Monsters and Heroes

[GreyLord]

One thing that sort of bothers me on 4e occasionally is the different rules governing Heroes from Monsters. Well...more exactly, heroes from NPC's, and even more exactly...HUMAN, ELF, DWARF, etc...player races PC's vs Player Races NPCs.

I can buy the idea that Monsters are monsters. They have limited abilities. They are...afterall...Monsters. IT isn't like your dog is suddenly going to develop the ability to become a Master Arch Sorcerer (well...unless you play 3.X in which case you may have your dog become an Arch Mage). Differences in how monsters have their abilities and hp figured are just fine...however then you come to the same types of species. Drizzt is a good example from what I've seen. He's an NPC with 700+ HP, and only a few powers. However...in truth he should be a Dark Elf Ranger that had the same stats as a PC in older editions.

So how does a PC type character get translated into something so vastly different.

This comes into play even moreso when PC's retire and become NPC's. Should they suddenly have a HUGE boost in power, gain a TON more HP...and keep their powers...and suddenly JUST ONE of them could threaten the ENTIRE GROUP from before...simply because they became an NPC?

No offense...but that's stupid. Taking Orcus as an example from MM1 and backtracking his stats...as a PC he should only have around 300 HP. OF course that isn't going to be the threat to a party of NPC's like an Orcus with 1500+ HP, but it seems that one could scale the power of solos MUCH better by decalculating their HP and abilities and then recalculating as if they were PC's.

In some ways, it's almost as if they take the PC class and multiply HP and abilities by not much at Heroic, by x3 at Paragon, and x6 at Epic. Or by the rules...5x HP with applicable powers (via the MM1 method) for Solo monsters etc.

As I said, I can buy this with monsters...but for others such as those NPC's that are supposedly built from the same cloth as the PC's...unless the NPC is that much higher a level than a PC...it should be that the NPC's are of equivalent power...aka...built from the same cloth instead of a different cloth.

Maybe that's just my old school thoughts reflected there...where monsters are monsters...and NPC's are NPC's...

It starts nagging more on me the higher the level the characters get (and the bigger the difference in HP).

Anyone else feel this way and how do you handle this...or don't. What happens when you get players that say...WTH...

For example...in epic play some players say...hey...this guy is a Ranger in the books, and WE KNOW how Rangers are built according to the rules...something wrong is going on with your Ranger Mr. DM...

 

[DracoSuave]

Ideally, NPCs fall into one of two categories:

1) Non combatants. You don't need any stats for these. A statblock for such an NPC looks like this:

Phil. Farmer. Human. Says nothing, and generally looks tired and weary.

You don't need combat stats for this guy.

2) Combatants. These guys are monsters. The reason you don't want to go into any detail greater than that is because it doesn't -actually- improve the game for the players. Who cares if the guy with them can cleave and reaving strike and can also have a daily that's reliable? It's not important. His contribution is going to be to go to something, hit it, so that the -players- can actually play. Anything more than that risks taking away the spotlight or time from the players.

This is a case where less is more. Your players don't see statblocks so there's no point fleshing them out beyond what you need to run them. And you don't need a lot to run them, so why go to such detail?

And don't forget power concerns: PCs are designed to face Monsters. They're not designed to face NPCs--such things end up being overcomplicated coin-flips at best.

 

[GreyLord]

Ideally, NPCs fall into one of two categories:

1) Non combatants. You don't need any stats for these. A statblock for such an NPC looks like this:

Phil. Farmer. Human. Says nothing, and generally looks tired and weary.

You don't need combat stats for this guy.

2) Combatants. These guys are monsters. The reason you don't want to go into any detail greater than that is because it doesn't -actually- improve the game for the players. Who cares if the guy with them can cleave and reaving strike and can also have a daily that's reliable? It's not important. His contribution is going to be to go to something, hit it, so that the -players- can actually play. Anything more than that risks taking away the spotlight or time from the players.

This is a case where less is more. Your players don't see statblocks so there's no point fleshing them out beyond what you need to run them. And you don't need a lot to run them, so why go to such detail?

And don't forget power concerns: PCs are designed to face Monsters. They're not designed to face NPCs--such things end up being overcomplicated coin-flips at best.

Drizzt is a prime example. The players KNOW he's a ranger, they KNOW he's been stated like a PC in earlier editions...and they KNOW that at most, the Ranger at 30th level will have a maximum if munchkined of around 200 HP probably. They are much lower then 30th...they also know they've done about 400 HP worth of damage...at which point they are like...DUDE...what's UP with this false little set up of a Ranger?

Or more likely, we had a party member turn evil and rogue against us, become a PC. We KNOW she had 160 HP just minutes before, and we've done a total of 300 HP damage already...something is up with that.

How do you explain the erratic jumps of HP like that...to players a character jumping back and forth like that doesn't make sense.

With normal monsters and monsters in general...they can buy it...but in those situations...sometimes they say...hey...stop the session one sec Mr. DM...this isn't right or fair...and if you don't play fair...we ain't playing.

