What would you say is the biggest problem with Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and other "Tier 1" Spellcasters?

[Ahnehnois]

But, in 3e, a monster wasn't "level 6", he was CR 6.

Therein lies the problem. Monsters and PCs are balanced on a different scale, and thus are sometimes not balanced with each other. Usually it's close enough for jazz, but polymorph, monstrous PCs, and some other special situations highlight the problems with building different creatures differently.

Yeah, you could go that route actually. Drop the monsters down a large notch and make them a lot more similar to their AD&D counterparts. Would require a LOT of reworking to achieve though.

No kidding. There's two extremes to fixing polymorph, patching it in a way that doesn't really fix it, or fixing the entire game. Because if you have a spell that lets a caster change into a creature of his choice, the whole ruleset is put to the test and all its flaws can be exposed. No simple answers, definitely. Again, the game is robust enough that one overbroad, unbalanced spell usually doesn't cause problems or can simply be banned or modified by the DM, but there's no doubt that the spell(s) need a lot of work.

 

[Hussar]

Therein lies the problem. Monsters and PCs are balanced on a different scale, and thus are sometimes not balanced with each other. Usually it's close enough for jazz, but polymorph, monstrous PCs, and some other special situations highlight the problems with building different creatures differently.

But, the creatures were never supposed to be balanced with each other. Never were in any edition of D&D. An orc is not equivalent to a 1st level 2e fighter by any stretch of the imagination. A 1st level 2e fighter, with weapon specs, has a reasonable shot of taking down an average ogre by himself. With two weapon fighting, the fighter is the odds on favorite.

So, where is the equivalency? An ogre has 4+1 HD, but is getting owned by the 1 HD fighter? And, it was no different in AD&D as well. Probably a bit closer, but, still not really. I mean, look at Keep on the Borderlands. The party of 6-8 is routinely faced with encounters doubling or even tripling their numbers and by and large, could win through because the math was very much on their side.

It's not that the creatures a built differently that's the problem. Building a monster just like a PC won't actually solve any of this. I suppose you could do that and then assign level to monsters and not allow casters to polymorph beyond their level. But, then you'd have all sorts of screaming about allowing meta-game mechanics to dictate in-game reality. ((I can polymorph into X but not Y? Why not? ))

No kidding. There's two extremes to fixing polymorph, patching it in a way that doesn't really fix it, or fixing the entire game. Because if you have a spell that lets a caster change into a creature of his choice, the whole ruleset is put to the test and all its flaws can be exposed. No simple answers, definitely. Again, the game is robust enough that one overbroad, unbalanced spell usually doesn't cause problems or can simply be banned or modified by the DM, but there's no doubt that the spell(s) need a lot of work.

I dunno. Reining in the polymorph isn't that hard. WOTC did so for Living Forgotten Realms and in the Spell Compendium and PHB 2. Loonook's solutions above go a long way as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Therein lies the problem. Monsters and PCs are balanced on a different scale, and thus are sometimes not balanced with each other. Usually it's close enough for jazz, but polymorph, monstrous PCs, and some other special situations highlight the problems with building different creatures differently.

The big problem is that most monsters are expected to last for one encounter when the rubber meets the road. PCs are on a daily refresh cycle.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The big problem is that most monsters are expected to last for one encounter when the rubber meets the road. PCs are on a daily refresh cycle.

But, the creatures were never supposed to be balanced with each other. Never were in any edition of D&D.

Indeed, the old school assumption is that monsters exist for a different reason than player characters, and thus are designed differently. And specifically, the short expected lifespan of a monster is a large part of that difference.

Polymorphs are one of several situations (including monstrous PCs and cases where monsters are simply used for purposes of more substance than a one-minute battle) that break the game because of those assumptions. If you only ever use monsters for short battles, than they can be balanced on that basis and it will work. However, if that is not the case, it doesn't work. And since for many people it isn't, the game needs to evolve to standardize and balance all characters in the same way. While humans, cats, golems, angels, and dragons are very different creatures, they all need to be built and advanced in the same manner. In this regard, 3e was a step forward from 2e, and 3.5 was a step forward from 3.0 (and PF hasn't done anything and 4e goes off the rails and 5e is not entirely back on them). There's still work to be done in this area.

It's not that the creatures a built differently that's the problem. Building a monster just like a PC won't actually solve any of this. I suppose you could do that and then assign level to monsters and not allow casters to polymorph beyond their level. But, then you'd have all sorts of screaming about allowing meta-game mechanics to dictate in-game reality. ((I can polymorph into X but not Y? Why not? ))

Experience and level are D&D's foundational metagame mechanics. So yes, there's a conceptual problem, but it's not one that's going to generate a lot of complaints, relatively speaking. Restrictions based on size and type are objective and in-game, but can polymorph be balanced based on those alone? It's unlikely. Balancing based on level may be a necessary conceit. It's less of a conceit than many other spells that work based on level, such as the classic sleep spell or 5e's hp thresholds.

I dunno. Reining in the polymorph isn't that hard. WOTC did so for Living Forgotten Realms and in the Spell Compendium and PHB 2. Loonook's solutions above go a long way as well.

Those are solutions that clearly took some thought and time, and I don't think they're perfect.

 

[TwoSix]

And since for many people it isn't, the game needs to evolve to standardize and balance all characters in the same way. While humans, cats, golems, angels, and dragons are very different creatures, they all need to be built and advanced in the same manner. In this regard, 3e was a step forward from 2e, and 3.5 was a step forward from 3.0 (and PF hasn't done anything and 4e goes off the rails and 5e is not entirely back on them). There's still work to be done in this area.

