Adapt or Perish!

[Scribble]

To me, the concept in 4th ed of streamlining monsters and putting them into a box defined by role may be easier to run "on the fly", but it sure seems from what we've been shown thus far to be a big step backwards in terms of the even playing field between sides of the DM's screen.

They're already in that box... Each monster is defined by it's class already.. the classes just happen to be the race. It always reminds me of basic D&D where you could be an "elf," or a "dwarf..." Each monster already has a role, and as it stands it's harder to put monsters of a certain race into another role without finagling a lot of rules around.

A PC's race doesn't determine things like Hit Dice or Attack bonus... Why should the monster be any different? Splitting a monster into race/class seems more like equal footing to me.

Change the class/role of the monster and now you have a whole new set of abilities. Designers will be able to take a monster race, and spend more time giving it unique abilities as opposed to trying to figure out how to allow it to have those abilities.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If WotC decided to put ray guns and space marines into D&D, would you still be saying "adapt or die?" I certainly hope not.

There are rules for rayguns in the 3e DMG page 146. There was a crashed spaceship, robots and rayguns in the 1e module, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and suggestions for running crossover games with Gamma World and Boot Hill in the 1e DMG.

 

[Twowolves]

They're already in that box... Each monster is defined by it's class already.. the classes just happen to be the race. It always reminds me of basic D&D where you could be an "elf," or a "dwarf..." Each monster already has a role, and as it stands it's harder to put monsters of a certain race into another role without finagling a lot of rules around.

Well, I don't consider adding a template or advancing by class or HD "finagling", and "a lot" of rules is relevant. I see what you are saying, but my point was one where the new edition seems to want to sacrifice flexibility for ease of use. I am ok with that, for some game systems. I think that's just fine for more pulpy or action-theater style games. I just don't think it's what I would want in D&D. But that's just me, I guess.

A PC's race doesn't determine things like Hit Dice or Attack bonus... Why should the monster be any different? Splitting a monster into race/class seems more like equal footing to me.

Each type of monster in 3.5 is already a "class", and you can add character classes to that to further customize it. Only they made the monster classes "outsider" or "undead". To my mind, having a fighter-equivalent monster box that gives the same abilities across the board no matter if the monster is a demon, an elemental or an ooze seems to strip some flavor from the monsters, especially since one can already just add fighter levels to many of the critters in the book (or advance by HD if not).

Change the class/role of the monster and now you have a whole new set of abilities. Designers will be able to take a monster race, and spend more time giving it unique abilities as opposed to trying to figure out how to allow it to have those abilities.

Except that the designers already just give whatever abilities they want to a monster. I was very impressed with the forethought that went into designing the 3rd ed monsters. They made a framework/system and then made the critters within that system, whereas before they just made a monster and threw it out there. To me, taking an "8HD Buiser" and then pondering what special abilities to give it is potentially less balanced than taking a monster and advancing it or templating it. I'm sure the current developers have put a lot of thought into the new monster system, and I haven't seen enough to judge yet, but I'm not thrilled by what I've seen so far.

I understand that the Challenge Rating system is really more of a guideline than a science, it still seems more thought out than picking a beastie from a box and then sticking abilities on it like some kind of Mr Potato Head. My opinion is that the game is better balanced when the NPCs use the same rules as the PCs.

 

[Scribble]

Well, I don't consider adding a template or advancing by class or HD "finagling", and "a lot" of rules is relevant. I see what you are saying, but my point was one where the new edition seems to want to sacrifice flexibility for ease of use. I am ok with that, for some game systems. I think that's just fine for more pulpy or action-theater style games. I just don't think it's what I would want in D&D. But that's just me, I guess.

No, but they've already stated templates are in, just modified. I don't see it as sacrificing flexibility. I see it as adding another layer of flexibility. In essence they're adding flexibility and making it easier to work with to boot...

Say I want a hardcore undead fighter. How does one do that? Base undead have a pretty crummy BAB... Now I have to finaggle a way to give it a better BAB... I guess some type of template? Now I'm creating both a crummy monster and a template to match the monster I wanted in the first place?

