Please no monster class levels

[Shemeska]

I like it as an option, but not as the exclusive option for making monstrous NPCs. If I want to just tack on hit dice, or just give a monster an ability or two or ten beyond standard, I will. And if I want to give another monster ten levels of rogue, or three levels of fighter, or have a prominant NPC antagonist be an arcanaloth with fifteen sorcerer levels (but who has the spell selection of a wizard) I'll do so.

Doing everything as with PCs can make the numbers a bit lengthy to work out at times, but I want that to be there as an available option in the book. Because well, I'll do it anyways, just as I'll provide numbers as I want it to work even if by standard hit dice building up of a monster it might not be by the book. Whatever works for the monster/NPC and for the campaign.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think the issue rather is the NPC/PC divide. i could care less if there are monster class levels or not, but its the mentality that PCs and NPCs should play by the exact same rules that bothers me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&ob=av3e]Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FinalSonicX]

My perspective and personal opinion on the whole issue is as follows:

NPCs should be identical to Players if they have the same number of class levels, discounting racial abilities or modifiers. For instance, a Troll wizard NPC and a Human wizard PC should have the same wizard abilities. That said, the Troll is going to have their troll powers while the human has their human powers. As a result, they might not always be rated as equivalent "CR", since troll regeneration is a pretty potent ability in a fighter or almost any other class.

This doesn't prevent the existence of monsters without class levels that have special abilities outside of what is available traditionally to PCs. NPC monsters might have very special abilities associated with their NPC status (solo/elite/minion/what have you) or their Race/Monster type (Trolls get regen, Wraiths are incorporeal and can drain stats with a touch or something, etc.)

If there's a diamond snake or something in a cave, it might have very special abilities associated with it and I think that's completely fair. It might even have class levels which grant it some abilities the PCs might share. Regardless, I don't think a PC should be able to have whatever it is that the monsters can do as a rule. Some things are available to monsters or PCs such as class levels. some things aren't.

I've always seen monsters with class levels as a very useful tool as a DM because it helps me really quickly draft monsters of an appropriate CR and with appropriate abilities with a minimum of fuss. I know many won't share that opinion. I love the idea of each creature having many truly special abilities, but as a DM that needs to get things up and running on the fly a lot, being able to default to templates of various kinds is a godsend. So really, I want 5e to include both. I want the MM to be full of monsters with interesting abilities and rules, but I also want rules for designing and creating new monsters both with their own quirks and more straightforward monsters with class levels.

 

[pemerton]

If I had to pick between the 3E method of being able to add class levels to monsters (which was rather painstaking) and the 4E method of simply having different pre-made monsters for different roles, I'd go with the former. Customization is better simply because there's no set of pre-packaged creatures that will be exactly what's needed every time.

You seem to be implying, here, that 4e has no rules for monster customisation. Whereas it actually has extensive rules for this in the DMG.

I think the problem isn't the class level rules, it's the absence (in 3.5) of good non-level based advancement. Keep the class level rules, just tell me what sort of abilities I should give a 20 HD mind flayer.

The issue with class level rules is - what are they for?

There seem to be at least two, potentially conflicting, answers to that question in this thread.

One is that class level rules reflect some ingame reality of personal development for warriors, wizards etc. So the addition of class levels is modelling some sort of fictional history (of training, development, etc) for a monster. On this approach, a 3rd level Mind Flayer cleric is no different fro a 3rd lvl PC human cleric, except that it's an illithid rather than a normal person who studied in the seminary. If the way the class levels stack with the monster abilities makes it hard to assign a CR/challenge level to the creature, so much the worse for the CR rules. They are not the priority - modelling character learning and growth - including NPC learning and growth - is the most important thing.

The alternative answer is that the point of advancing monsters is to produce antagonists who are mechanically suited for the role they are meant to play in the game. On this approach, adding class levels serves as a technique for achieving this goal. What is crucial is that abilities map properly to CR. If adding class levels is one way of doing this, great. If (as I understand to be the case in 3E) it is wonky in various ways (eg I don't think adding 3 levels of cleric to a Mind Flayer would really dobule the challenge it poses, as the CR rules tell me that it does) then we need something better. Of which 4e might be an example.

I don't know of any easy way of reconciling these two approaches. The only game that I know of that tries to achieve the first approach within the constraints of a class/level based game is 3E, so I don't know that there are other models to draw on for inspiration.

