Monsters and Heroes

[I'm A Banana]

I sympathize with the OP's point somewhat. While I understand the gameplay need for the minion/standard/elite/solo monster categories, they still feel kind of artificial to me. I work around the problem by simply avoiding using elite and solo "monsters" of the humanoid races in my games (barring exceptional circumstances such as being "powered up" through the use of an artifact or a ritual).

This is my bag.

I like the idea of simplified NPC rules, but it's really a hard blow to the fiction of the game that the characters are on an entirely different wavelength than everything else.

I just can't bring myself to have my PC's face off against PC-race/class enemies very often.

It's probably a good thing there's over 3,000 monsters in the game, so I don't have to.

I have made occasional use of class templates, making the monsters elites and choosing a few class-specific powers of high level without bothering with the low-level drek, just for simplicity's sake.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I honestly see it the opposite. I'm so glad I can make a character without having to make a build.

I can think of an iconic baddie and a few abilities he'd have and smash it all together and, whammo, done. Rather then just getting int he way, the mechanics help.

Maybe I just have awesome miracle players, but I've never once heard "Hey now, that wizard shouldn't have that power or be able to have that kind of HP." I have heard "Oh man, he's casting that spell again that summons one of the dead adventurers back to life to fight us! Watch out!"

If anything, I saw the problem far more in 3.x, where the rules were more of a straightjacket demanding I follow them. Want to make a guy who casts spell? Here are the exceedingly small number of ways you can do it. What's that ability you want? Sorry, that's a level 7 spell, you can't do that unless you have a whole goddamn spellbook to go with it. You want a powerful tyrant and champion and master of physical strength? Ok, here's the long, long, long list of magical items he needs.

At that point, you aren't making a character. You're making a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

By seperating the PC rules from non-PC rules, my options are huge. Hell, I can actually make NPCs that do nothing but give the party a few small buffs or assistance in combat - in 3.5 I'd have to dig out esoteric class abilities or functions or spells.

Well, ok, I'm lying - I more or less just "cheated' every time I made a 3.5 NPC. Like, every time. But hey, now the system works the way I want it to, and I don't have to fight it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I tried to make an npc for sundays game and it worked... i was using essentials classes (druid/ranger) and just gave them normal skirmisher/controller hp and defenses.

worked quite ok, although i wished I had made the wolf companions a monster of its own rather than companion creaures, because it was a bit difficult to run.. Also I guess i should have not used the daily at the beginning of the combat... was a little bit powerful and i had to look up what this zone does again... but i feared a tpk otherwise...

All in all it was a little bit complicated to run PC class creatures smoothly, and this were only low level essential classes. If I imagne running two pre essential PCs and monsters simultaneously i would become mad. They are complicated to run, as every power works different.

So i guess, NPC creation rules are useful. PCs didn´t complain that the Ranger had somewhat more hp than they had...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe I just have awesome miracle players, but I've never once heard "Hey now, that wizard shouldn't have that power or be able to have that kind of HP." I have heard "Oh man, he's casting that spell again that summons one of the dead adventurers back to life to fight us! Watch out!"

If anything, I saw the problem far more in 3.x, where the rules were more of a straightjacket demanding I follow them. Want to make a guy who casts spell? Here are the exceedingly small number of ways you can do it. What's that ability you want? Sorry, that's a level 7 spell, you can't do that unless you have a whole goddamn spellbook to go with it. You want a powerful tyrant and champion and master of physical strength? Ok, here's the long, long, long list of magical items he needs.

Maybe it's just my playstyle, but I literally had 0 trouble taking some powerful undead creature and reskinning them to be a "Human Necromancer Villain." I didn't feel constrained or limited at all. I felt like I could invest the time if I wanted, or take the easy way out if I wanted (I usually wanted the easy way). In the same way that my players often aren't all "That feat would be impossible for it to have!", they're also not like "You didn't build this according to the strictest interpretation of the NPC rules!" All they cared about -- all I cared about -- was the effect it had at the table.

