it is released. Any other treats... please?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 7, 2008)

I LOVE the look of that beastie up there. 

As a retailer and a player, I look forward to your book.

Having just run the pregens through a battle with that black dragon, (they won, but it was a close call, and MAN did I have fun!) 


During the lead up to the dragon, I made up a spellcasting skelletal controller on the FLY, and no one was the wiser. It was awesome.  It conjured up a screaming ghost-thing that flew around the room doing necrotic damage.

Oh yeah, I made up a skeletal monster brute that knocked the paladin prone and started chewing on him too... that was on the fly too... wow monster design is easy and fun!

Fitz


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Gone are those cheesy voices in my head from 3E that limit everything to replicating spell effects. In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. That is a bunch of BS in my view. I am so glad to see a rule set go away from that.



Hear, hear.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> This is the sort of thing we are working on. Note that it has our comments and notes for later revision when we get the rules.
> 
> Even this old Fiend Folio creature is now way more fun then it has ever been in any prior edition.
> 
> ...




Might want to bump those HP a little. Its going to be in melee, and its AC isn't that high.


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, I've been loving the 4e style of monster design for months now... few minutes each night, and poof, monster. Up over 140 now, though I'll admit I'd shelve a bunch as random silliness  

Monsters!


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *Bonesnapper			         Level 4 Brute* (really a brute?)
> 
> +9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 16);



Uhm, is that really how 4E crits work? If has a crit based damage d10 die, is it not (crit: 14 +1d10)?


----------



## fnwc (Mar 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Orcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless the crit _does an additional_ 1d10+16, which would be _exceedingly_ nasty.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Mar 7, 2008)

Gooooooood, gooooooooood.

You want this, don't you?


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

Nah, just looks like the math is off by 2 there. But, really, I doubt they're at the 'verifying the math' stage of this, nor should they be without rules.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 7, 2008)

It certainly seems much easier to design new monsters in 4e than in 3e.

Do they use the same progression by level for attacks, saves and skill bonuses as characters? That would seem the easiest way to make sure the monster has the level you want it to have.

How do you instead calculate how many XP it is worth?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Nah, just looks like the math is off by 2 there. But, really, I doubt they're at the 'verifying the math' stage of this, nor should they be without rules.




Yeah, we are no where near the math stage, for the crits.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

I'll believe it when I see it, but the signs are good.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> It certainly seems much easier to design new monsters in 4e than in 3e.
> 
> Do they use the same progression by level for attacks, saves and skill bonuses as characters? That would seem the easiest way to make sure the monster has the level you want it to have.
> 
> How do you instead calculate how many XP it is worth?




The monsters provided give some guide. The XP progression was relatively simple to work out. Same with the formula for HP based on role and level. I dont know how size plays into it yet, though. You'd think a Tiny Level 6 Soldier would have fewer hp than a Large Level 6 Soldier, and not just cause of CON. But that doesnt seem to be the case, though we dont have enough data yet. There doesnt seem to be a rigid attack and damage bonues for monsters, though the general bonus is pretty easy to work out from the examples. I think there will be some generally accepted ranges provided (ie 10th level skirmisher should do about 30 hp damage per attack, as a hypothetical example not based in fact just pulling it out of my butt, where as a brute would do X and a lurker would do Y.) 

Clearly we arent at the hard math stage yet. We are at teh concepting stage.

And already we can take a boring old monster that never found itself (the bonesnapper) and turn it into a monster you say "hey, i would use that." 

You should see what we are coming up with for monsters that were cool to start with...like our charfiend and the crystaline horror.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

The bonesnapper really got me thinking about mechanics. About what we can and cant do. 3E was all about what you cant do. I think 4E will be about what you can do.

For instance. I want the bonesnapper bite to cause a slow effect on a crit, simulating that he broke a leg or arm with his bite. Here is where the mechanic comes in--I dont want it to end on a successful save. I want to say "until healed". Healing surge, magic, whatever. But a save alone isnt enough to overcome the effect. Now, in 3E that type of deviation from a rigid mechanic would get you burned at the stake. For 4E, it just might work. Still, we'll have to see. 

But 4E is sure getting me thinking outside the 3E box and it is making for much cooler monsters.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Now if only 4e and related supplements could be released sooner... I really need a genie.




Here you go:


*EFREETI  * 		Level 10 Skirmisher
*Large elemental humanoid (Fire)*

*Init* +7; *Senses * Perception +17; darkvision


*AC* 24;* Fort* 23, *Ref * 20, *Will * 19
*HP * 70 
*Resist* fire 30
*Weakness* vulnerability cold 5


*Speed* 4, fly 8 (perfect)
m *Masterwork Scimitar* (standard; at-will) ** Fire, Weapon*
Reach 2; +17 vs. AC; 2d6+12 damage plus 5 fire damage.
M *Double Attack* (standard; at-will) ** Fire, Weapon*
The efreeti attacks twice with the scimitar.
R *Scorching Ray* (minor 1/round; at-will) ** Fire*
Range 10; +13 vs. Ref; 4d6 fire damage.  
R *Wall of Fire* (standard; at-will) ** Fire*
Area burst 6 within 10; create a wall of fire 6 contiguous squares long and 2 squares high.  Any creature passing though the wall takes 3d6 fire damage, and any creature that begins its turn adjacent to the wall takes 1d6 fire damage.
A *Change Size* (standard; encounter) ** Transmutation*
Area burst 1 within 10; +7 vs. Fort; reduce or enlarge target creature. If the target is reduced, lower its speed by 2, and the target takes a -4 penalty on all melee attacks and damage (save ends both).
*Change Shape* (standard; at-will) ** Transmutation*
The efreeti can assume the form of any Small, Medium, or Large humanoid or giant.

*Alignment* Lawful Evil *Languages* telepathy 20; Auran, Common, Ignan, Infernal, Jaanti
*Skills* Intimidate +12, Perception +17, Stealth +18
*Str* 23 (+11),* Con* 14 (+7), *Dex* 17 (+8), *Int * 12 (+6),* Wis * 15 (+7), *Cha * 15 (+7)


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

You could make the tail slap a secondary attack on the bite if you wanted to streamline the stat block some more - though, that would let it do it on more than one attack a round under some situations, whereas your way doesn't. 

I need to find a mailing list or something for making monsters. Want to talk about it more, but don't really have folks into chatting up those kind of things. I love seeing the comments to each other on the monster above.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 7, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> How do you instead calculate how many XP it is worth?



http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220538

HP ruminations:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220439
(pretty sure controllers are 8 hp/lvl though)


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

You could also have the bonesnap effect trigger on bloodied instead of a critical hit, and last until the target is no longer bloodied.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> You could make the tail slap a secondary attack on the bite if you wanted to streamline the stat block some more - though, that would let it do it on more than one attack a round under some situations, whereas your way doesn't.
> 
> I need to find a mailing list or something for making monsters. Want to talk about it more, but don't really have folks into chatting up those kind of things. I love seeing the comments to each other on the monster above.




My little project with the bonesnapper was to read its initial description from the Fiend Folio, which said "The large jaw contains many sharp teeth which it uses to inflict 1-8 hit points of damage in melee; at the same time, the tail sweeps round to deliver 1-4 hit points of damage on the same victim." An d then find a way to actually make that descriptive text come to life in a way that makes the monster cool and unique.

The only "mechanic" for this in the original is that text plus  "1-8/1-4" in the "damage/attack" line of the monster entry. 

There was no good way to simulate that in 3E (well, there was, but it was boring).

Yes, in 4E I could have just let it attack with both. But that was just a double attack.

This way, if he bites, he then swings around with a freebie tail pimpslap. To me, that is more memorable and more fun and also plays on the theme that this guy has a big mouth and big teeth, so when he bits you it kind of holds you a bit and sets you up for the tail slap--which made it make more sense to me that he only gets the bonus one when he actually bites you successfully.

The freedom and flexibility of 4E really makes you able to breathe life into a pretty stale monster. 

Heck, Scott and I picked that one on purpose cause we actually WERE NOT going to include it in our book. We had decided to cut it. So we said, hey, lets see what we can do with one we didnt even think was cool enough to keep. (Of course, now we want to include it; we'll have to wait to see if WotC lets it happen).

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> You could also have the bonesnap effect trigger on bloodied instead of a critical hit, and last until the target is no longer bloodied.




Yeah, that isnt that bad of an idea. One of the cool things about 4E is finding those "threshold" events that cause a change in the monster or a power. The bloodied condition is a good one for that.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Here you go:
> 
> 
> *EFREETI  * 		Level 10 Skirmisher
> *Large outsider (fire)*




*Large elemental humanoid (fire)*?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, no one really knows how the types are all going to work in 4E yet


----------



## Soel (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus, here's one definite buyer of Necro's 4e monster book.

Also, some cool critters there Keterys! (good to see some Dreamblade lovin!)


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

By the way, I posted this in the Publishers forum:



> Promise: We will have a monster book out for early 4E. We will be paying the $5k. We will be early adopting. Scott Greene and I are concepting out monsters as I type this.
> 
> See this thread: [edit: removed link to this thread]
> 
> ...




Oh yeah!!!!


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh yeah!!!!




I imagine you dancing and bouncing around in your computer chair as you type this.

Your level of excitement is infectious, and I only hope that other quality outfits like yours can get this jazzed.


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

Not sure I was clear on what I meant by secondary tail attack so, to explain:

m Bite (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 14) and secondary tail slap attack and slows bloodied target (until target no longer bloodied). Secondary: +9 vs AC; 1d6 + 4 damage.

There are pluses and minuses, but kinda interesting how much you can streamline and still be 'cool!'


----------



## JesterOC (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. t.




I recall hearing from one designer about 3E (Actually I think it was a game designer who had spoken with 3E guys when making a PC game off of the new 3d edition rules so technically this is hearsay (sp?)).

Anyway I heard that the prime reason they went with set powers and cookie cutter abilities was that 1st and 2nd edition had several monsters with the same abilities but had very different game mechanics.  3E by unifying them they were able to add consistency to the game.

I think 4E monsters are great but there is a possibility that we will end up with the same problems over time.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, and in 3E there would have been "one nitpicky right way" to do it. As you have showed, you could do the same thing several ways. And that is just fine. 

Oh man, I love this!!!!

They've given me back my D&D from the horrible rules lawyer minions!!!!!!!!

No more arguing skill points and if the feats add up and piling on 4 different classes on a monster base. UGH! Hey, we did it cause we had to, but this 4E approach is so much better.

The normal D&D DM and player just got their game back from the arcane rules golems!

This is so sweet.


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

Honestly, _this_ is the reaction I had at D&D Experience. I walked away from my two playtest sessions and was like 'I could run this right now. Take your playtest characters, I will make up monsters on the fly, and it will be fun' and I really had some steam let out of me on seeing what felt like overall negative reviews from industry folks who just didn't feel the same way.

So glad we feel the same about it


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> I recall hearing from one designer about 3E (Actually I think it was a game designer who had spoken with 3E guys when making a PC game off of the new 3d edition rules so technically this is hearsay (sp?)).
> 
> Anyway I heard that the prime reason they went with set powers and cookie cutter abilities was that 1st and 2nd edition had several monsters with the same abilities but had very different game mechanics.  3E by unifying them they were able to add consistency to the game.
> 
> I think 4E monsters are great but there is a possibility that we will end up with the same problems over time.




Yes. That problem does exist. But in my view, the cure was worse than the disease. Hey, I dont care if there is a snake that has a better written constrict power than a behir. Should it be that way? No. But forcing the cookie cutter solution took the spirit and life out of monsters. And the uniqueness. I appreciate the problem they were trying to solve, and I agreed it with it. And they tried to solve it. But I just think this way is better.

That is why games evolve. That is why people need to not fear new editions. You should be free to try to fix a problem with the game and fail--hell, fail GLORIOUSLY. 3E made some amazing advancements. I cant, for example, ever concieve of going back to non-cyclical initiative (and boy did I resist that when 3E came out). I love the balance issues they added to 3E. I love the "back to the dungeon" and the clarity to the combat rules. I laud their attempt to find a rule for everything. In the end, some of that succeeded and some of it didnt. Now there is a new edition. Every edition moves us closer to a better game, in my view. And guess what, 4E will screw some stuff up, just like 3E made monster design a horrific, creativity squashing nightmare (ok, I'm overstating it, yes, you could still make real cool monsters, but it became more of a rules laywer-y cookie cutter solution which I dont favor). 4E will do things wrong. Maybe it will be that 1st level characters will be too powerful. I dont know. But experimenting is the way to do it--and, as it so happens, it is the TRADITION of D&D. Gary, god rest his sould, didnt stop with the white box. He did Greyhawk. Blackmoor. He added new classes. Psionics. New monsters. Eldritch Wizardry. Then he tried to unify it all with AD&D. If D&D has a tradition, its change, growth and expansion. If it didnt, we'd all just have STR INT and WIS.

Wow, I really digressed from your point, didnt I?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Honestly, _this_ is the reaction I had at D&D Experience. I walked away from my two playtest sessions and was like 'I could run this right now. Take your playtest characters, I will make up monsters on the fly, and it will be fun' and I really had some steam let out of me on seeing what felt like overall negative reviews from industry folks who just didn't feel the same way.
> 
> So glad we feel the same about it




I totally feel that way.

Scott and I were talking and I was talking with Erik Mona. Here was my rant of the particular day:

"Yeah, in 4E if I want my skeleton to just, I dont know, throw some black ball of banefire I can just say --Banefire, Range 6, 1d10 necrotic damage-- See, now it throws an evil ball of nastiness. Just like that." 

It is literally that easy. Yes, there will be some suggested guidelines I am sure. But it is that easy. 

And no cheesy rules lawyers can jump up and say, "hey, there is no PC spell for that! That's not FAIR!" and besides that is a 4 HD skeleton and so since it has magic, it is a 4th level wizard and we know 4th level wizards dont get fireballs even if thats what that was!! And on top of that the skill points dont add up!"

Ugh. Just give me my game back. 

And they did. And it was good.


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> And no cheesy rules lawyers can jump up and say, "hey, there is no PC spell for that! That's not FAIR!" and besides that is a 4 HD skeleton and so since it has magic, it is a 4th level wizard and we know 4th level wizards dont get fireballs even if thats what that was!! And on top of that the skill points dont add up!"




... You actually show your players your Monster Sheets?

I always keep mine hidden and I remain intentionally vague about the spells they cast   .


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I imagine you dancing and bouncing around in your computer chair as you type this.
> 
> Your level of excitement is infectious, and I only hope that other quality outfits like yours can get this jazzed.




You have no idea...

I really feel that all us normal gamers have been given our game back.

Seeing monsters be this easy to make makes me flash back to the HOURS I spent prepping for every game session with stat blocks. And, for goodness sake, I design this stuff for a living. You'd have to think I am at least pretty good at doing this stuff, and it still took me hours of prep time. 

Now I can go: "Ok, level 10 brute, double sword attack, whirling frenzy when bloodied, make the rest of it up on the fly, got it." Ok, I just prepped for an encounter. Seriously. 

I'm a gamer first and a game company owner second. Its the philosophy that I have always used with Necro. 4E is a win for gamers. Cause it looks like you can actually play it without having to do calculus. Of course, you probably are going to need a bunch of mini-markers and effects sticky notes  We'll see how all that goes....


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> ... You actually show your players your Monster Sheets?
> 
> I always keep mine hidden and I remain intentionally vague about the spells they cast   .




Try publishing your adventures.  They make you show your work 

Seriously, though my players were always cool, 3E had such a precarious balance built in that you really felt you were screwing it up if you didnt do all that math--even if they didnt see your monster sheets.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Night all!

I'm off to dream of monsters and I'll post tomorrow. 

Man, I am so geeked...


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Now I can go: "Ok, level 10 brute, double sword attack, whirling frenzy when bloodied, make the rest of it up on the fly, got it." Ok, I just prepped for an encounter. Seriously.
> 
> I'm a gamer first and a game company owner second. Its the philosophy that I have always used with Necro. 4E is a win for gamers. Cause it looks like you can actually play it without having to do calculus. Of course, you probably are going to need a bunch of mini-markers and effects sticky notes  We'll see how all that goes....




Well, I'm one of the weirdos who can make stuff up on the fly, but this sounds pretty good indeed. So I guess the AICN article's claim that the Monster Manual will include a section on how to put together a monster like a Lego Set is true?


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Try publishing your adventures.  They make you show your work




Hah! Indeed. 

Also, after seeing your above post - have a pleasant evening.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> *Large elemental humanoid (fire)*?




Totally – thanks.

This one is still a bit of a 3.75 dude.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> ... You actually show your players your Monster Sheets?



I do believe he's talking in relation to publishing monster books, and dealing with the legions of internet nitpicks.

Though I am curious, thinking of the will o'the wisp or lantern archon (two examples off the top of my head), why there needs to be a "banefire" spell in order to have a skeleton that deals negative energy damage with its attacks.  The codifying of special abilities in 3e had more to do with special conditions that monsters could inflict on players, like entangled, fear, grappling, naseua, etc. than with ways to simply deal damage.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm going to have to get my head around this. Using the MM as inspiration rather than pure stat blocks.. I haven't made a monster in a long long time, too fiddly in 3e.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Zinegata said:
			
		

> ... You actually show your players your Monster Sheets?




Yep, they enjoy, and I vicariously through them, looking at the monsters they have defeated at the end of a session.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Wow, I really digressed from your point, didnt I?




You've been sigged.

And made yourself a new customer.

Clark, you are the man.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> The exception based design is awesome.




Isn't this essentially how monster design was done all the way up through to 2e?

Give a monster the abilities that it needs.

I think the concept behind 3e was a fine one (gaze attacks should all work the same way, energy drain should all work the same way etc. etc). A grand unified theory of how things work together.

The problem was that in practice it actually ended up hamstringing design, giving very tiny boxes of design space.

I'm not surprised that they've gone back to the earlier way of doing it (although I wonder when someone came up with the fancy name for it )

Cheers


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *m Bite * (standard; at-will)
> +9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 16); on a critical hit, opponent is stunned (save ends). [consider other debilitating effect instead of stun, such as slow or maybe "bone break" or damage to armor when rules available].
> *m Tail Slap * (standard; at-will)
> +9 vs. AC; 1d6 + 2 damage.
> ...





Personally I'd rewrite it a little like so:

*m Bite * (standard; at-will)
+9 vs. AC; 1d10 + 4 damage (crit: 1d10 + 14 and opponent loses one healing surge)
*m Savage* (standard; at-will)
Make a Bite attack and Followup
*Followup*
+9 vs. Reflex; 1d6+4 damage.


I really don't mean to be snooty about this, but the Tail Slap attack as it stands is a little superfluous; nobody would ever use it. Making it part of the followup achieves the same goal and trims some fat. The Bite atttack is, of course, a basic attack and thus can be used for an oppy while Savage isn't. But I can't insert that little icon.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Isn't this essentially how monster design was done all the way up through to 2e?
> 
> Give a monster the abilities that it needs.
> 
> ...



Fancy names are important. If you don't give it a name, how should people know that you're doing something sensible and not pulling this out of ... the place where the sun doesn't shine. 

But there are differences between 2e and 4e, as far as I can see. Special abilities might be "exception based", but there are still underlying numbers that guide what you do. But they are no longer as limiting (or at least feel that way) as they were in 3e.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. That is a bunch of BS in my view. I am so glad to see a rule set go away from that.



You are not alone.


----------



## Imban (Mar 7, 2008)

When I heard 4e was moving to this style of monster design, I immediately whipped up a few monsters for the 3.5e game I was running at the time based on this design philosophy. It proved to be one of the more interesting fights of the entire campaign, so I have to say I'm on board with it most of the way.

The part I'm not on board with is, well, I see three types of NPCs in the game world:

1) People who don't matter. Your average farmer, or blacksmith, or whatever.
2) Monsters who you kill. Bandits, demons, or whatever.
3) Important People who are fully fleshed out characters. Drizzt do'Urden, Lancelot du Lac, or whoever.

People in #1 don't really need a statblock. Sometimes, rarely, they do, but I could handle this in 3e because I knew the rules decently enough to generate a 1st-level commoner on the fly. It's even easier in Mutants & Masterminds. Presumably there will be some sort of baseline to generate on the fly from in 4e.

People in #2 only need stats so far as combat goes, because their part in the game is showing up, fighting, and dying. To that end, being specifically geared for combat is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes a person in #2 unexpectedly becomes more important and needs stats beyond his combat ones. This can sometimes be a problem. For example, if the PCs convince a Kobold DragonShield to join the party for the remainder of the adventure, he needs to have the necessary statistics to be usable as a party member. 3e did this by building PCs and NPCs on the exact same system. 4e has monsters at least having most, if not all, of the same statistics as PCs, but I still have a few concerns until I see the full system - for instance, from the stat blocks we've seen, monsters in 4e don't seem to have healing surges.

People in #3 need full statistics and I really can't think of an exception - no situations where I would care if a PC is able to make masterwork baskets, but not care if Lancelot was capable of making masterwork baskets. If I get 5-round-combat-only, PC-incompatible statistics for Drizzt, I'm likely to be quite unsatisfied with things.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> monsters in 4e don't seem to have healing surges.




They're not supposed to. They're not the protagonists. If you want one to survive and come back later, then you give him whatever plot protection he needs, and you don't need rules like healing surges to do it.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> They've given me back my D&D from the horrible rules lawyer minions!!!!!!!!
> 
> This is so sweet.




Amen. We're starting to do some preliminary work on a monster book as well. I don't think we'd ever go as crazy and over the top as Denizens of Avadnu (and I mean format, not creatures), but we're definitely taking a good hard look at all of this now. I got to play at D&D Experience, and Clark is right. Monster design is so much better and the game I played was a blast. There is going to be a lot of cool stuff coming out for 4e, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> ...just like 3E made monster design a horrific, creativity squashing nightmare (ok, I'm overstating it, yes, you could still make real cool monsters, but it became more of a rules laywer-y cookie cutter solution which I dont favor).




I really don't understand why so many people say this. Yeah, you were constricted within certain confines, but saying that monsters were cookie cutter or anything like that I just don't agree with.

We managed to add almost one cool mechanic to every monster we did in Denizens of Avadnu. Granted, the chains are off now and there is more freedom, but I don't agree with the whole 4e grants me some magical ability to make cool monsters. I just don't see it.

Monsters were cookie cutter because designers were lazy and afraid to push the envelope IMO.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> "Yeah, in 4E if I want my skeleton to just, I dont know, throw some black ball of banefire I can just say --Banefire, Range 6, 1d10 necrotic damage-- See, now it throws an evil ball of nastiness. Just like that."
> 
> It is literally that easy. Yes, there will be some suggested guidelines I am sure. But it is that easy.



I guess I don't get it.  I designed monsters in 2e.  I designed monsters in 3e.  Sure, there are some parts of 3e monster design I don't like (HD by type, for one - why can't fey be tough?) but no one ever came to my house and took my MM away for not designing right, and I never once thought I wasn't "allowed" to make a cool ability.

