Legends & Lore: Medusa? More Like Medon’tsa

One thing that I have been critical of with Next, aside from virtually everything involving mechanics, is the flavor, which I guess means pretty much everything. Normally it is the Wandering Monsters column that tries to pitch confusing, contradictory, and/or boring backstories, but today Legends & Lore takes over with the medusa.

The Greek Medusa was a beautiful woman who was cursed by Athena for the “crime” of being raped in one of her temples by another god. Her hair was transformed into snakes, her gaze turned anyone that saw it to stone (no save), and in at least one version of the story she is eventually beheaded by Perseus.

In both 2nd and 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons the medusa is by default not a unique creature, but a female-only race that mates with humanoid males to produce offspring. Unless you count their save-or-die gaze attack (which I do not) there is nothing interesting about them: they are hateful, live in caves, and depending on the Dungeon Master utilizing them might inexplicably leave statues around to make sure adventuring parties know exactly what to expect.

4th Edition kept them as a race but provided several unconfirmed origin stories; cursed elven worshippers of Zehir, a yaun-ti slave race created from mingling other yaun-ti and basilisks, or humans or dragonborn corrupted by Zehir. There is also a bit of flavor content tying them with yaun-ti, which makes sense what with all the mention of Zehir. As an added bonus they get some actually decent combat mechanics.

You have got the gamut of evil monster that pretty much lives in caves and exists to be killed, and a variety of stories to pick, modify, combine, and/or ignore, so what does Next do with all of this flavor content?

Since the backstory of an ugly humanoid monster that is always evil was not compelling enough, they decided to add more depth by having them be created from a curse. That is actually surprising in a good way, since it is not only not just what was done before, but it also sounds a lot better than a snake-haired woman that dupes men into heading back to her cave.

Really the only problem is that the curse makes absolutely no sense at all:

“Medusas are created by a curse whereby a human trades a decade of great beauty and personal magnetism for an eternity of a visage so wretched that it turns onlookers to stone.”

I guess that this was the best that they could come up with? What is surprising in a bad way is that more than a few of the comments on the page think that this is in anyway interesting or even reasonable. Ten years of beauty for an eternity of snakes and murder-eyes? How does it work? Do you pray to a god of horrible bargains? What does the being that fulfills these curses have to gain? Why is the curse and period of time so oddly specific? Like, what if I just need a few points of Charisma? Where do snakes fit into the whole theme?

You know what makes more sense and still retains everything good about the concept? Having the curse be levied by the gods as punishment for vanity. I am not even necessarily talking about those that dare to compare themselves (or be unfortunately compared to) to a god of beauty, though that is certainly an obvious use. Anyone that is excessively vain could be a potential target, particularly those that use their looks to deceive people, which plays with the snake theme.

With this origin they can still be in positions of power, especially if they were rich beforehand), but whether the curse is placed on bad people that deserve it or innocent people unaware of the ramifications of their boasts (or the boasts of others), it will help rationalize their hatred and possibly make them sympathetic villains.

Wandering Monsters: Fiend Folio

This week’s Wandering Monsters article is brought to you by the letter “F”, though the word “uninspiring” would have likely delivered the same.

The firenewt is basically a slightly more physically inept lizardfolk that is resistant to fire and has the most pathetic breath weapon I have ever seen: 5-foot range, one target, 1d6 damage (half on a miss!). What else, what else…oh! They are also Neutral Evil, plundering other races for supplies. Did I mention that they eat humanoids? Still not working for you? Well try this on for size: they ride giant birds.

Unsurprisingly, none of these traits are compelling enough to make me want to use them. Firenewts just sound like somebody took lizardfolk, attached a couple of fire-traits, and then plopped them on some ostriches that also come equipped with fire-traits. Why even give them fire resistance–or such a sad, sad breath weapon–at all? Is it because they live in deserts and such? A lot of things live in dry, warm places without developing fire resistance or the ability to shoot fireballs out of their eyes.

Scotland is another matter entirely.

