# Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

> Design game elements for their intended use. Secondary uses are nice, but not a goal. Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster. If we build a feat, it's meant as a feat, not a monster special attack. If we also want to make it a playable character race, we'll design a separate racial write up for it. We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. The designs must inform each other, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.





To me, this is backwards thinking. 

An ability is an ability is an ability.

I can understand the thinking, but as a long time Hero and GURPS player, it just sounds wrong to me.

The reason monsters as players don't work as smooth as it should not isn't in the details of the monster races, it's in the fact that ECL/Level Adjustment is just broken.

But that's just me.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.

I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 22, 2007)

I think its going to be a weird change of pace, considering I've only been playing DnD since the debut of 3E.

But, I'm fine with it in theory. If they're not gonna to create monsters/races with level dependant abilities like players have, I'm fine with going the total opposite direction of 3E and making monsters that work only as monsters.


----------



## Keldryn (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.




I'm in agreement.  I loved the idea when 3rd Edition first came out, but in actual practice it possibly ended up being a horrendous pain in the butt in preparing for and running a game.


----------



## marune (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.




Yeah, what seemed to be the greatest idea ever 8 years back was finally a foolish illusion... I'm glad Mike Mearls (or someone else at WoTC) noticed it when beginning working on 4E. 

BTW, it should apply to many NPCs too -> We don't nead complete level per level build for NPC classed "commoners" and even many others "kinds" of NPC.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

I also totally disagree with Mearls on this one.

Ironically, his actual monster redesigns?  I *loved* those.  They really got to the core of the monsters' schticks and made them play better, and fixed ridiculous, punitive stuff like the screw the fighter monster... er, rust monster.

The THEORY that apparently drove his decision-making, however, on this is the exact opposite of what I want.  Indeed, it's one of the main things that lead me to wonder if a houseruled Saga system isn't more likely to suit my fantasy needs than 4e.

My thing is, I'd like to see PCs similarly trimmed down to a neat package of relevant abilities (rather like a HERO system character tends to end up with, incidentally).  I'd like to see one or more 'monster classes' that would advance identically to the PC classes, and as such be used as PCs.

As for the more 'out-there' monsters and the limits placed on the designers - I for one would sooner sacrifice those than I would lose what, in my experience, is _the single most popular aspect of 3e_.

Seriously - I have never had a single campaign in 3e without _multiple_ monsters-as-PCs.

What's more, since D&D is unlikely to abandon the Tolkienesque/traditional high fantasy vibe it currently has, most of the races I'd actually WANT as PC races (mascot-like creatures, anthropomorphic animals, constructs, etc.) are likely to end up in Monster Manuals and as such be unplayable without house rules.

As both a GM and a player, this is pretty much the third biggest negative I could imagine actually being put into D&D - only 'differentiated XP charts by class' and 'racial level limits' would put me off more.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.




Likewise.

This is a return to the "old days".  And in this case, that's a good thing.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm in complete agreement with Mouseferatu about this.  While on an intellectual level it's tidier to have everything work the same way, in practice it leads to overcomplication, unneccessary rigidity, and odd side effects.

In the D&D podcast a little while ago, one of the designers talked about designing benchmarks for what a monster of a certain CR should be like to be an appropriate challenge.  They initially designed it internally to help with MM monster design, but came to realize that that's where the process should start.  I completely agree.

My favorite game to run is Mutants and Masterminds.  When creating an opponent, I can simply decide "this NPC should have an attack bonus of +6, and x, y, & z abilities".  I want D&D encounter creation to be that straightforward.  If I'm creating a new monster or opponent, I don't want to have to go through the laborious hit die by hit die calculation of everything, especially if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the consistency of the game


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> My favorite game to run is Mutants and Masterminds.  When creating an opponent, I can simply decide "this NPC should have an attack bonus of +6, and x, y, & z abilities".  I want D&D encounter creation to be that straightforward.  If I'm creating a new monster or opponent, I don't want to have to go through the laborious hit die by hit die calculation of everything, especially if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the consistency of the game




Oh, I absolutely don't want to go through a laborious hit die calculation!  I want to pick a monster whose hit dice equal the level I want the encounter to be - in this sense, even simpler!

The thing about your example is, as a Mutants and Masterminds player, I'd be doing the exact same thing you would be as a Mutants and Masterminds GM.  If I were creating a new PC, I could create one who was identical to the NPC you were making (provided it didn't have more points or a higher PL than you were allowing to PCs, anyway) - if you created some godzilla-like monster as an opponent for my superhero and I defeated it, and I later retired the superhero and brought in a new character, I could PLAY that godzilla-like monster.

So in that sense, what you're saying and what I'm saying are exactly the same on the monster end.  Again, I think Mearls has the right idea when it comes to actually (re?)designing monsters - I just want the same principles applied to redesigning PCs.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

I think this direction is awesome, _as I can't stand monster PCs!_ 

[Generalization] Most people can't even play a human [/Generalization], so how on earth can they play a monster? 
I know why they want to: they have cool abilities.
But monsters should be monsters, period. And yes, I'd go so far as to make humans the only playable race in a campaign. Anything else ruins the mystery.


----------



## Pale (Aug 22, 2007)

How much will this hamstring DMs, though? Sorry guys, I still love Player and Monster stats being the same... one system to rule them all. The old ways are what produced such things as "The Ogre Mage" (yes, I know that was also in 3.5, but more out of tradition than anything else, I think). Am I going to have to have a seperate "monster" if I want "Fighter Kobolds", "Stealthy Kobolds" and "Magic Casting Kobolds"? Meh, just let me add character classes to them.

Also, looking at my large collection of monster compilations, I fail to see where designers were overly stifled by the 3.5 system.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 22, 2007)

Yeah, this was certainly one of those cool in theory, but not so much in practice ideas.  I don't think they'll go back to a troll being 6+6 HD and treasure type D, and if you don't like it, sorry, that's the way it is, but a different mechanic for improving monsters (and NPCs) would be good.


----------



## Pale (Aug 22, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I think this direction is awesome, _as I can't stand monster PCs!_




You know, just because monsters have PC block stats, doesn't mean you have to allow it in your game. And all-human games are pretty interesting, ya ask me.

I find "I don't like it, so no one can do it!" stances pretty selfish, however.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 22, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> I find "I don't like it, so no one can do it!" stances pretty selfish, however.




It's not being changed because Reaper Steve doesn't like it....


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 22, 2007)

As long as the 4e monster rules make the game easier to run and allow for more creativity, then I'm okay with them.


----------



## Henry (Aug 22, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> Also, looking at my large collection of monster compilations, I fail to see where designers were overly stifled by the 3.5 system.




It's not the designers that are stifled, it's often times the DMs running their weekly games that are "stifled" (inundated is a better description). A stat block can be a page long in theory, with no harm done -- but in practice, the DM who just wants to open the page and run the monster as printed runs into digging into the stat block to figure the creature out enough to use good strategy. Even the "simplified" stat blocks still leave me digging around for a minute to get the correct info - only in 3E did I start to have that problem, and in earlier games I could run a monster on the fly.

I've often said it before and still maintain it -- DMs and players need two separate sets of rules, because they have two different goals. The player's goal is to manage one character to the pursuit of fun. The DM's goal is to manage dozens of characters as well as plot elements to the pursuit of fun. As long as the mechanics meet the two sides in the middle, then I have no problem with DMs not having to manage NPCs the way PCs are managed. If 4E can successfully pull it off, then I'm interested.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 22, 2007)

This is probably the only thing I've heard about 4E that I'm ambivilant about simply because of one of the big things I despised about 1E/2E: monsters and NPCs having special powers and abilities not related to their make-up that I as a PC could never have.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> I'm in complete agreement with Mouseferatu about this.  While on an intellectual level it's tidier to have everything work the same way, in practice it leads to overcomplication, unneccessary rigidity, and odd side effects.




Note, I'm not saying you're wrong.

But shouldn't the whole game be made easier to run instead of dumbing down certain parts of it? I know I don't want to have to see something like the Complete Humanoids Handbook in 4e because monsters work differently than characters.

Look at BESM or M&M. Both are a lot easier to 'stat' up monsters in and afaic, both use the same rules for the NPCs/Monstes as they do the characters.

If we're going to get to the point where monsters are just a line name, # of attacks, hit points, and damage per attack with special abilities... well, I can see it be a huge space saver since you don't need to list out skills/feats/unused abilities, but completely backwards in thinking.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 22, 2007)

I like this approach. Humanoid monsters will be able to have a 1-30 racial level write up. We'll see less of the Half-celestial Awakened Gelatinous Cube paladins. 

3.X is fantastic for player options but it is a nightmare to prepare as a GM. I used to love the complete control over opponents for my PCs. Every foe was unique. Class levels, Feat choices and templates meant never running the same monster twice. Oh my lord the variation. 
But now every foe was like rolling up a PC. The paperwork the wrangling of skills and feats for PrCs. Template abuse. In seeking a cooler monster I sucked out all the flavor and replaced it with mechanics. I welcome monsters as monsters, not DM PCs.


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 22, 2007)

I believe that PCs and NPCs/Monsters play by different rules, and can/should be designed to match this philosophy.  There might be awkward "story reasons" needed to explain why PC Minotaur isn't the same as NPC Minotaur, but I'm willing to live with that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Incidentally, Andy did say that some of the most PC-appropriate monster races--kobolds, goblins, etc.--probably would be playable as PCs directly out of the MM. This implies, to me (but again, I could be wrong) that adding class levels to monsters is still not difficult.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I know I don't want to have to see something like the Complete Humanoids Handbook in 4e because monsters work differently than characters.




Heh. I liked the _Humanoids Handbook_, or whatever it was called. Honestly, I thought that, in the context of 2E, it worked at least as well as--if not better than--the LA/ECL system worked in the context of 3E.

LA/ECL was a jury-rigged patch on a hole the initial designers hadn't accounted for. It was a stopgap, and it was inaccurate and clumsy as often as it worked.


----------



## freyar (Aug 22, 2007)

Hmmm, I supposed not having DMed for higher levels means I might be missing some of the 3e problems, but something in my scientific mindset really liked having the same sort of rules for monsters and PCs.  I suppose we'll have to see how this will turn out.

I'd also expect someone to come up with house rules for 4e to introduce "3e-like" monster design...


----------



## Pale (Aug 22, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> It's not being changed because Reaper Steve doesn't like it....




Really? I never would have guessed that. /sarcasm

Doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about his stance on the subject, though, does it?


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's an example of something I think made monster design in 3e more complicated: Feats.

Why do monsters have feats? Because they have to work the same way as PCs. What do feats provide? A bunch of abilities that...
(a) someone will forget to calculate into a statblock (so many examples of this in later MMs with Weapon Focus).
(b) the DM has to suddenly look up at the table, because they allow the monster to do something not spelt out in its statblock.

It's ok for feats like Power Attack or Cleave, which are so common that everyone has. But, do you remember what Awesome Blow does? I don't, and I've run a lot of D&D. It's a lot easier just to give the monster the Awesome Blow ability because it makes sense, and write it up in the statblock as such.

That's what Mike is talking about there. LA/ECL may be broken, but statblocks were *way* more complicated and obscure than they needed to be. 

Synergy bonuses? Oh, gods, the pain they would have given John Cooper if he bothered much with skills. I really hope size bonuses are on the chopping block. It's just another "hidden" bit of information that you forget about. (Give small monsters higher Dex if you want them to be hard to hit).

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Oh, and... new article.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 22, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> It's not being changed because Reaper Steve doesn't like it....




Sorry...I just found a chance to stick my flag in the ground, that's all.
I thought I did a decent job with the [generalization] tag, but I forgot the [For me] preceding the argumment. No elitism intended.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Incidentally, Andy did say that some of the most PC-appropriate monster races--kobolds, goblins, etc.--probably would be playable as PCs directly out of the MM. This implies, to me (but again, I could be wrong) that adding class levels to monsters is still not difficult.




Here's the thing I strongly dislike - the same thing I strongly dislike about Sean K. Reynolds's 'err as far on the side of caution as can be reasonably construed as playable, than add 1' LA assignment theory:

I want monstrous PCs of the races I consider PC-appropriate, not those Andy (or any other design) considers appropriate.

To whit:

In an Ivalice game set at the time of Final Fantasy Tactics, skeletons, ghosts, minotaurs, goblins and mind flayers are appropriate PC races (along with humans), whereas elves, orcs, dwarves and gnomes are not.

I'm willing to bet at least two of those (ghosts and mind flayers) are not "PC-appropriate" by the standards Andy is talking about, and skeletons (if their being _awakened_ is touched on at all) won't be, either.  Minotaurs have been implied to not be PC-usable out of the Monster Manual, too.  That means I would have to houserule in fully two-thirds of the playable races!

In a Dragonlance game, draconians (baaz and kapaks, at least), hobgoblins, goblins, minotaurs and centaurs are appropriate PC races, as, arguably, are ogres, half-ogres and high (Irda) ogres.  You could make a pretty strong case for dragons, too.  Yet I'd wager minotaurs, centaurs, Irda and draconians won't be playable out of the gate (to be fair, I'd wager Irda and draconians won't appear at all), and ogres probably won't be, either.  That's three almost guaranteed Monster Manual races that would need houseruling, and three that probably would have to be redone from scratch - not counting dragons.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Note, I'm not saying you're wrong.
> 
> But shouldn't the whole game be made easier to run instead of dumbing down certain parts of it? I know I don't want to have to see something like the Complete Humanoids Handbook in 4e because monsters work differently than characters.



No. Actually, IMHO, it is an excellent, excellent idea to "dumb down" exactly those parts of the game.

People who complain about 3e often do so on the basis of the complexity of statting up characters. Yet those who like 3e are usually fond of the array of options that D&D gives them for character-building. Simplified rules for monsters and NPCs allow gamers to have their cake and eat it too.

And yes, these are apples and oranges, in any case. PCs are, assuming a modicum of luck, worth the build effort; there's one to a character, and they last many sessions. Monsters and NPCs often only last a single interaction, and that too potentially one that uses only a fraction of their typical stat block. Why should the DM spend the time to build them?


> Look at BESM or M&M. Both are a lot easier to 'stat' up monsters in and afaic, both use the same rules for the NPCs/Monstes as they do the characters.



Sort of, at least in the case of M&M (I'm not familiar with BESM). M&M NPCs still take longer to build than, say, Iron Heroes villains, and certainly longer than D&D monster statblocks, which are usable out of the box. And M&M characters, while cool and customizable, do not have the range of abilities that the full array of D&D classes and related options grant.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. I liked the _Humanoids Handbook_, or whatever it was called. Honestly, I thought that, in the context of 2E, it worked at least as well as--if not better than--the LA/ECL system worked in the context of 3E.
> 
> LA/ECL was a jury-rigged patch on a hole the initial designers hadn't accounted for. It was a stopgap, and it was inaccurate and clumsy as often as it worked.




I'll agree with the latter part but the former? 

While I loved AD&D 2nd ed and had a real hard time switching to 3rd ed, I remember books this like being one of the reasons I played a lot of other game systems back then regardless of time crunches. (Level limits? Skipping % strength because of strength bonuses? Multi-classing characters? Kits? Argh!)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Why should the DM spend the time to build them?




I'm not trying to sund stupid here, but doesn't the Monster Manual 'build' them? Isn't the real problem the 'customization' aspect?

Sounds like they'll be going the Everquest rotue where instead of making levels and what not they'll just be different monsters.


----------



## Psion (Aug 22, 2007)

Hmmm. The more accessible, more PC like nature of monsters in 3e is what made me take a chance on 3e instead of sticking with 2e.

Not that I don't see the point. Some abilities are just a bit too unmanageable in PC hands. But I don't think that's an excuse for a black and white distinction between PC and adversarial abilities.

I had hoped they would come up with a workable solution to the LA/ECL issue. It seems like they tried, failed, and gave up from this.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But shouldn't the whole game be made easier to run instead of dumbing down certain parts of it?




Why has "simplified in a way I don't like" become "dumbing down"?  Am I dumb because I like this change?

I've been arguing that the whole conflict between people wanting detailed PCs but finding adventure design to much work is because of this philosophy of "what's good for the PCs is good for the opponents."  A huge amount of work for the DM can be cut out by simplying designing opponents and PCs as PCs.  Having different mechanics for those races that work as both seems appropriate to me.

The best way to have your cake and eat it to is to have two cakes, not to try to have one cake that you eat and keep.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. I liked the _Humanoids Handbook_, or whatever it was called. Honestly, I thought that, in the context of 2E, it worked at least as well as--if not better than--the LA/ECL system worked in the context of 3E.




I believe James Wyatt has given hints that there are going to be rumblings in Darguun in Eberron.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of humanoids book developed to help build on that before the new Eberron is released, or shortly thereafter.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

I see the point and agree with it.

Heck, I see the point in making NPCs different too.

But mechanically it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it's showcasing a bad design from the front end. If players are too complecated to make in the first place that the same rules can't be applied to the monsters/npcs.... simplify them!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Why has "simplified in a way I don't like" become "dumbing down"?  Am I dumb because I like this change?
> 
> I've been arguing that the whole conflict between people wanting detailed PCs but finding adventure design to much work is because of this philosophy of "what's good for the PCs is good for the opponents."  A huge amount of work for the DM can be cut out by simplying designing opponents and PCs as PCs.  Having different mechanics for those races that work as both seems appropriate to me.




Not at all. Semantics no? Simplified could be the word I used without changing the context. If the game needs to be easier to run, make the whole game easier to run. 

People keep bringing up these fond memories of AD&D/basic D&D, etc... and hey, back then, there were no feats, skills, etc... Heck, isn't part of the appeal of Castles & Crusades simplicity?

Maybe I'm just too jaded by 2nd ed's approach to making 'playable' races or previous editions. Maybe I've played too much Hero and other point buy systems.

Ah well. We'll see how it turns out.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 22, 2007)

This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game because the 2HD max skill rank for CHARACTERS is +5. 

And they shouldn't have to include some space-wasting hack in the statblock explaining "the kangaroo gets a +7 racial bonus to jump checks". They should just put "Kangaroo: +12 jump", and be done with it.

This change to monster (and I include humanoid NPC villains in this category) stats will make the DM's job much, much easier. Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important. No need to worry about making sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up. Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

And that's another thing that worries me.

Currently the game has some 'limits' or has a lot of checks and balances built into the game so that as a reader, you can have an idea if something is screwy with the game stats.

With the new edition, how would you know if there are screw ups? "Oh, we meants that to be a four armed yugoloth." 

WoTC stat blocking ability isn't that great now. I don't see making it easier to do fuzzy math making them any better.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game because the 2HD max skill rank for CHARACTERS is +5.
> 
> And they shouldn't have to include some space-wasting hack in the statblock explaining "the kangaroo gets a +7 racial bonus to jump checks". They should just put "Kangaroo: +12 jump", and be done with it.
> 
> This change to monster (and I include humanoid NPC villains in this category) stats will make the DM's job much, much easier. Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important. No need to worry about making sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up. Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If players are too complecated to make in the first place that the same rules can't be applied to the monsters/npcs.... simplify them!




And here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.

Just because Procedure X is too complicated for Circumstance Y, that doesn't mean it's too complicated for Circumstance Z.

A player has to make one--maybe two or three--PCs over the course of an entire campaign. A DM has to make, or at least manage, _hundreds_ of monsters and NPCs.

Monsters and NPCs, therefore, _should_ be simpler to build and manage than PCs. And that means simplifying one procedure and not the other. (And on the few occasions the DM needs/wants an NPC as complex as a full-fledged PC, he can always build one that way.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> WoTC stat blocking ability isn't that great now. I don't see making it easier to do fuzzy math making them any better.




The flip side of this is, simpler stat blocks make for fewer errors.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement.
> 
> Just because Procedure X is too complicated for Circumstance Y, that doesn't mean it's too complicated for Circumstance Z.
> 
> ...




I guess one of the reasons I'm not 'seeing' the other side as clearly as some is that the whole point of books like the Monster Manual, is to take the work off the GM in the first place no? I mean, we do have six monster books for 3.0/3.5 right?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The flip side of this is, simpler stat blocks make for fewer errors.




Without seeing the math though, we'll never know.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I guess one of the reasons I'm not 'seeing' the other side as clearly as some is that the whole point of books like the Monster Manual, is to take the work off the GM in the first place no? I mean, we do have six monster books for 3.0/3.5 right?




Yeah. Books like MMIV, which give people like John Cooper an ideal place to slam Wizards for not getting the stat-blocks right.

Cheers!


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> WoTC stat blocking ability isn't that great now. I don't see making it easier to do fuzzy math making them any better.




Well, that's the point, right? If WotC--professional game designers with an editing team--regularly screw up stat blocks, then the system is just plain broken. Too needlessly complicated. Cut the math entirely, and it's not "fuzzy".

