So, another L&L article on monster design is out (link) and Mike Mearls gives us some more insight on how monster design will be in the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons.
Monster XP direct relation of power. That's pretty much always how it has been, up until 4e, where the xp was solely based of level (and type). While 4e certainly had many things right, this was not one of them. Even when following the narrow guidelines of monster building, it was very easy to build monsters who were much more lethal than other monsters of the same level. So going back to a system where the xp is not soly based on level, is a good thing in my mind.
Apparently there are 3 types of monsters now (instead of 4 in 4e). The mook (please change that name FTLOG), the elite and the solo. I love that they have kept the elite and solo monsters invented for 4e. Even though solos didn't always work, often requiring a lot of work-arounds to function optimally, they improved the DMs ability to make cool monsters. I am not sure how I feel about the types being tied to size. Mooks as small and medium creatures mostly works, but sometimes, at least in 4e, it was pretty cool to make a master swordsman as an elite creature. Now, as long as the above is just guidelines, it's all good, you can still do this. The problem is if it becomes a "rule" and there is an equivalent to the monster builder. On the other hand, making large creatures elite by default does make some sense.
Regarding the statistics, I am a bit torn. While I do like the narrower stat-range they have said they were introducing, mostly because fighters running around with natural STR30 just seems silly, I do think there should be a bit more leeway when it comes to monsters. In another word, I do expect a minotaur to be stronger than the strongest human. Then again, it might work as hill giants have STR 20. Minotaurs shouldn't be as strong as hill giants.
The article also tells us that monsters do follow some sort of realism again, meaning that the minotaur uses a greataxe and thus uses a d12 for damage (since the greataxe does 1d12 damage when a PC wields it), but because it is a large creature, it adds an additional die. This means we can guestimate other monsters, that we have not seen yet. For example, a huge frost giant wielding a greataxe with STR 22 will be doing 3d12+6 damage or a huge hill giant using a clue (and STR 20) will be doing around 3d8+5 damage. Although Mearls did mention the possibility of making it less accurate (and perhaps make it deal more damage?), so perhaps 4d8+5 or something. Is a club even d8? No idea, perhaps we are looking at 4d6+5 or something, although that would barely make it harder hitting than the minotaur. Anyway, I lost my train of thought there for a sec, but the point I was going to make was the following. While there will certainly be a lot who are happy that monster damage is once again more realistic, I am not one who cares. While there was other 4e-isms that broke my suspension of belief, monster damage was not one of them. I do like the simple rule of adding another die when it's made for a large creature. Should make it simple to use stuff like enlarge (maybe it will become "make large spell" instead) and so on.
In 3.x there was an issue with monsters with high CON-scores. If you leveled said monster, it would get a huuuuge number of hit points, as each die triggered the high CON hit point bonus. That problem was fixed in 4e, and it seems they have nerfed it even more now. The flattening of the stats combined with the fact that monsters get their con bonus on top of their hit point total (twice if they are elite, presumably x4 if solos), should ensure that we do not end up with monsters with an abnormal number of hit points, while still providing some variation.
I also really like that monster base HD is based on size, not on type. Somehow it just makes more sense. I had some trouble with huge or gargantuan lurker dragons in 4e which had hundreds of hit points less than other dragons of the same size and strength. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the brute-controller-soldier-lurker-artillery templates, but I don't think hit points should necessarily be tied to them.
The bit about AC doesn't tell us much, aside from the fact that there are guidelines for which AC a monster of a certain level should have, and that there too, is now more realism in the AC than in 4e.
The abilities look easy to use and fun enough. But the minotaur was never the hardest monster to make suitable. Still looking forward seeing how they will make a complex monster, without making it too complex. I also look forward to the storehouse of iconic abilities, that sounds like all kinds of awesome for the DM. Most of all, I look forward to see how much of all these guestimates we will have to do ourselves and how much will be available as suggestions and explanations.
All in all, this was a much better "monster design" article than the previous ones, and it definitely helped me wrap my little head around their process. I am anxiously waiting for more, and definitely hope future playtests will incorporate some measure of monster building, just like character building will be available. After all, as a DM, I do 100 times more monster building than my players do character building.
Posted with Blogsy
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar