Your thoughts on monsters having six Abilities

[Bohandas]

In 3e/3.5e, you could in theory just say "Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +4" instead of going through the process of looking up what save progression the creature type in question has, calculating a base save from that and HD, and adding ability bonus.

This I agree with. I don't know why they tied all the monster stats to hit dice in 3.5e. From a narrativist and simulationist perspective it makes no sense whatsoever that monsters would get extra skill points and will saves just because they're bigger or tougher. Feats, saves, skill points, and HD should have been entirely independent. That said, I still think that monsters should have had all of them

 

[Blue Orange]

I think they were trying to make monster and PCs play by the same rules, which 5e has kind of moved away from. It got a little silly in Call of Cthulhu d20 where they had 'charisma' scores for various eldritch horrors.

With the move to ability saves it does seem like they're useful, and for stuff like 'can this monster lift this rock' or 'is this monster going to be fooled by me' it's worthwhile as well. So I'd say keep it.

 

[Bohandas]

I think they were trying to make monster and PCs play by the same rules

If you're responding to my post, I don't see what that has to do with it. PCs don't have racial hit dice and base monsters don't have character levels unless they've taken a level in a character class. There's nothing in the player character rules tying skills, saves, or BAB to hit dice, only a rule tying all four of them to class level. Correlation does not equal causation.

EDIT:
If fact, going by strict rules as written PC saves are explicitly not tied to their HD. You could easily have a 6HD character with a base will save of +0, such as a Ftr 2/Rng 2/Brb 2

 

[Staffan]

This I agree with. I don't know why they tied all the monster stats to hit dice in 3.5e. From a narrativist and simulationist perspective it makes no sense whatsoever that monsters would get extra skill points and will saves just because they're bigger or tougher. Feats, saves, skill points, and HD should have been entirely independent. That said, I still think that monsters should have had all of them

Basically, monster (or more technically, "Dragon", "Humanoid", "Fey", "Outsider" etc.) was treated as a (bad) class. So an 8 HD fey is basically the same thing as an 8th level fey, and as such it has 8d6 hp (plus Con), BAB +(8/2), (8+3)*(6+Int) skill points, Reflex and Will +2+(8/2)+(Dex or Wis), and Fortitude (8/3)+Con. 3.0 for some reason gave monsters one feat per 4 HD instead of per 3 HD, but that was changed in 3.5.

They were basically trying to use the same rules for monsters as for PCs, in the interests of "fairness" or simulationism. It didn't work out as well as well as they thought, but I can see what they were trying to do.

 

[Tonguez]

How would you do saves and skill checks without them in 3/3.5/5?

In 3x, it was quite explicit that Monsters and PCs both followed the same build rules, hence it was a simple matter of designing a monster-likea-PC.
Thats not so much the case for 5e, you could just apply the Proficiency bonus to all monster checks and apply combat abilities etc according to role (like 4e)

 

[ART!]

You beat me to it. This has been my experience too. Plus, it’s helpful to be able to compare capabilities to some extent.

Honest question: is there a scale for ability scores that includes above 20 in any of the core books (or elsewhere, really)? If a dragon's strength is 26, we know the bonus progression and can do the calculations for how much they can lift, but where does that 26 lie on the scale of how strong a thing can be? A Strength 30 creature can punch roughly twice as hard as a Strength 20 creature, going by the unarmed combat rules, but a Stength 20 creature punches 5 times as hard as a Strength 10 creature.

I guess my point is that getting a sense of scale above 20 is hard, so I'm not sure how useful abilituy scores are above 20. In normal "human" ranges up to 20 the comparisons are pretty easy to understand, but above 20? [shrugs]

 

[cavetroll]

I guess my point is that getting a sense of scale above 20 is hard, so I'm not sure how useful abilituy scores are above 20. In normal "human" ranges up to 20 the comparisons are pretty easy to understand, but above 20? [shrugs]

Right, I expect an ancient red dragon to have the strength of 100 men.

