-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I love the D&D 3.x rule coherence, too.
It was easy to understand how monsters work once you knew how characters work.
[TANGENT ALERT]
At least for me. It seems as if many designers (especially those of monster modules and/or 3rd parties) didn't quite get all the consequences of this.
I remember 2 major incidents that will probably keep forever in my memory, but there have been a lot more...
- Gargoyle like monsters that basically looked just like them, but were more powerful and had less CR.
- A monster that had a Blasphemy (i think that was the spell) spell-like ability with a caster level equal to its HD, but a CR notably less than its HD. If you look at Blasphemy, you'll note that this can seriously change the effects of the spell, because a CR = PL+4 caster will most likely not kill you with that spell...
I liked to say that the actual CR of monsters seems to be CR-1 + Monster Manual #, or CR -3+2d4 for custom monsters from adventures.
[/TANGENT ALERT]
That said, with more experience, people also noted some flaws.
If you use a monster as a PC race, you can use neither the HD nor its CR to determine its effective level. To many abilities from monsters are to powerful in the hands of the PC. Fast Healing/Regeneration, Damage Reduction, At Will spell-like abilities, all these don't matter for a monster. Outside of combat, the balance of these abilities are rarely important (or at least easily overlooked- think about the Create Spawn ability of Undead). In combat, Fireball at will for a monster is mostly the same as 3/day.
Beginning with Savage Species, the rule coherence began to change. The rules for the Savage Species "player monsters" already don't follow the usual rules. Level Adjustment is inherently something added later to the game with no real place in the original rules.
On the other hand, may rules that apply for PCs don't really matter for monsters, either.
If a monster casts spells like a sorceror, the effect is nearly the same as if it casts these spells as spell-like abilities. It definitely has the advantage that the DM knows how to advance the monsters spell casting abilities, but: It also means that the DM will need to use all the regular class and/or magic related rules for the monsters. If he stats up a unique exemplar, he is very likely to use the full PC-related rules for the monsters, since not doing it this way feels like cheating. A experienced DM will probably end up winging the most, and just use the rules as the base for his decisions, but this begs the question:
Do we really benefit from the streamlined and coherent rules here?
The answer is yes and no. It's better than having no rules or guidelines at all, because this would mean that no DM can really predict how his monsters and encounters will really fare. On the other hand, the work and drawbacks associated with it indicate that this might not be the best solution.
It seems to me as if the D&D 4 approach will try to find a better solution (whether it succeeds, we'll see next year...) My prediction from the interviews, blogs and articles so far:
There will still be some rule cohesion with monsters and player characters, it will just be different. Monsters still have Hit Points, Attack Bonus, Armor Class and Saves just as PCs (as long as they stay at all, but I think they will). This means they will interact using the same basic "interface".
But how you get to this values will change. It's not something entirely arbitrary, there will be a system on how to generate monsters. It will be different from the rules for creating a PC, but in the end, both can still meaningful and predictably (in terms of rule interaction and game balance) interact. I might miss the ability to add class levels to monsters (if that is really gone), but maybe I won't. Recently I have began looking into the Iron Heroes Villain Classes, and I am pretty certain that I will use them exclusively for my next NPCs in my IH campaign (provided I'll still run it for some time...).
EDIT: I think the primary goal is to change the preparation. Quick and easy monster (and NPC) generation and play, complex and rewarding PC generation and play.
It was easy to understand how monsters work once you knew how characters work.
[TANGENT ALERT]
At least for me. It seems as if many designers (especially those of monster modules and/or 3rd parties) didn't quite get all the consequences of this.
I remember 2 major incidents that will probably keep forever in my memory, but there have been a lot more...
- Gargoyle like monsters that basically looked just like them, but were more powerful and had less CR.
- A monster that had a Blasphemy (i think that was the spell) spell-like ability with a caster level equal to its HD, but a CR notably less than its HD. If you look at Blasphemy, you'll note that this can seriously change the effects of the spell, because a CR = PL+4 caster will most likely not kill you with that spell...
I liked to say that the actual CR of monsters seems to be CR-1 + Monster Manual #, or CR -3+2d4 for custom monsters from adventures.
[/TANGENT ALERT]
That said, with more experience, people also noted some flaws.
If you use a monster as a PC race, you can use neither the HD nor its CR to determine its effective level. To many abilities from monsters are to powerful in the hands of the PC. Fast Healing/Regeneration, Damage Reduction, At Will spell-like abilities, all these don't matter for a monster. Outside of combat, the balance of these abilities are rarely important (or at least easily overlooked- think about the Create Spawn ability of Undead). In combat, Fireball at will for a monster is mostly the same as 3/day.
Beginning with Savage Species, the rule coherence began to change. The rules for the Savage Species "player monsters" already don't follow the usual rules. Level Adjustment is inherently something added later to the game with no real place in the original rules.
