On the heels of previous monster creation post, we get the March Dragon Editorial, where they talk about the progression of monsters from the very beginning.
Specifically, they talk about the roper, which, ever since the 3.5 module Forge of Fury, have been a favorite of mine. Our party's encounter with that creature still sits in our minds, all these years later.
The roper, through the various versions, has certainly changed to match the "style" of the monster design, even if it tried to maintain its signature mark: strength-sapping, adventurer-dragging tentacles. It's is interesting to see how that is handled by the rules, especially back in 1st edition, where it was a very "loose" set of rules, to 3.5 with a large set of terms, to 4e with a very miniature-like set of operations. Especially, I like the question in the article, "but mechanically … what exactly is happening here, and when?"
The article claims that the 4e roper is well-designed, and I have to agree. It adheres to the "style" of 4e powers, and it does so, in the same manner as other more "complex" creatures, by having attacks that require the target to be in some other state. So the roper has a Reel ability that can only be used on a target that it has grabbed, which is the result of a successful tentacle attack, much as other creatures can immobilize with one attack, then can use a special attack against immobilized targets.
This is good design. It stands by the rule of "reduced paperwork", where 4e tries to prevent all of the bookkeeping involved with effects wearing off, or recharging (like the old dragon breath). I think it will be interesting to see if the 4e design has anticipated all of the 4e interpretations of older monsters and older abilities: we have immobilized, dazed, stunned, grabbed, prone, etc., and push, pull and slide; and I suppose there's no reason you can't add a new "condition" later on, if one's needed. And then as long as a conversion can turn an old-school ability to a "first attack and cause condition X, then use a different attack (on a target under condition X), to have this other effect", we can pretty much convert anything, from older editions or from our minds.
Showing posts with label monster design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label monster design. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monster Design
Reading the Design & Development article on Monster Design, I'm reminded of my previous comments about the math and whatnot, and how I've avoided thinking about crafting my own 4e monsters, whether conversions of 3rd edition creatures or my own creations.
Having gotten a taste of the monsters of 4e, I'm not surprised that one of the recommendations of a starting point is with a new power or effect; especially with the monster races that have their "signature move", they really have the feel of a developer saying, "we have this new idea of a shift, so who should have that as a signature move -- oh, the kobold". I think that's an interesting way to have approached it, especially with using iconic D&D creatures and fitting them into these ideas.
And as I read the Monster Manual more, and read module H2, I'm getting more of a feel for the monster design, definitely helped out by the Tactics blocks provided -- you can definitely tell that the powers were designed for a specific method of combat, and that the creature might have been designed around that very idea.
In fact, when I flip through the Monster Manual, I wonder about the "holes" in different creatures; kobolds have their low-level minion, skirmisher, artillery and soldier covered, and have a higher-level artillery and lurker. Where are the low-level brute and lurker? Do they not exist for kobolds because it just doesn't fit the image of starter kobolds (those things being something you see in a more advanced kobold), or did the designers just not "complete" the set, for lack of space (or lack of ideas)?
I'm not complaining, though; in fact, I think that these "holes" are a really good place for monster designers to start -- if you want to get a feel for the 4e system of monster design, then sit down and come up with what a low-level brute kobold would be: what features would it share with its kin (would it even get the Shifty power, or is he too brutish for that?) and what would make it stand out as its own monster.
This experience would also give you a feel for how many powers they should have, at-will or encounter, compared to similar creatures of their level or role. And this is the experience that you can carry to a unique creature of your own.
The mathematician in me, of course, wants to dissect powers and say "an at-will is worth X points", "a power that pushes is worth Y points", "a power that dazes is worth Z points" and then want to find some magical formula that lets you approximate how much an nth-level skirmisher has to "spend" during design.
For instance, if my 10th-level skirmisher huzzlewhatsit has resist 10 fire, cold, then does that mean that the at-will power should only slide the target 1 square instead of 2? Or it means that it's pull or push instead of slide?
I don't think this will ever happen, of course, so I can see myself (and other monster developers) taking existing monsters of the desired level and role, and basically swapping out features to get the ones that you want -- get rid of the "2d10+4 fire damage plus prone" power and swap it for a "2d6+6 damage plus stun", or something to that effect.
Overall, the article was interesting in that it gave hints on how to make a monster, but what I'd like to see is an actual step-by-step example -- have one of the devs actually write an article, starting with "5th-level fey" with "some sort of make allies fight each other" effect, and go through the steps of creating the rest of the monster, so as to be balanced in the 4e system. That would give us would-be designers a better feel for how the actual balance (which I seem to be obsessed with) works.
Having gotten a taste of the monsters of 4e, I'm not surprised that one of the recommendations of a starting point is with a new power or effect; especially with the monster races that have their "signature move", they really have the feel of a developer saying, "we have this new idea of a shift, so who should have that as a signature move -- oh, the kobold". I think that's an interesting way to have approached it, especially with using iconic D&D creatures and fitting them into these ideas.
And as I read the Monster Manual more, and read module H2, I'm getting more of a feel for the monster design, definitely helped out by the Tactics blocks provided -- you can definitely tell that the powers were designed for a specific method of combat, and that the creature might have been designed around that very idea.
In fact, when I flip through the Monster Manual, I wonder about the "holes" in different creatures; kobolds have their low-level minion, skirmisher, artillery and soldier covered, and have a higher-level artillery and lurker. Where are the low-level brute and lurker? Do they not exist for kobolds because it just doesn't fit the image of starter kobolds (those things being something you see in a more advanced kobold), or did the designers just not "complete" the set, for lack of space (or lack of ideas)?
