Balancing NPCs/Monsters in Modos

[GMMichael]

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/main-page
I put together a character system, skill system, combat system, and spell system. Now I need monsters. And as I'm designing the monsters (similar method as characters), I realize: this creation system can go in any number of directions. I can make a hands-down, shoot-you-in-the-eye elf sniper, or I can make a three-toed-sloth that is absolutely useless, but he casts Wrath of Demons like nobody's business.

What I realized is that sure, any build can be maximized. But how the heck do I make a balanced monster?

While I'm working on my solution, here's the relevant info if you'd like to help:

Character traits: Level, Abilities, Skills, Perks, and Gear.

Level: each level is a set of three improvements: 1 bonus ability point, 1 bonus skill point, and 1 bonus perk.

Abilities: Physical, Mental, and Metaphysical. All three should generally add up to 30 at first level.

Skills: What the character can improve incrementally. Notably, there are multiple attack skills, but only three defense skills, one for each ability: Parry (Phys), Concentrate (Ment), Willpower (Meta). Skill points cannot exceed Level.

Perks: allow characters to get interesting. Since these can be used to buy another ability or skill point, they can be used as a balancing mechanism in monster creation.

Gear: most notable here are weapons (which deal one die of damage per action) and armor (which prevent a die of damage per action).

Thanks for input!

 

[GMMichael]

Here's what I have:
Sure, you could make a "balanced" monster with all equal ability scores, two equal skills (one attack, one defense), and flavor-only perks. Or something like that. Which sounds balanced, except not all abilities are created equal, and you could have one skill with lots of points or one skill per level (with one point each). And perks can maximize offense, or maximize defense, or add yet more skill points or ability points.

So I'm not even sure what a "balanced" monster would be. I guess another way to put it would be "survivable," as in, it has the skills to survive to relatively old age.

Here's my first crack:
A balanced monster has a good, average, and bad ability score. These progress at a 3/2/1 ratio.
And it generally has three skills: one offense, one defense, and one flavor. And these also progress at 3/2/1.
Perks do not factor into balancing, unless the above systems leave a big hole.
Also, abilities look like this:
Metaphysical: you can't armor your Metaphysical, so it should have a defense skill or be really high.
Physical: this can be armored fairly easily (with perks or money), but if it isn't, it'll also need a decent defense skill.
Mental: this can only be protected by spells or perks, or by being the highest stat.
So there should be an armored stat, a skill-protected stat, and one likely weak spot (which could be the highest stat).

Questions:
- Does it make sense for balanced monsters to have more or less skills?
- Should perks play a more important role in balancing a monster?
- Is the 3/2/1 progression for abilities and skills reasonable?

 

[Foxwarrior]

Well, a balanced monster should be easy to do by simply following character creation guidelines, if your game has balanced characters as a goal at all.

More importantly, can you make the Tarrasque in your game?

 

[GMMichael]

The guideline is basically what we're working on here.

But it's important to note the very big difference between character creation, and monster creation:
- Players spend an entire level trying to level up, and learning about their characters in the process. So when it's time to level up, they have a good idea of what weaknesses need covering.
- Monsters get designed and thrown into action in all of five minutes, at any level. So they can't exactly develop organically.

Here's what the Tarrasque might look like:

Tarrasque, level 25
Physical: 40 (+15)
Mental: 3 (-4)
Metaphysical: 12 (+1)
Skill Fight-Unarmed 5 (Phys)
Skill Concentration 10 (Ment)
Skill Willpower 10 (Meta)
Perk 5xToughness (Max Physical Damage: 55)
Perk 5xStubborn (Max Mental Damage: 18)
Perk 4xGrudge (d10 Mental protection)
Perk 3xReach (can reach short range targets, opponents can't take defensive posture)
Perk 5xNatural Armor (d12 Physical protection)
Perk Magic Abstinence (bonus, because it's a hindrance)
Perk Magic Resistance
Perk Improved Magic Resistance
Perk Magic Immunity
Gear Massive claws (d20), Bite (d20), Natural armor (d12)

Not bad, but I think he should be higher level still...?

 

[Foxwarrior]

No regeneration? When I think of the Tarrasque, I think "Unkillable creature that regenerates", and all the other attributes are secondary. Sorry for not specifying that earlier.

It's true that monsters are thrown together without as much knowledge of how a given monster can be improved, but the DM also has more opportunities to try out exotic builds, and it's not that big a problem if the DM accidentally makes a monster which is too weak every once in a while.

 

[GMMichael]

Reason #1 to be a GM: permission to populate the landscape with cool monsters.

Sure, an off-balance monster shows up, does some intimidating, and falls in one or two rounds. Experience awarded, move on. But let this happen to a villain, and the GM could have potentially wasted hours of game prep time.

So to take my OP question a little more abstract:
- How many primary, secondary, and untrained skills does a balanced enemy need?
- Is it reasonable for a villain to have a weak spot? Or should he be tough all around?

 

[Foxwarrior]

The wasted prep time problem can happen with players joining in the middle of a campaign, or starting above level 1, too.

Well, it's hard to make a villain both uniformly powerful and interesting, but giving them weaknesses that are both obvious and easily exploited isn't exciting either.

I think you could probably learn something from The Gaming Den, DMMike.

 

[GMMichael]

Might need a URL for that, Fox, because I went to a "The Gaming Den," and mostly saw lots of bickering.

I should mention that there are plenty of ways to recover a villain from early death: dream sequence, simulacrum, undeath, mostly death, deus ex machina, to name a few.

However, your plans for that particular game session could still be ruined.

Some WOTC people emphasized a while back that most encounters last an average of five rounds. Is that a fair life expectation for an enemy of equal level to PCs?

Some other WOTC people laid out an interesting method of planning encounters - can't remember if it was third or fourth edition. But the interesting lesson learned was that an interesting combat encounter has enemies that support each other's weaknesses. The implication, I guess, is that most enemies aren't good at -everything-.

 

[Foxwarrior]

"Lots of bickering" sounds like an accurate description.

Plans for game sessions don't get ruined, they go awry. Players are supposed to make plans go awry every once in a while, that's what they're there for. That said, mandating that each villain must get some number of (preventable) escape methods would mean that having the PCs defeat the villain in the first encounter was not as common as it is in D&D.

"Five rounds" is a pretty meaningless target when you've changed the meaning of "round" so much.