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

[pemerton]

Of course it should follow the rules. The 4e-style blacksmith also have AC and hitpoints, and die when hit and roll to attack. He is just built using a different approach

<snip>

You can kill, and interact, with 4e-style shopkeepers just as well as with 3e.

Yes. This is a similar point to my comment, upthread, about the build vs action resolution contrast.

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). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).

Or you can make a Monster Knowledge (Nature) check.

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.

These are other options, yes!

In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off

How would you learn the NPC's "true level"? Whereas you would work out how good a smith he is by observing him in action.

I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing.

But these are linked only in a system like 3E that progresses skills and combat in lockstep. There is no correlation between them in Runequest, Rolemaster, HARP or any point-buy system.

In my opinion, 'a wizard did it' style DMing violates the social contract of the game

Sure, but the only game I know of which makes fighting and smithing skill correlate is 3E and its d20 derivatives.

The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within.

B/X and 1st ed AD&D didn't assume that all NPCs are built using the PC build rules. Even NPC adventurers, in that edition, have different stat rules from PCs (eg an NPC druid doesn't have the same stat minimums as a PC druid).

This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING

I don't read it that way. I read it as an argument that using PC-build rules to build NPCs is not always a good thing, because these are different game elements intended to be used by differnent participants in the game, for different purposes.

The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world.

Which people? PC build rules aren't how I see the game world. They're how I see the parameters of the generation of a certain suite of player resources.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've used Hobgoblin Phalanxes (huge and gargantuan swarms of hobgoblins). One ability they have is to remove hobgoblin minions from the game in order to regain hit points (battlefield pressganging!).

Yes! I've also done the reverse: have such mobs 'spawn' minions when destroyed - surviving stragglers.

 

[Hussar]

Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should <<edit>> Never have been allowed to do so<<edit>>, 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.

I agree. He should be shot for lying about what the 4e mechanics ACTUALLY say.

It would be so nice if we could have this discussion AFTER people bothered to look up facts rather than go by hearsay.

/edit Sorry, replied before I saw the big red mod message. Redacted the bad bits.

 

[Hussar]

To be perfectly honest, I don't like free form mechanics. I like to build with in the confines of the rules when it comes to NPCs and monsters. I don't like to "just make it happen" unless it is with regards to fluff. Can I say Gunslingers exist in 4th edition? Sure I can but I don't like that. I want the mechanics for a Gunslinger to be present so I build off of that.

Ummm, you do realize that THIS SITE has rules for a gunslinger in 4e?

ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution Adventure Path - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine

Scroll down to the Player and DM guides and you have gunslinger rules RIGHT THERE.

Whatever happened to people looking at concepts and then using their own creativity to make it themselves? But, even if you don't want to make the effort, the rules are right there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

And I'm saying that 3E is from this perspective terrible simulationism. It simulates one thing and one thing only. It simulates itself. The only reason our Master Basketweaver or Master Debater are extremely good in combat are because the 3.X rules force them to be because the "simulationism" won't let them be anything else.

If a simulation takes you to a wrong result then you should discard the simulation just as if a map regularly doesn't match the actual landscape.

In 4E this is because you can only become good at stuff by gaining levels

In 4e the levels measure how good an adventurer you are. Not "how skilled you are". They are about your adventuring and combat skill. If you are an adventurer, this works. If you want to play Traders and Craftsmen, you probably don't want to play Dungeons and Dragons - and certainly don't want to play D&D 4e.

I am merely advocating the same approach: levels and simulation.

And I'm saying that levels work if and only if you are measuring one basic axis. If you aren't, they are an incoherent mess with a lot of unfortunate results such as the way for a scholar to get more hit points and be better with a sword is to read more books.

Levels are terrible world simulation. What they are is a structure for measuring the power of adventurers. And the key test for whether something's a simulation is whether the outcomes match the desired outcomes. Your map can be as pretty as it likes, but if it doesn't mark the major rivers and you want to go hiking, it's a pretty crummy map.

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.

If you want a good simulationist game, try GURPS. One of the things that makes it a good simulationist game is that it doesn't assume levels and adventurer-type associations with hit points and resilience. Simulationism isn't wrong (I have more GURPS books on my shelf than any other system). But levels are a non-simulationist simplification that works only for the purposes of measuring the power of adventurers in a game focussed round something (whether dungeon exploring as in 1e or questing as in 4e). Levels have many uses - but they cripple any attempt to make a world-sim.

The problem with 3e's simulationism isn't that it is simulationism, but that it is extremely flawed simulationism due to being a level based system. Levels work well for both narrativist and gamist play but hamstring simulationism because they force everyone to be measured as if they were an adventurer (or they cease having meaning). And what you are defending isn't simulationism. It's the idea that a game with a very gamist core can be hacked into a sim without becoming laden with down right perverse results.

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.

It is possible. We just have to make the game levelless and classless. And I've a lot of tolerance for what is and isn't D&D - but levelless, classless, and with no focus on adventurers is way outside mine.

And for the record, non-combatant PCs can be made in 4e by abusing the bard and lazy warlord builds. It works.

Also there's the fact that there's two types of simulation! This has not been adequately discussed.

Type 1: Simulationism of rules (aka the top down approach)

Type 2: Simulation of outcome (aka the bottom up approach)

Agreed absolutely. And it's simulation of outcome that is the part that matters. If you can get simulation of rules to match it, good. But the outcomes are the important part. If you can get simulation of rules and outcome to match up, good. GURPS tries - and doesn't do a bad job. But the second you are into a class and level based game, you're forcing a choice. And a choice that will make the rules meaningless.

