Why arbitrary monster abilities are a bad idea.

[robertliguori]

We have seen it said several times that PCs and NPCs/monsters will be generated using different rules in 4E. In particular, we have seen references to simplified monster generation, where DMs will be able to simply pick a set of attributes for a monster to serve as an encounter (or part of an encounter).

Now, it is possible that the dev team is putting as much thought into making this secondary character-generation system as balanced as the PC system. However, the odds of this are extremely low; the entire motivation given for the simplified system is that various other attributes are not required to model the NPC/monster's interaction with the party. This may even be true. However, what happens when the PCs appropriate the ability for themselves?

It is a fundamental truth of an organic game world that if an ability is possessed by a defeatable NPC, it is usable by a PC. In 3.XE, we have monsters with level adjustments, allowing us to enter play directly with abilities possibly considered outside the scope of general adventuring (such as incorporeality, in the case of ghost PCs). We have necromancy, which enables us to make use of stripped-down versions of the creatures we encounter. We have charm and compulsion magic, rules for domestication, illusion magic to fool a creature into using their abilities as we desire, and spells to conjure various creatures into being to use their abilities for us. When all of these fail, we have the direct method of simply negotiating with the creature, either with our skills or at the point of a sword.

It is almost certain that 4E has stripped the majority of the above methods of appropriating inappropriate monster powers from the game universe. However, where mechanics fail, roleplaying can serve in their stead; the options of diplomacy and intimidation will necessarily remain. And what then? What happens when the PCs decide "Oooh! That duegar wizard can summon earth elementals for extended periods of time! Let's keep him around to use as a siege weapon the next time we need to break down a castle wall!" It is possible, of course, to modulate this, either by declaring that all creatures with arbitrarily powerful abilities will never choose to use them for the PCs gain, and will automatically see through any schemes designed to target their wrath against the PC's enemies. Needless to say, however, this will require both massive houseruling, and declaring that monsters and NPCs wildly change their motivations to prevent the PCs from gaining advantage. One can also add limits to the arbitrary abilities. But if you are going to stop to consider what limitations you need to build into monster abilities to prevent PCs from making use of them, why not just start with the PC build rules and save yourself some time?

The example monsters we have seen do not yet appear to have abilities that would easily cause horrible breakage if the PCs can somehow gain access to the ability. However, the design philosophy of monsters-as-single-encounters and not as agents of the world makes it all the more likely that such abilities, and the means for PCs to gain access to them, will be discovered once 4E is released proper.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I don't see a reason to assume that an ability possessed by a monster must be available to PCs. Most monster abilities, for instance, will not be using the most basic core rules. Monsters with wings don't mean PCs should be able to grow wings. Giants don't mean giant PCs. Regenerating trolls do not mean regenerating PCs. None of these are logically part of the PC tool box.

After all, there is no easy way for PCs be balanced against monsters. A minor at will ability on a monster has little effect on how useful the ability is in game. In effect, it will be used through the duration of a combat-- an ability usable 3-5 times a day is effectively the same as at will. But on a PC, an at will ability may be used dozens of times, greatly changing abilities. This is why the use of level of adjustments for monsters seldom seemed to be quite right in 3.x -- the idea of balancing against PCs was always off-base.

There are ways to harness these abilities by enslaving or charming monsters, or through magic, but this is not the same. Adding an untrustworthy charmed monster is not the same as giving those abilities to a PC, and can be balanced in ways other than making a monster equivalent to a PC.

So I just don't see how you can really balance abilities without moving to a fully point-based system like GURPS or Hero System with a finite set of abilities (and, frankly, balance there is a tricky thing, too.)

We have seen it said several times that PCs and NPCs/monsters will be generated using different rules in 4E. In particular, we have seen references to simplified monster generation, where DMs will be able to simply pick a set of attributes for a monster to serve as an encounter (or part of an encounter).

Now, it is possible that the dev team is putting as much thought into making this secondary character-generation system as balanced as the PC system. However, the odds of this are extremely low; the entire motivation given for the simplified system is that various other attributes are not required to model the NPC/monster's interaction with the party. This may even be true. However, what happens when the PCs appropriate the ability for themselves?

