|
4 years ago ::
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:18PM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2009
|
What I found infuriating is that WOTC doesn't adhere to their own rules in many cases, so it makes it hard to check against creatures of similar level/ role for consistency.
(clip)
Still, following the formula saves a lot of time, and goes a long way towards keeping balance in check. Creating monsters is immensely enjoyable, and the flexibility of the system is probably it's biggest strength.
This post sums up my feelings quite well. The system, flawed as it is, is there for a reason. In a contest like this, you are always free to make your own modifications to stats, bonuses, defenses and whatnot, but if you do it's best if you help the judges understand why rather than leave them guessing. To take an example or two from these entries, I recall at least two where I had to guess whether the monster had low defenses for some reason, or if the creator had simply forgotten to apply 1 or 2 of the 3 elite defense bumps. The first is fine if it's distinguishable- the latter hurts your score.
In addition, part of the reason these contests are run is to supply original material for DMs to potentially use in their own campaigns. In my mind, that requires sticking to the guidelines you have or making clear exception if you don't- we want these creations to be easy and fun to use, after all!
Bring Gleemax Back. Even as a failure, it was better than this.
http://community.wizards.com/durdur
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 4:13AM
#262
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Am I allowed to edit the entry now that the competition is over, to improve my entry with the comments given by the judges?
Yes, you are.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 4:18AM
#263
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree with Tinwe. Only one entry explained his calculations. It is always helpful to explain why you may be deviating from the guidelines. You can do it narratively, "The Dire Snipe's reflexes are quick, but it has to be because it is less hearty than creatures of a similar challenge" or expressly ("The Dire Snipe has a higher than expected Reflex to reflect its quickness, but this is balanced by a lower than expected Fortitude score")
Wizards is allowed to deviate from its own guidelines without explanation because -- presumably -- they playtest the creature to make sure that it works with the deviation. We don't have that luxury because even if you do playtest the creature, we the judges have no idea how it will play out and we don't have time to playtest the creatures.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:04AM
#264
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2007
|
Also realized that I innocently used Con score rather than Con modifier for determining HP, which is why they were so high.
I feel your pain. Being an old-school veteran, I'm so used to using the Con modifier that even though I read Con score, my brain saw Con modifier. I had that pointed out to me after I'd posted and had one of those "D'oh!" moments.
I do agree with the others concerning stat generation. There doesn't appear to be any hard-and-fast rules for it. I guess that lets the DM feel better when he fudges the numbers, but it doesn't make it any easier for those trying to learn the ropes. I especially got frustrated when trying to apply their given formulas to existing critters and finding that the results didn't match up. Wrecan makes a good point that WotC can playtest the creatures and tweak them to work, but it's still damned annoying.
@herald108: Thanks for the props, but the judges so far are right. The Tangler had WAY too many powers. The whole "hooked critters pull others" is indeed too tedious to work. For some reason, I thought it would be a cool mechanic, but in the heat of combat, that's just too much to keep track of. The way I spec'ed it out, the Tangler would be more of a Solo critter than an Elite. And the two creatures, while being viable individually, really had no practical reason to be together. I think I just got so enamored by the ideas that I pounded that round peg into the square hole.
@TwinBahamut: I don't know about the Mauler being in 3e, but upon retrospect, I remember the Xorn from 1e and 2e being pretty similar physically (three arms/legs, equally spaced). Maybe that subconsciously snuck into my design...
Sorceror: "I'll attack the [solo monster] with Chaos Bolt."
Warden: "Don't you ever use encounter powers?!?!?"
Sorceror: (casually) "I don't need to."
-----------
"Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - Martin Golding
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:20AM
#265
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2007
|
When calculating hp, you add the Constitution score, not merely the Constitution modifier. You also double the entire hp, not just the level and Con-based hp.
I get the score vs. bonus thing; that was my fault. The doubling thing I wonder about. The DMG (pg 185) says "An elite monster has hit points equal to twice the hit points of the standard monster, plus twice its Constitution score." According to my original math:
HP: 8 (Controller) + (3 Con bonus x2 Elite) + (10 level x8 Controller x2 Elite) = 174; Bloodied = 87
...I did basically what it says. Double the Con-generated HPs and double the regular HP total. The text implies that you double the two calculations individually. I think the distinction is academic, as the results are the same. Just another way that the "rules" are a bit unclear. I should have included the 8 Controller HPs before doubling, though.
So the HP total should have been ((16 Con) x2 Elite)) + ((8 Controller + (10 Level x8 Controller)) x2 Elite) = 208?
Sorceror: "I'll attack the [solo monster] with Chaos Bolt."
Warden: "Don't you ever use encounter powers?!?!?"
Sorceror: (casually) "I don't need to."
-----------
"Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - Martin Golding
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:30AM
#266
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2009
|
Might I make a suggestion? I'm not paying for the DDI monster builder, so a link to the third-party one would've been really helpful to have had at the start of competition.
This probably would have been a good idea. Honestly, I would have suggested it to wrecan if it had crossed my mind.
Bring Gleemax Back. Even as a failure, it was better than this.
http://community.wizards.com/durdur
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:54AM
#267
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2007
|
I used http://www.asmor.com/scripts/4eMonsterMathCruncher/index.php to give me the stats for my monsters. I didn't know that there were "rules" for creating monsters. Unfortunately, according to Bahamut's comments, using that caused me to swing to hard on the "heavy damage" side of things. However, it did give me a lot of help with doing the stats right for Hp and defenses. But I will admit, if the thing was based on the advice given by Wizards, it does seem that there isn't much leeway in making your own choices for defenses and the like.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 8:34AM
#268
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2007
|
Not to play the devils advocate here, but at least the current incantation of monster development is leagues above what we have had in the past. Right? I mean, at least nowadays you have a system to give you a solid idea of where your hp, defenses and damage should be and scales that pretty well with the level of your party.
Yes a lot is left open to interpretation, nothing is set in stone because the DM often requires a lot of leeway in the way he created and managed his encounters. But still, knowing the low / medium / high damage ranges indicate to me about where my damage should be on attacks that have additional effects vs simple damage dealing effects.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 9:36AM
#269
|
|
|
Not to play the devils advocate here, but at least the current incantation of monster development is leagues above what we have had in the past. Right? I mean, at least nowadays you have a system to give you a solid idea of where your hp, defenses and damage should be and scales that pretty well with the level of your party.
That is a good point. I guess we're all just grumbling because we've seen the greener grass, and are so close to stepping completely over the fence.
If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one.
Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2009 - 10:49AM
#270
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2002
|
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one whose soul was crushed by Bahamut's comments... and I placed second... sheesh.
Anyways thanks so much for the contest guys!!! I'm glad I can cut my teeth on this type of stuff!
You know, I was simply going to avoid commenting on all the replies to my comments, since I already said more than my fair share and you guys deserve better than to be constantly suffering my perfectionist whims, but I really need to say something after reading this...
Please don't feel soul-crushed! I really liked your entry! Out of all of the scores I gave, yours was the highest, and I seriously expected you to win. I even said your entry was "very well done", and I never praise entries like that unless I think you did some very remarkable things.
Still, since I am replying to replies...
I am glad to hear that many of you found my comments to be helpful. I am probably not the nicest judge when it comes to these kinds of comments, but I at least try to be honest and I hope that what I say is useful.
Of course, I really need to take a break from judging and get around to entering these contests again.
|
|
|
