Get Rid of All Monster HD

[gizmo33]

I never had a problem with it. In the end, it's still a big, brutish opponent with a club, whether it's a foo giant or an ogre with 4 levels of fighter and 2 levels of barb. I don't see what's so confusing.

I agree, neither foo giants nor 4th level fighter ogres belong in a book called Monster Manual IV. I certainly wouldn't be proud as a designer to put out a book with monsters that a kid with a calculator and a few minutes of time could have come up with. Instead of confusing, it's just lame. Then again, maybe what's confusing is why it happened to the MMIV.

 

[hong]

I agree, neither foo giants nor 4th level fighter ogres belong in a book called Monster Manual IV. I certainly wouldn't be proud as a designer to put out a book with monsters that a kid with a calculator and a few minutes of time could have come up with. Instead of confusing, it's just lame. Then again, maybe what's confusing is why it happened to the MMIV.

Here is a monster that I came up with in a few minutes, without even using a calculator.

Large magical beast
Neutral evil
Spd 30', fly 60' (good)
AC 26 (natural armor +18, Dex -1, size -1)
HD 10d10+62
Atk +16/+16/+11 claw/claw/bite (2d6+7/2d6+7/3d6+3)
SV Fort +15, Ref +9, Will +12
Str 25 Dex 8 Con 20 Int 3 Wis 15 Cha 16
Feats: Toughness x4
Skills: Jump 10 ranks, Listen 10 ranks, Move Silently 10 ranks

Anyone can come up with stats, given enough time. Whether that time is scarce enough to justify your investment in the book is the question. Your point therefore is...?

 

[gizmo33]

Anyone can come up with stats, given enough time. Whether that time is scarce enough to justify your investment in the book is the question. Your point therefore is...?

My point is that I'm not looking forward to the Monster Manual VIII. Actually, had I known what the question was, I would have just posted "no". Therefore my point is "no". Though to be fair, the Monster Manual IV was probably more interesting than your stat block example.

 

[howandwhy99]

To the OP:

I know you asked why D&D has levels. Originally they were a measure of ability. It's a wargaming thing. Levels were like rank. Or irregular, regular, elite as levels for squadrons. Back in the 80's, there were skill-based RPGs and level-based RPGs. D20 is a hybrid. Prior to it skills weren't as necessary in D&D.

 

[talien]

Oh, I totally agree that the differences between those things are very real. I just wish we could move to a more standardized system. I'd like to see monsters built out of levels just like PCs, basically. Monster levels, template levels, class levels, etc. If limited-use abilities are balanced on a "per encounter" rather than "per day" basis, PC levels and monster/NPC levels might actually be fairly equivalent.

This is all total pie-in-the-sky stuff, of course. I'm just dreaming about 4E, here.

You hit on what I was leaning towards.

I don't think we need monsters starting out at 5 HD, 10 HD, whatever. I think we just need a monster as a race (regardless of type) and then you apply monster class progression levels. Then I can make my kobold the most feared fighter on the planet or just throw a bunch of low level weenies at 1st level characters.

I also like the idea that powers become available as the monster progresses (which has been done, more or less, with Savage Species).

Heck, would it be mad to suggest every monster should be statted out for a 20 HD range?

I don't feel that size should necessarily be tied to advancement either. Who's to say bigger = more powerful? Can't bigger = dumber or slower, and thus less powerful?

 

[Hussar]

Actually, that's something I could get on board with. A book that gives me a series of basic monster chasis that I can start adding goodies to.

Basic models look something like: Brute, sneaky, smart. I then add on various templates to develop a new monster. Add it up, get the CR and away we go.

Unfortunately, something like that would be amazingly time consuming. If they could whack that into some sort of generator program and sell it, I'd be all over it like white on rice.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You hit on what I was leaning towards.

I don't think we need monsters starting out at 5 HD, 10 HD, whatever. I think we just need a monster as a race (regardless of type) and then you apply monster class progression levels. Then I can make my kobold the most feared fighter on the planet or just throw a bunch of low level weenies at 1st level characters.

I also like the idea that powers become available as the monster progresses (which has been done, more or less, with Savage Species).

Heck, would it be mad to suggest every monster should be statted out for a 20 HD range?

I don't feel that size should necessarily be tied to advancement either. Who's to say bigger = more powerful? Can't bigger = dumber or slower, and thus less powerful?

The thing I wouldn't like about this approach is that there wouldn't be enough difference between high and low levels. 1st level, we're fighting goblins. 2nd level we're fighting tougher goblins. ... 21st level, we're fighting epic goblins ... Fighting githyanki instead of leveled goblins at least makes me feel like my characters have gotten tougher.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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?

This is a very, very good point!

 

[The Human Target]

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.

It would be great. Really great.

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?

Yeah, I have little interest in the newer monster books for just that reason. There are ten new kinds of elemental in every book, but at the end of the day they're all pretty much the same.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

This thread makes me think that there needs to be a lot more "fluff" to monster descriptions. The stats just tell you how to kill the monster, and there's only so many ways you can kill something, so eventually monsters do start to look all the same. But if you have information on psychology, culture, ecology, and biology, you can get a lot of ideas about how to deal with a monster if you don't just want to kill it. You may want to talk to, trick, hide from, fast talk, infuriate, sneak past, distract, befriend, or get the help of a monster, or you may just need to know the best way to run away from it. Fluff gives you all kinds of interesting things to do with a monster other than fall back on the old sword and fireball, and does more to differentiate monsters from each other than any difference in stats.