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

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Here's the thing.

I'm COMPLETELY fine with THIS.

I LOVE Spycraft 2.0's NPC generation table and use it often for other games, even though it's not an exact match. It's wonderfully simple and easy to use.

BUT, if the Monster Manual takes this route, and neither it nor the Player's Handbook provide the more complex PC Race rules for the monsters... then anyone playing anything but bog standard Tolkienesque D&D (+ Merlin/Elric/Hellboy/DMC Dante-inspired half-fiends at least previously tied to the Planescape Great Wheel) is completely hosed.

They can hope and pray for a Savage Species type book, or they can houserule all of it - which means considerably more work than they would have had to put into cleaned-up and somewhat streamlined PC-style monsters.

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?

Why should that be the first consideration?

If D&D is to be "highly specific D&D fantasy set in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk with very tight setting-based restrictions on PCs" - then it's no longer a game I'm interested in. It will almost certainly be better designed than AD&D, and more to my tastes mechanically than Castles and Crusades, but from a flavor perspective I might as well be playing those games.

3.5 has a lot of problems, but, as the wealth of d20 games attests, its moddability was one of its greatests strengths. It's currently the only version of D&D I would consider playing, because it's the only version that can handle the kind of settings and playstyles I'm interested in without houserules sufficient to be a system unto themselves.

You bolded my suggestions of Final Fantasy, World of Darkness and Shadowrun - yet Final Fantasy could be run reasonably well, though not perfectly, with humans as the only playable race, and Shadowrun is fairly close to D&D in its PC racial choices (trolls being the big question mark). Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer, all of which are D&D settings, present considerably more problems.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Ultimately, I'd rather a system that gives designers and DMs complete freedom, rather than one that restricts them in order to almost accomplish the stated goal of monster/PC compatibility.

So when did you start playing Hero?

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I dont care how monsters and Pc races are designed so long as if I want to play one or allow my players to play one I dont need house rules to do it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

You've confused my argument with someone elses. I'm not saying that at all.

My argument is that having the shortcut of "Awesome Blow" on the monster statblock causes confusion, just as much as "Weapon Focus" on that statblock. In the first case, the DM has to look it up. In the second case, the designer has to make sure he accounted for it in the stats.

This isn't so much a problem for a player, since they have all their concentration on just their PC, but for a DM? Lots more problems.

Cheers!

I agree with that.

I won't lie and say I've never forgotten a monster's ability or to keep track of a condition that a monster is in or has inflicted on the players.

At the same time, I can't blame the game system for me not reading up on the abilities of a monster, especially a complex one.

Being a GM is a big job. While I see monsters getting easier to use thanks to these changes, I don't see those errors going away or the effort to run good combats going away.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

But isn't the same thing true of characters?

An opponent - getting away from "monster", because this is generally true of any challenge you have to overcome - has a purpose in any given context.

A minotaur is a dangerous foe in melee, strong and tough. The games rules governing the minotaur in a fight ought to be streamlined towards the goal of having it be a strong, tough melee opponent without worrying about irrelevant details.

(The same applies in other types of encounters than combat encounters, too. A minotaur would have certain traits in a social encounter, or a chase scene, and these should be taken into account. I hope they do.)

While a PC has a role to play in combat, the fact that the PC is a continuous presence in the gameworld means that a player needs a more comprehensive - and thus more complex - set of rules. Not only does the PC have to have something to do in a fight, a social situation, and a chase scene, they also have to be able to deal with other kinds of encounters and challenges - like climbing a cliff, or navigating a trap-filled dungeon. There are situations and problems a PC will face - and needs the ability to deal with - which the monster never will, because that's not its game function.

A PC also exists along a continuum of progression which doesn't necessarily apply to a monster - what my wizard is at 5th level builds upon what he is at 4th, and must do so elegantly and naturally while providing a foundation for further advancement. No such requirement applies to a monster - while it's good to be able to scale up (or scale down) a monster's abilities, that still takes place in the context of its game function as a challenge for the PCs, and thus operates according to different, less comprehensive rules.

