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

[Chris_Nightwing]

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

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)

I think PCs can aspire to be gods, narratively and mechanically. They can't aspire to be elites or solos though.. not without unbecoming PCs.

I would also favour a system that avoided base attack bonus and used weapon skill. In which case your ogre simply isn't trained in weapons and/or hasn't spent any skill points on weapons.

EDIT: In fact, this is why penalties existed for being non-proficient (or indeed, bonuses for being proficient). Ogres clearly aren't trained in club use (they improvise with a big tree or whatever).

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

I had a god PC once. Who says PCs can't be gods?

More importantly, a deity is something other than a metagame construct built to provide a certain level of challeng.

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.

True.

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)

So if simulating things with playable game mechanics is hard, the solution is to give up?

 

[triqui]

I had a god PC once. Who says PCs can't be gods?

In some games, like Nobilis, the PC are actually required to be gods. For standard D&D, though, even if gaining god status is a feasible and traditional goal, when it's achieved, the game ends for that character.

Some homebrew D&D campaings might work different, but some other hombebrew campaings can have the PC being a realm (not the king, the realm), or a planet, or a microorganism, or classless and level-less characters. That short of experimentation is in the boundaries of D&D, though (because I hate the "it's not D&D" sentence)

More importantly, a deity is something other than a metagame construct built to provide a certain level of challeng.

True. Some metagames constructs are built as tools for a certain level of challenge (such as challenge rating, or hit dice, or solo mechanic), some others metagame constructs are built to provide tools for character generation or advancement (such as point buy, or 4d6 rolls, or "class" and "level).

True

So if simulating things with playable game mechanics is hard, the solution is to give up?

Where did I said that?

In my opinion, now you ask for it , the solution is to decide which amount of simulationism is "good enough" for you (which vary from player to player), knowing that a full, perfect simulation is impossible. Some people will be happy with "hit point" abstract constructs that allow your mortal lvl 20 fighter to swim in lava, some others won't (and will choose to play Rolemaster or whatever). Some players will be happy with Ogres having way too much accuracy for what they "should be" story-wise, and will play 3e, others will choose a "weapon skill" system like Warhammer or Marvel FASERIP, some will just patch 3e with a "clumsy" tag, or base the hit chance on dexterity (as True20). All of them will have a positive impact in some parts of the simulation, and will fail in some other (like rabbits having more hit bonus than lions, becouse they have higher dexterity, or whatever)

 

[Ahnehnois]

In some games, like Nobilis, the PC are actually required to be gods. For standard D&D, though, even if gaining god status is a feasible and traditional goal, when it's achieved, the game ends for that character.

Some homebrew D&D campaings might work different, but some other hombebrew campaings can have the PC being a realm (not the king, the realm), or a planet, or a microorganism, or classless and level-less characters. That short of experimentation is in the boundaries of D&D, though (because I hate the "it's not D&D" sentence)

You are aware that D&D has actual books for statting out gods, right? One of my players' characters was elevated to a minor deity during the game and kept playing alongside the other non-god PCs using published D&D rules. The game didn't end, and it wasn't something I just homebrewed.

True. Some metagames constructs are built as tools for a certain level of challenge (such as challenge rating, or hit dice, or solo mechanic), some others metagame constructs are built to provide tools for character generation or advancement (such as point buy, or 4d6 rolls, or "class" and "level).

There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.

In my opinion, now you ask for it , the solution is to decide which amount of simulationism is "good enough" for you (which vary from player to player), knowing that a full, perfect simulation is impossible.

True. The tone of the last post just sounded to me like you were setting the bar rather low.

 

[pemerton]

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.

WotC has done two iterations of the Bronze Warder, once in H2:Thunderspire Labyrinth, and then again in MV2:Threats to the Nentir Vale.

On both occasions its been given damage resistance, but in MV2 they reduced its hit points, to compensate for the damage that will be resisted (based on a 5-rounds assumption) - thus keeping it about the same overall toughness, but with a slightly different dynamic.

Immunity to mind-affecting spells in 4e could be done in several ways (objects get the first two of these, per the DMG): immune to Will attacks (very strong!); immune to psychic damage (still strong, but perhaps not as strong); immune to charm, sleep and/or fear effects. The bronze warder in both incarnatioins gets immunity to charm and fear (and also poison), but otherwise no special benefit (though its Resist 5 all will apply to psychic damage just as much as other damage types).

All this is a bit late for your purposes, but is intended just to illustrate how one 4e monster was designed to deal with the monster-building questions you raise.

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.

<snip>

I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.

I get this a bit, but not completely. A Balor has a +19 natural armour bonus. A dragon can have a natural armoour bonus in the 30s. What is the explanation for these? What do they mean in the gameworld - given that the best possible protection from the best possible magical plate armour is +13 AC?

It seems to me that some of these "explanations" that 3E actually offers don't really correlate to anything in the gameworld that has meaning independent of the mechanical function of the numbers involved. They seem to me to be no less metagame than anything in 4e, but with a veneer of "explanation" layered over the top.

I think PCs can aspire to be gods, narratively and mechanically. They can't aspire to be elites or solos though.. not without unbecoming PCs.

But a PC can aspire to become an elite. A ranger or rogue with a good supply of immediate action encounter powers would fit the bill pretty well! The sorcerer in my game does a pretty good job of it also: 17th level sorcerer with an at will burst 2 for 1d4+27.

These strikers won't have as many hit points as an NPC or monster elite, but can have plenty of ways to make up for that (a bit like the Bronze Warder's damage resistance): the sorcerer has utility teleport interrupts, for example, for getting away from attacks.

