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

[SavageRobby]

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'm in the same boat as the mouse on this.


Also, IMO, characters should be special. They're the ones performing acts of derring do, and all that good stuff. The rules for everyone and everything else don't need to be the same as the rules for PCs. In fact, by doing so, it lessens how special PCs (and certain NPCs) are. "If everyone is special, no one is special."

Also, as a DM, having more a less intensive rules set for monsters means that I can focus my time and energy on the setting and story, not on the stats. And that is a good thing.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Plus the designers can take their time and work out rules for PC-playable monsters in a subsequent, well-developed, optional book. I still think the LA/ECL rules in the DMG were a flat-out waste of time, and I'd rather not have had them at all.

 

[Kraydak]

Plus the designers can take their time and work out rules for PC-playable monsters in a subsequent, well-developed, optional book. I still think the LA/ECL rules in the DMG were a flat-out waste of time, and I'd rather not have had them at all.

Won't work. We saw the results of trying to shoe-horn PC monsters into a system not designed with that in mind. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't pretty for the same reasons that the template rules weren't pretty.

People are massively overestimating the time saved by going (monsters =/= PC)+(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) v.s (monster = PC).

(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) means the final stat block in either case is the same. Which means the same design decisions are made. Which means it takes the same time (monster=PC takes more designer time at WotC to flesh out the system).

 

[pemerton]

The big change is in how those stats are going to determined. They will not be decided using the same rules as PCs, but they are still being determined using consistant rules. So long as we have the formulas/tables/whatever for it, (And I have little reason to doubt they'll not include ithem), we know all the information needed for adjusting them and determining new values for different roles.

Agreed. This is exactly what I've been saying for many posts now.

 

[pemerton]

People are massively overestimating the time saved by going (monsters =/= PC)+(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) v.s (monster = PC).

(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) means the final stat block in either case is the same. Which means the same design decisions are made. Which means it takes the same time (monster=PC takes more designer time at WotC to flesh out the system).

Kraydak, here are two questions you haven't answered:

*If the purpose of a Beholder is to behave, on the battlemat, as the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters of its level, how can it ever be a viable PC? As I said in one of my earlier posts, such a creature would not be a viable PC, whatever the LA, for two reasons: (i) given its number of actions, it would take up too much time for a single player at the table; (ii) an adequate LA would mean that its abilities would be ineffective compared to the abilities of an ordinary PC of that level.

*Why are "glass jaw" monsters poorly designed? One can reach this conclusion if one starts with the premise that monsters = PCs. But if one does not assume this premise (which one cannot if one is using the "glass jaw" claim as a premise in an argument to the conclusion that monsters = PC), what is the argument?

 

[Kraydak]

Kraydak, here are two questions you haven't answered:

*If the purpose of a Beholder is to behave, on the battlemat, as the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters of its level, how can it ever be a viable PC? As I said in one of my earlier posts, such a creature would not be a viable PC, whatever the LA, for two reasons: (i) given its number of actions, it would take up too much time for a single player at the table; (ii) an adequate LA would mean that its abilities would be ineffective compared to the abilities of an ordinary PC of that level.

*Why are "glass jaw" monsters poorly designed? One can reach this conclusion if one starts with the premise that monsters = PCs. But if one does not assume this premise (which one cannot if one is using the "glass jaw" claim as a premise in an argument to the conclusion that monsters = PC), what is the argument?

Beholders: Designing monsters to be the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters has many draw-backs. There are two ways to do it. Firstly, you can just use a more powerful (but well balanced) monster (in 3e terms, use CR=APL+2-3). While this entails no special design requirements, it can cause issues when the numbers get too extreme (PCs needed 20s to hit, melee brutes 1 rounding PCs).

