|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 1:26AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2008
|
But if that day does involve fighting, it better involve at least 15 rounds of it!
Well no. The game is balanced around the average day lasting for 15 rounds. If it goes quicker then the base assumption is that was an easier day then normal. If it goes longer then the base assumption is that the day was harder then normal. Other factors (poor tactical decisions by PCs, bad dice rolls, etc) can affect how easy or hard the day was.
It gives you something to keep in mind. Not something you must mindlessly follow for every single day.
Or maybe I'm just missing something, and the system is easier to build monsters for than it seems.
I've built a monster that was quite easy to build and I feel is both thematically appropriate to the flavour of the monster and balanced against the monsters in the first playtest packet.
I didn't follow the steps as mentioned in the article. To be honest this looks like a terrible way to design monsters. Instead I went:
- Where do I want this monster to be in terms of difficulty? My gut instinct was I wanted it around the difficulty of a hobgoblin.
- Stats: I assigned it stats that felt right.
- Equipment: I gave it armour and weapons that felt right. I also thought about what other items they would be carrying when they typically fight the PCs.
- Special Traits: I thought to myself "What is THE defining trait of this creature?" and then turned it into a mechanic
- I worked out AC, attack and damage based on what I'd just done.
- I sanity checked the stats against hobgoblins and feel I got it about right. The defence is lower and the damage is lower, but they force disadvantage on any melee attacks which in reality boosts their AC.
- I assigned it HP based on the hobgoblin.
All that took less than 20 minutes. If the official guidelines are as convoluted as the article I'll simply ignore them and use the method I've outlined above. what if you designed the Minotaur? Could you make that same claim? "Sure, it's balanced!" If it's your dungeon boss, you probably don't have time to playtest and tweak it. You can run some hypothetical scenarios in your head (which of course takes a lot of time, see argument above), but then you've got to account for DM knowledge of its abilities.
Goring Charge + Rage deals 25.5 damage. Level 5 Fighter has 27.5 HP. Average fighter deals 9.5 damage. It will take 6 hits to take the minotaur down. The fighter can take 1 hit and then retreat. The Rogue can take 1 hit and then retreat. After 2 rounds the minotaur should be dead or the Minotaur has been extremely lucky and the PCs extremely unlucky. It took 4 minutes to calculate that.
That said, the idea of Rage and Gore Charge stacking bothers me. Without seeing other level 5 threats, I don't think those two abilities stacking is simply too dangerous. As such I would advise against allowing them to stack.
The problem is, there's just no way to know if that monster you're going to use once will TPK your party, or be a complete Cakewalk, until they face it.
I've had monsters from the mm 1 that have been fought for years almost TPK a party. The idea that the monsters gaming companies produce are balanced is misplaced. They're MOSTLY balanced. But even they get it wrong sometimes.
Maybe WoTC will release guidelines on special abilities like this like we have in 4e.
If they're going to produce plug and play abilities like this I very much would want guidelines before using them willy nilly.
Maybe we'll be expected to compare it to similar monsters for an idea of how hard it is. But even then, how do we know how much XP to assign for our custom monsters?
You look for a monster that has similar HP, damage output and AC.
That doesn't even get into "advancing" a monster so that it is more suitable for very high level play. What if I want my Minotaur and his two Minotaur buddies to be a suitable challenge for a level 15 party, for story reasons? As presented, a level 15 party is going to wax the floor with this guy. If you say "Give him class levels", then we're back to the problem of time. It could take hours to give him class levels.
There's two approaches:
- 3rd ed: Give them class levels.
- 4th ed: give them more hit points, higher defences, higher attack and higher damage output.
Either method is appropriate and is entirely up to the DM to determine which better suits their playstyle, time and preferences. Hill giants are tough but if their attack rolls are going to be based purely on strength won't they miss the average plate-clad fighter most of the time? And that's before we add in magical bonuses - a fighter with a measly +1 armour and a +1 large shield can only be hit on a 20? That seems a bit off...
Yup. This is definitely very rough stages of monster design. It's important we give the monsters they give us a go in game and then provide feedback based on how it went.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 1:57AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
The lousy accuracy is going to make these monsters very easy to beat especially if giving disadvantage to a single attack per round is going to be easy. Even taking away the magic bonuses the hill giant is going to barely be able to touch a heavily armored PC.
I know it is early in the process but I am not liking what I see for monster attack bonuses.
This is a valid concern. However, I think that this might be precisely the reason why they came up with the rage mechanic (which I considered contrived upon first reading). I will expect a lot of low-accuracy heavy-hitters to get it (fluffwise fits with a giant too). The advantage of it is that you have pretty much 75% chance of dealing a small but significant amount of damage (and being at disadvantage doesn't count!).
