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

[Chris_Nightwing]

The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference. It's certainly never led to verisimilitude problems at the table. It's freeing and empowering, whereas I consider the morass at the back of the 3.5 MM to be restricting and creativity-killing. As well as a whole lot of work.

I apologize for the long, boring post. Hopefully it gets my point across, though.

I really liked your example, but have a couple of comments. Making its attack bonus suddenly +11 is, in my opinion, disconcerting, although it depends how you're doing it. Don't forget that many other checks might come up involving its base attack bonus and/or its strength, so you really ought to adjust one of those components. For your example I might have just reduced its HD a little so that it isn't so good at attacking, and if it doesn't have enough HP, give it some more Con.

3E obviously had some mathematical issues, and I see no reason why you couldn't build a creature as quickly as you can in 4E, but with the underlying math being fully explained as in 3E. In the recent WotC columns we've seen some discussion of this - they want Hobgoblins to have a better attack bonus, so they explain it as being militarily trained. I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.

 

[slobo777]

3E obviously had some mathematical issues, and I see no reason why you couldn't build a creature as quickly as you can in 4E, but with the underlying math being fully explained as in 3E. In the recent WotC columns we've seen some discussion of this - they want Hobgoblins to have a better attack bonus, so they explain it as being militarily trained. I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.

Both 3E and 4E expect in-game explanations for monster stats.

In 4E the explanation can be provided at any time, and isn't always given to the DM for each and every number.

In 3E the explanation and mechanics are served up in little units (of feats, "levels" in monster HD, special one-off bonuses etc).

Both approaches have their merits and problems. The trouble with 3E "math balancing" is that it is basically a lie as soon as you add supernatural powers and/or spells. Those don't fit into any math scheme at all, and have to be done almost entirely by feel (for instance, you generally don't equip a level appropriate "standard" monster with spells at same level as the PCs, that's too tough). So, unless you are designing a very simple monster that has hit points, attacks and damage, it's all very experimental.

I quite like the little bits in 3E (except picking spells for spell-casters, it's a chore), but I don't like how loosely the end result is balanced for play. After many years as DM I got a feel for what worked and not, but I still prefer the 4E approach for being faster and more immediately solid, so I get more time to do other kinds of prep.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Both 3E and 4E expect in-game explanations for monster stats.

In 4E the explanation can be provided at any time, and isn't always given to the DM for each and every number.

In 3E the explanation and mechanics are served up in little units (of feats, "levels" in monster HD, special one-off bonuses etc).

Both approaches have their merits and problems. The trouble with 3E "math balancing" is that it is basically a lie as soon as you add supernatural powers and/or spells. Those don't fit into any math scheme at all, and have to be done almost entirely by feel (for instance, you generally don't equip a level appropriate "standard" monster with spells at same level as the PCs, that's too tough). So, unless you are designing a very simple monster that has hit points, attacks and damage, it's all very experimental.

I quite like the little bits in 3E (except picking spells for spell-casters, it's a chore), but I don't like how loosely the end result is balanced for play. After many years as DM I got a feel for what worked and not, but I still prefer the 4E approach for being faster and more immediately solid, so I get more time to do other kinds of prep.

I guess I'm a math guy or something.. I agree that anything involving spells or spell-like abilities is hard work (in any system really, because there is no logic to the power level of certain effects).. but I was fine with all the little bonuses. In contrast, I found it difficult, personally, to explain 4E numbers after the fact.

One particular example stands out in my mind: I had made a 4E enemy from scratch, an animated statue of an archer. Now, in my fresh-to-4E mind, there were still no guidelines as to whether I could give it immunity to mind-affecting spells, or damage resistance because it was made of bronze. It got more confusing when I couldn't relate its basic attack to its weapon and abilities. Yes, it worked in play, but it felt too abstracted to me.

That's all I can ever say in this argument really - that I think more in terms of processes than abstracts, and I always will.

 

[triqui]

I really liked your example, but have a couple of comments. Making its attack bonus suddenly +11 is, in my opinion, disconcerting, although it depends how you're doing it. Don't forget that many other checks might come up involving its base attack bonus and/or its strength, so you really ought to adjust one of those components. For your example I might have just reduced its HD a little so that it isn't so good at attacking, and if it doesn't have enough HP, give it some more Con.

It's just a matter of taste. It depends on if you want *system* verosimilitude, or *story* verosimilitude.

Let's take an ogre as an example. Story wise, I might want my ogre to be a sluggish, bad fighter that swing and miss a lot, with a relatively high damage when he luckily connects.

In a 4e style of approach (story verosimilitude), you make it a brute, give him low accuracy, and high damage and hp with low AC.