I would flavor them as a tribe, or maybe subspecies, of lizardfolk. They would not be universally evil, but might still regard other races like animals and hunt them for food. Their religion would center around a sun/fire deity–which might be an aspect of Pelor, or even a sun/volcano spirit–which they would offer up ritual sacrifices to in exchange for favorable weather or fortune. Some firenewts would gain blessings, which would account for situational fire resistance and thematic powers, and benevolent firenewts might impart temporary boons to parties acting against Elemental cults (this could have the added effect of making firenewt PCs more viable).

Some evil tribes (or at least misinformed ones) might team up with Elemental cults. If firenewts are not all for some reason evil, then you can even integrate tribes with conflicting ideals (like, you know, people). Not that you need Elemental cults to feature an evil tribe; after all, not every evil human serves the same evil organization. “Evil” firenewt tribes could just as easily revere a destructive fire spirit or interpretation of a sun god, or even a fiend of some sort. Of course some might just be territorial and/or desperate.

To me these things make them a lot more interesting and three-dimensional than “they are evil and eat people”.

As for giant striders, the name makes me think of insects, and giant fire beetle-riding lizardfolk is not something I have seen before (plus insects work great in hot, dry environments). They might domesticate them, possibly living in tunnels with them. They could also hunt them. Why not play another angle, with firenewts being skill metalworkers (or some of them, anyway): in this scenario firenewts exploit the striders’ hard work, checking tunnels for metal. If they come in conflict with them, then firenewts might slather themselves in scent glands to conceals themselves while they work.

If you had to go with birds, I would go with Dark Sun’s crodlus and axe the fireballs. Maybe make a variant that has a bound fire-spirit.

Dungeons & Dragons has an extensive history of silly, stupid monsters, which is apparently sufficient criteria to keep bringing them back. Enter the flumph.

The flumph is a kind-of jellyfish-like creature that flies pretty much by farting, sprays a “foul-smelling liquid” that forces a creature to make a poison save or flee in disgust (with the added effect of causing the creature to be shunned by her companions for 1d4 hours), and can fall on creatures to impale them with acidic spikes. If you flip it over it is helpless, which has consequences that vary from DM to DM.

Some people think that the game “needs” stupid monsters. I disagree. To me the flumph is a waste of page space. I just do not get whatever the appeal might be. I mean yeah, not every denizen in the game world needs to be a viable threat, but things in an actual Monster Manual should at least be interesting and/or useful in some way. The original flumph is none of these things, not even as a flying poop/pee joke.

I could see flumphs as more animalistic creatures, floating around the skies like blooms of flying jellyfish. In this case they could be the lesser fauna from some other reality (because even other planes likely have “animal” rank critters). If you want to make them intelligent and Lawful Good (whatever that means), why not have them liberated by another deity, like Bahamut? Maybe they served a rare (or only) Lawful Good elder god. Maybe they were an order of monks that got exposed to the Far Realm?

Or maybe, just maybe, they could just have a diverse range of alignments like denizens from, oh, most every other plane out there.

D&DN Q&A: Cosmology & Monsters

I have mentioned several times now that the best approach for handling the default cosmology is to not give as a default one; give us a toolbox that can effectively construct the cosmologies from official campaign settings, but make it very easy for us to build our own. I guess the other solution is to somehow design a cosmology that can be used in any setting without any changes.

I am not sure how this would work given how different the Great Wheel is from the World Axis, which are both very different from Eberron‘s orbiting planes, all of which have more variety than Dark Sun’s 3-4 planes. I have heard a couple people mention simply having to remove existing options, which sounds
like you are still making changes, but also does not account for orbiting planes.

The second and third questions I am pretty much fine with. Having a canned description is handy for both the first encounter and potential inspiration for describing how it does things. Bonus points if the description matches the art. As for stat blocks, yeah, I get that humanoids tend to have more varied roles, but there have been some variant monsters with some interesting twists. The umber hulk had three entries in Monster Vault: the basic model with two claws and a confusing gaze, one that focused more on its gaze attacks, and one that could grab you and tunnel away.

