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

[Majoru Oakheart]

The reason I had been suggesting stat blocks might be incomplete was because a role-oriented stat block would only give information necessary for that role. Otherwise it would not be role-oriented. I had missed the designers' remarks about complete statblocks. If this is the case, then my thoughts about role-oriented stat blocks must be wrong.

They never said there will be "role oriented" stat blocks. They've said that monsters would HAVE combat roles. For instance, one monster might be good at ranged attacks and another one might be good at healing and another one might be good at hindering the movement of the PCs.

This is the same way that Rangers are good at ranged attacks, clerics are good at healing and wizards are good at hindering the movement of enemies. The players have roles, the monsters have roles.

Rather than simplifying the presentation of creatures via stat blocks, it would be simplifying the creatures themselves.

This is pretty much what I've gotten from everything that's been said. They are simplifying the monsters and streamlining them for their "purpose".

If a creature as the ability to do an area of effect attack, hit really hard, hold all of the enemies in a goo, heal itself, teleport, and protect itself with a forcefield...then DMs might not know what to do with the creature each round. Which option does it use? What does the creature do in combat other than "whatever is best for it that round"? Is an encounter with 5 of them too powerful since each one of them is so versitile?

However, if you have a creature who teleports and hits really hard, you know what the creature does. It has hit and run tactics. It has less options per round making it easier to run. Plus, you can see the effect that will happen if you put a big brute of an enemy in the encounter who could block the PCs and protect the hit and run monsters. They will work well together.

That's what roles are about, not artificially restricting stat blocks to less information.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So your DnD experience rarely involves Charm, Diplomacy, Disarm, Sunder, Dispell Magic in combat, Calm Emotions or any other such action? All of those require moving to a more complicated rule set.

No, I'm saying that all that information is in the stat block and it's never been suggested that we lose any of it. Charming an enemy doesn't require knowing more about it than using it as an enemy. Neither does any of the other options.

So, what happens if the goblin gets disarmed? Dispelled? If his AC doesn't include a bonus breakdown, what happens if he gets surprised? What happens if he gets surprised *after* a rust monster attack (or a Rusting grasp spell)? Are any of his combat stats Morale based?

Remember when the designers said that the system is very interconnected? Who says that in 4e disarm isn't an opposed strength check meaning that we now have the information? Assuming dispelling won't change this monster at all, no information needs to be in the stat block. Maybe your AC doesn't change when flatfooted so more information is not needed. Maybe there is a general rule that states that all creatures do 1d3 damage with their unarmed strikes and that they have the same plus to hit with their unarmed strikes as their normal attacks.

Plus, my example was just an example...I probably missed some information in there, but not much.

The only thing I've heard from the designers are:
-Stat blocks have been shortened through an ingenious method, you'll have to see it
-Monsters still have all the stats they did before(they still have feats, saves, skills, etc)
-Monsters have roles in the same way that classes have roles

The end result, if monsters are *only* used for combat, of simplifying the system is to remove tactical options. Including such extremely basic ones as disarm and dispell.

I never suggested this options would be removed. I think all the same options would be available as before. The options themselves will be simpler and therefore require less information.

I can't see it as worth it. Adding in the complexity of a "special abilities" system (which WILL NOT be as simple as reading the combat stats off a table) and you end up with the black box system not netting you much prep time at all in the end as opposed to a PCesque design system.

What? Why won't it be as simple as reading the combat stats off a table?

If a creature has an ability that says:
Fire Breath (Ex): 60 ft Cone of Fire, 10d6, +10 to hit
or
Teleport (Su): 1/encounter put the creature in any square within 100ft that it can see

Those seem simple to me. I don't need to read any other sections of the book to understand them. It doesn't require any prep time (since the monster is already written in the Monster Manual and I'm just reading it as I'm running the creature).

As it is now, creatures are listed as having spell like abilities, which have to take standard actions, since that's the general rule(you have to make up a special ability if you want to be able to use a spell as a swift action, for instance). They refer to spells in the PHB, which you have to look up if you don't know what they do. Then you need to read the half page long description of the spell to figure out what it does.

