Please no monster class levels

[pemerton]

See, that also seems to be a fundamental disconnect during these discussions. I at least understand where you, Hussar, etc. are coming from in these discussions. I keep getting "I don't get it" from Hussar (and now you). I think the discussion would be clearer if both sides could at least understand the other. Is there any way I can clear things up, on my end?

I'm not puzzled about the content of the desire. I'm puzzled about its rationale.

As I've said multiple times, I do get the rationale in a game in which the PC generation system is itself a type of process simulation - of which Classic Traveller and Runequest are the two most well-known examples, I think, but Burning Wheel also gives us a modern version. In this sort of game, it makes sense to ask "What's the lifepath for becoming a troll? An orc warrior who knows Whirlwind Attack? A wealthy magnate or emperor?" Whether or not those lifepaths would then be open to PCs is a further question, of course, that would have to be settled in the same sort of way one sets starting points totals in a points-buy game.

What baffles me is that anyone could treat D&D's PC-generation system as some form of process simulation. Or rather - I can almost get in when PC generation starts with roll 3d6 in order, because this simulates the process of receiving one's endowment from biology and the early years of life. And then choosing a profession based on stats becomes something like playing out the teen years of your PC ("What should I do, given that I'm smart and strong but clumsy?"). But even then, choosing a class isn't a process simulation - it's buying a predetermined package of abilities deemed by the designers to be well-balanced for and well-suited to gameplay.

Once we are getting to 3E, with its points buy stats, its pressure to select feats etc based on metagame considerations about what prestige classes and feat chains they will open up, etc, how could it possibly be process simulation?

And that's before we even get to the development rules, which (whatever XP system one uses) are so obviously a metagame device that it baffles me that anyone could treat them otherwise. Contrast the Rolemaster XP rules, which are a genuine attempt to introduce a type of process simulation on personal development - very roughly speaking, Rolemaster's rules can be seen as expressing a theory that advancement is the result of hard training in the field. Whereas, treated as process simulation, D&D's rules tell us that advancement is the result either of collecting money (in AD&D and B/X) or of defeating monsters (2nd ed and 3E).

I'd heartily agree that class-based systems make this harder.

<snip>

I could easily accomplish this with my system, but it is point buy

Let's look at in in points-buy terms.

Suppose that Whirlwind Attack is a 4th level ability. So I give my orc 4 x L points, where L is the points-per-level. Then, using those points, I buy Whirlwind Attack. I buy attack bonus, hit points etc to the maximum level that a 3rd level Orc would be permitted under the rules. Then I spend L points on stuff that will never come into play - back in my orc hole, that the PCs will almost certainly never encounter, my Orc has a particularly fine fishing rod. Or - if the system let's me spend points on relationships - I buy my orc a whole lot of friendships and rivalries with some other orcs that the PCs are unlikely ever to meet, or - if they do meet them - to learn are the friends and/or rivals of the orc I'm building.

Now I've built an orc who is, as far as the relationship between points spent and actual gameplay - a 3rd level orc with Whirlwind Attack. What was the point of taking the detour through the points again? (And are you really saying that, in this sort of system, the points represent process simulations? What is the process being simulated? An extremely exact karmic metaphysics?)

Disagree on a fundamental but theoretical level.

<snip>

I think I could rig a class system to do this, too

What is your class system going to look like?

Rolemaster and HARP are the games that I'm familiar with that try to make classes come close to process simulations, by blending classes with points-buy. Classes are, in effect, packages of costs for developing abilities (plus a few feat-style benefits thrown in). And the unsurprising upshot of this is class proliferation, or various mechanics for tweaking costs within a class ("Can I make my flute-playing cheaper if I lift the cost of sculpting?").

But even in these games, monsters aren't built as classed. HARP toys with this slightly, but to the extent that it does it's almost universally regarded as a weakness, because it distorts the playability of the resulting monsters. And this is after HARP gives monsters any number of special abilities (feats, in D&D terms) that aren't available to PCs, in order to make them playable.

