Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[avin]

What Wotc should really really be careful is don't push DMs again into researching their books for spells just because the Dragon is a level X caster. I know every 4E DM won't be back to that.

I want all monster powers/spells/abilities in a block sheet like 4E.

I want to be able to put 4 monsters in a A4 Sheet , straight from my Monster Builder, and I don't want to research a single word of their powers.

For those who want all the spells there should be a reference "casts as a lv 6 cleric", and let them have their fun chosing what they want it's fine, for those who don't have that time anymore, just put the suggested spells and powers in there.

Hero Lab does something similar to Pathfinder, you can choose if you want all spell description or just the main stuff... but you still sometimes need to research books. The "ez mode monster creator dial" should go beyond that and be just like 4E Monster Builder.

Beyond that, I don't care too much if monsters are created the same way or different, if we got a dial for EZ, medium and complete NPCs.

 

[avin]

Tolkien might decide that there is a pebble on the ground at the exact moment that Gandalf needed one. And Gandalf perceives that what he needed worked out. But he doesn't perceive that his desire changed the world to make the pebble be there. If you want to feel like Gandalf you need to be fully oblivious to the idea that Tolkien even exists in the first place, much less that he can put a pebble there for you.

Bryond, I share all your concerns about what you describe like "Art", the realism of the thing. But 4E dissociation for monster and npc rules wasn't all that monstruous as you are painting.

In 4E a DM won't write about that pebble, but if makes sense a pebble is in there I would just make % check to see if the pebble is there and if the player sees it. No big deal.

I think the problem in 4E is more in direction of dissonant rules between combat and RP than monster creation itself.

 

[jbear]

That's one style. Are you sure you want to make a blanket statement ("most cases")? You can build a campaign around a monster (especially a dragon, note the name of the game). Even if you don't a monster is just a nonhuman NPC, and deserves to be treated as a character (and many NPCs die fast as well).

The reason to create monsters with depth even if they might die in a few rounds is because if that doesn't happen, it's a lot easier to ignore detail you don't need than to create detail you don't have. It's entirely possible to get a flavorful, dynamic, detailed monster on one page without the annoying page references. That should be the standard.

I may be wrong but I very much doubt it. The design goal of 5e is to focus on the adventure, not the rules. If what you want is a monster whose mechanics take up an entire page and express its hobbies and passions I think you're going to be disappointed.

Monsters aren't going to get more complex again. They'll be simple ala 1e. They'll be heavier on flavour. Options to add the layers of complexity to your monsters will follow.

But as the DM there is nothing stopping you making a major NPC using PC rules from the outset. I don't know how much room on the page/valuable minutes of your life you want to spend writing up the passions and child hood experiences of the green slime and the horde of rats that inhabit the sewer pipe that the pCs will have to trudge their way through.

 

[pemerton]

According to bits in the last article by Monte Cook, the 5e rules have the target of supporting both "easy-designed" PC and highly-customized PC, what he calls "1ed" and "3ed" style PC.

If this is going to be true, it will also provide a solution for the NPCs. Want a quick & ready opponent for a random encounter? Make it 1e style. Want a deep-thought recurring villain? Make it 3e style.

Will there be any room for 4e style? - which produces NPCs more mechanically distinctive than AD&D monsters and (non-magical) NPCs, but without having to jump through all the hoops of PC creation.

 

[Li Shenron]

Will there be any room for 4e style? - which produces NPCs more mechanically distinctive than AD&D monsters and (non-magical) NPCs, but without having to jump through all the hoops of PC creation.

Why not? Their target is to encompass all editions.

 

[Wormwood]

I want all monster powers/spells/abilities in a block sheet like 4E.

4e's elegant, utilitarian monster design is my personal Rubicon for this edition. I'm willing to make *lot* of compromises in the interest of unity---but I'll not go back to AD&D or 3e monster presentation.

 

[Balesir]

I don't mean this REMOTELY in a badwrongfun sense. But if a character has narrative control over the world around him then that is certainly story-telling but it is NOT "roleplaying" because TO ME a fundamental part of roleplaying is being fully in that role and having exactly all the control the individual should have over his surrounds and nothing whatsoever beyond that.