Secondly you can have a monster that has many more hp than normal for its "level" and can take more actions or otherwise has a higher offense than normal for its "level" but the basic interaction stats (to hits, saves, save DCs, AC, skills) are appropriate for its "level". Everquest (and WoW, to a lesser extent) did this, in a large part due to programming limitations. It works, much of the time. It breaks *horrifically* if PCs use Charm effects. All of a sudden the PCs have an ally with a power level all out of scale with the difficulty of landing the charm. If facing such monsters (and note, beholders AREN'T such as designed in 3e. In 3e beholders are closer to a trap, with offense>>>>defense. A party that can absorb a beholder's output for 1-2 rounds will drop it in the same time span). In D&D, the programming limitations are replaced by DM congnitive load, but the cognitive load of a monster with many abilities to forget about isn't that different that that of many monsters with few abilities each...

Glass Jaws: Glass Jaw monsters (henceforth OMs for Ogre Magi, how I loathe thee) pose several problems. In 3e terms, they are functionally impossible to CR well. If you CR to the defense, they WILL cause TPKs (unless the PCs get a jump on the OMs). If you CR to the offense, they will achieve nothing. You can hedge your bets by CRing in the middle, but it doesn't really work.

In addition to being actively hard use as a DM (the CRing difficulty also makes them hard to place reasonably as a DM), they just aren't that fun to face as a player. They end up playing more as traps than as monsters: instead of a search roll, you have a search roll. Instead of a save, you have an initiative roll. Either way, the encounter is over very fast. (yes, it has to get quite extreme for the problems to become untenable, but OMs are that).

This doesn't mean that there isn't a place for OMs. However, they should be the corner cases. A monster design protocol should be set up to produce well balanced monsters, which can interface well with a CR system (or whatever 4e uses to balance encounters). Because OMs *inherently* need DM intervention/skill/special placement, you can treat them as special cases (and, whatever you do, for the OMs included in the MM, GIVE A DM WARNING).

I apologize for poor writing, off to a game.

 

[hong]

Is the above fixable by adding stuff to a stat block? Of course, easily. Mind, if you add it, why not do it right in the first place?

Because "doing it right in the first place" commits you to additional prep time for every monster you tweak. And after a while, you quickly realise that in 99% of cases, that additional prep time adds no value at all, so you end up handwaving it. Which is the reality the 4E approach is addressing.

 

[pemerton]

Designing monsters to be the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters has many draw-backs. There are two ways to do it. Firstly, you can just use a more powerful (but well balanced) monster (in 3e terms, use CR=APL+2-3.

Secondly you can have a monster that has many more hp than normal for its "level" and can take more actions or otherwise has a higher offense than normal for its "level" but the basic interaction stats (to hits, saves, save DCs, AC, skills) are appropriate for its "level". Everquest (and WoW, to a lesser extent) did this, in a large part due to programming limitations. It works, much of the time. It breaks *horrifically* if PCs use Charm effects.

A more powerful but well-balanced (by your criteria) creature is not the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters. It is the functional equivalent of one such character, though of a higher level. An example in D&D would be an Ogre fighting 1st level characters.

But when we look at creatures with a "higher than normal offence" for their level, things become more complicated, and it is these complications that I believe you are not taking account of.

First, if such a creature has both higher hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then what we have is simply a higher level "well-balanced" creature.

Second, if such a creature has normal hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then we have a "glass jaw" creature - see below for my thoughts on them.

Third, if such a creature has multiple actions, it does not necessarily need more hit points to play quite differently from an ordinary creature of its level: in terms of output, 10 actions per round and normal hit points is the same as 5 actions per round and double normal hit points.

Fourth, creatures with multiple actions impose different (and more complex) requirements on the GM. Each Hydra's head, for example, might have its own hit point total to track. We can imagine a creature drawing on multiple power sources, each of which has to be tracked separately.

Fifth, and a reason for having multiple action creatures despite their complexity, is that the number of actions also affects the character of game play. Thus, a death ray dealing 20d6 hits on a failed save is equivalent, in terms of hit points inflicted, to two death rays each dealing 10d6 hits on a failed save. But they play very differently. The second option creates a creature who takes more time to resolve at the table, but who interacts with more than one PC at a time.

