# Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?



## B.T. (Aug 26, 2012)

In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 26, 2012)

No, you're not the only one.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 26, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




The bounded accuracy should make it work close to how you see it.

The problem in 2e/3e and 4e of having a higher level to indicate "boss" is that the numbers stop working. Higher levels in those versions mean that the boss becomes difficult to fight - no-one hits, spells fail etc. In practice this can lead to player frustration, and not the epic battle that was perhaps the original plan.

The thinking behind 4E style "elite" and "boss" monsters is that they deliberately have attacks and defences with the right numbers to work in a combat at the chosen level.

In 5E, we can probably have this again without worrying so much about the design tags, because bounded accuracy and xp budget should sort out getting a good match and playable game.


----------



## Paraxis (Aug 26, 2012)

Elite and Boss monsters were/are a wonderful addition to my games.  A dragon with multiple turns in a round, effects that trigger when he goes under half hit points, minor action special attacks, and enough hit points to not drop in just a couple rounds all make for a real fun and enjoyable combat.

This is one aspect of video games that to me was wonderfully adapted into table  top play.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

The problem is more fundamental than that, slobo.

The problem is that one monster isn't very interesting compared to 4 monsters.  4 monsters are:

- 4 bodies on the field, that can be attacking 4 people
- 4 things that can be effected by conditions and status effects
- Granular (doing 1/4 of the HP of the total group reduces the damage incoming)
- Present tactical options (opportunity attacks, varied attacks, etc.)

A single monster, to be interesting for the PCs, should actually DO something more than just be big and hit hard.  They require fundamentally different design than lesser monsters.  And that different design needs to be called out when it's in action, so DMs know what they're doing.

Players don't need to ever "see" the tag.  DMs can and SHOULD be shown the undercarriage of the vehicle they're driving.

If your problem is that WotC makes it easier for your DM to make adventures for you to play in, I submit you're being a bit sadistic.  DMs already do 10x the work of a player, don't complain that WotC is making it easier for them to make compelling adventures for you to play.  That's just mean.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> A single monster, to be interesting for the PCs, should actually DO something more than just be big and hit hard.  They require fundamentally different design than lesser monsters.  And that different design needs to be called out when it's in action, so DMs know what they're doing.
> 
> Players don't need to ever "see" the tag.  DMs can and SHOULD be shown the undercarriage of the vehicle they're driving.
> 
> If your problem is that WotC makes it easier for your DM to make adventures for you to play in, I submit you're being a bit sadistic.  DMs already do 10x the work of a player, don't complain that WotC is making it easier for them to make compelling adventures for you to play.  That's just mean.



This may be true for some, but this is also the kind of attitude that lost D&D the lead in the rpg business. Making weird arbitrary metagame designations about what a monster is "for" does not make my job any easier, it adds in unnecessary complexity and confusion and takes away from my flexibility as a storyteller. Having to strip out all that stuff to build monsters for my purposes makes my job much, much harder.

Monsters should be designed organically. Their abilities should make sense for how they function in a living breathing world, and their conception on paper should reflect a description of what they are in that world, biologically, psychologically, etc. Metagame considerations like how they will perform in combat with a "standard" group of PCs are secondary considerations at best.

The notion that "solos", "minions", and this monster role concept is somehow pro-DM or makes DMs have to do less work is insidious, divisive, most importantly inaccurate, and needs to die. Like the OP said:


> A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 26, 2012)

One of the things about 4th edition I didn't like was the whole minion, middle man, boss mechanic. 

The moment you dropped one enemy in combat you knew immediately that it was a minion and you knew when you were up against the middle men and then the boss. The mechanics of the game made these become too obvious and I don't want Next to mimic that. I don't mind if certain creatures have 1hp, small spider for example, but not "minions". 

I don't want boss designed creatures. I want to be able to make any creature a "boss" if and when I feel that it's necessary.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 26, 2012)

It is a necessary evil.

If the DM just uses stronger normal monsters, one of two things happen.

1) The monster has high level abilities that the party cannot deal with. This is the dragon breathing 30 fire damage on level 1s.

2) The increase of action economy of the outnumbering PCs easily defeat the monster via cumulative damage attacks or having a time to lock down.

3dit: So you have to design a monster who can handle multiple threat WHILE not having overpowering high level abilities.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> This may be true for some, but this is also the kind of attitude that lost D&D the lead in the rpg business. Making weird arbitrary metagame designations about what a monster is "for" does not make my job any easier, it adds in unnecessary complexity and confusion and takes away from my flexibility as a storyteller. Having to strip out all that stuff to build monsters for my purposes makes my job much, much harder.
> 
> Monsters should be designed organically. Their abilities should make sense for how they function in a living breathing world, and their conception on paper should reflect a description of what they are in that world, biologically, psychologically, etc. Metagame considerations like how they will perform in combat with a "standard" group of PCs are secondary considerations at best.
> 
> The notion that "solos", "minions", and this monster role concept is somehow pro-DM or makes DMs have to do less work is insidious, divisive, most importantly inaccurate, and needs to die. Like the OP said:




First, D&D 4E is the best selling system on the market, over its history.  Even at the end of its lifecycle it's still number 2, and that's WITH most of the people who want the core books owning them and D&D Insider (which is amazing for WotC).  The only competitors might be 3E or 2E (probably 2E wins, but it's market run was like a decade+, so there's that). Lets kill that idea off the bat.  


Second, I don't really understand "your purposes."  If "your purposes" is to make monsters for PCs to engage in combat with, well, having a flexibility of roles, powers, numbers, and tactics makes for far more interesting combats than "8 generic kobolds armed with slings and spears."  It usually takes far more work to make the generic kobolds interesting (inventing nasty traps for them, giving them PC levels, etc.).  

If "your purposes" is to create a role-playing section... stat blocks aren't meant to be roleplayed with.  "Harry the Hobgoblin" and "Kevin the King" might have exactly the same stat block, but role play very differently.  


So, I guess I'm asking what purposes aren't served by making clear distinctions on how monsters function and giving them interesting and iconic abilities that reinforce their role in combat and allow them to perform it?


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 26, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




If you play a game session fighting Goblins, defeat their boss, then enjoy the spoilers battle, the PCs cheer, does it matter what the monsters were or quanity of HP? More or less fun If the boss was a Hexer or a Shamen? If the boss  had a keyword would it change anything ? 

Is it possible that Maybe this is just another thread rehashing & bashing more 4e ideas, concepts & terminology. Sigh, I so hope not.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> First, D&D 4E is the best selling system on the market, over its history.




You got some figures to back up your claim?


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

Oh yeah, and if I could have a second to just complain about something, you don't need the stat block to show how your monster interacts in a living, breathing world.  You need it to show how he interacts in COMBAT.  Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:

*US Marine*
STR - 14
DEX - 10
CON - 16
INT - 10
WIS - 8
CHA - 10

*Assault Rifle* - Fire a three round burst at the target, for massive damage
*Frag Grenade* - Area Blast 4
*WE NEED AIR SUPPORT!* - in 12 turns targeted area is hit with a hell of a lot of really nasty pieces of metal and exploding material.  Duck.


Number of times these abilities are used in your average day-to-day life: ZERO.  Seriously, "Frag Grenade" is not designed to be used in "Shopping Mall."


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> You got some figures to back up your claim?




It was number 1 for 2 years until knocked out by Pathfinder in sales stats, and is now number 2.

Meh, this is verging dangerously close to an edition war.  Whatever.  If you really think that New World of Darkness or FATE outsold 4E, welp.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Aug 26, 2012)

I don't mind the idea of a boss monster tag, since it is easily ignored, and actually helpful for people that don't ignore it.  Basically, if they make a Boss Goblin, it tells me I -CAN- use said Goblin as a boss, but I can also use him later on as a powerful lackey of a bandit lord or something else.  Don't get too hung up on terminology.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> It was number 1 for 2 years until knocked out by Pathfinder in sales stats, and is now number 2.
> 
> Meh, this is verging dangerously close to an edition war.  Whatever.  If you really think that New World of Darkness or FATE outsold 4E, welp.




Hey buddy, you are the one making the claim here. You should have known what you were starting. If you don't want to get into this then I suggest you stay away from comments like that.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Monsters should be designed organically. Their abilities should make sense for how they function in a living breathing world, and their conception on paper should reflect a description of what they are in that world, biologically, psychologically, etc. Metagame considerations like how they will perform in combat with a "standard" group of PCs are secondary considerations at best.




How a monster performs in combat is not "metagame" in a game based around combat.

As a DM, I find 4E's monster designations very useful, and they allow me to build fun combat board games. I understand those games inside a story framework, but in 4E's world the encounter games come before monsters being "designed organically".

Wouldn't it be nice if 5E could provide _both_ approaches though? You can always ignore something a about a monster that doesn't suit your style . . . (I do - generally I don't bother buying into game world fluff for a monster, up to and including appearance/behaviour etc)


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 26, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> I don't mind the idea of a boss monster tag, since it is easily ignored, and actually helpful for people that don't ignore it.  Basically, if they make a Boss Goblin, it tells me I -CAN- use said Goblin as a boss, but I can also use him later on as a powerful lackey of a bandit lord or something else.  Don't get too hung up on terminology.




It's not just about the terminology, it's also about the mechanics and how they are used.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Aug 26, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> It's not just about the terminology, it's also about the mechanics and how they are used.



So, without the terminology, a Boss Goblin is just a powerful Goblin that you -CAN- use. This is an insurmountable problem how? Or is this a case of "I HATE this as an option, therefore NO ONE can use it?"

Because if you are feeling forced to use said option, you should probably call the police on the person holding the gun to your head saying you must do so.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 26, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> It is a necessary evil.
> 
> If the DM just uses stronger normal monsters, one of two things happen.
> 
> ...



The other outcome, of course, is that the PCs face a challenging and engaging battle, barely dodge the monster's powerful attacks, and use teamwork to bring it down. Or die trying.

But ignoring that for a second, I see no problem with the two outcomes described above.



GreyICE said:


> Second, I don't really understand "your purposes."



My purposes are to create a story with setting, characters, and plot. Since we're talking about the characters (monstrous though they may be), I'll expand on that.

A monster is not purpose built. The point of an ogre is not to provide a group of level 2 PCs with standard ability arrays a challenging combat encounter. That is one reasonably common outcome, but I might also use that ogre as an aid to more powerful monsters, as an obstacle the PCs can negotiate with, as a source of information about other monsters, or (if a player plays one) as the protagonist of the story. It could also acquire templates or class levels and become something completely different. An ogre warlock fills a rather different role than the garden variety bruiser. The ogre entry in the monster manual needs to give me information to do all of those things equally well. Designing it around a one-minute combat with a party of a certain level is not conducive to designing it for this array of other diverse purposes.

Look at it another way. What if in addition to the PC classes, we added a set of descriptions about what their mandated roles are in the story? One class is a "protagonist" (let's say fighter), another is a "plucky sidekick" (rogue), another is "NPC quest giver" (wizard). Does that accurately describe one iconic use of the class? Sure. Does that make the game easier to play? No. It can only serve to limit creativity (and to insult people who'd rather play a wizard or rogue protagonist). As a DM, I am no less insulted when I read a monster entry that tells me what I am supposed to use that monster for. I can figure that out myself, thank you.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 26, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> How a monster performs in combat is not "metagame" in a game based around combat.



If you include considerations like what level the PCs fighting it are or what kind of encounter the DM uses it in, then it becomes so. CR is no better in this respect, it's just easier to use when it's useful and easier to ignore when it's not.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> My purposes are to create a story with setting, characters, and plot. Since we're talking about the characters (monstrous though they may be), I'll expand on that.
> 
> A monster is not purpose built. The point of an ogre is not to provide a group of level 2 PCs with standard ability arrays a challenging combat encounter. That is one reasonably common outcome, but I might also use that ogre as an aid to more powerful monsters, as an obstacle the PCs can negotiate with, as a source of information about other monsters, or (if a player plays one) as the protagonist of the story. It could also acquire templates or class levels and become something completely different. An ogre warlock fills a rather different role than the garden variety bruiser. The ogre entry in the monster manual needs to give me information to do all of those things equally well. Designing it around a one-minute combat with a party of a certain level is not conducive to designing it for this array of other diverse purposes.
> 
> Look at it another way. What if in addition to the PC classes, we added a set of descriptions about what their mandated roles are in the story? One class is a "protagonist" (let's say fighter), another is a "plucky sidekick" (rogue), another is "NPC quest giver" (wizard). Does that accurately describe one iconic use of the class? Sure. Does that make the game easier to play? No. It can only serve to limit creativity (and to insult people who'd rather play a wizard or rogue protagonist). As a DM, I am no less insulted when I read a monster entry that tells me what I am supposed to use that monster for. I can figure that out myself, thank you.




I can only point to my stat block on the US Army soldier.  It doesn't represent what he (or she) does with his life.  It doesn't represent how he spends his time.  It doesn't represent how he interacts with the world around him, how he fits into a larger society, his dreams, his hopes, his asperations.  


And should it?  Should we attempt to create a stat block that represents each and every soldier in the US army?  Does my array of physical and mental stats even come close to representing every soldier in the army?  Could any stat block?  

If you want an ogre to be a source of information and a friend, he's a source of information and a friend.  If you want him to be a bloodthirsty fiend, he's a bloodthirsty fiend.  The bloodthirsty fiend might have the same stat block as the "nice guy" even!  

What you're complaining about is a lack of FLUFF.  And Fluff isn't tied to a stat block.   And it certainly has nothing to do with a Minion/Standard/Elite/Solo label.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> I can only point to my stat block on the US Army soldier.  It doesn't represent what he (or she) does with his life.  It doesn't represent how he spends his time.  It doesn't represent how he interacts with the world around him, how he fits into a larger society, his dreams, his hopes, his asperations.
> 
> And should it?  Should we attempt to create a stat block that represents each and every soldier in the US army?  Does my array of physical and mental stats even come close to representing every soldier in the army?  Could any stat block?



No, but it at least could use a few noncombat skills/feats or the equivalent. No one's expecting miracles.



> What you're complaining about is a lack of FLUFF.  And Fluff isn't tied to a stat block.   And it certainly has nothing to do with a Minion/Standard/Elite/Solo label.



No, I'm, not. I don't like fluff that much. And, in any case, fluff is exactly where you put things like "goblins typically staged sneak attacks from aboveground hiding places".


----------



## B.T. (Aug 26, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Oh yeah, and if I could have a second to just complain about something, you don't need the stat block to show how your monster interacts in a living, breathing world. You need it to show how he interacts in COMBAT. Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:
> 
> *US Marine*
> STR - 14
> ...



Dude, what are you talking about?  That a Marine has access to military-grade equipment and can radio in an airstrike tells me all sorts of things about how he interacts with the real world.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 26, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> No, but it at least could use a few noncombat skills/feats or the equivalent. No one's expecting miracles.




But what skill/feat would every marine in the entire army have?  One might be an excellent piano player, another might have connections with all sorts of people, a third might be an excellent swimmer and a fourth might just be great at math. 

At the point where you need to care they're becoming named NPCs anyway, which is very different from just a stat block.  Discussing the transition from "stat block" to named NPC could be done a LOT better in 4E, but again that's not something that affects how the Solo/Standard dynamic works, and isn't actually very edition specific (most relied on "You're the DM!  Wing it!"). 

I just think this is a very generic complaint being thrown at a very specific problem.  I've been playing a lot of FATE recently, and I'll happily agree the stat blocks paint a good picture of who each character is - at the cost that every single stat block is specific to each individual character.  This fits the setting (there's really no '4 orcs in the room' type of encounters, and it's focused much more on narrative gameplay over oppositional gameplay (players create narrative elements, and it's straight up said that player death should be consensual between the GM and the player, and fit in with the narrative), but it doesn't work for D&D.  No edition of D&D has wanted the 'four orks in the room' to all be named monsters with different dreams, hopes and aspirations - that you kill in half an hour of dice rolling.

 [MENTION=84465]B.T.[/MENTION] - I hope I don't really need to tell you that even soldiers deployed in combat zones spend at most a few hours each month shooting at people who are shooting back.  In fact it is an active goal of our military to avoid having our soldiers in situations where they are being shot at.  Those few hours can be quite deadly, but a marine doesn't spend 40 hours a week in combat.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 26, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].



Wow, hadn't noticed that. I'm a big fan of 4e's monster caste structure (minion, solo, etc), but I was afraid that 5e's lack of need for castes might tempt me to buy it.

Guess I don't have to worry about that temptation anymore.


----------



## Victim (Aug 26, 2012)

Of course, the issue is that a "boss" monster typically functions differently in a fight than a regular monster that's just higher level than the PCs.  The boss typically has more things to make it the centerpiece of the fight, as opposed to just hitting harder and taking more damage than normal.  A solo type boss will have more area type things, or reaction powers to keep the action economy more even against a group of PCs - just attacking one guy and taking 4 or 5 back is a losing proposition unless the boss is overwhelmingly stronger and tougher.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm a big fan of boss monsters.

That said, if 5e is designed the right way, the boss tag should be mostly obviated.

Bounded accuracy should mean that low level characters fighting a higher level challenge will still be able to affect it. As such, a higher level creature will be (from a simplistic outlook) just a bigger pool of hp with more damage output (a simplified solo).

If done correctly, the hp threshold mechanic should prevent such bosses from being stun-locked to death.

Which just leaves the creature's powers. I have two concerns:
1) Powers which might be inappropriate to use against lower-level characters.
2) Lack of variety in the creature's other powers.

Let me be clear about the first case. I'm not talking about the random 'level 1 party stumbles across the Tarasque' type of creature that some DMs like to use to add versimilitude to their campaigns (retreat or die). I'm talking specifically about a creature that the DM intends to challenge the PCs (tough but fair). Admittedly, the bounded numbers for saving throws should help with this, but some powers may not be appropriate against parties below a certain level, and those powers should be called out as such.

Lack of variety is another case entirely. There's no point in giving a werewolf a half-dozen attacks if the system assumes it'll only last an average of three rounds when level appropriate. On the other hand, if you use it as a boss against low level PCs, you should give it enough abilities to keep the fight interesting. Maybe some groups are fine with it, but I know my players would find a boss-type creature who just makes the same attacks every round until it dies boring as heck. (Of course, you can always improvise, but you can do that even if the boss has a nice variety of powers; it simply means more options).

I think what I'd be satisfied to see is a fair assortment of iconic D&D villains in the MM who have been designed as bosses. The Dragon of Tyr, Lord Soth, and their like. That would give those of us who do like bosses plenty of options, as well as a good assortment of examples for designing our own solos.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 26, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




There are a few problems with this mentality, and they are heavily tied to the diminishing returns of a single level as you advance in levels.

At first level a level 4 monster might work well as a "boss" monster because it lasts 4 times as long as a level 1 monster, but that starts breaking down as early as level 2 when a "boss" monster has to be level 7 or 8 in order to last 4 times longer than a level 2 monster. By level 5 you need level 20 monsters in order to have decent bosses.

This also doesn't factor in the increase in damage and accuracy monsters have as they increase in levels.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 26, 2012)

The reason why you need special rules is because the standard method of increasing a monster's strength (increasing its level) does not provide interesting fights.

You can simply give an enemy wizard more wizard levels because more wizard levels means more powerful abilies with no action economy growth. Making the boss goblin a 5th level sorcerer or rogue instead of level 1 means the goblin wizard now has auto-winning 3rd level spells while at the same time dying in 2 hits from the party. Standard ly made boss monster fights are rocket tag fights. Always rocket tag fights unless the party or monster are under underpowered or played poorly.

This is why you need special rules and tags for any non save or die boss fights.


----------



## airwalkrr (Aug 26, 2012)

I kind of like the idea of "boss monsters." But I do play a lot of MMOs, so caveat there. And boss monsters can always have easily whackable minions who give the PCs a stepping-stone sense of accomplishment as they wade their way to the boss without terribly draining the boss' hit points. The truly memorable boss monsters for me though are those who can't be beaten through sheer brute force, but require some cunning. One good example springs to mind. There is an erinyes in the early levels of the Shackled City campaign path who has everything in her advantage. She is a powerful ranged attacker and has a huge open room to fight in. The PCs might have the fly spell, but even that is not enough as she can teleport away, wait for the fly spell to end, then return. And the PCs can very well find themselves locked in this room. But there are a variety of ways to weaken her. And if they PCs are clever enough, they can figure out she can only be summoned for a particular period of time. So if they manage to evade her for that amount of time through tactical maneuvering, she will vanish and the battle is over without any blows exchanged. I like encounters like this where the deck seems stacked in the enemy's favor, but some clever thinking weakens the boss' control of the battlefield.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

I would dislike the arbitrary "boss monster" tag if the elements that make a good boss monster were indeed arbitrary.

Now, I might be on board if the concern was over applying the label arbitrarily, or using the label to make arbitrary tweaks to a monster that shouldn't be a "boss monster", e.g. this goblin needs to be a challenge for an entire party of characters, so we give him four times the hit points, an area attack, and broad immunity to a variety of conditions.

However, if a monster already has characteristics that make it a good challenge for a party of PCs, I don't see why this shouldn't be pointed out.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder whether this is the monster equivalent of the Stormwind Fallacy regarding role-playing and character optimization. The fact that a monster is designed to perform a specific mechanical function in combat (whether "minion", or "elite", or "solo", or "artillery", or "lurker", or "brute", or "skirmisher", or "soldier", or "controller", etc.) does not necessarily mean that its abilities must seem arbitrary or inorganic, and vice-versa.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:
> 
> *US Marine*
> 
> Stuff




Wait a minute, is he an army soldier, or a marine? You can't be both. The armed forces are really restrictive on multiclassing . . .


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder whether this is the monster equivalent of the Stormwind Fallacy regarding role-playing and character optimization. The fact that a monster is designed to perform a specific mechanical function in combat (whether "minion", or "elite", or "solo", or "artillery", or "lurker", or "brute", or "skirmisher", or "soldier", or "controller", etc.) does not necessarily mean that its abilities must seem arbitrary or inorganic, and vice-versa.




Can't xp you, but this needs to be a thing. Just calling something a "brute" does not mean that it can't be a flavorful, fully developed monster with a place in the campaign world and so on. But damn does it make things easier on the GM!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> But what skill/feat would every marine in the entire army have?  One might be an excellent piano player, another might have connections with all sorts of people, a third might be an excellent swimmer and a fourth might just be great at math.



They don't all have the same ability scores or combat skills either.

Neither do orcs, mind flayers, or tarrasques. (Okay, so there's only suuposed to be one tarrasque).

A monster stat block is one of two things:
*A set of modifiers that you can deconstruct and use to make a monstrous NPC.
*A handy example that you can modify to suit your needs if you don't have the time or inclination to deal with it.

For example, if I read an ogre stat block and see this...
Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7
...it doesn't mean that every ogre has those ability scores, or even that the average one does. Given a 3d6 distribution and the possibility of improvement over levels or changes due to aging or magic, I'd guess that less than 10% of ogres actually have 21 Str. There might only be one ogre in the entire world that actually has this exact ability array. Similarly, only a small percentage of monsters will have no class levels or advanced hit dice or whatever other parameter you use to build them.

So, again, the stat block is just a handy example. If I were to stat a marine, I'd give him some simple straightforward things that represented a typical marine, and note where he got them from (i.e. class levels) so a DM could customize skills/feats/etc. as needed.



> I just think this is a very generic complaint being thrown at a very specific problem.



It is. Putting the boss monster tag on a stat block is not a big deal in and of itself. But the philosophy that it represents is a very general problem: it's about designers trying to "make the game easier" by playing it for us. Given the people who are (still) working on D&D, any red flag, anything that goes in this direction, should be called out aggressively.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 27, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> One of the things about 4th edition I didn't like was the whole minion, middle man, boss mechanic.
> 
> The moment you dropped one enemy in combat you knew immediately that it was a minion and you knew when you were up against the middle men and then the boss. The mechanics of the game made these become too obvious and I don't want Next to mimic that. I don't mind if certain creatures have 1hp, small spider for example, but not "minions".
> 
> I don't want boss designed creatures. I want to be able to make any creature a "boss" if and when I feel that it's necessary.




The great thing is that with the fancy templates, you could make any monster a "boss" monster, it was super easy to make a regular orc into an elite orc and possibly into a solo creature (although I make it a point to never use a solo on its own, too boring). 

The minion thing.... yeah, it became obvious whenever the DM put three or more of the same enemies on the table what they were, those could use an update (or deletion, although I like the idea of having tons of foes for the PC's to carve through).

Also, in every edition I knew when I was fighting the mooks, the middle-man and finally the boss. I mean, if I'm fighting some orcs with spears at the exterior of the cave structure, then I advance and find some wearing full armor and having well made weapons, then I enter the throne room and see an orc sitting on the throne there, it's pretty obvious what role they're occupying. 4e was no different than any other edition for that.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is. Putting the boss monster tag on a stat block is not a big deal in and of itself. But the philosophy that it represents is a very general problem: it's about designers trying to "make the game easier" by playing it for us. Given the people who are (still) working on D&D, any red flag, anything that goes in this direction, should be called out aggressively.



'Playing it for us"? What? I can't even comprehend this.

Are you saying that effort made by WotC to make the game easier to run and more fun for _many_ people literally detracts from your ability to have fun and is equivalent to "playing the game for you"? What, exactly, is the "game" that is being played? What the D&D creators are doing isn't _playing_, it's _designing_. Taking the position that it is wrong for the designers to actually do their job and design, because it somehow detracts from your need to houserule your game in order to make it playable, is simply incomprehensible. If you don't want designers to design, then what exactly do you want them to do?

You know, despite phrasing all of those statements in the form of questions, I really, _really_ don't want to know the answers... I doubt I'd understand such answers any more than I understand the quoted statement, and I am absolutely certain I wouldn't agree anyways.

Boss monsters are great. They are proven idea that has worked time and time again. The mechanical distinction between normal grunt enemies that are fought in swarms and single foes capable of handling a group of heroes all on their own is absolutely essential to pretty much any game that features enemies to fight. If D&D lacked that it would be fundamentally flawed and impotent. Any game that lacked something so basic would deserve to be mocked and derided.

We shouldn't "call the designers out aggressively" for implementing rules like this. What they are doing is such a basic necessity of the game that, despite its immense positive impact on the game, it doesn't even amount to an effort worthy of praise. They are implementing boss enemies because _of course they are implementing boss enemies_! This isn't 1970! Games need boss enemies!


----------



## billd91 (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




This strikes me as a po-tay-to, po-tah-to issue. I can designate a 4th level goblin as a boss monster or designate a goblin as a boss monster and make him 4th level. The end result is the same, a tougher goblin for 1st level PCs to fight.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> Wait a minute, is he an army soldier, or a marine? You can't be both. The armed forces are really restrictive on multiclassing . . .




Kind of,  Army, Navy, & Marine are you class, then you get a specialty (Theme) so you can be Navy Pilot, Marine Pilot, Army Soldier, Marine Soldier, Navy medic, and so on.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> Any game that lacked something so basic would deserve to be mocked and derided.



Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles  in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them). "Boss monsters" are a perfectly fine consequence of play, but designating a particular monster as such in its description is unnecessary.



> They are implementing boss enemies because _of course they are implementing boss enemies_!



Well, now I'm convinced.



> This isn't 1970!



No, it isn't. My parents hadn't met in 1970.
Also, in 1970 I think D&D was more of a glorified miniatures game and less of a storytelling system.



> Games need boss enemies!



Games? Maybe. Monster manuals? No.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 27, 2012)

I have a serious question.

How is designating monsters designed to handle 2 PCs of their level or enhance related monsters "Elite" and monsters designed to handle 4 PCs of their level "Solo" arbitrary?



			
				Dictonary.com said:
			
		

> *ar·bi·trar·y* /ˈärbiˌtrerē/
> Adjective:
> Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Games? Maybe. Monster manuals? No.




So where does the game of D&D get them, if not in monster manuals?


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

Overall it is a storytelling aide. Really there shouldn't be boss monsters in the rules. There should be easy "enhanced monster" guidelines and formula to alter the base monster. Then have some easily snaggable examples.

For the DM should just wants a tough goblin, they can give it fighter levels and be done. Whatever happens, happens. TPK, Cakewalk, or Engaging battle.

For a DM who wants a goblin who can deal with multiple foes while enforcing a dramatic battle, they can use the solo rules. 4X the HD, add a few more attacks, and give him an ability to reduce the penalty of being ganged up on.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> So where does the game of D&D get them, if not in monster manuals?



At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Overall it is a storytelling aide. Really there shouldn't be boss monsters in the rules. There should be easy "enhanced monster" guidelines and formula to alter the base monster. Then have some easily snaggable examples.
> 
> For the DM should just wants a tough goblin, they can give it fighter levels and be done. Whatever happens, happens. TPK, Cakewalk, or Engaging battle.
> 
> For a DM who wants a goblin who can deal with multiple foes while enforcing a dramatic battle, they can use the solo rules. 4X the HD, add a few more attacks, and give him an ability to reduce the penalty of being ganged up on.




Or, I can save tons of time adding NPC levels to the goblin and have one statted out for me. One reason I gave up on 3.5e DM'ing was spending hours carefully crafting the NPC BBEG and getting one round killed.

In 4e, I can search for an appropriate leveled Elite foe and tweak for all of 5 seconds and have what I need. 



Ahnehnois said:


> At the table.
> 
> The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.




So what you're saying is that all hill giants in the steading have the same stats and somehow, one of them (during the course of the PC assault) becomes the "boss"?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> At the table.
> 
> The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.



I think the key inconsistency here is that the arguments applied to monster roles and class roles don't apply to the character classes themselves. If they did, we'd have laughable arguments like: the Fighter class pigenholes characters because all they can do is fight, or: any character can fight, so why do we need a Fighter class?

Of course, in play, the cleric can protect the wizard (but a paladin would do it better). A rogue could give tactical advice to another character (but a warlord could give tactical advice _and_ back it up with a mechanical bonus to attack or damage rolls). An artillery monster can make a melee attack (but it would be less accurate and damaging than if it were to make a ranged attack). A lurker monster can simply charge into combat and trade blows with the PCs (and be much, much easier to beat).

By the same token, you can use any monster you want to be the "boss monster". Whether or not it has been designed to increase the chances of an interesting combat encounter is a separate matter entirely, and one that you don't need to worry about if you don't want to.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 27, 2012)

I think that D&D has, historically, too-closely tied together hit points and ... well, everything else.

I like having Minions, Elites, and Solos because it lets me decouple these things.  Hit points are now at least semi-independent of other forms of effectiveness.

It's wonderfully effects-based and pragmatic.  It's how I like my D&D. 

-O


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> At the table.
> 
> The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.




So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose.  I don't think it'll catch on.


----------



## Victim (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> At the table.
> 
> The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.




Yeah, and giving monsters harder to kill without making them more resistant to being hurt, and other well designed solo abilities are useful tools.

I mean, I don't think it's an accident that Magneto - the guy with wide ranging magnetic powers including a powerful forcefield and a thought proof helmet - is a boss against the X-men, versus switching him out for an even shootier Cyclops.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?
> 
> Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose.  I don't think it'll catch on.



Are you advocating that instead of buying a monster manual that gives a DM tools to run a game, it should have generic monster stack blocks created by someone who doesn't know your players or your style or your houserules and probably made at least three math errors per stat block? It should represent a completely made but thoroughly mediocre monster with no references to other pages or other books (perish the thought!) and give no tools for the DM to make something he can actually use?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose.  I don't think it did catch on.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> By the same token, you can use any monster you want to be the "boss monster". Whether or not it has been designed to increase the chances of an interesting combat encounter is a separate matter entirely, and one that you don't need to worry about if you don't want to.



To the OP's point, if you can use any monster to be the boss monster, why put that label on some but not others? What does it add to the game? What does calling a dragon a "boss" tell even the greenest DM that isn't intuitively obvious? And why would there need to be any mechanical backing to this other than making it an appropriately powerful dragon?



			
				renau1g said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that all hill giants in the steading have the same stats and somehow, one of them (during the course of the PC assault) becomes the "boss"?



No, I'm saying that all the hill giants have different stats as designated by the DM (either during prep or at the table), and based on those stats and his judgment, one of them becomes the boss.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> I have a serious question.
> 
> How is designating monsters designed to handle 2 PCs of their level or enhance related monsters "Elite" and monsters designed to handle 4 PCs of their level "Solo" arbitrary?



I'd say that pretty much is the definition of arbitrary. Why 2 and not 3? Or 10? Why is this monster a challenge for a 5th level party instead of a 6th level party? Why assume a certain party makeup? Why design monsters to a baseline when the D&D-playing populace is so diverse that in practice there is no such baseline? The idea that a particular monster should be challenging for X party, regardless of what X is, is very arbitrary.

Again, this isn't really an edition-specific issue. The whole CR system is also a nightmare in this regard, as were the earlier XP systems and the like. We just don't need to take another step in the wrong direction.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

Responding out of order, since the first point is important.



> No, I'm saying that all the hill giants have different stats as designated by the DM (either during prep or at the table), and based on those stats and his judgment, one of them becomes the boss.



I think we're veering into confusing the term "boss" in the real-life, workplace sense with the way it is used in the mechanical, gameplay sense. Let's try not to get sidetracked by extraneous issues.



Ahnehnois said:


> To the OP's point, if you can use any monster to be the boss monster, why put that label on some but not others? What does it add to the game? What does calling a dragon a "boss" tell even the greenest DM that isn't intuitively obvious? And why would there need to be any mechanical backing to this other than making it an appropriately powerful dragon?



Because a monster that can hit one character for 40 points of damage is different from a monster that can hit four characters for 10 points of damage each. The former (IMO) makes a better challenge for a single higher-level PC, while the latter (again, IMO) makes a better challenge for a group of lower-level PCs. Sure, I can go through all the special abilities and damage numbers of every monster and arrive at that conclusion, but why not make my job easier by telling me (say) that the first monster is a level 20 standard, and the second is a level 5 boss?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles  in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them). "Boss monsters" are a perfectly fine consequence of play, but designating a particular monster as such in its description is unnecessary.
> 
> Well, now I'm convinced./snip




Umm, you do realize that EVERY SINGLE HUMANOID in AD&D had boss monsters baked right into the basic description.  For every X humanoids there will be 1 with Y stats.  For every X number of Y stat humanoids, there will be 1 chief with Z stats.

It's right there, in EVERY SINGLE MONSTER MANUAL until 3e, where suddenly things changed and you had to add class levels (thus massively increasing the work for the DM).

Go ahead and look.  I'll wait.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?
> 
> Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose.  I don't think it'll catch on.




Well, it did catch on actually.  This is precisely what a 3e Monster Manual is.  Basic stat blocks (it says so right in the books - these are the lowest form of any monster) that you then have intricate and complex rules for upping the creature from there.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'd say that pretty much is the definition of arbitrary. Why 2 and not 3? Or 10? Why is this monster a challenge for a 5th level party instead of a 6th level party? Why assume a certain party makeup? Why design monsters to a baseline when the D&D-playing populace is so diverse that in practice there is no such baseline? The idea that a particular monster should be challenging for X party, regardless of what X is, is very arbitrary.
> 
> Again, this isn't really an edition-specific issue. The whole CR system is also a nightmare in this regard, as were the earlier XP systems and the like. We just don't need to take another step in the wrong direction.




As a guideline, the CR system worked reasonably well.  You have to have some sort of baseline, or you cannot give any advice to DM's on how to design encounters.  I'd also question your assertion that there is no such baseline.  After all, 4 PC's (or 5) is fairly easy to verify.  Once you've made your game that transparent, it's generally not a huge deal to adjust up or down.

Having taken a detour into systems where there is no advice given on how to design encounters for a while, I can honestly say that I really appreciate having baselines.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, you do realize that EVERY SINGLE HUMANOID in AD&D had boss monsters baked right into the basic description.  For every X humanoids there will be 1 with Y stats.  For every X number of Y stat humanoids, there will be 1 chief with Z stats.
> 
> It's right there, in EVERY SINGLE MONSTER MANUAL until 3e, where suddenly things changed and you had to add class levels (thus massively increasing the work for the DM).
> 
> Go ahead and look.  I'll wait.



I don't know why people assume I have these books. Or that I care that much what's in them.

More to the point, the gradual unification of monsters and PC rules over the editions hasn't made more work; it's simply made whatever work you choose to do more meaningful. Modern D&D monster design allows you to build whatever monster you want; but having those rules available also makes it easy for a DM to learn how to improvise monster stats if need be, and creates a secondary market for people who want premade stat blocks, which seems to be good for business. Giving you more tools hardly forces you to spend hours slogging over twenty books to pick your gibbering mouther's feats. It simply lets you do that easily if you want to. (Whereas in 2e if you wanted to truly customize your monsters you had to hack the system to do so. At least, if what you say is true).



Hussar said:


> Well, it did catch on actually.  This is precisely what a 3e Monster Manual is.  Basic stat blocks (it says so right in the books - these are the lowest form of any monster) that you then have intricate and complex rules for upping the creature from there.



Um, thanks?

Incidentally, PF retains this basic structure, while adding on some quick build templates for people who don't like doing a lot of customization on their monsters but still appreciate diversity.



Hussar said:


> Having taken a detour into systems where there is no advice given on how to design encounters for a while, I can honestly say that I really appreciate having baselines.



Having similarly taken a detour into systems without these kinds of guidelines, I can say that it was a breath of fresh air, made my job easier, and influenced what I look for in a monster book for any system: ideas.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Aug 27, 2012)

I loved the "flat math" idea. With only HP and damage consistently going up by level, a monster's level relative to your own automatically determines whether it's a Minion, normal, Elite, or Solo monster.

With this second playtest, we're seeing attack bonuses go up, and monsters with arbitrarily doubled HP thanks to the Elite tag. I really prefer the system in the initial playtest.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> Kind of,  Army, Navy, & Marine are you class, then you get a specialty (Theme) so you can be Navy Pilot, Marine Pilot, Army Soldier, Marine Soldier, Navy medic, and so on.




Technically, Marine infantry are referred to as "Marines". You call a Marine a soldier, he'll give you a funny look.

That means when Marines take the "soldier" specialty, it's renamed to "marine". You could be an Army soldier, but you're a Marine marine.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know why people assume I have these books. Or that I care that much what's in them.




Well, when you make blanket statements about how the game has changed like this:



> Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them).




without knowing the history of the game, it makes your claim rather specious doesn't it?  If you only meant 3e, then you should have said 3e.  Since, other than a fairly small slice of D&D's history, we've actually had explicit monster roles built right into the rules.



> More to the point, the gradual unification of monsters and PC rules over the editions hasn't made more work; it's simply made whatever work you choose to do more meaningful. Modern D&D monster design allows you to build whatever monster you want; but having those rules available also makes it easy for a DM to learn how to improvise monster stats if need be, and creates a secondary market for people who want premade stat blocks, which seems to be good for business. Giving you more tools hardly forces you to spend hours slogging over twenty books to pick your gibbering mouther's feats. It simply lets you do that easily if you want to. (Whereas in 2e if you wanted to truly customize your monsters you had to hack the system to do so. At least, if what you say is true).




In 2e, you generally didn't bother, because the upgraded monster was right there.  You want a Goblin Chief, he's a goblin with a bugbear's stats.  Done.  No math, no calculations, nothing.  

Sure, you can build whatever monster you want.  But, in doing so, you force DM's to spend HOURS designing a creature that will probably only last four rounds on the table.  No thanks.  There's a reason I won't create anything for 3e anymore and only DM 3e from modules.



> Um, thanks?
> 
> Incidentally, PF retains this basic structure, while adding on some quick build templates for people who don't like doing a lot of customization on their monsters but still appreciate diversity.




Yeah, there's a reason I won't do PF as a DM.  They didn't fix my main problem with 3e which was DM workload.  Sorry, if I can't get about a 1:4 ration of prep to play time, I'm not interested in running the game anymore.



> Having similarly taken a detour into systems without these kinds of guidelines, I can say that it was a breath of fresh air, made my job easier, and influenced what I look for in a monster book for any system: ideas.




Blarg.  No thanks.  The "Randomly Pick Opponents and Pray" method of adventure design is not something I have any interest anymore.  If the game designer is that oblivious to what should make a baseline encounter, again, I'm not interested in the game.  I refuse to have entire sessions get flushed down the toilet because the game designer can't properly signpost how stuff should work in play.

I'm just not that smart.  Nor do I have the time or the patience to screw around trying to decipher what constitutes an interesting encounter based on an unfamiliar system.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




A Goblin Manslayer [Elite] is a boss monster because he's so much tougher than the PCs individually are.

The keyword doesn't pile on hit points or damage. The monster is a badass, so he can take more punishment and dish out more damage. The keyword reflects that.

There are significant downsides to simply throwing higher-level monsters at PCs in an effort to drive home the point that the PCs are fighting a head honcho while still expecting them to emerge victorious. For instance, a higher level monster might have defenses so high as to make them extremely difficult to hit, bogging the fight down in miss after disappointing miss. Elite and solo monsters are a way of correcting for this, by providing monsters that are essentially two or five individual monsters stacked on top of each other.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> Technically, Marine infantry are referred to as "Marines". You call a Marine a soldier, he'll give you a funny look.
> 
> That means when Marines take the "soldier" specialty, it's renamed to "marine". You could be an Army soldier, but you're a Marine marine.




Marine Rifleman maybe, anyways, I think we have a good start on 5E Modern RPG.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> At the table.
> 
> The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.




You understand that when we say "boss monster" we don't actually mean "monster who is the boss of other monsters", right? It's just a phrase that we use to indicate a monster that is a challenge in and of itself, absent any other monsters to aid it.

The fact that a monster is *actually* the boss of other monsters doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its mechanical abilities.

D&D *needs* monsters that are designed to tackle a party by themselves. Dragons are the perfect example. Dragons have to be a challenge _*by themselves*_, because that's the only way you can create that oh-so-stereotypical dragon's lair encounter. And that _*needs to be in the monster manual*_, because you won't find it anywhere else.


----------



## bbjore (Aug 27, 2012)

As a DM, I think the minion, elite, standard, and solo designators for monsters was one of the greatest parts of 4E. It told me how to make a monster specifically designed to be a challenged for a group vs. monsters designed to work together as a group to challenge another group. I never had a need to use a Solo again later on, because there was a standard monster to take it place, or I made it up on the fly. Truth be told, the monster design aspect of the game was so beautifully simple, I never had to use a monster manual except as inspiration for new tricks to give the monsters I designed on the fly when the PCs decided to fight. I used whichever stats made for the best encounter at that time. I wasn't hindered by some need to have all ogres have the same hp or anything like that nor did I require that for an ogre to be better, it had to have class levels or templates. The game just went and said monster math works differently than PCs, because that's faster and easier for the DM. Minions had only 1 hp, because it was easy to track, not because a cat could kill them with one hit. That's what it's all about.

The game looked at the DM, said the DM didn't have to play by the same rules or try and simulate a real world. The DM was supposed to make a good adventure. Here are the tools that make that easier. There isn't a version of D&D out that that makes it easier, and I haven't seen a similar game with an encounter design system that makes it so easy to design an appropriate challenge as a DM, especially on the fly.

In 4E solos are tougher than the PCs and have powers that will put the hurt on the PCs as well as make for interesting encounters even by themselves. This is probably why they are in charge of all the other mooks around them. It's not the tag that did this, it is the nature of the creature, just like a monster four levels higher than the PCs is also tougher. I don't really see the difference other than in naming, and that a Solo is easier to design and makes for a better fight because it is specifically designed to fight multiple PCs at once.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Dannager said:


> There are significant downsides to simply throwing higher-level monsters at PCs in an effort to drive home the point that the PCs are fighting a head honcho while still expecting them to emerge victorious. For instance, a higher level monster might have defenses so high as to make them extremely difficult to hit, bogging the fight down in miss after disappointing miss. Elite and solo monsters are a way of correcting for this, by providing monsters that are essentially two or five individual monsters stacked on top of each other.




Even with 5E's bounded accuracy this will likely be true. A 4th level enemy will only have defenses that are slightly higher than his 1st level counterparts, so that's ok. But his attack damage will have scaled up as well, which means he's going to hit very, very hard. On the other hand he's going to be very sensitive to action economy exploits, so it's a good idea to give him extra attacks at lower damage each, rather than the one big attack his level might dictate.

Then you have his hp, which is designed to match up against a single, normal 4th level character and go down in a hit or two. A first level party working together is almost certain to be able to put out more damage than a single 4th level character, which means your climactic BBEG is going down like a chump. Gotta stack on the hp, then.

So yeah, even with the vaunted flattened accuracy system (which I like!), I'd still like to see 1st level elites and solos look different from monsters that are simply higher level. But you can do this _within the fiction of the gameworld_, such that a flailing, untrained ogre is a 1st level solo because he is wild and tough but undisciplined, while an ogre mercenary is a 4th level monster because he's older and more restrained and more skilled.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> Marine Rifleman maybe, anyways, I think we have a good start on 5E Modern RPG.




Nah, the problem with the whole modern thing is linear infantry and quadratic pilots. Sure you start off in the airforce cleaning intakes on helicopters and loading hellfire missiles into drones, but once you level up to Major and earn enough loot to buy the F-22, your Army and Marine team mates might as well be spectators.


----------



## ComradeGnull (Aug 27, 2012)

There seems to be a very fundamental error being committed here.  It involves the two possible meanings of the term 'boss'.

Meaning 1:  'Boss' (or 'Solo', or whatever) is a technical, mechanical term that means: this block of stats has rules-centric properties that makes it well suited to being the focus of an extended combat.  It will last for multiple rounds in the face of PC abilities, and has the capacity to be a significant combat threat to a level-appropriate party.

Meaning 2: 'Boss' (or 'Leader' or whatever) is a generic term meaning 'someone who is in charge or wields authority.  In an adventure, it typically means the most important antagonist that you are facing in that scenario.

There is no reason why the two meanings need to overlap for any particular NPC.

That 'goblin leader' in the playtest rules?  Maybe he is just the goblin warren's champion fighter- the leader (in the sense of the guy who runs everything) might be an aged, scrawny old goblin who presents very little combat threat, but exerts influence through his superior tactics and knowledge.  He may have the combat stats of a level 1 kobold, but a high Int, Wis, and Cha.  Your whole adventure might be centered on defeating that old, clever goblin who fights primarily through bodyguards, misdirection, and clever tricks and traps, but the most significant combat threat that your party faces might be that vigorous young champion (whose stat block happens to have the 'leader' or 'solo' tag).

Now, for some antagonists it makes sense that the guy in charge is also the guy who has the most raw power.  Great.  Use a 'boss' template to create the mechanics for the 'story boss' that gives him enough combat options to present a sustained challenge to the party for an extended fight.  Or just bump him up in levels.  Each will present a different type of challenge.  A lot of people think (as [MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION] described quite well above) that just bumping levels probably doesn't provide enough challenge to make a solo opponent capable of holding the attention of an entire party for several rounds.  Thus the other additions.

Calling a stat block 'boss' does not dictate what role it plays in the story.  It just indicates what combat against that opponent is likely to be like.  Calling a NPC the 'boss' of a tribe or the conclusion of an adventure does not indicate that he needs to be mechanically threatening in combat in a specific way.  It's just that uniting the two ideas- the central antagonist and the biggest combat threat faces- is common enough to be worth treating the two together in many cases.  It's not at all equivalent saying that whoever selects Warlord as their class gets to be party leader, and whoever selects Bard has to be the plucky-but-useless sidekick.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> Nah, the problem with the whole modern thing is linear infantry and quadratic pilots. Sure you start off in the airforce cleaning intakes on helicopters and loading hellfire missiles into drones, but once you level up to Major and earn enough loot to buy the F-22, your Army and Marine team mates might as well be spectators.




A truly excellent point, maybe if we allow the infantry extra shots with their weapon, &  carry a couple of extra ammo clips for free. Then maybe the F-22  could only fire the 20 mm cannon, and use their missiles, mach speeds, & stealth; each once per day.

Missile bloat is a huge problem, we need to keep the number of missiles low. Also the tag 'air superiority fighter', 'fighter' sound to gamey, and 'superiority' sound to arbitrary. A much better name would be 'military craft  that can fly '. Why do we need missiles & jet engines, we have won wars without them in the past.  Jet engines are fiddly & wonky.

Maybe we can have only a single air frame, then we can specialize them.  F-22 transport, F-22 light bomber F-22 Medium bomber, F-22 Heavy Bomber,  tanker, F-22 cargo, F-22 flying boat etc ...

Oh, all new aircraft will have potted plants to be thrown to entangles other planes & & dinner plates to be thrown in the path of incoming cannon rounds. This will surely reward 'creative' pilots.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.



This seems to be confusing ingame and metagame. Ingame, the monster is tougher than the PCs. The mechanical technique whereby this is achieved is by piling on hit points and damage.



B.T. said:


> A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].



Huh? What is levelling up a goblin, other than piling on hit points and damage, presumably to represent the toughness of that goblin compared to the ordinary goblin and the level 1 PCs?

But in a game based on an action economy in combat, like D&D, there are also issues about giving the "boss monster" a suitable suite of actions. So one way to "pile on damage" is to give multiple attacks at lower damage (a bit like the mechanical strategy that AD&D used for fighters, paladins and rangers). In an abstract combat system like D&D there need be no ingame difference between one attack roll for big damage and two attack rolls for moderate damage. We can choose between mechanical interpretations in the interests of gameplay convenience and pleasure.



Fanaelialae said:


> if 5e is designed the right way, the boss tag should be mostly obviated.
> 
> Bounded accuracy should mean that low level characters fighting a higher level challenge will still be able to affect it. As such, a higher level creature will be (from a simplistic outlook) just a bigger pool of hp with more damage output (a simplified solo).
> 
> If done correctly, the hp threshold mechanic should prevent such bosses from being stun-locked to death.



There is still the issue of the action economy. Everything else being equal, I think multiple (or perhaps AoE) attacks make for more interesting play than big-damage single-target attacks, when there is only one enemy on the field.



TwinBahamut said:


> Boss monsters are great. They are proven idea that has worked time and time again. The mechanical distinction between normal grunt enemies that are fought in swarms and single foes capable of handling a group of heroes all on their own is absolutely essential to pretty much any game that features enemies to fight. If D&D lacked that it would be fundamentally flawed and impotent.



Agreed, although I think fantasy RPG design has come relatively late to this point. There is an interesting discussion of the issue in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, for example (that book is a bit like a DMG for BW): they discuss various strategies (mechanical, encounter design, etc) a GM can use to help "bosses" survive the one-vs-many action economy. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that the same BW book that discusses this issue lists 4e D&D in its bibliography, as one of the influences on it!)



Ahnehnois said:


> A monster stat block is one of two things:
> *A set of modifiers that you can deconstruct and use to make a monstrous NPC.
> *A handy example that you can modify to suit your needs if you don't have the time or inclination to deal with it.



For most of D&D's history, a monster stat block has been neither of those things. It has been a representation of certain capacities of the monster in a suitable mechanical form for usign that monster in game play.



Ahnehnois said:


> in 1970 I think D&D was more of a glorified miniatures game and less of a storytelling system.



I don't want to play D&D as a "storytelling" system with massive GM force. I want to play it in a reasonably lighthearted but Forge-y style with an emphasis on thematically and mechanically strong scene framing supporting player protagonism. And I want monster building rules that support that.

I think WotC are going to have to think about more than just your preferences, or my preferences, in desigining a "unification" edition of D&D.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 27, 2012)

In my view the monster templates (minion, solo, etc) added another axis to monsters. It gave them a depth that added realism. With level being the relative power of the creature the template gave the toughness/uniqueness of the creature. 

When using them I can ask "why this creature is a solo?". How does that fit in the story? Witht he templates I can do this without having to level him to a higher power level, something that maybe inappropriate.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 27, 2012)

Time to wade into the discussion!

I think there is a place for boss monsters in the game, but I don't think designations such as elite or solo belong on goblins. Let me explain..

I think there should be tougher versions of ordinary monsters. There should be goblins with more hitpoints that take more than one hit to kill. These goblins have more hit dice, and thus gain whatever else a goblin gains when they increase hit dice, much like levelling up.

There should be monsters who can stand by themselves against an entire party. Dragons for instance. They should have their hitpoints multiplied up not because they gain more hit dice (more levels) but because they are much, much bigger than PCs. I liked the idea that anything large would automatically be an elite (relative to its level or hit dice) because it's large! So it's attack bonus is the same as a medium version of the same creature, it's powers are the same, but it's HP and damage are doubled. For a dragon this would obviously be multiplied four times (and give them multiple actions!).

I don't want a goblin chief to be able to stand on his own against a party unless he's significantly higher level than them. I want him to be tougher, to not die in one or two hits, but his HD should reflect this and hell, if the PCs gun for him then use his damned single hit die minions to get in the way. He should have leadership powers to have them leap in his way, or minions with guardian like powers* to make him harder to hit, but he shouldn't have his HD/HP doubled JUST so he takes longer to kill.

I do want an ogre to have double HP and damage, but other bonuses in the same range as monsters of his level. Ogres should take much longer to kill, they should hit harder, and you shouldn't have to give them more HD to achieve this. I suppose I see things in a very 'physical' manner and find it hard to accept super tough low level goblin chiefs, they are too far removed from the other goblins in my head.

I also suppose I always liked the 3E technique of hit dice controlling monster attacks and saves. It's much less work with 5E, since you should only have to change HP/damage at each level, and to-hit less frequently. A large pool of powers at the back of the MM would also make it easier to pick things out for your boss monster. I mean, why can't goblin chief have a speciality that gives him things as he gains HD? That way you know exactly what he'll get if you give him 2 more HD.

*Kobold Dragonshields should absolutely do this, always staying beside their chief to protect him as he flings sorcerous bolts at the party.


----------



## B.T. (Aug 27, 2012)

Dannager said:


> A Goblin Manslayer [Elite] is a boss monster because he's so much tougher than the PCs individually are.
> 
> The keyword doesn't pile on hit points or damage. The monster is a badass, so he can take more punishment and dish out more damage. The keyword reflects that.



I'm not going to bother arguing this degree of hairsplitting.  ("Which came first, the keyword or the monster's difficulty?"  "Pardon?  I was gazing at my navel.")


> There are significant downsides to simply throwing higher-level monsters at PCs in an effort to drive home the point that the PCs are fighting a head honcho while still expecting them to emerge victorious. For instance, a higher level monster might have defenses so high as to make them extremely difficult to hit, bogging the fight down in miss after disappointing miss. Elite and solo monsters are a way of correcting for this, by providing monsters that are essentially two or five individual monsters stacked on top of each other.



The purpose of "bounded accuracy" is to prevent this from happening.  

Also, I'm just ignoring the dude who came in here and started telling us that if your games don't have boss monsters they're wrong because, well, that's ridiculous and presumptuous.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I'm not going to bother arguing this degree of hairsplitting.  ("Which came first, the keyword or the monster's difficulty?"  "Pardon?  I was gazing at my navel.")




So then your position is that badass monsters should not exist? That seems silly, but it's the only remaining one I can think of, since you've rejected both a) deciding that a monster is elite or solo and changing its stats to match, and b) deciding that a monster is much tougher and changing its keyword to match.

And yes, bounded accuracy addresses this as well. Both are solutions.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 27, 2012)

I wonder if it would help if we actually had 80 (yes 80) levels of monsters. Provided their progression was sensible, then an 80th level monster would be the correct challenge for 4 20th level PCs.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

For those who say bounded accuracy handles it,

IT DOESN'T.

Damage and effects still increase with level even if accuracy really does not.

A level 1 goblin and a level 6 bugbear might both have +2 to attack but the bugbear deals twice the damage. Even if you refluff the bugbear as the goblin chief, he will still one hit knock out most PCs. And he still can be killed in a round.


Rocket tag. 
Whoever wins initiative, wins the fight. 
Very anticlimactic.


----------



## B.T. (Aug 27, 2012)

Dannager said:


> So then your position is that badass monsters should not exist?



The level system should handle badass monsters.


Minigiant said:


> For those who say bounded accuracy handles it,
> 
> IT DOESN'T.
> 
> ...



The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Its been said before, but hopefully I can say it more convincingly

As monster design evolved through the years, developers began to realize a fundamental truth....a fight with 4 weak monsters works differently than a fight with 1 big monster.

Further, they realized that the 1 big monster fights were often worse than the 4 monster fights....that one strong monster was simply not pulling the equivalent weight.

The reason is this...the rules system is designed with those standard monsters in mind. The one set of actions a round, how defenses work, how effective debilitating conditions are, etc.....everything is designed around the party mentality. Simply scaling those numbers doesn't fundamentally fix the problem, because so many of the rules remain the same.

One of 4e's greatest contributions to the game was this recognition, and it provided an avenue to alter game design through the elite and solo tags.

The solo tag gives license to bend or break the normal rules. A solo monster gets to act more often, repel effects that a normal monster could not, do more area damage, and be significantly tougher than an equivalent single monster.

And even here it took 4e a long time to develop solo monsters that really did the job. The early attempts were pretty bad to be honest, but eventually I think they got it right.

4e got a lot of stuff wrong, but its approach to monsters was spot on. Those rule exceptions created better encounters and more balanced and yet exciting fights.




Chris_Nightwing said:


> I think there is a place for boss monsters in the game, but I don't think designations such as elite or solo belong on goblins.




