Class being penalized for doing its thing?

[Korgoth]

It sounds like it would be easier for players to metagame.

Mouseferatu addresses some of this in the discussions, maintaining that a monster isn't just a basher or just a mastermind, but has it's own schtick: the example is an ettin taking two actions per round, thanks to its two heads.

This sounds OK... but really, this monster things seems extremely vague. I'm not getting what the innovation is. What is the point of monsters being "built by purpose"? How is it different than how monsters were built for the 3E MM? Is the role suppose to inform the design to a greater extent than before, so that we don't get "basher" vampire fighters with crappy hp because of their Undead type?

I don't know how accurate this is, but from Lescault's interview with Mearls (an embedded YouTube on the page for the Sunday GenCon coverage via WOTC) he suggested that a lot of monsters have a variety of powers that don't really have a lot to do with one another. So I think the notion is, at least if I have this correct, is that some monsters will have their various powers rebuilt according to the 'theme' of the monster. I get the impression that some monsters will retain an expansive suite of powers, while other ones will be re-envisioned along more tightly (metagame) thematic lines. I also get the impression that this is intended to make it easier for the DM to plan and build effective encounters without having to wonder whether the monster will do its melee thing, its charm thing or its create wall of fire thing.

Hopefully the "mastermind" or "boss" monsters will retain their "Swiss Army monster" configuration. I think that some monsters will be split into several separate stat blocks: you'll probably see some stuff like "Orc Bruiser", "Orc Runner", "Orc Shaman", "Orc Bodyguard", "Orc Chief", etc. So that instead of needing to add class levels to the basic Orc to make up those roles, you just plunk down a ready-made Orc caster, some Orc thugs, etc.

That last change is something that really sounds good to me. I don't like the notion of adding class levels willy-nilly to monsters, so that you never know if a Kobold will be a 1st level Kobold warrior or a 17th level Kobold warrior. I accept that some Kobolds will be extra tough, but even the toughest shouldn't be a dragonslayer. Kobolds are supposed to be scrawny, tricky little gits... not 150 hp champions. It's just against type. Plus, it saves having to stat out all the "Middle Management" and "Boss" Kobolds, or whatever.

I don't know for sure that it will be like that, but for some reason it seems likely.

 

[Quasqueton]

I was wondering where this thread got off to. I'd like to reiterate, I did not intend this thread to be about 4th edition. This thread topic is [supposed to be] strictly regarding pre-4th edition D&D. I hope threads aren't getting moved to other forums because repliers grab the steering wheel and yank the topic off course.

Can the mods move this thread back to General? I've specifically avoided posting to (and especially starting) any 4E threads, and here I find that one of my threads has been hijacked and redirected. If it can't be moved out of the 4E forum, please just lock it down. It's the principle of the thing -- I'm not doing 4E threads until 4E is actually published.

Quasqueton

 

[Patlin]

I don't like the notion of adding class levels willy-nilly to monsters, so that you never know if a Kobold will be a 1st level Kobold warrior or a 17th level Kobold warrior. I accept that some Kobolds will be extra tough, but even the toughest shouldn't be a dragonslayer. Kobolds are supposed to be scrawny, tricky little gits... not 150 hp champions. It's just against type.

Dragons say the same things about humans all the time... not to mention halflings!

 

[Greg K]

That last change is something that really sounds good to me. I don't like the notion of adding class levels willy-nilly to monsters, so that you never know if a Kobold will be a 1st level Kobold warrior or a 17th level Kobold warrior. I accept that some Kobolds will be extra tough, but even the toughest shouldn't be a dragonslayer. Kobolds are supposed to be scrawny, tricky little gits... not 150 hp champions. It's just against type. Plus, it saves having to stat out all the "Middle Management" and "Boss" Kobolds, or whatever..

My friends and I actually like monsters with class levels. Whether or not kobolds should be "scrawny, tricky little gits" should be a campaign issue. Plus, it stops some metagaming thinking about nonhuman races- the player will never just take a creature for granted.

 

[Voadam]

From a note about the coming new edition:

Resource Management: All classes have defined roles – a fighter is never penalized for being a “tank”, a “healer” is never penalized for curing, a mage is never penalized for “magic missiling”

What does this mean in the context of current and previous D&D? How are the various class types "penalized" for doing their thing? I don't understand this comment.

Quasqueton

I believe it means spellcasters who blow through their spells from using them are left as nonspellcasters with no other adventuring powers. That is the way I took it and it answers a complaint I have had about vancian magic.

A first level MU in 1e who casts his 1 sleep spell is then just a commoner with a knife, same in 2e unless he is a specialist then he gets two of them. In 3e he got 2-3 sleeps plus 3 rays of frost then he becomes a commoner with a crossbow.

This leads to hoarding your spells and tactically choosing not to use your magic to save it for potential problems later. Also not preparing certain spells that would be appropriate or fun so you can prepare effective ones instead to deal with anticipated challenges.

I much prefer magic characters doing their magic when it fits and not choosing not to use their magic. I like the recharge magic variant from UA that turns spellcasting into breath weapon style recharge spell levels.

I've never seen wizards use a crossbow in any fantasy genre stuff outside of 3e D&D. I much prefer a wizard use a ray of frost as his multi-use back up attack option rather than a crossbow in my games.

I'm not sure about the fighter being penalized for tanking comment though.

 

[Rolzup]

I'll put it in the words of my wife, who's currently playing a druid. We've given her the Favored Soul spell casting and progression, partially to make things easier for her and partially because she wanted to make damned sure that her character would not and COULD not heal.

Because, you see, "Every round spend casting a 'Cure' spell is a round that's NOT being spent setting someone on fire."

Healing takes away spell slots and actions that can be better spent doing more interesting things, you see. At least in her opinion. So she is, effectively, being penalized for being a healer.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Easy...allow her to spontaneously cast Domain spells instead of Healing, and tell her that healing the wounded during combat is against her religion, combat being something sacred that isn't to be interrupted for tending to the wounded. So no Heal checks, and no memorized healing spells either. That is relegated to the "healer priests" that should accompany a cleric of her church at the appropriate levels (one or two level 1-3 acoluths who accompany her to "learn" of the world or something). After all, she's the Defender of the Faith, not the Healer. And then watch her challenge the first who tries to convince her otherwise.

 

[howandwhy99]

From a note about the coming new edition:What does this mean in the context of current and previous D&D? How are the various class types "penalized" for doing their thing? I don't understand this comment.

I'm afraid it may mean you never need to pay attention to your strengths as they can never become weaknesses anymore.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure about the fighter being penalized for tanking comment though.

I thought he meant the sheer amount of penalties armor gives (slow speed, armor check, etc) which limits mobility and reduces you to level, flat surfaces (which we all know dungeons are full of...)

The general consensus (at least amongst my group) is that a fighter without heavy armor is just asking to be torn up by something with a descent BAB and damage, but if he IS armored, he's a walking anchor. Perhaps some way to make heavy armor attractive without making you immobile would be nice (and mithril isn't the best solution...)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I believe it means spellcasters who blow through their spells from using them are left as nonspellcasters with no other adventuring powers. That is the way I took it and it answers a complaint I have had about vancian magic.

A first level MU in 1e who casts his 1 sleep spell is then just a commoner with a knife, same in 2e unless he is a specialist then he gets two of them. In 3e he got 2-3 sleeps plus 3 rays of frost then he becomes a commoner with a crossbow.

The wizard is typically the smartest person in the party. He's got a genius-level intellect and access to all Knowledge skills. How is that like being a commoner? In my experience, good DMs in all editions of the game made sure that wizards' intelligence and knowledge could be useful, not just their magic.