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

[Kerrick]

Here's the thing, though. I don't believe it's possible to have a scientific or consistent system of LA/ECL.

Sure it is. UK did it. You said yourself that the thri-kreen rogue needed some kind of LA - just not as much of one as it was given. You have to account for all those extra abilities somehow...

These two concepts are incompatible. Either the game permits monsters to have abilities PCs cannot (as I feel it should), or it does not. But to have an ability and say "You can't have this, but it's equivalent to this ability that you can," doesn't really work. If something is mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then there's no reason PCs can't have it, and it's no longer unique to monsters. If it's not mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then assigning a number to it isn't going to change that.

Not really. There are just some monsters, as there are now, that simply don't have an LA, because the designers feel that said monsters wouldn't be appropriate for PC use, because they have abilities that the PCs shouldn't have. The xorn, for example, is a bad choice for a PC. Instead of saying "Ditch the LA system because it doesn't work", they should a) look at all the monsters that could be used as PCs, then b) make adjustments as necessary so they could be usable as PCs; then c) assign LAs. Mind flayers, for example, are arguably too powerful for use as PCs, but then, they're a little too powerful anyway. Rakshasa are another one.

My only worry with this design choice is that they are pigeon holing the monsters too far. Every encounter should be something different and I was never a fan of the tactics section in the 3.5 MM. Pit Fiends do this in the 1st round, this in the 2nd round, rinse repeat. I just hope I don't end up playing in games where every time I fight Orcs or Kobolds its all the same stuff.

If you use those tactics as guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules, then you'd be better off, IMO. The tactics are great for newbie DMs, or DMs who've never run a pit fiend before. A experienced DM would certainly deviate from the prescribed list of actions, or throw it out entirely.

Going back to the monsters being "setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, and potential ninjas" I am worried that with so little space dedicated to each monster in the MM that they won't go into a monsters background and ecology enough. Cramming 300+ monsters into a 288 page book is an amazing feat. Something has to give. I highly doubt that they could make the stats so short and still have enough room to explain what the monster is about, how they live, what they do, etc.

Agreed. I'm worried that the monsters will be nothing more than a (cut-down) collection of stats and nothing more.

I think this is a fundamental flaw of the 4E design idea. One of the elements of 3E design (or perhaps just FR design) was "NPCs shouldn't be able to do things that the PCs cannot learn to do." So no writeups of Drizzt having the unique power to instantly kill someone on a really good attack roll (like he did in 2E), or a wizard having an unexplained immunity to a particular group of spells just for the purpose of making that NPC unkillable or an encounter especially challenging. Keeping things in the hands of NPCs (and monsters) like that is basically the DM/designer saying, "Sorry, players, your characters just aren't cool enough, my toys are cooler than your toys." Which sucks.

Oh come on, Sean... it's called DM fiat. Sometimes the bad guys have to have something the PCs don't, just so the DM can maintain an edge over the players and give them a challenge. 2E was rife with this, and while I agree for the most part that PCs should be able to do most things that an NPC could, there should be some things that remain firmly in the realm of the DM, as long as he can do it within the rules.

A breath weapon.

Wow, you must really hate 3.5 supplements, then-- because even without "monster" race PCs, there are lots of ways for PCs to get breath weapons, including the obvious Draconic Adept class.

You need look no further than the DMG for the Dragon Disciple, which also grants a breath weapon.

How about, in *YOUR* "core game", monsters will not be PCs. Not everybody agrees with you.

I don't totally agree with the idea of having monster races as PCs, but if other groups want to do it, more power to them - I just think it's silly. Some people are just strange like that, and the rules are flexible enough to allow it, so... *shrug*

I find myself agreeing with Sean. I'd prefer to see a "CR = ECL = HD" solution.

Never happen. It can't - CR and HD are totally different measures of a creature's power, and should never be equated with each other.

But nowhere in the Frenzied Berserker description does it say 'FOR NPC USE ONLY, GUYS!" If a PC wants to get it, and a DM approves that selection, you get it, and, speaking from experience, it works just like it's advertised.

Right... but I think maybe it should say "FOR NPC USE ONLY, GUYS!"

If something exists as a setting element, as an independent object in the game world, the only thing that should define my choice of which side of the screen it gets to be on should be my choice as a DM. Any other choice, and you're hurting my utility at least, and my verisimilitude at worst.

Even if it says "This PrC is intended for DM use only", WotC isn't going to send a hit squad to your house if you let a PC use it. Too many DMs let themselves be strait-jacketed by the RAW, and they refuse to say "I think this is a silly rule, so I'll alter it." I think having a caveat in some cases would be a GOOD thing - "This PrC is intended for DM use, because in playtesting it turned out to be very powerful in PC hands, blah blah blah." Then the DM would at least KNOW that he's introducing a potentially game-breaking element into his game.