I don't agree with this argument myself, but its an argument I can very much understand.

A lot of what we are debating isn't so much mechanics as it is the flavor those mechanics invoke.

I think we can all get behind the idea that dragons and beholders are just different from your usual monster. They are special, powerful, the exception to the rule. So for them to use fundamentally different mechanics is not a huge flavor issue imo.

However, the same cannot be said for the "elite goblin". For some, it can be a flavor break that one goblin has X abilities, but the elite goblin has all sorts of weird different abilities other goblins don't.

So perhaps for the humanoid monsters, working the tougher monster angle is the way to go for boss encounters. But for other monsters, I think the solo and elite tags are extraordinarily useful and should be maintained.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).




Contrived that be, my friend.
Fights where one side is a single combatant or a single combatant with a few much weaker allies is common. It is natural in many situation. 

Dragons are known for their selfishness. Must I force every dragon fight to be pairs or make his wimpy henchmen not only appear in the fight but also be stronger?
Must the evil wizard always summon monsters first turn?
Must ogres always appear in gangs and thus only be level 10+ fights?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> For those who say bounded accuracy handles it,
> 
> IT DOESN'T.
> 
> ...



I think that's more illustrative of why bounded accuracy with scaling damage is not a good idea. Truly flatter math would have the effect that people say it does, but the current 5e system is not truly flat math because something still scales.



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> So then your position is that badass monsters should not exist?



The idea is that badass monsters are what they are because of what the monster substantively is (i.e. a dragon vs a kobold), choices the DM makes, and what plays out at the table. Putting a keyword "badass" on a monster does not make it so, or help a designer or a DM make it so. At best, it's wasted space. At worst, it's a metagame distraction.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> For most of D&D's history, a monster stat block has been neither of those things. It has been a representation of certain capacities of the monster in a suitable mechanical form for usign that monster in game play.



Perhaps not, but I'm not really buying the appeal to tradition. Monster stat blocks may have been limited to this purpose at one point, but D&D evolved to the point where they mean more now (any backwards steps by a certain edition nonwithstanding).


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Putting a keyword "badass" on a monster does not make it so, or help a designer or a DM make it so. At best, it's wasted space. At worst, it's a metagame distraction.



Funny, I would have thought that at _best_, you'd get a monster designed to provide a more interesting challenge for a group of PCs than one that simply has more hit points/higher defenses/higher damage. At _worst_, you get more hit points/higher defenses/higher damage AND you have to ignore the label.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think that's more illustrative of why bounded accuracy with scaling damage is not a good idea. Truly flatter math would have the effect that people say it does, but the current 5e system is not truly flat math because something still scales.




The issue is truly flat math will never work for D&D. It has characters going from lowly kobolds to mighty dragons. Maybe in a realistic war game where there are only humans maybe. But in D&D, Something has to scale.

Scaling has to happen. And the fewer things that scale, the more exceptions you must make to create the story and game play you want.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> The issue is truly flat math will never work for D&D. It has characters going from lowly kobolds to mighty dragons. Maybe in a realistic war game where there are only humans maybe. But in D&D, Something has to scale.



I think he's expecting hit points to scale, but not damage. The likely outcome of such a system is left as an exercise to the reader.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 27, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> However, the same cannot be said for the "elite goblin". For some, it can be a flavor break that one goblin has X abilities, but the elite goblin has all sorts of weird different abilities other goblins don't.
> 
> So perhaps for the humanoid monsters, working the tougher monster angle is the way to go for boss encounters. But for other monsters, I think the solo and elite tags are extraordinarily useful and should be maintained.




For the monstrous ones, I'd say it's pretty easy actually. Just as dwarves, humans, even gnomes and halflings can train in a "class", why couldn't a hobgoblin learn the same thing as fighters, they're probably more likely than a gnome. For goblins or kobolds, why not pick up some dirty fighting tricks and "rogue" abilities, half-orcs - barbarian rages?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I think he's expecting hit points to scale, but not damage.



Nope.



			
				Minigiant said:
			
		

> The issue is truly flat math will never work for D&D. It has characters going from lowly kobolds to mighty dragons. Maybe in a realistic war game where there are only humans maybe. But in D&D, Something has to scale.



I don't think any of the basic numbers *need* to scale in the way you're suggesting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.
> 
> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).





I run many well loved games (including con games) based on comics and video games... What makes them Bad agin?


----------



## B.T. (Aug 27, 2012)

They are terribly written.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> They are terribly written.




Crap, nobody really wants to get into this.

Suffice it to say that opinions vary. I think a substantial portion of the D&D population would assert that there is enough value in enough comic books, anime, video games, and related media that WotC should at least be aware of the tropes that make those genre so popular.

In other words, you may not like them but their influence is undeniable, and I for one celebrate that.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.



I don't understand this at all... Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?

Honestly, I consider the elite/solo designation to be significantly less arbitrary or abstract than level mechanics. The idea of elite and solo enemies is extremely common and easily understandable, and has value in many game systems that don't use experience point or level mechanics.



> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).



Er, what? That's not a solution. That's a problem. You're basically saying that we shouldn't want a mighty dragon to be a reasonable challenge for a group of heroes on its own, despite the fact that it is one of the most iconic images of both fantasy and the game of Dungeons and Dragons. Such a "solution" is completely unacceptable.

Also, that "bad trope/bad sources" argument is just insulting. If D&D travels down that route it will lead only to an insular, bad game that can only appeal to aging, reactionary grognards. It is a path that leads directly to the game's demise, and I want no part of it. If the game wants to continue to survive, or better yet expand and find new fans, it needs to embrace all the inspiration it can and appeal to fans of all forms of entertainment and fantasy.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> For those who say bounded accuracy handles it,
> 
> IT DOESN'T.
> 
> ...




That just means the scaling isn't quite right yet.

To use arbitrary numbers, let's say the XP for a 4th level creature is 4x the XP for a 1st level creature. In order for it to be an appropriate challenge, then having 4x the hitpoints is about right. Having the same attack bonus, in bounded accuracy, is about right, as is having the same defence. Having 4x damage is.. wrong.. because in fact the correct scaling is 4x the attacks with the same damage. Obviously that isn't going to swing (an extra attack every level is madness) so this scaling is wrong.

What scaling do we use? I've agonised over this and not found an answer because encounters with different numbers of actions are so hard to compare. If PCs and creatures grow in power linearly (a hit dice, a damage dice per level) then combats remain the same at every level. If they gain hit die but do less damage then combats start to last longer. This might just about make up for the lack of actions for individual creatures. That's the only way I can see it working - damage output scales at, say, the square root of HP increase. Combats get longer as you go up in level.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> I don't understand this at all... Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?



One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant. When you combine the two, you get nonsensical results (here is a 20th level 'minion' that can be instantly killed by anyone who can hit it, and there is a 20th level 'boss' that can destroy a hundred such minions; both the same level, yet wlidly different).

As D&D is a level-based system, level should determine how powerful things are. If it weren't a level-based system, maybe conceptualizing some monsters as being more powerful than others based on roles would actually be meaningful and worthwhile.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> That just means the scaling isn't quite right yet.
> 
> What scaling do we use? I've agonised over this and not found an answer because encounters with different numbers of actions are so hard to compare.




This is likely because, as so many others have discovered in time, the model CANNOT be adjusted so simply.

Every model breaks down somewhere, no model accounts for everything.


The fact is a model that works very well modeling a 4 5th level character fighting 4 5th level goblins does not work so well modeling that same party against 1 "super goblin".

This is why 4e introduced the idea of rules exceptions for elite and solo monsters. If one model for all scenarios doesn't work, then lets use 2 models for 2 scenarios.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> As D&D is a level-based system, level should determine how powerful things are.




A 1st level goblin with a staff of the magi could do way more damage than any other 1st level creature.

Level isn't the only way in Dnd to determine power, its simply the primary one.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 27, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> This is likely because, as so many others have discovered in time, the model CANNOT be adjusted so simply.
> 
> Every model breaks down somewhere, no model accounts for everything.
> 
> ...




But that model didn't solve the problem either - a 1st level solo had 4x HP, did more damage but still only had one action. This didn't actually do anything that a level system couldn't do by itself and, as [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] says, created nonsensical results.

So if we want to use the Elite/Solo designations, then they must be fundamentally different beasts from the PCs, if only so that we can give them more actions!

If instead we want a level only system, it should span 1-80. A 4th level creature has 4x the HP of a 1st level creature but only does a fraction more damage. Fights get longer with level.

Really, truly, I would adjust the XP system so that you multiplied the XP value of an encounter by the number of creatures in it - simply to take into account the number of actions available to each side.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> But that model didn't solve the problem either - a 1st level solo had 4x HP, did more damage but still only had one action. This didn't actually do anything that a level system couldn't do by itself and, as [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] says, created nonsensical results.




This was a consequence of early solo monsters in 4th edition, later designed solos were made much better.

They get additional attacks, better resistance to effects, more reactions, etc.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Lets discuss how this worked in 3E, with the level system.  You have a party of 5 level 5 PCs.

Applying the CR system (+2 CR every time group doubles) 2 level 5s is a CR 7, 4 level 5s is a CR9.  We'll say CR10, since we want this to be challenging, and there's 5 players.  

But now we go to pick out CR10 monsters for our solo.  We pick a Salamander Noble.  Big critter, lots of fire damage, vulnerable to cold.  Looks good.  

The party druid tosses blinding spittle in its eyes.   Blinded, its attacks hardly reliably hit, and it loses some AC.  Then the Druid and Wizard start summoning animals around it, while the fighter and rogue rain arrows in it.  With it having to kill summons (slowly, thanks to missing much more than it should) and taking summon and arrow hits, it begins to falter.  The party cleric, meanwhile, is debuffing the hell out of it, making it just very ineffective, thanks to stacking debuffs.  

Finally after shooting it enough, the stupid thing goes down.  It failed to be a challenge in any real way for the party, because stacking debuffs and its lack of attacks meant it was mostly a punching bag.  

While the party thought the encounter was a bit tedious and generally easily negated, the DM later decides that he liked it enough to try again.

This time he selects a nine-headed cryohydra...


And this is why solos require different design than 'they have a lot more levels than the PCs.'


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant. When you combine the two, you get nonsensical results (here is a 20th level 'minion' that can be instantly killed by anyone who can hit it, and there is a 20th level 'boss' that can destroy a hundred such minions; both the same level, yet wlidly different).
> 
> As D&D is a level-based system, level should determine how powerful things are. If it weren't a level-based system, maybe conceptualizing some monsters as being more powerful than others based on roles would actually be meaningful and worthwhile.




Yet combining the two works, in a mechanical sense. A level 6 mook is a challenge for a level 6 character. Level 6 minions falls in waves before level 6 characters, but can still harm them back; no level of monster (in a scaling accuracy system, that is; here bounded accuracy but scaling hp and damage actually may achieve similar results without a special minion class) does quite the same thing. A level 6 solo monster is a good challenge for a level 6 party, but simply escalating a single enemy's level will not achieve the same result, because of hp scaling and action economy reasons that have been explored above.

So no, the two aren't redundant if they each accomplish different goals. I would call them complementary. Your argument, at its core, seems to be more about subjective dislike of different monsters at the same level having wildly divergent capabilities in combat. That's a matter of taste, which means that your feelings on it are no more or less valid than mine, and that no amount of discussion will necessarily "convince" you (or me) that your tastes should change.

Monster difficulty tags can be made, with some creativity, to "make sense" in the game world. That it requires creativity to do so shouldn't be a surprise, you need to do the same thing to make sense out of a world neatly sorted into ascending levels of combat ability as well! Why aren't there many enemies with AC 39 and 338 hp, but an attack bonus of only +2? Obviously because such an enemy wouldn't be a balanced encounter for characters of any level, but in game fiction terms such a monster might very well be possible.

No matter how we create and label monsters there is going to be some abstraction. Levels and tags work.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant. When you combine the two, you get nonsensical results (here is a 20th level 'minion' that can be instantly killed by anyone who can hit it, and there is a 20th level 'boss' that can destroy a hundred such minions; both the same level, yet wlidly different).
> 
> As D&D is a level-based system, level should determine how powerful things are. If it weren't a level-based system, maybe conceptualizing some monsters as being more powerful than others based on roles would actually be meaningful and worthwhile.



The problem with this is that, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, this assumption tends to fail on a mathematical level. Certainly, it seems like "higher level = appropriate boss" should work, but doing so requires a particular approach to the game's math that probably won't work out, and even then there will be major issues and consequences. It simply doesn't work as well as you want it to.

Also, I don't agree that the minion/solo divide is "nonsensical". It makes a lot of sense to me, so I simply can't agree with your statement. After all, we are talking about abstract game rules, not some kind of hard-coded simulation of reality. All I know is that the fun provided by having such mechanics is much greater than the problems caused by the occasional oddity created by mixing several layers of abstraction.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> This time he selects a nine-headed cryohydra...
> 
> And this is why solos require different design than 'they have a lot more levels than the PCs.'




A great example! A nine-headed cryohydra gets more actions, it makes for a great solo because it can effectively fight by itself. There are plenty of monsters that behave this way, beholders and dragons and the like.

Goblin chiefs though, do not. That's just the way I see it.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 27, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> This will surely reward 'creative' pilots.




Can't XP you, but your facetiousness has made me laugh.  Well done.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> They are terribly written.




And avengers was so terribly written that they made a movie about them... Man that movie must have bombed... Anyone know how much money they lost doing that?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).



...and where do you think those comic books, videogames, and cartoons got their ideas from?  Surely not out of the ether?  It's a trope of the fantasy genre, and having Elites and Solos as rules constructs helps the game properly emulate the fiction and artwork.

If "group of heroes ganging up on a dragon" isn't D&D, then I don't know what is.

-O


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> A great example! A nine-headed cryohydra gets more actions, it makes for a great solo because it can effectively fight by itself. There are plenty of monsters that behave this way, beholders and dragons and the like.
> 
> Goblin chiefs though, do not. That's just the way I see it.




The problem is that nine-headed cryohydras are on-level challenges, solo... for a 10th level party.  Salamander nobles are meant to come as part of a pack.  Yet they're both level 10, because they're both appropriate to throw into encounters for level 10s.  

The salamander noble doesn't have the action economy or saves to break out of a situation that a party can put him in, so he can be handled as a solo encounter for a 5th level party.  The cryohydra?  Gets 9 conal breath attacks.  

With luck, 2 or 3 party members might survive... the first round of combat.


P.S.  I agree Goblin Chieftans belong in the 'elite' category, rather than the 'solo' category, but it looks like 5E is taking a step back and sticking both elites and solos into the 'boss' category.  Why?  I dunno.  WotC.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 27, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> To use arbitrary numbers, let's say the XP for a 4th level creature is 4x the XP for a 1st level creature. In order for it to be an appropriate challenge, then having 4x the hitpoints is about right. Having the same attack bonus, in bounded accuracy, is about right, as is having the same defence. Having 4x damage is.. wrong.. because in fact the correct scaling is 4x the attacks with the same damage. Obviously that isn't going to swing (an extra attack every level is madness) so this scaling is wrong.



If you had the same number of monsters vs the same party using the same attacks, then a monster with 4x the hps is going to stick around 4x as long, and thus get 4x as many attacks, so that bit actually works fine.  But, faced with a 'big bad,' the party just might pull out some bigger attacks or some action-denial, and then the quadruple monster folds.  

It's a monster-design lesson that was learned during 4e, the original solos failing to be quite the threat they were meant to be for lack of action-preservation.




> What scaling do we use? I've agonised over this and not found an answer because encounters with different numbers of actions are so hard to compare. If PCs and creatures grow in power linearly (a hit dice, a damage dice per level) then combats remain the same at every level.



It remains similar in length, sure, and comparable in encounter balance.  If characters also gain more options and monsters gain more dramatic abilities, though, the feel of the combat will change.  There can be more to 'scaling' than the literal, bigger-numbers, side.  


> If they gain hit die but do less damage then combats start to last longer. This might just about make up for the lack of actions for individual creatures. That's the only way I can see it working - damage output scales at, say, the square root of HP increase. Combats get longer as you go up in level.



So, not less damage, but lower increases to damage than to hps?  I could see that working in some ways:  it'll give PCs more staying power as they level, and make overleveled fights longer (and, thus, perhaps, more dramatic, if they don't become 'grinds').  

But it still doesn't quite let monsters pull double-duty as solo threat vs a lower level party and mook vs a higher level one.  The effect of automatic focus-fire, on a lone monster, by itself, changes things.  Then there's the impact of action-denial.  

Maybe there could be some sort of advantage given to the much higher-level side of a battle to both put back a little of the spice/drama that bounded accuracy might take away, and to speed up underleveled mook combats and add danger to overleveled boss encounters?   Not Advantage in the 5e jargon sense, of course, blanket advantage/disadvantage could get pretty boring, but some other mechanic.  For instance, in AD&D, a fighter got lots of extra attacks vs less-than-one-HD monsters - 1 per level, in fact - and AD&D dragons had a fear aura that only worked on creatures below a certain level/HD.  Since 5e is all about poking around the attic for such ideas, why not do something like that?  A Fighter could, say, trade in a CS die for an extra attack if all the opponents he attacks that round are below a certain max-hp threshold - there's already a cleave-like option under one Fighting-style, but this would be a blanket thing, like Parry.  Casters, of course, can already sweep away hordes of lesser monsters with area attacks.  A monster could gain extra 'secondary' attacks or have additional combat options that it can only use, if it's level/HD is sufficiently higher than the party's (or everyone in the party is below a certain max hp threshold, since that seems to be 5e's implementation).


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 27, 2012)

renau1g said:


> Or, I can save tons of time adding NPC levels to the goblin and have one statted out for me. One reason I gave up on 3.5e DM'ing was spending hours carefully crafting the NPC BBEG and getting one round killed.
> 
> In 4e, I can search for an appropriate leveled Elite foe and tweak for all of 5 seconds and have what I need.
> 
> ...




When I run games I don't always expect my encounters to last a certain number of rounds. Sure I may spend hours on a "boss" but if he gets taken out right away then I applaud the PC's for taking him out quickly. My "return" on my NPC investment is when I know that my player's are having fun. 

I enjoy flipping through lots of classes and PrCs and coming up with all sorts of interesting characters. I guess where we differ is the fact that my "return" is different than yours but that's okay. 

I don't want there to be one way to create encounters and NPC's. I want to be able to create them 3rd edition style and in 4th edition style for those who liked that style.


----------



## B.T. (Aug 27, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> I don't understand this at all... Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?



I'd prefer to keep the arbitrary abstractness as minimal as possible.


> Er, what? That's not a solution. That's a problem. You're *basically* saying that we shouldn't want a mighty dragon to be a reasonable challenge for a group of heroes on its own, despite the fact that it is one of the most iconic images of both fantasy and the game of Dungeons and Dragons.



Your use of that adverb causes my head to hurt. Poor form aside, it often indicates a logical leap that segues into a strawman, so let's stop right there.

"You're basically saying that--"

No, no, I'm not. I'm *actually* saying that a dragon should be a high-level creature that is a boss monster by virtue of its level. At a certain point, that dragon should stop being a boss monster and become a normal monster because that's how powerful the PCs are. (If this point is level 10, 15, 20, I don't know; that's up to the designers.)


> Such a "solution" is completely unacceptable.









Obviously, I disagree.


> Also, that "bad trope/bad sources" argument is just insulting. If D&D travels down that route it will lead only to an insular, bad game that can only appeal to aging, reactionary grognards. It is a path that leads directly to the game's demise, and I want no part of it. If the game wants to continue to survive, or better yet expand and find new fans, it needs to embrace all the inspiration it can and appeal to fans of all forms of entertainment and fantasy.



Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> [long hydra-based example]
> And this is why solos require different design than 'they have a lot more levels than the PCs.'



Actually, this example is why the CR system sucks. And perhaps even an argument against D&D's historically steep number scaling.



			
				slobster said:
			
		

> Yet combining the two works, in a mechanical sense.



For some, maybe. For others, no.

Virtually anything can work in an rpg, what with differing styles and the potential for interpretations and houserules. The question is, what works the best for most people.



> Your argument, at its core, seems to be more about subjective dislike of different monsters at the same level having wildly divergent capabilities in combat.



Not at all. As [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] said, it's fine if some monsters naturally make better bosses than others because of what they are (or are otherwise "different"). It's not fine to approach design by saying "what combination of mechanics will provide a challenge to 4 5th level PCs?" and then slapping a description on the result. If a hydra has nine attacks, it's because *it has nine heads*, not because it balances out the action economy. Designing games backwards (i.e. deciding what a monster will do in a specific situation and then making rules that help it do that thing) is the issue here.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> A 1st level goblin with a staff of the magi could do way more damage than any other 1st level creature.
> 
> Level isn't the only way in Dnd to determine power, its simply the primary one.



I don't know how a goblin would actually use the staff, but belying that, yes, there are plenty of things that can situationally influence power. Level is the *primary* underlying determinant, but not the sole one.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 27, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you had the same number of monsters vs the same party using the same attacks, then a monster with 4x the hps is going to stick around 4x as long, and thus get 4x as many attacks, so that bit actually works fine.




Actually, it's quite different.  Hitting 16 times in 4 round is much better than hitting 16 times over 16 rounds (assuming each hit deals the same damage).

As in chemistry, concentration matters.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not at all. As [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] said, it's fine if some monsters naturally make better bosses than others because of what they are (or are otherwise "different"). It's not fine to approach design by saying "what combination of mechanics will provide a challenge to 4 5th level PCs?" and then slapping a description on the result. If a hydra has nine attacks, it's because *it has nine heads*, not because it balances out the action economy. Designing games backwards (i.e. deciding what a monster will do in a specific situation and then making rules that help it do that thing) is the issue here.




Why is it not fine to do this? Why can't I decide I want a solo encounter, then decide that a hydra would make a neat encounter (for the reasons you mention), then use the solo tag to make an appropriate encounter? It doesn't bother me. In game terms it works out just fine.

You don't like it because you want your monster tools to simulate the game world. I'm ok with it because I'm fine with monster tools that deliver a tailor made gaming experience, so long as it pays heed to in-game fictional concerns (no 30th level solo-monster pixies . . . unless there's a durn good reason for it).

That is a subjective difference in priorities, not a disagreement about objectively determined truth.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 27, 2012)

This thread really seems to be about the differing preference for top-down vs bottoms-up monster design.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> No, no, I'm not. I'm *actually* saying that a dragon should be a high-level creature that is a boss monster by virtue of its level. At a certain point, that dragon should stop being a boss monster and become a normal monster because that's how powerful the PCs are. (If this point is level 10, 15, 20, I don't know; that's up to the designers.)




So what this accomplishes is that monsters lose simply because they can't keep up with the number of actions in combat.  A single Dragon should be a "boss monster" by virtue of his level, but if he only has one action per turn he is not much of a "boss monster."  A party of 4/5 characters will have 4/5 actions against it for every time the monster gets to act.

Bounded Accuracy cannot account for that.

We have already seen this before and it made for very "boring" and "grindy" events.

I personally don't wish to go back to that type of situation.  YMMV




-


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> That is a subjective difference in priorities, not a disagreement about objectively determined truth.



I make no pretense to the contrary. There are very few objective truths on rpg message boards, and I do not routinely add IMHO YMMV to every post because I take it as assumed.

I am merely asserting my belief that a basically naturalistic philosophy (or simulation, if you prefer, though D&D is not strongly simulationist) is the right direction for the industry as a whole.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Actually, this example is why the CR system sucks. And perhaps even an argument against D&D's historically steep number scaling.




Nope, that's not the issue!  A Salamander Noble is perfectly appropriate as part of a threat for a level 10 party.  It's simply the nature of the design.  Salamander nobles don't have the action economy to really be a threat to the party on their own.  

*One attack per round against one target will never threaten a party unless the attack has a high likelihood of inflicting instant death. * Period.  There are just too many ways to cycle players out, get out of combat, deny actions, and recover from even VERY hard hits on a single target that only happen once per round. 

The only way to challenge an entire party is multi-attacks, multiple actions within the round structure, AOEs and zones, and other effects meant to acknowledge the multi-target nature of the encounter are necessary.

When you have five or six monsters doing that, well... heh.  Good luck resolving combat in under 4 hours.  "Each monster acts twice per round, and... hmmm... there's a trigger when they're bloodied, and they lay down a zone around them... the zones stack, so if you move there you will take 5+5+5+5 fire damage... unless you take a different path, then you move through that zone... and that zone... and... oh, you only take damage once per round per zone, so you don't take double damage there, but that is a different zone..."

The design is completely, totally different between 1 monster encounters and multiple.  Even 3E knew that - every monster designed to be encountered on its own had breath weapons, iterative attacks, magic, and other multi-target features.


----------



## triqui (Aug 27, 2012)

I think you dont need a tag to make a goblin the tribe's boss. You don't even need giving him extra levels. Just say "the one with the crown is the goblin king".

However, I *do* think that the needs of a monster meant to fight solo (like a dragon) are completelly different than the needs of monsters meant to fight in group (like gnolls). Use a tag, or dont, but they need to be built different. A group of five  level 10 monsters do n damage, five times. They can take 5 actions (5 spells, for example). A single monster, meant to be fought solo (as per the monster normal ecology) cant do 5n damage (or it will one-shot the PC) and is bound to one single action per turn, and wont have 5x the HP, unless it is an epic creature. That doesn't really work.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I make no pretense to the contrary. There are very few objective truths on rpg message boards, and I do not routinely add IMHO YMMV to every post because I take it as assumed.
> 
> I am merely asserting my belief that a basically naturalistic philosophy (or simulation, if you prefer, though D&D is not strongly simulationist) is the right direction for the industry as a whole.




And I disagree.  YMMV, IMHO, IME, IYKWIMAITYD, etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.



 First off not only could I run that game, but atleast 4 out of 5 players would walk out saying how bad ass It was.

The main setting is a school where wiz apprentices are trying to learn how to become full wiz (aka start at level 1) have every game have a stand alone theme base on morality but make it a game about pregadice... The vampire with a heart of gold (and skin of diamonds) is an ally, so is the dark bruising potions instructor.


Second, it is easy enough to pick and choose what makes a story kiddy or badass gummy bears where no laughing matter in my 3.5 world


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's not fine to approach design by saying "what combination of mechanics will provide a challenge to 4 5th level PCs?" and then slapping a description on the result. If a hydra has nine attacks, it's because *it has nine heads*, not because it balances out the action economy.




Its fine if you replace "slap a description on" with "provide a solid and flavorful description".

Monster Design is about combining mechanics and description to provide a monster that:

1) Provokes a certain response from the players (due to flavor and lore).
2) Actually sells its lore in combat (due to mechanics).

I agree that a monster shouldn't able to do ANYTHING it wants because the challenge demands it, but it can certainly do a lot if you flavor it correctly.

Here's an example. Lets take a "Solo" Monster: The Goblin Shaman.

If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I make no pretense to the contrary. There are very few objective truths on rpg message boards, and I do not routinely add IMHO YMMV to every post because I take it as assumed.




Ah, I see. I thought you were denying it before.

Well as long as we agree that we're talking about something that, at the end of the day is a matter of taste, I have a question for you. If I designed that same hydra and then realized it would be a good solo encounter, and so slapped the tag on it, would that be ok with you? I.e. do you object to the solo/elite tags in general, or just when used as a guide during monster creation?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 27, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Actually, it's quite different.  Hitting 16 times in 4 round is much better than hitting 16 times over 16 rounds (assuming each hit deals the same damage).
> 
> As in chemistry, concentration matters.



Certainly.  Or, at least, it should be.  With healing as a daily resource, like HD and ultimately hps, total attrition becomes the main thing, though.  So, assuming 4x the hps means lasting 4x as long, it also means doing 4x the damage and thus 4x the attrition effect.  Iff you're just comparing one monster to one monster with 4x the hps.

Say exp are directly related to hps.  A single monster with 4x the hps is the same challenge as 4 monsters.  If they each do the same damage, though, and the party takes 4 rounds to chew through those hps...

Single monster gets 4 attacks over 4 rounds.

4 monsters get 4 attacks the first round, then 3, then 2, then 1, for a total of 10.


Simply giving the monster more damage might work for that simplified example, but if the party dishes more or less damage - or more of it as AEs - that, too, will be thrown off.


Bottom line:  simply using an identical-stat monster as both a lone challenge for a lower-level party and a one among many mooks for a higher-level one doesn't work.  Thus, mook and boss monsters with somewhat different stats at the 'same' level.


----------



## Victim (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.
> 
> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).




Yeah, we wouldn't want any bad sources to dilute the purity of our game based on a mishmash of Dying Earth, Conan, LotR, kung fu movies, wargames, and Dracula.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.




That doesn't make you a reactionary grognard. Everyone has their tastes.

I would find it . . . distasteful, however, if you go out of your way to try and stop other people from running that game. Or insult others for enjoying that sort of game.

If it makes you feel better, I haven't noticed much My Little Pony in the playtest so far.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.



It's a fine line, but I agree with the sentiment.



slobster said:


> Well as long as we agree that we're talking about something that, at the end of the day is a matter of taste, I have a question for you. If I designed that same hydra and then realized it would be a good solo encounter, and so slapped the tag on it, would that be ok with you? I.e. do you object to the solo/elite tags in general, or just when used as a guide during monster creation?



As long as the tag was a natural result of the mechanics and had no mechanical effect in and of itself, was placed on after the fact rather than driving the design, and could be easily ignored, I don't see the problem. However, I would prefer it to be placed in the description or tactics section; as having it in the monster stat block implies that it is a mechanic when (in this example) it isn't.

I feel pretty much the same way about things like CR and organization. I'd rather have the stat block describe what the monster is, and all the cultural details and recommendations for how to use the monster in context in the text below to make the distinction between mechanics that describe the monster's physical and psychological makeup and "fluff" that describes other things clear.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 27, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> This thread really seems to be about the differing preference for top-down vs bottoms-up monster design.



I wouldn't say that. The two styles of design use different methods, but they don't necessarily provide different results. You can easily arrive at the desire to have mechanics for solo monsters with either approach.

Most design incorporates elements of both design methods anyways, and balancing the two methods seems to lead to the best design.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> As long as the tag was a natural result of the mechanics and had no mechanical effect in and of itself, was placed on after the fact rather than driving the design, and could be easily ignored, I don't see the problem. However, I would prefer it to be placed in the description or tactics section; as having it in the monster stat block implies that it is a mechanic when (in this example) it isn't.




But it should probably affect xp, right? If it really is tough enough to take on an entire party of equal level adventurers, they shouldn't get the same xp from it that they'd get from killing an equal level redshirt mook.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 27, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> I wouldn't say that. The two styles of design use different methods, but they don't necessarily provide different results. You can easily arrive at the desire to have mechanics for solo monsters with either approach.
> 
> Most design incorporates elements of both design methods anyways, and balancing the two methods seems to lead to the best design.




Ah, I was using top-down/bottoms-up the same way MTG uses it, which is more of a flavour first vs. mechanics first approach to card design.  

I agree that the best designs combines elements of both but it's hard to do at times.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> But it should probably affect xp, right? If it really is tough enough to take on an entire party of equal level adventurers, they shouldn't get the same xp from it that they'd get from killing an equal level redshirt mook.



Given that XP is also in the realm of things that don't really belong in a monster stat block, I don't much care. XP is optional. If you're going to use XP, I'd suggest giving it out based on the totality of the circumstance (what the total strength was of the combatants involved, what conditions the battle was fought under, what was accomplished by fighting the battle, etc.). However, if we're talking about the XP value that is currently and dubiously assigned to monsters, I'd say that's a reflection of how difficult the designers think it is to defeat, and thus is a reflection of the monster's level, ability scores, and special abilities.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 27, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Ah, I was using top-down/bottoms-up the same way MTG uses it, which is more of a flavour first vs. mechanics first approach to card design.
> 
> I agree that the best designs combines elements of both but it's hard to do at times.




I think that flavor should have a good way to be backed by mechanics.  If it doesn't, it fails in my book.  Sometimes flavor comes first, sometimes mechanics come first.  At the end they should complement each other.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> If it makes you feel better, I haven't noticed much My Little Pony in the playtest so far.




A shame really.
---

Overall it comes down to this.
If you do not mind that the tradional singular monster system breaks down and causes high level "boss" monsters to devolve into Rocket Tag or Padded Sumo Nerf Duels, then the base system is fine.

But if the DM or players hope for more dramatic or cinematic boss fights, then you need an additional minion/mook/elite/solo system inserted to do so.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Overall it comes down to this.
> If you do not mind that the tradional singular monster system breaks down and causes high level "boss" monsters to devolve into Rocket Tag or Padded Sumo Nerf Duels, then the base system is fine.



I don't understand the derisiveness of these terms, and I don't see the problem with the underlying outcome. A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad. Pretty much any battle in any rpg system with tactical rules could be described by one or the other.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad.




In the context of the dnd game, they are.

A "rocket tag" style of combat is great for games where combat is about planning and preparation. A navy seal style where if you have done your planning right, the enemy will never get a chance to fire.

Dnd is about throwing yourself into the fire, sword to sword, and magic against monsters. Most people don't play for the big planning aspects, at least not most of the time. So rocket tag combat simply amounts to luck. Who goes first, who hits first.

Long Attrition Combats are boring because of the nature of pen and paper. A Final Fantasy boss fight is fine when the computer does all the work. Tracking 20 rounds of dnd combat is just too labor intensive to be worth it. The rounds drag on and players lose interest.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't understand the derisiveness of these terms, and I don't see the problem with the underlying outcome. A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad. Pretty much any battle in any rpg system with tactical rules could be described by one or the other.




They aren't inherently bad.
But sometimes you want to fight the boss for more than 2 round or less than 20. 

It becomes a "too much of one thing" situation. Even too many even tactical 6-10 round fights can get boring after a while.

The problem is than a D&D campaign can have 0-100 fights. And 100 games of rocket tag, nerf attrition, or tank/damage/heal combat gets boring to many people when it is predictable.

If every fight a dragon is "kill it before he breathes fire and wipes half the party"...


----------



## Gryph (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Given that XP is also in the realm of things that don't really belong in a monster stat block, I don't much care. XP is optional. If you're going to use XP, I'd suggest giving it out based on the totality of the circumstance (what the total strength was of the combatants involved, what conditions the battle was fought under, what was accomplished by fighting the battle, etc.). However, if we're talking about the XP value that is currently and dubiously assigned to monsters, I'd say that's a reflection of how difficult the designers think it is to defeat, and thus is a reflection of the monster's level, ability scores, and special abilities.




There is going to be, and I would argue there has to be, a baseline mode of play. A foundation, if you will, upon which the modularity we are expecting in Next to rest. In this quote and a couple others you seem to be advocating for things that are certain to be in the baseline to be inherently optional. I would guess that it is as likely for XP for defeating monsters to be optional as making an attack roll determine if you hit to be optional. I.e. you can play that way, but it is on you to do the work to change your game.

So by dismissing a very valid question about the effect on xp rewards for tougher monsters cause you don't care is tangential, at best, to the thread topic.

In an unrelated aside, if your only experience with D&D encompasses versions released by WoTC then you are going to continue to go astray with a large portion of the ENWorld community when you make assertions of "historically" that were only true for 3.x.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Gryph said:


> There is going to be, and I would argue there has to be, a baseline mode of play. A foundation, if you will, upon which the modularity we are expecting in Next to rest. In this quote and a couple others you seem to be advocating for things that are certain to be in the baseline to be inherently optional. I would guess that it is as likely for XP for defeating monsters to be optional as making an attack roll determine if you hit to be optional. I.e. you can play that way, but it is on you to do the work to change your game.



XP has always been something that a lot of people ignored and that the rest of people tend to modify substantially (check the various ENW polls on the subject). XP is hardly a core D&D mechanic, nor is it a particularly successful or important one. Attack rolls are foundational to D&D's approach and are not really an appropriate comparison.

If they really assume that the average D&D group will use one XP system, the one in the book, they're in for a world of trouble.



> So by dismissing a very valid question about the effect on xp rewards for tougher monsters cause you don't care is tangential, at best, to the thread topic.



You did see the detailed response I wrote after that, right?



> In an unrelated aside, if your only experience with D&D encompasses versions released by WoTC then you are going to continue to go astray with a large portion of the ENWorld community when you make assertions of "historically" that were only true for 3.x.



I do have some experience with 2e; I just don't own any of the books. That being said, my perspective is my perspective. I don't know or care what D&D was before I was born (1985), and I'm pretty clear about that. You could say that perspective is limiting because I don't understand all of D&D's history, but it also brings something that ENW doesn't have a lot of: a younger voice. The average age on these boards is significantly older than me.

Many D&D players do not have experience with pre-WotC D&D. Virtually any new players recruited now don't have such experience. Conversely, almost all D&D players, new and old, have significant experience with 3.X in some sense, either as D&D or as PF, even if they went back to old school or now play 4e or a non-D&D rpg. It makes a lot of sense to use that as a point of reference.

Commonly, edition warriors have tried to posit 4e as the game for the 'cool kids', one that somehow attracts the youth that this hobby desperately needs. They have likewise tried to paint players of 3.5, PF, or various pre-WotC systems as old, cantankerous, inflexible, and unreasonable. They dismiss any number of mechanical issues on that basis, apparently believing that anything new is good, and anything older than 4e is obsolete. They're wrong, and they're killing the hobby. Thus, I feel it rather important to articulate the views of someone who is not old enough to remember old school D&D, let alone be nostalgic for it, who used to call the local WotC store the day the new splatbook arrived and liked the company and the brand, but nonetheless doesn't like WotC's recent creative and business decisions, not because they're new, not because I have some bias against them, but because they suck. I want 5e to be good. Not new, not old, good.

Like anyone, my opinion reflects only my experiences and perspective, but I try to say things that need to be said.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> XP has always been something that a lot of people ignored and that the rest of people tend to modify substantially (check the various ENW polls on the subject). XP is hardly a core D&D mechanic, nor is it a particularly successful or important one. Attack rolls are foundational to D&D's approach and are not really an appropriate comparison.
> 
> If they really assume that the average D&D group will use one XP system, the one in the book, they're in for a world of trouble.
> 
> ...




I think you over estimate the amount of the total player base ignores XP if you think it is a lot. But, like your estimate, that is also just an opinion, so no available facts, etc. So that aside, xp is certainly a core mechanic. Baked in at every turn and expected to be used. You can handwave it away and use dm fiat to level characters but that puts you outside the mechanics.

I admit to being one of the older players on the board, started playing D&D in grade school in 1976. I now play mostly 4e with two of my sons and some friends so beside myself our group ranges in age from 12 to 32 with two under 20, two in their 20s and two in their early 30s. We have played 3 versions of D&D in this group (1e, 3.5e and 4) as well as trying some other games and we keep coming back to 4e. Not because any of us think its perfect.

I have no issues with you advocating for what you think will make D&D Next a better game than any of its predecessors. I will do the same. What I did take issue with are those places where you seem to be trying to take D&D to some system it is not and has never been. I would also ask that you stop using "historically" when you mean "in 3.x". I am grognard enough to find that grating for pronouncements that were not true from 1974-1999. Your memory not extending that far is no excuse for sloppy phrasing. Get off my lawn 

I do believe that 4e had the fracturing effect it did largely because it asked the player base to strongly re-examine what it meant to be D&D and a lot of the players didn't like that approach and didn't like the result. I think the designers of Next will be compounding that error if the essentially do the same thing again.

When it is done, I think a player of any previous edition needs to be able to look at the rules and see a lot of their favorite version and some cool new things or the designers will have failed.

It may turn out to be too high a bar, but not trying that hurdle would appear to me as admitting defeat.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 27, 2012)

I want every creature to have it's normal everyday statblock along with it's history, culture, and any other relevant information. 

Then I want to be able to make that creature into what ever I want just by adding a class, background, feat etc... 

I don't want a certain creature to be built and presented in the MM as just a "boss" creature.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> They dismiss any number of mechanical issues on that basis, apparently believing that anything new is good, and anything older than 4e is obsolete. They're wrong, and they're killing the hobby. Thus, I feel it rather important to articulate the views of someone who is not old enough to remember old school D&D, let alone be nostalgic for it, who used to call the local WotC store the day the new splatbook arrived and liked the company and the brand, but nonetheless doesn't like WotC's recent creative and business decisions, not because they're new, not because I have some bias against them, but because they suck. I want 5e to be good. Not new, not old, good.
> 
> Like anyone, my opinion reflects only my experiences and perspective, but I try to say things that need to be said.




I'm just a little younger than you, and have a similar history with D&D. I did start with AD&D, but by the time I really got into it 3E was just coming out. It definitely forms the baseline of what I consider the D&D experience.

I like 4th, but I do think that 3.x did some things better. Everything that 4th did is not, in fact, superior to 3.x by the sole virtue of being new.

The converse is also true. Not everything in 3.x is better by virtue of being classic.

Giving monsters levels is already an abstraction, but one that is necessary for good gameplay. A monster with vastly mismatched offensive and defensive capabilities is going to be an uneven challenge and difficult for the GM to run. Thus I suffer the level system for monsters to continue, even though realistically speaking I could see a monster with massive AC but crappy attacks as being a possibility. Instead all monsters have a level, which largely determines the range of their attack bonuses, hp, defenses, damage abilities, and so on.

With that abstraction granted, I don't see a further abstraction in the form of elite/solo tags as being a problem. They serve a definite purpose, as I and others have pointed out. They give the GM guidance that is helpful to produce the game she wants to run. They grant capabilities not already served by the level system. They are no more decoupled from the fiction of the game universe than arbitrarily assigning levels to monsters already is.

If you don't want solos anywhere near your game, don't use them. But this is an instance where including rules for them is a large value for me and people like me. It's work that I couldn't necessarily do myself, involving the mathematics of the system which I don't have access to or the ability to playtest out my own version of. On the other hand, for people like you, it's trivially easy to ignore.

It seems to make sense to include it.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> On the other hand, for people like you, it's trivially easy to ignore.
> 
> It seems to make sense to include it.




Can't XP, but yep.  Exactly!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Gryph said:


> I think you over estimate the amount of the total player base ignores XP if you think it is a lot. But, like your estimate, that is also just an opinion, so no available facts, etc.



Well, I have some. No one knows for sure (insert generic caveat about unscientific-ness), but I feel comfortable saying XP is only used as wriitten by a minority of people. Certainly a minority of people on these boards. And close to half simply ignore it.



> So that aside, xp is certainly a core mechanic. Baked in at every turn and expected to be used. You can handwave it away and use dm fiat to level characters but that puts you outside the mechanics.



I suppose you could look at it that way, but by that logic everyone who goes outside the ability score generation systems in the DMG is off the book, as is anyone who goes outside the wealth by level guidelines. Pretty much everybody is "outside the mechanics" in this way of thinking. That's kind of how rpg mechanics work.



> What I did take issue with are those places where you seem to be trying to take D&D to some system it is not and has never been.



No more than anyone on these boards, I think.

I do want a game that is better than anything we've seen (and therefore one that it has never been).



> I would also ask that you stop using "historically" when you mean "in 3.x". I am grognard enough to find that grating for pronouncements that were not true from 1974-1999. Your memory not extending that far is no excuse for sloppy phrasing. Get off my lawn



It's actually a rather 4e-centric phrasing (especially given that the 3.X system is the market standard right now, albeit not necessarily with D&D on the cover). One could argue that anything other than what WotC is supporting right now is "historical" (and that anything pre-WotC is a subset of extremely historical D&D: "archaic", "heritage"?). That being said, you're right that it isn't a clear term and is not a good way of phrasing things. Point taken.



> I do believe that 4e had the fracturing effect it did largely because it asked the player base to strongly re-examine what it meant to be D&D and a lot of the players didn't like that approach and didn't like the result. I think the designers of Next will be compounding that error if the essentially do the same thing again.



I suspect every edition change involved that kind of reexamination. 4e's issues are bigger than that.



> When it is done, I think a player of any previous edition needs to be able to look at the rules and see a lot of their favorite version and some cool new things or the designers will have failed.



I'll agree on that.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois, what this threat is lacking is some solid examples that would make your viewpoint make sense to the rest of us. 

*Can you build an encounter to show us how it would work?*  I've got a wizard who is making a deal with a demon.  The party hasn't managed to interrupt his ritual in time, so they're arriving just in time to see him complete his nefarious task and become the vessel of a demon within this mortal plane.  

How would your system work in making this an interesting and compelling experience for the players?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

slobster said:


> The converse is also true.
> 
> Not everything in 3.x is better by virtue of being classic.



Certainly not.

I dislike many things about 3e, including some about its monster design. A lot of late 3.5 monsters seemed to be designed around a standard encounter rather than for a world, and it showed in the quality of the monster manuals. Despite there being five of them, MM3 is actually the best (after the core MM of course). Coversely, the beloved and presumably profitable monster series (Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, etc.) espouse the philosophy of monster design I'm advocating.

I also dislike how sharply the math scales in 3e, and any number of other things.



> Giving monsters levels is already an abstraction, but one that is necessary for good gameplay.



It's not necessary, but it's D&D's chosen conceit. Moving on.



> With that abstraction granted, I don't see a further abstraction in the form of elite/solo tags as being a problem.
> ...
> On the other hand, for people like you, it's trivially easy to ignore.



Like I said, if someone writes a bit of text on an ogre mage saying "this creature would be a good fight and the end of a quest" or saying that a lich "is typically a major villain to build a campaign around" that's good fluff.

The problem is not the tag itself, it's the underlying monster design. If my monster is designed specifically to be a boss/minion/etc., if "bosses" get one hp/attack/damage/etc. value and standard monsters get different stats, that's not easily ignored.

In other words, this:


> I don't want a certain creature to be built and presented in the MM as just a "boss" creature.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's not necessary, but it's D&D's chosen conceit. Moving on.



Good riposte, that. 


Ahnehnois said:


> Like I said, if someone writes a bit of text on an ogre mage saying "this creature would be a good fight and the end of a quest" or saying that a lich "is typically a major villain to build a campaign around" that's good fluff.
> 
> The problem is not the tag itself, it's the underlying monster design. If my monster is designed specifically to be a boss/minion/etc., if "bosses" get one hp/attack/damage/etc. value and standard monsters get different stats, that's not easily ignored.



I still don't see how this is any different from choosing a level and than allowing that to determine hp/attack/damage/etc., but I think you and I understand each other pretty well at this point. We just disagree. Nothing wrong with that, though of course I hope that they end up agreeing more with me that they do with you. 

I hope that some entries in the MM are explicitly offered as "boss monsters" (I prefer the term solo because it sidesteps the confusion around the multiple meanings of the word boss), both for direct use in the game and as inspiration for your own solo encounter set pieces.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.
> 
> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with.  It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).




Are Dragons not a solo/boss fight? In any edition? 
Never have I DM'd, when I said you see a Dragon, did anyone say "how many dragons?". Smaug the dragon is a boss fight, iconic & true. Have you removed ALL the Dragons from you game? Then remove Dragon & any other boss fighters, done. Easy Pease, simple.

This is NOT a solution nor a bad trope, nor fiddly nor wonky, it is remove something YOU dislike, and not for any good reason, except maybe you dislike cartoons, video games, etc.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 27, 2012)

@Ahnenhois Any chance you can give a shot at explaining how this would work in this circumstance?  I mean what's the steps you'd go through?



GreyICE said:


> Ahnehnois, what this threat is lacking is some solid examples that would make your viewpoint make sense to the rest of us.
> 
> *Can you build an encounter to show us how it would work?*  I've got a wizard who is making a deal with a demon.  The party hasn't managed to interrupt his ritual in time, so they're arriving just in time to see him complete his nefarious task and become the vessel of a demon within this mortal plane.
> 
> How would your system work in making this an interesting and compelling experience for the players?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Ahnehnois, what this threat is lacking is some solid examples that would make your viewpoint make sense to the rest of us.
> 
> *Can you build an encounter to show us how it would work?*  I've got a wizard who is making a deal with a demon.  The party hasn't managed to interrupt his ritual in time, so they're arriving just in time to see him complete his nefarious task and become the vessel of a demon within this mortal plane.
> 
> How would your system work in making this an interesting and compelling experience for the players?



Um, okay. Guess I'll bite.

"My system" is at the moment a heavily houseruled 3.5, and I did something not terribly dissimilar to this a year or two ago.

Since the warlock (not wizard) was affiliated with an ancient demon lord of vermin attempting to return and there were no obvious choices straight out of the book, I created his servant by applying some spicy templates to a naga, IIRC, and adding some vermin-y descriptions. It was already much more powerful than the party, but I selected spells for it from some of the newer supplements, gave it a couple of nice MIC items, and advanced it several HD (like all my monsters, it also had a custom ability array; since it was built as a "boss", it had stats as good as or slightly better than theirs). It pretty much owned them.

I added in a macguffin element whereby the PCs could still disrupt the ritual and unsummon the thing, split the party with the protagonist being temporarily out of action, one character trapped and about to be sacrificed to the demon, and the third and last character left alone and summoned to leave and return to the druids. Instead, she decided to search for her comrades, discovered the cultists' lair, roused a mob, and sacked the place.

The militia ran from the demon/naga and the party, the main protagonist having been sent back in the nick of time by the fey, defeated the warlock and held off the summoned creature long enough for them to destroy the macguffin and dismiss it. The character on the altar was in pretty dire straits, but it all worked out in the end. The angel on the other side of the room was freed, and it teleported them to their safehouse in the city they were headed towards (which didn't work out so well, but that's another story). I titled the session "Salvation".

***

Well, you wanted an example. To the point of this thread, the "boss" naga was not designed  by whoever wrote the monster muanal as a boss, and my statblock didn't look anything like what was in the book. It's a miscellaneous monster, but I chose to make it overwhelmingly powerful because I liked the flavor and wanted to scare the PCs. It was not remotely balanced (unlike the warlock, who could also be considered a boss and was higher in level than the PCs). They could never have beaten it in a fair fight. But it was effective for what I wanted it to do.

If they had gotten the sense that it was balanced to provide a particular challenge, it would not have been scary. If they could easily identify it and understand its capabilities after having read its monster manual entry, it would have been boring. Customization-the choice to make it a "boss" by altering its mechanics using various advancement rules-is what worked here.


----------



## Derren (Aug 27, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> First, D&D 4E is the best selling system on the market, over its history.  Even at the end of its lifecycle it's still number 2, and that's WITH most of the people who want the core books owning them and D&D Insider (which is amazing for WotC).  The only competitors might be 3E or 2E (probably 2E wins, but it's market run was like a decade+, so there's that). Lets kill that idea off the bat.




I would really be interested in where you got that information. Because whenever I look at, for example, amazon sales ranks for RPG books, I see pathfinder on top the bestseller list, a system which was only able to rise so high because of 4Es failure to retain the D&D customer base. So not only is 4E the first D&D edition which is not dominating the other rpg products, it is also the edition with the shortest lifecycle and that certainly not because it was planned that way.
Success looks different.

As for the boss tag, I oppose nearly every gamist rule so it is no surprise that I do not like that one at all. Bosses should be defined by the story and should be as strong as they would be in the world given the circumstances. If that is "too strong" for the PCs then they have to get creative.
Also, a boss tag again reinforces the perception of D&D as a MMO inspired skirmish game where everything is geared towards combat, an image D&D imo desperately needs to loose.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> They could never have beaten it in a fair fight. But it was effective for what I wanted it to do.
> 
> If they had gotten the sense that it was balanced to provide a particular challenge, it would not have been scary. If they could easily identify it and understand its capabilities after having read its monster manual entry, it would have been boring. Customization-the choice to make it a "boss" by altering its mechanics using various advancement rules-is what worked here.




This is a good example of a boss battle....it just doesn't really invalidate the point about needing solo type monsters.

By your own admission this monster was never meant to be beatable, it was meant to be defeating by a McGuffin while being extra scary. Its a great encounter, and it sounds like it worked just great for you.

But...some encounters you would like a traditional boss battle, party vs the big bad....battle to the end. Its these battles where the Solo type monster comes in handy.


----------



## slobster (Aug 27, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, you wanted an example. To the point of this thread, the "boss" naga was not designed  by whoever wrote the monster muanal as a boss, and my statblock didn't look anything like what was in the book. It's a miscellaneous monster, but I chose to make it overwhelmingly powerful because I liked the flavor and wanted to scare the PCs. It was not remotely balanced (unlike the warlock, who could also be considered a boss and was higher in level than the PCs). They could never have beaten it in a fair fight. But it was effective for what I wanted it to do.
> 
> If they had gotten the sense that it was balanced to provide a particular challenge, it would not have been scary. If they could easily identify it and understand its capabilities after having read its monster manual entry, it would have been boring. Customization-the choice to make it a "boss" by altering its mechanics using various advancement rules-is what worked here.



Well, that is moving the goalposts somewhat. We are explicitly talking about a system to make balanced encounters out of single enemies.

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to make unbalanced encounters. Your example is a good use of unbalanced opposition used to great effect. But it doesn't address our issue, which is that we want and appreciate tools to make solo encounters that are engaging, fun, action-packed, balanced, and easy to put together.

That *is* customization, it's just customization with a lot of useful advice.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 27, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> This is a good example of a boss battle....it just doesn't really invalidate the point about needing solo type monsters.
> 
> By your own admission this monster was never meant to be beatable, it was meant to be defeating by a McGuffin while being extra scary. Its a great encounter, and it sounds like it worked just great for you.
> 
> But...some encounters you would like a traditional boss battle, party vs the big bad....battle to the end. Its these battles where the Solo type monster comes in handy.



Well, I picked an example to fit the prompt. And it is relevant; as I said I'm not a fan of the notions of CR or "encounter-based balance", and my definition of a boss battle includes largely things that the PCs cannot beat in a fair fight (though they sometimes surprise me).

That being said, I design "traditional" boss battles where the characters are actually supposed to fight the creature directly the same way. Currently, I'm sitting on one that I wrote without knowing when or how it will be used or even what level the PCs will be when I use it. It wasn't written in the MM as a boss either, I've just customized the hell out of it. I don't know how it stands up to the PCs in an action economy sense or how its AC matches up with their attack rolls. I don't know if they will storm into its lair and defeat it (or even if it has a lair), whether they will fight several skirmishes and chase it away, or even whether it will kill them all and the game will end tragically.

But I know that it'll be fun.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 27, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I'm not going to bother arguing this degree of hairsplitting.  ("Which came first, the keyword or the monster's difficulty?"  "Pardon?  I was gazing at my navel.")
> 
> The purpose of "bounded accuracy" is to prevent this from happening.
> 
> Also, I'm just ignoring the dude who came in here and started telling us that if your games don't have boss monsters they're wrong because, well, that's ridiculous and presumptuous.




No less ridiculous and presumptuous than calling a "BOSS'" a bad trope.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> When I run games I don't always expect my encounters to last a certain number of rounds. Sure I may spend hours on a "boss" but if he gets taken out right away then I applaud the PC's for taking him out quickly. My "return" on my NPC investment is when I know that my player's are having fun.
> 
> I enjoy flipping through lots of classes and PrCs and coming up with all sorts of interesting characters. I guess where we differ is the fact that my "return" is different than yours but that's okay.
> 
> I don't want there to be one way to create encounters and NPC's. I want to be able to create them 3rd edition style and in 4th edition style for those who liked that style.




YOU GOT THE POINT EXACTLY. Your players are having fun. If both the DM & players have had a fun & enjoyable few hour, it was done correctly, regardless of tags, keywords, roles, style, or edition.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, I picked an example to fit the prompt. And it is relevant; as I said I'm not a fan of the notions of CR or "encounter-based balance", and my definition of a boss battle includes largely things that the PCs cannot beat in a fair fight (though they sometimes surprise me).
> 
> That being said, I design "traditional" boss battles where the characters are actually supposed to fight the creature directly the same way. Currently, I'm sitting on one that I wrote without knowing when or how it will be used or even what level the PCs will be when I use it. It wasn't written in the MM as a boss either, I've just customized the hell out of it. I don't know how it stands up to the PCs in an action economy sense or how its AC matches up with their attack rolls. I don't know if they will storm into its lair and defeat it (or even if it has a lair), whether they will fight several skirmishes and chase it away, or even whether it will kill them all and the game will end tragically.
> 
> But I know that it'll be fun.



Kudos to you, but you haven't addressed the concerns of those of us who don't like playing Russian encounter roulette. Some of us DMs like to have convenient levels (and in the absense of flat_ter_ math, caste labels) to make combat more predictable from behind the DM screen. If we want an unbeatable encounter, we can still just pick out or write an over-leveled monster.

Because I _want_ my players to win. I want to scare the sheist out of them, but even when I'm gleefully announcing a crit against a grievously wounded PC, I'm secretly rooting for the party. Because ya know what? Most players I know like continuity, and frankly I like adventure and story more than chargen.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I'd prefer to keep the arbitrary abstractness as minimal as possible.




Calling something what it truly is, is NEITHER arbitrary nor abstract. 


> Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.



Done! You are taking Grognardism to new levels.

Please play whatever edition you what, no one is hindering you, why worry what 5eNext is the? You will hate it whatever it turns out to be.