It is a fundamental truth of an organic game world that if an ability is possessed by a defeatable NPC, it is usable by a PC. In 3.XE, we have monsters with level adjustments, allowing us to enter play directly with abilities possibly considered outside the scope of general adventuring (such as incorporeality, in the case of ghost PCs). We have necromancy, which enables us to make use of stripped-down versions of the creatures we encounter. We have charm and compulsion magic, rules for domestication, illusion magic to fool a creature into using their abilities as we desire, and spells to conjure various creatures into being to use their abilities for us. When all of these fail, we have the direct method of simply negotiating with the creature, either with our skills or at the point of a sword.

It is almost certain that 4E has stripped the majority of the above methods of appropriating inappropriate monster powers from the game universe. However, where mechanics fail, roleplaying can serve in their stead; the options of diplomacy and intimidation will necessarily remain. And what then? What happens when the PCs decide "Oooh! That duegar wizard can summon earth elementals for extended periods of time! Let's keep him around to use as a siege weapon the next time we need to break down a castle wall!" It is possible, of course, to modulate this, either by declaring that all creatures with arbitrarily powerful abilities will never choose to use them for the PCs gain, and will automatically see through any schemes designed to target their wrath against the PC's enemies. Needless to say, however, this will require both massive houseruling, and declaring that monsters and NPCs wildly change their motivations to prevent the PCs from gaining advantage. One can also add limits to the arbitrary abilities. But if you are going to stop to consider what limitations you need to build into monster abilities to prevent PCs from making use of them, why not just start with the PC build rules and save yourself some time?

The example monsters we have seen do not yet appear to have abilities that would easily cause horrible breakage if the PCs can somehow gain access to the ability. However, the design philosophy of monsters-as-single-encounters and not as agents of the world makes it all the more likely that such abilities, and the means for PCs to gain access to them, will be discovered once 4E is released proper.

 

[ShadowX]

I don't see the connection here. 3rd edition, despite it's uniformity in monster and PC creation, was just as susceptible to this "problem." I know of a few instances found on the Character Optimization boards at Wizards that revolved around unique powers of certain races. Furthermore, I don't recall Teleport at will being available to any 3e character, yet plenty of monsters had this very handy ability. You see, for all the guidelines and rules governing 3e monsters, a great deal of it was still up to the DM's or supplement author's discretion. Not only that, but the rigorous monster class system broke many other things because so often HD or Constitution were pumped up to increase a monsters longevity that it interfered with many other systems (notably turn undead).

So 4e discards the pretension that monster creation is completely systematic (which was not the case even in 3e) in favor of monsters designed solely as PC foils. Players intent on abusing the game rules will exist in either system and to throw away the valid improvements of 4e monster design philosophy based on a very flimsy argument seems foolhardy.

 

[robertliguori]

I don't see a reason to assume that an ability possessed by a monster must be available to PCs. Most monster abilities, for instance, will not be using the most basic core rules. Monsters with wings don't mean PCs should be able to grow wings. Giants don't mean giant PCs. Regenerating trolls do not mean regenerating PCs. None of these are logically part of the PC tool box.

After all, there is no easy way for PCs be balanced against monsters. A minor at will ability on a monster has little effect on how useful the ability is in game. In effect, it will be used through the duration of a combat-- an ability usable 3-5 times a day is effectively the same as at will. But on a PC, an at will ability may be used dozens of times, greatly changing abilities. This is why the use of level of adjustments for monsters seldom seemed to be quite right in 3.x -- the idea of balancing against PCs was always off-base.

There are ways to harness these abilities by enslaving or charming monsters, or through magic, but this is not the same. Adding an untrustworthy charmed monster is not the same as giving those abilities to a PC, and can be balanced in ways other than making a monster equivalent to a PC.

So I just don't see how you can really balance abilities without moving to a fully point-based system like GURPS or Hero System with a finite set of abilities (and, frankly, balance there is a tricky thing, too.)

Allow me to elaborate on my point; before including winged, giant, or regenerating enemies, GMs should ask themselves "What would happen if the PCs could, at will, fly/be large/regenerate?"

For instance, what happens when, in response to you introducing a group of trolls, the PCs manage to get a troll on their side, either by sparing its life and gradually changing its attitude with diplomacy, directly by using magic to override its will, or by pulling in another plot point from a previous adventure you had not considered initially (such as collars of enslavement that burst into flame taken from a previous villain)? With any of such efforts, the party now has their very own trap-detector; if they make liberal use of Detect Magic, and can insulate the troll against fire and acid, they never need fear traps again, and have a powerful and deadly ally.