I was actually a player in a Dark Sun group that this happened with (female turning rogue in the situation above...ended up with one other party member dying in the fight and all of us fleeing from our former friend turned traitor who was a PC now an NPC in epic level). We expected to go up to 30th level...instead the game ended because of this.

The more I've thought about it, the more I think I can see the other two player's complaints about this and it does sort of bug me.

 

[Wik]

Have you played 3e? One of the big problems of the game, especially after, say, 10th level, was the GMs were unable to play NPCs because they followed the same rules as the PCs. As such, it was hard to have NPCs in your campaign, because they generally lead to DM brain rot.

(I'm sure some 3e enthusiasts are going to lynch me for saying that. Please believe me when I say that it's not a slam against the game; it's just that it was often stated as a problem by many players.)

You're looking at this from a sort of simulation point of view - because the game world reflects that x is true for PCs, it should equally apply to NPCs. Well, this is not the case - the PCs are different. And that's the way the game is designed to play. If a PC becomes an NPC, the stats might change a bit - because if they didn't, you'd either have the NPC blowing a whole lot of dailies against the players (which wouldn't be balanced, as that NPC would be fighting only one encounter in the day, presumably while the PCs had to fight several to get there), or the PCs will stomp all over the NPC because PC and NPC damage scales differently.

However, this doesn't mean that in the game world logic that the character has somehow changed - an NPC villain is still worth only one monster, two if made an elite (and they're not often made into solos, at least in my experience). And I don't really see how that's a big deal.

And yes, I've had this very thing happen in my game. Multiple times. And the players have had absolutely no problem with the mechanical change. I kind of get the feeling you may be overanalyzing the entire situation.

 

[Obergnom]

You know, there are some rather simple solutions for this problem, if it bugs you so much.

Do not stat NPCs up as Solo Monsters. The party rogue allone would be no threat to the group statted as a PC, why should she be one as an NPCs?

Elites are what the game seems to intend for NPCs with classes, but they still have a lot of HP, so...

You could half the NPCs HPs but give them powerful means of self healing. Two potions that basically give back half their HPs, Second Wind (Again, 2 surges SW) stuff like that. It would basically be like in 3e, where an NPC without means of self healing would maybe survive 2 rounds... if lucky.

Or, maybe give them one powerful potion and the ability to ignore damage every now and then, but make sure its about the amount you subtracted from their HP before.

Example:

Human Insane Noble (MM2)
Level 23 Elite Skirmisher

Reduce HP to 214/107 (thats half HP);
Ignorable Fury is a reaction area attack when first bloodied, have the noble regain 107 HP as part of the power.
Mad Dodge: Free Reaction Action once per round, reduce incoming damage by 20.

 

[DracoSuave]

Drizzt is a prime example. The players KNOW he's a ranger, they KNOW he's been stated like a PC in earlier editions...and they KNOW that at most, the Ranger at 30th level will have a maximum if munchkined of around 200 HP probably. They are much lower then 30th...they also know they've done about 400 HP worth of damage...at which point they are like...DUDE...what's UP with this false little set up of a Ranger?

You say 'Seriously, guys, quit trying to metagame using information based on other game systems and thinking it has anything to do with this one. On the one hand, it's terrible RPG etiquette to metagame, and two, it's terrible logic to metagame based on game design you clearly don't have your finger on. You're failing twice over. Stop ruining the game with fail actions based on fail
logic.'

Cause that's exactly what they are doing. Or a more polite version:

'He's a Mary Sue. Stop thinking he's anything at all like a PC, or was ever designed to be a PC. He's never been a PC, and now he has the treatment he deserves.'

Or more likely, we had a party member turn evil and rogue against us, become a PC. We KNOW she had 160 HP just minutes before, and we've done a total of 300 HP damage already...something is up with that.

This happen often enough in your games that it's an honest consideration for how games should run? I mean... really. If it happens once in a while, there's ways to handwave it. If it happens so often that it breaks the system for you, perhaps you might want to try a less tiresome plot twist.

How do you explain the erratic jumps of HP like that...to players a character jumping back and forth like that doesn't make sense.

Again, how often does this happen?

With normal monsters and monsters in general...they can buy it...but in those situations...sometimes they say...hey...stop the session one sec Mr. DM...this isn't right or fair...and if you don't play fair...we ain't playing.

And they would be 100% absolutely wrong. Show a mock combat where their adversaries are statted exactly like they are. Marvel at how utterly short and meaningless that combat is.

I was actually a player in a Dark Sun group that this happened with (female turning rogue in the situation above...ended up with one other party member dying in the fight and all of us fleeing from our former friend turned traitor who was a PC now an NPC in epic level). We expected to go up to 30th level...instead the game ended because of this.

The game ended because the PCs couldn't handle an adversary designed to be a reasonable challenge of their level? If they complain 'It's not fair!' remind them that they've tackled more powerful adversaries like this in the past, and that changing them from PC-compliant stats to NPC-compliant stats does make the combat unfair--it makes the PCs more likely to win.