I don't see that creatures with multiple actions are a detriment to the game. I don't see that they are especially hard to design well (although the design parameters are obviously different from ordinary creatures). I don't see that they are viable as PCs (for the reasons I have given in my earlier posts). Therefore, we have to choose between two alternatives: either monsters = PCs, or multiple action creatures are possible. I don't see what's wrong with choosing the second way.

As for the charm question, there are a few ways of going. Perhaps Beholders are immune to Charm. Perhaps each spell only affects one of the Hydra's or Ettin's heads. To be honest, if something has to give between charm spells and the fundamentals of creature design, I think it is the charm spells that will give.

Glass Jaw monsters (henceforth OMs for Ogre Magi, how I loathe thee) pose several problems. In 3e terms, they are functionally impossible to CR well.

<snip>

In addition to being actively hard use as a DM (the CRing difficulty also makes them hard to place reasonably as a DM), they just aren't that fun to face as a player.

The above comments on OMs appear to presuppose that the OMs are solo, or in a group of their ilk. But what about OMs behind meat shields? This is a standard trope of D&D from way back (eg the example combat in the 1st ed PHB, which involves an Illusionist and 20 Orcs). The tactical challenge becomes finding a way to shut down the OM without having to hack through all that meat.

Looked at in that light, the OM is really just a variant on the NPC magic-user. Often, however, it has melee or other potential that precludes it being used as a PC, because this extra functionality would tread on the toes of non-wizard characters.

 

[Kraydak]

A more powerful but well-balanced (by your criteria) creature is not the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters. It is the functional equivalent of one such character, though of a higher level. An example in D&D would be an Ogre fighting 1st level characters.

But when we look at creatures with a "higher than normal offence" for their level, things become more complicated, and it is these complications that I believe you are not taking account of.

First, if such a creature has both higher hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then what we have is simply a higher level "well-balanced" creature.

That depends on the monster's BaB/AC/Saves in addition to his hp/damage.

Second, if such a creature has normal hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then we have a "glass jaw" creature - see below for my thoughts on them.

Third, if such a creature has multiple actions, it does not necessarily need more hit points to play quite differently from an ordinary creature of its level: in terms of output, 10 actions per round and normal hit points is the same as 5 actions per round and double normal hit points.

I disagree strongly. 10 actions/round will 1 round a PC far more often than 5 actions/round. The latter gives people more time to react and try to survive. A 1 round monster with 10 actions is a very dangerous trap. A 2 round monster with 5 attacks, is more interesting (but still extremely hard to use as a DM).

Fourth, creatures with multiple actions impose different (and more complex) requirements on the GM. Each Hydra's head, for example, might have its own hit point total to track. We can imagine a creature drawing on multiple power sources, each of which has to be tracked separately.
...
I don't see that creatures with multiple actions are a detriment to the game. I don't see that they are especially hard to design well (although the design parameters are obviously different from ordinary creatures). I don't see that they are viable as PCs (for the reasons I have given in my earlier posts). Therefore, we have to choose between two alternatives: either monsters = PCs, or multiple action creatures are possible. I don't see what's wrong with choosing the second way.

I noted that the cognitive load on the DM of 1 monster with many abilities will be similar to that of many monsters with few abilities. Now, any claims that the Beholder, as designed in 3e, is designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 PCs is fairly absurd. If you compare it to 5 PCs with a beholder's level of offense, it is made of tissue paper. If you compare it to 5 PCs with its level of defense, it is armageddon incarnate. Another thing to think about is that 5 different PCs are unlikely to all have a good line of fire on a single opponent. If a monster with 5 actions has a line of fire on a PC, it has 5 lines of fire on that PC. Spreading out the opposition in multiple bodies also spreads it out on the battlemat... avoiding focused fire and the gibbage that is all to often its consequence. There is precious little reason to try and make a single monster the funcitonal equivalent of 5 PCs, and plenty of reasons not to.

As for the charm question, there are a few ways of going. Perhaps Beholders are immune to Charm. Perhaps each spell only affects one of the Hydra's or Ettin's heads. To be honest, if something has to give between charm spells and the fundamentals of creature design, I think it is the charm spells that will give.