Thanks to system mastery, in 3rd I could create "bosses" to high specification and to do exactly what I wanted. It'd take time, but for such opponents, it was worth it. But I pretty much had to do it for most mooks and small fries as well.

Meanwhile, 4th provided incredible monsters. Fun to play, fun to fight, easy to use. Minor modifications where easy as pie. But when I wanted an unique baddy, it took me longer than in 3rd. First I had to search for a suiteble baseline, then for powers to swap in. Any power modified had to be checked if it works.

I'm curious about this, and would like to hear more.

My understanding - not based on personal experience - is that CR in 3E is a bit wonky, and that once class levels are added to a creature it can become noticeably wonkier. To put it another way, my understanding is that there is no uniform template (of hp, saves, AC, SR etc) against which a monster can be measure to determine the mechanical level of challenge that it poses to a generic PC party.

Conversely, 4e does have such a template.

If you aren't too worried about your accuracy relative to a template, then it would seem that customising a monster in 4e is as easy as in 3E - give it a few powers with eyeballed damage and effects, set the defences and hit points to suit the monster level and role, and go! It seems to me that it's only if you're "checking if it works" that you'd take significant time. Is this what is making the difference with 3E? That 3E doesn't have a "checking if it works" stage because "working" isn't such a big priority in 3E?

Or is there something different going on that I'm missing (maybe due to a lack of extensive play experience with 3E)?

 

[pemerton]

I say "take Status 3 for nobility, as it comes with the money, title, and political pull you're looking for. What's that? You just want the money without the baggage? Limit Status 3 to only money, and save yourself some character points."

Basically, even though it hasn't been offered so far in D&D, it doesn't mean what you've proposed can't be addressed, too. It's a new edition, after all.

I'm aware of the existence of points-buy games in which wealth and status is among the things that can be bought.

But most of the people complaining in this thread about "arbitrariness" and "PC/NPC equality" are not playing those games.

And even within those games, the same issue arises. To give a simple example: in a points buy game, if I want to be a wealthy noble, I have to give up something else (let's say, crossbow training).

But there is nothing stopping the GM building an NPC with wealth and crossbow training (ie builidng an NPC to a higher points total). And then declaring that NPC to be younger than any of the PCs, even though those PCs are not built to as many points. (So the NPC's extra points can't be "explained away" as extra "adventuring"/"training time".)

The basic point is that the PC build rules - whether in D&D, or a points-buy game - are balanced around metagame considerations. These can vary from game to game - maybe there is a desire to balance mechanical effectivness, maybe a desire to balance spotlight time, maybe both, maybe some other consideration. (And effectiveness and spotlight time don't coincide - that's partly why in some games taking disadvantages grants points, whereas in Burning Wheel you have to pay points to be blind or lame - because the blind or lame PC is going to be soaking up time and energy at the table, so the player has to pay for that.)

Even some of the "purest" PC generation systems, using life paths that are meant to precisely model the social reality of the gameworld - I'm thinking Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel, etc - don't treat PCs and NPCs identically. In the Traveller universe, some NPC or other made it to the imperial throne, but no player can roll that up on the tables. In Burning Wheel, there is no lifepath for King, and even Crown Prince requires agreement from all the participants at the table.

And it can be brought back to D&D character generation in another way. Some NPCs are physically or mentally handicapped in all sorts of ways. But players get to reroll PCs that don't fit a minimum criterion of "playability". And there's nothing wrong with this - it's inherent in the conception of what a PC is for. It's for being played in a game. And that brings with it some contraints that just aren't relevant to designing antagonists, or extras, for the same game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But there is nothing stopping the GM building an NPC with wealth and crossbow training (ie builidng an NPC to a higher points total). And then declaring that NPC to be younger than any of the PCs, even though those PCs are not built to as many points. (So the NPC's extra points can't be "explained away" as extra "adventuring"/"training time".)

I disagree, here. Prodigies exist. That can easily account for "he's younger, but better." It's often within the fantasy genre, as well. And, many monsters can be justified as having more "points" racially. That is, "why do they have that much?" can easily be answered with "it's racial for them, they're born with the potential, and you're fighting an adult." Just give it to them racially mechanically.

The basic point is that the PC build rules - whether in D&D, or a points-buy game - are balanced around metagame considerations.

Obviously. I really don't know who suggested otherwise. You can't design something any other way.

