Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[Obryn]

This viewpoint strikes me as being very oriented toward rules of the game determining the reality of the campaign setting. And I find it unfortunate because it is privileging the rules over the story, setting, and verisimilitude. There are no barriers for entry into any of the base classes (including NPC classes) because it gives the person building the PC/NPC free choice to select the appropriate class for the situation at hand. That says nothing about whether or not there are real barriers from the POV of the character. When the player/DM makes the selection, we are to assume all of those prerequisites are met for that case - some explicitly like literacy for a wizard, all PCs being literate except for barbarians, some implicitly like a town-dwelling freeman coming up with the money to pay a master to take his child on as an apprentice and thus offer entry into the expert NPC class.

There are commoners in 3e D&D (and I really enjoy the rules for advancing NPCs so that there is more than 0-level NPCs running around) because they couldn't meet the implied prerequisites for a better class or chose to do something else rather than pursue them.

If your argument is that the PCs aren't "special" in the game rules, then why are you assuming most NPCs can't meet the (implied and/or nonexistent) barriers of entry to another class - especially for multiclassing after 1st? Why do they have stricter requirements for taking on a class than a PC does?

As I've said, I have no problems whatsoever with the PCs being special. But an argument that the PCs aren't special fails if the rest of the world is Commoners.

If the point of them is basically "DM Fiat" I'd much rather go whole-hog and use a system like 1e's - where an NPC basically has the capabilities they need to and (if they're noncombatant) a handful of hit points.

-O

 

[billd91]

If your argument is that the PCs aren't "special" in the game rules, then why are you assuming most NPCs can't meet the (implied and/or nonexistent) barriers of entry to another class - especially for multiclassing after 1st? Why do they have stricter requirements for taking on a class than a PC does?

As I've said, I have no problems whatsoever with the PCs being special. But an argument that the PCs aren't special fails if the rest of the world is Commoners.

If the point of them is basically "DM Fiat" I'd much rather go whole-hog and use a system like 1e's - where an NPC basically has the capabilities they need to and (if they're noncombatant) a handful of hit points.

-O

The answer is: they're both. They're special in that they are the characters made up by the players and thus will feature in the vast majority of scenes (I won't discount a DM running players through remote cut scenes as part of his style). They're the protagonists of our campaign's focus.

Yet they're not special in that they also fit into the rules structure and may not be the only movers and shakers around the campaign.

That said, the specialness/unspecialness of the PCs has never struck me as being a very interesting debate, nor do I see it really informing the question whether or not there are implied barriers to entry into classes that help shape the world into commoners vs experts (or nobles/adepts), warriors vs fighters, or PC classes vs NPC classes. There are no hard requirements for selecting a class (NPC or PC) from the game's perspective. All characters taking the classes are assumed to have any prerequisites necessary by the benefit of the fiat of being designed. That wouldn't be the way the PC would see things, however, if you were in his shoes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is a famus online stick figure comic about how absurd a world is that follows the 3.5 rules... No one should be defending any d&d edition in that regard

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think I may have the earliest example of an explicit boss monster mechanic in a rpg, from an article in White Dwarf #64 (April 1985) for Golden Heroes, entitled Megavillains. In Golden Heroes, normal supervillains get 4 'frames' per combat round, frames being that system's equivalent of actions, but megavillains get 3 plus 1 for every superhero they are fighting. So a megavillain battling 5 heroes would get 8 frames per round. They also ignore normal initiative, using their frames whenever the GM decides, which is not a bad way to simulate the to-and-fro, attack and counter, style of fighting in superhero comics.

This mechanic seems to fall right in line with what people have being saying about the action economy with regards to boss monsters.

Though it's true that early D&D boss monsters, such as beholders and dragons, have always had multiple attacks, the rules text doesn't single these monsters out as having a particular role, unlike GH's megavillains, or 4e's bosses.