On the other hand, may rules that apply for PCs don't really matter for monsters, either.
If a monster casts spells like a sorceror, the effect is nearly the same as if it casts these spells as spell-like abilities. It definitely has the advantage that the DM knows how to advance the monsters spell casting abilities, but: It also means that the DM will need to use all the regular class and/or magic related rules for the monsters. If he stats up a unique exemplar, he is very likely to use the full PC-related rules for the monsters, since not doing it this way feels like cheating. A experienced DM will probably end up winging the most, and just use the rules as the base for his decisions, but this begs the question:
Do we really benefit from the streamlined and coherent rules here?
The answer is yes and no. It's better than having no rules or guidelines at all, because this would mean that no DM can really predict how his monsters and encounters will really fare. On the other hand, the work and drawbacks associated with it indicate that this might not be the best solution.
It seems to me as if the D&D 4 approach will try to find a better solution (whether it succeeds, we'll see next year...) My prediction from the interviews, blogs and articles so far:
There will still be some rule cohesion with monsters and player characters, it will just be different. Monsters still have Hit Points, Attack Bonus, Armor Class and Saves just as PCs (as long as they stay at all, but I think they will). This means they will interact using the same basic "interface".
But how you get to this values will change. It's not something entirely arbitrary, there will be a system on how to generate monsters. It will be different from the rules for creating a PC, but in the end, both can still meaningful and predictably (in terms of rule interaction and game balance) interact. I might miss the ability to add class levels to monsters (if that is really gone), but maybe I won't. Recently I have began looking into the Iron Heroes Villain Classes, and I am pretty certain that I will use them exclusively for my next NPCs in my IH campaign (provided I'll still run it for some time...).
EDIT: I think the primary goal is to change the preparation. Quick and easy monster (and NPC) generation and play, complex and rewarding PC generation and play.
Last edited:
Nebulous
Legend
BryonD said:
That would be a blessing if the game can finally emulate that. Actually, it does emulate it pretty well i think, but there's always room for improvement. Maybe one thing i'd like to see balanced is Item Creation by full-time experts, versus the stuff that PC's cobble together. Adventuring, whoring, money-grubbing looting heroes don't generally have the time or talent to create magic and suits of plate mail.
Last edited:
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
About the monsters...maybe they will simply leave those monster races that might be playable as PC races out of it, or simply present them in the same format they present the core races in, so that they gain "full monsterhood" with time? That way, you can stat the "used to kill" monsters for the DM in an easier format, and have plenty of options open still. Maybe that IS one of the differences...the one between (potential) PC race, and monster. 
And about NPCs...what's so hard to take a "0 level" human, and simply give him a skill bonus according to how long he's been on the job he does already? Like, +1 for every 1.5 years? Or take an equal amount of years to reach a new bonus...like 1 year for +1, 2 years more for +2, 3 years more for +3...that way, you could say somebody who's been a weaponsmith for 10 years has a +4 on his skill check. Hand him 1D6 + Con bonus in HP, and +2 to hit due to high strength, and be happy with your newly created smith.
And about NPCs...what's so hard to take a "0 level" human, and simply give him a skill bonus according to how long he's been on the job he does already? Like, +1 for every 1.5 years? Or take an equal amount of years to reach a new bonus...like 1 year for +1, 2 years more for +2, 3 years more for +3...that way, you could say somebody who's been a weaponsmith for 10 years has a +4 on his skill check. Hand him 1D6 + Con bonus in HP, and +2 to hit due to high strength, and be happy with your newly created smith.
danzig138
Explorer
After reading all of this and othe threads on similar matters, I think that if it's too complicated and too much of a burden for someone, then that person might not be cut out to run a game. He might find himself more comfortable on the other side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance.Gentlegamer said:
So far, everythig I'm hearing about this game not only reinforces the idea that I will not switch, but it's starting to kill the idea that if my players are interested and buy the books I'll run it for them. If the bad guys and the goods guys aren't designed using the same rules, I'd have to house rule it - screw that.
Unlike the people whining about the online component, however, I perfectly understand that I'm not in the target demographic for WoTC anymore. So I hope you guys enjoy your simplified and streamlined game that is coming out.
I'll be over here not complaining about how hard it is to run.
Glyfair
Explorer
danzig138 said:
That's a big leap. Just because someone finds it "too complicated and too much of a burden" doesn't mean they may not be cut out to run the game. A less burdensome system can easily deal with those issues and you might even get some better DMs out of it, because they aren't burned out from the design required.
It's sort of like saying "if you don't like dealing with Microsoft Vista, maybe computers aren't for you."
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Assuming that the 4e NPCs look anything like, say, Iron Heroes NPCs, this could indeed be true. A 12th level IH Expert can have skill mods in the +24 range pretty easily, but only has 4d6 HD and BAB +6, plus basically zero access to combat feats.BryonD said:
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Congratulations! You've just managed to insult everyone who happens to disagree with you.danzig138 said:
It occurs to me that this is not a good thing.