I dunno.  I think it's great that everyone's having fun making 4e monsters, and I'm looking forward to the new Monster Manual.  I guess I just didn't realize how horrible 3e monsters were for everyone. I guess I was doing it wrong, then.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I guess I don't get it.  I designed monsters in 2e.  I designed monsters in 3e.  Sure, there are some parts of 3e monster design I don't like (HD by type, for one - why can't fey be tough?) but no one ever came to my house and took my MM away for not designing right, and I never once thought I wasn't "allowed" to make a cool ability.
> 
> I dunno.  I think it's great that everyone's having fun making 4e monsters, and I'm looking forward to the new Monster Manual.  I guess I just didn't realize how horrible 3e monsters were for everyone. I guess I was doing it wrong, then.



Remember, Orcus is not a DM designing for his home game. His work is under the scrutiny of many customers, and subject to reviews by people close to the industry. Anything that doesn't follow the ruleset will be critisizend - and usually not positively. 

Ever read about the complaints people have made regarding wrong skill modifiers for monsters? 
This is meaningless if you use your monsters only in your home game. Usually, no one besides gets to see your monster stats in the detail to complain about them.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> there are some parts of 3e monster design I don't like (HD by type, for one - why can't fey be tough?)




Yeah, that used to kill me, just like all outsiders, even peaceful and cerebral ones; had a warrior's BAB, just _because_.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 7, 2008)

They have made the elegance of BECMI and AD&D monster design combined with relevant and easy to use crunch.  A great way to design.

For the first time since AD&D and basic, I will buy third party monster books.  The 3e and 3.5e monsters made my head hurt.  I always just made them up on the fly (not according to the rules, just according to how I wanted them played) or had e-tools do it.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> but no one ever came to my house and took my MM away for not designing right




You're lucky; I once had the WotC ninjas repel from my living room ceiling mid-session and take way my MM because I wasn't using it "right".


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised that they've gone back to the earlier way of doing it (although I wonder when someone came up with the fancy name for it )




It's a Magic: the Gathering term.

Which goes to show you, YES you can improve D&D by using outside sources. 



			
				Nellisir said:
			
		

> I guess I don't get it.  I designed monsters in 2e.  I designed monsters in 3e.  Sure, there are some parts of 3e monster design I don't like (HD by type, for one - why can't fey be tough?) but no one ever came to my house and took my MM away for not designing right, and I never once thought I wasn't "allowed" to make a cool ability.




_Big_ difference between making monsters for your home game and making monsters for published adventures.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Usually, no one besides gets to see your monster stats in the detail to complain about them.




I always show my players my monster stat-sheets after a session, it's fun for them, and for me vicariously through them, to scrutinize the beasties they defeated.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You're lucky; I once had the WotC ninjas repel from my living room ceiling mid-session and take way my MM because I wasn't using it "right".



I hate it when that happens. Luckily, most of the time, they remain unseen, and you're just wondering where your monster sheet has gone...


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I hate it when that happens. Luckily, most of the time, they remain unseen, and you're just wondering where your monster sheet has gone...




But usually there's flash/smoke-bomb before the sheets disappear.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 7, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It's a Magic: the Gathering term.




OMG CCG


----------



## Imban (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> They're not supposed to. They're not the protagonists. If you want one to survive and come back later, then you give him whatever plot protection he needs, and you don't need rules like healing surges to do it.




So, uh, what happens if a monster joins the party? ...and gets Healing Word used on it?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> So, uh, what happens if a monster joins the party? ...and gets Healing Word used on it?



 At this point, the circle around its feet has changed from red to green, and so it would gain healing surges.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> So, uh, what happens if a monster joins the party? ...and gets Healing Word used on it?




Then it heals 1d6+cleric's charisma


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 7, 2008)

I often wonder how we managed between 1974 and 1999 when monsters joined the party.

Sarcasm aside, if a monster joins the party it needs to be re-written. When we get the new monster manual we'll see how easy/simple/well that works.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> At this point, the circle around its feet has changed from red to green, and so it would gain healing surges.




I don't think you are correct Hong,  but maybe I have missed something. Have we had anything indicating this, or is it (just) personal speculation?


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I don't think you are correct Hong,  but maybe I have missed something. Have we had anything indicating this, or is it (just) personal speculation?



 It's what I consider to be most in keeping with the spirit of the rules. The idea is that PCs get more complicated rules because the spotlight is on them all the time. NPCs get abbreviated rules because they usually come and go. An NPC who joins the party is one on whom the spotlight will shine quite a lot (if only by reflected light), and so should be treated differently to run-of-the-mill NPCs.


----------



## Imban (Mar 7, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> I often wonder how we managed between 1974 and 1999 when monsters joined the party.
> 
> Sarcasm aside, if a monster joins the party it needs to be re-written. When we get the new monster manual we'll see how easy/simple/well that works.




We, uh, didn't. Seriously, in all my 2e games monsters never joined the party because the game 100% stopped making sense or even having rules for what's happening if they did.

Hong's answer is a good one, but only if it's actually true.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Uhm, is that really how 4E crits work? If has a crit based damage d10 die, is it not (crit: 14 +1d10)?




I thought that on a natural 20, this beastie would just automatically do 14 points of damage, no dice rolled.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Having torn my hair out over monster math (even with an Excel sheet I wrote to do 80% of it for me) and endless fiddly things like "If it has one natural attack, it does +50% damage" (or something like that, I don't remember anymore), I can appreciate the ease of use from a writer's perspective. From a DMs perspective, I'm not sure I'm sold -- one of the great things about the current monster books is that the bulk of the things in there aren't just monsters -- they're potential NPCs. Anything with an Int score of 6 or so can show up in an interesting non-combat capacity as well. With powers balanced around "The monster will fight the PCs for an encounter", how well do these powers work when "The monster is traveling with the heroes as their ally" or "The monster is a powerful figure in the community who cannot be attacked directly"? I'm not talking specifically about summoned or companion creatures, which I know will have special rules which make them useful in those areas, but about the general inhabitants of the world who end up being part of the game.

It seems things in 4e -- not just monsters, everything -- is really focused on being used for a specific purpose, and it does that job very very well, much better than its 3e counterpart did -- but at the same time, it is less useful when you try to do something else with it. 3e gave you a swiss army knife; 4e gives you a big box of high quality tools. Advantage -- each tool is much better at its job. Disadvantage -- you have to keep swapping tools. (The wolf you fight in the woods isn't the same as the wolf your druid has his animal companion, etc.)


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It's what I consider to be most in keeping with the spirit of the rules. The idea is that PCs get more complicated rules because the spotlight is on them all the time. NPCs get abbreviated rules because they usually come and go. An NPC who joins the party is one on whom the spotlight will shine quite a lot (if only by reflected light), and so should be treated differently to run-of-the-mill NPCs.




I agree, that it makes some sense. But in the case of healing, have we had confirmed that you can not heal someone without surges? Because the text of Healing Word sounds to me, as if the spell has two effects: target can get a surge, and he heals 1d6+4 damage. That would make it possible to heal monsters, just less efficiently than normal characters.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> I often wonder how we managed between 1974 and 1999 when monsters joined the party.




Until 1999, we played GURPS or Hero because they could answer those questions easily. Then 3e came around, and we could get back to our roots without sacrificing flexibility.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I agree, that it makes some sense. But in the case of healing, have we had confirmed that you can not heal someone without surges? Because the text of Healing Word sounds to me, as if the spell has two effects: target can get a surge, and he heals 1d6+4 damage. That would make it possible to heal monsters, just less efficiently than normal characters.



 That won't be enough, if you want your new buddy to last more than a couple of fights. It'll also mean you're (even more) dependent on the party medic, which is another thing that 4E is supposed to deal with.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Mar 7, 2008)

While I'm not in the least excited by the prospect of more Monster books, I am pleased to hear that my speculation on 4E Monster manufacture is about on target.

I rarely use more than say 40 or 50 monster species in a campaign - it just stops making sense to me. But the ease of customisation of a "species" into different sorts is also reflected by the comments in this thread - which is awesome.

This stuff really matches my "seat of the pants" style DMing.


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 7, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I thought that on a natural 20, this beastie would just automatically do 14 points of damage, no dice rolled.



Some weapons do extra dice of damage on a crit, like the greataxe and war pick.  In this case, the bonesnapper has something akin to the 3.x ability Augmented Critical, where some creatures had expanded threat ranges or crit multipliers with their natural attacks.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That won't be enough, if you want your new buddy to last more than a couple of fights. It'll also mean you're (even more) dependent on the party medic, which is another thing that 4E is supposed to deal with.




I am just not sure the new rules take into account that monsters join up with players. When that is said, as a DM, I would most likely give it some surges a day, should that happen.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I totally feel that way.
> 
> Scott and I were talking and I was talking with Erik Mona. Here was my rant of the particular day:
> 
> "Yeah, in 4E if I want my skeleton to just, I dont know, throw some black ball of banefire I can just say --Banefire, Range 6, 1d10 necrotic damage-- See, now it throws an evil ball of nastiness. Just like that."




Uhm, not seeing why you couldn't do this in 3e....

SA: Banefire. As a ranged attack, the skeleton hurls a ball of necrotic flame which does 1d6 Shadow damage and 1d6 Fire damage. Range Increment 30'.

All the rules for it are there -- it's a ranged attack. It provokes an AOO, responds to cover, etc. It's pretty straightforward. Even better, because it's a ranged attack, you can give the skeleton point blank shot and precise shot, and know they'll work properly with the attack, no special case rules needed.

Not saying 4e doesn't do this, or that it doesn't make a lot of things easier, but this wasn't a good example of it.

Now, trying to pick SLA for a high level demon..THAT was a nightmare with no real guidance as to what they should have, which should be 3/day or 5/day, etc. It was a total finger-in-the-wind crapshoot and a reason why a lot of my Cool Demon Ideas got turned into much more focused, simpler, monsters when I got around to statting them up...




> And no cheesy rules lawyers can jump up and say, "hey, there is no PC spell for that! That's not FAIR!" and besides that is a 4 HD skeleton and so since it has magic, it is a 4th level wizard and we know 4th level wizards dont get fireballs even if thats what that was!! And on top of that the skill points dont add up!"




The MMs are all filled with monsters with 'unique' powers and I've never seen anyone bitch that they couldn't burrow like a bullette no matter what feats they took. I only bitch when presumed normal humanoids had 'special secret magic training' that let them do weird things...but a PC of the same race could never, ever, learn those tricks. (Hobgoblin Warcaster, I am looking at *you*!)

But fire-spewing skeletons? No big. "A wizard did it!"


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Some weapons do extra dice of damage on a crit, like the greataxe and war pick.  In this case, the bonesnapper has something akin to the 3.x ability Augmented Critical, where some creatures had expanded threat ranges or crit multipliers with their natural attacks.




Yeah, there was another monster from DDXP that had the same ability (giving quadruple str damage on a crit). It was on one of the cards that was taken in a picture.

Edit: just NPC's, not any monster, my bad.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I am just not sure the new rules take into account that monsters join up with players. When that is said, as a DM, I would most likely give it some surges a day, should that happen.



 Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if the books didn't address this issue at all. This is what I'd do, in the absence of any published guidelines. Heck, if the published guidelines say something else, I'd probably do it this way anyway.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> _Big_ difference between making monsters for your home game and making monsters for published adventures.




Edit: _never mind_.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Uhm, not seeing why you couldn't do this in 3e....
> 
> SA: Banefire. As a ranged attack, the skeleton hurls a ball of necrotic flame which does 1d6 Shadow damage and 1d6 Fire damage. Range Increment 30'.
> 
> ...




My thoughts _exactly_.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Try publishing your adventures.  They make you show your work
> 
> Seriously, though my players were always cool, 3E had such a precarious balance built in that you really felt you were screwing it up if you didnt do all that math--even if they didnt see your monster sheets.




Boy howdy. For the last year I was growing to hate 3rd edition because I had to edit all the monster stats for War of the Burning Sky. But for the last two adventures I just decided, "Screw it." Stuff works the way I think will play well. I think I even put in an entry for a wizard, when detailing his cantrips prepared, that said, "Who cares?"

I designed the final beastie for adventure 10, and I actually had a lot of fun just giving it powers that would play well.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Yeah, that used to kill me, just like all outsiders, even peaceful and cerebral ones; had a warrior's BAB, just _because_.




Color me agreeing with this. I hated wuss fey. I ended up giving some arbitrary combat bonuses to make them more macho.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Color me agreeing with this. I hated wuss fey. I ended up giving some arbitrary combat bonuses to make them more macho.




See, for me it was undead.  That lack of a Constitution bonus sucked when you wanted to create tough undead warrior types.

Although, I have to say... people seriously complained if you gave a published 3E monster a special power that didn't correspond to any spell or PC special ability?  That's so bizarre.  I can't imagine complaining about such a thing, nor can I imagine any of my group doing so.  Who does that?


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I remember the original bonesnapper as a bit dull, but it has been a while  - this version comes off as something more vicious and aggressive, who will (literally) go for the jugular.
> 
> Cheers,




Now we just need to jazz up the Carbuncle, Flumph, and Flail Snail.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Clark Peterson may be speaking of his experience with the Tome of Horrors, which was the first monster book for 3E. It came out while the zeitgeist for the game was still in its infancy, and people might have been expecting more closely-integrated monster design at the time.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Boy howdy. For the last year I was growing to hate 3rd edition because I had to edit all the monster stats for War of the Burning Sky.



Interesting perspective.
It seems to show a disconnect between playing and publishing.


Long before 4e was announced I hated the 3E locks on creature advancement by types.  This is a huge area for improvement.

On the other hand I'm concerned that while it may be really really easy as a publisher to say creature 1 has a +X ranged 1d10 necrotic attack and creature 2 of the same level has a +Y ranged 1d8 fire attack, the new locks on "the math works" will make encounters play a lot more like one another.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Although, I have to say... people seriously complained if you gave a published 3E monster a special power that didn't correspond to any spell or PC special ability?  That's so bizarre.  I can't imagine complaining about such a thing, nor can I imagine any of my group doing so.  Who does that?




Yes. Peeps did/do complain. My group = never (most have been with me since the early/mid 80s of 1e, so they dont mind the difference between monsters and PCs). But- I've been to a few Cons or gaming gatherings around here where I've seen and heard players complain when a monster could do some "uber-cool" trick that couldn't be replicated by spell or magic item.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 7, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Boy howdy. For the last year I was growing to hate 3rd edition because I had to edit all the monster stats for War of the Burning Sky. But for the last two adventures I just decided, "Screw it." Stuff works the way I think will play well. I think I even put in an entry for a wizard, when detailing his cantrips prepared, that said, "Who cares?"
> 
> I designed the final beastie for adventure 10, and I actually had a lot of fun just giving it powers that would play well.




You can't do that! 

If I am not mistaken "DM Fiat" is a mechanic unique to 4e. Unless you've ponied up the 5k, I think you just broke a law or something.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Clark Peterson may be speaking of his experience with the Tome of Horrors, which was the first monster book for 3E. It came out while the zeitgeist for the game was still in its infancy, and people might have been expecting more closely-integrated monster design at the time.




Not Tome. That was the Creature Collection by SSS/WW


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I can't imagine complaining about such a thing, nor can I imagine any of my group doing so.  Who does that?



The Internet.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Not Tome. That was the Creature Collection by SSS/WW



 It's all a bit hazy now....


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

never mind.  not a respectful contribution to this discussion.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I just...I can't express how wrong I think this type of statement is.  It's dismissive, it's divisive, and it...I mean, why should WotC share how anything works?  You don't need to know about designing feats or monsters or spells or powers or classes; it's just your home game.  Handwave whatever you want.
> 
> I don't hate 4e, and I certainly don't hate Necromancer Games.  I'm not going to derail this thread any further.



 Huh?


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> My thoughts _exactly_.




Agreed as well on the same thing. While I can understand Clark's enthusiasm (and I look forward to seeing the book), it's very weird (and wrong, IMO) to say that 3e was in any way limiting in monster design (types exlcuded). The trick with 3e monster design was to find unique abilities that in fact, didn't mimic spells, or were just another boring energy attack hiding under a fancy name. I can see 4e having exactly the same problems. Adding a new ability under a diffrent name that just does some type of damage - well, I don't see that as particularly liberating or interesting.

Pinotage


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

I've been very impressed by the monster stat blocks, they're one of my favourite aspects of 4e. I see them as very much an evolution from 3e, particularly MM4 and MM5.

3e mostly got monsters right. I liked how they had the same stats as PCs, such as strength scores. A great improvement on 1e and 2e imo, at last I knew how much gryphons could carry and so forth.

The 4e blocks have retained most of the 3e stats. They've done away with feats, grapple bonus, space/reach (the former could be calculated from size anyway so it was pointless in 3.5) and armor class breakdown. Ref save and touch AC have been conflated, skill list is reduced, special attacks and qualities have their own section.

The presentation is a lot better imo, following on from MM4 and 5. Special abilities are *much* clearer, highlighted in bold text. This may seem minor but I think it's very significant. The special powers are one of the most important features of a monster, so they definitely should 'jump out' at the reader. I've missed lots of abilities using MM1 and 3, but I don't think I ever have using 4 and 5.

4e has broken with tradition in that PHB spells are no longer used for most powers. That's a very good thing. It was always lazy design, and boring too. This makes things much easier for the DM at the table.

You could always create unique, flavorful powers for monsters, from 1e-3e, but 4e has really embraced the idea. Every 4e monster now has at least one interesting ability and often more than that. By dispensing with PHB spell powers, a culture of creativity in monster design is encouraged.

In one important respect 4e is stricter than 3e. A monster's challenge rating (now expressed as level and xp bonus) implies a specific range of combat numbers whereas 3e played it by ear. The level of challenge presented by a monster is extremely important, the game has to get it right. 3e was loose where it should've been tight.

3e was strict in completely the wrong place. A lot of stats - feats, skills, BAB, saves - were determined by HD and type. But this added nothing of worth to the game. Not only that but other stats - attributes and armor class - which contributed a great deal to a monster's combat effectiveness were unbounded. It must be great to know as a player that the beast with 150 strength that's kicking the crap out of your PC has the right number of skill points for its hit dice.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 7, 2008)

Yay Clark!  Now if you could just convince the guys on your own forum.  The Necromancer board has gotten so anti-4e that I hate going there anymore.   :\


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Agreed as well on the same thing. While I can understand Clark's enthusiasm (and I look forward to seeing the book), it's very weird (and wrong, IMO) to say that 3e was in any way limiting in monster design (types exlcuded). The trick with 3e monster design was to find unique abilities that in fact, didn't mimic spells, or were just another boring energy attack hiding under a fancy name. I can see 4e having exactly the same problems. Adding a new ability under a diffrent name that just does some type of damage - well, I don't see that as particularly liberating or interesting.
> 
> Pinotage




One of my favorite creations was the Patron Imp. It was an evil outsider that acted as a sort of 'familiar' to a Bard, granting it bonuses to Perform, Bardic Knowledge, and other checks which increased the longer the Patron was associated with the Bard. It also slowly moved the Bard's alignment to CE. To a large extent, it was a statted out plot device; it had next to no combat abilities, the best it could do was cast suggestion to get someone to defend it and flee back to the Abyss if that didn't work. 

From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist. It very explicitly doesn't 'live for 5 rounds' -- it needs to hang out with the bard over the span of several *levels*. It uses Alter Self and the like to make it look like it's something harmless, like a friendly Pixie. It's intended as an NPC, not an 'encounter'. 

Not saying "4e is t3h suxx0r!!!!" because this kind of 'monster' no longer fits in the paradigm, but it *is* more narrowly focused. (Unless there's some way to do something like this we haven't seen yet...)


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 3e was strict in completely the wrong place. A lot of stats - feats, skills, BAB, saves - were determined by HD and type. But this added nothing of worth to the game. Not only that but other stats - attributes and armor class - which contributed a great deal to a monster's combat effectiveness were unbounded. It must be great to know as a player that the beast with 150 strength that's kicking the crap out of your PC has the right number of skill points for its hit dice.




"But guys, the thing TOTALLY SUCKED at basket weaving! You should have exploited that!"


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist.



As you say yourself, it's a plot device, not a monster.

I remember seeing some of the plot devices masquerading as monsters in earlier editions and thinking "What is this doing in the same section as the things you hack to bits?" That sort of creature doesn't need an initiative score, armor class, etc.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Huh?



never mind.  just...never mind.  Or email me.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> As you say yourself, it's a plot device, not a monster.
> 
> I remember seeing some of the plot devices masquerading as monsters in earlier editions and thinking "What is this doing in the same section as the things you hack to bits?" That sort of creature doesn't need an initiative score, armor class, etc.




Sure it does, when the PCs finally figure out what it's up to and attack it. 

Seriously, giving it mechanics serves a purpose. How good a liar is it? If it's with the PCs and they're hit by a fireball, does it die? How fast can it travel -- will it slow down the PCs on a long march, or not? Can it help carry the treasure? Etc. There's plenty of reasons for statting out such creatures. Maybe they need a different 'template' than monsters, or should be handled differently, but treating them as purely statless incarnations of DM fiat isn't the way to go, esp. in games like D&D.


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of my favorite creations was the Patron Imp. It was an evil outsider that acted as a sort of 'familiar' to a Bard, granting it bonuses to Perform, Bardic Knowledge, and other checks which increased the longer the Patron was associated with the Bard. It also slowly moved the Bard's alignment to CE. To a large extent, it was a statted out plot device; it had next to no combat abilities, the best it could do was cast suggestion to get someone to defend it and flee back to the Abyss if that didn't work.
> 
> From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist. It very explicitly doesn't 'live for 5 rounds' -- it needs to hang out with the bard over the span of several *levels*. It uses Alter Self and the like to make it look like it's something harmless, like a friendly Pixie. It's intended as an NPC, not an 'encounter'.
> 
> Not saying "4e is t3h suxx0r!!!!" because this kind of 'monster' no longer fits in the paradigm, but it *is* more narrowly focused. (Unless there's some way to do something like this we haven't seen yet...)



 Interesting.  It could be written simply as a plot device.  However, it is still a creature and it can be killed.  I'd stat it out as a 4E minion, give it only a Suggestion-type attack vs. Will, a teleport ability, some sort of aura that grants a single ally bonuses to certain skills, and...if we knew how the social encounter system worked, I'd make all of its other relevant abilities related to those mechanics.  

Oh, and give it Skill Training in all the appropriate skills, like Insight, Bluff, Arcane, and Diplomacy.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Color me agreeing with this. I hated wuss fey. I ended up giving some arbitrary combat bonuses to make them more macho.




Colour me _Badd_!

Seriously, yes, all Fey being anaemic wusses was irritating, I mean, should Satyrs, who are know for fighting and fornicating, have such a worthless BAB and Fort just by virtue of being Fey?