Of course this could be solved by giving Dungeon Masters alternate powers, and ideas for how to do other things in line with the various pillars. For example I could see an umber hulk snatching an ally and trying to escape as part of a botched skill check during the Exploration phase, or even have one bust out of a wall and try to kidnap someone as part of an added trouble during combat (which sounds a bit Dungeon World-y).

Legends & Lore: Monsters and the World

Last week Mearls talked about their approach to planes, specifically mentioning that the relationship between Ravenloft and the Shadowfell is still up in the air. Personally I am still advocating a cosmological toolbox, that way everyone gets what they want without there needing to be any assumptions or “correct” layout. Just saying, why stop at giving Dungeons Masters the tools they need to build just one world?

Though it sounds like a topic more appropriate for a Wandering Monsters article, this week we get to see their current approach to 
monsters, which follows four goals:

• Invalidate as little of the monster’s past as possible. 
• The creature should have a place. 
• Make the monster as complex and deep as it “needs” to be; not every monster needs an elaborate backstory or flavor content. 
• Monsters should not just be things to fight.

The first point concerns me because I am worried that “as little as possible” translates to “keep it as-is because that is how it was before”. There is a huge opportunity here to start from scratch, clean things up, tie some of it together, give a long though as to whether some monsters can be presented better than they have before, or if they even need to be in the game at all.

Take the nagpa for instance: why does their curse give them a magical staff and spell-like abilities? Would it not make more sense to curse them so that they can no longer use magic, or simply unable to learn more? Why were the gith originally a race of universally evil humans, and why did the mind flayers–despite possessing by default insanely high Intelligence and Wisdom scores–not notice what was going on?

The second point I mostly agree with. On one hand I think that monsters should have a place in the world, especially ones that we are paying for. On the other hand gods, wizards, curses, the Far Realm, and more could be responsible for the creation of one or more random critters that have no true place in the world, but I think that they could let us handle “a wizard did it” monsters. Well, maybe a random table.

Now the third point I really agree with, but I think that virtually none of the monsters in Next are there, yet. Another thing is that while the example purple worm might not need a complex back story, it should have more interesting mechanics than just hitting things and having lots of hit points, especially if it is intended to be encountered alone.

Check out the differences between 3rd and 4th Edition’s purple worms (especially the Monster Vault revamp); the former can bite and grab, and if you are still stuck there when it goes again it can try to swallow you, while the latter can take multiple actions (making it more of a threat to a party), still take some actions while stun-locked, swallow on the same action, spit you out at an ally, and attack as a reaction (allowing it to hit up to three characters at a time).

I also agree with the fourth point, but think that ultimately what monsters are used for is up to the Dungeon Master. It would be nice to see monsters that have specific effects on the Interaction and Exploration pillars, so that, for example, a purple worm encountered underground might cause a tunnel collapse (causing you to become lost), frighten off enemies, or even be tricked into tunneling an entrance into a sealed dungeon.

I like that they are using the Monster Vault for a guideline, as I think it is one of the best monster supplements ever written. I am a bit wary of their goal to make basic stats not so dependent on story, especially if it results in things like 3rd Edition elves enjoying demonstrating their prowess with swords and bows, but end up just being on par with anyone with a warrior level, or being allegedly adept at magic despite having absolutely no mechanical benefits to back it up.

The example flavor for the ettercap has a strong-if-predictable start: they get along well with spiders, live in forests, and can shoot webbing. The bit about them capturing pixies so that they can sell to hags is interesting, if not something I can see everyone subscribing to (especially if they live in forests without pixies or hags). Still it only eats up a couple sentences and is pretty harmless.

As for the bullet point on transforming into araneas after eating enough faeries? I really dig that, though it also makes me think of alternate ettercaps that transform from eating the flesh of other things, like dragons and demons. Kind of like how 4th Edition minotaurs can transform from eating specific hearts. The downside is the implication that all araneas come from ettercaps, and why they can cast shocking grasp and magic missile from eating pixies of all things; illusions and charms would make more sense (and also be good for luring prey into their traps).