The more I've thought about it, the more I think I can see the other two player's complaints about this and it does sort of bug me.

The idea here is that Monster stats are designed to do two things at the same time.

1- They put the monster at a mechanical disadvantage to the players. The players are supposed to overcome that monster.

2- They give the appearance that the monster is at a mechanical advantage. This is done by their higher hitpoint levels, amongst other things.

So, if you want something that appears more powerful, but is actually less powerful, you need to make them scale using different numbers. If you use the same scale, you cannot actually have both.

So, in the case of a PC-scaled adversary, it's obvious where the power scale is for that enemy. If it's less than the PC, it'll be less powerful all around, and the PCs will see it has less hitpoints. It will appear to be weaker, AND it will be weaker. This will not challenge the players.

If it's more than the PC, it'll be MORE powerful, and the PCs will be at ITS mercy. It will appear to be stronger, and it WILL be stronger. This will destroy the players.

If it's equal, then you've basically boiled it down to a coinflip. Luck will be at play more than anything else.

Monsters play by different rules because they have a different purpose. PCs are the playing pieces of the players. The monsters are part of the environment those pieces play in. It is fair for them to have different rules, because they do different things. If they did the same thing, then they'd have the same rule.

 

[Jhaelen]

One thing that sort of bothers me on 4e occasionally is the different rules governing Heroes from Monsters.

When 3e was released one of it's major appeals to me was that the same rules governed pcs and monsters.

After (almost) finishing a 3e campaign and having created tons of stat-blocks for high-level monsters and npcs I can only say: good riddance!

Creating a new monster or modifying an existing one in 4e is a snap. NPCs can do exactly what you want them to be able to do. As a DM you enjoy complete freedom over the fun aspects of monster design while being sure your creation will be perfectly balanced since you're using the 'monster math' guidelines.

I actually cannot fathom, why a DM would not think that this is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. I _can_ imagine some players might be bothered about it, though (mainly because some of my (former) 3e players _are_ bothered by it ).

 

[Ryujin]

The primary reason for such differences in make-up is ease of play. Sure, you could build a NPC like Drizzt the same way that you do a PC, but then you have to worry about a number of healing surges, how to trigger them, tracking individual encounter and daily powers, etc..... It's far easier to throw certain aspects together in a big lump, than to potentially have to deal with the opposition's collective 45 healing surges, 16 separate encounter powers, and 8 separate daily powers in one combat.

It might be workable if you have 5 DMs to oppose the 5 characters, but that isn't really practical.

 

[Dausuul]

Drizzt is a prime example. The players KNOW he's a ranger, they KNOW he's been stated like a PC in earlier editions...and they KNOW that at most, the Ranger at 30th level will have a maximum if munchkined of around 200 HP probably. They are much lower then 30th...they also know they've done about 400 HP worth of damage...at which point they are like...DUDE...what's UP with this false little set up of a Ranger?

Drizzt isn't a ranger in 4E. He belongs to a different class, one which isn't available to PCs. You can't play an ancient dragon, you can't play a pit fiend, and you can't play a Drizzt.

Basically, 4E players need to understand that not everyone is a player character with a PC class. In fact, hardly anyone is a player character with a PC class. The class options for most folks are artillery, brute, controller, lurker, skirmisher, and soldier. Some take levels in the elite or solo prestige classes.

Or more likely, we had a party member turn evil and rogue against us, become a PC. We KNOW she had 160 HP just minutes before, and we've done a total of 300 HP damage already...something is up with that.

On this one, I would agree with you; a character flipping from PC to NPC should keep the same or very similar stats, unless the character has been deliberately concealing more powerful abilities. (Going the other way, there's a little more leeway; I would re-stat an NPC who went PC just because otherwise it would get really boring for the player who took that character.)

 

[MrMyth]

For myself, I find that the elements of gameworld consistency lost due to this are more than made up for by the ease it provides in using NPC enemies without spending hours statting them out. For me, having the combat actually be an entertaining and challenging combat is more important than worrying about some artificial numerical consistency. Especially since situations where it is directly visible - such as when a player immediately turns into a fully statted enemy combatant - are extremely rare.

That said, I can understand it bothering other people. So... don't use Elite or Solo NPCs. If you really need to, stat up NPC enemies using the PC rules. Add some minions or other foes to even the fight, or traps or terrain or whatever.

You'll probably run into some lethality issues - PCs tend to be more fragile than monsters (due to the assumption of healing) but have more ability to nova. So if your PC Rogue turns traitor, wins initiative, and then Novas with an Action Point and two dailies, they might just kill someone. If you are ok with that, you've solved your problem.

The Dark Sun example bugs me. Would it have been a better situation if the group simply fought some new monster who happened to be a solo with the same abilities as the PC turned enemy? It would have presumably ended much the same way, with the PCs dying and losing and the game ending. If the challenge was an unfair one, that's not a problem with the premise, that's a problem with the DM and the encounter design.