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

[rowport]

To me, this is backwards thinking.

An ability is an ability is an ability.

I can understand the thinking, but as a long time Hero and GURPS player, it just sounds wrong to me.

The reason monsters as players don't work as smooth as it should not isn't in the details of the monster races, it's in the fact that ECL/Level Adjustment is just broken.

But that's just me.

It's not just you, Joe. I completely agree with you. I think this is a move in exactly the wrong direction (which is interesting, because I generally think pretty highly of Mearls' design-fu, and Ari's, for that matter). If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".

If simplicity is the end-goal (as it certainly seems to be from several 4e quotes), then moving towards standardization across the system is the best way to get there. Having different "tracks" of abilities is not the answer; in some ways, it will exacerbate the problem.

 

[JustinA]

It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.

That's already true.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[BryonD]

That's already true.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Nope. I find your assessment completely short of what I want.
I want NPCs that are way above 10th level PCs within an area of specialty and yet not be supermen elsewhere.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm conflicted.

I'm mostly with Mog on the first page: the designers shouldn't be telling me what I use the game element for. If I want to use monsters as an encounter, a bit of scenery, the local blacksmith, or a PC race, I should be able to do that. 3e lets me do that quite admirably.

But I 100% agree that streamlining the beasties is a beautiful idea.

Harooommm....

 

[mearls]

A few points:

1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.

2. Though monsters don't necessarily use spell-like abilities, monster abilities remain within the same basic realm of utility. A sixty foot cone of fire works just like any other sixty foot cone. The staggering majority of abilities are pretty much spell-like in mechanics, it's just that those mechanics appear in the stat block rather than refer to a spell.

3. Many monster abilities are re-used and templated. On top of that, monster abilities are kept simple and easy to use, as we know that a DM has to handle several monsters at once. Really complex monsters are a special case.

4. The new system allows for more flavorful monsters and a greater sense of mystery and wonder. Your players will know a lot less about specific monster abilities unless they read the MM and pay a lot of attention. Fighting gnolls is going to feel a lot different compared to fighting hobgoblins. Fighting a new creature is going to be scary. I loved springing new critters on people in my playtests.

5. I really can't wait until we do in-depth previews of the MM. The playtest DMs were pretty happy with how monsters work now. I'm curious to see how gamers in general will react. In my blog, I talked about how playing 4e felt like playing D&D for the first time again. The monsters played a big role in that.

6. There's a forum set up specifically for commenting on the blogs over on the WotC boards:

http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=685

That's a good place to directly address stuff we post. Anywhere else is a bit hit or miss, depending on work schedules and stuff. We're trying to hit the WotC boards, here, and elsewhere, but there's a ton of talk and it's hard to keep up.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's not just you, Joe. I completely agree with you. I think this is a move in exactly the wrong direction (which is interesting, because I generally think pretty highly of Mearls' design-fu, and Ari's, for that matter). If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".

If simplicity is the end-goal (as it certainly seems to be from several 4e quotes), then moving towards standardization across the system is the best way to get there. Having different "tracks" of abilities is not the answer; in some ways, it will exacerbate the problem.

Well, first off... Thank you.

So, with the caveat that I know nothing more about 4E monsters than you do, so I can't speak from a position of actual awareness as to what they're doing, I'll try to clarify my own position here.

First off, I believe that "consistency" is a laudable design goal, but a very low priority one. If you can make something play better, play faster, play more easily, or just play cooler by being inconsistent, then consistency should be sacrificed.

So, is it possible to make monsters either better, faster, more easy to run, or cooler by sacrificing consistency?

I'd argue that the answer is yes.

If I may...

If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".

I think this statement assumes a few facts not yet in evidence.

1) Abilities judged on a relative value for utility.

The problem is, as the 3E LA/ECL tried (and often failed) to address, an ability's usefulness in a single combat is often widely different than its utility to a PC who appears in almost every scene and almost every combat of a campaign. Sometimes, it's simply not possible to accurately adjust a PC race to accept a monster's at-will abilities. The LA/ECL system had a tendency to compensate for such abilities by adding a high Level Adjustment--which created PCs with abilities both over and under the average of the party. This does not average out to equal a PC of the same level (particularly when one gets into such things as saves and hit points.) As someone else said, high-LA PCs were glass tigers.