Wow, you're really working to keep this thread going, aren't you.

I don't actually have a problem with including "monsters as PCs rules", especially considering they most likely would match up with the simplified base rules, not the crunchier standard or advanced rules. But I still want an easy to use 4e style combat block in the Monster Manuals.

 

[Obryn]

Indeed, the old school assumption is that monsters exist for a different reason than player characters, and thus are designed differently. And specifically, the short expected lifespan of a monster is a large part of that difference.

Polymorphs are one of several situations (including monstrous PCs and cases where monsters are simply used for purposes of more substance than a one-minute battle) that break the game because of those assumptions. If you only ever use monsters for short battles, than they can be balanced on that basis and it will work. However, if that is not the case, it doesn't work. And since for many people it isn't, the game needs to evolve to standardize and balance all characters in the same way. While humans, cats, golems, angels, and dragons are very different creatures, they all need to be built and advanced in the same manner. In this regard, 3e was a step forward from 2e, and 3.5 was a step forward from 3.0 (and PF hasn't done anything and 4e goes off the rails and 5e is not entirely back on them). There's still work to be done in this area.

I think the issue is with the polymorph spell, not monster-building. Forcing monsters to be built like PCs creates worse problems by far than the issues it's trying to solve.

For what it's worth, companion NPCs and monsters are built largely similarly in 4e, and can be used as PCs in a pinch, as long as there's an eye towards outliers like, say, at-will stuns or dominates.

-O

 

[JustinAlexander]

But, in 3e, a monster wasn't "level 6", he was CR 6. And CR does not relate whatsoever to level. CR is a measure of how hard this thing is to kill versus a party of four of a given level. So a Troll (CR 5) is a moderate challenge to a 5th level party.

And trying to peg it to HD instead just makes it worse because lots of creatures got lower HD in order to compensate for their powerful abilities. (See the beholder, for example.)

I skimmed a chunk of this thread, but I don't think this has been mentioned: Pre-3E polymorph effects forced a system shock roll. That, all by itself, goes a really long way towards fixing the problem. This is a pretty good example of how the long, slow retreat from lethal consequences in D&D can have some really bad tack-on effects when those lethal consequences were serving as an important balancing mechanism.

And here's another obligatory solution to the polymorph problem. It limits the efficacy of the spell by limiting it to an alteration of appearance and not an alteration of substance. If you want to look like an ogre you use polymorph. If you want to be as strong as an ogre, then you need to use a stat buffer. If you want both, you need to use both. Problem solved.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And trying to peg it to HD instead just makes it worse because lots of creatures got lower HD in order to compensate for their powerful abilities. (See the beholder, for example.)

I agree (although the beholder might not be a good example, just because polymorph doesn't give those abilities).

I skimmed a chunk of this thread, but I don't think this has been mentioned: Pre-3E polymorph effects forced a system shock roll. That, all by itself, goes a really long way towards fixing the problem. This is a pretty good example of how the long, slow retreat from lethal consequences in D&D can have some really bad tack-on effects when those lethal consequences were serving as an important balancing mechanism.

I disagree with this one. Similar mechanics were used in an attempt to balance AD&D psionics. It failed. I think you're better off just having the spell "do what it's supposed to do", and no more.

(This is why I like the Pathfinder fix. I think it messes up Armor Class some -- playing a druid right now -- but otherwise I have no complaints about it.)

(In addition, AD&D polymorph was pretty weak. I don't recall it giving ability score bonuses. Maybe it gave multiple attacks and base AC, which could presumably go out of control, but it was nowhere near as strong as the 3.x version.)

And here's another obligatory solution to the polymorph problem. It limits the efficacy of the spell by limiting it to an alteration of appearance and not an alteration of substance. If you want to look like an ogre you use polymorph. If you want to be as strong as an ogre, then you need to use a stat buffer. If you want both, you need to use both. Problem solved.

This one, I think, works a lot better as a fix than 3.x core rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the issue is with the polymorph spell, not monster-building. Forcing monsters to be built like PCs creates worse problems by far than the issues it's trying to solve.

I've never been quite sure what those problems are. The only one I can see is the sheer complexity of it, which is easily addressable by simplifying the overall character creation process or by creating abbreviated stat blocks for monsters and NPCs that don't need the full treatment.

For what it's worth, companion NPCs and monsters are built largely similarly in 4e, and can be used as PCs in a pinch, as long as there's an eye towards outliers like, say, at-will stuns or dominates.

Okay, but what happens when you try to polymorph into a minion?

Pre-3E polymorph effects forced a system shock roll. That, all by itself, goes a really long way towards fixing the problem. This is a pretty good example of how the long, slow retreat from lethal consequences in D&D can have some really bad tack-on effects when those lethal consequences were serving as an important balancing mechanism.

Apparently things like that aren't 'fun'.
You're right, though, adding risk and uncertainty changes the equation in a positive way.

 

[Obryn]

I've never been quite sure what those problems are. The only one I can see is the sheer complexity of it, which is easily addressable by simplifying the overall character creation process or by creating abbreviated stat blocks for monsters and NPCs that don't need the full treatment.

Okay, but what happens when you try to polymorph into a minion?

Complexity is a major one. Second is a forced tie of "everything" with hit dice - feat and Skill progression, for two. Third is challenge variability based on stats. Fourth is, "I did this for 8 years and don't want to do it ever again."

You don't polymorph into a minion because minions are game constructs set up for convenience, but I think you know this by now.

-O