Regardless If you like Harry Potter, Twilight, or any Marvel Super heroes they are huge parts of the fantasy genre, and will be for decades to come.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Some of us DMs like to have convenient levels (and in the absense of flat_ter_ math, caste labels) to make combat more *predictable* from behind the DM screen.
> ...
> Most players I know like continuity, and frankly I like adventure and story more than chargen.



Well, there's a non-sequitur. I also like adventure and story. That's why I don't need encounter-based balance, because encounters balanced around a mechanical standard are neither adventurous nor a particularly interesting story. The story comes out of a diverse set of possible outcomes, not "the creature fights for 2-6 rounds before being killed". "Predictable" and "adventure" are words that don't go together well. And if anything, I think most players appreciate the continuity of knowing that monsters are subject to the same rules they are (and I don't know of any "boss" PCs).


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

Derren said:


> As for the boss tag, I oppose nearly every gamist rule so it is no surprise that I do not like that one at all. Bosses should be defined by the story and should be as strong as they would be in the world given the circumstances. If that is "too strong" for the PCs then they have to get creative.
> Also, a boss tag again reinforces the perception of D&D as a MMO inspired skirmish game where everything is geared towards combat, an image D&D imo desperately needs to loose.




D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?

I have only nrarely played MMOs, but I amazed that so many people HATE everything about them. Most say they have 'NEVER played a MMO', yet to have an absolute all knowing knowledge of all thing about MMO. How do you know there is ONLY combat in a MMO, please list all the MMOs you have played.

If something, works well, is FUN, fair, then who cares where it is from LOTR or a MMO. I don't.


----------



## The Choice (Aug 28, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.




Yes, we must keep our blessed hobby, based largely around the stories of loincloth-clad barbarians, frolicking elves, singing bozos in yellow boots, badly dubbed kung-fu movies and games where small lead figurines were moved on a table to "simulate" battles, all of those pure, unadultered works of culture and wit, clean of all outside influence.  The Creators of this Great Game intended it for 40 year-olds with a medieval fetish, and not for kids.  What's more, letting such filth sully our sacred PHBs might attract girls, and we all know what that means.

... but seriously, D&D has always been a product of its time.  The sooner people realize this, the sooner D&D can move out of its self-imposed ghettoization, and, perhaps, regain some form of cultural relevance.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> Its fine if you replace "slap a description on" with "provide a solid and flavorful description".
> 
> If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.





If a goblin gets a + 3 rather than a + 1. it is not  arbitrary  nor  gamist .   

Goblins only exist in fantasy, and in fantasy RPGs. The 'G' is for game, games have rules. You may agree with those rules or NOT, but that doesn't make those rules better or gamist. 

Making sense is goblin can't fly due to not having wings or magic to do so. If Kobolds get a +1 to attack, goblins get a +2,  Orcs get a +3, Hobgoblins get +4; then that is a game mechanic, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want every creature to have it's normal everyday statblock along with it's history, culture, and any other relevant information.
> 
> Then I want to be able to make that creature into what ever I want just by adding a class, background, feat etc...
> 
> I don't want a certain creature to be built and presented in the MM as just a "boss" creature.




Why ban bosses? Why deny myself who does? Why not have BOTH.

You can just choose to ignore boss monsters, why do we need omit parts of the game because you dislike them. This is a form of censorship, remove all the books from the library, which I don't like. We need freedom of choice.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?



A confusing piece of terminology. "Gamist" does not mean "the extent to which something is a game". It refers to a tactical style of play with a competitive tone directed towards goal outcomes, characterized by system mastery and adversarial relationships between the people at the table.

D&D is always a game in the broad sense of the word: it's an activity you do for fun. Playing house is a game. The gamist terminology describes (and people are objecting to) the attempt to make D&D into a competitive game (which D&D has some elements of, but which certain rules can push the game towards or away).

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat).




Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible? A solo tag denotes its characteristics in battle certainly, but does not preclude a monster so tagged from engaging in other sorts of activities. Just like calling a character class a fighter doesn't mean that fighting is the only thing he's ever allowed to do.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2012)

slobster said:


> Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible? A solo tag denotes it's characteristics in battle certainly, but does not preclude a monster so tagged from engaging in other sorts of activities. Just like calling a character class a fighter doesn't mean that fighting is the only thing he's ever allowed to do.




No, you misunderstand.  Anything that is written in the books must be taken as gospel, interpreted in as narrow a way as possible and must be slavishly followed without any introspection.  Anything else is not really playing the game.

How the hell people played earlier editions I will never know.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.



No?

Should a battle happen, it _should be capable of_ taking on a party by itself.  Should a battle not happen, it will be irrelevant.  Should the party confront the "solo" monster while it has a bunch of its buddies around, too, then the party just made a pretty big blunder, I'd say.

It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."

-O


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

slobster said:


> Wait, what about calling something a solo makes negotiation or avoidance impossible?



Nothing. The concept is completely separate from those possibilities. That's kind of the problem. Even combat mechanics like hit points are meaningful in some noncombat situation.

If "fighter" really did refer to a character who only fought, it would be a problem. But it doesn't, so it's not a problem. If "big badass fighter" and "wimpy support fighter" were possible character class/theme combos, it would be a problem. They aren't, so it isn't. And finally, if "big badass ogre" and "wimpy support ogre" were possibilities that would be a problem. And is, according to this thread.



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."



Aren't its level, ability scores, and other perks also saying that clearly enough?


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Nothing. The concept is completely separate from those possibilities. That's kind of the problem. Even combat mechanics like hit points are meaningful in some noncombat situation.
> 
> If "fighter" really did refer to a character who only fought, it would be a problem. But it doesn't, so it's not a problem. If "big badass fighter" and "wimpy support fighter" were possible character class/theme combos, it would be a problem. They aren't, so it isn't. And finally, if "big badass ogre" and "wimpy support ogre" were possibilities that would be a problem. And is, according to this thread.




I'm having trouble following this post.

If solo really did indicate a monster that could only appear by itself, and only in a combat context, that would be a problem. Sure, I can agree with that.

But it doesn't. In my games I've had plenty of solo enemies who were ultimately engaged by means other than combat. Does that mean solo tags aren't a problem, as you would see it, in my games?

I really can't follow the second part of the post. Could you please clarify?


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> A confusing piece of terminology. "Gamist" does not mean "the extent to which something is a game". It refers to a tactical style of play with a competitive tone directed towards goal outcomes, characterized by system mastery and adversarial relationships between the people at the table.



I  believe many people toss 'buzz' words at concepts they dislike, like rice at a wedding. Since there are many play styles, tactical being one, it seems like thinly veiled edition bashing. All play styles MUST be considered & included.


> D&D is always a game in the broad sense of the word: it's an activity you do for fun. Playing house is a game. The gamist terminology describes (and people are objecting to) the attempt to make D&D into a competitive game (which D&D has some elements of, but which certain rules can push the game towards or away).



But we are discussing the way the game is played. I object to the idea of telling Two small children they are 'playing house' wrong, because they are NOT playing the way someone else did 30 years ago. 


> The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.



That all depends, a dragon fights typical alone, If I tag that as a Boss fight, it doesn't change anything does it. Giving something a label doesn't intrinsically change that thing.  

Every since early editions, we had baby dragons, young, sub-adult, adult, old, ancient dragons. Rather than at low levels fight 1 baby dragon, at l2 2 baby dragons etc. To me fighting 12 baby dragon (at higher levels) makes no sense. 

Rather that have 40 goblin fight, maybe I want a goblin chief & 20 goblins, of a Goblin King & 4 Goblin Sargents.  Does calling the goblin chief an elite & the King a solo change the way we play (fight)?   I think it does not.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> Since there are many play styles, tactical being one, it seems like thinly veiled edition bashing.



Not at all. The terminology almost certainly predates whatever edition you are referring to. It also describes a perfectly valid style of play, and incidentally one that is very well supported by the kind of monster creation rules I advocate. And, as I said, the "gamist" term doesn't quite hit the mark for me, but I can see what the people who've used it were getting at.



> But we are discussing the way the game is played. I object to the idea of telling Two small children they are 'playing house' wrong, because they are NOT playing the way someone else did 30 years ago.



Well that's out of left field. Again, I have no stake in things that happened before I was born. I do, however, dislike rules that unbalance D&D's delicate balance between competitive and noncompetitive playstyles and effectively exclude people from the game because they do not fit the mold. Monster roles are an example of this kind of mechanic.



> That all depends, a dragon fights typical alone, If I tag that as a Boss fight, it doesn't change anything does it. Giving something a label doesn't intrinsically change that thing.



No, it doesn't. I could label many of my battles as boss fights, based on the stats I gave the monsters, the context in which the battle occurred, and how the battle played out. Again, I just don't want it in a monster manual entry. It's fine for a session review. Big difference.



> Does calling the goblin chief an elite & the King a solo change the way we play (fight)?



No. Does designing a creature solely to be balanced as a solo encounter and then calling it a goblin chief change the way we play? Yes.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well that's out of left field. Again, I have no stake in things that happened before I was born. I do, however, dislike rules that unbalance D&D's delicate balance between competitive and noncompetitive playstyles and effectively exclude people from the game because they do not fit the mold. Monster roles are an example of this kind of mechanic.




Huh?

You admit that slapping the Solo tag onto something in no way affects whether or not a given encounter will be resolved with combat or non-combat.  Yet, here you're saying that slapping the solo tag on something means that it will unbalance the delicate balance between combat and non-combat?

Isn't that like saying adding 4 levels of barbarian to an orc to make an orc chief (3e style) or using an ogre's stats (pre-3e style) or adding the solo tag (4e style) makes ANY difference in how the encounter plays out.

At no point is the Orc Chief going to be a standard 1st level warrior straight out of the monster manual.  There is absolutely no difference in play as to whether this will be a combat or non-combat encounter.

The difference is in the recognition of action economy, which is a 4e innovation.  Simply jacking up the orc to a ogre worked reasonably well in AD&D because the monsters were generally so weak.  An ogre only did a couple of points more in damage on average than an orc (d8 vs d10) and its AC was only a couple of points different.  Add in some flunkies (which were effectively minions in most cases anyway - they died in one hit) and you were good to go.

I remember in 2e setting up an encounter with an Ancient Red dragon, the biggest thing in the monster manual, buckets and buckets of hit points, only to watch the 10th level party obliterate it in a couple of rounds.  2e characters were EXTREMELY good at dealing damage.  

3e made things a bit more difficult because it massively added to the workload of the DM.  Instead of simply flipping to a different monster, you were supposed to build the new monster like a PC, a process that was neither simple nor fast.  And, the problem was, because the monster damage progressions scaled so sharply, jacking up the monster a few levels turned the game into rocket tag.  By and large, the best encounters in 3e involved 2-5 monsters.  Single monster encounters were often lackluster.  I remember the party finally meeting the Tarrasque, smoking it in 2 rounds without a single loss of hit points.  Two or three heal spells is all the fight cost.  

It took 4e's recognition of the action economy to finally make single monster encounters into something that didn't turn into balloon popping contests.  Note, they didn't get it right at first, as evidenced by the first Monster Manual.  When people talk about 4e solo's, they're talking about what came a few Monster Manuals later (MM3?) and the changes that came with that.

One of the biggest innovations in 4e was breaking out of the standard initiative model which had been relatively unchanged since OD&D - you rolled your init, and you could ONLY act on your init.  Breaking out of that, which is what makes solos work, is a fantastic idea.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The idea is that badass monsters are what they are because of what the monster substantively is (i.e. a dragon vs a kobold),




D&D Players: placing personal, arbitrary limits on the fantasy fighting prowess of imaginary monsters since the invention of the d20.



> choices the DM makes,




"Hmm, I think I'll use this elite bugbear instead of this standard bugbear!" is a choice the DM makes. I'm not sure why that choice doesn't count in your eyes.



> and what plays out at the table.




Monsters designed to be badass tend to be more badass at the table. Does that surprise you in any way?



> Putting a keyword "badass" on a monster does not make it so,




No, but altering that monster's mechanical abilities so that it qualifies for that keyword tends to.

Did you think that we were just talking about adding a word to a stat block and being done with it?



> or help a designer or a DM make it so.




When that keyword comes with clear, simple, step-by-step rules for *making it so*, then yes, it does.



> At best, it's wasted space.




How in the world is a keyword that tells the DM, "Hey, we designed this monster to be as much of a challenge for the party as two normal monsters put together, and accordingly it's worth double the experience and has some nifty abilities to boot!" useless?



> At worst, it's a metagame distraction.




_*DMing is a metagame distraction.*_ When your *explicit job* is to handle _*all things metagame*_, how can you possibly find it a "distraction" when a new metagame element is introduced to make the DM's job easier, and one that the players are never witness to except through the lens of their PCs?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, there's a non-sequitur. I also like adventure and story. That's why I don't need encounter-based balance, because encounters balanced around a mechanical standard are neither adventurous nor a particularly interesting story. The story comes out of a diverse set of possible outcomes, not "the creature fights for 2-6 rounds before being killed". "Predictable" and "adventure" are words that don't go together well. And if anything, I think most players appreciate the continuity of knowing that monsters are subject to the same rules they are (and I don't know of any "boss" PCs).



You play 3.x, yes? High level caster PCs seem pretty "boss" to me. 

As for the rest, you're putting a lot of faith into your anecdotal experiences, and it sounds like you haven't actually asked many players if they enjoy your style. Maybe your group loves [or at least tolerates] the threat of random death that results from you not bothering to match their power level with the opposition's, but chances are you've driven potential/new players away with this very practice. You can't please everyone, and you're not D&D's authority on what's fun and what isn't.

Predictability on the DM's side of the screen and adventure absolutely go hand in hand for many of us, and the combination absolutely does NOT prohibit a diverse set of possible outcomes. That diversity simply becomes a result of DM intent, rather than "I don't need no stinkin' CR!"

If this still doesn't make sense to you, that's cool with me. Personally I'd be happy to see a 5e with no boss labels, and no monster levels or CR; it'd save me the temptation to buy a game that I'll almost certainly find disappointing.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 28, 2012)

B.T. said:


> They are terribly written.




"Tabletop roleplaying games should only draw inspiration from truly sophisticated texts, like modern high-fantasy literature!"


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2012)

Dannager said:


> _*DMing is a metagame distraction.*_ When your *explicit job* is to handle _*all things metagame*_, how can you possibly find it a "distraction" when a new metagame element is introduced to make the DM's job easier, and one that the players are never witness to except through the lens of their PCs?





LOL, yeah.  

Just this past weekend I was wondering, as I subtracted HP from the monster that was getting summarily whacked, how can I get rid of this "metagame distraction"?  Just a few minutes later as I counted down initiative, the monster "attacked" and I had to roll dice to hit the character's armor class that darn "metagame distraction" just kept creeping right in there.  

Funny that at that point I wasn't really bothered that the description for the monster said "Elite".  All those other "metagame distractions" just kept bothering me.



-


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> you're putting a lot of faith into your anecdotal experiences



In the absence of any published data on these topics, I tend to do that, yes.



> it sounds like you haven't actually asked many players if they enjoy your style.



Don't know where you got that. My style was built out of asking my (in the early days, double-digit) player pool what they wanted, both in person and in a variety of online venues between games. It probably reflects their tastes more than mine.



> Maybe your group loves [or at least tolerates] the threat of random death that results from you not bothering to match their power level with the opposition's, but chances are you've driven potential/new players away with this very practice.



You don't even have anecdotal evidence to base that on. And it's rather needlessly insulting. _And false. And irrelevant._



> You can't please everyone



...and wouldn't presume to try.



> you're not D&D's authority on what's fun and what isn't.



Of course not. Did someone say I was? Are you? Is there a point to this?



> Predictability on the DM's side of the screen and adventure absolutely go hand in hand for many of us



How many? A half dozen ENWorlders? The current (diminishing) 4e DM base?



> If this still doesn't make sense to you, that's cool with me. Personally I'd be happy to see a 5e with no boss labels, and no monster levels or CR; it'd save me the temptation to buy a game that I'll almost certainly find disappointing.



I'm also okay with that outcome. As long as enough people like it. You can't please everyone.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 28, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want every creature to have it's normal everyday statblock along with it's history, culture, and any other relevant information.
> 
> Then I want to be able to make that creature into what ever I want just by adding a class, background, feat etc...
> 
> I don't want a certain creature to be built and presented in the MM as just a "boss" creature.




That doesn't really do anything except make DMs have to spend more time devoted to mechanical drudge-work, rather than on developing their adventure. Monsters in Monster Manuals are carefully selected to be relevant to a wide audience of game groups. The idea is that by presenting monsters that are essentially "plug-and-play", you're taking some of the burden off the DM, thereby improving the quality of his game, and lowering the bar of transition from player to DM, which is *vital* to the hobby's growth.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not at all. The terminology almost certainly predates whatever edition you are referring to. It also describes a perfectly valid style of play, and incidentally one that is very well supported by the kind of monster creation rules I advocate. And, as I said, the "gamist" term doesn't quite hit the mark for me, but I can see what the people who've used it were getting at.



The term gamist is going to have varied mean to different people using it. 



> Well that's out of left field. Again, I have no stake in things that happened before I was born. I do, however, dislike rules that unbalance D&D's delicate balance between competitive and noncompetitive playstyles and effectively exclude people from the game because they do not fit the mold. Monster roles are an example of this kind of mechanic.



Consider that a metaphor, for just because a concept is from 4e, doesn't make it bad. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but sadly many people think that way. 


> No, it doesn't. I could label many of my battles as boss fights, based on the stats I gave the monsters, the context in which the battle occurred, and how the battle played out.



Fine.


> Again, I just don't want it in a monster manual entry. It's fine for a session review. Big difference.



Don't ban books in my library (another metaphor), if you don't like a monster type don't use it. Don't ban my monsters from the MM, then expect me to bow down and be happy. Don't take away what I want. I am not telling anyone they MUST use any monster, so respect what I want, like  I respect what you want.

No. Does designing a creature solely to be balanced as a solo encounter and then calling it a goblin chief change the way we play? Yes.[/QUOTE]

Totally disagree. The way we design a monster in a GAME, doesn't matter If we finish with the exact same monster. That is semantics. That is just being stubborn.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Aren't its level, ability scores, and other perks also saying that clearly enough?



Nope.  Because D&D ties hit points (and actions, for that matter) too closely to everything else.

The "elite" or "solo" or "boss" label just represents a decoupling of a creature's hit points from everything else about them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

-O


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> Consider that a metaphor, for just because a concept is from 4e, doesn't make it bad. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but sadly many people think that way.



Not at all. Like I said, the basic issue here was present in some of the late 3e books, where monsters were designed to serve a specific encounter-based purpose, and Dungeonscape had some monster role terms (and the book is credited to PF guru Jason Buhlman IIRC). It's in 4e, and it's bad, but it's not bad because it's in 4e.



> Don't ban books in my library (another metaphor), if you don't like a monster type don't use it. Don't ban my monsters from the MM, then expect me to bow down and be happy. Don't take away what I want. I am not telling anyone they MUST use any monster, so respect what I want, like  I respect what you want.



Who's banning stuff? Take your goblin shamans and your red dragons and every other monster you want. We're talking about how stat blocks are rendered and how monsters are designed, not what you can do with the stat blocks or what monsters are designed.



> Totally disagree. The way we design a monster in a GAME, doesn't matter If we finish with the exact same monster.



See, that's the thing. We don't necessarily finish with the exact same monster stat block.



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> Nope. Because D&D ties hit points (and actions, for that matter) too closely to everything else.
> 
> The "elite" or "solo" or "boss" label just represents a decoupling of a creature's hit points from everything else about them. Nothing more, nothing less.



Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahn said:
			
		

> > Predictability on the DM's side of the screen and adventure absolutely go hand in hand for many of us
> 
> 
> 
> How many? A half dozen ENWorlders? The current (diminishing) 4e DM base?




Umm, hrm.  Now I'm really, really confused.  You have no interest in what pre-3e D&D did, and now you're saying that 3e D&D innovations don't count either.  Or did you forget that CR is a baseline in 3e?

A tool that allows you some predictive ability in encounter design is pretty much the cornerstone upon which 3e is built.  EVERYTHING in 3e is based on the baseline of four 25 point buy value PC's, one of each base class - fighter, cleric, wizard, thief.  The ENTIRE freaking game is based around that.  How the monsters are designed, damage, AC, scaling, EVERYTHING.

So, yeah, considering how popular 3e is and Pathfinder is, and, 4e as well since it's based on the same model, I'd say that it's pretty darn important.  

Why do you think Paizo gets lauded for it's great modules?  Simply because they're nice a fluffy?  Or could it possibly be that they're a hell of a lot of fun in play too.  Why are they a hell of a lot of fun in play?  Because the dev's have the tools, baked right into the ruleset, to be able to judge how these modules will function at the table.

Do you have to follow the guidelines?  Of course not.  But, why remove them for those of us who do want them?  There's absolutely nothing stopping you from ignoring them.  Nothing in the game says that every Orc Chief must use the same stat-block.  That would be ludicrous.  

So, at the end of the day, what's your point?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, at the end of the day, what's your point?



That 3e has succeeded in spite of CR/EL, wealth assumptions by level, standard party size and composition, and the associated encounter design, not because of these things. It works because it's a good enough system that you can violate all those assumptions and still get the play experience you want. A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play. I also suspect the people who went old school saw the metagame aspect of design creeping into new areas of the rules, and I credit them for their foresight in that regard.



> Why do you think Paizo gets lauded for it's great modules?



Not because they're balanced for a standard party, I'm guessing. Then again, that's a small subset of the (already small) rpg market.



> Do you have to follow the guidelines? Of course not. But, why remove them for those of us who do want them?



Guidelines? Sure. My 3.5 MM has lots of guidelines. Metagame rules? Not so fast.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?



Because this is already a perfectly good fix to the problem.  You disengage monster HPs from the rest of their abilities.  The underlying problem *is* that they are connected inexorably in some editions.

Unless you have a slavish adherence to building monsters like PCs, why go further?

-O


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That 3e has succeeded in spite of CR/EL, wealth assumptions by level, standard party size and composition, and the associated encounter design, not because of these things. It works because it's a good enough system that you can violate all those assumptions and still get the play experience you want. A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play. I also suspect the people who went old school saw the metagame aspect of design creeping into new areas of the rules, and I credit them for their foresight in that regard.
> 
> Not because they're balanced for a standard party, I'm guessing. Then again, that's a small subset of the (already small) rpg market.
> 
> Guidelines? Sure. My 3.5 MM has lots of guidelines. Metagame rules? Not so fast.




So, essentially you're saying that 3e succeeded because nearly every 3e fan was so enamoured to ... what... the flavour... that they chose to rip apart the entire baseline of the system in order to play a game that you're claiming doesn't work out of the box.

Really?

I think the success of 3e has a lot more to do with the fact that 3e works, out of the box, that balanced systems are a thousand times easier to play than unbalanced ones, and that the average gamer is savvy enough to know that a game that works is better than one that needs to be entirely rewritten.

As far as metagaming aspects of adventure design, I'm not completely out to see.  There is absolutely ZERO non-metagaming aspect of adventure design.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.  Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process.

The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself.  Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game.

Of course it is.  The DM chooses what, when, where and why every single element exists in an adventure.  Why are there ten orcs in room 1b and not nine?  Why do they have longswords instead of axes?  Why do they have 2d6 gp each instead of 2d10?  Why don't they have over powered magic items?  

On and on and on.  Nothing a DM does during adventure design is not metagaming.  The only difference between 3e and any other edition is that 3e gave us transparent baselines.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 28, 2012)

Naw, they just bought 3.5x cuz it was DnD obviously. Not because they liked it, just like 4e is a wild success with every player of every previous edition buying books left and right.......... 

3e did a lot of things great and aligning all XP for classes into one progression table was one thing I really enjoyed coming out of 2e's multitude of tables (that's one system that loved tables, everywhere). 3e also worked well with some of teh CR/XP encounter design (again, as long as it wasn't a solo monster). As another poster stated, the 2-5 monster encounter was the sweet spot. More than that and they weren't a threat and a single foe was overwhelmed easily.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

Dannager said:


> That doesn't really do anything except make DMs have to spend more time devoted to mechanical drudge-work, rather than on developing their adventure. Monsters in Monster Manuals are carefully selected to be relevant to a wide audience of game groups. The idea is that by presenting monsters that are essentially "plug-and-play", you're taking some of the burden off the DM, thereby improving the quality of his game, and lowering the bar of transition from player to DM, which is *vital* to the hobby's growth.




I don't have a problem doing that and developing my adventures. I know I don't represent everyone else but I do know I'm not the only one who feels this way. 

I will gladly, any day of the week, give up a little more time in order to have the ability to create monsters and encounters the way I want it. 

If you like for DMing to be quick and easy then sample made NPC's are right up your alley. I for one do not really like already made NPCs and creatures and I want a system that will allow me to throw a class or background on to any creature I see fit.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> Why ban bosses? Why deny myself who does? Why not have BOTH.
> 
> You can just choose to ignore boss monsters, why do we need omit parts of the game because you dislike them. This is a form of censorship, remove all the books from the library, which I don't like. We need freedom of choice.




Because it's easier for you to have a sample boss or actually build one than it is for me to take the creature apart and try to figure out how to rebuild it how I want it. 

Sometimes we don't always get what we want and someone has to come out in the end with what they want and to be blunt I hope it's me. Now if we get both then great but if not then I hope it's me. I know a lot of people who didn't like the 4th edition monster setup so hopefully they will relax that setup and give us something else.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Snip




All I have to say is that it worked out of the box with our group.


----------



## Derren (Aug 28, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?
> 
> I have only nrarely played MMOs, but I amazed that so many people HATE everything about them. Most say they have 'NEVER played a MMO', yet to have an absolute all knowing knowledge of all thing about MMO. How do you know there is ONLY combat in a MMO, please list all the MMOs you have played.
> 
> If something, works well, is FUN, fair, then who cares where it is from LOTR or a MMO. I don't.




Wtf?
What has how many MMOs I have played to do with anything? I do have played many MMOs and I know quite well how limited they are because of the railroaded story and because everything leads to (lots and lots) of combat. D&D, like any PnP rpg has the ability to be so much more than that, but this potential is unused with D&D as, like with MMOs, everything is about combat.

Oh sure you can now start the usual stuff about "I can roleplay just fine in D&D etc. etc." but you can't deny that 90%+ of the rules is combat, all PCs are automatically geared towards combat and all monsters are just combat stats. The boss tag is just another arbitrary tag you add to monsters with no simulationist roots you slap on a statblock to modify its combat power. 
Its funny that you throw around accusations of "telling people how to play" when the vast majority of D&D is geared towards one and only one specific way of playing. The boss tag is just another rule which pushes D&D into the direction of "tactical skirmish combat", Neither does the boss tag modify anything of a monster except its combat "value" nor can it be explained in game. It is just an arbitrary tag thrown around to modify combat values and imo D&D does not need any more of such rules for tactical skirmish combat, it already has enough of that, but instead rules which support all the other ways of playing a rpg.

While D&D always was that way 4E was/is by far the "worst" while 3E, even though it was still combat heavy" was for D&D quite liberal with its skill system and non combat spells (which were sadly tied to combat level). Sadly WotC did not take the hint with 4E that it might have been a bad idea to ignore everything but tactical combat as 4E did as 5E doesn't seem to have any intent to change this, boss tag for monsters included.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 28, 2012)

I quite like the "boss monster" tag, and I am in no way a fan of 4E.  Such monsters fill an often-needed role in an adventure, and it makes a lot of sense to tell DMs that that's what they were intended for.  I don't see why would you would want to hide this information from a DM.


----------



## Lwaxy (Aug 28, 2012)

Haven't read through it all yet, but I don't like "boss monsters." Not in video games, not in RPGs. They can come up sometimes, sure, but not every group of enemies needs one.  "Boss monster" to me has a railroad tag to it - something the PCs need to find and remove. The same is true for "minions" which speaks of mindless followers to me. Unless I'm running modules, this is rarely happening in our games. 

I don't need anyone to tell me how to design a "boss monster." I love doing it in the few cases I need one. 

And no, monsters aren't just combat stats. If you just play to fight and kill, then tags probably matter little. But we don't do bloodthirsty and there is always the chance of making friends among enemies even. Killing has to be the last resort, kind of. Yeah, that's a playstyle thing, but to me those labels on creatures would feel terribly wrong. 

That said, I can probably just ignore them, even if they are annoying. But I worry that it pushes the game even more towards tactical skirmishes. I'm one of those hoping for a bit of the opposite, and so while this is not any sort of deal breaker for me, it sure fills the scales with stones and not gold.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?



Excellent question!



Ahnehnois said:


> One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant.



They don't serve the same purpose, though. Level is not a measure of "capability within the action economy", except for fighters in AD&D, and for weapon-users in 3E.

That is why 4e introduces an alternative dimension to measure "capability in the action economy" (namely, standard/elite/solo - minion is best analysed as operating in a different dimension).



Chris_Nightwing said:


> But that model didn't solve the problem either - a 1st level solo had 4x HP, did more damage but still only had one action. This didn't actually do anything that a level system couldn't do by itself



Solos and elites actually have multiple actions - various sorts of triggered actions, plus (typically) standard actions that let them perform multiple basic attacks. Plus they often have AoEs and/or auras that are the functional equivalent of multiple attack actions.



Obryn said:


> It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."





Ahnehnois said:


> Aren't its level, ability scores, and other perks also saying that clearly enough?



Not unelss those perks include additional advantages in the action economy - which is precisely what an "elite" or "solo" label indicates!



Ahnehnois said:


> Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?



Huh? The underlying problem arises out of the importance, in D&D, of the action economy. (Note: this is not a general feature of RPGs. It is a distinctive feature of D&D, and comes up in some other systems. For example, the Burning Wheel design team canvass it as an issue in the Adventure Burner.) The solution is to tackle the dimension of action economy in monster design. I don't know why you would call that a "patch for a systemic issue". It is an elegant solution that works within the parameters of D&D.

Changing the "underlying problem" would mean changing the basic engine of D&D action resolution.



GreyICE said:


> *One attack per round against one target will never threaten a party unless the attack has a high likelihood of inflicting instant death. * Period.  There are just too many ways to cycle players out, get out of combat, deny actions, and recover from even VERY hard hits on a single target that only happen once per round.
> 
> The only way to challenge an entire party is multi-attacks, multiple actions within the round structure, AOEs and zones, and other effects meant to acknowledge the multi-target nature of the encounter are necessary.
> 
> ...



It's interesting to note that this is purely a function of D&D's mechanics: rolling to attack within a fixed action economy and initiative sequence; and magical attacks based in discrete, unique spell descriptions.

In systems in which high attack bonuses can be turned into multiple attacks with lower bonuses, for example, you don't need standard actions that let you make multiple attacks: your higher-bonus "boss" just takes the penalty and makes the attacks. Or in magic systems which allow scaling spells to attack extra targets, you don't need special rules to allow high level casters to be viable against multiple targets: they can scale their spells to be quicker to cast, or to attack multiple targets, etc.

The issue doesn't come up in Tunnels and Trolls, either, in which attacks are resolved by pooling the PCs dice and rolling them, and comparing that to the monsters' dice. A "boss" in T&T is just a monster with many dice.

But given that D&D has the mechanics that it does, it needs a way to handle the action economy issue to which "boss" fights give rise.



B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.





Chris_Nightwing said:


> I think there should be tougher versions of ordinary monsters. There should be goblins with more hitpoints that take more than one hit to kill. These goblins have more hit dice, and thus gain whatever else a goblin gains when they increase hit dice, much like levelling up.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't want a goblin chief to be able to stand on his own against a party unless he's significantly higher level than them. I want him to be tougher, to not die in one or two hits, but his HD should reflect this.



What work is "level" or HD doing here?

All it is an index of bigger damage and more hit dice. But the issues with "boss monsters" are (i) action economy, and (ii) one-shotting PCs.

So here are two ways to scale a goblin chief:

(1) Multiply level by 2, and therefore hit points by 2 and damage per hit by 2;

(2) Multiply hit points by 2, and give 2 attacks per round with unadjusted damage.

How is (2) less verisimilitudinous than (1)? Attacks per round, in D&D, is already an abstraction: the attack roll reflects the chance the combatant has to get in a good shot against his/her enemy. So if you go with (2) your goblin chief is a skilled fighter who can turn many more hits into grazes than an ordinary goblin (hence the hit point boost) and can place many more dangerous strikes than an ordinary goblin (hence the action boost). Whereas if you go with (1) your goblin chief is as tough as (say) a bugbear - hits hard, and needs to be hit hard to be taken down.

Either strikes me as a viable occupant of the fiction. But I know which one would work better in which sort of scenario, and so can include one or the other as appropriate.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> A nine-headed cryohydra gets more actions, it makes for a great solo because it can effectively fight by itself. There are plenty of monsters that behave this way, beholders and dragons and the like.
> 
> Goblin chiefs though, do not.



Multiple attacks just means "more chances to get more solid hits in per arbitrary unit of time". You don't need to have more arms or heads to do this, you just need to be a better fighter (AD&D used this approach to model better fighters, for instances). It's not absurd to me that a goblin chief might be a better fighter, or a hobgoblin chief even moreso. Or give an ogre chieftain an AoE "club sweep". There are a variety of ways it can be done which don't have verisimilitude implications.



Ahnehnois said:


> The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat).



Is this claim based on an empirical survey, some theoretical foundation, or merely your own intuition?

The elite and solo labels in 4e signify nothing more nor less than the way the creature in question intersects with the action economy, and the numerical scales for hit points, attacks and defences.

It no more entails combat than does giving the monster an armour class, or a damage number.

And given that I have run encounters with solos which were resolved via negotiation, I believe I have empirical refutation of your claim.



Ahnehnois said:


> The idea is that badass monsters are what they are because of what the monster substantively is (i.e. a dragon vs a kobold), choices the DM makes, and what plays out at the table. Putting a keyword "badass" on a monster does not make it so, or help a designer or a DM make it so. At best, it's wasted space. At worst, it's a metagame distraction.



Alternatively, it might be a useful shorthand. It could even bring with it some suggestions about how you might design a monster to provide an interesting challenge for a particular context. 

I mean, it's not as if such monsters as Rust Monsters, Beholders, Umber Hulks, the many varied hit dice of humanoids, D&D-style dragons, etc, were designed just as interesting exercises in fantasy ecology! They were designed to provide a range of interesting challenges for a range of different PC types. 4e is no different in this respect - it just recognises that "scaling" - ie becoming more badass - can happen in multiple dimensions: hit points, defences, attack bonuses, damage, and the action economy - and it recommends that monsters be designed with certain scaling parameters in mind, in order to maximise the likelihood of them providing a fun encounter.

So, for example, why is there no monster in AD&D with defences, attacks and hit ponts comparable to a goblin, that causes Mummy Rot? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the _design_ story: because the sort of PCs typically don't have access to cure disease yet (paladins being pretty rare).

And in 4e, why is there no monster with defence and attack numbers comparable to a goblin, but hit points comparable to an ogre, yet only a single action per round? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the _design_ story: because such a monster would be very boring to play, as it would pose almost no threat to a party of 5 PCs, but require a large number of hits to defeat in combat.

AD&D summarises its design reasoning using the HD label, and the (somewhat related) monster level label. 4e summarises its design reasoning using the level label and also the solo label (multidimensional labelling representing multi-dimensional scaling).



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not really buying the appeal to tradition. Monster stat blocks may have been limited to this purpose at one point, but D&D evolved to the point where they mean more now



Not every one agrees that this is an issue of "limits", or that your preferred approach is "evolution". Some people think that it facilitates gameplay to think about the design of game elements from the point of view of their function as game elements.

That's why low level mages can't cast Passwall or Disintegrate, for example.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Multiple attacks just means "more chances to get more solid hits in per arbitrary unit of time". You don't need to have more arms or heads to do this, you just need to be a better fighter (AD&D used this approach to model better fighters, for instances). It's not absurd to me that a goblin chief might be a better fighter, or a hobgoblin chief even moreso. Or give an ogre chieftain an AoE "club sweep". There are a variety of ways it can be done which don't have verisimilitude implications.




There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way. I know a lot of people like the distinction between player mechanics and NPC mechanics, but I do not.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> "Gamist" does not mean "the extent to which something is a game". It refers to a tactical style of play with a competitive tone directed towards goal outcomes, characterized by system mastery and adversarial relationships between the people at the table.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The gamist terminology describes (and people are objecting to) the attempt to make D&D into a competitive game (which D&D has some elements of, but which certain rules can push the game towards or away).



Gamist play need not be adversarial. Look at Balesir's description of his game, for example, or at Gygax's characterisation of classic D&D play in his DMG and PHB.

As for D&D as a "competitive" game, I think that trend peaked in the early 80s. I would say its been pretty much declining ever since, though 3E may have produced some sort of resurgence 10 or so years ago.



Ahnehnois said:


> A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play.



What is the difference between "building a system around assuming how you play" and "building a system to support the way you play". None, that I can see, except that the latter is a more useful description that helps illustrate the contribution the designers have made to human wellbeing.

It's not as if your preferred approach to monster buidling, as set out in this thread, is playstyle neutral. It seems oriented towards an approach to play in which I have very little interest.



Ahnehnois said:


> I added in a macguffin element
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This sort of play is of little interest to me. I may be missing something, but it suggests a very strong degree of GM force over the plot: the PCs encounter something which can only be resolved by deploying the GM's placed "macguffin". Maybe there was some other feature of the encounter to support player protagonism that you didn't mention in your write up.



Ahnehnois said:


> encounters balanced around a mechanical standard are neither adventurous nor a particularly interesting story.



I'm not sure what you mean by "balanced". If you mean that encounters posing a mechanically measurable level of challenge are neither adventurous nor interesting, I don't agree at all.



Ahnehnois said:


> If they had gotten the sense that it was balanced to provide a particular challenge, it would not have been scary. If they could easily identify it and understand its capabilities after having read its monster manual entry, it would have been boring.



My experience is the opposite: if the players (via a successful Monster Knowledge check for a PC) learn the abilities of a creature, and (from this) can infer to its level, and hence the mechancially measurable degree of challenge that it poses, this can certainly make them scared! Depending on what they learn, of course.

I don't "scare" my players by saying scary things to them, or telling them that what they see is scary. I scare them - and generate related emotions, like excitement - by putting their PCs in situations which will require clever and challenging play to resolve.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process.
> 
> The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself.  Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game.



Classic Traveller, with its sector exploration and planet design rules, its patron generation table, etc, tries to eliminate as much as the metagame as possible from scenario design.

Whether this makes for a good or bad play experience I'll leave for others to judge!



Hussar said:


> The difference is in the recognition of action economy, which is a 4e innovation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It took 4e's recognition of the action economy to finally make single monster encounters into something that didn't turn into balloon popping contests.  Note, they didn't get it right at first, as evidenced by the first Monster Manual.  When people talk about 4e solo's, they're talking about what came a few Monster Manuals later (MM3?) and the changes that came with that.



I obviously agree with the bit before the snippage. But I think the MM gets a bit of a hard time. The difference between the MV beholder eye tyrant and the MM one, for example, relates to damage (MV is on MM3 standard), not action economy. They are the same in the latter respect.

And I think most of the MM Elites are fine. (Though there are some exceptions, I'll agree, like the high level Helmed Horror.)

TL;DR: yes, 4e monster design got better over time, but in my view didn't start out as crappily as is sometimes suggested. And I think the MM is the best for tightness of flavour text, and useful Lore entries. (Bear Lore notwithstanding.)


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way.



But you can. In 4e, via power selection. In D&Dnext, via combat superiority dice (I assume - that is the obvious vehicle to deliver it).

EDIT: In 4e, also, when you get high enough those goblins or bandits become minions, and you don't _need_ multiple attacks: your ability to strike with fierce accuracy multiple times in 6 seconds is reflected by the fact that they have only 1 hp, and so drop to a single hit.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 28, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Because it's easier for you to have a sample boss or actually build one than it is for me to take the creature apart and try to figure out how to rebuild it how I want it.




I hope you can do that but, I don't want to waste time creating something I can just open a MM then use. Yet I am not denying you from doing it your way. Maybe I will create a boss from scratch, only If i choose to.


> Sometimes we don't always get what we want and someone has to come out in the end with what they want and to be blunt I hope it's me. Now if we get both then great but if not then I hope it's me.



So If I understand, You hope the D&D 5eNext has nothing from 4e,  regardless if is optional, has most everything from 3e, omitting  everything you dislike, because you are selfish. Thus violating its  primary design goal of D&D5eNext of uniting ALL the editions. Being  most like 3e, it will not appeal to most of the BD&D, AD&D1/2e,  and the 4e people, thus totally failing, not selling well, causing 6e to  be something completely different in a few years.

The difference is, I want as many people to be happy as possible, To support many plsy-styles, To  allow the play-style that they prefer, not tell people their play-style is  wrong or less important.  I don't want to be selfish forcing people to the bad trope of 'my way of the  highway'. 



> I know a lot of people who didn't like the 4th edition monster setup so hopefully they will relax that setup and give us something else.



I think the 4e advances the game with it's monster design, this is area that I think still needs work. 4e monster had had too many HPs, but I have no interest in going back to 2-3 HP Kobolds. We need something in the middle, or an option. Same for PCs I have zero interest in a 6 HP wizard , again we need to be a option or closer to 4e.

For 5eNext to be the BEST it can be, It needs to pull the best ideas from ALL editions. Having options to appeal to ALL editions, the most gamers possible. rather than Demanding that certain thing can only be done one way. Your vision of 5eNext would be mediocre at best, but you would love it but how many others? 

This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Mike-Mearls, you're my only hope.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But you can. In 4e, via power selection. In D&Dnext, via combat superiority dice (I assume - that is the obvious vehicle to deliver it).
> 
> EDIT: In 4e, also, when you get high enough those goblins or bandits become minions, and you don't _need_ multiple attacks: your ability to strike with fierce accuracy multiple times in 6 seconds is reflected by the fact that they have only 1 hp, and so drop to a single hit.




No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. The single most frustrating thing about 4E for me was that monster abilities and attacks were arbitrary and completely unrelated to what players could do. Goblin shamans had spells that Wizards could never cast, various melee types could perform moves that Fighters couldn't.

I also detest minions, but that's another story.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

B.T. said:


> The level system should handle badass monsters.
> 
> The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with. It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).




Congratulations.  You have just said that the party vs dragon fight should not exist in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.  Can I just check this is what you meant?



Ahnehnois said:


> I am merely asserting my belief that a basically naturalistic philosophy (or simulation, if you prefer, though D&D is not strongly simulationist) is the right direction for the industry as a whole.




And this is me asserting my belief that I and most other DMs I know would literally rather gnaw off our own right arms than work under the system you prefer with having to custom-craft almost all monsters based on a half-finished monster-manual.  We have jobs, we have lives, and we have other hobbies - and some of the burned-out 3.X DMs I know spent at least a dozen hours preparing per session at mid level and have described it as a full time job.

If you have your way there is no way in hell I am running 5e - and I appear to have just started at least one and possibly two 5e campaigns given how successful my recent playtests were.

3.X was the outlier here - and even the Pathfinder players mitigate it by running a lot of pre-made adventure paths that actually have fully formed monsters.  If you want the naturalistic philosophy, GURPS does it much better than D&D.



Tequila Sunrise said:


> You play 3.x, yes? High level caster PCs seem pretty "boss" to me.




And get torn apart by the action economy.  Especially e.g. Liches.



> If this still doesn't make sense to you, that's cool with me. Personally I'd be happy to see a 5e with no boss labels, and no monster levels or CR; it'd save me the temptation to buy a game that I'll almost certainly find disappointing.




This.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. The single most frustrating thing about 4E for me was that monster abilities and attacks were arbitrary and completely unrelated to what players could do. Goblin shamans had spells that Wizards could never cast, various melee types could perform moves that Fighters couldn't.
> 
> I also detest minions, but that's another story.




And the idea that a wizard should be able to not just cast any spell ever, but be able to cast it in six seconds is one reason I find the magic of 3.X non-magical.  That all fighters should all move in the same way as their normal combat options is equally something I find ... strange.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And the idea that a wizard should be able to not just cast any spell ever, but be able to cast it in six seconds is one reason I find the magic of 3.X non-magical.  That all fighters should all move in the same way as their normal combat options is equally something I find ... strange.




That's nice, but I didn't state anything supporting those concepts either. You seem to think that not liking parts of 4E makes me automatically dislike all of it and adore 3E. This is a poor position to be in for the purposes of the discussion.

Now I don't have a 4E MM in front of me, but grabbing stuff from the pre-release that's already on the internet.. A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.

I'm just not the sort of player or DM who enjoys all monsters having cute little tricks.

Anyway, I think there is a place for elite and solo creatures in 5E, but according to my preference, only certain monsters should qualify for this, and yes, they should have additional actions to make them viable.


----------



## bbjore (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way. I know a lot of people like the distinction between player mechanics and NPC mechanics, but I do not.




I understand how this can bug people, and this is not a refutation of how it would bother you, because I get that some people want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules. But it does reminds me of the first time I sent a Solo against my players in 4E, and my players asked pretty much the same thing. I told them the monster could do that because I **** said so. It's a fond memory, because it highlights one of the many ways 4E brought me closer to my old school gaming roots, especially on the DM side of things. 

I'm actually surprised how many people oppose the boss tags as gamist, but that's often a criticism used by people who like older editions of the game where DMs held much greater power. I love the solo and minion tags because they unshackle the DM, allowing them to just design an adventure as they see fit and not worry about matching monster rules to PCs rules. I would expect more support from the people who like older versions for game design that does this for the dm.

I get that some people want monsters to follow the same rules as PCs and this helps the world seem more realistic to them. Me, I like that boss or minion tags let me gloss over the mechanics of a monster since I know they'll work and focus on designing the monster's place and purpose in the world. Fortunately this is one of those debates where both sides can have what they want. People who don't like the extra tags don't have to use them, and people that do can. It's perfectly modular design. Heck, even 4E allowed you to design an entire dungeon full of humanoids with classes or play an entire campaign without using a single solo.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

bbjore said:


> I understand how this can bug people, and this is not a refutation of how it would bother you, because I get that some people want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules. But it does reminds me of the first time I sent a Solo against my players in 4E, and my players asked pretty much the same thing. I told them the monster could do that because I **** said so. It's a fond memory, because it highlights one of the many ways 4E brought me closer to my old school gaming roots, especially on the DM side of things.
> 
> I'm actually surprised how many people oppose the boss tags as gamist, but that's often a criticism used by people who like older editions of the game where DMs held much greater power. I love the solo and minion tags because they unshackle the DM, allowing them to just design an adventure as they see fit and not worry about matching monster rules to PCs rules. I would expect more support from the people who like older versions for game design that does this for the dm.
> 
> I get that some people want monsters to follow the same rules as PCs and this helps the world seem more realistic to them. Me, I like that boss or minion tags let me gloss over the mechanics of a monster since I know they'll work and focus on designing the monster's place and purpose in the world. Fortunately this is one of those debates where both sides can have what they want. People who don't like the extra tags don't have to use them, and people that do can. It's perfectly modular design. Heck, even 4E allowed you to design an entire dungeon full of humanoids with classes or play an entire campaign without using a single solo.




To me, DM empowerment is not being able to tell the players 'because I say so' but being able to say 'I think what you're trying to do would work like this' without detailed, heavy-handed mechanics getting in the way. If you're playing a game with rules lawyers (poor you), then it's much easier to invent something where little exists than to remove or change something that fully exists.

Whilst you're correct in your last paragraph, it isn't great value to buy a Monster Manual that's half full of creatures you're deliberately not using. We'll see though - like I said, I think the designation of elite or solo has a place for certain monsters, I just wouldn't like to see a special version of every monster.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.



I don't think that was at-will!  At least not in any recent publications!  This is akin to a PC's encounter or daily power.  NPCs tend to have a lot less of those, because that would otherwise be a lot for the DM to track in combat.

I freely admit that 4e uses different rules for monsters and PCs.  Unlike you, though, that's exactly how I want it.  I don't see any actual in-game value in building up monsters like PCs; been there, done that for 8 years.  To me, it's just extra, unfruitful labor to get me to a place where I wanted to be - a functioning part of the game world that operates how I want it to both in and out of combat.



> I'm just not the sort of player or DM who enjoys all monsters having cute little tricks.



I'm the sort of DM who wants a fight vs. orcs and a fight vs. hobgoblins to be completely different, _and_ for the mechanics to work with me on this _and_ make it immediately clear to my players.

It's like you can't win - give players similar power structures, and they are "samey."  Give monsters uniqueness and variation, and suddenly they are not "samey" enough. 

-O


----------



## triqui (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.




I don't think "solo"  has any more restriction than "level 20 wizard" or "dragon". You can bluff, or negotiate, or retreat from a level 20 wizard or a dragon, just as much as you can do it from a solo monster. "Solo" just mean it is a tough enemy, one that can face a group of adventurers on his own, without help.  Some games do that through level. Others do it through other game stats (Cthulhu doesn't have the word "solo" tagged on him, but it is certainly not the kind of monsters you should be fighting a platoon of them. Or LotR Balrogs, Runequest giants, L5R greater Oni, or Vampire the Masquerade 4th generation elders...)

Some games give those meant-to-fight-solo monsters a higher level. Or special abilities. Or higher than normal resiliance, the ability to threat a group, etc.  Some of those games do not follow a Challenge Rating system, so they require the DM experience to gauge and measure the threat (is Helen of Troy too hard for my 13th generation anarchs? Would my group of Runelords be able to defeat a giant?).  DnD made a decision to help inexperienced DM. They did a ranking of monsters dangerness, the CR. CR 7 means it is an appropiated challenge for a 7th level character. CR 7 solo, means he is an appropiated challenge for a whole group. Experienced DM can ignore this, and build gimicky encounters where you face much bigger and dangerous creatures, which can be defeated through puzzles, special features, or other gimmicks. Newbie DM, though, have a harder time without CR.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> That's nice, but I didn't state anything supporting those concepts either. You seem to think that not liking parts of 4E makes me automatically dislike all of it and adore 3E. This is a poor position to be in for the purposes of the discussion.




You were stating that the wizard should be able to cast all spells a goblin shaman could.  As far as I know ony 3.X had this level of magical cross-cover.



> Now I don't have a 4E MM in front of me, but grabbing stuff from the pre-release that's already on the internet.. A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.




As a pretty experienced 4e DM, my reaction to that statement is "WTF?"  That is _incredibly_ shoddy monster design independent of everything else.  You shouldn't be throwing around that sort of action denial at level 1 even on a solo, and I can't off the top of my head think of any monsters in the bottom half of heroic tier that have an at will daze, and for a very good reason.  And the combination of daze and shift is simply unpleasant as you can get to the one square gap distance very easily and have almost complete action denial for a melee fighter.  Bad, bad design at all levels.



> Anyway, I think there is a place for elite and solo creatures in 5E, but according to my preference, only certain monsters should qualify for this, and yes, they should have additional actions to make them viable.




And if you go by the 4e monster manuals and not the distinctly poor early 4e adventures, this pattern is followed - and it's not one I think should be broken.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a pretty experienced 4e DM, my reaction to that statement is "WTF?"  That is _incredibly_ shoddy monster design independent of everything else.  You shouldn't be throwing around that sort of action denial at level 1 even on a solo, and I can't off the top of my head think of any monsters in the bottom half of heroic tier that have an at will daze, and for a very good reason.  And the combination of daze and shift is simply unpleasant as you can get to the one square gap distance very easily and have almost complete action denial for a melee fighter.  Bad, bad design at all levels.



Lucky for all of us then that this is in fact "Dazing Strike", an *Encounter* Power for a *2nd* level Human Bandit.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 28, 2012)

I'll say something very honestly here: from the OP onwards, this just sounds like a sandbox DM complaining that the game has any concept whatsoever of level-appropriate monsters. Much of the other debate in this thread just gives me the usual "It's a wonder we ever agree on anything in this community" headache.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> Lucky for all of us then that this is in fact "Dazing Strike", an *Encounter* Power for a *2nd* level Human Bandit.




Good to know - never trust the internet


----------



## Iosue (Aug 28, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> Lucky for all of us then that this is in fact "Dazing Strike", an *Encounter* Power for a *2nd* level Human Bandit.



Ah, so the same one a 1st Level Rogue can select, then?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 28, 2012)

And yet another thread showing why 5e will fail


Unpleaseable fan base


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, I'm sorry, that's just not true.



What's not true?

There are a range of powers that players can select that grant them multiple attacks.

It's also the case that "minion" status obviates the need for multiple attacks - it's a different abstraction that achieves the same result: namely, increasing the likelihood of dropping the monster in a given 6-second period.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> The single most frustrating thing about 4E for me was that monster abilities and attacks were arbitrary and completely unrelated to what players could do.



I'm not sure in what way they're arbitrary - most of the design seems pretty tight to me.

The lack of overlap doesn't both me, personally. After all, the PCs can do stuff the NPCs can't do! I don't mind diversity, especially when it comes to magic. (For martial abilities I think it's more about varyious dimensions of abstraction - as with the (rough) functional equivalence of multiple attacks and minion status.)



Chris_Nightwing said:


> I don't have a 4E MM in front of me, but grabbing stuff from the pre-release that's already on the internet.. A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that.



The ability in question is, as others have posted, an encounter power, and is, as others have posted, very similar to the 1st level rogue encounter power of the same name.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> I also detest minions, but that's another story.



Minions are an amalgam of concepts, I think. In some cases they're about playing with the multiple dimensions of scaling: boost AC and attacks, but reduce hit points, to hold overall challenge roughly constant but change the dynamics of action resolution.

In other cases they're about imagining a tough but unlucky combatant - it has no layers of "Gygaxian" hit points - no luck or divine favour - but only meat.

Either way, they're the ultimate expression of D&D combat as abstraction rather than process modelling. I'm inferring from your dislike of them that you prefer combat as process model rather than abstraction, and treat hit points as "meat".


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 28, 2012)

The conversation is starting to veer into two different topics:

1) Should solo monsters mechanically exist?
2) Should humanoid monsters be provided special mechanics that Pcs don't have? (either through a solo tag or whatnot).

The second topic is a very different conversation, one that is very worth having, but one I think should be taken into a different thread.


So let me rephrase the first question to restart the debate: 

Is is okay if Dragons have special mechanics to make them challenging to a party of players on their own? Is it okay for certain other special monsters like Beholders to get similar treatment?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> Lucky for all of us then that this is in fact "Dazing Strike", an *Encounter* Power for a *2nd* level Human Bandit.



That makes sense.  And rogues at least get dazing strike as a first level encounter power.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> What's not true?
> 
> There are a range of powers that players can select that grant them multiple attacks.
> 
> It's also the case that "minion" status obviates the need for multiple attacks - it's a different abstraction that achieves the same result: namely, increasing the likelihood of dropping the monster in a given 6-second period.




Minions do not obviate the need for multiple attacks, you still have to hit them, so you want more attacks to increase your chance to do so.



> I'm not sure in what way they're arbitrary - most of the design seems pretty tight to me.




They're arbitrary in that creatures are given abilities to meet their level and type, with the flavour (if there is any) constructed around the monster afterwards.



> The lack of overlap doesn't both me, personally. After all, the PCs can do stuff the NPCs can't do! I don't mind diversity, especially when it comes to magic. (For martial abilities I think it's more about varyious dimensions of abstraction - as with the (rough) functional equivalence of multiple attacks and minion status.)
> 
> The ability in question is, as others have posted, an encounter power, and is, as others have posted, very similar to the 1st level rogue encounter power of the same name.




This is obviously a matter of taste, I've tried to make that clear. I don't have books here (they are in another country) so I gambled that a power from a pre-release would be relevant - it wasn't. I'm sure if I had the books I could find something that bears no resemblance to a player power of the same level and yet would be very useful to them, be it martial or magical.



> Minions are an amalgam of concepts, I think. In some cases they're about playing with the multiple dimensions of scaling: boost AC and attacks, but reduce hit points, to hold overall challenge roughly constant but change the dynamics of action resolution.
> 
> In other cases they're about imagining a tough but unlucky combatant - it has no layers of "Gygaxian" hit points - no luck or divine favour - but only meat.
> 
> Either way, they're the ultimate expression of D&D combat as abstraction rather than process modelling. I'm inferring from your dislike of them that you prefer combat as process model rather than abstraction, and treat hit points as "meat".




Minions are, to me, frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a monster that dies in 1 hit, but if we are already using HP as an abstraction for your ability to carry on fighting, why not just give them very low HP? It's been argued over before.

I do prefer combat as a process model, but I accept some abstractions and am happy to believe HP as a combination of things.

This is what all of this comes down to, to me: I want humanoid monsters and animals to follow player logic - I want them to gain power and HD as they gain levels. Oozes and Ogres and Giants and Dragons and Beholders, they can have special status. Perhaps you can even stretch that to giving the goblin shaman a spell nobody else can get (after all, magic is limited according to class), but doubling his hitpoints just to make him an elite, who survives longer and hits harder, does not square with me.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, essentially you're saying that 3e succeeded because nearly every 3e fan was so enamoured to ... what... the flavour... that they chose to rip apart the entire baseline of the system in order to play a game that you're claiming doesn't work out of the box.