*Waits for the 3rd Ed Avengers to explain why it made sense…*


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of my favorite creations was the Patron Imp. It was an evil outsider that acted as a sort of 'familiar' to a Bard, granting it bonuses to Perform, Bardic Knowledge, and other checks which increased the longer the Patron was associated with the Bard. It also slowly moved the Bard's alignment to CE. To a large extent, it was a statted out plot device; it had next to no combat abilities, the best it could do was cast suggestion to get someone to defend it and flee back to the Abyss if that didn't work.
> 
> From what I can tell of 4e design, this kind of monster can't exist. It very explicitly doesn't 'live for 5 rounds' -- it needs to hang out with the bard over the span of several *levels*. It uses Alter Self and the like to make it look like it's something harmless, like a friendly Pixie. It's intended as an NPC, not an 'encounter'.
> 
> Not saying "4e is t3h suxx0r!!!!" because this kind of 'monster' no longer fits in the paradigm, but it *is* more narrowly focused. (Unless there's some way to do something like this we haven't seen yet...)




What if you could have that same concept, except with an interesting combat once the bard decided not to use the thing anymore? We haven't seen a rule yet that implies that monsters cease existing 5 minutes after the party meets them.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Although, I have to say... people seriously complained if you gave a published 3E monster a special power that didn't correspond to any spell or PC special ability?  That's so bizarre.  I can't imagine complaining about such a thing, nor can I imagine any of my group doing so.  Who does that?



People complained.  The complaints came from two types of persons.  

First, the type of person who goes through the monster entries and writes angry rants on the internet about how incompetent WOTC is because somebody forgot a synergy bonus on a skill.  These types of persons got especially mad if you started doing things like assigning inexplicable bonuses or penalties to the DC of a power.

The second were people who's players researched monster manuals for shapeshifting options.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The second were people who's players researched monster manuals for shapeshifting options.



The third were those player's DMs.


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> People complained.  The complaints came from two types of persons.
> 
> First, the type of person who goes through the monster entries and writes angry rants on the internet about how incompetent WOTC is because somebody forgot a synergy bonus on a skill.  These types of persons got especially mad if you started doing things like assigning inexplicable bonuses or penalties to the DC of a power.




They weren't even angry rants, a lot of the time. Look at quite a few of John Cooper's reviews/unofficial errata for 3E books; there is a lot of synergy bonus and save DC dickering going on, and those were respected and valued contributions.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

thatdarnedbob said:
			
		

> What if you could have that same concept, except with an interesting combat once the bard decided not to use the thing anymore? We haven't seen a rule yet that implies that monsters cease existing 5 minutes after the party meets them.




Hmm.

I like the minion idea someone else posted as a way of giving it stats withough making it an effective solo combatant. A minion sans an army of its fellow minions is basically a gas spore.

Combat, combat...

If it has been spurned/discovered, and has been with the Bard more than a level (this is a way of mechanically defining a 'bond'), it can tap into the same primal creative force the Bard uses to call forth a Cacophony Elemental  (A Solo Controller with lots of area attacks) of the same level as said Bard to slay the ungrateful musician and bring his soul to wherever souls go in 4e. If it's found out before then, it just vanishes in a huff and the PCs get credit for a social challenge.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Now we just need to jazz up the Carbuncle, Flumph, and Flail Snail.




Giev harcore flumph!


really, JK....


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 7, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've been very impressed by the monster stat blocks, they're one of my favourite aspects of 4e. I see them as very much an evolution from 3e, particularly MM4 and MM5.




I agree about the stat blocks, they're actually FUN to read! From a DM perspective i guess. 



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You could always create unique, flavorful powers for monsters, from 1e-3e, but 4e has really embraced the idea. Every 4e monster now has at least one interesting ability and often more than that. By dispensing with PHB spell powers, a culture of creativity in monster design is encouraged.




I'm really curious to see how battles pan out when you mix and match a large number of different monsters.  Just having orcs, bugbears and some kobolds battling against the PC's could be a vastly different experience than 3e (or 2e, or 1e). 

My ultimate hope is that despite the flaws of 4e (which i know they're there) the good stuff outweighs the bad.


----------



## Novem5er (Mar 7, 2008)

So far, I'm jazzed about 4e monsters. I'm not tempted to build monsters from scratch for my home campaign (not every monster, just the occasional inspiration). However, I have one concern with monster construction. Seeing the full rules might cure this fear, but I thought I'd bring it up here to see if anyone has any input.

So far, it looks like we can assign a Level and a Role and that will give us a general HP range, AC/Defenses, and damage per round.

But how do we balance all those interesting powers?

Teleportation, grabs, status effects, continuing damage, etc...

I just see so many options, I'm really not sure how the designers (or us at home) are going to keep them in line.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 7, 2008)

People actually complained about monsters having abilities that they couldn't obtain?!  I mean, I can be nitpicky about numbers, but I won't complain about my human wizard not being a balor. That's really not sane. On the other hand, if my character for some reason is a balor, or the monster in question is a human wizard, then I might be a bit miffed (there might be prestige classes, feats, templates, or other stuff involved, so the differences can come from those, of course).


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 7, 2008)

thatdarnedbob said:
			
		

> They weren't even angry rants, a lot of the time. Look at quite a few of John Cooper's reviews/unofficial errata for 3E books; there is a lot of synergy bonus and save DC dickering going on, and those were respected and valued contributions.




That's just what I was thinking.  John Cooper's gonna be out of a job.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I totally feel that way.
> 
> Scott and I were talking and I was talking with Erik Mona. Here was my rant of the particular day:
> 
> ...





Why couldnt you just give it a supernatural ability to do this in 3.5? Slap a DC on it if ya want, give it a bonus to the save if you want, and call it a day. CR? Meh... anyone who read the MM knows CR is eyeballed at best.

I'm rather excited about the simplified monster design. I stopped giving a damn to remember/write down synergy bonus to skills, what low level spells casters know etc a long time ago. However I do think people may have overcomplicated doing some stuff in 3.5. If you want some flying snakes... give them a fly speed. If a player whines about how he cant grow wings... well thats not really a system problem.


----------



## malraux (Mar 7, 2008)

IME, the problem wasn't giving monsters some special ability, it was giving them all the associated things to make the ability useful.  Using the skeleton with that ranged necrotic damage thing, sure you can just add that ability to a skeleton.  However, since its a ranged attack, you need to add feats: point blank shot and precise shot.  So this means I can't add this necrotic thing to a skeleton (because it can't have feats).  In addition, if I'm using a base undead to add this on, I'll have to advance it by 4 to 6 HD so it can get access to feats, assuming I don't want to give it bonus feats.

The point being not so much that you can't just add everything you need to a particular creature, but that the 3e rules strongly imply that there's a "right" way to do something.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Mar 7, 2008)

The biggest issue with 3E monster design, in my view, was BAB, HD size, and (to a lesser extent) skills being tied to Type.  That really hamstrung things to a much greater extent than did standardized powers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> So far, I'm jazzed about 4e monsters. I'm not tempted to build monsters from scratch for my home campaign (not every monster, just the occasional inspiration). However, I have one concern with monster construction. Seeing the full rules might cure this fear, but I thought I'd bring it up here to see if anyone has any input.
> 
> So far, it looks like we can assign a Level and a Role and that will give us a general HP range, AC/Defenses, and damage per round.
> 
> ...



I suspect (but have no hard evidence) that the DMG will also contain guidelines for this kind of stuff. And what you don't find in the DMG, you might find in the PHB - look at the spell/exploit/prayer that matches what you like. 

In this regard, I think the difference between 3.x and 4E might not be so big, though - it's like adding a spell-like ability to a newly generated monster. The difference might be that you don't have to word it exactly like the spell, and can create a simpler or more eloberate version, depending on what you want for the monster.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> IME, the problem wasn't giving monsters some special ability, it was giving them all the associated things to make the ability useful.  Using the skeleton with that ranged necrotic damage thing, sure you can just add that ability to a skeleton.  However, since its a ranged attack, you need to add feats: point blank shot and precise shot.  So this means I can't add this necrotic thing to a skeleton (because it can't have feats).  In addition, if I'm using a base undead to add this on, I'll have to advance it by 4 to 6 HD so it can get access to feats, assuming I don't want to give it bonus feats.
> 
> The point being not so much that you can't just add everything you need to a particular creature, but that the 3e rules strongly imply that there's a "right" way to do something.




I never thought of it as 'needed to' -- it could just have a normal ranged attack. Give it a high dex score or something. What was nice,to me, was that you could add feats and know they'd work properly.


----------



## malraux (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I never thought of it as 'needed to' -- it could just have a normal ranged attack. Give it a high dex score or something. What was nice,to me, was that you could add feats and know they'd work properly.



Well, -8 is pretty big penalty to an attack role, and I'm assuming that you'd put some sort of tanking creature between the ranged attack guys and the PCs.  Even assuming that this energy only requires a touch attack, without the basic archery feats, its gonna miss a lot.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> The biggest issue with 3E monster design, in my view, was BAB, HD size, and (to a lesser extent) skills being tied to Type.  That really hamstrung things to a much greater extent than did standardized powers.




I'm running the Savage Tides adventure path... let me tell you about ninja dinosaurs! Why does a baby Diplodocus have a +9 Reflex save?!? Oh yeah, 16 HD...

PS


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Well, -8 is pretty big penalty to an attack role, and I'm assuming that you'd put some sort of tanking creature between the ranged attack guys and the PCs.  Even assuming that this energy only requires a touch attack, without the basic archery feats, its gonna miss a lot.




Why -8? Did I miss something?

Genericus Skeletonus has a 13 Dex and a BAB of 0, for a +1 ranged modifier. Assume this ability is on a more powerful skeleton -- 4 HD. That gives it a +2 BAB and +1 for dex for a +3 -- not the greatest in the world, but reasonable for a CR 2 or so creature.


----------



## malraux (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Why -8? Did I miss something?
> 
> Genericus Skeletonus has a 13 Dex and a BAB of 0, for a +1 ranged modifier. Assume this ability is on a more powerful skeleton -- 4 HD. That gives it a +2 BAB and +1 for dex for a +3 -- not the greatest in the world, but reasonable for a CR 2 or so creature.



Firing into combat is a -4.  And generally if you are firing into melee, you're gonna have an ally in between you and the target.  Therefore your target will also have soft cover for another -4 (ok, technically its an AC boost to the target, but same difference).  So total, its -8 to attack without PS and PBS.  Obviously this is the modifier to whatever the monster's ranged attack bonus is.  But its a big penalty regardless.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> The bonesnapper really got me thinking about mechanics. About what we can and cant do. 3E was all about what you cant do. I think 4E will be about what you can do.
> 
> For instance. I want the bonesnapper bite to cause a slow effect on a crit, simulating that he broke a leg or arm with his bite. Here is where the mechanic comes in--I dont want it to end on a successful save. I want to say "until healed". Healing surge, magic, whatever. But a save alone isnt enough to overcome the effect. Now, in 3E that type of deviation from a rigid mechanic would get you burned at the stake. For 4E, it just might work. Still, we'll have to see.




Ooooh, nasty...

*m Bite*
+9 vs AC, damage 1d10+4 (1d10+14 crit) plus Break Bones on a critical to an opponent already bloodied.

*m Break Bones*
+9 vs. Fortitude
hit: victim is slowed until long term rest.
miss: victim is slowed. (save ends)

Sorta breaks the "long term damage doesn't exist" pseudo-meme, but who cares?  Nobody would want to mix it up with these guys in melee...  And imagine having to pull along a wounded party member as you evacuate the dungeon to heal his leg as the rest of the denizens nip at your heels....


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I'm running the Savage Tides adventure path... let me tell you about ninja dinosaurs! Why does a baby Diplodocus have a +9 Reflex save?!? Oh yeah, 16 HD...
> 
> PS




Yeah, in 4e, it will only have a +*8* Reflex save (Save=1/2 level)

I'm sure glad THAT was fixed! Wow! That's an amazing difference, and it's going to totally change the way the game works for me! Damn! How did we live so long without this? Boy, now I know 3e was t3h suxx0r!

(It's also going to have a +8 Acrobatics check, +8 Stealth, and +8 Diplomacy...it's not just a ninja dinosaur, it's a ninja dinosaur that can con your shirt off! Smell the realism!)

You may detect just the slightest hint of sarcasm. The slightest. A hint.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I never thought of it as 'needed to' -- it could just have a normal ranged attack. Give it a high dex score or something. What was nice,to me, was that you could add feats and know they'd work properly.



I just didn't like the unexpected consequences.  Things like adjusting ability scores to fix issues that cropped up due to hit die and attack bonus and default saves often had ripple effects which required adjustments on other portions of the monster.  You could always get where you were going in the end (that's what racial bonuses on monsters are for) but it was a hassle.

I eventually stopped statting up enemies, and just started creating shells.  If an enemy became relevant in some way other than what I'd put in my shell, I ad libbed, and if the enemy was going to recur in a later campaign session, THEN I statted him up.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Blah, blah, blah, sarcasm.



What makes you think the baby dinosaur will be a level 16 player character?


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What makes you think the baby dinosaur will be a level 16 player character?



The half-level bonus applies to monsters as well. Now, the baby dinosaur might not be a 16th level standard monster, but a lower-level elite or solo, but those seem to get other bonuses as well. It probably has pretty low Int, Dex, and Cha, though.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What makes you think the baby dinosaur will be a level 16 player character?




EVERYTHING gets +1/2 level. That's "the math".

Look at the various monster stats we've seen so far.

If I'm wrong, I missed something somewhere. Point it out to me, please.


----------



## Kraydak (Mar 7, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Firing into combat is a -4.  And generally if you are firing into melee, you're gonna have an ally in between you and the target.  Therefore your target will also have soft cover for another -4 (ok, technically its an AC boost to the target, but same difference).  So total, its -8 to attack without PS and PBS.  Obviously this is the modifier to whatever the monster's ranged attack bonus is.  But its a big penalty regardless.




And guess what?  That big penalty is a hidden hand to protect the DM!  Low level (3e) characters are very fragile, and hence extremely vulnerable to focused fire.  Melee types have a hard time focussing fire, but ranged combatants do it casually.  Therefore it helps if (at low levels) ranged combatants have to choose between heftily penalized focused fire and accurate, distributed opportunity fire.

Wow, the prerequisite system works to avoid giving monsters abilities too early.  Shocker.  And there are even ways around that if you really want the ability too (bonus feats, fighter levels).  It's a miracle!

Ok, that last is going a bit far, and the prerequisite system doesn't always work as well as it does in this case.  Oh weapon finesse, how I hate your +1 BaB requirement.  Still, complaining about abilities having prerequisites in a system that lets you bypass those prereqs if you really really want to and are willing to risk the abilities being overpowered for their new level is... foolish.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, in 4e, it will only have a +*8* Reflex save (Save=1/2 level)
> 
> I'm sure glad THAT was fixed! Wow! That's an amazing difference, and it's going to totally change the way the game works for me! Damn! How did we live so long without this? Boy, now I know 3e was t3h suxx0r!
> 
> ...



Hmm. Don't notice anything.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> EVERYTHING gets +1/2 level. That's "the math".



From what we know, monsters don't HAVE to follow "the math."


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> From what we know, monsters don't HAVE to follow "the math."




Everything I've seen is that it's built into the guidelines. At the least, I've seen nothing which breaks it yet. Can you show me some samples which dispute this?

As far as I can tell, the monster guidelines give ranges for attributes, armor class, and damage. You don't need complex tables to figure saves, BAB, and so on because it's always +1/2 level +Attribute modifier. Brutes have high strength for their level, artillery high dex, leaders (i would guess) high charisma, and so on.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> EVERYTHING gets +1/2 level. That's "the math".




Do characters get 1/2 level as a bonus to damage (I know monsters don't - pit fiend etc)?


----------



## 1of3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Now we just need to jazz up the (...) Flumph (...).




As you command... 

Flumph
Level 3 Lurker
Medium aberrant magical beast
XP 150
Initiative: +6
Senses: Perception +9; low-light vision
HP 46; Bloodied 23
AC 17; Fortitude 13, Reflex 15, Will 14
Speed 1; fly 4 (good)

m Spikes (Standard; at will) • Acid
+8 vs. AC; 2d4+5 and ongoing 3 acid (save ends)

C Nauseating Spray (Standard; recharge 5,6) • Poison
Close Line 4; +7 vs. Reflex; 2d6+5 and Stunned (save ends)

Alignment Lawful Good Languages Common
Skills: Dungeoneering +9, Perception +9, Stealth +10
Str 13 (+2) Dex 19 (+3) Wis 16 (+4)
Con 14 (+3) Int 14 (+5) Cha 13 (+2)



I used the Hobgoblin Warcaster as a base. Not sure about the damage.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Talkative lizards are less rare than one might think.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Do characters get 1/2 level as a bonus to damage (I know monsters don't - pit fiend etc)?




Ah, the joys of internet nitpickery...

By "Everything", in this context, I mean "Everything that gets +1/2 level is (as near as I can tell) shared among monsters and characters." I do not think characters get it either, but, if they did, it would surprise me that monsters did not.

Have we seen anything to indicate a level-based damage bonus for characters?


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, in 4e, it will only have a +*8* Reflex save (Save=1/2 level)




Except it's not level 16. CR 4 --> +2, then apply Dex penalty...   



> You may detect just the slightest hint of sarcasm. The slightest. A hint.




Around here? Where?   

PS


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> EVERYTHING gets +1/2 level. That's "the math".
> 
> Look at the various monster stats we've seen so far.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I missed something somewhere. Point it out to me, please.




You're wrong in thinking that 3.5e Hit Dice (which are gone in 4e...) in any way relates to 4e monster level.

But that's ok! Rant on! It's all good.

PS


----------



## Puggins (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, in 4e, it will only have a +*8* Reflex save (Save=1/2 level)



It may.  Or you know, it probably won't.  That baby dragon that the DDXP parties fought was level 4 and had *280* hit points.  In other words, just because you're huge and beefy doesn't make you good at everything- that baby dinosaur could be level 2 with 150 hit points and have a ref defense of 10 after factoring its just-out-of-the-womb dex.



> I'm sure glad THAT was fixed! Wow!



Yep, me too.



> You may detect just the slightest hint of sarcasm. The slightest. A hint.



It helps to have have a clue about what you're being sarcastic about.  Otherwise you could wind up looking rather silly.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Except it's not level 16. CR 4 --> +2, then apply Dex penalty...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So what's a CR 4 critter doing with 16 hit dice?


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I'd make most dinosaurs in the level 6-12 range , maybe elite for large herbivores, solo for large predators, regular for pack predators (e.g., velociraptor).  The big dinos would probably be brutes, so they would have a lot of hit points (befitting their size), but with low Int and Dex, their Reflex defense would only be around 10 + 1/2 level (+3 to +6) = 13 to 16.  The velociraptors (or Utahraptor, or deinonychus, or what you will) would probably be skirmishers, or maybe lurkers in some cases. 

I guess what I am trying to say in that 1st paragraph is that we have to reevaluate how we build monsters.  Consider that a T-Rex, while it has 18 HD in 3.5E, is only a CR 8 monster.  HD in 3.5E was relatively uncoupled from CR - obviously more HD usually meant more CR, but we have 20 HD zombies that are CR 6, while 20 HD balors are CR 20.  Special abilities, creature type and the associated saves and BAB, ability scores, AC, etc., really made CR in 3.x.  But they were not integrated with HD, and so you got wonky results.  Now, all of those values -- AC, defenses, attack bonus, hit points -- are tied to monster level and role. 

So the 18 HD T-Rex in 3.5E suddenly becomes a level 8 solo brute in 4E.  It has tons of hit points, but its attack bonus is not ridiculous for its CR (+20 and swallow whole against lvl 8  PCs, c'mon) and its defenses are appropriate for fighting level 8 PCs (rather than the current high Fort and Ref vs. CR 8).  There are probably weird and wonky situations in this system as well, but from the looks of it, because level and role dictate so many things, it is easier to arrive at the solution you want.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So what's a CR 4 critter doing with 16 hit dice?




Not much! Adventure Spoiler...

[sblock]In the adventure it's running from some Axebeaks (called Terrorbirds...) and you're supposed to save it... our Druid did Hold Monster on it so the Axebeaks would eat it in peace and let the party go...   [/sblock]


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Have we seen anything to indicate a level-based damage bonus for characters?




Yep, the paladin smites mentions extra damage just by virtue of being a higher level.

I have somehow misplaced them, but I'm sure one of the lovely members of these boards will oblige.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

> In binding smite you can see an example of how the effect of a smite goes up with level, while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and damage boosts that merely gaining levels (and having better weapons) affords. It just gets … well, better. Heck, it's epic, after all, so it has to be good, and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good. When you're fighting balor, ancient blue dragons, and sorrowsworn, it had better be good -- those critters don't fool around!



article


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Not much! Adventure Spoiler...
> 
> [sblock]In the adventure it's running from some Axebeaks (called Terrorbirds...) and you're supposed to save it... our Druid did Hold Monster on it so the Axebeaks would eat it in peace and let the party go...   [/sblock]




That's, uh, some druid...

I'm guessing his holy symbol is a fish with legs.

IAE, I was working on the assumption that even though 'hit dice' are gone in 4e for monsters, hit *points* are some function of Level*Number, and if it has 16HD in 3x, it would be 16th level in 4 to have roughly the same hit *points*. I forgot about the multipliers for elite/solo monsters which can ramp them up.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So what's a CR 4 critter doing with 16 hit dice?



Having a lot of hit points but no serious ability to attack.  At least, that's what it SHOULD be doing, except that you have to monkey with everything to accommodate for its automatic base attack bonus.  Logically, it should be strong, and it should be tough (its a big dinosaur), but its also slow and doesn't possess any meaningful weapons.  Unfortunately you're stuck with a huge BAB and a high strength score.  Even if you give it unarmed damage adjusted by size, you're still looking at a powerful creature.  We could rework the entire monster to have 4 hit dice and a gigantic constitution, but that creates problems for our ADULT diplodicus, who we want to have a good trample attack.

Or, we could just, you know, assign it some stats based on a chart of standards and our personal feelings on how to adjust stuff.  Yay!


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Or, we could just, you know, assign it some stats based on a chart of standards and our personal feelings on how to adjust stuff.  Yay!




Bah, that could never work.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> That's, uh, some druid...
> 
> I'm guessing his holy symbol is a fish with legs.




Something like that!   

PS


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> article




Ta very much.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure it does, when the PCs finally figure out what it's up to and attack it.
> 
> Seriously, giving it mechanics serves a purpose. How good a liar is it? If it's with the PCs and they're hit by a fireball, does it die? How fast can it travel -- will it slow down the PCs on a long march, or not? Can it help carry the treasure? Etc. There's plenty of reasons for statting out such creatures. Maybe they need a different 'template' than monsters, or should be handled differently, but treating them as purely statless incarnations of DM fiat isn't the way to go, esp. in games like D&D.




