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

[JoeGKushner]

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

Without seeing the math though, we'll never know.

 

[MerricB]

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?

Yeah. Books like MMIV, which give people like John Cooper an ideal place to slam Wizards for not getting the stat-blocks right.

Cheers!

 

[Zaruthustran]

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

Well, that's the point, right? If WotC--professional game designers with an editing team--regularly screw up stat blocks, then the system is just plain broken. Too needlessly complicated. Cut the math entirely, and it's not "fuzzy".

Monsters are alive for, at most, 3 to 4 rounds. It's simply not worth the time to fully stat them up. There's no reason to. They should have their core values (armor class, hp, attacks, saves, and maybe a skill or two) simply *set* at whatever value they need to be in order for them to fill their role in creating a fun encounter. Without concern for whether those numbers "add up" properly.

I really like the top-level thought evident so far in 4E's design decisions. Monsters are monsters, not PCs, and they should be recognized for what they are and treated accordingly.

 

[Glyfair]

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

I agree with this point. Joe's point seems to be that if monsters are too much work with detail then PCs shouldn't be allowed to be detailed either. I see no reason to connect the two.

PCs are PCs, so treat them as PCs. Monsters are monsters, so treat them as monsters. There is no reason to treat monsters as PCs, or visa versa, just because.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yeah. Books like MMIV, which give people like John Cooper an ideal place to slam Wizards for not getting the stat-blocks right.

Cheers!

Sounds like simplification would be a good thing eh? (I just argue that it should be for everone.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Fortunately, in the game I'm using for d20, the max "skill bonus" for 2 hd characters is +11 before stats are applied. So your kangaroo need not worry. Of course, they could always just give the 'roo a racial bonus...

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.

Oh.

The racial bonus text usually appears AFTER the stat block, in my experience. In the block itself, it's just +12 Jump, with maybe a * after 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.

If I have to calculate every. Individual. Skill. Point. for PCs, or even make sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up, then the system is going to be inferior to Star Wars Saga for my purposes, and I won't be using it as a GM anyway.

The level of complexity of PCs and major characters in 3.5 is far beyond what I consider appropriate for any RPG, much less what is likely to be the gateway product for most of the hobby. Far more flexible systems, such as the almost limitlessly flexible HERO System and the almost-as-flexible-and-much-easier-to-use Mutants and Masterminds, produce PCs with a much lower average complexity than 3.5, without sacrificing one whit of customization or differentiation.

 

[MerricB]

Sounds like simplification would be a good thing eh? (I just argue that it should be for everone.)

I think it should be for everyone... but the level of simplification shouldn't be the same.

Feats are great for PCs, but not so great for NPCs and much less so for monsters.

NPCs are really going to be the hardest thing that Wizards deal with.

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

I agree with this point. Joe's point seems to be that if monsters are too much work with detail then PCs shouldn't be allowed to be detailed either. I see no reason to connect the two.

PCs are PCs, so treat them as PCs. Monsters are monsters, so treat them as monsters. There is no reason to treat monsters as PCs, or visa versa, just because.

For me, it's not "just because".

The game system uniformity helps expalin how the world works. One of the problems, outside of the complexity of characters in terms of being monsters, is that monsters are given too much free reign in their special abilities to make them viable as monsters as opposed to making them effective critters.

Or something like that.

It gets back to my thoughts that an effect is an effect is an effect. Game mechanic X is always game mechanic X regardless of whose using it. Having the system behind the game be 'universal' in it's applications can make for greater game mastery.

Will liches now cast spells differently then player mages for example?

Like I've mentioned, I can see how this new (very old) way of doing things will benefits GMs who customize their monsters. I don't see it doing a lot for players who'll now have to pay for books that provide these different statistics or for GMs who run things out of adventuers or for GMs who use a lot of player based NPC classes. (Or heck, those that just run things straight out of the Monster Manuals to being with.)

 

[cthulhu_duck]

Monsters are alive for, at most, 3 to 4 rounds. It's simply not worth the time to fully stat them up.

Some monsters perhaps, in some games - but not all monsters in all games. We regularly have combats that last several times that length, and the 'monsters' sometimes survive for the whole combat or even after the combat.

Different people have differing experiences - and I'd hope that Wizards are aiming at a wider market than just games where the monsters die by round four.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I think it should be for everyone... but the level of simplification shouldn't be the same.

Feats are great for PCs, but not so great for NPCs and much less so for monsters.

NPCs are really going to be the hardest thing that Wizards deal with.

Cheers!

Good point. Players building characters like taking time on interesting choices. DMs building monsters? Not so much.