Why not just increase to-hit instead? Because then the giant would pretty much paste an unoptimized advanturer party. I think it might be their internal balancing mechanism that let's more casual/story-oriented teams not get butchered by monsters, while at the same time said monsters are still able to pose some kind of threat to optimized players (who *will* find a way to max their AC and get reliable disadvantage source),so both teams can actually use standarized monster rankings (exp pool) and pregenerated adventures. Or at least makes it more probable to execute.
If that was the design plan than I must say the design team is more insightful than I gave them credit for.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 1:58AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
On what level should it appear in a generic dungeon, Mike, really? We're really going to go back to that second-strip-in-OotS joke about levels, levels, levels, and levels in D&D? I don't entirely like the implication there that generic dungeons should be designed with multiple, one-after-another floors.
I don't like the implication that ability scores, which have probably the biggest mechanical impact in the game (i.e. whether or not you hit the monster) are determined purely on a fluff basis, and in this case, leave the monster with 3 very low defences, the lowest of which is SIX POINTS lower than the highest. So, the PC which attacks STR in this instance, is stuffed, where the PC who attacks INT is fine. TO snark a little, I wonder which PCs are most likely to attack which defence...
I don't like the equating of size with 4e role, and therefore with how many PCs something is worth. It breaks my brain a little - if whether it's a mook, an elite or a solo is how big it is, then the terms are pretty meaningless - why not just use size, and save those terms to give them a meaningful role? But if those terms are how big something is, why do they also carry across to how *good* something is at fighting, and how much HP it has (bearing in mind that HP is abstracted by RAW. Except when it isn't...)? There is (well, there should be) no reason why you can't have a tiny solo, or a huge mook.
The attacks seem pretty random, and once more we have a thing which could have been a bloodied-save-or-die attack (a concept which actually sounds interesting to me, and sounds like an excellent way to speed up fights without entirely boiling them down to 1d20 and go home), and is now a straight-out save-or-suck (knocked prone, can't get up and, for no apparent reason, can't attack whilst prone).
Where's the actual design work, here?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 2:08AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2006
|
The lousy accuracy is going to make these monsters very easy to beat especially if giving disadvantage to a single attack per round is going to be easy. Even taking away the magic bonuses the hill giant is going to barely be able to touch a heavily armored PC.
I know it is early in the process but I am not liking what I see for monster attack bonuses.
This is a valid concern. However, I think that this might be precisely the reason why they came up with the rage mechanic (which I considered contrived upon first reading). I will expect a lot of low-accuracy heavy-hitters to get it (fluffwise fits with a giant too). The advantage of it is that you have pretty much 75% chance of dealing a small but significant amount of damage (and being at disadvantage doesn't count!).
Why not just increase to-hit instead? Because then the giant would pretty much paste an unoptimized advanturer party. I think it might be their internal balancing mechanism that let's more casual/story-oriented teams not get butchered by monsters, while at the same time said monsters are still able to pose some kind of threat to optimized players (who *will* find a way to max their AC and get reliable disadvantage source),so both teams can actually use standarized monster rankings (exp pool) and pregenerated adventures. Or at least makes it more probable to execute.
If that was the design plan than I must say the design team is more insightful than I gave them credit for.
The rage helps, but I think I would prefer that not include an attack penalty and just be auto damage on a normal hit.
Also, looking at the goblin is he going to have a -1 attack bonus (i.e. just STR penalty)? How is that going to make him a threat to an armored PC?
I look forward to seeing the next round of playtest stuff.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 2:14AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
This monster design seems wonky to me. Ability scores seem to be built in as critical combat stats, yet they're basically just assigned by the guideline, "whatever feels right." I agree with the poster above that equivocating size and strength is a poor idea. I also don't like the idea that attack bonus and damage are determined by abilities. I much prefer 4e style where attack bonuses and damage values are based on level and role, while ability scores are used only for skill checks and things like that.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 2:23AM
#26
|
|
|
I don't hate this article or anything, but I must admit I'm underwhelmed. The size <> role business especially bugs me. I want to have:
- Credible monsters that I deploy at a rate of more than one per PC. Giant rats or crawling claws, for example. Imply one mook to one PC undermines that.
- Small creatures that fight at elite or solo weight - kobold commandoes and sorcerers, jermlaine assassins, imps.
- Large creatures that fight at mook weight - I'd like to be able to treat ogres thiis way at mid- to high levels.
- Huge or larger creatures that fight at elite weight - ettins, huge skeletons.
I understand the desire to carry on with 4e's monster roles framework. It's been implicit for a lot longer than it's been explicit, and I don't want to see it go. But equating it to size seems like a very poor choice. I have no problem with heavy blows being inaccurate. Z.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:14AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
I'm a fan of 5e as has generally been revealed, but this just feels wrong to me. It bothers me on a level I can't quite articulate. I'll give it my best attempt, however.
