Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)

[Mouseferatu]

While, again, I have no inside knowledge and thus cannot make any promises, I see no reason why it shouldn't still be possible to add class levels to monsters. It should still be possible to add X (levels) to Y (monsters), no matter how Y was created.

It may not be entirely smooth, in terms of figuring out how much XP the monster is worth or what level of difficulty it is--but then, neither was total CR in 3E, really.

 

[Fenes]

And I see the benefit of that.

But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...

And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?

I haven't statted out all but a very select few NPCs in years. Works very well, especially if the NPCs are lower level anyway. For monsters I usually take them as they are from the Monster Manual.

That aside, I expect that the character generator will help a lot with creating detailed NPCs.

 

[Fenes]

I also do not worry much about detailed rules for monster PCs. I found that in my campaigns, it is easier to judge an actual PC by the impact on the campaign that the individual character has, not a hypothetical character with different gear and classes.

 

[WhatGravitas]

No, it isn't.

I would like greater symmetry in a new edition, not lesser. The advances made in this direction for 3rd edition were, I thought, excellent. It would be a shame to lose that advancement of a sudden, for whatever reason.

My gut reaction was the same - it's a very good concept that everything is based on the same basic rules for advancement, skills, and all the stuff.

But after going through my notes, and memories of games, I've seen, that I don't get any use of that from my monsters. The symmetry is there, but not helpful - after all, a monster only has a "screentime" of max. 10 rounds (usually).

If they can keep the symmetry without affecting gameplay - cool. But if that symmetry (which is usually only a design-aesthetic we like) is hurting gameplay... it has to go, sadly, but understandable.

Cheers, LT.

 

[fuindordm]

How much will this hamstring DMs, though? Sorry guys, I still love Player and Monster stats being the same... one system to rule them all. The old ways are what produced such things as "The Ogre Mage" (yes, I know that was also in 3.5, but more out of tradition than anything else, I think). Am I going to have to have a seperate "monster" if I want "Fighter Kobolds", "Stealthy Kobolds" and "Magic Casting Kobolds"? Meh, just let me add character classes to them.

Also, looking at my large collection of monster compilations, I fail to see where designers were overly stifled by the 3.5 system.

How does this prevent you from doing it? "This kobold has the skills of a 3rd level thief."
I would bet that some entries in the MM will still have a "XX as PCs" paragraph, too.

Honestly, as long as the monsters have ability scores and benefit from them normally, that's good enough for me. This is where 1st edition fell short--it's the only measuring stick you really need for when they interact with players.

I think what's going down the drain are the rules for monster advancement, where each HD brings skill points, BAB, saves, and maybe a feat. This was horribly bloated, and made designing monsters a real chore. There is no need to enforce a tight link between HD, skills, and other abilities for monsters--their role is only to survive five rounds of combat with the PCs.

 

[Li Shenron]

To me, this is backwards thinking.

I agree, it sounds more like 1E to me.

I'm not a fan of playing monstrous races, but if I were I would certainly worry.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yeah, this is a great idea, the last illithid chaos monk I wrote up took quite a bit of time, and the poor sod only lasted 3 rounds – unsatisfying and time wasting.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If they can keep the symmetry without affecting gameplay - cool. But if that symmetry (which is usually only a design-aesthetic we like) is hurting gameplay... it has to go, sadly, but understandable.

Oh, do you mind not being so reasonable! You're really throwing my opinionated proclamations off.

Gah!

 

[Wormwood]

Yeah, this is a great idea, the last illithid chaos monk I wrote up took quite a bit of time, and the poor sod only lasted 3 rounds – unsatisfying and time wasting.

Yep.

In 2000, I really appreciated the system's flexibility and (seeming) internal consistency.

By 2005, I was back to using stock monsters from the MM series---and of those I probably used only 1/2 to 3/4 of their abilities.

Basically, I would appreciate a system allowing me to invent (or modify) monsters for specific encounters easily and quickly.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yep.

In 2000, I really appreciated the system's flexibility and (seeming) internal consistency.

By 2005, I was back to using stock monsters from the MM series---and of those I probably used only 1/2 to 3/4 of their abilities.

Ha ha, trippy – that is my exact experience too, and same timeline.