No. 3e works mainly because of skills, feats, the standardization of class advancement and multiclassing, allowing previously unseen flexibility and transpanrency in character creation. From a DM's perspective, it works because those same things apply to monsters (moreso in 3.5). Those are the baseline of the system. That flexibility gives you the most playstyle-neutral mechanics D&D has, and thus the toolbox edition. None of those have anything to do with CR, or the assumption of a four-character 25 point buy party where every character is the same level and they face balanced encounters for their level. The best thing about that assumption is indeed that it's easily ignored.



> I think the success of 3e has a lot more to do with the fact that 3e works, out of the box, that balanced systems are a thousand times easier to play than unbalanced ones, and that the average gamer is savvy enough to know that a game that works is better than one that needs to be entirely rewritten.



I don't think the out of the box aspect is a huge deal for D&D. For another game it might be, but most people will play D&D even if the immediate reaction is not good just because it's D&D; they'll either adapt to its problems or fix them. D&D has a long leash.





pemerton said:


> This sort of play is of little interest to me. I may be missing something, but it suggests a very strong degree of GM force over the plot: the PCs encounter something which can only be resolved by deploying the GM's placed "macguffin". Maybe there was some other feature of the encounter to support player protagonism that you didn't mention in your write up.



If you think my players didn't take initiative you didn't read the example very well. If I threw in everything their characters had done up to that point, you'd probably see more, but that's kind of impractical. In any case, it's just one example. And I've yet to see the "flexible monster creation destroyed my game" example or even the "encounter based design is totally fun" example.

However, given that the DM does control all characters and events that are outside of the PCs' direct control, there is always going to be a "very strong degree of GM force", isn't there? In any case, I'll take "GM force" over "game designer force" any day.



> It's not as if your preferred approach to monster buidling, as set out in this thread, is playstyle neutral. It seems oriented towards an approach to play in which I have very little interest.



It's as neutral as it gets. You spend as much or as little time building the monster as you want. You can plan with maximum depth or you can improvise with unprecedented ease. You can build monsters as flexibly as PCs, meaning you can make them do whatever you want. What playstyle is not supported by that?



> My experience is the opposite: if the players (via a successful Monster Knowledge check for a PC) learn the abilities of a creature, and (from this) can infer to its level, and hence the mechancially measurable degree of challenge that it poses, this can certainly make them scared! Depending on what they learn, of course.
> 
> I don't "scare" my players by saying scary things to them, or telling them that what they see is scary. I scare them - and generate related emotions, like excitement - by putting their PCs in situations which will require clever and challenging play to resolve.



People are afraid of the unknown.

I don't scare my PCs by "putting their PCs in situations which will require clever and challenging play to resolve" of by telling them that what they see is of a certain level or manner of challenge; I scare them by putting them in situations that none of us know how they will resolve or whether or not they will resolve. In D&D (as opposed to in some rpgs), characters are so powerful that they usually come up with something, but the possibility of different outcomes, including failure, is still present. Not knowing what is going on or what will happen is actually essential. D&D isn't a puzzle to be solved.

If I knew that a certain battle was expected to be defeated by my party in six rounds, I would roll no dice, tell the party they beat the enemies in a short battle, and move on to the good stuff. Such a battle would certainly not empower the PCs, nor the DM; it reflects designer fiat. Whoever wrote the monster has apparently already decided what will happen at your table. Not coool.

Not that scaring them is the only style of play; I do that every now and then (but a "boss fight" is usually going to head in that direction).



> I'm not sure what you mean by "balanced". If you mean that encounters posing a mechanically measurable level of challenge are neither adventurous nor interesting,



Pretty much.

Those kinds of measures are either an illusion (in that they don't take into account the complexity of the scenario and don't truly reflect its level of challenge) or a limitation (in that they impose a style of play on a freeform game with diverse players-bad idea). The CR system and its associated assumptions are an illusion, and I think at this point, most of us have made our saves to disbelieve it.





Neonchameleon said:


> And this is me asserting my belief that I and most other DMs I know would literally rather gnaw off our own right arms than work under the system you prefer with having to custom-craft almost all monsters based on a half-finished monster-manual.  We have jobs, we have lives, and we have other hobbies - and some of the burned-out 3.X DMs I know spent at least a dozen hours preparing per session at mid level and have described it as a full time job.



Well you're free to do so.

That said, having the tools laid out in front of you makes it so much easier to skip out on prep work and improvise. It's easy to take monsters and hack them on the fly when they have predictable rules for advancement. There are tons of published adventures and sources of premade stat blocks other than monster manuals for people who want to go that route. Some people may have been burned out DMs, but no one, especially not Skip Williams, ever forced them to be so.

Personally, I looked at the 4e monster manual, and the thought of having to break everything apart and rewrite the entire thing just to make it marginally usable was not appealing. That would have been a full-time job. Thankfully, no one made me DM it.

So while most DMs you know might have that opinion, I'm not particularly persuaded by them that the entire system that in no way lead to their problems is somehow wrong.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> Is is okay if Dragons have special mechanics to make them challenging to a party of players on their own? Is it okay for certain other special monsters like Beholders to get similar treatment?



No. At least, not if you're suggesting that those mechanics go outside the purview of describing what the dragon is in the game world for the sole purpose of creating a balanced encounter.

That said, you've chosen strange examples. Dragons, by virtue of their nature, typically have area attacks and a wide variety of options, and beholders, by their nature, have a wide variety of eyes. They serve the function of "boss monster" well because of those things, not the other way around.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 28, 2012)

You know, I don't really get the whole "Monsters can do things PCs can't" argument.  To me, it appears that monster abilities fall into three groups.

1) Basic attacks.  With natural or man-made weapons, they attack.  Pretty much just like PCs.  At the most they mimic player at-wills, with damage plus a simple effect.

2) Powers.  These powers are essentially just like PC powers.  Maybe a little weaker in some cases, maybe a little stronger in others.  The form of the power might be a bit different, but the effect is basically the same.  So here you have the Bandit's Dazing Strike (Rogue's Dazing Strike), the Town Guard's Powerful Strike (Fighter's Sweeping Strike), the Goblin Hex Hurler's Stinging Hex (Warlock's Dire Radiance), Elf's Two-Weapon Rend (Ranger's Twin Strike), Hobgoblin's Attack Command (Warlord's Commander's Strike), and so on.  These are basically things PCs can do, but flavored a little different to represent the monster doing them.  The way a Kobold learns to fight is a little different than how a Human learns to fight.  The Goblin Hex Hurler learns magic a little different than Warlocks.  Basically the same, but flavorfully different.

3) Special Powers.  These are powers truly unique to those monsters, that the PCs can't mimic (and aren't mimicking PC powers), and it makes sense that those monsters have those unique powers.  The Medusa's Mind-Venom Gaze.  The Dragon's Breath Weapon.  The Lich's Enervating Tendrils.  The Succubus's Charming Kiss.  And the thing is, because these powers are tied in with 4e's consistent keywords and conditions, these powers are not wholly unreproductible by PCs.  They interact with the world in a consistent way.

I like 4e monsters.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Minions do not obviate the need for multiple attacks, you still have to hit them, so you want more attacks to increase your chance to do so.



Sure, except that they die in one hit, so you don't need as many hits to drop them. Minions take the probablity engine that is D&D combat and rearrange the bits of it in slightly different ways. That's why I think they are an abstraction device, and (presumably) unappealing for those who like less abstraction.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> Minions are, to me, frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a monster that dies in 1 hit, but if we are already using HP as an abstraction for your ability to carry on fighting, why not just give them very low HP?



I don't quite follow this - minions _do_ have very low hit points, namely, 1. Or are you querying the "no damage on a miss" rule?



Chris_Nightwing said:


> They're arbitrary in that creatures are given abilities to meet their level and type, with the flavour (if there is any) constructed around the monster afterwards.



I don't think this is the case, though. Certainly not universally. I think there are plenty of 4e monsters which have been conceived of first in terms of flavour, and then a level, type and powers built around them. Demons, devils, dragons, drow, mind flayers, beholders, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, wights and wraiths would be some of the examples of this that I would nominate.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

Iosue said:


> You know, I don't really get the whole "Monsters can do things PCs can't" argument.  To me, it appears that monster abilities fall into three groups.
> 
> 1) Basic attacks.  With natural or man-made weapons, they attack.  Pretty much just like PCs.  At the most they mimic player at-wills, with damage plus a simple effect.
> 
> ...




Completely agree with 1) and 3).

You've made a great list for 2) and I would love to look through those powers and do a comparison. If the powers for the guards and elf are exactly the same as the PC equivalents then I'll relent a little on that complaint.

I also don't know, but were there any big changes when monster races became PC races? I remember instantly disliking the kobold and goblin combatant abilities (one was shifting on a miss I remember) because they were dissociated from anything physical about the race.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Whilst you're correct in your last paragraph, it isn't great value to buy a Monster Manual that's half full of creatures you're deliberately not using. We'll see though - like I said, I think the designation of elite or solo has a place for certain monsters, I just wouldn't like to see a special version of every monster.




There are monsters I'll never use because they simply do not fit the style for the campaign.  So a monster manual will always have monsters that DMs will never use.  In the MMs that have them, the Solo and Elite designation was more of an addendum to some "thematically" appropriate creatures.  In addition, the monster manual and/or DMG (don't remember which) had advice on how the DM could add those mechanics to the monsters they wanted.

At this point this seems to be a concern for something that has never really happened.  I would not expect to see a solo, or elite designation for every monster in the MM.  So I would not expect half the monsters to be "useless".
However, I'd like the designation to exist and the mechanics to back them up.  I'd also like the mechanics to support the DM to add the mechanics to any monster he feels appropriate; it is his campaign after all.  And if the DM wants to level up monsters just like PCs, he should be able to do that too.  I know I did with 4e for one particular monster.  Then I got wiser, and just took the stuff I wanted/needed.  I didn't bother will all the additional "cruft" that was not necessary for me.  Best of both worlds.



-


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Sure, except that they die in one hit, so you don't need as many hits to drop them. Minions take the probablity engine that is D&D combat and rearrange the bits of it in slightly different ways. That's why I think they are an abstraction device, and (presumably) unappealing for those who like less abstraction.
> 
> I don't quite follow this - minions _do_ have very low hit points, namely, 1. Or are you querying the "no damage on a miss" rule?
> 
> I don't think this is the case, though. Certainly not universally. I think there are plenty of 4e monsters which have been conceived of first in terms of flavour, and then a level, type and powers built around them. Demons, devils, dragons, drow, mind flayers, beholders, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, wights and wraiths would be some of the examples of this that I would nominate.




What I liked in one discussion from the designers on 5E was that minions would genuinely just be lower level monsters that you once faced on equal footing, but now can kill with one blow. I didn't like the no damage on a miss rule.

Back (a little) to the topic. I saw that they improved the design of solos as the game developed, to account for the action economy. I think they were stymied by their own rules at this point though since multiple actions led to shrugging off PC effects easily, and in a game with a mixture of early and late solo creatures you could really see the difference in your effectiveness (though frankly by then there were so many overpowered features it barely mattered).

One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That said, having the tools laid out in front of you makes it so much easier to skip out on prep work and improvise.  It's easy to take monsters and hack them on the fly when they have predictable rules for advancement.








Advantage: 4e.



> Personally, I looked at the 4e monster manual, and the thought of having to break everything apart and rewrite the entire thing just to make it marginally usable was not appealing. That would have been a full-time job. Thankfully, no one made me DM it.




Whereas I run 4e monsters straight out of the monster manual while at the table - which makes it _incredibly_ useful to me.  You don't actually have to break apart and re-write the whole thing.  But even you admit you have done so for 3.X IIRC.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.




And I have one very obvious question for you: _What exactly is preventing you doing that in 4e?_ 

And an answer: Absolutely nothing.  I have done this.  All a "solo" means is that it is worth five standard monsters of that level and should probably be a threat for the party.  There is absolutely _nothing_ in either rules or fluff saying that a solo can't have allies - and certainly the named Nentir Vale solos I recall do.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Back (a little) to the topic. I saw that they improved the design of solos as the game developed, to account for the action economy. I think they were stymied by their own rules at this point though since multiple actions led to shrugging off PC effects easily, and in a game with a mixture of early and late solo creatures you could really see the difference in your effectiveness (though frankly by then there were so many overpowered features it barely mattered).



When 4e was released, the designers frankly had no idea how the game worked.  It was still fun, overall, but 4e right now, post-errata, post-MM3, post-Essentials is a much better game.  They needed another year or two of realistic, real-player playtests to iron out obvious flaws like V-shaped classes, the "expertise gap", grindy soldiers, useless brutes, worthless feats, and, yes, awful Solos (and monster design in general).

PCs haven't gotten remarkably more powerful since the pre-errata 4e PHB.  In some ways, they've gotten less so.  It was the monster design that was way, way off.



> One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.



There's nothing in the "solo" designation preventing this.  Most "solo" monsters will have a retinue.  And if you encounter them with a bunch of allies ... well, prepare for a big fight.

Also, in this case, Elite would probably be better.  In my own games, I tend to restrict Solos to incredibly powerful beings (tough monsters, sorcerer-kings, corrupted Spirits of the Land, etc.) but use Elites for your basic better-than-average humanoids.

-O


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Whereas I run 4e monsters straight out of the monster manual while at the table - which makes it _incredibly_ useful to me.



To you. To me, they aren't even close to a minimal standard of usable (nor, to be fair, do I consider any premade stat blocks acceptable). If someone somehow forced me to run 4e, I'd make up the monster stats myself on the fly without even looking at the monster manual.



> Advantage: 4e.



If you call that advancement. Yikes.



> You don't actually have to break apart and re-write the whole thing.  But even you admit you have done so for 3.X IIRC.



I "admit" that I have used the monster advancement rules? I haven't had to break anything apart or change the system itself, just add stuff to individual creatures. That's what a monster manual is for: to help a DM create monsters. I admit to being a DM.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And I have one very obvious question for you: _What exactly is preventing you doing that in 4e?_




I've read some of these "discussions" with some measure of amusement.

It seems like an answer looking for a problem, one that really doesn't exist.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That said, you've chosen strange examples. Dragons, by virtue of their nature, typically have area attacks and a wide variety of options, and beholders, by their nature, have a wide variety of eyes. They serve the function of "boss monster" well because of those things, not the other way around.



And yet, there's still only one of them.  So you need other, _different _gamist constructs to make them reasonable challenges.  Such as Spell Resistance, Natural Armor, "Anti-Magic Cone" eyes, dragon fear, etc.  All you're doing is picking and choosing which gamist construct you want.

(Speaking of gamist constructs - c'mon, the _beholder?_   I guarantee you, much like the rust monster and gelatinous cube, the design of that creature did not start from ecology or versimilitude, nor was it built mechanistically like a PC!)

-O


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


>




I approve of this. Though note that the idea was already there by creature type in 3E, without guidance on appropriate powers or damage (and I think they fluffed some levels).


> And I have one very obvious question for you: _What exactly is preventing you doing that in 4e?_
> 
> And an answer: Absolutely nothing.  I have done this.  All a "solo" means is that it is worth five standard monsters of that level and should probably be a threat for the party.  There is absolutely _nothing_ in either rules or fluff saying that a solo can't have allies - and certainly the named Nentir Vale solos I recall do.




Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.



Obryn said:


> Also, in this case, Elite would probably be better.  In my own games, I tend to restrict Solos to incredibly powerful beings (tough monsters, sorcerer-kings, corrupted Spirits of the Land, etc.) but use Elites for your basic better-than-average humanoids.
> -O




This is sensible, and I think that 'elites' can be higher level, where solos cannot. So yeah, if anything let's drop elite and keep solo as a designation for powerful beings.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

D'karr said:


> It seems like an answer looking for a problem, one that really doesn't exist.



I think you've just described the monster role take on monster design, and it "reduce the workload for the poor helpless DM" philosophy. As well as the power system relative to "15 minute adventuring days" and "linear vs quadratic characters". All of these things are answers looking for a problem that doesn't exist, and it is indeed amusing that we're still even talking about it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Obryn said:


> All you're doing is picking and choosing which gamist construct you want.



Pretty much. That's what the entertainment business is. There are reasons why I want it.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I also don't know, but were there any big changes when monster races became PC races? I remember instantly disliking the kobold and goblin combatant abilities (one was shifting on a miss I remember) because they were dissociated from anything physical about the race.




The shift on a miss was a feature of Goblins, which represented getting the heck out of Dodge after a near-miss.  It was entirely associated with something physical about the race: goblins are small and squirrelly.  When someone takes a swing at them, they don't wait around for another.  They break away.  And it should be noted, such an ability was completely optional for the DM.  I mean, it often made sense to use it, but it wasn't as if it was automatic.

Goblin PCs have that same ability.  At-Will Racial Feature, when an enemy misses an attack, you can shift one square.  The flavor text is "You avoid your enemy’s blow and cleverly dodge away."


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.



If you can take out a dragon's minions and turn that final confrontation into an L+2 encounter instead of an L+6 encounter, you've done well.  The "solos take a while to kill" is a basic feature of the design, IMO.  It's less rocket-taggy.



> This is sensible, and I think that 'elites' can be higher level, where solos cannot. So yeah, if anything let's drop elite and keep solo as a designation for powerful beings.



I don't know that they _can _just be higher level, honestly.  It's a different design axis.

ETA: Basically, I don't think there's anything magical about hit points which means they must always match up with a monster's other capabilities.

-O


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think you've just described the monster role take on monster design, and it "reduce the workload for the poor helpless DM" philosophy. As well as the power system relative to "15 minute adventuring days" and "linear vs quadratic characters". All of these things are answers looking for a problem that doesn't exist, and it is indeed amusing that we're still even talking about it.




I'm gonna call BS on this. I know that 4E monster design lightened the burden on myself as a GM substantially. Off the top of my head I have nine friends who I know very well, who GMed both 3rd and then 4th when it came out. Eight of them agree that 4th edition is substantially easier on the GM, though only seven of them actually enjoyed running 4th edition. That's not even getting into how many times I've seen that opinion voiced in the echo chamber that is the internet.

I'm not getting into the other two claims, as we're off-topic enough as it is.

If you had said "all of these things aren't a problem _to me_", I'd be fine with your post. Some people consider them problems, others don't. But saying they aren't problems _at all_, and never were, well, I happen to know that you are incorrect.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

slobster said:


> If you had said "all of these things aren't a problem _to me_", I'd be fine with your post. Some people consider them problems, others don't. But saying they aren't problems _at all_, and never were, well, I happen to know that you are incorrect.



I believe that some DMs are and have been overworked. I know I have been (but not for a while). I also believe that some (but not many) DMs find 4e meaningfully easier to DM than 3e. What I don't believe is that the mechanical constructs at issue caused the initial overwork, or that any changes to them necessarily effected the anecdotally positive experiences some have reported.

A DM's workload has been and will be a product of his choices and the group he plays with far more than the rules. As such, it is quite malleable. 4e previews sure told people that DMing would be easier, and that in and of itself probably encouraged DMs to make different choices about how they prepare, independent of mechanics. A placebo effect, essentially.

The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.) and probably do indeed make it easier for people who do indeed fit within its assumptions (but much harder for everyone else). If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier. I just don't believe that this scenario is the "baseline" D&D experience, or that people who fall outside of it are irrelevant.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Dragons, by virtue of their nature, typically have area attacks and a wide variety of options, and beholders, by their nature, have a wide variety of eyes. They serve the function of "boss monster" well because of those things, not the other way around.




And this is why I think there are actually two different arguments being thrown around.

The first is the idea that some monsters have naturally acted as "boss monsters" over the years. Dragons, beholders, mind flayers, etc.

The idea of the solo tag here is to promote mechanics that allow these monsters to truly serve as a final encounter to a party of PCs.


The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> The idea of the solo tag here is to promote mechanics that allow these monsters to truly serve as a final encounter to a party of PCs.



That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.



> The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.



That's the approach I'm saying feels too metagame-y. Giving the goblin a few levels of rogue/druid/etc. or giving it a bunch of allies or a well-protected lair are what make it a boss, not tacking on a few extra actions per round to make it more powerful for its level.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> The first is the idea that some monsters have naturally acted as "boss monsters" over the years. Dragons, beholders, mind flayers, etc.



Is there anyone who has a problem with this?






> The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.



I think this is the real problem...


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.



...or you tag them such _because_ they have multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor.  I'd add in more HPs, too.  Like I said, it's senseless to tie HPs so closely to everything else.

The Elite and Solo tags are just other pieces in the DM's toolbox.

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.




So you don't see an issue with orcs. Being lv5, and you can put 1d6+1 of them in an encounter, for level 1-10 PCs, but the Dragon is lv 10 and 1 is a challenge. Etween levels 5-15?!?!?

If the DM puts 1 orc against 5 pcs of equal level it is too easy, if you put 3 Dragons against 5 PCs it is a TPK... So what do the levels mean at that point? Why hide info ?


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 28, 2012)

Personally, humanoids as solos should be rare as examples. There are few ways to make a normal humanoid take a whole group without it making sense that it hits the rocket tag or nerf foam combat marks.

But that doesn't mean that can't happen. A humanoid could still be a solo. Just like a dragon or lick could be a mook. And a dragon or lich mook have to be toned down to match the 5 heroes vs 5 dragons fight.


----------



## nightwalker450 (Aug 28, 2012)

I kind of agree with Ahnehnois here. The goblin chief is strange in wanting it to be a "solo". Why are the hero's so over matched by the goblin that he needs solo status?

Dragon, Beholder, Ettin.. These are easily visible. The story should drive the creatures abilities.

I could agree to some possibly "elite" style templates to toss on a creature. Giving them a reactionary attack or something to give them a little boost in action economy. Or even a boost to all their defenses to help negate a few more player attacks.

Wizards could be more threatening based on individual spells than on being able to take multiple turns. -- Summonings, protections, area spells, reactionary escape spells, etc...
Note when I say spells I don't mean PC spells, because Monsters should be built for different reasons than PCs.

Basically the creature should be solo on its own merits because it fits, not because he was slapped with a fat template and the characters wouldn't have the least bit of understanding of.

-- I'm a big fan of 4e, and the minion/standard/elite/solo, flat math is handling the minions well enough. Solos though I think real thought should be put in before putting the label on a creature.

-- An elite template, solo creatures.. Beyond that GM's could probably customize to get the proper feel they want using those as examples.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Personally, humanoids as solos should be rare as examples. There are few ways to make a normal humanoid take a whole group without it making sense that it hits the rocket tag or nerf foam combat marks.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that can't happen. A humanoid could still be a solo. Just like a dragon or *lick* could be a mook. And a dragon or lich mook have to be toned down to match the 5 heroes vs 5 dragons fight.



A lick could be a mook? What is this, D&D or Dr. Suess? 

***



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> ...or you tag them such because they have multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor.



Sure, if the tag is simply a label and not a mechanic.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 28, 2012)

nightwalker450 said:


> -- I'm a big fan of 4e, and the minion/standard/elite/solo, flat math is handling the minions well enough. Solos though I think real thought should be put in before putting the label on a creature.




Yes, in the same way that a huge dragon feels wrong as a minion, even if the game design would point you that way.

The mechanics give you a maths game that works (in various ways, depending on version). For it to feel like a D&D story, you still need to have workable descriptions. 4E would have you do the mechanics early on and justify them later with a good description. 3.5 gives you little bundles of mechanics+justification to build with, but you are on your own to get the end build right. Neither is perfect, but both are ultimately reaching for the same thing - a challenging and fun opponent within the game. Just the planning sequence is in a different order.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> A lick could be a mook? What is this, D&D or Dr. Suess?
> 
> ***
> 
> Sure, if the tag is simply a label and not a mechanic.





Whenever I have been licked (in either way), I have never used the word "mook". 

Back in the day (1st Ed), when I wanted to make an Orc extra badass, I would just slap on Fighter levels.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Back in the day (1st Ed), when I wanted to make an Orc extra badass, I would just slap on Fighter levels.



Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?



That worked better in 1e. 

-O


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?





It was too much, I mean, how do you cope, but I have managed to enjoy 1st Ed since 1986!


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.) and probably do indeed make it easier for people who do indeed fit within its assumptions (but much harder for everyone else). If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier.




This is a more balanced criticism. I don't necessarily agree, but we can discuss it.

The tools themselves unquestionably make my job as a GM easier. I'll give a (hopefully) quick example to illustrate by comparing monster creation from 3.5 and 4th.

I'm going to make a dolgrue, an aberration monstrosity to terrorize my PCs. Picking randomly, let's make it around 6th level.





*4th:* To start with, I need level, role, and tag. My party is* level 6* so the level is easy. I see dolgrues as shambling and terrifying, but not particularly sneaky or disciplined. *I'm making it a brute*. Finally, *I'm making him an elite* because he should be able to physically dominate more than one PC at a time.

*3.5:* Well we know he's going to be an *aberration*, so I choose that as his creature type. I know that I want him to be challenging for my level 6 characters, so I decide *he'll be CR 7*.

That was easy so far, now let's start assigning stats!

*4th:* Flipping to the stat guidelines that   [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] helpfully provided, I generate the dolgrue's basic combat abilities quickly. *His AC is 18 (12+6<level>-2<brute>)*, *his defenses are 18 (12+6<level>)*, *his to hit bonus is +11 (5+6<level>)*, and *his hp is 172 (26+60<level>*2<elite>)*. That's a pretty good start.

*3.5:* I go to the back of the MM, where the monster creation guidelines are. First I need to choose a size. Large seems to be about right. Then it gives me a range of appropriate ability scores for that size. *I'll go Str 22, Dex 10, Con 22*, since I think those stats are about right. The suggested damage values for attack types I'll come back to later. I need to choose HD now. The MM helpfully suggests that the HD should be at least equal to the target CR, but no more than 3 times the target CR. That means my dolgrue will have between 7 and 21 HD! Choosing a value in the middle, my dolgrue will apparently have 14 HD. Flipping back to the aberration type, these HD are d8s, so *my dolgrue will have 147 hp (14d8+84)*. 

Now he needs an AC, which according to the MM should be equal to its CR +13. *My dolgrue's AC is 20 (13+7<CR>) or (10-1<size>+11<natural armor>)*. Aberrations get good will saves and bad everything else, so *his fort save is +10 (4<base>+6<con>)*, *his reflex save is +4 (base)*, and *his will save is +9 (base)*. At this point I've chosen to have his wisdom be 10.

Aberrations have the cleric attack bonus progression, so *his str based attacks will be at +15 (10<BAB>+6<str>-1<large>)*. As a sidenote, the monster building guidelines tell me I should be aiming for an attack bonus of about the monster's CR times 1.5. In this case, that means a +11 attack bonus. As they say:


			
				Monster Manual 3.5 said:
			
		

> Manipulating your monster's attack bonus to fit the CR you have in mind is not quite as easy as manipulating Armor Class. You can change the creature's Hit Dice, but doing this will change several other characteristics. The best way to fine-tune your monster at this step is to change its Strength score, but watch out for creating ability scores that seem unusually low or high for a creature of the given size or type.



Indeed. Since getting to a +11 attack bonus would mean assigning the dolgrue a strength of 14, which doesn't match my goal of an unstoppable, tank-like monstrosity, I guess I'll just deal with him having an unusually high attack bonus.

These are the basic stats needed as the foundation for the monster, but he still doesn't have any attacks!

*4th:* Our dolgrue should have a basic attack. The average damage should be 17.5 (8+6<level>*1.25<brute>). Let's give him a claw attack +11 (1d10+12). Ouch.

He is an elite of course, so we want him to be scary to multiple PCs. We also want him to be unique and interesting. Let's add a minor action that lets him toss a foe through the air like a projectile. _*Minor action:* +11 vs. AC; 1d6+6 damage and push 4 squares. If the target would move through a square containing another creature, end the forced movement and knock both creatures prone, and the second creature takes 1d6+6 damage as well._

Not every enemy needs an encounter ability, but in this case I think we can justify one. Dolgrue's live in constant agony, so stabbing it repeatedly doesn't scare it, it more just pisses it off. _*Once per encounter, as a reaction after being damaged by an attack:* close burst 1, +11 vs. AC. On a hit it deals 1d10+12 damage and knocks the target prone, and interrupts any marking effects a target had active on the dolgrue._

*3.5:* Again, we'll give him a claw attack. According to the size chart, large creatures' claw attacks deal 1d6 damage. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to increase the damage on that by one step. Dolgrue's have some pretty big claws. That gives us 1d8, plus 6 for strength. *Claw +15 (1d8+6).*

I'm giving him the multiattack feat so that he's more of a threat, so when he's full attacking he'll get 2 of these claw attacks, as well as a bite. The size chart tells me that the bite attack will do 1d8 damage. Since it's a secondary attack, I only apply one half strength bonus to damage, and even with multiattack it's at a -2 penalty. So our dolgrue's full attack is: *2 claws +15 (1d8+6) and bite +13 (1d8+3)*.

I still want to make him seem a little different from other big, physical baddies. I think the rend mechanic is overused (in all editions), so I'll leave that alone. Improved grab and grappling is just a pain to use at the table. I'll try to match the flavor of the 4th edition version of the monster I just made with the following ability: *When the dolgrue is struck by a critical hit, it may immediately take an attack action as a free action, even if it is not his turn.* I don't know how powerful that ability will be in practice, but it at least rounds out the monster and makes it more than just a reskinned ogre-type.

Finally, to reflect that the dolgrue is insane and utterly alien in mindset, I'm giving him a unique special quality. _Whenever a humanoid attempts to use a mind-influencing effect on the dolgrue and fails, it becomes enraged. It immediately heals 25 hp and gets a +2 bonus to all damage rolls for 1 hour (these bonuses stack). Any humanoid which attempts to read the dolgrue's thoughts must make a will save DC 18 (10+7<half HD>+1<cha>) or go temporarily insane, as the spell confusion, for 1d4 rounds._

________________________________________________

So now I'm pretty much done. If this monster were seeing actual play, I'd modify the 4E version slightly, adding a few points to its will defense to represent its alien mindset, deducting a few points from its reflex defense and hp to represent its reckless nature. The 3.5 version sill needs feats, skills, and a couple of other details. But the two are essentially usable in a fight.

The 4th edition version was much easier to do. I admit that I'm out of practice in both. Some of my judgement calls may be questionable, and that comes down to personal skill. But the 3.5 version had me hunting through appendices in the book looking for HD and save progression and multiattack rules, while the 4E version boils down to a table a dozen lines long and some common sense. 

The 3.x rules actually apologized in the actual text for how difficult it made some of the arithmetic contortions to get a reasonable challenge out of their monster creation guidelines, so at least they were aware of the problem. But I'd still take the 4E guidelines any day. In fact, when I GM 3.x/Pathfinder these days, I ignore their creature guidelines and basically used the 4E ones, hacked for the altered math of a different system. 

The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference. It's certainly never led to verisimilitude problems at the table. It's freeing and empowering, whereas I consider the morass at the back of the 3.5 MM to be restricting and creativity-killing. As well as a whole lot of work.

I apologize for the long, boring post. Hopefully it gets my point across, though.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

[MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION]
For all the text you've put forth here, it seems like you'r describing the design/development process of a monster rather than the process of an individual DM creating a specific example of said monster for his game. I full well expect that 3e's mentality is much harder for the designers because they have to cover a much wider range of possibilities for what a monster can be or do. That's why they get the big bucks. (Well, maybe not, but you get my point). Not that you can't homebrew your own monsters if you like, but that's not really the topic of discussion. That being said...



> The 3.x rules actually apologized in the actual text for how difficult it made some of the arithmetic contortions to get a reasonable challenge out of their monster creation guidelines, so at least they were aware of the problem.



That's really an issue with the whole system and how math scales (i.e. the issue that flat math is supposed to fix). Basically, you have to do these arithmetic contortions because a character with 10 levels (or monster hit dice) is too different from one with 9, and because you're apparently very concerned about balancing things on a knife's edge.



> The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference.



See, mine will. They know how things work, they own a lot of monster books. If I simply took a monster and gave it the numbers it was "supposed to have" absent the underpinnings of level and ability scores, they'd know, and I don't think they'd be too happy about it. I wouldn't, in their shoes.

Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.

After all, if you're going to take this approach, why have stats at all? Why not just have one table that says "this is your percentage chance of success: easy/medium/hard" and roll that for every challenge that comes up regardless of what choices the PCs or the DM make? The whole point of having these rules rather than playing a freeform rpg is that the players know the difference. A large part of the fun of using those rules is when the numbers are not what they "should" be.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.



It is funny that you're saying this when RC D&D exists.  

Even 1e had very simple, idiosyncratic monsters.  (1e still tied together HPs and general combat efficiency too much, mind you.)

-O


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> They're arbitrary in that creatures are given abilities to meet their level and type, with the flavour (if there is any) constructed around the monster afterwards.




They aren't arbitary.  This is one of the places where 3.X players don't IME understand 4e or even prior editions of D&D.

In 3.X the rules are intended to be a simulation of the world.  In other editions of D&D (and especially 4e) the rules are intended to be a _reflection_ of the world.

So in 3.X to create a dragon, you work out how big it is and what colour, and look up on a chart that a dragon of this size and this colour is about this old and has this many hit dice, casts as an Nth level magic user, etc.

In 4e the process is more like this.  
"I have a dragon.  It is a big, scary monster that should be able to threaten a few dozen people on its own and the adventurers will need to team up against.  Therefore it's a solo."  And then you base its level on how threatening you see it as being.

"Now.  How does it like to fight?"  


If it comes in on the wing, tearing through the enemy using size and speed to rush past and around them, it's a skirmisher.
 If it comes in swaggering, big, tough, and ignoring whatever the enemy does to it, and rending them into kibble it's a brute.
If it comes in not so much intimidating as promising, the enemies weapons turning off its hide, it's a soldier
If it prefers to crisp the enemy with its breath weapon from afar it's artillery
If it ensorcels and/or chokes them with the breath weapon so they can't fight back it's a controller
If it hides, then reappears out of the heart of the swamp, chomping and dragging its prey away, it's a lurker
After establishing its general approach and how it thinks, your next question is "What does it do in detail?"  And those details are what make up its traits and powers.
​ And if those powers are arbitrary it's because rather than visualising your dragon and giving it powers based on that visualisation you've just given it arbitrary powers.



> Minions are, to me, frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a monster that dies in 1 hit, but if we are already using HP as an abstraction for your ability to carry on fighting, why not just give them very low HP?




Speed.



> This is what all of this comes down to, to me: I want humanoid monsters and animals to follow player logic - I want them to gain power and HD as they gain levels.




And this is where the simulationist/reflective divide comes in.  To me classes are not something visible in the game world.  The person is who they are, and their stats and classes are an approximation of that person.  "Gaining levels" is therefore about as meaningful a concept as it is in the real world; a black belt can beat up a blue belt but you wouldn't say the whole person has gained levels.  But as they grow stronger, their level increases because it needs to to be able to model them.



> but doubling his hitpoints just to make him an elite, who survives longer and hits harder, does not square with me.




You don't double his hit points just to make him an elite who survives longer and hits harder.  You make him an elite because he is someone able to survive longer and hit harder.




Chris_Nightwing said:


> Er, the fact that solos take  for-freaking-ever to kill?




Out of curiosity are you talking about MM1 solos.  They've cut solo hit points by 25% and lowered solo defences while raising the damage significantly since then.  And there were some real wastes of space in the MM1 solos, like the Purple Worm.



> This is sensible, and I think that 'elites' can be higher level, where  solos cannot. So yeah, if anything let's drop elite and keep solo as a  designation for powerful beings.




If you're going in with flat math, I don't see much problem with this approach.



Ahnehnois said:


> That flexibility gives you the most playstyle-neutral mechanics D&D has, and thus the toolbox edition.




3.X is the most rigid, inflexible edition of D&D in history.  Mostly because it's simulationist and in every other edition of D&D you work out the world then match the rules to it.  The rules follow the world.  In 3.X the world follows the rules.  It's therefore the only one where inflexibility is a problem.



> None of those have anything to do with CR, or the assumption of a four-character 25 point buy party where every character is the same level and they face balanced encounters for their level. The best thing about that assumption is indeed that it's easily ignored.




And here are some double standards.  You can ignore the CR in 3.X and do.  I can and do ignore the expected encounter levels  in 4e when I want to.  In both cases they are simply DM guidelines - but you are saying one can be ignored and the other must be followed.  Why?



> And I've yet to see the "flexible monster creation destroyed my game" example or even the "encounter based design is totally fun" example.




That's because flexible monster creation is not a property of 3.X.  As for "encounter based design is totally fun", you miss the purpose of balance.  It's "Encounter based design helps new DMs learn to DM easily and means that you always have something to fall back on."

You also miss the second point about encounter based design.  It belongs to 3.X. 



> However, given that the DM does control all characters and events that are outside of the PCs' direct control, there is always going to be a "very strong degree of GM force", isn't there? In any case, I'll take "GM force" over "game designer force" any day.




There's far more game designer force in 3.X than there is in any other set of editions.  This is because 3.X is simulationist and is meant to _model_ the world.  If you break from the rules you change the world.  In any other edition, the rules are meant to _reflect_ the world - and where they don't reflect the world you override them.



> You spend as much or as little time building the monster as you want.




This is both double standards and untrue.  In _any_ edition you can spend as much time as you want building monsters therefore it's double standards.  

As for as little time as I want, there are times when I want to use a dragon straight out of the Monster Manual.  i.e. zero time on the mechanics.  And in 3.X _I can't do this._  The dragons cast like spellcasters and I need to know what spells they have up.  In 4e I can flip straight to the page in the monster manual with a dragon and I'm good to go.  I believe I can do this in AD&D and oD&D as well.  But not in 3.X



> You can plan with maximum depth or you can improvise with unprecedented ease.




This is again both double standards and untrue.  You can plan with maximum depth in any edition or just about any game - it's turtles all the way down.

On the other hand it's harder to improvise in 3.X than in any other edition - and easier to improvise in 4e than any other edition.

3.X was the edition that brought us the Use Rope skill, and the difficulty to swim up a waterfall.  You need to thoroughly know the rules of a rules heavy game to avoid tripping over.  In any other edition you can ask for a stat or skill roll and simply interpret without having all those difficulties presented to compare to.  3.X is therefore the single _hardest_ version to improvise with.

4e on the other hand brought us a scene framing tool (the Skill Challenge) that can help pace scenes, and deal with most plans PCs are going to come up with.  Now the Skill Challenge mechanic isn't perfect and the guidance is worse.  But unlike any other edition, 4e has actual _tools_ to help you improvise.



> You can build monsters as flexibly as PCs, meaning you can make them do whatever you want. What playstyle is not supported by that?




You can build monsters _more_ flexibly than PCs in _any other edition_.  To take one canon example, the best baker in Sharn is a level 20 Commoner.  He needs to be a level 20 commoner in order to be such a good baker.  Which means to be a really good baker, he needs a BAB of +10/+5, and 50 hit points.  The best baker in Sharn therefore needs to be able to kick a third level fighter's arse just so he can be the best baker in Sharn. This is hardly making monsters do whatever you want.  And should explain the difference and just how inflexible forcing NPCs to use the same skill rules as PCs is.



> In D&D (as opposed to in some rpgs), characters are so powerful that they usually come up with something, but the possibility of different outcomes, including failure, is still present. Not knowing what is going on or what will happen is actually essential.




No plan survives first contact with the enemy - or the dice.  And I don't let the PCs know what's going on most of the time anyway.



> D&D isn't a puzzle to be solved.




And now you're trying to claim that Tomb of Horrors isn't D&D.  Right.



> If I knew that a certain battle was expected to be defeated by my party in six rounds, I would roll no dice, tell the party they beat the enemies in a short battle, and move on to the good stuff. Such a battle would certainly not empower the PCs, nor the DM; it reflects designer fiat. Whoever wrote the monster has apparently already decided what will happen at your table. Not coool.




And now you're throwing most adventure paths from Dragonlance to the various Pathfinder paths out of D&D.  If you don't work on the assumption that PCs win _then adventure paths don't work._   But as with any idea or story, _how_ is more important than _what_.  

And you know which edition has the most adventure paths written for it?  3.X/Pathfinder.  The edition you are praising.



> Those kinds of measures are either an illusion (in that they don't take into account the complexity of the scenario and don't truly reflect its level of challenge) or a limitation (in that they impose a style of play on a freeform game with diverse players-bad idea).




Or a prop in that they allow a new or tired DM to run a _decent_ session without worrying about having to pull his punches or TPK the party.  At least when you have a system that actually works (as 4e does and 3.X doesn't).



Ahnehnois said:


> To you. To me, they aren't even close to a minimal standard of usable (nor, to be fair, do I consider any premade stat blocks acceptable). If someone somehow forced me to run 4e, I'd make up the monster stats myself on the fly without even looking at the monster manual.




Right.  So you don't use any monster manuals as written and instead tear all the monsters apart.  That's fine. 

Now a question for you.  _Why do you want to deny us the monster manuals we can use straight just because you are never going to use them?_  Why do you want to make sure we don't get good toys?



Ahnehnois said:


> I believe that some DMs are and have been overworked. I know I have been (but not for a while). I also believe that some (but not many) DMs find 4e meaningfully easier to DM than 3e.




I believe it's somewhere in the order of 90% who've tried both, and I think I'm underestimating.  Also I've seldom heard of a 3.X D&D table with two regular DMs at it.  I've _never_ been at a 4e D&D table with fewer than 3 regular DMs.



> What I don't believe is that the mechanical constructs at issue caused the initial overwork,




This goes against what I've heard from almost all long term 3.X DMs who switched to 4e.



> A DM's workload has been and will be a product of his choices and the group he plays with far more than the rules.




But the rules can offer choices.  Like the choice to use monsters straight out of the monster manual.  As is easy for most people in 4e and close to impossible for any spellcaster in 3.X.  Or the choice to run in an improv style, which is helped by 4e's guidance and scene framing mechanics.

And then there's the nervousness about accidently killing PCs.  4e has balanced encounter guidelines _that work_ - so DMs who would agonise over killing PCs don't have to, but can push PCs to the wire anyway.  Then there's the lack of a stark power disparity - in 3.X groups you get games where you can _either_ challenge the casters or the non-casters, and those are a hideous amount of work for some DMs - but 4e you don't have this problem.  Then there's the effective level cap - AD&D didn't really go above 10th level, 4e stops at somewhere around that power level - and 3.X goes to 20th.



> As such, it is quite malleable. 4e previews sure told people that DMing would be easier, and that in and of itself probably encouraged DMs to make different choices about how they prepare, independent of mechanics. A placebo effect, essentially.




Or possibly an actual effect that is there for a whole lot of reasons as listed above. 



> The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.)




And facilitate many others - such as the narrativist style advocated by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and @pmerton and others and that's close to mine.  3.X on the other hand runs on a narrow simulationist style and one that apparently suits you perfectly.



> If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier.




And if I want to run the PCs as con-artists, distracting the monsters while the rogue sneaks out with the loot, and no combat unless they screw things up, this is actively aided and assisted by the 4e rules (it's a skill challenge).  If I want to run it in any other edition of D&D I am not assisted in the slightest.

Any sort of skill based non combat scenario where the PCs come up with a plan can be assisted by 4e rules in a way it isn't in previous editions.



Ahnehnois said:


> That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.




That's more or less what the "solo" tag says.  Why do you actively object to monsters being tagged?



> That's the approach I'm saying feels too metagame-y. Giving the goblin a few levels of rogue/druid/etc. or giving it a bunch of allies or a well-protected lair are what make it a boss, not tacking on a few extra actions per round to make it more powerful for its level.




On the other hand I see giving the goblin a few levels of rogue as almost meaningless metagaming and having to do things that way as actively constraining my options.   I'd rather just reflect the goblin I see in my imagination - and he almost certainly is _not_ a solo.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> See, mine will. They know how things work, they own a lot of monster books. If I simply took a monster and gave it the numbers it was "supposed to have" absent the underpinnings of level and ability scores, they'd know, and I don't think they'd be too happy about it. I wouldn't, in their shoes.
> 
> Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.



I think there is a definite difference between fudging some numbers to achieve the experience my table wants and "playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg". We have a different playstyle than you, but that doesn't mean what we are playing somehow isn't D&D.


Ahnehnois said:


> After all, if you're going to take this approach, why have stats at all? Why not just have one table that says "this is your percentage chance of success: easy/medium/hard" and roll that for every challenge that comes up regardless of what choices the PCs or the DM make?



Again, you seem to be taking my argument to illogical extremes. For clarity, I *do *think that creating enemy monsters with the explicit goal of making them fun to fight/interact with is a reasonable design strategy. It makes my job as GM easier, and when an rpg gives me those tools I'm more likely to buy into it.

I *do not* think that the system you just described is something I am interested in. In many ways I am stumping for the opposite: your players' decisions do matter, because the challenges they are facing are designed so that there are ways to overcome them. Their task, and where the fun comes from, is finding and executing the correct strategies to defeat the fiendish challenges I have designed.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> [MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION]
> For all the text you've put forth here, it seems like you'r describing the design/development process of a monster rather than the process of an individual DM creating a specific example of said monster for his game. I full well expect that 3e's mentality is much harder for the designers because they have to cover a much wider range of possibilities for what a monster can be or do. That's why they get the big bucks. (Well, maybe not, but you get my point). Not that you can't homebrew your own monsters if you like, but that's not really the topic of discussion. That being said...




In that case we've been arguing past each other somewhat. The ease of creating and customizing monsters using different strategies with different underlying game philosophies is definitely what I've been discussing.

I didn't mean any of this as edition warring, but reading over my last post I can see that it's definitely where this is heading. For the record, while the 4E strategy was definitely easier, something like the dolgrue 3.5's insanity causing mind-influencing effect enraging special quality is much more difficult to achieve in 4E, so I admit (and have always maintained) that there are still a lot of things about 3.5 that I miss.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 28, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Oh yeah, and if I could have a second to just complain about something, you don't need the stat block to show how your monster interacts in a living, breathing world. You need it to show how he interacts in COMBAT. Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:
> 
> *US Marine*
> STR - 14
> ...




So which is it, a soldier or a marine?


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> And this is why I think there are actually two different arguments being thrown around.
> 
> The first is the idea that some monsters have naturally acted as "boss monsters" over the years. Dragons, beholders, mind flayers, etc.
> 
> ...




I agree, these two discussions should be distinct but are bleeding into one another.

For the record, I see where people who don't like the idea of solo-goblins and the like are coming from. If I played in a game that never used those sorts of enemies, and reserved solo status for dragons, beholders, and other big, obviously threatening baddies, I would be totally fine with that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

slobster said:


> I didn't mean any of this as edition warring,



I don't take it that way; whereas certain others seem more interested in trying to insult anyone who doesn't fit within their style or trying to drown anyone who disgrees with them in nonsense, your points appear to be articulating a style and a philosophy. Just not one I particularly like or agree with.



> In many ways I am stumping for the opposite: your players' decisions do matter, because the challenges they are facing are designed so that there are ways to overcome them. Their task, and where the fun comes from, is finding and executing the correct strategies to defeat the fiendish challenges I have designed.



Like this. On a really basic level, I don't get this mentality. It still sounds like a puzzle to me, rather than a story. I don't think in terms of giving players a challenge to solve, I think in terms of creating events and seeing what happens.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> Is is okay if Dragons have special mechanics to make them challenging to a party of players on their own? Is it okay for certain other special monsters like Beholders to get similar treatment?




These monsters have always been able to do this. 

Dragons: Spells, Breath Weapon, Flight, Blindsight, Claws, Wings, Tail, Spell-like Abilities, Immunities, DR, Spell Resistance, etc...

Beholders: Anti-magic beam, several eye stalks, flight, etc...

These monsters have always been designed to handle multiple PC's so these types of monsters aren't in question.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Like this. On a really basic level, I don't get this mentality. It still sounds like a puzzle to me, rather than a story. I don't think in terms of giving players a challenge to solve, I think in terms of creating events and seeing what happens.




I don't actually object to your terminology here. Lots of my favorite encounters I've put in front of my PCs could, with reasonable accuracy, be termed puzzles. That the solutions to these puzzles involved a large degree of flipping out and killing people is just icing on ice cream cake. 

This is another axis of play, with GMs who just put puzzle after puzzle in front of their players on one end, and GMs who build up a world and get some conflicts rolling before stepping back and adjudicating the entire thing on the other end.

I can tell you are somewhere in the middle there (as, realistically speaking, is everyone else). Your naga-summoning encounter, for instance, had some puzzle-play characteristics. Assaulting the summoned creature head-on was inadvisable, so a group of players confronting that situation would be strongly rewarded for figuring out how to assault the macguffin instead.

No argument here, just an observation.  If anyone finds anything to quibble with, of course, I'm happy to clarify my points!


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Advantage: 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I hope to god you aren't using Ahnehnois' experience to justify your answers because I can tell you that his/her experience doesn't represent the rest of us. 

I for one can and do use the monsters straight from the 3rd edition MM without needing to modify them.


----------



## Cybit (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahne...that description of your players seems like it is complete metagaming, as opposed to anything else.  Only someone fully metagaming would complain if the attack bonus didn't match the HP.  (or similar issues).  

Am I missing something?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

slobster said:


> I don't actually object to your terminology here. Lots of my favorite encounters I've put in front of my PCs could, with reasonable accuracy, be termed puzzles. That the solutions to these puzzles involved a large degree of flipping out and killing people is just icing on ice cream cake.
> 
> This is another axis of play, with GMs who just put puzzle after puzzle in front of their players on one end, and GMs who build up a world and get some conflicts rolling before stepping back and adjudicating the entire thing on the other end.
> 
> ...



I wish I'd described an encounter that was more typical, but this is basically all true. There are some puzzle solving elements to D&D, and some other elements, which are in balance, both in my game and as a whole. D&D is a tenuous compromise in many ways, and that tension, that balance, is part of what makes its appeal so wide. When something upsets that balance, D&D loses. When people see something they think might upset that balance, they get critical.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I hope to god you aren't using Ahnehnois' experience to justify your answers because I can tell you that his/her experience doesn't represent the rest of us.
> 
> I for one can and do use the monsters straight from the 3rd edition MM without needing to modify them.



I could do that, I just choose not to.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't take it that way; whereas certain others seem more interested in trying to insult anyone who doesn't fit within their style or trying to drown anyone who disgrees with them in nonsense, your points appear to be articulating a style and a philosophy. Just not one I particularly like or agree with.




Oh, I don't consider you an edition warrior.  I consider you to simply have a One True Way philosophy.  And to be making factually incorrect statements about 3.X and other editions in terms of what can be done with either.



> Like this. On a really basic level, I don't get this mentality. It still sounds like a puzzle to me, rather than a story. I don't think in terms of giving players a challenge to solve, I think in terms of creating events and seeing what happens.




And what do you think the roots of D&D are?  It's the Dungeon.  The challenge for the players to pit their skill against.  You might not get Gygaxian D&D, but it is fundamental to what separates D&D from other RPGs.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Cybit said:


> Ahne...that description of your players seems like it is complete metagaming, as opposed to anything else.  Only someone fully metagaming would complain if the attack bonus didn't match the HP.  (or similar issues).
> 
> Am I missing something?



It is a metagame issue, but not something that would come up at the table. A player might ask after the session "how did you get that NPC an AC so high I needed a 19 to hit it without wearing armor", perhaps because they're pissed about missing it so much or perhaps because they want to know if there's some feat/item/etc. that can make them, too, unhittable. There need to be answers to those questions. If a player is at the table bitching about how his attack roll missed, that's pretty clearly poor game etiquette and a problem.

At the table, however, I think players would be very suspicious if every monster they faced had an AC within their "hittable" range. For the game to feel organic and real, some monsters need to be things they can hit on a 2, others need to be things they can miss on a 19 (and every number in between). That is a metagame consideration for the DM to worry about, but in truth his job is to minimize the sense that the monsters in the world are "balanced" in power relative to the PCs, just as his job is to minimize any form of dramatic conceit.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I could do that, I just choose not to.




I get that. I rarely use monsters straight from the books (well, probably about 20% of my monsters are, but that's pretty low). I love putting my personal stamp on enemies, and as an added bonus my players don't automatically know the stats of every enemy they face!

It's also hard to get enemies straight out of the books when you have a lot of NPCs as adversaries. I know I've played games like that. I had a spy and intrigue game (that makes it sound fancy; honestly it was just ninjas doing awesome ninja stuff) that barely had any monsters in it for its entire run. It was all just NPCs, and you pretty much have to make those from scratch for them to make any sense.


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> be very suspicious if every monster they faced had an AC within their "hittable" range. For the game to feel organic and real, some monsters need to be things they can hit on a 2, others need to be things they can miss on a 19 (and every number in between). That is a metagame consideration for the DM to worry about, but in truth his job is to minimize the sense that the monsters in the world are "balanced" in power relative to the PCs, just as his job is to minimize any form of dramatic conceit.




I 100% agree. My point wasn't that every enemy stat has to be within a narrow range. In fact, I use plenty of monsters that are above and below the PCs' level for precisely this reason. Sometimes you want an enemy that darts among the PCs like smoke, almost impossible for someone to land a solid blow on. Sometimes you want waves of empty-eyed zombies shambling straight into the blades of their enemies, dangerous only by their inexhaustible numbers.

My point is that I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes juggling figures to get to the exact number I want. If my wraithy enemy only has an AC of 13 according to the system's math, I want to be able to up it to 29 for no reason other than I think it works with the monster and makes a better encounter. Likewise if my math says my zombies should have 200 hp each, I want to be able to drop it to 50 because it suits the enemy.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.




Its a bit more complicated then this, which is why the idea of the "solo" monster in 4e was created.

Its not just about multiple attacks, but multiple actions. Its not just about an area effect once in a while, but area effects as routine. Its not just about natural armor, but defensive against the crazy mash of player debuffs that can be thrown down.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> [MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION]
> See, mine will. They know how things work, they own a lot of monster books. If I simply took a monster and gave it the numbers it was "supposed to have" absent the underpinnings of level and ability scores, they'd know, and I don't think they'd be too happy about it. I wouldn't, in their shoes.




When I read this, something clicked with me.

3rd edition started to do the same thing 4e did towards the end, it just did less openly.

Later 3e monster books started tailoring the math too. For example, undead started getting "Unholy Toughness" which gave them more HP than they were entitled to by the rules.

Other monsters got a somewhat forced power attack in their specs to represent more damage and lower attack bonuses.

And natural armor has always been a way to get a monster's AC into the appropriate range.


So if created a monster that had a +11 attack bonus, when it "should" have a +15, then I can just say its got a "clumsy" trait that gives it a -4.


And that's the bottom line. 3e tried to make everything explicit, every tweak had to have a justification. 4e said, here are your numbers that will give you a good encounter. Feel free to adjust the justification for those numbers to your liking.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, I don't consider you an edition warrior.  I consider you to simply have a One True Way philosophy..



Not at all. I run many styles, multiple systems, and acknowledge that others run different ones. I just don't like being that mine are wrong.



> And what do you think the roots of D&D are?  It's the Dungeon.  The challenge for the players to pit their skill against.  You might not get Gygaxian D&D, but it is fundamental to what separates D&D from other RPGs



I get it. I started with dungeons as a player. Then I moved on. Pretty much everything moves on from its roots, and D&D has really done that.



			
				slobster said:
			
		

> My point is that I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes juggling figures to get to the exact number I want. If my wraithy enemy only has an AC of 13 according to the system's math, I want to be able to up it to 29 for no reason other than I think it works with the monster and makes a better encounter. Likewise if my math says my zombies should have 200 hp each, I want to be able to drop it to 50 because it suits the enemy.



I believe that's called "DM cheating". This isn't a pejorative term; it simply describes when DMs go outside the rules to make a better game. If you can get away with it, it's fine. I'm not above some of that myself, though I try to stay honest. That kind of thing doesn't need to be written in the rules, though, it's between the lines.

I don't want a combat system that says "when a character's hit points drop to -10, that character is dead, unless the DM thinks he deserves to live" or a skill system that says "the search DC to find a secret door is 20, unless the DM is in a hurry to get home, in which case it is whatever the PC rolls". Likewise, I don't want a monster system that says "this monster has enough extra actions per round to make the battle really tough" or "this monster has few enough hit points that the PCs kill it automatically with one hit".


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> When I read this, something clicked with me.
> 
> 3rd edition started to do the same thing 4e did towards the end, it just did less openly.
> 
> ...




Yes, I agree, and also that is true. I think a system that used a 4E like math system to produce enemies, and then had a 3.5-like set of guidelines (for those who were interested) to link the numbers to the in-game fiction, would serve me nicely. In fact, that is essentially what I use.



			
				Ahnenhnois said:
			
		

> I believe that's called "DM cheating". This isn't a pejorative term; it simply describes when DMs go outside the rules to make a better game. If you can get away with it, it's fine. I'm not above some of that myself, though I try to stay honest. That kind of thing doesn't need to be written in the rules, though, it's between the lines.




Now we are dangerously close to agreeing. I think that the 4E/3.5 hybrid I just posited gets us as close as possible to the ideal, though. You want your base system to provide useful rules and a solid bedrock for Gms to build up from, and I think the old 3.5 system is too goofy and too much work to serve very well in that regard.

