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

[Schleiermacher]

I stand corrected.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm in agreement that you need lots of monsters to make the game interesting to the largest number of people, but in any single campaign, you probably won't need that many unique monsters.

And 'advanced' monsters don't strike me as 'new monsters'. I mean, a Fire Elemental the size of a planetoid is bigger and scarier than a Fire Elemental the size of a campfire, but they don't hit the 'unique monster' button. An elder Red Dragon is the same 'monster' as a hatchling Red Dragon - even if their impact on the game is different.

And you can get by with reskinning a lot of monsters. Horses and camels - how different are they REALLY in game terms?

If you're releasing a game like D&D you should release all the monsters because, as Frank said - you don't know which ones will turn out to be popular for some groups. Some guy might seriously make the Flumph! or whatever the iconic monster of his game. And if that works, that works.

But ultimately, a comprehensive toolbox for building monsters is better. While pulling a monster out of a book is easier on short notice, the best campaigns feature unique creatures. Almost definitionally, a unique creature won't be found in Generic Monster Book XXV (volume 2).

When Dragonlance featured the Draconians, they were new and unique for that setting (they've since been used elsewhere) and that enhanced the experience. The goblin things with four arms and hobgoblins with tentacles in Eberron were new and unique at the time - and they helped give it a different flavor.

From a kitchen sink perspective, having all the monsters and being able to throw them in whenever you feel like it makes sense is best.

From a Campaign development perspective, choosing a few iconic monsters is totally sufficient. Lord of the Rings is totally a setting you can have adventures in, and you're going to be hard pressed to get to 100 iconic monsters in that setting. Wheel of Time is totally a setting you can have adventures in, and you're going to be hard pressed to get to 100 iconic monsters in that setting.

Since D&D presumes a 'kitchen-sink', you need to support that type of play with hundreds and hundreds of monsters. But most DMs won't use most of those monsters (nor should they). By mixing and matching, they can create something that feels 'unique' pretty easily. Slap on a few cosmetic changes (my hobgoblins are like SAMURAI!) and you can create the appearance of a unified setting.

It becomes a question of scope - even if only a few dozen monsters actually make an appearance in the campaign, is the world richer for assuming there are hundreds or thousands off-camera?

[fectin]

I got all excited a few years ago about recreating monsters with templates (so you have a table of cats (or whatever) by level, and to make a hellcat, apply the "fire" and "evil" packages, et viola). I even posted my early drafts here. There's a problem though: it only works at low levels. That's not just that I could not make it work at level 12, but I couldn't even imagine a way that it might work.

Fast and balanced monster creation is a great dream, but I dont think it's realizable.

[John Magnum]

Do you really need a distinct undead entry for every single level? Would it be so terrible for a party of level 7 adventurers to fight level 6 or level 8 skellingtons?

[hogarth]

Do you really need a distinct undead entry for every single level? Would it be so terrible for a party of level 7 adventurers to fight level 6 or level 8 skellingtons?

For what it's worth, 1E AD&D's turning table had 12 types of undead:

Code: Select all

Skeleton	10	7	4	T	T	D	D	D*	D*	D*
Zombie	13	10	7	T	T	D	D	D	D*	D*
Ghoul	16	13	10	4	T	T	D	D	D	D*
Shadow	19	16	13	7	4	T	T	D	D	D*
Wight	20	19	16	10	7	4	T	T	D	D
Ghast	-	20	19	13	10	7	4	T	T	D
Wraith	-	-	20	16	13	10	7	4	T	D
Mummy a	-	-	-	20	16	13	10	7	4	T
Spectre b	-	-	-	-	20	16	13	10	7	T
Vampire c	-	-	-	-	-	20	16	13	10	4
Ghost d	-	-	-	-	-	-	20	16	13	7
Lich e	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	19	16	10

Considering that 90%+ of 1E games never made it past level 12 (say), that's about 1 per level.

[K]

Do you really need a distinct undead entry for every single level? Would it be so terrible for a party of level 7 adventurers to fight level 6 or level 8 skellingtons?

No.

You also don't need statted entries for every giant, every dragon, every demon, every undead monster that is basically a ghost, every undead that is basically a zombie, every elemental, every flavor of golem, every bullshit beastman race that exists in your setting in one very tiny corner of the world, every lycanthrope, etc.

You stat up one of each. Then you have some entries that read like "the Fire Giant is a level 11 Giant and adds X, Y, and Z powers to the Hill Giant package." Then you include a paragraph on F\ire giant appearance, personality, and culture because that's more than they've ever gotten in any MM ever. Maybe some art.