Monsters are alive for, at most, 3 to 4 rounds. It's simply not worth the time to fully stat them up. There's no _reason_ to. They should have their core values (armor class, hp, attacks, saves, and maybe a skill or two) simply *set* at whatever value they need to be in order for them to fill their role in creating a fun encounter. Without concern for whether those numbers "add up" properly. 

I really like the top-level thought evident so far in 4E's design decisions. Monsters are monsters, not PCs, and they should be recognized for what they are and treated accordingly.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Just because Procedure X is too complicated for Circumstance Y, that doesn't mean it's too complicated for Circumstance Z.




I agree with this point.  Joe's point seems to be that if monsters are too much work with detail then PCs shouldn't be allowed to be detailed either.  I see no reason to connect the two.

PCs are PCs, so treat them as PCs.  Monsters are monsters, so treat them as monsters.  There is no reason to treat monsters as PCs, or visa versa, just because.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Yeah. Books like MMIV, which give people like John Cooper an ideal place to slam Wizards for not getting the stat-blocks right.
> 
> Cheers!




Sounds like simplification would be a good thing eh? (I just argue that it should be for everone.)


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game because the 2HD max skill rank for CHARACTERS is +5.




Fortunately, in the game I'm using for d20, the max "skill bonus" for 2 hd characters is +11 before stats are applied.  So your kangaroo need not worry.  Of course, they could always just give the 'roo a racial bonus...



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> And they shouldn't have to include some space-wasting hack in the statblock explaining "the kangaroo gets a +7 racial bonus to jump checks". They should just put "Kangaroo: +12 jump", and be done with it.




Oh.

The racial bonus text usually appears AFTER the stat block, in my experience.  In the block itself, it's just +12 Jump, with maybe a * after it.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This change to monster (and I include humanoid NPC villains in this category) stats will make the DM's job much, much easier. Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important. No need to worry about making sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up. Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.




If I have to calculate every. Individual. Skill. Point. for PCs, or even make sure the skill points, stat bonuses, synergy bonuses, class bonuses, and item bonuses all precisely add up, then the system is going to be inferior to Star Wars Saga for my purposes, and I won't be using it as a GM anyway.

The level of complexity of PCs and major characters in 3.5 is far beyond what I consider appropriate for _any_ RPG, much less what is likely to be the gateway product for most of the hobby.  Far more flexible systems, such as the almost limitlessly flexible HERO System and the almost-as-flexible-and-much-easier-to-use Mutants and Masterminds, produce PCs with a much lower average complexity than 3.5, without sacrificing one whit of customization or differentiation.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Sounds like simplification would be a good thing eh? (I just argue that it should be for everone.)




I think it should be for everyone... but the level of simplification shouldn't be the same.

Feats are great for PCs,  but not so great for NPCs and much less so for monsters.

NPCs are really going to be the hardest thing that Wizards deal with.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I agree with this point.  Joe's point seems to be that if monsters are too much work with detail then PCs shouldn't be allowed to be detailed either.  I see no reason to connect the two.
> 
> PCs are PCs, so treat them as PCs.  Monsters are monsters, so treat them as monsters.  There is no reason to treat monsters as PCs, or visa versa, just because.




For me, it's not "just because".

The game system uniformity helps expalin how the world works. One of the problems, outside of the complexity of characters in terms of being monsters, is that monsters are given too much free reign in their special abilities to make them viable as monsters as opposed to making them effective critters.

Or something like that.

It gets back to my thoughts that an effect is an effect is an effect. Game mechanic X is always game mechanic X regardless of whose using it. Having the system behind the game be 'universal' in it's applications can make for greater game mastery.

Will liches now cast spells differently then player mages for example?

Like I've mentioned, I can see how this new (very old) way of doing things will benefits GMs who customize their monsters. I don't see it doing a lot for players who'll now have to pay for books that provide these different statistics or for GMs who run things out of adventuers or for GMs who use a lot of player based NPC classes. (Or heck, those that just run things straight out of the Monster Manuals to being with.)


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Aug 22, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Monsters are alive for, at most, 3 to 4 rounds. It's simply not worth the time to fully stat them up.




Some monsters perhaps, in some games - but not all monsters in all games.  We regularly have combats that last several times that length, and the 'monsters' sometimes survive for the whole combat or even after the combat.

Different people have differing experiences - and I'd hope that Wizards are aiming at a wider market than just games where the monsters die by round four.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I think it should be for everyone... but the level of simplification shouldn't be the same.
> 
> Feats are great for PCs,  but not so great for NPCs and much less so for monsters.
> 
> ...




Good point. Players building characters _like_ taking time on interesting choices. DMs building monsters? Not so much.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If players are too complecated to make in the first place that the same rules can't be applied to the monsters/npcs.... simplify them!



That's not really what I got from Mike's comment, personally.

What I understood his point to be was something like this:

Monsters have one purpose/nature in the game, and player characters have another. Trying to design a monster so that it can also be a PC without any changes means that it will be less good as a) a monster, b) a PC, or c) both.

Consider a monster with the Great Cleave feat, in Third Edition. Not only does the creature have to have Power Attack and Cleave as prerequisites before you can "legally" grant it Great Cleave, but that means that it has to have a certain number of Hit Dice (in order to gain the feat slots) - and *that* means it has to have a certain number of skill points, certain saving throw and base attack values, _et cetera_.

Alternatively, if you design, say, a minotaur which simply has the ability to cleave into multiple foes, without concern for whether or not it has a PC-ready statline (with Hit Dice, saves, skill points, BAB, whatever), then you're achieving your goal (a monster which can drop multiple foes in one blow) without encumbering yourself with baggage which might hinder the overall concept of the monster.

(Another big one I know they mentioned in the 13th podcast is that to have a Gargantuan-sized creature, under Third Edition rules it has to have a certain minimum number of Hit Dice, even if those Hit Dice and everything that come with it aren't appropriate for a blue whale or whatever. Why does it need six feats?)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The level of complexity of PCs and major characters in 3.5 is far beyond what I consider appropriate for _any_ RPG, much less what is likely to be the gateway product for most of the hobby.  Far more flexible systems, such as the almost limitlessly flexible HERO System and the almost-as-flexible-and-much-easier-to-use Mutants and Masterminds, produce PCs with a much lower average complexity than 3.5, without sacrificing one whit of customization or differentiation.




And from my experience, the counter arguement is that players are not smart enough to make viable characters without the chains of level and automatically advancing hit points to secure them a minimum of abilities. Which may be right mind you.

But I do agree with what you're saying. The other counter arguement is that players only have to know one or two things for their characters, GM's have to know everything for every monsters.

And yet, I wonder who suffers from the GM having a better grasp of the game then the players? In this case, the time pressed GM. But that's only if he's customizing the heck out of his campaign...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> That's not really what I got from Mike's comment, personally.
> 
> What I understood his point to be was something like this:
> 
> ...




And yet DUngeoncraft makes an excellent point that instead of using templates and other craziness to customize monsters, you can change default skills and feats that the monsters already have. 

If you say that all minotaurs now have this new speical ability, aren't you making an entirely new monster each time you change the 'feats' that have now become special abilities? And what does that do to the 'xp' value?


----------



## Shade (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Feats are great for PCs,  but not so great for NPCs and much less so for monsters.




Not in my games.   Feats make many of the monsters in my experience.   Things like Large and in Charge, Empower Supernatural Ability, Adroit Flyby Attack, Rending Constriction...all these have made for memorable encounters.

I really pray that monsters continue to gain feats, and that the flexibility to modify monsters via template and increased Hit Dice remain.   I'd much rather run an advanced existing monster than a baseline higher-CR creature (flavor notwithstanding).   I just really groove on the flexibility.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Semantics no?



Also, this is the worst argument ever. "It's just the actual meaning of the words we use, whatever!"


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I agree with this point.  Joe's point seems to be that if monsters are too much work with detail then PCs shouldn't be allowed to be detailed either.  I see no reason to connect the two.
> 
> PCs are PCs, so treat them as PCs.  Monsters are monsters, so treat them as monsters.  There is no reason to treat monsters as PCs, or visa versa, just because.




Unless you assume that a wide variety of creatures are suitable as PCs.

If you're playing Lord of Something Other Than the Rings, Honest, Unless You Squint, v. 201,834.5, then yes, you don't need rules for monstrous PCs (although treant/ent PCs would not be out of the question - and I doubt the treant will be "PC-Appropriate" in the Monster Manual).

If you're playing Dragonlance, or Spelljammer, or Dark Sun, or Planescape - then you need a significant number of monsters to be playable as PCs, and for each one of those settings you need a DIFFERENT suite of monsters to be playable as PCs.  If you're playing Shadowrun or Final Fantasy or World of Darkness and want to use the D&D rules, you need an entirely different suite of playable monsters.  In a romantic fantasy game, talking animals and magical beasts are appropriate if not necessary as PCs; in a sword and sorcery game, humans may be the only appropriate race, or they may be joined by serpent men (yuan-ti) and similar weirdness.

For the moment, I'm only including those settings that would likely have many of their monsters in the Monster Manual.  When you look at more exotic fare, you're looking at a lot more work for homebrewers.  How about mascot creatures in a CRPG- or anime-inspired game?  Is a moogle a monster or a race?  What about a pokemon?  An esper or similar summoned creature?  An anthropomorphic animal?  Are the green men of Barsoom a race or a monster?  They clearly need to be the former, but as common antagonists does that make them too complicated to use as the latter?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And from my experience, the counter arguement is that players are not smart enough to make viable characters without the chains of level and automatically advancing hit points to secure them a minimum of abilities.




There you go again tying it into a player's intelligence.  Just because I prefer that style of play doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to do it another way.  I don't like that other style of play.

It seems that most players agree with me because they prefer to have the ability to widely customize their character.  The reasons vary from person to person, but the preferences are there.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 22, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If you're playing Dragonlance, or Spelljammer, or Dark Sun, or Planescape - then you need a significant number of monsters to be playable as PCs, and for each one of those settings you need a DIFFERENT suite of monsters to be playable as PCs.  *If you're playing Shadowrun or Final Fantasy or World of Darkness and want to use the D&D rules, you need an entirely different suite of playable monsters.*  In a romantic fantasy game, talking animals and magical beasts are appropriate if not necessary as PCs; in a sword and sorcery game, humans may be the only appropriate race, or they may be joined by serpent men (yuan-ti) and similar weirdness.



I think that's just it: the idea of the core rules being all things to all people has burdened DMs who want to use monsters as _monsters _in _Dungeons & Dragons.
_ 
Shouldn't that really be the first consideration?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> There you go again tying it into a player's intelligence.  Just because I prefer that style of play doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to do it another way.  I don't like that other style of play.
> 
> It seems that most players agree with me because they prefer to have the ability to widely customize their character.  The reasons vary from person to person, but the preferences are there.




Ain't my arugement. 

Go to a different cite and ask if D&D should become a point system instead of a level and class based system and some of the responses you'll see include players not being familiar enough with the system to 'maximize' it for surviability purposes.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Unless you assume that a wide variety of creatures are suitable as PCs.



To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with a system where even PC race NPC characters use different rules from PCs.  Save the detailed NPCs for the key enemies and simplify everyone else.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with a system where even PC race NPC characters use different rules from PCs.  Save the detailed NPCs for the key enemies and simplify everyone else.





And I see the benefit of that.

But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...

And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And I see the benefit of that.
> 
> But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...
> 
> And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?



I know this is intended as sarcastic, but I'd be fine with this. Yes, we can trust our GMs.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Go to a different cite and ask if D&D should become a point system instead of a level and class based system and some of the responses you'll see include players not being familiar enough with the system to 'maximize' it for surviability purposes.




I'll bet a much larger group will be a group that complains that a point system will cater to the min-max powergamer.  If fact I agree with this (not my objection to it, but I agree that the mix max players live for that sort of system).

Yes, there are min-max players, powergamers, munchkins, etc, out there.  No matter how you design a game they will play their style of game, or leave the game.  I'm sure WotC doesn't want to design a game that will eliminate any of those styles because the only real problem players are the extremes.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'll bet a much larger group will be a group that complains that a point system will cater to the min-max powergamer.  If fact I agree with this (not my objection to it, but I agree that the mix max players live for that sort of system).
> 
> Yes, there are min-max players, powergamers, munchkins, etc, out there.  No matter how you design a game they will play their style of game, or leave the game.  I'm sure WotC doesn't want to design a game that will eliminate any of those styles because the only real problem players are the extremes.




That sounds like a good bit for another thread.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...




There comes a point where you reached the goal.  You don't want to go so far past your goal that you alienate the fringe at the other side of the scale (there are people who love that amount of detail work as a DM).


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Not in my games.   Feats make many of the monsters in my experience.   Things like Large and in Charge, Empower Supernatural Ability, Adroit Flyby Attack, Rending Constriction...all these have made for memorable encounters.
> 
> I really pray that monsters continue to gain feats, and that the flexibility to modify monsters via template and increased Hit Dice remain.   I'd much rather run an advanced existing monster than a baseline higher-CR creature (flavor notwithstanding).   I just really groove on the flexibility.




Look, I think the _abilities_ are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky. 

Removing feats from monsters doesn't mean that they'd stop being able to be advanced, or you couldn't add a template to them. (Actually, simplifying monsters would probably make templates easier to use!) 

Cheers!


----------



## marune (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And that's another thing that worries me.
> 
> Currently the game has some 'limits' or has a lot of checks and balances built into the game so that as a reader, you can have an idea if something is screwy with the game stats.
> 
> ...




The errata will come from actual game play instead of proof-reading.

Instead of : WOTC forgot 3 skills points over 192 for this monster, it will be : Hmm, I've run some battles with Monster X and it seems that is AC is a bit too high for his "Monster level", same for you guys? Strike 35 and write 30, done.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Look, I think the _abilities_ are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky.
> 
> Removing feats from monsters doesn't mean that they'd stop being able to be advanced, or you couldn't add a template to them. (Actually, simplifying monsters would probably make templates easier to use!)
> 
> Cheers!





But follow that line of thought.

Wouldn't making feats into abilities for characters work just as well and allow players even more freedom?



> I know this is intended as sarcastic, but I'd be fine with this. Yes, we can trust our GMs.




Only the second part. Even as a fan of Hero and other point based systems, I, as a GM, see no point in wasting time providing crunched up numbers for a skilled metal smith or armoerer unless he's going to go adventuring or something along those lines. Part of the fun for me as a GM is giving the players little quests to find "the best!" to forge items or provide information to them as opposed to the players asking me what level characters are in town.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> To me, this is backwards thinking.
> 
> An ability is an ability is an ability.
> 
> ...




I agree with you, actually. I think the decision to codify every possible aspect of creature or character as its own special mechanic is a big part of what made (makes) 3x unwieldy on the backend. Dump that !@$#, says I. Get back to unifying things, rather than giving us a mountain of mechanics at odds with one another.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Look, I think the _abilities_ are really, really good. However, that they're implemented as feats is clunky.



Yep. Feat prerequisites and the number of Hit Dice needed to "legally" gain the number of feats you want the monster to have is a problem in Third Edition.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Yep. Feat prerequisites and the number of Hit Dice needed to "legally" gain the number of feats you want the monster to have is a problem in Third Edition.




But isn't the same thing true of characters?

Elric, a famous sword and sorcery character by Michael Moorcock, is an emormously powerful summoner. Never see him casting a fireball or generally any other ability. 

He'd actually work better as a 'monster' in the system you're describing above as opposed to letting players have more 'freedom'.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But follow that line of thought.
> 
> Wouldn't making feats into abilities for characters work just as well and allow players even more freedom?




Err... not quite following you.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The errata will come from actual game play instead of proof-reading.
> 
> Instead of : WOTC forgot 3 skills points over 192 for this monster, it will be : Hmm, I've run some battles with Monster X and it seems that is AC is a bit too high for his "Monster level", same for you guys? Strike 35 and write 30, done.




Given the game industry's (not WoTC, but pretty much the entire game industry) use of errata, it'll be a mighty cold day in the hot place when that happens.

Did the yougoloth with four arms ever get fixed for example? (Ah, the old Fiend Folio beasties...)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... not quite following you.
> 
> Cheers!




Becaue if you follow the logic of needing level x to make feat y legal is bad, because feat y fits the monster concept, how would it be bad for player a to have that for his concept if the mechanics of what feat y does are exactly the same? The monster's just sidestepped everything and the player is actually penalized for being a player.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But isn't the same thing true of characters?
> 
> Elric, a famous sword and sorcery character by Michael Moorcock, is an emormously powerful summoner. Never see him casting a fireball or generally any other ability.
> 
> He'd actually work better as a 'monster' in the system you're describing above as opposed to letting players have more 'freedom'.




Hmm. Depended on how you implemented the summoner class, surely?

Cheers!


----------



## marune (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Given the game industry's (not WoTC, but pretty much the entire game industry) use of errata, it'll be a mighty cold day in the hot place when that happens.




I had in mind "community-made" errata.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

The thing about LA/ECL is this: It never really worked.

Oh, you could play with it, don't get me wrong. And you could have fun with it. But the truth is, it implied a level of compatibility and equality that it didn't really deliver.

Mind flayers, for instance. Does anybody here _really_ believe that a mind flayer is equivalent to a 15th-level character? Really? I don't. And my experience doesn't suggest that it is.

Is a thri-kreen rogue 2 really a 6th-level character? Not in my experience. He nearly died, frequently, because while he was _hitting_ like a 6th-level character, he was absorbing damage and rolling saves like a 4th.

LA/ECL was a patch. It was a "Let's make this as close as we can." But it was never, ever truly accurate.

For a game to have monsters and PCs be _truly_ equal, it has to do two things:

1) Limit monsters only to abilities that PCs have, with no exceptions.

2) Make monsters functionally identical to a PC of the same HD.

In a system like that, a troll is just a 5th-level fighter with green skin and no regeneration. I don't want that. It's boring. But the instant you bring regeneration into the equation, you've mucked up the system, because regeneration isn't _exactly_ equal to anything PCs get.

Ultimately, I'd rather a system that gives designers and DMs complete freedom, rather than one that restricts them in order to _almost_ accomplish the stated goal of monster/PC compatibility.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Hmm. Depended on how you implemented the summoner class, surely?
> 
> Cheers!




Not now. Now you get access to a ton of spells that you may have no interest in. You can't sacrifice the ability to cast spells of more than two schools to maximize the hit points of your monsters for example. You can't forfit the ability to cast lower level spells in order to make your creatures stronger.


----------



## marune (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The thing about LA/ECL is this: It never really worked.
> 
> Mind flayers, for instance. Does anybody here _really_ believe that a mind flayer is equivalent to a 15th-level character? Really? I don't. And my experience doesn't suggest that it is.




Don't worry about Mind flayers, you couldn't even make playable drow spellcasters


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Becaue if you follow the logic of needing level x to make feat y legal is bad, because feat y fits the monster concept, how would it be bad for player a to have that for his concept if the mechanics of what feat y does are exactly the same? The monster's just sidestepped everything and the player is actually penalized for being a player.




You've confused my argument with someone elses. I'm not saying that at all.

My argument is that having the shortcut of "Awesome Blow" on the monster statblock causes confusion, just as much as "Weapon Focus" on that statblock. In the first case, the DM has to look it up. In the second case, the designer has to make sure he accounted for it in the stats.

This isn't so much a problem for a player, since they have all their concentration on just their PC, but for a DM? Lots more problems.

Cheers!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with a system where even PC race NPC characters use different rules from PCs.  Save the detailed NPCs for the key enemies and simplify everyone else.




Here's the thing.

I'm COMPLETELY fine with THIS.

I LOVE Spycraft 2.0's NPC generation table and use it often for other games, even though it's not an exact match.  It's wonderfully simple and easy to use.

BUT, if the Monster Manual takes this route, and neither it nor the Player's Handbook provide the more complex PC Race rules for the monsters... then anyone playing anything but bog standard Tolkienesque D&D (+ Merlin/Elric/Hellboy/DMC Dante-inspired half-fiends at least previously tied to the Planescape Great Wheel) is completely hosed.

They can hope and pray for a Savage Species type book, or they can houserule all of it - which means considerably more work than they would have had to put into cleaned-up and somewhat streamlined PC-style monsters.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think that's just it: the idea of the core rules being all things to all people has burdened DMs who want to use monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> Shouldn't that really be the first consideration?




Why should that be the first consideration?

If D&D is to be "highly specific D&D fantasy set in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk with very tight setting-based restrictions on PCs" - then it's no longer a game I'm interested in.  It will almost certainly be better designed than AD&D, and more to my tastes mechanically than Castles and Crusades, but from a flavor perspective I might as well be playing those games.

