How many monsters does a D&D edition need to start with?

[TheFlatline]

I think Lago's idea is a good one. If you do it to the monsters that already have panache then that sticks with people forever. The fact that 3E Balors and Nightshades are fucking awesome and superbly powerful has been brought up to me many times in my D&D career.

No it's a terrible fucking idea because it intentionally breaks the entire concept of an arbitrary and neutral power gauge for the DM to design encounters around and has the authors fucking with your game by lying to you. And then charging you money for it.

And if we're using 3e's CR/experience system, when you do beat the Balor, congrats, you don't get the experience that you should for overcoming such a difficulty.

So it's a double-fuck-you to the party. First they fuck you on the way in, and then if by god you defy the authors and survive, they fuck you on the way out by fucking your experience.

If you want to throw a super powerful creature at the party and get a TPK, just pick one that you know is super powerful. Unless you're a complete fucking asshole egomaniac and can't own up to the idea of an intentional TPK, so you hide behind bullshit lies and trickery that the authors put in to cover your passive-aggressive ass.

That's the only reason why I can imagine intentionally cooking a threat rating system to under-rate some monsters- so that the MC can say "no really guys it says 8th level is appropriate for balors. I had no idea he'd wipe the floor with you in 2 rounds *snicker*".

[Foxwarrior]

And, of course, the game is even more broken if the DM thinks the same thing, and uses the creature when the CR system says it should be a challenging, exciting fight.

[tussock]

OK. It needs none, but fuck that. Monster books are 1/3 of your initial revenue, fairly easy to grind out, and let people know it's D&D because you've got Orcs and rats that are really quite big for a rat.

"You can have infinite monsters, with just a little homework!" No. That shit is what drove people to 4th edition. Like, monster advancement is cool and all, and should be there in some easy-to-use form, but the game must support people who don't want to use it at all.

If anyone dares write up another Githyanki entry that says they're all level 3, 5, 9, or 13, and all Monks or Clerics, and yet only ever stats up a level 1 Warrior in half-page detail, I'm going to say rude things about their parentage.

"350-400" is less important than what's there. Druids imply the need for a fuck-ton of natural Eurasian wild animals and also Centaurs and Faeries. Things like Drow have story that links them to scores of other underdark critters. But then 120 of those monsters are just 10 near-identical dragons, and dozens are giant vermin with all the flavour removed (who the fuck thought replacing Sword spiders with "medium monstrous spiders" was a good idea?).


So, like, support your character classes (because Paladins need a horse that doesn't suck at 5th level, and also doesn't suck at 15th level), support the major storylines of your world's history (especially for the PHB races, whatever you go with there), support the iconic stuff that makes it all "D&D", and get rid of all the fucking flavourless redundancies (Dire Animals, I'm looking at you). That's your monster manual.

[Voss]

Eh? Medium/Large/Huge spiders existed first. Sword spiders were a relatively late addition to the 'holy shit there are so many fucking types of goddamn giant spiders ' in the 2nd edition monstrous compendium. The FR supplement, if I remember correctly.

[tussock]

Heh, true enough. AD&D ...

Large Spider: Size Small, 1 HD. Aggressive patroller.
Huge Spider: Size Medium, 2 HD. Pit builder, leaper.
Giant Spider: Size Large, 4 HD. Web-based ambusher.
Phase Spider: Size Huge, 5 HD. Etherial stealth hunter.

Later we get ...

Hairy Spider: Size Tiny. Swarm!
Watch Spider: Size Medium. It's smarter than you, but also just a Huge Spider.
Steeder: Size Large, 4 HD. Duergar mount and web-grappler.
Sword Spider: Size Huge, 5 HD. Pounce-attack killer, Drow pet.

Gargantuan Spider: Size Gargantuan, 8 HD. Builds a fake scene from webs to entice you past itself and attacks from behind with thrown web spells. Also, it was hiding on the floor. A 20' spider, hiding, on the floor, in plain sight. Awesome.

So, yes, all that distinct flavour and mechanics lost anyway, though syncing up the names probably wasn't the worst idea ever. Even if a 3' long spider shouldn't really be called "Small".

[AndreiChekov]

Why does the game need more than one spider?

I never felt that fighting a spider is something that should go beyond level 4

[Parthenon]

You need more than one spider because you need:
[*]Swarms of poisonous spiders
[*]Giant spiders from the Hobbit
[*]Colossal spiders larger than most buildings
[*]Swinging spiders that swing around like spiderman
[*]Invisible/ethereal spiders because phase spiders are a thing

[AndreiChekov]

Why do you need spiders that are as big as buildings?
By that point you should have godzilla, or anything else that is more interesting. How about a dragon?

