The PC/NPC Divide
4th edition has made great changes on both sides of the screen. While PCs have gotten a host of new mechanics to either loathe or love, the monsters at the DMs disposal have changed just as much. Now we take a look at the enemies our players face, and the decisions that are behind their design.
The New Paradigm: NPCs are different
Good Dms have always recognized that npcs don’t “have” to follow the rules like PCs do. It’s the general covenant, PCs are the main characters, they are supposed to win in the majority of cases, but the flip side of that is that the DM gets to do whatever he wants to challenge the PCs. That’s a blanket statement with plenty of exceptions (which should be argued in a different thread if desired), but it’s a basis that underpins the npc creation process.
3rd edition gave the DM plenty of tools when creating and using monsters and npcs, but for the most part they were the same tools that players had. More attacks with high BAB, grapple rules, feats, spells, etc. Now many monsters had “unique” abilities, but for the most part the rules were the same for PCs and NPCs alike, so much so that one of the fun things about 3rd edition was you could create pcs from a host of different monster races.
4th edition had an entirely different approach to monster design, now the “challenge” was the only true factor in deciding monster stats. A 20th level monster needed to have X attacks, Y defenses, and Z hitpoints to be considering a credible 20th level threat. Whether a PC would one day play the race had no factor, nor did the races stats. A 20th level monster could do X not because of some equation of strength, BAB, and feats…but simply because it was a 20th level monster.
From the standpoint of challenging the PCs, this is a far superior way of modeling monsters. It especially plugs the hole among high level monsters. In 3rd edition, high level monsters were often glass cannons, capable of quickly killing the party if they were not themselves killed just as quickly. In 4th, every monster level can be tailored to expected PCs, and all monsters can be adjusted to fit the basic mold. However, this system is not without its flaws, and will go more into the side effects in the next section.
The Stereotypes of 4e PCs and NPCs and Player Expectations
Once PCs and NPCs had different creation rules, it was inevitable that fundamental differences would appear between them, and they can be summarized (with the inevitable exceptions) as follows:
PCs:
1) Have Low Hitpoints
2) Are “plucky” (able to recover hitpoints readily and frequently)
3) PCs can come back from unconsciousness
4) Have weak basic attacks
5) Have high damage when using powers
6) Power depends somewhat on how many fights they have encountered (dailies)
7) Power starts out strong and tends to grow weaker over the course of the fight.
8) Have the ability to “nova” (can burn more than normal resources in a single fight).
NPCS:
1) Have High Hitpoints
2) Limited ways to recover hitpoints
3) Often have strong basic attacks
4) Monsters die at unconsciousness
5) Have lower damage
6) Power stays somewhat constant through the fight.
7) Often has “endless power” (rechargeable powers).
8) Limited or no nova ability.
9) Has powers and abilities that are often drastically different than PCs.
These stereotypes introduce new player expectations (and disappointments) when facing monsters. One thing I’ve noticed in my group is that players tend to feel monsters are “better” than PCs. At the low levels, we always joked that NPCs have a +5 DM bonus to initiative, because they always went before us. That turned out not to be a joke, if you look in the MM you’ll notice that low level monsters have very high initiative bonuses.
Now mechanically monsters are not superior to PCs because…the PCs usually win. But at least in my group, I think the perception isn’t that PCs win because they are “better”, its they win because they are more stubborn. This often stems from the fact that monsters have a lot of hitpoints, and can take a lot of punishment, while the players rely on healing and second winds to survive their fights. Further, the players in my group will often grumble that monsters get to recharge powers while they cannot. There is an envy created by the divide. It was one thing when you faced a balor that had a 9th level spell the wizard could one day hope to have, its another when he uses a power that no PC can ever dream of having.
