Topic: Sample RMU creature?

[nightchilde]

With the release of the monster books hopefully looming in the near future, I don't suppose it would be possible to get a look at a sample monster actually from one of the books would it?  Like a low-level beastie.  I would just love to see how balanced something would be against a low level PC because in some previous editions the balance felt a bit all over the place.

[5th Knight of Xar]

The downloadable test version of CL might have what you are looking for?

[Hurin]

There was also a sample image of the stat block posted a while back on Discord, I think... but can't remember if is was blank or had a creature's stats.

[nightchilde]

The downloadable test version of CL might have what you are looking for?

Not really.  I know that's floating about. I'd rather see the stats for a final monster....things can change from the test versions and I'd rather see the "real" thing.

[pastaav]

With the release of the monster books hopefully looming in the near future, I don't suppose it would be possible to get a look at a sample monster actually from one of the books would it?

I second that request. The build your own monster templates presented during the beta is hopefully not the current state of things.

Like a low-level beastie.  I would just love to see how balanced something would be against a low level PC because in some previous editions the balance felt a bit all over the place.

The reason the challenge level of monsters varied independent of level in the previous RM editions is that the the level of monster determined only spell power/resistance and not the challenge level of the monster.

There have never been a RM edition before RMU that tried to equate level with challenge before RMU. Considering the effort D&D has put into challenge levels without really succeeding, the premise of the upcoming Creature Law is bold.

[Tommi]

I can not emphasize enough that old RM way to make monsters is miles above new suggested way.   Hits, DB, OB, movement and some monster /animal skills should not be related to level. Old prime excemple was T-Rex - no need to say more. Some monsters have profession and thus level is somewhat meaningful but e.g. vampire is primarly vampire and not some archetype like subterfuge semi spelluser. Beta monsters were broken in many cases.

I think that the biggest problem arises from use of single level for all aspects. For monster I'd use at least two levels: RR&spell level and skill level. Actually I'd use additional combat level IF level was neccessary for combat  (it is not).

Biology or what ever reason that gives some ability differs so greatly that all monsters shold not be shoehorned in same model.
E.g. for combat there is wide spectrum how the ability arises e.g. for elemental attacs : unintelligent fire elemantal's elemental attacs accuracy, potency... arises from very different source than fire giants or orc mages abilitys to throw bolts .

While playing RM2 or RMSS I sometimes do wish that there were information about important skills like perception, tracking, stalking but most monsters are good with just RR-level.

Combining all in one level is mistake. Even D&D uses dice and challence rating.

I'll buy all moster books ICE publishes but will I use them? 

[Hurin]

I could not disagree more.

When you are a GM designing an encounter, having the level as a rough guide to the creature's power is an exceptionally useful feature. The fact that level was completely divorced from a creature's actual power on the battlefield is a problem with earlier editions, and I am glad RMU has fixed that problem.

[nash]

As a piece of feedback... I totally despise the version of the stat block I've seen.   I really want to be able to find all the monster stats in one place.  At the moment it's split in two.  With the combat stats in a table and individual entry for the rest of the creature.   

Now the table is great to quickly look things up, but having to jump between two pages when running the game is a nightmare.   

Additionally it means things like Roll20 need a different format as that format makes no sense in roll20 anyway.

RMSS got this right - the table with the summary, but all the details were repeated at the top of the monster listing.

[jdale]

The current version has a table for creatures in that section that contains the following:
* Name/variety of creature
* Level, outlook, archetype
* Movement type, rate, and max pace
* Exhaustion/endurance modifier
* Size and crit modifiers
* Hits and death hits
* AT, DB
* Initiative modifier
* Attacks with OBs
* PP
* RR modifiers
* Skills with bonuses
* Biome
* # encountered
* Frequency