Using Size to determine whether a monster is solo, elite, or mook is ALL KINDS OF OFF! That, I think, is my biggest beef with this. It's not the style I play. When I'm looking for a boss monster or leader, I don't want to just use a bigger monster. I run mostly city-based games, and most of my villains tend to be NPCs. I don't want to make them goliath-sized just to present a credible threat to my party. One of the things 4e did alright was monster design...this seems like a giant step back from that, and it just bugs me.
Standard Monster Powers kind of rub me the wrong way. I fear they might lead to enemies that feel kind of samey.
I agree with a previous poster that roles for monsters makes sense, and that I'd like to see monsters at various points on the scale.
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:39AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
* What if I want stats for a "mook" minotaur because I wish create PC race for Dragonlance settin?
* Can you imagine a big minotaur lower head to gore a little gobling, kobold, hafling or gnome? It would be attack opportunity, wouldn´t it?. A humanoid with horns only would use his natural weapon againts bigger enemies like dragons (but a big battle-axe, a lance or halberd would be better and surer).
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:57AM
#29
|
|
|
This seems like a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. Then again, maybe with a MM full of interesting monsters, their experience levels, and abilities to pull from it will be easier. I can't say. Before 4e, if you told me that reflavoring whole swathes of monsters for entire stories would be easy-breezy, I would have laughed at you as I remembered painful 3.X encounter making sessions. (Please note, this was just my personal experience and not a dig at those who love 3.X.)
The thing in the article that annoyed me was the assumption in base monster design that you will be using the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I really don't like it (for many reason already outlined in my playtest feedback) and intended just to switch to a +2/-2 system, but it seems they intend to build monster abilities around the assumption of rolling two dice for Ad/Dis.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 4:12AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2008
|
I really like the idea of size becoming a more important factor when determining the threat level of the monsters. It has always bugged me that some small or medium solo humanoid monster should have as many hp as a dragon. However, of course I would like to see medium monsters that equals elite threat (although only in very special cases solo threat), eg an orc chieftain etc. and I can't imagine size being the only, solely determining factor on whether the monster being a mook or elite threat - more of a guideline, I am sure (especially since the general approach is to define the monster's mechanics based on the right feel of the monster - exactly the right way of doing it, I think, as opposed the 4th ed approach of 'level and role determines everything'). As for the time required to create a monster on the fly, this seems very easy to do to me: of course stats have to be assigned, but precisely the principle of assigning this as to what 'feels right' is a great strength here - simply assign whar 'feels right'  AC, damage etc pretty much equals the equipment or what corresponds to such equipment for natural attacks etc (taking size into account). HD requires a bit more thought, but should be handleable by comparing to existing monsters (and after a bit of playing one quickly get the feel of this as well, I think, so assigning on the fly will be quite easy). Personally I only rarely create monsters on the fly (although it sometimes is necessary), but creating the monsters beforehand seems to be fairly easy and rather quickly to do as well, I think. Assigning an xp-value will probably be the toughhest part, and the design team has focus on this, so usable guidelines will be available, I think (in addition to comparing to existing monsters). The 'Hill Giant-always-miss'-issue requires some further design considerations, I think. I like the concept of the big brute being poor at hitting but when it hits it really hurts (50% of more of a character's hp is fine I think - makes the combats much more exciting, with the players having to consider different tactics when facing such a monster, rather than just charge it as they are used to). It means that the low-AC wizard (I would very much like to see that int is removed as an AC-stat - otherwise it makes the Wizard as good as a decent fighter when it comes to AC, and it just doesn't seem right to me) will be hit fairly often and lose a very great deal of his hp. The problem arises when the concept of the low hit chance of the brute collides with the way AC works in D&D: AC represents both the ability to dodge attacks altogether, but also the protection of armor when one is hit by the attack but suffers no damage due to this protecion (the 3rd ed. 'touch-AC' reflected this). So when the big brute has a hard time hitting, it is the agile dodger he can't hit. The plate armor would, one could imagine, provide less protection against a huge (I hope giants will be huge again, and not puny just large like an ogre  ) hill giant's club than a club wielded by a goblin. So perhaps something like a touch-AC could be reintroduced, or a lowered effectiveness of armor vs. such extremely hard-hitting attacks. The trick is how to do this in a balanced, elegant and non-complex way (since or course having to pretty much roll a natural '20' to hit a well-armored fighter won't work in actual game-play) - but I have faith in the design team They have done excellent work so far, imho. All in all, I find the principles of monster design mentioned in the article much - much! - better than the 4th ed 'mechanical' way of doing it (where the individuality of the monster itself doesn't come to its right at all when it comes to stats - eg all soldiers have the same AC no matter whether it is a full plate-wearing knight or a medium-dex and -int, leather armor-wearing city guard (with fx a mark-power, so he fits the soldier-concept)).
|
|
|
