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

[M.L. Martin]

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...".

I have a great deal of fondness for three of those systems in theory (haven't played any of them, and don't own any GURPS material), and yet there's a key difference.

In the point-based systems, character creation is modular--it doesn't follow level structures like D&D does. In addition, GMs are encouraged to both keep a close eye on PC designs to avoid disruptive or imbalancing abilities, and not to sweat point accounting for NPCs. Therefore, NPCs can have abilities that are cost-prohibitive for PCs, or just not allowed by the GM's campaign parameters. They can also be built with an eye towards encounter utility more easily, without being 'forced' to spend points on things that aren't relevant to their role in the game. (In 3E monster design, the use of what is essentially a class/level system requires that you may have to include extraneous elements, and getting one or two elements that depend on level up to the 'appropriate' range may require the increase of others that are irrelevant or counter-intuitive for the creature.)

That philosophy sounds close to what 4E monster design is heading for: Worry about making the monster a good monster, don't sweat balancing it as a PC option (or, even worse, a polymorph option). Some monsters will be viable for both, some won't. If you disagree, get back to me when you figure out how to make a PC-appropriate mind flayer.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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...".

Depends on a couple of things, including (but not limited to) the intended genre and mood of the game, and how the mechanics worked.

I have no interest in Hero. I have no interest in GURPS. I have no interest in any "one system fits all genres" system. So those examples aren't really suitable for me to discuss.

But I'll say that in any game designed, partly or in whole, to model either heroic or S&S fantasy, I would feel the same way.

 

[pawsplay]

Depends on a couple of things, including (but not limited to) the intended genre and mood of the game, and how the mechanics worked.

I have no interest in Hero. I have no interest in GURPS. I have no interest in any "one system fits all genres" system. So those examples aren't really suitable for me to discuss.

But I'll say that in any game designed, partly or in whole, to model either heroic or S&S fantasy, I would feel the same way.

LA, however, is an artifact of the class/level system.

Would you say you can envision a heroic or S&S fantasy campain wherein the PCs were a baby dragon, a human swordsman, a flying pixie, and a centaur wizard?

 

[Kraydak]

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.

Actually, I cannot see any sample abilities which would cause problems as PC abilities. I've seen abilities *listed*, but amusingly, most are reconstructable from Core alone.

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 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.

So your BBEG CR 18 has a nifty ability. Why shouldn't lvl 20 PCs have access to it? (I think +1 lvl for underCRing of final bosses and +1 lvl for overCRing of PC classes in RAW for an appropriate PC ability level is pretty darn accurate). If the demon/demi-god is the final boss, it may not be relevant, but that is less about game design than campaign world design. It isn't that the PC cannot have the abilities, but rather that they will never get high enough level to get them. If, on the other hand, you choose to continue the campaign with a higher level adventure arc, well, more powerful abilities will become available to the PCs, including those wielded by the previous BBEG.

 

[BryonD]

I'm a bit confused here.

There seems to be a blurring of two different ideas. It is one thing to say that a demon can have special abilities that a human character (pc or npc) should not have. It is another thing entirely to say that a demon should have access to abilities that make it automatically out of bounds for the demon to be run by a player.

I agree completely that the best game foundation will include limitations of the expected realm of PC abilities and monsters will have a wider range than PCs. But it shouldn't follow at all there this cause any hang-ups.

If a player and DM want a full-tilt Minotaur Barbarian or a Demon X PC then the rules should just say "Go for it,you're partly on your own. Just have fun. What makes a fair challenge? Who knows? Just do your best. When should the character level? Who knows? Just do your best. We are making a game that 'works soundly' in this range, but should be fun over a much larger range. Go for it! Have fun!"

Obviously the minotaur would be less outside the comfort zone than an extreme demon. But either would work for a group that understands why balance is important to a game and what the implications are of throwing balance out the window. Because a lack of balance can make a sustained fun game harder to do. But it is a million miles from true that balance is required.

The RAW should assume balance and just make that clear to anyone who wants to run into uncharted waters.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So your BBEG CR 18 has a nifty ability. Why shouldn't lvl 20 PCs have access to it? (I think +1 lvl for underCRing of final bosses and +1 lvl for overCRing of PC classes in RAW for an appropriate PC ability level is pretty darn accurate). If the demon/demi-god is the final boss, it may not be relevant, but that is less about game design than campaign world design. It isn't that the PC cannot have the abilities, but rather that they will never get high enough level to get them. If, on the other hand, you choose to continue the campaign with a higher level adventure arc, well, more powerful abilities will become available to the PCs, including those wielded by the previous BBEG.

We're going in circles. Sometimes an ability is fine for the PCs to have as a spell, but would be damaging to be an at-will ability, no matter how high-level the campaign. Sometimes an ability (such as the mind-flayer's mind blast) is fine in a single fight, or as a limited power, but can have game-breaking effects if given to a PC to use at will. (Trust me, I've seen it. It's not a pretty sight, either for the DM or for any of the other characters.)