If I could just start out with a base race (undead) and then say.. oh I want it to be a bruiser... Now it's an undead with a good attack bonus.

Granted I'm simplifying, but see what I mean?

Each type of monster in 3.5 is already a "class", and you can add character classes to that to further customize it. Only they made the monster classes "outsider" or "undead". To my mind, having a fighter-equivalent monster box that gives the same abilities across the board no matter if the monster is a demon, an elemental or an ooze seems to strip some flavor from the monsters, especially since one can already just add fighter levels to many of the critters in the book (or advance by HD if not).

Thats what I was saying... Each monster is essentially a race, and a class like the OD&D Elf or Dwarf. It constrains the designers by making them decide how to twist the rules to match their idea.

You already have the same across the board... The types each list all the things they have.. all undead are immune to crits, all outsiders have X Hit Dice... All humanoids have x BAB...

Making the "class" separate can only add flavor in my opinion. Now you have the flavor of the race, with the flavor o whatever options it takes as a class. They've already even stated that races are going to matter more with classes anyway. (which I'm assuming is akin to class racial replacement levels...) so a "demon bruiser" could be WAY different then a "Devil bruiser" despite being in the same "class..."

Except that the designers already just give whatever abilities they want to a monster. I was very impressed with the forethought that went into designing the 3rd ed monsters. They made a framework/system and then made the critters within that system, whereas before they just made a monster and threw it out there. To me, taking an "8HD Buiser" and then pondering what special abilities to give it is potentially less balanced than taking a monster and advancing it or templating it. I'm sure the current developers have put a lot of thought into the new monster system, and I haven't seen enough to judge yet, but I'm not thrilled by what I've seen so far.

yes, I'm willing to bet they did a lot of thinking as far as the numbers go, and it's not going to be willy nilly add an ability whenever you want, but it will be a lot easier to create your concept, then mash your concept into the constraints. There will still be a framework, the framework will just allow for more variation within the same species then 3e ever allowed.

I understand that the Challenge Rating system is really more of a guideline than a science, it still seems more thought out than picking a beastie from a box and then sticking abilities on it like some kind of Mr Potato Head. My opinion is that the game is better balanced when the NPCs use the same rules as the PCs.

But they AREN'T using the same rules... When you pick a race you aren't picking your class at the same time. Why should monsters?

 

[Scarbonac]

I am such an Avatard....

I haven't heard that one before.

I like it!

Maybe I'll take firebender instead and work my way up the electromagnetic spectrum...

 

[Imaro]

No, but they've already stated templates are in, just modified. I don't see it as sacrificing flexibility. I see it as adding another layer of flexibility. In essence they're adding flexibility and making it easier to work with to boot...

Say I want a hardcore undead fighter. How does one do that? Base undead have a pretty crummy BAB... Now I have to finaggle a way to give it a better BAB... I guess some type of template? Now I'm creating both a crummy monster and a template to match the monster I wanted in the first place?

If I could just start out with a base race (undead) and then say.. oh I want it to be a bruiser... Now it's an undead with a good attack bonus.

Granted I'm simplifying, but see what I mean?

No...not really. If I want a hardcore undead fighter in 3.5...I make it a fighter/barbarian/swordsage/warblade/etc. Where's the actual finaggling coming in at? You give it a class appropriate to what you want to achieve.

Thats what I was saying... Each monster is essentially a race, and a class like the OD&D Elf or Dwarf. It constrains the designers by making them decide how to twist the rules to match their idea.

You already have the same across the board... The types each list all the things they have.. all undead are immune to crits, all outsiders have X Hit Dice... All humanoids have x BAB...

Making the "class" separate can only add flavor in my opinion. Now you have the flavor of the race, with the flavor o whatever options it takes as a class. They've already even stated that races are going to matter more with classes anyway. (which I'm assuming is akin to class racial replacement levels...) so a "demon bruiser" could be WAY different then a "Devil bruiser" despite being in the same "class..."