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.

Doesn't Mutants and Masterminds go this way, to avoid the "Superman and Hulk never miss" problem?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

WotC has done two iterations of the Bronze Warder, once in H2:Thunderspire Labyrinth, and then again in MV2:Threats to the Nentir Vale.

On both occasions its been given damage resistance, but in MV2 they reduced its hit points, to compensate for the damage that will be resisted (based on a 5-rounds assumption) - thus keeping it about the same overall toughness, but with a slightly different dynamic.

Immunity to mind-affecting spells in 4e could be done in several ways (objects get the first two of these, per the DMG): immune to Will attacks (very strong!); immune to psychic damage (still strong, but perhaps not as strong); immune to charm, sleep and/or fear effects. The bronze warder in both incarnatioins gets immunity to charm and fear (and also poison), but otherwise no special benefit (though its Resist 5 all will apply to psychic damage just as much as other damage types).

All this is a bit late for your purposes, but is intended just to illustrate how one 4e monster was designed to deal with the monster-building questions you raise.

I get this a bit, but not completely. A Balor has a +19 natural armour bonus. A dragon can have a natural armoour bonus in the 30s. What is the explanation for these? What do they mean in the gameworld - given that the best possible protection from the best possible magical plate armour is +13 AC?

It seems to me that some of these "explanations" that 3E actually offers don't really correlate to anything in the gameworld that has meaning independent of the mechanical function of the numbers involved. They seem to me to be no less metagame than anything in 4e, but with a veneer of "explanation" layered over the top.

Doesn't Mutants and Masterminds go this way, to avoid the "Superman and Hulk never miss" problem?

Sounds like they made a cool monster, but I didn't see those modules, and that advice wasn't available in the MM, which is a shame.

Natural armor bonuses was always hilariously nebulous - yes. I disliked the Troglodyte for having way too high a bonus for its level. If 'natural armor' was a monster ability, you could purchase with some resource available to you as you increase in HD, it would be explainable, but yes, in 3E it was mostly made up.

 

[triqui]

You are aware that D&D has actual books for statting out gods, right? One of my players' characters was elevated to a minor deity during the game and kept playing alongside the other non-god PCs using published D&D rules. The game didn't end, and it wasn't something I just homebrewed.

There are D&D rules to play with laser guns too, or to play dragons, or classless versions. That doesn't mean it's standard.

There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.

To fit the desires of those who aren't "holding the line"

I fully understand that you are part of a (minority??) who is intentionally being vocal against what you don't like (and/or pro what you do like). That happens on both "sides" of the fence. You should try to understand (both sides of the "line") that they are simply diffferent approachs to it. None of which is "correct", both have glaring fails, and both *are* metagaming constructs. Just that they are metagaming constructs that have different goals and serve to different purposes.

True. The tone of the last post just sounded to me like you were setting the bar rather low.

Not my intention.

 

[pemerton]

Natural armor bonuses was always hilariously nebulous - yes. I disliked the Troglodyte for having way too high a bonus for its level. If 'natural armor' was a monster ability, you could purchase with some resource available to you as you increase in HD, it would be explainable, but yes, in 3E it was mostly made up.

HARP has a similar issue with a monster-only ability called Survival Instinct.

Bounded accuracy should make this sort of stuff unnecessary.

Also, while you were replying I edited my earlier post to add some thoughts on how a PC can become an elite - I don't think it will satisfy you any more than minions do, but just to show how a more 4e-oriented person might come at that issue.

 

[triqui]

Doesn't Mutants and Masterminds go this way, to avoid the "Superman and Hulk never miss" problem?

Mutant and Mastermind has "bounded accuracy" per level, some sort of.

Your attack (or damage) can't be higher than your level, no matter of what, ever. So if a "hulk-like" PC is level 10, his attack is 10, period.

Later editions allowed for a small grade of freedom (some characters might have +12 attack , but +8 damage, or +8 damage but +12 attack, etc). Same goes with Defense (AC) and Toughness ("wound" saving throws).

The last editiion goes with a "fighting" skill, though. This helps to represent the genre much better. Wolverine, Batman, or Captain America *should* fight better than Superman or Hulk. They should just be weaker when they hit, or softer when being hit, but they fight better, period. Some of them because of training (like Batman), some because of natural talent (Wolverine or Sabretooth), some others by a mix of training and half-supernatural abilities (Cap America and the Supersoldier serum)

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

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

Nothing wrong with that! I never played original brown box D&D (though I have a copy of the white box reissue).

From my point of view, I just sometimes get a bit frustrated by comments about what has always, or never, been a part of D&D, when those comments are true only of certain editions but not others.

There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.

That has been answered several times upthread. Level/HD, on its own, doesn't improve a creature's ability in the action economy, given that D&D has no general mechanism for sacrificing attack bonus to get multiple attacks. (This contrasts with some Rolemaster and HARP options, for example.)

Hence there is a need to design monsters with an eye on action economy which is independent of giving them a certain level.

Those monsters are conveniently tagged "solo" or "elite" so the GM knows at a glance how they will play.

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"

I have no view on what is or is not enough GMing experience (enough for what?). But some of your posts suggest to me a lack of familiarity with the approach to RPG play described by Eero Tuovinen in the blog I linked to upthread - what might roughly be described as Forge or "indie"-style play.

And I'm not meaning a lack of experience with it. I'm meaning a lack of theoretical familiarity also. You sometimes seem to post with a very narrow conception of what RPGing is or might reasonably aspire to be, as if those who play differently from you are not merely different, but wrong.