And sometimes, it's not appropriate for the PCs to have an ability no matter what level they are simply for reasons of consistency, logic, or flavor. If there's no difference between a high-level PC and a demon, what's the point of having demons?

Obviously, you don't agree. So be it; nobody's forcing us to game together. But honestly, I don't think I'd even play in a campaign where I knew in advance that the PCs could eventually do everything we saw demons and dragons and demigods do. It's not believable or interesting to me.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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?

A good example is the ability to move through walls at will. You can design a perfectly fine creature with 6 hit points who moves through walls at will and throw them up against a 1st or 2nd level party. The PCs would have to ready their actions to hit the enemies as they exited the wall, but it would work fine.

Give that same ability to the players and they can now walk through all the walls of the dungeon all the way to the end without even playing the part of the adventure in between. It just isn't appropriate for players at all. Even at 20th level, I wouldn't want the PCs having this power without a limitation how often they could use it.

The monster works perfectly in terms of what you're planning on using them for: Monsters. They would likely be more fun than Orcs to fight. However, they break down horribly if allowed as players.

Basically, you have two choices of ALL creatures have to have multiple purposes with this creature: Remove the ability or decrease it's power dramatically (like 1 foot of wall per day or something), or never make this creature at all so the PCs never get access to the power. Neither of them is an especially good answer.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It is one thing to say that a demon can have special abilities that a human character (pc or npc) should not have. It is another thing entirely to say that a demon should have access to abilities that make it automatically out of bounds for the demon to be run by a player.

...

If a player and DM want a full-tilt Minotaur Barbarian or a Demon X PC then the rules should just say "Go for it,you're partly on your own. Just have fun. What makes a fair challenge? Who knows? Just do your best. When should the character level? Who knows? Just do your best. We are making a game that 'works soundly' in this range, but should be fun over a much larger range. Go for it! Have fun!"

See, I'm okay with that. What I'm objecting to are the notions that

A) Any ability a demon can have, a PC race can have, and

B) Any ability a demon can have must be numerically and mechanically balanced with, and equivalent to, a PC race ability.

Once one accepts that some things a demon (or whatever) can do are simply outside the parameters, then I certainly have no problem with a DM and a player agreeing to wing it, if they're running a monster campaign, or some other campaign where a demon character isn't thematically inappropriate.

 

[Klaus]

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.

Y'see, I see this less as a "Monsters and PCs must have the same abilities available to them", as I see it as a "Monsters and PCs are built in the same way, but with different blocks".

Let's look at LEGO for a bit, shall we? You buy a car LEGO and a Star Destroyer LEGO. You buy the car and the Star Destroyer in the same way, using mostly the same bricks. But the Star Destroyer has some "cheat bricks", i.e. bricks of unusual shapes and sizes, as to make the parts of a Star Destroyer that couldn't be built otherwise. I have no problem with these.

Back to DnD: Look at a human Fighter and a Red Dragon. They are both built the same way: "X" HD + "X" x Con Mod = hp, 1 feat at HD 1 and another at every 3 HD, etc, etc. Sure, the dragon has its own "cheat blocks" (breath weapon, flight, DR, etc). Does the human Fighter get those? No. Just like the dragon doesn't get Weapon Specialization. But the two creatures are built in the same way, just using different bricks.

If you wanna give your Insanity Wombat (go stat it up, Ari! NOW! ) the ability to chew bits of reality and burp out butterflies that sprinkle Mountain Dew, by all means do so!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Y'see, I see this less as a "Monsters and PCs must have the same abilities available to them", as I see it as a "Monsters and PCs are built in the same way, but with different blocks".

Let's look at LEGO for a bit, shall we? You buy a car LEGO and a Star Destroyer LEGO. You buy the car and the Star Destroyer in the same way, using mostly the same bricks. But the Star Destroyer has some "cheat bricks", i.e. bricks of unusual shapes and sizes, as to make the parts of a Star Destroyer that couldn't be built otherwise. I have no problem with these.

Back to DnD: Look at a human Fighter and a Red Dragon. They are both built the same way: "X" HD + "X" x Con Mod = hp, 1 feat at HD 1 and another at every 3 HD, etc, etc. Sure, the dragon has its own "cheat blocks" (breath weapon, flight, DR, etc). Does the human Fighter get those? No. Just like the dragon doesn't get Weapon Specialization. But the two creatures are built in the same way, just using different bricks.

Interesting metaphor.

The thing is, I'm not sure that you're wrong. Mike Mearls has said (don't remember if it was in this thread or another; I think it was earlier in this one) that monsters still have stats, feats, etc. They can still be advanced.

So I think your metaphor may actually be entirely accurate: It's just that the monsters make use of a lot of cheat blocks that simply don't mesh well with the PC "model kits."

If you wanna give your Insanity Wombat (go stat it up, Ari! NOW! )

lol

I'm considering it.