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

[JoeGKushner]

Why should the DM spend the time to build them?

I'm not trying to sund stupid here, but doesn't the Monster Manual 'build' them? Isn't the real problem the 'customization' aspect?

Sounds like they'll be going the Everquest rotue where instead of making levels and what not they'll just be different monsters.

 

[Psion]

Hmmm. The more accessible, more PC like nature of monsters in 3e is what made me take a chance on 3e instead of sticking with 2e.

Not that I don't see the point. Some abilities are just a bit too unmanageable in PC hands. But I don't think that's an excuse for a black and white distinction between PC and adversarial abilities.

I had hoped they would come up with a workable solution to the LA/ECL issue. It seems like they tried, failed, and gave up from this.

 

[Glyfair]

But shouldn't the whole game be made easier to run instead of dumbing down certain parts of it?

Why has "simplified in a way I don't like" become "dumbing down"? Am I dumb because I like this change?

I've been arguing that the whole conflict between people wanting detailed PCs but finding adventure design to much work is because of this philosophy of "what's good for the PCs is good for the opponents." A huge amount of work for the DM can be cut out by simplying designing opponents and PCs as PCs. Having different mechanics for those races that work as both seems appropriate to me.

The best way to have your cake and eat it to is to have two cakes, not to try to have one cake that you eat and keep.

Heh. I liked the Humanoids Handbook, or whatever it was called. Honestly, I thought that, in the context of 2E, it worked at least as well as--if not better than--the LA/ECL system worked in the context of 3E.

I believe James Wyatt has given hints that there are going to be rumblings in Darguun in Eberron. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of humanoids book developed to help build on that before the new Eberron is released, or shortly thereafter.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I see the point and agree with it.

Heck, I see the point in making NPCs different too.

But mechanically it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it's showcasing a bad design from the front end. If players are too complecated to make in the first place that the same rules can't be applied to the monsters/npcs.... simplify them!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Why has "simplified in a way I don't like" become "dumbing down"? Am I dumb because I like this change?

I've been arguing that the whole conflict between people wanting detailed PCs but finding adventure design to much work is because of this philosophy of "what's good for the PCs is good for the opponents." A huge amount of work for the DM can be cut out by simplying designing opponents and PCs as PCs. Having different mechanics for those races that work as both seems appropriate to me.

Not at all. Semantics no? Simplified could be the word I used without changing the context. If the game needs to be easier to run, make the whole game easier to run.

People keep bringing up these fond memories of AD&D/basic D&D, etc... and hey, back then, there were no feats, skills, etc... Heck, isn't part of the appeal of Castles & Crusades simplicity?

Maybe I'm just too jaded by 2nd ed's approach to making 'playable' races or previous editions. Maybe I've played too much Hero and other point buy systems.

Ah well. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[Zaruthustran]

This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game because the 2HD max skill rank for CHARACTERS is +5.

And they shouldn't have to include some space-wasting hack in the statblock explaining "the kangaroo gets a +7 racial bonus to jump checks". They should just put "Kangaroo: +12 jump", and be done with it.

This change to monster (and I include humanoid NPC villains in this category) stats will make the DM's job much, much easier. Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important. No need to worry about making sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up. Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And that's another thing that worries me.

Currently the game has some 'limits' or has a lot of checks and balances built into the game so that as a reader, you can have an idea if something is screwy with the game stats.

With the new edition, how would you know if there are screw ups? "Oh, we meants that to be a four armed yugoloth."

WoTC stat blocking ability isn't that great now. I don't see making it easier to do fuzzy math making them any better.

This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game because the 2HD max skill rank for CHARACTERS is +5.

And they shouldn't have to include some space-wasting hack in the statblock explaining "the kangaroo gets a +7 racial bonus to jump checks". They should just put "Kangaroo: +12 jump", and be done with it.

This change to monster (and I include humanoid NPC villains in this category) stats will make the DM's job much, much easier. Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important. No need to worry about making sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up. Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If players are too complecated to make in the first place that the same rules can't be applied to the monsters/npcs.... simplify them!

And here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.

Just because Procedure X is too complicated for Circumstance Y, that doesn't mean it's too complicated for Circumstance Z.

A player has to make one--maybe two or three--PCs over the course of an entire campaign. A DM has to make, or at least manage, hundreds of monsters and NPCs.

Monsters and NPCs, therefore, should be simpler to build and manage than PCs. And that means simplifying one procedure and not the other. (And on the few occasions the DM needs/wants an NPC as complex as a full-fledged PC, he can always build one that way.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

WoTC stat blocking ability isn't that great now. I don't see making it easier to do fuzzy math making them any better.

The flip side of this is, simpler stat blocks make for fewer errors.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.

Just because Procedure X is too complicated for Circumstance Y, that doesn't mean it's too complicated for Circumstance Z.

A player has to make one--maybe two or three--PCs over the course of an entire campaign. A DM has to make, or at least manage, hundreds of monsters and NPCs.

Monsters and NPCs, therefore, should be simpler to build and manage than PCs. And that means simplifying one procedure and not the other. (And on the few occasions the DM needs/wants an NPC as complex as a full-fledged PC, he can always build one that way.)

I guess one of the reasons I'm not 'seeing' the other side as clearly as some is that the whole point of books like the Monster Manual, is to take the work off the GM in the first place no? I mean, we do have six monster books for 3.0/3.5 right?