Maybe the entry reads like "The Haunt is a level 7 Undead and has powers A, B, and C." Then a paragraph and a drawing.

So your initial MM has 400 monsters composed of 100 statted monsters and 300 paragraph stubs. You've also got room for the monster generation system and can offer the beginning and experienced DMs an infinite amount of Steves for themed adventures, one-shot encounters and adventures, and geographic locations he chooses to populate.

I understand that people want a full entry for the fire giant. The problem is that the thing that they want is dumb. It leads to endless entries that no one is ever going to use or remember and tons of wasted pages that could be filled with content that people actually use.

[violence in the media]

Maybe the entry reads like "The Haunt is a level 7 Undead and has powers A, B, and C." Then a paragraph and a drawing.

Independent of the larger discussion, I'd really love it if all ghostly incorporeal undead in specific were the same basic thing that just pulled powers mix off a big list. Add telekinesis to an Allip, give a Shadow 15 hit dice, put dread gaze on a Spectre--go nuts!

[virgil]

Making the entry abbreviated doesn't disqualify it from being an entry. When I have/use a monster manual, having all of the necessary information to run the monster in a scenario on a single page whether or not the statistics are derivable is an obvious resource. Making it "level X with A & B powers" means I have to repeatedly flip between three separate entries in an encounter. I *can* function without it, but that doesn't mean the service isn't demonstrable and desirable for innumerable DMs.

[hogarth]

Making the entry abbreviated doesn't disqualify it from being an entry. When I have/use a monster manual, having all of the necessary information to run the monster in a scenario on a single page whether or not the statistics are derivable is an obvious resource. Making it "level X with A & B powers" means I have to repeatedly flip between three separate entries in an encounter. I *can* function without it, but that doesn't mean the service isn't demonstrable and desirable for innumerable DMs.

Exactly. Each unique full stat block is a thing of value for GMs, whether that stat block represents a "new" monster or not.

[MGuy]

In my planned write up for monsters I plan on having a monster generation system with a lot of example monsters already written up. If you 'want' to pull a monster just out of the manual for use there's no reason you can't have an entry you use with all the info on one page. If you alternatively wanna generate a monster the rules will be there and you can just write/type all the info on one page.

[shadzar]

I understand that people want a full entry for the fire giant. The problem is that the thing that they want is dumb.

So how long has Lorraine Williams be posting on TGD?

[*]Knows what is best for everyone
[*]Does what they want anyway to make themselves look impressive
[*]Has disdain for gamers
[*]Hates D&D

K is Lorraine Williams. It all makes sense now!

It leads to endless entries that no one is ever going to use or remember and tons of wasted pages that could be filled with content that people actually use.

so when i read a monster entry that is not using it, and i must memorize its contents to make it part of a good product and purchase?

paper was invented so people didnt have to memorize everything but so a POV can be put down for all to see for their own eyes. you dont need to memorize every detail about every variation of monster because it IS written down, and nobody tries to use ALL the monsters in EVERY game night from a book.

you are like many other people thus why D&D and many other TTRPGs that are presented in book form are still classified as BOOKS by people like HASBRO, because they don't understand the nature of D&D. it is a game AND it is reference material. all of it is not required at all times like the rules for chess.

i could fill a fucking MM with just Humans and real world animals. try telling me there isnt 100 types of creatures in the real world, non-extinct, including humans (no racial segregation, just all one entry), that couldnt fill 100 monsters out. and this is without going into species, just genus.

you only need 33 land, 33 air, 33 water, and humans to make 100 monsters.

nobody but YOU wants your stupid template to rule them all system, because it is easier to just create a monster from scratch that applying 600 templates to get your freaky evolved pokemon.

[K]

Making the entry abbreviated doesn't disqualify it from being an entry. When I have/use a monster manual, having all of the necessary information to run the monster in a scenario on a single page whether or not the statistics are derivable is an obvious resource. Making it "level X with A & B powers" means I have to repeatedly flip between three separate entries in an encounter. I *can* function without it, but that doesn't mean the service isn't demonstrable and desirable for innumerable DMs.

I don't buy it.

I've never heard anyone say, "Oh, I'd love to have write-ups of demons with the spell text for every spell-like listed with the demon." I've never heard anyone say, "I'd run more liches, but looking up all the spells he uses is so much harder than using giants who have their ability text next to a stat block."

Second, it's pretty obvious from my posts that I'm talking about unified stats for monsters where a level 11 Undead has the same numbers as another Level 11 Undead, but with different abilities. The value of slightly altering stats for different variations of the same monster is so low that there is no reason to waste a third of your Monster Manual doing it.

