Get Rid of All Monster HD

[talien]

So every time I DM an adventure, I convert all the monsters to the new format that's debuted in the more recent books, through eTools. And every time I do it, I find a lot of errors. It's possible (heck, likely) eTools is wrong. It's also possible there's a staggering amount of inconsistencies in creating D&D critters that most people can't do without electronic assistance. Speaking as someone who now cringes when he looks at anything he wrote for D20, the dizzying number of options practically requires a degree in some cases.

But that's not why I'm posting. I've discovered that since I can make a kobold a 20thlevel fighter, just about any monster's CR can be adjusted to match the party. On more than one occassion I've boosted monster HD/levels to match the party's higher level. But things are starting to blend.

First of all, as I advance some of these monsters, their size increases. Not always, mind you, but sometimes. It seems pretty arbitrary. Why should some monsters be larger at 10 HD when others aren't? This means that my minis quickly become inaccurate, and man that bugs men when my minis aren't accurate.

Second, monsters start to look the same as you advance them. How many variant oozes are there? Can't I make most of them with templates? How many draconic/reptilian races are there? Can't I just advance lizardfolk or given them a half-dragon template to match those other races?

In other words, the more I tinker with monsters, the more I'm convinced that monsters shouldn't HAVE a HD. Even the reverse can be true...lower HD monsters who are "immature" versions of the full HD critter. So why have starting HD at all?

I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way, but the more monsters I convert, the more they're starting to look the same, especially now that the PCs are clearing 10th level.

 

[hong]

Monsters are one way in which DMs indulge their gearhead gene. Monster books result when the gearhead gene escapes into the wild. You do not have to use someone else's gearhead gene.

 

[mmadsen]

In other words, the more I tinker with monsters, the more I'm convinced that monsters shouldn't HAVE a HD.

Monster hit dice are just levels in a monster class. It would be nice if that were made more explicit (and consistent).

 

[phindar]

On the whole, I agree. My preferred monster type are the humanoids/monstrous humanoids; and that almost always includes class levels. I like giants too, but they tend to be so HD heavy that its harder to customize them for mid-level play, which is the sweet spot for my group. But once you get past a certain level (say, 1st), I just lose interest with "book" goblins.

 

[talien]

To put it another way, an ogre with barbarian levels looks an awful lot like a hill giant with fewer barbarian levels. When monsters only have a few abilities, like rock throwing, improved grab, and rend (which, it seems, everything has these days), they blend together.

In essence, when broken down to their component parts, there's maybe 20 unique monsters and the rest are simply new versions of the same archetype. Can't I just make a kobold a medium-sized humanoid to get my lizardfolk? Or give my satyr the tauric template to make it a bariaur?

If you go down this path, the monster books out there seem awfully repetitive. The reason I'm even bothering to do this is because I have just about every monster loaded in eTools and I'm not interested in entering new ones. So I try to find something similar...and unfailing, there's ALWAYS something that's almost indistinguishable from the supposedly unique monster that someone else thought up. Am I the only one who does this, or is everyone eagerly waiting to use the fifth variant of lizardfolk-type monsters who happen to be from another plane of existence?

 

[Grimstaff]

To put it another way, an ogre with barbarian levels looks an awful lot like a hill giant with fewer barbarian levels. When monsters only have a few abilities, like rock throwing, improved grab, and rend (which, it seems, everything has these days), they blend together.

In essence, when broken down to their component parts, there's maybe 20 unique monsters and the rest are simply new versions of the same archetype. Can't I just make a kobold a medium-sized humanoid to get my lizardfolk? Or give my satyr the tauric template to make it a bariaur?

If you go down this path, the monster books out there seem awfully repetitive. The reason I'm even bothering to do this is because I have just about every monster loaded in eTools and I'm not interested in entering new ones. So I try to find something similar...and unfailing, there's ALWAYS something that's almost indistinguishable from the supposedly unique monster that someone else thought up. Am I the only one who does this, or is everyone eagerly waiting to use the fifth variant of lizardfolk-type monsters who happen to be from another plane of existence?

