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

[Kerrick]

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.

Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit.

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.

That's why turn undead should've been based on CR, not HD. The designers failed to realize that undead's HD are generally WAY higher than their CR (especially skeletons and zombies), and they were lazy - instead of looking at whether or not the system worked, they just ported the old one over, made it work with the new mechanics, and let it go at that. So we ended up with a system that requires you to look up your result on a chart, is totally different than the normal resolution mechanic (making a roll vs. a DC), and is horribly unbalanced.

Rogues can't make multiple attacks (3e)
Wizards can't cast more than one spell in a round (3e)
Spellcasters can't blast all day (Warlock)
Rogues can't sneak attack undead (Skullclan Hunter)
Constructs can't be PCs (Warforged)
PCs can't be permanently invisible (pixie)

Can't, can't, can't. You know what? If you accounted for it, I think you could build a PC that fired off ten offensive spells in a single round. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be.

If you had to design a game where the base classes are fighter, rogue, cleric, and beholder, you would find a way.

But would if be balanced? Would it be fun for the other players? I mean, come on - look at the above list, and tell us exactly how many of those are balanced.

It makes HD based mechanics (see Holy Word, 3ed Turn Undead) work. It makes monsters as characters doable. It makes polymorph and summoning easier.

While I agree that unifying mechanics are the way to go, the examples you use above DON'T work, precisely because they're HD-based checks. This goes back to my argument that HD != CR (take note here, Klaus - this is another reason why it can't be done).

... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.

Finally! Thank you - I'm glad someone is willing to point out the DM's role as arbiter of "What's good in the campaign". The designers can't cover every single loophole - all they can do is design it the best they can, close the most obvious ones, make sure their mechanics work with the core and with any other systems they're including in that book (like if you're using PrC X from book Y), and ship it. If JoeBob the player find some loophole that he can exploit by combining PrC X from a WotC book and PrC Y from some third-party book, it's not the designer's fault - he couldn't possibly have foreseen it. OTOH, the designers DO let badly designed crap through; but it's still the DM's job as arbiter to say "Sure, this is okay," or "Oh HELL no."

That's why I would much rather see ECL or a modified HD that allows for 1 HD = 1 ECL regardless of type. since we already have HD that can vary, it's not that much of a stretch to say 1 animal HD = 3d6 for the purposes of ECL/CR calculation. Give me rules that work the same for everybody, and a set of rules that don't and I'm sure I can show you that it's a lot harder to accidentally create Pun-Puns in the first system, assuming reasonably intelligent design.

Why not just do LA like NWN does - it ignores racial HD (I, personally, assumed their were already factored into the LA calculation) and adds the LA to your character level. So, a mind flayer Sor 9 would be ECL 16 (though technically, it should be at least 17, since LA, IMO, should never be less than CR).

In other words, make it possible to add hit points (for instance) without adding a whole truckload of unrelated abilities. Which, actually, makes advancing monsters simpler, faster, and more elegant, which is what a lot of 4e is going for.

You can do that already - Toughness feats (which I hope they're going to make worthwhile, BTW...). Or, like Klaus said, just boost the Con score (which is a more elegant solution.

 

[Kraydak]

Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit.

SLAs and SU abilities don't need to mess with CR/HD ratios any. Look at wizards and clerics, they have *tons* of the things. Available spell *levels* need to be tied to HD closely if you want a CR=HD system, but the existance of the abilities poses no problem. If you make "abberation" into an actual *class* by design, with talents, one of the talents would be: choose 1 spell of a level=level/2, round up. You can use this ability 1/encounter. You'd also get an array of lower level abilities somewhat a la Leadership. Drop the SLA level by 1 to get at will, increase level by 1 to get 1/day. A beholder would take this a few times (beholders aren't in the SRD and I'm AFB, so no more details). Turning the SLAs into ranged attacks would be a standard option.

(An ogre would be giant 3: giant 1 talent giving Powerfull build for medium sized creatures, giant 2 gives "brute 1", +4 str, +2 con, prereq powerful build med, giant 3 giving size large, prereq powerful build med or something similar)

 

[Nebulous]

... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.

Agreed. I don't think that these fundamental problems will be solved in 4e. They'll just transform into new, unforeseen issues that might not become blatantly obvious until thousands of gamers tear the system apart. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will mean, just like it has from 1st edition, that the DM will have to step in and flex his muscles.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...)

If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble. Other games do it, why not D&D? In fact, I think --historically-- a lot of D&D's problems come from making a bunch of independent rules sets and glomming them together later on. This new philosophy might sound cool now, but when stuff meshes awkwardly later on, it could cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns.

It will only become an awkward mess if the rules for designing monsters are not internally consistent. Even in 3rd editions, there are still some considerable differences between monster creation and character creation.
Character classes do not map 1:1 to monster types. They are also absolutely not balanced against each other (compare Fey HD to Undead HD to Dragon HD.). Ability score generation is based on some rough guidelines (since 3.x, not before) (there are only rules how to change them when advancing/resizing a monster).
None of these differences make it anyway easier to create or advance monsters compared to creating or advancing PCs. You still have to distribute feats and skill points. Determining the CR is guesswork. If you want to create your own monster with spell-like abilities, the guidelines leave you entirely alone, and you can only hope that your experience with PC creation (and balance) will port over to monster creation (I know for certain that some adventure designers didn't even get so far...)