3.5 has a lot of problems, but, as the wealth of d20 games attests, its moddability was one of its greatests strengths.  It's currently the only version of D&D I would consider playing, because it's the only version that can handle the kind of settings and playstyles I'm interested in without houserules sufficient to be a system unto themselves.

You bolded my suggestions of Final Fantasy, World of Darkness and Shadowrun - yet Final Fantasy could be run reasonably well, though not perfectly, with humans as the only playable race, and Shadowrun is fairly close to D&D in its PC racial choices (trolls being the big question mark).  Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer, all of which are D&D settings, present considerably more problems.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Ultimately, I'd rather a system that gives designers and DMs complete freedom, rather than one that restricts them in order to _almost_ accomplish the stated goal of monster/PC compatibility.




So when did you start playing Hero?


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 22, 2007)

I dont care how monsters and Pc races are designed so long as if I want to play one or allow my players to play one I dont need house rules to do it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You've confused my argument with someone elses. I'm not saying that at all.
> 
> My argument is that having the shortcut of "Awesome Blow" on the monster statblock causes confusion, just as much as "Weapon Focus" on that statblock. In the first case, the DM has to look it up. In the second case, the designer has to make sure he accounted for it in the stats.
> 
> ...





I agree with that.

I won't lie and say I've never forgotten a monster's ability or to keep track of a condition that a monster is in or has inflicted on the players.

At the same time, I can't blame the game system for me not reading up on the abilities of a monster, especially a complex one.

Being a GM is a big job. While I see monsters getting easier to use thanks to these changes, I don't see those errors going away or the effort to run good combats going away.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But isn't the same thing true of characters?



An opponent - getting away from "monster", because this is generally true of any challenge you have to overcome - has a purpose in any given context.

A minotaur is a dangerous foe in melee, strong and tough. The games rules governing the minotaur in a fight ought to be streamlined towards the goal of having it be a strong, tough melee opponent without worrying about irrelevant details.

(The same applies in other types of encounters than combat encounters, too. A minotaur would have certain traits in a social encounter, or a chase scene, and these should be taken into account. I hope they do.)

While a PC has a role to play in combat, the fact that the PC is a continuous presence in the gameworld means that a player needs a more comprehensive - and thus more complex - set of rules. Not only does the PC have to have something to do in a fight, a social situation, and a chase scene, they also have to be able to deal with other kinds of encounters and challenges - like climbing a cliff, or navigating a trap-filled dungeon. There are situations and problems a PC will face - and needs the ability to deal with - which the monster never will, because that's not its game function.

A PC also exists along a continuum of progression which doesn't necessarily apply to a monster - what my wizard is at 5th level builds upon what he is at 4th, and must do so elegantly and naturally while providing a foundation for further advancement. No such requirement applies to a monster - while it's good to be able to scale up (or scale down) a monster's abilities, that still takes place in the context of its game function as a challenge for the PCs, and thus operates according to different, less comprehensive rules.

For instance, a minotaur might need a Climb skill if it's going to be encountered in a sheer-sided valley (or just to account for its natural behaviour, if they're supposed to be mountaineers), but saying "A minotaur needs to be able to Climb" doesn't necessarily translate to "A minotaur's skill points need to be laid out in the same balanced, accounted-for fashion as a PC's skill points" . . . the minotaur really just needs an appropriate bonus to Climb which makes sense for the purpose you want it to be Climbing for.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not now. Now you get access to a ton of spells that you may have no interest in. You can't sacrifice the ability to cast spells of more than two schools to maximize the hit points of your monsters for example. You can't forfit the ability to cast lower level spells in order to make your creatures stronger.




No, Joe: You currently don't have the summoner class.

You have a Specialist Conjurer, but that doesn't try to emulate the Moorcock Elric class. You *could* do so.

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> No, Joe: You currently don't have the summoner class.
> 
> You have a Specialist Conjurer, but that doesn't try to emulate the Moorcock Elric class. You *could* do so.
> 
> Cheers!




Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.   

But no, seriously, in terms of spellcasting, Elric would be a conjurer no? And a fighter with a dang powerful sword.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

At the same time, I want to make my position clear:

I agree with the concept of designing monsters to be monsters.

I also really, really hope that they will be prompt about converting monsters into "PC format", as much as possible, as often as possible, because I *love* having the option.

Quite honestly, this is pretty fertile ground for _D&D Insider_. Perhaps even a regular column - alternating "obvious" choices like hobgoblins and minotaurs with more esoteric options like yuan-ti purebloods or driders.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.




Cough, cough... Ahem!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> An opponent - getting away from "monster", because this is generally true of any challenge you have to overcome - has a purpose in any given context.
> 
> A minotaur is a dangerous foe in melee, strong and tough. The games rules governing the minotaur in a fight ought to be streamlined towards the goal of having it be a strong, tough melee opponent without worrying about irrelevant details.




But not a fighter? A fighter who in 3rd ed, gets 2 skill points a level and a terrible skill selection?



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> (The same applies in other types of encounters than combat encounters, too. A minotaur would have certain traits in a social encounter, or a chase scene, and these should be taken into account. I hope they do.)
> 
> While a PC has a role to play in combat, the fact that the PC is a continuous presence in the gameworld means that a player needs a more comprehensive - and thus more complex - set of rules. Not only does the PC have to have something to do in a fight, a social situation, and a chase scene, they also have to be able to deal with other kinds of encounters and challenges - like climbing a cliff, or navigating a trap-filled dungeon. There are situations and problems a PC will face - and needs the ability to deal with - which the monster never will, because that's not its game function.




But in your example, the PC with no abilities in social skills, is not going to be able to do anything. The player who doesn't have any ranks in climb, isn't going to be able to do so. 

What if the minotaur is actually chasing the player? Don't they both need the same types of statistics?



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> A PC also exists along a continuum of progression which doesn't necessarily apply to a monster - what my wizard is at 5th level builds upon what he is at 4th, and must do so elegantly and naturally while providing a foundation for further advancement. No such requirement applies to a monster - while it's good to be able to scale up (or scale down) a monster's abilities, that still takes place in the context of its game function as a challenge for the PCs, and thus operates according to different, less comprehensive rules.




Only if you're nailing the players down with character creation. Long before the PHB II provided official rules for it, I knew many GMs who'd let players change their characters. As new books come out for 4e, I don't see that aspect changing as the books themselves will often say, "Hey, don't punish a player for not taking an ability that didn't exist when he made his character.



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> For instance, a minotaur might need a Climb skill if it's going to be encountered in a sheer-sided valley (or just to account for its natural behaviour, if they're supposed to be mountaineers), but saying "A minotaur needs to be able to Climb" doesn't necessarily translate to "A minotaur's skill points need to be laid out in the same balanced, accounted-for fashion as a PC's skill points" . . . the minotaur really just needs an appropriate bonus to Climb which makes sense for the purpose you want it to be Climbing for.




But a default set of skill points in the Monster Manual now is just that, default. The GM can change skill points and feats now to take into account a variety in location, commonly encountered foes, etc...

Minotaurs in your setting don't fight often? They take skill focus on social skills to make up for their lack of grace. Minotaurs in your campaign master trackers? They take tracking and skill focus.

In your example, what if you don't want the minotaur to climb? Are you going to make a 'new' minotaur with the new skill bonus? If so, you're just trading the math to hand waving no?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Cough, cough... Ahem!




You are a bad man.

In A good way.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to sund stupid here, but doesn't the Monster Manual 'build' them? Isn't the real problem the 'customization' aspect?



Yes and no. Running monsters in play is simpler when the monster's abilities are more tersely defined. So there is an element to abbreviated NPC/monster design that functions in play as well as at the build stage.


> Sounds like they'll be going the Everquest rotue where instead of making levels and what not they'll just be different monsters.



Possibly, but not necessarily. It is potentially easier to rack a monster up or down if the stat block is built on slimmer lines.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

Shade said:
			
		

> Not in my games.   Feats make many of the monsters in my experience.   Things like Large and in Charge, Empower Supernatural Ability, Adroit Flyby Attack, Rending Constriction...all these have made for memorable encounters.
> 
> I really pray that monsters continue to gain feats, and that the flexibility to modify monsters via template and increased Hit Dice remain.   I'd much rather run an advanced existing monster than a baseline higher-CR creature (flavor notwithstanding).   I just really groove on the flexibility.



I agree with you 100% on this one Shade.

Adding different feat arrays to monsters gives me a great way to make beholder A different from beholder B. This change in design has me a little concerned because it sounds like monsters are going back to being like they were in 1E and 2E.

It sounds like they won't have feats, skills, or even ability scores. After all, if their special abilties aren't based on HD or ability scores then why would the designers include those elements? This, if true, is a mistake, IMO.

To me, it seems like the designers are taking this step backwards because they don't want to have to worry about getting the monsters "bulletproofed" before going to print. We won't know if the stat blocks have errors in them unless WotC tells us there are errors. (Unless something is so glaringly wrong that they simply can't deny it.)

It "smacks" of lazy design, instead of trying to simplify the design process. I'm all for simplifying the design of monsters, but there should be a better way to do it than handcuffing DMs who want to create their own monsters.

That was one of the major problems of 2nd Edition. Many fans didn't know how TSR came up with new monsters, as there wasn't a "detailed" blueprint that everyone could use. This was one of the greatest innovations of 3rd Edition, and the thought of throwing it away makes me sick. 

It sounds like WotC wants to keep the 4E monster design blueprint "in-house". That would be a Huge mistake! Once they start down that road, it will lead the gaming community back into the Dark Ages of mistrust and legal action that was the 1990s. Sure the new SRD will have the monsters in it, but if there isn't a blueprint then it makes that part of the SRD useless.

I might be overreacting, but the more I read about how the game is changing, the more it pisses me off. Yes, many things needed fixing but how monsters are built wasn't one of them. Simplified, yes. Totally revamped to make every monster design in 3E obsolete, no!

Just my 2 cents,

Knightfall1972


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

I suspect NPC classes will go the way of the dodo in Fourth Edition, at least in their current form as "fully-realised but not PC-quality classes".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

This may sound strange, but as a GM, it doesn't piss me off. Heck, easier to use monsters is all good.

It's just thinking about the dsign that makes me scratch the old head.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 22, 2007)

[The second part of your post is a response to me, not Glyfair]



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Why should that be the first consideration?



Why should using monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons be the first consideration of monsters in the D&D Monster Manual?



> If D&D is to be "highly specific D&D fantasy set in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk with very tight setting-based restrictions on PCs" - then it's no longer a game I'm interested in.  It will almost certainly be better designed than AD&D, and more to my tastes mechanically than Castles and Crusades, but from a flavor perspective I might as well be playing those games.



I tried not to bring it to this, but this seems to mean you aren't really interested in playing D&D. You mention Shadowrun, World of Darkness . . . wouldn't you rather use those game systems and the flavor they contain?



> 3.5 has a lot of problems, but, as the wealth of d20 games attests, its moddability was one of its greatests strengths.



I think the implication in this discussion that originated with Mearls's quote is that this moddability has hindered the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. That is, the moddability in this area isn't the strength it seemed to be.


> It's currently the only version of D&D I would consider playing, because it's the only version that can handle the kind of settings and playstyles I'm interested in without houserules sufficient to be a system unto themselves.



It's the only version of D&D you would consider playing because it's the only version that can handle settings and playstyles that originated in other role-playing games?

Like I said, I think the "all things to all people" concept has encumbered many of the core things about _Dungeons & Dragons_ in 3e. I think this is exactly what Mearls is addressing.




> You bolded my suggestions of Final Fantasy, World of Darkness and Shadowrun - yet Final Fantasy could be run reasonably well, though not perfectly, with humans as the only playable race, and Shadowrun is fairly close to D&D in its PC racial choices (trolls being the big question mark).
> 
> Dragonlance, Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer, all of which are D&D settings, present considerably more problems.



In the past incarnations of those settings (none of which originated with 3e), rules for expanded player character races were included. If a setting is to use "monsters as PCs," there ought to be more work done than just pulling stats out of the Monster Manual. In those specific cases, you as a DM need do no work because the authors of the setting have done it during the setting design phase. 

Why should each monster in the Monster Manual be encumbered because some DM, someplace, sometime, _might_ want to use a monsters as a PC race? 

Mearls is citing the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. The design side of the game is going to be taking this as its central premise which ought to make monsters in D&D even better.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that

1) They're simplified from 3E, and

2) They don't work the same way as PCs.

That's it. Done deal. The notion that the above somehow translates into "random abilities thrown together" or "built without any sort of guidelines, rules, or blueprints" is both reactionary and silly, I think.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Yeah but he's such a depressed type of guy who'd want to bother.




Oh, a depressed guy like Mouseferatu! Of course! It all makes sense now.  (I guess I'll never be his friend now? )



> But no, seriously, in terms of spellcasting, Elric would be a conjurer no? And a fighter with a dang powerful sword.




Honestly, I don't think he's modelled accurately by being a Conjurer/Fighter using 3e-as-is. There's a bunch of things that the game adds to being a Conjurer that aren't true of Elric. And I don't like specialist wizards in the first place.

(Best specialist wizard in 3.5e? The 3.5e Bard - it's a combination enchanter/illusionist).

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that
> 
> 1) They're simplified from 3E, and
> 
> ...




I played a lot of 1st and 2nd edition and if that wasn't how they were put together then in their 'simplier' days I'm a three eyed monkey. And I sir, am no three eyed monkey!

No admidetly they may not be going that rotue but I suspect the path of least resistance. I'll be curious to see more information as it becomes available. 

But even if there are rules for advancement and what not, it's not the core of my arguement. My arguement is that people play games like Hero, M&M, BESM, GURPS, etc... where rules are rules, regardless of player or NPC status (because a monster is just a specialized NPC no) and that going away from that is going the wrong way. Making the game engine easier to use so that things like ECL and Level Adjustment work would be the way to go.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that
> 
> 1) They're simplified from 3E, and
> 
> ...




Oh, definitely.

One thing I got from one of the interviews is that they really want to make monsters easier for the DM to use (which is why I bring up Awesome Blow... it's one of those shorthand abilities that I always forget about at the table). They've also said that they want monsters to be more _distinct_, and they'll do that by creating special abilities *especially* for that monster.

Cheers!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Oh, a depressed guy like Mouseferatu! Of course! It all makes sense now.  (I guess I'll never be his friend now? )




Of course I'm depressed. I didn't actually get to help design 4E!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Oh, a depressed guy like Mouseferatu! Of course! It all makes sense now.  (I guess I'll never be his friend now? )
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You know... another thread with suggestions on what some of the iconic characters would be like in 4e might be worth starting. (Go do it man, people are tired of seeing my name under new threads!)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Oh, definitely.
> 
> One thing I got from one of the interviews is that they really want to make monsters easier for the DM to use (which is why I bring up Awesome Blow... it's one of those shorthand abilities that I always forget about at the table). They've also said that they want monsters to be more _distinct_, and they'll do that by creating special abilities *especially* for that monster.
> 
> Cheers!





And that latter part also drives me nuts. By creating special abilities, they'll be feeding into a well of player-monster but instead of doing it at the front end, they'll be doing it from the back end.

"Wow, that's a great ability. I know! Let's make a feat or a PrC around it!"


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

If you listen to the latest podcast, actually, it's clear that Wizards of the Coast didn't really *have* "monster design guidelines" until David Noonan and the others worked them up while designing _Monster Manual V_.

Yeah, they had rules about monster *types* and what kind of BAB and save progression, skill points, and Hit Dice size they got based on that, but those rules themselves weren't based on the goal of producing an appropriate challenge at each CR - you made a monster and gauged its CR after it was built in an entirely different system.

This time around, they *do* have rules for what kind of AC/BAB/damage/saves/hit points range a CR 5 (or 5th-level) monster should fall into. You create the monster with those guidelines and principles in mind . . .

. . . rather than trying to figure out where a 6HD monstrous humanoid with a high Strength and a low Dexterity fits in the CR scale based on its skills, feats, and whatnot.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I played a lot of 1st and 2nd edition and if that wasn't how they were put together then in their 'simplier' days I'm a three eyed monkey. And I sir, am no three eyed monkey!




No, I know very well that you have _five_ eyes.   

Yeah, older editions probably were pretty random. But given the team on 4E, and the lessons of 3E, I simply don't believe they'd go into 4E monster design without rules and guiding principles. They'll be different than they were in 3E, sure, but I'm absolutely certain they'll exist.

(And yeah, I know that wasn't your argument. I was responding mostly to Knightfall with that post.)


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Of course I'm depressed. I didn't actually get to help design 4E!




You know, you'd just be more depressed if you *had* got the job at Wizards... "Hi, Ari! Guess what! 4e! Oh, and we've done the bulk of the work on it already. Sorry." 

I can just see you walking through the halls of Wizards with an axe in one hand, searching for Mike Mearls, and chanting "blood! blood! blood!". 

Or maybe my imagination is running overtime? Nah. It must be what you'd do! 

Cheers!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> If you listen to the latest podcast, actually, it's clear that Wizards of the Coast didn't really *have* "monster design guidelines" until David Noonan and the others worked them up while designing _Monster Manual V_.
> 
> Yeah, they had rules about monster *types* and what kind of BAB and save progression, skill points, and Hit Dice size they got based on that, but those rules themselves weren't based on the goal of producing an appropriate challenge at each CR - you made a monster and gauged its CR after it was built in an entirely different system.
> 
> ...





Ironically enough, the 1st edition DMG had a great table for figuring out base rates and adding xp based on special abilities. I don't think such a chart/tool was ever in the 3rd ed DMG...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> No, I know very well that you have _five_ eyes.




Who told!!!


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> At the same time, I want to make my position clear:
> 
> I agree with the concept of designing monsters to be monsters.
> 
> ...



Your suggestion that _D&D Insider_ be used to create the rules for monsters as PCs just amplifies my point.

Not Everyone Will Want To Use _D&D Insider_!

And if I have to have access to _D&D Insider_ in order to get the rules for playing monsters as PCs (or any other rules I consider vital to my game) then WotC has lost me a customer.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Ironically enough, the 1st edition DMG had a great table for figuring out base rates and adding xp based on special abilities. I don't think such a chart/tool was ever in the 3rd ed DMG...




We sort of got it in the 3.5e MM, which went into more detail about what CR meant.

I'm not really that enamoured of the 1e table. It worked as a way of awarding XP, but not much beyond that.

Cheers!


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Ironically enough, the 1st edition DMG had a great table for figuring out base rates and adding xp based on special abilities.



Why do you say this was ironic?


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I suspect NPC classes will go the way of the dodo in Fourth Edition, at least in their current form as "fully-realised but not PC-quality classes".



That I wouldn't mind. The NPC classes are pretty usesless, IMO.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that
> 
> 1) They're simplified from 3E, and
> 
> ...



I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.

Now, if you're saying that won't be the case, then you have negated my biggest concern about monster design in 4E.

Thanks for that,

KF72


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 22, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> [The second part of your post is a response to me, not Glyfair]




Oops, sorry!   My most sincere apologies.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Why should using monsters as monsters in Dungeons & Dragons be the first consideration of monsters in the D&D Monster Manual?




Yes.  It's one possibility.  At my table, and the tables of everyone I've personally played with, the 3.5 Monster Manual has been a book of races as well as antagonists.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I tried not to bring it to this, but this seems to mean you aren't really interested in playing D&D. You mention Shadowrun, World of Darkness . . . wouldn't you rather use those game systems and the flavor they contain?




I'm actually not a big WoD fan, either setting or mechanics, although both have some interesting ideas.  I've always liked Shadowrun's flavor but never its mechanics, and have always played or run it in other systems when given the chance.  Final Fantasy doesn't currently have a licensed tabletop RPG, for whatever ungodly reason, so that's right out.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I think the implication in this discussion that originated with Mearls's quote is that this moddability has hindered the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. That is, the moddability in this area isn't the strength it seemed to be.




I disagree with Mearls on this issue.

Moddability in this area is the only way I'll personally play the game, unless they are incredibly prompt and prolific in providing PC versions of the 'monster' races.

It also doesn't have to equal complexity, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread via references to other systems.

The fact that 3e did have complex monsters because they used the same rules as PCs indicates that 3e was the first version of the game to do so, and not all the kinks had been worked out.

Trust me, my concept for 4e monsters would be a heck of a lot simpler than 3e current version; it would also be compatible with my concept for 4e PCs, which would be heavily based on the Saga rules.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's the only version of D&D you would consider playing because it's the only version that can handle settings and playstyles that originated in other role-playing games?




Other roleplaying games, D&D's own past, books, movies, non-RPG games - the d20 system has powerful if occasionally somewhat clunky setting emulation.  AD&D did not, and often struggled with even settings indigenous to it.