Huh? So basically you have the racial abilities( which willbe the same and simplified for combat) that are the same for each monster, plus those from a role...how is this any different from 3.5 if you add a class to a monster? There were (in 3.5) and still will be (in 4e) things designated by race that you then add a role (class) to.

yes, I'm willing to bet they did a lot of thinking as far as the numbers go, and it's not going to be willy nilly add an ability whenever you want, but it will be a lot easier to create your concept, then mash your concept into the constraints. There will still be a framework, the framework will just allow for more variation within the same species then 3e ever allowed.

Not understanding this at all. How does what we know about 4e monsters so far, allow more variation than 3.5 where you could add a template, a class(w/feats, skills, spells, etc.) to the base monster's abilities?

But they AREN'T using the same rules... When you pick a race you aren't picking your class at the same time. Why should monsters?

How is this any different than giving the monsters roles which may or may not coincide with what you want for the monster? In the end a role will only be able to encompass a certain concept, and...unless were dropping the whole simplification thing...will be kept
purposefully simple. How does this in anyway speak to more flexibility than 3.5? I guess if you buy enough sourcebooks with enough of the designers preconceived roles it could, but I doubt out of the box 4e monsters will be anywhere near as customizable as 3.5 monsters are. Monsters, like character classes are archetypes for that particular concept...that's why a monster's abiities and a character's class are similar

 

[Scribble]

Imaro:

Would you advocate that players choosing to be Elven have to take their first level or so in simply ELF? Or the same with the other player races?

This is sort of how monster's work in 3e.

Why not keep them consistent? Why not have monster race + monster role be the monster?

You can still have things like templates (just like PCs can have them now) but you don't NEED them to make the creature work the way you want it to.

Thats really what I'm advocating (and what 4e appears to be aiming for) keeping things gained from class/role consistent and things gained from race consistent.

It allows for added variation in the same way that classes already add to PC variation.

Instead of just the aformentioned ELF you can be ELF fighter or ELF Wizard or Elf Bard... From the start.

 

[hong]

No...not really. If I want a hardcore undead fighter in 3.5...I make it a fighter/barbarian/swordsage/warblade/etc. Where's the actual finaggling coming in at?

In giving it something more than 6.5 hp per HD, so that he won't die like a dog in the first couple of rounds.

How many hardcore undead fighters have you actually built in 3.5?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In giving it something more than 6.5 hp per HD, so that he won't die like a dog in the first couple of rounds.

How many hardcore undead fighters have you actually built in 3.5?

Wasn't there a "monster cheating" feat in a book that allowed Undeads to add their Charisma Bonus to HD?

Or in other ways, a quick fix that could have fatal consequences if applied to any other Undead than the one it was used for?

 

[Imaro]

In giving it something more than 6.5 hp per HD, so that he won't die like a dog in the first couple of rounds.

How many hardcore undead fighters have you actually built in 3.5?

Why would you give an undead you plan to use as a heavy fighter type... 6.5 hp per HD. They have a d12 for HD...You're using the average, but IMHO an undead fighter type would have above average to maximum hp's per level. Is it because you feel constrained to do this, because I don't remember any rules stating all creatures must have avg hp's.

Human Fighter Skeleton...
hp's: 12
Init: +5
AC: 17 (chain shirt +4, hvy steel shield +2, Dex +1)
BAB: +0 (1HD)
Attk: longsword +2 melee(1d8+1)/Claws X2 +2 melee(1d4+1)
Special Qualities: DR 5/bludgeoning; Darkvision 60 ft; immunity to cold; undead traits
Saves: Fort +0 Ref +1 Will +2
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con--, Int--, Wis 10, Cha 1
Feats: Improved initiative
CR:1/3

All I basically did was throw some decent armor on him, give him a decent weapon and increase his hp's to max...voila a heavy fighter type undead skeleton for a 1st level party. I could definitely see 3 of these being a modertae to heavy challenge for a party of four 1st level characters, especially with the DR and the immunity to crits. Increase his HD by 1 and he could be a singular foe for a party of 1st level adventurers.