2) There's no reason for monster abilities and PC abilities to be judged on the same scale, assuming those abilities are different. Yes, if a monster has an ability that perfectly resembles the feat Cleave, that's obviously equivalent to--well, a feat. But if a monster has the ability to phase in and out of stone at will, and can use a grapple attempt to drag unwilling passengers with it, thus trapping them in the stone, that's not entirely like any ability, feat, or spell available to PCs, and it doesn't perfectly measure up with them. So to be consistent, I either have to drop the ability or somehow grant it to PCs.

So let's say I decide it's a cool ability, and I'm going to keep it and accept the inconsistency. Now I have a monster with both monster abilities--the "rock grapple," as it were--and feats. But if we've already agreed to be inconsistent, why include both categories? Why not just add "Cleave" to the list of monster abilities? Sure, it's similar to the feat, but by adding it to the monster's racial abilities, rather than calling it a feat, we accomplish two design goals:

A) We shorten the stat block by only having one category to track, rather than two.
B) We no longer have to lock monsters into the same "1 feat/3 HD" progression that PCs follow.

But wait. Is that a good thing? Again, I'd argue yes. Lots of monsters have feats they don't really need, because the rules say they have to. Lots of monsters either don't have feats they should, have bonus feats, or are higher HD than they need to be, because the rules say that's how feats work. Again, I think that, in the end, a purpose-designed monster should have the abilities it needs to have, without being encumbered by a set of rules that are designed to showcase PCs at every level of play.

Now, I'll admit there's a danger in this approach. If monsters and PCs are too divergent--as, say, they were in 1E--it becomes nigh impossible to tweak them, or to add class levels to monsters. What I'm hoping to see, and what I think has been hinted at by the designers, is a monster creation system that diverges where it needs to, but isn't widely different.

Is it going to please everyone? No, of course not. Nothing will. That's just the nature of the beast. But honestly, I think anything that makes monsters shorter and easier to run (and create) can only be a good thing, if it's not taken to unnecessary extremes.

(This topic has been on my mind a lot lately, since I'm currently working on what's supposed to be a 15,000-word adventure, and I've come to realize it's going to have to include over 5,000 words of stat blocks alone. :\)

Edit: And even as I type, Mike steps in and confirms my theory that the differences aren't going to be as huge as some people fear. Thanks, Mike.

 

[howandwhy99]

Making statblocks actual quick references for play is a good thing, IMO. I very much agree with this change.

What I'm worried about are the kinds of abilities that were "streamlined" in the change from 3.0 to 3.5. A powerful monster like a demon lord has a dozen or more spell-like abilities (or their 4e equivalent). What I don't want is a parsing down of abilities simply because they cannot all be used in a single combat. Wouldn't powerful creatures more often take multiple combats to defeat anyways?

Perhaps a "Spell Suite" could be prepared before each battle like a wizard chooses spells each day? That way the rules are simplified, but out-of-combat ability is not arbitrarily weakened. I like the idea of powerful creatures who are capable of bringing a different style of fight numerous times. It allows them to hone in on PC weaknesses just as its' are by them.

Out-of-combat spell use for NPCs is very important for me. It dictates a very large portion of what an NPC is capable of accomplishing beyond simple skill use. This goes a long way in adventure design.

 

[marune]

A few points:

1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.

That 's the good part of it ! Monsters don't need to be balanced agaisn't each other !

 

[marune]

Out-of-combat spell use for NPCs is very important for me. It dictates a very large portion of what an NPC is capable of accomplishing beyond simple skill use. This goes a long way in adventure design.

I'll tell you a little secret but don't tell anybody else : when the PCs are not there, the NPCs can do everything the DM wants and you don't need rules for doing it

 

[Samnell]

1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.

Mike, that goes a HUGE way towards addressing my personal concerns about monsters. I've spent days trying to figure out a way to get that very answer out of you guys. I assumed you were not yet authorized to give it out, one way or the other. Thank you.