Exactly why fluff will always have a more important place than crunch at my table!

Seriously, while their isn't much mechanical difference between a bugbear and a shark, its the flavor that you, as DM, give the monster more umph at the table than any list of feats could ever do. See the the thread on Paizo's "new" goblins for a good example.

That said, HD is intended, iirc, to be more a factor of size and toughness than anything else. Getting rid of them and replacing them with class levels in gobbo, hobbo, etc, would just add uneeded complexity to an already rules-heavy system. I think there's a good reason why the ogres and hill giants have differing HD, and its cool that an Ogre with high levels of barbarian can stand his ground against them.

Number crunching can certainly be fun now and then, but I don't think it does as much for the players as some good, unique flavor and fluff. Just my .02


Edited for bhad speelink

 

[phindar]

So I try to find something similar...and unfailing, there's ALWAYS something that's almost indistinguishable from the supposedly unique monster that someone else thought up.

I have to agree. My GM recently ran a game where we were fighting Aranea who's humanoid form were drow. And when we first encountered hybrid forms the exchange went something like:

GM: You see creatures that are melded forms of spiders and drow.
Player 1: Drider?
GM: No, not like that. Humanoid, but with arachnid features.
Player 2: Ettercap?
GM: No...
Player 3: Chitine?

And on from there. It was actually pretty funny, but I guess you had to be there. (I don't even really know what Chitine are, but I have a few of the minis from the DDM line and I know they are a spidery-looking people.) Bullywugs and Grippli are another example. The problem (insofar as it is one) compounds when you start using other game material, since its very popular to design similar monsters and change the name. Inchon are the AE frogmen.

When I was going to run a game based on the idea that the fantasy world had evolved from genetic experiments done by aliens, I was planning on using this overlap to my advantage. Gnolls, wolven, Anubi, sibbecai and coyle (and any other anthropormorphic canine you could name) were simply different "breeds" of whatever base race you wanted to call it. Canis Sapien perhaps. Catmen, litorians, terrig, Basti, et al.

 

[Voadam]

So every time I DM an adventure, I convert all the monsters to the new format that's debuted in the more recent books, through eTools. And every time I do it, I find a lot of errors. It's possible (heck, likely) eTools is wrong. It's also possible there's a staggering amount of inconsistencies in creating D&D critters that most people can't do without electronic assistance. Speaking as someone who now cringes when he looks at anything he wrote for D20, the dizzying number of options practically requires a degree in some cases.

But that's not why I'm posting. I've discovered that since I can make a kobold a 20thlevel fighter, just about any monster's CR can be adjusted to match the party. On more than one occassion I've boosted monster HD/levels to match the party's higher level. But things are starting to blend.

First of all, as I advance some of these monsters, their size increases. Not always, mind you, but sometimes. It seems pretty arbitrary. Why should some monsters be larger at 10 HD when others aren't? This means that my minis quickly become inaccurate, and man that bugs men when my minis aren't accurate.

Second, monsters start to look the same as you advance them. How many variant oozes are there? Can't I make most of them with templates? How many draconic/reptilian races are there? Can't I just advance lizardfolk or given them a half-dragon template to match those other races?

In other words, the more I tinker with monsters, the more I'm convinced that monsters shouldn't HAVE a HD. Even the reverse can be true...lower HD monsters who are "immature" versions of the full HD critter. So why have starting HD at all?

Nah, out of the book unadvanced monsters are a boon to many DMs. I like having the options to have tough unadvanced monsters instantly useable and to be able to advance monsters by HD without the complications of added on class abilities.

 

[GreatLemur]

Monster hit dice are just levels in a monster class. It would be nice if that were made more explicit (and consistent).

For serious. I really wish we could stop juggling overlapping terms like level, HD, CR, LA, and ECL.

 

[lukelightning]

I've been thinking it would be great if monster levels were more codified, with more explicit connection between HD and monsters' abilities and powers. So a "first level aberration" wouldn't have wall of force and disintigrate at will, and CR would be more closely connected to HD.