EDIT: I also think that 4E was very liberating in that regard. The advice in the 3.5 monster creation is along the lines of "Here are a bunch of equations, input starting conditions and record the results. If you don't like what comes out, here is how to change the starting conditions to maybe come up with better numbers, after a few attempts." Then of course there is the implicit understanding that GMs can always fudge the numbers to have them make sense, but as you observed players might then get uppity because the GM "cheated" (!?). 4E, on the other hand, says "Here are formula to produce a level appropriate challenge. Whenever the numbers don't make sense, change them."


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> Its a bit more complicated then this, which is why the idea of the "solo" monster in 4e was created.
> 
> Its not just about multiple attacks, but multiple actions. Its not just about an area effect once in a while, but area effects as routine. Its not just about natural armor, but defensive against the crazy mash of player debuffs that can be thrown down.




A lot of this is the reason why dragons had spells and certain feats like "Fly by Attack", Quicken Spell-like ability etc...

A "solo" doesn't necessarily mean it needs multiple attacks every turn. A dragon from 3rd edition blanket the area in an area of fire, get with in range and do an all out full attack that consisted of a Bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, 1 tail slap, 1 crush, and 1 tail swoop and cast spells.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> When I read this, something clicked with me.
> 
> 3rd edition started to do the same thing 4e did towards the end, it just did less openly.
> 
> Later 3e monster books started tailoring the math too. For example, undead started getting "Unholy Toughness" which gave them more HP than they were entitled to by the rules.



This is true, though unholy toughness is a system patch for the system mistake of not giving these creatures enough hit points to begin with. And, for the record, I didn't like it any more in some of those late 3e books than I do anywhere else.



> And that's the bottom line. 3e tried to make everything explicit, every tweak had to have a justification. 4e said, here are your numbers that will give you a good encounter. Feel free to adjust the justification for those numbers to your liking.



3e did try to do that. It isn't a bad goal.

The 4e approach is just a bizarre step away from that goal. If the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The 4e approach is just a bizarre step away from that goal. If the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?



Because the monster generation guidelines are meant to give you a rock-solid, usable baseline stat block which you then adjust according to what you desire from the particular monster. It tells you what, behind the curtain, the math system is expecting from a monster of the role, level, and tag. Your job, and it's a necessary one, is to tailor it to fit the final monster concept, which is going to include deviating from the base stat block that your monster guidelines spat out.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> At the table, however, I think players would be very suspicious if every monster they faced had an AC within their "hittable" range. For the game to feel organic and real, some monsters need to be things they can hit on a 2, others need to be things they can miss on a 19 (and every number in between). That is a metagame consideration for the DM to worry about, but in truth his job is to minimize the sense that the monsters in the world are "balanced" in power relative to the PCs, just as his job is to minimize any form of dramatic conceit.



And these things exist in the world just fine.   If my players seek them out, they will indeed find them.  And on occasion, they will find my players, too.

There's only so much of that I and my players can take, though.  Those extremes?  They're an interesting diversion, but I find they are best when used in smaller doses.  I'm not running a world-simulation that happens to be a game; I'm running a game which has some world-simulation elements to it.  So those sorts of encounters aren't going to be the focus of an average session, unless the mission at hand is something like we had a few weeks back (that was, "sneak through Dregoth's palace and foil his plans").

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The 4e approach is just a bizarre step away from that goal. If the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?




In order to provide choices to players, in both creation and execution.  4E characters are complex.  The complexity of monsters + the complexity of characters means that there are different choices to be made in order to achieve your goal (killing the monster without getting killed in return, usually), with some ways better than others.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 28, 2012)

To the OP:

I dislike monster roles as videogames do them as well. We don't need to emulate videogames, they are still decades behind design. Our games don't need to be button mashing or power mashing to reach the closed off boss monster room for the tough battle. I don't care for solos, elites, mooks or anything else. 

All that said, different creatures (and traps, situations, etc.) are balanced differently. Some are more suited to fighting groups alone (like a dragon). Many band together in large groups against high powered threats small in number (enemies like the PCs). 

All this does is make the monsters fight to their best physiological advantage. Dragons can take many, many foes at once. Given this, they can afford to be loners. Kobolds cannot, so they work together or die alone. 

If a Kobold were to become Huge, then he could be a high level threat to a group of PCs, but he still wouldn't be suited to fighting many foes as the same time. However, as he does have a tail and jaws, not just hands his weapon no longer fits, he might learn tactics over time to become a multi-foe fighter.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> How many? A half dozen ENWorlders? The current (diminishing) 4e DM base?



Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw around accusations of being 'needlessly insulting.' See, this is the kind of commentary that undermines your whole agenda. You say "I think players like this..." and admit that you have nothing beyond anecdotal experience to back up your opinions, but your response to us assuring you that your experience is not universal is to dismiss contrary opinions with snide remarks and repeat your own opinions as if they're facts. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but your posts reek of one-true-wayism.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm also okay with that outcome. As long as enough people like it. You can't please everyone.



Word to the wise: it just may happen, because more gamers might like boss labels than you believe. In fact, they're already in the play test so chances are good that 5e will have 'em.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> To you. To me, they aren't even close to a minimal standard of usable (nor, to be fair, do I consider any premade stat blocks acceptable).




You are so far beyond the horizon of "average DM" that WotC would be mad, MAD, I TELL YOU! to consider essentially any of your input for 5E. (On this issue.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw around accusations of being 'needlessly insulting.' See, this is the kind of commentary that undermines your whole agenda.



I reflect the tone of a post to prove a point (i.e. that it was rude and unpersuasive), and the original poster cries foul?



> You say "I think players like this..." and admit that you have nothing beyond anecdotal experience to back up your opinions, but your response to us assuring you that your experience is not universal is to dismiss contrary opinions with snide remarks and repeat your own opinions as if they're facts.



No, I just repeat them as if they're opinions. And my anecdotes are currently tied for the best evidence presented in this thread (along with everyone else's anecdotes).



> I'm sure you're a nice guy, but your posts reek of one-true-wayism.



The only thing going here is "there-is-no-one-true-way-ism" and "play-your-way-not-WotC's-way-ism". And the "nice guy" thing is debatable (and, since nice guys finish last, I rather dislike that label).



> Word to the wise: it just may happen, because more gamers might like boss labels than you believe. In fact, they're already in the play test so chances are good that 5e will have 'em.



Unless, of course, they're in the playtest and people don't like them and they get removed. That is kind of the point of a playtest: to find out what people like. And the point of this thread, to answer the OP's question (which I believe has attracted plenty of viewpoints that agree that these labels are problematic, but viewpoints that are completely distinct and different from mine).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 28, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> You are so far beyond the horizon of "average DM"



Thank you!

Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?



> that WotC would be mad, MAD, I TELL YOU! to consider essentially any of your input for 5E. (On this issue.)



Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".


----------



## slobster (Aug 28, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?




Well.

The average DM is 31 years old and spends 219$ per year on RPG-related products (he can only afford to spend 50$). It is more likely to buy core rulebooks than splatbooks, even if those "core rulebooks" are labeled monster manual XVIII". It is even more likely, however, to buy core rulebooks that are actually core rulebooks, hence the need to come out with new or "updated" editions every few years.

The average DM is unfortunately 85% male, 15% female. We're working on that, but for some reason the more art we produce of "empowered" women wearing chainmail neglige, the less excited the female part of the average DM seems to be.

The average DM has a party of 4.7 adventurers, who together buy .4 core rulebooks and instead ask to "take a quick look" at the DM's books for about 7 hours per average 3.5 hour session. On a possibly related note, the average DM is 78% likely to get so fed up by his players' shenanigans that he logs on to the internet to have impassioned arguments with total strangers over arcane points in order to let off some steam. 

Interestingly, the average DM agrees with all of your positions and arguments 100%. Unfortunately, online there is a vocal minority who disagree with the obvious truth, so it's up to you to defend the views of the silent majority.****

_****All statistics compiled from a 2004-present survey entitled "I spend way too much time on the internet"._


----------



## FireLance (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The 4e approach is just a bizarre step away from that goal. If the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?



So that there are differences even between monsters of the same level. So that we can reward players for making "smart" choices like attacking a fast creature's Fortitude and a slow creature's Reflex. No doubt, it is a small reward - nothing like making a touch attack against a dragon with a touch AC of 10 - but the difference is one of degree, not intent.

Because there are also differences in player characters. The rogue with a rapier might have a different attack bonus and damage rolls from the barbarian with a greataxe. You could say that the rapier counts as one hit and the greataxe counts as two, but over the years, I think that D&D players have gotten used to more granular hit points.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> What is an "average DM" like?



Sadly, the "average DM" is probably a computer. For various reasons, only some of which are evident from this thread.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> /snip
> 
> The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.) and probably do indeed make it easier for people who do indeed fit within its assumptions (but much harder for everyone else). If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier. I just don't believe that this scenario is the "baseline" D&D experience, or that people who fall outside of it are irrelevant.




Swimming upthread.

I'm confused.  Are you talking about 3e or 4e here?  Because what you just described is EXACTLY how 3e is meant to play out.  So, you'll have to excuse my confusion as to why you would point to Mearls and Rouse instead of Cook and Tweet.  Perhaps you could clarify this a bit.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> These monsters have always been able to do this.
> 
> Dragons: Spells, Breath Weapon, Flight, Blindsight, Claws, Wings, Tail, Spell-like Abilities, Immunities, DR, Spell Resistance, etc...
> 
> ...




Umm, I suggest you go brush up on your earlier versions of D&D, because dragons have certainly NOT always had those abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?
> 
> Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".




Do you really not see the one-true-wayism and gamer elitism here?  Honestly?

You're basically saying that any DM, like me, who is not willing to turn D&D into a part time job, spending hours outside of the game building ships in bottles with math is an "average" person and should be ignored.

Sorry, I'll stick with average thanks.  There's a reason I stopped creating stuff for 3e.  You xp'd Steel Dan a while back for adding levels of fighter to an orc in 1e, yet strongly disagreed with me for doing exactly the same thing by simply using a higher level monter's statblock - a bugbear's for example.

Never mind that this is EXACTLY what the mechanics tell you to do in 1e, and ignoring the fact that adding 5 levels of fighter in AD&D takes about 30 seconds because all you did was add 5d10 HP and lower something's THAC0 by 5.  That's it.  That is the sum total of changes to a monster in 1e for adding 5 levels of fighter.

IOW, pretty much exactly how 4e does it.  Bit simpler, but, not a whole lot.  You don't add skills, you don't have feats, you don't change anything else.  Heck, even size changes have no mechanical effect.

But, feel free to think that he was actually supporting your concept.  It would help a whole lot in these conversations if you and Forever Slayer would at least get a basic grasp on any other edition than 3rd before you start talking about the changes 4e has made.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?




Allow me to rephrase.

Replace "average DM" with "representative DM."  I speak not to your competence, but to your extremely idiosyncratic approach.

Essentially, you are arguing for a MM (etc.) which is useful only to you, and there is so little in common with what you use a MM (or an adventure path, or a pre-statted encounter, etc.) for vs. each and every other DM I have ever encountered or ever talked to or ever heard of, that it would therefore be use_less_ to nigh everyone else.



> Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".




That wooshing sound was the point passing you by.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> And yet another thread showing why 5e will fail
> 
> 
> Unpleaseable fan base




This depends on how many such Unpleaseable fans exist. I can only hope the total number of elitist, narrow minded, unreasonable, & selfish fans  are vocal,  yet are only a small minority of the whole D&D community. I sadly still have high hopes for the future of D&D.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".




The question is not if they are created BY average people, but FOR average people.

I don't want my computer operative system built by average people. I want it to be built by the top of the top of Sillicon Valley. I'd preffer that being a software engineer is not a prerrequiste to _use it_, though.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".




Entertainment is created *by* exceptional people, *for* average people.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I suggest you go brush up on your earlier versions of D&D, because dragons have certainly NOT always had those abilities.



Yes. It's amazing how features of 3E, and occasionally also 2nd ed AD&D, get passed off as if they have always been part of D&D!

B/X D&D doesn't have magic resistance at all!


----------



## FireLance (Aug 29, 2012)

Dannager said:


> Entertainment is created *by* exceptional people, *for* average people.



Gaming materials created by exceptional people ... so that DMing of average people, by average people, and for average people shall not perish from the earth.

Too much for a company slogan? 

[SBLOCK]EDIT: Re-read the Gettysburg Address, and could not help feeling a somewhat melancholy pang when I read the phrase "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure". "A house divided against itself cannot stand", indeed.

But, enough introspection! Back to the endless rounds of griping and sniping! Of smiting and infighting! Of my ways and highways! Of replies and lies and eyes for eyes! What's the worst that could happen?[/SBLOCK]


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, I suggest you go brush up on your earlier versions of D&D, because dragons have certainly NOT always had those abilities.




I don't need to brush up on anything because I know exactly what I am talking about. Back in 1st edition, dragons usually had 3 attacks plus a breath weapon and spells. Also, if you remember, dragons could appear alone or with up to four others.

In second edition they would gain attacks, breath weapon, and spells. They would actually gain wizard and cleric spells. They just didn't reach the high level spells.

3rd edition did give dragons more options but they have always been able to fight multiple opponents on their own. 

I think maybe you need to brush up on your information.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Yes. It's amazing how features of 3E, and occasionally also 2nd ed AD&D, get passed off as if they have always been part of D&D!
> 
> B/X D&D doesn't have magic resistance at all!




It's amazing how some people think they know what their talking about when they truly don't. 

Amazing world we live in, isn't it?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> People are afraid of the unknown.



This may be true, but in an RPG the monster generally aren't unknown in the relevant sense. They are imaginary constructs.



Ahnehnois said:


> Those kinds of measures are either an illusion (in that they don't take into account the complexity of the scenario and don't truly reflect its level of challenge) or a limitation (in that they impose a style of play on a freeform game with diverse players-bad idea).



Or a mathematical measure of the mechanical capabilities of the NPC/monster, and - on the strength of those - the mechanical challenge it poses to a generic Nth level PC.



Ahnehnois said:


> if you're going to take this approach, why have stats at all? Why not just have one table that says "this is your percentage chance of success: easy/medium/hard" and roll that for every challenge that comes up regardless of what choices the PCs or the DM make? The whole point of having these rules rather than playing a freeform rpg is that the players know the difference.





Ahnehnois said:


> TIf the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?





LostSoul said:


> In order to provide choices to players, in both creation and execution.  4E characters are complex.  The complexity of monsters + the complexity of characters means that there are different choices to be made in order to achieve your goal (killing the monster without getting killed in return, usually), with some ways better than others.



LostSoul's answer is probably sufficient. All I would add is that it can go beyond "kill without being killed" to various ways of expressing the PC, and of making thematically or dramatically relevant choices. Have a look at some of the actual play examples I link to below, and you will see some of that in action.



Ahnehnois said:


> I don't scare my PCs by "putting their PCs in situations which will require clever and challenging play to resolve" of by telling them that what they see is of a certain level or manner of challenge; I scare them by putting them in situations that none of us know how they will resolve or whether or not they will resolve.



You seem to be drawing a contrast that I don't feel the force of. There is no relation between a need for clever and challenging play to resolve, and knowing how things will resolve.



Ahnehnois said:


> I believe that's called "DM cheating". This isn't a pejorative term; it simply describes when DMs go outside the rules to make a better game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't want a combat system that says "when a character's hit points drop to -10, that character is dead, unless the DM thinks he deserves to live" or a skill system that says "the search DC to find a secret door is 20, unless the DM is in a hurry to get home, in which case it is whatever the PC rolls". Likewise, I don't want a monster system that says "this monster has enough extra actions per round to make the battle really tough" or "this monster has few enough hit points that the PCs kill it automatically with one hit".



My own view is that there is, in general, a very big difference between build mechanics (for monsters, NPCs, PCs, etc) and action resolution mechanics. You are eliding that distinction here, and assimilating monster building to a species of action resolution: it's not entirely clear what the action in question is, but something like "ecological occurrences within the gameworld". I am not saying that that is not a valid way to play, but it is a pretty narrow approach. The only RPG that I am aware of that fully embraces it is Classic Traveller. (3E and HARP have a veneer of embracing it, but use various techniques like "natural armour" in 3E, and "survival instinct" in HARP, to get around some of the consequences for playability of such an approach. Because Traveller is a sci-fi game with extremely flat maths, it does not need such kludges in order to work.)



Ahnehnois said:


> I've yet to see the "flexible monster creation destroyed my game" example or even the "encounter based design is totally fun" example.



Here are some actual play examples posted from my 4e game. They illustrate encounter-based play in action. And here is a blog by Eero Tuovinen explaining the general rationale of and techniques for encounter-based (= scene-based) play (you can find it under the heading "The standard narrativistic model").



Ahnehnois said:


> given that the DM does control all characters and events that are outside of the PCs' direct control, there is always going to be a "very strong degree of GM force", isn't there?



What you say, here, is a given, is in fact not. Leaving aside whatever power the PCs enjoy to introduce NPCs into the game, and to control their actions to some greater or lesser extent (fellow cult members, family members, gods and patrons, etc), there is also the determination of what such characters do via the action resolution mechanics.

The actual play post linked above by the word "some" is an example of this: in the fiction, the PCs successfully goaded their nemesis, with whom they were dining as guests of the Baron, into attacking them, thereby revealing his treachery to the Baron. In play, this was the result of a successful skill challenge, and hence not under my control (as GM) at all, but rather determined by playing the game. That is how scene-based play works: of course, it needs the action resolution mechanics to support it. 4e is the only version of D&D to date to have robust mechanics of that sort.



Ahnehnois said:


> In any case, I'll take "GM force" over "game designer force" any day.



I don't understand "game designer force". The game designer doesn't force anyone to do anything, nor exercise any control over the content of the game. It's the players, after all, who choose which system to use to generate their shared fiction! All a designer can do is provide useful tools.



Ahnehnois said:


> The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier.



The notion of percentage-of-resources attrition is found only in the 3E DMG. It is a notion that has no work to do in 4e, and does not appear in any 4e rulebook. 4e is, to a signficant extent, not a resource-based game in the way that 3E, and before that classic D&D, are. This is part of what makes it highly suitable for scene-based play.

I also get the feeling you are not that familiar with scene-based play, given that you equate it with something that no text on scene-based play has ever advocated, namely, running a sequence of roughly six-round combats to generate a predictable rate of resource attrition. The best book on scene-based play that I know of is the Burning Wheel Adventuer Burner, although the Eero Tuovinen blog I linked to above is pretty good too, and so is Robin Laws' HeroQuest revised. Encounter-based, or scene-based, play, is about a certain approach to framing situations - namely, by reference to hooks the players provide to the GM, rather than the more traditional GM plot hook - and about the resolution of them, with the focus of the action being within the scene, rather than the transition between scenes.

This also has nothing particularly to do with gamism, as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] already pointed out. While there can be good scene-based gamism (I don't play supers RPGs, but I think that would be one common way to approach them) there can also be exploration-based gamism (Gygaxian D&D is the classic example of this, with Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain as the poster children).



Ahnehnois said:


> In D&D (as opposed to in some rpgs), characters are so powerful that they usually come up with something, but the possibility of different outcomes, including failure, is still present.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If I knew that a certain battle was expected to be defeated by my party in six rounds, I would roll no dice, tell the party they beat the enemies in a short battle, and move on to the good stuff.



I don't entirely follow all the points here. You seem to be assuming that encounter-based play involves no possibility of failure, for example. That is not true. You also seem to be assuming that the manner in which something is resolved makes no difference to it's resolution, which is in my experience radically untrue. If the PCs resolve their negotiations with the slave traders by agreeing to redeem the slaves, for example, that makes a huge difference to things. If the PCs kill rather than temporarily disable the door guardians placed by the Raven Queen, that also might make a pretty big difference, especially if some of the PCs are devotees of the Raven Queen.



Ahnehnois said:


> Such a battle would certainly not empower the PCs
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it reflects designer fiat. Whoever wrote the monster has apparently already decided what will happen at your table.



I don't understand why you say this. Nor what exactly you mean by "designer fiat". Nor what you mean by "empowering the PCs" - my interest is in player empowerment, which can be possible even with a feeble PC (eg a certain sort of "lazy warlord" build, in 4e).

I can tell you that when the PCs in my game encountered Kas (link above, under "play") and Calastryx (link above, under "examples") the outcome was not foreordained or known in advance, as you can see by reading the actual play examples.



Ahnehnois said:


> I full well expect that 3e's mentality is much harder for the designers because they have to cover a much wider range of possibilities for what a monster can be or do.



Wider than what? The 3E monsters that I'm familiar with are not remarkably wide it what they can be or do. Once action moves beyond combat, they have the same fairly thin action resolution elements as any other 3E story element.



Ahnehnois said:


> It's as neutral as it gets. You spend as much or as little time building the monster as you want. You can plan with maximum depth or you can improvise with unprecedented ease. You can build monsters as flexibly as PCs, meaning you can make them do whatever you want. What playstyle is not supported by that?



3E monster building is hopeless for my purposes. As I noted above, it tries to assimilate monster and NPC building to action resolution. In doing so it prioritises petty issues of world exploration ("Is the dragon's natural armour bonus +22 or +23?") which are in any event a thin veneer for issues of playability (what, in the gameworld, does it even mean to have +22 or +23 natural armour, given that the most powerful magical plate mail tops out at +13 or so?). And it dose not prioritise the expression, in play, by means of the action resolution mechanics, of the monster's essence. Whereas 4e reverses these two priorities.

And if you think that the ease of improvisation with 3E is unprecedented, I want to know what range of games you're basing that on. 4e admittedly is not a precedent - coming later, as it does - but fantasy RPGs that I can think of that make improvisation easier include Rolemaster (but not HARP), HeroWars/Quest, Tunnels & Trolls and at least arguably RuneQuest.



Ahnehnois said:


> having the tools laid out in front of you makes it so much easier to skip out on prep work and improvise. It's easy to take monsters and hack them on the fly when they have predictable rules for advancement.



Rolemaster, Tunnels & Trolls and 4e all have easier advancement mechanics than 3E.



Ahnehnois said:


> I looked at the 4e monster manual, and the thought of having to break everything apart and rewrite the entire thing just to make it marginally usable was not appealing.



This gives me the impression that you didn't look at the section of the 4e DMG that already pulls it apart for you.



Ahnehnois said:


> I believe that some DMs are and have been overworked.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't believe is that the mechanical constructs at issue caused the initial overwork, or that any changes to them necessarily effected the anecdotally positive experiences some have reported.



Whereas, in what I quoted a little bit above, you implied that mechanics, and transparent advancement, can make GMing easier, here you appear to deny that mechanics make much difference. I think the first of these two positions is the correct one, but I do not think that 3E has the virtue in this respect that you claim for it, when compared to a range of other mainstream fantasy RPGs, including 4e.



Ahnehnois said:


> I run many styles, multiple systems



Out of curiosity, what systems do you run other than 3E D&D and variants thereof?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> It's amazing how some people think they know what their talking about when they truly don't.



Are you saying that B/X _does_ have magic resistance?

EDIT:



ForeverSlayer said:


> These monsters have always been able to do this.
> 
> Dragons: Spells, Breath Weapon, Flight, Blindsight, Claws, Wings, Tail, Spell-like Abilities, Immunities, DR, Spell Resistance, etc...





ForeverSlayer said:


> I don't need to brush up on anything because I know exactly what I am talking about. Back in 1st edition, dragons usually had 3 attacks plus a breath weapon and spells.



In B/X, Dragons have breath weapons (which they use a random % of the time), flight, three attacks (claw/claw/bite) and a % chance of speaking, which in turn triggers a % chance of spells.

Of the items on your list, they lack guaranteed spells, blindsight, wing and tail attacks, spell-like abilities (except for the Gold Dragon, which can shapechange), DR and Spell Resistance. I don't think they have immunities either. Their physical attacks - especially their claws - are very weak. It is only their flight and their AoE that gives them "solo" capabilities. They are highly vulnerable to action denial (typically from MUs using Charm or Hold Monster).

In 1st ed AD&D, dragons are very similar to B/X except that they get very modest elemental damage resistance (but also, from memory, vulnerabilities: a Red Dragon, for example, is -1 per die of damage from fire but +1 per die of damage from cold), a more generous process for calculating saving throws (as if HD = hp/4), and (I think) blindsight. There are no guaranteed spells (except for gold dragons, I think), no wing or tail attacks, no DR, no magic resistance and no immunities. The only spell like abilities are dragon fear, which has a HD cap on its effectivness, and the ability of silver, bronze and gold dragons to change shape. Claw damage is still pitifully low. As in B/X, it is primarily their flight and AoE that gives them "solo" capabilities, though they are less vulnerable to action denial, because of their better saving throws than other monsters of the same HD.

2nd ed AD&D introduces tail attacks, wing buffets, etc, and ups the claw and bit damage. It also introduces magic resistance for dragons. I think damage reduction comes in only in 3E.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Sure, if the tag is simply a label and not a mechanic.



"Solo" and "Elite" in 4e are labels, not mechanics. And therefore seem to satisfy your requirement.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

slobster said:


> The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference. It's certainly never led to verisimilitude problems at the table. It's freeing and empowering, whereas I consider the morass at the back of the 3.5 MM to be restricting and creativity-killing. As well as a whole lot of work.
> 
> I apologize for the long, boring post. Hopefully it gets my point across, though.




I really liked your example, but have a couple of comments. Making its attack bonus suddenly +11 is, in my opinion, disconcerting, although it depends how you're doing it. Don't forget that many other checks might come up involving its base attack bonus and/or its strength, so you really ought to adjust one of those components. For your example I might have just reduced its HD a little so that it isn't so good at attacking, and if it doesn't have enough HP, give it some more Con.

3E obviously had some mathematical issues, and I see no reason why you couldn't build a creature as quickly as you can in 4E, but with the underlying math being fully explained as in 3E. In the recent WotC columns we've seen some discussion of this - they want Hobgoblins to have a better attack bonus, so they explain it as being militarily trained. I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> 3E obviously had some mathematical issues, and I see no reason why you couldn't build a creature as quickly as you can in 4E, but with the underlying math being fully explained as in 3E. In the recent WotC columns we've seen some discussion of this - they want Hobgoblins to have a better attack bonus, so they explain it as being militarily trained. I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.




Both 3E and 4E expect in-game explanations for monster stats. 

In 4E the explanation can be provided at any time, and isn't always given to the DM for each and every number.

In 3E the explanation and mechanics are served up in little units (of feats, "levels" in monster HD, special one-off bonuses etc).

Both approaches have their merits and problems. The trouble with 3E "math balancing" is that it is basically a lie as soon as you add supernatural powers and/or spells. Those don't fit into any math scheme at all, and have to be done almost entirely by feel (for instance, you generally don't equip a level appropriate "standard" monster with spells at same level as the PCs, that's too tough). So, unless you are designing a very simple monster that has hit points, attacks and damage, it's all very experimental.

I quite like the little bits in 3E (except picking spells for spell-casters, it's a chore), but I don't like how loosely the end result is balanced for play. After many years as DM I got a feel for what worked and not, but I still prefer the 4E approach for being faster and more immediately solid, so I get more time to do other kinds of prep.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> Both 3E and 4E expect in-game explanations for monster stats.
> 
> In 4E the explanation can be provided at any time, and isn't always given to the DM for each and every number.
> 
> ...




I guess I'm a math guy or something.. I agree that anything involving spells or spell-like abilities is hard work (in any system really, because there is no logic to the power level of certain effects).. but I was fine with all the little bonuses. In contrast, I found it difficult, personally, to explain 4E numbers after the fact.

One particular example stands out in my mind: I had made a 4E enemy from scratch, an animated statue of an archer. Now, in my fresh-to-4E mind, there were still no guidelines as to whether I could give it immunity to mind-affecting spells, or damage resistance because it was made of bronze. It got more confusing when I couldn't relate its basic attack to its weapon and abilities. Yes, it worked in play, but it felt too abstracted to me.

That's all I can ever say in this argument really - that I think more in terms of processes than abstracts, and I always will.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I really liked your example, but have a couple of comments. Making its attack bonus suddenly +11 is, in my opinion, disconcerting, although it depends how you're doing it. Don't forget that many other checks might come up involving its base attack bonus and/or its strength, so you really ought to adjust one of those components. For your example I might have just reduced its HD a little so that it isn't so good at attacking, and if it doesn't have enough HP, give it some more Con.




It's just a matter of taste. It depends on if you want *system* verosimilitude, or *story* verosimilitude.

Let's take an ogre as an example. Story wise, I might want my ogre to be a sluggish, bad fighter that swing and miss a lot, with a relatively high damage when he luckily connects.

In a 4e style of approach (story verosimilitude), you make it a brute, give him low accuracy, and high damage and hp with low AC.

In a 3e style of approach (system verosimilitude), you can't. Because the Ogre *is* very strong, which, systemwise, translate in a high attack bonus. Also translate into a high damage bonus. You can't really play that much with his Hit Dice, which are quite low, and you don't really have a lot of room to reduce them to get a lower BAB (his BAB is a very small part of his total attack bonus anyways). 

So, in the end, your 3e style ogre does not work like the "story" suggests (low accuracy, high damage), but like the "system" forces him to (high accuracy, high damage). It also makes Ogres one of the worst rated CR in the game. It's, supposedly, a fair 1st level "final fight", being only a couple levels above 1st. In practice, he will one-shot almost any 1st level char, and most 2nd level non-fighters, making it a badly balanced monster.

So, there's a matter of tastes here. A narrativist guy, would want his ogre to match the story. A gamist guy, would want the ogre to be a "fair, balanced encounter". And a simulationist guy, would want the ogre to follow the "game physics". You happen to be in the third trope, while others are in the first, and others in the second one.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, to be fair triqui, the easiest thing to do in 3e is to simply invent something and then tack it on.  So, our Ogre has the "Clumsy" quality which gives him a -4 on his attacks.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, to be fair triqui, the easiest thing to do in 3e is to simply invent something and then tack it on.  So, our Ogre has the "Clumsy" quality which gives him a -4 on his attacks.




I thought liberal use of game tags and labels were "wrong" for 3e style. 

Why is it different to tag a "clumsy" quality to the ogre, so it fits story, than tagging a "minion" label to the kobold or a "solo" tag to the Gelatinous Cube, so they fit in the story?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

A hypothetical 'clumsy' tag could be applied to the PCs, so fits my physics worldview, unlike minion or solo 

It's interesting that we imagine low dexterity creatures have a hard time hitting things, whilst we use strength for a whole bunch of weapon attacks. I would be happy to go to a dex for hitting, str for damage system.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Out of curiosity, what systems do you run other than 3E D&D and variants thereof?



Other than 3e and a few non-assimilated variants (CoC d20 & Modern come to mind), there's the two years or so I spent on late 2e before 3e was released, the BSG iteration of the cortex system, and the Green Ronin Dragon Age game.

(i.e. not the variety of certain individuals on these boards who are old enough to be my parents or who seem to play rpgs for a living, but more variety than most D&D players who started with 3e have ever seen and enough that it ought to make me immune to these rather grating comments, implicit and explicit, that my over ten years of DMing experience isn't "enough").

Perhaps more importantly, though it is not my primary background, I took every opportunity I could to stuff creative writing, film, and drama courses into my academic background. My overall take on the hobby is probably more informed by those things (which predate my D&D experience) than anything.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

First I want to thank my elders who told us about basic and 1st edition dragons

Second I want to point out that I have PCs who started in 3.5 and one that started in 4th. I have been running games for 17 years... More then half my life, and that still puts me in 2e territory.

At  Gen Con I ran a 14 year old player at my table he was not alive when I started running 2e... And I wasn't alive when Gary first published this game.

So keep in mind for some of us, 2e+ is the only d&d we know


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> A hypothetical 'clumsy' tag could be applied to the PCs, so fits my physics worldview, unlike minion or solo



So "god" tag does not fit, because PC can't be gods?





> It's interesting that we imagine low dexterity creatures have a hard time hitting things, whilst we use strength for a whole bunch of weapon attacks. I would be happy to go to a dex for hitting, str for damage system.



Not all of them should have hard time hitting things. A dwarven fighter in ironclad armor might not be the nimblest thing out-there, but they should have a very good ratio.
I think some games (like DC heroes or Marvel FASERIP system) got it right with their "fighting" attribute. "Fighting", or "prowess", or "weapon skill", or whatever name you want to give it, is the general physical power, accuracy, aggresiveness, will-to-fight, and combat-readiness of a given creature. It's not exactly the same as "base attack". It's a special attribute, a mix of Str, Dex, Willpower, and fierceness.

For example: an elephant shouldn't hit with more accuracy than a weasel just because of Str, but a rabbit shouldn't hit with more accuracy than a raging bull just becouse of dexterity.

However, as D&D give armor the chance to deflect the blow (AC), having a high STR makes sense somewhat. It's logic that a Fire Giant can pierce a dragon's scales better than a Sprite does.

 It's not an easy solution, from the point of view of simulationism. Whatever you do, the simulation will fail somewhere, somehow, to explain something. However, it has a very easy solution from the point of view of narrativism (give the Ogre the chance to hit you think it fits the story) or gamism (give the ogre a balanced attack bonus for his Challenge Rating)


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> So "god" tag does not fit, because PC can't be gods?
> 
> Not all of them should have hard time hitting things. A dwarven fighter in ironclad armor might not be the nimblest thing out-there, but they should have a very good ratio.
> I think some games (like DC heroes or Marvel FASERIP system) got it right with their "fighting" attribute. "Fighting", or "prowess", or "weapon skill", or whatever name you want to give it, is the general physical power, accuracy, aggresiveness, will-to-fight, and combat-readiness of a given creature. It's not exactly the same as "base attack". It's a special attribute, a mix of Str, Dex, Willpower, and fierceness.
> ...




I think PCs can aspire to be gods, narratively and mechanically. They can't aspire to be elites or solos though.. not without unbecoming PCs.

I would also favour a system that avoided base attack bonus and used weapon skill. In which case your ogre simply isn't trained in weapons and/or hasn't spent any skill points on weapons.

EDIT: In fact, this is why penalties existed for being non-proficient (or indeed, bonuses for being proficient). Ogres clearly aren't trained in club use (they improvise with a big tree or whatever).


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> So "god" tag does not fit, because PC can't be gods?



I had a god PC once. Who says PCs can't be gods?

More importantly, a deity is something other than a metagame construct built to provide a certain level of challeng.



> It's not an easy solution, from the point of view of simulationism. Whatever you do, the simulation will fail somewhere, somehow, to explain something.



True.



> However, it has a very easy solution from the point of view of narrativism (give the Ogre the chance to hit you think it fits the story) or gamism (give the ogre a balanced attack bonus for his Challenge Rating)



So if simulating things with playable game mechanics is hard, the solution is to give up?


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I had a god PC once. Who says PCs can't be gods?



In some games, like Nobilis, the PC are actually required to be gods. For standard D&D, though, even if gaining god status is a feasible and traditional goal, when it's achieved, the game ends for that character. 

Some homebrew D&D campaings might work different, but some other hombebrew campaings can have the PC being a realm (not the king, the realm), or a planet, or a microorganism, or classless and level-less characters. That short of experimentation is in the boundaries of D&D, though (because I hate the "it's not D&D" sentence)



> More importantly, a deity is something other than a metagame construct built to provide a certain level of challeng.



True. Some metagames constructs are built as tools for a certain level of challenge (such as challenge rating, or hit dice, or solo mechanic), some others metagame constructs are built to provide tools for character generation or advancement (such as point buy, or 4d6 rolls, or "class" and "level).



> True
> 
> So if simulating things with playable game mechanics is hard, the solution is to give up?




Where did I said that? 

In my opinion, now you ask for it , the solution is to decide which amount of simulationism is "good enough" for you (which vary from player to player), knowing that a full, perfect simulation is impossible. Some people will be happy with "hit point" abstract constructs that allow your mortal lvl 20 fighter to swim in lava, some others won't (and will choose to play Rolemaster or whatever). Some players will be happy with Ogres having way too much accuracy for what they "should be" story-wise, and will play 3e, others will choose a "weapon skill" system like Warhammer or Marvel FASERIP, some will just patch 3e with a "clumsy" tag, or base the hit chance on dexterity (as True20). All of them will have a positive impact in some parts of the simulation, and will fail in some other (like rabbits having more hit bonus than lions, becouse they have higher dexterity, or whatever)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> In some games, like Nobilis, the PC are actually required to be gods. For standard D&D, though, even if gaining god status is a feasible and traditional goal, when it's achieved, the game ends for that character.
> 
> Some homebrew D&D campaings might work different, but some other hombebrew campaings can have the PC being a realm (not the king, the realm), or a planet, or a microorganism, or classless and level-less characters. That short of experimentation is in the boundaries of D&D, though (because I hate the "it's not D&D" sentence)



You are aware that D&D has actual books for statting out gods, right? One of my players' characters was elevated to a minor deity during the game and kept playing alongside the other non-god PCs using published D&D rules. The game didn't end, and it wasn't something I just homebrewed.



> True. Some metagames constructs are built as tools for a certain level of challenge (such as challenge rating, or hit dice, or solo mechanic), some others metagame constructs are built to provide tools for character generation or advancement (such as point buy, or 4d6 rolls, or "class" and "level).



There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.



> In my opinion, now you ask for it , the solution is to decide which amount of simulationism is "good enough" for you (which vary from player to player), knowing that a full, perfect simulation is impossible.



True. The tone of the last post just sounded to me like you were setting the bar rather low.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I had made a 4E enemy from scratch, an animated statue of an archer. Now, in my fresh-to-4E mind, there were still no guidelines as to whether I could give it immunity to mind-affecting spells, or damage resistance because it was made of bronze.



WotC has done two iterations of the Bronze Warder, once in H2:Thunderspire Labyrinth, and then again in MV2:Threats to the Nentir Vale.

On both occasions its been given damage resistance, but in MV2 they reduced its hit points, to compensate for the damage that will be resisted (based on a 5-rounds assumption) - thus keeping it about the same overall toughness, but with a slightly different dynamic.

Immunity to mind-affecting spells in 4e could be done in several ways (objects get the first two of these, per the DMG): immune to Will attacks (very strong!); immune to psychic damage (still strong, but perhaps not as strong); immune to charm, sleep and/or fear effects. The bronze warder in both incarnatioins gets immunity to charm and fear (and also poison), but otherwise no special benefit (though its Resist 5 all will apply to psychic damage just as much as other damage types).

All this is a bit late for your purposes, but is intended just to illustrate how one 4e monster was designed to deal with the monster-building questions you raise.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> 3E obviously had some mathematical issues, and I see no reason why you couldn't build a creature as quickly as you can in 4E, but with the underlying math being fully explained as in 3E.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd like the numbers to have an explanation, wherever possible.



I get this a bit, but not completely. A Balor has a +19 natural armour bonus. A dragon can have a natural armoour bonus in the 30s. What is the explanation for these? What do they mean in the gameworld - given that the best possible protection from the best possible magical plate armour is +13 AC?

It seems to me that some of these "explanations" that 3E actually offers don't really correlate to anything in the gameworld that has meaning independent of the mechanical function of the numbers involved. They seem to me to be no less metagame than anything in 4e, but with a veneer of "explanation" layered over the top.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> I think PCs can aspire to be gods, narratively and mechanically. They can't aspire to be elites or solos though.. not without unbecoming PCs.



But a PC _can_ aspire to become an elite. A ranger or rogue with a good supply of immediate action encounter powers would fit the bill pretty well! The sorcerer in my game does a pretty good job of it also: 17th level sorcerer with an at will burst 2 for 1d4+27.

These strikers won't have as many hit points as an NPC or monster elite, but can have plenty of ways to make up for that (a bit like the Bronze Warder's damage resistance): the sorcerer has utility teleport interrupts, for example, for getting away from attacks.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> It's interesting that we imagine low dexterity creatures have a hard time hitting things, whilst we use strength for a whole bunch of weapon attacks. I would be happy to go to a dex for hitting, str for damage system.



Doesn't Mutants and Masterminds go this way, to avoid the "Superman and Hulk never miss" problem?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> WotC has done two iterations of the Bronze Warder, once in H2:Thunderspire Labyrinth, and then again in MV2:Threats to the Nentir Vale.
> 
> On both occasions its been given damage resistance, but in MV2 they reduced its hit points, to compensate for the damage that will be resisted (based on a 5-rounds assumption) - thus keeping it about the same overall toughness, but with a slightly different dynamic.
> 
> ...




Sounds like they made a cool monster, but I didn't see those modules, and that advice wasn't available in the MM, which is a shame.

Natural armor bonuses was always hilariously nebulous - yes. I disliked the Troglodyte for having way too high a bonus for its level. If 'natural armor' was a monster ability, you could purchase with some resource available to you as you increase in HD, it would be explainable, but yes, in 3E it was mostly made up.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> You are aware that D&D has actual books for statting out gods, right? One of my players' characters was elevated to a minor deity during the game and kept playing alongside the other non-god PCs using published D&D rules. The game didn't end, and it wasn't something I just homebrewed.



There are D&D rules to play with laser guns too, or to play dragons, or classless versions. That doesn't mean it's standard.



> There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.



To fit the desires of those who aren't "holding the line" 

I fully understand that you are part of  a (minority??) who is intentionally being vocal against what you don't like (and/or pro what you do like). That happens on both "sides" of the fence. You should try to understand (both sides of the "line") that they are simply diffferent approachs to it. None of which is "correct", both have glaring fails, and both *are* metagaming constructs. Just that they are metagaming constructs that have different goals and serve to different purposes.




> True. The tone of the last post just sounded to me like you were setting the bar rather low.



Not my intention.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Natural armor bonuses was always hilariously nebulous - yes. I disliked the Troglodyte for having way too high a bonus for its level. If 'natural armor' was a monster ability, you could purchase with some resource available to you as you increase in HD, it would be explainable, but yes, in 3E it was mostly made up.



HARP has a similar issue with a monster-only ability called Survival Instinct.

Bounded accuracy should make this sort of stuff unnecessary.

Also, while you were replying I edited my earlier post to add some thoughts on how a PC can become an elite - I don't think it will satisfy you any more than minions do, but just to show how a more 4e-oriented person might come at that issue.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Doesn't Mutants and Masterminds go this way, to avoid the "Superman and Hulk never miss" problem?




Mutant and Mastermind has "bounded accuracy" per level, some sort of. 

Your attack (or damage) can't be higher than your level, no matter of what, ever. So if a "hulk-like" PC is level 10, his attack is 10, period.

Later editions allowed for a small grade of freedom (some characters might have +12 attack , but +8 damage, or +8 damage but +12 attack, etc). Same goes with Defense (AC) and Toughness ("wound" saving throws).

The last editiion goes with a "fighting" skill, though. This helps to represent the genre much better. Wolverine, Batman, or Captain America *should* fight better than Superman or Hulk. They should just be weaker when they hit, or softer when being hit, but they fight better, period. Some of them because of training (like Batman), some because of natural talent (Wolverine or Sabretooth), some others by a mix of training and half-supernatural abilities (Cap America and the Supersoldier serum)


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> First I want to thank my elders who told us about basic and 1st edition dragons
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So keep in mind for some of us, 2e+ is the only d&d we know



Nothing wrong with that! I never played original brown box D&D (though I have a copy of the white box reissue).

From my point of view, I just sometimes get a bit frustrated by comments about what has always, or never, been a part of D&D, when those comments are true only of certain editions but not others.



Ahnehnois said:


> There are simply some of us who feel the need to "hold the line" and ask why if one mechanic serves the job, we need an additional one.



That has been answered several times upthread. Level/HD, on its own, doesn't improve a creature's ability in the action economy, given that D&D has no general mechanism for sacrificing attack bonus to get multiple attacks. (This contrasts with some Rolemaster and HARP options, for example.)

Hence there is a need to design monsters with an eye on action economy which is independent of giving them a certain level.

Those monsters are conveniently tagged "solo" or "elite" so the GM knows at a glance how they will play.



Ahnehnois said:


> not the variety of certain individuals on these boards who are old enough to be my parents or who seem to play rpgs for a living, but more variety than most D&D players who started with 3e have ever seen and enough that it ought to make me immune to these rather grating comments, implicit and explicit, that my over ten years of DMing experience isn't "enough"



I have no view on what is or is not enough GMing experience (enough for what?). But some of your posts suggest to me a lack of familiarity with the approach to RPG play described by Eero Tuovinen in the blog I linked to upthread - what might roughly be described as Forge or "indie"-style play.

And I'm not meaning a lack of experience with it. I'm meaning a lack of theoretical familiarity also. You sometimes seem to post with a very narrow conception of what RPGing is or might reasonably aspire to be, as if those who play differently from you are not merely different, but wrong.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Natural armor bonuses was always hilariously nebulous - yes. I disliked the Troglodyte for having way too high a bonus for its level. If 'natural armor' was a monster ability, you could purchase with some resource available to you as you increase in HD, it would be explainable, but yes, in 3E it was mostly made up.




Natural armor was 3ed response to being too tied by in-game physic laws. 

A red dragon was a "soldier solo", even if it did not have such tags attached. So they needed it to be able to threat a whole group, fight well, and being able to stand under fire while being hit relativelly few times. So they give him "wing buffets", and "firebreath", and "tail slaps" (instead of just giving him more attacks, which can be focus fired on a single character to kill it in a round, they gave him an extra attack against those behind him). The AC wasn't really easy to obtain while using the game rules (he didn't have high dexterity, his size is actually a handicap, he can't wear plate armor or magical rings...), so they just made up a huge natural armor bonus, big enought o give him the AC he needed story-wise.

In 4e they used a similar approach, just it was coded, instead of made up. They gave him a high armor, because the story needs red dragons to have high AC values, regardless of his Dex score and size or whatever. They gave him "soldier" level armor, and that's it.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> From my point of view, I just sometimes get a bit frustrated by comments about what has always, or never, been a part of D&D, when those comments are true only of certain editions but not others.



My goodness, yes.  Me too.

I don't think you can apply the term "historically" or "traditionally" if it only goes back to 2000 or so.   Maybe I'm a bit grognardy, but for me, "historically" and "traditionally" means "1e/BX/BECMI" era D&D and earlier.

Likewise, "always."  If it's not constant from around 1e through 4e, it's not "always". 

-O


----------



## pemerton (Aug 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> My goodness, yes.  Me too.
> 
> I don't think you can apply the term "historically" or "traditionally" if it only goes back to 2000 or so.   Maybe I'm a bit grognardy, but for me, "historically" and "traditionally" means "1e/BX/BECMI" era D&D and earlier.
> 
> Likewise, "always."  If it's not constant from around 1e through 4e, it's not "always".



I'm not sure if you're taking the Mickey or not! But for what it's worth, my own preferred approach is to avoid appeals to history, or tradition, and rather to recognise that people have often been doing different sorts of things with D&D for as long as it's been around, and that over that time its mechanics have changed quite a bit too.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I guess I'm a math guy or something.. I agree that anything involving spells or spell-like abilities is hard work (in any system really, because there is no logic to the power level of certain effects).. but I was fine with all the little bonuses. In contrast, I found it difficult, personally, to explain 4E numbers after the fact.




Which is backwards.  You should be using the fact to explain the 4e numbers


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Which is backwards.  You should be using the fact to explain the 4e numbers




Ok then  - I guess I found it difficult to express my ideas in number form without very explicit mechanics 

I am more comfortable as a player in 4E - everything is defined. There is no fudging your defences to fit your archetype - you have to select powers or feats or equipment to do that.


----------



## slobster (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I really liked your example, but have a couple of comments. Making its attack bonus suddenly +11 is, in my opinion, disconcerting, although it depends how you're doing it. Don't forget that many other checks might come up involving its base attack bonus and/or its strength, so you really ought to adjust one of those components. For your example I might have just reduced its HD a little so that it isn't so good at attacking, and if it doesn't have enough HP, give it some more Con.




Your solution changes a few more things, though. It's unfortunately not that simple.

Lowering his HD lowers his BAB, but also his saves. Raising his Con score to compensate then increases his Fort save, but his Ref and Will saves will be hosed and now (in this example at least) his Con is unreasonably high; I was already pushing the envelope with a 22. His skills and feats are also lower, so if I had chosen a feat loadout that I liked a lot (and a lot of feats have feat prereqs, exacerbating this problem) I'd be forced to abandon it.

It's not always going to be a big deal, but it does two things that I think are bad. First of all it simply adds time and headaches to the process of monster building. 

Second, it restricts what the GM can accomplish unnecessarily. In my opinion it's not even good simulation. Why is it impossible for a monster to advance by getting tougher and tougher without also getting better and better at attacking? A giant tortoise doesn't seem to get any more lethal as it grows, but it definitely gets bigger and more resilient. 

3.x monster creation is a set of guidelines. They are useful. I got a lot of good games out of them. But they shouldn't be a straight jacket, and when the monster guidelines yield a result that doesn't make sense in the gameworld, doesn't match your idea for the monster, and doesn't match the CR guidelines that you are trying to get to, I see nothing wrong with editing the numbers directly to ensure a more useful outcome.

As  [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] noted, you can always give the dolgrue *Maddened with Pain (Ex):* _Dolgrue live in constant agony as a side-effect of their creation process. As a result, their BAB is considered 4 lower than it should be for their HD due to the constant distraction._

EDIT: If you get your fun out of running a simulationist game, where both player and GM have to play by the rules and the enjoyment is derived from seeing how the intricacies of the rule system crash together with player choices to produce an emergent gaming experience, that is awesome! In that case my post, and my whole argument in this thread, won't apply much to you.

By the same token, that sort of game values a monster creation system that is not entirely suitable for my gaming style. I want to be able to tailor monsters and encounters to challenge my PCs. I want them to be stymied in some encounters until they figure out the "trick" of it, or maneuver the enemy into hostile terrain, or whatever. That requires pretty fine control over the monster's stats, and I don't want to have to wrestle with the system to get that control.

To each their own, of course. I don't envy the designers this task, but the ideal would obviously be creation rules than allow either of these philosophies to be applied.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> First I want to thank my elders who told us about basic and 1st edition dragons
> 
> Second I want to point out that I have PCs who started in 3.5 and one that started in 4th. I have been running games for 17 years... More then half my life, and that still puts me in 2e territory.
> 
> ...




And that's fine.  I'm about your age - I started on 1e only by coincidence.  But when I talk about the roots of D&D and how it's always been, I can point to primary sources.  When I ran the first round D&D next playtest I had a table who'd all started playing before I was two years old.  And when I talk about the origins of D&D, there's someone (Mike Mornard/Old Geezer) who posts on RPG.net regularly about his experiences; he was in both Arneson's and Gygax's original groups for D&D and saw a lot of the very early days unfold.  I might not have started playing before 2e was published, but the information as to the history of D&D is out there.  And not that hard to find.

And just because you started playing with 2e doesn't mean you _can't_ play earlier editions.  I'm currently running an old D&D (not AD&D) module from 1978 (Caverns of Thracia) for two separate groups as a _5e_ playtest.  And I'm trying to run it (and I hope succeeding) in a style that would be recognisable to the genuinely early players.  Of course they'd find it weird I didn't design my own dungeon as that was half the fun (next time I will...)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

I challange the people who believe that 3e has the best monster rules to make some.

Make a kobold sorcerer with 5th level spells and a dragon theme

Make a human who is the best blacksmith in the land 

Make a sage who is a well learned old man who has never in his life won a fight, and who can only cast 1 or 2 divinations but no combat spells

Now here is the hard part... A basic party of 4 phb characters of 6th level are interacting with all of them, it may be a fight or to talk, and you don't know witch ahead of time


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I challange the people who believe that 3e has the best monster rules to make some.
> 
> Make a kobold sorcerer with 5th level spells and a dragon theme
> 
> ...




Your point? Any of this can be done and quite easily. What's the assumption you're not including here... that each of the encounters be "level appropriate" in some way? Is that what you think the "hard part" is? Why would we try to balance these encounters around some kind of combat model other than allowing the NPCs to be the threats they naturally represent?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And just because you started playing with 2e doesn't mean you _can't_ play earlier editions.  .)



I am actually planing a 1 e game with the new books.

I just think jumping on Always is a bit of a false fight... 25 out of 45 years is pretty close to always, and is multi generations of fans is "always was this way"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Your point? Any of this can be done and quite easily. What's the assumption you're not including here... that each of the encounters be "level appropriate" in some way? Is that what you think the "hard part" is? Why would we try to balance these encounters around some kind of combat model other than allowing the NPCs to be the threats they naturally represent?




Ha

Ok you think I am trying to trick you, I am not. 

Just try to make all three as if your next session need them..


Edit: the 'trick' is not mine, but the rules that need to be thrown out to make 2 of the characters work, and one of those 2 even possible


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Ha
> 
> Ok you think I am trying to trick you, I am not.
> 
> ...




What rules need to be thrown out? I'm not seeing any. I suppose the fact that your basic spells pretty much always include some combat spells as well as divination might be tripping up the example on a technicality? But if the sage simply never preps any, problem solved.


----------



## slobster (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Your point? Any of this can be done and quite easily. What's the assumption you're not including here... that each of the encounters be "level appropriate" in some way? Is that what you think the "hard part" is? Why would we try to balance these encounters around some kind of combat model other than allowing the NPCs to be the threats they naturally represent?




I'm about to quibble here. I apologize.

For two of them I agree, 3.x handles it just fine. But the blacksmith example is one that always tested my suspension of disbelief. In 3.x, max skill ranks are based on level. So to make a blacksmith of truly legendary ability, you'll need to level him up. You're probably using the expert class for this.

A 10th level expert fits the bill. Let's ignore any advantages he might get out of superior equipment and circumstantial modifiers. His bonus will be 13(skill points)+3(ability mod)+3(skill focus)=+19. Not bad. Hits DC 29 on an average roll, which is pretty legendary. He also hits DC 20 on a natural 1, which is the DC  for masterwork equipment. 

The problem is that he's only supposed to be a blacksmith. He's not a warrior. But because we raised him to 10th level (the only way to get his skill bonus high enough), his hp, attack bonuses, and saves are going to be beastly. especially using some of the masterwork equipment that he can easily make. With a con mod of just +1 (I think a blacksmith of such skill should have at least an above average constitution) his hp is 45 (10d6+10). His attack bonus with a mace is +7/+2, without a str mod (he probably has an ok one).

He can take on low level characters pretty handily, which may not be what I was looking for. Maybe I just wanted him to be a craftsman with no real combat ability. The disconnect is even more obvious when we choose a profession that isn't necessarily physical, like a legendary silk weaver. Why is the best silk weaver in the land able to make iterative attacks?

You ask "Why would we try to balance these encounters around some kind of combat model other than allowing the NPCs to be the threats they naturally represent?" In this case 3.x is modeling our silk weaver as something other than they threat I think they should naturally represent, but I don't have any choice because of the way the skill system works.

But hey, any system will have brainfarts like this. Like I said, this post is a quibble. It just happens to be something that bothered me quite a bit back when I was GMing 3.x as a young lad. These days I'd just stat up a level 3 expert real quick and give him a +10 "awesome at silk and stuff" bonus to his craft check and call it a day.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am actually planing a 1 e game with the new books.
> 
> I just think jumping on Always is a bit of a false fight... 25 out of 45 years is pretty close to always, and is multi generations of fans is "always was this way"




25 out of 45 years is pretty close to 20 out of 45 years


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Your point? Any of this can be done and quite easily.




OK.  Let's start with the knowledgeable sage.  He needs at least a dozen ranks in various knowledge skills, but is no more than a third level wizard.  Let's try Wizard 3/Expert 6 - hardly the BAB of someone who's never won a fight in his life.

The best blacksmith in the land is probably a Commoner.  And can kick a third level fighter's arse.

Skilled characters create unwanted consequences due to the inflexible nature of 3.X NPC creation.  You get tougher and better at fighting by ... staying in the library and reading books?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

Kobold 10th level sorcerer we   Give him a +2 con so 10d4+20 hp61
Blacksmith level 12 with a 14 str 12 con and 16int has 12d8+12 hp70
Sage (non combatant) Adept level 10 8 str and 8 con 10d6-10 hp 31

Heck that sage has a better attack then most 6th level wizards..


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

slobster said:


> I'm about to quibble here. I apologize.
> 
> For two of them I agree, 3.x handles it just fine. But the blacksmith example is one that always tested my suspension of disbelief. In 3.x, max skill ranks are based on level. So to make a blacksmith of truly legendary ability, you'll need to level him up. Your probably using the expert class for this.
> 
> ...




Why is this a problem? Keep in mind that this is a rougher and more dangerous world that most of us have experience with. These aren't computer programmers or office workers who can live exceptionally sedentary lives. These are people who probably have to engage in a lot more physical labor just to get their normal maintenance chores done. And that applies even to the silk weaver. Why shouldn't he be non-helpless?

That said, even with a +7/+2, he may not be comparing particularly well to a 1st level fighter who probably has weapon focus and a lot of strength compared to the weaver with a 10 (or lower if we assume it took him to middle age or old to rack up those levels).

And that, of course, assumes he wants to fight. He can still have some combat abilities that he never uses, surrendering all the time, like a learned sage who has never won a fight in his life despite having the potential to do better if that was the kind of man he wanted to be.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I guess I'm a math guy or something.. I agree that anything involving spells or spell-like abilities is hard work (in any system really, because there is no logic to the power level of certain effects).. but I was fine with all the little bonuses. In contrast, I found it difficult, personally, to explain 4E numbers after the fact.
> 
> One particular example stands out in my mind: I had made a 4E enemy from scratch, an animated statue of an archer. Now, in my fresh-to-4E mind, there were still no guidelines as to whether I could give it immunity to mind-affecting spells, or damage resistance because it was made of bronze. It got more confusing when I couldn't relate its basic attack to its weapon and abilities. Yes, it worked in play, but it felt too abstracted to me.
> 
> That's all I can ever say in this argument really - that I think more in terms of processes than abstracts, and I always will.