I think this phenomenon is especially pronounced when dealing with npcs. When it’s a monster, well…it’s a monster, they’re just crazy! When it’s a member of your same race, it’s a different matter. In 3rd edition, if a 3rd level figher faced a 3rd level figher npc, they were fighting with the same mechanics, and the best fighter (or luckiest) would win. When it came to magic items, npcs were just as reliant as pcs were. In 4th edition, this is very different. For example, the dragonborn solider has an ability to lets him reroll missed attacks (and it’s rechargeable). Further, he doesn’t rely on any magic items to ensure his attacks and defenses. No dragonborn PC gets to do that, and I think it does cause some frustration.
The Game Decisions of the Divide….more than meets the eye.
As you can tell from the previous section, I have some issues with the divide. I am not the only one; there are many threads that talk about ways to tweak monsters. However, its important to note that there is a lot more game design going on the background then I think many people appreciate.
The Effect of Focused Fire
A common idea is to give monsters less hitpoints and more damage (aka make them more like pcs). The issue with this is what I call the “focused fire effect”. The system is designed to have 5 monsters attack 5 PCs. And one of the most common good tactics is to use focused fire to kill an enemy as quickly as possible. Right now if 5 monsters attacked 1 PC, he will likely take a lot of damage, but will probably still be standing, or be unconscious but with enough hitpoints to be saved. However, if you bump up the damage of monsters, you risk hitting a threshold where those monsters can flat-out kill the PC in one round. Some groups are fine with this, but I would wager most are not.
You also have to take into account that variability is the killer of PCs. If the pcs get some lucky crits in and kill the monsters a bit earlier than normal, well the DM always has plenty more. But if the monsters get some lucky breaks, it can become a game changer. Let’s go to the previous example, and say that 2 of those monsters got crits on their rolls. Unlikely…yes. But when a party goes through enough fights such events are inevitable, and the damage of the monsters has to take this into account.
Perhaps you could account for this in other ways, you could for example say that npcs don’t get crits…but your also furthering the difference between pcs and npcs. You could give a PCs a bigger death’s window, but some people already complain that it’s too large, etc.
The Length of Combat
One complaint about 3rd edition was that combats were too short (in rounds). 4e made a number of changes to increase the length of combat, and one of those was giving npcs lots of hitpoints. Take away the hitpoints, and you decrease the number of rounds of combat. Some say they would prefer quicker combats, but that also has an effect on how useful conditions are, how powerful saving throw effects are, etc.
The Effect of Healing
How useful should healing be? If monsters do more damage, than combat healing becomes weaker. Should healing be weaker?
I could go on and on about this, but the point is that the npc sterotype wasn’t made in a vacuum; it was in part made to account for a number of these effects. Now could the system have been designed to handle these issues better? Maybe, I’ve never tried. But it’s important to say that small tweaks can often make larger changes, and monster design is the compilation of all 4e subsystems working together, one change can affect many things.
NPCs as PCs
One thing people bemoan about 4e is they no longer have the freedom to play the monsters they got to play in 3e. With time I think you will see more monster conversions into PC equivalents, but the common complaint will always be that something was lost in the conversion. That is inevitable, monsters get things PCs are not supposed to have by design, and you encounter a number of issues when you allow pcs blanket access to certain monster abilities (see the 3rd edition character optimization boards for loads of examples).
That said, I think its important when converting monsters that certain abilities have to be there to maintain the fantasy. Take the kobold for example. If the monster conversion wants to say “shifty” is a learned ability that the kobold PC didn’t learn because he was an outcast or X,Y, and Z…I can buy that. If they want to say that the PC kobold has low light vision instead of the darkvision he was born with because of balance…that’s going too far imo. I hope that as we see more conversions that sense will be kept into play, because there is a point when you strip down a monster so much to fit it in the PC shoehorn that you might as well not have converted it at all.
Conclusion…Superior Design?
The inevitable question…is it better? I think that the concept of balancing monster stats based on challenge was a solid design step, one of the best about 4e. Ultimately I’m not completely satisfied with the way they went about it, but I don’t know if it could have been done better while maintaining all of the other aspects I wanted to see in 4e. It’s a cake and eat it too question. Perhaps as 4e continues we will see monsters that break the standard mold in a smart way, as I commonly say with this system, time will tell.
