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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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!

Isn't that exactly why someone would want to play a Medusa? So they can have fun dealing with all those disadvantages?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

That's a false dichotomy. You can build an NPC using the regular class-based rules and STILL fudge the numbers. 5E is simple enough that there's actually very little need to do this, but you can for example leave the drow wizard's skills if he appears in a combat encounter, and only resolve them into actual specific skills the the PCs capture/interrogate him. Similarly you can say, "Okay, he's got 4 spells prepared: Fireball, Magic Missile, Hypnotic Pattern, and Misty Step. Maybe he has other spells prepared, but either they're not useful in combat or he doesn't think to use them."

Hey, I do this with new PCs too! "Okay, so you're a barbarian. We'll figure out what skills you have at the point where it becomes relevant, like if we do something stealthy you can decide if you know Stealth or not. Let's start the game."

The use of Heisenstats is orthogonal to whether those stats are built using the PHB rules.

Edit: oh, it turns out that I'm actually just kind of repeating Celebrim's point: '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.'

 

[Sunseeker]

Isn't that exactly why someone would want to play a Medusa? So they can have fun dealing with all those disadvantages?

Depends on the player. What I posted earlier was simply an example of how I would make the monster into a playable race without a level adjustment. I don't let people run monsters straight from the book unless we are playing a specific monster game because they are NOT designed the same way. There's a common core, which is what can be made playable.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Celebrim, you're getting into examples of differences in play, not differences in construction. Of course PCs using wound tracks while monsters use hit points is probably taking things too far.

But as far as building them? Coming up with the numbers? Choosing basic powers and abilities? Give me ease and speed of construction over matching rules of creation every time. As "slippery slope" arguments go, I think this one's a fairly minor, and even less likely, concern.

I consider PC construction rules, leveling, all of that to be representative, not descriptive. By which I mean, it's meant to model a collection of class abilities that are more or less balanced, and a gradual improvement in said abilities. But they're mechanical/story constructs. An NPC or monster is purpose-built. It doesn't need to be balanced with a PC. It doesn't need to have the exact same suite of abilities. It simply has to work and (at least roughly, where applicable) provide an appropriate challenge.

Bottom line? NPCs don't have the same requirements, or work the same way, as PCs. There's no inherent reason they should be built the same way, whereas ease/speed of creation is vital.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Bottom line? NPCs don't have the same requirements, or work the same way, as PCs. There's no inherent reason they should be built the same way, whereas ease/speed of creation is vital.

I understand why someone might say something like this about monsters, or even NPCs, but I think it's important to remember where NPCs came from: the idea that not all "characters" (fighters/wizards/elves/dwarfs/etc.) are played by the players, that there are other people in the world following the same rules that the PCs do. I think if you make a habit of letting NPCs violate rules that apply to PCs you eventually get into a bad place that makes the world less appealing, at least to simulationists.

For example: I've mentioned before that I played 4E only briefly, due to DM issues. What happened was that after a few sessions of play, I realized that all the monsters were doing immense amounts of damage compared to the PCs, but they would also drop like glass cannons when we hit them. It turns out that the DM thought 4E combats were too long, so he was arbitrarily doubling the damage dealt by all the monsters and halving their hit points. For me, this was beyond the pale: it meant that the world doesn't work the same way for everyone. An NPC fighter would have had significant, observable differences from a PC fighter of the same level just because he has a player attached. As a simulationist, I can't play in such a world because I can't suspend my disbelief--it attacks the very core of what I enjoy about D&D as an "alternate universe".

TLDR; consistent rules for PCs and NPCs matter a lot to some people.

 

[Remathilis]

For example: I've mentioned before that I played 4E only briefly, due to DM issues. What happened was that after a few sessions of play, I realized that all the monsters were doing immense amounts of damage compared to the PCs, but they would also drop like glass cannons when we hit them. It turns out that the DM thought 4E combats were too long, so he was arbitrarily doubling the damage dealt by all the monsters and halving their hit points. For me, this was beyond the pale: it meant that the world doesn't work the same way for everyone. An NPC fighter would have had significant, observable differences from a PC fighter of the same level just because he has a player attached. As a simulationist, I can't play in such a world because I can't suspend my disbelief--it attacks the very core of what I enjoy about D&D as an "alternate universe".

As an aside: be thankful your DM did this. Early era 4e monster math was notoriously bad, and lead to a lot of grindy combat of PCs spamming at-wills to work a creature past bloodied while the monster couldn't do enough damage to drop a PC below bloodied (and if he did, a leader would heal him with a swift action!). One combat (in the Spellgard module) was with a solo vampire. We had him beat roughly by the 5th round (he couldn't do enough damage to bloody us, he was taking 2-3 hits per round) and everyone (even the DM) knew the vampire could not win, yet we played the combat out an additional 10 rounds until the vampire dropped.

It might have killed your immersion, but it was pretty common DM advice circa 2008 to fix the problem of grindy combat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

An NPC fighter would have had significant, observable differences from a PC fighter of the same level just because he has a player attached.

Mike Tyson, in his prime, hit harder than Jackie Chan in his prime. Doesn't mean Tyson was (the real world equivalent of) higher level. (In fact, most would probably argue the precise opposite.) It means he was a different person, built differently, with a different training style.

An observable mechanical difference between my 5th-level fighter and an NPC fighter of equivalent power doesn't break simulation, IMO.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As an aside: be thankful your DM did this. Early era 4e monster math was notoriously bad, and lead to a lot of grindy combat of PCs spamming at-wills to work a creature past bloodied while the monster couldn't do enough damage to drop a PC below bloodied (and if he did, a leader would heal him with a swift action!). One combat (in the Spellgard module) was with a solo vampire. We had him beat roughly by the 5th round (he couldn't do enough damage to bloody us, he was taking 2-3 hits per round) and everyone (even the DM) knew the vampire could not win, yet we played the combat out an additional 10 rounds until the vampire dropped.

It might have killed your immersion, but it was pretty common DM advice circa 2008 to fix the problem of grindy combat.

A better way to solve the problem without breaking immersion would be to just say, "Okay, in my game, everyone gets only half HP including monsters. Whatever it says on your character sheet, just cut it in half." You get the same results without breaking immersion or symmetry, and without any of the weird side-effects like the fact that monsters can kill each other much more easily than the PCs can.

 

[Remathilis]

A better way to solve the problem without breaking immersion would be to just say, "Okay, in my game, everyone gets only half HP including monsters. Whatever it says on your character sheet, just cut it in half." You get the same results without breaking immersion or symmetry, and without any of the weird side-effects like the fact that monsters can kill each other much more easily than the PCs can.

Meh. Any discussion about hit points and 4e is going to turn to a major quagmire, so I'll just leave it here. Suffice to say "monsters killing monsters too fast" is the least important problem I have with either 4e or hit points.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The idea itself is fine.

The problem is how this results in ridiculously complex NPCs.

If this weren't a problem because, say, your game doesn't have levels or complex *anything* then I'd even prefer binding npcs and PCs by the same rules.

In fact, it is mainly in D&D it is a problem.

Otoh, in third edition it wasn't just a problem, it is the number one issue preventing me from enjoying that system.