Yes, I'm more "ideas first, detail later".  Most personality rating schemes (e.g. Myers Briggs) recognise detail-first bottom-up thinking vs ideas first top-down thinking as personal preference and part of who we are. It's common to do both well enough, but usually there's a strong preference.

Really it is unlikely all people sat around a game table are going to have the same personality type in this regard, so game, adventure and monster design should be approachable using both mindsets where possible.  Otherwise the number of DMs who will take to the system is needlessly reduced.

Somethimg like 3E's build units for monsters could provide that, if they were simplified in places and complemented with some 4E-style "target numbers by level and role". Then DMs can build monsters up from parts, or just go straight to balanced numbers, or even some mix of both . . . I believe something was mentioned about this in a D&D Next article, so that's hopeful for the future


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Why is this a problem? Keep in mind that this is a rougher and more dangerous world that most of us have experience with. These aren't computer programmers or office workers who can live exceptionally sedentary lives. These are people who probably have to engage in a lot more physical labor just to get their normal maintenance chores done. And that applies even to the silk weaver. Why shouldn't he be non-helpless?
> 
> That said, even with a +7/+2, he may not be comparing particularly well to a 1st level fighter who probably has weapon focus and a lot of strength compared to the weaver with a 10 (or lower if we assume it took him to middle age or old to rack up those levels).
> 
> And that, of course, assumes he wants to fight. He can still have some combat abilities that he never uses, surrendering all the time, like a learned sage who has never won a fight in his life despite having the potential to do better if that was the kind of man he wanted to be.



This is why I made npc my way instead of the rules...

My blacksmith would be this hd3d6+6 hp 17 +23 blacksmith and +6 with a war hammer 

My sage would have 1/2 hd and 3 hp and +18 all know skills and cast legend lore as a 15th level wizard


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> OK.  Let's start with the knowledgeable sage.  He needs at least a dozen ranks in various knowledge skills, but is no more than a third level wizard.  Let's try Wizard 3/Expert 6 - hardly the BAB of someone who's never won a fight in his life.




Or he's an adept. Possibly a wizard 1/expert 8, maybe wizard 2/expert 7, cleric 1/wizard 1/expert 7 - there's a lot of variations that can be explored assuming you even need to get to a dozen ranks (lower may be sufficient). But having a BAB that doesn't completely suck doesn't mean he's ever won a fight.



Neonchameleon said:


> The best blacksmith in the land is probably a Commoner.  And can kick a third level fighter's arse.




For blacksmith, I'd go with expert. And yes, a highly skilled blacksmith probably should kick a 3rd level fighters ass up and down the street.



Neonchameleon said:


> Skilled characters create unwanted consequences due to the inflexible nature of 3.X NPC creation.  You get tougher and better at fighting by ... staying in the library and reading books?




See my other post. They're not modern librarians. Life in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting would still be pretty vigorous. To reach the level he has reached to gain his skills, he's probably seen, experienced, and survived a lot. Probably has a number of coping mechanism under his belt as well as the savvy to prolong or at least cling to his own life. 

The effect of adding things like BAB, save bonuses, hit points - all pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, even if the peaceful encounter goes bad and breaks down into a fight. A learned sage, probably pretty old, never very high physical stats, not going to put up much of a fight for a party of 4 6th level characters no matter what his BAB is.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> It's amazing how some people think they know what their talking about when they truly don't.
> 
> Amazing world we live in, isn't it?




*A friendly reminder to debate the points, not the people. Lets keep it civil and focus on the arguments at hand.

-Stalker0*


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> My sage would have 1/2 hd and 3 hp and +18 all know skills and cast legend lore as a 15th level wizard




And for a lot of people, this doesn't make much sense. Legend lore is a powerful spell - yet this guy has no foundation in the magical skills needed to cast it? If the backstory included him being blessed (cursed?) by the gods to be able to use the legend lore spell as a spell-like or supernatural ability, then that's system agnostic. I can do it back in 1e, not just 3e, PF, or 4e.

The point here is - you're using your own rules for this, not even 4e rules as far as I can tell. And that's all system agnostic. It's not a stronger argument for 4e or 3e or anything else.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> The effect of adding things like BAB, save bonuses, hit points - all pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, even if the peaceful encounter goes bad and breaks down into a fight. A learned sage, probably pretty old, never very high physical stats, not going to put up much of a fight for a party of 4 6th level characters no matter what his BAB is.




Except he can fight as well as a 4 or 5ev fighter


----------



## slobster (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Keep in mind that this is a rougher and more dangerous world that most of us have experience with. These aren't computer programmers or office workers who can live exceptionally sedentary lives. These are people who probably have to engage in a lot more physical labor just to get their normal maintenance chores done.




That isn't necessarily true. In my old Eberron campaign, a celebrated artist could live a life as sedentary and as removed from manual labor as any privileged socialite in our modern world.

Even if what you are saying is true, chopping wood and carrying in water from the well does not equate to having the wherewithal in combat to land telling blows with the speed of a swordsmaster. Else you are faced with the problem that your silk weaver, because he does chores regularly, is more capable in a fight than your third level rogue, who grew up fighting viciously over scraps on the mean streets and spent the last few years delving into ancient crypts filled with unspeakable evil for a living.

Something does not compute.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> For blacksmith, I'd go with expert. And yes, a highly skilled blacksmith probably should kick a 3rd level fighters ass up and down the street.



 In the fantasy trope (where the blacksmith is the biggest and strongest guy in the town), maybe. In real world, no way. There's no reason to think Paul Chen will be able to defeat a seasoned experienced warrior, or to believe that Masamune could defeat an experienced samurai (or a CR3 ogre, for that matter). And if we include other level-dependant stuff, then it's even worse (there's no reason a good artisan should resist a "fear" spell better than a seasoned lvl 3 fighter)

It's not like really matters, though. The Blacksmith is never going to battle, unless he is supposed to, so his real BAB is not relevant at all. All you need from him is his crafting skill, 99% of the time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And for a lot of people, this doesn't make much sense. Legend lore is a powerful spell - yet this guy has no foundation in the magical skills needed to cast it? If the backstory included him being blessed (cursed?) by the gods to be able to use the legend lore spell as a spell-like or supernatural ability, then that's system agnostic



no curse  no blessing my rules are ther are no rules (and that is rifts, Wod, or D&d)





> The point here is - you're using your own rules for this, not even 4e rules as far as I can tell. And that's all system agnostic. It's not a stronger argument for 4e or 3e or anything else.




My arguement is BOTH need work, and if we stoped saying "my edition is better" and start makeing some new amalgam we might just get the best ever


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

slobster said:


> That isn't necessarily true. In my old Eberron campaign, a celebrated artist could live a life as sedentary and as removed from manual labor as any privileged socialite in our modern world.
> 
> Even if what you are saying is true, chopping wood and carrying in water from the well does not equate to having the wherewithal in combat to land telling blows with the speed of a swordsmaster. Else you are faced with the problem that your silk weaver, because he does chores regularly, is more capable in a fight than your third level rogue, who grew up fighting viciously over scraps on the mean streets and spent the last few years delving into ancient crypts filled with unspeakable evil for a living.
> 
> Something does not compute.




Notice that your rogue is getting better really fast and, if he survives, will surpass the silk weaver in short order while that silk weaver has taken decades and has no prospect of improving in any game-relevant context. And he's probably done more than just his chores - maybe helped put out a few fires, spent some time in a militia, lived through a war or two, tried to fend off burglars, a whole bunch of things that make up a varied life's tapestry in a genre-consistent setting.

There may be plenty of quibbles about just how tough an NPC should be compared to an up-and-coming PC, but I think it's understandable and fair for them to pick up a little on-paper combat (combat survival) ability along the way to picking up more formidable and important abilities as they gain life's experience. As long as they are then equipped and played in appropriate character, they'll put up the fight they should put up (which may be not much of a fight).


----------



## slobster (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And he's probably done more than just his chores - maybe helped put out a few fires, spent some time in a militia, lived through a war or two, tried to fend off burglars, a whole bunch of things that make up a varied life's tapestry in a genre-consistent setting.




But what if he hasn't? What if he really is a sheltered artisan who knows nothing beyond the skill he's spent his life perfecting? That's a valid archetype that the rules do a poor job of portraying.

I'm not saying that the game utterly fails at portraying artisans well enough for most purposes. I am saying that this is one of the rough patches in the rules that doesn't bear close inspection. I fix it by fudging the rules in my games. It sounds like you fix it by glossing over the sillier details and adding post-hoc justifications for others where it seems appropriate to you.

Both work for me, but it is a part of the rules that I think 5E can improve.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> There may be plenty of quibbles about just how tough an NPC should be compared to an up-and-coming PC, but I think it's understandable and fair for them to pick up a little on-paper combat (combat survival) ability along the way to picking up more formidable and important abilities as they gain life's experience. As long as they are then equipped and played in appropriate character, they'll put up the fight they should put up (which may be not much of a fight).




Actually this is one of the common dissonances of games with levels. Power is attached to level, so a high level whatever is always better than a low level anything. 
The best tailor in the world can defeat a platoon of militia. Also, he can defeat an ogre. While this is cool and fun in some instances (like Mickey Mouse's Valiant Little Taylor or whatever), it does make a dissonance with the game simulation. It's a minor one (because unless your game goes around taylors battling monsters, this won't happen in 99.99% of the cases), but it's there.

I also find it weird in the opposite sense. My fighter is pouring points into blacksmithing. In order to finish a masterwork plate, I need a couple of extra ranks. So I go to the nearest hill, start to kill goblins, and then I'll be able to craft it.

I don't care about it, honestly. It's part of the game. It's the necessary evil behind the level system, which I think it's the right one for games like D&D, where players are heroes that start fighting goblins, and end fighting Dragons. It also models right the typical NPC: Galadriel should be harder to poison than your average dwarven grunt, not because she has higher CON, but because she has higher level. That's what I want the system to express, and I can deal with high level artisans and crafters being somewhat bad reprersented, if that's the price.

EDIT:Maybe 5e bounded accuracy is a good step to solve this minor nitpick, though.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> In the fantasy trope (where the blacksmith is the biggest and strongest guy in the town), maybe. In real world, no way. There's no reason to think Paul Chen will be able to defeat a seasoned experienced warrior, or to believe that Masamune could defeat an experienced samurai (or a CR3 ogre, for that matter). And if we include other level-dependant stuff, then it's even worse (there's no reason a good artisan should resist a "fear" spell better than a seasoned lvl 3 fighter)




Unless I miss my guess, we *are* talking about a fantasy trope world - or at least a medieval one - and not a modern one in which Paul Chen would matter. As far as Masamune goes, who's to say? Did he have some training in the use of the sword as well as the forging of them? And how seasoned are we talking about in D&D levels? 3rd level? 7th level? 10th level? How many seasons does it take to be seasoned?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And he's probably done more than just his chores - maybe helped put out a few fires, spent some time in a militia, lived through a war or two, tried to fend off burglars, a whole bunch of things that make up a varied life's tapestry in a genre-consistent setting.
> 
> ).




Wow justifying mechanic with after thought add on fluff.. How 4e of you


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 29, 2012)

I haven't got time to take up the current NPC challenge.. but I'd solve it the same way 4E does - use DM fiat. The subtle difference being that I'd create a sage class that never gains BAB, only Will save and skill points, Wizard spells solely from the divination school and d4 HP. I like some mechanical backup!


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> Actually this is one of the common dissonances of games with levels. Power is attached to level, so a high level whatever is always better than a low level anything.
> <snip>
> I also find it weird in the opposite sense. My fighter is pouring points into blacksmithing. In order to finish a masterwork plate, I need a couple of extra ranks. So I go to the nearest hill, start to kill goblins, and then I'll be able to craft it.




You're right that there is some dissonance (and dissociation) in level-based systems. But it's really a minor issue under most circumstances. You'd really have to set your expectations on a razor's edge for it to be of any significance. The sage may have a fairly decent BAB in order to get the skill levels you want... but he's got a Str of 6, isn't wearing armor, has a Con of 8, and is only armed with his parchment-trimming knife. A party of adventurers can pretty easily work him over.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I haven't got time to take up the current NPC challenge.. but I'd solve it the same way 4E does - use DM fiat. The subtle difference being that I'd create a sage class that never gains BAB, only Will save and skill points, Wizard spells solely from the divination school and d4 HP. I like some mechanical backup!




If you can handwave a unique class for a single NPC sage, you can handwave it for any 3e/4e monster/NPC.  Alice the Sage who can't fight a cat, she's in a unique "Alice the Sage" class.  Bob the Sage who can beat up an ogre and do backflips on tightropes, he's in a unique "Bob the Sage" class.  Trogdor the Burninator Ancient Red Dragon who just like to burninate and not able to cast any spells?  He's in the "Trogdor the Burninator Ancient Red Dragon" class.  All these classes, feats, races etc. etc. are all just abstractions that the DM uses to model the results he wants.  The fact that a "class" is created to suit just one particular case doesn't mean it's any more meaningful than a simple handwave.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Unless I miss my guess, we *are* talking about a fantasy trope world - or at least a medieval one - and not a modern one in which Paul Chen would matter. As far as Masamune goes, who's to say? Did he have some training in the use of the sword as well as the forging of them? And how seasoned are we talking about in D&D levels? 3rd level? 7th level? 10th level? How many seasons does it take to be seasoned?




The fantasy trope might work for the town Blacksmith, or maybe the woodcutter, but will fail for the world's best glassblower, or silkweaver, or scribe.

A level 3 fighter is damn seasoned by D&D standards. Really depends on which edition you play, but most seasoned soldier's that came in leadership feat followers and the like are under 3rd level. 3rd is roughly the CR of a ogre. It's also 1 more than a panther. So we are talking about soldiers seasoned enough to defeat a panther, or stand a chance against an ogre. That kind of seasoned.

A 10th level fighter is, in D&D, far beyond "normal mortal" range. He is a legend hero who can defeat Dire Lions and Seven Headed Hydras like Hercules, he can fall from a tower and not dying, he can jump astonishing distances, tame Pegaus, survive Basilisks and Medusas, fights Rakshashas, Devils and Dragons, he can mow through a mob of enemy grunts...  That's not a seasoned soldier who has been in a few war campaigns, killed several enemy soldiers, and won a couple battles. It's a mighty heroe.

So the high level glassblower might not be able to defeat the mighty level 10 Beowulf, but he can kill a war veteran soldier that went to conquer holy land in the Crusade and came back as a seasoned warrior.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 29, 2012)

triqui said:


> The fantasy trope might work for the town Blacksmith, or maybe the woodcutter, but will fail for the world's best glassblower, or silkweaver, or scribe.
> 
> A level 3 fighter is damn seasoned by D&D standards. Really depends on which edition you play, but most seasoned soldier's that came in leadership feat followers and the like are under 3rd level. 3rd is roughly the CR of a ogre. It's also 1 more than a panther. So we are talking about soldiers seasoned enough to defeat a panther, or stand a chance against an ogre. That kind of seasoned.
> 
> ...




The NPC/monster rules in 3E were created in order to build combatants with varying abilities to fight. So that's what they tend to do, even if you bend them to other purposes. 

Most NPC artisans and socialites aren't equipped for battle anyway, so all the high level ones get is a some extra hit points that might let them last long enough to run away.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I haven't got time to take up the current NPC challenge.. but I'd solve it the same way 4E does - use DM fiat. The subtle difference being that I'd create a sage class that never gains BAB, only Will save and skill points, Wizard spells solely from the divination school and d4 HP. I like some mechanical backup!




If you are going to use the Sage class more than once, this might be a good move. But if you are going to need some obscure special need NPC (let's say... a glassblower?) why would you go through all this process, and needing  that much prep time, just to make a class you'll use once, and only once, in a very specific setting, in your whole career? Why not just handweave it enterelly? "This is Bob the glassblower, he has +15 in glassblowing. He sucks at fighting, so he is +0 att, +1d3-1 dmg, and 5hp, with AC 10, in the case it ever needs a combat stat.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that B/X _does_ have magic resistance?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...




Dragons did have Magic Resistance: Standard in 1st edition. 

2nd edition did not introduce Magic Resistance. 

If you have access to the 1st Edition Monster Manual you will find on page 33, example Red Dragon, that it has Magic Resistance: Standard. 

You do realize that things such as Blindsight, feats etc were in reference to 3rd edition because we were on the topic of previous editions. 

Also 1st edition dragons had sight, hearing, and smell so keen that they could detect hidden and invisible creatures, they can cause PC's to panic, they can use their breath weapon 3/day.

I know what 1st edition and 2nd edition dragons have. They were still a match for a party even back then.


----------



## triqui (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I know what 1st edition and 2nd edition dragons have. There were still a match for a party even back then.




Of course they were. Dragons, as Beholders, Chimeras, and other monsters, have always been solo monsters. They just didn't have the term invented. Just like "Runequest" was "simulationist" even before "simulationism" term was invented.

The point of normalizing the terminology is to make it easier to know what we are talking about, rationalize about it, discuss it, and build rules for it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I know what 1st edition and 2nd edition dragons have. They were still a match for a party even back then.



So they were solo monsters?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Dragons did have Magic Resistance: Standard in 1st edition....
> If you have access to the 1st Edition Monster Manual you will find on page 33, example Red Dragon, that it has Magic Resistance: Standard.



You know that means basically 0%, right?  It's the default, also known as "saving throws."  Contrast w/ Jubilex and Orcus, and compare with other monsters in the book.

(Yes, magic/spell resistance was around in 1e.  However, _dragons_ first gained magic resistance in 2e is what I think the other poster meant.  Also, of note, dragons in 1e were pretty often non-challenging.  The FR grey box had some rules to beef them up, and 2e upped their power _very_ substantially as a response to some rather anticlimactic dragon fights.  IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)

-O


----------



## billd91 (Aug 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> (IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)
> 
> -O




2e made it generally easier for most characters to penetrate SR. In 1e, it dropped 5% for every level past 11th. It *was raised* 5% for each level below 11th. And since most games probably didn't get too far past 11th level... 1e would have generally been harder.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> You know that means basically 0%, right?  It's the default, also known as "saving throws."  Contrast w/ Jubilex and Orcus, and compare with other monsters in the book.
> 
> (Yes, magic/spell resistance was around in 1e.  However, _dragons_ first gained magic resistance in 2e is what I think the other poster meant.  Also, of note, dragons in 1e were pretty often non-challenging.  The FR grey box had some rules to beef them up, and 2e upped their power _very_ substantially as a response to some rather anticlimactic dragon fights.  IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)
> 
> -O




I understand that but what I was saying was the Magic Resistance was a concept back in 1st edition .

I also know that dragons did get a boost in 2nd edition but so did PC's. PC's were not as powerful in 1st edition so a single dragon was still a challenge for a group of PC's. 

When you look at creature design for a specific edition then you also need to look at the PC's as well. 

Also you need to understand that certain races could only attain a certain amount of levels in 1st edition so they weren't packing a lot of power so the dragons of that edition were enough of a challenge to a group of PC's.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 29, 2012)

billd91 said:


> 2e made it generally easier for most characters to penetrate SR. In 1e, it dropped 5% for every level past 11th. It *was raised* 5% for each level below 11th. And since most games probably didn't get too far past 11th level... 1e would have generally been harder.



Yeah, I tended to run higher-level games when I ran 2e.  _Back then_, it sure seemed better.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I understand that but what I was saying was the Magic Resistance was a concept back in 1st edition .



OK, but I don't think that was the other poster's point. 



> I also know that dragons did get a boost in 2nd edition but so did PC's. PC's were not as powerful in 1st edition so a single dragon was still a challenge for a group of PC's.
> 
> When you look at creature design for a specific edition then you also need to look at the PC's as well.
> 
> Also you need to understand that certain races could only attain a certain amount of levels in 1st edition so they weren't packing a lot of power so the dragons of that edition were enough of a challenge to a group of PC's.



I don't think this is really the case.  The only sense in which a 2e character was more powerful was in a kit - which was often (*cough*bladesinger*cough) fairly innocuous for power levels.  (2e characters also advance slower, as a general rule due to the dilution of the XP-for-GP rules.)  Clerics have limited spell selections, wizards' spell damages were capped rather than uncapped, etc.  And then there was Unearthed Arcana*...  Which more or less neutered level caps and introduced PC races with spell resistance who could summon earth elementals.  *Settings *increased power, but that's not the core game; 2e was in many ways designed to reduce the desire for high-powered characters.  (Hi, Rath!)

Why would you say 1e characters were less powerful?  IME, it was the opposite.

-O


* No, when I ran a 1e campaign a few years back, I didn't allow about 95% of that book.  But it undeniably exists and far outstrips anything that's not setting-specific in 2e.


----------



## nightwalker450 (Aug 29, 2012)

Fran the elderly seamstress should be like this...

She can sew, she does it very well. Character complete.

I don't need combat stats, unless you plan on fighting her.  Chances are though, she doesn't fight and you can do whatever you want with her if you choose to go that route.

Guess what she's a minion with awesome sewing skills.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

Obryn said:


> OK, but I don't think that was the other poster's point.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is really the case.  The only sense in which a 2e character was more powerful was in a kit - which was often (*cough*bladesinger*cough) fairly innocuous for power levels.  (2e characters also advance slower, as a general rule due to the dilution of the XP-for-GP rules.)  Clerics have limited spell selections, wizards' spell damages were capped rather than uncapped, etc.  And then there was Unearthed Arcana*...  Which more or less neutered level caps and introduced PC races with spell resistance who could summon earth elementals.  *Settings *increased power, but that's not the core game; 2e was in many ways designed to reduce the desire for high-powered characters.  (Hi, Rath!)
> ...




You do realize that a dwarf for instance, had to have above a 17 strength just to be able to go past 7th level and even then that only allowed him to get to 8th. 

Along with that, not every race had the option of being every class but those options weren't earth shattering and I still say 2nd edition made PC's more powerful. 

I understand that Unearthed Arcana gave more options but right now we are talking about the core game.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 29, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> You do realize that a dwarf for instance, had to have above a 17 strength just to be able to go past 7th level and even then that only allowed him to get to 8th.
> 
> Along with that, not every race had the option of being every class but those options weren't earth shattering and I still say 2nd edition made PC's more powerful.
> 
> I understand that Unearthed Arcana gave more options but right now we are talking about the core game.



Yes, I know about racial level limits.  That's part of power levels, sure, but it's far from the whole story.  (And what's with the "you do realize" bit?  If it's about 1e, you can basically take it as a given that I "realize" it.)

I'm still perplexed by your conviction that 2e characters were more powerful.  It can't only be because demihumans could advance to about the same place they could under 1e w/ Unearthed Arcana?  I need more evidence than that. 

Reduction in PCs' power level was part of the whole point of 2e's design.  Really, the PHB and DMG are pretty clear here.  TSR gave up on that within a few years (it turns out the average gamer doesn't _want_ to play Rath), but those power boosts were mostly in the various books in the setting diaspora - Dark Sun, the sea of FR Specialty Priests, etc.

-O


----------



## Gryph (Aug 29, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.




Overall, I prefer 4e monster design to any previous version, but this I agree with. Five times or four times the hp of a normal creature of the same level can really end up feeling long and wonky in a lot of cases.

Gary Gygax writing on this board (and others) said one of his changes for his planned 2e of D&D would make more use of HD sizes for creatures while leaving the level math alone.

So instead of the standard d8 for monster hit dice, some creatures would be weaker and roll multiple d4 or d6 for hp and some tougher and larger creatures would roll d10 or d12 and possibly up to d20 per HD. I think this is a scaling that should be given some consideration.

A goblin chief who is level 2 or 3 but gets d10 hp per level instead of a standard goblins d6 would be noticebly tougher without causing fights to go into a completely different pacing level.

Anyway, I think it deserves a little number crunching to see if it could be useable in the return to flattened math world.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 29, 2012)

Gryph said:


> Overall, I prefer 4e monster design to any previous version, but this I agree with. Five times or four times the hp of a normal creature of the same level can really end up feeling long and wonky in a lot of cases.
> 
> Gary Gygax writing on this board (and others) said one of his changes for his planned 2e of D&D would make more use of HD sizes for creatures while leaving the level math alone.
> 
> ...




It is entirely calculable just by taking the die roll average. A goblin that uses d10s would have 2 hp more per HD than one using a d6. If you want a monster to have more/less hp, just give him more/less hp. Fiddling around with dice size for tougher/weaker monsters seems like adding variance just for the sake of it.

The new edition should just decouple hp/HD from attack/defense stats.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 29, 2012)

Right now I am working on a campaign that is influenced by the following:


Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Game of Thrones.
Nightmare Creatures (PC game).
Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Angel.
The Dark Tower Series.
The Walking Dead.
Now as of right now I am using the Pathfinder system and I am working on an NPC who is a Gunslinger/Necromancer. Pathfinder/3rd edition is the only edition that find will allow me to create this NPC using the actual mechanics. 



Sometimes I like straight up, simple games and then at other times I like a rather strange variety and the 3rd edition style of monster design allows me to freely do this the best, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 29, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> It is entirely calculable just by taking the die roll average. A goblin that uses d10s would have 2 hp more per HD than one using a d6. If you want a monster to have more/less hp, just give him more/less hp. Fiddling around with dice size for tougher/weaker monsters seems like adding variance just for the sake of it.
> 
> The new edition should just decouple hp/HD from attack/defense stats.




Fair enough and you are right. If you want no variance then using hp/level values for the same type of monster works and 4e did this a little bit with monster roles and hp/level. I like the variability of using HD to generate hp for monsters. 

I guess I'd like to see a couple of things in monster design. One, hit points with a smoother gradation of values between monsters of the same general type. 3 hp for kobold footsoldier and 45 hp for kobold chief is a jump way beyond the two sigma deviation for gaussian distribution. If printed that way in the MM that means every Kobold tribe of 100-150 members will have a chief who is a 1-100,00 type physical specimen. Two, I'd also like to see a little more variation in expected damage between creatures of the same level and general type. 25% damage bonus for 10% penalty in hit chance just adds enough swinginess to brutes in 4e to even out their damage with other monster roles, mostly.

So I guess I agree with you on the decoupling, but I mean it in some very specific ways


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 29, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> This is why I made npc my way instead of the rules...






Chris_Nightwing said:


> I haven't got time to take up the current NPC challenge.. but I'd solve it the same way 4E does - use DM fiat.





nightwalker450 said:


> Fran the elderly seamstress should be like this...
> 
> She can sew, she does it very well. Character complete.
> 
> I don't need combat stats, unless you plan on fighting her.




Oberoni fallacy.  Just because you can go far enough round the houses to house rule 3.X into some sense of coherence here doesn't mean that 3.X isn't broken.  It means you can fix it with a house rule.

4e on the other hand explicitely tells you to use DM Fiat - set what the monster can do and then reflect that in the numbers.  This isn't houseruling anything.



slobo777 said:


> The NPC/monster rules in 3E were created in order to build combatants with varying abilities to fight. So that's what they tend to do, even if you bend them to other purposes.






triqui said:


> Actually this is one of the common dissonances of  games with levels. Power is attached to level, so a high level whatever  is always better than a low level anything.




Actually, no.  This is one of the dissonances with games with levels _that try to be simulationist._  Level works as a way of keeping track of the power of adventurers - but levels designed for adventurers aren't a good way of measuring the ability of people who aren't.



Obryn said:


> Why would you say 1e characters were less powerful?  IME, it was the opposite.




Off the top of my head:

1e fighter didn't get Weapon Specialisation without Unearthed Arcana.  2e fighter could buy weapon specialisation, meaning he got +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 50% more attacks at low level.  Clearly more powerful than a 1e fighter not using UA.

1e 1st level wizard could cast 1 spell per day - and hoped it was Sleep.  2e first level wizard could specialise for 2 spells per day - and could get Phantasmal Forces and other stuff off the illusionist list.

If you wanted a low level arcane caster in 2e you could pick the bard instead of the wizard.  He only gained 1st level spells at 1250 XP - but he had more hit dice, better hit dice, armour, a few thief skills, and could carry weapons worth having.  The wizard only started to pull away _as a magic user_ at fifth level.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 30, 2012)

slobster said:


> Because the monster generation guidelines are meant to give you a rock-solid, usable baseline stat block which you then adjust according to what you desire from the particular monster. It tells you what, behind the curtain, the math system is expecting from a monster of the role, level, and tag. Your job, and it's a necessary one, is to tailor it to fit the final monster concept, which is going to include deviating from the base stat block that your monster guidelines spat out.




I would go further and say monster creation guidelines are an explicit invitation to the DM to be a game designer. As such there is a world of difference between adjusting a monster to better fit a game design concept and fudging a die roll or ignoring character death from hit point loss in terms of "DM cheating".


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Sometimes I like straight up, simple games and then at other times I like a rather strange variety and the 3rd edition style of monster design allows me to freely do this the best, at least in my opinion.




That at least we can agree upon. Now if nobody ever told another person that they were wrong for preferring the former to the latter (or verse vica), then we'd be getting somewhere.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Dragons did have Magic Resistance: Standard in 1st edition.
> 
> 2nd edition did not introduce Magic Resistance.



2nd ed didn't introduce magic resistance. It introduced magic resistance for dragons.

As you say, dragons in 1st ed AD&D had "Magic Resistance: Standard". So did orcs. Standard magic resistance means _none_.



ForeverSlayer said:


> If you have access to the 1st Edition Monster Manual you will find on page 33, example Red Dragon, that it has Magic Resistance: Standard.



Yes. So do orcs, goblins, bandits, merchants and owlbears. It means "none" - normal saving throws only.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Also 1st edition dragons had sight, hearing, and smell so keen that they could detect hidden and invisible creatures, they can cause PC's to panic, they can use their breath weapon 3/day.



Yes. I mentioned those things in my post. The fear is HD-limited. The breath weapon is used on a % chance only.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I know what 1st edition and 2nd edition dragons have. They were still a match for a party even back then.





ForeverSlayer said:


> PC's were not as powerful in 1st edition so a single dragon was still a challenge for a group of PC's.



1st ed dragons are a threat to a party only because of their breath weapons. Their physical attacks are rather weak. (There is a good article discussing this in Best of Dragon Magazine 3 - I can't remember the original Dragon number that it was in.)


----------



## bbjore (Aug 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Now as of right now I am using the Pathfinder system and I am working on an NPC who is a Gunslinger/Necromancer. Pathfinder/3rd edition is the only edition that find will allow me to create this NPC using the actual mechanics.




For the record. This is easily done in 4E, and I would be able to do it in five minutes with the cheat sheet I prepared, using the game's actual mechanics. I get that you may not like the flavor of the results because an NPC build of the concept doesn't look exactly like a PC build of the concept, but please don't say Pathfinder/3rd is the only system, because there are a ton of them out there.

I get that having PCs and NPCs not follow the same rules can be jarring and make the game's world seem less realistic, because not everything builds from the same rules, and not everything works the same way. Extra levels of abstractions on the DM's side, especially those found in 4E, can really ruin immersion for some people. I understand those complaints, and see them in some of my players. But other games do support strange variety. Heck the 4E engine supported Gamma World which is about as weird as you can get.

I think a lot of the debate in this thread is more about how much abstraction people are willing to accept on either side of the table, and perhaps less about specific monster design. There's a pretty heavy divide between people who are more simulationist and value universal mechanics which grow from the proposed rules of the game world versus individuals who will accept a much greater level of abstraction if it serves their purposes. For instance narrativist or tactical gamers readily see the in game monster as a separate entity from the stat block, for them the in-game monster is its fluff. Simulationists want the stat block to reflect the monster as accurately as possible. For them, the in game monster is its crunch.

It'll be interesting to see how 5E bridges that gap.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Why is this a problem? Keep in mind that this is a rougher and more dangerous world that most of us have experience with. These aren't computer programmers or office workers who can live exceptionally sedentary lives.





billd91 said:


> Unless I miss my guess, we *are* talking about a fantasy trope world





billd91 said:


> And yes, a highly skilled blacksmith probably should kick a 3rd level fighters ass up and down the street.



If this is the much-vaunted flexibility and playstyle neutrality of 3E, then count me out! The notion that even a highly skill blacksmith would be a match in swordplay for a skilled noble strike me as unverisimilitudinous in the extreme. And extremely dictating of the possible fantasy worlds the game can support.



slobster said:


> Even if what you are saying is true, chopping wood and carrying in water from the well does not equate to having the wherewithal in combat to land telling blows with the speed of a swordsmaster. Else you are faced with the problem that your silk weaver, because he does chores regularly, is more capable in a fight than your third level rogue, who grew up fighting viciously over scraps on the mean streets and spent the last few years delving into ancient crypts filled with unspeakable evil for a living.



Completely agreed.



billd91 said:


> You're right that there is some dissonance (and dissociation) in level-based systems. But it's really a minor issue under most circumstances. You'd really have to set your expectations on a razor's edge for it to be of any significance.



Whereas anyone of even half-reasonable sensibility would be outraged by martial encounter powers? Seriously, those of use who find 3E's NPC build rules ridiculous don't have our expecations "set on a razor's edge". We just have different expectations from yours.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Right now I am working on a campaign that is influenced by the following:
> 
> 
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
> ...



Shoot, now you just made me feel bad about my Game of Thrones meets Slumdog Millionaire campaign idea. Have to go think of some more influences.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 1e fighter didn't get Weapon Specialisation without Unearthed Arcana.  2e fighter could buy weapon specialisation, meaning he got +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 50% more attacks at low level.  Clearly more powerful than a 1e fighter not using UA.
> 
> 1e 1st level wizard could cast 1 spell per day - and hoped it was Sleep.  2e first level wizard could specialise for 2 spells per day - and could get Phantasmal Forces and other stuff off the illusionist list.
> 
> If you wanted a low level arcane caster in 2e you could pick the bard instead of the wizard.  He only gained 1st level spells at 1250 XP - but he had more hit dice, better hit dice, armour, a few thief skills, and could carry weapons worth having.  The wizard only started to pull away _as a magic user_ at fifth level.



I concede that Unearthed Arcana makes a big difference; I was considering it a "core book" along with 2e's various "Complete X" books, which is maybe dirty pool since it's kind of notorious (then again, so is 2e's Complete Book of Elf-Munchkinism).  I think weapon specialization was one of the few things in that book that _isn't_ nearly broken levels of overpowered. 

(1) Yep, weapon specialization absolutely makes a difference.  They lose the "sweep" ability against low-level monsters, though.  If you are using the UA specialization rules, there's double-specialization, though...

(2) At the same time, Wizard spells had some changes happen to them which reduced them in power.  The main example I can think of is Fireball, which was capped at 10d6.

(3) Yeah, the bard was pretty sweet in 2e.  The assassin and monk were pretty good in 1e. 

-O


----------



## Dannager (Aug 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Pathfinder/3rd edition is the only edition that find will allow me to create this NPC using the actual mechanics.




That is false.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Whereas anyone of even half-reasonable sensibility would be outraged by martial encounter powers?




Glad we agree. 



pemerton said:


> Seriously, those of use who find 3E's NPC build rules ridiculous don't have our expecations "set on a razor's edge". We just have different expectations from yours.




The whole 4e math structure is balanced on a razor's edge, otherwise there wouldn't be so much consternation about feat taxes and math fixes. And I think the game's narrative space suffers for it.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 30, 2012)

billd91 said:


> The whole 4e math structure is balanced on a razor's edge, otherwise there wouldn't be so much consternation about feat taxes and math fixes. And I think the game's narrative space suffers for it.




You know, lets ignore whether or not 4E's math is based on a razor edge (it's not) or whether or not feat taxes are a good idea (they aren't, and never have been in any edition).  

How does this damage the "narrative space?"  I mean in what way does having solid mathematics cause the game to lose narrative space?  Does the game gain additional narrative options when you have classes and options that are obviously terrible (the fighter next to the warblade, the ranger next to the druid, the monk next to an actual PC class)?  Does the narrative space decrease if on-level monsters provide appropriate challenges for parties?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 30, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> You know, lets ignore whether or not 4E's math is based on a razor edge (it's not) or whether or not feat taxes are a good idea (they aren't, and never have been in any edition).
> 
> How does this damage the "narrative space?"  I mean in what way does having solid mathematics cause the game to lose narrative space?  Does the game gain additional narrative options when you have classes and options that are obviously terrible (the fighter next to the warblade, the ranger next to the druid, the monk next to an actual PC class)?  Does the narrative space decrease if on-level monsters provide appropriate challenges for parties?




In games with more tolerance (like 1e/2e) and fuzzier balance, you have more options for groups adventuring with varying levels and capabilities. We used to run with characters ranging from 14th to 8th level back in 1e without appreciable problems. The math was bounded compared to 3e/4e so saving throws never were utterly out of reach, nor were defenses too good to hit. You can run a Fellowship of the Ring-style party in 1e fairly easily with a couple of high level characters, a few mid levels, and a few low levels and the low level characters will have more survivability and pull more weight than in either 3e or 4e.

In 3e and 4e (and I'd even say it's more of a problem with 4e because of the scaling of the defenses with attack values, even for mooks), that sort of game is a lot harder to accomplish. That style of narrative - gone.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

billd91 said:


> The whole 4e math structure is balanced on a razor's edge, otherwise there wouldn't be so much consternation about feat taxes and math fixes.





GreyICE said:


> You know, lets ignore whether or not 4E's math is based on a razor edge (it's not)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> How does this damage the "narrative space?"



I think GreyICE's reply here captures the important issues.

To the extent that 4e's math is balanced on a razor's edge, or a balance beam, or a 6" wide plank, what does this mean? It means that the game defaults to its smoothest play when the typical combatant has about a 60% chance of hitting a target.

But that's just a default. There can be any number of reasons for departing from it. The last combat encounter that I ran, for example, involved 2 22nd level Death Giants, plus a 17th level Eidolon, against a party of 5 17th level PCs - and this in a game in which we don't use Expertise feats, so the PCs are a point or two behind the maths even against matched-level opponents. The high defences of the Death Giants made itself evident in the course of the combat, as I could predict that it would, and that was part of the effect that I was looking for. I wouldn't do it for every fight - my default encounter is with larger numbers of equal or lower level combatants - but as a one-off to achieve a particular feel, it worked.

And this, I think, goes to the point about "narrative space". 4e's "razor edge" balance is, in reality, nothing more than transparent mathematics: it is easy to estimate hit/miss ratios, and therefore think about pacing considerations, because every level of creature is associated with a particular average defence number. It occupies the same functional space as, for example, the pass/fail cycle for setting DCs in HeroQuest revised. (Some of this HQrev stuff was then reproduced by Robin Laws in his work on the 4e DMG2. My disappointment with that is that no real effort was made to integrate it tightly with the 4e action resolution and monster building mechanics, which are very different from HQ.)

And reliable pacing tools, of course, do no damage to the narrative space at all - they improve it!


EDIT:



billd91 said:


> In games with more tolerance (like 1e/2e) and fuzzier balance, you have more options for groups adventuring with varying levels and capabilities.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is nothing to do with "razor edge balance". This is about scaling. AD&D has comparatively little scaling of AC and saving throw DCs. (Although Vault of the Drow comes up with a story kludge - magical drow items - to produce de facto scaling AC for the drow opponents - ACs well into the single digit negatives are rife, which no PC below 10th level would have any reliable chance of hitting.)

Change 4e by dropping the +half per level to attacks and defences, and it will run much the same as AD&D in combat. (If you also dropped the +half per level to skills you would have to revise the DCs per level table by the same modification.) I'm pretty sure there are some 4e players on these boards who do just that!

In other words, I think it is pretty trivial to eleminate the scaling from 4e and thereby render it comparable in this respect to AD&D. And the triviality is a direct consequence of the maths being transparent.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> In other words, I think it is pretty trivial to eleminate the scaling from 4e and thereby render it comparable in this respect to AD&D. And the triviality is a direct consequence of the maths being transparent.



Jumping off the 4e treadmill would not be difficult, and it's pretty close to what 5e 'bounded accuracy' does.  It just removes much of the illusion of advancement, and advancement is a big part of the D&D mystique.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Jumping off the 4e treadmill would not be difficult, and it's pretty close to what 5e 'bounded accuracy' does.  It just removes much of the illusion of advancement, and advancement is a big part of the D&D mystique.



I actually posted on this very point in the "flat maths" thread:

The fun part of getting better in 4e isn't that the maths changes (it is flat, because of the uniformity and transparency of scaling); it's that the fiction changes. The fictional stakes become higher and more complex, although in many ways the mathematical stakes of action resolution remain largely the same throughout the game.

This is one of several respects in which 4e resembles some indie RPGs.​
4e makes it completely transparent that there is no "vertical" mechanical advancement - though there is some "horizontal" mechanical advancement (high level PCs become more complex to play). The fiction bears the entire weight of delivering any genuine experience of getting better - hence the importance of tiers to 4e play. One obvious failing of some of the 4e adventure offerings from WotC is that they don't deliver on this: there are epic-level encounters the stakes of which aren't really _epic_ at all.

But anyway, as I also said on the other thread, I think that D&Dnext will abandon this aspect of 4e, and will include "vertical" mechanical advancement (eg bonus items that aren't factored into "the maths"). What will be interesting to see will be whether they come up with other techniques for keeping combat interesting when success rates start to approach auto-hit or auto-miss.


----------



## triqui (Aug 30, 2012)

billd91 said:


> In games with more tolerance (like 1e/2e) and fuzzier balance, you have more options for groups adventuring with varying levels and capabilities. We used to run with characters ranging from 14th to 8th level back in 1e without appreciable problems. The math was bounded compared to 3e/4e so saving throws never were utterly out of reach, nor were defenses too good to hit. You can run a Fellowship of the Ring-style party in 1e fairly easily with a couple of high level characters, a few mid levels, and a few low levels and the low level characters will have more survivability and pull more weight than in either 3e or 4e.




That was part of the "perfect imbalance" mechanics in 2e and before. The game designers realized that some classes were much worse than others (rogues compared to wizards, for example) so they gave them a faster advancement. 3e made everybody use the same XP table, because, suposedly, the classes were all in the same power level now.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 30, 2012)

billd91 said:


> The whole 4e math structure is balanced on a razor's edge, otherwise there wouldn't be so much consternation about feat taxes and math fixes. And I think the game's narrative space suffers for it.




This is false.  The 4e math structure is robust and with a lot of tolerance - and probably more robust than any other edition of D&D.  The feat taxes are disliked mostly on aesthetic grounds - they stick out like a sore thumb.



pemerton said:


> And this, I think, goes to the point about "narrative space". 4e's "razor edge" balance is, in reality, nothing more than transparent mathematics: it is easy to estimate hit/miss ratios, and therefore think about pacing considerations, because every level of creature is associated with a particular average defence number. It occupies the same functional space as, for example, the pass/fail cycle for setting DCs in HeroQuest revised.
> 
> This is nothing to do with "razor edge balance". This is about scaling. AD&D has comparatively little scaling of AC and saving throw DCs.




This.  Drop the +1/2 per level bonus (and many do) and things work a lot more like they do in AD&D.



> (Some of this HQrev stuff was then reproduced by Robin Laws in his work on the 4e DMG2. My disappointment with that is that no real effort was made to integrate it tightly with the 4e action resolution and monster building mechanics, which are very different from HQ.)




Could you explain please?  I've never seen a copy of HQ and associate the name with a Descent style boardgame.


----------



## triqui (Aug 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Could you explain please?  I've never seen a copy of HQ and associate the name with a Descent style boardgame.



old heroquest was a board game.
New HeroQuest is a RPG set in Glorantha, the world of original RuneQuest. The system is quite narrative and freeform (you don't have abilities, skills...) You create your character writing a story, then you can use a few words from that story as "backgrounds" and give them a score. For example, you write "My character is a divine warrior from the Bear tribe, far in the north." then you can use "divine warrior", "bear tribe" and "northmen", and give them scores. If you have "divine warrior" 14, you have to roll 14 or less in anything that is related to a divine warrior (like fighting, or knowing religion stuff)

There is a thing called "mastery", which bassically means you have more than 20 in a score (so it's an autosuccess). If you have 25 in a score, then you have 5m1 (5 mastery 1). The rolls are always opposed, and you add "successes" for every mastery you have (sort of, but it's easier to explain that way). 
When you fight, you start to add your success margin, and then you can transform that into victory (damage, or whatever). You describe the action after  rolling, not before (so you don't say "i try to disarm him" then check the maneuver, but you roll the attack, and once you see the results, you decide if you disarm him, or wound him, or whatever)


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 30, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> If you can handwave a unique class for a single NPC sage, you can handwave it for any 3e/4e monster/NPC.  Alice the Sage who can't fight a cat, she's in a unique "Alice the Sage" class.  Bob the Sage who can beat up an ogre and do backflips on tightropes, he's in a unique "Bob the Sage" class.  Trogdor the Burninator Ancient Red Dragon who just like to burninate and not able to cast any spells?  He's in the "Trogdor the Burninator Ancient Red Dragon" class.  All these classes, feats, races etc. etc. are all just abstractions that the DM uses to model the results he wants.  The fact that a "class" is created to suit just one particular case doesn't mean it's any more meaningful than a simple handwave.






triqui said:


> If you are going to use the Sage class more than once, this might be a good move. But if you are going to need some obscure special need NPC (let's say... a glassblower?) why would you go through all this process, and needing  that much prep time, just to make a class you'll use once, and only once, in a very specific setting, in your whole career? Why not just handweave it enterelly? "This is Bob the glassblower, he has +15 in glassblowing. He sucks at fighting, so he is +0 att, +1d3-1 dmg, and 5hp, with AC 10, in the case it ever needs a combat stat.




See, there is a difference, and it comes down to whether or not you plan to use this sort of class again. For many NPCs, the existing 3E NPC classes weren't suitable, so in fact I did create an even more pathetic in combat class for my games.

I mean frankly, the real question is whether or not these NPCs will even take part in combat. If they are plot devices, leave them as that. If they might get into combat (you have to escort the sage somewhere) then flesh them out. All this talk about how difficult it is to create a master blacksmith NPC without giving them combat abilities is stupid if you never even intend to test their blacksmithing skill or combat prowess.

What I object to is creatures and NPCs that definitely will be in combat *should* follow the rules. But as I have said many times, and had greeted by derision several times, is that I am a physics-focused, process-based DM and player. I want the world to have rules that both parties follow, and I enjoy observing the interactions therein.

Edit: I will add one thing though.. If your master blacksmith has an incredible smithing skill, I think it's reasonable that the PCs have some expectation of his level, in the UNLIKELY EVENT that they want to murder him. Again, that's open world physics, rather than the gamist, CRPG style of shopkeepers you can't kill.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> 4e makes it completely transparent that there is no "vertical" mechanical advancement - though there is some "horizontal" mechanical advancement (high level PCs become more complex to play). The fiction bears the entire weight of delivering any genuine experience of getting better - hence the importance of tiers to 4e play. One obvious failing of some of the 4e adventure offerings from WotC is that they don't deliver on this: there are epic-level encounters the stakes of which aren't really _epic_ at all.



I would slant the argument slightly. 4e makes it relatively easy for the DM to choose how much of the PCs' "vertical" mechanical advancement he wants to make apparent over the course of his campaign. If he provides the PCs with appropriate challenges, then the PCs' "vertical" advancement becomes a matter of the fiction (orcs yesterday, giants today, demons tomorrow). However, if the rate at which the challenges escalate is slower than the rate at which the PCs gain levels, the PCs' vertical mechanical advancement becomes more obvious. In the extreme case, the PCs could still be fighting the same 1st-level opponents at 30th level that they fought when they were low-level characters. The PCs' vertical mechanical advancement becomes blatantly obvious in that case (though the fights would probably be completely un-challenging).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> What I object to is creatures and NPCs that definitely will be in combat *should* follow the rules. But as I have said many times, and had greeted by derision several times, is that I am a physics-focused, process-based DM and player. I want the world to have rules that both parties follow, and I enjoy observing the interactions therein.



I hope I haven't come across as derisive - that's not been my intention, although obviously I take a different approach from you.

I want to explore a little a bit these different approaches, if that's OK.

I GMed Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG for nearly 20 years. Rolemaster is very much a process-sim action resolution engine. But it has virtually no monster build rules. Because I had PCs with summoning spells based on levels, I worked out my ownlevel-based monster build tolerances for the relevant categories of creature (monstly animals and demons) in order to try to balance those spells, using some paradigmatic RM creatures as my baseline and tweaking other creatures around them. But this was purely metagame driven. As far as the fiction is concerned, monster build is like AD&D - you slap on the numbers that seem right for a monster's original, size, general toughness etc. There is none of the 3E-style "monster types as classes", feats, special traits etc to "explain" where all the numbers come from. The process simuation is confined to action resolution. So in RM, "following the rules" has a very definite meaning when it comes to action resolution, but really no meaning when it comes to monster building (other than the spell-balancing rules on animal and demon builds that I introduced into my own game).

Whereas 3E seems to me to make monster build into something like an aspect of action resolution - where the action is, I guess, the emergence of creatures within the ecology of the gameworld. I think this is a very particular approach to monster building. The only other RPG I can think of that approaches monster building like this is Classic Traveller, with its random creature generation tables, which are one aspect of its world design mechanics, and which are meant to be a "mechanics as physics" model of planetary ecology.

I'm curious if you think that this is a fair way to characterise 3E monster building rules - as really eliding the typical contrast between action resolution mechanics and build mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I would slant the argument slightly. 4e makes it relatively easy for the DM to choose how much of the PCs' "vertical" mechanical advancement he wants to make apparent over the course of his campaign. If he provides the PCs with appropriate challenges, then the PCs' "vertical" advancement becomes a matter of the fiction (orcs yesterday, giants today, demons tomorrow). However, if the rate at which the challenges escalate is slower than the rate at which the PCs gain levels, the PCs' vertical mechanical advancement becomes more obvious. In the extreme case, the PCs could still be fighting the same 1st-level opponents at 30th level that they fought when they were low-level characters. The PCs' vertical mechanical advancement becomes blatantly obvious in that case (though the fights would probably be completely un-challenging).



Fair point. I do a bit of this in my own game - at 1st level very many opponents were higher level (for the obvious reason that there is no other way but up!) whereas now, at 17th level, many opponents are 16th or lower.

But I do a lot of minions and swarms also, which in some ways act as a nice halfway between purely fictional advancement and actual mechanical advancement.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Could you explain please?  I've never seen a copy of HQ and associate the name with a Descent style boardgame.



     [MENTION=57948]triqui[/MENTION] gave a decent summary - PCs are lists of freeform descriptors with numbers next to them, action resolution is descriptor vs descriptor, and the benefits of broad vs narrow descriptors are regulated by the GM applying appropriate penalties to those broad descriptors that might overshadow more narrow descriptors on other players' PCs.

To elaborate on action resolution: it is d20 roll under, with results therefore being success, critical success, failure or critical failure. (Think RuneQuest, but with d20 rather than d%.) The "success level" of the two opponents are compared to get the overall result. As triqui said, a bonus of 21 is actually a bonus of 1m1, which means it's like a bonus of 1 (ie hard to roll under) except the mastery gives you an automatic "bump" of one "success level". (There are also Hero Points that can be spent to bump. And obviously if both opponents have masteries and/or spend Hero Points then the bumps can cancel one another out.)

There is a robust augment mechanic, and some descriptors serve mainly as augments (eg if you have the descriptor "Shining Armour 12", you are unlikely to actually use that very often in a check, but you can use it to augment other abilities - say your Knight 17 ability, if you find yourself in a joust). Relationships are often used as augments too: so my Love for Roslyn 14 might be used to augment my Knight ability in that joust if the agreed stakes of the joust are that the Black Knight will free the lovely Roslyn if I can unhorse him in 3 tilts at the list.

The opposed checks can be either simple contests - a single opposed check to determine success - or complex contests - a system not unlike skill challenges, though because there is active opposition it's about racking up a certain number of successes before the opponents, rather than about successes before failures. (I think this system is in fact one obvious inspiration for skill challenges.)

It is the same action resolution system for all conflicts - combat, non-combat, etc - with the appropriate abilities determined simply by the applicability of the descriptors.

What I've described above is found in HeroWars (the original version, set in Glorantha with a lot of example descriptors with strong Glorantha flavour) and HeroQuest first ed (a revision of HeroWars, still set in Glorantha). HeroQuest revised is presented as a generic narrativist adventure RPG. It's two main innovations on the earlier versions are (i) changing the way that successes are tallied for complex conflicts, and (ii) introducing the Pass/Fail cycle for setting the target numbers on the GM's side of conflict resolution. (These aren't strictly DCs - they are used for resolving the GM's die roll in conflict resolution.)

The basic idea of the Pass/Fail cycle is as set out in the 4e DMG 2 (Robin Laws has basically cut and pasted that discussion out of his HeroQuest revised rulebook). It factors into target number setting in a very simple way: every time the PCs succeed at a conflict, the target number for the next one goes up (there is a simple chart in the rulebook that scales these numbers relative to the PCs' own numbers), until eventually the PCs fail in a conflict, and then the target number goes back down. So the idea is that the desirable pacing of a pass/fail tension/release cycle will occur without anyone having to do anything except follow the target number rules and then roll the dice.

Because the idea that the PCs will (eventually) fail is built into this system, it has a lot of good advice on how to narrate failure as something other than a dead end (although I think the advice in Burning Wheel is even better).

It's interesting to note that this is actually the opposite of some 4e skill challenge advice, which says if the PCs fail the skill challenge make the next encounter _harder_. I think Robin Laws approach might be better - successes should rack up the tension, and failure should be followed by success rather than more failure, I think. I don't think I'm fully consistent with either approach in my own GMing practice.

Some other interesting features of HeroWars/Quest relevant to 4e are (i) that all meaningful advancement is in the fiction, not the mechanics; (ii) that the _stakes_ are purely fictional, too, as the actual action resolution mechanics are so simple and non-tactical (complex contests have some bells and whistles that allow a bit of tactics, but nowhere near the scale of 4e combat); (iii) that the GMs target numbers for the opposing checks in a conflict are set on a purely metagame basis (like the DC by level chart) which means that narration of opposition must be adapted to fit those numbers, rather than vice versa - a lot like a 4e skill challenge, in my view (and in my view this is also non-coincidental - I think it's pretty obvious that 4e skill challenges and DC rules were modelled in part on HeroWars/Quest-style complex conflict mechanics).

HW/Q is also one of the RPGs that I often bring to mind as a counterexample to claims like an RPG _must _have distinctive (and detailed) rules for combat compared to non-combat, or _must_ have action resolution based on stat+skill, or _must_ aspire to its mechanics being a "physics enging" of the gameworld.

That's probably a longer answer than you needed!, but might give you an idea of what I meant, and also why I see 4e as the most indie-ish version of D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 30, 2012)

On being able to play with PC's of differing levels.  

I realize that in 3e this would be very, very difficult to do.  AC and saves scale so quickly that a two or three level disparity between PC's would make a very large difference.  The lower level character would get whacked pretty much instantly.

But in 4e?  Really?  The only difference between 5 levels of monsters is what, HP and 2 points of defense?  Oh, and +5 on their attacks and +2 damage.

There is absolutely no reason a 15th level PC and an 11th level PC can't operate in the same theater in 4e.  The monsters don't scale so sharply.  The DC's are rocketing up every bump in CR like they do in 3e.

I'm not seeing how a spread level party in 4e would actually be difficult.  It shouldn't be.  4e's math is way too flat for it to be a real issue.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There is absolutely no reason a 15th level PC and an 11th level PC can't operate in the same theater in 4e.  The monsters don't scale so sharply.  The DC's are rocketing up every bump in CR like they do in 3e.




My feeling is a +2 on a PC in 4E has more impact than a similar +2 in 3E, due to extra rolling required in 4E, and because many of 3E's mechanics that work around attack/hit-points are not available in 4E.

Definitely you'll see much more advice in 4E to keep everything same level. Some of it is no doubt paranoia about breaking a precious magical balance (which isn't that fragile in practice). 

But some of the concern rings true - when our group's last 4E DM decided to spend encounter budget on some Level+4 monsters (as opposed to equal-level elites), we felt the difference - the fight worked out ok, but was less dynamic and fun that those that kept the monster levels within L+2 of the party.


----------



## triqui (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> What I object to is creatures and NPCs that definitely will be in combat *should* follow the rules. But as I have said many times, and had greeted by derision several times, is that I am a physics-focused, process-based DM and player. I want the world to have rules that both parties follow, and I enjoy observing the interactions therein.



Of course it should follow the rules. The 4e-style blacksmith also have AC and hitpoints, and die when hit and roll to attack. He is just built using a different approach, so he does not need to have 50 hp and BAB +8/+3 just to be able to have +15 in weaponcrafting.