Even some of the "purest" PC generation systems, using life paths that are meant to precisely model the social reality of the gameworld - I'm thinking Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel, etc - don't treat PCs and NPCs identically. In the Traveller universe, some NPC or other made it to the imperial throne, but no player can roll that up on the tables. In Burning Wheel, there is no lifepath for King, and even Crown Prince requires agreement from all the participants at the table.

I missed the connection to this. What does this have to do with the answer to "why can't I have the wealth that a noble has at first level?" You can account for that type of thing with mechanics. The point of my reply was just that: you can design things in such a way where a player has the option to get whatever he wants (if level appropriate) if the NPCs can, as well. If the NPCs can be nobles at first level, you can make it so the PCs can be, too. It doesn't mean it has to be free (for either). It might cost them in other areas. That's the nature of the game, no matter what class you're playing.

It's for being played in a game. And that brings with it some contraints that just aren't relevant to designing antagonists, or extras, for the same game.

Well, that's why those quick guideline charts are so handy. I reference mine all the time. For something like a city guard, I look at my guidelines, see that the attack bonus for "professionally skilled" at Hit Die 5 is a total of +8, and use that. I have a guideline for what hit die represents ("hit die 1 is just starting out; hit die 4 is the average settled adult; hit die 8 is a very experienced or very well-trained adult"), and I can plug those numbers in as necessary.

However, those numbers are based on the mechanics for both PCs and NPCs. That is, if I made an NPC and invested a good portion of his points towards attacking, he'll end up with around a +8 bonus to attack. This can move up or down 1 pretty easily, but it's going to be pretty accurate. I don't need to build NPCs from scratch each time, I just need to have an idea of how good they are in a specific area.

There is absolutely no reason to not have strong guidelines in a game where both PCs and NPCs are created the same way. Those guidelines will get you 80-90% of where you need to be, and take basically zero time to plug in. On the "minions", I can plug in the guidelines, and I'm set. No fiddly feats, or what-have-you (maybe throw an ability in I know they can afford to spice things up, like a bodyguard feat or something). On the big guys, I can flesh them out a little more, if I'd like (using the regular in-depth character creation system, or the 95% accurate and significantly faster Quick Character Creation system), fiddly feats and all.

So, you're right, I don't need to write down everything the extras are good at. But, to me, that's not a good enough reason not to make the mechanics apply to both sides. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Prodigies exist. That can easily account for "he's younger, but better."

<snip>

What does this have to do with the answer to "why can't I have the wealth that a noble has at first level?"

The question was meant (on its rhetorical reading) to illustrate that, in PC build, there are constraints (which may take the form of tradeoffs). In a points buy game, if I have the same points as every other play, and I want to be incredibly rich, I'm going to have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Whereas NPCs don't have to make the same sacrifices, because they have more points to spend.

How does one answer a D&D player who asks a GM how it is that the 3HD orc has whirlwind attack when a PC has to be 4th level? The same way one answers the points-buy player who asks "Why can't I be a prodigy with heaps of points but no age penalties?" or "Why can't I start with more points than everyone else, because my character concept is for a prodigy who is better than his/her peers?"

you can design things in such a way where a player has the option to get whatever he wants (if level appropriate) if the NPCs can, as well.

What does "level appropriate" mean here?

In a points buy game, of course you can just keep piling on the points. If you then jack levels on (so every X points adds +1 level - HARP is a little bit like this) you can say that the young, inexperienced but incredibly wealthy king is just an Nth level character who spent all his build points on money.

But what does this tell us? It certainly doesn't tell us that that king will make a good encounter for PCs of level N, or of any other level for that matter. It's a noticeable feature of HARP, for example, that in order to work out whether or not some opponent will make for a good encounter, you don't look at level at all - you have to compare the numbers of the NPC/monster/trap/whatever directly to the PCs' numbers.

In the context of D&D, there are many features of a monster that affect its suitability in an encounter. These include its hp, its defence, its attack bonus, its number of attacks, its damage, etc. 4e has an interesting system for describing these: attack, defence and damage are defined primarily by level, but modified by role; hit points is defined primarily by level, but modified by role, and also by status (elite or solo); number of attacks is defined primarily by status (elites and solos get more attacks to fit the action economy). And then there are minions, which have special rules for damage and hit points.