[K]

You need more than one spider because you need:
[*]Swarms of poisonous spiders
[*]Giant spiders from the Hobbit
[*]Colossal spiders larger than most buildings
[*]Swinging spiders that swing around like spiderman
[*]Invisible/ethereal spiders because phase spiders are a thing

Because there is plenty of reasons to have more spiders, this leads to the conclusion that there needs to be a monster-generation system. I mean, the goal is to be able have enough spiders for a spider-themed adventure or campaign, but not so much as to piss people off every time spiders show up because they are pushing out some other content that you'd use more.

No one is served by thirty or forty kinds of spider being statted out, but if you could pick a level, add the unique spider bits, and then pick some special abilities, we'd all be better off.

The same point holds for most iconic DnD monsters: Dragons. Giants. Golems. Oozes. Elementals.Variants on ghouls or ghosts. Palette-swap beastmen. Etc.

[Username17]

No one is served by thirty or forty kinds of spider being statted out, but if you could pick a level, add the unique spider bits, and then pick some special abilities, we'd all be better off.

Eh. Sort of. Certainly adventure writers would be better off, because they could sit down to write "Return to Spider Thorn Tower" and knock off twelve different spider beasts of varying levels and it would be easy and awesome. To the extent that a DM is an adventure writer, DMs would have it easier as well.

But you know what? Some DMs don't want to sit there with an accounts book and make a bunch of monsters from templates. That's actually kind of a pain in the ass and introduces a lot of failure points.

And then there's the player side. While we're all better off if the DM's "make a Steve monster" system produces balanced and thematic results, fighting Steves all the time is actually kind of lame. If you tell another player who isn't in your game that you fought a wyvern or a displacer beast, that carries some kind of meaning. If you tell them you fought a "Gorthax" that doesn't mean shit. More generally, no Steve your DM makes up is ever going to be part of any shared language between you and anyone who wasn't at your gaming table. Beating a Phase Spider is fundamentally superior to beating a Steve that happens to be a fifth level lurker with blinking and poison strike. Not necessarily game mechanically different, but demonstrably superior nonetheless.

Having a good monster generation system is unambiguously a good thing. But it's not actually a replacement for having a big list of monsters with names and pictures and places defined in the world that are already ready to go. It's a supplement to the list of ready-to-go monsters.

-Username17

[K]

No one is served by thirty or forty kinds of spider being statted out, but if you could pick a level, add the unique spider bits, and then pick some special abilities, we'd all be better off.

Eh. Sort of. Certainly adventure writers would be better off, because they could sit down to write "Return to Spider Thorn Tower" and knock off twelve different spider beasts of varying levels and it would be easy and awesome. To the extent that a DM is an adventure writer, DMs would have it easier as well.

But you know what? Some DMs don't want to sit there with an accounts book and make a bunch of monsters from templates. That's actually kind of a pain in the ass and introduces a lot of failure points.

And then there's the player side. While we're all better off if the DM's "make a Steve monster" system produces balanced and thematic results, fighting Steves all the time is actually kind of lame. If you tell another player who isn't in your game that you fought a wyvern or a displacer beast, that carries some kind of meaning. If you tell them you fought a "Gorthax" that doesn't mean shit. More generally, no Steve your DM makes up is ever going to be part of any shared language between you and anyone who wasn't at your gaming table. Beating a Phase Spider is fundamentally superior to beating a Steve that happens to be a fifth level lurker with blinking and poison strike. Not necessarily game mechanically different, but demonstrably superior nonetheless.

Having a good monster generation system is unambiguously a good thing. But it's not actually a replacement for having a big list of monsters with names and pictures and places defined in the world that are already ready to go. It's a supplement to the list of ready-to-go monsters.

-Username17

From a storytelling a setting perspective, having a set list of statted monsters is important because it creates a feel for your setting. That being said, I'd put that number at no higher than 100 monsters in total.

Your monster generation system would do the rest of the work. "Adding spider bits" would be a package of abilities so that no monster would ever truly be a "Steve monster" because the PCs would see a spider and say "wall crawling, webs, and poison... check... watch for the unique abilities because it's not a phase/sword/giant spider like we've fought before."

Then you can also piggyback onto known monsters. A Blackstone gigant is a larger and more powerful stone golem with a unique ability, and PCs can just know that by looking at it.

As an aside, I don't think anyone ever absolutely needs to know the name of a monster. From a storytelling and game perspective, there are good reasons to know everything about a monster AND good reasons for the audience to find out slowly or by experience. Either one should not be the default.