You're right that your "patron imp" won't be possible in 4E as it first comes out.  That's because it belongs to a specific category of "helper creature" that the 4E design team freely admits they're still working on.  We're talking about things like wizard familiars, druid animal companions, and paladin mounts.

The design purpose of these creatures is to help out a character in some fashion, not function as characters in their own right.  Yet at the same time there has to be an answer to the question of, "What if somebody attacks one?  What if they try to do something on their own?"  In 3E they were given their own stat blocks like any other creature and either they were too weak to bring anywhere near the battlefield (making them a liability) or strong enough to stand on their own (meaning that a player was in effect running two characters).

Apparently there are some ideas being considered for an effective way to do this, but the development team won't have it figured out by the first PHB.  That's why you won't see wizard familiars, paladin mounts, or ranger animal companions as options in the first PHB.  However, helper creatures will be in the game eventually.  And when they are, it should provide a clear design structure for how ti implement your patron imp.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

OK maybe I got a little carried away in my enthusiasm, but in my view there is no doubt that monster design for -a designer- (as opposed to home DM) is easier and much, much more fun.  I liked a lot about 3E monster design. But I felt that it had some unnecessary restraints. The gloves are off in 4E. I like that. 

I am still so geeked about this. 

I love the discussion! Keep it up! I'm sure not expecting everyone to agree with me, just cause I am all hyper about it.


----------



## malraux (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> And guess what?  That big penalty is a hidden hand to protect the DM!  Low level (3e) characters are very fragile, and hence extremely vulnerable to focused fire.  Melee types have a hard time focussing fire, but ranged combatants do it casually.  Therefore it helps if (at low levels) ranged combatants have to choose between heftily penalized focused fire and accurate, distributed opportunity fire.
> 
> Wow, the prerequisite system works to avoid giving monsters abilities too early.  Shocker.  And there are even ways around that if you really want the ability too (bonus feats, fighter levels).  It's a miracle!
> 
> Ok, that last is going a bit far, and the prerequisite system doesn't always work as well as it does in this case.  Oh weapon finesse, how I hate your +1 BaB requirement.  Still, complaining about abilities having prerequisites in a system that lets you bypass those prereqs if you really really want to and are willing to risk the abilities being overpowered for their new level is... foolish.



Oh, I'm not saying that a gang of these Darkblast Skeletons would be an equal match for a 1st level party.  My objection is that so much of these safeguards are unobvious and tedious to work through.  That is, the only way to safely add this to a monster to keep within the balance rules is to go the monster advancement route.  A better system would instead give the DM direct guidance as to what is reasonable for melee and ranged attack values at each level.


----------



## Andur (Mar 7, 2008)

I'd rather have a designer over excited rather than underwhelmed...

Always have enjoyed the products from Necromance Games.

Now about those signed copies of your upcoming 4e bestiary...


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Remember, Orcus is not a DM designing for his home game. ... This is meaningless if you use your monsters only in your home game. Usually, no one besides gets to see your monster stats in the detail to complain about them.






			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> _Big_ difference between making monsters for your home game and making monsters for published adventures.




OK (deep breath).  I'm going to tackle this again, briefly.  As far as I can tell (since you're not very specific), you're assuming homebrew creatures are held to a lower standard than published creatures.  That may be true for you, but it's not for me.  I add in synergy bonuses.  I put little superscript "B"s by bonus feats.  I try to make interesting, viable, and worthwhile monsters that will be interesting to fight or otherwise interact with.  And honestly, 95% of them don't get used in my campaign.  I -would- like to publish them, someday.

When I'm writing statblocks for an adventure I'm running, I do use shortcuts.  But that's not how I create monsters.

And for the record again, I'd love to see types reworked (the 4e system looks pretty good) and skills simplified.  But neither of those has anything to do with Orcus's example of a "weird" power (I'm pretty sure there are skeletons with blast powers, actually).


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2008)

1of3 said:
			
		

> As you command...
> 
> Flumph
> Level 3 Lurker
> ...




Nice. Now, just need a Flumph Commander, Flumph Hellspawn, and Flumph Overmind


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Having a lot of hit points but no serious ability to attack.  At least, that's what it SHOULD be doing, except that you have to monkey with everything to accommodate for its automatic base attack bonus.  Logically, it should be strong, and it should be tough (its a big dinosaur), but its also slow and doesn't possess any meaningful weapons.  Unfortunately you're stuck with a huge BAB and a high strength score.  Even if you give it unarmed damage adjusted by size, you're still looking at a powerful creature.  We could rework the entire monster to have 4 hit dice and a gigantic constitution, but that creates problems for our ADULT diplodicus, who we want to have a good trample attack.
> 
> Or, we could just, you know, assign it some stats based on a chart of standards and our personal feelings on how to adjust stuff.  Yay!



3.5 tried to accommodate the special situation of "high HD, low attack" monster with giving some monsters no "primary attack", so they get a default -5 penalty to attacks. It will address some of your problems, but it's obviously an awkward fix - and again a rule that emphasizes that monsters and PCs are still not created equal...


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> ...Flumph Hellspawn...



But... but... they're supposed to lawful good!  Have the flumphs deceived us all?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> OK (deep breath).  I'm going to tackle this again, briefly.  As far as I can tell (since you're not very specific), you're assuming homebrew creatures are held to a lower standard than published creatures.



That's my general assumption and I am sticking to it. 

On a side note: I used to make my own monsters, with fine detail. To some degree, I still do it. 
But once I picked up _Mastering Iron Heroes_, and got the first glimpse of the villain classes, DMing has becoming a lot easier for me. No more fiddly skill points. Just give them the skills listed in the class, done. And then I went further. "damn these skill selection - this guy needes Diplomacy, so he'll get it!". Then I went even further, upon reading the articles on Minion/Elite/Solo monsters in 4E. "Screw HD advancement. This is an elite monster. Double hit points, add these feats, and add +1 CR. This is a minion monster - half hit points, reduce damage/attacks/spells, and CR -2. Done."

I suddenly felt freed. I could do monsters faster. I still put a lot of effort in the "special effects" of the monster, but creating the "base characteristics" got easier. Monster building is no loner the chore it seemed to be. "Skills: This is what it needs to fulfill its role in the adventure. Skill points per HD? Who cares?"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> But... but... they're supposed to lawful good!  Have the flumphs deceived us all?



What do you expect from hellspawn!


----------



## helium3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Gone are those cheesy voices in my head from 3E that limit everything to replicating spell effects. In 3E the concept was there couldnt be a power that PCs couldnt have access to--its not fair! they cried. That is a bunch of BS in my view. I am so glad to see a rule set go away from that.




*nod*

I noticed this as well. It was tough at first and I still tend to reference spells in an attempt to gauge the level of power of particular effect. I suppose it will be much easier when there are actual tables to reference.

Here's what I don't understand though. 3E in its attempt to turn monster generation into an algorithm was obviously reacting to some sort of a flaw in the ad-hoc monster design process that had come before it. What was the flaw that 3E was a reaction to and has that flaw been fixed as well?


----------



## helium3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Or, we could just, you know, assign it some stats based on a chart of standards and our personal feelings on how to adjust stuff.  Yay!




Well, you can also base it off a series of assumptions about what "balance" actually means and use those assumptions to generate your own table of values for attack, damage and AC. It's actually not that hard to do once you get everything logically worked out and posses a modest amount of Excel-Fu.

I've already done it for 3.5 though I haven't had a chance to actually test the beasties that result. That'll happen in the next game I run, I reckon. The tricky part about working with a table is making sure that your assumptions are very clear. If they aren't, it becomes very difficult to modify how you use the table correctly. I'm still fiddling with that at the moment. It could very well turn out that playtesting is the only good way to develop guidelines for handling situations that deviate from the basic assumptions.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> But... but... they're supposed to lawful good!  Have the flumphs deceived us all?




Scott was winking


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Nice. Now, just need a Flumph Commander, Flumph Hellspawn, and Flumph Overmind




Which one has the boobs? Also, we need to invent a race called Flumphborn.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

> Here's what I don't understand though. 3E in its attempt to turn monster generation into an algorithm was obviously reacting to some sort of a flaw in the ad-hoc monster design process that had come before it. What was the flaw that 3E was a reaction to and has that flaw been fixed as well?



I assume it was the general lack of guidelines then, but since I know next to nothing about AD&D, it's hard for me to contribute something substantial here.
The 3E approach was "over-engineering" this. I think their guideline was indeed: "Everything should be created equal. Then we can balance stuff more easily". It didn't work out so well - neither was everything created equal (Compare Dragon HD benefits to Fey HD benefits), nor ended everything balanced out. (Templates can have awkward effect if you base stuff on HD, without linking HD and CR. See also Summon Monster and Polymorph Effects)



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Well, you can also base it off a series of assumptions about what "balance" actually means and use those assumptions to generate your own table of values for attack, damage and AC. It's actually not that hard to do once you get everything logically worked out and posses a modest amount of Excel-Fu.
> 
> I've already done it for 3.5 though I haven't had a chance to actually test the beasties that result. That'll happen in the next game I run, I reckon. The tricky part about working with a table is making sure that your assumptions are very clear. If they aren't, it becomes very difficult to modify how you use the table correctly. I'm still fiddling with that at the moment. It could very well turn out that playtesting is the only good way to develop guidelines for handling situations that deviate from the basic assumptions.



It might be possible, but it is
- not by the book
- wonky. 
All your data points can only guide you in the right direction, but none of them will actually fit it. It's probably easier to start from the beginning and describe the "power curve" you want, and then make monsters that fit these data points. (Though instead of a curve, thanks to stuff like "roles" and "minion/elite/solo notations", you might actually have something n-dimensional...)


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 7, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Here's what I don't understand though. 3E in its attempt to turn monster generation into an algorithm was obviously reacting to some sort of a flaw in the ad-hoc monster design process that had come before it. What was the flaw that 3E was a reaction to and has that flaw been fixed as well?



I think the flaw, or common complaint, was that previous editions of D&D really didn't have a monster generation system.  I believe in the DMG there was something about Hit Dice and the number of special abilities and how many XP the monster should be worth.  But there wasn't any kind of a system for monster creation.  It was mostly: look at a current monster that you think is challenging enough and modify it until you've got what you want.  Or just eyeball numbers and playtest until it seems to come out right.

Further, monsters in 1e and 2e lacked many characteristics of PCs, most notably ability scores.  This made judging some interactions and abilities of monsters non-systematic.  It also made it hard to have someone play a monster.  This was indeed a big change in 3e, that now monsters were far easier for players to try to use (although as we eventually saw, balancing issues were quite problematic).  

I think it's only natural that when the designers decided to create a method for monster creation that they first decided on a method that roughly resembled PC creation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Which one has the boobs?



The female ones, of course! 
Or is this a trick question?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

> Further, monsters in 1e and 2e lacked many characteristics of PCs, most notably ability scores.



Oh yes, I think this is indeed a major point why 3E did he monster rules. It might have been one of the main reason for the 3E monster rules, and it still seems to be present in 4E.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 7, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Or just eyeball numbers and playtest until it seems to come out right.




Playtest? Don't you just me throw it at the PCs and see if it kills them?

PS


----------



## Spatula (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Yes. Peeps did/do complain. My group = never (most have been with me since the early/mid 80s of 1e, so they dont mind the difference between monsters and PCs). But- I've been to a few Cons or gaming gatherings around here where I've seen and heard players complain when a monster could do some "uber-cool" trick that couldn't be replicated by spell or magic item.



And those are the people you ignore.   The MM (the 1st one!) has all kinds of abilities in it that PCs can't have, so I'm not sure where this impulse comes from...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Playtest? Don't you just me throw it at the PCs and see if it kills them?
> 
> PS



Sounds like a play test to me. You play, and test if the PCs die or the monster dies. Sounds allright.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 7, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> That's just what I was thinking.  John Cooper's gonna be out of a job.



Not really, since a monsters HP, AC/Fort/Ref/Will, and possibly ability scores, along with attack bonuses / damage, are all based off formulas.  So there's still lots of areas for typos and for math-averse designers to screw up basic addition.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> OK maybe I got a little carried away in my enthusiasm, but in my view there is no doubt that monster design for -a designer- (as opposed to home DM) is easier and much, much more fun.




Please, keep the enthusiasm coming. From one designer to another, I get really bummed when I keep coming here reading about how 4e is like WoW and all that other stuff. Reading the stuff from Chris Pramas and that dude from Paizo was a bit disheartening. While I don't expect everyone to be geeked on 4e, its refreshing to read a post where another designer is excited.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 7, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Scott was winking



I'm aware.  



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> And those are the people you ignore.   The MM (the 1st one!) has all kinds of abilities in it that PCs can't have, so I'm not sure where this impulse comes from...



Apparently from White Wolf's Creature Collection that came out before people had the correct impression on monsters. However, even the _Player's Handbook_ had monsters that had such abilities (the Survival Kit), among them the mature adult red dragon with more Hit Dice than a PC could achieve before the Epic rules were published, or the gelatinous cube that could engulf foes. Those people must have been a bit ignorant, I guess.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2008)

Clark, welcome to the dark side. We have ale and whores. 

I think you're starting to get a sense of how much stuff I've wanted to tell you about, but can't. 



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> It seems things in 4e -- not just monsters, everything -- is really focused on being used for a specific purpose, and it does that job very very well, much better than its 3e counterpart did -- but at the same time, it is less useful when you try to do something else with it. 3e gave you a swiss army knife; 4e gives you a big box of high quality tools. Advantage -- each tool is much better at its job. Disadvantage -- you have to keep swapping tools. (The wolf you fight in the woods isn't the same as the wolf your druid has his animal companion, etc.)




This, to me, is a major _strength_ of 4E. I'd much rather a game that does what it's intended to do _excellently_ than one that does everything _adequately_.

Sure, there's room in the middle, and I'm not saying that 4E has found the "perfect" sweet spot. But I like and support the intention.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I assume it was the general lack of guidelines then, but since I know next to nothing about AD&D, it's hard for me to contribute something substantial here.
> The 3E approach was "over-engineering" this. I think their guideline was indeed: "Everything should be created equal. Then we can balance stuff more easily". It didn't work out so well - neither was everything created equal (Compare Dragon HD benefits to Fey HD benefits), nor ended everything balanced out. (Templates can have awkward effect if you base stuff on HD, without linking HD and CR. See also Summon Monster and Polymorph Effects)




Well, we don't really know what their design assumptions were. Perhaps under those assumptions a Fey encounter really was balanced against a Dragon encounter. But, because they didn't communicate those assumptions very well things fell apart.



> It might be possible, but it is
> - not by the book




The 4E announcement has given me the freedom to throw out the books when I feel like it. Not sure why.


> - wonky.




That remains to be seen. I'm quite sure about the numbers (they never lie) but ultimately it's the assumptions that cause the most problems. So, we'll see how things play out.



> All your data points can only guide you in the right direction, but none of them will actually fit it. It's probably easier to start from the beginning and describe the "power curve" you want, and then make monsters that fit these data points. (Though instead of a curve, thanks to stuff like "roles" and "minion/elite/solo notations", you might actually have something n-dimensional...)




This is what they're doing with 4E as near as I can tell. I'm messing around with 3.5 to see if I can do something similar. I'm really unhappy about some of the changes they're making to how classes work but I really dig a lot of the higher level "play style" changes. So, I'm trying to see if there's a way to have my cake and eat it to.


----------



## Kraydak (Mar 7, 2008)

I am going to embrace a countervailing opinion: in 4e monster design flexibility is going to take a nose-dive.  As I realized when posting in the Noonan playtest thread, because 4e PCs cannot nova, the 4e xp/monster system *has* to be more accurate than the 3e CR system (math-wise they are the same, there is no quantum leap in game design).  This means that monster design will be straightjacketed.  Rapidly people will go: oh, its an artillery foe, I wonder what (very short duration, minor effect) debuff this one will have?  Sure, the *fluff* will vary wildly, but the mechanical effects?  They will be clones of one-another.

Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 7, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Please, keep the enthusiasm coming. From one designer to another, I get really bummed when I keep coming here reading about how 4e is like WoW and all that other stuff. Reading the stuff from Chris Pramas and that dude from Paizo was a bit disheartening. While I don't expect everyone to be geeked on 4e, its refreshing to read a post where another designer is excited.



I have to agree that I have been very disappointed in the lack of any enthusiasm for 4E from the various major publishers.  I don't expect that every one would be excited, but you do think there would be more excitement.  I'm not sure I've seen any besides from Clark and you at this point.  (Maybe Goodman Games, but I'm not sure if they really post here).

Perhaps because...


			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm a gamer first and a game company owner second. Its the philosophy that I have always used with Necro.



Most of the d20 companies that have survived the years diversified and became businesses.  People like Erik Mona and Chris Pramas are game company owners first and gamers second.  They have to weigh the business reasons for going with 4E because a lot of people depend on their company staying viable.

Necromancer Games seems to have been at that sweet spot that while successful and respected, they didn't seem to become a "corporation" and that gives Clark the ability to dive in with both feet.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised that they've gone back to the earlier way of doing it (although I wonder when someone came up with the fancy name for it )



No, exception based design has a different meaning than the old way of doing it.

Exception Based Design is all about having a general rule and having each rules item be an exception to it.

For example:

Rule - It takes a standard action to make 1 attack
Exception - This creature can attack twice with a standard action
Rule - Creatures move up to their movement rate as a move action
Exception - None for this creature

The 1st and 2nd Edition method was not to establish any rules at all and just give you all the rules in the text of the monster.  This meant that there was no similarity between monsters at all(or VERY little).

In 4th, all the monsters are united by the general rules on monster, the rules of the game, and their format.  So, when you look through a creature you are mainly looking for the couple of things that makes it different from the "average".  Oh, this creature move 10 instead of 6 and it's attacks are a ranged attack that sets people on fire and a melee attack with its claws.

The idea being that once I've noted those things, I basically understand how to run the monster.  So, even if it is the first time I've seen it I can read it in 30 seconds and run it how it is supposed to work.

I mean an attack that immobilizes the target in 4th probably said something like this in 1st and 2nd: "Anyone hit by the slime attack is stuck to the ground.  It can be broken out of by doing 34 damage to it with slashing weapons.  All other weapons do not damage it.  The slime also dries up and becomes brittle if fire is used on it.  It takes about 2 rounds for an average torch to have this effect.  The slime also provides some protection to the creature hit by it.  It lowers its AC by 4 at anyone attacking it has to get through the slime first."

Sure, a lot more detailed.  Way more difficult to figure out on the fly, however.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 7, 2008)

So this thread inspired me a bit, and, since I've barely touched monster design since 2e (I used to have the Monster format memorized, and I have a TERRIBLE memory), and pretty much haven't touched an MM book since Fiend Folio came out (  ), I came up with this in about an hour, flipping through various pieces of information on this board:
_
The dessicated, almost skeletal corpse of an axe-hurler whose arms have been ripped from his or her body, with axe and shield held aloft by unseen "phantom limbs."_

*Deadarm Axeman Level 3 Brute
*Medium natural animate (undead)
*Initiative* +3	*Senses* Perception: +3, darkvision
*HP* 46	*Bloodied* 23
*AC* 16	*Fort.* +15, *Ref.* +15, *Will* +15
*Immune* Disease, Poison; *Resist* 10 Necrotic; *Vulnerable* 5 Radiant
*Speed* 6
*m Hand Axe *(standard, at-will) * Weapon
+5 vs. AC; 1d8+3 Damage
*m Shield Push* (standard, at-will) * Shield
+5 vs. Ref; Push target 1 square if small, medium, or large, and can shift into the space that the target occupied.
*M Iron Tide* (standard, at-will) * Weapon * Shield
The deadarm axeman makes a standard melee attack and pushes the target 1 square if small, medium, or large and can shift into the space that the target occupied.
*r Hand Axe* (minor, at-will) * Weapon
Range 5/10; +4 vs. AC; 1d8+3 Damage; weapon immediately returns to hand.
*R Project Anguish* (immediate reaction; when first bloodied; encounter)
Range 5; +4 vs. Will; target is dazed (save ends).
*Alignment* Unaligned *Languages*  Common
Str 14 (+3) Dex 14 (+3) Wis 14 (+3)
Con 14 (+3)  Int 4 (-1) Cha 4 (-1)
*Equipment*: Leather armor, light shield, hand axe

I'm sure it's off here or there, but I definitely like its ease compared to what I remember of 3E.

Can't wait to get ahold of the actual rules.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

> Anyone hit by the slime attack is stuck to the ground. It can be broken out of by doing 34 damage to it with slashing weapons. All other weapons do not damage it. The slime also dries up and becomes brittle if fire is used on it. It takes about 2 rounds for an average torch to have this effect. The slime also provides some protection to the creature hit by it. It lowers its AC by 4 at anyone attacking it has to get through the slime first.



Wow, that brings back memories.  Bad memories.
Perfectly nuanced to replicate the original stuff there, man.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> But... but... they're supposed to lawful good!  Have the flumphs deceived us all?



Evil flumphs?!! Now the world is doomed.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

4e still has certain max and min limits for monsters of level X so it's not totally free and easy. For example a level 10 brute might have a max damage of, say, 2d10+10.

Would you feel comfortable breaking those limits? For example would you ever create an 'eggshell armed with a sledgehammer'. Level 10, 10d10+50 damage per hit (ah... 3e nostalgia), 20 hit points.

Personally I don't think I would, after all those limits are there for a reason. It would be turning the game into 'highest initiative wins', which is a lot less interesting than it was before.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.



If you want a different range, change the level. Easy! And as a player you'll never be sure the DM hasn't put you up against a dragon 3 levels above the party.

Those levels are an information source for the DM. A very useful one, better than CR. To preserve that usefulness the stat range *must* be strict. Then the DM will know an encounter is overpowered or underpowered. He won't just be guessing. Armed with that information he can choose to sic it on the PCs or not.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 7, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Clark, welcome to the dark side. We have ale and whores.
> 
> I think you're starting to get a sense of how much stuff I've wanted to tell you about, but can't.
> 
> ...




Ari pretty much nailed my thoughts. If RPGs have taught me anything, its that having a specialized tool for a job is better than than having a tool that does multiple jobs adequately. Don't me wrong, I still wholeheartedly enjoy the flexibility of 3.5E (The players in my current game have come up with some amazingly creative character builds, and given me the opportunity to flex the same sort of muscle with encounter design), but as an unabashed fan of monster design and ability, this is the stuff that;s got me most excited.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I am going to embrace a countervailing opinion: in 4e monster design flexibility is going to take a nose-dive.  As I realized when posting in the Noonan playtest thread, because 4e PCs cannot nova, the 4e xp/monster system *has* to be more accurate than the 3e CR system (math-wise they are the same, there is no quantum leap in game design).  This means that monster design will be straightjacketed.  Rapidly people will go: oh, its an artillery foe, I wonder what (very short duration, minor effect) debuff this one will have?  Sure, the *fluff* will vary wildly, but the mechanical effects?  They will be clones of one-another.
> 
> Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.