In a 3e style of approach (system verosimilitude), you can't. Because the Ogre *is* very strong, which, systemwise, translate in a high attack bonus. Also translate into a high damage bonus. You can't really play that much with his Hit Dice, which are quite low, and you don't really have a lot of room to reduce them to get a lower BAB (his BAB is a very small part of his total attack bonus anyways).

So, in the end, your 3e style ogre does not work like the "story" suggests (low accuracy, high damage), but like the "system" forces him to (high accuracy, high damage). It also makes Ogres one of the worst rated CR in the game. It's, supposedly, a fair 1st level "final fight", being only a couple levels above 1st. In practice, he will one-shot almost any 1st level char, and most 2nd level non-fighters, making it a badly balanced monster.

So, there's a matter of tastes here. A narrativist guy, would want his ogre to match the story. A gamist guy, would want the ogre to be a "fair, balanced encounter". And a simulationist guy, would want the ogre to follow the "game physics". You happen to be in the third trope, while others are in the first, and others in the second one.

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be fair triqui, the easiest thing to do in 3e is to simply invent something and then tack it on. So, our Ogre has the "Clumsy" quality which gives him a -4 on his attacks.

 

[triqui]

Well, to be fair triqui, the easiest thing to do in 3e is to simply invent something and then tack it on. So, our Ogre has the "Clumsy" quality which gives him a -4 on his attacks.

I thought liberal use of game tags and labels were "wrong" for 3e style.

Why is it different to tag a "clumsy" quality to the ogre, so it fits story, than tagging a "minion" label to the kobold or a "solo" tag to the Gelatinous Cube, so they fit in the story?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

A hypothetical 'clumsy' tag could be applied to the PCs, so fits my physics worldview, unlike minion or solo

It's interesting that we imagine low dexterity creatures have a hard time hitting things, whilst we use strength for a whole bunch of weapon attacks. I would be happy to go to a dex for hitting, str for damage system.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Out of curiosity, what systems do you run other than 3E D&D and variants thereof?

Other than 3e and a few non-assimilated variants (CoC d20 & Modern come to mind), there's the two years or so I spent on late 2e before 3e was released, the BSG iteration of the cortex system, and the Green Ronin Dragon Age game.

(i.e. not the variety of certain individuals on these boards who are old enough to be my parents or who seem to play rpgs for a living, but more variety than most D&D players who started with 3e have ever seen and enough that it ought to make me immune to these rather grating comments, implicit and explicit, that my over ten years of DMing experience isn't "enough").

Perhaps more importantly, though it is not my primary background, I took every opportunity I could to stuff creative writing, film, and drama courses into my academic background. My overall take on the hobby is probably more informed by those things (which predate my D&D experience) than anything.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

First I want to thank my elders who told us about basic and 1st edition dragons

Second I want to point out that I have PCs who started in 3.5 and one that started in 4th. I have been running games for 17 years... More then half my life, and that still puts me in 2e territory.

At Gen Con I ran a 14 year old player at my table he was not alive when I started running 2e... And I wasn't alive when Gary first published this game.

So keep in mind for some of us, 2e+ is the only d&d we know

 

[triqui]

A hypothetical 'clumsy' tag could be applied to the PCs, so fits my physics worldview, unlike minion or solo

So "god" tag does not fit, because PC can't be gods?

It's interesting that we imagine low dexterity creatures have a hard time hitting things, whilst we use strength for a whole bunch of weapon attacks. I would be happy to go to a dex for hitting, str for damage system.

Not all of them should have hard time hitting things. A dwarven fighter in ironclad armor might not be the nimblest thing out-there, but they should have a very good ratio.
I think some games (like DC heroes or Marvel FASERIP system) got it right with their "fighting" attribute. "Fighting", or "prowess", or "weapon skill", or whatever name you want to give it, is the general physical power, accuracy, aggresiveness, will-to-fight, and combat-readiness of a given creature. It's not exactly the same as "base attack". It's a special attribute, a mix of Str, Dex, Willpower, and fierceness.

For example: an elephant shouldn't hit with more accuracy than a weasel just because of Str, but a rabbit shouldn't hit with more accuracy than a raging bull just becouse of dexterity.

However, as D&D give armor the chance to deflect the blow (AC), having a high STR makes sense somewhat. It's logic that a Fire Giant can pierce a dragon's scales better than a Sprite does.

It's not an easy solution, from the point of view of simulationism. Whatever you do, the simulation will fail somewhere, somehow, to explain something. However, it has a very easy solution from the point of view of narrativism (give the Ogre the chance to hit you think it fits the story) or gamism (give the ogre a balanced attack bonus for his Challenge Rating)