Heck, in most case the statted monsters in the common monster book are unknown to the average player because they have not memorized all of the stats or abilities, so it's like a Steve monster anyway.

[TheFlatline]

But you know what? Some DMs don't want to sit there with an accounts book and make a bunch of monsters from templates. That's actually kind of a pain in the ass and introduces a lot of failure points.

This. It goes back to the necessity to make an NPC of level X just for one encounter. It sucks donkey balls. I've played entire campaigns where there hasn't been a single NPC with PC class levels because it takes like an hour to gen a 4 NPC party of any significant level and equipment and that's just for one single encounter.

Monsters are plug and play. Which is awesome and time saving.

Now, if that system were modular and linked to like an online wiki or cookbook where your combination of traits gets uploaded with a descriptor splat that might be okay, because then I could search for spiders and get 17 variations that people have made up, using a balanced piecemeal engine so I had a general idea that these monsters weren't totally unbalanced.

[TheFlatline]

And, of course, the game is even more broken if the DM thinks the same thing, and uses the creature when the CR system says it should be a challenging, exciting fight.

It's a one shot trick too. You encounter the monster, it TPKs the party because it's not balanced and intentionally breaks the difficulty rules to punk people who paid good money for the game, the game falls apart amid a lot of pissing and moaning (Which seems to be the whole point Lago is aiming at: RPGs shouldn't be *fun* because that makes his RPGs *fun*), and then everyone goes online to bitch about how fucked up monster X is and how it breaks the rules and shit.

Then the monster is never, ever a surprise again unless someone new in the absence of online discussion forums stumbles across the monster, and is either penciled in at the correct challenge rating or skipped over for something that isn't intentionally broken, and ends up becoming a pariah and poster boy for what's wrong with the game, and The Den here will trash it mercilessly for years to come.

[Mask_De_H]

And, of course, the game is even more broken if the DM thinks the same thing, and uses the creature when the CR system says it should be a challenging, exciting fight.

It's a one shot trick too. You encounter the monster, it TPKs the party because it's not balanced and intentionally breaks the difficulty rules to punk people who paid good money for the game, the game falls apart amid a lot of pissing and moaning (Which seems to be the whole point Lago is aiming at: RPGs shouldn't be *fun* because that makes his RPGs *fun*), and then everyone goes online to bitch about how fucked up monster X is and how it breaks the rules and shit.

Then the monster is never, ever a surprise again unless someone new in the absence of online discussion forums stumbles across the monster, and is either penciled in at the correct challenge rating or skipped over for something that isn't intentionally broken, and ends up becoming a pariah and poster boy for what's wrong with the game, and The Den here will trash it mercilessly for years to come.

Or it becomes an ironic iconic. En garde, bitches.

On the template/Steve idea: having to make out templates does seem like a bitch as a DM, but not everything needs primo design space. Couldn't you just have a monster supertype (Spider, Demon, Dragon, yer mum) and then make a sidebar with applied templates for the other forms of said monster? Then in the back provide all the templates for making Steves and show how they link up to the alternate monsters mathematically and thematically?

[Voss]

Then you can also piggyback onto known monsters. A Blackstone gigant is a larger and more powerful stone golem with a unique ability, and PCs can just know that by looking at it.

Actually they can't. Size, power and unique abilities are largely (in the case of the first two) and completely (in the case of unique abilities) unlinked concepts for D&D monsters. All they know is that is yet another giant fucking stone thing, and 'blackstone' could be code for 'lava,' so it might fucking throw fireballs at them, or deathspells, or any one (or more) of literally hundreds of things. It will probably try to punch them, and probably has some form of DR, but even those aren't certain. But they don't have any reason to believe that it will behave like a stone golem, or act anything like one.

[K]

Then you can also piggyback onto known monsters. A Blackstone gigant is a larger and more powerful stone golem with a unique ability, and PCs can just know that by looking at it.

Actually they can't. Size, power and unique abilities are largely (in the case of the first two) and completely (in the case of unique abilities) unlinked concepts for D&D monsters. All they know is that is yet another giant fucking stone thing, and 'blackstone' could be code for 'lava,' so it might fucking throw fireballs at them, or deathspells, or any one (or more) of literally hundreds of things. It will probably try to punch them, and probably has some form of DR, but even those aren't certain. But they don't have any reason to believe that it will behave like a stone golem, or act anything like one.

The point of a monster generation system is that you actually do know that is has "punch you in the face" as an option. You can give players the golem description of "it's a moving statue" and that gives players partial knowledge of what it can do because it has the golem package. There is no reason to replicate DnD's tradition of making monsters arbitrarily, sometimes with an overly complicated and unbalanced system.

