Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monster Patterns and Roles"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
*possible keywords for monster CR adjustments
*possible keywords for monster CR adjustments
Latest revision as of 16:15, 23 May 2020
spellcaster patterns: based on the same structure as the Atropal Monstrous Magic, genericised
abjurer- 4 'spells' illusionist- 4 'spells' evoker- 4 'spells'
- possible keywords for monster CR adjustments
- least -2 CR
- basic -1 CR
- common -0 CR (assigned to all mobs in "Monster Maker" thingy
- able +1 CR (replaces Advanced pattern?)
- impressive +2 CR
- forceful +3 CR
- robust +4 CR
- scary +5 CR (replaces Mighty pattern?)
(might keep advanced and mighty as patterns, because they lend a different 'feel' to monsters, give another avenue to uniqueness in encounters. we should strive to make all monsters 'feel' different and interesting...unless they are very vanilla. vanilla is delicious, and serves an important purpose.)
action items for million monster machine: * come up with prefix names for each modified CR value (-2 CR to +5 CR) -- lesser, minor, common, greater, major, superior, elite, supreme (for example) * review all existing monster names, and all proposed monster names, to make sure our prefixes don't lead to really dumb, unreadable names (lesser greater whompus, for example). * move all proposed monster names to a discussion page; only actual monsters should be in the bestiary * strip all the roles out of every monster that has a role. * add language into the description that says "This monster is nearly always a <role> monster. It is highly recommended that this role be applied to it." or whatever. * recode any role-specific powers into new fields that are specific to roles-only powers. This will require me to create new fields for the template, but doesn't require a complete revamping of every monster.
- Monster name structure:
- Base name= Existing monster names, checked to 'make sense' "Orc Raider" (CR3)
- CR Name= Prefixed to Base name "Robust Orc Raider" (CR7)
- Role Name= Appended to Full Name with Spacer "Robust Orc Raider -Heavy" (CR7 heavy mob)
- Pattern Name= Suffixed to Base Name with leading Comma "Robust Orc Raider, Coursing -Shooter" (CR10 shooter mob)
- Multipat Names= Multiple of Pattern Name "Robust Orc Raider, Coursing, Agile -Killer" (CR13 killer mob)
- Pattern Changes -Might not cover everything is every pattern, but it covers everything I could find.
- 1 ) CR
- 2 ) Size
- 3 ) Type -Always gains a Subtype of the Pattern name. (This relates to the keywords open topic. I like keywords, but wonder how much use they are. If/when the MMM becomes a thing, could be pretty huge.)
- 4 ) Initiative Modifier (1st skill mod)
- 5 ) Senses - adding one or more sense types is different than a perception boost (see next)
- 6 ) Perception Skill Modifier (2nd skill mod)
- 7 ) AC - removing flat-footed and touch makes this much simpler, yay!
- 8 ) Hit Dice -This is where Patterns add hit points if the CR is not changed
- 9 ) Defensive Ability - Where things like Immune to various conditions/damage types/oddball things, new ER or DR, unique defensive powers (see agile creature for an example), bonuses to some or all saves, etc, etc, etc, is recorded. Should be added text field(s)? For maximum flexibility? Should we try to intgate this stuff into the existing template, or just make a "pattern power" addition and put this stuff in as a block of text? ER and DR needs to be calculated dynamically, and other things are as well.
- 10 ) Out of Combat - GM hint text changes go here, if needed.
- 11 ) Speed - Can get complex, as new movement types currently fall here, and if the base mob has that movement type already, the effect changes.
- 12 ) Melee Attacks - This is where the Pattern is made capable at its new CR. can be replaced with a base CR change, except that leaves non-powered Patterns weak.
- 13 ) Damage - same as melee attacks, above
- 14 ) Space
- 15 ) Reach
- 16 ) Offensive Ability - Same philosophy as Defensive Ability, above.
- 17 ) Ability Scores
- 18 ) Maneuver Offense
- 19 ) Maneuver Defense
- 20 ) Feats
- 21 ) Skills (3rd skill mod, and much more complex as it's adding 1 or more skills, rather than modding existing numbers)
if at all possible "monster maker" thingy should be able to 'stack' two patterns, as multiplying content twice is MUCH more powerful
- create several spellcaster patterns do we need any more than the one?
- tanks- get a taunt which pulls an enemy to them as a free/swift/move action. May also strip off a buff on the target.
- legends- get a power which they declare at the top of the round, targeting an area on the map, and att the end of the round it goes off. This is in addition to their full normal turn on their initiative.
From the point of view of maximum monsters for minimal work (i.e., kobolds are probably goblins + Draconic, for example), such that you, the developers can choose how to apply them to fill out the Bestiary with enough variety, while simultaneously not spending 25 years on it, I'm all in favor of the jillion patterns listed here. I even think the MMM can help you guys quickly crank them out so that you can see how they work. (For example, you might know that an Ancient One is a Greater Shoggoth or whatever, but it's just presented in the Bestiary as-is.)
i see your point, but yu must remember, a lot of the appeal of RPG's is also as creative writing. lots of people like reading monsters, and we're striving to not be bare-bones and minimalist. yes, it's efficient, but also soulless, and we like souls. er.... that sounded bad....
- Sure, but from the utility PoV, seeing 12 templates makes me think "I don't want to think about any of these", and I own all 6 PFRPG1 Bestiaries because more monsters is more better (and fun reading) but I don't use *any* of their templates.
From the point of view of a GM, even a GM with access to the MMM, there are an awful lot of these suckers. From a utility point of view of "I want an X that does Y, I feel like it's too many - what I would start with are:
already got it
this is problematic
- Yes, it is problematic, but that's why I want you to do the hard work, so I don't have to. :-)
- more magic (more spell-like effects - a "blaster" spellcaster)
yeah, i have ideas for this, but to properly scale, it's a bit messy. i put it on the back burner until we get EP1.0 done
- I would *love* to be able to make a zappier creature though.
- more arms (more attacks - or more tentacles or whatever)
most of the heavier patterns add a bonus power, which grants something similar. simply tacking on attacks doesn't really scale properly. RD did a LOT of math to get the attacks right. spreadsheets for DAYS, man :)
- Sure, I can see how this is hard, but again, that's why I want you guys to do it. :-) The "more attacks" role is a good start, but I'd like to see it on regular monsters too (the same way Girallons have way more attacks because they have way more arms than a regular hominid)
- more plating (more defenses - a mix of HP/DR/SR/AC)
again, this is difficult to scale, and is built into all the patterns as-is
- less vulnerable (more defensive spell abilities - obscuring mist, shields, barriers, blur, mirror image, etc.)
I'd even leave out Incorporeal and just say that only certain monsters can have it, same as only some creatures have Regeneration.
I guess what I'm saying is that these are great design tools and I am happy to help you guys use them, but there are too many for a non-designer to get a grip on. (The same thing can be said of PFRPG templates. Heck, even Green Ronin subtly indicated that by releasing bestiary that masqueraded as a book of brand-new templates. The most useful part of that book was the monsters they made, not the mechanics of how they built them.)
nod nod. duly noted, but in fairness, this is a reduction of about 95 percent compared to the old days :) also, several of these patterns are 'families' with similar effects. if we can work out how to make the great creature work smoothly, all the 'damage aura' patterns can become variants of a single base, all the 'smiting' templates can become variants of a single base, etc.
good feedback! we'll gnaw on this a bit.