In short, because there are multipe dimensions of a monster that affect its suitability as an encounter, 4e uses mulitple dimensions of classification: level, role and status. These dimensions don't have any ingame significance. In the game, it's not as if a dragon and a purple worm have something in common (both solo) and a dragon and an have something in common (both 10th level) and an ogre and a goristro demon have something in common (both brutes, although the goristro is elite). These are metagame notions, for guiding encounter design. In the fiction, the purple worm is arguably tougher than the 10th level dragon (depending on exactly how much of the level scaling one treats just as metagame escalation), the 10th level dragon is definitely tougher than the 10th level ogre, and the goristro is probably about as tough as the purple worm (again, there is a fair bit of wriggle room here for metagame scaling).

PCs are not governed by these same considerations. Furthermore, the general approach of D&D is to balance them all in a single dimension - level. (In AD&D balance was notionally by XP rather than level, although I think that level was often used as a rough-and-ready proxy for XP.)

This straight away tells us that any attempt to build D&D monsters using the same build mechanics as D&D PCs is likely to produce odd results. (Or, as was noted above, arbitrary granting of racial abilities - the Orc is now a "Gruumsh-touched Orc" who has the racial ability to learn whirlwind attack with 3HD.)

Now if you want to convert all this stuff into a uniform currency scale a la points buy, be my guest. I think it will be hard - disintegrating stone, for example, is worth more for PCs than NPCs because PCs are more likely than NPCs to be engaged in situations (ie adventures) in which breaking into or out of stone buildings is a big advantage - but maybe it can be done.

But even if it were done, what would we have achieved? To design encounters you'd still have to do what HARP recommends - compare the numbers - which 4e regularises through its dimensions of classification for monsters. An insistence that monsters/NPCs be built with classes, or that buidling monsters/NPCs should follow the same rules as building PCs, strikes me as radically unmotivated, unless one thinks that levels, hit dice, "points (in a points buy game), etc are really existing things in the world. But does anyone think that?

Especially once points are being used not only to buy personal abilities, but external assets like money, status, relationships etc?

 

[JamesonCourage]

The question was meant (on its rhetorical reading) to illustrate that, in PC build, there are constraints (which may take the form of tradeoffs). In a points buy game, if I have the same points as every other play, and I want to be incredibly rich, I'm going to have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Whereas NPCs don't have to make the same sacrifices, because they have more points to spend.

Yes, but this doesn't have to happen arbitrarily for NPCs. I mean, you can arbitrarily decide this about the NPC, sure, but you don't need to.

Originally, this was my response to "if a PC wants X ability that an NPC has (especially when he's lacking in other areas, such as your level 1 noble example), why can't he have it?" My answer was, simply, let him have it, if he's willing to pay for it.

How does one answer a D&D player who asks a GM how it is that the 3HD orc has whirlwind attack when a PC has to be 4th level? The same way one answers the points-buy player who asks "Why can't I be a prodigy with heaps of points but no age penalties?" or "Why can't I start with more points than everyone else, because my character concept is for a prodigy who is better than his/her peers?"

I don't think it's the same, but to be honest, I'm fuzzy on what you're driving at. Your last post was fuzzy for me, too, so maybe I'm just dense tonight.

If a player wants to get an ability an NPC has, I say let them. Don't play special treatment. Now, maybe the Wizard NPC is higher level, and you need that before getting the ability (level 5 spells, for example). That's fair. Maybe the dire bear was born with it, and so you can't really get it. That's fair. Maybe the orc warrior got Whirlwind Attack early, but paid more for it. If that's the case, let the PC do the same thing.

If a player wants to be a prodigy with heaps of points and no age penalties, I say let him, if the campaign makes sense for it. That is, if his last PC died and he's bringing a new PC into a high level party, sure, let him be a prodigy. If it's "I want to be better than everyone else" and everyone's okay with it, then make him higher level. There should be no rule against it. I intend to run that exact sort of campaign soon, in fact (with low-level PCs and one higher-level PC).

Basically, these are social contract issues, not rules issues. There's nothing wrong, in my mind, with letting people be different levels, as long as everyone is cool with it. Just like I'd have a problem with rules that disallowed for that, I have a problem with saying "the orc can have it because he's an NPC, and you can't because you're not an NPC." Nothing you've said has really convinced me that it's better for things to be that way.

What does "level appropriate" mean here?

Level 5 spells can only be attained at the correct level (level 9, 10, maybe 5, or whatever).

In a points buy game, of course you can just keep piling on the points. If you then jack levels on (so every X points adds +1 level - HARP is a little bit like this) you can say that the young, inexperienced but incredibly wealthy king is just an Nth level character who spent all his build points on money.