I understand the desire to waste page-count. Monster stat blocks for six variations of giant eats up a tremendous amount of page-space and it takes almost no time to write up. From a developers standpoint, it's the equivalent of selling frozen water to the Inuit people.

[hogarth]

I've never heard anyone say, "I'd run more liches, but looking up all the spells he uses is so much harder than using giants who have their ability text next to a stat block."

I have seen many, many complaints about how annoying it is to write up a monster with PC class levels like a lich. I've complained about it myself.

If you're saying that a non-spellcasting creature makes a poor substitute for a spellcasting creature, you're right, but I have no idea what that has to do with the current discussion.

[Voss]

Making the entry abbreviated doesn't disqualify it from being an entry. When I have/use a monster manual, having all of the necessary information to run the monster in a scenario on a single page whether or not the statistics are derivable is an obvious resource. Making it "level X with A & B powers" means I have to repeatedly flip between three separate entries in an encounter. I *can* function without it, but that doesn't mean the service isn't demonstrable and desirable for innumerable DMs.

I don't buy it.

You don't have to. But the idea that you'll wholesale reject the idea that other people want things that you don't makes any rational conversation pretty much impossible. Because people are honestly telling you that they want those things and they are hardly the only people that do.

[virgil]

I've never heard anyone say, "I'd run more liches, but looking up all the spells he uses is so much harder than using giants who have their ability text next to a stat block."

I have heard that very complaint almost verbatim. I have seen DMs choose simpler monsters explicitly because they wanted to avoid referencing multiple spell effects. Their tolerance varies with patience and skill level, obviously, so the line that is too much referencing in the quest to slay redundancy is a blurry one.

I've agreed with you before that unified and derivable stats are an advantage and something I support.

[hogarth]

I certainly agree with K's assertion that there are way too many monster entries (and nearly identical stat blocks) for various humanoids. I'm almost nostalgic for the way the 1E Monster Manual said that a goblin leader uses the stat block for a hobgoblin or a bugbear chief uses the stat block for an ogre (or whatever).

[deaddmwalking]

I think filler monsters are good for something like D&D, combined with creation and advancement rules. The ability to instantly drop something into the game is very handy.

Unfortunately, sometimes the implementation was bad.

What I'd really like to see in a monster book is some examples of 'encounters'. So instead of a single Level 1 Warrior Dwarf, give me a patrol. Throw in some pets if it makes sense.

Obviously I could pull out a single dwarf (soldier lvl 1 or lieutenant lvl 3) but that'd be a lot more helpful than just having a single stat block that can't be used as written for most of the game - and people could still substitute 'unique' characters with the same rules. Swap 'generic Dwarven Lieutentant Level 3' for 'Kardar Orc-Hammer' with some specially selected equipment and feats.

[K]

I have heard that very complaint almost verbatim. I have seen DMs choose simpler monsters explicitly because they wanted to avoid referencing multiple spell effects. Their tolerance varies with patience and skill level, obviously, so the line that is too much referencing in the quest to slay redundancy is a blurry one.

I appreciate that the line is blurry, but it's hard to have sympathy for the lich-phobes when even the SRD Fire Giant requires at least 15 different function calls for non-term things like specific skills, feats, special rules like low-light vision and vulnerability, giant type rules, etc.

Adding a few extra for something like a gorgon doesn't seem especially burdensome to me. Heck, even doubling the function calls for a lich doesn't seem that bad.

[Ice9]

"the Fire Giant is a level 11 Giant and adds X, Y, and Z powers to the Hill Giant package."

I used to think this would be the way to do it. Screw all this clutter! Make progressions, templates, cross-referenced ability packages. You can fit so much more in so much less space, and all it takes is a little bit more prep.

Now I've been running a game for a bit, and my current feeling on that is "Fuck no". Monsters that require me to add any component parts together, beyond what I can do in my head on the fly (such as commonly used spells, but not obscure ones), are only coming out for special occasions, and can fuck right off the rest of the time.

It's not only that "a little more prep" adds up really fast when you're talking about 2-3 monsters per situation for 10+ situations, half or more of which you may not end up using. Although that is definitely a factor.

It's that sometimes you need a monster on the fly, because the players did something unexpected and now there's a Troll in a party hat rampaging around at the duke's ball. When that happens, a MM with full stat-blocks means I can just flip to the page and keep the action moving. Procedurally generated stats means either "Hey guys, time out for 20 minutes while I prep some monsters, which may only be relevant for 1 round or so" or "Nope, you can't go off the rails, it's too much damn work".

