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

[pawsplay]

Regeneration, Mind Blast at will, blasphemy at will, being healed by fire/cold/etc.

And yet, being healed by fire/cold etc is a staple of the Final Fantasy games.

And it works just fine in superheroes. Should it not be possible to create a fantasy superheroes game by structuring the PC choices?

At 25th level, a group consisting of a planetar, a 25th level human rogue, an advanced eladrin, a 25th level human archmage, a mace-wielding gargoyle ranger, and a half-god son of the god Mercury would be at least as interesting as a group of standard 25th level characters, and mirrors the Justice League pretty well.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Anything available to a non-elite hobgoblin should be available to a PC hobgoblin.

Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.

But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.

Yes, yes, I don't know what's appropriate in someone else's campaign. But the simple truth is that no edition of D&D has been, or can be, all things to all people. And if my choices are

A) Making demons/dragons/powerful fey/insanity-wombats more interesting as monsters but inappropriate for PCs without major reworking, or

B) Making them appropriate for PC use with minimal change, but limiting how wild/funky/powerful I can make them

I'll choose A every time, as both a designer and a gamer. And since the majority of campaigns do use monsters as monsters more often than they use them as player races, I think that's the way to go.

 

[pawsplay]

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

Ah, but they do! How else can you judge whether they are worth more, less, or the same XP?

 

[Kraydak]

And right there, we have such a profound disagreement that I don't think we're ever going to be able to see eye-to-eye on this issue.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly, and even fanatically do not think that evil creatures should be held to the same standard. That's why they're creatures, not people.

Should an NPC wizard be limited to stuff that a PC wizard can do? For the most part, yes. (The evil wizard may have access to an unknown spell or great artifact to perform feats the PC cannot, but these are things the PC could do if he had the spell or artifact.)

But should a demon, or an ancient dragon, or a demigod, or a fey of the Unseelie Court, or a genie, or an insanity-wombat from the Plane of Weirdness be limited in the same way? Absolutely and unequivocally not.

Why are you looking at it as the demon as being limited, rather than the PC being empowered? Why shouldn't PCs have access to abilities of NPCs (at the appropriate level, of course)? What NPC abilities are there that really, actually, would break the game and yet are correctly powered NPC appropriate?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Ah, but they do! How else can you judge whether they are worth more, less, or the same XP?

You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."

It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.

I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why are you looking at it as the demon as being limited, rather than the PC being empowered? Why shouldn't PCs have access to abilities of NPCs (at the appropriate level, of course)? What NPC abilities are there that really, actually, would break the game and yet are correctly powered NPC appropriate?

Why assume I'm only talking mechanics?

It's true that there are certain abilities (using 3E as an example, because it's all we have) that could break the game if given to the PCs, or at least if given to them as frequently as some of the powerful creatures have them. I have very strong mechanical objections--but they're not my only objections.

The notion that "PCs can do anything a demon or fey can do" is absolutely anathema to the mood and feel of both heroic fantasy and grittier, sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Conan, Elric, Final Fantasy, or the myths of Perseus and Odysseus, the villains and monsters all have strange, frightening, and/or potent abilities that the heroes do not and cannot have.

To me, trying to give PCs and monsters the same list of options and powers is lethal to any sort of verisimilitude or enjoyment of the adventure/story/setting.

 

[pawsplay]

Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.

But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.

Yes, yes, I don't know what's appropriate in someone else's campaign. But the simple truth is that no edition of D&D has been, or can be, all things to all people. And if my choices are

A) Making demons/dragons/powerful fey/insanity-wombats more interesting as monsters but inappropriate for PCs without major reworking, or

B) Making them appropriate for PC use with minimal change, but limiting how wild/funky/powerful I can make them

I'll choose A every time, as both a designer and a gamer. And since the majority of campaigns do use monsters as monsters more often than they use them as player races, I think that's the way to go.

I don't think that describes the 3.5/4e split, though. We already have LA -- monsters. 4e seems to mainly just say, "All monsters are LA -- monsters, you can work out PC versions on your own." I don't see the point, other than to purposefully leaving out one paragraph of information that would make gnomes playable out of the box.

I'm a long-time Hero system player. Anything that the NPCs can have, the PCs can have, if allowed. On top of that, virtually anything that can be conceived can be given stats. Want to create a unique PC that looks like a hunchbacked anthropomorphic rhino and breathes sleep gas at will? Hero System can do that, out of the box.

Given that D&D does not use a point based system, I fail to see how D&D has any less flexibility in that regard. Under 3.5, many creatures have funky abilities. I don't need 4e to give me permission to include funkiness... but it would be gratifying if, just in case I ever wanted it, I could offer a minotaur as a PC. I don't see what I would have to limit about minotaurs to make them comprehensible as a PC race.

It isn't necessary that monsters be balanced as PCs, but I believe, emphatically, they should be intelligible as PCs. They can still be LA --.

 

[rowport]

You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."

It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.

I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".

Honestly, as I follow this particular 4e bit of discussion, I find myself wondering why I stopped playing HERO..! Seriously, I saw 3e/3.5e as the HERO-ization of D&D*, which increased with every new substitution level, or alternate class ability, etc. That is a *GOOD THING*. Moving towards standardization makes it more possible to play what you conceive. In fact, I would be fine with abandoning class level progressions in favor of purely point-based, but I realize that is too big of a change for most D&D fans.

Limiting the ability to play what you want is a move backwards. Ari, you and I will just have to agree to disagree here.

* I think it was Hong that came up with that concept, about three years ago on RPG.net.

 

[JVisgaitis]

To me, trying to make give PCs and monsters the same list of options and powers is lethal to any sort of verisimilitude or enjoyment of the adventure/story/setting.

Seems like I don't really need to participate in this thread anymore as you definitely got my back.

 

[marune]

You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."

IMHO, an actual game play evaluation.

I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".

In fact, I recently understood how much important is the "monsters =! PCs" when I read the rules of the game The Burning Wheel.