Why should a beholder (or and ettin, or a hydra) be designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 (or 2, for the ettin) PCs? They aren't in 3e (if the designers intended to, they failed miserably).

The above comments on OMs appear to presuppose that the OMs are solo, or in a group of their ilk. But what about OMs behind meat shields? This is a standard trope of D&D from way back (eg the example combat in the 1st ed PHB, which involves an Illusionist and 20 Orcs). The tactical challenge becomes finding a way to shut down the OM without having to hack through all that meat.
Looked at in that light, the OM is really just a variant on the NPC magic-user. Often, however, it has melee or other potential that precludes it being used as a PC, because this extra functionality would tread on the toes of non-wizard characters.

OMs don't compare to wizards. Their defense is *pathetic*. A 9th level wizard (who can also cast cone of cold CL 9) will have more hp (made up for by regen, maybe), higher AC (I mean, 18?!) and better saves (even fort). In DnD, you can't protect a glass cannon whose offense is PC appropriate, mooks or no mooks. You can't survive a glass cannon whose defense is PC appropriate, even without mooks. Note that in 3e, wizard offense is not *that* high compared to other PCs, nor their defense that low. Wizard level offense/defense splits aren't that big a deal.

Glass cannons are very, very hard to use as a DM. The margin between cakewalk and TPK is razor thin for them. Glass cannons should be *rare*, come with DM warnings, and should be party (and partly) customized. This means that your default monster design protocol doesn't need to be usable for a glass cannon.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That depends on the monster's BaB/AC/Saves in addition to his hp/damage.

I disagree strongly. 10 actions/round will 1 round a PC far more often than 5 actions/round. The latter gives people more time to react and try to survive. A 1 round monster with 10 actions is a very dangerous trap. A 2 round monster with 5 attacks, is more interesting (but still extremely hard to use as a DM).

That's a good point. Since this is the case, I will assume that the designers also found a way to circumvent this.
If the actions of the creature are not always on the same (its own) initiative count, the PCs have time to act between.
The Dragon Encounter example might give some ideas here: The Dragon did several things in reaction to others (breathing fire because its hit point were reduced below a certain threshold). I am not sure when it did its tail sweep attack, but it seemed limited so that it couldn't be used on just any PC, which means that while it had many actions, it couldn't spend them all on the same creature.

A Beholder for example might be able to take 10 actions, one for each ray. But during any given round, it can fire only 1 or 2 at a specific PC.

Why should a beholder (or and ettin, or a hydra) be designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 (or 2, for the ettin) PCs? They aren't in 3e (if the designers intended to, they failed miserably).

Because they are usually encountered solitary. Beholders, Dragons, Ettins, they are all some kind of "boss" monsters (to use the video game term). You don't really expect to fight multiple of them (well, maybe in the case of the Ettin). So, currently you typically use them against a party with a average level 2 to 4 points below their CR.

The game assumes that each doubling of the number of creatures increase the EL by +2 (IIRC). This implies he reserve is also true - if you increase a monsters CR by 2, it becomes twice as powerful. But this is only "roughly" true. There are many cases in which it doesn't work that way. If a monster doesn't happen to have a few weak spots, it works fine, i guess. But if it has a single weak Saving Throw or Armor Class, or not enough hit points, the fact that a party has 4 times as much actions as the NPC will shine through a lot more, because this gives them 4 opportunities to exploit its weak spot. The problem here is that the weak aspects usually do not scale that well with CR. (Weak Saves increase slower than the typical spell level advancement, meaning that the chance to resist a spell of equal level decreases with level/CR)


If you increase a Beholders HD to remove the disparity of Offense and Defense, you still increase its Offense, because its attacks hit even easier. Suddenly, even its Bite might become dangerous. And it's weak saves stay weak.
And, if monsters should be the same as PCs, why isn't its HD equal to its CR?

The Dragons are actually already designed as the functional equivalent of 4-5 PCs. They are stronger than their CR indicates. They manage to be this equivalent by their massive amount of meelee attacks at high attack bonuses and a powerful breath weapon. They also have high hitpoints, good saves and Spell Resistance.