For instance, a minotaur might need a Climb skill if it's going to be encountered in a sheer-sided valley (or just to account for its natural behaviour, if they're supposed to be mountaineers), but saying "A minotaur needs to be able to Climb" doesn't necessarily translate to "A minotaur's skill points need to be laid out in the same balanced, accounted-for fashion as a PC's skill points" . . . the minotaur really just needs an appropriate bonus to Climb which makes sense for the purpose you want it to be Climbing for.

 

[MerricB]

Not now. Now you get access to a ton of spells that you may have no interest in. You can't sacrifice the ability to cast spells of more than two schools to maximize the hit points of your monsters for example. You can't forfit the ability to cast lower level spells in order to make your creatures stronger.

No, Joe: You currently don't have the summoner class.

You have a Specialist Conjurer, but that doesn't try to emulate the Moorcock Elric class. You *could* do so.

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

No, Joe: You currently don't have the summoner class.

You have a Specialist Conjurer, but that doesn't try to emulate the Moorcock Elric class. You *could* do so.

Cheers!

Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.

But no, seriously, in terms of spellcasting, Elric would be a conjurer no? And a fighter with a dang powerful sword.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

At the same time, I want to make my position clear:

I agree with the concept of designing monsters to be monsters.

I also really, really hope that they will be prompt about converting monsters into "PC format", as much as possible, as often as possible, because I love having the option.

Quite honestly, this is pretty fertile ground for D&D Insider. Perhaps even a regular column - alternating "obvious" choices like hobgoblins and minotaurs with more esoteric options like yuan-ti purebloods or driders.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.

Cough, cough... Ahem!

 

[JoeGKushner]

An opponent - getting away from "monster", because this is generally true of any challenge you have to overcome - has a purpose in any given context.

A minotaur is a dangerous foe in melee, strong and tough. The games rules governing the minotaur in a fight ought to be streamlined towards the goal of having it be a strong, tough melee opponent without worrying about irrelevant details.

But not a fighter? A fighter who in 3rd ed, gets 2 skill points a level and a terrible skill selection?

(The same applies in other types of encounters than combat encounters, too. A minotaur would have certain traits in a social encounter, or a chase scene, and these should be taken into account. I hope they do.)

While a PC has a role to play in combat, the fact that the PC is a continuous presence in the gameworld means that a player needs a more comprehensive - and thus more complex - set of rules. Not only does the PC have to have something to do in a fight, a social situation, and a chase scene, they also have to be able to deal with other kinds of encounters and challenges - like climbing a cliff, or navigating a trap-filled dungeon. There are situations and problems a PC will face - and needs the ability to deal with - which the monster never will, because that's not its game function.

But in your example, the PC with no abilities in social skills, is not going to be able to do anything. The player who doesn't have any ranks in climb, isn't going to be able to do so.

What if the minotaur is actually chasing the player? Don't they both need the same types of statistics?

A PC also exists along a continuum of progression which doesn't necessarily apply to a monster - what my wizard is at 5th level builds upon what he is at 4th, and must do so elegantly and naturally while providing a foundation for further advancement. No such requirement applies to a monster - while it's good to be able to scale up (or scale down) a monster's abilities, that still takes place in the context of its game function as a challenge for the PCs, and thus operates according to different, less comprehensive rules.

Only if you're nailing the players down with character creation. Long before the PHB II provided official rules for it, I knew many GMs who'd let players change their characters. As new books come out for 4e, I don't see that aspect changing as the books themselves will often say, "Hey, don't punish a player for not taking an ability that didn't exist when he made his character.

For instance, a minotaur might need a Climb skill if it's going to be encountered in a sheer-sided valley (or just to account for its natural behaviour, if they're supposed to be mountaineers), but saying "A minotaur needs to be able to Climb" doesn't necessarily translate to "A minotaur's skill points need to be laid out in the same balanced, accounted-for fashion as a PC's skill points" . . . the minotaur really just needs an appropriate bonus to Climb which makes sense for the purpose you want it to be Climbing for.

But a default set of skill points in the Monster Manual now is just that, default. The GM can change skill points and feats now to take into account a variety in location, commonly encountered foes, etc...

Minotaurs in your setting don't fight often? They take skill focus on social skills to make up for their lack of grace. Minotaurs in your campaign master trackers? They take tracking and skill focus.

In your example, what if you don't want the minotaur to climb? Are you going to make a 'new' minotaur with the new skill bonus? If so, you're just trading the math to hand waving no?