Monsters are more than their stats

[D'karr]

A lot of the 4e debate has made me much more aware of the flaws of 3e, and I pay a lot of attention in my games now to the mechanical and gameplay issues I never noticed before. 4e might "fix" them, but at the cost of any kind of, for want of a better word, life. The whle thing is making me want to give up D&D entirely and browbeat my group into Hero or GURPS.

If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS. Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?

You ALWAYS had the power to Just Make Stuff Up! It was within you all the time!

Yes, but a lot of the rules made it cumbersome to "Just Make Stuff Up!" If I wanted a more powerful creature for a fight, I had to advance it. And that process came with a lot of baggage that had nothing to do with the purpose I needed to advance the creature for. So I ended up advancing what I needed and ignoring what I didn't. In essence I had to wrestle against the rules to get what I wanted or ignore the rules.

In the aboleth example above, someone had to "create an additional plot device" to wrestle with the rule that an aboleth has X range for his effect. In essence once again wrestling with the rules.

the worldbuilding inspiration I've found in detailed mechanics.

This here seems to be the crux of your argument. You seem to need detailed mechanics to get your world-building inspiration. Some of us don't. We'd prefer that the mechanics not be cumbersome and interfere with our world-building inspiration.

If we are going to have to wrestle with the rules to get what we want or ignore the rules entirely, we'd rather not have a detailed mechanic at all.

 

[AllisterH]

My other concern with the criticsm with regard to both the PHANE and the Succubus is that the answer seems always "Add more magic to it". Which I think is part of the reason why non-spellcasters became non-essential at mid to high levels.

The designers of many of the 3.5 mid to high level creatures basically seemed able only to make a creature unique by adding more and more supernatural/spell-like abilities. Which of course affected the non-spellcasters because many people want them to stay "grounded".

I just don't want to read a high level monster and see "ok, we need heavy duty magic to beat it" Say what you will about anime, but anime at least seems better at balancing spellcasters with melee specialists.

EDIT: IT should be noted that the Phane _IS_ only an ELITE. There should be at least 2 other creatures fighting the typical 5 person level party. You can't actually have the Phane be as complicated to run as a Solo Monsters.

 

[The_Fan]

I personally like the idea that a monster like the Phane has several instant-kill routines that just don't work on the PCs. Why? They're epic, that's why. Let's say we give the Phane an ability to age anyone <level 16 300 years with a touch. Of what relevance is that to the PCs? Unless they're lugging around a major NPC load, no reason that would ever come into play.

Or, what if the phane is shocked, SHOCKED I say, to see the PCs recover from its aging them? It expected mere mortals to just wither into decrepitude, but these heroes survived! It can freeze a whole town in time to work its mischief...but the PCs are still alert and mobile despite it.

However, when it comes time for the big showdown with the Phane and its minions, it can transport them to an amazing technicolor battlefield, as random objects from past present and future fade in and out (allowing some interesting setpieces, like ancient temples or future astral jammers).

Of course, overuse of this can get annoying and strain credibility, but if it makes narrative sense to me why not?

 

[Lizard]

If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS. Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?

All the 4e conversation has made the 3e problems more apparent, but 4e doesn't solve them in ways I'm comfortable with. Perhaps I'll feel differently when I see the full rules, but the previews keep doing more and more to turn me off.

In the aboleth example above, someone had to "create an additional plot device" to wrestle with the rule that an aboleth has X range for his effect. In essence once again wrestling with the rules.

It wasn't a wrestle, it was more a brief grapple. It took me about 5-10 minutes to work out the cost of the item using the Wondrous Item rules, then make sure it fit in the wealth guidelines (the critter had class levels). Would have been easier in a system which was more explicit about magic item design than 3e (which relies on a lot of fudging for wondrous items), but I could do it.

This here seems to be the crux of your argument. You seem to need detailed mechanics to get your world-building inspiration. Some of us don't. We'd prefer that the mechanics not be cumbersome and interfere with our world-building inspiration.

I guess, to me, it's the fact that the mechanics define the world. Different games inspire different world because of what their mechanics imply. Ablative hit points create a different world than a wound/death spiral system, for example. In D&D, heroes can defeat armies, and that becomes part of the history. In, say, GURPS (except at ludicrous point levels), they can't, and THAT becomes part of the history. The way magic works in 3e creates one kind of world; the way it works in 4e creates another. A vampire who can make one spawn a year creates different stories than one who can create one a night. Etc, etc, etc.

Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"

If we are going to have to wrestle with the rules to get what we want or ignore the rules entirely, we'd rather not have a detailed mechanic at all.

I'd rather have rules I don't need than need rules I don't have.

 

[neceros]

If you like 3e so much why would you browbeat your group for Hero or GURPS. Or is your argument that 3e has a lot of problems and you just want to not deal with them again?




Yes, but a lot of the rules made it cumbersome to "Just Make Stuff Up!" If I wanted a more powerful creature for a fight, I had to advance it. And that process came with a lot of baggage that had nothing to do with the purpose I needed to advance the creature for. So I ended up advancing what I needed and ignoring what I didn't. In essence I had to wrestle against the rules to get what I wanted or ignore the rules.