This is a bit off topic, but I don't think this is a tenable claim at all (although a discussion about what we all understand "roleplaying" to be, exactly, might be very useful- if very controversial).

What you are saying is that immersive, actor-stance roleplaying is the only (valid) form of roleplaying there is. That is almost directly analogous to saying that method acting is the only (valid) form of acting there is. Very few would accept that claim, I suspect.

Most actors read the script in full prior to playing their role; most even have some input into the actions and reactions of others on the set and the use of various props. And yet we do not say that they are "playing their role" any less than those who "live the part" for months to "get into the character".

That is not to say that method acting is in any way inferior or wrong - or that immersive actor-stance roleplaying is in the least bit an invalid or poor method of roleplaying - but to claim it is the "only" way to act/roleplay is simply not supportable, in my view.

 

[Mallus]

There are two distinct components to "using the same rules", which makes this a two-part question.

Should PCs, NPCs, and monsters be described using the same mechanical descriptors, ie HP, AC, etc.?

Yes. Absolutely. This has been done in every edition of D&D.

Should PCs, NPCs, and monsters be created and advanced using the same (or similar) procedures?

No.

There is no good reason for an NPC blacksmith to need multiple class levels, with all its attendant bonuses, in order to be an excellent blacksmith.

There is no good reason for a ghastly undead to have an exceptional charisma, just to boost the save DC of its spell-like abilities.

There is no good reason for a small, chicken-like monster not to have a shockingly deadly gaze attack, just because it has a small number of hit dice.

There is no good reason a 1/2 HD monster can't attack as a 3 HD monster because of some oddball trait it has -- and there's no reason to build an entire framework of explicitly-defined oddball traits to justify it when some simple flavor text would suffice.

There is no good reason for all trolls to be, say, 6HD monsters. Some might be 1 HD to start, and therefore acceptable as a PC race. The Troll King might be a powerful as a giant. There is no need for a set of procedures which produce both these outliers and the common type of troll.

For that matter, there's nothing wrong with representing a single NPC multiple ways, depending on the context. The same NPC soldier could be undefined, statted out and given class levels, or rolled into a squad with 20 others and handled using a mass-battle system.

Using the same set of algorithms for PCs, NPCs and monsters doesn't make the game more realistic or a better simulation, or more fair, since fairness can't be separated from encounter design.

It makes the game more algorithmic. It's that's what you're after, cool beans. But let's call a spade a spade (of colossal digging!).

 

[pemerton]

Mallus, good post, I just wanted to quibble with one bit of it:

This has been done in every edition of D&D.

Not quite true. Most AD&D monsters, for example, lack ability scores (other than intelligence), and therefore can't interact cleanly with those parts of the action resolution mechanics that call on ability scores.

 

[BryonD]

This is a bit off topic, but I don't think this is a tenable claim at all (although a discussion about what we all understand "roleplaying" to be, exactly, might be very useful- if very controversial).

What you are saying is that immersive, actor-stance roleplaying is the only (valid) form of roleplaying there is. That is almost directly analogous to saying that method acting is the only (valid) form of acting there is. Very few would accept that claim, I suspect.

Most actors read the script in full prior to playing their role; most even have some input into the actions and reactions of others on the set and the use of various props. And yet we do not say that they are "playing their role" any less than those who "live the part" for months to "get into the character".

That is not to say that method acting is in any way inferior or wrong - or that immersive actor-stance roleplaying is in the least bit an invalid or poor method of roleplaying - but to claim it is the "only" way to act/roleplay is simply not supportable, in my view.

I'm not claiming it is "only". I'm claiming that having and controlling abilities that a person in that role would not have or control is not strictly PLAYING that role.

The certainly doesn't EXCLUDE role-playing. As I said, you can easily be changing hats back and forth. So one could argue that my version is more limited.

But to me the limitations are part of the fun. If you have control that person doesn't have, then you are implicitly making your experience different to one that is exclusively within the shoes of THAT person.