If 4e resembles AD&D in being locked into a narrow view of the game and fantasy in general, it is not suitable for my gaming purposes.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Like I said, I think the "all things to all people" concept has encumbered many of the core things about _Dungeons & Dragons_ in 3e. I think this is exactly what Mearls is addressing.




Your "encumbered," and apparently Mearls's, is another player's "liberated."



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In the past incarnations of those settings (none of which originated with 3e), rules for expanded player character races were included. If a setting is to use "monsters as PCs," there ought to be more work done than just pulling stats out of the Monster Manual. In those specific cases, you as a DM need do no work because the authors of the setting have done it during the setting design phase.




WotC has said they'll release one setting a year, starting with the Forgotten Realms (which, I assume, will have at least drow as playable).  Eberron (hopefully with goblins and hobgoblins, this time, as well as the Eberron-specific PC races) will almost certainly be next.

We have no way of knowing if they will EVER get around to Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Dragonlance, or if they do, when.

Five or six years is a long time to wait for racial rules for some of D&D's settings.  In the current version, those rules are already available right from the Monster Manual.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Why should each monster in the Monster Manual be encumbered because some DM, someplace, sometime, _might_ want to use a monsters as a PC race?




Because the game is allegedly about "options, not restrictions?"

Because there no reason the two design principles shouldn't be compatible, when they so often are in other games?

Because both GMs and players should, in many cases, be able to make that decision?

Because some iconic settings from D&D's past pretty much require it?

Because it seems likely to be appealing to new players, since it will allow them to more closely model the kind of fantasy most of them have grown up with?

Because the current version of D&D has spawned an entire subset of the industry that takes advantage of it, which is allegedly still going to be supported?

Because PC-appropriateness should not have to "encumber" a monster?



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Mearls is citing the core purpose of monsters in D&D: to be monsters in D&D. The design side of the game is going to be taking this as its central premise which ought to make monsters in D&D even better.




And I honestly hope you enjoy playing it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.




Ah, I gotcha.



> Now, if you're saying that won't be the case, then you have negated my biggest concern about monster design in 4E.




Well, I can't say _for sure_. I have very little inside access to 4E, and what little I have, I can't talk about.

But I _can_ say, just from knowing the people involved and the aspects of the game that are popular, that I'd be surprised if monster creation rules weren't available in _some_ way, shape, or form.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You know, you'd just be more depressed if you *had* got the job at Wizards... "Hi, Ari! Guess what! 4e! Oh, and we've done the bulk of the work on it already. Sorry."




 

Yeah, that would've sucked.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Your suggestion that _D&D Insider_ be used to create the rules for monsters as PCs just amplifies my point.
> 
> Not Everyone Will Want To Use _D&D Insider_!
> 
> And if I have to have access to _D&D Insider_ in order to get the rules for playing monsters as PCs (or any other rules I consider vital to my game) then WotC has lost me a customer.



Quit freaking out. You conveniently forget that they have clearly stated that _D&D Insider_ material will be periodically reprinted in book form.

There's no meaningful difference between "designed by freelancers and published in a book" and "designed by freelancers, published on _D&D Insider_, and then republished in a book" from the point of view of someone who doesn't use _D&D Insider_.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying there won't be a blueprint. My worry is that the blueprint won't be available to the fans, in the actual book, or in the SRD.



You know . . . they may not publish the monster design blueprint.

But then, knowing that the blueprint exists, it's trivial to reverse-engineer. Take the _Monster Manual_. Select the creatures of a given CR. Write down the range of their statistics - AC, hit points, BAB, ability scores, skills, _et cetera_. Look for correspondences - does a high AC generally translate to lower hit points or BAB?

_Voila_. You have your blueprint, as far as I can tell.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> There's no meaningful difference between "designed by freelancers and published in a book" and "designed by freelancers, published on _D&D Insider_, and then republished in a book" from the point of view of someone who doesn't use _D&D Insider_.



Unless, I suppose, you resent the mere idea of Wizards of the Coast publishing something in a format you don't want before they publish it in a format you do want.

Which is irrational and selfish, but I suppose some people do feel that way.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Now mhacdebhandia is talking to himself. 

At least I'm still as sane as the next man!

Cheers!


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Ah, I gotcha.
> 
> Well, I can't say _for sure_. I have very little inside access to 4E, and what little I have, I can't talk about.
> 
> But I _can_ say, just from knowing the people involved and the aspects of the game that are popular, that I'd be surprised if monster creation rules weren't available in _some_ way, shape, or form.



That's what I'm hoping for too, I guess we'll both have to wait and see.  

(And I agree the new design and development team seems a solid group.)

I just hope there will be some basic guidelines for converting 3rd Edition monsters to 4E.* I have made A LOT of custom monsters and if I decide to move to 4E then I will insist on bring the monster designs with me. Plus, I'd want to be able to convert my favorite official monsters to 4E, as I need them. And that is a lot of critters.

I think the idea of 4E invalidating 3E monster design is what Shade and the other Creature Catalog addicts have a problem with. They've worked long and hard to convert old creatures from previous editions and come up with new monster designs for the pages of DRAGON Magazine, and now they are a little pissed off.

*I already know there isn't going to be any guidelines for converting characters, which annoys me a little bit. Characters can be re-envisoned pretty easily, but monsters need more work, IMO.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Now mhacdebhandia is talking to himself.
> 
> At least I'm still as sane as the next man!
> 
> Cheers!



You and me both, MerricB.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 22, 2007)

I know I quoted myself; I was just expanding on a point.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 22, 2007)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> *I already know there isn't going to be any guidelines for converting characters, which annoys me a little bit. Characters can be re-envisoned pretty easily, but monsters need more work, IMO.




Actually... you might be surprised.

I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.

Cheers!


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Unless, I suppose, you resent the mere idea of Wizards of the Coast publishing something in a format you don't want before they publish it in a format you do want.
> 
> Which is irrational and selfish, but I suppose some people do feel that way.



Okay, I understand your point of view, but you don't seem to be getting mine.

Sure they have stated that they will compile things and publish them in print format, but how can you be certain they will publish everything that goes up on D&D Insider? No one can make that claim, not even WotC can promise themselves that. And if that's what they're thinking then they're kidding themselves.

And I don't resent the idea of WotC using a digital format. That's a great innovation. I do dislike the cost factor, but I understand why they feel the need to charge money to use their online toys.

What I do resent is that these toys (character generator, virtual gametable) can only be accessed online. There isn't a version of these toys that I can use just on my own PC without having to deal with hundreds of thousands of other users accessing it at the same time.

It's going to be slow and it's going to break down, a lot.

If these toys were installed on my PC then I'd have a measure of control over them, but as online tools I must suffer the slings & arrows of Internet outages and D&D Insider servers failing. (I've worked in the computer industry so I know what I'm talking about. I won't say I'm an expert, however.)

Plus, DRAGON and DUNGEON Magazine being forced down our throats in an online format just makes me mad. (I'd rather they'd cancelled the mags completely.)

And remember that not everyone had Internet access. I do, and a few of my player's do, but a couple of them don't have the option to be connected. It is elitist to think that all D&D gamers have Internet access.

It makes me worry that there will become a segment of D&D gamers who are treated as being second-class because they're not "connected". And those with access to D&D Insider may come to see themselves as being more in tune with the game than those who can't use it (or won't use it).

Now, at this point, we don't know what the future will hold, but it makes me nervous. D&D is a social game, and it must remain so otherwise it's not D&D anymore. WotC has assured us that you don't need access to D&D Insider to enjoy every aspect of the game, but I wonder if that will still be true 2 or 3 years from now.

Anyway, I've ranted enough on this issue. Back to the monster discussion.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Actually... you might be surprised.
> 
> I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.
> 
> Cheers!



Excellent news! Thanks MB.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I think it was in one of the interviews - with James Wyatt, IIRC - that he said that the original intention wasn't to give guidelines, but they'd had so many people talk to them about it, that they *will* be giving guidelines. Not strict "A=B" guidelines, AFAIK, but something to help you transfer your characters over if you want to.




Yes, that's what I heard.  As I said elsewhere, I think they are going for the "artistic" conversion process rather than the "scientific" one.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But that's just me.



No, it isn't.

I would like greater symmetry in a new edition, not lesser. The advances made in this direction for 3rd edition were, I thought, excellent. It would be a shame to lose that advancement of a sudden, for whatever reason.

IMO, and all that.


----------



## Syltorian (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Where are people getting the idea that monsters won't have set design rules? All we know is that
> 
> 2) They don't work the same way as PCs.




I don't care about monster PCs, but I do care about them as _NPCs_. And that includes being able to give them classes, modifying their feats, skills, and so forth. I want to have a dryad druid, a satyr enchanter, an ogre scout, heck: even a dragon archivist for the players to meet. I want to have some surprises in store by giving the monsters unexpected feats. I want my monsters to be individuals, not run of the mill Minotaur #12, and I want more freedom than simply having to use the limited number of monsters-with-class-levels that have  appeared in the latest Monster Manuals (IV ad V).  

That seems to be either impossible or difficult now, from what (little) we know so far. It's both for the roleplaying and combat. I want to be able to challenge my PCs with a monster below the CR (or whatever that turns into), by adding class levels, going up with the hit-die, keeping some surprises in store as the centaur turns out to be able to cast sorcerous magic. I don't want monsters that can only be used at a certain level of the party, or else have to be used in combinations with others if I want to challenge a higher level party. 

Please tell me monsters will be as customisable as they were in 3.5. The current system may not have been perfect. But it's (to me) much preferable than the what you see is what you get model. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what I have read so far. I can only hope so.


----------



## Yair (Aug 22, 2007)

I agree with both sides, but ultimately I'm rooting for Mearls' position.

Player characters should be fairly hard to run efficiently and their advancement should include difficult and interesting choices. That's fun for the player.
Monsters should be very easy to run and advance or modify. That's fun for the DM.

These two goals aren't compatible.

Modularity in 3e was great. I love it. I'm willing to throw odd-PCs out the window, however, to make room for easier DMing. DMing 3e is too hard, it isn't worth the modularity. It would be better to live with decreased modularity and purchase or hack together rules for my pixie paladin PC.

That said, monsters should _not_ be confined to narrow combat-only niches. If a minotaur doesn't have stats that make it clear how well he climbs a cliff, it isn't well-designed. Monsters and NPCs should be easier to build, advance, and modify - but they should still be well-rounded. I have trust in D&D's design team to make it so.

Monsters should also function well within the setting, not just in combat. I have faith in D&D's design team on that front too. Indeed, I think I've heard somewhere that the MM will place greater emphasis on the ecology of the entries.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 22, 2007)

While, again, I have no inside knowledge and thus cannot make any promises, I see no reason why it shouldn't still be possible to add class levels to monsters. It should still be possible to add X (levels) to Y (monsters), no matter how Y was created.

It may not be entirely smooth, in terms of figuring out how much XP the monster is worth or what level of difficulty it is--but then, neither was total CR in 3E, really.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And I see the benefit of that.
> 
> But after so much simplification for simplification purposes, why bother with stats at all for NPCs? Especially NPCs that aren't going to see combat action. Gives 'em ways to die dramatically, gives 'em skills that they couldn't have by the level, etc...
> 
> And heck, while we're at it, do the same thing for monsters. We can all trust our GMs right?




I haven't statted out all but a very select few NPCs in years. Works very well, especially if the NPCs are lower level anyway. For monsters I usually take them as they are from the Monster Manual.

That aside, I expect that the character generator will help a lot with creating detailed NPCs.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2007)

I also do not worry much about detailed rules for monster PCs. I found that in my campaigns, it is easier to judge an actual PC by the impact on the campaign that the individual character has, not a hypothetical character with different gear and classes.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 22, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.
> 
> I would like greater symmetry in a new edition, not lesser. The advances made in this direction for 3rd edition were, I thought, excellent. It would be a shame to lose that advancement of a sudden, for whatever reason.



My gut reaction was the same - it's a very good concept that everything is based on the same basic rules for advancement, skills, and all the stuff.

But after going through my notes, and memories of games, I've seen, that I don't get any use of that from my monsters. The symmetry is there, but not helpful - after all, a monster only has a "screentime" of max. 10 rounds (usually).

If they can keep the symmetry without affecting gameplay - cool. But if that symmetry (which is usually only a design-aesthetic we like) is hurting gameplay... it has to go, sadly, but understandable.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## fuindordm (Aug 22, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> How much will this hamstring DMs, though? Sorry guys, I still love Player and Monster stats being the same... one system to rule them all. The old ways are what produced such things as "The Ogre Mage" (yes, I know that was also in 3.5, but more out of tradition than anything else, I think). Am I going to have to have a seperate "monster" if I want "Fighter Kobolds", "Stealthy Kobolds" and "Magic Casting Kobolds"? Meh, just let me add character classes to them.
> 
> Also, looking at my large collection of monster compilations, I fail to see where designers were overly stifled by the 3.5 system.





How does this prevent you from doing it? "This kobold has the skills of a 3rd level thief."
 I would bet that some entries in the MM will still have a "XX as PCs" paragraph, too.

Honestly, as long as the monsters have ability scores and benefit from them normally, that's good enough for me.  This is where 1st edition fell short--it's the only measuring stick you really need for when they interact with players.

I think what's going down the drain are the rules for monster advancement, where each HD brings skill points, BAB, saves, and maybe a feat. This was horribly bloated, and made designing monsters a real chore.  There is no need to enforce a tight link between HD, skills, and other abilities for monsters--their _role _is only to survive five rounds of combat with the PCs.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> To me, this is backwards thinking.




I agree, it sounds more like 1E to me.

I'm not a fan of playing monstrous races, but if I were I would certainly worry.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Yeah, this is a great idea, the last illithid chaos monk I wrote up took quite a bit of time, and the poor sod only lasted 3 rounds – unsatisfying and time wasting.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 22, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> If they can keep the symmetry without affecting gameplay - cool. But if that symmetry (which is usually only a design-aesthetic we like) is hurting gameplay... it has to go, sadly, but understandable.



Oh, do you mind not being so reasonable! You're really throwing my opinionated proclamations off.

Gah!


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 22, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is a great idea, the last illithid chaos monk I wrote up took quite a bit of time, and the poor sod only lasted 3 rounds – unsatisfying and time wasting.




Yep.

In 2000, I really appreciated the system's flexibility and (seeming) internal consistency.

By 2005, I was back to using stock monsters from the MM series---and of those I probably used only 1/2 to 3/4 of their abilities. 

Basically, I would appreciate a system allowing me to invent (or modify) monsters for specific encounters easily and quickly.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> In 2000, I really appreciated the system's flexibility and (seeming) internal consistency.
> 
> By 2005, I was back to using stock monsters from the MM series---and of those I probably used only 1/2 to 3/4 of their abilities.




Ha ha, trippy – that is my exact experience too, and same timeline.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

Ya know, it seems very possible that we will get the best of both worlds.


It seems clear that it will be completely possible to write up a goblin Fighter7.  So it seems quite reasonable that you should be able to do this if you want to make the goblin leader be one.  You just need a scale for knowing how the goblin F7 fits in the xp system.

The goblins hordes could just be simplified npcs.  But, if a particular DM wants lots of goblin fighter 1 npcs, then knock yourself out.  

If you can't do a unicorn wizard right out of the core three books, then I'll find a way to get over that.

On the other hand, if in the name of simplification there are things that a PC can do that just can not be done by an npc, then I will have a real problem there.  

But I'm not hearing that.  It sounds like the idea that 99% of npcs just don't need that level of detail is being harnessed for easy of use.  And the full detail options remains, only now you just need it 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 times, compared to always before.

Maybe they will also fix the repeating annoyance that a monster can cast spells as a 9th level sorcerer, have 10d8 HD and a list of other bonuses and yet be a lower CR than a npc Sor9.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 22, 2007)

I tried to stat out monsters for the next adventure in my campaign last night... I'm too afraid... Just gonna wing it...


----------



## Klaus (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.



 Sorry, Ari, but I have to disagree with you big time here.

I never had a problem with the 3.x monsters being built with the same blocks as the characters. In fact, making the monster types work just like levels in 3.5 (as opposed to, say, "animals get 10-15 skill points") was a huge improvement.

So you want a monster built as a monster work as a monster? Then don't give it Knwowledge (nobility & royalty) or Skill Focus (Profession). Just list the relevant-for-combat skills and feats and say "unspent skill points: X, unused feat slots: Y". I honestly can't think on what else to trim down from the stat blocks.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.




I hate doing a me too post, but Ari summed up my thoughts exactly. Really how many monsters ever use all of the skill points that you give to them anyway? I remember when we were doing _Denizens of Avadnu_ I was super annoyed when calculating skill points. I don't know how many times we had the discussion of whether or not these abilities are ever going to be used. My mantra for 4e is do whatever it takes to make the game better and more fun. This falls under that nicely and speeds up development work.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Will liches now cast spells differently then player mages for example?
> 
> Like I've mentioned, I can see how this new (very old) way of doing things will benefits GMs who customize their monsters. I don't see it doing a lot for players who'll now have to pay for books that provide these different statistics or for GMs who run things out of adventuers or for GMs who use a lot of player based NPC classes. (Or heck, those that just run things straight out of the Monster Manuals to being with.)




I can understand your concerns and they are not unwarranted. At this point we pretty much have to take a wait and see approach. I'd imagine that individual subsystems will remain the same and work together.

Mike is only talking about how they are designed. If you look at it from that point and say what do I need for a monster. You need HP, AC, Attacks, Special Abilities, Saves, etc. Who cares about skill points? How many times do they come up? I just think this makes it a lot easier to manage especially when considering doing a new monster book.

I'd imagine there is some sort of system of checks and balances for monsters that makes sure that they are in line with PCs of suitable level. We'll just have to see how that plays out.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> An ability is an ability is an ability.




This is only true if the game only has one mechanic for "ability".  If the game has a feat mechanic, a supernatural ability mechanic, a spell mechanic, and a class-feature mechanic, then they are not interchangeable.

And, as has been often noted - setting aside the fiction in which the characters and monsters live for a moment, we have to remember that this is a game, and as a practical game piece monsters and PCs are used very differently, and so the game-design requirements for them are different.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 22, 2007)

Place me squarely in the "Monsters using PC rules" or "modability" camp - I too am in complete disagreement with Mr. Mearls.  This was one of the features that enticed me back to D&D.  The monster stat blocks of 1e and 2e drove me nuts because they often seemed totally arbitrary.

And while I can understand the argument of increased complexity, I don't totally buy it.  In my 20+ years of GMing experience, different rules applied to different situations/character types etc. made things _harder_ , not easier.  Sure, I could just wing it if I don't know what feats or skills a monster may have, but if I'm going to do that, I might as well play a rules-light game.

The ability to apply templates to PCs and NPCs, or to build my own monsters from scratch in a coherent, logical fashion in line with the official monsters of the game are all benefits that far outweigh the increased complexity.

For all the interesting tidbits that will cause me to check 4e out, it's design decisions like this one that feel like the game will simultaneously take a big step forward *and* a big step backward, resulting in a game I _want_ to like but can't bring myself to play.  Only time will tell and I'm hoping that it won't be the case.


Final soapbox statement:  I like designing NPCs and tweaking monsters, either by adding class levels or templates.  If, as a DM/GM you don't, then why are you?  It's not as if there's a shortage of monster manuals, OGL monster books, sample NPCs, etc. available.  You might not be able to avoid statting up the occasionl BBEG, but there's no reason to be statting up monsters in 3/3.5E unless you _want_ to do so.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Aug 22, 2007)

Sure, in most Cases the Monster lives 2-5 rounds and will not use any Skills.
But sometimes PCs will try to talk to a Monster or vice versa.
Maybe the PCs want to Bluff their way pas a Monster.
Or the Monster becomes a follower/henchman/companion of the party (for example in Monte Cooks Campaign the party had a Half Dragon Umber Hulk as NPC).

It is not often that you use these Skill Points, but they give the Monster the possibility to be more than 5 rounds of Gore and EP.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 22, 2007)

My concern isn't so much that monsters use different rules than PCs.  Heck, I've become a huge fan of the idea of "roughed out" NPCs over the last year or so.  So long as the two stat blocks are relatable, I'm fine.  By relatable, I mean that I want to be able to find the strength of an ancient red dragon if I want to.  The "two different languages" scenario in 1/2E bugged the snot out of me and I don't want to see it return.

I'm definitely in favor of simplification for the GM.  When I started thinking I might have lower prep time with Hero System, I knew there was a problem with 3E.  All the same, it isn't the monster stats I've ever had a problem with in 3E.  It's the NPCs.  

