Community

May 29, 2012 -- 3:45AM, AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

I find the subtle mechanical differences to be enough to set them apart mechanically - I don't need some little trick for each, or some "unique" power for each, because separating them through roleplay comes very naturally to me and is easily received by my players.

We have one goblin charging headlong into the dwarves of the party shouting curses and threats, a pair lagging back firing arrows - that panic and retreat before firing more each time the party takes out one of their friends - and all this simple opportunities to present personality for each and every monster, and I always take them.

My players fought a dozen goblins in one encounter, and despite each having the same AC, same HP, same attack and damage regardless of spear or mace, and the tiny mechanical difference of +1 to hit and damage on the ones with short bows - and they felt like they encounter 12 different goblins.

The party will probably face another dozen goblins with the exact same stats next time we get together for the playtest, and I am sure that they will think nothing of them having had the same numbers behind them because each will behave as an individual and be seen as an individual - even if I have to resort to giving one of them a squeaky voice to do it.

I guess what I mean to say is: My methods vary... wildly.

My question for you is would your style be diminished or handicapped if they had a couple of unique traits? Maybe half of them get a bonus to attack when they flank, the other half get a bonus to ranged attacks if they aim at the same target? Would something like that make it hard to do your style?

May 29, 2012 -- 6:58AM, ckandem wrote:

I was pleased with the simplicity of the monster entries.  By looking at each monster's "special power," it allowed me to quickly apply unique tactics that kept them clearly differentiated from other monsters of similar types.  For example, fighting the goblin nest is like taking on a thieves' guild, with all the little bastards hiding and springing out looking for sneak attacks.  Fighting the orcs is all about taking a brutal howling charge, then mowing that wave down, as another group winds up to rush you.

As far as homogeneity (each goblin being like each other goblin), it wouldn't be tough to swap out powers to create different goblin roles -- give a pair of goblin archers the rogue's 3rd level Skulker ability, and one of the melee goblins the Moradin cleric's Defender ability, and you've got a hell of an ambush.  

The simplicity of the stat blocks makes swapping these "flavor" abilities extremely simple. I think the designers got the general level of monster complexity just right.  

That's exactly what they need to do, just one or two powers to differentiate one goblin from the next...

May 29, 2012 -- 6:40AM, Chimpy20 wrote:

To me, this is breaking what standard D&D is. In D&D, goblins are small green skinned humanoids.

Right... except for when they are red (Birthright campaign setting), or an orange/yellow tan sort of color (3.5 monster manual).

Fair point though... goblins are always green... usually.

May 29, 2012 -- 6:40AM, Chimpy20 wrote:

I think stretching it to have some variation is great, but just throwing it out of the window is just going to confuse players, especially when there are other monsters that fit what you're looking for.

Which part is stretching to have variation, and which part is throwing it out the window? The height? The color? Being frog-ish in appearance?

I think that is all stretching... still a funny colored and rude humanoid monster... not like I said a "goblin" is a writhing mass of silver tentacles arrayed around a living sphere of obsidian that glows with a pus-hued light.

May 29, 2012 -- 6:40AM, Chimpy20 wrote:

I guess my point is that, for every DM who wants to make up their own goblins, there are some that just want to use what's on the page in front of them, and what is presented on the page has to cater for those by giving them the info to achieve that, mechanically and with flavour text.

I agree that there are different styles... and it is helpful to have a monster on a page in front of you that you can just "plug 'n play" with... which is exactly why I prefer monsters as written in the book to be at their simplest possible incarnation.

It is both easier to use a simple set of stats when just flipping open and running on the fly, and to take a sticky note and add some special mechanics to make "generic goblin" into "goblin of the shakewood forest" than it is for me to stare at a complex list of mechanics and ignore the ones I am going to probably forget to implement in the first place.

Clarity: It is easier to put a sticky note next to a DDN statblock that gives the goblins special powers than for me to flip open the 4e monster manual to goblin and visually pare down the multiple stat blocks there into a single, simple, and actually functional set of stats.

I was going to post something in my own thread about this.  But here will do.

I do think that monsters are a little bare bones, as presented.  And I hope that'll change.  

The monsters from 4th edition where interesting, at least with their powers, but it did become a bit of a challenge for the DM to track everything.  

One thing that I think would be a step in the right direction is to add some 'triggered' powers.  If you've seen the One Ring or Dragon Age RPGS, then you might know the direction I'm going.

Basically, the idea would be that most monsters have 1-2 abilties that the DM doesn't necessarily use, but instead, are triggered by, say, an Odd result on the d20.  You could have Odd Misses that trigger a 'power' or Odd Hits that trigger a different power.  

The point is, that in some fights, the powers will be triggered and in others, they won't.  The players can't then always predict that a goblin will always 'shift' when they are missed (or whatever).   But that the DM doesn't just use the same power over and over again OR that they don't immediately try to take advantage of the situation.

By the later, I'll need to explain with an example.  There is a Dark Acolye in the Playtest MM, who gets, once per day, +1d6 to their damage.  A DM would always use that the first time the DA successfully hit.  There is no reason not to, since many creatures are really just road-bumps for the PCs.  The power could have been worded: 'On their first successful attack' as opposed to 'once per day'.  

The idea that I'm getting at, is that these sorts of powers are triggered by a dice roll of some sort.  It represents that the NPC might not have thought it to be the best time to use that power and is saving it.  Furthermore, because it is trigger, so long as your trigger condition doesn't change much (i.e. When you roll an odd result on the d20) it's something that is easy enough to remember.  Roll an odd result?  Check the triggers power.  

 Regardless, I do think that a little more life needs to be breathed into the monsters.  Not too much, but just enough.