Some bits about Monsters from the WotC boards

[frankthedm]

This begs the question: Will monsters always forfeit initiative?

Maybe they get to 'Take 10'. They did that in the 3E Basic game.

Hell, i think some in my group would LIKE initiative to be just 10+mods since they always complain about 'wasting' natural 20's on it.

 

[Imaro]

I think HD-based effects will be gone entirely, and HP will be the new "hit dice".

For example, Cause Fear affects creatures of 5HD or lower -- why not just have it affect creatures with under 25 hitpoints? Not only does it make the spell more versatile, it also makes a lot of sense, as creatures brought to a low number of HP from taking damage should be more likely to get scared off by a magical effect than they were at 100 hp.

I could see so many problems with doing it this way...especially if it works for both players and monsters.

My main point of contention is the metagame aspect of it all. How does a player know when a monster falls below a certain hit point threshold? I certainly don't give out this information in the game's I run, so I see two possibilities from a player perspective.

1. Tons of wasted spells as they guess at what hit points a particular monster or creature is at.

2. Metagame is now the game, Everyone(DM and player) knows how many hit points their opponents have and act accordingly in the game.

Neither of these options appeal to me at all.

From a DM's perspective it also has certain problems. First in order to use abilities that are dependant upon what hit point threshold my players are at I will have to cross reference their hit point totals and the total at which the ability takes place throughout the combat. I don't see this as streamlined in anyway, it seems overly complicated since each PC is going to have different hp's at different times throughout the entire encounter. Second, how would my monster/NPC know when to use this ability? Yet, I as DM will always know exactly when to use it. Do I pretend the monster is at the same disadvantage as the players, or are we once again at the point where metagame is the game.

IMHO, this would be jarring in the extreme during play and would have the added complication of both PC's and DM's concerned with tracking their opponents hp's. I can see it now, everyone with a small tablet steadily recording how many hp's each has so they'll know when to use their ability.

 

[frankthedm]

Here:
What Mike said is still accurate. A gnome "monster" does some stuff like a PC/NPC might, but it's a monster built to be run by the DM, not character meant to be run by a player. On the flip, a gnome race is for PCs, and it would have just enough influence on the "monster" gnome for the players to know they're facing a gnome.

Am i the ONLY person who thinks this is a good thing?

 

[frankthedm]

I certainly don't give out this information in the game's I run, so I see two possibilities from a player perspective.

1. Tons of wasted spells as they guess at what hit points a particular monster or creature is at.

2. Metagame is now the game, Everyone(DM and player) knows how many hit points their opponents have and act accordingly in the game.

Neither of these options appeal to me at all.

HP totals are really hard to peg down, though the idea is still a good one. I think "creatures with less than than 'given HP amount' recieve no saving throw" is a grand way of doing things. Heck replace "Save or die" with "Deal X damage, type based on spell, if victim hits zero HP, something cool happens". Cool in the Caster's opinion at least.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Am i the ONLY person who thinks this is a good thing?

I think its a good thing too. Coming from someone who prefers playing human, I know its not much.

If its going to make a better game I think the sacrifice not being able to play a centaur is well worth it. I can see why others disagree, though. But the thing is monsters are a lot scarier if they are not quasi-human. Which they inevitably become when played by humans.

 

[Frostmarrow]

HP totals are really hard to peg down, though the idea is still a good one. I think "creatures with less than than 'given HP amount' recieve no saving throw" is a grand way of doing things. Heck replace "Save or die" with "Deal X damage, type based on spell, if victim hits zero HP, something cool happens". Cool in the Caster's opinion at least.

Yeah, I've been toying with the idea of having different kinds of damage. Say you trip a dude and then you score balance damage. If this takes the victim to zero hp he falls prone. If not he can recover from balance damage by spending a move action. It works with blindness, petrification, disintigrate or what ever. But the recovery conditions vary, of course.

 

[frankthedm]

I think its a good thing too. Coming from someone who prefers playing human, I know its not much.

If its going to make a better game I think the sacrifice not being able to play a centaur is well worth it. I can see why others disagree, though. But the thing is monsters are a lot scarier if they are not quasi-human. Which they inevitably become when played by humans.

For Centaurs, i can see them giving the PC treatment in the MM. TBH they have a fairly rich history as PC through D&D editions and are at least half human.

In 3e they were solid beat down, even after their 4HD and thier LA{at least thats my opinion after playing a centaur barbarian]. Though with that LA and hit dice, they did not have a lot of effective options.

 

[Remathilis]

I like the idea of returning to the Complete Book of Humanoids rather than Savage Species...

The biggest problem with monsters as PCs is HD/LA considerations. A gnoll had 2 HD and LA +1 (ECL 3) but a gnoll ranger1 wasn't equal to a 4th level PC. Nor could you play something with an ECL 3 until everyone else was proper level, leaving many cooler races (centaur, minotaur, gnoll, lizardfolk) off the table at level 1, but open later (which meant dumping a PC or slowly turning the game zoo as you went up in level).

Personally, I'll welcome a lower-power minotaur or centaur race that both combines with PC classes better and doesn't outshine/outsuck normal races.

 

[Frostmarrow]

...slowly turning the game zoo as you went up in level.

But that's a good thing! Higher level games should/could look like League of Extra-Ordinary Gentlemen.

 

[Remathilis]

Another thought.

What if "roles" replace racial HD?

For example, there is a "mook" class. He's average hp, average saves, average bab. A couple of skill choices, and a feat or two. He's pretty much average, but dangerous in large groups.

You take a level one mook. Make him small. Give him a bonus to stealth & ride, and up his dex while lowering his int and cha.

You just made a "goblin".

Now, you take a level two mook. Make him normal sized, give him darkvision, inspiring prescence (like a half-elf) and a bonus to stealth skills.

You just made a "hobgoblin"

You take a level 5 mook, give him outsider traits, slow his speed, give him improved grapple abilties, and resistance to magic.

You just made a "dretch". Etc.

There could be a class for "mooks", "brutes", "leaders", "strikers", "controllers", "tricksters", "beasts" etc. The class would be nothing more a starting point to balance off making your own monsters, but you couldn't use them to make PC monsters or to assign them monstrous powers.

Want an orc shaman? take the "mook" stats and replace them with the "leader" stats. Easy.