In comparison, RMFRP also used tables for creatures in a given section containing:
* Type of creature - same as RMU
* Level - as RMU, plus a random variation factor
* BMR - as RMU
* Max pace, maneuver bonus - RMU puts max pace in with movement type, while the maneuver bonus is listed as a skill
* Speed MS/AQ - this is used to vary the DB by posture and to look up the initiative, on a different table at the beginning of the book. RMU just lists the initiative mod directly, and any variance in the DB would be based on dodging etc just like a character.
* Size and crit modifiers - as RMU
* Hits - as RMU
* AT, DB - as RMU
* Attacks with OBs - as RMU
* # encountered - as RMU
* Treasure type
* Bonus experience - not relevant in RMU
* Outlook/IQ - outlook appears in the RMU column with level

So what the big table is missing is only treasure type and IQ.

RMFRP also lists some codes next to the name of the creature in its individual listing. I... have no idea what those mean, and can't find any explanation in C&M.

RMU also has a block next to the individual creature which includes:
* Category (e.g. Animal-Carnivore) which corresponds to which big table you should check
* Archetype (also appears on the big table)
* Variant types
* Size in numerical units (e.g. feet and inches)
* Armor description and AT (but the AT also appears on the big table)
* Treasure type
* Realm
* Miscellaneous notes
* Stat bonuses
* Talents and flaws

Of those, the only one that RMFRP put on the big tables in C&M that RMU doesn't is treasure type. All those other things either appeared in the text or they weren't provided at all.

Now that said, I would have loved to toss the big tables and just have a complete stat block for every creature. But that would have been a twelve volume set or would have required drastically cutting the number of creatures.

[nash]

Now that said, I would have loved to toss the big tables and just have a complete stat block for every creature. But that would have been a twelve volume set or would have required drastically cutting the number of creatures.

Not sure it would blow out to 12 volumes.   But I'd be happy with a 3 volume set with the monsters being standalone.

I may not speak for all here ;-)

[Hurin]

RMFRP also lists some codes next to the name of the creature in its individual listing. I... have no idea what those mean, and can't find any explanation in C&M.

What? You mean you can't easily parse out these simple codes like those for the Deer here:

Deer: (f)-(—),(GIOZ),(—),(T)-2;

/joking. Those were just ridiculous.

I think they might be copied from the Environment Codes in Creatures and Treasures I (RM2), p. 6.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Deer: (f)-(—),(GIOZ),(—),(T)-2

A deer may be found in any climate but frigid ones, in any special location, in any water source location but glaciers/snowfields, tropical islets/reefs/atolls, oceans, or deserts, in any terrain, and locations with any kind of vegetation but tundras.
It's "easy" to meet one in any of the locations where it lives.

[jdale]

Thanks, I was wondering. I guess they just forgot to include that information in RMFRP C&M.

As for number of books, maybe 12 is an exaggeration. But it's definitely more than 3. Maybe 6.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

My RMFRP C&M has it p10, under the "Habitat" section.

[pastaav]

When you are a GM designing an encounter, having the level as a rough guide to the creature's power is an exceptionally useful feature. The fact that level was completely divorced from a creature's actual power on the battlefield is a problem with earlier editions, and I am glad RMU has fixed that problem.

The core of the matter in the beta was that a Golem bascially just can bash things and the combat challenge from this is very different to the ways a Shard can kill you. In the beta the Shard got a massive discount on the powerful abilities of a shard since else a player with Shard character could not afford the Shard abilities.

My personal opinion is that the design goal of players being able to play even legendary monsters and having level as challenge rating are concepts that does not mix well. If RMU really has managed to nail the issue and improve the balance of cost system for creatures well enough for it to start to work, I would be delighted, but the evidence for RMU solving this huge design challenge is still waiting to be presented.

We have not been shown any sample monsters using the revised rules, and the problems that was discovered during the beta required IMHO big changes.

Given the good development of the rules presented so far compared to the beta we hopefylly will get something that is way better than what was presented in the beta, but I expect people hoping level equals challenge rating will get very disapointed.

[nightchilde]

Sooooo....no creature preview?  Not even a simple low-level one?  :-D