But if the enemy is supposed to be kind of equivalent to the PC, I do feel like I want it to be something the characters can envision their own characters doing at some point. If I introduce a thief NPC who can attack, dodge, survive, and hide better than my ostensibly same-level Rogue PC, the natural question arises: "He's good. How can I get to be that good?" And if the answer is "No, you can't, here's some metagame justification," it takes me right out of the moment and also makes me feel like a cheater, taking away something that could have been a cool character option, if only it could be included.

That said, the main difference in 4e between monsters and PC's is that monsters get all of their HP in a single encounter, and PC's spread it out over a few encounters with healing surges. Most monster powers could easily be PC powers (maybe different numbers, probably the same effect) and vice-versa. Solos and Elites are really just "Four PC's" or "Two PC's", and I wouldn't even mind giving some of those abilities if a few PC's worked together to get the effect (in fact, I think that's kind of cool).

It's possible to bridge that gap in 4e, I think. And I don't think I want to go back to "PC's and NPC's share the same rules." I do think I want some overlap, a place where PC's can get things that enemies which are clearly the same general category of creature can get, and that monsters can use some of the abilities that PC's can use. The Chimera and the Wizard don't need to be built according to the same rules, but the Wizard and the Evil Necromancer should be able to recognize some rules elements in common between them, and the Wizard should be able to go off and learn the Evil Necromancer's spells, should they want to.

 

[Barastrondo]

It's possible to bridge that gap in 4e, I think. And I don't think I want to go back to "PC's and NPC's share the same rules." I do think I want some overlap, a place where PC's can get things that enemies which are clearly the same general category of creature can get, and that monsters can use some of the abilities that PC's can use. The Chimera and the Wizard don't need to be built according to the same rules, but the Wizard and the Evil Necromancer should be able to recognize some rules elements in common between them, and the Wizard should be able to go off and learn the Evil Necromancer's spells, should they want to.

I'll frequently swipe a PC power and paste it onto an NPC build as needed; if I want a soldier to have an interesting encounter power, I'm not against borrowing something from the fighter's list. That's kind of my compromise.

I don't feel the friction between PC and NPC rules nearly as keenly, though. To my mind it actually helps reduce the metagame conceit of "classes." Within the world people think in terms of swordsmen and men-at-arms and heroes and blademasters; "fighter" is just a mechanical interface you can use to build a potent swordsman or dervish or mamluk for a player's use. This gets a little odd in some cases, when it becomes evident that there are almost as many magical traditions as there are practitioners: but I kind of like the implications that come with that. Magic becomes more of a mystic thing than a science.

 

[Ryujin]

Maybe it's just my playstyle, but I literally had 0 trouble taking some powerful undead creature and reskinning them to be a "Human Necromancer Villain." I didn't feel constrained or limited at all. I felt like I could invest the time if I wanted, or take the easy way out if I wanted (I usually wanted the easy way). In the same way that my players often aren't all "That feat would be impossible for it to have!", they're also not like "You didn't build this according to the strictest interpretation of the NPC rules!" All they cared about -- all I cared about -- was the effect it had at the table.

But if the enemy is supposed to be kind of equivalent to the PC, I do feel like I want it to be something the characters can envision their own characters doing at some point. If I introduce a thief NPC who can attack, dodge, survive, and hide better than my ostensibly same-level Rogue PC, the natural question arises: "He's good. How can I get to be that good?" And if the answer is "No, you can't, here's some metagame justification," it takes me right out of the moment and also makes me feel like a cheater, taking away something that could have been a cool character option, if only it could be included.

That said, the main difference in 4e between monsters and PC's is that monsters get all of their HP in a single encounter, and PC's spread it out over a few encounters with healing surges. Most monster powers could easily be PC powers (maybe different numbers, probably the same effect) and vice-versa. Solos and Elites are really just "Four PC's" or "Two PC's", and I wouldn't even mind giving some of those abilities if a few PC's worked together to get the effect (in fact, I think that's kind of cool).

It's possible to bridge that gap in 4e, I think. And I don't think I want to go back to "PC's and NPC's share the same rules." I do think I want some overlap, a place where PC's can get things that enemies which are clearly the same general category of creature can get, and that monsters can use some of the abilities that PC's can use. The Chimera and the Wizard don't need to be built according to the same rules, but the Wizard and the Evil Necromancer should be able to recognize some rules elements in common between them, and the Wizard should be able to go off and learn the Evil Necromancer's spells, should they want to.

