Skyscraper
Adventurer
Before 4E: monsters, PCs, everyone was set on an absolute power scale that depended on their level. In 3E that became even more true as rules were set for anyone to be statted in, including commoners who now got levels. You could always compare the power level of two creatures because they both stood on a (somewhat) absolute scale.
The advent of 4E brought a new way of looking at creatures. They now have roles: PCs, minions, standard, elite, solos. The idea of roles as I understand it is in short to present the DM with creatures that act as story elements within the game, but to fit them within the combat rules structure. The result is a relative power scale, and by relative we mean relative to the PCs.
The 4E DMG states that monsters should not be statted out with 6 or more levels higher or lower than that of the PCs. It's my understanding that beyond that, the math doesn't really follow through on expected attack success rates. In fact, in early 4E discussions on the Wizards website, it was discussed how the idea of the minion was to replace the much lower level monsters from editions past that would only hit the PCs on a crit (natural 20), and would otherwise be unable to do anything worthwhile in combat. For example, if your 3E level 12 party was faced with a bunch of level 1 orcs, it was likely the party would not get hit once, but if they did it would be a high-damage attack resulting from a crit. Whereas the 4E minion might hit more often, but deals low damage. More predictable, less swingy. I think the minion is a good idea, mechanically speaking.
My personal interpretation of the different roles is that 4E has developped a creature role system that centers on the PCs, i.e. a "relative" system. For example, if the PCs are level 6 and meet a level 6 standard orc opponent, what do you do if you have them meet that same orc when they're level 15? One answer is to have the orc become a level 15 minion, instead of pitting them against a standard level 6 orc that won't hit and will be an easy target for their attacks, but who'll have enough hit points to make the battle drag until the PCs are able to dispose of him. So a minion is only a minion as far as the PCs are concerned. Likewise, what if the level 8 hill giant (intended to be an opponent for PCs of a similar level) is actually met by level 1 PCs? Well maybe it's then better to have it be a lower level solo, such as a level 1 solo.
So 4E has done away with the absolute scale of creatures and rather has things centered on the PCs. I get the entire role schtick and the fact that minions do not exist outside of the game and all that and it doesn't matter how strong or weak they are compared to other NPCs; but I like for my campaign world to be populated with NPCs that have a certain determined power level, I like to be able to know, when the PCs roam the city, who's powerful and who's not; and to be able to compare the power level of the PCs to that of the NPCs (monsters included), or even of the NPCs between themselves.
This brings me to think about creatures in my game world as having an absolute power level. This absolute power scale is referenced to in PC-equivalent levels, from zero to whatever amount is necessary. For example, a given creature might be "level 1" or "level 10" or "level 15". The role of that creature, however, and its actual relative level, is only determined when the PCs face it: I'll then compare the absolute level of the opponents with that of the PCs, and fit the opponents into roles and relative level as appropriate.
For example: say the party of PCs is level 6. They meet a group of orcs who's individual members' absolute level is also 6. Then I'll stat out the orcs as being standard level 6 orcs (i.e. their relative level is also 6). However, if they meet goblins who's absolute level is 1, then I'll rather stat out these goblins as minions of level 5 (i.e. relative level 5), because for mechanics purposes I'd rather have the PCs battle a level 5 goblin mininon than a level 1 standard goblin. If they meet with a hill giant of absolute level 10 to 12, then it's likely I'll stat our this hill giant as a (relative) level 6 or 7 elite. And if they attack an absolute level 15 fire giant, then I'll have the latter be a (relative) level 7 solo.
What I like about this system is that it brings in the good side of roles (standard, minion, elite, solo) to avoid battles between opponents of very different (relative) levels, i.e. the system that 4E introduced. But it also gives me that grounded evaluation of the game world that I'm more used to as a DM, wherein creatures can be compred to each other, wherein I know that this NPC is a level 7 bard.
The problem otherwise is that you have to rethink your relative power levels frequently. Say, over the course of a campaign, that the PCs meet a "powerful" level 1 solo bard who escapes. When they're level 7, they meet him again. What's up with the level 1 solo, compared to the level 7 PCs?
Now I understand that the game world only exists for PCs to evolve in, I don't believe I'm a DM that places more importance on his game world than on his story. I just feel this gives me a more solid groundwork to lay my building bricks on.
Also, another thing I'm straying away from is the strict math for monster creation, mostly as regards hit points and defenses. If the PCs encounter a wizard in his pyjamas because they find him unprepared, he'll have a very low AC. Likewise, the dark knight champion in full plate and large shield will have a very high AC. The sick and skinny witch might well have half the hit points that a creature of that level would normally have. This is, to some extent, a step towards the older version of D&D where, as noted in a recent Mearls article, flesh golems had AC 9 even though it was likely they'd fight high level PCs. A fixed, absolute AC 9. I don't go that far with my creatures as fixed ACs (that wouldn't work in 4E), but I'm not shy of toying with the stats to represent what I feel the creature is capable of and where I feel its weeknesses lie.
