D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Deset Gled]

Statblocks are an abstraction of a snapshot in time. Your statblock might be X right now, but, tomorrow, it might be Y. And, again, 4e D&D was very clear on the notion that the mechanics were absolutely NOT meant to be used if the PC's were not present. If you're applying cats to minions, that's your fault for not using the system as written or intended.

As you say, the statblock is a snapshot. But the effect of applying "roles" in 4e means that the snapshot changes based on who's looking at the snapshot, with no passage of time or change to the thing the snapshot was taken of. There is no change to the monster, yet it has different stats based on who/what is interacting with them.

 

[Enrahim]

As you say, the statblock is a snapshot. But the effect of applying "roles" in 4e means that the snapshot changes based on who's looking at the snapshot, with no passage of time or change to the thing the snapshot was taken of. There is no change to the monster, yet it has different stats based on who/what is interacting with them.

Again, quote please? I cannot find a single rule indicating this in 4ed. I thought I had solidly dismantled this notion in my post #21,474. Minions are different creatures than non-minions. They are aproperiate for use at different levels, but that is the same phenomenom that you might not want to throw a fully fleshed out lich on a 3rd level group, or 8 standard goblins on a 9th level group in any edition of D&D.

If you want to you absolutely can! Just don't expect the players to have a good time if they decide to fight.

 

[Lanefan]

Your statblock is not absolute in any real way. It changes all the time. There's an entire leveling system that changes your statblock routinely. Never minding things like level drain, magical/mundane enhancements, situational modifiers, etc.

One thing that doesn't change your statblock, however, is the foe you're currently facing.

Sure, various foes might impose temporary penalties, but your underlying statblock stays put.

And mechanical symmetry is a myth. It's certainly mythical in AD&D. What is the wisdom score of an orc? How much experience does a dragon have? How, exactly, does an orc suddenly gain a boatload of HP, Strength and attack bonuses the second he becomes a chief? What if that orc chief is young or old? On and on.

Easy on all counts: all you have to do is extrapolate the PC rules and apply them to monsters. 3e's implementation of this was wonky as hell but the underlying principle was rock solid.

What's the wisdom score of an Orc? Roll 3d6 and apply racial modifier. An Orc becoming a chieftain just means it's got a few levels under its belt. They shold IMO all get their Strength bonuses in combat, their Con bonuses to h.p. and applicable saves, and so on.

As for dragon experience, the only time I need to know its class level (and thus its general xp range) is if it's a caster; as it casts as if its (usually MU) level.

Statblocks are an abstraction of a snapshot in time. Your statblock might be X right now, but, tomorrow, it might be Y. And, again, 4e D&D was very clear on the notion that the mechanics were absolutely NOT meant to be used if the PC's were not present. If you're applying cats to minions, that's your fault for not using the system as written or intended.

4e might have been clear on it but I still think it's a terrible approach. The setting exists when the PCs are not present exactly the same as when they are.

Never minding that in AD&D, an ogre can have 5 HP.

As written, yes. But if you give said Ogre the Con bonus to its hit points that it should have, that 5 minimum suddenly becomes 25 minimum (Ogres having an average Con of about 18).

Looks like a minion to me. Let's not forget, as well, that a 1st level fighter can kill an AD&D ogre in one round without too much difficulty. Weapon Specs and a longsword is 28 points of damage in a single round. More than enough to kill most ogres. Add on a percentile strength and now Mr. 1st Level Fighter can quite reasonably kill an ogre in a single round.

How are you arriving at 28 points from a F-1 in a single round? Its max on the die is 12, +3 for double-spec, which comes to 15. Where's the other 13 points coming from? (even maxed-out 18.00 Strength only gives 6 more points o' hurt)

Now a two-handed sword could get closer - max roll is 18, again +3 for double-spec, gets to 21 - but that still ain't 28.

 

[Lanefan]

It literally needs to be only and exclusively what 3e attempted, but thoroughgoing. Everything needs to be 100% symmetrical between players and non-players. Legitimately everything. It might not be directly accessible, e.g., you might need to use magic to transform yourself in order to use a tentacle attack. But genuinely, every mechanic accessible to the players must also be accessible in the exact same form to the NPCs, and vice-versa.

Sounds good to me.

And sure, there'll be things some monsters can do that PCs (almost always) cannot, because the range of playable PC species is limited and the range of monsters is not.

But when a monster does something that's the same as what a PC can do - or even more important, when a foe of the same species as the PC does something that's the same as a PC can do - there's no reason whatsoever for them not to use the same mechanics.

So if that NPC Dwarf just hit you with a fireball even though (in my setting anyway) Dwarves flat-out can't cast arcane spells, that's unfair on my part unless there's a damn good in-fiction-accessible explanation for it.

No alterations to mechanics which account for the fact that PCs must win fight after fight after fight, while NPCs only fight a single battle...ever, usually, but at the very least, only a single battle per day in essentially all cases.

