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

[Vigilance]

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...".

Every GURPs fantasy campaign I've run had advantages and abilities available to Monsters PCs would never have been allowed to purchase.

This seems like the exact same thing.

Just because the GM gives a Troll a certain ability does not mean I'm going to be able to say "yeah, my PC is half-troll so..."

 

[Kraydak]

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.

Such a system would work fine. The problem is, monsters in 3/3.5 aren't designed for it. Beholders/Ogre Magi etc... are examples of poorly designed monsters (glass cannons). If you want to use such a system, you would have to design your monsters for it (no 1hp, disintegrate CL 30 at will monsters), which means that the offense and defense of a given creature would have to correlate reasonably well. The fact that retrofitting the 3.5 MM for a system like that isn't feasible doesn't mean you should try to set up the 4th edition MM for one.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Such a system would work fine. The problem is, monsters in 3/3.5 aren't designed for it. Beholders/Ogre Magi etc... are examples of poorly designed monsters (glass cannons). If you want to use such a system, you would have to design your monsters for it (no 1hp, disintegrate CL 30 at will monsters), which means that the offense and defense of a given creature would have to correlate reasonably well. The fact that retrofitting the 3.5 MM for a system like that isn't feasible doesn't mean you should try to set up the 4th edition MM for one.

Believe me, I considered that. But it leads to a much narrower array of interesting monsters if you can't sometimes do the "glass tiger" or "glass cannon."

Demons suddenly either lose many of their spell-like abilities, or they lose most of their melee abilities, because no class has them both to the same extent. And how would you model dragons?

I'm not arguing that it can be done, if you design for it from the ground up with no preconceptions or prior concepts. But I am arguing that, for a game of heroic fantasy that relies on its wide array of monsters as much as D&D always has and (IMO) should keep on doing, it doesn't function.

 

[Li Shenron]

As much as I am not interested in playing monstrous characters, and not very happy to run a game where half of the party is made of weirdos, I would definitely like a rule system more if it was able to allow it.

But perhaps the truth is that 4e is also about giving up a lot of hope.

Monsters as PC? Too difficult, let's remove it from the game...
Level drain? We haven't yet managed to make it scary but not frustrating, let's forget about it...
Polymorph? 5 different version in 3ed and not quite right, let's skip it outright...

 

[Creamsteak]

A lot of this thread is interesting. There are reasons for both angles. One of the intentions I kind of expect to see in 4e is that a lot of creatures with the "this could be too much in a player's hand" abilities will likely be "elite" encounters of some sort. I know I'm totally overstepping any information I've seen on the gencon stuff, but it seems to me like some creatures are going to be designed at PC levels (So a group of x of them would be equivelent to a group of x PCs) while others are likely to be specifically set aside as designed to be a 1 vs many case (beholder, dragons, etc).

Another odd thought I had was that you can summarize all of the stats of a monster-as-player in that last paragraph of the monster manual entry where they just give you the 6-7 lines explaining the changes you make to a character to make them a drow or whatever else.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

Have to take the old grain of salt here. Reading and playing are two huge different things.

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.

When the PHB first came out, you might've had a point. Throw in substitution levels, replacement abilities (simliar yet seperate mechanics), tricks (skill point sacrifice for minor feats), and the huge variety of PrC/Feats out there, the GM must keep an even closer eye on PC design. There is no underlying equality in D&D and feats and abilities vary tremendously in power. The eldrtich knight would be a great example of a simple concept, fighter mage, that compared to the hosts of fighter mages that have come out afterwards, is a 'loser' class. Poor hit dice, poor abilities and good only for the 'basicness' of it.

Therefore, NPCs can have abilities that are cost-prohibitive for PCs, or just not allowed by the GM's campaign parameters.

In many campaigns, we still have those things. They're called the Seven Sisters, Elminster, etc... And D&D, despite it's more intensive book keeping nature than some other games, still doesn't follow things to their logical conclusions, especially high level rulers of lands whose access to super high levels of gold would allow them to have numerous magic items/artifcats.

