D&D 4E I may have had a 4e epiphany...

[Mercule]

Honestly, that is *all* I want or need in terms of 4e monster creation.

Anything less would be insufficient, anything more would be unnecessary.

At one time, I could not have disagreed more. Much as playing Phoenix Command cured me of my desire for verisimilitude in combat, 3.5 has cured me of my desire to have NPCs be statistical mirrors of PCs.

I agree. That is all I need -- or want.

 

[Lizard]

The heretical notion occurs to me that it would have been interesting if PCs were designed the same way...

It's not a bad notion from a design perspective and might work for one-off games, but the small power lists would grow dull pretty quickly.

I'm in a Savage Species campaign now, and I have chosen low-ECL base races (a half ogre and a humanoid raven) in order to get class levels quickly. When the game started, several players chose high-ECL races, but all but one have dropped them, in part because you progresss....sooooo....slooowly. (At 10th level, the Ogre Magus (Magi? Mage?) finally is able to do more than one thing a day, though his hit points are such crap that he spends about half of every combat regenerating and unconscious.) 3e changed a lot of expectation about getting Cool New Stuff To Do on a regular basis (how the hell did 1e fighters stand playing to 20th level?), and 4e keeps going in that regard.

As to "h4ter" or not...I'd prefer to state I have always been a skeptical critic. Barring a massive player rebellion in early June, it's unlikely I will convert my game to 4e or find the game I'm in converted to 4e -- both games are very heavily dependant on later supplements and would need to, at the least, restart from first level as character concepts won't be easily switched. Our campaigns tend to make very heavy use of things not primarily supported in 4e, as well -- cohorts, shapechanging, lots of NPC tag-alongs of various levels and abilities who DO participate in combat and who provide much of the fun and spirit of the game. The PC/NPC line is a lot blurrier in the games I'm in/run, in that there is much less of a KODT attitude towards the "worthless NPCs". Every character has a "family" of allies, enemies, and those who switch back and forth, and these complex interweavng storylines are part of what makes the game memorable. 4e, as currently written, seems to be disinclined to make NPCs important mechanically, and seems to assume that they will all stay safely at home, and not, for example, slip into a character's bag of holding and pop up when they're deep in the wilderness and start doing things like taming dire bear cubs who ALSO end up stuffed in the bag of holding and did I mention jury-rigging traps ala Home Alone to "protect" the cave we were using as a temporary base but not, oh, TELLING us he was doing this so we stumbled right into them when we got back...

Sorry. Digression.

IAE, I'm interested in looking at the 4e design rules to see if you can make mechanically interesting NPCs who are neither combat obstacles nor classed. Getting back to the original concept of my post, I can see statting up all sorts of interesting "defining abilities" for both generic and specific NPCs, but I'm going to need to study the rules in full to see how these kinds of things will interact with actual gameplay. The "party of rootless wanderers" model isn't the only way D&D is played. Indeed, the only idea I've had for a 4e campaign would be a massive city based game, ala Invincible Overlord, but turned up to 11.

 

[Lizard]

At one time, I could not have disagreed more. Much as playing Phoenix Command cured me of my desire for verisimilitude in combat, 3.5 has cured me of my desire to have NPCs be statistical mirrors of PCs.

I agree. That is all I need -- or want.

You....PLAYED...Phoenix Command?

Not just looked at in mingled shock, horror, and awe, but...actually....PLAYED?

Wow. I stand in the presence of greatness. Or madness. But is there a difference?

 

[Piratecat]

I don't always agree with him, but I have great respect for Lizard. It's rare for a person to keep an open mind about, and then analyze fairly, something they're skeptical about. Whether he ends up liking or disliking 4e, good job.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think your "basically" is a bit to basic. You also used tools from a box to create 3E monsters. The tools where just very different, and the way you build it.

Ok yes, I was not specific enough. I'm afraid I'm at work and don't have much time to go into a lot of depth.

Maybe toys are more appropriate. 4e gives me Legos, which appear simple but are actually quite robust. 3e gave me a Transformer action figure, an excellent design and feat of engineering, but requires a lot of finesse and know-how to dis- and reassemble without breaking the toy.

 

[Ingolf]

This epiphany is dangerous. Just think, how can WotC ever sell us another book?

"Here is the Monster Manual 2! It has metallic dragons!"
"Uh...you already gave us metallic dragons."
"No...we...didn't?"
"Yes you did *points to 6 different monsters in the monster manual, a chart of statistics by level and roles and a piece of scrap paper with a cool move*"
"...Well it also has..."
"No, you see, you gave us every single monster. Ever."

I realize this was a tongue-in-cheek argument, but consider that Hero System and Gurps (to name two of many) provided complete rules for creating any sort of monster/critter/antagonist you'd care for, and they still sell plenty of "Monster Manuals" themselves. I enjoy both - home-made original creations and a ready-made supply of other people's work to plunder . . .

 

[JRRNeiklot]

In Hero, I don't think, "I need a 5th level orc wizard". I think "I need an orc with some magic powers. Here's my pool of points. Let's see, give him this attack power, this for defense, raise his PD more 'cause he's an orc, give him some disads, there, done." The main thing is that he feels like an orc caster and has all the powers/abilities/skills an orc caster SHOULD have.

In 4e, I do much the same thing. "I need a controller...here's the basic orc trait...come up with a nifty power or two to make him memorable...give him +3 to armor, just 'cause...done."

Once it hit me that, basically, every monster/NPC in 4e is effectively built from scratch, not according to a structured system (other than role/level guidelines), my perspective changed dramatically.

Fascinating.

I don't see why that can't be done in any edition. In AD&D, C&C, or 3e, I just grab an orc, slap whatever AC and HP I want on him, give him +3 to hit, just cause and roll with it. Nobody cares that I didn't follow some blueprint. They just care whether or not it was an interesting encounter.

 

[Blackeagle]

I don't see why that can't be done in any edition. In AD&D, C&C, or 3e, I just grab an orc, slap whatever AC and HP I want on him, give him +3 to hit, just cause and roll with it. Nobody cares that I didn't follow some blueprint. They just care whether or not it was an interesting encounter.

So why not make that the rule, rather than a rule 0 exception?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So why not make that the rule, rather than a rule 0 exception?

I should have said if I wanted something other than a standard orc, one who's a bit tougher, a bit more skilled or who has 12 ranks of Knowledge: slinkies.

 

[malraux]

I don't see why that can't be done in any edition. In AD&D, C&C, or 3e, I just grab an orc, slap whatever AC and HP I want on him, give him +3 to hit, just cause and roll with it. Nobody cares that I didn't follow some blueprint. They just care whether or not it was an interesting encounter.

The difference is that there's not much guidance as to how that +3 to hit affects the difficulty/CR of the creature.