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

[slobster]

We really got off track here, but all I want is a system that lets me make Monsters that will challange my PCs and NPCs that make sense.

And I want it to be easy and fully explained. No hiding rules and mechanics in fluff

I do apologize for that. But such is life on the forums, no?

In response to that sentiment, combined with the thread title. I agree. I want monster creation guidelines that are as easy as possible, that return an enemy of known power in comparison to the PCs, and that can be used by someone of a simulationist bent to create "organic" monsters. I don't believe that solo tags get in the way of that. Solo tags do offer a lot of benefits.

So I hope that we get both good monster creation and solo tags. (and in fact see them as complementary)

 

[nightwyrm]

Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.

The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.

A class system is not a bad thing. It's a decent model for building PCs, but a party of PCs are a very small subset of the entire population of the gameworld. No matter how different individual PCs are, they're essentially people who go out and do dangerous things. It's not unreasonable for their adventuring/combat abilities to correlate with their other abilities. Conceptually, PCs are more similar to each other than to most other individuals. Having them share one method for character creation is not farfetched. But to apply that same classed based method of character creation to all the NPCs in the gameworld would make a very odd population. It would be as if the whole Earth was populated by US marines and special forces.

IIRC, before 3e, D&D didn't even tried to apply the class model to all NPCs. I remember 2nd ADD DMG saying classed individuals are special and most NPCs don't have classes and you should just give extra hps to special NPCs like kings and princes so stupid players can't just suddenly decide to kill the king and start a civil war.

 

[Obryn]

No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). (snip)

This may be getting pretty far afield ... but why did he pick your (weaker) custom class instead of the Expert class?

For that matter, why does anyone pick the Commoner class? It's not like Expert has any prereqs. At the very least, multiclassing over to Expert would be an improvement, no?

-O

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IIRC, before 3e, D&D didn't even tried to apply the class model to all NPCs. I remember 2nd ADD DMG saying classed individuals are special and most NPCs don't have classes and you should just give extra hps to special NPCs like kings and princes so stupid players can't just suddenly decide to kill the king and start a civil war.

That is most likely the. Est way

 

[GreyICE]

Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.

The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.

I don't really understand this. D&D has rules for creating a party of adventurers. This party of adventurers gains skill and proficiency in combat as they travel, see the world, perform difficult tasks, and kill things.

D&D has never had rules for creating a party of social climbers who gossip with other guests at the palace, create intricate plots to sabotage each other's social standing and try and win the most land and rights for their personal wealth off the favor of an aging and negligent king.

Yet this party of adventurers coexists in a world with the social climbers who do exactly that. And you think that both should follow the same rules?

Only 3E ever even TRIED to do that. And in terms of simulationism? Epic disaster. Cats shredding commoners being the classic example, of course.

In 4E the cat would be a non-combat pet or companion without any applicable stats for combat (except HP: 1) and probably some good perception and acrobatics scores.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Compared to the pre-3e editions, 4e is fairly strong on giving PCs and monsters the same stats. In 4e, monsters have the six attributes - str, dex, con, int, wis, cha - which is not the case in 1e or 2e. This consistency is a feature I really liked when I saw it for the first time in RuneQuest. It's kind of weird that in older editions we have no idea what the strength of a gryphon, or bulette or dragon is. We only know the numbers for giants, from the magic items.

However, even in older editions there are some stats that any creature must have to be a real D&D being, such as hit points, armor class, and so forth. You could have an orc that didn't have a character class or a strength score, but you couldn't have an orc that lacked a value for hit points.

EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.

EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"

 

[D'karr]

EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.

EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"

LOL, my players never thought they needed a justification...

In 1e there were definitely some "monsters" that are much better represented as hazards or traps. I'm glad 4e did separate these.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

But this is exactly what makes no sense for me and violates my sense of versimilitude (since everybody loves that word so much ). Blacksmithing ability (or underwater basketweaving ability for that matter) and combat ability should not be correlated. When I go talk to my head computer tech guy in my workplace, I don't expect him to be able to throw darts really well or resist poison really well just because he's good at computers.

The whole idea of classes (essentially having a bunch of correlated abilities) is inherently versimiltude-breaking. It's a useful model for making PCs and for balancing when designing games but to apply it to everything and everybody in the gameworld seems to me to be an over-application of the model.

Basically, what happens when you apply a class model to the entire world is that adventurer abilities becomes over-correlated with non-adventurer abilities. Singing ability becomes correlated with hitting ability, with spellcasting ability, with toughness (hp), with ability to shrug off disease etc. etc.

I'll try saying this again, for the 15th time or so. I like simulation, I like mechanics that apply to players and NPCs and monsters alike. Levels are a useful way to measure experience and power. You DO NOT HAVE TO CORRELATE ALL THESE THINGS but 3E does. I am not defending 3E. I am defending simulationism against gamism/narrativism.

