D&D 5E D&D Races vs. Monsters (take away lessons on converting)

[Sunseeker]

You gotta have the ability to turn people to stone. I mean it's the one ability they are known for.

That's what the paralysis cone is for, but the Medusa also has no control over her power, both mythologically and per the rules, ANY CREATURE that sees the Medusa's eyes starts to(in 5th, in others and myths its just intsa-death) turn to stone, even the Medusa. That power, aside from being crazy powerful, would be absolutely terrible in an adventure. Want to talk to a merchant? Stone! Want to meet your party members? Stone! Pet the kitty? Stone!

Straight-up giving the player outright control over the power just makes it MORE powerful. A Medusa who can totally avoid the whole "mirror shield" trick? That's some downright powerful stuff. So that's why I went with a power that can be controlled, but also a power without permanent effects.

But as I said before, I interpret PC versions of monster races as younger members or potentially "runts" of the species. They don't have the full array of powers, that's why instead of becoming a monster hoarding treasure in a dungeon, they turn to a life of adventuring.

 

[neobolts]

I think they've recognized the fact that players and DMs have different needs and want things designed for the way they function.

...Which makes this sound a bit like women's deodorant advertisement.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it's fine for monster PCs to not be carbon copies from the MM. An adventuring monster with class levels is probably atypical anyway, so I see nothing wrong with them being divergent from their species in general. Maybe what prompted Lunk the ogre barbarian to become an adventurer was that he was born a runt and ostracized from his own kind.

Heck, I don't even think the PHB racial traits are omnipresent in the races they come from. Perhaps every high elf PC knows how to wield a long sword, but I don't think that's necessarily true of every single high elf. Maybe an elf always wanted to be an artist and so she skipped out on weapon training. It's not as though the PHB mentions that high elf society mirrors that of the Spartans.

 

[Celebrim]

Except that some of us--possibly a lot of us--didn't get tired of it. I hate, and have always hated, the idea that PCs and NPCs are bound by the same system, and I'm all four the recent editions' decision not to go that route.

Yeah, I know some people prefer a decoupling.

But, if you think about it, I think you'll agree that even you would not want to see a full decoupling of the system for PC's and the system for NPC's. For example, you could have a system where PC's had wound tracks and rolled a D20 to hit, and monsters had hit points and rolled a D% to hit, PC's had saving throws, but monsters had ablative protection in the form of will points, and as such monster powers were written from the perspective of what they'd do to a PC and PC powers (such as spells) were written from the perspective of what they'd do to a monster.

That this would inevitably lead to holes that had to be filled in by conversion systems and straight fiat is I think obvious. Plus, at this level it's obvious that the disconnect doesn't actually lead to any simplification. In fact, for the DM it's like learning two whole different systems.

So the question because, first, what exactly is it about the disjointed system that you like? And from a designer's perspective, how far do you go to achieve that, before you start opening up the sort of problems implied by the two fully disjointed systems? Because if the answer is just something like, "I like the ability of the DM to freeform a monster without having to worry about if it is 'right'.", or "I like that monsters are conceptually simpler than PCs", I personally don't feel that it's essential to not have some sort of systematic approach in order to achieve those two results and ultimately make everyone happy.

 

[Li Shenron]

Great post [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]!

One thing to remember is that once we get a race version of a monster, we can ALSO use that for NPCs, or as a complete replacement for the MM version, if e.g. we want to treat a monster as having a complete society with roles (classes and backgrounds).

* HD don't matter. They are only there inflate the monsters HP to make it an appropriate challenge. Unlike 3e, you do not need to account for higher than 1 HD when converting a race.

This is good IMO, although some races may feel wrong thematically if the characters are too frail. Still, in that case the DM can just rule that you have to start playing such PC at higher level.

* Ability modifiers should be thematic, rather than slavish.

I would add that PC ability score generation is generous (and exact method is often up to the DM) because you end up e.g. with human characters quite a lot above the supposed average. Because of this, there is no absolute necessity for huge bonuses: you could have a minotaur or ogre race which just grants +2 Strength because you will end up anyway with probably a 16+ Strength PC, which is still +6 compared to an average human! Thus thematically you're still on track.

* Even if the monster moves slower than 25 feet, PCs races never move slower than that.

This is something I don't understand very much. It could be just the same speed, the difference is small, but it would be more consistent.

* Skills don't matter; unless its something absolutely intrinsic to the race. Even super-high (expertise-level) mods don't need to be accounted for.

This is ok because PCs have backgrounds (or can just pick their set of proficiencies). MM monsters just represent the common/average member of that species who pick a certain set. PCs just have more choices.

* Don't feel its needed to give a race EVERY ability. Especially ones that are more tactical/combat maneuvers (dive, pounce, sneak attack, etc).

* Don't be afraid to make some abilities feats; if its too powerful for low level PCs.

* Most Importantly: You don't need to account for every last thing in the MM. Monsters can have more HP, better stats, even special abilities their PC brethren don't. Include the iconic ones, but don't feel you need to include everything. PCs are PCs; they get their own special toys.

I agree, and narratively some justification can be found for example in the fact that standard MM monsters are typically those who have a role of defenders (or sometimes offenders). MM Orcs can be typically those comprising bands or armies, not the Orcs who stay back in their kingdom and neither the rare Orcs who take on an adventuring life individually (which may be NPC built using the PC rules). Or alternatively, it's the PC using these races who are the individuals that break the customs.

 

[Minigiant]

There has to be a decoupling.

