GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Hussar]

Its what the expert class is for, firstly. Just like the aristocrat class is to model those that are born into wealth, the expert class is there to model true professionals. As for the level, I almost always make any man of practiced skill about third level. It just feels about right to me and I don't buy into the theory that 3rd level is that special.

I only ever use 1st level commoners for those that don't do a lot of work, aren't especially trained in anything or are just out of their teens. I even make a typical farmer an expert as there's a lot of things your average farmer knows how to do. Commoners are good for modeling a serf class but, honestly, most D&D worlds don't have a large serf class.

As for demonstrating the ability achievable at first level, its possible for any character to be really good at one thing at 1st level, but other skills will be less stellar. But if thats what you want in a character (a really diplomatic queen for instance) then its pretty easy to model that without getting into high levels.

Fair enough. Just so's you know that this is your rules and not what actually stated in the game. The actual demographics in the DMG pretty strongly contradict this, and, also, the description of the actual class of expert contradicts this as well.

A blacksmith no more needs to be an expert than a farmer does. The Craft skill is the only skill he actually needs. And, again, going by what's actually written in the game and not your specific campaign world, 99% of the population (or actually quite a lot more) is, in fact, 1st level.

But, your second point is interesting. Ok, I want a queen who is diplomatic, has good sense motive and is pretty darn intimidating when she wants to be.

How do you do that without adding levels?

See, this idea that our Queen example has only one skill is not something I said. Diplomacy only affects others. It doesn't actually help me from being affected. Thus, what I said earlier about our 1st level Queen being totally dominated in skill contests by others. Sure, she can use diplomacy to make others do what she wants, but, she's completely bamboozled by any higher level character.

This doesn't really fit with my idea of this queen.

KM - sure, you can totally simply whack on a great honking circumstance bonus. But, again, I STILL have to stat out even a 1st level aristocrat. To me, the idea that NPC'S MUST be built the same as PC's is a weakness in the 3e ruleset because it just adds on so much work to the DM.

In 3e, by the rules (what I do in my own game is fine, but, I'm actually talking about RAW, not my game), I can't just say, Queen Victoria has +20 Diplomacy, +15 Sense Motive. I have to build that. Even if I can do it with a low level character, I still have to take the time to figure it all out.

Which is exactly the reason I never used classed monsters. I'm just far too lazy to spend an hour statting up some NPC, when I can use a pregen monster in 5 minutes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well, the best way to model a Queen in 3rd edition would be with a template. While the Queen herself could be 5th or 6th level, by being a queen she would get the Queen template applied to her stats. It would increase her CR and power level without having to figure out how she would gain so many levels. I imagine that it would grant her bonus to skills, bonus feats like Skill Focus and Leadership, and maybe a boost to saves/hit dice to represent her plot importance. Hmmm, now I want to write this up.

 

[Wicht]

I've always thought the 3e DMG's advice on demographics to be total bunk. I was pretty happy to see it gone for Pathfinder, which you will notice, is the ruleset I've been using.

The idea that most of the world is 1st level commoners only works if you have a world of totally uneducated peasant serfs. But most D&D worlds, official and unofficial don't model this. They model a world of adventure and industrious, talented workers living in a pretty open capitalistic society. But thats, I guess another topic.

I actually like putting together stat blocks and I have always prefered the idea that PCs and NPCs work exactly alike. I only have to learn one set of rules that way. I can do the other. In earlier editions, I memorized all the HD and abilities of most of the monsters and knew what was what, but the less variables, the better as far as I'm concerned and, again, I'm happy that Pathfinder has made monster abilities even more uniform. I don't stat up every PC, but I could probably do your queen for you in about 15 minutes or less. Not that you really want her done, but stating up a leveled NPC with no real powers or equipment is just a matter of filling in the numbers in the right spots.

 

[Primal]

Ah, I've already been waiting for someone to play the GURPS card!

I agree with your conclusion. Another example is the spell design rules in Ars Magica. It's quite beautiful and works very well for most purposes. It's still easy to abuse for someone who is looking for ways to abuse it. If there was a CO board for Ars Magica it would probably be full of insanely broken spells respecting all of the rules.

And you brought up the second important part: It's a lot of work. And I believe that investing that amount of work is only worthwhile if it improves a central, integral part of the system. And that's simply not the case with 4e monster customization.