I don't much like the "AC is low, HP needs to be whittled down" approach to combat pacing that D&D has always used, so my opinion on combat pacing is going to be largely divergent from what you or other people may want in a system

I don't particularly like hit point attrition combat. Happily, 4e does not play in a particularly hit point attrition fashion (at least by my standards for such things) because of the variety of effects and conditions that are part of its action resolution mechanics.

But if you're telling me that, in order to get good pacing out of a "build monsters as PCs" mechanic, I have to drop D&D style combat resolution and go to something like Runequest or Rolemaster (where dodging/parrying is important, and the first hit will tend to win the combat), then aren't you conceding that building monsters as PC constrains play style?

I'd argue there are good reasons to use the same tools to fundamentally build both

What are they, if not reasons of process simulation? And if they are reasons of process simulation, how can D&D PC building be taken seriously in that fashion?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not puzzled about the content of the desire. I'm puzzled about its rationale.

Whereas I'm not at all puzzled at your rationale for things. Or Hussar's. Or Crazy Jerome's. Or Minigiant's. or Balesir's. I can read their posts, and I understand what they're communicating, why they think what they do (since I trust them to be telling the truth), why they prefer things the way they do, etc. I may not agree, but I am not at all puzzled about the rationale behind their thinking.

If you are puzzled, I can only offer, once again, to attempt to clear it up for you (from my side, at least).

As far as process simulation, I think you're addressing an issue that only pemerton is addressing. You can keep addressing it, but you're missing what we're saying. I've talked about it before, but it doesn't seem clear still. But, once again, if you need me to attempt to clarify so you can understand the rationale of people on the other side, I can at least attempt to bring my point of view to light.

But, I'm not talking about "PC-generation as process simulation." Sorry if that wasted some of your time, but I really do think you're misunderstanding the premise of what people like myself prefer, and thus are baffled by rationale. It's probably because we're not answering your question. Then again, I'm trying to talk about something else entirely.

Let's look at in in points-buy terms.

Suppose that Whirlwind Attack is a 4th level ability. So I give my orc 4 x L points, where L is the points-per-level. Then, using those points, I buy Whirlwind Attack. I buy attack bonus, hit points etc to the maximum level that a 3rd level Orc would be permitted under the rules. Then I spend L points on stuff that will never come into play - back in my orc hole, that the PCs will almost certainly never encounter, my Orc has a particularly fine fishing rod. Or - if the system let's me spend points on relationships - I buy my orc a whole lot of friendships and rivalries with some other orcs that the PCs are unlikely ever to meet, or - if they do meet them - to learn are the friends and/or rivals of the orc I'm building.

Now I've built an orc who is, as far as the relationship between points spent and actual gameplay - a 3rd level orc with Whirlwind Attack. What was the point of taking the detour through the points again? (And are you really saying that, in this sort of system, the points represent process simulations? What is the process being simulated? An extremely exact karmic metaphysics?)

But you don't need to address all of that stuff. That isn't the issue.

See, here's the issue. Whirlwind Attack, in 3.5, requires: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4. When people say that want NPCs to meet the same prerequisites as PCs, it's not PC-generation as process simulation, it's coherency within the world as informed by the fiction created by limitations from the mechanics.

That is, much like a Kobold's "Shifty" ability in 4e, the flavor contained within the mechanics tells us something. If someone can perform a Whirlwind Attack in 3.5, they need a certain amount of intellect and natural grace. You can also expect a decent defense from them (Combat Expertise, Dodge), as well as good ability to move about while attacking on the battlefield (Mobility, Spring Attack). Also, since they need a base attack of +4, they're obviously pretty skilled at martial combat (at least when it comes to attacking).

When creatures deviate from this baseline, some people consider it incoherent. If creatures don't need to be graceful and smart, and have a decent defense, and good ability to move about while attacking, why are those prerequisites for characters? The fiction drawn from these prerequisites tells us that you that these things are mandatory for a character to learn how to perform this maneuver.