I am not that sure about the range of viable encounters. Doubling the number of monsters might be too much, but there still seems some leeway. From what Noonan described, it looked to me as if good tactics can affect the difficulty of an encounter more then in 3E - at least compared to the influence of the monsters. (Though if people learn how to optimize their tactics quickly, this might become neglible?)
8 Kobolds against 4 4th level character will rarely be a problem in 3E. You can't do that much wrong. As long as the Fighter and Rogue do not forget to roll their attack rolls each round, they will beat them. In 4E, this seems to be a bit different, since the combat power differences aren't that big, and it is important to ensure to attack the enemy where it hurts.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I said that one of the first things I'd do is create a 4E erinyes. I guess I can whip up a first draft now.


```
[B]Erinyes					Level 8 Artillery
Medium immortal humanoid (devil)	XP[/B] 350
[B]Initiative [/B]+8		[B]Senses [/B]Perception: +7, darkvision
[B]HP [/B]68 [B]Bloodied [/B]34; [I]Also see cold vengeance[/I]
[B]AC [/B]19 [B]Fort[/B] 16, [B]Ref[/B] 18, [B]Will [/B]17
[B]Resist [/B]5 cold, 5 poison
[B]Speed [/B]8, fly 8
[B]r Longbow [/B](standard, at-will)[B] * Weapon[/B]
+8 vs. AC; 1d10+2 damage; Range 20
[B]R Arrow of Vengeance [/B](standard, at-will)[B] * Weapon[/B]
Targets a marked creature or a creature that dealt damage to a devil
this encounter;
+10 vs. AC; 1d10+6 damage; Range 20; requires bow
[B]R Binding Arrow [/B](standard, encounter)[B] * Weapon[/B]
+8 vs Reflex; 1d6+2 and immobilized (save ends); Range 20; requires bow
[B]  Cold Vengeance[/B]
The erinyes' weapon attacks deal +1d10 cold damage while it is bloodied.
[B]Alignment [/B]Evil	[B]Languages [/B]Supernal
[B]Skills[/B] Intimidate +11, Religion +9
[B]Str [/B]14 (+6)	[B]Dex [/B]18 (+8)	[B]Wis [/B]16 (+7)
[B]Con [/B]14 (+6)	[B]Int [/B]12 (+5)	[B]Cha [/B]16 (+7)
[B]Equipment[/B] Leather armor, longbow
```

Needs lots of work, obviously.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2008)

In general, I think I'm coming around to 4e monster design, because I think they've approached it carefully enough to pass a sort of minimum threshold for me.

I like the idea that you can quickly grok a monster's exceptional traits and thus use them effectively. 

I like that they've spelled out what a given X of level Y should be capable of.

But there are some failings so far.

The first is the idea of a specialized tool being used for something it's not intended for. This is pretty much assured to happen. There's a lot of believable scenarios in which a mosnter that is designed to be a deadly encounter suddenly gets used to the player's advantage (they team up with it, or someone decides they want to play as it, or they make the monster teach them their super-special attack). As a DM, I want to be able to SAY YES to these without (a) unbalancing my party, or (b) inventing a whole new tool and somehow retconning the existing tool and the new tool to be the same thing. It's possible that the guidelines solve this pretty nicely, so this might not be a problem when the thing is actually out there.

The second is a bit more freaky to me, and that is the idea that monsters are becoming boring. This is a purely fluff issue, so it's easy to fix, but it's also pathetic to see it happening. The case in point is the Bodak, which has gone from "A spirit slain by ultimate evil who still may retain flashing memories of the past" in 2e/3e to "It kills because it likes to kill and killing is what it likes to do! Also it may be a sidekick!" in 4e. It's easy to avoid this, but if I see much more, my 4e MM may make better mulch than gaming material. 

Part of the issue with the tool analogy is that a monster is so much more than a single-purpose implement. It is, by it's nature as a creature in the game-world, a multi-purpose implement. There are multiple intentions. If the siloing is so strict that it only serves a single purpose, it doesn't do it's job as a monster very well. Now, I do believe it's possible to fullfill all these intentions. 4e believes otherwise and isn't really trying to fill them all. Maybe it's trying to do one well and do the rest "good enough." If they succeed, it will be good enough.  If they fail, I may have to take a brutal claw hammer to this.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 7, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd much rather a game that does what it's intended to do _excellently_ than one that does everything _adequately_.



I completely agree with this statement.
Of course there is vast room for disagreement on what is "adequate" and what is "excellent".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's a lot of believable scenarios in which a mosnter that is designed to be a deadly encounter suddenly gets used to the player's advantage (they team up with it, or someone decides they want to play as it, or they make the monster teach them their super-special attack). As a DM, I want to be able to SAY YES to these without (a) unbalancing my party, or (b) inventing a whole new tool and somehow retconning the existing tool and the new tool to be the same thing.



So you want monsters to work as opponents and allies and player character races simultaneously? You want the moon on a stick, you do.



> Part of the issue with the tool analogy is that a monster is so much more than a single-purpose implement. It is, by it's nature as a creature in the game-world, a multi-purpose implement. There are multiple intentions. If the siloing is so strict that it only serves a single purpose, it doesn't do it's job as a monster very well.



The 4e monster retains all the 3e-style game-world interfaces such as the six attributes and so forth. In fact the stat blocks are extremely similar, the main difference is the way one arrives at the numbers.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Describing lots of different fluff is fun for awhile, but you will rapidly get bored with that game and become frustrated with the narrowness of the special abilities and stat ranges allowed.




Im fairly certain that if there are tables in the DMG that say "4 HD monsters have:" 

and it lists ability scores, defense scores, AC, etc...those will be guidelines only. Not "set in stone" ranges allowed. Which means, we can deviate. 

And if they are actually set in stone numbers, then first we smack the designers for being goofy for even thinking that's a good idea. That would eventually make all monsters seem cookie-cutter I believe ("oh, its another 4th level monster. that means its Str is XX to YY, its Dex is XX to YY, etc"). And then second, well, Im guessing we can still deviate from the ranges...just have to answer to the reviewers who knock points off for not playing 100% by the rules.


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 7, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Yay Clark!  Now if you could just convince the guys on your own forum.  The Necromancer board has gotten so anti-4e that I hate going there anymore.   :\



QFT! It says a lot that Clark is posting more here (as are we!) than back at home...what a bunch of whiners over there... 

Edit: Ironically, half of the whiners don't even play 3x, they play C&C, True20, or older editions, so why do they care? And the other half just gripes about having to buy more books (um, you bought $1500.00 worth of splat and you have the nerve to compain about buying a new PHB!?, gimme a break!).


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Im fairly certain that if there are tables in the DMG that say "4 HD monsters have:"
> 
> and it lists ability scores, defense scores, AC, etc...those will be guidelines only. Not "set in stone" ranges allowed. Which means, we can deviate.
> 
> And if they are actually set in stone numbers, then first we smack the designers for being goofy for even thinking that's a good idea. That would eventually make all monsters seem cookie-cutter I believe ("oh, its another 4th level monster. that means its Str is XX to YY, its Dex is XX to YY, etc"). And then second, well, Im guessing we can still deviate from the ranges...just have to answer to the reviewers who knock points off for not playing 100% by the rules.




Define "set in stone".

Nothing in 3e is set in stone, either. I can write up a 1HD Fey with a +10 BAB. The Game Ninjas won't kill me.

From what I've seen and been able to gather, 4e *will* say, "Third level brute will have STR X to Y". If you go above or below that, you are "breaking the rules" to the same extent ignoring the limits of monster levels does, however you wish to interpret that. Some people will care, some won't. Some formulas, like hit points by monster level/role, seem pretty solid -- A monster of Level Y in Role Z will have X hit point, *A for elite and *B for Solo. I see the same people nitpicking over skill points in 3x nitpicking the numbers in 4e.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Y'know what 4 monster design reminds me of more than anything?

Lords Of Creation.

Really!

Anyone remember that game? Amazing, wacky, fun. It had a pretty simple system for statting out monsters, and was really big on Noun Verber style 'families' of monsters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2008)

> So you want monsters to work as opponents and allies and player character races simultaneously? You want the moon on a stick, you do.




I'm just saying they WILL be used that way. I'd prefer it if 4e openly aknowledged that and made it easy for me to do it when needed, rather than saying "No, you REALLY shouldn't! Don't do it! It's bad! Go play a different game instead! We don't want you to! Oh, please, no!"

Not that they ARE saying that, just that if they did, it would be lame. A monster isn't just a bucket of XP waiting to be awarded, and I'm pretty sure the 4e designers know that. 

What I want isn't a monster that works as X, Y, and Z. What I want is a monster that works as a monster, and working as a monster includes doing X, Y, and Z to varying degrees depending on what kind of monster you are. 



> The 4e monster retains all the 3e-style game-world interfaces such as the six attributes and so forth. In fact the stat blocks are extremely similar, the main difference is the way one arrives at the numbers.




It'll PROBABLY be fine, then. What concerns me is the improper siloing of things that shouldn't be in silos, and should instead remain on the field.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 7, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Im fairly certain that if there are tables in the DMG that say "4 HD monsters have:"
> 
> and it lists ability scores, defense scores, AC, etc...those will be guidelines only. Not "set in stone" ranges allowed. Which means, we can deviate.
> 
> And if they are actually set in stone numbers, then first we smack the designers for being goofy for even thinking that's a good idea. That would eventually make all monsters seem cookie-cutter I believe ("oh, its another 4th level monster. that means its Str is XX to YY, its Dex is XX to YY, etc"). And then second, well, Im guessing we can still deviate from the ranges...just have to answer to the reviewers who knock points off for not playing 100% by the rules.



Well, we shall see.  We pretty much know that numbers like HP and defenses are via formula.  I don't think that ability scores will be "regulated" but their effects could be.  I.e. a level 10 artillery should be doing damage in the X-Y range, less if there are side effects, etc. so if it has a high prime stat its base damage should be lower.  Playtesters have said you can build a monster from scratch in minutes, which you can do in any game - just make up numbers - if you don't care about its effectiveness, so I assume that means creating a "correct" monster from nothing.  That does imply a certain level of same-ness to to numbers behind all level 10 artillery monsters, or whatever.

There's also the encounter design aspect.  Too much deviation from an established norm, and we're back in 3e territory with inexact challenge ratings.

I think the answer to deviation will probably be to increase or decrease the actual level of the monster until what you want it to do falls into the proper range.  Instead of making a level 10 artillery monster that does more than normal damage, you simply make it level 11 instead.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> So, uh, what happens if a monster joins the party? ...and gets Healing Word used on it?




Depends on the exact circumstances of joining the party.

If it's an NPC I'm using for some reason (guide, trap, whatever), then it's still an NPC under my control, and I can arbitrarily decide whether it gets affected by the Healing Word, despite whether or not it has healing surges. Narrative > Gamism (for that situation)

If it's a PC that will be played by one of the players, then he needs to be remade as a PC, using kobold monster-as-PC stats and all that jazz, in which case he will get healing surges because he's now a PC.

Either way, I don't need rules for it, since I'm perfectly capable of adjudicating the situation, just as I have been for the past 15 years.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> People actually complained about monsters having abilities that they couldn't obtain?!




And still do. When the Bugbear Strangler's meat shield ability was mentioned, the forums exploded with complaints about how a monster could do that, but there wasn't a way for PC to do the same.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> QFT! It says a lot that Clark is posting more here (as are we!) than back at home...what a bunch of whiners over there...
> 
> Edit: Ironically, half of the whiners don't even play 3x, they play C&C, True20, or older editions, so why do they care? And the other half just gripes about having to buy more books (um, you bought $1500.00 worth of splat and you have the nerve to compain about buying a new PHB!?, gimme a break!).




Dont go hating on my grognards  I love my grognards. They just need special care and handling. 

Yes, there are some "edition resisting" people there. But they will soon be hypnotized by my funkadelic 4E groove. 

I am more convinced than ever that 4E will let me inject it with 1E goodness. In fact, it is going to be easier to do 1E feel monsters with 4E than it was with 3E, I think. 

Things are looking good!


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 7, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Which one has the boobs? Also, we need to invent a race called Flumphborn.




I want that race as core in my campaign!!


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 7, 2008)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Most of the d20 companies that have survived the years diversified and became businesses.  People like Erik Mona and Chris Pramas are game company owners first and gamers second.  They have to weigh the business reasons for going with 4E because a lot of people depend on their company staying viable.




If they where weighing the business decision instead of the emotional decision they would reach the conclusion of going with 4e as a publisher.  I am here to say I think it will be their death if they do not.  That is an opinion of mine.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> QFT! It says a lot that Clark is posting more here (as are we!) than back at home...what a bunch of whiners over there...




By the way, by posting here I wasnt expressing a preference for these boards over our own. Please understand that. I love our boards. I just happened to be here reading up on DDX updates and monster previews and posted over here. I didnt know this would become a 7-pager overnight  I have since linked to this thread over on the Necro boards. 

So dont take it as "saying alot" that I posted here and not on my home boards. I've always loved ENWorld and have always posted here. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Mar 7, 2008)

Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2008)

> Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.




Can I? 

I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Can I?
> 
> I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.




*R Deadly Gaze*
*Encounter * Gaze*
*Standard Action     Ranged* 5
*Target:* 1 Creature
*Attack:* [Critter Attack Bonus] vs. Will
*Hit:* Target is weakened (save ends). First failed save: Target loses 1 healing surge. Second failed save: Target is slowed (save ends). Third failed save: Target is reduced to 0 hit points.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> People actually complained about monsters having abilities that they couldn't obtain?!  I mean, I can be nitpicky about numbers, but I won't complain about my human wizard not being a balor. That's really not sane. On the other hand, if my character for some reason is a balor, or the monster in question is a human wizard, then I might be a bit miffed (there might be prestige classes, feats, templates, or other stuff involved, so the differences can come from those, of course).




The only variant of this I've ever actually encountered as a GM is when I have very experienced players that also DM. Sometimes, if a monster uses some sort of an ability that's unfamiliar AND that ability is successful in it's application (ie I hurt one of the characters with it) I'll get all sorts of pointed questions about what the ability is, how it works, etc. The underlying subtext is that they're concerned that I just "cheated" in some sense.

And that's the rub, really. I like what 4E is doing to give the DM more freedom to "make things up" and make the job easier. That being said, I'm under the impression that one of the inspirations for the more mechanistic design of 3E was the rather common occurrence of players getting bent out of shape over design choices made by the DM.

Maybe 4E will score a win by making the design less mechanistic while simultaneously providing the DM with the tools needed to keep from accidentally making monsters too tough. We shall find out in June if this is the case.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.



Now that is simply unfair.   

I have already decided to buy the book as soon as it is released based on the bits you showed earlier... now you must tease me with more? I call shenanigans!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> *R Deadly Gaze*
> *Encounter * Gaze*
> *Standard Action     Ranged* 5
> *Target:* 1 Creature
> ...



Why would a gaze be an encounter ability?  How does that make any sense?  And isn't a 1 in 8 chance of death (assuming the attack "hits" in the first place) really trivial?  A party of 4 1st level characters would each know that they face less than a 3% chance of dying due to gaze.

(And yes I do realize this is just a quick self made example, not a WotC or Necromancer thing)


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 8, 2008)

ByronD: perhaps it is a problem with the nomenclature. Try it as "Debilitating Gaze" - there is an immediate effect, then things get progressively worse until finally the subject dies (if no saves are made).

Just as powers like Crimson Edge are thought as something that is always being attempted, but rarely connects (and the player gets to choose when that occurs), the monster is always trying to lock gazes, but it rarely occurs for long enough to achieve a mechanical effect. Therefore, as an encounter power, the monster can make the gaze attack effective.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 8, 2008)

I think I remember seeing an "insta-kill" power on some 4e monster, which was basically just reduces hp to zero.  Which, given healing surges and whatnot, isn't as big a deal as it might be otherwise.

ah here it is, and its an encounter power:

*Bodak Reaver*
Medium shadow humanoid (undead)
Level 18 Soldier XP 2,000
*Greataxe* (standard; at-will) * Necrotic, Weapon
+23 vs. AC; 1d12 + 6 damage (crit 2d12 + 18) plus 1d8 necrotic damage, and the target is dazed and weakened (save ends both).
*Death Gaze* (standard; encounter) * Necrotic
Range 10; targets a living creature; +20 vs. Fortitude; If the target is weakened, it is reduced to 0 hit points; otherwise, the target takes 1d6 + 6 necrotic damage and loses 1 healing surge.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I think I remember seeing an "insta-kill" power on some 4e monster, which was basically just reduces hp to zero.  Which, given healing surges and whatnot, isn't as big a deal as it might be otherwise.



 The new bodak.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 8, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I think I remember seeing an "insta-kill" power on some 4e monster, which was basically just reduces hp to zero.  Which, given healing surges and whatnot, isn't as big a deal as it might be otherwise.
> 
> ah here it is, and its an encounter power:
> 
> ...




It's worth keeping in mind that as a standard monster, a typical encounter will have five of these babies; that can suck down healing surges pretty fast. Placed at the beginning of an encounter chain, it can make the subsequent encounters much nastier.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 8, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Why would a gaze be an encounter ability?  How does that make any sense?  And isn't a 1 in 8 chance of death (assuming the attack "hits" in the first place) really trivial?  A party of 4 1st level characters would each know that they face less than a 3% chance of dying due to gaze.
> 
> (And yes I do realize this is just a quick self made example, not a WotC or Necromancer thing)




I agree that a Gaze is a bit difficult to think of as an Encounter ability, but since it is powerful (if it's like the Bodak gaze ability, which is also per Encounter) then it should be an Encounter power. The balance of power comes first, from now on, I think. The explanation is left to us, which is really how a lot of things were for other un-simulation rules in the older editions. As the designers have said, the game is leaning further away from simulation. Not completely away, but about as far a bend towards gamist elements as 3E was bent towards simulationist elements.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 8, 2008)

This is where I think the real ability of the PC classes to intermesh will shine.

The bodak weakens a PC and sets up Death Gaze. The PC can't make a save until the end of his next turn. The party does not want to see him die, so the cleric uses his ability to grant an immediate save, or the rogue uses his ability to move the creature and isolate it, or any number of other abilities that let the tactics overcome a bad situation.

The PCs no longer operate in a vacuum, powerwise. I am thrilled about this, personally.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's worth keeping in mind that as a standard monster, a typical encounter will have five of these babies; that can suck down healing surges pretty fast. Placed at the beginning of an encounter chain, it can make the subsequent encounters much nastier.




Bodaks have a lot of tactical potential

Their death gaze ability is only dependent on a creature being weakened. A bodak can easily work in concert with his fellows (or other creatures who weaken enemies) to deliver a one two punch.
Any bodak who takes radiant damage can not weaken a foe. This could possibly lead to interesting decisions on a party's part as clerics and paladins might be forced to step out of their comfort zones in order to stop a bodak from weakening their allies.


----------



## AZRogue (Mar 8, 2008)

Oh, I wanted to add, Clark, consider your book purchased. That much enthusiasm deserves compensation.  If it colors your work at all, that book will be full of win.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Dang I love 4E monsters! You should see what I am doing with the old school catoblepas.




That monster has a special place in my heart. First time I met one, my DM (now one of my players) described it this way.

As the trees part and make way for a small clearing, you see what appears to be a very reasonable horse with a long neck.....

Ever since, a catoblepas has always been called a very reasonable horse in our gaming group.

Ah the memories...


----------



## Orcus (Mar 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> *R Deadly Gaze*
> *Encounter * Gaze*
> *Standard Action     Ranged* 5
> *Target:* 1 Creature
> ...




That is nice. But I added a little twist. I gave it recharge 5, 6. AND --here is why I love 4E-- I invented a new mechanic: the power starts UNCHARGED, in other words, he has to successfully recharge to use it. Why? The description of the catoblepas has always included that he has a long neck and has a hard time bringing his head up. Now, there is no real 3E way mechanically to reflect that, other than the non-3E-ish 25% chance mechanic from the original description. So I am using this recharge mechanic to simulate that. (I'm kinda proud of myself for that one). 

So, try something like this on for size:

*R Deadly Gaze* (standard; recharge 5, 6) ** Gaze*
Range 10; power begins not charged and must be successfully recharged before it can be used.
*Target:* 1 Creature
*Attack:* [Critter Attack Bonus] vs. Will
*Hit:* Target is weakened (save ends). First failed save: Target loses 1 healing surge. Second failed save: Target is slowed (save ends). Third failed save: Target is reduced to 0 hit points.

Or something like that.  Cool, huh?

By the way, its tail and clubbed tip will have huge reach, perhaps Reach 5 (consistent with the description).
Its head and neck will have Reach maybe 3 or 4, for a bite (though this is not much of an attack and mostly just lets the creature snake its head around for gaze attacks). It is LONG!

Here is the text that I took the recharge idea from:

"Otherwise, the very weak neck of the catoblepas has only a 25% chance of raising the head high enought use its eyes. ..."

[those arent the exact ways we stated up the gaze attack, I was just modifying the prior post; ours is a bit different, but it is a standard action with a recharge. Yes, I agree that is nasty; and ours is based in part on the bodak gaze]


----------



## Orcus (Mar 8, 2008)

I also dont think there should be herds of these things. So Scott and I statted it up as a Solo Brute!!! He he he. Its nasty.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 8, 2008)

The idea of an "unready" power is a clever one.  Assuming the players know what they're up against, they'll know that they have a window of opportunity to take the monster out before it can unleash destruction upon them.  Although you're probably not taking out a solo creature all that quickly...

The 1-2 punch of the bodak also seems simpler than a power that has 3 different effects on 3 different rounds.  It's probably a better model for what insta-kill type effects will look likein 4e.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I also dont think there should be herds of these things. So Scott and I statted it up as a Solo Brute!!! He he he. Its nasty.



Except in FR, there _are_ herds of catoblepases (catoblepi?) living in the Farsea Marshes. 

Why not stat up the regular catoblepas as a normal brute, and have a Bull Catoblepas (separated from the herd, similar to bull elephants) as a solo brute?

EDIT: I like the new monster design, _*as long as the designers do not eschew all non-combat abilities in favor of combat-only design*_. I cannot stress enough how important it is to me to have creature stats that make sense outside of combat.

EDIT2: To clarify the above point, I think the new kobolds are fine, but the new pit fiend fails spectacularly at his traditional role as the lower-tier nobility of the Nine Hells. He is also far too divorced from traditional pit fiend abilities.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 8, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Except in FR, there _are_ herds of catoblepases (catoblepi?) living in the Farsea Marshes.
> 
> Why not stat up the regular catoblepas as a normal brute, and have a Bull Catoblepas (separated from the herd, similar to bull elephants) as a solo brute?.




We intend to. The Solo, as it is concepted now, has the more bodak like two step gaze which is deadlier (but with a twist). The "normal" catoblepas has something like the 3 step death gaze.

Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E  ) the creature auto-recharges and uses its gaze as that surprise action. This mimics the text from the original creature: "Complete surprise means one of the party encountering the monster has met its gaze."

He he. I had so much fun working on this monster. 

And the mechanics just came so easily. That is what I am digging about 4E. I dont have to try to cobble together feats and figure out I cant give a monster that feat to do XYZ. I love it!


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E




They do.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The new bodak.




The new bodak sucks.

What if my players are being idiots and ignoring the bodak in the well?

How is he going to sneak into the inn and wake them up to kill them.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> That is nice. But I added a little twist. I gave it recharge 5, 6. AND --here is why I love 4E-- I invented a new mechanic: the power starts UNCHARGED, in other words, he has to successfully recharge to use it. Why? The description of the catoblepas has always included that he has a long neck and has a hard time bringing his head up. Now, there is no real 3E way mechanically to reflect that, other than the non-3E-ish 25% chance mechanic from the original description. So I am using this recharge mechanic to simulate that.




The recharge mechanic, as I understand it, is just a clever name for a probability. In other words, recharging on a 5 or 6, means a 33.3333% chance of using the ability. It's absolutely no different from saying 25% (other the the value of course). It essentially does away with the d100 and changes it to a d6, but the nature of the beast remains the same. There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.

Pinotage


----------



## Lizard (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Oh, and both have "surprising gaze" which is a power that if the catoblepas gets an action in a surprise round (presuming they exist in 4E  ) the creature auto-recharges and uses its gaze as that surprise action. This mimics the text from the original creature: "Complete surprise means one of the party encountering the monster has met its gaze."
> 
> He he. I had so much fun working on this monster.
> 
> And the mechanics just came so easily. That is what I am digging about 4E. I dont have to try to cobble together feats and figure out I cant give a monster that feat to do XYZ. I love it!




Perhaps we just have different design styles, but I don't see why this couldn't be done in 3e. I tended to:
a)Come up with cool concept for monster.
b)Work out type/hd 
c)Give it Cool Powers which seemed appropriate
d)Give it feats/skills which synergized with the powers

So I didn't worry about feats to do things; I worked on the assumption "This monster can belch acid; what kind of feats would it want to take to make it a better acid-belcher?" I never felt constrained to limit cool monster powers to mimicing spells (though spells were good guidelines for power).

For example, the Eye Mire. It was an ooze which could *rip out a caster's eye* and then cast any spell which the caster could have cast, chosen randomly. (Each "eye" held a spell and dissolved when the spell is cast; you would meet one with a collection of eyes embedded in itself..) This isn't anything which can be modeled using the feats/powers in the PHB, but it didn't take me very long to a)think of it, and b)write it up, using the standard 3x mechanics (Grapple, then opposed Str check to take the eye). Might it be more compact in 4e? Maybe, but it still has a lot of fiddly bits. 

Maybe I was doing it wrong, but I never felt the shackles you did, except w/the 'monster levels' making it hard to build butch fey or wussy dragons, and I do think getting rid of them in 4e will be an improvement, as will simplfying a lot of the fiddly bits like multiple/iterative attacks with natural weapons, which I *never* got right on the first try, esp with monsters who wielded swords and had a bite. Augh!


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> .....There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.
> 
> Pinotage




It's not that you couldn't.  You could.  Easy.  But previous to the concept of 4th edition monster design, it would not gain easy acceptance from the community.  If you are actually publishing your work for general consumption, you need to stay as close to the 'mean' as possible in order to take advantage of the wider market place.  The average player of any edition does not want stuff too far off from 'The Rules' or 'mean'.  Sure their are house rules, but you house rule too much and then your playing a different game.  Changes such as these in 3.x are more house rules than anything else.  Not fit for general consumption because the ideas (use to) deviate too far 'acceptable' monster design.

Their will be plenty of 3.x players that start using a more '4e' theory of monster design now that the process is more main stream.

I have always designed my monsters for their roles and the challenge I want to produce.  I have made spot brutes before when they where called brutes.  One Hill Giant I wanted to be real challenging for most of the party, so I said it was like a hill giant version of Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.  I gave it dual wielded clubs, arbitrarily set its attack bonus high for each weapon, doubled the damage dice and upped them by one category plus strength, and tripled it's hitpoints.  It was one bad-a$$ stupid giant that giggled during battle (play).  The Hill Giant Chief was his 'father' figure.  Coupled with the other Giants, it made one hard fought, fun battle in 3.5e that challenged the party to the end of it's resources.  Could I publish that for general consumption?  No.  It would have been ripped apart by the community hags and forgotten on RPGNow.

Now I can make him how I envision him AND he is acceptable by community standards.  Awesome!!


----------



## malraux (Mar 8, 2008)

The other issue I've had with 3e monster design is that often its hard to grok what it is a monster does.  For example, with this catoblepas's gaze power, it would be a bit harder to get how it should work.  The 25% chance each round mechanic is nonstandard and you'd have to explain it out.  The 4e version reads better and fits into a set framework.  Monster power is really just code for the cool thing this creature does and the design of powers makes it a bit easier to see how this creature deviates from the norm.  So telling me the power starts uncharged tells me how he works differently from everything else I've seen.

There's also something to be said for the self contained nature of the powers over something that references a spell.


----------



## Sunsword (Mar 8, 2008)

Clark, I wanted to say thanks for sharing your exuberance & impressions for 4E Monster Design.  As a fan, it really jazzes me & I'm glad to know 4E's Tome of Monsters is a Go.  I'll admit I'm Pro-4E.
Also, as a Games Retailer, I'm jazzed too.  Its great to let customers know that Necromancer is digging at least one aspect 4E & will support it.  Hearing that Necromancer & Goodman are onboard is extra help in educating customers about what 4E is & isn't & helping them figure out which Edition (I carry all editions) will be best for them.

Your opinion is much appreciated & in my case greatly respected.


----------



## Sunsword (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> The recharge mechanic, as I understand it, is just a clever name for a probability. In other words, recharging on a 5 or 6, means a 33.3333% chance of using the ability. It's absolutely no different from saying 25% (other the the value of course). It essentially does away with the d100 and changes it to a d6, but the nature of the beast remains the same. There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.
> 
> Pinotage




I don't think the percentage is missed by most of us or the swapping out of one die for another.  I can express that a d6 "feels" different than percentile dice, IMHO.  I also think that all Clark is saying is he's enjoying making monsters under 4E more than making monsters under 3.X.  Perhaps the amount of work & material that Clark & Necromancer have produced under 3.X should be a factor.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 8, 2008)

PeelSeel2 said:
			
		

> But previous to the concept of 4th edition monster design, it would not gain easy acceptance from the community.  If you are actually publishing your work for general consumption, you need to stay as close to the 'mean' as possible in order to take advantage of the wider market place.  The average player of any edition does not want stuff too far off from 'The Rules' or 'mean'.  Sure their are house rules, but you house rule too much and then your playing a different game.  Changes such as these in 3.x are more house rules than anything else.  Not fit for general consumption because the ideas (use to) deviate too far 'acceptable' monster design.




I think by far the biggest constraint with 3e was the types, but beyond that there's nothing from stopping you designing a monster with cool abilities, as long as it stuck to the guidelines of type and the design rules. I'm just mystified that people keep saying you can't design cool monsters in 3e because the mechanics won't allow you to go beyond 'spells'. That's just weird. Within the admitedly poor framework of types (though I like the concept of types), you could anything as 'cool' as you can in 4e without having to break the rules.

Even with types there's leeway to design special abilities that accomplish what you want. Want a 12 HD outsider to give it more hp? Just give it a special ability. Nothing wrong with that, or impossible. I'll agree that some had a rather narrow-minded view on monster design. All you needed to do was expand the rules, not be constrained by them. What I'm seeing now is that 4e has open the shutters of the windows that blinded people within the 3e framework. I never thought those shutters were there in the first place.

Pinotage


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 8, 2008)

Recharge is quite different from probability. An action that has a chance to function is still wasted time if used and failed. A recharge power will function if it is up. Availability and probability are unrelated.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 8, 2008)

Sunsword said:
			
		

> I also think that all Clark is saying is he's enjoying making monsters under 4E more than making monsters under 3.X.  Perhaps the amount of work & material that Clark & Necromancer have produced under 3.X should be a factor.




It's hard to miss his enthusiasm!    But at the same time he's making statements that in most cases are vast exaggerations. I just don't get where he's coming from with those statements and I find it strange that a reputable 3.5e designer would say such things when in most cases they're clearly not true.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 8, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Recharge is quite different from probability. An action that has a chance to function is still wasted time if used and failed. A recharge power will function if it is up. Availability and probability are unrelated.




Not if we're talking probability that a function is available, which is what recharge is in my limited understanding. Recharge checks every round whether an ability is available. There's a probability associated with that, based on a d6 roll.

Pinotage


----------



## Lizard (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Not if we're talking probability that a function is available, which is what recharge is in my limited understanding. Recharge checks every round whether an ability is available. There's a probability associated with that, based on a d6 roll.
> 
> Pinotage




The main thing this replaces is the "recharge in X rounds" mechanic, like dragonbreath.

3e:The dragon breathes! He will breathe again in...3 rounds! DM flies dragon out of range for 3 rounds.

4e: The dragon breathes! Next round, the DM rolls. A 6! The dragon can breathe again, and will as soon as its optimal.

By making it a round-by-round check, you avoid the problem of the DM 'knowing' when the next time to use a powerful ability will be. Each round, the DMs toolbox of tactical options chances.

I don't know where the other poster got 'percentage chance to function' from. That's not a mechanic I've seen in 3e or 4e; it's always been 'chance to have available'. 'Chance to function' is abstracted in attack rolls, saving throws, etc.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 8, 2008)

PeelSeel2 said:
			
		

> One Hill Giant I wanted to be real challenging for most of the party, so I said it was like a hill giant version of Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.




Who run Barter Town?


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> What I'm seeing now is that 4e has open the shutters of the windows that blinded people within the 3e framework. I never thought those shutters were there in the first place.
> 
> Pinotage




The majority of people are blinded by the frameworks that exist in our lives.  It is an uncommon  individual that can look at the framework from the outside and realize the intent behind the structure.  That is why I am jazzed about 4th edition.  I think it is a fine evolution and synergy of everything that makes D&D work from all the previous editions of D&D.  Every edition did some things right that no other ones did.  I think they have done a good job of extracting those concepts and applying them in a new edition.


----------



## LowSpine (Mar 8, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Gooooooood, gooooooooood.
> 
> You want this, don't you?




Take your weapon. Strike me down with it.

If that isn't homoerotic I don't know what is.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And still do. When the Bugbear Strangler's meat shield ability was mentioned, the forums exploded with complaints about how a monster could do that, but there wasn't a way for PC to do the same.



Well, that I can understand on the other hand. That is, in most people's mind, a humanoid combat maneuver rather than an innate monster ability.


----------



## Pour (Mar 8, 2008)

I'm so happy monster design is easier!!! 

I expect we'll see a lot more would-be designers finally take the plunge and create their own material, likely in e-book and pdf formats. If the math and mechanics are simple enough, this boom should provide players with a ton of legitimate, cost-effective options at the touch of a mouse.

Nothing like new blood for a new edition.


----------



## StarFyre (Mar 8, 2008)

*well*

but you can do that..you can always pick up someone if you are strong enough and try and use them as a shield. EVen in real life you can do this. ( a friend did this to me during  a game of full contact no rules Ultimate frisbee!!! he was huge!!!) heheh

the wayi house rule that stuff is when people do stuff like that, if i don't know a set easy rule for it, we do the str vs reflex of the enemy, or vise versa and make it happen.

It's great 

I will take the monster concepts even further though for what i've wanted to do for ages and only started in the past year or so...

should be fun.

Sanjay


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Within the admitedly poor framework of types (though I like the concept of types)



The problem with types in 3e was that they conflated what the monster -did- with what the monster -was-.



> I'll agree that some had a rather narrow-minded view on monster design. All you needed to do was expand the rules, not be constrained by them. What I'm seeing now is that 4e has open the shutters of the windows that blinded people within the 3e framework. I never thought those shutters were there in the first place.



Well said.


----------



## FunkBGR (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus - this is awesome. Like most others have said, your enthusiasm is infectious. 

I know I've already made up some monsters, trying to convert monsters from previous adventures, such as The Night Below and Age of Worms adventure path. It's looking like Undead don't need any cheap abilities to up their BAB, Saves or anything like that. 

I'm loving what I got so far, and totally agree that everything is looking much easier this time around.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 8, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> The recharge mechanic, as I understand it, is just a clever name for a probability. In other words, recharging on a 5 or 6, means a 33.3333% chance of using the ability. It's absolutely no different from saying 25% (other the the value of course). It essentially does away with the d100 and changes it to a d6, but the nature of the beast remains the same. There's no reason you can't implement a similar system for 3e monster design, or in any other system of your choice. I also fail to see why you say you can't reflect this in 3e. Reading through this threat I'm quite confounded by your view of 3e monster design.
> 
> Pinotage




I see what you are saying, and I agree to some degree. You could simulate the recharge with a percentage roll in 3E. BUT percentage rolls are strongly disfavored as a design idea. Look through the MM. How many percentage rolls do you find? 

What I am trying to say is that I can capture the mechanics of the catoblepas with the "core" way of doing things without having to resort to a clunky "not core but this is really the only way to do it" mechanic. 

I like that about 4E.

I'm not saying you CAN'T do it in 3E. I am saying you can do it more easily, elegantly and with a core mechanic (if that is the right phrase) in 4E.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus,

Here is the conversion I am using for the first encounter in 'The Wizards Amulet'.  I used a Human berserker level 3 brute and a Gnoll level 6 brute stats respectively, and made the abilities up based on 3e descriptions and damage.  It was fun, easy, and FAST!  I am liking this!  Reminds me of old school monster making.  JUST MAKE IT!!  This should be an extremely challenging encounter with a good chance of at least 1 death, but also a good possibility of no deaths.

Young Leucrotta Level 3 Brute
Medium Shadow Beast
Initiative +2 Senses Perception +1, low light vision

HP 56 ; Bloodied 28 

AC 14, Fortitude 14, Reflex 13, Will 13 
Str +4 Con +4 Dex +2 Int +1 Wis  +1 Cha +2
Skills:  Hide (+10)

Speed 8

Natural Camaflauge +5 Hide

m Piercing Bite (standard, at-will)
Reach 1, target: 1 creature, +6 vs Reflex, 1d6+4
The leucrotta comes in close and bites through shield and armor, rending armor and flesh.
Effect: (Hit) Enemy at -4 ac, and bleeding 5 per round, save ends both. (Miss) No effect.

M Retreating Double Kick (standard, at-will)
Reach 1, Target: 1 creature, +4 vs AC, 2d6+4
The leucrotta turn spins to run and kicks hard with it's two hind legs.
Effect: (Hit) Target Stunned, save ends, Slide 4 squares. (Miss) Slide 4 squares
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mother Leucrotta Level 6 Brute
Large Shadow Beast
Initiative +5 Senses Perception +7, low light vision

HP 84, Bloodied 42
AC 18, Fortitude 18, Reflex 15, Will 15
Str (+8) Con (+5) Dex (+5) Int (+2) Wis (+5) Cha (+3) 
Skills:  Hide (+13)

Speed 8

Natural Camaflauge +5 Hide

Mezmorizing wail (encounter, charm)
+5 vs Will, Range 20, Burst 2
A leucrotta can mimic the voice of a man, woman, child or domestic animal in pain.  This is used to draw a victim into attack range
Effect: (Hit) The luecretta has drawn victim to within 5 squares and the encounter starts with Luecretta having combat advantage, and first turn. (Miss) Victim is drawn within 10 sqaures and notices ambush.  Roll initiative normally.

m Piercing Bite (standard, at-will)
Reach 1, target: 1 creature, +11 vs Reflex, 2d6+8
The leucrotta comes in close and bites through shield and armor, rending armor and flesh.
Effect: (Hit) Enemy at -4 ac, and bleeding 5 per round, save ends both. (Miss) No effect.

M Retreating Double Kick (standard, at-will)
Reach 1, Target: 1 creature, +9 vs AC, 2d6+8
The leucrotta turn spins to run and kicks hard with it's two hind legs.
Effect: (Hit) Target Stunned, save ends, Slide 4 squares. (Miss) Slide 4 squares


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The main thing this replaces is the "recharge in X rounds" mechanic, like dragonbreath.
> 
> 3e:The dragon breathes! He will breathe again in...3 rounds! DM flies dragon out of range for 3 rounds.
> 
> ...




An excellent point, and in a similar vein to what they are doing with the death and dying rules. While 4e characters will know it will always take at least 3 rounds before their death saves kill them, its more random than "I'm at -3, I have 7 rounds everyone)"


----------



## Saitou (Mar 8, 2008)

I think the Retreating Double Kick should be vs Reflex. And sliding even on a miss seems a bit too much. Maybe only slide 2 on a miss?


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> I think the Retreating Double Kick should be vs Reflex. And sliding even on a miss seems a bit too much. Maybe only slide 2 on a miss?




I thought at first it should be against reflex too, but then for encounter purposes, what does the -4 ac do?  I thought it complimented that ability with keeping true to 3.x version of the monster.

Slide 2 would make sense.  Because it did not hit and get that extra oommph from pushing off from somebody.


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2008)

Having effects on misses is mostly something for daily powers... in fact, you statted the monster up with PC style powers, and you really probably shouldn't have. At the very least, there's just a lot of extra text there that doesn't need to be.

Stunned (save ends) and slide 4... at-will... is just mean. Heck, I don't even like stunned (save ends) at all, cause it can stop you from taking any action from multiple rounds.

Mesmerizing Wail is just odd, too. They notice ambush, without a check? You determine the range that they walk up to you, etc? How about it can just wail and people can react accordingly. Also, as an encounter power it can use it in combat, but it refers to ambush and rolling initiative


----------



## Orcus (Mar 8, 2008)

Regardless, I am loving 4E monster desing. It is better and more elegant than 3E monster design. From a designer's standpoint.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Having effects on misses is mostly something for daily powers... in fact, you statted the monster up with PC style powers, and you really probably shouldn't have. At the very least, there's just a lot of extra text there that doesn't need to be.
> 
> Stunned (save ends) and slide 4... at-will... is just mean. Heck, I don't even like stunned (save ends) at all, cause it can stop you from taking any action from multiple rounds.
> 
> Mesmerizing Wail is just odd, too. They notice ambush, without a check? You determine the range that they walk up to you, etc? How about it can just wail and people can react accordingly. Also, as an encounter power it can use it in combat, but it refers to ambush and rolling initiative




It will work fro my campaign and I do not have to make money off it.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> That is nice. But I added a little twist. I gave it recharge 5, 6. AND --here is why I love 4E-- I invented a new mechanic: the power starts UNCHARGED, in other words, he has to successfully recharge to use it. Why? The description of the catoblepas has always included that he has a long neck and has a hard time bringing his head up. Now, there is no real 3E way mechanically to reflect that, other than the non-3E-ish 25% chance mechanic from the original description. So I am using this recharge mechanic to simulate that. (I'm kinda proud of myself for that one).




Very nice! I had really just been thinking "generic death gaze" attack to make the point that you can do such an attack in 4E without violating the "no save or die" rule, but for matching the flavor of the catoblepas, this is very nice indeed.

4E monster design (well, 4E design in general) is making me seriously consider going back to freelancing for D&D again--for about the past three years I've been working pretty much exclusively with White Wolf because I was just burned out on all the gruntwork that went into designing anything for 3.5. And that's just about the biggest endorsement I can give 4E.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying, and I agree to some degree. You could simulate the recharge with a percentage roll in 3E. BUT percentage rolls are strongly disfavored as a design idea. Look through the MM. How many percentage rolls do you find?




No argument there. It's always better to use a unified mechanic if possible, which in the case of the d20 system, would likely mean a d20. That said, if you can replace a d100 with a d6 in 4e, it's no different really than using a d20 in 3e as a expanded rule. 

I do fail to see, however, just because something has 'core' slapped on it, that it makes it any more elegant than a expanded 3e rule using a d20 for probabilities. I guess that's the human effect - people in 3e see the percentiles as clunky, but fail to see exactly the same clunkiness in 4e simply because it has 'core' written on it, and 3e's version didn't have an official rule behind it.

I agree with you on a few things, though. 4e seems to have shifted the paradigm that 'apparantly' clouded 3e, and that's a good thing because now people won't feel inclined to somehow feel tied down by the system.

Pinotage


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2008)

At the end of the day, the problem isn't that you can't make up cool powers for 3e monsters.

It's that you _have_ to do the rest of it. Use HD and type which determine base attack and saves and impact on CR and hp, and affect skills and feats, etc. The overhead to make a 3e monster is about 5 to 10 times as much work, and here's the really killer part... the work is at least 80% less fun.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Regardless, I am loving 4E monster desing. It is better and more elegant than 3E monster design. From a designer's standpoint.




Agreed. What do you think of the stripped down monster descriptions? I'm on the fence about those, but mechanically I'm loving 4e.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I gotta admit, old-school myths about "death with a gaze" are going to be pretty interesting to see in 4e's "NO SAVE OR DIE!" atmosphere.




Looking at the mechanics, they don't have 'Save or Die' but they do have 'Save or be dropped to 0 hit points.'


----------



## keterys (Mar 8, 2008)

Well, that and it's pretty easy to give a higher level creature a 'death gaze'.

C Death Gaze (standard; at-will) * Necrotic
   Close Blast 10; 3d10+6 necrotic damage and 5 ongoing necrotic damage (save ends).

Bam, normal people dying left and right.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 8, 2008)

I'm pleased all monster option rules and monster magic don't apply to the PCs by default.  The "layer cake" method of monster creation is far easier than trying to fit them into extreme balance or 3e's methodology.  And 4e(1e)'s method is far more flexible so you can make whatever you desire and, with some playtesting, it just works.  I'd actually prefer it if they applied the same thinking to spells, magic items, and classes but I maybe we can change those without help?

Saying that, I think learning magic is a real kind of learning for PCs and monster powers are absolutely a big piece of that pie.  What do you think of including spells, magic items, and class powers to the monsters you publish?

Like needing mountain lion paws for boots of springing and striding?
Or bartering with ogre magi to learn levitation?
Or studying bonesnappers to pick up the Rampage ability? (tail required)

Those are all classics though.  I'd make the powers/magic new and tied together for suggested use.  Suggested because if they players didn't learn this through play, but rather through reading, they may never think about _all_ the possibilities such may provide.  A lot of the "follow the rules" thinking is still in place.

EDIT:
Now if you say the tail could be sawed off and strapped to the butt of a PC as a magic item, I would have say, "hells yes! That's how players think."  Of course, it wouldn't work automatically.  Magic item creation does take some learning.  I don't hand wave it.  