Likewise, if you send a horde of Nightmares at the party, and then the party wizard slays them and animates four of them to serve as steeds, then the party can now fly incredibly quickly overland, indefinitely.

I don't see the connection here. 3rd edition, despite it's uniformity in monster and PC creation, was just as susceptible to this "problem." I know of a few instances found on the Character Optimization boards at Wizards that revolved around unique powers of certain races. Furthermore, I don't recall Teleport at will being available to any 3e character, yet plenty of monsters had this very handy ability. You see, for all the guidelines and rules governing 3e monsters, a great deal of it was still up to the DM's or supplement author's discretion. Not only that, but the rigorous monster class system broke many other things because so often HD or Constitution were pumped up to increase a monsters longevity that it interfered with many other systems (notably turn undead).

So 4e discards the pretension that monster creation is completely systematic (which was not the case even in 3e) in favor of monsters designed solely as PC foils. Players intent on abusing the game rules will exist in either system and to throw away the valid improvements of 4e monster design philosophy based on a very flimsy argument seems foolhardy.

Point the first: I agree that 3E does this incredibly badly. I think that because 3E was the first edition to give unambiguous, unable-to-be-interpreted-away-without-houserules power to PCs, it was the first edition of D&D to truly expose the problem. I fully expect 4E to pull away some of the effects that make this so easy, as I said.

But as long as characters interact in the same world together, there will exist the potential for monster-powers to be used for PC-ends. I think that monster design that moves into the explicitly arbitrary territory (or rather, into the rigorously-defined combat effects that has horribly arbitrary effects when used out of combat, or in combat but out of its original context) is not a step forward. The problem with designing monsters solely as PC foils is, as I am saying, that when PCs stop treating them solely as foils and start thinking of them as resources, your game world fall down and go boom in a way that it doesn't if you level-set, and build monsters and PCs both on one set of rules. 3rd edition's lackadaisical monster abilities (Wish as a spell-like ability, Quickness of chokers, etc.) caused problems; I believe that statting monsters with the assumption that they will engage in 5-10 rounds of combat and then neatly expire will cause similar problems.

 

[Mallus]

It is a fundamental truth of an organic game world that if an ability is possessed by a defeatable NPC, it is usable by a PC.

That's a little like saying a screwdriver should be usable to drive nails into a wall.

NPC abilities need to provide challenges for PC's to overcome, most often in the short-term. PC abilities need to support long-term usage over time. Since they have different functions, it's reasonable that PC and NPC abilities not be interchangeable/shareable.

 

[Dausuul]

I see your point, and I agree that it's a potential problem. That said, I think it will ultimately be up to the DM, as it has always been, to address this problem--either by compensating for the PCs' new ally when designing adventures, arranging the ally's demise, or coming up with a way to limit its impact. The situation should be rare enough that I don't think it necessarily warrants a big effort to prevent it.

 

[rkanodia]

Your PCs are enslaving monsters or reanimating their corpses as servants, and so the rest of us can only fight boring monsters to avoid breaking your game. Right.

 

[robertliguori]

That's a little like saying a screwdriver should be usable to drive nails into a wall.

NPC abilities need to provide challenges for PC's to overcome, most often in the short-term. PC abilities need to support long-term usage over time. Since they have different functions, it's reasonable that PC and NPC abilities not be interchangeable/shareable.

Not should, can. You can drive nails into a wall with a screwdriver; it's just horribly inefficient. On the other hand, if you a presented with a puzzle where you can either quest for long months though much peril to acquire a hammer, or just use the damn screwdriver, it is not unreasonable to expect PCs to use the screwdriver and have done.

I see your point, and I agree that it's a potential problem. That said, I think it will ultimately be up to the DM, as it has always been, to address this problem--either by compensating for the PCs' new ally when designing adventures, arranging the ally's demise, or coming up with a way to limit its impact. The situation should be rare enough that I don't think it necessarily warrants a big effort to prevent it.

The frustrating thing to me is that the deliberate segregation of monster and PC abilities speaks to an assumption that monsters do X and PCs do Y, and that certain challenges will be appropriate for PCs because they can't do X. As GM, I can both limit the introduction of monsters into my world; I do this anyway, because if there exists a monster with the means and motivation to drastically affect the world, it will, and not just because it's on a PC's leash.