My game uses points and levels (15 points to a level, much like Mutants and Masterminds), though I give points out each session (a bit more like WoD), giving incremental increases to PCs, rather than (usually) spontaneous upgrades.

But what does this tell us? It certainly doesn't tell us that that king will make a good encounter for PCs of level N, or of any other level for that matter. It's a noticeable feature of HARP, for example, that in order to work out whether or not some opponent will make for a good encounter, you don't look at level at all - you have to compare the numbers of the NPC/monster/trap/whatever directly to the PCs' numbers.

And rightly so. You can see that an "exceptionally skilled" attack bonus creature (the best you can have on my guidelines) is going to be dangerous when attacking at that hit die. The same goes for AC, or hit points, or saves, or whatever.

However, you can also work in a "CR" (or a similar system) based on what their actual attack bonus is. For example, let's assume the group of PCs are adventurers, and that we're measuring them against "professionally skilled" combat creatures. I can say "the king gets +2 to attack, which is less than the 'interested' level of focus for even hit die 1 creatures! So, in CR, we'll put 'CR 1: (low)' or the like, indicating that a group of level 1 adventurers will likely mop the floor with him. However, his guards get +6 to attack, so we'll put them at 'CR 3' to show that they're dangerous even to hit die 3 PCs."

You don't need to just rely on numbers. If you have a "CR" (combat rating, or whatever) entry on the NPC or monster, you can still easily compare them to the average martial capabilities of the PCs.

In the context of D&D, there are many features of a monster that affect its suitability in an encounter.

[SNIP]

In short, because there are multipe dimensions of a monster that affect its suitability as an encounter, 4e uses mulitple dimensions of classification: level, role and status.

There is absolutely nothing stopping these descriptions on any creature that is either made from the ground up, or is created via simple yet accurate guidelines. For example, on the guards, I could make a note of level (general match for PCs), role (to show where they'll shine in combat), and status (to show if they're a dangerous threat solo or they'll die in droves). This is useful knowledge for many people, and I can see it being included in a stat block. I see absolutely nothing that has convinced me that it's better for things to be that way.

PCs are not governed by these same considerations. Furthermore, the general approach of D&D is to balance them all in a single dimension - level. (In AD&D balance was notionally by XP rather than level, although I think that level was often used as a rough-and-ready proxy for XP.)

Well, PCs can be described in exactly the same way. If they're used as descriptions of the creature after it's been created (either by quick and simple guidelines, or by taking some time to make a creature), you can apply those terms (level, role, and status) to PCs just as easily. They do not need to remain as a NPC and monster design tool, but can become a descriptor.

This straight away tells us that any attempt to build D&D monsters using the same build mechanics as D&D PCs is likely to produce odd results. (Or, as was noted above, arbitrary granting of racial abilities - the Orc is now a "Gruumsh-touched Orc" who has the racial ability to learn whirlwind attack with 3HD.)

I disagree. I mean, you can do this racially, but there's no need to. And you most certainly can create NPCs and monsters both quickly and rather accurately with guidelines, even if both follow the exact same design and creation process.

Now if you want to convert all this stuff into a uniform currency scale a la points buy, be my guest. I think it will be hard - disintegrating stone, for example, is worth more for PCs than NPCs because PCs are more likely than NPCs to be engaged in situations (ie adventures) in which breaking into or out of stone buildings is a big advantage - but maybe it can be done.

I really dislike this example. It led to 3.5 pricing a 10 ft. ladder as 5 cp, but a 10 ft. pole as 2 sp. I mean, adventurers need the pole more than the ladder, so it costs more. Nevermind the fact that you can just disassemble it for two poles and some bars you can throw at traps for one-fourth the price...

Basically, I dislike thinking "what would this be worth to an adventurer?" and pricing things based on that process. While game balance should be considered, I want it based on like fields. That is, my Fighter should be dangerous, as should my Barbarian. I don't want them to be only as dangerous as the Bard, though. Let him fall behind in combat, but shine in social situations.

I also don't like the base assumption of adventurers as the PCs, and pricing of things based around that. Even in D&D, only about 1 in 5 parties were ever legit "adventurers" or the like (mercenaries, etc.). The rest just got caught up in things, and swept along in a series of events. But, I don't expect the next edition to break from the "PCs are adventurers" base assumption, either. I just don't like it.