Of course, as I've figured they need nothing but the tail, they will invariably try to wear half the damn bonesnapper as a trousers.  It will still work with a penalty and I'll tell them it feels too tight in the legs, but after enough repetitions of that as others try it on they should catch the discrepancy and penalty

I know that many folks will just give the stats of magic items to PCs without that fiddlyness.  I don't do that, but apparently I think about magic items differently than most.

--not happy with magic items in the PHB--spikey


----------



## Spatula (Mar 8, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying, and I agree to some degree. You could simulate the recharge with a percentage roll in 3E. BUT percentage rolls are strongly disfavored as a design idea. Look through the MM. How many percentage rolls do you find?



One on nearly every demon & nearly every devil. 



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Regardless, I am loving 4E monster desing. It is better and more elegant than 3E monster design. From a designer's standpoint.



Well, it is certainly stripped down.  There's not a lot of extraneous details to fiddle with.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 8, 2008)

You may want to think about bringing back in random HP for monsters.  I know it will matter less in 4e with such huge numbers, but 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1 meant quite a bit of variance in OD&D monsters.  

I'm just saying the randomness adds a lot, even in the face of pick your own HP (both old school methods), in that players won't know exactly when a creature will drop.  It gets boring and predictable when every kobold in that party above has exactly 4 hps y'know?  Or in 4e 25 or thereabouts.  

I think there are a number of fair and easy ways to do this.  Take 45hp for example:
The full variance method (highly random): 10d8
The half & half variance (which may be best): 23+5d8
Or the keep it simple:: 40+1d8

For the latter two, I'd keep the bloodied number at 23 regardless of the total.  This isn't rocket science.  It feels too much like the trap 3e fell into.

Also, just another suggestion.  If you've got your Fiend Folio open anyway you may want to look at a few other stats we've lived without for 8 years now.  The one I that pertains right now is the variable XP award.  Flat Reward + #/HP.  Nice, huh?  

But maybe it's too complicated for a beginner DM?  I'd stick a variance HP and variance XP in an appendix or something.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 8, 2008)

Wow, this topic came out of nowhere.

Monster design in 3.x was one of those things that excited me at first, but the more monsters I designed by it, the more I detested it. There were just so many things that had to be done to create a monster that were for book keeping purposes only. Skills for instance - how often did DMs actually have a monster use their skills? Sure, maybe it happened occasionally, but it would be a lot easier to simply give them a one line entry talking about the things that are skill-like that they're exceptionally good at. Like swimming.

Feats were a little more useful in0game, but how many times did monsters get feats just because they had to be given? Hmmm.... IMproved initiative, Toughness, and Power Attack. How many times have I used those because I had already assigned the ones I wanted them to have and simply had to finish fleshing the critter out? And how many DMs forgot about the Improved Initiative when playing the monster? It sounds like monsters are going to be vastly improved.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 8, 2008)

This one is for Clark,

If you can design me a Flind (dosn't have to be named a flind) with Flail Snail minions I will promise to buy every Necro product that comes out for 4e. I am a fan of your company and it's products to date. As for the Flind I'm disappointed it was missing from the gnoll write up - here's hoping next year.

Take care,

Wiman


----------



## Henry (Mar 9, 2008)

Glad to know S'mon and I were ahead of the curve on this 4e development.  I remember my little kit-bash system for NPCs a long time ago, and several people who just didn't like the concept because they felt they had to stat out NPCs and monsters fully, or didn't want to appear unfair to their players. The only time I ever statted out monsters fully was end-game big bad guys, and I had fun with it; the rest of the cannon fodder got treated to single-score saving throws, single-bonus attack rolls, damages, skill scores, etc.

I am glad to see the promise of a fleshed-out system, without all the need to re figure feats, hit dice, etc. just to end up with the single bonus number I wanted in the first place.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 9, 2008)

Wiman said:
			
		

> This one is for Clark,
> 
> If you can design me a Flind (dosn't have to be named a flind) with Flail Snail minions I will promise to buy every Necro product that comes out for 4e. I am a fan of your company and it's products to date. As for the Flind I'm disappointed it was missing from the gnoll write up - here's hoping next year.
> 
> ...




Ya know..Clark and I were just talking about the Flind the other night actually.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

Well the old entry was between Flail Snail and Flumph (both monsters mentioned on this thread) which was why I originally picked up my dusty AD&D fiend folio (pg. 39).

Growing up the Flind was my favorite monster, with Mr. Gygax passing away I've had a little extra time to go look at the old books and remember some very important things - like at one time being the DM was as good if not better then playing......other things I could say don't go with this thread.....I hope companies like Necro who obviously still have the pulse of "gamer before company" keep some of the monsters alive that made the game great. I can easily make a Flind because I have fought them in the AD&D days, people new to the game probably will like these creatures as they were the kings of dual headed weapons and the art of the disarm back in the day (plus they're GNOLLS people, ok thats a personal preference.)

All of the above should have the correct tm's and IMHO's added by the discerning reader.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Ya know..Clark and I were just talking about the Flind the other night actually.




Flinds, and many other 1e "high hit die humanoids", fit in well in 4e, as Elite or Solo versions of basic monsters. (In 3e, they're better modeled as humanoids with class levels). They existed, really, to extend the 'life' of humanoid opponents in 1e past 1-2nd level. Things like the flind, the orog, the norker..all those 'palette swap monsters' really work better in 4e. It's built for them.


----------



## jaldaen (Mar 9, 2008)

As a freelance writer and designer I must say that I too was very excited when 3e first came out. A unified monster design system! Woot! I had visions of wiping up monsters with the greatest of ease, but I soon discovered that although low level monsters were quite easy to design for that once you got past the first few HD the system became more and more tedious to design for. I'd spend an hour or more just getting the stat block done and then I'd have to fiddle around with determining CR, etc... It got even more complex and bewildering the higher the HD crept up. I still enjoyed creating the fluff for these monsters, but I felt like I spent most of my time trying to make the fluff fit the statblock, rather than the other way around.

4e seems to have a different approach to monster design, which promises to make my life as a freelance designer/writer and DM much easier... and to me that is a big selling point for the new system!


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 9, 2008)

In the future, please report the post rather than copying, thanks.  --Dinkeldog/Moderator

I am excited about the announcement and look forward to the book. If you are not, there are other places to vent.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 9, 2008)

In the future, please preface posts of that sort with "Please place me on ignore."  It will save time.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 9, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Well, zip-a-dee-do-dah.  Necro jumped on the 4e bandwagon very early last year before anything had been seen or much was known about 4e.  Necro lead off 3.0 with a big monster book and plans to lead off 4.0 with a big monster book.  Now, ::sudden intake of breath:: Necro says 4e monsters are just uber coolness!  Not like that baaaaad old 3x that used to pay their bills!  This is soooooo unexpected!  No one could have seen this coming.



Gosh, I sure wish we had warned people (both anti- AND pro-4e) not to be sarcastic jerks...

Oh wait, we did.

Out of the thread. And please adjust your posting style in the future. It's really easy to make your point without being purposefully offensive.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 9, 2008)

I have a low-prep style of DMing, with 20 years of slightly-more-than weekly GMing, I like to make it up as I go along, most of the time.

That said, I can attest to the speed & fun of 4E monster creation.

I've run 5 sessions of 4e now with the pregens, and in each and every one I've MADE UP at least one monster, in the middle of the session, with only a couple of minutes scribbling.  I doubt many players noticed, and the monsters were FUN.

Like the 3rd level flightless land-dragon that would bite, shake, and toss PCs away from it, just this afternoon.

Man, I love it.

Fitz


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 9, 2008)

Fitz: care to share those monsters?

I am becoming very interested in the different monsters that people are coming up with. I am getting a good mix of creatures and styles. And, as I said earlier, I am looking forward to "filing off the serial numbers" of monsters to make new and spontaneous monsters... and the more I get, the better that will be.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 9, 2008)

So, I wonder how long until someone starts making up some random monster ability charts.

So many crazy combos possible.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 9, 2008)

Incenjucar, you asked for it... 

It is really limited right now, but can lead to some bizarre combinations.

Monster Type:
1-5 Humanoid
6-10 Abberation
11-15 Undead
16-20 Devil / Demon

Monster Tactics:
1-10 None
11-15 Pack Tactics
16-20 Mob Attack

Monster Attcks (melee):
1-5 Basic Attack vs AC
6-10 Shift attack (Basic attack vs AC and shift one square)
11-15 Brutal strike (Basic Attack vs AC, plus target is stunned)
16-20 Overpowering strike (Basic attack vs AC, plus target is knocked prone)

Monster Attacks (magic):
1-5 Energy spike (Basic attack vs Ref of any energy type)
6-10 Energy blast (Basic attack vs Ref of any energy type, plus 5 ongoing)
11-15 Reflecting surge (Basic attack vs Ref of any energy type, plus secondary attack on a different target)
16-20 Enervating bolt (Basic attack vs Will, plus target is stunned)

Monster Aura:
1-10 None
11-15 Incite Ally (allies in range get +2 Attack, Damage)
16-20 Weaken Opponent (Enemies in range get -2 Attack)

Special abilties:
1-5 Shifty
6-10 Regneration
11-15 Battle Fury
16-20 Massive Damage


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

*My shot at a Flind*

Here's a shot at designing a functional Flind.

*Flind* 
Level 8 Soldier (Leader)
Initiative +6
Senses +7, low light vision

HP 90  Bloodied 45
Speed 8
AC 22 Fortitude 21 Reflex 18 Will 18

m Flind Bar (standard, at will) Weapon
+13 vs. AC D6+5 damage, D6+7 when bloodied see also "entangle" and "bar flurry" below

Blood of Yeenoghu:
"In the pressence of gnolls the Flinds must ever be vigilant"
When with in 5 squares of gnolls the flind gets a +2 bonus to attack and damage. This is due to an obligation to protect the children of Yeenoghu from harm as well as divine protection when combating the same who have lost the way.

Pack Attack:
Flinds deal an extra 5 damage on melee and ranged attacks against an enemy that has two or more of the Flind's allies adjacent to it.

Defender of the Pack: Recharge 6 (Reaction)
"The Flind must act as the hide as the rest of the pack acts as the claws"
If an adjacent ally is in a bloodied condition and is hit by an attack the Flind may immediately react and place themselves in harms way taking the hit and damage accordingly - if the adjacent bloodied ally is a gnoll Yeenoghu looks on with favor on the blood sacrifice and grants the ally healing equal to the damage suffered by the Flind. If the ally is not a gnoll, the Flind takes an additional 2 damage from Yeenoghu disfavor and the ally gets a +2 morale bonus to AC until the end of it's next turn. 

Entangle: Recharge 4,5,6 (Weapon - Flindbar) Change to Encounter, or Recharge 5,6 or Recharge 6 as per preference.
"Drawing upon years of combat experience the Flind entangles an opponents weapon"
Upon a sucessful hit with the flind bar the Flind may either use this ability or Bar Flurry below if they are powered but not both.
+13 vs. Reflex Opponents attacks are at a -4 to attack as the weapon becomes entangled in chains, upon the opponents save phase during it's next turn sucess frees its weapon from the chain, failure leads to disarm and the weapon entering the possesion of the Flind. (The Flind must use a minor action to untangle a entangled weapon before this action or Bar Flurry is used again regardless of powered or not powered status.)

Bar Flurry: Recharge 4,5,6 (Weapon - Flindbar) Change to Encounter, or Recharge 5,6 or Recharge 6 as per preference.
"The Flind uses it's skill with the Bar to add leverage to its follow up strike"
Upon a sucessful hit with the flind bar the Flind may either use this ability or Entangle above if they are powered but not both.
+13 vs. AC 2D6+5 damage, 2D6+7 while bloodied and the Opponent is dazed by the fury of the blow (save ends)

Alignment: Lawful Evil
Languages: Abyssal, Common

STR 20 (+9) DEX 16 (+7) WIS 14 (+6) CON 16 (+7) INT 13 (+5) CHA 16 (+7)

Equipment: Chain Mail Armor, Flind Bar.

My math will be totally off by the time the official rules come out I know, hope this will help out other gnoll fanatics out there. Any criticism is more then welcome (I know the Flindbar recharging on any role of the D6 will be frowned upon). Someone please make up some Flail Snails - 4e certainly seems like the edition of the Flails.

<Edit> Changed some wording and made use of some good advice.
<Edit> The Powers in the Blue would belong to a Commander varient, the Powers in standard text would belong to a Soldier varient, Changed armor to a heavier chain mail to encompass the soldier/commander aspect compared to my first try as a skirmisher. See below on Lizard's comments for good alternative (less badly worded and more 4e) versions of Entangle.


----------



## keterys (Mar 9, 2008)

The 1/3/5, 2/4/6 thing is a little odd - you roll to recharge each ability, so just make it 4 5 6. Also... you're making the monster abilities really verbose, like a character's. I mean, I like flavor text and that's cool, but may as well stick to the script a little


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 9, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> The 1/3/5, 2/4/6 thing is a little odd - you roll to recharge each ability, so just make it 4 5 6. Also... you're making the monster abilities really verbose, like a character's. I mean, I like flavor text and that's cool, but may as well stick to the script a little



I think his idea is to have only recharge roll per round. I am not sure if that's the designer intention (Hey - Even with the new system, we can be nitpicky and demand doing things by the book  ) with the original recharge mechanic, but it's an interesting idea. Though I think it can be overdone - if always one encounter power recharges, you seem to create an effect of randomly rolling the monsters next action, assuming that each power is useable each round. I think that's the real substantial critic to such a recharge approach.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Mar 9, 2008)

What keterys said.

Also, you've got defensive abilities on a Skirmisher...sounds more like a Soldier to me.

I also disagree a bit with the idea of a powerful gnoll taking a hit for a weaker gnoll; that doesn't seem to match the race's character at all.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

All points well taken gentlemen (lady's?).

I'll edit the recharge to 4,5,6 as I was in the mindset that one roll was used for all abilities.
Soldier is also completely correct over skirmisher - however the Defender of the Pack ability will stay (on my version anyway) as Flind's IMHO don't follow a gnoll mindset as closely....the only thing I can think to describe it is the difference between a half orc and an orc in behavior. The Flind was described as a "noble" gnoll to me once with higher ideals yet the same cruelty....they are also Lawful Evil in the original Fiend Folio write up - I'll change alignment here to come to that conclusion.

Thanks all, keep it coming.

Wiman


----------



## keterys (Mar 9, 2008)

If my DM at DDXP was wrong and it is one roll... actually, I'd suggest making it 1-3, 4-6 if you want to keep it that way.


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 9, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I also dont think there should be herds of these things. So Scott and I statted it up as a Solo Brute!!! He he he. Its nasty.




What no herd of Catoblepi minions able to perform a stampede as an encounter power?


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

That's good with the 4,5,6...Mustrum brought me around to the thinking of one ability always recharging seeming a little much. Flinds in 1e got an automatic two attacks a round due to speed with the weapon, I think that's a little much too (so if Bar Flurry recharges they get two, if not they get one, or one and a chance at a disarm.)

I know I'm not making the stat block conform with my extra descriptions of skills  I'm a sucker for descriptive fluff info and luckily I'm not a developer


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 9, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> The 1/3/5, 2/4/6 thing is a little odd - you roll to recharge each ability, so just make it 4 5 6. Also... you're making the monster abilities really verbose, like a character's. I mean, I like flavor text and that's cool, but may as well stick to the script a little




Big stat blocks has been one thing I'm not sure 4E will do away with.

I appreciate that 3E stat blocks are very thorough when it comes to knowing about a monster. The majority of the time when a monster is only going to be damage fodder I generate a mini stat block for it that tells me only what I need to know to run it. With the older style (for D&D at least) free form monster design making a comeback in 4E the trade off will be that we won't just have a list of feats and spells that we know from the PHB or other sources. We'll have to define all of the abilities in the stat block. We also get more variety in monster abilities but the DM needs to be familiar with all of the monster specific abilities. That could become a bit of work with the larger encounter sizes of 4E. I haven't tried translating a 4E stat block to the style of mini stat block I use with 3E yet (pretty much a reference card format with the frequent go to items highlighted for quick catching of the eye) so I'm not sure how practical that would be.

On a somewhat related tangent I don't think the DDXP games were representative of 4E so I'm not reading too much into the play reports from the convention. We really have no idea what it will be like to run a combat with a variety of different enemies each with their own unique abilities. The brevity of the 4E Pit Fiend leads me to think that it can get pretty hairy so the designers are intentionally keeping things trim in the interest of keeping stat blocks at a reasonable length and not overwhelming DMs.

It certainly seems like it will be easier to design monsters in 4E than it is in 3E (as it was in previous editions), but I'm not yet convinced it'll be similarly easier to run them. I'm eagerly awaiting some detailed reports of play in the upper Heroic and lower Paragon (5-15 band or so) levels to get an idea of how the real meat of the game is going to play.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 9, 2008)

Wiman said:
			
		

> This one is for Clark,
> 
> If you can design me a Flind (dosn't have to be named a flind) with Flail Snail minions I will promise to buy every Necro product that comes out for 4e. I am a fan of your company and it's products to date. As for the Flind I'm disappointed it was missing from the gnoll write up - here's hoping next year.




Wiman, Scott and I were talking about the flind the other night, as he said. Problem is, that one may need WotC's permission (if the GSL doesnt interact well with old OGC). 

We talked about the flail snail and the flumph too. Gotta do the flumph!


----------



## Orcus (Mar 9, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> What no herd of Catoblepi minions able to perform a stampede as an encounter power?




Scott and I listened to the comments above and now there is the big solo brute bull and some slightly lower level catoblepii that could sure work in a herd.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

*Flumph*

My favorite part of the Flumph original text is "A flumph is helpless if turned over." and it's a paragraph in that one sentence after all the other abilities are listed.

Tell you one thing Necro peoples, if you make flumphs I'm gonna have a lot of fun tring to figure out ways to turn them over.

Flumph the pancake turtle monster with bad gas.

Will make an adventure entitled "Flip the Flumph"


----------



## Orcus (Mar 9, 2008)

A lot of it is going to be up to WotC. They gave us permission to do some of those monsters before. Hopefully our excellent track record of being good caretakers of their content will encourage them to let us do it again. We'll see. But regardless, there will be a Tome 4E. Filled to the brim with monster-y goodness. It might just not have a flumph.


----------



## hong (Mar 9, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> It might just not have a flumph.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Wiman, Scott and I were talking about the flind the other night, as he said. Problem is, that one may need WotC's permission (if the GSL doesnt interact well with old OGC).
> 
> We talked about the flail snail and the flumph too. Gotta do the flumph!




The GSL *can't* interact with the OGL.

The best WOTC can do is place the 3x SRD under the GSL so that companies have an easier time converting. They can do this with the proviso that the GSL'ed material only be used for 4e supplements or other limits.

There's no way I can see, legally, for the GSL to 'incorporate' OGL material generically. You can't decree that material released under one license is now considered to be released under another. If you could, I could just write "Lizard's Lovely License" and decree material released under the GSL is now covered under the LLL. 

All material currently under the OGL will not be under the GSL unless the current copyright holders choose to release it individually, and given the way the GSL is shaping up, I can't see as they'd have a motive to do so (WOTC might be an exception). This means anything which derives from third party content can't be 'upgraded', except by the copyright holder, and books which have content from mixed sources are pretty much unusable. 

I strongly suspect there will be no viral component to the GSL. Necromancer might be able to voluntarily open its stuff -- not sure -- but it won't be automatic, so the utility of the TOH to third parties will be negligable. While it wouldn't surprise me it WOTC gave permission to Necromancer to use old IP, I would be very shocked if they allowed it to be 'open for 4e', so no one else will be using Flinds or Flumphs.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

Wiman said:
			
		

> Here's a shot at designing a functional Flind.
> (Deletia)




My thoughts:
a)Too many powers. 4e monsters are much more focused. Split it into two subtypes. I'd say Flind Warrior (Soldier, with the flindbar abilities), and Flind Commander (Leader, with the 'buff my gnolls' abilities.) Make them normal monsters, and a typical encounter will be one leader, two warriors, and 8 8th level minion gnolls (Gnoll Pack Hunters, perhaps). 

b)Studded Leather armor doesn't exist in 4e. 

c)Text is a bit verbose for 4e. For the entangle, I'd say: "Opponent cannot use any abilities with the 'Weapon' attribute while adjacent to Flind; save ends. Opposed Strength check to move to a non-adjacent square." There's a lot of ways to turn this into a pile of special case rules to make it more "realistic", but 4e decries simulationism. Even simpler would be "While opponent is adjacent to Flind, all foes gain combat advantage". (The weapon is not completely tangled, but it's harder to use. This fits the 4e philosophy of not 'locking down' character abilities and sets up the tangled opponent for nasty synergy effects.)

d)I think making the entangle and the bar flurry Encounter, not recharge, powers would work better. Recharge powers tend to be supernatural/magical. OTOH, I've only seen a few 'official' monsters and may be generalizing.


----------



## 1of3 (Mar 9, 2008)

Shouldn't the Flind have Pack Tactics, too, if it is a Gnoll?


----------



## Wiman (Mar 9, 2008)

1of3 said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the Flind have Pack Tactics, too, if it is a Gnoll?




Yup, the Flind above has Pack Attack the Gnoll Racial. I agree with Lizard to the point that it's skills could be divided into 2 different varients, and the fluff on the abilities is a little on the "texty" side. As an encounter ability for the flind bar attacks I'm not sold (although I agree completely with the supernational effect thus far) best I could say is if it seems too deadly just change to 5,6 or even 6 recharge....if you know your players are going to kill this guy in a round make them encounter powers which have the advantage of being powered from the onset.

As for the entangle ability I would still like to leave the Flind the ability to disarm as it was it's defining roll back in the day - I like the combat advantage ability and the weapon skill disrupt. For those who don't like the instant disarm make it so if someone fails a couple saves they lose the weapon.

Thanks again guys,

Sorry it's too early in the morning for me to feel into editing the post above....coffee now, type maybe later.

<Edit> changed the spelling of "jest" to just....it is too early.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 9, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Scott and I listened to the comments above and now there is the big solo brute bull and some slightly lower level catoblepii that could sure work in a herd.




Yep. What Clark said. They should work fine in a herd...just be one herd I wouldnt wanna come across actually.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 9, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Fitz: care to share those monsters?




Sure.