4th edition has made great changes on both sides of the screen. While PCs have gotten a host of new mechanics to either loathe or love, the monsters at the DMs disposal have changed just as much. Now we take a look at the enemies our players face, and the decisions that are behind their design.
The New Paradigm: NPCs are different
Good Dms have always recognized that npcs don’t “have” to follow the rules like PCs do. It’s the general covenant, PCs are the main characters, they are supposed to win in the majority of cases, but the flip side of that is that the DM gets to do whatever he wants to challenge the PCs. That’s a blanket statement with plenty of exceptions (which should be argued in a different thread if desired), but it’s a basis that underpins the npc creation process.
3rd edition gave the DM plenty of tools when creating and using monsters and npcs, but for the most part they were the same tools that players had. More attacks with high BAB, grapple rules, feats, spells, etc. Now many monsters had “unique” abilities, but for the most part the rules were the same for PCs and NPCs alike, so much so that one of the fun things about 3rd edition was you could create pcs from a host of different monster races.
4th edition had an entirely different approach to monster design, now the “challenge” was the only true factor in deciding monster stats. A 20th level monster needed to have X attacks, Y defenses, and Z hitpoints to be considering a credible 20th level threat. Whether a PC would one day play the race had no factor, nor did the races stats. A 20th level monster could do X not because of some equation of strength, BAB, and feats…but simply because it was a 20th level monster.
From the standpoint of challenging the PCs, this is a far superior way of modeling monsters. It especially plugs the hole among high level monsters. In 3rd edition, high level monsters were often glass cannons, capable of quickly killing the party if they were not themselves killed just as quickly. In 4th, every monster level can be tailored to expected PCs, and all monsters can be adjusted to fit the basic mold. However, this system is not without its flaws, and will go more into the side effects in the next section.
The Stereotypes of 4e PCs and NPCs and Player Expectations
Once PCs and NPCs had different creation rules, it was inevitable that fundamental differences would appear between them, and they can be summarized (with the inevitable exceptions) as follows:
PCs:
1) Have Low Hitpoints
2) Are “plucky” (able to recover hitpoints readily and frequently)
3) PCs can come back from unconsciousness
4) Have weak basic attacks
5) Have high damage when using powers
6) Power depends somewhat on how many fights they have encountered (dailies)
7) Power starts out strong and tends to grow weaker over the course of the fight.
8) Have the ability to “nova” (can burn more than normal resources in a single fight).
NPCS:
1) Have High Hitpoints
2) Limited ways to recover hitpoints
3) Often have strong basic attacks
4) Monsters die at unconsciousness
5) Have lower damage
6) Power stays somewhat constant through the fight.
7) Often has “endless power” (rechargeable powers).
8) Limited or no nova ability.
9) Has powers and abilities that are often drastically different than PCs.
These stereotypes introduce new player expectations (and disappointments) when facing monsters. One thing I’ve noticed in my group is that players tend to feel monsters are “better” than PCs. At the low levels, we always joked that NPCs have a +5 DM bonus to initiative, because they always went before us. That turned out not to be a joke, if you look in the MM you’ll notice that low level monsters have very high initiative bonuses.
Now mechanically monsters are not superior to PCs because…the PCs usually win. But at least in my group, I think the perception isn’t that PCs win because they are “better”, its they win because they are more stubborn. This often stems from the fact that monsters have a lot of hitpoints, and can take a lot of punishment, while the players rely on healing and second winds to survive their fights. Further, the players in my group will often grumble that monsters get to recharge powers while they cannot. There is an envy created by the divide. It was one thing when you faced a balor that had a 9th level spell the wizard could one day hope to have, its another when he uses a power that no PC can ever dream of having.