For example some monsters are pathetic: the kobold.
The average kobold is strictly worse than commoners. But the heroic kobold who leaves the group is mightier and bolder than the common kobold. Not just switching stats but completely better.
All negative attributes and features are romoved. The hero PC isn't necessarily stupid. The PC kobold is not a wimp..

 

[Fanaelialae]

There has to be a decoupling.

For example some monsters are pathetic: the kobold.
The average kobold is strictly worse than commoners. But the heroic kobold who leaves the group is mightier and bolder than the common kobold. Not just switching stats but completely better.
All negative attributes and features are romoved. The hero PC isn't necessarily stupid. The PC kobold is not a wimp..

And, conversely, certain traits that monsters have (pack tactics, in the case of kobolds) are arguably too strong in the hands of a PC.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

There has to be some decoupling because, mechanically, NPCs/monsters serve a different purpose with different responsibilities than PCs. Ideally, the system should supply mechanisms to move creatures back and forth-- what they tried to do with ECLs I guess-- but I think that's much easier said than done. Even with that, while PCs are built and defined within the rules, for monsters, the rules are more used as guidelines to be obeyed or broken as needed to create an interesting creature.

 

[Remathilis]

So the question because, first, what exactly is it about the disjointed system that you like? And from a designer's perspective, how far do you go to achieve that, before you start opening up the sort of problems implied by the two fully disjointed systems? Because if the answer is just something like, "I like the ability of the DM to freeform a monster without having to worry about if it is 'right'.", or "I like that monsters are conceptually simpler than PCs", I personally don't feel that it's essential to not have some sort of systematic approach in order to achieve those two results and ultimately make everyone happy.

3e is the only version of D&D where PCs, Monsters, and NPCs all shared the same structure. Therefore, I'll address the failings of such a system in terms of 3e (and its children).

I don't think its fair to dismiss simplicity of play or complexity of design as unworthy goals. Both are very important to a LOT of DMs. As a Pathfinder DM who has reached mid-high levels (9+), I can tell you the complexity of making NPCs and monsters using the PC Gen rules is tedious. To whit: the last three "major" opponents my team has faced has been a Red Dragon, an NPC rival party, and a Lich Cleric. The creation of each encounter by scratch would have taken dozens of hours. Each required building a creature from the ground up: skills, feats, HD, saving throw DCs, and the holy mess that is NPC equipment. The only reprieve *I* got was that PFd20SRD.com has dozens of such monsters pre-done for me; I only needed to swap a race here, a domain there, etc. Building these encounters from scratch would have required probably a full day of work per encounter.

Likewise, there is a lot of chaff abilities that clutter up said statblocks (which is to say, class abilities that look fine on a PC's sheet, but do an NPC no use in a one-encounter lifespan). For example: the NPC sorcerer (for story purposes) had the shadow bloodline, which granted him a bonus to stealth checks when he cast a shadow/darkness spell. Neat ability for a PC, mildly useless when the sorcerer's primary function is to shoot illusionary fireballs at the PCs. Likewise, I was pretty pointless to give the Lich the magic-domain abilities since he was mostly just using undead-boosting spells anway, but a cleric's gotta have two domains. All of these options get in the way of making the encounter smooth.

Likewise, you don't need complex monsters to clutter up the system. Feats do that job from level 3 on. Most giants have awesome blow as feat; can you tell me (without looking it up) what it does? Its bad enough to have to do that with spells, but feats just added headache. (It gets even worse when you go further away from the core: there is a monster in Libris Mortis whose primary abilities are hidden in its feats which were new feats in Libris Mortis's feat section. I think it gave penalties every time it hit or something. Anyway, if you didn't know what "draining strike" did or indeed that the monster even had it; it was severely weakened). Pathfinder wins the award for least convenient though: they put abilities in Feats, Spells, and Universal Monster Abilities. For some monsters, I've needed to keep the PRD open on four tabs (stat block, feats, spells index, and UMAs) just to run one monster! Heaven help you if he has a magic item...

Speaking of which, can I say NPC math sucks? Monsters can be built around front-loading HD (which raises saves and bab, as well as hp) and you can cheat natural armor scores to get proper ACs, but making a human fighter a challenge requires him to carry an array of magical do-hickeys (magic armor, magic weapons, cloaks, rings, amulets) just to bring his numbers up to CR. And what does the group DO with said do-hickey which they already have one of or better? That's a different discussion. Suffice to say, every pawn shop in Waterdeep has an amulet of natural armor +1 to sell ya...

Of course, the natural answer is "But Remy, you don't HAVE to account for those amulets of natural armor! Give him the AC that fits and fudge the numbers! Forget about silly flavor abilities like shadow bloodline arcana, focus on the important stuff. Don't give monsters complex feats (I hear Improved Initiative, Toughness, and Weapon Focus are nice) and don't worry if their skill points equal 6+ Int Mod." But that's what 5e does. So the solution to the problem has been found. Ignore the crap, build NPCs like monsters, and only focus on the important things.

Tl;dr version: 3e's insistence in making PC, NPC, and Monster math work the same created a lot of problems creating and running complex encounters. Attempts to simplify the process inevitably lead you back to diverging the math. While I do think some additional guidance on making monsters and NPCs in 5e would be nice, I can't imagine going back to monsters being PC-level complex to build and run again.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]: Rather than getting dragged into that discussion, I'll just note that you wrote a lot of stuff that didn't address one word of what I said. At all.