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

[JoeGKushner]

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.

And I see the benefit of that.

But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...

And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?

 

[Gentlegamer]

And I see the benefit of that.

But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...

And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?

I know this is intended as sarcastic, but I'd be fine with this. Yes, we can trust our GMs.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I'll bet a much larger group will be a group that complains that a point system will cater to the min-max powergamer. If fact I agree with this (not my objection to it, but I agree that the mix max players live for that sort of system).

Yes, there are min-max players, powergamers, munchkins, etc, out there. No matter how you design a game they will play their style of game, or leave the game. I'm sure WotC doesn't want to design a game that will eliminate any of those styles because the only real problem players are the extremes.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'll bet a much larger group will be a group that complains that a point system will cater to the min-max powergamer. If fact I agree with this (not my objection to it, but I agree that the mix max players live for that sort of system).

Yes, there are min-max players, powergamers, munchkins, etc, out there. No matter how you design a game they will play their style of game, or leave the game. I'm sure WotC doesn't want to design a game that will eliminate any of those styles because the only real problem players are the extremes.

That sounds like a good bit for another thread.

 

[Glyfair]

But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...

There comes a point where you reached the goal. You don't want to go so far past your goal that you alienate the fringe at the other side of the scale (there are people who love that amount of detail work as a DM).

 

[MerricB]

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.

Look, I think the abilities are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky.

Removing feats from monsters doesn't mean that they'd stop being able to be advanced, or you couldn't add a template to them. (Actually, simplifying monsters would probably make templates easier to use!)

Cheers!

 

[marune]

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.

The errata will come from actual game play instead of proof-reading.

Instead of : WOTC forgot 3 skills points over 192 for this monster, it will be : Hmm, I've run some battles with Monster X and it seems that is AC is a bit too high for his "Monster level", same for you guys? Strike 35 and write 30, done.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Look, I think the abilities are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky.

Removing feats from monsters doesn't mean that they'd stop being able to be advanced, or you couldn't add a template to them. (Actually, simplifying monsters would probably make templates easier to use!)

Cheers!

But follow that line of thought.

Wouldn't making feats into abilities for characters work just as well and allow players even more freedom?

I know this is intended as sarcastic, but I'd be fine with this. Yes, we can trust our GMs.

Only the second part. Even as a fan of Hero and other point based systems, I, as a GM, see no point in wasting time providing crunched up numbers for a skilled metal smith or armoerer unless he's going to go adventuring or something along those lines. Part of the fun for me as a GM is giving the players little quests to find "the best!" to forge items or provide information to them as opposed to the players asking me what level characters are in town.

 

[jdrakeh]

To me, this is backwards thinking.

An ability is an ability is an ability.

I can understand the thinking, but as a long time Hero and GURPS player, it just sounds wrong to me.

The reason monsters as players don't work as smooth as it should not isn't in the details of the monster races, it's in the fact that ECL/Level Adjustment is just broken.

But that's just me.

I agree with you, actually. I think the decision to codify every possible aspect of creature or character as its own special mechanic is a big part of what made (makes) 3x unwieldy on the backend. Dump that !@$#, says I. Get back to unifying things, rather than giving us a mountain of mechanics at odds with one another.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Look, I think the abilities are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky.

Yep. Feat prerequisites and the number of Hit Dice needed to "legally" gain the number of feats you want the monster to have is a problem in Third Edition.