By the way this post not meant to be an edition war, I assume it will not be taken as such, I've played extensively in 1E, 3E and 4E and love'em all. I now only play in 4E (plus other systems). Just posting my thoughts. Feedback welcome.
The advent of 4E brought a new way of looking at creatures. They now have roles: PCs, minions, standard, elite, solos. The idea of roles as I understand it is in short to present the DM with creatures that act as story elements within the game, but to fit them within the combat rules structure. The result is a relative power scale, and by relative we mean relative to the PCs.
The 4E DMG states that monsters should not be statted out with 6 or more levels higher or lower than that of the PCs. It's my understanding that beyond that, the math doesn't really follow through on expected attack success rates. In fact, in early 4E discussions on the Wizards website, it was discussed how the idea of the minion was to replace the much lower level monsters from editions past that would only hit the PCs on a crit (natural 20), and would otherwise be unable to do anything worthwhile in combat. For example, if your 3E level 12 party was faced with a bunch of level 1 orcs, it was likely the party would not get hit once, but if they did it would be a high-damage attack resulting from a crit. Whereas the 4E minion might hit more often, but deals low damage. More predictable, less swingy. I think the minion is a good idea, mechanically speaking.
My personal interpretation of the different roles is that 4E has developped a creature role system that centers on the PCs, i.e. a "relative" system. For example, if the PCs are level 6 and meet a level 6 standard orc opponent, what do you do if you have them meet that same orc when they're level 15? One answer is to have the orc become a level 15 minion, instead of pitting them against a standard level 6 orc that won't hit and will be an easy target for their attacks, but who'll have enough hit points to make the battle drag until the PCs are able to dispose of him. So a minion is only a minion as far as the PCs are concerned. Likewise, what if the level 8 hill giant (intended to be an opponent for PCs of a similar level) is actually met by level 1 PCs? Well maybe it's then better to have it be a lower level solo, such as a level 1 solo.
So 4E has done away with the absolute scale of creatures and rather has things centered on the PCs. I get the entire role schtick and the fact that minions do not exist outside of the game and all that and it doesn't matter how strong or weak they are compared to other NPCs; but I like for my campaign world to be populated with NPCs that have a certain determined power level, I like to be able to know, when the PCs roam the city, who's powerful and who's not; and to be able to compare the power level of the PCs to that of the NPCs (monsters included), or even of the NPCs between themselves.
This brings me to think about creatures in my game world as having an absolute power level. This absolute power scale is referenced to in PC-equivalent levels, from zero to whatever amount is necessary. For example, a given creature might be "level 1" or "level 10" or "level 15". The role of that creature, however, and its actual relative level, is only determined when the PCs face it: I'll then compare the absolute level of the opponents with that of the PCs, and fit the opponents into roles and relative level as appropriate.
For example: say the party of PCs is level 6. They meet a group of orcs who's individual members' absolute level is also 6. Then I'll stat out the orcs as being standard level 6 orcs (i.e. their relative level is also 6). However, if they meet goblins who's absolute level is 1, then I'll rather stat out these goblins as minions of level 5 (i.e. relative level 5), because for mechanics purposes I'd rather have the PCs battle a level 5 goblin mininon than a level 1 standard goblin. If they meet with a hill giant of absolute level 10 to 12, then it's likely I'll stat our this hill giant as a (relative) level 6 or 7 elite. And if they attack an absolute level 15 fire giant, then I'll have the latter be a (relative) level 7 solo.
What I like about this system is that it brings in the good side of roles (standard, minion, elite, solo) to avoid battles between opponents of very different (relative) levels, i.e. the system that 4E introduced. But it also gives me that grounded evaluation of the game world that I'm more used to as a DM, wherein creatures can be compred to each other, wherein I know that this NPC is a level 7 bard.
The problem otherwise is that you have to rethink your relative power levels frequently. Say, over the course of a campaign, that the PCs meet a "powerful" level 1 solo bard who escapes. When they're level 7, they meet him again. What's up with the level 1 solo, compared to the level 7 PCs?
Now I understand that the game world only exists for PCs to evolve in, I don't believe I'm a DM that places more importance on his game world than on his story. I just feel this gives me a more solid groundwork to lay my building bricks on.
Also, another thing I'm straying away from is the strict math for monster creation, mostly as regards hit points and defenses. If the PCs encounter a wizard in his pyjamas because they find him unprepared, he'll have a very low AC. Likewise, the dark knight champion in full plate and large shield will have a very high AC. The sick and skinny witch might well have half the hit points that a creature of that level would normally have. This is, to some extent, a step towards the older version of D&D where, as noted in a recent Mearls article, flesh golems had AC 9 even though it was likely they'd fight high level PCs. A fixed, absolute AC 9. I don't go that far with my creatures as fixed ACs (that wouldn't work in 4E), but I'm not shy of toying with the stats to represent what I feel the creature is capable of and where I feel its weeknesses lie.
By the way this post not meant to be an edition war, I assume it will not be taken as such, I've played extensively in 1E, 3E and 4E and love'em all. I now only play in 4E (plus other systems). Just posting my thoughts. Feedback welcome.