I tend to run a rather humanocentric campaign, with warring kingdoms and one faction against the other.  As such, my preferrence would be to use lots of NPCs, including quite a number of unique characters, as opponents.  Unfortunately, by the time the PCs get to be 10th level or so, it's prohibitive to try and stat up the opposition.  It took me 3 hours to create the four commanders of a flanking force.  That's pretty much my entire prep for the week.  Sorry guys, no adventure prepared because all my time was spent working on one fight.  Oh, and you don't get to have the flavorful NPC encounters with the leaders of each orcish tribe they united because that's another hour per tribe.

Bah!  Who needs that.  By contrast, monsters as villains are pretty simple.  Write a name down on the room key and go.  I seriously do not understand how anyone could say 3E monsters slowed play.  They were the fastest part of the system, in terms of prep time.  Even if you advanced a monster, it was easy.  The only thing time consuming was if you added class levels, and even then, it wasn't any worse than building a human of the same CR.

If I had to choose one area that doesn't need an overhaul to improve play, monster stats would definitely make the short list.  Sure, there's always room for tweaking and tuning, but grabbing pretty much any non-classed critter, besides dragons, out of the monster manual and using it is a piece of cake.  It's about the only part of the game that's as easy to do on-the-fly as 1E was.

If you want to improve something in 4E monster encounters, make it so the PCs aren't as dependant on their wealth to balance them.  That makes it easier to do treasure for the monsters.  The biggest pain in the butt in creating a 3E dungeon crawl was ensuring that there was just the right amount of treasure to keep the PCs roughly on target with their expected haul.  It would also help with creating classed NPCs.

I do like the idea of designating the various critters as being a "basher" or "mastermind", etc.  That would really help prep time in terms of not having to sort through the full MM to find appropriate CRed mooks, etc.

That same idea worries me, though.  The redesigned monsters seemed to lean toward very focused suites of abilities.  Sometimes, this was at the cost of flavor.  I don't really care that _sleep_ is an utterly pointless ability for a deva to have for any actual featured fight -- it may make for a very cool flavor.  (And, yes, my example was totally bogus.)

I hope that wasn't too rambling.  I have very mixed feelings about this particular change.


----------



## glass (Aug 22, 2007)

I am in a bit of an odd position here, because I feel like I _mostly_ agree with both side of this argument. On the one hand, symmetry is obviously a good thing in principal (and not just aesthetically- system mastery is important). OTOH, if it gets in the way of monsters actually being good monsters that is obviously bad.

I think that is not necessarily important that monsters are built on exactly the same rules as PCs, but they should be expressed in the same language. By that I mean monsters should still have hit points and ability scores and what have you, and they should mean the same, even if those things were not determined in the same way as for PCs. I wouldn't want to go back to a 2e-like situation where, for example, liches lost points from a Con score they didn't have for making magic items. Or, for a more current example, I still want to be able to cast ray of enfeeblement at a dragon.


glass.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 22, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I like this approach. Humanoid monsters will be able to have a 1-30 racial level write up. We'll see less of the Half-celestial Awakened Gelatinous Cube paladins.




Really, is such madness that common or is that just an exaggeration? I've never seen anyone come close to making silly combinations like that. 



> 3.X is fantastic for player options but it is a nightmare to prepare as a GM. I used to love the complete control over opponents for my PCs. Every foe was unique. Class levels, Feat choices and templates meant never running the same monster twice. Oh my lord the variation.
> But now every foe was like rolling up a PC. The paperwork the wrangling of skills and feats for PrCs. Template abuse. In seeking a cooler monster I sucked out all the flavor and replaced it with mechanics. I welcome monsters as monsters, not DM PCs.




I welcome the changes they're coming up with.  As much as i like the effort they took in 3rd edition to balance the playing field, when i look at a page long stat block for a monster, it seems sort of pointless for a creature that in all likelihood isn't going to live very long.


----------



## Samnell (Aug 22, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Place me squarely in the "Monsters using PC rules" or "modability" camp - I too am in complete disagreement with Mr. Mearls.  This was one of the features that enticed me back to D&D.  The monster stat blocks of 1e and 2e drove me nuts because they often seemed totally arbitrary.




Me too. I'll go one step further: the wild incoherent subsystems of 1e and 2e were arbitrary. There was no actual system behind them all. Roll high this, roll low that, so on this one negative numbers are good, this one they're bad, this one adds ability mods, this one does not, the ability mods are all different, etc. They made the game worse. Worse to play and worse to DM. I can't blame Gary for not foreseeing this in the 70s when no one had designed a game like this before, but today's designers have no excuse.

The same rules, and rules principles, for everything was one of the core elements of the d20 design philosophy. I think Monte once summed it up to the effect of the 3e team doing everything in its power to erase rules distinctions between PCs and NPCs. I'm not completely cynical about 4e, but the news that such a fundamental element of the 3e design philosophy was being discarded strikes me as a gigantic step backwards. Long before I was sold on 3e's easy multiclassing, feats, and hit dice that kept going up past 10th level, I was sold on rules that applied to everything the same way. I'll go far as to say that system coherence was the selling point of 3e to me. These years of mostly DMing it have never led me to think otherwise.

If it turns out that the new monster building process started with a target CR and worked back from it to generate the same stats or same sorts of stats as we have now, I would not only be content but indeed herald it as a positive improvement. But the talk of streamlining monster stats argues the opposite.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm pretty torn about this whole thing.  I've got a really serious, gut-level dislike of anything that goes against the internal consistency of a game system and thereby decreases its modularity.  Modularity is incredibly important to me, because I don't really feel like playing any game the way it's supposed to be played.  I don't believe that _anyone on earth_ is looking to play half-celestial awakened gelatinous cube paladins, but orc, bugbear, gnoll, and lizardfolk PCs sound like a great idea.  So does customizing less PC-appropriate monsters with class levels to take them outside of their usual schticks.  Why _shouldn't_ there be fire giant wizards or goblin monks?

But, at the same time, I realize that Mearls' "build it for what it'll be used for" approach is the "right" thing to do in that it'll lead to the most improvement for the most people.  Build the world's most popular RPG for the average gamer, and let us gearheads customize it ourselves, because you know we'll be houseruling the hell out of it, anyway.

Furthermore, I'm sure there _will_ be ways to play as orcs, bugbears, gnolls, and lizardfolk.  And even if the fact that the PC versions of those critters are different from the monster versions offends my sense of logic, I know that it ain't really gonna mean much at the table.  And, hell, however they end up working that bit, it's _gotta_ be better than ECL.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm all for simple monsters so long as there's a built in way to class them (and determine their new Monster Level without too much hassle).


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 22, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But no, seriously, in terms of spellcasting, Elric would be a conjurer no? And a fighter with a dang powerful sword.




In 3e terms, I'd say Elric was a sorcerer/fighter, and a fair amount of his summoning prowess was probably derived from his ring.


----------



## Gryffyn (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm all for simpler monster writeups.  Anything that makes the game easier to GM means that more people will run games.  The more people who run games, the more D&D games there will be.  The more D&D games there are, the more fun we'll all have.


----------



## Syltorian (Aug 22, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> While, again, I have no inside knowledge and thus cannot make any promises, I see no reason why it shouldn't still be possible to add class levels to monsters. It should still be possible to add X (levels) to Y (monsters), no matter how Y was created.




I hope your optimism is more warranted than my pessimism. I get the latter from the claims that you cannot play them as PCs. Is that only because they are getting rid of ECL and LA; that is, you can add class levels, and advance them as though they were PCs, except that you don't know what the basic abilities are worth, balance-wise? 



			
				Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Sure, in most Cases the Monster lives 2-5 rounds and will not use any Skills.
> But sometimes PCs will try to talk to a Monster or vice versa.
> Maybe the PCs want to Bluff their way pas a Monster.
> Or the Monster becomes a follower/henchman/companion of the party (for example in Monte Cooks Campaign the party had a Half Dragon Umber Hulk as NPC).
> ...




Exactly. They should at least be possible. I am looking for instance at Eberron here. One of the most intriguing characters in Sharn is a sphynx (forget exactly which type), what about Oalian, the awakened greatpine? Will they now be unable to use skill-points just because WotC has decided that sphynxes are supposed to be killed in 3 rounds? Or will they become so unique creatures that DMs cannot create creatures similar in their own campaigns? 

Monsters are not simply for the killing. If I want to kill monsters, I'll dig up my old Diablo II CDs. It's much more satisfying to hit things in that game. But I've disliked it because it's boring storywise. Yes, they mentioned that the Ettin was having conversations with itself in combat. I like that kind of flavour; but everything else we heard seems to be reducing D&D to a combat game. Which I agree it is to a large point, but there is much, much more to it. 

I'm not a big fan of unlikely templates either, nor do I like monstrous NPCs myself (being mostly tied up in Eberron, that means non-humanoids, with humanoids as in common usage, not the monster-type; ogres and hobgoblins I'm fine with). But even so, it should be possible. Maybe someone's campaign does require an odd combination, or a displacer-beast necromancer, or what have you. 

So I only hope that I am completely misreading their intentions here.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 22, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In 3e terms, I'd say Elric was a sorcerer/fighter, and a fair amount of his summoning prowess was probably derived from his ring.




His official d20 stats put him at fighter 8/wizard 20, and stormbringer is a +11 greatsword that deals d100 Con damage in addition to normal damage.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 22, 2007)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> There is no need to enforce a tight link between HD, skills, and other abilities for monsters--their _role _is only to survive five rounds of combat with the PCs.




Exactly what i said. And at this point, this seems to be the direction the game is taking.  I can't wait to see what Monte Cook has to say about all of this.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> And while I can understand the argument of increased complexity, I don't totally buy it.  In my 20+ years of GMing experience, different rules applied to different situations/character types etc. made things _harder_ , not easier.




Given that it is as yet sight unseen, I'm not sure how much it will be, "different rules applied to different types," as opposed to, "the two types are generated differently, and from that point on, the rules are the same."


----------



## Gundark (Aug 22, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> BTW, it should apply to many NPCs too -> We don't nead complete level per level build for NPC classed "commoners" and even many others "kinds" of NPC.




I completely agree with this idea. Even with "classed" NPCs ...ie fighter, mage, etc.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 22, 2007)

I love the D&D 3.x rule coherence, too. 

It was easy to understand how monsters work once you knew how characters work. 
[TANGENT ALERT] 
At least for me. It seems as if many designers (especially those of monster modules and/or 3rd parties) didn't quite get all the consequences of this. 
I remember 2 major incidents that will probably keep forever in my memory, but there have been a lot more...
- Gargoyle like monsters that basically looked just like them, but were more powerful and had less CR.
- A monster that had a Blasphemy (i think that was the spell) spell-like ability with a caster level equal to its HD, but a CR notably less than its HD. If you look at Blasphemy, you'll note that this can seriously change the effects of the spell, because a CR = PL+4 caster will most likely not kill you with that spell...

I liked to say that the actual CR of monsters seems to be CR-1 + Monster Manual #, or CR -3+2d4 for custom monsters from adventures. 
[/TANGENT ALERT]

That said, with more experience, people also noted some flaws. 
If you use a monster as a PC race, you can use neither the HD nor its CR to determine its effective level. To many abilities from monsters are to powerful in the hands of the PC. Fast Healing/Regeneration, Damage Reduction, At Will spell-like abilities, all these don't matter for a monster. Outside of combat, the balance of these abilities are rarely important (or at least easily overlooked- think about the Create Spawn ability of Undead). In combat, Fireball at will for a monster is mostly the same as 3/day. 

Beginning with Savage Species, the rule coherence began to change. The rules for the Savage Species "player monsters" already don't follow the usual rules. Level Adjustment is inherently something added later to the game with no real place in the original rules.

On the other hand, may rules that apply for PCs don't really matter for monsters, either. 
If a monster casts spells like a sorceror, the effect is nearly the same as if it casts these spells as spell-like abilities. It definitely has the advantage that the DM knows how to advance the monsters spell casting abilities, but: It also means that the DM will need to use all the regular class and/or magic related rules for the monsters. If he stats up a unique exemplar, he is very likely to use the full PC-related rules for the monsters, since not doing it this way feels like cheating. A experienced DM will probably end up winging the most, and just use the rules as the base for his decisions, but this begs the question: 
Do we really benefit from the streamlined and coherent rules here?

The answer is yes and no. It's better than having no rules or guidelines at all, because this would mean that no DM can really predict how his monsters and encounters will really fare. On the other hand, the work and drawbacks associated with it indicate that this might not be the best solution.

It seems to me as if the D&D 4 approach will try to find a better solution (whether it succeeds, we'll see next year...) My prediction from the interviews, blogs and articles so far:
There will still be some rule cohesion with monsters and player characters, it will just be different. Monsters still have Hit Points, Attack Bonus, Armor Class and Saves just as PCs (as long as they stay at all, but I think they will). This means they will interact using the same basic "interface". 

But how you get to this values will change. It's not something entirely arbitrary, there will be a system on how to generate monsters. It will be different from the rules for creating a PC, but in the end, both can still meaningful and predictably (in terms of rule interaction and game balance) interact. I might miss the ability to add class levels to monsters (if that is really gone), but maybe I won't. Recently I have began looking into the Iron Heroes Villain Classes, and I am pretty certain that I will use them exclusively for my next NPCs in my IH campaign (provided I'll still run it for some time...).


EDIT: I think the primary goal is to change the preparation. Quick and easy monster (and NPC) generation and play, complex and rewarding PC generation and play.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.




That would be a blessing if the game can finally emulate that. Actually, it does emulate it pretty well i think, but there's always room for improvement. Maybe one thing i'd like to see balanced is Item Creation by full-time experts, versus the stuff that PC's cobble together.  Adventuring, whoring, money-grubbing looting heroes don't generally have the time or talent to create magic and suits of plate mail.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 22, 2007)

About the monsters...maybe they will simply leave those monster races that might be playable as PC races out of it, or simply present them in the same format they present the core races in, so that they gain "full monsterhood" with time? That way, you can stat the "used to kill" monsters for the DM in an easier format, and have plenty of options open still. Maybe that IS one of the differences...the one between (potential) PC race, and monster.  

And about NPCs...what's so hard to take a "0 level" human, and simply give him a skill bonus according to how long he's been on the job he does already? Like, +1 for every 1.5 years? Or take an equal amount of years to reach a new bonus...like 1 year for +1, 2 years more for +2, 3 years more for +3...that way, you could say somebody who's been a weaponsmith for 10 years has a +4 on his skill check. Hand him 1D6 + Con bonus in HP, and +2 to hit due to high strength, and be happy with your newly created smith.


----------



## danzig138 (Aug 22, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> burdened DMs



After reading all of this and othe threads on similar matters, I think that if it's too complicated and too much of a burden for someone, then that person might not be cut out to run a game. He might find himself more comfortable on the other side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance. 

So far, everythig I'm hearing about this game not only reinforces the idea that I will not switch, but it's starting to kill the idea that if my players are interested and buy the books I'll run it for them. If the bad guys and the goods guys aren't designed using the same rules, I'd have to house rule it - screw that. 

Unlike the people whining about the online component, however, I perfectly understand that I'm not in the target demographic for WoTC anymore. So I hope you guys enjoy your simplified and streamlined game that is coming out. 

I'll be over here not complaining about how hard it is to run.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 22, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> After reading all of this and othe threads on similar matters, I think that if it's too complicated and too much of a burden for someone, then that person might not be cut out to run a game. He might find himself more comfortable on the other side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance.




That's a big leap.  Just because someone finds it "too complicated and too much of a burden" doesn't mean they may not be cut out to run the game.  A less burdensome system can easily deal with those issues and you might even get some better DMs out of it, because they aren't burned out from the design required.

It's sort of like saying "if you don't like dealing with Microsoft Vista, maybe computers aren't for you."


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.



Assuming that the 4e NPCs look anything like, say, Iron Heroes NPCs, this could indeed be true. A 12th level IH Expert can have skill mods in the +24 range pretty easily, but only has 4d6 HD and BAB +6, plus basically zero access to combat feats.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 22, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> After reading all of this and othe threads on similar matters, I think that if it's too complicated and too much of a burden for someone, then that person might not be cut out to run a game. He might find himself more comfortable on the other side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance.



Congratulations! You've just managed to insult everyone who happens to disagree with you.

It occurs to me that this is not a good thing.

A reminder, folks: taking cheap shots at people who disagree with you, even large quantities of people, is not a good idea. It does nothing but derail the conversation. Please don't do it.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 22, 2007)

We are making a bunch of assumptions here...

1.) Monsters will use some manner of different rules than a PC, and thus the two will be incompatible.

2.) Monsters will be hard/impossible to reverse engineer.

3.) Monsters cannot be customized without constructing a new monsters. 

4.) Simpler = less options. 

5.) Monsters as PCs will be long gone.

Deep breath, relax.

1.) I suspect a monster will be able to slap class levels on, at least the ones that used to "advance by character class". Really, A troll is going to have an attack bonus, three saves, an AC, a pool of hp, etc. You want a troll fighter, take the MM troll stats, give it a +1 to hit, +2 to fort saves, 1d10 hp, a new class skill, and whatever feat/maneuver choice a first level fighter will get. No worrying about LA, CR, etc. I'll assume the rules will give a guideline for adding a class to monsters to determine XP amount. Problem solved.

2.) I suspect monsters will still have some linear way to advance or to create new ones. I just don't think monster HD = NPC class levels any longer. 

3.) Again, I think some monster abilities will be able to swapped out easily. Templates, "monster abilities" or such will probably have some modularity.

4.) I think monsters will have a smaller range of options, but more options as to what to do. For example, a dragon rarely uses all its sorcerer spells. It uses one or two (dispel magic is common) but it doesn't need the complexity of having a 12th level sorcerer built in. Loosing them is fine, IMHO. A Mindflayer uses some manner of charm/dominate ability, mind blast, and eats brains, it doesn't need much more than that. 

5.) Many monsters in the MM now have no rules for PC advancment. Displacer beasts advance by HD, Skeletons don't even do that. The only monsters with "X as characters" are humanoids or the like (goblins, planetouched, lizardfolk) who advance by class level. In 4e, I expect those same monsters will have a "X as PC" line with some bare racial traits (which won't necessarily match up with a stat block, but definitely give a "baseline" race to use). So I suspect orcs, goblins, kobolds, gnomes, drow, and other "favorites" will get the treatment. Those who don't will have to create a new race (or extrapolate from the stat block), much like we did in older D&D. I don't think D&D needs rules for playing as a weird or exotic things, if you want that, that should be the DM's option to create something balanced and call it a "skeleton" or "draconic" race. 

I think we're not losing customability, but just seeing a shift from highly numerical monsters to a more modular, fluid option.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 22, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.



 Like, I dunno this?

Bob The Smith: Male Human Expert 4. S 13 D 10 Co 11 I 12 W 9 Ch 8
BAB +3, AC 12 (+2 leather), Atk +4 hammer (1d6+1), hp 11 (4d6)
Skills: Craft (armorsmithing, weaponsmithing, blacksmithing) +11 each (+13 with masterwork tools), Profession +7.
Feats: Skill Focus (Craft [armorsmithing, weaponsmithing, blacksmithing].

Took me 5 minutes.


----------



## Thurbane (Aug 22, 2007)

I also hope monsters are first and foremost organic - not ambulatory stat blocks.

Like the much vaunted example of the Ogre Mage - "Oh no, it has Sleep as an SLA, and Sleep is useless on characters of an appropriate CR level!".

Well maybe, just maybe, the Ogre Mage evolved without an inbuilt "CR appropraite ability" gene determining it's development. Perhaps they evolved the ability to drop Goblins, Kobolds and other little critters for lunch!   

People swear black and blue that saying more recent editions of D&D have a "videogame" feel is a totally false analogy, but I can't help but feel monsters whose powers are totally designed to be appropriate for "level X characters" have a distinct Diablo feel to them...


----------



## BryonD (Aug 22, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Like, I dunno this?
> 
> Bob The Smith: Male Human Expert 4. S 13 D 10 Co 11 I 12 W 9 Ch 8
> BAB +3, AC 12 (+2 leather), Atk +4 hammer (1d6+1), hp 11 (4d6)
> ...



Well, first, I was shooting off a quick thought and on further reflection should have selected a higher skill total.  And even with that you came up with a character that has the BAB of a L3 fighter and low fudged HP and still came up 4 points short of my target (I'm not going to count the MW tools).

IMO the rules should readily support the idea of a master of a great library with knowledge scores equal to the highest of anyone in the know lands (say +30 or more), and yet not have any combat skills (+0 BAB) and roughly commoner 1 or 2 level HP without fudging or forcing an aburdly low.  