If D&D was a system centered on a party of monster-breeders competing to design the most terrifying creature imaginable and pitting them against each other in arena-style combat scenarios I'd expect something a lot more elaborate.

Speaking of elaborate systems that I personally could do without: For me the hybrid rules in PHB3 were a waste of precious paper space. I'd rather have seen another two well-designed classes.

I know that many have been clamouring for an improved multiclassing system but the result didn't convince me at all. It's clunky, especially if you're adding psionic classes to the mix.
It's also interesting that the designers felt they had to include a disclaimer 'use at your own risk'.

If a sufficiently large number of people were showing interest, they could decide to do something similar for monster customization. Maybe DMG3 will have more to say on that topic. We'll see.

As others have said, it need not be overly complex; I think it's a shame that in a "gamist" system which has very well-balanced PCs there are no comprehensive, well-balanced creation rules for monsters and NPCs. Besides, when the first three books came out somebody claimed (on this board) that WoTC was apparently using a point-based formula for balancing the PC powers (something like 0.5 points for every [w], 1.5 points for Stun, etc.). If that is true -- and even if it isn't -- I find it hard to believe that WoTC didn't have some sort of in-house rules for balancing powers. Especially considering how many designers and freelancers have participated in designing new mechanics in relation to how essential it is for 4E to maintain the balance as well as possible. If they didn't have some sort of method to the madness, we'd already be seeing serious power-creep in the game.

Not everyone is great at "eyeballing" or improvising stats; I know a lot of DMs who become "paralyzed" with this sort of stuff. It's not that they (or I) are "bad" DMs; it's just that people think and operate differently. Anyway, I'm really hoping that the new boxed sets will include more robust monster and NPC building rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

sure, you can totally simply whack on a great honking circumstance bonus. But, again, I STILL have to stat out even a 1st level aristocrat. To me, the idea that NPC'S MUST be built the same as PC's is a weakness in the 3e ruleset because it just adds on so much work to the DM.

Except you don't. Honest. Rule 0 that homeboy. Eyeball it. Ad hoc it. Set a DC that "feels right." "What the DM says goes" works just as well in all editions of D&D, heck, in any tabletop RPG! NPC's needn't be built the same as PC's. Rather, you have the capability in the system to build them to a level of detail equal to the PC's, but you don't have to do that for everyone.

I mean, I didn't run fights against many NPC's in 3e because that would have involved statting them out, but I don't run fights against many homebrew monsters, period, because that means statting them out, and that's not really my cup.

In 3e, by the rules (what I do in my own game is fine, but, I'm actually talking about RAW, not my game), I can't just say, Queen Victoria has +20 Diplomacy, +15 Sense Motive. I have to build that. Even if I can do it with a low level character, I still have to take the time to figure it all out.

You don't have to do anything. I mean, I guess if you were going to publish Queen Victoria in an official rules supplement or something, sure, they might want more detail than two skill check bonuses, but for your home game, you don't even have to give her skill bonuses. Roll a d20 and call it pass/fail if you want. It's your game. There's no fun police.

I mean, that was one of 3e's huge positive developments: you can roll a d20, and, whatever you're doing, high rolls are good, and low rolls are bad, and that d20 roll works for anything you might want to do.

Just because the option to use the rules is there doesn't mean you have to use them in all circumstances.

I guess this is what some people point to when they say 3e constrained the DM, but this sounds more to me like a DM constraining himself. Who says you gotta give Queen Victoria an attack bonus? Who is looking over your shoulder? Do it well enough to satisfy yourself and your players, and if all you need to do to accomplish that is slap Dip+20 in the margins on a sheet of paper, I don't see where 3e tells you that you MUST SHOW ALL YOUR WORK. Function at the table has always trumped the rules that can be used to get to that point.

Which is exactly the reason I never used classed monsters. I'm just far too lazy to spend an hour statting up some NPC, when I can use a pregen monster in 5 minutes.

I didn't use classed monsters in combat for essentially the same reason, but I certainly had a few sessions where the players needed to roll in social challenges, and I never really bothered coming up with the attack bonus of any of the critters they rolled against.

I was confident knowing that it was there if I really needed it, though. As an improv-heavy DM, having that backup, knowing the rules are going to support whatever weird turn my group decided to take ("we're going to beat up the queen and take her hostage!"), gave me a load of confidence to DM by the seat of my pants.