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

[BryonD]

Ya know, it seems very possible that we will get the best of both worlds.


It seems clear that it will be completely possible to write up a goblin Fighter7. So it seems quite reasonable that you should be able to do this if you want to make the goblin leader be one. You just need a scale for knowing how the goblin F7 fits in the xp system.

The goblins hordes could just be simplified npcs. But, if a particular DM wants lots of goblin fighter 1 npcs, then knock yourself out.

If you can't do a unicorn wizard right out of the core three books, then I'll find a way to get over that.

On the other hand, if in the name of simplification there are things that a PC can do that just can not be done by an npc, then I will have a real problem there.

But I'm not hearing that. It sounds like the idea that 99% of npcs just don't need that level of detail is being harnessed for easy of use. And the full detail options remains, only now you just need it 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 times, compared to always before.

Maybe they will also fix the repeating annoyance that a monster can cast spells as a 9th level sorcerer, have 10d8 HD and a list of other bonuses and yet be a lower CR than a npc Sor9.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I tried to stat out monsters for the next adventure in my campaign last night... I'm too afraid... Just gonna wing it...

 

[Klaus]

I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.

I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.

Sorry, Ari, but I have to disagree with you big time here.

I never had a problem with the 3.x monsters being built with the same blocks as the characters. In fact, making the monster types work just like levels in 3.5 (as opposed to, say, "animals get 10-15 skill points") was a huge improvement.

So you want a monster built as a monster work as a monster? Then don't give it Knwowledge (nobility & royalty) or Skill Focus (Profession). Just list the relevant-for-combat skills and feats and say "unspent skill points: X, unused feat slots: Y". I honestly can't think on what else to trim down from the stat blocks.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.

I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.

I hate doing a me too post, but Ari summed up my thoughts exactly. Really how many monsters ever use all of the skill points that you give to them anyway? I remember when we were doing Denizens of Avadnu I was super annoyed when calculating skill points. I don't know how many times we had the discussion of whether or not these abilities are ever going to be used. My mantra for 4e is do whatever it takes to make the game better and more fun. This falls under that nicely and speeds up development work.

 

[JVisgaitis]

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.)

I can understand your concerns and they are not unwarranted. At this point we pretty much have to take a wait and see approach. I'd imagine that individual subsystems will remain the same and work together.

Mike is only talking about how they are designed. If you look at it from that point and say what do I need for a monster. You need HP, AC, Attacks, Special Abilities, Saves, etc. Who cares about skill points? How many times do they come up? I just think this makes it a lot easier to manage especially when considering doing a new monster book.

I'd imagine there is some sort of system of checks and balances for monsters that makes sure that they are in line with PCs of suitable level. We'll just have to see how that plays out.

 

[Umbran]

An ability is an ability is an ability.

This is only true if the game only has one mechanic for "ability". If the game has a feat mechanic, a supernatural ability mechanic, a spell mechanic, and a class-feature mechanic, then they are not interchangeable.

And, as has been often noted - setting aside the fiction in which the characters and monsters live for a moment, we have to remember that this is a game, and as a practical game piece monsters and PCs are used very differently, and so the game-design requirements for them are different.

 

[Azgulor]

Place me squarely in the "Monsters using PC rules" or "modability" camp - I too am in complete disagreement with Mr. Mearls. This was one of the features that enticed me back to D&D. The monster stat blocks of 1e and 2e drove me nuts because they often seemed totally arbitrary.

And while I can understand the argument of increased complexity, I don't totally buy it. In my 20+ years of GMing experience, different rules applied to different situations/character types etc. made things harder , not easier. Sure, I could just wing it if I don't know what feats or skills a monster may have, but if I'm going to do that, I might as well play a rules-light game.

The ability to apply templates to PCs and NPCs, or to build my own monsters from scratch in a coherent, logical fashion in line with the official monsters of the game are all benefits that far outweigh the increased complexity.

For all the interesting tidbits that will cause me to check 4e out, it's design decisions like this one that feel like the game will simultaneously take a big step forward and a big step backward, resulting in a game I want to like but can't bring myself to play. Only time will tell and I'm hoping that it won't be the case.