D&D's always terribly behind the times. 3e brought D&D the system consistency of RuneQuest (1978), 22 years later. 4e the mooks and bosses from genre-emulation systems of the mid-80s.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think I may have the earliest example of an explicit boss monster mechanic in a rpg, from an article in White Dwarf #64 (April 1985) for Golden Heroes, entitled Megavillains. In Golden Heroes, normal supervillains get 4 'frames' per combat round, frames being that system's equivalent of actions, but megavillains get 3 plus 1 for every superhero they are fighting. So a megavillain battling 5 heroes would get 8 frames per round. They also ignore normal initiative, using their frames whenever the GM decides, which is not a bad way to simulate the to-and-fro, attack and counter, style of fighting in superhero comics.

This mechanic seems to fall right in line with what people have being saying about the action economy with regards to boss monsters.

.

NOW I would not mind that, I would get why somepeople would hate that.


That is not what I am asking for though. I dont want a dragon that gets more badass the more pcs I have, I want guide lines that make sense, 3d6+5 kobolds is cool, 1d6+2 orcs can be scarry, 1d4 red dragons is atleast a 50% chance of tpk.

Make monsters to make sense. Then label them for DMs

Ogers are Elite. Becuse they fight 2 or 3 PCs ata time.. DRagons are solo becuse they fight 5 or 6 PCs at a time.
RAndom Kobold #23 is not a solo, and it is dumb to make him so, But Lylandra the dragon queen of the kobolds, who was born with the soul of reincarnated black dragon who weilds long forgotten dragon magic, and her magic staff, may be an elite kobold with a few tricks up her sleave

 

[triqui]

Ogers are Elite. Becuse they fight 2 or 3 PCs ata time.. DRagons are solo becuse they fight 5 or 6 PCs at a time.

I don't agree with this. Ogres aren´t elite, they fight 2-3 PC at a time when those PC are level 3, but a level 6 fighter can take 2-3 ogres at the same time, and a lvl 15 fighter kill them in droves. Bounded accuracy can model them perfectly fine without needing to be Elite.

Dragons, like Beholders, Hydras, and other monsters, ARE solo monster, though. Even if a high level player can kill several of them at the same time, those monsters still have "solo" abilities, in my opinion. They still should be able to threat several human-sized targets at the same time, should be resistant to action-denial, have decent mobility, can disable PC, have some sort of magic resistance, damage reduction or regeneration, etc. That's a Solo monster. Even if a 20th level group can kill 10 young Black dragons at the same time, those Dragons still have the features that a Solo creature should have: Aura of Fear, wing-buffets and Tail-slaps to make multi-threats, dragon breath, fly, magic resitance, stun-inmunity, or whatever "solo abilities" 5e will have.

 

[Obryn]

That said, the specialness/unspecialness of the PCs has never struck me as being a very interesting debate, nor do I see it really informing the question whether or not there are implied barriers to entry into classes that help shape the world into commoners vs experts (or nobles/adepts), warriors vs fighters, or PC classes vs NPC classes. There are no hard requirements for selecting a class (NPC or PC) from the game's perspective. All characters taking the classes are assumed to have any prerequisites necessary by the benefit of the fiat of being designed. That wouldn't be the way the PC would see things, however, if you were in his shoes.

Then my question is really directed towards a more diehard simulationist than yourself. If you are okay with there being hidden prerequisites that the PCs meet but which NPCs don't meet, that establishes that the PCs are following different enough rules that the question isn't relevant for you.

I still think NPC classes are lousy for a few reasons - mostly because I think they're an ugly patch for a system with an obsessive need to categorize and define everything. But I think they pose interesting questions for those who try to push the sim aspects of 3.x too far.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much. On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system, means something in the game world, works within D&D's advancement by level model, and covers both PCs and monsters. i.e. it accomplishes the same thing and more as the tags being discussed here, without raising the same problems.

For all the foolishness about rage powers and gunslingers that comes out of there, I sure wish there were designers with this level of insight working on D&D.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much. On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system, means something in the game world, works within D&D's advancement by level model, and covers both PCs and monsters. i.e. it accomplishes the same thing and more as the tags being discussed here, without raising the same problems.

For all the foolishness about rage powers and gunslingers that comes out of there, I sure wish there were designers with this level of insight working on D&D.

Spread the wealth "blah blah blah".

If I could XP you I would because that is spot on.

I love rage powers and Gunslingers by the way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I love rage powers and Gunslingers by the way.

To each his own. I could be a fan of guns; just not their approach.