I'm not complaining, though; in fact, I think that these "holes" are a really good place for monster designers to start -- if you want to get a feel for the 4e system of monster design, then sit down and come up with what a low-level brute kobold would be: what features would it share with its kin (would it even get the Shifty power, or is he too brutish for that?) and what would make it stand out as its own monster.
This experience would also give you a feel for how many powers they should have, at-will or encounter, compared to similar creatures of their level or role. And this is the experience that you can carry to a unique creature of your own.
The mathematician in me, of course, wants to dissect powers and say "an at-will is worth X points", "a power that pushes is worth Y points", "a power that dazes is worth Z points" and then want to find some magical formula that lets you approximate how much an nth-level skirmisher has to "spend" during design.
For instance, if my 10th-level skirmisher huzzlewhatsit has resist 10 fire, cold, then does that mean that the at-will power should only slide the target 1 square instead of 2? Or it means that it's pull or push instead of slide?
I don't think this will ever happen, of course, so I can see myself (and other monster developers) taking existing monsters of the desired level and role, and basically swapping out features to get the ones that you want -- get rid of the "2d10+4 fire damage plus prone" power and swap it for a "2d6+6 damage plus stun", or something to that effect.
Overall, the article was interesting in that it gave hints on how to make a monster, but what I'd like to see is an actual step-by-step example -- have one of the devs actually write an article, starting with "5th-level fey" with "some sort of make allies fight each other" effect, and go through the steps of creating the rest of the monster, so as to be balanced in the 4e system. That would give us would-be designers a better feel for how the actual balance (which I seem to be obsessed with) works.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Playing Gnolls - Playtested?
Just finished the article on “Playing Gnolls” from Dragon #367, and it was a great read. (I'd provide a link and/or page numbers, but with WotC, it's almost pointless.)
The gnoll has always been one of my favorite monsters so I was glad to see it getting some special treatment. The article also reinforced a lot of what I love about 4e. Namely the way that monsters are given a flavor that becomes the basis of and is emphasized in their powers and tactics. It’s a wonderful touch and severely lacking in 3.5.
On the other hand, the feats at the end of the article are... disappointing.
Does anyone at WotC read these before they’re printed? Do they have any real editors? Are they playtested in any shape or form?
Case in point.
Swift Bite
Prerequisite: 11th level, gnoll
Benefit: When you bloody a foe, you can choose to deal an extra 1d6 + Strength modifier damage with a bite against the target.
Seems straight forward enough at first glance. But the benefit raised questions within seconds of reading it.
Does this extra bite automatically hit, doing the extra damage? Or is it a free attack, like a sudden interupt, that you have to roll to hit? I’m guessing it’s the former because there’s no mention of a Str vs AC or whatever.
My point is, I shouldn’t have to guess.
The gnoll has always been one of my favorite monsters so I was glad to see it getting some special treatment. The article also reinforced a lot of what I love about 4e. Namely the way that monsters are given a flavor that becomes the basis of and is emphasized in their powers and tactics. It’s a wonderful touch and severely lacking in 3.5.
On the other hand, the feats at the end of the article are... disappointing.
Does anyone at WotC read these before they’re printed? Do they have any real editors? Are they playtested in any shape or form?
Case in point.
Swift Bite
Prerequisite: 11th level, gnoll
Benefit: When you bloody a foe, you can choose to deal an extra 1d6 + Strength modifier damage with a bite against the target.
Seems straight forward enough at first glance. But the benefit raised questions within seconds of reading it.
Does this extra bite automatically hit, doing the extra damage? Or is it a free attack, like a sudden interupt, that you have to roll to hit? I’m guessing it’s the former because there’s no mention of a Str vs AC or whatever.
My point is, I shouldn’t have to guess.
Monday, July 28, 2008
My stab at monster design
The Smothering Coastal Wizard.
I haven’t worked out the stats yet (not that the math is important), but it definitely has a very low Int.
The favored attack is a bludgeoning effect that leaves the target confused into buyng a Miniatures game with rpg elements layered on top.
The Smotherer then stifles as much creativity as it possibly can, starting with multiclassing and Prestige Classes. It then throws a myriad of bland boring feats at it’s hapless victiom. Further attacks leave the target stumbling into a blind alleyway where there’s no escape from vanilla classes with only two set builds that must be followed.
Want to play a gnome? Sorry says the Smotherer, but the Tiefling is core, try that. And next summer in the PHB2 you’ll be able to play our favorite race, the Drow. Fun!
Finally, with the targets lulled into a stupor of At-Will powers and close blasts and bursts the Smotherer brings out it’s finishing attack. A seriers of source books, each one as bland as the ones before. If the victim is lucky he or she can break free and move onto something where imagination and creativity still count.
Paint by numbers perhaps.
I haven’t worked out the stats yet (not that the math is important), but it definitely has a very low Int.
The favored attack is a bludgeoning effect that leaves the target confused into buyng a Miniatures game with rpg elements layered on top.
The Smotherer then stifles as much creativity as it possibly can, starting with multiclassing and Prestige Classes. It then throws a myriad of bland boring feats at it’s hapless victiom. Further attacks leave the target stumbling into a blind alleyway where there’s no escape from vanilla classes with only two set builds that must be followed.
Want to play a gnome? Sorry says the Smotherer, but the Tiefling is core, try that. And next summer in the PHB2 you’ll be able to play our favorite race, the Drow. Fun!
Finally, with the targets lulled into a stupor of At-Will powers and close blasts and bursts the Smotherer brings out it’s finishing attack. A seriers of source books, each one as bland as the ones before. If the victim is lucky he or she can break free and move onto something where imagination and creativity still count.
Paint by numbers perhaps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