 

[Kraydak]

It will only become an awkward mess if the rules for designing monsters are not internally consistent. Even in 3rd editions, there are still some considerable differences between monster creation and character creation.
Character classes do not map 1:1 to monster types. They are also absolutely not balanced against each other (compare Fey HD to Undead HD to Dragon HD.). Ability score generation is based on some rough guidelines (since 3.x, not before) (there are only rules how to change them when advancing/resizing a monster).
None of these differences make it anyway easier to create or advance monsters compared to creating or advancing PCs. You still have to distribute feats and skill points. Determining the CR is guesswork. If you want to create your own monster with spell-like abilities, the guidelines leave you entirely alone, and you can only hope that your experience with PC creation (and balance) will port over to monster creation (I know for certain that some adventure designers didn't even get so far...)

You could *make* 4ed types map 1:1 to character classes, with Fey being closer to spell casters and monstrous humanoids fighter types. The end result would probably be about/slightly better than 3ed Magic Item creation guidelines (it would also be great with the DI, taking too much room to fit in the MM proper). Decently designed monsters in the system would then fit perfectly with the multiclassing rules. Poor design, or deliberately different design (glass cannons) would cause issues, but then, having a basic rule set where things work if you take a modicum of care is about the best you can get in an RPG with home-brews anyways.

 

[AllisterH]

You could *make* 4ed types map 1:1 to character classes, with Fey being closer to spell casters and monstrous humanoids fighter types. The end result would probably be about/slightly better than 3ed Magic Item creation guidelines (it would also be great with the DI, taking too much room to fit in the MM proper). Decently designed monsters in the system would then fit perfectly with the multiclassing rules. Poor design, or deliberately different design (glass cannons) would cause issues, but then, having a basic rule set where things work if you take a modicum of care is about the best you can get in an RPG with home-brews anyways.

I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).

I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).

I'm not touching the polymorph issue with a proverbial 10 ft. pole, except to say, I wait with baited breath to see how this is addressed. Because the only versions of shapechanging I've ever seen that worked properly were in HERO and M&M.

I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.

And yet, for a fair number of people, it IS necessary. By leaving it out, you exclude those people, whereas by including it you exclude no one.

 

[Kraydak]

I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).

I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.

Wierd monsters, as I mean it, is like the 3ed, pre-Mearls Ogre Magi. In general, they run really, really poorly. Either they have vast (albeit possibly overly specialized) defenses, and no offense (Drow), or 1 huge attack with nothing to back it up (Ogre Magi's Cone of Cold). If you make the offense/defense ratio too wonky, monsters don't just become impossible to PCify (or summoning/polymorph balance), they become extremely hard to use as a DM. There is a place for them, but they should be exceptions to the rule. Have a codified system to create most monsters (which will then be reliably usable) and include some more heavily modified ones with warnings to the DM to be careful in their use.

The existence of "unbalanced" monsters doesn't mean you don't want a system to create "balanced" monsters. It just means you occaisonally bend that system more than usual, and you are doing it *knowing* you are leaving the system behind, and entering uncharted territories.

Note that "monster creation rules as class levels" would include things like "choose a lvl X spell as a spell like ability, used at will". Like the 3ed Magic Item design guidelines, the rules wouldn't be flawless. Skill would still go into using them, and monsters would look quite different. But designing monsters as if each Type were a class would tie monster creation in with the multi-classing rules, making monster advancement, PCification, cross-breeding etc... much easier. Crossbreeding as racial multiclassing, sounds like fun!

 

[ruleslawyer]

Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.

 

[Dragonblade]

Actually, I totally agree with Mike Mearls. The whole notion that monster should follow the same rules as players sounds great on paper. And from a player's perspective it is pretty cool.

But from a DM's perspective its a nightmare. Oh sure, as a DM you can just give a monster any stats you like, but then there is the whole feeling that you are somehow "cheating" if you don't properly build the monster by the rules.

3.5 is vastly superior to 1e and 2e as a ruleset, but I remember in 2e being able to run entire campaigns on the fly because everything I needed to run a monster was right there in the monster manual entry. I didn't need to go lookup half a dozen abilities and feats. And if I did change monster stats on the fly, I didn't have this strange feeling that I was violating some unspoken taboo by not following the proper monster advancement system.

I have always felt that having monsters operate the same way as characters was a result of a miniatures or wargame mentality that pits the players in opposition to the DM. 3e always feels like the DM has his "warband" balanced by CR and EL vs. the PCs. And I hate that.

It seems like the designers for 4e have realized that a good roleplaying session is not about the DM and the players against each other, but rather the DM and the players working together to have fun and tell a great story. As such it is a great thing when the DM is free to treat monsters as story elements and not feel like he has to field his 200 point warband against the players 200 point warband or the encounter won't be "balanced".