 

[Bohandas]

Basically, monster (or more technically, "Dragon", "Humanoid", "Fey", "Outsider" etc.) was treated as a (bad) class. So an 8 HD fey is basically the same thing as an 8th level fey, and as such it has 8d6 hp (plus Con), BAB +(8/2), (8+3)*(6+Int) skill points, Reflex and Will +2+(8/2)+(Dex or Wis), and Fortitude (8/3)+Con. 3.0 for some reason gave monsters one feat per 4 HD instead of per 3 HD, but that was changed in 3.5.

They were basically trying to use the same rules for monsters as for PCs, in the interests of "fairness" or simulationism. It didn't work out as well as well as they thought, but I can see what they were trying to do.

I get that that was their intent, but HD=level is still a strange leap for them to make though. It makes exactly as much sense (none at all) as if you started with the monster's base attack bonus and determined its HD based on that.

It's doubly weird if done for the sake of simulationism because it actively detracts from the game in that regard. It undermines the ability to design creature statistics to match a given concept by needlessly tying things together that have nothing to do with each other.

And moreover it doesn't even follow the way player characters are built anyway. None of the core races have any racial traits that depend in any way on that race's other racial traits. If monsters were really built like PCs then hit dice and base attack bonus would be as seperate a thing as dwarf's stonecunning and a dwarf's stability.

Instead of building the monsters like the PCs are, where race is independent of character levels, they built the monsters as if each race was a specific NPC with character levels.

In 3x, it was quite explicit that Monsters and PCs both followed the same build rules, hence it was a simple matter of designing a monster-likea-PC.

Except that, as said above, they're not. The traits of PC races are all independent of each other. A monster's racial saving throw bonus is determined by it's HD whereas a Halfling's racial saving throw bonus is independent of HD

EDIT:
Also, none of the PC races get skill points directly from their race the way monsters do, the closest thing is humans getting a bonus to skill points per character level

 

[Staffan]

I get that that was their intent, but HD=level is still a strange leap for them to make though. It makes exactly as much sense (none at all) as if you started with the monster's base attack bonus and determined its HD based on that.

HD and level have been pretty much the same in all pre-4e D&D versions. The standard for monsters in AD&D was that they had the saves and attack rolls of a fighter with the same level as their HD. And PCs had as many HD as their level (for things like sleep which affect a certain number of HD).

Except that, as said above, they're not. The traits of PC races are all independent of each other. A monster's racial saving throw bonus is determined by it's HD whereas a Halfling's racial saving throw bonus is independent of HD

That's because for a monster, their monster type is their class. PC races don't have racial HD, but monsters do. And when the rules for playing monsters as PCs came out in Savage Species* and level adjustment was formalized, a PC based on a monster would count both the monster's HD and it's level adjustment for the purposes of level. So a 3rd level cleric minotaur would effectively be 11th level (for the purposes of XP and such): 6 levels/HD of Monstrous Humanoid, a Level Adjustment of +2, and then 3 levels of cleric on top of that. That's not something you could do in pre-3e D&D without designing a whole new thing around the minotaur, but in 3e you just look at the MM entry, base things off that, and get something that works** within the game.

* I'm still a little miffed that they didn't go with the working title Tooth & Claw.
** It might not work particularly well, but it interfaces with all the other game mechanics in expected ways. You'll just be, well, bad in most cases.

 

[Bohandas]

That's because for a monster, their monster type is their class.

But WHY!?
All I'm hearing here* is, at best, a circular argument. "Racial HD are different from other racial traits because they count as levels, and they count as levels because they're different from other racial traits"**

*not from you specifically but from everyone I've discussed this with
**oftentimes it's not even a circular argument, I;ll just get something that's more like "Racial HD are different from other racial traits because they count as levels, and they count as levels because"

And when the rules for playing monsters as PCs came out in Savage Species* and level adjustment was formalized, a PC based on a monster would count both the monster's HD and it's level adjustment for the purposes of level. So a 3rd level cleric minotaur would effectively be 11th level (for the purposes of XP and such): 6 levels/HD of Monstrous Humanoid, a Level Adjustment of +2, and then 3 levels of cleric on top of that.`