 

[GreyICE]

Agreed absolutely. And it's simulation of outcome that is the part that matters. If you can get simulation of rules to match it, good. But the outcomes are the important part. If you can get simulation of rules and outcome to match up, good. GURPS tries - and doesn't do a bad job. But the second you are into a class and level based game, you're forcing a choice. And a choice that will make the rules meaningless.

I don't know about that. I mean Warhammer 40k has some very distinct fluff that tells how battles SHOULD play out (the "outcome") but the rules create a playingfield where the rules stand paramount. For instance, from fluff a squad of five space marines is worth maybe 200-500 orks, in combat. Yet on the table an army consisting of 20 space marines can often be cornered and overwhelmed by 80 orks or so.

Other games that focus on a strict antagonistic relationship should also focus on primacy of rules over outcome. For instance the DnD encounters they're currently running are rules-driven and deservedly so, and I would flat up say anyone who runs the "dungeon crawl" DnD module that is set as a reality TV show in the 25th century as anything other than rules driven (BLATANTLY to the exclusion of common sense, as this is reality TV) should hand in their GMing license. Similarly for Living Pathfinder, etc. - the rules should be paramount because the outcome has elements of competition.

It's just I don't see it as a particularly compelling way to play what is, at the end of the day, a cooperative exercise in story building. Maybe it's me taking a break from DnD to play FATE for a long time (I'm currently in 1 DnD campaign at the moment) but the endless rules debates are leaving me colder and colder. Maybe that's what makes me enjoy 4E the most of any DnD system - it sticks the rules in a nice, easy to manage box, hands you the box, and then says "we have NO IDEA what happens outside this box. Seriously, we don't. Here's a collection of tools to build what's inside the box, here's some suggestions for how to structure things that happen outside the box, here's some good ideas, but seriously, outside this box? We know NOTHING. Have fun!"

If you've got to do rules-heavy cooperative story building, that strikes me as the way to go. But for a strict Dungeon Crawl simulator I do see the advantages of the other approach - it feels less like the DM is "cheating" in creating his crawl, and the crawl is presented as an obstacle the DM will throw at you as hard as possible to attempt to break you.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The primary purpose of a class system is to create bundled mechanics. One of the problems with many point buy systems is that you can get very extremely specialized character.

The fighter who has the most godly offense but is killed by a stiff breeze is just one example.

The class system is designed to ensure that all character regardless of choice have a bit of all the core things needed to play, some offense, defense, skills, etc.

Now in terms of this it works very well. The problem of course is when you want to debundle mechanics, like the professor or blacksmith example being discussed.


Its an important reminder, no system can do it all. Ultimately we have to decide if the good outweighs the bad, or the bad is at least adjustable enough using our own rulings to minimize it.

 

[adamc]

In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage. A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].

Mostly I think that folks who worry about that expect more than most game mechanics can deliver. You need to apply a little imagination to help it along.

As others have explained, they were designed so that the numbers would actually work, which makes playing more fun (to some extent). I like 4e, but I don't really like the solo mechanic because adding hitpoints doesn't really make the fight more fun. But I will give them due props for having a working mechanic, where DMs can crank out new functional monsters and make encounters that work quite easily.

I don't mean to be dismissive of your point, but there are many places where their system is even more ridiculous (I'm thinking of the whole leveling mechanic). It's fun, and in a very vague way represents something true (experience helps), but in the real world, even world-class athletes aren't bullet-proof and there are pretty sharp limits on how much better than average you can be. D&D isn't designed that way because it's a game and is supposed to be fun to play. Works for me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I read it as an argument that using PC-build rules to build NPCs is not always a good thing, because these are different game elements intended to be used by differnent participants in the game, for different purposes.

So are any two PCs. And yet, I think if you built one with an extensive class system and the other as two numbers that you think you're likely to need, people would get a little squirrely about it.

There isn't anything inherently different between a PC and an NPC. In fact, it's not uncommon for characters to transition between different players or player and DM, particularly when one is "retired". The character's statistics aren't redefined when this happens, because they are a property of the character, not the player. It is certainly a valid choice for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.

B/X and 1st ed AD&D didn't assume that all NPCs are built using the PC build rules. Even NPC adventurers, in that edition, have different stat rules from PCs (eg an NPC druid doesn't have the same stat minimums as a PC druid).

I'm guessing that caused some problems.

Which people? PC build rules aren't how I see the game world.

Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores? I'm sure there are many other elements in play, but keep in mind that most people who play D&D do not DM, and character creation will be a much larger part of their experience. I think they're pretty foundational.

***

I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.

I don't think it's wrong; I've worked within it for quite a while now. I do think that in this thread certain

What I saw was things like this (Just picking one example of several):

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.

...which is pretty clearly a critique of the concept of a class-based system, followed by this non sequitur:

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

...which apparently doesn't reflect the expectation that whatever flaws your system has, be it class-based or not, certain people expect that everyone will share in that system together (I think most players do and probably most DMs as well; in any case, several people in this thread do and that underlying assumption wasn't getting across).

 

[Obryn]

It is certainly a valid choice for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.

So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?

I'm guessing that caused some problems.

Naaah, not really. Expectations are very different in 1e. Granted, most NPCs were just 0-level with a handful of hit points. Also of note - there was no real skill system in 1e (secondary skills were a background thing for PCs, and nonweapon proficiencies were a later development) so NPCs were exactly as good at their jobs as the DM wanted them to be without needing to advance in level.

There's a tailor in Hommlet, for example, who throws knives as a 7th-level fighter with a random damage bonus despite being 0-level.

-O