I see it as removing 10 layers of complexity and then adding 1 back. Does it mean that monsters now can just have abilities that you'd never give to players in a million years? Yup. Does it mean that you likely won't be able to create a 10th level Goblin without a LOT of pre-session work? Yep, I think so. It will make us more reliant on Monster Manuals for creatures instead of making them up ourselves, and increase the number of very similar monsters we have. In exchange, the actual running of the monsters will be a lot easier since you won't be trying to remember 20 general rules about monsters, instead just using the stats as written.

 

[Kraydak]

No, I'm saying that all that information is in the stat block and it's never been suggested that we lose any of it. Charming an enemy doesn't require knowing more about it than using it as an enemy. Neither does any of the other options.

Charming an enemy does mean that if you want to buff it, you need to know what bonus types it is running. If you want to give it stuff (weapons/armor) you need to know its current equipement, proficiencies and gear related abilities. If you want to do things like that, you need to know the *provenance* of the bonuses. Which means you need the complications. Can you simplify meaningfully while keeping adequate complexity? I find it quite unlikely.

Remember when the designers said that the system is very interconnected? Who says that in 4e disarm isn't an opposed strength check meaning that we now have the information? Assuming dispelling won't change this monster at all, no information needs to be in the stat block. Maybe your AC doesn't change when flatfooted so more information is not needed. Maybe there is a general rule that states that all creatures do 1d3 damage with their unarmed strikes and that they have the same plus to hit with their unarmed strikes as their normal attacks.

As I noted, if you remove meaningfull combat options (disarm, sunder, surprise, dispell etc...) you remove the need to include the stats those options need. I have to say though, I cannot find the idea to be particularly appealing.

Plus, my example was just an example...I probably missed some information in there, but not much.

Among other things, you missed AC and its breakdown, as well as the ability of the goblin to use other weapons. The rogue wants to sneak up to the camp at night and steal the gear? You convinced the goblins to join you on an attack against some kobolds and you wanted to loan them some excess gear? Oops. And that is one of the simplest humanoid brutes available. How about a skilled warrior brute template? Or a mystical fey warrior brute template? Or a berserking goblin template? Or an exotic weaponsmaster brute template?

The only thing I've heard from the designers are:
-Stat blocks have been shortened through an ingenious method, you'll have to see it
-Monsters still have all the stats they did before(they still have feats, saves, skills, etc)
-Monsters have roles in the same way that classes have roles

I never suggested this options would be removed. I think all the same options would be available as before. The options themselves will be simpler and therefore require less
information.

What are you going to remove and keep the options in a meaningfull manner?! The 3.5 stat block has precious little fat. Skills might be simplified, but will still need their section. Gear *should* mean something. You *can* cut down on the number of special abilities monsters have, but that isn't going to simplify the simpler monsters in play, nor simplify the *design* of more complicated monsters.

If a creature has an ability that says:
Fire Breath (Ex): 60 ft Cone of Fire, 10d6, +10 to hit
or
Teleport (Su): 1/encounter put the creature in any square within 100ft that it can see

Those seem simple to me. I don't need to read any other sections of the book to understand them. It doesn't require any prep time (since the monster is already written in the Monster Manual and I'm just reading it as I'm running the creature).

The difficulty of SU abilities et al. comes in getting the right ability at the right HD/CR/whatever. Ogre Magi are the classic example of getting it wrong. It has nothing to do with running them in game. The difficulty in running abilities in 3e comes from excessive referencing of other material (a presentation issue, not a development one) and an excessive numbers of abilities (a development one, greatly improved by 3.5).

Any system which gets the *power level* right will have similar complexity as a system which gets the power level right by stating up monsters HD by HD. After all, the decisions are *the same*.

 

[hong]

True, except for the simple fact that simplicity comes at the cost of complexity (and I sure hope that doesn't sound profound). *Any* simplification will come at a cost. That cost may be grinding the game to a halt after a charm spell.

The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.

 

[Kraydak]

The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.

We can argue the percentages (both in time saved, and times problems are encountered, which will correlate strongly). Note however that DMs making stuff up can have problematic results, causes frequent inconsistent rulings, and, hugely important, eats into *game time*.

More complete rules eats into prep time ONLY if DMs are designing their own monsters (in which case more complete rule designs have a distinct chance of saving time). MM monsters, being stated up by other people, cost a DM the same regardless of design principles (unless the players do wierd stuff, which they are wont to do, in which case complexity makes things easier). As DM designed monsters (as opposed to MM monsters) tend to be "named", they also tend to be the ones people try wierd stuff against.

Once you have decided to do a "full stat" monster design paradigm, tying it into the PC generation system costs little, and promises huge gains (monster PCs, long lived monster NPCs, templates/half breeds that work etc...).

 

[pemerton]

That's what roles are about, not artificially restricting stat blocks to less information.

Excpet that the designers have also said that one's players will not know what orcs can do, until one actually sees the roles they start playing on the battlefield; and have canvassed the use of a dire bear in a different-from-usual role, which would then require putting new abilities in its stat block.

One way of interpreting those remarks is that there are many different sorts of orc or dire bear. Another way is that there are many different ways of presentingan orc or dire bear, depending on what one wishes to do with it.

 

[hong]

We can argue the percentages (both in time saved, and times problems are encountered, which will correlate strongly). Note however that DMs making stuff up can have problematic results, causes frequent inconsistent rulings, and, hugely important, eats into *game time*.

If you have players who like to argue the 1% of cases where the DM is making stuff up, they should go play video games.

More complete rules eats into prep time ONLY if DMs are designing their own monsters (in which case more complete rule designs have a distinct chance of saving time).

Or if they are trying to go beyond the MM's basic assumptions. Like, you know, when a brute gets charmed.

 

[Kraydak]

If you have players who like to argue the 1% of cases where the DM is making stuff up, they should go play video games.

If you are only having issues in 1% of the cases, you aren't saving any time.

Or if they are trying to go beyond the MM's basic assumptions. Like, you know, when a brute gets charmed.

Um, charm causes problems if the MM's description isn't complete. I'm arguing for a complete description...

 

[hong]

If you are only having issues in 1% of the cases, you aren't saving any time.

By that argument, if you are only having issues in 1% of cases, you also aren't losing any time.

Um, charm causes problems if the MM's description isn't complete. I'm arguing for a complete description...

Charm causes problems because the MM's description is predicated on certain build assumptions which may or may not be adequate for all situations in which people find themselves, but will cause difficulties if people want to go beyond them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.

Monster Combat isn't 99% of my game, though. It's maybe 25-75% depending upon what the party's doing at the moment and where their focus lies. When I'm not hurling XP gristle at 'em, the monsters serve as background population, NPC's, advisers, party members, social rivals, contacts, trainers, etc.: basically as a role in the world and in the party. Designing them for combat is an important goal, probably even THE most important goal, but to make it basically the only goal is to totally miss the boat on the other reasons monsters exist.

The whole point of a Beholder, in 4e (I'm inferring here from Mearls' column, and the Dragon example) is to be the functional equivalent of 5 PCs. Not just in terms of its power (eg damage delivered per round) but in terms of its actions per round.

If that is true, I have to wonder why.

Or, perhaps more relevantly, why you just can't use a "higher level" beholder or throw a beholder at a lower level party to gain the BBEG challenge you seek. Or even have some sort of template or guidelines for when you want to use a monster (any monster) as a solitary boss.

Designing monsters for only one purpose is narrow minded design. If Beholders only exist to challenge a party as a boss monster, the designers are artificially limiting what I should be able to do with a Beholder (which should include "playing one as a PC" IMO).

I don't believe for a second that you need to sacrifice combat awesomeness in order to maintain PC or simple "world element" balance when you're starting from scratch like 4e is.