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.)

And yet, if it was used the right way, probably wouldn't be that much of a problem. Some designer was talking about the terrible trials of advancing an ogre to get heavy armor proficiency instead of just giving that sucker a level of fighter.

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.

The PC appropriate mind flayer isn't that much of a 'problem' for most GMs I've played with so I'm back to ya.

 

[Kraydak]

Believe me, I considered that. But it leads to a much narrower array of interesting monsters if you can't sometimes do the "glass tiger" or "glass cannon."

I'd say the advantages to moving to a system which assumes offense/defense balanced (with a large spread, of course, just both in the same league) vastly outweigh the loss of extreme glass cannons/dwarven defenders. For example, part of the problem with Turn Undead (one of many, admittedly), was the ridiculous CR/HD ratio for the large skeletons and zombies. The Holy Word line of spells also became quite wonky, frequently hitting the BBEG (if of a caster persuasion) harder than his (melee) minions.

Of course, you can always recreate a glass cannon by taking a fully balanced kobold and giving him a necklace of fireballs. I almost want to say that glass cannons and invulnerable, no offense monsters are better handled as traps/environmental hazards. Glass cannons are "disarmed" by winning initiative. No offense bricks are "bypassed" however the party so chooses.

Demons suddenly either lose many of their spell-like abilities, or they lose most of their melee abilities, because no class has them both to the same extent. And how would you model dragons?

I'm not arguing that it can be done, if you design for it from the ground up with no preconceptions or prior concepts. But I am arguing that, for a game of heroic fantasy that relies on its wide array of monsters as much as D&D always has and (IMO) should keep on doing, it doesn't function.

Given the sheer number of BAB 17/CL 17 gishes available on the charops board (16/17 is the absolute minimum to be taken seriously barring other vastly cool abilities), monsters with decent melee/decent spellpower are *completely* reasonable. Dragons, in 3ed, are fast melee brutes with very weak spell support. The whole Dragons=Magic theme breaks down in practice when you examine the CR-CL number (about 8 for Golds).

Again, I think the game as a whole would be better off if glass cannons (and other unbalanced monster designs) were treated as traps or hazards (which is how they play). Of course, I think that unbalanced monster designs really aren't all that appealing in actual play.

 

[Mouseferatu]

We'll have to agree to differing tastes, then.

Don't get me wrong, I do see the appeal of a system like the one you're discussing. As I said, I spent some time working on one myself. I just feel, in the end, that the alternative is more interesting, even if less mechanically consistent.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Every GURPs fantasy campaign I've run had advantages and abilities available to Monsters PCs would never have been allowed to purchase.

This seems like the exact same thing.

Just because the GM gives a Troll a certain ability does not mean I'm going to be able to say "yeah, my PC is half-troll so..."

But in some campaigns, you might've been a half-troll. And if you were, the mechanics would've been there in place to buy. Or heck, let's say your GM is running a 'pure' fantasy Euorpe campaign. Is he going to allow Monks or any spellcaster class as written? Probably not.

It's like saying it's not inappropriate to have computer skills for your caveman character. Straw Man. If there was some reason he needed those skills and had access to the training, the game rules for how much it would cost would be there. But in most games, no, there'd be no reason for it.

Heck, none of my Fantasy Hero characters could fly natively, but if I played a wizard I could build a spell to do such. Or I was was running Melnibone in Fantasy Hero and wanted to play one of the winged people, I could creat the abilities using the same rules that I would use for the monsters.

The difference is that the rule set has the information for you should you need it and doesn't rely on hand waving and designers saying, "Don't look behind the curtain!"

 

[BryonD]

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.

Exactly. It'd be nice if WotC would just make that an official stance.
There is nothing wrong with trying to make progress in a Savage Species type product. But as far as Core is concerned, just don't sweat it.