Wandering Monsters: Defining Our Terms

No monsters today, but some of the building blocks that help make them up. I do not really have any issues with the levels (well, except for the apprentice-range), and though the environments might be a bit too granular–waterborne and farmland, really?–it is ultimately harmless. Types, on the other hand, presents some problems.

Despite “only” having six origins, four types, and a keyword library, 4th Edition seemed to have all the based covered. Next looks like it is ranging somewhere in 3rd Edition’s ballbark at a whopping fourteen types, complete with its arbitrary classifications, particularly where the monstrosity type is concerned.

For example, carrion crawlers griffons are beasts, but owlbears and minotaurs are monstrosities? Worgs, which are basically smarter dire wolves, are also monstrosities, but ettins, despite having two heads, are giants. Why is there even a dragon type? What about giants with strong elemental ties,  or undead dryads? What about extraplanar creatures that do not come from an upper or lower plane, like slaadi, modrons, rilmani, or astral dreadnaughts?

I guess that even if they are not going to stick with 4th Edition’s concise selection, I can be thankful that they are not tying statistics to things like Hit Dice.

Now, one thing I am digging from the article is the bit on treasure. Treasure is something that has always bothered me regardless of edition as I felt that you got too much, too fast, particularly in 3rd Edition, where magic items were an assumed part of your progression. I also felt that it would have been nice to see some treasure haul and art object examples, especially for monstrous races.

The proposed treasure tables give you the option of awarding treasure based on the monster, as opposed to an abstraction like level or Challenge Rating. Kind of makes me think of Dungeon World, just with a lot more depth, which sounds kind of cool. This is basically how I have been doing it already, doling out treasure that makes sense for the monster, and is one of the more interesting things about Next that I am looking forward to seeing.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Hippogriffon?

Where do you stand on the visual design of the hippogriff? For me it depends on their origin, as the mythological griffin is described as equal parts lion and eagle, with the hippogriff being the rare offspring of a horse and griffin, because, as in Dungeons & Dragons, griffins really like to eat horses (which sucked because they were easier to deal with than griffins).

Dungeons & Dragons, on the other hand, divides them into two similar-but-separate critters. I say, why not stick with a theme? Lions and eagles are griffons, horses and eagles are hippogriffs, and I am totally cool with them having a horse’s arse with a full-on eagle’s head (I think that the 3rd Edition hippogriff looked kind of odd with the beaked-mouthed horse, though the hoofish-talons were kind of neat).

I think the image above is perfectly serviceable (though it was odd that it was the only hippogriff I could find in all of Magic: The Gathering). Similarly, the hippogryph from World of WarCraft is another solid example, albeit with antlers. Actually, why not go further and mash other things with eagles? It is not like animal-plus-animal monsters are exactly an innovation in the game, after all.

You could even try to tie the entire griffo-sphere together with a similar origin, whether it is crazy wizard, nature spirit, or eagle god. Maybe a couple of wizards/spirits/god decided to have a bet on who could make the best eagle-combo.

Wandering Monsters: What Do You Think?

James Wyatt goes over previous Wandering Monsters columns to compare monster flavor and crunch (for those that have both), and there is also a poll at the end to see how well you think it all matches up. What do I think? Well…

Orcs
Strong, tough, and high damage output–with the ability to boost that with a wild swing–the orc entry hits all the major bullet points. Given that most playtest characters I have seen tend to have Armor Classes above 14, it will not be doing much hitting with all of a +2 to attack rolls (made worse with the aforementioned damage-boosting trait).

Gnolls
Ability-score wise gnolls measure up alright, though I think they should be a bit weaker than orcs and could stand to be a bit faster (as it stands they cannot really run down humans). The main problem I have with gnolls is the Savage trait, which gives them a +4 damage bonus when two other creatures with Savage are within 30 feet. I get that they are trying to evoke the idea that gnolls work better in packs, but 4th Edition implemented this a lot better by requiring gnolls to gang up on a creature in melee.

