Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6002409" data-attributes="member: 42582">Excellent question!They don't serve the same purpose, though. Level is not a measure of "capability within the action economy", except for fighters in AD&D, and for weapon-users in 3E.That is why 4e introduces an alternative dimension to measure "capability in the action economy" (namely, standard/elite/solo - minion is best analysed as operating in a different dimension).Solos and elites actually have multiple actions - various sorts of triggered actions, plus (typically) standard actions that let them perform multiple basic attacks. Plus they often have AoEs and/or auras that are the functional equivalent of multiple attack actions.Not unelss those perks include additional advantages in the action economy - which is precisely what an "elite" or "solo" label indicates!Huh? The underlying problem arises out of the importance, in D&D, of the action economy. (Note: this is not a general feature of RPGs. It is a distinctive feature of D&D, and comes up in some other systems. For example, the Burning Wheel design team canvass it as an issue in the Adventure Burner.) The solution is to tackle the dimension of action economy in monster design. I don't know why you would call that a "patch for a systemic issue". It is an elegant solution that works within the parameters of D&D.Changing the "underlying problem" would mean changing the basic engine of D&D action resolution.It's interesting to note that this is purely a function of D&D's mechanics: rolling to attack within a fixed action economy and initiative sequence; and magical attacks based in discrete, unique spell descriptions.In systems in which high attack bonuses can be turned into multiple attacks with lower bonuses, for example, you don't need standard actions that let you make multiple attacks: your higher-bonus "boss" just takes the penalty and makes the attacks. Or in magic systems which allow scaling spells to attack extra targets, you don't need special rules to allow high level casters to be viable against multiple targets: they can scale their spells to be quicker to cast, or to attack multiple targets, etc.The issue doesn't come up in Tunnels and Trolls, either, in which attacks are resolved by pooling the PCs dice and rolling them, and comparing that to the monsters' dice. A "boss" in T&T is just a monster with many dice.But given that D&D has the mechanics that it does, it needs a way to handle the action economy issue to which "boss" fights give rise.What work is "level" or HD doing here?All it is an index of bigger damage and more hit dice. But the issues with "boss monsters" are (i) action economy, and (ii) one-shotting PCs.So here are two ways to scale a goblin chief:(1) Multiply level by 2, and therefore hit points by 2 and damage per hit by 2;(2) Multiply hit points by 2, and give 2 attacks per round with unadjusted damage.How is (2) less verisimilitudinous than (1)? Attacks per round, in D&D, is already an abstraction: the attack roll reflects the chance the combatant has to get in a good shot against his/her enemy. So if you go with (2) your goblin chief is a skilled fighter who can turn many more hits into grazes than an ordinary goblin (hence the hit point boost) and can place many more dangerous strikes than an ordinary goblin (hence the action boost). Whereas if you go with (1) your goblin chief is as tough as (say) a bugbear - hits hard, and needs to be hit hard to be taken down.Either strikes me as a viable occupant of the fiction. But I know which one would work better in which sort of scenario, and so can include one or the other as appropriate.Multiple attacks just means "more chances to get more solid hits in per arbitrary unit of time". You don't need to have more arms or heads to do this, you just need to be a better fighter (AD&D used this approach to model better fighters, for instances). It's not absurd to me that a goblin chief might be a better fighter, or a hobgoblin chief even moreso. Or give an ogre chieftain an AoE "club sweep". There are a variety of ways it can be done which don't have verisimilitude implications.Is this claim based on an empirical survey, some theoretical foundation, or merely your own intuition?The elite and solo labels in 4e signify nothing more nor less than the way the creature in question intersects with the action economy, and the numerical scales for hit points, attacks and defences.It no more entails combat than does giving the monster an armour class, or a damage number.And given that I have run encounters with solos which were resolved via negotiation, I believe I have empirical refutation of your claim.Alternatively, it might be a useful shorthand. It could even bring with it some suggestions about how you might design a monster to provide an interesting challenge for a particular context. I mean, it's not as if such monsters as Rust Monsters, Beholders, Umber Hulks, the many varied hit dice of humanoids, D&D-style dragons, etc, were designed just as interesting exercises in fantasy ecology! They were designed to provide a range of interesting challenges for a range of different PC types. 4e is no different in this respect - it just recognises that "scaling" - ie becoming more badass - can happen in multiple dimensions: hit points, defences, attack bonuses, damage, and the action economy - and it recommends that monsters be designed with certain scaling parameters in mind, in order to maximise the likelihood of them providing a fun encounter.So, for example, why is there no monster in AD&D with defences, attacks and hit ponts comparable to a goblin, that causes Mummy Rot? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the design story: because the sort of PCs typically don't have access to cure disease yet (paladins being pretty rare).And in 4e, why is there no monster with defence and attack numbers comparable to a goblin, but hit points comparable to an ogre, yet only a single action per round? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the design story: because such a monster would be very boring to play, as it would pose almost no threat to a party of 5 PCs, but require a large number of hits to defeat in combat.AD&D summarises its design reasoning using the HD label, and the (somewhat related) monster level label. 4e summarises its design reasoning using the level label and also the solo label (multidimensional labelling representing multi-dimensional scaling).Not every one agrees that this is an issue of "limits", or that your preferred approach is "evolution". Some people think that it facilitates gameplay to think about the design of game elements from the point of view of their function as game elements.That's why low level mages can't cast Passwall or Disintegrate, for example.</blockquote>

Verification