Final soapbox statement: I like designing NPCs and tweaking monsters, either by adding class levels or templates. If, as a DM/GM you don't, then why are you? It's not as if there's a shortage of monster manuals, OGL monster books, sample NPCs, etc. available. You might not be able to avoid statting up the occasionl BBEG, but there's no reason to be statting up monsters in 3/3.5E unless you want to do so.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Sure, in most Cases the Monster lives 2-5 rounds and will not use any Skills.
But sometimes PCs will try to talk to a Monster or vice versa.
Maybe the PCs want to Bluff their way pas a Monster.
Or the Monster becomes a follower/henchman/companion of the party (for example in Monte Cooks Campaign the party had a Half Dragon Umber Hulk as NPC).

It is not often that you use these Skill Points, but they give the Monster the possibility to be more than 5 rounds of Gore and EP.

 

[Mercule]

My concern isn't so much that monsters use different rules than PCs. Heck, I've become a huge fan of the idea of "roughed out" NPCs over the last year or so. So long as the two stat blocks are relatable, I'm fine. By relatable, I mean that I want to be able to find the strength of an ancient red dragon if I want to. The "two different languages" scenario in 1/2E bugged the snot out of me and I don't want to see it return.

I'm definitely in favor of simplification for the GM. When I started thinking I might have lower prep time with Hero System, I knew there was a problem with 3E. All the same, it isn't the monster stats I've ever had a problem with in 3E. It's the NPCs.

I tend to run a rather humanocentric campaign, with warring kingdoms and one faction against the other. As such, my preferrence would be to use lots of NPCs, including quite a number of unique characters, as opponents. Unfortunately, by the time the PCs get to be 10th level or so, it's prohibitive to try and stat up the opposition. It took me 3 hours to create the four commanders of a flanking force. That's pretty much my entire prep for the week. Sorry guys, no adventure prepared because all my time was spent working on one fight. Oh, and you don't get to have the flavorful NPC encounters with the leaders of each orcish tribe they united because that's another hour per tribe.

Bah! Who needs that. By contrast, monsters as villains are pretty simple. Write a name down on the room key and go. I seriously do not understand how anyone could say 3E monsters slowed play. They were the fastest part of the system, in terms of prep time. Even if you advanced a monster, it was easy. The only thing time consuming was if you added class levels, and even then, it wasn't any worse than building a human of the same CR.

If I had to choose one area that doesn't need an overhaul to improve play, monster stats would definitely make the short list. Sure, there's always room for tweaking and tuning, but grabbing pretty much any non-classed critter, besides dragons, out of the monster manual and using it is a piece of cake. It's about the only part of the game that's as easy to do on-the-fly as 1E was.

If you want to improve something in 4E monster encounters, make it so the PCs aren't as dependant on their wealth to balance them. That makes it easier to do treasure for the monsters. The biggest pain in the butt in creating a 3E dungeon crawl was ensuring that there was just the right amount of treasure to keep the PCs roughly on target with their expected haul. It would also help with creating classed NPCs.

I do like the idea of designating the various critters as being a "basher" or "mastermind", etc. That would really help prep time in terms of not having to sort through the full MM to find appropriate CRed mooks, etc.

That same idea worries me, though. The redesigned monsters seemed to lean toward very focused suites of abilities. Sometimes, this was at the cost of flavor. I don't really care that sleep is an utterly pointless ability for a deva to have for any actual featured fight -- it may make for a very cool flavor. (And, yes, my example was totally bogus.)

I hope that wasn't too rambling. I have very mixed feelings about this particular change.

 

[glass]

I am in a bit of an odd position here, because I feel like I mostly agree with both side of this argument. On the one hand, symmetry is obviously a good thing in principal (and not just aesthetically- system mastery is important). OTOH, if it gets in the way of monsters actually being good monsters that is obviously bad.

I think that is not necessarily important that monsters are built on exactly the same rules as PCs, but they should be expressed in the same language. By that I mean monsters should still have hit points and ability scores and what have you, and they should mean the same, even if those things were not determined in the same way as for PCs. I wouldn't want to go back to a 2e-like situation where, for example, liches lost points from a Con score they didn't have for making magic items. Or, for a more current example, I still want to be able to cast ray of enfeeblement at a dragon.


glass.