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

[WhatGravitas]

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.

1) Thanks for still posting here on ENWorld!
2) That quoted part makes me happy and has probably sold me on 4E, because that was the only thing bugging until now.

Cheers, LT.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

You're thinking out of character. An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls.

Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities? I have a larger imagination than that.

 

[Szatany]

You're thinking out of character. An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls.

Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities? I have a larger imagination than that.

You can always add class levels no? Or perhaps even replace existing monster abilities with class abilities to make the creature different without increasing its "level".

 

[marune]

You're thinking out of character. An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls.

Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities? I have a larger imagination than that.

You already found the solution (in bold), the only rules we need are the rules governing PC vs (in a broad sense) NPCs interactions.

Outside of it, you can do whatever you want with the NPCs as long as : 1) you provide good challenges to the players 2) it helps the game move forward.

You can always add class levels no? Or perhaps even replace existing monster abilities with class abilities to make the creature different without increasing its "level".

You don't need to know how (according to rules) the NPC X has done Y if it's not relevant to the interaction X has with the PCs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I want a *system* for determining what a creature is capable of.

"Make Junk Up" blows like a wandering prostitute (table) as a system.

As I said in the WotC thread:

Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.

 

[Sammael]

A few points: <snip>

Mike,

That goes a long way towards alleviating my fears. I am looking forward to the monster previews, even if I did not always like or agree with your Monster Makeovers.

On the other hand, the WotC/Gleemax forum is unfortunately unreachable to us in Europe for a fairly long part of the day (during the "maintenance"), which is why I do not want to peruse it. I hope you will find the time to come here and answer as many of our questions as possible.

 

[marune]

I want a *system* for determining what a creature is capable of.

As I said in the WotC thread: Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.

I'm fine with the idea that NPCs are living when the PCs are not there. The key idea here is that we don't need rules to handle it. Trying to come up with rules that cover all aspects of a imaginary world is called "simulation" and is a foolish dream.

The DM should do whatever he wants with the NPCs until they become part of a challenge (combat or social) with the PCs.

 

[hectorse]

Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.

That resides in the world of fluff. Plus you are arguing a moot point in light of Mearls' recent comment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The key idea here is that we don't need rules to handle it. Trying to come up with rules that cover all aspects of a imaginary world is called "simulation" and is a foolish dream.

The DM should do whatever he wants with the NPCs until they become part of a challenge (combat or social) with the PCs.

Once more with feeling:

I want a system. Making stuff up sucks as a system.

Why do I want a system? Am I a foolish dreamer? No. I rather like a deep and rich setting. I can't evoke a world that still ticks and tocks outside of the PC's if I don't have rules for determining how it does that. So that if, for some reason, the centaur has to tie a knot, I know how well it does that, without simply making stuff up.

That resides in the world of fluff. Plus you are arguing a moot point in light of Mearls' recent comment.

So does "social interaction," yet we're getting rules for that. Fluff and crunch aren't diametric opposites that can never intermingle.

Plus, it's not a moot point if the abilities of PC-monsters are different than monster-monsters.

So there.

 

[avin]

In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.

PCs are a slightly different story. We'd rather create a specific PC write up for a monster that reins in any potential issues at the table or for game balance.

Good news!