I think this phenomenon is especially pronounced when dealing with npcs. When it’s a monster, well…it’s a monster, they’re just crazy! When it’s a member of your same race, it’s a different matter. In 3rd edition, if a 3rd level figher faced a 3rd level figher npc, they were fighting with the same mechanics, and the best fighter (or luckiest) would win. When it came to magic items, npcs were just as reliant as pcs were. In 4th edition, this is very different. For example, the dragonborn solider has an ability to lets him reroll missed attacks (and it’s rechargeable). Further, he doesn’t rely on any magic items to ensure his attacks and defenses. No dragonborn PC gets to do that, and I think it does cause some frustration.
The Game Decisions of the Divide….more than meets the eye.
As you can tell from the previous section, I have some issues with the divide. I am not the only one; there are many threads that talk about ways to tweak monsters. However, its important to note that there is a lot more game design going on the background then I think many people appreciate.
The Effect of Focused Fire
A common idea is to give monsters less hitpoints and more damage (aka make them more like pcs). The issue with this is what I call the “focused fire effect”. The system is designed to have 5 monsters attack 5 PCs. And one of the most common good tactics is to use focused fire to kill an enemy as quickly as possible. Right now if 5 monsters attacked 1 PC, he will likely take a lot of damage, but will probably still be standing, or be unconscious but with enough hitpoints to be saved. However, if you bump up the damage of monsters, you risk hitting a threshold where those monsters can flat-out kill the PC in one round. Some groups are fine with this, but I would wager most are not.
You also have to take into account that variability is the killer of PCs. If the pcs get some lucky crits in and kill the monsters a bit earlier than normal, well the DM always has plenty more. But if the monsters get some lucky breaks, it can become a game changer. Let’s go to the previous example, and say that 2 of those monsters got crits on their rolls. Unlikely…yes. But when a party goes through enough fights such events are inevitable, and the damage of the monsters has to take this into account.
Perhaps you could account for this in other ways, you could for example say that npcs don’t get crits…but your also furthering the difference between pcs and npcs. You could give a PCs a bigger death’s window, but some people already complain that it’s too large, etc.
The Length of Combat
One complaint about 3rd edition was that combats were too short (in rounds). 4e made a number of changes to increase the length of combat, and one of those was giving npcs lots of hitpoints. Take away the hitpoints, and you decrease the number of rounds of combat. Some say they would prefer quicker combats, but that also has an effect on how useful conditions are, how powerful saving throw effects are, etc.
The Effect of Healing
How useful should healing be? If monsters do more damage, than combat healing becomes weaker. Should healing be weaker?
I could go on and on about this, but the point is that the npc sterotype wasn’t made in a vacuum; it was in part made to account for a number of these effects. Now could the system have been designed to handle these issues better? Maybe, I’ve never tried. But it’s important to say that small tweaks can often make larger changes, and monster design is the compilation of all 4e subsystems working together, one change can affect many things.
NPCs as PCs
One thing people bemoan about 4e is they no longer have the freedom to play the monsters they got to play in 3e. With time I think you will see more monster conversions into PC equivalents, but the common complaint will always be that something was lost in the conversion. That is inevitable, monsters get things PCs are not supposed to have by design, and you encounter a number of issues when you allow pcs blanket access to certain monster abilities (see the 3rd edition character optimization boards for loads of examples).
That said, I think its important when converting monsters that certain abilities have to be there to maintain the fantasy. Take the kobold for example. If the monster conversion wants to say “shifty” is a learned ability that the kobold PC didn’t learn because he was an outcast or X,Y, and Z…I can buy that. If they want to say that the PC kobold has low light vision instead of the darkvision he was born with because of balance…that’s going too far imo. I hope that as we see more conversions that sense will be kept into play, because there is a point when you strip down a monster so much to fit it in the PC shoehorn that you might as well not have converted it at all.
Conclusion…Superior Design?
The inevitable question…is it better? I think that the concept of balancing monster stats based on challenge was a solid design step, one of the best about 4e. Ultimately I’m not completely satisfied with the way they went about it, but I don’t know if it could have been done better while maintaining all of the other aspects I wanted to see in 4e. It’s a cake and eat it too question. Perhaps as 4e continues we will see monsters that break the standard mold in a smart way, as I commonly say with this system, time will tell.