And that's another problem I wasn't going to bring up bit now I think you've forced me to. It makes no sense that every monster hit die would burden you with another full level of ECL even if we did count them equivalent to levels, because

1. It results in the preposterous implication the the CR of mirror fight against a creature with the same stats would not be an ECL appropriate encounter

and

2. It's basically asking you to take six levels in commoner and then still be able compete with people who took 6 levels in PC classes...or in adept...or magewright...or expert*

*With the exception of creatures that have outsider racial HD. Outsider racial levels are superior to a level in expert. Although they are still inferior to levels in a PC class, and probably to levels in the NPC spellcasting classes as well

And when the rules for playing monsters as PCs came out in Savage Species* and level adjustment was formalized, a PC based on a monster would count both the monster's HD and it's level adjustment for the purposes of level.

Savage Species also puts the lie to the ideas that 3.x's monsters are built like PCs because a normal PC class would get skill points every level.

A normal PC class would go all the way up to level 20. That's sort of another another problem with RHD as class levels (that sort of touches on what I was saying before) every level is a dead level after a certain point. (And without the savage progressions every level is a dead level period.)

Additionally, if you use Savage Species progressions you throw narrativism and simulationism out the window in favor of pure gamism, because I couldn't tell you with confidence what, if anything, a character partway through a savage progression is meant to represent. Especially since I'm reasonably some of the published ones are for creatures that come into being fully formed and/or metamorphose into what they are out of another mature creature (ie. the drider, the ghoul, the mindflayer, the succubus, etc) so it can't just be an immature member of the race

That's not something you could do in pre-3e D&D without designing a whole new thing around the minotaur

It's also not something that's dependent on bundling all these other stats to hd.

Here's a minotaur character race built using my system in which HD doesn't get you anytging other than HP and immunity to HD gated spells. It is for all practical intents and purposes interchangable with the minotaur built using the official system:


Minotaur characters possess the following racial traits.
*+8 Strength, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence (minimum 3), -2 Charisma.
*Large size. -1 penalty to Armor Class, -1 penalty on attack rolls, -4 penalty on Hide checks, +4 bonus on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits double those of Medium characters.
*Space/Reach: 10 feet/10 feet.
*A minotaur’s base land speed is 30 feet.
*Darkvision out to 60 feet.
*Tough: The minotaur gains 6 extra HD, size d8. This grants 6d8+(con modifier x 6) extra hit points and may alter the effects of certain spells whose effects depend on hit dice (and remember, in this example that's ALL the hit dice do)
*Weapon Proficiency: A minotaur gains martial weapon proficiency with the greataxe and is profocient with all simple weapons.
*+5 natural armor bonus.
*Bonus feats: A minotaur gains Great Fortitude, Power Attack, and Track as bonus feats
*Natural Weapons: Gore (1d8).
*A minotaur has a +2 racial bonus to fortitude saves
*A minotaur has a +5 racial bonus to reflex saves and will saves
*+3 racial bonus to intimidate checks
*+4 racial bonus to search
*+7 racial bonus to listen and spot checks
*Powerful Charge (Ex) A minotaur typically begins a battle by charging at an opponent, lowering its head to bring its mighty horns into play. In addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge, this allows the beast to make a single gore attack with a +9 attack bonus that deals 4d6+6 points of damage
*Natural Cunning (Ex) Although minotaurs are not especially intelligent, they possess innate cunning and logical ability. This gives them immunity to maze spells, prevents them from ever becoming lost, and enables them to track enemies. Further, they are never caught flat-footed.
*A minotaur has a +6 racial bonus to attack rolls
*Scent.
*Automatic Languages: Common, Giant. Bonus Languages: Orc, Goblin, Terran.
*Favored Class: Barbarian.
*Level adjustment +8 (although, as I said, I personally would have this be lower, I'm setting it here in the interests of total interchangability)