 

[Kraydak]

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.)

I simply don't buy it. For example, almost every ability out there can be gotten as a spell. Spells can be put into wands/staves, which, effectively, turns them into "at will" abilities (with props). If mind blast at will is gamebreaking, why isn't a staff with Confusion (perhaps an example better paired with umberhulks, but ah well)? While doing so may be expensive (very expensive), if it is really, truely, gamebreaking, the expense doesn't matter.

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.

If a high level PC wants to become a demon (or rather, become demonic in demeanour and ability if not in type), why *shouldn't* he? If, in *your* game, demons, and dragons, and demigods are CR 25 and PCs cap out at lvl 20, of course the PCs won't be able to do everything the demons, and dragons, and demigods can do. That is already built into the system, for free, without making any "PCs can't do demony-like things" rule. But there is no compelling reason for those abilities to be designed such that lvl 25 PCs can't have them. From a game design point of view, there is every reason to want the reverse.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not really. There are just some monsters, as there are now, that simply don't have an LA, because the designers feel that said monsters wouldn't be appropriate for PC use, because they have abilities that the PCs shouldn't have. The xorn, for example, is a bad choice for a PC. Instead of saying "Ditch the LA system because it doesn't work", they should a) look at all the monsters that could be used as PCs, then b) make adjustments as necessary so they could be usable as PCs; then c) assign LAs. Mind flayers, for example, are arguably too powerful for use as PCs, but then, they're a little too powerful anyway. Rakshasa are another one.

I think, to a small extent, they're already doing this in 4E. They've said, or at least implied, that many of the "PC-appropriate" races in the MM (the kobold and goblin, for instance) will have enough info to play them, albeit not nearly so fleshed out as a PC race in the PHB.

So then, the question becomes, where the line is drawn. For some people, kobolds and goblins are enough. Others want giants and lycanthropes. Others want dragons. Others wand mind flayers and beholders.

It might've been more accurate for me to say that it's impossible to have a scientific LA/ECL system that takes more than the very basics into account. Sure, you can do one for simple creatures that are only 1 or 2 ECL away from a standard race. But I think, as soon as you go beyond that, you lose any real sense of accuracy.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Here's the thing, though - WHICH abilities the villains have that the PCs don't depends on which source you're going by. Within the range of fantasy media, you'll find 'player character equivalents' include, just off the top of my head:

Angels
Anthropomorphic animals
Centaurs
Death Knights*
Dragons (VERY commonly, in my experience)
Drow*
Flying/winged men
Ghosts
Golems (intelligent ones, anyway)
Griffons*
Hook Horrors*
Mascot/pet monster critters
Mind Flayers*
Minotaurs*
Phoenixes
Vampires*
Werewolves
Zombies (intelligent ones, anyway)

Those marked with an * are ones I know for a fact were player character/protagonist characters IN AN ACTUAL D&D NOVEL. I wouldn't be surprised if several others on the list and many I didn't recall also appear in the many D&D novels out there, but these I absolutely know do. Any D&D system that can't handle at least those creatures as PCs is explicitly saying "the designers/writers NPCs are cool enough to have these - but yours aren't."

The point is, the designers should not be the ones deciding which particular abilities are off-limits in any given campaign, because what is off limits for a given type of fantasy varies wildly from game to game. In some games, humans are the only appropriate race (Conan); in others, a very limited selection that does not include the standard PHB races (Final Fantasy); in others, pretty much anything with an even remotely human-comprehensible psyche or the ability to fake it (Planescape).

Again I cite my Ivalice game, where elves, dwarves and halflings would have been completely inappropriate, but mind flayers, minotaurs and goblins all fit as playable races; a game that makes that decision for me says "you may as well not use this for FFT-era Ivalice." Depending on how significant the racial crunch in the PHB is, it may also say "you may as well not use this for Conan." It clearly says "you may as well not use this for Spelljammer."

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

An excellent statement of my general position, as well.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Those marked with an * are ones I know for a fact were player character/protagonist characters IN AN ACTUAL D&D NOVEL. I wouldn't be surprised if several others on the list and many I didn't recall also appear in the many D&D novels out there, but these I absolutely know do. Any D&D system that can't handle at least those creatures as PCs is explicitly saying "the designers/writers NPCs are cool enough to have these - but yours aren't."

Of course, the writers of those books didn't have to worry about balancing mechanics.