Goblin
I was among those that disliked the goblin art, feeling it to be too “orcish”. I also disagreed with the low Constitution, so I like that they ultimately went with an average score. The rest is fine; they are Small, weak, prefer to fight in numbers, etc. I do find it odd that for all their hatred of sunlight, that they do not suffer any penalty (especially when they have a mechanic for that, just check out drow and kobolds).

Hobgoblin
I find it odd that your typical hobgoblin warrior–or really a hobgoblin in general–has an above-average Charisma; to me their organization and discipline speaks better to Wisdom, though I am not sure if their stats are based on racial modifiers, an array, or what. 3rd Edition statted out many humanoid creatures as 1st-level warrior types using an array, so they were typically stronger and tougher than the everyday fare.

I am not a fan of Steadfast, which is one of the many absolutes in Next that I cannot stand; if a friendly creature that also has Steadfast is within 30 feet, it is completely immune to fear. Completely. Nothing can scare either of them. It is like how dwarves are utterly immune to poison. I think it–and other absolutes–would be better represented as having advantage (or just, you know, a bonus) on saves against fear.

I also dislike Disciplined, which lets a hobgoblin grant another ally advantage on an attack against a creature within its reach. There is a Help action in the How to Play pdf on page 10, but it looks like it is only good for checks. I think that characters should be able to help each other out with checks, attacks, and even saving throws depending on the situation; hobgoblins can just be better with the whole attack bit.

Bugbears
I think Dexterity could stand to be lowered a bit, and maybe up Constitution, but those are both nitpicks. Otherwise I have no problem with them.

Kobolds
I like the idea of kobolds as dragon-like descendants. I feel that it gives them more character and lends itself as an easy explanation for urds. Stat-wise they are mostly fine (I would put Constitution at 10).

Lizardfolk
While I still do not agree with the art, I do agree that the default lizardfolk society should be fairly primitive, with a handful being much more advanced to keep players on their toes (or to just break the mold). Likewise I have no problem with demon-worshipping lizard kings, though I would go further than just making them super-intelligent (though a reptilian James Bond-esque villian could work…).

Troglodytes
Again, did not agree with the art. I actually think it was the worst out of the whole bunch (just shy of lizardfolk). I will concede that aside from living underground and a rancid odor, giving them a non-demonic bad guy to worship is a good way to differentiate the two.

Ultimately I think that most of the monsters could stand for a tweak or two–which apparently we will be getting in the next packet–and so could formatting. I would also like to see rules for creating monsters (though having played 3rd Edition for almost a decade I am used to eyeballing things). The game is still over a year off, and given WotC’s prior work on Monster Manual 3 and both Monster Vaults I am not particularly concerned over these issues.

Wandering Monsters: The Scaly Things

As with the article on goblins, this one gives us a brief overview on three monsters: the kobold, lizardfolk, and troglodytes. Likewise the overviews we get match up with what I expect; kobolds are reptilian, set traps, and have an affinity for dragons, lizardfolk live in swamps, use blowguns, clubs, and turtle-shell shields, and troglodytes live underground and smell bad.

It even has the scaly skin.

Though I got into D&D back when kobolds looked like this, I prefer their latest incarnation, which has all the benefits of the previous one, but with dragons.

I like that lizardfolk are not inherently evil, especially considering that there are plenty of evil humanoids out there.  While I remember Semuanya–as he/she/it was featured several times in 3rd Edition–I had to look up Sess’Innek, which I guess was a tanar’ri lord originally from 2nd Edition’s Monster Mythology (getting an update in 3rd Edition’s Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss).

The article also mentions half-demonic lizard kings, which could make for a solid adventure hook when raiders start abducting humanoids for sacrifices and/or giant fiendish snakes start slithering about. No mention of khaasta or hermaphrodites (which I recall being a big deal).