In the aboleth example above, someone had to "create an additional plot device" to wrestle with the rule that an aboleth has X range for his effect. In essence once again wrestling with the rules.



This here seems to be the crux of your argument. You seem to need detailed mechanics to get your world-building inspiration. Some of us don't. We'd prefer that the mechanics not be cumbersome and interfere with our world-building inspiration.

If we are going to have to wrestle with the rules to get what we want or ignore the rules entirely, we'd rather not have a detailed mechanic at all.

+1.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I personally like the idea that a monster like the Phane has several instant-kill routines that just don't work on the PCs. Why? They're epic, that's why. Let's say we give the Phane an ability to age anyone <level 16 300 years with a touch. Of what relevance is that to the PCs? Unless they're lugging around a major NPC load, no reason that would ever come into play.

Or, what if the phane is shocked, SHOCKED I say, to see the PCs recover from its aging them? It expected mere mortals to just wither into decrepitude, but these heroes survived! It can freeze a whole town in time to work its mischief...but the PCs are still alert and mobile despite it.

However, when it comes time for the big showdown with the Phane and its minions, it can transport them to an amazing technicolor battlefield, as random objects from past present and future fade in and out (allowing some interesting setpieces, like ancient temples or future astral jammers).

Of course, overuse of this can get annoying and strain credibility, but if it makes narrative sense to me why not?

I really like this - it's all too easy to treat every monster the same. To have monsters express disbelief that their attacks aren't hurting the PC's as much as they should - that could lead to a great fight.

It comes back to what seems to be becoming my mantra - the rules serve the story. Giving the Phane the power to kill enemies by aging them to death in the rules means that characters run the risk of insta-death - and I'm happy that that's gone. However, it doesn't mean that the DM can't whip up some player-fear by having the Phane do it to some poor NPC.

 

[Lizard]

Of course, overuse of this can get annoying and strain credibility, but if it makes narrative sense to me why not?

I suppose it makes some kind of narrative sense in the same way hit points do -- a high level character doesn't survive a sword through the gut, he simply isn't stabbed through the gut the way a low level character is. However, if that's how you want to run it, make it explicit.

Aura of Aging (or whatever it's called):
<10 hit dice: Aged to dust. Dead.
11-20 hit dice: Aged to decrepitude. Character can take only minor actions until The Ritual Of Restoring Lost Years is performed.
21+ hit dice: As written.

See? How hard is that? A few extra lines, and suddenly, the phane's abilities make sense within the world, it can do what it needs to do for the plot, and still is boring...I mean, fun...in combat with level-appropriate PCs. And you know what happens to the baggage handlers and stowaway boyfriends.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I suppose it makes some kind of narrative sense in the same way hit points do -- a high level character doesn't survive a sword through the gut, he simply isn't stabbed through the gut the way a low level character is. However, if that's how you want to run it, make it explicit.

Aura of Aging (or whatever it's called):
<10 hit dice: Aged to dust. Dead.
11-20 hit dice: Aged to decrepitude. Character can take only minor actions until The Ritual Of Restoring Lost Years is performed.
21+ hit dice: As written.

See? How hard is that? A few extra lines, and suddenly, the phane's abilities make sense within the world, it can do what it needs to do for the plot, and still is boring...I mean, fun...in combat with level-appropriate PCs. And you know what happens to the baggage handlers and stowaway boyfriends.

It's not hard. But that are 4 lines that will never come up in play.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Deriving a world from the rules is a large part of the fun of DMing, at least for me. "Looking at these facts, what kinds of worlds can I build? If I change one thing, what else changes?"

I would guess that many people of the opposite opinion see the rules not as an aid to world building but as a possible hindrance. They're a straight jacket to hold you in place. If you want to add something to the world, first you must consult the rules and determine if it is feasible. If you find something that contradicts what you want, then you have to alter the rule and see how that works with your world. And so forth.

Fourth Edition comes out and says "these rules aren't how the world works, they approximate the PCs' interactions with things." So you get the most important thing, IMO, that rules should provide, a consistent framework for players' decision making. But, they don't necessarily dictate how the world itself works.

That's the beauty of PCs being special. The world doesn't have to operate as if all the people are under the PCs' rules. Take how hit points work. You don't have to base your armed conflicts around how combat occurs with PCs. You can have that wound point based world you talked about in D&D. And, it doesn't contradict anything.

You can say that the necromancer has the power to raise a bunch of undead and don't have to go digging through source books to make it work. How many threads have we seen where DMs want to create this exact plot but can't by the rules. If you define the world by the rules you have this problem. If you don't constrain yourself to the rules when developing plots or individual monsters, you don't have this problem. Exception based design, in other words.

 

[Cirex]

It's not hard. But that are 4 lines that will never come up in play.

Like how much the Phane has in the nature skill. Not required, not written.
Simple.