Let me clarify something I said earlier:

I have no objection to you, or anyone else, using minotaurs, or mind flayers, or death knights, or angels as PCs in your games.

What I object to is the notion that the game system should mechanically lock those creatures into a numerical box for which they aren't suited. (And to the notion that the standard races should necessarily be able to obtain every ability these nonstandard races have.)

In other words, as someone else said, the game should say "Here are some general guidelines for non-standard races, but they're not mechanically balanced with the standard options. We can offer suggestions, but you're going to have to wing it."

Because, as I keep coming back to, some creatures can, do, and should have abilities that are not mechanically equivalent to anything the PCs can do. Trying to assign a numeric value to those is largely guesswork, even at the design level. Better to acknowledge that and feel free to "get funky" then for the designers to limit themselves to a mechanical system that doesn't work anyway.

 

[spunky_mutters]

The big problem with the divide between monsters and PCs is when the monster abilities are designed with the idea that they will never be used by PCs, and yet there are ways that PCs can get them.

This is the case with the Sarrukh's manipulate form ability.

The desire to stat out and label what is essentially a story element as an Su ability opened the gate for PCs to grab. This is obviously the most extreme example, but it just goes to show how badly things can go if you don't have very strict metadesign rules.

I'm all for having a homogeneous system underlying all of the stats, but everybody needs to be aware of the side effects that can occur when you tie everything together tightly. When something is as egregious a game-breaker as Pun-Pun, it's easy to say no, but not all cases are like that. With no balancing or level ratings between various Su abilities (or 4e equivalents), it puts you (as DM) in the position of having to decide everything on a case-by-case basis (where players can gain access to these abilities).

Short of rating monster abilities with levels like PC spells, I think a series of guidelines for incorporating monsters that are not presented as PC races as characters is about the best way to handle this.

 

[Klaus]

Never happen. It can't - CR and HD are totally different measures of a creature's power, and should never be equated with each other.

Why not? A 20HD dwarf Fighter is a CR 20 creature with an ECL of 20. Just MAKE the HD = CR. A CR 12 Beholder? 12 HD. If the hp are too low, bump up Con. A CR 27 Red Dragon? 27 HD. The attack roll will be too low? Bump up Str.

Also, change CR to mean "a PC of this level has a 50% chance of winning against this creature solo". Because that's what it means on a classed PC vs. classes NPC level. A friend was trying to DM 3.x and I was trying to explain the notion of what a "balanced" encounter means - i.e., 4 PCs lose 25% of resources, when to him "balanced" means "50/50 chance of wither side winning".

 

[Kraydak]

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.

By lvl 5, wizards have Gaeous Form. By lvl 7, they have Dim Door. Both can be put into wands. Eventually you get Ethereal travel. ALL of it is Core. It isn't precisely the same as insubstantiality, but it is close enough. I've *done* the walk through the dungeon ethereally. I've done the "wind walk through the dungeon fast". I've done the "massive scrying fest+teleport to bypass dungeon elements". I've done the "disintegrate the wall to bypass dungeon elements". And Passwall. Thoqqua summoning. *Massive* soften earth and stone/stoneshape/rock to mud usage. Earth elemental summoning for recon.

The Out of Combat uses of insubstantiality can be mimiced (with adequate cash expenditure) by a lvl 7 party. The in combat uses of insubstantiality, aren't overpowered as you know: you are talking about sending such creatures against a very low level party (just beware the need for magic weapons).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why not? A 20HD dwarf Fighter is a CR 20 creature with an ECL of 20. Just MAKE the HD = CR. A CR 12 Beholder? 12 HD. If the hp are too low, bump up Con. A CR 27 Red Dragon? 27 HD. The attack roll will be too low? Bump up Str.

You know, for a long time--a couple of years, in fact--I've been trying, on and off, to figure out a system that did just that. I even began writing it up at one point.

The problem is, it doesn't work.

Let's use the beholder as an example. How can you possibly make it equivalent to a character of a level equal to its HD or CR? In 3.5, a beholder is CR 13. Its huge array of offensive abilities makes it far more dangerous than any 13th-level character. Heck, it's possibly more dangerous than a single 20th-level character. But if we call it a CR 20 creature, it doesn't have nearly enough HP or HD. But if we raise the HP or HD, it becomes even more dangerous...

See the problem? The notion of level = HD = CR is an appealing one on the surface. But it only works if monsters are limited to the same sorts of abilities as PCs. Once you start adding wonky abilities, like the beholder's eye rays or the mind flayer's blast, you wind up in a position where you once again have a creature whose CR cannot equal its HD.