As for troglodytes, well…I vaguely recall maybe running into one in a published adventure, but mostly I remember them throwing stuff at me in the D&D arcade game.

Probably poop.

In all seriousness, I prefer the 2nd and 3rd Edition looks to 4th’s.

As for the aquatic fare, though I have only really used sahuagin in Eberron campaigns I am not opposed to locathah and merfolk appearing in the initial run (in fact, I have plans for merfolk and the Court of Coral in an upcoming campaign). I guess this is largely because they never got a lot of, ahem, depth. In 3rd Edition I recall a monster entry and…that is it. In Eberron sahuagin were a bigger part, often serving as guides for ships heading to Xen’drik.

In other words, none of the poll choices work for me. I do not think that they all belong in a supplement, though if they are best served there then go for it. If they can be delivered with some compelling flavor and adventure hooks (or even an adventure) in the initial run, all the better. Just do not give us a merfolk stat block and call it good.

Legends & Lore: Monster Creation in D&D Next

Well, at least we are kinda-sorta seeing some mechanics.

I am a bit wary about the adventuring day being balanced against a sum of XP that you disperse over a number of encounters that are expected to last a number of combat rounds. I found 3rd Edition difficult to pace, especially in early levels where hit points and healing magic were fairly scarce (though later levels were made likewise difficult when the party could essentually evacuate a dungeon whenever they pleased). 4th Edition made it a lot easier to throw encounters of a varying difficulty at the party, as healing surges provided a reliable barometer of performance.

My concern is how “hard” the XP cap is, especially when zoomed in to the per-fight level; I would like to avoid having to shoehorn a set number of fights in a day, pacing be damned. I would also like it to be very easy for players to make an informed choice on whether they should keep going (which ideally will not be largely reliant on remaining spells).  On the plus side, elites and solos are still in–which I hope are not as grindy as they were in pre-Monster Manual 3 4th Edition–as are minions by virtue of non-auto-leveling monsters.

The actual process for creating a monster looks like an in-between of 3rd and 4th Edition, with a dash of FantasyCraft; while it lacks the player character-degree of attention to detail that 3rd Edition required, it also looks less streamlined and easy-to-wing as 4th Edition’s method, and uses stats and abilities to arrive at a XP total as opposed to level.

What I really like about this is the (mostly) lack of scaling, so we will (hopefully) not see 4th Edition’s issue of monsters with–sometimes extreme–level ranges for monsters, or monsters with ridiculously high ability scores that inconsistently exist to justify its attack and damage modifier. We will also (again, hopefully) not see 3rd Edition’s issue where monsters gradually just fall off the map unless they have a likewise insane number of class levels or use advancement rules (that can also oddly beef up their size).

What I am confused about is how you arrive at the monster’s level. In the example Mearls states that in a “generic dungeon”, the level where he would expect the minotaur to “show up” is 5th. I recall reading some 1st Edition stuff where it was implied that dungeons were actually divided into levels, I guess with monsters implied to be present on certain levels (I do not recall if monsters actually had levels, but I do not think so).

So…is this how we are expected to make new monsters? Build them based on the abstract notion of when the party is expected to find/fight it? My process has always been to imagine a degree of relative power based on existing monsters. For example, I would not make a minotaur as strong and tough as it is because I expect it to be fought by 5th level characters; I would consider if it should be stronger and tougher than a human, then an orc, and so on until I arrive at an existing baseline–probably ogre–and go from there.

I am not sure where I stand with the assumption of size equating to whether the monster is a mook, elite, or solo, though on some level it makes sense. So long as monster generation is simple, this should be easy enough to work around, though I guess depending on how the whole XP-combat-round formula works you might just be able to throw a lot of lower-level elites at a party and still have it work out.

I do like having recommended stats based on level, along with a list of pre-fabbed abilities. The formulas and damage-by-level table in 4th Edition made it a breeze to make functional monsters on the fly, and as difficult as I wanted.

