Still running playtests and getting a lot of good feedback from the players. The fixed weapon damage seems to be going well although I have toyed with having monsters roll damage vs having them do half HD damage on regular hits and full damage on critical hits. Having the monsters do fixed damage seems to take away some of the excitement but that might be my baggage talking. When a HD12 skeleton hits with 6 or 12 point of damage every time it really changes the tone of the encounter.
I have been thinking about monsters in general. A problem in Beacon (and in d20 systems generally) is that big bad monsters are usually not as effective as bunches of smaller monsters. Players will quickly gang up on a big monster and quickly chip it down with their attacks or lock it up so it can’t attack. TO deal with this for your big nasty monsters you either have to make them so powerful that if they connect they wreck the PCs, or you have to make them so hard to kill they become a slog. This isn’t ideal from a narrative perspective. I've had multiple instances already where the party will take out a Orge or an Ettin with minimal fuss but be totally overwhelmed by 3-4 small creatures with high AC.
For a while now I have used the monster HD for their initiative and one the surface it seems like a good idea, bigger monsters are usually slower and it fits well in many cases. One place it doesn’t fit is when you want a powerful monster to be fast. You could make it have a small HD type but with lots of dice, like 5d4. You could also just override the HD for initiative for that particular monster. Both those ideas would work I think, but I think there’s another way to do this that might take care of the other problem of players dogpiling your set piece monster.
You can do this two ways; either have a monster with two HD types use both at the same time, e.g. a creature with a body and a tail attacking each round, or you can have the monster evolve/devolve so that it uses up an initial HD first and when this is gone the second HD kicks in. The idea of having a big nasty monster with multiple ‘parts’ that can attack and be targeted independently seems to solve a lot of problems. First it’s tactically interesting if you have a dragon with a head and a tail and claws and the Wizard immobilizes the tail with a web. Also if the monster has sequential HD and two HP pools you can have it start out quick with small HD initiative then once that pool is gone it becomes slower with larger HD giving bigger damage and slower initiative. Or reverse that and that a ponderous monster become quicker and more desperate when it’s D12 pool is gone and now it’s rolling D4s. You can even do the 'Hydra' idea where you lop off a head and the monster grows new ones which increase in HD each turn. This whole component monster concept bakes in some flavour as well which is very nice.
You might say why even tie HD to so many monster mechanics if your going to do something like this?
Well, the idea of basing all the mechanics off HD still simplifies a lot of things and for most monsters it works well. All we are doing here is breaking a mighty monster into easily manageable smaller parts. In fact the rules say monsters shouldn’t just be stat blocks and should be unique monster-y things and so mashing some simple monsters together into a big monster seems to fit that design philosophy.
I think I'm going to winnow down the Beacon monster list and remove the larger and more complex monsters, and putting in a few examples of these complex monsters instead. Maybe I'll add a short section on designing more interesting larger monsters along with that. I've also decided to pare down the sections on Poison and Disease and just have a few examples instead. As with the monsters its better to have an idea of how it could work and how to customize it for your adventure than to have a large list of easily derived items.