But even if it were done, what would we have achieved? To design encounters you'd still have to do what HARP recommends - compare the numbers - which 4e regularises through its dimensions of classification for monsters. An insistence that monsters/NPCs be built with classes, or that buidling monsters/NPCs should follow the same rules as building PCs, strikes me as radically unmotivated, unless one thinks that levels, hit dice, "points (in a points buy game), etc are really existing things in the world. But does anyone think that?

I think you're mistaken. I feel, based on experience, that it's not the case. I don't need to compare the numbers (though I think people should, no matter what CR system is being used). If you want a combat rating system, you can most certainly build one in (including level, role, and status descriptors). In my opinion, at least. And, you don't even need to think of classes / levels / character points as real, in-game things

Especially once points are being used not only to buy personal abilities, but external assets like money, status, relationships etc?

Yep, even then. As always, play what you like

 

[Asha'man]

The question was meant (on its rhetorical reading) to illustrate that, in PC build, there are constraints (which may take the form of tradeoffs). In a points buy game, if I have the same points as every other play, and I want to be incredibly rich, I'm going to have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Whereas NPCs don't have to make the same sacrifices, because they have more points to spend.

True. But then, in most point buy games, the only constraint on what perks and abilities are available to the PCs is their points budget, which is decided on a metagame level before play even starts. (There are usually few, if any prerequisites or wholly derived stats, is what I'm saying -most things can be bought directly.) The only purpose of the point buy system is to ensure a notional equality between characters of the same point total. If the players want more abilities, you have the option to simply give them more points.

How does one answer a D&D player who asks a GM how it is that the 3HD orc has whirlwind attack when a PC has to be 4th level? The same way one answers the points-buy player who asks "Why can't I be a prodigy with heaps of points but no age penalties?" or "Why can't I start with more points than everyone else, because my character concept is for a prodigy who is better than his/her peers?"

I disagree, those aren't equivalent at all. The whirlwind attacking orc is simply ignoring the rules of the game. The prodigy is (in most point buy systems at least, including M&M, Shadowrun and GURPS, but possibly not all), a meta-game consideration. The only reason you can't have one PC that's vastly more points than the others is that the other players would presumably object. If you can make it work, go ahead! But the analogy to this is having one PC that's higher level than the other PCs (or is a king, wealthy merchant, or whatever) -not having a PC who can do things that other characters of the same class, race and level can't. Because that breaks the deepest foundations of the game system.

What does "level appropriate" mean here?

In a points buy game, of course you can just keep piling on the points. If you then jack levels on (so every X points adds +1 level - HARP is a little bit like this) you can say that the young, inexperienced but incredibly wealthy king is just an Nth level character who spent all his build points on money.

But what does this tell us? It certainly doesn't tell us that that king will make a good encounter for PCs of level N, or of any other level for that matter. It's a noticeable feature of HARP, for example, that in order to work out whether or not some opponent will make for a good encounter, you don't look at level at all - you have to compare the numbers of the NPC/monster/trap/whatever directly to the PCs' numbers.

Absolutely, so adding levels to a system like that has to be done with some thought or it won't serve any purpose. It might be done to make sure that only high-pointed characters can access certain abilities, (Dark Heresy does this with its Career system, but there doesn't seem to be any real reasoning behind the advancement tables, so I've always seen it as pointlessly restrictive) or to give another dimension for challenge evaluation. M&M does this with its Power Level, which describes the level of the character's most powerful attacks and defenses. It is theoretically completely independent of points, but taken together with the character's spesific powers it gives a good idea of the challenge they pose in direct confrontation.

PCs are not governed by these same considerations. Furthermore, the general approach of D&D is to balance them all in a single dimension - level. (In AD&D balance was notionally by XP rather than level, although I think that level was often used as a rough-and-ready proxy for XP.)

This straight away tells us that any attempt to build D&D monsters using the same build mechanics as D&D PCs is likely to produce odd results. (Or, as was noted above, arbitrary granting of racial abilities - the Orc is now a "Gruumsh-touched Orc" who has the racial ability to learn whirlwind attack with 3HD.)

"Odd" results? That depends on your goals. I personally care much more about the rules reflecting a coherent reality than about whether the CR formulae are accurate. CR is easy to ad-hoc.

Now if you want to convert all this stuff into a uniform currency scale a la points buy, be my guest. I think it will be hard - disintegrating stone, for example, is worth more for PCs than NPCs because PCs are more likely than NPCs to be engaged in situations (ie adventures) in which breaking into or out of stone buildings is a big advantage - but maybe it can be done.