This has never been an OMG D&D has a great zit on it issue.  I'm still a big 3X fan.  At this moment it is the best game ever published.    But I'd like to see the rules support a more broad scope of builds.  And having skill and BAB and HP all tied to the same mechanic (HD) holds that back.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, first, I was shooting off a quick thought and on further reflection should have selected a higher skill total.  And even with that you came up with a character that has the BAB of a L3 fighter and low fudged HP and still came up 4 points short of my target (I'm not going to count the MW tools).
> 
> IMO the rules should readily support the idea of a master of a great library with knowledge scores equal to the highest of anyone in the know lands (say +30 or more), and yet not have any combat skills (+0 BAB) and roughly commoner 1 or 2 level HP without fudging or forcing an aburdly low.
> 
> This has never been an OMG D&D has a great zit on it issue.  I'm still a big 3X fan.  At this moment it is the best game ever published.    But I'd like to see the rules support a more broad scope of builds.  And having skill and BAB and HP all tied to the same mechanic (HD) holds that back.





I messed up and forgot the -4 nonproficiency penalty for the hammer, my bad! His attack should've been +0. And the library headmaster? How simple is that to give him something like: "Maester Lwuinn has a +10 circumstance bonus on all Knowledge checks, from a lifetime of reading", bumping his modifiers from +11 to +21?

Mind you, I'm not being adversatorial, just showing that I don't see this as an issue. Once again,  .


----------



## MerricB (Aug 23, 2007)

From what I recall, the MM will have in it for "class advancement monsters" the stuff necessary to advance them with classes. So, orcs, goblins, that sort of thing. Remember, we're not just talking about 3e races here: it's not +2 Str, +2 Con and a LA any more. No, instead we've got level-dependent abilities! So, an 5th level Orc Fighter might be able to to a Strong Strike with a battleaxe, or a 5th level Kobold Rogue may be able to do a Reactive Tumble away from a fireball...

I'm making the talents up, but the point is the same: Race matter more in 4e.

Obviously, they're not going to do this for every monster. Lots of them will be simpler.

However, I expect monsters and PCs will still be built on the same base. Why do monsters need feats? They don't. However, if you had a Ogre Fighter 6, you could give it feats purely from the fighter levels & HD. 

The 3.5e revision for monsters (which gave them all feats equal to PCs) was really, really great because you didn't have to remember two (or five!) separate progressions. With this theoretical 4e "no feats for monsters", you don't have to remember anything either - the monster part doesn't have feats, but once you give it PC levels, it gains feats.

Skills, Ability scores? Yeah, the monster will still have that. And I'd guess that they'd work like Saga edition skills. Easy skill bonus to work out, and possible racial adjustments.

Certainly with Saga edition, you can get a +10 to a 1st level skill very easily indeed (just be trained, for +5, and then skill focus, for another +5). Reducing the variance in skill gain between levels (so 1st to 20th is +0 to +10), and you have something that allows 1st level commoners to be good at their core tasks.

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 23, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I messed up and forgot the -4 nonproficiency penalty for the hammer, my bad! His attack should've been +0. And the library headmaster? How simple is that to give him something like: "Maester Lwuinn has a +10 circumstance bonus on all Knowledge checks, from a lifetime of reading", bumping his modifiers from +11 to +21?
> 
> Mind you, I'm not being adversatorial, just showing that I don't see this as an issue. Once again,  .





And I can and will hand wave with the best of them when it makes the game more fun.
But my point is simply that if the game itself implicitely supports a wider range of builds than that is a Good Thing(tm)


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 23, 2007)

While I definitely want to wait for actual information before bemoaning or heralding their monster design, I do want to weigh in on the purpose of monsters.

I see a lot of people that want a high congruency between the rules for monsters and characters so they or their players can play monsters.  While this is definitely a cool option, I think core D&D needs to be created to serve the vast majority of its player base who don't expand their racial options past your basic fantasy archetypes.  D&D has never been, nor should it be, a fantasy RPG toolbox and as such monsters need to serve as monsters first and foremost.

Also, Third Edition races were a rather transparent lot, a different set of stat bonuses and relatively few unique abilities.  This made creating monsters as PCs rather easily.  Fourth Edition is ramping up the impact of race and as such I think you might enjoy the basic races again, but also it will be harder to make monsters into PCs.  If the previews are to be believed, your minotaur as a PC race needs special abilities linked to every class.

While on an intellectual level, translucency between the rules for monsters and PCs is a neat idea, when you actually sit down to play it completely degrades in importance.  Your players likely don't care and will never know if your 3 HD monster can have skills or BAB that high or not.  If you have ever ran a published adventure you have almost assuredly, unless you are John Cooper, used a monster with a slightly askew statblock.  Did your game stumble to a halt?  Likely it didn't make any difference.  This is not to say that guidelines for creating monsters are not important or desirable, but hard rules based on the HD of a monster make little sense since CR is not rigorously tied to HD and is instead based on numerous other factors.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 23, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Why do you say this was ironic?




Because monsters were often a hodge podge of strange abilities that didn't always seem to go together and there were... easy ways to minimize the xp from the old table.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 23, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> While I definitely want to wait for actual information before bemoaning or heralding their monster design, I do want to weigh in on the purpose of monsters.




Nicely stated. 

Cheers!


----------



## Samnell (Aug 23, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> I see a lot of people that want a high congruency between the rules for monsters and characters so they or their players can play monsters..




I don't know about others, but that's not why I'm concerned at all. If making a monster PC curdled all the milk in the county it wouldn't bother me much. I've allowed players to play monster PCs before, and I've done it a few times myself, but it's never been a core or important part of my D&D experience.

EDIT: Sorry, misidentified the quote.


----------



## Pale (Aug 23, 2007)

We know that monsters and NPCs will be using two different systems. I hope that they won't be incompatable as they were in 1E and 2E.

Also, I could care less about playing a monster as a PC. In the right campaign it's a great idea, (celestials reduced to 1HD for a transgression and working their way back up to full status on the Material Plane... good schtuff, dagnabbit). 

It's just that I _liked_ the symmetry, I _liked_ only memorizing one set of rules for character advancement. I personally only tweaked the Big Bads that were going to be around for a while(1), were numerous(2) or directly affected the party make-up(3). For everything else I pretty much just ran the monsters "out of the box" with, perhaps, an uppage in HD.

I suppose I could always wing it, but I liked having the rules there for these kinds of things... and only 1 rules set needed.

_1. Four Gnolls who advanced with the party (a fighter, a ranger, a rogue and a sorceror who all later took the assassin PrC).

2. An entire tribe of "Fire-touched" trolls.

3. Advancing, adding character levels or a template to a summoned creature, rather than replacing the summoned creature totally. House rules and such that made the summoning spells more personal to the caster._


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 23, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.




Utter agreement. I think that the real question, at the end of the day, is what makes sense for the practice of the game, what makes it work, what makes it easier to use. Sure, it's nice to be able to play the beholder paladin, but in the end, the few guys (and I'm among them) who want to do that were already doing it with 1E, and these are certainly not the majority of players.

Recognize that there is an actual, practical difference of purpose between a monster surviving 4 rounds at the game table and a PC going through an entire campaign? That it's better to design elements with what the game actually does in mind? I'm all for it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 23, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I messed up and forgot the -4 nonproficiency penalty for the hammer, my bad!




You lost the whole argument about 3e statblocks/NPC/Monster abilities by messing it up.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 23, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> To me, this is backwards thinking.




I was just having the exact same reaction as I was reading the front page.

The idea that I'll get one stat block if I make up a minotaur NPC using the hypothetical PHB write-up and a different minotaur stat block if I make up a minotaur using the material in the Monster Manual just sounds ridiculous to me. It's not particularly useful.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.




I think this has been true in 3rd Edition, but only because of the way the designers have approached the method of handling non-standard PC races. The scorched earth approach of "if they have ability X which the PCs aren't supposed to have until level Y, so we'll give them a level adjustment = (Y - HD)" is sloppy and leads to the problems you're describing.

But you don't have to do it that way.

There are more elegant ways of handling that scenario. And alot of them would contribute to solving the "christmas tree of magic items" phenomenon the designers want to get rid of.

So I agree with Joe. Fix the problem, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

And this is also a critique I voiced in my blog (see .sig) regarding the current design ethos at WotC: They spot a legitimate problem and then solve it in a way that doesn't make any kind of sense to me. (See, also, Mearls' write-up of the rust monster and Noonan's comments regarding non-combat abilities for monsters.)

1. Make all HD equal. The easiest way to achieve this is to have monster HD equate to a level in their type (animal, aberration, etc.).

2. Give me a unified system for figuring out what effect abilities have on the power balance of an encounter. In the current edition, this is best handled by the wealth-by-level guidelines. In 4th Edition, it could be something else.  But whatever the case may be, this way when I give a monster more abilities than their "level" supports, I know what effect it has on their power level. And if I ever need/want to play that monster as a member of the party (either as a PC or a cohort or a minion or a special mount or a familiar), the information is truly interchangeable.

In this system you can design any monster -- purpose-designed monsters -- by giving them the appropriate number of base "levels" (i.e. Hit Dice) and then selecting or creating the appropriate abilities for them to flesh out the design.

To sum up: The problem with the current system is that it pretends to treat monsters the same way as PCs -- to make them interchangeable. But, in reality, they frequently AREN'T. And even when they _are_, they still suffer the balancing issues inherent in the 3rd Edition multiclassing rules. (So when you add a single level of sorcerer to an ogre or a 5th level fighter, you don't end up with a character who's as challenging as an ogre with a level of fighter or a 6th level fighter.)

You fix this problem by actually making them interchangeable components. You don't solve it by concluding that, since it didn't work _perfectly_ in 3rd Edition, it shouldn't be done at all.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I've often said it before and still maintain it -- DMs and players need two separate sets of rules, because they have two different goals. The player's goal is to manage one character to the pursuit of fun. The DM's goal is to manage dozens of characters as well as plot elements to the pursuit of fun. As long as the mechanics meet the two sides in the middle, then I have no problem with DMs not having to manage NPCs the way PCs are managed. If 4E can successfully pull it off, then I'm interested.




The way to handle this is to give DMs and players different tools for manipulating the same bits of information.

For a 3rd Edition example: Players like to be able to spend every skill point because it gives them a lot of control over the exact make-up and design of their characters. This is time-consuming, but -- as you note -- a player only needs to worry about the design of a single character and the control is worth the time.

DMs, on the other hand, need to stat up dozens of characters. The time required to spend every skill point becomes a huge hassle.

The solution here isn't to say, "Well, let's ditch the skill system." It isn't even, "Let's ditch the skill system for NPCs." Or, "Let's have NPC skills work fundamentally differently from PC skills."

The solution is to say to the player, "Spend your skill points and achieve detailed results." And to say to the DM, "Pick a number of class skills equal to X + the character's intelligence bonus. Their skill bonus is equal to the max ranks in a class skill."

And you can do even better than that while (a) giving the players even more control and (b) giving the DM even simpler tools for achieving the same results.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Here's an example of something I think made monster design in 3e more complicated: Feats.
> 
> Why do monsters have feats? Because they have to work the same way as PCs. What do feats provide? A bunch of abilities that...
> (a) someone will forget to calculate into a statblock (so many examples of this in later MMs with Weapon Focus).
> ...




I don't understand this argument in the least. I discuss this in some detail on my blog (again, see the link in my .sig), but here's the highlight:

"The problem is that Noonan is fallaciously conflating two types of utility:

(1) Spell-like abilities make it easier to use the rules because, as your familiarity with the rules for various spells grow, you will gain greater and greater mastery over a larger and larger swath of the ruleset.

(2) Putting all the information you need to run a creature in the creature's stat block makes it easier to use the creature because all the information you need is immediately accessible (without needing to look in multiple places, which also ties up books you may need to be using to reference other information).

There's no need to jettison utility #1 in order to achieve utility #2. The correct solution is to use spell-like abilities and list the information you need regarding the spell-like ability in the creature's stat block."

Replace the words "spell-like abilities" with "feat" in that passage and you get the same result.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 23, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Race matter more in 4e.
> 
> Obviously, they're not going to do this for every monster. Lots of them will be simpler.
> 
> However, I expect monsters and PCs will still be built on the same base. Why do monsters need feats? They don't. However, if you had a Ogre Fighter 6, you could give it feats purely from the fighter levels & HD.




Someone mentioned somewhere that UA Bloodlines could be taken as a starting point for designing races in 4e.
I think it's a good idea, but let me clarify however that once every class works like UA bloodlines, there is no more need for those bloodlines to have "blank levels" (just in case someone hated that idea).

If they go this route, it should be easy to then publish a monster in its basic form (without class levels) and then publish its "bloodline-like racial progression" either in the same MM entry (if the monster is supposed to be playable since the start, like an Orc) or otherwise publish it separately in a 4e Savage Species. Actually such a book could look quite similar to the 3e book, except that the "racial class" is applied on top of the base creature and together with class levels, instead of "breaking down" the base creature.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Skills, Ability scores? Yeah, the monster will still have that. And I'd guess that they'd work like Saga edition skills. Easy skill bonus to work out, and possible racial adjustments.
> 
> Certainly with Saga edition, you can get a +10 to a 1st level skill very easily indeed (just be trained, for +5, and then skill focus, for another +5). Reducing the variance in skill gain between levels (so 1st to 20th is +0 to +10), and you have something that allows 1st level commoners to be good at their core tasks.




I'm so much ambivalent on what I'm hearing about 4e skills... I think that 3e skills were a fantastic system to represent everything that isn't either combat not spellcasting. For a Player Character, they were a perfect system for me (although some of the specific skills could use a better mechanic). The only thing which 3e skills do not accomplish well at all is supporting NPCs.

What I hear about Saga skills, makes me think that they are very good at supporting the NPCs, but I'm not so positive about PCs anymore...


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 23, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.




Totally, I mean, think about Mozart, or Jimi Hendrix, they would probably have mad ranks in Perform (instrument), but wouldn't really have more than a few hp.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 23, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> You lost the whole argument about 3e statblocks/NPC/Monster abilities by messing it up.



 That has nothing to do with stat/blah. I just can't wrap my head around the concept of a warhammer being Martial instead of Simple weapon.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 23, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> The way to handle this is to give DMs and players different tools for manipulating the same bits of information.
> 
> For a 3rd Edition example: Players like to be able to spend every skill point because it gives them a lot of control over the exact make-up and design of their characters. This is time-consuming, but -- as you note -- a player only needs to worry about the design of a single character and the control is worth the time.
> 
> ...




While I'm nodding my head in agreement with the first part of the post concerning LA, this, I unfortunately have to disagree with.

Simply put, the current skill system isn't friendly for DMs. At first, it seems like all the DM has to do is follow the formula, but that formula is highly inaccurate. Not only doesn't it not factor in things like synergy bonuses and circumstance bonuses but it also ignores how the skill system works. For many skills, you just need a certain value to hit a DC so you don't even want the skill maxed out.

For a player, they can focus on their single character and figure out waht's the best choices whereas the DM when trying to stat out the BBEG and his two lieutenants and other NPCs has to do much more characters.


----------



## Pale (Aug 23, 2007)

*The Devil is in the Details*

Another thing that concerns me is that some monsters, in my opinion, deserve an in-depth stat  block. (I realize as I write this that we've all been presuming that 'different than PC = less complexity. That a big presumption, but I'll go with it.)

How awesome is it to see the write-ups for named Demon/Devil Lords? Take _Graz'zt, The Dark Prince_ from _The Book of Vile Darkness_ for instance: Seeing just his attacks and damage alone (+48/+43/+38/+33; 2d6+13/17-20 plus 2d6 acid plus 1 vile) illustrates just what B.A.M.F. he is before you even look at his multitude of other abilities. Maybe I just like those kind of write-ups because of the geek-love of how "uber" they illustrate these Unholiest of Unholies are, but there ya go.

You may not need an in-depth write-up for monsters that are only going to be around for a maximum of 10 rounds, but what about those that will? What about those that the DM does use as villainous PCs? Just because they won't be used by the players as characters doesn't mean that there is no benefit from writing them up as one.

All of this assumes that the stats from one to the other aren't portable in an easy to moderate fashion. If the stat blocks aren't completely alien to one another, then I think that I'll be fine with it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 23, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> Another thing that concerns me is that some monsters, in my opinion, deserve an in-depth stat  block. (I realize as I write this that we've all been presuming that 'different than PC = less complexity. That a big presumption, but I'll go with it.)




Actually, it's not an assumption. One of the first points they hit at the seminar at GenCon was that monster stat blocks are a lot shorter/simpler.



> All of this assumes that the stats from one to the other aren't portable in an easy to moderate fashion. If the stat blocks aren't completely alien to one another, then I think that I'll be fine with it.




I don't imagine they'll be _too_ foreign. To quote Mike Mearls:



> We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. *The designs must inform each other*, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.




Note the part that I bolded. I expect that, while the designs will differ, there'll be enough common ground for someone familiar with the game system to tweak them one way or the other.


----------



## Pale (Aug 23, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not an assumption. One of the first points they hit at the seminar at GenCon was that monster stat blocks are a lot shorter/simpler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you, o' Rodent of the Dark. That does put some of my fears to rest. But while the stat blocks have been confirmed to be shorter and simpler, from what I'm hearing the monster write-ups won't be. Orc racial abilities, I believe, have been mentioned. This leads me to believe that as monsters advance they will have access to stronger abilities. So, while what I have in front of me while I DM may be shorter and simpler to work with at the gaming table, does it necessarily follow that the MM entry will be as well?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 23, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> So, while what I have in front of me while I DM may be shorter and simpler to work with at the gaming table, does it necessarily follow that the MM entry will be as well?




That's a good question, and I honestly don't know. I can see a few possibilities.

1) The write-up in the MM is more complex than any given usage of the monster. I see this possibility as _very_ unlikely, given the emphasis on simplicity and ease of use.

2) Orcs and similar races will only include bare-bones racial options, and if you choose to advance them by class level, they'll be restricted to class-based options only. While this would give them a little less flexibility than PC races, it wouldn't cost them anything in the way of overall power (assuming class and race abilities are balanced.) Then, in later books, if the designers chose to expand on orcs as a PC race, they could include higher level racial abilities.

Option two seems most likely to me, but of course it's also possible they're going with something I haven't remotely thought of.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 23, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Simply put, the current skill system isn't friendly for DMs. At first, it seems like all the DM has to do is follow the formula, but that formula is highly inaccurate. Not only doesn't it not factor in things like synergy bonuses and circumstance bonuses but it also ignores how the skill system works. For many skills, you just need a certain value to hit a DC so you don't even want the skill maxed out.




I understand your point regarding synergy bonuses. And I would, in fact, get rid of those. Or, at least, I would get rid of them as hard-coded bonuses where skill Y always gives a bonus to skill X.

But I'm not following the rest of your claim:

1. Circumstance bonuses are applied to specific tasks and on the fly. They have nothing to do with building a stat block.

2. Of course the simpler method is going to give you less control and give you less optimized results. The point is that you don't always need that optimization, and the system can be designed so that you can ignore it when you don't need it. But saying that "if I want optimized results it will take me more time than non-optimized results, so let's get rid of the ability to optimize so that I'm not tempted to spend my time on it" doesn't make any sense to me.

But, of course, I've never understood the "I don't like having more options" school of design and gameplay.

It is true that there are some skills whose usefulness dead-ends while other skills usefulness remains open-ended. This is, IMO, a design flaw in the dead-end skills. But it's a separate problem that needs to be fixed.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 23, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> Thank you, o' Rodent of the Dark. That does put some of my fears to rest. But while the stat blocks have been confirmed to be shorter and simpler, from what I'm hearing the monster write-ups won't be. Orc racial abilities, I believe, have been mentioned. This leads me to believe that as monsters advance they will have access to stronger abilities. So, while what I have in front of me while I DM may be shorter and simpler to work with at the gaming table, does it necessarily follow that the MM entry will be as well?




Here's what i think will happen, and i'm taking the idea from MM 4 and 5.  There, they introduced advanced levels of monsters that we were already familiar with, hobgoblins and illithids and ogres, etc.  Some people felt shafted that we were getting write-ups for monsters that we already owned, and could add class levels to ourselves. 

Perhaps the 4e MM will take this a step further by breaking down the different "ranks" of the same creature, in 3 stages, and layering on (or even replacing entirely) its special abilities at each stage. This would be very similar to adding on levels, only there wouldn't be the mechanics the PC's use, it would be the mechanics they establish in the MM.  The end result would be cleaner with enemies for multiple combat levels without the DM having to modify too much.  Of course, a DM will always start modifying anyway, DM's like to do that.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 23, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> How much will this hamstring DMs, though? Sorry guys, I still love Player and Monster stats being the same... one system to rule them all. The old ways are what produced such things as "The Ogre Mage" (yes, I know that was also in 3.5, but more out of tradition than anything else, I think). Am I going to have to have a seperate "monster" if I want "Fighter Kobolds", "Stealthy Kobolds" and "Magic Casting Kobolds"? Meh, just let me add character classes to them.