I also like the idea of ability mods actually impacting a monster, which I hated in 3rd Edition because you could get some really wonky variables if you had to inflate one or more ability score mods high enough to make it a viable threat (often making it impossible for one or more other characters to do anything about it). Again, this is where the lack of scaling will make this work a lot better.

The example stuff gives me mixed reactions; the idea of a hill giant with “only” a +3 to hit seems bizarre, but only because we have had two editions where they had +16 or more to hit. The idea that they are pretty clumsy, but hit hard when they do I can get behind.

What I do not like is that a minotaur wearing armor sees no benefit. Well, no benefit most of the time. Since its “natural AC is +6”, on par with chainmail, it gets no benefit unless it wears armor better than chainmail. This does not make any sense. I would instead do some kind of abstract rule where you can still get something out of the deal, even if it is just a +1 or 2 (kind of like how barding works in 4th Edition).

Rage +5/5 could be abbreviated to just Rage 5, which the assumption that you deal +x damage on a hit, or x damage on a miss. Actually, I think a lot of monsters (like our hill giant friend there) could benefit from some kind of mechanic where they still do x damage on a miss.

Goring charge seems needlessly wordy and pretty powerful. I could see it being used basically all the time, given that it is better than the axe attack and there is really no “sticky” mechanic for defending characters. This is also a prime example of using codified language: prone should be a condition, instead of something referenced in every power with a prone kicker effect. Also, why would this be something unique to minotaurs?

Keen senses looks nice enough, but to save space there could always be a keyword for a skill that makes it so that you get a bonus to doing something, and can only roll a minimum number.

Legend & Lore: Working in the Game Mine

The various monster manuals have been helpful sources of examples and inspiration, but too often do not have what I need, much less what I want. Given that I am more than happy to create what I want to meet an exacting standard rather than go with something that is “close enough”, I have posted quite a few monsters on this blog over the years (including some star pact cultists for D&DNext).

Now, I can follow the first example here right up until they begin to explain Bob’s ability to do air things; on one hand we get a concept of beating up an elemental prince and taking his stuff, giving him the ability to create whirlwinds and summon air elements. We even get a bit on his presumed tactics. On the other we…just get a role and some abilities.

Huh?

Are those actually two distinct approaches? Why not give us the flavor content about taking the air-prince’s portfolio and then create powers themed to that? Are there DMs out there that just pick a role, staple various role-appropriate powers to it, set the level to the party’s, and call it good?

My approach generally consists of thinking about what a monster might do/what I think it should do, and creating abilities and mechanics that help represent that. Sometimes I start with a role, other times I end up going with the role that makes the most sense. In the above example I would consider the history and purpose of this air demon, and then give him abilities that evoke that. Given all the wind-things going on, controller would likely be what I ended up with (though really I could see any role doing the job proper).

Occasionally, as a kind of experiment, I will marry a role to a monster just to see if something interesting can come from it–like a mind flayer soldier or a treant artillery (leader)–rather than some kind of primary jumping point.

I am also confused about the example with the Duke and his orcs. The DM makes the decision about how many orcs to use. Who is to say that the duke could only afford 6? What if there were only 6 available?

What if you want to throw a number of orcs at the party with an intent? You want them to win, lose, flee, surrender, etc. In any case it really helps to know just how lethal the encounter is going to be. If you have planned well enough that the outcome is a branching point, then it just make up a number or roll for one.

You have lost nothing, but DMs–especially new ones–trying to encourage a specific choice, whether through planning or what they think that a given NPC/monster will do can greatly benefit from knowing the odds.

My ideal Monster Manual would have plenty of flavor content, with at least several thematically appropriate examples, and advice on making your own things. Do not make me have to build a barebones hobgoblin soldier, archer, and war-mage. Those should be a given. If I want to make a more specialized hobgoblin, such as one that is a fast-moving dervish, then make sure I have the necessary tools and knowledge to go about it properly.

I also want the mechanics to be as transparent as possible so that I can design things to be as easy, hard, simple, complicated, etc as I want.