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

[JoeGKushner]

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.

But isn't the same thing true of characters?

Elric, a famous sword and sorcery character by Michael Moorcock, is an emormously powerful summoner. Never see him casting a fireball or generally any other ability.

He'd actually work better as a 'monster' in the system you're describing above as opposed to letting players have more 'freedom'.

 

[MerricB]

But follow that line of thought.

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

Err... not quite following you.

Cheers!

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

Given the game industry's (not WoTC, but pretty much the entire game industry) use of errata, it'll be a mighty cold day in the hot place when that happens.

Did the yougoloth with four arms ever get fixed for example? (Ah, the old Fiend Folio beasties...)

 

[JoeGKushner]

Err... not quite following you.

Cheers!

Becaue if you follow the logic of needing level x to make feat y legal is bad, because feat y fits the monster concept, how would it be bad for player a to have that for his concept if the mechanics of what feat y does are exactly the same? The monster's just sidestepped everything and the player is actually penalized for being a player.

 

[MerricB]

But isn't the same thing true of characters?

Elric, a famous sword and sorcery character by Michael Moorcock, is an emormously powerful summoner. Never see him casting a fireball or generally any other ability.

He'd actually work better as a 'monster' in the system you're describing above as opposed to letting players have more 'freedom'.

Hmm. Depended on how you implemented the summoner class, surely?

Cheers!

 

[marune]

Given the game industry's (not WoTC, but pretty much the entire game industry) use of errata, it'll be a mighty cold day in the hot place when that happens.

I had in mind "community-made" errata.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The thing about LA/ECL is this: It never really worked.

Oh, you could play with it, don't get me wrong. And you could have fun with it. But the truth is, it implied a level of compatibility and equality that it didn't really deliver.

Mind flayers, for instance. Does anybody here really believe that a mind flayer is equivalent to a 15th-level character? Really? I don't. And my experience doesn't suggest that it is.

Is a thri-kreen rogue 2 really a 6th-level character? Not in my experience. He nearly died, frequently, because while he was hitting like a 6th-level character, he was absorbing damage and rolling saves like a 4th.

LA/ECL was a patch. It was a "Let's make this as close as we can." But it was never, ever truly accurate.

For a game to have monsters and PCs be truly equal, it has to do two things:

1) Limit monsters only to abilities that PCs have, with no exceptions.

2) Make monsters functionally identical to a PC of the same HD.

In a system like that, a troll is just a 5th-level fighter with green skin and no regeneration. I don't want that. It's boring. But the instant you bring regeneration into the equation, you've mucked up the system, because regeneration isn't exactly equal to anything PCs get.

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.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hmm. Depended on how you implemented the summoner class, surely?

Cheers!

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.

 

[marune]

The thing about LA/ECL is this: It never really worked.

Mind flayers, for instance. Does anybody here really believe that a mind flayer is equivalent to a 15th-level character? Really? I don't. And my experience doesn't suggest that it is.

Don't worry about Mind flayers, you couldn't even make playable drow spellcasters

 

[MerricB]

Becaue if you follow the logic of needing level x to make feat y legal is bad, because feat y fits the monster concept, how would it be bad for player a to have that for his concept if the mechanics of what feat y does are exactly the same? The monster's just sidestepped everything and the player is actually penalized for being a player.

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!