I appreciate that the line is blurry, but it's hard to have sympathy for the lich-phobes when even the SRD Fire Giant requires at least 15 different function calls for non-term things like specific skills, feats, special rules like low-light vision and vulnerability, giant type rules, etc.

See above comment on commonly used spells. I know what all the skills do. I know what the core feats and the more commonly used other feats do (and I would give a monster the hairy eye for having obscure feats), I know low-light vision and vulnerability rules off the top of my head, and the Giant type doesn't give anything special. It's not a nice clean line, it's a slope of complexity, and having to build a monster from component parts falls too far up for a lot of people, including myself.

Also, there's a second factor. Most of those things don't affect the giant's basic stats. If the players sneak into the royal bestiary, see a Chimera, and want to stealth past it, the Spot modifier is listed right there in the stats. I can take that number and roll without needing to make any function calls, much less building a monster and applying templates.

[hogarth]

I appreciate that the line is blurry, but it's hard to have sympathy for the lich-phobes when even the SRD Fire Giant requires at least 15 different function calls for non-term things like specific skills, feats, special rules like low-light vision and vulnerability, giant type rules, etc.

Taking a complete stat block and looking up bits and pieces of it afterwards is an order of magnitude less work than coming up with a complete stat block in the first place, IMO. And I'm not sure why you're comparing those tasks.

[deaddmwalking]

Taking a complete stat block and looking up bits and pieces of it afterwards is an order of magnitude less work than coming up with a complete stat block in the first place, IMO. And I'm not sure why you're comparing those tasks.

If there is a 'level 5 giant' block, you could use that same stat block for 'Ogre Chief', 'Hill Giant' and 'Fire Giant non-combatant'. The only difference would be whether they have any 'special abilities'.

A better example is probably 'ghost' and 'allip'. There'd be one stat block that both would use; the only difference is what special abilities they get in addition to their common stats...

[TiaC]

I appreciate that the line is blurry, but it's hard to have sympathy for the lich-phobes when even the SRD Fire Giant requires at least 15 different function calls for non-term things like specific skills, feats, special rules like low-light vision and vulnerability, giant type rules, etc.

Adding a few extra for something like a gorgon doesn't seem especially burdensome to me. Heck, even doubling the function calls for a lich doesn't seem that bad.

This link brings up a good point. The presence of a computerized SRD makes your ideas much more workable. If I want to know what The Fire Giant's Improved Sunder does I can just click a link. If your game includes a simple monster generation app that can take one of your base monsters and apply a set of templates then everyone will use it.

[K]

Taking a complete stat block and looking up bits and pieces of it afterwards is an order of magnitude less work than coming up with a complete stat block in the first place, IMO. And I'm not sure why you're comparing those tasks.

If there is a 'level 5 giant' block, you could use that same stat block for 'Ogre Chief', 'Hill Giant' and 'Fire Giant non-combatant'. The only difference would be whether they have any 'special abilities'.

A better example is probably 'ghost' and 'allip'. There'd be one stat block that both would use; the only difference is what special abilities they get in addition to their common stats...

Exactly.

The whole point of an actual monster generation system is that you'll actually know what the Spot check of a level 5 Undead thing is before you even look at the stat block because it's the same for all level 5 Undead monsters. This makes the actual making of a monster into an exercise in writing down the powers you are going to use and maybe pick some equipment because you can run the rest of the monster from the monster progression.

There is a reason that people probably know the SRD feats and common monster powers by heart and they don't know every spell: someone actually went in and decided that the feat and monster powers needed unifying mechanics and they didn't make the same choice with spells.

[Ice9]

Well now I'm confused. Are we talking about a progression where you take five levels of "Undead", or is there a complete stat-block that happens to be labelled "Level 5 Undead"? If it's the latter then fine, but you're not saving that much space.

[K]

Well now I'm confused. Are we talking about a progression where you take five levels of "Undead", or is there a complete stat-block that happens to be labelled "Level 5 Undead"? If it's the latter then fine, but you're not saving that much space.

Do you recall the Dragon by Age chart in the MM? It lists all of the important stats of the monster and a progression. There are a few extra charts in that entry and a shitload of extra text like the explanation of bite attacks, but cleaning up and consolidating those should be no problem.

For example, The "Undead progression" would take up a page.

The special ability section doesn't have to be that long because you can consolidate a lot of monster abilities with the spell section. For example, Hellhounds don't need a unique Breath Weapon and can just use a standardized fire effect that replaces Burning Hands.