Unfortunately you're right in that the balance provided by all point buy systems I've ever played is almost entirely notional. GM oversight is always required in character generation.

But even if it were done, what would we have achieved? To design encounters you'd still have to do what HARP recommends - compare the numbers - which 4e regularises through its dimensions of classification for monsters. An insistence that monsters/NPCs be built with classes, or that buidling monsters/NPCs should follow the same rules as building PCs, strikes me as radically unmotivated, unless one thinks that levels, hit dice, points (in a points buy game), etc are really existing things in the world. But does anyone think that?

Yes, actually. Racial traits reflect the innate abilities of a certain kind of creature. Class levels reflect kind and degree of training and/or experience. Now training and experience isn't discrete like levels, there isn't a quantum jump of ability whenever you've defeated four "fair" challenges, but there's absolutely a correspondence: A troll is a troll. A fighter is a fighter. The troll has 6 HD, which reflects a certain in-game reality: A troll is innately tougher and fiercer than an ogre, but not as tough as a hill giant. A troll fighter might have access to special techniques that his human counterpart doesn't (his inborn ferocity gives him a higher BaB to start with, which lets him qualify for certain feats earlier -and his size, claws, regeneration and keen trollish senses might let him qualify for special feats) but any other trained warrior with the same attributes could learn or develop equivalent abilities.

Now points, in a point-buy game, don't reflect any in-game reality. They're far too abstract for that, and used for too many different things. They're purely a meta-game construction. But the traits they buy do. If Cyclops has a +9 melee attack bonus, that (in conjunction with the established benchmarks) means he's an elite hand-to-hand combatant. If his optic blast has a rank of 10, that means it's powerful enough to punch through steel. It doesn't just mean that the numbers need to be that way for him to be a "balanced" PL 10 character and the fiction can be whatever.
(M&M is a very flexible game, and far more narrativist than simulationist, so if you care about benchmarks you largely need to make them yourself before you start, but I do, so that's how I play M&M.)

Perhaps that's the root of the difference, that levels are far more hardwired to spesific traits. Perhaps the better analogy for "points" is XP, which are similarly abstract.

Especially once points are being used not only to buy personal abilities, but external assets like money, status, relationships etc?

I agree with this, see above. Hence why I actively avoid systems like that in D&D, but use them happily in M&M.

 

[herrozerro]

Whereas I am of the complete opposite to you. I have trouble getting into games when the mechanics are not consistent across the entire game. If one type of character has one set of rules, and other type has another, why bother with the rules for npcs - at that point as a GM I would feel better to just make it all GM fiat "Well this fight has gone on for 5 rounds, the fighter is really wounded and the wizard is down - it's time for the monster to die" and the next hit kills the monster.

Given that is a little reductio ad absurdem, but that is how I react to separate rules for PCs and NPCs emotionally.

I dont fully understand this post, The reason for having different rules for each side of the game is because they are being played by completely different types of players.

I often find this whole arguement interesting, as "playing by the same rules" is often never defined well. Even in 4th edition monster play by alot of the same rules, they all have HP, defenses, Actions, Action points, etc..

The only difference is that they are not created like normal characters are in order to provide a level of challenge for the PCs of the game. Its not that NPCs are playing by a vast set of rules differently, but rather the math of the game says: "Hey This is the math model for creatures to be put against the party. Dont worry about choosing 50 spells, or trying to make a monstrous multiclassing behemoth in order to keep your players happy. just use this math to make a balanced creature and make it cool."

and in my opinion there are rule separations that are made purely for the purpose of balance and need to exist. for instance in 4e monster mounts that are a credible threat and are counted in the encounter get separate actions. Or the rules about monster being able to spend more then one action point per encounter. Yet another rule to give solos a bit of an edge.

Now stepping into the ridiculous debate about weather or not PCs should have the ability to mimic every single spell or technique that they bore witness to... sure. lets do it. players will have to either spend a ridiculous amount of off time perfecting the techniques that the creature they bore witness to having trained for that move their entire life. or they might have to sell a part of their soul to get the magic that they saw that caster casting.

either way, it shouldn't be as easy as saying. "Oh i want to do that now and if i cant have it now your stifling me!"

Even using 4e would i let a player learn a cool technique i made up for my fencer NPC? perhaps, but he/she would still have to do it within the realm of their normal power progression. perhaps work it in as a power substitute.