The rationale, simply, is that if the world works a certain way for PCs, it only makes sense for it to work similarly for NPCs. There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but that's what literally all abilities are. That is, you can only basic attack. However, you can also Tide of Iron, which is like an attack, but better. This is an exception to the rule.

Exceptions abound in a system like 3e or 4e. That's what makes the game interesting and flavorful. When players draw fiction from an exception (the Kobold's Shifty power, or the prerequisites on Whirlwind Attack in 3.5), sometimes they dislike it when things interrupt that fiction. If that orc can learn how to attack everyone around him without going through all the same hoops (being graceful, smart, good at defense, mobile on the battlefield, decent offensively), why can't my character avoid those as well?

That's the objection, and the basic rationale behind it. It has nothing to do with needing to write up every last bit of the orc's background, his awesome fishing rod, his contacts and enemies, and the like. You're disagreeing with something I've never put forward. I'm a proponent of quick, strong guidelines that you can use for quick NPC generation, especially for people you don't need to reference ever again (encounters on the fly, or the like).

I'm all for those guidelines. I have such guidelines in my point-buy RPG. My players often reference them, too, to see how their characters "stack up" to the guidelines (one of my players earlier today discovered that he's one bonus shy of "professionally skilled" at defense, which he was pretty happy with). I think that such guidelines aren't mandatory, but are extremely useful. Does this guy only attack at "hit die 3's professionally skilled" level of attack, AC, and HP? Well, easy to note Combat Rating 3 [strong]. I can see at a quick glance what that means: he's a strong challenge, by himself, for a hit die 3 creature who is strong at combat.

Guidelines are good. They work in concert with a unified structuring of PCs and NPCs, not against it. They can, yes, but they don't need to.

But if you're telling me that, in order to get good pacing out of a "build monsters as PCs" mechanic, I have to drop D&D style combat resolution and go to something like Runequest or Rolemaster (where dodging/parrying is important, and the first hit will tend to win the combat), then aren't you conceding that building monsters as PC constrains play style?

... I never said that. I was saying how my preferred combat pacing affects my view on how to go about making action resolution mechanics.

What are they, if not reasons of process simulation? And if they are reasons of process simulation, how can D&D PC building be taken seriously in that fashion?

First, "process simulation" and "PC-generation system as some form of process simulation" are two different things. If you need me to clarify the rationale of my thoughts, let me know. I feel that it's fairly straightforward, but I dunno. Maybe it's not.

Secondly, you can take whatever you want seriously. I'm not about to try to convince you of anything in that field. I basically reject the game theories of a few people that you respect, and as such I'm not about to try to get you to take something "seriously" when I very much doubt I'd be able to convince you. I have much the same reaction to Ron Edwards thoughts on the supremacy of narrativism, for example (why would I take that seriously?). I don't say this to attack you, but I say this to show that I don't intend to give an answer to how you can taken anything seriously. We're not on the same wavelength there. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

As far as process simulation, I think you're addressing an issue that only pemerton is addressing.

<snip>

That isn't the issue.

See, here's the issue. Whirlwind Attack, in 3.5, requires: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4. When people say that want NPCs to meet the same prerequisites as PCs, it's not PC-generation as process simulation, it's coherency within the world as informed by the fiction created by limitations from the mechanics.

<snip>

If someone can perform a Whirlwind Attack in 3.5, they need a certain amount of intellect and natural grace. You can also expect a decent defense from them (Combat Expertise, Dodge), as well as good ability to move about while attacking on the battlefield (Mobility, Spring Attack). Also, since they need a base attack of +4, they're obviously pretty skilled at martial combat (at least when it comes to attacking).

When creatures deviate from this baseline, some people consider it incoherent.

OK. So can if I think that my encounter with a 3HD orc would work better if it could atack all the PCs with a full round action, is it OK to make up a new feat - "Wild Strike of Gruumsh" - which has the same mechanical expression but a different set of prerequisites?