The extra abilities can just be the fun surprise. That's why you make extra monsters.

The second point of a monster generation system is that it has to be easy. The thing where NPC generation in 3.X takes hours is complete bullshit and cannot be the model for any monster generation system, much less a PC/NPC generation system.

I'd put the ideal monster generation time at a few minutes if you have decent knowledge of what the options are.

[Lago PARANOIA]

No it's a terrible fucking idea because it intentionally breaks the entire concept of an arbitrary and neutral power gauge for the DM to design encounters around and has the authors fucking with your game by lying to you. And then charging you money for it.

I said that it was good for marketing, not good for gameplay.

[shadzar]

any system that uses monster generation such that SIZE:LARGE has ability "Cockslap +5 damage" has failed, when it grants it to a monster without a cock with which to slap with.

a monster isnt jsut a block of stats, but an idea of what is being fought and why. otherwise you might as well roll d20s all night against each other and each roung the winner is the one rolling highest, re-roll ties. there is nothing interesting in a series of monsters that follows the exact same ability regiment because it has keyword X.

also think in concept about an elephant, if there wa a large mammoth, well wasnt it already large? so what does that mean it is twice as large now?

the fact a monster has "punch you in the face" is because it has hands with which to do so. the design of a monster should tell even morons how it might attack. squid lashes out with tentacles, crab snap and crushes with claws, etc. common sense must be used in play and design.

[Parthenon]

What that suggests to me is that you really need a computer tool- maybe a phone or tablet app- that based on level/type/template/role generates a monster instantly so you can press a few buttons and immediately have a monster you can shove in.

Bonus points if you can make random NPCs together with a couple of (ignorable) characteristics and some loot.

[Grek]

At a bare minimum, your monster system should be able to do the following:
-Apply templates to monsters to get new, differently themed monsters. Want a Fire Giant? Apply the [Fire] template to a regular giant. Need zombie orcs? Apply the zombie template to an orc.
-Advance insects and other mundane animals by size category indefinitely so that you can get colossal panthers and gargantuan centipedes or whatever the fuck.

[Voss]

Then you can also piggyback onto known monsters. A Blackstone gigant is a larger and more powerful stone golem with a unique ability, and PCs can just know that by looking at it.

Actually they can't. Size, power and unique abilities are largely (in the case of the first two) and completely (in the case of unique abilities) unlinked concepts for D&D monsters. All they know is that is yet another giant fucking stone thing, and 'blackstone' could be code for 'lava,' so it might fucking throw fireballs at them, or deathspells, or any one (or more) of literally hundreds of things. It will probably try to punch them, and probably has some form of DR, but even those aren't certain. But they don't have any reason to believe that it will behave like a stone golem, or act anything like one.

The point of a monster generation system is that you actually do know that is has "punch you in the face" as an option. You can give players the golem description of "it's a moving statue" and that gives players partial knowledge of what it can do because it has the golem package. There is no reason to replicate DnD's tradition of making monsters arbitrarily, sometimes with an overly complicated and unbalanced system.

Ah. I didn't know we were suddenly dealing with an ideal monster generation system where players suddenly just know that the random monster of the week has package types that are immediately translated for players and characters alike.

'Course, I also thought gigant was a typo for giant, and the possibility of animated statues that are distinct from golems and giants alike also crossed my mind. Or that there aren't spellcasting/special ability types of all three (because there are).

But I'm still confused as to how sticking spider bits or golem bits onto one of a hundred base monsters doesn't yield a constant procession of Steve monsters.

[K]

Ah. I didn't know we were suddenly dealing with an ideal monster generation system where players suddenly just know that the random monster of the week has package types that are immediately translated for players and characters alike.

'Course, I also thought gigant was a typo for giant, and the possibility of animated statues that are distinct from golems and giants alike also crossed my mind. Or that there aren't spellcasting/special ability types of all three (because there are).

But I'm still confused as to how sticking spider bits or golem bits onto one of a hundred base monsters doesn't yield a constant procession of Steve monsters.

Why do you think that it requires an ideal system to have a monster generation system? It's a trivial task to set something up where spider-looking monsters all use a common progression.

You just have Step One be "Pick a type of monster," and then have "Spider" show up on that list. Choosing "Spider" gives a set of powers based on monster level. Then you fill some open slots with special powers off of a general monster power list.

Then when PCs see a spider-looking monster that they've never encountered, they know that it has the fixed spider powers and also has some powers off the general list. For any monster that looks like it might be in two categories like a statue of a spider, you just add an additional detail like "it moves as smoothy as a spider and not choppy like a golem," thus telling PCs that it's using the spider package.

