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

[mhacdebhandia]

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!

That's not really what I got from Mike's comment, personally.

What I understood his point to be was something like this:

Monsters have one purpose/nature in the game, and player characters have another. Trying to design a monster so that it can also be a PC without any changes means that it will be less good as a) a monster, b) a PC, or c) both.

Consider a monster with the Great Cleave feat, in Third Edition. Not only does the creature have to have Power Attack and Cleave as prerequisites before you can "legally" grant it Great Cleave, but that means that it has to have a certain number of Hit Dice (in order to gain the feat slots) - and that means it has to have a certain number of skill points, certain saving throw and base attack values, et cetera.

Alternatively, if you design, say, a minotaur which simply has the ability to cleave into multiple foes, without concern for whether or not it has a PC-ready statline (with Hit Dice, saves, skill points, BAB, whatever), then you're achieving your goal (a monster which can drop multiple foes in one blow) without encumbering yourself with baggage which might hinder the overall concept of the monster.

(Another big one I know they mentioned in the 13th podcast is that to have a Gargantuan-sized creature, under Third Edition rules it has to have a certain minimum number of Hit Dice, even if those Hit Dice and everything that come with it aren't appropriate for a blue whale or whatever. Why does it need six feats?)

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

And from my experience, the counter arguement is that players are not smart enough to make viable characters without the chains of level and automatically advancing hit points to secure them a minimum of abilities. Which may be right mind you.

But I do agree with what you're saying. The other counter arguement is that players only have to know one or two things for their characters, GM's have to know everything for every monsters.

And yet, I wonder who suffers from the GM having a better grasp of the game then the players? In this case, the time pressed GM. But that's only if he's customizing the heck out of his campaign...

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's not really what I got from Mike's comment, personally.

What I understood his point to be was something like this:

Monsters have one purpose/nature in the game, and player characters have another. Trying to design a monster so that it can also be a PC without any changes means that it will be less good as a) a monster, b) a PC, or c) both.

Consider a monster with the Great Cleave feat, in Third Edition. Not only does the creature have to have Power Attack and Cleave as prerequisites before you can "legally" grant it Great Cleave, but that means that it has to have a certain number of Hit Dice (in order to gain the feat slots) - and that means it has to have a certain number of skill points, certain saving throw and base attack values, et cetera.

Alternatively, if you design, say, a minotaur which simply has the ability to cleave into multiple foes, without concern for whether or not it has a PC-ready statline (with Hit Dice, saves, skill points, BAB, whatever), then you're achieving your goal (a monster which can drop multiple foes in one blow) without encumbering yourself with baggage which might hinder the overall concept of the monster.

(Another big one I know they mentioned in the 13th podcast is that to have a Gargantuan-sized creature, under Third Edition rules it has to have a certain minimum number of Hit Dice, even if those Hit Dice and everything that come with it aren't appropriate for a blue whale or whatever. Why does it need six feats?)

And yet DUngeoncraft makes an excellent point that instead of using templates and other craziness to customize monsters, you can change default skills and feats that the monsters already have.

If you say that all minotaurs now have this new speical ability, aren't you making an entirely new monster each time you change the 'feats' that have now become special abilities? And what does that do to the 'xp' value?

 

[Shade]

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

Not in my games. Feats make many of the monsters in my experience. Things like Large and in Charge, Empower Supernatural Ability, Adroit Flyby Attack, Rending Constriction...all these have made for memorable encounters.

I really pray that monsters continue to gain feats, and that the flexibility to modify monsters via template and increased Hit Dice remain. I'd much rather run an advanced existing monster than a baseline higher-CR creature (flavor notwithstanding). I just really groove on the flexibility.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Semantics no?

Also, this is the worst argument ever. "It's just the actual meaning of the words we use, whatever!"

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Unless you assume that a wide variety of creatures are suitable as PCs.

If you're playing Lord of Something Other Than the Rings, Honest, Unless You Squint, v. 201,834.5, then yes, you don't need rules for monstrous PCs (although treant/ent PCs would not be out of the question - and I doubt the treant will be "PC-Appropriate" in the Monster Manual).

If you're playing Dragonlance, or Spelljammer, or Dark Sun, or Planescape - then you need a significant number of monsters to be playable as PCs, and for each one of those settings you need a DIFFERENT suite of monsters to be playable as PCs. If you're playing Shadowrun or Final Fantasy or World of Darkness and want to use the D&D rules, you need an entirely different suite of playable monsters. In a romantic fantasy game, talking animals and magical beasts are appropriate if not necessary as PCs; in a sword and sorcery game, humans may be the only appropriate race, or they may be joined by serpent men (yuan-ti) and similar weirdness.

For the moment, I'm only including those settings that would likely have many of their monsters in the Monster Manual. When you look at more exotic fare, you're looking at a lot more work for homebrewers. How about mascot creatures in a CRPG- or anime-inspired game? Is a moogle a monster or a race? What about a pokemon? An esper or similar summoned creature? An anthropomorphic animal? Are the green men of Barsoom a race or a monster? They clearly need to be the former, but as common antagonists does that make them too complicated to use as the latter?

 

[Glyfair]

And from my experience, the counter arguement is that players are not smart enough to make viable characters without the chains of level and automatically advancing hit points to secure them a minimum of abilities.

There you go again tying it into a player's intelligence. Just because I prefer that style of play doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to do it another way. I don't like that other style of play.

It seems that most players agree with me because they prefer to have the ability to widely customize their character. The reasons vary from person to person, but the preferences are there.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If you're playing Dragonlance, or Spelljammer, or Dark Sun, or Planescape - then you need a significant number of monsters to be playable as PCs, and for each one of those settings you need a DIFFERENT suite of monsters to be playable as PCs. If you're playing Shadowrun or Final Fantasy or World of Darkness and want to use the D&D rules, you need an entirely different suite of playable monsters. In a romantic fantasy game, talking animals and magical beasts are appropriate if not necessary as PCs; in a sword and sorcery game, humans may be the only appropriate race, or they may be joined by serpent men (yuan-ti) and similar weirdness.

I think that's just it: the idea of the core rules being all things to all people has burdened DMs who want to use monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons.

Shouldn't that really be the first consideration?

 

[JoeGKushner]

There you go again tying it into a player's intelligence. Just because I prefer that style of play doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to do it another way. I don't like that other style of play.

It seems that most players agree with me because they prefer to have the ability to widely customize their character. The reasons vary from person to person, but the preferences are there.

Ain't my arugement.

Go to a different cite and ask if D&D should become a point system instead of a level and class based system and some of the responses you'll see include players not being familiar enough with the system to 'maximize' it for surviability purposes.

 

[Glyfair]

Unless you assume that a wide variety of creatures are suitable as PCs.

To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with a system where even PC race NPC characters use different rules from PCs. Save the detailed NPCs for the key enemies and simplify everyone else.