A reminder, folks: taking cheap shots at people who disagree with you, even large quantities of people, is not a good idea. It does nothing but derail the conversation. Please don't do it.
Remathilis
Legend
We are making a bunch of assumptions here...
1.) Monsters will use some manner of different rules than a PC, and thus the two will be incompatible.
2.) Monsters will be hard/impossible to reverse engineer.
3.) Monsters cannot be customized without constructing a new monsters.
4.) Simpler = less options.
5.) Monsters as PCs will be long gone.
Deep breath, relax.
1.) I suspect a monster will be able to slap class levels on, at least the ones that used to "advance by character class". Really, A troll is going to have an attack bonus, three saves, an AC, a pool of hp, etc. You want a troll fighter, take the MM troll stats, give it a +1 to hit, +2 to fort saves, 1d10 hp, a new class skill, and whatever feat/maneuver choice a first level fighter will get. No worrying about LA, CR, etc. I'll assume the rules will give a guideline for adding a class to monsters to determine XP amount. Problem solved.
2.) I suspect monsters will still have some linear way to advance or to create new ones. I just don't think monster HD = NPC class levels any longer.
3.) Again, I think some monster abilities will be able to swapped out easily. Templates, "monster abilities" or such will probably have some modularity.
4.) I think monsters will have a smaller range of options, but more options as to what to do. For example, a dragon rarely uses all its sorcerer spells. It uses one or two (dispel magic is common) but it doesn't need the complexity of having a 12th level sorcerer built in. Loosing them is fine, IMHO. A Mindflayer uses some manner of charm/dominate ability, mind blast, and eats brains, it doesn't need much more than that.
5.) Many monsters in the MM now have no rules for PC advancment. Displacer beasts advance by HD, Skeletons don't even do that. The only monsters with "X as characters" are humanoids or the like (goblins, planetouched, lizardfolk) who advance by class level. In 4e, I expect those same monsters will have a "X as PC" line with some bare racial traits (which won't necessarily match up with a stat block, but definitely give a "baseline" race to use). So I suspect orcs, goblins, kobolds, gnomes, drow, and other "favorites" will get the treatment. Those who don't will have to create a new race (or extrapolate from the stat block), much like we did in older D&D. I don't think D&D needs rules for playing as a weird or exotic things, if you want that, that should be the DM's option to create something balanced and call it a "skeleton" or "draconic" race.
I think we're not losing customability, but just seeing a shift from highly numerical monsters to a more modular, fluid option.
1.) Monsters will use some manner of different rules than a PC, and thus the two will be incompatible.
2.) Monsters will be hard/impossible to reverse engineer.
3.) Monsters cannot be customized without constructing a new monsters.
4.) Simpler = less options.
5.) Monsters as PCs will be long gone.
Deep breath, relax.
1.) I suspect a monster will be able to slap class levels on, at least the ones that used to "advance by character class". Really, A troll is going to have an attack bonus, three saves, an AC, a pool of hp, etc. You want a troll fighter, take the MM troll stats, give it a +1 to hit, +2 to fort saves, 1d10 hp, a new class skill, and whatever feat/maneuver choice a first level fighter will get. No worrying about LA, CR, etc. I'll assume the rules will give a guideline for adding a class to monsters to determine XP amount. Problem solved.
2.) I suspect monsters will still have some linear way to advance or to create new ones. I just don't think monster HD = NPC class levels any longer.
3.) Again, I think some monster abilities will be able to swapped out easily. Templates, "monster abilities" or such will probably have some modularity.
4.) I think monsters will have a smaller range of options, but more options as to what to do. For example, a dragon rarely uses all its sorcerer spells. It uses one or two (dispel magic is common) but it doesn't need the complexity of having a 12th level sorcerer built in. Loosing them is fine, IMHO. A Mindflayer uses some manner of charm/dominate ability, mind blast, and eats brains, it doesn't need much more than that.
5.) Many monsters in the MM now have no rules for PC advancment. Displacer beasts advance by HD, Skeletons don't even do that. The only monsters with "X as characters" are humanoids or the like (goblins, planetouched, lizardfolk) who advance by class level. In 4e, I expect those same monsters will have a "X as PC" line with some bare racial traits (which won't necessarily match up with a stat block, but definitely give a "baseline" race to use). So I suspect orcs, goblins, kobolds, gnomes, drow, and other "favorites" will get the treatment. Those who don't will have to create a new race (or extrapolate from the stat block), much like we did in older D&D. I don't think D&D needs rules for playing as a weird or exotic things, if you want that, that should be the DM's option to create something balanced and call it a "skeleton" or "draconic" race.
I think we're not losing customability, but just seeing a shift from highly numerical monsters to a more modular, fluid option.