EDIT: My XP comment was a bit uncear - it should say "clear reply".

 

[Gargoyle]

Themes instead of monster races.

In fact, instead of picking a race, perhaps we should think of it as picking a racial theme. Designing races like themes has a lot of benefits, especially with regards to adding game mechanics that reinforce the feel of a particular culture or campaign specific race. Instead of 12 different types of elves, you could have one elf theme with different starting features and other options available at higher levels.

 

[JamesonCourage]

OK. So can if I think that my encounter with a 3HD orc would work better if it could atack all the PCs with a full round action, is it OK to make up a new feat - "Wild Strike of Gruumsh" - which has the same mechanical expression but a different set of prerequisites?

Of course, but that means other conditions can be met to perform that sort of combat maneuver (martial exploit) on the battlefield. Can the PCs get it, too? I'm assuming no, for flavor reasons. Well, can they get a feat that they help make up (with you) that lets them bypass the requirements as well? If so, why have the prerequisites on the feat in the first place? As an example? That might be legitimate.

The objection isn't "he has something I don't have." That happens within the party just by being different classes with different feats and different skills (and different powers). The objection is "why is the orc able to do this, when the world is presented in such a way where these requirements must be met?" Yeah, you can get around those requirements, but that can upset the setting assumptions/internal consistency that was the issue that originally popped up.

That is, this is if your flavor reasoning is something like "well, he's blessed by the church of Gruumsh, which is a prerequisite." This means that there are other ways to perform that type of attack (you don't need to be graceful, smart, good at defense, good at mobility, and good at attacking). If you're planning on letting PCs bypass things in a similar way, though, that should be fine (you'd need to get a blessing from a high priest of a god with the War domain).

For example, when you acquire a trait in my game (a type of special ability a creature is usually born with or not, such as damage reduction or energy resistance), it costs a certain number of points based on how close it is to your natural form (directly: 4, indirectly: 7, no relation: 10). The players went and defeated different powerful elementals, so as to "master the elements." Every time they defeated the elemental, they were considered "directly related" when purchasing traits as they related to that element (fire immunity for the fire guardian, self-sustaining [no need to breathe/eat/drink] for the water guardian, damage reduction for the earth guardian, etc.). While defeating the enemies gave them no abilities outright, they had much better control over whether or not their PCs gained those abilities now (they could buy them quite a bit cheaper), and flavor-wise it made sense.

If you'd allow a PC to get blessed by a war god (even if he had to go on a quest) to grab "Whirlwind Attack" ("Blessed Spin" or whatever) early, that seems totally consistent within the world, and I doubt there'd be much objection to it from my side of this conversation. If you said "nope, the only other way is to be blessed by Gruumsh" then it'd give me pause, since I'd think that other martial gods might hand that out to their followers as well! As long as the flavor reasons are fair, I think I'd be satisfied.

Sorry for the long reply. I hope that gets across what I'm trying to say. As always, play what you like

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would love a return of a Savage Species type deal, being able to play a Treant Monk, or Centaur Paladin was pretty kick ass (yes, we know mechanically it had issues, but those can be remedied).

 

[Aeolius]

I would love a return of a Savage Species type deal, being able to play a Treant Monk, or Centaur Paladin was pretty kick ass (yes, we know mechanically it had issues, but those can be remedied).

Agreed. If 5e does not easily allow the use of intelligent races found in the Monster Manuals for PCs and NPCS alike then it would have far less appeal to me. Savage Species is still one of my favorite supplements, in this regard.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Agreed. If 5e does not easily allow the use of intelligent races found in the Monster Manuals for PCs and NPCS alike then it would have far less appeal to me. Savage Species is still one of my favorite supplements, in this regard.

Still want in on your aquatic campaign, buddy (Triton Ranger, here I come).

 

[Aeolius]

Still want in on your aquatic campaign, buddy (Triton Ranger, here I come).

I'll be there. Same batfish time. Same batfish channel.