The pre-statted monsters are not "base monsters." They are single builds made using this system, but they have developed backgrounds, fixed powers that the PCs will know, and a role in your setting. Players will know that griffons live in the Northern Mountains, are the favored mounts of the Scarlet Guard, they have a certain life-cycle and breeding cycle, and all the other things that need to be known for them to be an active part of the setting.

Not using a monster generation system with common power lists means that you've decided to default to hundreds of Steve monsters in your game because no one reads and remembers more than a few dozen monsters anyway. You might as well have invented their powers right before the battle for all the knowledge that the PCs have.

I mean, can you name off the powers of an Aoa Sphere or a Rukanyr? How about a Kuldurath or an Ironmaw?

How many of your players can name those monsters' powers?

[Username17]

Why do you think that it requires an ideal system to have a monster generation system? It's a trivial task to set something up where spider-looking monsters all use a common progression.

Except... that was like the worst part of the 3e monster system. Having a progression for "dragon shaped monsters" and another progression for "construct monsters" is dumb. Because the expected combat role of something that is dragon shaped or constructed or both is nothing like fixed.

4e had a better list of monster classes, with things like "skirmisher" and "brute". I mean, they didn't actually do anything with those classes, but the idea was solid. More solid than deciding whether a spirit dragon should use the undead progression or the dragon progression in any case.

"Is a spider" should at best be a template that is applied to a monster of a type and level to give it access to some spiderish powers, which might include things like webs, wall climbing, poison, and jumping (but might not, there are spiders that don't do any of those things). Because your giant brute spider and your deadly poison glass cannon spider are not on the same "progression".

-Username17

[Voss]

Why do you think that it requires an ideal system to have a monster generation system?

Because...

I'd put the ideal monster generation time at a few minutes if you have decent knowledge of what the options are.

honestly, I was responding to your use of the phrase.

Personally, I'd rather have a fixed list of memorable critters than take the kitchen sink tack, a major flaw in D&D AND the generation approach you're talking about.

[K]

Why do you think that it requires an ideal system to have a monster generation system? It's a trivial task to set something up where spider-looking monsters all use a common progression.

Except... that was like the worst part of the 3e monster system. Having a progression for "dragon shaped monsters" and another progression for "construct monsters" is dumb. Because the expected combat role of something that is dragon shaped or constructed or both is nothing like fixed.

4e had a better list of monster classes, with things like "skirmisher" and "brute". I mean, they didn't actually do anything with those classes, but the idea was solid. More solid than deciding whether a spirit dragon should use the undead progression or the dragon progression in any case.

"Is a spider" should at best be a template that is applied to a monster of a type and level to give it access to some spiderish powers, which might include things like webs, wall climbing, poison, and jumping (but might not, there are spiders that don't do any of those things). Because your giant brute spider and your deadly poison glass cannon spider are not on the same "progression".

-Username17

Combat roles are dumb. It's tactically boring and makes table-top games feel like video games. You get a more tactical game if both players and monsters simply have abilities that lend themselves to unique tactical situations and they don't have glaring weaknesses or singular strengths (and yes, this means no glass cannons ever again). This means that having a dragon hiding in a marsh needs to just be an general hiding option rather than some special ability confined to your lurker monsters, and he also needs some full suite of powers that create interesting tactical options for non-hiding combat when he's not hiding instead of being weaker because he's not doing his role of attacking from hiding.

The most fun monsters in DnD have ALWAYS been the ones that don't fit easily into roles. Demons. Dragons. Any kind of spellcaster. Anything with undefined classes like vampires. Anyone with an artifact. Etc.

You get a more flavorful game if you know what kinds of power that certain monsters will have because that's how stories are told. The fact that there are real-life spiders who don't use webs does not mean that RPG players want spiders without webs; they expect you to use some different monster if you didn't want to use webs and not use your RPG session for a lesson in Comparative Arachnid Biology As Expressed In a Fantasy Universe Simulator.

The things we've learned from 3e and 4e proved this. Fiddly systems don't work. Wildly open-ended systems don't work. Setting monsters to roles meant that pit fiends fought like orcs and everyone hated it.

At the end of the day, the monster design systems of 3e and 4e were lazy and half-assed because that's what happens when you handle something as complex with only a few pages, and that's exactly why RPG gaming is ripe for someone to write up a better system.

The ideal is something like a 3e vampire or lich. You could fight ten of them in a row and still get ten different kinds of tactical fights, but they'd still feel like vampire and lich fights because of the common powers.