> Edit: I will add one thing though.. If your master blacksmith has an incredible smithing skill, I think it's reasonable that the PCs have some expectation of his level, in the UNLIKELY EVENT that they want to murder him*. Again, that's open world physics, rather than the gamist, CRPG style of shopkeepers you can't kill.*



That's a cheap argument. You can kill, and interact, with 4e-style shopkeepers just as well as with 3e.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 30, 2012)

Hussar said:


> On being able to play with PC's of differing levels.
> 
> I realize that in 3e this would be very, very difficult to do. AC and saves scale so quickly that a two or three level disparity between PC's would make a very large difference. The lower level character would get whacked pretty much instantly.
> 
> ...




Its 5 points of defenses as well as the +5 to hit. That's the real rub for the 5 level split party the lower level members go from a system preferred 55% chance to hit to a 30% chance to hit and they are going to be hit in return about 80% of the time. It can get pretty brutal. 

Three level spread is about the tolerance point for the math. Though the higher hp in 4e does give you a little better margin for error.

The above assumes you are using encounters at the highest character level. If you use encounters at average party level +/- 2 you might comfortably handle a 5 level spread in the party but the higher level characters may get a bit bored from being consistently under-challenged.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 30, 2012)

triqui said:


> That's a cheap argument. You can kill, and interact, with 4e-style shopkeepers just as well as with 3e.




No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).

In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off, and I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing. The DM has fiat though, and where in 3E, if he did either of these things I'd understand he was violating the mechanics, in 4E he just can, and I have to deal with it. In my opinion, 'a wizard did it' style DMing violates the social contract of the game, and is no fun (unless it's for a laugh, of course). 3E let's me be pissed off at the DM, 4E tells me to shut up and go back to my player mechanics where I belong.

Obviously an ideal system would be more nuanced, and the amazing blacksmith would have skills based on his age and experiences. As a player I would be able to discern his level, and in turn recognise that by investing all that time in smithing he probably wasn't terrible in combat, but he wasn't as good as me, a guy who did that all his life instead of smithing. He definitely hasn't had time to read up on arcane lore though, or even learn to walk a tightrope.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess *how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD *(which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).




But this is exactly what makes no sense for me and violates my sense of versimilitude (since everybody loves that word so much ).  Blacksmithing ability (or underwater basketweaving ability for that matter) and combat ability should not be correlated.  When I go talk to my head computer tech guy in my workplace, I don't expect him to be able to throw darts really well or resist poison really well just because he's good at computers.

The whole idea of classes (essentially having a bunch of correlated abilities) is inherently versimiltude-breaking.  It's a _useful _model for making PCs and for balancing when designing games but to apply it to everything and everybody in the gameworld seems to me to be an over-application of the model.

Basically, what happens when you apply a class model to the entire world is that adventurer abilities becomes over-correlated with non-adventurer abilities.  Singing ability becomes correlated with hitting ability, with spellcasting ability, with toughness (hp), with ability to shrug off disease etc. etc.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).
> 
> In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off, and I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing. The DM has fiat though, and where in 3E, if he did either of these things I'd understand he was violating the mechanics, in 4E he just can, and I have to deal with it. In my opinion, 'a wizard did it' style DMing violates the social contract of the game, and is no fun (unless it's for a laugh, of course). 3E let's me be pissed off at the DM, 4E tells me to shut up and go back to my player mechanics where I belong.
> 
> Obviously an ideal system would be more nuanced, and the amazing blacksmith would have skills based on his age and experiences. As a player I would be able to discern his level, and in turn recognise that by investing all that time in smithing he probably wasn't terrible in combat, but he wasn't as good as me, a guy who did that all his life instead of smithing. He definitely hasn't had time to read up on arcane lore though, or even learn to walk a tightrope.




I guess it's a style thing; but, the one player practice that irritates me to know end is trying to use knowledge of game mechanics to reverse engineer a monster or NPC. 

There is a wide range of stories that could generate a master blacksmith. He could be a serf, effectively chained to his forge who was never allowed to swing his hammer in anger who eventually escaped and opened his own forge.

 He could have been a traditional apprentice trained from a youth who engaged in a few youthful tussles but still has no meaningful combat skill. 

Maybe he was a march lords retainer and spent some time manning the walls against particularly vicious attacks but mostly was too valuable to take from the forge repairing arms and parts for the seige engines. 

He could have been the armorer for a mercenary company and fought in skirmishes and battles almost as much as he smithed until he left the troop. 

He could even have been a Perrin Goldeneyes type who started as an apprentice and destiny forced him to adventurer for a time before he returned home to take up his hammer again. In which case he is much more dangerous than anyone would expect from a blacksmith.

Any of those various smiths could now be at the anvil in the town where the adventurers meet him and I don't want the fact of his status as a master smith to imply anything else about him. If the players want to gauge whether he might be competent in combat they can explore the world and find out or they can take their chances and pick a fight. If they pick a fight assuming he's just a craftsman than a lot of times they will be right and sometimes they will be brutally disabused of their assumptions.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: when the world follows a rigid sort of mechanical structure, one where the players can and should make conclusions from very small mechanical facts, there is very little incentive to discover the world around him. The effect at its simplest is Troll lets use fire and acid (at least rooted in legend). At its worst its, he can easily make masterwork weapons he must be a level 10 or 11 expert careful guys he can kick our asses. (not rooted in the fiction)

I appreciate when a game allows me to easily create an npc who looks a lot like a character. I like using pc-like villains in my games. I don't care to have the game require me to build every npc and monster like it was a pc. The pc rules are good at building adventurers they get twisted and broken trying to build commoners.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Edit: I will add one thing though.. If your master blacksmith has an incredible smithing skill, I think it's reasonable that the PCs have some expectation of his level, in the UNLIKELY EVENT that they want to murder him. Again, that's open world physics, rather than the gamist, CRPG style of shopkeepers you can't kill.




My PCs can kill almost any of my shopkeepers.  If they actually need to kill them I'll stat them as a low level minion or simply say "You killed him.  The witnesses scream and rush off to fetch the guard.  Now what?"  (Note: Does not apply to Cadric the One Armed of Cadric's Adventuring Supplies, the retired fighter who sells equipment of the sort he wishes he'd had before he lost his arm, Marcus the Blind Seer who sent an illusion to take his place because he foresaw the attack, or other people with equivalent backstories).

The PCs are professional and practiced killers.  The NPCs in question are probably unarmed and unarmoured, and normally at the outside are part of the militia.  The only question is whether the NPCs can run away.  The idea that Bob The Baker should be able to beat up the PCs just because he makes the best cakes in the kingdom is IMO silly.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off, and I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing.




And I'd be confused why you think that his level is something I'd know about in game.  For a hammer-off he has whatever level the DM wants based on his reputation.  I'd be pissed if he didn't match his reputation in the hammer-off or think that something weird was going on (either's possible).  But level measures something about adventurers and combat - I really don't get the idea that the best way for Tim the Sage to learn to use a sword is stay in the library and read more books.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, I mean maybe the Blacksmith is a pacifist, who never attacks anyone, and is forced to make weapons due to the king threatening his family.  He might be the best blacksmith in the world, distraught that his talents are being turned to violence, and absolutely incapable of taking on a random skeleton that wanders into his forge.  

I can't believe it's actually being argued that having proficiency in combat tied to proficiency in EVERY OTHER SKILL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a GOOD SYSTEM.  I mean if someone has 24 ranks of diplomacy he should have a BAB of at least 10?  

WHY?


Why should a master diplomat have a better chance to hit a monster than a 5th level warrior.  I get he's been around a LOT.  But he's a goddamn diplomat.  You could possibly rationalize him being good in combat, but to say that every master diplomat ever MUST be good in combat is absurdist.

Complaining that 4E lets the DM build characters they want to build is complaining about a GOOD THING.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Complaining that 4E lets the DM build characters they want to build is complaining about a GOOD THING.



Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.

The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing. The DM has fiat though, and where in 3E, if he did either of these things I'd understand he was violating the mechanics, in 4E he just can, and I have to deal with it.




Nope. In 3.x you could easily have, within the rules, a blacksmith whose combat abilities far exceed his blacksmithing abilities. Say, a level 9 fighter who never took any craft skills, who later retired and grabbed one level of expert for 3 ranks in craft (blacksmith). That is a completely by-the-rules NPC. 

You could, of course, do a similar thing in 4E.

In either case your problem isn't with the game system itself. Your problem is with the GM, who (maybe) is abusing his role as arbiter of the world to surprise you with a character who has far more combat proficiency than you had expected.

At it's worst, this sort of thing could happen as a vindictive "take that" from an annoyed GM. "Oh you attack the blacksmith for not selling at a discount? It turns out he's a retired soldier (post hoc justification) who kicks your ass!" At its best, this sort of thing is a way to add texture to NPCs who otherwise don't get a lot of attention. "As the goblins break past the barricade you are surprised to see the blacksmith step from his forge, swinging a bastard sword in one hand and his forge hammer in the other. 'Makes me feel young again!' he calls out at you, as he begins plugging the hole in the defensive line."

So I agree that it's important to have a good GM, one you trust. That's never really been in doubt. But giving the GM tools to run his campaign doesn't hurt the game, it's GMs who make mistakes that do that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2012)

We really got off track here, but all I want is a system that lets me make Monsters that will challange my PCs and NPCs that make sense.

And I want it to be easy and fully explained. No hiding rules and mechanics in fluff


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.




It's pretty clear that the GM and the players aren't on a level playing field. For instance, if my warrior wants to kill a goblin he rolls a d20 and goes through the familiar motions of resolving an attack. If the GM wants to kill a goblin she could summon forth Great Cthulu to rip the goblin's soul out through its belly button, and dance a merry jig on the ashes of its homeplane. Or any number of other things. 

I know, you're talking about NPC creation following a social contract where the GM is given the same toolbox as the players, but a greater freedom to use that toolbox. Is that correct? (my post above was half for humor, but half a serious point)

That's a valid way to approach GMing, but so is my way, which is that the GM is in charge of the game and is given pretty much unlimited power to run that game. It's advisable that she stay within the bounds of a limited toolbox, for a whole host of reasons. But if she decides that the fun would be enhanced by "breaking the rules", then her players should trust her to make that decision. In my experience, this leads to the best playing experience for everyone involved. So that's how I GM.

In other words, players use the character classes to generate characters because there needs to be a baseline for common power levels and because it's an enjoyable minigame. The GM uses the known capabilities of those character classes over the course of the game (i.e. monster creation guidelines) to create interesting opposition, but at some point reaches the system mastery and competence to start stepping outside the bounds of the monster creation guidelines when it would enhance the game. And she can do that, 'cuz she's omnipotent.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within.



_Some _editions of D&D, not all.  3.x is actually the outlier here, so saying it's the paradigm "D&D" works in is unwarranted.  Obviously, 4e does it differently, but it's far from alone.  If you look at (for example) T1, you'll see a wide variety of NPCs who break the class/level rules.  Check out the Tailor and his knives. 

If you want to talk about the paradigm *3e *works in, that's fine, but 3e is not the entirety of D&D.



> If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.



Why?

-O


----------



## D'karr (Aug 30, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> And I want it to be easy and fully explained. No hiding rules and mechanics in fluff




Can't XP but this, a million times this.  Looking for mechanics inside fluff is the most time wasting effort while gaming.


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> We really got off track here, but all I want is a system that lets me make Monsters that will challange my PCs and NPCs that make sense.
> 
> And I want it to be easy and fully explained. No hiding rules and mechanics in fluff




I do apologize for that.  But such is life on the forums, no?

In response to that sentiment, combined with the thread title. I agree. I want monster creation guidelines that are as easy as possible, that return an enemy of known power in comparison to the PCs, and that can be used by someone of a simulationist bent to create "organic" monsters. I don't believe that solo tags get in the way of that. Solo tags do offer a lot of benefits.

So I hope that we get both good monster creation and solo tags. (and in fact see them as complementary)


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.
> 
> The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.




A class system is not a _bad thing_.  It's a decent model for building PCs, but a party of PCs are a very small subset of the entire population of the gameworld.  No matter how different individual PCs are, they're essentially people who go out and do dangerous things.  It's not unreasonable for their adventuring/combat abilities to correlate with their other abilities.  Conceptually, PCs are more similar to each other than to most other individuals.  Having them share one method for character creation is not farfetched.  But to apply that same classed based method of character creation to all the NPCs in the gameworld would make a very odd population.  It would be as if the whole Earth was populated by US marines and special forces.  

IIRC, before 3e, D&D didn't even tried to apply the class model to all NPCs.  I remember 2nd ADD DMG saying classed individuals are special and most NPCs don't have classes and you should just give extra hps to special NPCs like kings and princes so stupid players can't just suddenly decide to kill the king and start a civil war.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). (snip)



This may be getting pretty far afield ... but why did he pick your (weaker) custom class instead of the Expert class?

For that matter, why does anyone pick the Commoner class?  It's not like Expert has any prereqs.  At the very least, multiclassing over to Expert would be an improvement, no?

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> IIRC, before 3e, D&D didn't even tried to apply the class model to all NPCs.  I remember 2nd ADD DMG saying classed individuals are special and most NPCs don't have classes and you should just give extra hps to special NPCs like kings and princes so stupid players can't just suddenly decide to kill the king and start a civil war.




That is most likely the. Est way


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.
> 
> The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.




I don't really understand this.  D&D has rules for creating a party of adventurers.    This party of adventurers gains skill and proficiency in combat as they travel, see the world, perform difficult tasks, and kill things.  

D&D has never had rules for creating a party of social climbers who gossip with other guests at the palace, create intricate plots to sabotage each other's social standing and try and win the most land and rights for their personal wealth off the favor of an aging and negligent king.  

Yet this party of adventurers coexists in a world with the social climbers who do exactly that.  And you think that both should follow the same rules?

Only 3E ever even TRIED to do that.  And in terms of simulationism?  Epic disaster.  Cats shredding commoners being the classic example, of course.  

In 4E the cat would be a non-combat pet or companion without any applicable stats for combat (except HP: 1) and probably some good perception and acrobatics scores.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 30, 2012)

Compared to the pre-3e editions, 4e is fairly strong on giving PCs and monsters the same stats. In 4e, monsters have the six attributes - str, dex, con, int, wis, cha - which is not the case in 1e or 2e. This consistency is a feature I really liked when I saw it for the first time in RuneQuest. It's kind of weird that in older editions we have no idea what the strength of a gryphon, or bulette or dragon is. We only know the numbers for giants, from the magic items.

However, even in older editions there are some stats that any creature must have to be a real D&D being, such as hit points, armor class, and so forth. You could have an orc that didn't have a character class or a strength score, but you couldn't have an orc that lacked a value for hit points.

EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.

EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"


----------



## D'karr (Aug 30, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.
> 
> EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"




LOL, my players never thought they needed a justification...  

In 1e there were definitely some "monsters" that are much better represented as hazards or traps.  I'm glad 4e did separate these.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 30, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> But this is exactly what makes no sense for me and violates my sense of versimilitude (since everybody loves that word so much ).  Blacksmithing ability (or underwater basketweaving ability for that matter) and combat ability should not be correlated.  When I go talk to my head computer tech guy in my workplace, I don't expect him to be able to throw darts really well or resist poison really well just because he's good at computers.
> 
> The whole idea of classes (essentially having a bunch of correlated abilities) is inherently versimiltude-breaking.  It's a _useful _model for making PCs and for balancing when designing games but to apply it to everything and everybody in the gameworld seems to me to be an over-application of the model.
> 
> Basically, what happens when you apply a class model to the entire world is that adventurer abilities becomes over-correlated with non-adventurer abilities.  Singing ability becomes correlated with hitting ability, with spellcasting ability, with toughness (hp), with ability to shrug off disease etc. etc.




I'll try saying this again, for the 15th time or so. I like simulation, I like mechanics that apply to players and NPCs and monsters alike. Levels are a useful way to measure experience and power. You DO NOT HAVE TO CORRELATE ALL THESE THINGS but 3E does. I am not defending 3E. I am defending simulationism against gamism/narrativism.



Gryph said:


> I guess it's a style thing; but, the one player practice that irritates me to know end is trying to use knowledge of game mechanics to reverse engineer a monster or NPC.
> 
> There is a wide range of stories that could generate a master blacksmith. He could be a serf, effectively chained to his forge who was never allowed to swing his hammer in anger who eventually escaped and opened his own forge.
> 
> ...




See above, but also consider that both 3E and 4E are flawed in that they don't allow PCs to make up characters that follow some of these archetypes. In 3E this is because you won't be able to do anything useful in combat as an NPC class. In 4E this is because you can only become good at stuff by gaining levels - and in fact levels dominate how good you are at stuff, and how good you are at all stuff all at once. 4E is much worse than 3E in terms of correlating all these features for player classes. 5E has a good chance to avoid it with flat math (but so far hasn't).



Neonchameleon said:


> My PCs can kill almost any of my shopkeepers.  If they actually need to kill them I'll stat them as a low level minion or simply say "You killed him.  The witnesses scream and rush off to fetch the guard.  Now what?"  (Note: Does not apply to Cadric the One Armed of Cadric's Adventuring Supplies, the retired fighter who sells equipment of the sort he wishes he'd had before he lost his arm, Marcus the Blind Seer who sent an illusion to take his place because he foresaw the attack, or other people with equivalent backstories).
> 
> The PCs are professional and practiced killers.  The NPCs in question are probably unarmed and unarmoured, and normally at the outside are part of the militia.  The only question is whether the NPCs can run away.  The idea that Bob The Baker should be able to beat up the PCs just because he makes the best cakes in the kingdom is IMO silly.
> 
> And I'd be confused why you think that his level is something I'd know about in game.  For a hammer-off he has whatever level the DM wants based on his reputation.  I'd be pissed if he didn't match his reputation in the hammer-off or think that something weird was going on (either's possible).  But level measures something about adventurers and combat - I really don't get the idea that the best way for Tim the Sage to learn to use a sword is stay in the library and read more books.




I agree with you about the reputation/hammer skill correlation, but again, read above. Things such as attacks and saves don't have to correlate with level, they just do, in 3E and 4E for players, in 3E for NPCs too. I stopped playing 3E a long time ago, I'm not advocating the same system, I am merely advocating the same approach: levels and simulation.



GreyICE said:


> Yeah, I mean maybe the Blacksmith is a pacifist, who never attacks anyone, and is forced to make weapons due to the king threatening his family.  He might be the best blacksmith in the world, distraught that his talents are being turned to violence, and absolutely incapable of taking on a random skeleton that wanders into his forge.
> 
> I can't believe it's actually being argued that having proficiency in combat tied to proficiency in EVERY OTHER SKILL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a GOOD SYSTEM.  I mean if someone has 24 ranks of diplomacy he should have a BAB of at least 10?
> 
> ...




Yeah basically see above, and I thoroughly agree with [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] ' point that it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.

Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yeah basically see above, and I thoroughly agree with [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] ' point that it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.
> 
> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.





Hell yeah!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> EDIT: That said, there were a few weird monsters, particularly in 1e, that lacked these stats. One example is the trilloch in the Fiend Folio, which has values of 'Nil' or 'Not applicable' for almost everything. Its Hit Dice and Armor Class are both 'Not applicable' for instance. I always felt there was something wrong with this type of entry, that these things weren't really monsters at all, and shouldn't pretend to be. The trilloch is more like a bizarre environmental effect. It's almost impossible to detect, makes non-intelligent creatures more likely to attack, and grants bonuses to all combatants' to hit and damage scores. In true sci-fi style, it feeds off the life force of the dying.
> 
> EDIT EDIT: Great excuse to start fights though. You can just punch someone in the face and claim a trilloch made you do it. "Don't you realise this whole area's infested with trillochs? Damn things are everywhere!"




Wow I am totaly going to try that


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.



I like CoC for exactly the same reason.
My last PC party was a football player, an air marshall, and a music student.
No reason a D&D party like that wouldn't be great.



> I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.



I think I'm in the same boat here. It's possible, but I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> See above, but also consider that both 3E and 4E are flawed in that they don't allow PCs to make up characters that follow some of these archetypes. In 3E this is because you won't be able to do anything useful in combat as an NPC class. In 4E this is because you can only become good at stuff by gaining levels - and in fact levels dominate how good you are at stuff, and how good you are at all stuff all at once. 4E is much worse than 3E in terms of correlating all these features for player classes. 5E has a good chance to avoid it with flat math (but so far hasn't).




If we want to shift the discussion this way then I agree with your point above. 3e and 4e (4e more than 3e) have rules for creating adventurers. They do, in fact, do a pretty poor job of creating a PC who mechanically reflects being an adventurer with great skill in some craft or profession. I think that even the 3e skill rules for such things were somewhat of a sop to what the 3e designers thought was a small share of the player base. The 4e designers clearly thought it was a really small part.

Its an interesting game design problem though. If such skills or abilities use the same character build resources as other parts of the pc build rules, they are almost always going to be suboptimal choices because they are unlikely to effect play that often. Point buy systems like HERO and GURPS have rich systems for creating characters like this and the cost is still swapping adventuring effectiveness for what is often flavor.

On the other hand a lot of folks seem to balk at something that looks handwavy (which I kinda of agree with most days). Like just writing master blacksmith as part of your pc background and then letting the player and dm negotiate what that means mechanically when it comes into play.

Maybe the backgrounds should include something like a pool of player option "everyman" skills (to borrow HERO's term for it) that cost no build resources and give a trained trait but are restricted from the adventurer skill list. To represent expertise maybe they can be stacked.

 For example, Bill the fighter grew up on a ranch he has everyman skills in Grooming, Farriering and Cattle Roping. If a situation arises that he needs to infiltrate the kings castle he can attempt to seek employement in the stables and his grooming and farrier skills can add to his diplomacy/disguise roll to convince the steward to hire him. 

His brother Bob grew up on the same ranch but he was a rodeo rider so he puts 3 points of everyman skills into cattle roping. If they situation arises where lassoing something is an important part of the plan he will get a very large bonus to the roll.


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I like CoC for exactly the same reason.
> My last PC party was a football player, an air marshall, and a music student.
> No reason a D&D party like that wouldn't be great.




It's interesting that the two of you agree on this point. I agree as well, I love games like that. But Call of Cthulu never struck me as very simulationist in its philosophy or rules. At most what it attempts to simulate is the feel and mood of Lovecraft's mythos works, but its rules don't seem very interested in doing world simulations of the sort we've been talking about, like constraints on monsters or NPCs other than what the GM finds appropriate. And that's exactly the amount of simulation that you get from a 4E GM.

If I'm mistaken let me know, I've never GMed CoC and haven't played in ages.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.



Righto.  When I want that experience, though, I am content playing Call of Cthulhu or - for more traditional fantasy - WFRP2e.  I have different expectations from D&D.



> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E.



I don't see the edition warring here.  When you're talking about the various ways in which editions (and games) handle certain situations and edge-cases, that's kind of the essence of productive gaming conversation.

If you don't want be in the position to specifically defend the 3e way of doing things, nobody is asking you to.  What's relevant here is a pretty core question though - (1) is the (or *a*) class/level system necessary or sufficient for every NPC in the world; (2) _must _NPCs and monsters follow identical rules to PCs; and (3) what are the merits and flaws to each approach?

That seems pretty productive to me, and if we've gotten a bit into the weeds with NPC classes, I'd say it's pretty relevant.  After all, Next either will or will not have them, and it's a contended point whether or not they add anything to the game.

-O


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yeah basically see above, and I thoroughly agree with [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] ' point that it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.
> 
> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.




I don't see this as an inherently worthwhile goal, to be honest.  A non-combat character should be focusing on non-combat issues, and combat is the heart of D&D.  A non-combat game of D&D is like a game of Vampire: the Masquerade which doesn't have any vampires in it.  A game of Shadowrun where everyone sits around and has a tea party.  A game of Paranoia where the Computer suggests a nice, sane, sensible mission, gives the PCs tools to complete the mission that are well documented, and everyone cooperates to accomplish the task.  

Your character is not defined by his combat ability in D&D, but the mechanics of the character are driven by the fact that this is a combat-centric game.  Take the mechanic of levels.  What do levels do?  They make sure everyone is on the same "level" for combat encounters.  Level-free heavy combat games inevitably run into problems where certain people are Physical Gods while others are cardboard tigers (see: Exalted).  Or they just make a high lethality game where death is inevitable and expected and character advancement is minimal.  

Also there's the fact that there's *two types of simulation*!  This has not been adequately discussed.

*Type 1: Simulationism of rules* (aka the top down approach)

The game rules attempt to simulate a reality.  Everything is made according to the game rules, top-down.  Where the rules conflict with setting structure, rules win.  Everything follows the template laid down in the rules, and if the outcome doesn't make sense it is handwaved.  Exceptions are rare and apparent. 

*Type 2: Simulation of outcome* (aka the bottom up approach)

The game world is described and created to be consistent.  Rules are created to match what characters in the game world are capable of doing.  Applying different rules for different situations is fine as long as the rules encapsulate what is occurring and fit the narrative.   Where the rules conflict with setting structure, setting wins.  Exceptions are commonplace and hard to distinguish from "business as usual."  


Simulationist applies solely to people in group 1.  Creating a rules structure to define reality.

Group 2?  I find that leads to a much more compelling experience, for me personally.  I like consistent settings, even if rules are being fudged "behind the scenes."  

I hope this adequately explains why so many of us in Group 2 like our approach, and the goals that we are trying to accomplish with our system.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 30, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Fair point. I do a bit of this in my own game - at 1st level very many opponents were higher level (for the obvious reason that there is no other way but up!) whereas now, at 17th level, many opponents are 16th or lower.
> 
> But I do a lot of minions and swarms also, which in some ways act as a nice halfway between purely fictional advancement and actual mechanical advancement.



I do like shifting monsters along the solo-minion scale to represent PC advancement.  An example I used once was orcs.  In classic D&D, an orc is prettymuch an orc, except for a few leader types that are a bit tougher.  They quickly become a trivial challenge.  In 3e, you could fight plain orcs for a while, and keep fighting orcs - the DM just gives them more and more character levels, so, a 18th, you're figting 18th level Clerics of Gruumsh and the like.  In 4e, you could also just scale up a monster, from a 1st level or to an _nth_ level orc Elite with a couple of class or class-style powers.  But, you could also keep the same orcs, but as the party leveled up, change their stats to reflect the way the challenge they represent changes.  At 1st level, a single warrior of a tribe of uruk-hai-like uber-orcs might by a solo challenge for the party, a 'boss' at the end of an adventure where they finally track down the agent provacatuer that's been causing trouble in their corner of the world.  Five levels on, the same sort of orc (maybe that first one's twin brother, looking for revenge, maybe the exact same uber-orc if he escaped that boss fight) might be statted out as a same-level elite.  Another 4 or 5 levels, and they're 'just' standard monsters.  Another 18, and the paragon level PCs are facing hordes of the same sort of orc warriors, but now they're only minions.  When those get too easy, the DM can pull them together into even-higher-level mobs.  You keep fighting the same sort of monster, in the fiction, the modeling is just changed to fit their changing role in the PCs story.  

'Bounded accuracy' tries to give monsters that same sort of longevity without changing their stats.  You go from an orc being a modestly tough monster to a minion-equivalent as your minimum damage potential (damage/hps being the primary source of scaling under bounded accuracy) exceeds it's hps, and it's damage potential becomes nearly trivial compared to your hps.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

slobster said:


> But Call of Cthulu never struck me as very simulationist in its philosophy or rules. At most what it attempts to simulate is the feel and mood of Lovecraft's mythos works, but its rules don't seem very interested in doing world simulations of the sort we've been talking about, like constraints on monsters or NPCs other than what the GM finds appropriate. And that's exactly the amount of simulation that you get from a 4E GM.



That's pretty well right, but it has a few things going for it.  Not using a class-based system is up there.  So's an extensive skill list.  But honestly, BRP was developed well before anyone thought up GNS theory or thought to call a game or playstyle "simulationist."  Much like with 1e, the extent to which it's in any camp is largely accidental; the designers just made a game that they thought would be fun and which emulated the genre conventions they were interested in.  (And BRP has not changed much in decades.)

I found that CoC d20 worked better for me and my group, overall.  It's basically a super-stripped-down 3.0e.  I added in VP/WP, and it worked great as a more pulp-ish take on modern Lovecraftian horror.

-O


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

slobster said:


> It's interesting that the two of you agree on this point. I agree as well, I love games like that. But Call of Cthulu never struck me as very simulationist in its philosophy or rules.
> ...
> 
> If I'm mistaken let me know, I've never GMed CoC and haven't played in ages.



My experience is with CoC d20, so I can't speak to the original BRP game (or any of the many CoC-based games out there).

Mechanics are only part of it, but let's take a look. In CoC d20, you still have the basic level advancement architecture (meaning that you get better at attacks, saves, and hp no matter what you do). However, there is no "good" base attack, there is a very low massive damage threshold (10 or 15 I think), and there is the sanity system. Everyone gets 8 + int mod skill points, and the skill list is expanded. There are only two "classes", offense and defense. If you stay in low levels, you are getting a relatively good simulation for a d20 game.

The sanity system does not allow will saves or any d20 rolls to resist it and has nothing to do with your level or your character power (and is a central mechanic, and, IIRC, is ported in from BRP CoC). The effects of insanity are essentially copied from the DSM-IV-TR (i.e. the book psychiatrists use to diagnose disorders and bill insurance). Does it truly model mental health? Of course not; it simplifies complex biological and psychological processes to percentile rolls. But it subverts the scaling of d20 mechanics and offers a lot of verisimilitude.

As to monster design, the monsters are built in 3.0 style, but without much of a sense of balance (despite the token CRs). The DMing section strongly advises that fighting is very different from D&D, and that characters should run when they see a monster, not fight it.

***



> At most what it attempts to simulate is the feel and mood of Lovecraft's mythos works



It's also worth noting that despite the fact that he wrote about monsters and magic, Lovecraft himself was very "simulationist", was a huge science nerd and history nerd, and did the best he could to incorporate realistic elements into his stories, despite the existence of unrealistic ones.

***

That being said, d20 mechanics are still not great at simulation. I've used vp/wp for a while used CoC as a test venue for my injury system and grittier d20 combat rules for that reason.

(Seems like I have some things in common with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] with regards to CoC).


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I do like shifting monsters along the solo-minion scale to represent PC advancement. _(snip)_



Ditto.  I've just done the same with Gith.  Just this past session, in fact.

I think of it in terms of Buffy the Vampire slayer.  At the outset, vampires are kinda hard.  They're a fight - normal monsters, in other words.  Later on in the series, they're clearly "minions."  Move to the end, with the "super-vamps"...  They start out incredibly challenging, like almost unkillable.  But by the end of the series, they too are dropping like flies.

Solo-Elite-Standard-Minion is a good genre convention to me.

-O


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 30, 2012)

Not to get into a GNS derail, but how are people defining "simulationism"?  It seems some of us are talking pass each other coz we defined terms differently.  Simluationism used to mean genre emulation and just the running of an internally consistent world. Some uses it to mean simulating reality. Others use it more in the sense of running a computer simulation where you plug in the rules and data and the production of whatever results (sensible or otherwise) is its own goal.


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's also worth noting that despite the fact that he wrote about monsters and magic, Lovecraft himself was very "simulationist", was a huge science nerd and history nerd, and did the best he could to incorporate realistic elements into his stories, despite the existence of unrealistic ones.




Maybe we don't have the same definitions of simulationism. H.P. included nods to realism and science as a way of getting the unrealistic stuff past his readers' "bulls&*t" filter, as anything couched in the language of science is more likely given the benefit of the doubt (especially when the actual science in question is beyond a person's understanding).

But he never let science or realism get in the way of a good yarn!


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> (Seems like I have some things in common with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] with regards to CoC).



How crazy is that? 

I play different games for different experiences, and when I'm working with WFRP2e or CoCd20 I have different expectations of both the game and the genre.  It's the same reason I still love, play (and certainly respect!) 1e.

My own position is that any single edition of D&D isn't - and probably can't be - the best game for every sort of campaign.  I think the reason it gets divisive is because every single edition is a fundamentally different game, with the possible exception of 2e.  It's just that everyone seems in a rush to prove that theirs is the true inheritor of the mantle.

I don't care about that.  I care about getting a game that excels at the sort of things I want to run D&D for.  We simply disagree about what D&D should do.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 30, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Not to get into a GNS derail, but how are people defining "simulationism"?  It seems some of us are talking pass each other coz we defined terms differently.  Simluationism used to mean genre emulation and just the running of an internally consistent world. Some uses it to mean simulating reality. Others use it more in the sense of running a computer simulation where you plug in the rules and data and the production of whatever results (sensible or otherwise) is its own goal.



Yeah, that's an ongoing issue.  There's "GNS Theory" in which 'Simulation_ism_' is play style, descriptive of how players approach games more than of games, themselves.  Simulation can also, obviously, mean matching mechanics to some yardstick, be it realism or genre emulation.  Simulationist D&D can also be a sort of navel-diving exercise in which the game simulates /itself/ as strictly as possible.  

I'm not at all convinced that classic D&D was simulationist in any of those senses.

2e was actively sticking to the classic D&D feel, making minimal sort of 'house keeping' changes to the system, so it could be considered a simulation in the last, self-referent sense.

3e is enthusiastically embraced by self-identified adherents to the GNS simulationist style of play.

4e delivers some pretty nice genre-simulation, leaning towards the action-movie/pulp-fiction end of the heroic fantasy spectrum.

5e is being designed as a sort of toolkit which will let you re-invent each of the prior editions, emulating their 'style,' so I guess it's very much the self-referent simulation of D&D sort or of simulation.


So, yeah, it's easy to point to just about any edition of D&D and argue that it is or isn't a simulation or is or isn't 'simulationist.'


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot....





No.

This little piece of hyperbole should be taken out and shot.  We don't suggest that our fellow EN Worlders and fellow gamers should suffer physical harm, even in jest.  This, we consider uncivil.

If you cannot understand why, please e-mail or PM the moderator of your choice, and discuss it.  Meanwhile, we expect to see no more suggestions that physical violence should be carried out upon entirely real sentient creatures.  Thanks, all!


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Simulationist D&D can also be a sort of navel-diving exercise in which the game simulates /itself/ as strictly as possible.




. . . and now I've gone cross-eyed.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> (1) is the (or *a*) class/level system necessary or sufficient for every NPC in the world; (2) _must _NPCs and monsters follow identical rules to PCs; and (3) what are the merits and flaws to each approach?



Merits (for same rules for both):

1) It's easier to learn and understand the rules.
2) Appeals to a nerdy love of neatness/consistency.
3) Allows easy mixing and matching - monstrous PCs or NPCs with class levels.
4) More informative, so the GM knows how much a gryphon can carry, for example.


Flaws:

1) It's more time consuming for the GM to create monsters and NPCs.
2) Monster and NPC stat blocks take up too much space and contain information which is unnecessary. The GM doesn't care how much a gryphon can carry, for example.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege.




I had this argument with a person once.

I look to a quote from the Matrix movie: "They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."

In Dnd terms, this quote actually applies to npcs. As the DM, my npcs can have whatever abilities I want them to have. Simply put, if I wanted to kill the pcs at any time, I could.

But part of the Player/DM covenant, is that in return for PCs having to follow the rules they get the power of plot. They are always a part of the story, they get the benefits of coincidence, and at some level generally they are supposed to win.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Not to get into a GNS derail, but how are people defining "simulationism"?  It seems some of us are talking pass each other coz we defined terms differently.  Simluationism used to mean genre emulation and just the running of an internally consistent world. Some uses it to mean simulating reality. Others use it more in the sense of running a computer simulation where you plug in the rules and data and the production of whatever results (sensible or otherwise) is its own goal.



I think the most-accepted definition if we're not diving into the deep weeds of GNS wackiness has two main characteristics

(1) A view of the rules as representing the "physics" of the game world as opposed to merely a resolution mechanic.

(2) And, likewise, a view that the rules, insofar as possible while still keeping a playable system, should have a relation with real-world physics.

So, encompassed with the above are a host of other considerations - including that NPCs (including monsters) and PCs should follow similar rules, as we're discussing here.

-O


----------



## D'karr (Aug 30, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> "They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."




Whoa!  Excellent! Party on dudes!!!


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 30, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> In Dnd terms, this quote actually applies to npcs. As the DM, my npcs can have whatever abilities I want them to have. Simply put, if I wanted to kill the pcs at any time, I could.




To be perfectly honest, I don't like free form mechanics. I like to build with in the confines of the rules when it comes to NPCs and monsters. I don't like to "just make it happen" unless it is with regards to fluff. Can I say Gunslingers exist in 4th edition? Sure I can but I don't like that. I want the mechanics for a Gunslinger to be present so I build off of that.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 30, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No.




My apologies of course, British exaggeration gone awry, I fear.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> I think the most-accepted definition if we're not diving into the deep weeds of GNS wackiness has two main characteristics
> 
> (1) A view of the rules as representing the "physics" of the game world as opposed to merely a resolution mechanic.
> 
> ...




It's not just about the "physics". It's about stepping back and saying "I know that's not real but if it was I could totally see that happening".


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> I had this argument with a person once.
> 
> I look to a quote from the Matrix movie: "They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."
> 
> ...



I guess that's okay if your game is The Matrix (which is a good movie, but not what I personally expect when I sit down for an rpg session). Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I would quote the Dark Knight in telling my players "know your limits".
(Which, in context, are defined by the world and are the same for everyone, even "heroes")


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I guess that's okay if your game is The Matrix (which is a good movie, but not what I personally expect when I sit down for an rpg session). Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Personally, I would quote the Dark Knight in telling my players "know your limits".
> (Which, in context, are defined by the world and are the same for everyone, even "heroes")




Ironically, if I were running a Matrix game I would do the opposite. It's one of the few cases I can think of where I would use a strict system for NPC building (at least those NPCs connected to the Matrix). The players, on the other hand, would get to break a lot of those rules because they are special. It just fits, thematically.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 30, 2012)

slobster said:


> Ironically, if I were running a Matrix game I would do the opposite. NPCs (at least in the Matrix) would be based on strict building rules from which I wouldn't deviate. The players, on the other hand, would get to break a lot of those rules because they are special. It just fits, thematically.



That does make more sense. I think the original example was looking at the rules for PCs from a decidedly non-simulation perspective, suggesting that their purpose was to balance the PCs with each other and give them a list of crazy powerul things to do, rather than to have any validity outside of that context.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 30, 2012)

Obryn said:


> What's relevant here is a pretty core question though - (1) is the (or *a*) class/level system necessary or sufficient for every NPC in the world; (2) _must _NPCs and monsters follow identical rules to PCs; and (3) what are the merits and flaws to each approach?



Hm... OK.

1) I'd have to say no to both, at least, for an RPG emulating the heroic fantasy genre.  You could have completely class-less NPCs who don't need class/level to be fully realized.  You could have NPCs that don't /fit/ in any class/level progression (for instance, because their wildly good at one thing, like a skill or casting certain spells or whatever, but also terribly fragile - D&D class/level always increases hps, saves, and the like).

2) Again, for an FRPG, I'd have to say no.  PCs are the 'heroes' of a story (their own story), they need to fit that protagonist role.  Some NPCs may need to be similar to them in abilities, but others will have to be wildly different to fill roles as 'background characters,' supporting characters, 'extras,' sources of exposition, plot devices, very-high-power-but-for-some-reason-unwilling/able-to-intervene mentors/masters, and even the occasional outright deus-ex-machina.

3) The advantage of having different rules for PCs & NPCs is that it allows the game to model the way protagonists are treated in genre vs the way support characters and adversaries are handled.  Thus, it delivers a good genre-simulation.    The advantage of using the same rules for PCs & NPCs is that it creates an impartial imagined world in which the PCs are very much /not/ the heroes, but just like everyone else - they may become heroes, if lucky and determined enough, but more likely if they go out and 'try to be a hero,' they will, like most people who jump on grenades or try to wrestle the bomb away from a terrorist, simply die.  Thus, it delivers a more realistic simulation.


----------



## slobster (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That does make more sense. I think the original example was looking at the rules for PCs from a decidedly non-simulation perspective, suggesting that their purpose was to balance the PCs with each other and give them a list of crazy powerul things to do, rather than to have any validity outside of that context.




Oh yeah, it just struck me as funny. I wasn't contradicting either of you, just pointing out an ironic happenstance.

I also wanted to make the point that using the tenets of simulationism to build the world is a stylistic choice that I find valid, it's just not one that I choose to make most of the time. But I can see situations where I would choose to use it. I think it's constraining on the GM and more work, but sometimes the constraints are useful and help build the world and the extra work is just plain worth it.


----------



## triqui (Aug 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege. This whole line of argument seems to be about how a * class system is BAD THING, that adventuring abilities shouldn't be tied to nonadventuring abilities, etc.*
> 
> The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world. The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within. If one character (or a party of characters) are created with (or without) classes, then all characters should be.




Not necesarelly. AD&D was a level system, but non-weapon proficiencies didn't upgrade with level. So a blacksmith could be good, or bad, without needing to kill a bunch of goblins to get XP and a few extra levels to raise his ranks in weaponcraft.

It's not that "level" is inherently bad. I think it's awesome to model combat in a universe where people has very different "power ranks". Galadriel isn't in the same "scale" than Bob the Militia Guard, or even in the same scale than Boromir. Level is *great* for this.
It's wrong to model other things, specially out-of-combat skills. A character shouldn't need to be 10th level to be the best diplomat, or blacksmither, or even the best expert in Arcane Lore in the world.


----------



## triqui (Aug 30, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).



In 3e, the character has no idea about what is the blacksmith skill rank. At best, he knows he has made a beautiful weapon, but he doesn't know "he has 15 ranks in blacksmithing". The *Character* will have to imagine how good or bad he is in combat by his appereance. If he looks strong, you might think he is at least decent in a brawl. If he looks like the old guy who has been forging katanas for 40 years, he might not be.

In 4e, I have to trust my DM common sense. But so do I in 3e. Even if you *could* take a look at the blacksmith work, and say "ok, he has 10 ranks in blacksmithing", that wouldn't say you his level. He might be a lvl 20 expert, which happen to have a secret desire for RPG design, so he spent half his skill ranks in statistics, fantasy literature, and nerd lore, and he only put 10 ranks in blacksmithing. Then he has BAB +15/10/5, and a few combat skills because he practice MMA. Your DM must be a dick to act like this, sure. But the same happens with a 4e DM, he might be a dick and give the Blacksmith a ton of multiattacks, a free healing surge when bloodied, and inmunity to fire. But why would he, unless he is a dick? A DM with common sense would make a reasonable blacksmith. Just like in 3e, a reasonable DM wouldn't make the blacksmith with 10 ranks a 20th level expert that spent half his skills in Tumble to beat the PC's asses.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 31, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I do like shifting monsters along the solo-minion scale to represent PC advancement.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> At 1st level, a single warrior of a tribe of uruk-hai-like uber-orcs might by a solo challenge for the party, a 'boss' at the end of an adventure where they finally track down the agent provacatuer that's been causing trouble in their corner of the world.  Five levels on, the same sort of orc (maybe that first one's twin brother, looking for revenge, maybe the exact same uber-orc if he escaped that boss fight) might be statted out as a same-level elite.  Another 4 or 5 levels, and they're 'just' standard monsters.  Another 18, and the paragon level PCs are facing hordes of the same sort of orc warriors, but now they're only minions.  When those get too easy, the DM can pull them together into even-higher-level mobs.  You keep fighting the same sort of monster, in the fiction, the modeling is just changed to fit their changing role in the PCs story.



I've used Hobgoblin Phalanxes (huge and gargantuan swarms of hobgoblins). One ability they have is to remove hobgoblin minions from the game in order to regain hit points (battlefield pressganging!).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 31, 2012)

triqui said:


> Of course it should follow the rules. The 4e-style blacksmith also have AC and hitpoints, and die when hit and roll to attack. He is just built using a different approach
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You can kill, and interact, with 4e-style shopkeepers just as well as with 3e.



Yes. This is a similar point to my comment, upthread, about the build vs action resolution contrast.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> No, it's like this.. in 3E you have to guess how tough the blacksmith is based on his blacksmithing skill, telling you that he probably has at least that BAB and at least that many HD (which might be too high, and if I were using a homemade NPC class it would be known by the players). In 4E you've no idea - you have to sense the DM's motive, guess how he will handle your attack on the blacksmith, discern what combat abilities he might have given this blacksmith (or indeed, whether he will give you a tough encounter or not on the fly).



Or you can make a Monster Knowledge (Nature) check.



Gryph said:


> If the players want to gauge whether he might be competent in combat they can explore the world and find out or they can take their chances and pick a fight.



These are other options, yes!



Chris_Nightwing said:


> In either system I would feel mighty pissed off if the blacksmith's skill wasn't supported by the same mechanical structure I used - if he had a smithing skill beyond his true level I would be annoyed if I challenged him to a hammer-off



How would you learn the NPC's "true level"? Whereas you would work out how good a smith he is by observing him in action.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> I'd be equally annoyed if his combat prowess was way higher than I might expect for his smithing.



But these are linked _only_ in a system like 3E that progresses skills and combat in lockstep. There is no correlation between them in Runequest, Rolemaster, HARP or any point-buy system.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> In my opinion, 'a wizard did it' style DMing violates the social contract of the game



Sure, but the only game I know of which makes fighting and smithing skill correlate is 3E and its d20 derivatives.



Ahnehnois said:


> The class system is indeed limiting and illogical, but it's the paradigm D&D works within.



B/X and 1st ed AD&D didn't assume that all NPCs are built using the PC build rules. Even NPC adventurers, in that edition, have different stat rules from PCs (eg an NPC druid doesn't have the same stat minimums as a PC druid).



Ahnehnois said:


> This whole line of argument seems to be about how a class system is BAD THING



I don't read it that way. I read it as an argument that using PC-build rules to build NPCs is not always a good thing, because these are different game elements intended to be used by differnent participants in the game, for different purposes.



Ahnehnois said:


> The underlying problem is that the character creation rules are how people see the world.



Which people? PC build rules aren't how _I_ see the game world. They're how I see the parameters of the generation of a certain suite of player resources.



Chris_Nightwing said:


> it's crappy players can't do the same things the DM can do with his NPCs. I *hated* the 4E attitude that everyone must be useful in combat. I love playing Call of Cthulhu because there's always room for a professor who can't shoot an elder thing with a shotgun at five yards.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've used Hobgoblin Phalanxes (huge and gargantuan swarms of hobgoblins). One ability they have is to remove hobgoblin minions from the game in order to regain hit points (battlefield pressganging!).



Yes!   I've also done the reverse: have such mobs 'spawn' minions when destroyed - surviving stragglers.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2012)

Chris Nightwing said:
			
		

> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should <<edit>> Never have been allowed to do so<<edit>>, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong. 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.




I agree.  He should be shot for lying about what the 4e mechanics ACTUALLY say. 

It would be so nice if we could have this discussion AFTER people bothered to look up facts rather than go by hearsay.

/edit Sorry, replied before I saw the big red mod message.  Redacted the bad bits.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> To be perfectly honest, I don't like free form mechanics. I like to build with in the confines of the rules when it comes to NPCs and monsters. I don't like to "just make it happen" unless it is with regards to fluff. Can I say Gunslingers exist in 4th edition? Sure I can but I don't like that. I want the mechanics for a Gunslinger to be present so I build off of that.




Ummm, you do realize that THIS SITE has rules for a gunslinger in 4e?

ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution Adventure Path - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine

Scroll down to the Player and DM guides and you have gunslinger rules RIGHT THERE.

Whatever happened to people looking at concepts and then using their own creativity to make it themselves?  But, even if you don't want to make the effort, the rules are right there.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 31, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I'll try saying this again, for the 15th time or so. I like simulation, I like mechanics that apply to players and NPCs and monsters alike. Levels are a useful way to measure experience and power. You DO NOT HAVE TO CORRELATE ALL THESE THINGS but 3E does. I am not defending 3E. I am defending simulationism against gamism/narrativism.




And I'm saying that 3E is from this perspective _terrible_ simulationism.  It simulates one thing and one thing only.  It simulates itself.  The only reason our Master Basketweaver or Master Debater are extremely good in combat are because the 3.X rules force them to be because the "simulationism" won't let them be anything else.

If a simulation takes you to a wrong result then you should discard the simulation just as if a map regularly doesn't match the actual landscape.



> In 4E this is because you can only become good at stuff by gaining levels




In 4e the levels measure _how good an adventurer you are_.  Not "how skilled you are".  They are about your _adventuring and combat_ skill.  If you are an adventurer, this _works_.  If you want to play Traders and Craftsmen, you probably don't want to play Dungeons and Dragons - and certainly don't want to play D&D 4e.



> I am merely advocating the same approach: levels and simulation.




And I'm saying that levels work _if and only if you are measuring one basic axis_.  If you aren't, they are an incoherent mess with a lot of unfortunate results such as the way for a scholar to get more hit points and be better with a sword is to read more books.

Levels are _terrible_ world simulation.  What they are is a structure for measuring the power _of adventurers_.  And the key test for whether something's a simulation is _whether the outcomes match the desired outcomes_.  Your map can be as pretty as it likes, but if it doesn't mark the major rivers and you want to go hiking, it's a pretty crummy map.



> Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot, because it was ultimately edition warring which has led to me constantly having to defend my simulationism, which everyone here associates with 3E. 3E was flawed, but it doesn't make simulationism inherently wrong.




If you want a _good_ simulationist game, try GURPS.  One of the things that makes it a good simulationist game _is that it doesn't assume levels and adventurer-type associations with hit points and resilience_.  Simulationism isn't wrong (I have more GURPS books on my shelf than any other system).  But levels are a non-simulationist simplification that works only for the purposes of measuring the power of adventurers in a game focussed round something (whether dungeon exploring as in 1e or questing as in 4e).  Levels have many uses - but they cripple any attempt to make a world-sim.

The problem with 3e's simulationism isn't that it is simulationism, but that it is extremely flawed simulationism due to being a level based system.  Levels work well for both narrativist and gamist play but hamstring simulationism because they force everyone to be measured as if they were an adventurer (or they cease having meaning).  And what you are defending isn't simulationism.  It's the idea that a game with a very gamist core can be hacked into a sim without becoming laden with down right perverse results.



> 4E gives you buckets of flexibility in NPC creation but doesn't offer the same courtesy to players. I want 5E to follow simulationist principles, but with the flexibility of being a 4E DM - and I believe this is POSSIBLE, especially with flattened math. Whether it happens is another matter.




It is possible.  We just have to make the game levelless and classless.  And I've a lot of tolerance for what is and isn't D&D - but levelless, classless, and with no focus on adventurers is way outside mine.

And for the record, non-combatant PCs can be made in 4e by abusing the bard and lazy warlord builds.  It works.



GreyICE said:


> Also there's the fact that there's *two types of simulation*!  This has not been adequately discussed.
> 
> *Type 1: Simulationism of rules* (aka the top down approach)
> 
> *Type 2: Simulation of outcome* (aka the bottom up approach)




Agreed absolutely.  And it's simulation of outcome that is the part that matters.  If you can get simulation of rules to match it, good.  But the outcomes are the important part.  If you can get simulation of rules and outcome to match up, good.  GURPS tries - and doesn't do a bad job.  But the second you are into a class and level based game, you're forcing a choice.  And a choice that will make the rules meaningless.


----------



## GreyICE (Aug 31, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Agreed absolutely.  And it's simulation of outcome that is the part that matters.  If you can get simulation of rules to match it, good.  But the outcomes are the important part.  If you can get simulation of rules and outcome to match up, good.  GURPS tries - and doesn't do a bad job.  But the second you are into a class and level based game, you're forcing a choice.  And a choice that will make the rules meaningless.




I don't know about that.  I mean Warhammer 40k has some very distinct fluff that tells how battles SHOULD play out (the "outcome") but the rules create a playingfield where the rules stand paramount.  For instance, from fluff a squad of five space marines is worth maybe 200-500 orks, in combat.  Yet on the table an army consisting of 20 space marines can often be cornered and overwhelmed by 80 orks or so.  

Other games that focus on a strict antagonistic relationship should also focus on primacy of rules over outcome.  For instance the DnD encounters they're currently running are rules-driven and deservedly so, and I would flat up say anyone who runs the "dungeon crawl" DnD module that is set as a reality TV show in the 25th century as anything other than rules driven (BLATANTLY to the exclusion of common sense, as this is reality TV) should hand in their GMing license.  Similarly for Living Pathfinder, etc. - the rules should be paramount because the outcome has elements of competition.  

It's just I don't see it as a particularly compelling way to play what is, at the end of the day, a cooperative exercise in story building.  Maybe it's me taking a break from DnD to play FATE for a long time (I'm currently in 1 DnD campaign at the moment) but the endless rules debates are leaving me colder and colder.  Maybe that's what makes me enjoy 4E the most of any DnD system - it sticks the rules in a nice, easy to manage box, hands you the box, and then says "we have NO IDEA what happens outside this box.  Seriously, we don't.  Here's a collection of tools to build what's inside the box, here's some suggestions for how to structure things that happen outside the box, here's some good ideas, but seriously, outside this box?  We know NOTHING.  Have fun!" 

If you've got to do rules-heavy cooperative story building, that strikes me as the way to go.  But for a strict Dungeon Crawl simulator I do see the advantages of the other approach - it feels less like the DM is "cheating" in creating his crawl, and the crawl is presented as an obstacle the DM will throw at you as hard as possible to attempt to break you.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The primary purpose of a class system is to create bundled mechanics. One of the problems with many point buy systems is that you can get very extremely specialized character.

The fighter who has the most godly offense but is killed by a stiff breeze is just one example.

The class system is designed to ensure that all character regardless of choice have a bit of all the core things needed to play, some offense, defense, skills, etc.

Now in terms of this it works very well. The problem of course is when you want to debundle mechanics, like the professor or blacksmith example being discussed.


Its an important reminder, no system can do it all. Ultimately we have to decide if the good outweighs the bad, or the bad is at least adjustable enough using our own rulings to minimize it.


----------



## adamc (Aug 31, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage.  A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].




Mostly I think that folks who worry about that expect more than most game mechanics can deliver. You need to apply a little imagination to help it along.

As others have explained, they were designed so that the numbers would actually work, which makes playing more fun (to some extent). I like 4e, but I don't really like the solo mechanic because adding hitpoints doesn't really make the fight more fun. But I will give them due props for having a working mechanic, where DMs can crank out new functional monsters and make encounters that work quite easily. 

I don't mean to be dismissive of your point, but there are many places where their system is even more ridiculous (I'm thinking of the whole leveling mechanic). It's fun, and in a very vague way represents something true (experience helps), but in the real world, even world-class athletes aren't bullet-proof and there are pretty sharp limits on how much better than average you can be. D&D isn't designed that way because it's a game and is supposed to be fun to play. Works for me.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I read it as an argument that using PC-build rules to build NPCs is not always a good thing, because these are different game elements intended to be used by differnent participants in the game, for different purposes.



So are any two PCs. And yet, I think if you built one with an extensive class system and the other as two numbers that you think you're likely to need, people would get a little squirrely about it.

There isn't anything _inherently_ different between a PC and an NPC. In fact, it's not uncommon for characters to transition between different players or player and DM, particularly when one is "retired". The character's statistics aren't redefined when this happens, because they are a property of the character, not the player. It is certainly a valid _choice_ for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.



> B/X and 1st ed AD&D didn't assume that all NPCs are built using the PC build rules. Even NPC adventurers, in that edition, have different stat rules from PCs (eg an NPC druid doesn't have the same stat minimums as a PC druid).



I'm guessing that caused some problems.



> Which people? PC build rules aren't how I see the game world.



Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores? I'm sure there are many other elements in play, but keep in mind that most people who play D&D do not DM, and character creation will be a much larger part of their experience. I think they're pretty foundational.

***


			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.



I don't think it's wrong; I've worked within it for quite a while now. I do think that in this thread certain

What I saw was things like this (Just picking one example of several):


> I can't believe it's actually being argued that having proficiency in combat tied to proficiency in EVERY OTHER SKILL IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a GOOD SYSTEM. I mean if someone has 24 ranks of diplomacy he should have a BAB of at least 10?
> 
> WHY?
> 
> ...



...which is pretty clearly a critique of the concept of a class-based system, followed by this non sequitur:


> Complaining that 4E lets the DM build characters they want to build is complaining about a GOOD THING.



...which apparently doesn't reflect the expectation that whatever flaws your system has, be it class-based or not, certain people expect that everyone will share in that system together (I think most players do and probably most DMs as well; in any case, several people in this thread do and that underlying assumption wasn't getting across).


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is certainly a valid _choice_ for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.



So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?



> I'm guessing that caused some problems.



Naaah, not really.   Expectations are very different in 1e.  Granted, most NPCs were just 0-level with a handful of hit points.  Also of note - there was no real skill system in 1e (secondary skills were a background thing for PCs, and nonweapon proficiencies were a later development) so NPCs were exactly as good at their jobs as the DM wanted them to be without needing to advance in level.

There's a tailor in Hommlet, for example, who throws knives as a 7th-level fighter with a random damage bonus despite being 0-level.

-O


----------



## slobster (Aug 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is certainly a valid _choice_ for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.




Yet they can't stop you. If they make character classes for use by players (pretty much a given for 5E) then they are simultaneously giving the GM everything that he needs to populate his entire world using the same rules. So I wouldn't worry too much on that account.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 31, 2012)

slobster said:


> Yet they can't stop you. If they make character classes for use by players (pretty much a given for 5E) then they are simultaneously giving the GM everything that he needs to populate his entire world using the same rules. So I wouldn't worry too much on that account.