This yellow dragon has no wings, lives in deserts, and loves to bury himself in sand, and leap out at unweary passer-buys.  His breath weapon is actually a shimmering blast of super-heated air (I put "fire" so as not to create a new damage type). If you dig enough after defeating him, you may find his treasure horde (meagre as it would be for this young lesser dragon)

Here you go:

Young Flightless Yellow  Dragon 					 Level 3 Solo Lurker
Large natural magical beast (dragon)			 XP: 650

Initiative +10				Senses Perception +8; darkvision
HP 200	Bloodied 100; see also bloodied breath 	Action Points 2
AC 20		Fort 17	Ref 18		 Will 16	Resist 10 Fire
Speed 7  Burrow 7 	Saving Throws +5

Attacks:
Bite (standard; at-will)
Reach 2; +9 vs. AC; 1D6 + 2 damage
Claw (standard; at-will) Reach 2; +7 vs. AC; 1D4 + 2 damage.
Double Attack (standard; at-will) The dragon makes two claw attacks.
Bite, Shake, & Throw (standard, recharge 3 4)
The dragon can make a bite attack, and roll +7 vs Fortitude, 2D6 +2 and slide the
 target 4 squares, and leave the target prone.
Tail Slash (immediate reaction, when a melee attack misses the dragon; at-will)
The dragon uses its tail to attack the enemy that missed it; reach 2; +7 vs. AC; 1D6 + 3 damage, and the target is pushed 1 square.
Breath Weapon (standard; recharge 5 6) * Fire
Close blast 5; +6 vs. Reflex; 2D4 + 3 damage, and the target takes ongoing 5 fire damage and takes a -2 penalty to AC (save ends both).
Bloodied Breath (immediate reaction, when first bloodied; encounter) * Acid
The dragon's breath weapon recharges automatically, and the dragon uses it immediately.
Frightful Presence (standard; encounter) * Fear
Close burst 5; targets enemies; +4 vs. Will; the target is stunned until the end of the dragon's next turn. Aftereffect: The target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends).
Skills Nature +8	Stealth +12
Alignment Evil	Languages Draconic		
Str 16 (+4)	 Con 16 (+4)	Dex 18 (+5)	Int 14 (+3)	Wis 14 (+3)	Cha 10 (+1)


----------



## Orcus (Mar 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The GSL *can't* interact with the OGL.
> 
> The best WOTC can do is place the 3x SRD under the GSL so that companies have an easier time converting. They can do this with the proviso that the GSL'ed material only be used for 4e supplements or other limits.
> 
> ...




I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are taking too broad a view of the problem. I could easily see a way that the new GSL could allow prior OGC to be used under a new GSL. It wouldnt have to be rereleased. But I dont want to turn this into a "what coudl the new GSL do" thread. That should be its own thread (feel free to start it and I will be happy to jump in with thoughts). 

But the bottom line is this: we dont yet know what the GSL will or wont allow us to do.


----------



## jimpaladin (Mar 9, 2008)

I'm just another "groupie" on this thread    I would like to add that those that have defended 3.x(I mean this loosely) monster design; give us a new 3.x monster that you stat'ed up correctly.  I would hope the time it takes would at least allow you to see the reason most of us "lesser" DM's(I being one) enjoy the opportunity to do our own monster design.  In 3.x I just said to heck with it and went to find that which was as close as possible to what I envisioned in my mind for the encounter.  Unhappy DM meant unhappy group    Not saying you can't post and have a different viewpoint, just wondering why it is to bring nothing to the table other than-"You could do that in 3.x!"


----------



## mearls (Mar 9, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> So, I wonder how long until someone starts making up some random monster ability charts.
> 
> So many crazy combos possible.




For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.

It works out rather well, IMO.


----------



## keterys (Mar 9, 2008)

Now that sounds Retro Stupid, indeed. I approve!


----------



## Lizard (Mar 10, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.
> 
> It works out rather well, IMO.




OK, now, that's just too cool.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 10, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.
> 
> It works out rather well, IMO.




And we'll be seeing this on Dragon Online when, Mike?


----------



## Admiral Caine (Mar 10, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are taking too broad a view of the problem. I could easily see a way that the new GSL could allow prior OGC to be used under a new GSL. It wouldnt have to be rereleased. But I dont want to turn this into a "what coudl the new GSL do" thread. That should be its own thread (feel free to start it and I will be happy to jump in with thoughts).
> 
> But the bottom line is this: we dont yet know what the GSL will or wont allow us to do.




Hey Clark,

Since you're calling for a new thread about the GSL, I've been talking about this for awhile in the news section, and have recently started a new one over in this section at the suggestion of a moderator.

Mike Lescault offered to try to get some answers, in the original thread.    And Erik Mona put a cameo in the original thread as well.

I invite you to the new one in this area:  A link for your ease of travel.  If you want to review this older thread I'm referring to, a link to that will be provided at the top of this new thread. (It was just re-started over here for higher visibility).

Jim
Aka Watcher


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 10, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.
> 
> It works out rather well, IMO.




Is this anything like the hordelings in Planescape?

If so, <3


----------



## Orcus (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm not sure I "called for it" but I went to your thread. Good place for that discussion.

I like this thread being about monster design in 4E from a designer's perspective.

Which brings me back to the main point.

I know alot of people say "yes you can do that in 3E." Please know that I agree and I am not dissing 3E design. I loved it when it came out, just like any advancement. And it was an advancement. Its unifying theory was a step forward, though perhaps an overcorrection. But I liked it. Now, I think 4E is even better. Some (it appears) are suggesting that is a cynical, hype-driven BS claim by me. Its not. I truly feel that way. And, as evidence, I point to Scott Greene. There may not be a single person on the plante who has designed more monsters for 3E. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to top him--3 tome of horrors, tons of conversions, god knows how many monster edits for all Necro product, etc. The guy is a monster machine. And, if you dont believe me, Scott will tell you that HE thinks it is easier and more elegant to design monsters in 4E. 

Clark


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 10, 2008)

So, monsters have three points of differentiation.

Two of them are axis.
Role - Artillery, Brute, Controller, Lurker, Skirmisher, Soldier
PC Value - Elite, Minion, "Normal", Solo

One of them is a binary - Leader 

So in converting monsters, what are you guys looking for in the original source to determine what characteristics the new converted monster should have?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 10, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.
> 
> It works out rather well, IMO.



You mean the random hordling generator, no?

And yes, we want this on DDI!


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 10, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> You mean the random hordling generator, no?




I'm betting Mike is using the Random Generator for Creatures From the Lower Planes.

Its tucked in the back of the 1e DMG, like Appendix C or D, with all of Gary's other random generation tables.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 10, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> I'm betting Mike is using the Random Generator for Creatures From the Lower Planes.
> 
> Its tucked in the back of the 1e DMG, like Appendix C or D, with all of Gary's other random generation tables.




_That's_ what we need in ToH4E...

Monsters based on the 1E random harlot table!!


----------



## mearls (Mar 10, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> I'm betting Mike is using the Random Generator for Creatures From the Lower Planes.
> 
> Its tucked in the back of the 1e DMG, like Appendix C or D, with all of Gary's other random generation tables.




Yup, that's the one.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 10, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are taking too broad a view of the problem. I could easily see a way that the new GSL could allow prior OGC to be used under a new GSL. It wouldnt have to be rereleased. But I dont want to turn this into a "what coudl the new GSL do" thread. That should be its own thread (feel free to start it and I will be happy to jump in with thoughts).
> 
> But the bottom line is this: we dont yet know what the GSL will or wont allow us to do.




Deleted to move to other thread.


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 10, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _That's_ what we need in ToH4E...
> 
> Monsters based on the 1E random harlot table!!




Like this?

Saucy Tart		        Level 3 Lurker
Medium natural humanoid			    

Initiative +1	Senses Perception +3
Seduction area 3; +7 vs. Will; all in area are smitten (save ends)
HP 36; Bloodied 18
AC 13, Fortitude 12, Reflex 11, Will 16
Speed 6

M Slap (standard; at-will)
+4 vs. AC; 1d4 damage.

M Saucy Slap (immediate, when someone resists her tempting ways) 
+4 vs. Reflex; 1d4 + 1 damage.

Summon Beat Down (standard; encounter)
If threatened, a saucy tart can summon other saucy tarts, brazen strumpets, wanton wenches, or a sly pimp to her aid.

Alignment Unaligned	Languages Common, Language o’ Love
Skills Bluff +9, Diplomacy +9

Str 10 (+1)	Dex 11 (+1)	Wis 14 (+3)	
Con 12 (+2)	Int 10 (+1)	Cha 16 (+4)

Equipment leather armor


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 10, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> You mean the random hordling generator, no?
> 
> And yes, we want this on DDI!




That's the one I'm thinking of, yeah.  My D&D career didn't begin until Planescape came out, so it's my only reference.  But I loved to play around with that table.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 10, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So, monsters have three points of differentiation.
> 
> Two of them are axis.
> Role - Artillery, Brute, Controller, Lurker, Skirmisher, Soldier
> ...




We go back to the original source text, not even our conversion. What was this monster designed to do. Often, we found the monster had some cool flavor but no real viable mechanic to realize that flavor. So we asked, what makes this monster different? Then we asked what role (as we understand them) does it play based on your list above. We reviewed the Design and Development articles from WotC for MM5 which talk about these roles (though the names have changed slightly). That was very helpful. Then we did our best. As we are scratching out the monsters, some get a ??? by the role, since we arent sure. Same with types. We have no idea what all the types and subtypes will be yet. So those get our best guess. But that is what we look at.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 10, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Equipment leather armor




Heh!


----------



## FunkBGR (Mar 10, 2008)

How do the stat mods work?

I thought they were the same as 3.0/3.5 - but even the DDXP monsters are all over. 

Is it indeed the same?


----------



## Grazzt (Mar 10, 2008)

FunkBGR said:
			
		

> How do the stat mods work?
> 
> I thought they were the same as 3.0/3.5 - but even the DDXP monsters are all over.
> 
> Is it indeed the same?




Ability score mods are the same as 3.x. They are just notated with + 1/2 level.

For example, Str 16 is still +3. On a Level 8 monster , it would be noted as "Str 16 (+7)".... +3 ability score mod, +4 from level.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 10, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> For my own campaign, I've brought back the concept of demon types from 1e, you know, type I demons, type II demons, etc, assigned each type a role and level range, and bolted on Gary's old random demon generator from 1e, with attacks and abilities attached to those random elements.
> 
> It works out rather well, IMO.




Hell, you should post that Mike!


----------



## Wiman (Mar 11, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Summon Beat Down (standard; encounter)
> If threatened, a saucy tart can summon other saucy tarts, brazen strumpets, wanton wenches, or a sly pimp to her aid.




Summon a sly pimp eh, if he has a feather in his cap I think Scott has just given birth to the Bard in 4e.

Mike Mearls - Me = big fan.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 11, 2008)

jimpaladin said:
			
		

> I'm just another "groupie" on this thread    I would like to add that those that have defended 3.x(I mean this loosely) monster design; give us a new 3.x monster that you stat'ed up correctly.  I would hope the time it takes would at least allow you to see the reason most of us "lesser" DM's(I being one) enjoy the opportunity to do our own monster design.  In 3.x I just said to heck with it and went to find that which was as close as possible to what I envisioned in my mind for the encounter.  Unhappy DM meant unhappy group    Not saying you can't post and have a different viewpoint, just wondering why it is to bring nothing to the table other than-"You could do that in 3.x!"



I don't think correcting mistaken logic is bringing nothing to the table.  There are problems with creating 3e monsters, which have been gone over already.  Not being able to make an creature that's defined by shooting an energy ray, or a monster ability that only works some of the time, etc. aren't in that list, because you absolutely can do those things, and futhermore they appear in the first MM!  So saying that 3e was somehow restrictive in that regard is absurd.

_If you are publishing your creations_ then the added complexity of the 3e stat block is obviously a detriment, in that it requires more work on your part for potentially little gain (depending on the monster).  4e is definitely a step forward as far as that goes.  If we're talking about just inventing something for your home game, who cares if the skill points are correct?  Who cares if it even has skill points?  No one but you is ever going to see it.


----------



## Flynn (Mar 11, 2008)

This has been a most interesting thread. I had already decided to buy the 4E Tome of Horrors, but it pleases me greatly to read that it is still under way. I have the utmost of confidence in both Orcus and Grazzt here, so it should be a fantastic product.

Looking Forward To It,
Flynn


----------



## Orcus (Mar 12, 2008)

I will say there are a few things I want to improve about monster design in 4E.

1. More description. Right now, due to space limits is my guess, there is almost no description of the monster and how it acts away from the battle mat. Our Tome of Horrors will add in a bit more of that content. Monsters should be more than just a mini pic and a stat block of encounter info--at least the way I play D&D they are. Monsters are not just adventure road bumps. 

2. Weaknesses. Not everything is about how much damage a monster can deal out. Some monsters have unique weaknesses (like the old alley reaper from the creature collection; grab its cloak and you could destroy it and thus the monster--temporarily). We like those kinds of things. We intend to add them in to our monsters. 

3. Plot stuff and lesser powers. Sure, some monsters were either traps or poor excuses for adventure plots. The monster itself was almost never encountered. 4E seems to be avoiding these monsters totally. But, I think in doing so it is omitting all the "story" kind of powers. Plus, some monsters have lesser powers, like light or minor charms or cantrips or things that are neat for understanding the monster but might not make their way into a combat stat block. Nevertheless, they are important to the monster. That stuff will be noted in our monsters. Just because a minor power doesnt lend itself to combat doesnt mean it isnt important for a monster description. I think those types of things help DMs--who are the ones who have to run the monster and be inspired by the monster--help to understand the monster and how it fits in that particular DMs game world. 

Luckily, with the flexibility of 4E that stuff will be easy to add in. And, I should add, that stuff isnt a failure of 4E, it is more (in my view) a failure of the MM to include that stuff, not the rules. In fact the 4E rules let me model those weakenesses better than I have been able to before. 

Clark


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> 3. Plot stuff and lesser powers. Sure, some monsters were either traps or poor excuses for adventure plots. The monster itself was almost never encountered. 4E seems to be avoiding these monsters totally. But, I think in doing so it is omitting all the "story" kind of powers. Plus, some monsters have lesser powers, like light or minor charms or cantrips or things that are neat for understanding the monster but might not make their way into a combat stat block. Nevertheless, they are important to the monster. That stuff will be noted in our monsters. Just because a minor power doesnt lend itself to combat doesnt mean it isnt important for a monster description. I think those types of things help DMs--who are the ones who have to run the monster and be inspired by the monster--help to understand the monster and how it fits in that particular DMs game world.




This is my biggest gripe w/the 4e design philosophy and the biggest thing turning me off to the game -- the "Monsters is fer killin'" attitude, explicilty expressed in dev articles as "Monsters exist for 5 round of combat; nothing else matters". If TOH breaks away from this atavistic viewpoint, it might just replace, not supplement, the MM if I ever run a 4e game.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 12, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I will say there are a few things I want to improve about monster design in 4E.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Clark




Oh, i'm so gonna buy your book.  One thing i'd like to see changed in the art, and this isn't a big deal, but it bugged me in the first edition: some of the pics were just sketches, while most were completely finished b/w pieces. Maybe the artists ran out of time before the deadline, but if every single pic was complete (and awesome) it would really make the book shine. Not that it won't anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

> If TOH breaks away from this atavistic viewpoint, it might just replace, not supplement, the MM if I ever run a 4e game.




Friggin' word, man. 

I may skip the MM entirely and just grab myself the new TOH. I liked the original TOH better than most of the WotC 3e MMs, anyway. 

What are your guys' positions on "non-evil" monsters, wildlife, and monsters for use as PCs? What about bizarre monsters like the Flumph or the Adherer or other such high fantastic oddity?


----------



## Orcus (Mar 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Friggin' word, man.
> 
> I may skip the MM entirely and just grab myself the new TOH. I liked the original TOH better than most of the WotC 3e MMs, anyway.
> 
> What are your guys' positions on "non-evil" monsters, wildlife, and monsters for use as PCs? What about bizarre monsters like the Flumph or the Adherer or other such high fantastic oddity?




You cant skip the MM  It looks too awesome, and has too many core monsters.

Our position on non-evil "monsters" is that we love them. There is room for the blink dog in our book if we can do it. And we love the flumph and the adherer. And we will definately be designing monster races that can be PC races. In fact, I was working on the 4E version of the Asaatthi last night (from the Creature Collection), and I sent Scott an email saying I wanted him to make a short list of a few "monster as PC races." I put some "placeholder" text in the asaatthi entry for PC details, since that is one part of the rules that we have no clue about. Oh, and the asaatthi are evil.  

And we also think that animals need to be statted. I dont know what the MM will do. Or maybe the other books. But you need stats for wolves and lions and bears and boars and tigers and birds and snakes and stuff like that. Many of us old schoolers have natural creatures (or buffed versions of natural creatures) as important wilderness encounters. And if the MM doesnt provide them, we will. And you will get various level versions of them. 

Again, we dont take the position that monsters are just XP pinatas. Monsters are more than that. (of course, we love cool deadly combat monsters too). The 4E MM certainly seems to only provide the combat specific information and none of the description or ecology or background or lesser powers or story-based weaknesses of the monsters.

Our book will mimic the MM layout, but will include extra info. So you will get "Name, short text description, stat block for monster version 1, tactics section, Lore, encounter groups" just like in the MM. Then you will also get some more descriptive text. We also intend to provide several sample monsters of each type over various levels. Which means, very likely, that each "monster" will be a two page spread. 

Clark


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2008)

We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains. But assuming that it's at not more then we had in the 3E MM, I absolutely see room for variant/additional monster books that provide more details. 

The MM has the great advantage that it can contain a lot of monsters. Which means it will give you a lot of options what monsters you use, but you might come up with a few "fluffy" parts on your own. *)

A book like a 4E Tome of Horrors could contain more information on each monster, and thus giving you more story elements.

I think both are valid approaches, and it depends on each individual what is "more appropriate". 

I think for a core book, I want as much material to work with then possible. But other supplements might or should go in more details. 

Oh, and interesting approach here would be to write a "Tome of Horrors" in the style of an actual tome written by a sage of the fictional world. But then, it might feel necessary to separate monster description and statistics for "immersion", but reduce usability... Maybe that's more something for a Dracomoninum (sp?) or similar book with in-dept information on a more limited (focused) set of monsters.


*) by the way: This might be a little inconsistent with the whole idea of the Implied Setting and the "fluffy" feats we know. On the other hand, maybe not. The details of the implied setting are very vague, and a brief monster description should manage the same. In both cases, you still have to figure out the details on your own, if they ever come up.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains. But assuming that it's at not more then we had in the 3E MM, I absolutely see room for variant/additional monster books that provide more details.




Sure we do. And it is very, very little. 

They showed the galley proofs of the MM at DDXP. You can find links to pics of teh page spreads all over ENWorld. So we have seen several actual pages--gnolls, grick, grell, bodak, choker, chuul, etc. We have seen exactly how the pages are laid out and what content they contain. 

I can post a few links if you want, though they are relatively easy to find. 

Clark


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> You cant skip the MM  It looks too awesome, and has too many core monsters.




Pfft, I'll get 'em all on the D&D Insider Rules Database. 

Everything else you've posted makes me think that you guys might be the reason I go over to 4e. You're addressing all the concerns that I have with WotC's apparent monster philosophy, which is one of my biggest sticking points so far. It's always possible that the appearances are decieving, but I like that you guys are deliberately taking a compatible but slightly "richer" take on a monster book. 



			
				Mudstrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We don't know yet how much fluff text the MM contains.




Well, we do have hints. The bodak/boneclaw page, for instance. That's part of what's giving me a sinking feeling about 4e monsters. Seeing the bodak's eerie compelled evil against the will of a barely-sentient soul still trapped within it turned into "kills because it likes killing" is pretty disappointing, like the 4e team thought that the only interesting part of the bodak was it's death gaze. The stats probably make for some fun encounters, and the rest of the fluff sets up future encounters pretty well, but the bodak would probably function more rewardingly for me as an elite or solo creature with that "slight twinges of memory" aspect than as a soldier in the shadow army of nightwalkers.



> I think for a core book, I want as much material to work with then possible.




I'd agree, but the material I need is more than just sweet stats.  I need sweet stats, but I need monsters that exist beyond the five rounds you kill them in. Which is why a "monsters are more than just XP speedbumps" philosophy is very resonant to me. 

It looks like each standard MM entry is a single page, with the stats for a version or two on each page, along with a kickin' picture and a blurb of text. Humanoids and dragons and beholders and illithids and other prominent baddies probably get more versions and more pages.

From the sounds of it, the new Tome will have quite a bit more in the way of inspiration for the use of these monsters in roles other than "Adversary."


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, we do have hints. The bodak/boneclaw page, for instance. That's part of what's giving me a sinking feeling about 4e monsters. Seeing the bodak's eerie compelled evil against the will of a barely-sentient soul still trapped within it turned into "kills because it likes killing" is pretty disappointing, like the 4e team thought that the only interesting part of the bodak was it's death gaze. The stats probably make for some fun encounters, and the rest of the fluff sets up future encounters pretty well, but the bodak would probably function more rewardingly for me as an elite or solo creature with that "slight twinges of memory" aspect than as a soldier in the shadow army of nightwalkers.




4e bodak has more lore and information than the 3e bodak, so I'd call that a step up from before.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2008)

*Re: Those thinking monster entries have so little fluff*

Hi all! 

One thing that caught my eye is how the Knowledge Lore Text within monster entries does add extra fluff to them. But does so in a way thats also mechanically useful.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

> 4e bodak has more lore and information than the 3e bodak, so I'd call that a step up from before.




Quality trumps quanity.

4e: "Bodaks kill because they like to kill! And sometimes they kill because more powerful monsters tell them to!"

3e: "Bodaks are corrupted mortals who retain vague memories of their life."

IIRC, the 2e fluff on the bodak was even better, and 4e should be striving for a similar quality as it had in 2e. The few sentences in 3e were a step down, but they retained the essential "calling cards" of the bodak. The 4e description removes it entirely in exchange for giving the bodak lore that links it to another monster, and makes it become part of the faceless hoarde of evil things the PC's have to kill. 

The noncombat difference between a bodak and a zombie? Or the bodak and a goblin enslaved by hobgoblins? Or the bodak and an orc? They're all things that kill 'cuz they like killin', and occasionally do it in the service of something bossing them around.

By pegging the Catoblepas, for instance, as a creature that exists beyond their death gaze, the new Tome seems to be ripe for a broader, more unique consideration of a monster's role outside of when the PC's kill them.


----------



## Orcus (Mar 13, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> One thing that caught my eye is how the Knowledge Lore Text within monster entries does add extra fluff to them. But does so in a way thats also mechanically useful.




I agree that is an interesting way to provide information with a mechanic. I like it. We intend to do that. But I still want a bit more depth. We'll see how it works out.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2008)

Hey there Orcus! 



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree that is an interesting way to provide information with a mechanic. I like it. We intend to do that. But I still want a bit more depth. We'll see how it works out.




I have been thinking that the best way to work extra fluff may be within monster groupings rather than individual monsters.

Say for instance you had a page on undead that was divorced from the mechanics and thus didn't interfere with having as many stat blocks in one place as possible.

I mean the 3.0 books to a degree already have this with regards certain monster groupings (dragons, devils, elves etc.). Of course that sort of means you need to put all the same monster types under 'one roof' as it were, listing creatures by type rather than alphabetically spread throughout the book. But I sort of think thats a good thing.


----------