So instead of fighting NPCs of their own level they fight NPCs of a few levels lower? Seems simple enough to fix.

And the very pleasant side effect is that it really expands the upper range of what monsters can be and do in a 1e-like system. Giants and Dragons and suchlike become the serious threats they're supposed to be even at quite high level, rather than glass cannons; which greatly helps expand the level range the system allows before it conks out.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean that if i wanted to pick a part the fiction of D&D I have an issue with from a sim/internal consistency perspective, magic would be high on that list. The minion would not even make the top 10.

I find magic fairly easy to sim, now that I've come up with a basic underlying physics model that integrates magic with what we already know in reality.

I'll give you that internal consistency can become an issue, but I'm either just used to it or I'm at least consistent with my inconsistencies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So instead of fighting NPCs of their own level they fight NPCs of a few levels lower? Seems simple enough to fix.

"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

Fighting things a few levels lower simply very slightly slows the problem down. It doesn't fix it. This is an iterative probability issue.

And the very pleasant side effect is that it really expands the upper range of what monsters can be and do in a 1e-like system.

Except it doesn't, because the upper bounds just become functionally impassable barriers, not real challenges.

It's the kryptonite problem in reverse. You're fighting Superman: you have 0% chance of success. Or, you're fighting Superman armed with kryptonite: you have 100% chance of success.

That's not an interesting challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

Yet, that's what the "simulation" that you and @Lanefan are talking about does. If the stat block must grow, and it must grow exactly the same for everyone - PC and NPC - then your world must be filled with geriatric Conan's who can routinely assault dragons.

And this always bugged me, until not so long ago when I came up with a system* for decaying class abilities after an adventurer retires. Given that, geriatric Conan would have slowly lost his abilities long ago once he settled down and stopped adventuring.

* - finally; I'd been meaning to do this for decades but only got around to it a year or two back.

 

[Lanefan]

That's pretty much it. And even more importantly, I feel, is that narratives involving "henchmen" simply aren't the stories that 4e is trying to tell.

Why is 4e "trying to tell" any stories? Or any edition, for all that?

Isn't the story something that each table of people comes up with on their own in whatever manner suits them?

 

[Lanefan]

Again, quote please? I cannot find a single rule indicating this in 4ed. I thought I had solidly dismantled this notion in my post #21,474. Minions are different creatures than non-minions.

Let's say I meet Bob the Ogre when I'm a 1st level Fighter. I'm a pushover for him, so Bob's probably statted as an Elite. Let's also say I somehow escape that encounter with my life, then 6 months later when I'm 17th level I meet Bob again (meanwhile Bob's had an uneventful life in the meantime) is he still statted as the same Elite he was before or does he get busted down to Minion?

If he's a Minion now, there's your proof.

They are aproperiate for use at different levels, but that is the same phenomenom that you might not want to throw a fully fleshed out lich on a 3rd level group, or 8 standard goblins on a 9th level group in any edition of D&D.

Thing is, if I throw 8 Goblins at a 9th-level party or a 5th-level party or a 1st-level party, nothing intrinsically changes about those Goblins other than their life expectancy. They still each have about 5 h.p. on average, they still attack with crossbow or shortsword, and they still have the collective intelligence of a small block of wood.

Flip side, whether I throw a full Lich at a 3rd-level party or a 6th-level party or an 11th-level party it changes nothing about the Lich itself: it's still the same Lich with the same statblock and still has all its tricks.

 

[Lanefan]

"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."

Fighting things a few levels lower simply very slightly slows the problem down. It doesn't fix it. This is an iterative probability issue.

Removing that iterative probability issue entirely would make combats very dull and boring: they'd all have to be cakewalks for the PCs.

The moment you make combats a legitimate threat, even if that threat is minor, iterative probability is sooner or later going to have its say. I'm fine with this.

Except it doesn't, because the upper bounds just become functionally impassable barriers, not real challenges.

It's the kryptonite problem in reverse. You're fighting Superman: you have 0% chance of success. Or, you're fighting Superman armed with kryptonite: you have 100% chance of success.

That's not an interesting challenge.

In 1e as written, Giants stop being worthy foes* when the PCs get to about 8th level, mostly because they're so bloody spindly. An average Hill Giant in 1e has less than 40 h.p., and when the mages are chucking 8d6 fireballs and lightning and the warriors are giving out 30+ points per round on the average, Hill Giants become good for maybe one attack each and then down they go.

All it takes is to give them their Con bonus to their hit points - about 5 or 6 per hit die given that the constitution of a Giant is about the same as that of a dump truck - and suddenly they become dangerous foes for 8th-level parties and remain worthy foes up to the 11th-12th range.

And for me that's great, as it lets me postpone having to send them off-plane to find halfway-challenging opponents. There's tons of lower-grade monsters but not many good high-end ones, as written.

* - unless the party takes on a whole village of them, which is how the G-series of modules are set up.