There is one other difference between PCs and NPCs, that doesn't seem to be something that can be addressed; the lack of a REALLY weak defence. PCs generally fall well behind NPCs/monsters in one NAD. Sure, there's weak, but there's WEAK where PCs are concerned.

This is one place that players will always look longingly toward the NPC thief, who seems to be almost as tough as he is fast, and smart.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

See, for me, that's ironically why I like it. I can make monsters or come up with fantastic creatures or spells that the players don't neccisarily have access too - which, to me, makes it more fantastic and magical.

That, and I've frankly never once had a player demand to know how an NPC did <thing> and then demand I let them do it too. You want momentum or "verisimilitude" breaking? That's the worst.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't feel the friction between PC and NPC rules nearly as keenly, though. To my mind it actually helps reduce the metagame conceit of "classes." Within the world people think in terms of swordsmen and men-at-arms and heroes and blademasters; "fighter" is just a mechanical interface you can use to build a potent swordsman or dervish or mamluk for a player's use. This gets a little odd in some cases, when it becomes evident that there are almost as many magical traditions as there are practitioners: but I kind of like the implications that come with that. Magic becomes more of a mystic thing than a science.

This. So much this.

 

[Dausuul]

See, for me, that's ironically why I like it. I can make monsters or come up with fantastic creatures or spells that the players don't neccisarily have access too - which, to me, makes it more fantastic and magical.

That, and I've frankly never once had a player demand to know how an NPC did <thing> and then demand I let them do it too. You want momentum or "verisimilitude" breaking? That's the worst.

I've never had players demand it, but they've certainly made in-game inquiries. The halfling rogue in my current party met an assassin (a solo) who had inured himself to so many nasty poisons that his blood had become poisonous; the rogue declared he wanted to learn to do what the assassin could do and asked the assassin to teach him, so I'm working on giving him some options along those lines.

Not that I have a problem with this. I think it's a million times better than somebody picking random prestige class #5 for its mechanical benefits alone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That, and I've frankly never once had a player demand to know how an NPC did <thing> and then demand I let them do it too. You want momentum or "verisimilitude" breaking? That's the worst.

It ain't a demand. It's an in-character choice to advance along a particular path. The Wizard sees the Necromancer in action, and decides to pursue the dark arts (but use them for good). The Fighter faces off against a gladiator in the sand-pits, and then has the gladiator teach him some nifty tricks. The Cleric witnesses a strange miracle from a rival of his gods' and starts asking for the same. The Thief sees a rogue from another guild swiping the treasure out from under her, and says "I want to do that!"

It ruins the mood and feels unfair to say "Oh, they did that with skill and ability and magic and suchlike that you have no hope of ever acquiring, so sad, but hey, it's mysterious and awesome, amirite? Aren't you mystified? Don't you feel awed?"

This happens because, presumably, all mortals are made more-or-less equal. Any given human has the ability to go out and do something that any other human has the ability to go out and do (and presumably, dwarves and elves and the like are on the same continuum). The major difference between a dirt farmer and a 30th level Wizard isn't fate or birth order or blood or genetics or radiation exposure or wealth or gender or hair color, but choices and training. Presumably, by making similar choices, and undergoing similar training, the dirt farmer can become a 30th level wizard. All it takes to be a Warlock is to make a pact with something unsettling. It takes no particular difference what you are. You could be a particularly intelligent pig.

I guess that's a particularly modernist, American, idealistic take on the nature of (most) heroes in D&D, and it doesn't have to be that way (sorcerers are explicitly an exception to that rule, forex, and arguably divine characters are more chosen than trained), but the rules and fluff imply and reinforce that idea frequently. And even when they don't, it can be a metagame thing: player X sees ability Y and wants to use it. Why not enable that fun? Make it balanced, and give it to 'em.

So if the only difference between a 30th level Fighter and a stableboy is how many goblins you've killed, the difference between a 29th level Fighter PC and a 29th level NPC fighter should be even smaller, and, presumably, their abilities and statistics should be close-to similar (though I doubt anyone will do a detailed accounting of the exact numbers, they WILL notice big deviations from the norm).