No Frequency for Monsters?! (just noticed!)

[ken-ichi]

I liked the rarity and morale for a creature. There are so many things that a DM has to decide on and make rulings on that it is nice to have a system to help remove the burden of these two.
It was a good base assumption that you would be free to adjust for your campaign world. I don't really see any benefit from removing it and some people at least have lost some tangible benefit from them. For instance in Greyhawk how common are dryads? Is there at least a dryad in every forest, are there dozens or even hundreds in a larger forest? I don't have a clue. Of course as a DM I can make the answer be whatever I want it to be, but having a basis to make my decisions off of can help spawn more ideas. Maybe the MM says that dryads are rare, so it is rare to have more than a few dryads in a forest. If so, what is the reason for this forest having 30? It allows both the players and the DM to immerse themselves into the world more when there are these mysteries that they can explore.

As for morale, I sometimes have a hard time putting myself into monster's heads. Especially the bizzare or nonintelligent ones. When does a dire tiger decide that his meal is too much trouble? How about a dire boar? A morale system gives me an idea of how likely the tiger is to continue attacking despite resistance, probably less than the boar, but by how much? Just how cowardly are typical kobolds? Will they fight to the death to defend their own lives and the lives of their mates and offspring? Or are they apt to flee saving their own hides? A morale system allows the DM to choose to utilize it to make decisions for him if he is unsure or does not want to spend time figuring out how loyal basic guard kobolds are.
Another use for the morale system could be utilizing it with Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. The better the morale the less likely you will be able to sway them.

I am not crushed or impared by the absence of a morale system or rarity, but it is a tool that was taken away and forces the DM to come up with that on his own.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Frequency would also have an inestimable mechanical bonus too - it could be used to set the knowledge check DC for knowing something about creatures, rather than use the rather silly HD basis for figuring a knowledge check.

I agree entirely. The newer 3e books do provide something pretty cool, though: Knowledge check DCs for each monster with appropriate results depending on the check. I've already combined this concept with an "obscurity value" which determines the DC of the Knowledge check in place of the creature's HD. Of course, such a thing is campaign-specific.

 

[Felon]

Well, if you want to get into what I think should be done. I'd just as soon get rid of it. Spleunking falls under survival. Oozes under nature. Caverns under geography. Aberations under Arcana. There's no real reason it should exist at all except to sound cool.

It has sufficient reason to exist, and it sounds like the only arguement against why it shouldn't exist is because you don't like what they called it.

It's pretty clear that KS: dungeoneering is meant to fulfill the same role as KS: nature, but applies to subterranean environs instead (which abound in D&D to a far greater degree than they do in the real world). If they'd called it "KS: subterrain" I suspect we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[Felon]

So how about frequency in the "default" setting, along with the "default" gods etc etc.

OK, so let's suppose that in this nebulous default setting there all manner of regions with different climates and terrain and other factors. Do you suppose that there might be a greater concentration in region X than region Y? Stating how common a monster is meaningless on so many levels.

 

[billd91]

Well I miss frequency as a monster stat. I'd much rather use a frequency-based DC for Knowledge skills than determining what PCs know based on the creature's hit dice.
Low level PCs may know lots about rarely encounter low-HD creatures, but nothing about those big old giants infesting the nearby mountains. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I'd rather see Knowledge DCs based on frequency and reputation. Orcs, being pretty common, would be well-known. Dragons, while rare, would have a huge reputation and be comparitively well-known. Rutterkins, being rare and not having a big rep, would be less well-known.

 

[Felon]

Well I miss frequency as a monster stat. I'd much rather use a frequency-based DC for Knowledge skills than determining what PCs know based on the creature's hit dice.

I agree, and that's how I handle those KS checks myself. I just don't need someone else to determine for me how common a monster is in my game.

 

[painandgreed]

It has sufficient reason to exist, and it sounds like the only arguement against why it shouldn't exist is because you don't like what they called it.

It's pretty clear that KS: dungeoneering is meant to fulfill the same role as KS: nature, but applies to subterranean environs instead (which abound in D&D to a far greater degree than they do in the real world). If they'd called it "KS: subterrain" I suspect we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

At first I thought so, but later changed my mind. Right now K is used for aberations. Somehow, I don't think all aberations are only found underground. While many are, there are plenty that are found in marshes, hills, and forests. An aberation is mentioned in the SRD as "An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three." No mention of being underground. Oozes are listed as being subterranean, however.

If used for K:Sub, I don't see any reason why it should include ability to spelunking any more than K:nature gives information on camping. Seems like both of those should be covered by Survival if dealing with ways to navigate underground. If spleunking just means information on rock formations and such it might fit.

So, my problem with it is a combination of what it is called mixed with the poorly defined and strangly fit subjects that it covers. True, we might not have this conversation if it were called something else, but that is because due to what it is currently called, it seems to function as Profesion(Adventurer). PC: "I need to find a way to keep this door shut." DM: "Make a Knowledge(Dungineering) roll, DC 5." Roll. DM:"Ok, if you hammer a spike under the door you can jam it."

 

[Felon]

At first I thought so, but later changed my mind. Right now K is used for aberations. Somehow, I don't think all aberations are only found underground. While many are, there are plenty that are found in marshes, hills, and forests. An aberation is mentioned in the SRD as "An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three." No mention of being underground. Oozes are listed as being subterranean, however.

My friend, that's major overanalyzing. Aberrations are a catch-all category, and they were put there just to put them somewhere, it's just that simple. Your arguement might undermine their inclusion under dungeoneering, but the validity of dungeoneering itself? Not so much.

If used for K:Sub, I don't see any reason why it should include ability to spelunking any more than K:nature gives information on camping. Seems like both of those should be covered by Survival if dealing with ways to navigate underground. If spleunking just means information on rock formations and such it might fit.

That's how I took it. Five ranks in KS: dungeoneering provides a synergy bonus on Survival in subterranean environs, after all. The knowledge skill just covers the academic aspect of spelunking, not rappeling or stuff like that (which is covered very nicely in the Underdark sourcebook).

So, my problem with it is a combination of what it is called mixed with the poorly defined and strangly fit subjects that it covers. True, we might not have this conversation if it were called something else, but that is because due to what it is currently called, it seems to function as Profesion(Adventurer). PC: "I need to find a way to keep this door shut." DM: "Make a Knowledge(Dungineering) roll, DC 5." Roll. DM:"Ok, if you hammer a spike under the door you can jam it."

It seems self-evident that they needed to do more than toss out a few buzz words for each Knowledge Skill ("aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking") and assume everyone would get the gyst of what they intended. The buzz words they tossed out don't seem to cover knowledge of some artificial edifice designed to destroy aventurers, but rather knowledge of subterranean environments.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

They don't include something like that, and people complain. They do include it (for DDM), and people complain again.

Easy solution: Switch customer bases.


I say good riddance. Who's the Monster Manual to tell me how common Mind Flayers are in my campaign? If I decide to make them one of the PC races, does the "Very Rare" still fit?

 

[Henrix]

I do admit though, I do miss the morale checks.

I use improvised morale rolls for my critters. Sometimes I use their will save, at other times I just roll a d20 to check their status. All behind my screen and at my whim, of course.

But morale is one thing I would like back. Not that I miss them, but having an indication of how daring a critter is adds some character to them.