I don't want abilities to be boring. I want them to be interesting, dynamic, rigorous, fun, and for the world to take them into account. If I can send dragons on my enemies, that is awesome, but either the existing materials account for the fact that group of monsters X might be under attack by a dragon, or the DM has a lot of things to make up on the fly.

 

[Irda Ranger]

But if you are going to stop to consider what limitations you need to build into monster abilities to prevent PCs from making use of them, why not just start with the PC build rules and save yourself some time?

Because building a PC is complicated. It takes a long time. Time a DM doesn't have when he needs 20 monsters if 4 minutes.

The example monsters we have seen do not yet appear to have abilities that would easily cause horrible breakage if the PCs can somehow gain access to the ability.

It's almost if the 4E dev team was consisted of DMs and players who had dealt with many players schemes over 20 years too!

I'm not trying to be facetious (OK, maybe a little). But if you've thought of this after seeing their monster design template for one or two days, perhaps they've thought of it as well?

However, the design philosophy of monsters-as-single-encounters and not as agents of the world makes it all the more likely that such abilities, and the means for PCs to gain access to them, will be discovered once 4E is released proper.

They're designed to have everything they need for an encounter. That does not mean they're designed with no thought at all for how their powers would act day in and day out. Exhibit 1 is the Pit Fiend's ability to grant a wish, which is limited to once every 99 years. Do you think that was designed with an encounter mind set?

I'm pretty sure they're wise to this. It's been an obvious discussion point for years in D&D that certain items, powers, spells, etc. would do really weird things to the world if they were followed to their logical conclusions. This is not a new concern, and if 4E simply does no worse than any edition before it in this regard then I'm sure we'll all be fine. I mean, how is it that D&D worlds have deserts when a few Decanters of Endless Water would turn them into a garden within a year?

 

[king_ghidorah]

Without getting into nitpicking details, the answer is to consider what tools you give characters to control monsters. Limitations to raising dead foes (you can't raise all creatures, and those you do don't come with all of their abilities intact, an easy limitation) making charm spells have limits on duration and effect (another easy limitation), and thoughtful placement of magic items would create other limits. But you're right, PCs are wily creatures, and they use the rules to their advantage.

And my thought is: say yes, then think about the consequences. Enslaved trolls can be used as soldiers, but how do you keep them loyal? How does doing this affect the perception of the PCs by others? Won't they rebel and fight? Won't this bring the wrath of other monsters? In the end, the PCs still DON'T actually control the monster, the monster is still controlled by the DM, and the monster still has reason to lie and rebel.

But let's throw out non-mechanical limits and accept your argument (which still seems spurious to me). There are only two real solutions: monsters are limited so that they can't do anything a PC couldn't do (which would strip away most monster abilities), or that all monster options are available to PCs at some level and that would be the way to gauge and balance the power of the ability -- which works well in systems like GURPS and Hero, but doesn't really work well in D&D.

The realistic other option, is to include the idea in the DMG that DMs need to think about how monsters and charm spells interact, and the problems for balance. That should be up there with how to consider the effect of magic in general-- what happens when the characters can fly, teleport, scry, read minds, etc. This is the challenge of magic. Part of the point of it is to break the rules... and DMs probably need advice on how to deal with the outcomes of players' creative use of spells and magic items.

Allow me to elaborate on my point; before including winged, giant, or regenerating enemies, GMs should ask themselves "What would happen if the PCs could, at will, fly/be large/regenerate?"

For instance, what happens when, in response to you introducing a group of trolls, the PCs manage to get a troll on their side, either by sparing its life and gradually changing its attitude with diplomacy, directly by using magic to override its will, or by pulling in another plot point from a previous adventure you had not considered initially (such as collars of enslavement that burst into flame taken from a previous villain)? With any of such efforts, the party now has their very own trap-detector; if they make liberal use of Detect Magic, and can insulate the troll against fire and acid, they never need fear traps again, and have a powerful and deadly ally.

Likewise, if you send a horde of Nightmares at the party, and then the party wizard slays them and animates four of them to serve as steeds, then the party can now fly incredibly quickly overland, indefinitely.