Agreed.  Monsters following the same rules as PCs means that it's as easy to modify monsters as it is to modify PCs, while being able to roughly gauge how your modifications affect the monster's power level.  The anything-goes of earlier systems wasn't a good thing IMO.  The 3E format wasn't too much information, as most of it could be safely ignored unless the situation called for it.

Not to mention that giving monsters PC stats makes it much easier to adjucate how they are affected by numerous spells or magic items.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 23, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> I understand your point regarding synergy bonuses. And I would, in fact, get rid of those. Or, at least, I would get rid of them as hard-coded bonuses where skill Y always gives a bonus to skill X.
> 
> But I'm not following the rest of your claim:
> 
> ...



Is it really optimizing? It might be from a purely number crunching point of view, but what does this optimization really mean in game? Outside of the encounters with the NPC, most things are entirely up to the DM and the adventure plot. I doubt that there are any adventures whose outcome or direction are based on the "off-screen" roll of a NPC (which was only decided one way because of the extra 5 skill points). During the encounter, only very few skills are ever needed, you don't take 10 or 20 on these skills, and roll so seldom that most of the outcome is based on the general competency (not precise skill modifier) and the die result. So in essence, the optimization was for little effect.

If there are options, they should be meaningful. A +2 bonus to a specific skill is not meaningful. The decision whether my NPC is at all good at a skill, or if he can power attack, cast a specific spell, that's what is meaningful. It affects his personality, if affects his role in the adventure, it affects its abilities in combat. 

It might be a bit different for a PC. Mostly because a PC actually uses a skill fairly often, has a lot of chance to take 10 or 20, and there are no "Off-Screen" rolls for a PC. A PC is always on screen. He might actually care about all the bonuses he can get, because he will have a considerable effect on the character performance. 
But on the other hand, does he really need to? If the system does give him only, say 4 general competence levels* for a skill (based on his level), is that so bad? Sure, it might take out the fun of the optimizing (provided that it's easy to advance these 4 "general competence levels"), but would gameplay be hurt by it? Note also that this means that while the character has only "4" options for a individual skill, this also means he doesn't have to spend more than 4 of his total option points (measured in # of feat, skill ranks, class or race options)  "spendable" for this specific skill. He can spend the rest to get other options. Which reduces the risk of a character being only good at one thing and in the cases where this one thing isn't applicable, he will be less enjoyable to play.

*)



Spoiler



In the Starwars Saga edition, there are basically 4 options to select from: Untrained, Trained, Skill Focus and Trained, Reroll Ability with skill.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 23, 2007)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Monsters following the same rules as PCs means that it's as easy to modify monsters as it is to modify PCs, while being able to roughly gauge how your modifications affect the monster's power level.  The anything-goes of earlier systems wasn't a good thing IMO.  It wasn't too much information, as most of it could be safely ignored if you didn't need to know it.
> 
> Not to mention that giving monsters PC stats makes it much easier to adjucate how they are affected by numerous spells or magic items.



I would say this: 

It is not important that monsters follow exact the same rules as the PCs. But the way to create them must be common among all monsters so that you can determine their power level. 
The end result must be "compatible" to the PC statistics, at least in all effects that determine the monsters options in combat and how it is affected by PCs.


In software terms, the class Monster and the class Player Character must adhere to a common interface. How you implement the interface or construct a instance of the implementing class doesn't matter. 
The interface most likely consists of the following properties: 
Attacks (including #Attacks, Attack Bonus, Spells), Hit Points, Saves/Defenses (AC, DR, Energy Resistance, Spell Resistance or whatever will exist in D&D 4), Ability Scores, and probably something like "Challenge Level"
Maybe they also share an abstract base class that provides a few base "methods":
Resolve Attack, Resolve Damage, Resolve Saving Throw. But the "Constructor" would be unique for the two classes.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 24, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Is it really optimizing? It might be from a purely number crunching point of view, but what does this optimization really mean in game? Outside of the encounters with the NPC, most things are entirely up to the DM and the adventure plot. I doubt that there are any adventures whose outcome or direction are based on the "off-screen" roll of a NPC (which was only decided one way because of the extra 5 skill points). During the encounter, only very few skills are ever needed, you don't take 10 or 20 on these skills, and roll so seldom that most of the outcome is based on the general competency (not precise skill modifier) and the die result. So in essence, the optimization was for little effect.




In general, I agree. Which is why I generally don't bother optimizing my NPCs' skill choices or fret at the prospect that I've "wasted" an NPC's skill points in some way. It's just not a good use of my time and it doesn't really contribute anything to the quality of the game.

(But, just for the sake of devil's advocacy, I will note that I just got done running an adventure where an off-screen skill check was a key point in how the adventure played out: The NPC discovered that the PCs were asking questions about X. If he hadn't discovered that, things would have gone very differently. And I do routinely run adventures where NPCs do plenty of on-screen skill checks. Even moreso if were to include allies, minions, cohorts, and the like in the NPC count.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Richards (Aug 25, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Yeah. Books like MMIV, which give people like John Cooper an ideal place to slam Wizards for not getting the stat-blocks right.
> 
> Cheers!



Reading through this thread, and some of MerricB's comments on the first two pages in particular, I got a strange image in my head.  You know that Far Side cartoon with the two guards standing on top of the Great Wall of China?  One of them says "There!  That ought to keep that dog out of here!"  I'm imagining a big "4E" superimposed on the wall, and the quote changing to "There!  That ought to keep that Cooper guy out of our stats!"  

In any case, it does sound like the mechanics on stat design are not going to be as transparent as they are in 3E/3.5, so "gearheads" like Mr. Cooper (I think that's the term, and it's not meant disparagingly) are going to have a harder time checking up on stat block accuracy.

Johnathan


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 25, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> [Generalization] Most people can't even play a human [/Generalization]




Ahhhh, what?  Were you just being sarcastic, or have you found this statement to be true in your experience?  Can you give an example of what you mean by this?  I don't understand your statement unless it was meant as sarcasm.


----------



## rowport (Aug 25, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> To me, this is backwards thinking.
> 
> An ability is an ability is an ability.
> 
> ...



It's not just you, Joe.  I completely agree with you.  I think this is a move in exactly the wrong direction (which is interesting, because I generally think pretty highly of Mearls' design-fu, and Ari's, for that matter).  If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".

If simplicity is the end-goal (as it certainly seems to be from several 4e quotes), then moving towards standardization across the system is the best way to get there.  Having different "tracks" of abilities is not the answer; in some ways, it will exacerbate the problem.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 25, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.




That's already true.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> That's already true.
> 
> http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html
> 
> ...



Nope.  I find your assessment completely short of what I want.
I want NPCs that are way above 10th level PCs within an area of specialty and yet not be supermen elsewhere.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2007)

I'm conflicted.

I'm mostly with Mog on the first page: the designers shouldn't be telling me what I use the game element for. If I want to use monsters as an encounter, a bit of scenery, the local blacksmith, or a PC race, I should be able to do that. 3e lets me do that quite admirably. 

But I 100% agree that streamlining the beasties is a beautiful idea. 

Harooommm....


----------



## mearls (Aug 25, 2007)

A few points:

1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.

2. Though monsters don't necessarily use spell-like abilities, monster abilities remain within the same basic realm of utility. A sixty foot cone of fire works just like any other sixty foot cone. The staggering majority of abilities are pretty much spell-like in mechanics, it's just that those mechanics appear in the stat block rather than refer to a spell.

3. Many monster abilities are re-used and templated. On top of that, monster abilities are kept simple and easy to use, as we know that a DM has to handle several monsters at once. Really complex monsters are a special case.

4. The new system allows for more flavorful monsters and a greater sense of mystery and wonder. Your players will know a lot less about specific monster abilities unless they read the MM and pay a lot of attention. Fighting gnolls is going to feel a lot different compared to fighting hobgoblins. Fighting a new creature is going to be scary. I loved springing new critters on people in my playtests.

5. I really can't wait until we do in-depth previews of the MM. The playtest DMs were pretty happy with how monsters work now. I'm curious to see how gamers in general will react. In my blog, I talked about how playing 4e felt like playing D&D for the first time again. The monsters played a big role in that.

6. There's a forum set up specifically for commenting on the blogs over on the WotC boards:

http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=685

That's a good place to directly address stuff we post. Anywhere else is a bit hit or miss, depending on work schedules and stuff. We're trying to hit the WotC boards, here, and elsewhere, but there's a ton of talk and it's hard to keep up.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 25, 2007)

rowport said:
			
		

> It's not just you, Joe.  I completely agree with you.  I think this is a move in exactly the wrong direction (which is interesting, because I generally think pretty highly of Mearls' design-fu, and Ari's, for that matter).  If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".
> 
> If simplicity is the end-goal (as it certainly seems to be from several 4e quotes), then moving towards standardization across the system is the best way to get there.  Having different "tracks" of abilities is not the answer; in some ways, it will exacerbate the problem.




Well, first off... Thank you. 

So, with the caveat that I know nothing more about 4E monsters than you do, so I can't speak from a position of actual awareness as to what they're doing, I'll try to clarify my own position here.

First off, I believe that "consistency" is a laudable design goal, but a _very_ low priority one. If you can make something play better, play faster, play more easily, or just play _cooler_ by being inconsistent, then consistency should be sacrificed.

So, is it possible to make monsters either better, faster, more easy to run, or cooler by sacrificing consistency?

I'd argue that the answer is yes.

If I may...



> If abilities are judged on relative value for utility (as are feats, spells, etc.) there is no rational reason to have sets of "monster abilities" that are not accessible or consistent with "character abilities".




I think this statement assumes a few facts not yet in evidence.

1) Abilities judged on a relative value for utility.

The problem is, as the 3E LA/ECL tried (and often failed) to address, an ability's usefulness in a single combat is often widely different than its utility to a PC who appears in almost every scene and almost every combat of a campaign. Sometimes, it's simply not possible to accurately adjust a PC race to accept a monster's at-will abilities. The LA/ECL system had a tendency to compensate for such abilities by adding a high Level Adjustment--which created PCs with abilities both over and under the average of the party. This does _not_ average out to equal a PC of the same level (particularly when one gets into such things as saves and hit points.) As someone else said, high-LA PCs were glass tigers.

2) There's no reason for monster abilities and PC abilities to be judged on the same scale, _assuming those abilities are different_. Yes, if a monster has an ability that perfectly resembles the feat Cleave, that's obviously equivalent to--well, a feat. But if a monster has the ability to phase in and out of stone at will, and can use a grapple attempt to drag unwilling passengers with it, thus trapping them in the stone, that's not entirely like any ability, feat, or spell available to PCs, and it doesn't perfectly measure up with them. So to be consistent, I either have to drop the ability or somehow grant it to PCs.

So let's say I decide it's a cool ability, and I'm going to keep it and accept the inconsistency. Now I have a monster with both monster abilities--the "rock grapple," as it were--and feats. But if we've already agreed to be inconsistent, why include both categories? Why not just add "Cleave" to the list of monster abilities? Sure, it's similar to the feat, but by adding it to the monster's racial abilities, rather than _calling_ it a feat, we accomplish two design goals:

A) We shorten the stat block by only having one category to track, rather than two.
B) We no longer have to lock monsters into the same "1 feat/3 HD" progression that PCs follow.

But wait. Is that a good thing? Again, I'd argue yes. Lots of monsters have feats they don't really need, because the rules say they have to. Lots of monsters either don't have feats they should, have bonus feats, or are higher HD than they need to be, because the rules say that's how feats work. Again, I think that, in the end, a purpose-designed monster should have the abilities it needs to have, without being encumbered by a set of rules that are designed to showcase PCs at every level of play.

Now, I'll admit there's a danger in this approach. If monsters and PCs are _too_ divergent--as, say, they were in 1E--it becomes nigh impossible to tweak them, or to add class levels to monsters. What I'm hoping to see, and what I think has been hinted at by the designers, is a monster creation system that diverges _where it needs to_, but isn't _widely_ different.

Is it going to please everyone? No, of course not. Nothing will. That's just the nature of the beast. But honestly, I think anything that makes monsters shorter and easier to run (and create) can only be a good thing, _if_ it's not taken to unnecessary extremes.

(This topic has been on my mind a lot lately, since I'm currently working on what's supposed to be a 15,000-word adventure, and I've come to realize it's going to have to include over 5,000 words of stat blocks alone.  :\)

*Edit:* And even as I type, Mike steps in and confirms my theory that the differences aren't going to be as huge as some people fear. Thanks, Mike.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 25, 2007)

Making statblocks actual quick references for play is a good thing, IMO.  I very much agree with this change.

What I'm worried about are the kinds of abilities that were "streamlined" in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.  A powerful monster like a demon lord has a dozen or more spell-like abilities (or their 4e equivalent).  What I don't want is a parsing down of abilities simply because they cannot all be used in a single combat.  Wouldn't powerful creatures more often take multiple combats to defeat anyways?  

Perhaps a "Spell Suite" could be prepared before each battle like a wizard chooses spells each day?  That way the rules are simplified, but out-of-combat ability is not arbitrarily weakened.  I like the idea of powerful creatures who are capable of bringing a different style of fight numerous times.  It allows them to hone in on PC weaknesses just as its' are by them.

Out-of-combat spell use for NPCs is very important for me.  It dictates a very large portion of what an NPC is capable of accomplishing beyond simple skill use.  This goes a long way in adventure design.


----------



## marune (Aug 25, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> A few points:
> 
> 1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, *any feats that are appropriate*, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.




That 's the good part of it ! Monsters don't need to be balanced agaisn't each other !


----------



## marune (Aug 25, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Out-of-combat spell use for NPCs is very important for me.  It dictates a very large portion of what an NPC is capable of accomplishing beyond simple skill use.  This goes a long way in adventure design.




I'll tell you a little secret but don't tell anybody else : when the PCs are not there, the NPCs can do everything the DM wants and you don't need rules for doing it


----------



## Samnell (Aug 25, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> 1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.




Mike, that goes a HUGE way towards addressing my personal concerns about monsters. I've spent days trying to figure out a way to get that very answer out of you guys. I assumed you were not yet authorized to give it out, one way or the other. Thank you.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 25, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> A few points:
> 
> 1. The divide between monsters and PCs isn't as big as everyone thinks. Monsters have the same ability scores as they do in 3e, skills, any feats that are appropriate, and so on. This won't be 2e or 1e.



1) Thanks for still posting here on ENWorld!
2) That quoted part makes me happy and has probably sold me on 4E, because that was the only thing bugging until now.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 25, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I'll tell you a little secret but don't tell anybody else : when the PCs are not there, the NPCs can do everything the DM wants and you don't need rules for doing it



You're thinking out of character.  An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls. 

Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities?  I have a larger imagination than that.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 25, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> You're thinking out of character.  An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls.
> 
> Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities?  I have a larger imagination than that.



You can always add class levels no? Or perhaps even replace existing monster abilities with class abilities to make the creature different without increasing its "level".


----------



## marune (Aug 25, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> You're thinking out of character.  An orc without "Dominate Monster (at will)" generally has no horde of thralls.
> 
> Do we really want to limit ourselves to creatures who only have only a handful of special abilities? * I have a larger imagination than that*.




You already found the solution (in bold), the only rules we need are the rules governing PC vs (in a broad sense) NPCs interactions.

Outside of it, you can do whatever you want with the NPCs as long as : 1) you provide good challenges to the players 2) it helps the game move forward.



			
				Szatany said:
			
		

> You can always add class levels no? Or perhaps even replace existing monster abilities with class abilities to make the creature different without increasing its "level".




You don't need to know how (according to rules) the NPC X has done Y if it's not relevant to the interaction X has with the PCs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2007)

> I'll tell you a little secret but don't tell anybody else : when the PCs are not there, the NPCs can do everything the DM wants and you don't need rules for doing it




I want a *system* for determining what a creature is capable of.

"Make Junk Up" blows like a wandering prostitute (table) as a system. 

As I said in the WotC thread:



			
				Myself said:
			
		

> Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 25, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> A few points: <snip>



Mike,

That goes a long way towards alleviating my fears. I am looking forward to the monster previews, even if I did not always like or agree with your Monster Makeovers.

On the other hand, the WotC/Gleemax forum is unfortunately unreachable to us in Europe for a fairly long part of the day (during the "maintenance"), which is why I do not want to peruse it. I hope you will find the time to come here and answer as many of our questions as possible.


----------



## marune (Aug 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I want a *system* for determining what a creature is capable of.
> 
> As I said in the WotC thread: Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.




I'm fine with the idea that NPCs are living when the PCs are not there. The key idea here is that we don't need *rules* to handle it. Trying to come up with rules that cover all aspects of a imaginary world is called "simulation" and is a foolish dream.

The DM should do whatever he wants with the NPCs until they become part of a challenge (combat or social) with the PCs.


----------



## hectorse (Aug 25, 2007)

Myself said:
			
		

> Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.




That resides in the world of fluff. Plus you are arguing a moot point in light of Mearls' recent comment.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2007)

> The key idea here is that we don't need rules to handle it. Trying to come up with rules that cover all aspects of a imaginary world is called "simulation" and is a foolish dream.
> 
> The DM should do whatever he wants with the NPCs until they become part of a challenge (combat or social) with the PCs.




Once more with feeling:

I want a system. Making stuff up sucks as a system.

Why do I want a system? Am I a foolish dreamer? No. I rather like a deep and rich setting. I can't evoke a world that still ticks and tocks outside of the PC's if I don't have rules for determining how it does that. So that if, for some reason, the centaur has to tie a knot, I know how well it does that, without simply making stuff up.



> That resides in the world of fluff. Plus you are arguing a moot point in light of Mearls' recent comment.




So does "social interaction," yet we're getting rules for that. Fluff and crunch aren't diametric opposites that can never intermingle. 

Plus, it's not a moot point if the abilities of PC-monsters are different than monster-monsters. 

So there.


----------



## avin (Aug 26, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.
> 
> PCs are a slightly different story. We'd rather create a specific PC write up for a monster that reins in any potential issues at the table or for game balance.




Good news!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 26, 2007)

avin said:
			
		

> Good news!



Yep.  Sounds like we get everything plus lots of gravy and other sides now.


----------



## Crashy75 (Aug 26, 2007)

I don't like it because it means I have to buy (at least) two supplements if I want my monsters and monstrous PC's.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 26, 2007)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> I don't like it because it means I have to buy (at least) two supplements if I want my monsters and monstrous PC's.




Not necessarily.  Some "monsters" (creatures not in the PHB) will have racial entries in the MM (the "gnome" has been mentioned).  They won't be as fleshed out as much as the ones in the PHB.  That will give you a place to start if you don't want to buy anything else.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 26, 2007)

Mousferatu said:
			
		

> So to be consistent, I either have to drop the ability or somehow grant it to PCs.




So grant it to PCs at that level.

Like, if we have the Ethereal Nosepicker at around a level 5 encounter who has the ability to jump into the Etheral Plane for 5 rounds at a time.

Give that ability to PC's.

Perhaps, in the form of a magic item: "A _cloak of the etheral nosepicker_ bestows upon it's bearer the ability to use the Ethereal Jump ability."

Perhaps, in the form of special elite training: "A sect of rogues have been inspired by Ethereal Nosepickers, and have learned to emulate it's Ethereal Jump ability. A rogue can take this as a replacement for their normal Level 5 ability, if he trains with them."

Whatever you do, give it to PC's.

What's the problem with that? Suddenly, the monster adds much more to the game. It's an interesting encounter, it's a player aid, it's even a viable PC race. The monster is, in effect, a bundle of goodness that can be injected into the arm of any game and add much more to it than just a dynamite encounter (though it can add that, too).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So grant it to PCs at that level.




Yuck.

I'm sorry, but that really doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a tight-sphinctered DM who doesn't want the PCs to have any cool toys. But as a designer, as a writer, as a DM, and as a storyteller, the notion that anything a monster can do _must_ be available to the PCs is a non-starter. The monsters and NPCs are, or at least can be, plot points. And most iconic fantasy involves at least some element of heroes finding the way to overcome or get around an ability they don't understand.

Monsters and PCs serve two very different purposes in the adventure and the campaign. The notion that something one can do _must_ be available to the other is, IMO, detrimental to gameplay and unnecessarily restrictive to creativity.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 2) There's no reason for monster abilities and PC abilities to be judged on the same scale, _assuming those abilities are different_. Yes, if a monster has an ability that perfectly resembles the feat Cleave, that's obviously equivalent to--well, a feat. But if a monster has the ability to phase in and out of stone at will, and can use a grapple attempt to drag unwilling passengers with it, thus trapping them in the stone, that's not entirely like any ability, feat, or spell available to PCs, and it doesn't perfectly measure up with them. So to be consistent, I either have to drop the ability or somehow grant it to PCs.



