Community

Sep 15, 2011 -- 5:45AM, Jharii wrote:

Maybe they can give us a tool that allows us to include a local directory in the search capabilities of the monster builder.

I like that idea!

50 is better than 10, but not by much. If you are adjusting to MM3 standards and saving them that is only about 20ish encounters worth of monsters. After that you will be exporting and deleting to make room.

Not a disaster, but having local storage as you suggest or a more reasonably sized piece of the cloud would be nice.

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:59AM, frothsof wrote:

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:27AM, PaoloM wrote:

  Storage: for now, 50 monster in "the cloud"

i am disappointed in the amount of material we can store within the tools (cb, mb, and especially the vt)

but im jealous youre in paris

 Less of a pain in the rear than with the CB though.  Most monsters I modify will only see use once or twice anyway, so if I have to get rid of one (or export it to my PC) in order to make room, its less of an issue.

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:27AM, PaoloM wrote:

Quick reply from a tiny hotel room in Paris:  Export format: Just like the cb, it uses the XML monster format used by the old mb. This will enable full interoperability between the two tools. No RTF at the moment but it should not be a big pain for an enterprising developer to convert the exported XML to any other format...

RTF is really useful because it is the quickest way a DM can place several monsters onto one page in a common format used for adventures. It supports a better resolution than an image and it also allows for later quick edits. As a DM in my home campaigns and as an admin in organized play I use the RTF export extensively.

It would be incredible for authors of DDI and organized play (and I suspect for WotC staff) if the AT's MB could export a monster in a format that could be dropped into the Word format that WotC uses and meet those needs. Right now authors have to do a lot of tweaking to get things right... for DDI and LFR WotC can't allow the RTF export from the classic MB because it has so many differences from the standard. It would be a huge boon to everyone if that would change in the future. My main point: RTF is really desirable and if you implement it please work with someone like Perkins or Bilsland to use the format they desire and not just any RTF.

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:27AM, PaoloM wrote:

Storage: for now, 50 monster in "the cloud"

I suspect that is a pretty decent starting point. I have 78 custom monsters in my Dark Sun folder (some of which are from organized play). The RPGA had more than 200 custom monsters in the old tool, some of which I have exported. But, I'm a heavy users.

What most contributes to a high number for me are variations. I might take an existing monster and make it 2 levels lower. Then I might make another version a level higher with a monster theme. Those types of minor changes are enough work that I want to keep them as new monsters and this bumps up the number of monsters I would save in my cloud.

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:27AM, PaoloM wrote:

Math: as far as I can tell (bugs notwithstanding), it uses mm3 calculations and stat block.

This is a complex issue. Please bare with me.

My guess is that it uses the latest logic for initial creation. I would be curious what it does when you level a creature... does it use an old idea of, say, adding 1 to attack per level and then 1 to damage every other level? Or does it change the power to be in line with recent logic (itself complex)? Bumping up average damage every other level has changed to be every level for at-will powers, for example. And, the average damage has changed. Brutes gain a bump to damage at certain levels. Limited/encounter powers do extra damage and get bumps at certain levels. (Chris Perkins posted a chart recently).

There is also the question of how it behaves when you change an existing monster that uses old rules. If I take a level 1 MM1 non-brute monster that does 1d6+4 with an at-will attack and level it to 3rd level, do I get 1d6+6 (under old logic), 1d6+6 (using the new progression but not correcting for new expected average values), or do I get 1d6+8 (achieving the average of 11 expected by the new math for average damage of an at-will by a non-brute)? That difference is more jarring as you climb in level and with encounter powers. An old level 1 brute that might do 1d6+4 with an encounter power and is bumped up to 20th level would do 1d6+12 under the old rules, 1d6+48 with the new values.

It can be a bit of a philosophical question. Some monsters really are more or less damaging than others, even in the post-MM3 category. Should the software try to adjust that back to average levels when you edit them, or should it stay true to the source and just increase/decrease by level based on the new progression? A power that stuns might be great as 1d4+8 even on a high heroic creature, because the stun is so powerful. This is raised as an issue often on the forums and many posters are unclear on how the logic works for new vs changed monsters.

If I had to make a recommendation, it would be that leveling or de-leveling should add a bump based on the delta on the chart Chris Perkins posted. So, no matter the value you have, a brute encounter power going from 1st to 20th level would add 36 to the static damage (comparing the average values of 16 and 52 on the chart and adjusting for the difference). This seems to preserve the intent of the creature and still do a good job at the task of leveling/de-leveling.

A common request is a button that would adjust a power to the expected value for the level. This would be a good feature, because you could use that to update monsters. Take that old MM1 monster and click that button and a power is now at the new value. Because the DM controls this, you don't run into problems where the stun power is now stun plus lots of damage (unless the DM wants to make that adjustment). This kind of feature is, to me, far better than automatically imposing MM3 logic when you level (which would be wrong for powers that deliberately are written to do less or more damage).

Sep 15, 2011 -- 3:27AM, PaoloM wrote:

Printing multiple stat blocks and laying out other things should be better left to a specialized tool. As a side note, a single stat block should not pose the same problems as a multiple full page output like the cb.

As noted above, I think the issue is really around usability. DMs need to be able to get several monsters onto a page, to put them in amongst their adventure notes, to incorporate them into organized play, etc. Printing one per page is just not useful. Yeah, the option should be there, but export should really support RTF so that we can bypass the issue (and the RTF format should match WotC guidelines).

i dont think 50 is a "starting point". they havent added any cb slots and ive got over a 100 pcs on my cpu now, they havent added any vt slots and i have to delete adventures routinely, they dont add slots.

OgreBane99, keep in mind that having any print functionality at all is an improvement over none.

You can always screen capture, paste into Word (or something like it), crop, and add another monster. I agree we do want an RTF format, but it isn't for me a giant deal breaker as was not being able to edit/create monsters.