I guess it's a style thing; but, the one player practice that irritates me to know end is trying to use knowledge of game mechanics to reverse engineer a monster or NPC.

There is a wide range of stories that could generate a master blacksmith. He could be a serf, effectively chained to his forge who was never allowed to swing his hammer in anger who eventually escaped and opened his own forge.

He could have been a traditional apprentice trained from a youth who engaged in a few youthful tussles but still has no meaningful combat skill.

Maybe he was a march lords retainer and spent some time manning the walls against particularly vicious attacks but mostly was too valuable to take from the forge repairing arms and parts for the seige engines.

He could have been the armorer for a mercenary company and fought in skirmishes and battles almost as much as he smithed until he left the troop.

He could even have been a Perrin Goldeneyes type who started as an apprentice and destiny forced him to adventurer for a time before he returned home to take up his hammer again. In which case he is much more dangerous than anyone would expect from a blacksmith.

Any of those various smiths could now be at the anvil in the town where the adventurers meet him and I don't want the fact of his status as a master smith to imply anything else about him. If the players want to gauge whether he might be competent in combat they can explore the world and find out or they can take their chances and pick a fight. If they pick a fight assuming he's just a craftsman than a lot of times they will be right and sometimes they will be brutally disabused of their assumptions.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: when the world follows a rigid sort of mechanical structure, one where the players can and should make conclusions from very small mechanical facts, there is very little incentive to discover the world around him. The effect at its simplest is Troll lets use fire and acid (at least rooted in legend). At its worst its, he can easily make masterwork weapons he must be a level 10 or 11 expert careful guys he can kick our asses. (not rooted in the fiction)

I appreciate when a game allows me to easily create an npc who looks a lot like a character. I like using pc-like villains in my games. I don't care to have the game require me to build every npc and monster like it was a pc. The pc rules are good at building adventurers they get twisted and broken trying to build commoners.

See above, but also consider that both 3E and 4E are flawed in that they don't allow PCs to make up characters that follow some of these archetypes. In 3E this is because you won't be able to do anything useful in combat as an NPC class. In 4E this is because you can only become good at stuff by gaining levels - and in fact levels dominate how good you are at stuff, and how good you are at all stuff all at once. 4E is much worse than 3E in terms of correlating all these features for player classes. 5E has a good chance to avoid it with flat math (but so far hasn't).

My PCs can kill almost any of my shopkeepers. If they actually need to kill them I'll stat them as a low level minion or simply say "You killed him. The witnesses scream and rush off to fetch the guard. Now what?" (Note: Does not apply to Cadric the One Armed of Cadric's Adventuring Supplies, the retired fighter who sells equipment of the sort he wishes he'd had before he lost his arm, Marcus the Blind Seer who sent an illusion to take his place because he foresaw the attack, or other people with equivalent backstories).

The PCs are professional and practiced killers. The NPCs in question are probably unarmed and unarmoured, and normally at the outside are part of the militia. The only question is whether the NPCs can run away. The idea that Bob The Baker should be able to beat up the PCs just because he makes the best cakes in the kingdom is IMO silly.

And I'd be confused why you think that his level is something I'd know about in game. For a hammer-off he has whatever level the DM wants based on his reputation. I'd be pissed if he didn't match his reputation in the hammer-off or think that something weird was going on (either's possible). But level measures something about adventurers and combat - I really don't get the idea that the best way for Tim the Sage to learn to use a sword is stay in the library and read more books.

I agree with you about the reputation/hammer skill correlation, but again, read above. Things such as attacks and saves don't have to correlate with level, they just do, in 3E and 4E for players, in 3E for NPCs too. I stopped playing 3E a long time ago, I'm not advocating the same system, I am merely advocating the same approach: levels and simulation.

Yeah, I mean maybe the Blacksmith is a pacifist, who never attacks anyone, and is forced to make weapons due to the king threatening his family. He might be the best blacksmith in the world, distraught that his talents are being turned to violence, and absolutely incapable of taking on a random skeleton that wanders into his forge.

I can't believe it's actually being argued that having proficiency in combat tied to proficiency in EVERY OTHER SKILL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a GOOD SYSTEM. I mean if someone has 24 ranks of diplomacy he should have a BAB of at least 10?

WHY?


Why should a master diplomat have a better chance to hit a monster than a 5th level warrior. I get he's been around a LOT. But he's a goddamn diplomat. You could possibly rationalize him being good in combat, but to say that every master diplomat ever MUST be good in combat is absurdist.

Complaining that 4E lets the DM build characters they want to build is complaining about a GOOD THING.

Yeah basically see above, and I thoroughly agree with [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] ' point that it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.

Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah basically see above, and I thoroughly agree with [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] ' point that it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.

Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.

Hell yeah!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.

EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"

Wow I am totaly going to try that