True, at that point it's pretty much about whether those classes can support the diversity of characters the DM needs (which is typically much greater than the diversity of PC classes needed).



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.
> 
> Why does anyone take the Commoner class?



That is a good question; I take the answer to be that while they were mostly deleted from earlier editions there are still some basic requirements to take a base class (either training or ability scores, most likely) that many people can't meet.

Then again, you could ask the same question in real life. Why does anyone take a job as a [insert menial job here]? Why aren't we all Navy SEALs and brain surgeons and hollywood stars?
It's a complicated question.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Why does anyone take the Commoner class?



Back when I was playing 3e, I used to justify it on the basis of opportunity and diligence.

Not everyone has access to the right training (opportunity) or works hard enough (diligence) to take a level in a PC class. Yes, "the PCs are special". My bias is showing again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Why does anyone take the Commoner class?



Well, in 3e somewhere, I'm pretty sure it said that 70% of the human population were commoners.  That makes it the most popular class, and, by reasoning _ad populum_, that makes it the best class!  Therefor, most people rush off and become commoners...  You might think they'd figure it out, but commoners have a notoriously poor skill list, and Knowledge: Critical Thinking, even if it existed, clearly wouldn't be on it.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, in 3e somewhere, I'm pretty sure it said that 70% of the human population were commoners.  That makes it the most popular class, and, by reasoning _ad populum_, that makes it the best class!  Therefor, most people rush off and become commoners...



And hence, most PC-class adventurers lack commoner sense?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores? I'm sure there are many other elements in play, but keep in mind that most people who play D&D do not DM, and character creation will be a much larger part of their experience. I think they're pretty foundational.




No.  No I don't.  I think in terms of every character in the game world having motivations, a job or other means of support, capabilities, and above all motivations.  The six ability scores are merely part of how you write down what they can do within the framework of the D&D ruleset.

(Answering for @pmerton as I don't either)



Obryn said:


> So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.
> 
> Why does anyone take the Commoner class?




Life expectancy, mostly?  A commoner is the class with the greatest chance of dying in bed of old age with their family around them.  Followed by expert.



Stalker0 said:


> I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> The primary purpose of a class system is to create bundled mechanics. One of the problems with many point buy systems is that you can get very extremely specialized character.




This.  Class and level system both.  The good thing about both is that they work very well for people who want to be like those the system is based for.  I.e. adventurers in certain set moulds.  One bad thing about both is that fitting people who don't (e.g. craftsmen) is making them lie on the bed of Procrustes.



GreyICE said:


> It's just I don't see it as a particularly compelling way to play what is, at the end of the day, a cooperative exercise in story building. Maybe it's me taking a break from DnD to play FATE for a long time (I'm currently in 1 DnD campaign at the moment) but the endless rules debates are leaving me colder and colder.




And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest.  They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players.  It was almost pure step on up play.  2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 31, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest.  They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players.  It was almost pure step on up play.  2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.



I completely agree with what you're saying about OD&D, 1e and 2e. There's a slight move toward sim in 1e, Gary starts to worry about questions such as what do monsters eat, but that's not a major aspect of the text, imo.

3e's most gamist elements are, I think, to be found in its innovations - the character build and tactical combat in the PHB, and the encounter guidelines in the DMG. Though it's true that similar ideas can be found in late 2e. The character build and combat mini-games give the players lots of choices, some are inferior and some are superior, which is a crucial aspect of gamism.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 31, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes!   I've also done the reverse: have such mobs 'spawn' minions when destroyed - surviving stragglers.



Cool. I might yoink that!



Neonchameleon said:


> I'm saying that levels work _if and only if you are measuring one basic axis_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Levels are _terrible_ world simulation.



I agree with the overall thrust of your post, but just wanted to speak up in favour of Rolemaster (and its offshoots like MERP and HARP) - heaven knows, no one else is going to! These are level systems, but the levels just dole out build points. In HARP, there is also a level-based max rank cap. And in RM and MERP, there is siloing of the build points at any one level, which produces a minimum versatility in any given PC, but no obligation to actually be any good at combat (or any other particular domain of human endeavour).


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That is a good question; I take the answer to be that while they were mostly deleted from earlier editions there are still some basic requirements to take a base class (either training or ability scores, most likely) that many people can't meet.



So ... the PCs *are* special?! 

It's the same with the Warrior class.  There's no sensible reason anyone would be a Warrior instead of a Fighter, given that there are no actual prereqs listed.



> Then again, you could ask the same question in real life. Why does anyone take a job as a [insert menial job here]? Why aren't we all Navy SEALs and brain surgeons and hollywood stars?
> It's a complicated question.



This isn't real life, though, this is D&D.  If your players have choices in their classes, the NPCs do too.  Even if level 1 is set somehow by their background, they can always multiclass - especially if they're human.  If you're a farmer or Janitor, you're a better farmer or janitor if you're using the mechanics of the Expert class.  Or, heck, Rogue!

And I'd argue a city guard is a _better_ city guard if they're a Fighter instead of a Warrior.  Advancing as a Warrior is senseless.

1e's 0-level makes better sense, if you need to stat out commoners at all - if you haven't adventured and haven't gained any XP from looting dungeons and killing kobolds, you don't have a level. 

-O


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 31, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest.  They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players.  It was almost pure step on up play.  2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.






Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, _wrong_.


----------



## slobster (Aug 31, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, _wrong_.




Well if you disagree with what he's saying you're free to share, but the act of airing an opinion that you don't agree with isn't edition warring. Even if you think he's being inflammatory, giving the benefit of the doubt before blasting away is probably more conducive to an actual discussion.

And I think he has a point, personally.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 31, 2012)

slobster said:


> Well if you disagree with what he's saying you're free to share, but the act of airing an opinion that you don't agree with isn't edition warring. Even if you think he's being inflammatory, giving the benefit of the doubt before blasting away is probably more conducive to an actual discussion.
> 
> And I think he has a point, personally.





I disagree (illustrating your "point" exactly), personally, but there is an agenda...

I do agree with having an (adult) discussion, though...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest.  They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players.  It was almost pure step on up play.  2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.



Sure, D&D has always been first and foremost a game.  In the 90s, 2e went off on the setting-based kick and rapid publication schedule that was the trend in that decade, but it remained very much a 'roll playing' game (in the vernacular of that same decade).  But, D&D has also always been played in a lot of different ways.  For a while, it was the only RPG option for most of us.  Not that there weren't other RPGs, but we either didn't know about them (no internet back then!) or didn't have anyone else ready to play them.  So D&D got adapted to all kinds of improbable things, not just intense RP instead of hack & slash, not just Monty Haul vs Killer DM, but different settings and even different genres.  

D&D no longer needs to pull such broad/varied duty - and, in any case, there's d20 as a core system that can be used for that purpose if you want to leverage familiarity with D&D...


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, _wrong_.



This is the second time just this thread that the term "edition warring" has been used in an exceptionally broad and somewhat baffling way.

I'd suggest reporting it if you think so.  But I don't really think that particular paragraph is troublesome...  What's vulgar and offensive there?  "Gamist and adversarial" closely matches the game's roots.  And it's a style of play I think can be a ton of fun.

-O


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 31, 2012)

Obryn said:


> This is the second time just this thread that the term "edition warring" has been used in an exceptionally broad and somewhat baffling way.
> 
> I'd suggest reporting it if you think so.  But I don't really think that particular paragraph is troublesome...  What's vulgar and offensive there?  "Gamist and adversarial" closely matches the game's roots.  And it's a style of play I think can be a ton of fun.





Total, but people stating that certain editions of D&D are adversarial does not sit right, as they weren't, inherently, we make of this (absurd) game what we will...


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 31, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Total, but people stating that certain editions of D&D are adversarial does not sit right, as they weren't, inherently, we make of this (absurd) game what we will...




Yeah, I'd go for "gamist" - although the label is seriously ret-conned by at least 20 years. I think that early D&D can be positioned nicely on the gamist side of gamist <-> simulationist, but it was released when such a map was beyond anyone's understanding. If anything, it created the first points on that map, for games like Runequest to react to.

But "adversarial"? Depends on who picked up the books . . . a lot of people have D&D memories that also parallel their own social and mental growth from age 10 plus. That can put a huge spin on older versions of the game.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2012)

Obryn said:


> So ... the PCs *are* special?!
> 
> It's the same with the Warrior class.  There's no sensible reason anyone would be a Warrior instead of a Fighter, given that there are no actual prereqs listed.
> 
> ...




This viewpoint strikes me as being very oriented toward rules of the game determining the reality of the campaign setting. And I find it unfortunate because it is privileging the rules over the story, setting, and verisimilitude. There are no barriers for entry into any of the base classes (including NPC classes) because it gives the person building the PC/NPC free choice to select the *appropriate* class for the situation at hand. That says nothing about whether or not there are real barriers from the POV of the character. When the player/DM makes the selection, we are to assume all of those prerequisites are met *for that case* - some explicitly like literacy for a wizard, all PCs being literate except for barbarians, some implicitly like a town-dwelling freeman coming up with the money to pay a master to take his child on as an apprentice and thus offer entry into the expert NPC class.

There are commoners in 3e D&D (and I really enjoy the rules for advancing NPCs so that there is more than 0-level NPCs running around) because they couldn't meet the implied prerequisites for a better class or chose to do something else rather than pursue them.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 31, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> Yeah, I'd go for "gamist" - although the label is seriously ret-conned by at least 20 years. I think that early D&D can be positioned nicely on the gamist side of gamist <-> simulationist, but it was released when such a map was beyond anyone's understanding. If anything, it created the first points on that map, for games like Runequest to react to.
> 
> But "adversarial"? Depends on who picked up the books . . . a lot of people have D&D memories that also parallel their own social and mental growth from age 10 plus. That can put a huge spin on older versions of the game.





Yes, I agree: control-freak DMs, that's never cool, regardless of edition.


----------



## slobster (Aug 31, 2012)

An adversarial GM doesn't mean one that is necessarily out to kill the PCs. It means one who sees it as his job to challenge them, within the rules, which also means not bending the rules for or against them. He sets up a scenario which he knows has a chance of killing off his characters, because for their table success is only fulfilling if it happened in the face of a very real chance of failure.

I don't consider myself an adversarial GM. If a kobold gets a lucky crit on one of my character's whose player is very invested, I'll fudge it so that instead of killing her it just sends her into negative hp.

An adversarial GM would never do that, because softening the blow ruins the whole point of the game, which is that PCs snatch success in the face of danger. A good adversarial GM would never turn a normal attack into a crit, though, just because his players were having it too easy. Instead he would adjust the parameters of later encounters, within the rules and according to what he considers in-game logic, so that his players get better challenges.

At least, that's how read the "Adversarial GM" style. Definitions obviously differ.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 31, 2012)

slobster said:


> An adversarial GM doesn't mean one that is necessarily out to kill the PCs. It means one who sees it as his job to challenge them, within the rules, which also means not bending the rules for or against them. He sets up a scenario which he knows has a chance of killing off his characters, because for their table success is only fulfilling if it happened in the face of a very real chance of failure.
> 
> I don't consider myself an adversarial GM. If a kobold gets a lucky crit on one of my character's whose player is very invested, I'll fudge it so that instead of killing her it just sends her into negative hp.
> 
> ...




I see "adversarial play style" and assume the usual negative connotations. But thanks for pointing out that it could be taken as a more neutral style description.

I probably meet your definition of "adversarial", but that's because my group is generally roll-in-the-open and we'd rather write off long-running characters than rescue them from the dice. The odd in-between story-driven rescue is still ok though, so perhaps its not the same thing . . .


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2012)

billd91 said:


> This viewpoint strikes me as being very oriented toward rules of the game determining the reality of the campaign setting. And I find it unfortunate because it is privileging the rules over the story, setting, and verisimilitude. There are no barriers for entry into any of the base classes (including NPC classes) because it gives the person building the PC/NPC free choice to select the *appropriate* class for the situation at hand. That says nothing about whether or not there are real barriers from the POV of the character. When the player/DM makes the selection, we are to assume all of those prerequisites are met *for that case* - some explicitly like literacy for a wizard, all PCs being literate except for barbarians, some implicitly like a town-dwelling freeman coming up with the money to pay a master to take his child on as an apprentice and thus offer entry into the expert NPC class.
> 
> There are commoners in 3e D&D (and I really enjoy the rules for advancing NPCs so that there is more than 0-level NPCs running around) because they couldn't meet the implied prerequisites for a better class or chose to do something else rather than pursue them.



If your argument is that the PCs aren't "special" in the game rules, then why are you assuming most NPCs can't meet the (implied and/or nonexistent) barriers of entry to another class - especially for multiclassing after 1st?  Why do they have stricter requirements for taking on a class than a PC does?

As I've said, *I* have no problems whatsoever with the PCs being special.  But an argument that the PCs _aren't_ special fails if the rest of the world is Commoners.

If the point of them is basically "DM Fiat" I'd much rather go whole-hog and use a system like 1e's - where an NPC basically has the capabilities they need to and (if they're noncombatant) a handful of hit points.

-O


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2012)

Obryn said:


> If your argument is that the PCs aren't "special" in the game rules, then why are you assuming most NPCs can't meet the (implied and/or nonexistent) barriers of entry to another class - especially for multiclassing after 1st?  Why do they have stricter requirements for taking on a class than a PC does?
> 
> As I've said, *I* have no problems whatsoever with the PCs being special.  But an argument that the PCs _aren't_ special fails if the rest of the world is Commoners.
> 
> ...




The answer is: they're both. They're special in that they are the characters made up by the players and thus will feature in the vast majority of scenes (I won't discount a DM running players through remote cut scenes as part of his style). They're the protagonists of our campaign's focus.

Yet they're not special in that they also fit into the rules structure and may not be the only movers and shakers around the campaign.

That said, the specialness/unspecialness of the PCs has never struck me as being a very interesting debate, nor do I see it really informing the question whether or not there are implied barriers to entry into classes that help shape the world into commoners vs experts (or nobles/adepts), warriors vs fighters, or PC classes vs NPC classes. There are no hard requirements for selecting a class (NPC or PC) from the game's perspective. All characters taking the classes are assumed to have any prerequisites necessary by the benefit of the fiat of being designed. That wouldn't be the way the PC would see things, however, if you were in his shoes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2012)

There is a famus online stick figure comic about how absurd a world is that follows the 3.5 rules... No one should be defending any d&d edition in that regard


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 31, 2012)

I think I may have the earliest example of an explicit boss monster mechanic in a rpg, from an article in White Dwarf #64 (April 1985) for Golden Heroes, entitled Megavillains. In Golden Heroes, normal supervillains get 4 'frames' per combat round, frames being that system's equivalent of actions, but megavillains get 3 plus 1 for every superhero they are fighting. So a megavillain battling 5 heroes would get 8 frames per round. They also ignore normal initiative, using their frames whenever the GM decides, which is not a bad way to simulate the to-and-fro, attack and counter, style of fighting in superhero comics.

This mechanic seems to fall right in line with what people have being saying about the action economy with regards to boss monsters.

Though it's true that early D&D boss monsters, such as beholders and dragons, have always had multiple attacks, the rules text doesn't single these monsters out as having a particular role, unlike GH's megavillains, or 4e's bosses.

D&D's always terribly behind the times. 3e brought D&D the system consistency of RuneQuest (1978), 22 years later. 4e the mooks and bosses from genre-emulation systems of the mid-80s.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think I may have the earliest example of an explicit boss monster mechanic in a rpg, from an article in White Dwarf #64  (April 1985) for Golden Heroes, entitled Megavillains. In Golden Heroes, normal supervillains get 4 'frames' per combat round, frames being that system's equivalent of actions, but megavillains get 3 plus 1 for every superhero they are fighting. So a megavillain battling 5 heroes would get 8 frames per round. They also ignore normal initiative, using their frames whenever the GM decides, which is not a bad way to simulate the to-and-fro, attack and counter, style of fighting in superhero comics.
> 
> This mechanic seems to fall right in line with what people have being saying about the action economy with regards to boss monsters.
> 
> .



NOW I would not mind that, I would get why somepeople would hate that. 


That is not what I am asking for though. I dont want a dragon that gets more badass the more pcs I have, I want guide lines that make sense, 3d6+5 kobolds is cool, 1d6+2 orcs can be scarry, 1d4 red dragons is atleast a 50% chance of tpk.

Make monsters to make sense. Then label them for DMs

Ogers are Elite. Becuse they fight 2 or 3 PCs ata time.. DRagons are solo becuse they fight 5 or 6 PCs at a time.
RAndom Kobold #23  is not a solo, and it is dumb to make him so, But Lylandra the dragon queen of the kobolds, who was born with the soul of reincarnated black dragon who weilds long forgotten dragon magic, and her magic staff, may be an elite kobold with a few tricks up her sleave


----------



## triqui (Sep 1, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Ogers are Elite. Becuse they fight 2 or 3 PCs ata time.. DRagons are solo becuse they fight 5 or 6 PCs at a time.



I don't agree with this. Ogres aren´t elite, they fight 2-3 PC at a time when those PC are level 3, but a level 6 fighter can take 2-3 ogres at the same time, and a lvl 15 fighter kill them in droves. Bounded accuracy can model them perfectly fine without needing to be Elite.

Dragons, like Beholders, Hydras, and other monsters, ARE solo monster, though. Even if a high level player can kill several of them at the same time, those monsters still have "solo" abilities, in my opinion. They still should be able to threat several human-sized targets at the same time, should be resistant to action-denial, have decent mobility, can disable PC, have some sort of magic resistance, damage reduction or regeneration, etc. That's a Solo monster. Even if a 20th level group can kill 10 young Black dragons at the same time, those Dragons still have the features that a Solo creature should have: Aura of Fear, wing-buffets and Tail-slaps to make multi-threats, dragon breath, fly, magic resitance, stun-inmunity, or whatever "solo abilities" 5e will have.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 1, 2012)

billd91 said:


> That said, the specialness/unspecialness of the PCs has never struck me as being a very interesting debate, nor do I see it really informing the question whether or not there are implied barriers to entry into classes that help shape the world into commoners vs experts (or nobles/adepts), warriors vs fighters, or PC classes vs NPC classes. There are no hard requirements for selecting a class (NPC or PC) from the game's perspective. All characters taking the classes are assumed to have any prerequisites necessary by the benefit of the fiat of being designed. That wouldn't be the way the PC would see things, however, if you were in his shoes.



Then my question is really directed towards a more diehard simulationist than yourself.  If you are okay with there being hidden prerequisites that the PCs meet but which NPCs don't meet, that establishes that the PCs are following different enough rules that the question isn't relevant for you.

I still think NPC classes are lousy for a few reasons - mostly because I think they're an ugly patch for a system with an obsessive need to categorize and define everything.  But I think they pose interesting questions for those who try to push the sim aspects of 3.x too far.

-O


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 2, 2012)

Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much. On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system, means something in the game world, works within D&D's advancement by level model, and covers both PCs and monsters. i.e. it accomplishes the same thing and more as the tags being discussed here, without raising the same problems.

For all the foolishness about rage powers and gunslingers that comes out of there, I sure wish there were designers with this level of insight working on D&D.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Sep 2, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much. On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system, means something in the game world, works within D&D's advancement by level model, and covers both PCs and monsters. i.e. it accomplishes the same thing and more as the tags being discussed here, without raising the same problems.
> 
> For all the foolishness about rage powers and gunslingers that comes out of there, I sure wish there were designers with this level of insight working on D&D.




Spread the wealth "blah blah blah".

If I could XP you I would because that is spot on.

I love rage powers and Gunslingers by the way.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 2, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I love rage powers and Gunslingers by the way.



To each his own. I could be a fan of guns; just not their approach.


----------



## slobster (Sep 2, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> To each his own. I could be a fan of guns; just not their approach.




Agreed on the gunslinger. It looked so awesome in the leadup, but the class (and guns in general) was so disappointing when it finally came out.

For every pathfinder class that I love for its fun in play and new ideas (summoner, witch, bard) there is one that I loathe equally for its weak archetype or its terrible, botched mechanics (inquisitor, gunslinger, monk). Pathfinder stuff is so hit or miss, though all you have to do is take the hits and ignore the misses and you've got yourself a wonderful system.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 2, 2012)

triqui said:


> I don't agree with this. Ogres aren´t elite, they fight 2-3 PC at a time when those PC are level 3, but a level 6 fighter can take 2-3 ogres at the same time, and a lvl 15 fighter kill them in droves. Bounded accuracy can model them perfectly fine without needing to be Elite.
> 
> Dragons, like Beholders, Hydras, and other monsters, ARE solo monster, though. Even if a high level player can kill several of them at the same time, those monsters still have "solo" abilities, in my opinion. They still should be able to threat several human-sized targets at the same time, should be resistant to action-denial, have decent mobility, can disable PC, have some sort of magic resistance, damage reduction or regeneration, etc. That's a Solo monster. Even if a 20th level group can kill 10 young Black dragons at the same time, those Dragons still have the features that a Solo creature should have: Aura of Fear, wing-buffets and Tail-slaps to make multi-threats, dragon breath, fly, magic resitance, stun-inmunity, or whatever "solo abilities" 5e will have.




Agreed on both points.

I am struck by the troll fight in the first Lotr movie.  The troll seemed to be a boss.  (Funny about that, since just a short time later Gandalf goes up against the balrog by himself.)  The troll didn't seem to get extra actions.  He did more than the fellowship because his attacks did disproportionate damage relative to the fellowship's: A huge DR blunted the fellowship's attacks, while the troll had knockback and a ground shatter type ability.

Looking at the listed bosses, the curious matter is that extra actions are built into each: A hydra has (in effect) extra actions because of the special mechanics of the extra heads.  A beholder has extra actions because it can fire its eye rays independently.  A dragon has extra actions due to how natural attacks: A full attack from a dragon does bite, claw, claw, wing sweep, wing sweep, tail sweep, and possibly overrun.

I have to ask: Is the problem with "boss" a problem of mechanics or of concept?  Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic.  In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules.  I can see having a problem with boss monsters using the unique mechanic as a game design problem, while not having a problem with the idea that some opponents can be called bosses simply because they are exceptionally hard to fight.

TomB


----------



## Victim (Sep 2, 2012)

tomBitonti said:


> Agreed on both points.
> 
> I am struck by the troll fight in the first Lotr movie.  The troll seemed to be a boss.  (Funny about that, since just a short time later Gandalf goes up against the balrog by himself.)  The troll didn't seem to get extra actions.  He did more than the fellowship because his attacks did disproportionate damage relative to the fellowship's: A huge DR blunted the fellowship's attacks, while the troll had knockback and a ground shatter type ability.
> 
> ...




Really?  Based on my recollection, most shots of a fellowship character doing something are followed up by a shot of the cave troll doing something.  I can't think of a better justification for extra actions. 

Let's take a look at the scene. Legolas shoots the troll, then it attacks a hobbit.  Then Aragorn forces it with a spear and it takes another swing (sending someone flying; the quality on youtube is not that great).  Then Gimli throws an axe, and the troll smashes the tomb swinging at him.  Next, there's a quick shot of the hobbits grouping up, and a cut back to gimli fighting and the cave troll hitting some of his foes while swinging at him.  Legolas shoots it again, and the cave troll whips its chain at him.  The chain gets caught, Legolas runs across to shoot him in the head.  Then the troll attacks the hobbits.  Aragorn fights some goblins, then we cut back to the troll chasing Frodo around the pillar.  And back and forth between them for a bit.  

And that's basically the first two minutes of the fight.  Just as I remembered, for every shot (or action) taken by the Fellowship characters, the troll is also getting a shot of its counterattack or other threat.  How is that not extra actions again?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Total, but people stating that certain editions of D&D are adversarial does not sit right, as they weren't, inherently, we make of this (absurd) game what we will...




Really?  You see nothing adversarial in this:



			
				1e DMG p60 said:
			
		

> In addition to the simple exercise of observation, many times characters will desire to listen, ear pressed to a portal, prior to opening and entering. This requires a special check, in secret, by you to determine if any sound is heard. Because of this, continual listening becomes a great bother to the DM. While ear seekers will tend to discourage some, most players will insist on having their characters listen at doors at every pretense. First, make certain that you explain to players that all headgear must be removed in order to listen. Those wearing helmets will probably have to remove a mail coif and padded cap as well, don’t forget.




This is about as adversarial as you can get isn't it?  If something bothers you as the DM, start throwing more and more crap at the players until they stop bothering you.  No advice on maybe, I dunno, adjusting the rules, or how to just go with the flow and say yes to the players.  No advice on how to actually DEAL with players listening at every door.

No, instead we should punish players for doing something that, really, makes 100% sense in the context of the situation.  I mean, why wouldn't you listen at doors?  You have the poor thief sitting right there who's got an actual SKILL (in a system without much in the way of skills) for doing exactly this.

AD&D is rife with this sort of thing.  Tomb of Horrors anyone?  Isle of the Ape?  How is this not adversarial?

Isn't Gygax's name pretty much synonymous with this style of play?  Testing player skill?  How can you test the player's skill if you aren't adversarial?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2012)

Oh, and on the cave troll fight scene, it certainly does look like our Cave troll gets a LOT of extra actions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpssk85XTQQ]Cave Troll scene - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 3, 2012)

Victim said:


> Really?  Based on my recollection, most shots of a fellowship character doing something are followed up by a shot of the cave troll doing something.  I can't think of a better justification for extra actions.
> 
> Let's take a look at the scene. Legolas shoots the troll, then it attacks a hobbit.  Then Aragorn forces it with a spear and it takes another swing (sending someone flying; the quality on youtube is not that great).  Then Gimli throws an axe, and the troll smashes the tomb swinging at him.  Next, there's a quick shot of the hobbits grouping up, and a cut back to gimli fighting and the cave troll hitting some of his foes while swinging at him.  Legolas shoots it again, and the cave troll whips its chain at him.  The chain gets caught, Legolas runs across to shoot him in the head.  Then the troll attacks the hobbits.  Aragorn fights some goblins, then we cut back to the troll chasing Frodo around the pillar.  And back and forth between them for a bit.
> 
> And that's basically the first two minutes of the fight.  Just as I remembered, for every shot (or action) taken by the Fellowship characters, the troll is also getting a shot of its counterattack or other threat.  How is that not extra actions again?




Lots of character changes, so its hard to say, but the players used a lot of actions to prepare their attacks, while the troll seemed to just swing away, mostly ignoring anyone other than his current focus.  Lots of the fellowship took an action, and then were battered aside, spending their next actions recovering.  Legolas took a shot, then did a maneuver and took another shot, then was able to kill the troll when it roared from someone else's attack (Gimli?)

That is, I didn't see the troll having extra actions.  He just seemed to not lose actions recovering.

Edit: He does seem to get in extra attacks.  Not sure if that would fit under any existing rules for multiple attacks or for AOOs.  Some of it could fit under mechanics like deflect arrows.  Normally, knockback is a standard action; are there any rules for allowing each attack be a bull rush for large/strong monsters?

Tom


----------



## slobster (Sep 3, 2012)

tomBitonti said:


> Edit: He does seem to get in extra attacks.  Not sure if that would fit under any existing rules for multiple attacks or for AOOs.  Some of it could fit under mechanics like deflect arrows.  Normally, knockback is a standard action; are there any rules for allowing each attack be a bull rush for large/strong monsters?
> 
> Tom




Sounds like an ability I would give a big enemy monster that I wanted to challenge the whole party.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> So are any two PCs.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There isn't anything _inherently_ different between a PC and an NPC.



Is there an inherent difference in the fiction? Typically not.

Is there an inherent difference from the metagame point of view? Absolutely yes, in the way I play the game. The PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are not.



Ahnehnois said:


> In fact, it's not uncommon for characters to transition between different players or player and DM, particularly when one is "retired". The character's statistics aren't redefined when this happens, because they are a property of the character, not the player.



The non-change of statistics, when this sort of change in metagame role takes place, is a function of system. In 4e the default assumption is that there _is_ a change of statistics (see DMG2 for the discussion of companion characters).

The rationale is that a character handled by a player can tolerate a more complex action resolution process than one handled by a GM. And also should be putting different demands on pacing. Hence, in 4e, a PC has fewer hit points but more mechanically complex options for hit point recovery - which also feed into the pacing of combat - whereas an NPC or monster of the same level typically has more hit points but few or no methods for recovering those hit points: simpler action resolution, more steady pacing.

This is just one way in which 4e trades on the abstract nature of D&D's mechanics: "luck and divine favour" can be built and resolved either as more hit points (NPCs) or as more healing surges with access to mechanics to take advantage of them (PCs).



Ahnehnois said:


> It is certainly a valid _choice_ for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.



The system has to take a stand here. And the stand will affect play - the notion of playstyle-neutral mechanics is, in my view, an illusion.

It may be possible for the system to present multiple options (though this may not be trivial), or to have a single option that supports multiple playstyles (4e certainly supports multiple playstyles, judging from the different approaches of various 4e players who post on this forum), but it strike me as impossible for it to support any playstyle. And in my view the history and theory of game design give strong reason to think that it is particularly hard to accomodate strong simulationist preferences while also catering to other playstyles. Well-known examples are complaints about minutiae getting in the way of scene-framing and resolution (narrativist complaints about process simulationinst mechanics) or complaints about the game breaking down when high level fighters are still mortal, while high level wizards are godlike (gamist complaints about high concept simulationist mechanics).

D&Dnext seems to be hoping to square this circle by punting a lot of responsibility onto an expctation that the GM use force to control the game. This is very much the 2nd ed AD&D approach, as well as - I think - one reasonably common approach to 3E play. It is not, in itself, playstyle neutral, given that some playstyles (eg narrativism, just to push my own barrow) depend heavily upon limiting, regulating and channelling GM force in certain well-defined ways.



Ahnehnois said:


> I'm guessing that caused some problems.



Not really. What sort of problems would you have in mind?



Ahnehnois said:


> Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores?



This is pretty central to _building_ a PC. It's not a big part of the fiction, though, nor of all action resolution. I GM plenty of NPCs who lack those scores. I GMed a lot of AD&D without worrying about what the STR of a giraffe or the CON of a troll was.



Ahnehnois said:


> certain people expect that everyone will share in that system together (I think most players do and probably most DMs as well; in any case, several people in this thread do and that underlying assumption wasn't getting across).



What's with this readiness to generalise without evidence. The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.



Ahnehnois said:


> Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much.



Hmm, I can think of another system that does that. Oh yes, 4e.



Ahnehnois said:


> On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system



I'm not sure what that means, or how it sets up a contrast with 4e.



Ahnehnois said:


> works within D&D's advancement by level model



Can you elaborate - if the base numbers don't change, but the hit points do, how is the creature advancing in level?



Ahnehnois said:


> means something in the game world



Being a dragon, or a hydra, or a beholder, or a golem, etc, all mean something in the gameworld in 4e. I don't understand the basis for asserting otherwise.



tomBitonti said:


> Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic.  In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules.



I'm not sure what you're talking about here. There is no general "extra action" or "boss monster" mechanic in 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest.  They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players.  It was almost pure step on up play.  2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.



I basically agree with this, though the word "adversarial" has to be given the right meaning.



Steely_Dan said:


> Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, _wrong_.



I missed all that. "Unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players" seems to me to capture White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors pretty well.

The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and the Giant and Descent/Drow modules reduce the surface absurdity, but the hardcore gamism is hardly concealed. Just look at (i) the teleport-between-giant-strongholds feature of the G modules, (ii) the teleport ban in the D-modules, and (iii) the plethora of safe-passage tokens able to be looted in the lead up the encounter with the Black Tower.

Then there is the passage that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] quoted, the DMG advice on ethereal mummies and bolts of lightning from the heavens, etc.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Is there an inherent difference in the fiction? Typically not.
> 
> Is there an inherent difference from the metagame point of view? Absolutely yes, in the way I play the game. The PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are not.



That pretty much sums it up; I don't disagree with much of that. The difference, I assume, is that you want the rules to reflect the metagame assumptions that you play with, whereas as I don't want the rules to address those assumptions at all.



> The system has to take a stand here. And the stand will affect play - the notion of playstyle-neutral mechanics is, in my view, an illusion.



True, I think (which doesn't bode well for 5e's goal of unification). But some are less neutral than others.



> What's with this readiness to generalise without evidence. The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.



3e D&D covers a lot, given its popularity, its OGL, and all its offshoots. Its the closest thing this hobby has to a common language. But even so, I think your assumption on this topic applies mostly to fantasy rpgs; other systems might not assume 'heroes' in the first place.



> Can you elaborate - if the base numbers don't change, but the hit points do, how is the creature advancing in level?



The character is advancing in "mythic levels", which are independent of character level as it exists thusfar. Mythic levels don't add hit dice, but add various other benefits that increase a character's power without increasing their base attack/saves/etc. The system is just being announced and even the playtest hasn't been released yet, so I'm just commenting on what was laid out in the link.



> I'm not sure what that means, or how it sets up a contrast with 4e.



It means that a mythic level is meaningful in the existing context that we understand character building. I know what adding a level does. I have no idea what adding a boss descriptor does. The point is not that 4e doesn't have monster roles, the point is that the mythic concept accomplishes the same goal (make extra powerful monsters without simply giving them more hit dice) in a better way.



> Being a dragon, or a hydra, or a beholder, or a golem, etc, all mean something in the gameworld in 4e. I don't understand the basis for asserting otherwise.



Neither do I. Who asserted that? The OP asserted (and I agree with) the notion that the boss label in and of itself does not mean anything in the game world.



> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. There is no general "extra action" or "boss monster" mechanic in 4e.



Sure doesn't sound that way based on the rest of this thread; I don't have a 4e MM handy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 3, 2012)

tomBitonti said:


> Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic.  In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules.  I can see having a problem with boss monsters using the unique mechanic as a game design problem, while not having a problem with the idea that some opponents can be called bosses simply because they are exceptionally hard to fight.



Solos and Elites get extra actions from Action Points, which are part of the regular rules (all PCs also get and use action points).  But, that was from early 4e on, and Solos didn't work so well in early 4e.  Now they get action-preservation abilities, as well, which has helped.

4e combat was balanced enough that the 'action economy' became very meaningful, and 2 Action points just didn't stack up to the 5:1 action-economy disadvantage Solos faced.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2012)

Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not?  Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count.  Things like that.  That's not an unusual feature for solos.  Although, at a quick glance, it's also not specific to solos, since many solos don't have it.

For example, Tembo's from Dark Sun gain the following:

 Double Actions

At the start of combat, the tembo makes two initiative checks. The tembo takes a turn on both initiative counts.

But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not?  Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count.  Things like that.



More often they simply have single-action multi-attacks, or a non-action power or trait (rather than an actual action) that happens out of turn.  But, that's not a feature of solos, like the 2 Action points are.  Rather, it's the anything-goes wonder that is exception-based design.  



> Double Actions
> 
> At the start of combat, the tembo makes two initiative checks. The tembo takes a turn on both initiative counts.
> 
> But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.



Nod.  Ettins get that, too, and they're 'only' Elites.


----------



## Magil (Sep 3, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> More often they simply have single-action multi-attacks, or a non-action power or trait (rather than an actual action) that happens out of turn.  But, that's not a feature of solos, like the 2 Action points are.  Rather, it's the anything-goes wonder that is exception-based design.




There is not a single, unifying, "they get more actions" mechanic to solos. Instead, it's more of a design philosophy. It seems most prevalent in the Monster Vault and its sequel, where the dragons get instinctive actions, the hydra has Snapping Jaws, and the beholder has Random Eye Ray. So they often get multiattacks AND extra actions on top of action preservation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.



Champions builds PCs and NPCs in exactly the same way, at least up until 4th edition (the last one with which I'm familiar). In 4th ed both superhero PCs and normal supervillains are built on 250 points. Though it's true that other NPCs such as ordinary humans, agents and 'boss' villains are built on different point totals. Champions has no distinct 'boss' mechanics, it leaves everything up to the GM, which can make it a hard system to run.

I played in a oneoff session of 4th edition Champions about a year ago, and afterwards the GM was talking about how much of his prep time he'd spent detailing supervillain abilities and attributes that never came up in play.

This idea, of building everyone more or less the same way, is, I think, pretty common in point buy systems, as you say. I'd be surprised if GURPS doesn't do things this way. It's the case with Tri-Stat (the system behind the Anime rpg Big Eyes, Small Mouth). Mutants & Masterminds 2nd edition, another point buy system, carefully builds and costs all its example supervillains, though they are mostly built on more points than the typical PC.

Contrast with this section from Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition -

Consider this Game Master's Rule #1 when it comes to NPCs: Don't "design" them!

Don't create your NPCs with the character creation rules. Just give them what you think they ought to have in their various skills and attributes and move on. Remember this game is supposed to be easy for you to set up, run, and play. Don't sit around adding up skill points for NPCs when you could be designing fiendish traps and thinking up nasty special abilities for your monsters!​
My Champions GM should really have read this! It seems to me that Savage Worlds is reacting to the d20 or point buy sort of games that predominated in the 90s and noughties, taking the same approach as 4e D&D.

One could argue that 3e D&D doesn't go quite as far in PC/NPC 'same-iness' as the more explicit point buy systems, as it has NPC classes and distinct monster build rules, though it's true an important feature of 3e is that PC classes, NPC classes and monsters can all be combined in one entity, and any monster can be used as a PC using the Level Adjustment mechanic.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That pretty much sums it up; I don't disagree with much of that. The difference, I assume, is that you want the rules to reflect the metagame assumptions that you play with, whereas as I don't want the rules to address those assumptions at all.



The rules will always address metagame assumptions. I want them to address the right ones for me, or (at least) not to address the wrong ones.

A simple example is timing rules. Rules that make me track time in detail (eg spell durations of 1 min/level or 10 min/lvl) get in the way of tight scene framing. They're not neutral, and I don't want them.



Ahnehnois said:


> But some are less neutral than others.



In my experience this claim is typically made in favour of simulationist priorities, and to be honest I don't see any difference here. Certainly the rules for monster and NPC building that you are putting forward as neutral in this thread are not remotely neutral.



Ahnehnois said:


> I think your assumption on this topic applies mostly to fantasy rpgs; other systems might not assume 'heroes' in the first place.



My notion was "protagonist", not hero. And it is the default assumption for almost all RPGs that I'm familiar with, both traditional and indie. (I know there are some conch-passing outliers in the indie scene, though I'm not familiar with the actual details of those games.)



Ahnehnois said:


> The character is advancing in "mythic levels
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



If there were such a thing as a "boss descriptor" in a game, presumably you could learn what (if any) mechanical difference it made. As you describe them, "mythic levels" seem to me to be nothing but a mechanical device for rationing out build elements. It doesn't strike me as any particular breakthrough in design.

I think it is a striking feature of 4e that it seems to have been the first mainstream action-economy driven RPG to notice this issue for "boss" monsters and tackle it in a systematic way (though [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] has posted an example from the superhero genre dating back to 1985!). Burning Wheel discusses the issue in its Adventure Burner (which cites 4e as an influence in its bibliography). And now PF is responding too!



Ahnehnois said:


> The point is not that 4e doesn't have monster roles, the point is that the mythic concept accomplishes the same goal (make extra powerful monsters without simply giving them more hit dice) in a better way.



Better how? What is better about tacking on "mythic levels" compared to saying "This monster is pretty quick: it can use a tail slap as an immediate reaction against anyone who tries to flank it"? I don't even know what "mythic levels" are meant to represent - what is mythic about having 1HD?, which seems feasible as you describe it - whereas I know exactly what is going on when a quick monster uses its tail to slap away enemies trying to surround it.



Ahnehnois said:


> The OP asserted (and I agree with) the notion that the boss label in and of itself does not mean anything in the game world.
> 
> Sure doesn't sound that way based on the rest of this thread; I don't have a 4e MM handy.



This isn't meant to be rude, but I don't think you have a very good grasp of the range of 4e monsters or the build rules that govern them. There is no "boss label" in 4e that makes a difference to the monster's build. There are monster builds, and some of them are labelled "elite" or "solo" because they have a suite of abilities (as well as hit points to  match) that makes them well suited to that role.



Hussar said:


> Most solos though now act multiple times throughout the round, do they not?  Quite often a solo will act on its own initiative roll and then, maybe, always on 10 count and 5 count.  Things like that.  That's not an unusual feature for solos.  Although, at a quick glance, it's also not specific to solos, since many solos don't have it.
> 
> <snio>
> 
> But, apparently, this is a feature of that creature, not solos in general.



There are a wide range of mechanical abilities to support elites and solos in the action economy. Some elites do double strikes (like a PC ranger). Some have immediate actions (like a PC fighter). Some use AoEs (like many PCs).

Some solos do AoEs (eg dragons) or double-claw attacks (dragons again) or multiple heads (hydras) or multiple eyes (beholders). Some have changed in design a lot between the MM and MV (eg dragons, even moreso purple worms). Others have changed not at all, except to bring their damage up to date (eg beholder eye tyrants - an illusion of change is created by reformatting the MM aura as a triggered action, but the mechanical details are identical).

There is certainly nothing like a "boss label" that just gets slapped on a monster to change things about it. Even the issue of action points is a bit more complex than [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] describes upthread. Vecna gets 4 APs, for example, not 2, and gets to spend and earn them in special ways outside the normal action point mechanics. I borrowed a version of this for statting up a powerful wizard and Vecna worshipper as a 13th level solo:

[section]
[/section]

And for the curious, I didn't narrate his hit points as meat. I narrated them as magical defences and skill with his staff.

I narrated his minor actions and action points as magical prowess which dwarfed that of any individual PC.

Also, for the utlra-curious, the PCs used their ring of wishing (one wish) to wish that everyone in the banquet hall where they were fighting him be immune from blindness for the next 10 minutes (or so - maybe next hour?). Without that, they probably wouldn't have won the fight.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Champions builds PCs and NPCs in exactly the same way, at least up until 4th edition (the last one with which I'm familiar). In 4th ed both superhero PCs and normal supervillains are built on 250 points. Though it's true that other NPCs such as ordinary humans, agents and 'boss' villains are built on different point totals. Champions has no distinct 'boss' mechanics, it leaves everything up to the GM, which can make it a hard system to run.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Thanks - for me, points buy games (other than Rolemaster, which is not points buy in the same way that HERO, GURPS etc are) are known by theory only!

Part of what I meant by my "looked at in a certain way" is that, in a points-buy game, I think it can be ambiguous whether points are some sort of ingame resource ("genesis points"?) or a metagame resource. Whereas D&D tries to make its build resources (race, class, level) have some degree of ingame meaning, and 3E then extends this to the monsters as well - so treants have taken "levels" in the "plant" class!

This is really weird, for me at least. The closest thing I can think of to it is the Animal Encounter generation table in Traveller, which creates animals as part of the world creation system. It is trying to elide the distinction between build and resolution mechanics. My assumption is that, in most points buy games, this ellision is not attempted - but maybe I'm wrong!

(Traveller does it for NPCs as well, via its Lifepath rules. Burning Wheel does it for NPCs, too - a potential weakness, I think, in an otherwise strong game, but part of the rationale from the designers is that the use of the Lifepaths in this way is crucial for defining the settting. But Burning Wheel doesn't extend the approach to animals and monsters, which are built to fit both fictional and metagame requirements, not according to any "creature genesis as action resolution" methodology.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2012)

The behir from Monster Manual 2 also gets multiple actions - it gets three standard actions a round, on initiative counts 30, 20 and 10. The ability is callled Lightning Reflexes.

It does seem to me that, because each solo in 4e has a different way of getting multiple actions, that there's no problem for a simulationist here. The extra actions have their own separate justifications in the fiction.

I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason. It's possible to create such reasons (illusionary armor?) but it would be obvious to the game participants that those are secondary.

For a simulationist, or at least one type of simulationist, I think the game world has to be primary. The game world is what a roleplaying game is about.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason. It's possible to create such reasons (illusionary armor?) but it would be obvious to the game participants that those are secondary.
> 
> For a simulationist, or at least one type of simulationist, I think the game world has to be primary. The game world is what a roleplaying game is about.



This is all true, but I don't see how 3E ACs satisfy that simulationist constraint, because "natural armour" is whatever the designers need it to be to make the maths work out!

Some monsters have natural armour in the 20s and 30s? What the hell does that mean in the fiction, given that the best possible magical full plate gives +13 (+8 armour, +5 enhancement)?

This is why I finid a lot of the "simulationist" gnashing of teeth at 4e a bit hard to understand. They are happy with hit points - which measure what ingame quality? (I know - starship-style force shields, on your theory of them!) They are happy with the action economy and turn-by-turn initiative - which measure what ingame quantities? They would be happy with martial powers powered by "fatigue" points, even though the expenditure of such points would bear no connection to actually being fatigued (eg even at 0 "fatigue" points a PC could still run and jump and fight in a non-flashy way).

D&D strikes me as so obviously non-(process-)simulatonist in its mechanics, and so metagame heavy, that I find this line of objection to 4e hard to fathom. The only rationale I can see is that, for some player, there is a difference between essentially _passive_ metagame manoeuvres - hit points, reactive saving throws, the action economy, etc - and _active_ ones, which require actually making choices about what metagame-constrained thing my PC will do.

But then 3E has features that elide this distinction too, such as immediate and swift actions.

So colour me confused.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Part of what I meant by my "looked at in a certain way" is that, in a points-buy game, I think it can be ambiguous whether points are some sort of ingame resource ("genesis points"?) or a metagame resource.



That's an interesting question, which I hadn't considered.

In 4th ed Champions, there is one boss villain, Mechanon, included in the sample characters section, built on a lot more points than the others. In addition to the points he gets from disadvantages, he has a 'villain bonus' of 442 points, which is explained thusly -

Mechanon's point totals are not balanced; he is a villain of an epic scale. The "villain bonus," found in character listings in many HERO Games products, represents the extra experience that a villain has attained, and the extra points that a villain needs to fight a large number of heroes (especially heroes with a lot of experience).​
It seems fairly clear that the quote is giving both an ingame and a metagame justification for Mechanon's villain bonus. Champions has been around a long time, and has a pretty big rulebook now, so I think it might be a bit better than most points buy games in explaining its reasoning. I'd be interested to know what GURPS take is on this.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 3, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Champions builds PCs and NPCs in exactly the same way, at least up until 4th edition (the last one with which I'm familiar). In 4th ed both superhero PCs and normal supervillains are built on 250 points.
> ...
> I played in a oneoff session of 4th edition Champions about a year ago, and afterwards the GM was talking about how much of his prep time he'd spent detailing supervillain abilities and attributes that never came up in play.
> ...
> I'd be surprised if GURPS doesn't do things this way.




For the record there was a note in the GURPS 3e rulebook (and I think in the 4e one - I'm just certain about 3e) telling you not to bother doing this for most adversaries and just jump straight to the number.  Of course it never told you _how_ to jump straight to those numbers and suggested an ordinary guard had a shortsword skill of 17.



Doug McCrae said:


> It does seem to me that, because each solo in 4e has a different way of getting multiple actions, that there's no problem for a simulationist here. The extra actions have their own separate justifications in the fiction.




This.



> I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason.




And this confuses me.  Mostly because the reason it is a level 19 controller is because that's what reflects its abilities.



pemerton said:


> Some monsters have natural armour in the 20s and 30s? What the hell does that mean in the fiction, given that the best possible magical full plate gives +13 (+8 armour, +5 enhancement)?




I wish I knew.  And wish I knew why people weren't making plate armour out of that.  The veneer of simulationism in 3.X has always been a veneer.



> They are happy with the action economy and turn-by-turn initiative - which measure what ingame quantities?




The OODA loop?  But then that's just my justification.



Ahnehnois said:


> Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much.




So Paizo have just reinvented Solo monsters.  Good for them.



Steely_Dan said:


> Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, _wrong_.




Really?  Read Tomb of Horrors (an adventure originally written for Gygax's own table) and tell me it's not adversarial.  Read the history of Earseekers (a monster specifically designed to prevent PCs listening at doors) and tell me that isn't adversarial.  Read the advice on listening at doors on p60 of the the 1e DMG (it has after all been reprinted recently) and tell me that isn't adversarial.  And now go back and re-read your 1e DMG again.

Then talk to me about wrong.  And as it's right, come back and talk to me about offensive.  The job of the Gygaxian DM is to present a tough challenge to the players and let them work out how to overcome something that on paper they shouldn't have much chance against.  And you do that according to the advice by being _almost_ as adversarial as a Descent DM.  Not _as_ adversarial - for one thing your power is unlimited. But the indicated method in 1e is pretty adversarial.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 3, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this confuses me.  Mostly because the reason it is a level 19 controller is because that's what reflects its abilities.



I guess we don't know exactly how the creative process worked but I would imagine that the author first considered the rakshasa in previous editions. It's quite powerful - 7 hit dice with very good defences, CR 10 in 3e, level VI in the 1e DMG encounter tables - which led to it being given a high level in 4e. The rakshasa is mostly a caster, the 3e version is a level 7 sorcerer with an emphasis on spells from the illusion and enchantment/charm schools. The 1e text says they are 'masters of illusion'. So, for 4e, a controller with illusion and charm-based abilities seems most appropriate.

Up until that point, I think it's the game world (or the rules of previous editions) driving the rules. After that, I believe the monster's precise stats and abilities, such as armor class, hit points, how much damage its attacks deliver and the like, derive from its level and role.


----------



## Cybit (Sep 4, 2012)

As an aside, the "boss" monster question was asked at PAX Prime, and the answer was "we're just using it right now as an easy way to delineate between monsters of a certain level that are more powerful than others."  The "boss" monster tag will most likely be removed prior to actual launch, but it's being used currently as a handy dandy way in the playtest to give DMs an idea of the relative power of a given creature outside of just level.  They said not to read too much into it, it's just a playtest term to help the playtest specifically.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 5, 2012)

Cybit said:


> The "boss" monster tag will most likely be removed prior to actual launch, but it's being used currently as a handy dandy way in the playtest to give DMs an idea of the relative power of a given creature outside of just level.




Because, plainly, _hiding information from the DM_ is the best way to proceed.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 5, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because, plainly, _hiding information from the DM_ is the best way to proceed.




And since "boss" monster is the *only* way to express that the monster is tougher than your average specimen, you assume that they intend to hide that info from the DM. 

Of course, you know what happens when you ASSume.


----------



## slobster (Sep 5, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because, plainly, _hiding information from the DM_ is the best way to proceed.




Yeah, am I the only one who noticed that 4E and its vaunted encounter design tools led to a lot of entitled GMs?


----------



## Cybit (Sep 5, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because, plainly, _hiding information from the DM_ is the best way to proceed.




Heh.  Based on the conversations I had, it sounds like the XP value will be the kicker (IE, the XP value of that monster will be higher than the "average" creature of that level).

This also allows you to have the concept that a dragon of a certain level is more powerful than an orc of a certain level.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 5, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And since "boss" monster is the *only* way to express that the monster is tougher than your average specimen, you assume that they intend to hide that info from the DM.
> 
> Of course, you know what happens when you ASSume.




I would love to see a more indepth system. Right now in 4e we have minons worth 1/4 elite worth 2 monsters and solo worth 5.  i would love to see something more varrable.


Some monsters are like 2 equal level ones, others 3 and stillothers 4.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 5, 2012)

Cybit said:


> Heh.  Based on the conversations I had, it sounds like the XP value will be the kicker (IE, the XP value of that monster will be higher than the "average" creature of that level).
> 
> This also allows you to have the concept that a dragon of a certain level is more powerful than an orc of a certain level.



Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, _as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo"_.

If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.


----------



## slobo777 (Sep 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, _as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo"_.
> 
> If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.




That's how I'm reading it too:

1) There will be two measures of a monster's power relative to the PCs: Level and XP Value.

2) Published monsters will not explain how the values are arrived at.

 . . . however I did read that how-to-build-monsters was going to be part of published material, and presumably those guidelines or rules will cover precisely this.

It's also possible that fluff descriptions of the monsters and their preferred tactics will cover for missing quick tags. 

Although I'll miss 4E's combat roles (including tags like _solo_, _leader_), because they are so quick to assess and use. Seems backwards to remove them, when they cost so little to add at design time and can be ignored by any DM or player if they wish.

I wonder how XP will be assessed? Anyone remember the Monster Mark (I think first published in White Dwarf)?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 5, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> Anyone remember the Monster Mark (I think first published in White Dwarf)?



Yes and yes. (And I'm going to call [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] to join in any Monster Mark discussions.)

The Monster Mark has two problems though, in my view. First, it rates all monsters against a first level fighter, which means that I think it exaggerates the real ingame power of higher HD monsters.

Illustration:

[sblock]Take the following two characters:

1st level fighter with AC 2, 1d8 hp and doing 1d8 damage and hitting AC 2 on 18+;

3rd level fighter with AC 2, 3d8 hp and doing 1d8+1 damage (magic sword) and hitting AC 2 on 15+ (magic sword again).


The 1st level fighter requires, on average, 1 hit to kill itself. This takes it 20/3 rounds to achieve, in which time it takes, on average, the same amount of damage, for a MM of 4.5.

The 1st level fighter requires, on average, 3 hits to kill the 3rd level fighter, which takes on average 20 rounds. In which time the 3rd level fighter deals 20 * 6/20 * 11/2 = 33 hits of damage, for a MM of 33.

Thus, rated against a 1st level fighter, the 3rd level fighter is nearly 8 times tougher.

But now let's rate both against the 3rd level fighter.

The 3rd level fighter requires, on average, 9/11 of a hit to kill the 1st level figher. This takes it 9/11 * 20/6 = 30/11 rounds to achieve. In that time it suffers 30/11 * 3/20 * 9/2 = 81/44 hits, for a MM of a bit less than 2.

The 3rd level fighter requires, on average, 27/11 hits to kill itself. This takes it 27/11 * 20/6 = 90/11 rounds. In this time, of cousre, it takes the same amount of damage it has inflicted, or 27/2 hits, for a MMM of 13.5.

Thus, rated against a 3rd level fighter, the 3rd level fighter is less than 7 times tougher than the 1st level fighter.[/sblock]

The second problem is that the multipliers to MMs for special abilities are somewhat arbitrary, and especially when many special abilities are involved are very difficult to judge and compare. It is a bit like the Bodak issue from 3E - what CR is it, given that it is physically little thread but has a death gaze attack that even high level PCs might fail against?

Still, it was more systematic than the official systems in B/X and AD&D, and I used it back in the day!


----------



## Cybit (Sep 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, _as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo"_.
> 
> If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.




One of the things they have discovered in their testing is that 3.5/4E folks actually have a lot in common in what they want, but get put off by how it is presented.  Monster creation in 3.5 and 4E is actually very similar, except they threw in some wonky numbers (Natural Armor Bonus, HD bonus) to get monsters to the attack / AC numbers they wanted by level.  But because 3.5E covered it in a "system" while 4E was very blatant about it, some folks got themselves jarred from the verisimilitude of the system.  So they're going both ways by doing this.  They'll have your "average stats by level" chart, as well as showing how every ability a creature has is part of it's core narrative place in the world.  

A lot of D&D Next's challenge is showing that the 3.5 and 4E players have way more in common than they all suspect; a lot of the disconnect has to do with the method of presentation (especially on the DM / Monster side).


----------



## Victim (Sep 5, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> The behir from Monster Manual 2 also gets multiple actions - it gets three standard actions a round, on initiative counts 30, 20 and 10. The ability is callled Lightning Reflexes.
> 
> It does seem to me that, because each solo in 4e has a different way of getting multiple actions, that there's no problem for a simulationist here. The extra actions have their own separate justifications in the fiction.
> 
> ...




Okay, but when has DnD ever been that game?

The explanation for the 4e Rakshasa's 33 AC is EXACTLY the same as the explanation for the 2e rakshasa's -4 AC.  There is none.  

In terms of in world reasons that are obviously secondary to game ones, how can anything beat drow having tons of +3 gear that PCs can't really use themselves for long?


----------



## D'karr (Sep 5, 2012)

Victim said:


> Okay, but when has DnD ever been that game?




Bingo.  The needs of the game engine to be able to handle a broad amount of cases is more important than explaining every single nuance/difference.  One of the "beautiful" uses of keywords was that they provided a simplified/unified framework for effects.  You could process towards that effect in whatever way seemed best, without breaking the system.

I remember some people "crucifying" certain publishers during the d20 rise because they didn't have "effects" that "followed" the "rules" with exact precision.  To the point of complaints because a particular monster didn't have all its skill points, or a point of AC was higher or lower than "calculated".  These were the most pedantic arguments because most of them really boiled down to stifling creative things because they did not count every single point.  It was ridiculous.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, _as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo"_.
> 
> If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.




No, no, you have that right.  That's the long and the short of it.  All you have to do is look at every single conversation you've been having with 3e fans after the release of Next and you'll see it works exactly like that.  So long as you make a point of _saying_ that something isn't 4e, it's perfectly okay for something to actually _be_ 4e.



Cybit said:


> /snip
> 
> A lot of D&D Next's challenge is showing that the 3.5 and 4E players have way more in common than they all suspect; a lot of the disconnect has to do with the method of presentation (especially on the DM / Monster side).




Yup.  Good to know they've got a handle on this.  Stealth in the 4e stuff and modern design stuff under the radar, throw a few bones out to keep away the scavengers and they're good to go.


----------