I think the problem here is the assumption (not by you, but by to much of the market) that any and every monster should be PC-appropriate and have an ECL.

In my mind, every single monster (speaking 3X here) should have an ECL value in its write-up.  For a very small number of them this should be a straight value that works as advertised.  For a slightly larger number of them it should be a very conservative value on the high side of balanced.  For the great majority it should be "No XP".  Which is formally defined as "This creature is not appropriate for PCs and should not be used in a standard game.  If used as a PC race then it should be assumed that the XP/CR system is not applicable and any challenges and rewards are completely at the arbitrary judgment of the DM."


----------



## marune (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yuck.




I don't know why I come here, all I have to do is : as Mousferatu said...


----------



## howandwhy99 (Aug 26, 2007)

I understand folks desire to not be overwhelmed by stats again.  What would we say though, if dragons had half of their abilities removed because "there're too many options for one combat"?

I want all my cool options without having to unnecessarily rebuild monsters.  I think combat suites could work.

EDIT: But that's only one idea.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm excited about simplified stat blocks and different rules for monsters.  As a DM, parent, husband, teacher, and grad student, I simply do not have the time to examine the stat blocks as they are in the MM, let alone modify them meaningfully using the appropriate formulas.

For me, simple and accessible equals good.  My players likely aren't going to see or notice the difference in any background formulaic differences, as long as the combat is fast, furious, and most of all, fun.


----------



## Kerrick (Aug 26, 2007)

First off, apologies for the length of this post - I've been offline all week and just finally read this thread.



> The thing about LA/ECL is this: It never really worked.
> 
> Oh, you could play with it, don't get me wrong. And you could have fun with it. But the truth is, it implied a level of compatibility and equality that it didn't really deliver.



Your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong here) is that LA/ECL is broken and should be tossed out, but I disagree. The _concept_ of having an LA is good, but the _implementation_ sucks. It's like the CR system - they eyeball it instead of coming up with a hard and fast system (or at least a freeform system like Gygax') for figuring up what a creature's CR should be. Also - and this is something that I think everyone missed until Upper Krust found it - XP shouldn't be based on CR - it should be based on the EL. A CR 5 creature is not a serious challenge for a party of 4 5-th-level PCs - it's more like a challenge for a party of L3s. Thus it's an EL 3 encounter, and XP should be awarded appropriately. If they'd come up with more accurate LAs, I think the system would work a lot better.



> Mind flayers, for instance. Does anybody here really believe that a mind flayer is equivalent to a 15th-level character? Really? I don't. And my experience doesn't suggest that it is.



Mind flayers are LA +15?  I think they did it wrong, or at least, as I said above, the implementation is wrong - once you add class levels onto a monster, you take the LA (which should always be equal to or higher than CR) instead of the CR and add it to the class levels for the final CR. So, the mind flayer Sor 9 would be ECL 16. Templates work the same way - if it's applied to a monster, you use the CR modifier, if it's applied to a PC, you use the LA. 

I also think the mind flayer's a bit overpowered - SR 25+ class level?? 



> I see a lot of people that want a high congruency between the rules for monsters and characters so they or their players can play monsters. While this is definitely a cool option, I think core D&D needs to be created to serve the vast majority of its player base who don't expand their racial options past your basic fantasy archetypes. D&D has never been, nor should it be, a fantasy RPG toolbox and as such monsters need to serve as monsters first and foremost.



Amen. Make monsters be monsters, and give rules (in the same book or a later one) for people who want to play monsters-as-PCs. I don't think the two are incompatible goals, though - see my comments above.



> And this is also a critique I voiced in my blog (see .sig) regarding the current design ethos at WotC: They spot a legitimate problem and then solve it in a way that doesn't make any kind of sense to me. (See, also, Mearls' write-up of the rust monster and Noonan's comments regarding non-combat abilities for monsters.)



The darkness spell comes to mind here...



> The solution is to say to the player, "Spend your skill points and achieve detailed results." And to say to the DM, "Pick a number of class skills equal to X + the character's intelligence bonus. Their skill bonus is equal to the max ranks in a class skill."



Again, you can say the same thing to players and DMs: "Spend your skill points and achieve detailed results." The only difference is that DMs would have an extra sentence: "If you have some skill points left over after filling in all the skills, then ignore them, unless it's a recurring monster/NPC, because it's only going to be used for 1-2 encounters anyway."



> In any case, it does sound like the mechanics on stat design are not going to be as transparent as they are in 3E/3.5, so "gearheads" like Mr. Cooper (I think that's the term, and it's not meant disparagingly) are going to have a harder time checking up on stat block accuracy.



Amusing as that is (I laughed out loud when I read it), I don't think that's the true reason they're doing it like this. It seems to me that, like the magic item creation system, they want something more free-form and flexible. The side effect of this is that, yes, it'll be harder to "cross-check" stats, skill points, number of feats (if any), etc. 

Personally, I think the current method is a good one - you have a series of formulas, plug in the numbers, calculate the CR, and BAM - you've got a monster. It's boring as all hell, because despite the inherent creativity in thinking up the monster and its abilities, you're just plugging numbers into a table, but it's very easy - I can do a monster in under an hour, most times. I've been designing D&D stuff (monsters, spells, and whatnot) for almost 20 years, and I have to say, it's a LOT easier than 1E/2E - back then, you had to look at existing monsters of the same/similar type, guess at stats, HD, damage, etc., then hope you didn't get the thing horribly unbalanced .



> > So grant it to PCs at that level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We agree on this point, at least. I hate the "NPC X has it, so why can't I?" philosophy. Some things _should_ be restricted to NPCs or monsters only, for whatever reason - usually because in the hands of a player, usable all the time instead of in limited (and controlled) circrumstances, it's overpowered (like the Frenzied Berserker - that thing should NEVER be used as a PC PrC for many reasons, chief among them that it's not a party-friendly class).



> It might also finally be true that you can build an expert npc with +15 to a skill or whatever, without them being 75 HP tough guys that can take out a whole party of low level characters.



That's easy to fix - simply rule that NPC classes don't gain HD, saves, or BAB - just skill points and stat boosts. How often is an expert or commoner ever in combat anyway? If they are, they're cannon fodder - the ogre smashes the poor farmer to pulp with his club, the smith gets shot full of arrows, etc. - they're just story elements glossed over by the DM. On the off-chance that a PC wants to start off as an NPC class (we did that in one campaign) or a DM wants to have a multi-class NPC, then he can use everything. Or not. I do think that NPCs should gain "levels", though - XP is a measure of life experience, knowledge, and memories, and even simply living would gain you levels, like someone suggested. Being a crafter would gain them faster, because you're learning how to make stuff, new techniques, etc. - this is reflected in the gain in XP, which correlates to the increase in skill points.



> So, is it possible to make monsters either better, faster, more easy to run, or cooler by sacrificing consistency?
> 
> I'd argue that the answer is yes.



Is it possible? Yes. Is it desireable? Maybe... but having the same/similar design systems across the board makes DMs/game designers' lives easier, because they don't have to look up (or memorize) one set of rules when they're working on NPCs, and another for monsters - they can use basically the same system. 



> B) We no longer have to lock monsters into the same "1 feat/3 HD" progression that PCs follow.



An easier solution, instead of assigning a free-form system, is simply go like they did with skills - each monster type gets a different feat progression. Undead, for example, would get 1/4; constructs get 1/5; humanoids get 1/3; etc. In this manner you a) provide a unified, _consistent_ framework for monster design; b) can better account for bonus feats, and c) can customize the amount of feats a monster gets based on its "role" - constructs, for example, aren't very bright and don't need a whole lot of feats, so they'd get fewer than a humanoid (which, incidentally, is more likely to be used as a monster race, and should thus be closer to the PC norm). If a player wants to take a monster race that's sub-optimal in terms of feat selection, well hey - them's the breaks. Templates will still break the mold, so to speak, because they don't have HD, but that would be covered by the LA.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Your argument (and correct me if I'm wrong here) is that LA/ECL is broken and should be tossed out, but I disagree. The _concept_ of having an LA is good, but the _implementation_ sucks. It's like the CR system - they eyeball it instead of coming up with a hard and fast system (or at least a freeform system like Gygax') for figuring up what a creature's CR should be.




Here's the thing, though. I don't believe it's _possible_ to have a scientific or consistent system of LA/ECL. Because...



> Some things _should_ be restricted to NPCs or monsters only, for whatever reason - usually because in the hands of a player, usable all the time instead of in limited (and controlled) circrumstances, it's overpowered (like the Frenzied Berserker - that thing should NEVER be used as a PC PrC for many reasons, chief among them that it's not a party-friendly class).




These two concepts are incompatible. Either the game permits monsters to have abilities PCs cannot (as I feel it should), or it does not. But to have an ability and say "You can't have this, but it's _equivalent_ to this ability that you _can_," doesn't really work. If something is mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then there's no reason PCs can't have it, and it's no longer unique to monsters. If it's _not_ mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then assigning a number to it isn't going to change that.

Now, I think it's possible to build a fun, interesting, solid RPG in which monster levels/HD are exactly equivalent to PC levels, and in which every monster is a valid PC right out of the box. But that RPG is not D&D, and would lack a _huge_ proportion of the variety of monsters that D&D has. It is also not a simple RPG to design for, despite its consistency.



> Mind flayers are LA +15?




They're LA +7. They have 8 HD. Total ECL 15.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Here's an interesting question. Let's say someone here at ENWorld decided to take a stab at the ever popular "let's stat Drizzt" game (or another fictional character of your choice). In 4e, will it matter whether he's a PC or an NPC as to what his stats will be like? If NPCs have different type stat blocks, will classed NPC abilities sync up with PC stats if you chose to to make versions?


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting question. Let's say someone here at ENWorld decided to take a stab at the ever popular "let's stat Drizzt" game (or another fictional character of your choice). In 4e, will it matter whether he's a PC or an NPC as to what his stats will be like? If NPCs have different type stat blocks, will classed NPC abilities sync up with PC stats if you chose to to make versions?



My prediction:  No.  Because there will always be "PC/NPCs."

There are always a handful of elites that are on par with the player characters, and use the same rules (or close to the same rules) as them.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 26, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> > Out-of-combat spell use for NPCs is very important for me. It dictates a very large portion of what an NPC is capable of accomplishing beyond simple skill use. This goes a long way in adventure design.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you a little secret but don't tell anybody else : when the PCs are not there, the NPCs can do everything the DM wants and you don't need rules for doing it




So your PCs never interact with NPCs except when they're fighting them?



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> These two concepts are incompatible. Either the game permits monsters to have abilities PCs cannot (as I feel it should), or it does not.




Let's take this out of the hypothetical: What ability should a monster have that a PC should never be allowed to have? Feel free to make something up out of wholecloth.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 26, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Let's take this out of the hypothetical: What ability should a monster have that a PC should never be allowed to have? Feel free to make something up out of wholecloth.



A breath weapon.

Why?

Because if your PC is a type of creature that *has* a breath weapon how the bleeeep did it become a PC and what was your DM smoking at the time s/he allowed it?

There is *nothing* worse than hearing one player say to another (in character): "I've spent most of my adult life training up on how to kill these things and now they expect me to run with one as a team-mate???"

In the core game, monsters should really not be PCs.

Lanefan


----------



## Szatany (Aug 26, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Let's take this out of the hypothetical: What ability should a monster have that a PC should never be allowed to have? Feel free to make something up out of wholecloth.



Flying at will, teleportation at will, summoning at will, spontaneous resurrection, splitting yourself into identical copies, magic immunity.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> Let's take this out of the hypothetical: What ability should a monster have that a PC should never be allowed to have?




Regeneration, Mind Blast at will, _blasphemy_ at will, being healed by fire/cold/etc.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2007)

Apologies for the long post. But to me this thread really highlights that 4E is cementing certain aspects of the metagame-ingame relationship that have always been part of D&D, but have not always ben explicit. I think the current designers have really got a good handle on that relationship, and are designing the new rules keeping it clearly in mind.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> At my table, and the tables of everyone I've personally played with, the 3.5 Monster Manual has been a book of races as well as antagonists.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm mostly with Mog on the first page: the designers shouldn't be telling me what I use the game element for. If I want to use monsters as an encounter, a bit of scenery, the local blacksmith, or a PC race, I should be able to do that. 3e lets me do that quite admirably.



Except that the game is a set of rules on how to deploy game elements, so it can't help but tell the players and GM what to use those elements for.

Thus, for example, D&D (in its current edition) has no rules for gods as PCs.

The real question, therefore, is this: are monsters, NPCs and PCs identical game elements (as some posters on this thread regard them) or not? That is, are they the sorts of things that players can use as their vehicle for gameworld exploration and activity? I can see why the designers have answered "no" to this question. D&D, in its current incarnation, thrives on permitting PCs to be extremely responsive, in details of mechanical build, to player desires. For monsters to meet this goal is for them to become, in practice, unusable for GMs.

In other games it might be possible to treat NPCs and PCs alike. But these games probably do not demonstrate the degree of player-responiveness that D&D does. That is, those games have a different metagame priority.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I want a *system* for determining what a creature is capable of.
> 
> "Make Junk Up" blows like a wandering prostitute (table) as a system.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I want a system. Making stuff up sucks as a system.
> 
> Why do I want a system? Am I a foolish dreamer? No. I rather like a deep and rich setting. I can't evoke a world that still ticks and tocks outside of the PC's if I don't have rules for determining how it does that. So that if, for some reason, the centaur has to tie a knot, I know how well it does that, without simply making stuff up.



What a creature is capable of is determined by its attributes, skill bonuses, special abilities etc - just the same as for a PC. As I think was fairly obvious, and as Mearls has made clear, the changes in monster design aren't to the way in which monster capabilities are described, but the way in which monsters are built.

If what you want is a system to tell you how good a 4HD monstrous humanoid should be at tying rope, the answer is "As good as they should be, given their talents as a race of rope-tiers". That is, pick the gameworld-appropriate number and give it to them. If you don't know what the gameworld-appropriate number is, then make it up! Or forget about it and move on.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> Place me squarely in the "Monsters using PC rules" or "modability" camp - I too am in complete disagreement with Mr. Mearls.



Again, the issue is not about whether monster capabilities are expressed in the same language as that of PCs - of course they will be - it is about whether they are built using the same set of rules. They won't be. Which makes sense, given their different roles in the game.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The game system uniformity helps expalin how the world works.



It is becoming very clear that, in 4E, the rules for building PCs and monsters do not model any gameworld process. (I would argue that this has always been true in D&D - for example, the earning of XP by garnering gold in 1E, or by overcoming adventuring challenges in 3E, does not model any in-game causation - but 4E's design will make this more explicit.)

Thus, the monster build rules do not simulate a monster species' evolution, or an individual monster's birth and growth and learning. They play a purely metagame function of building GM-usable game elements.



			
				Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Sure, in most Cases the Monster lives 2-5 rounds and will not use any Skills.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is not often that you use these Skill Points, but they give the Monster the possibility to be more than 5 rounds of Gore and EP.



I think another thing that has to be acknowledged - and it is a natural consequence of the fact that build rules are purely metagame - is that monster write-ups may not be complete, in the sense that (within the context of the gameworld) it is possible that the monster has an ability not in the stat-block (perhaps the Ogre knows how to speak Elvish) just as PCs may have some properties not in the stat-block (eg perhaps the PC has a twin sister).



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> I also hope monsters are first and foremost organic - not ambulatory stat blocks.
> 
> Like the much vaunted example of the Ogre Mage - "Oh no, it has Sleep as an SLA, and Sleep is useless on characters of an appropriate CR level!".
> 
> Well maybe, just maybe, the Ogre Mage evolved without an inbuilt "CR appropraite ability" gene determining it's development.



This is another example where the monster may have an ability not mentioned in its stat block, because for the typical use of that stat block (namely, by a GM running a level-appropriate encounter) the information is irrelevant. It does no harm at all to the game for the GM to decide that the Ogre Mage, when off-screen and not cone-of-colding PCs, is Sleeping Kobolds.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> On the one hand, symmetry is obviously a good thing in principal (and not just aesthetically- system mastery is important). OTOH, if it gets in the way of monsters actually being good monsters that is obviously bad.
> 
> I think that is not necessarily important that monsters are built on exactly the same rules as PCs, but they should be expressed in the same language. By that I mean monsters should still have hit points and ability scores and what have you, and they should mean the same, even if those things were not determined in the same way as for PCs.



This is exactly what 4E will have. "Symmetry" will obtain in the description of NPCs, monsters and PCs, but not in the rules for building them. Because those rules do not simulate any in-game reality. They are purely metagame, and different metagame rules serve different metagame functions.



			
				Syltorian said:
			
		

> I don't care about monster PCs, but I do care about them as _NPCs_. And that includes being able to give them classes, modifying their feats, skills, and so forth. I want to have a dryad druid, a satyr enchanter, an ogre scout, heck: even a dragon archivist for the players to meet.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That seems to be either impossible or difficult now, from what (little) we know so far.



Just assign the number and move on.

If the real question is "How challenging is such a modified monster" and "How many XP is it worth to beat it" then it would be good for the rules to answer that question. At the moment, they pretend to, but everyone knows that the rules for calculating the CR of monsters with NPC levels don't really work (as Dave Noonan admitted in his article some time ago about building Drow NPCs).



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> While, again, I have no inside knowledge and thus cannot make any promises, I see no reason why it shouldn't still be possible to add class levels to monsters. It should still be possible to add X (levels) to Y (monsters), no matter how Y was created.
> 
> It may not be entirely smooth, in terms of figuring out how much XP the monster is worth or what level of difficulty it is--but then, neither was total CR in 3E, really.



Like he said.

And in conclusion: It seems to me that those who are objecting to the new design want the metagame-ingame relationship to be different from what it will be in 4E. In particular, they want the monster build mechanics to _model_ some process that is actually part of the gameworld. But as a poster on another thread said, D&D (for better or worse) is really abandoning such simulationist-style mechanics. Such mechanics being abandoned, there is no reason to build PCs and NPCs/monsters according to the same set of rules.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Monsters are more than just challenges; they have a life far beyond the 5-10 rounds of combat where they pop up whack-a-mole style. They're setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, potential ninjas.




You don't need rules for any of that. That's where it comes down to the designer and the way that the monsters are written and fit into the existing world. I'm not worried about making the monsters different from the PCs in 4th Edition.

Simplification is certainly the primary goal, but when a monster is as complicated as a PC and the DM needs to run all of those NPCs and beasties it does the exact opposite. My player knows how his Barbarian Rage works and what bonuses he gets because he plays that character _all of the time_.

As the DM, I can't possibly keep up with characters that complex and I probably run around 8 to 10 characters per session. If I roll a random encounter and have to pick something out of the book? Forget it. Let's take a break guys while I slog through this. Honestly, as much of a rules gear head as I am, a lot of times I just fake it and there is stuff I miss. If monsters write ups are done in an easy manner and I can get an overview of their tactics by reading a short paragraph or just the statblock I'm all for it.

My only worry with this design choice is that they are pigeon holing the monsters too far. Every encounter should be something different and I was never a fan of the tactics section in the 3.5 MM. Pit Fiends do this in the 1st round, this in the 2nd round, rinse repeat. I just hope I don't end up playing in games where every time I fight Orcs or Kobolds its all the same stuff.

Going back to the monsters being "setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, and potential ninjas" I am worried that with so little space dedicated to each monster in the MM that they won't go into a monsters background and ecology enough. Cramming 300+ monsters into a 288 page book is an amazing feat. Something has to give. I highly doubt that they could make the stats so short and still have enough room to explain what the monster is about, how they live, what they do, etc.

I could be wrong, but I know however I tried to condense _Denizens of Avadnu_ I doubt I could ever get all of the fluff, stats, and art in and still manage to fit one monster per page. That's just insanity.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 26, 2007)

Well, Ari sums up my opinions nicely, and I like what Mike was explaining above. Count me in on that one.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

Anyone seen Sean K Reynolds take on it over at Monte's Boards? 



> Caught this, and I'm already frowning.
> 
> forums.gleemax.com/showth...p?t=906391
> 
> ...


----------



## rowport (Aug 26, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> A breath weapon.



Wow, you must really hate 3.5 supplements, then-- because even without "monster" race PCs, there are lots of ways for PCs to get breath weapons, including the obvious Draconic Adept class.


			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Because if your PC is a type of creature that *has* a breath weapon how the bleeeep did it become a PC and what was your DM smoking at the time s/he allowed it?



Um, maybe he bought the WOTC book and thought it was cool?  No "smoking" drugs are required, folks.


			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> In the core game, monsters should really not be PCs.



How about, in *YOUR* "core game", monsters will not be PCs.  Not everybody agrees with you.

I find it interesting that over 6+ pages of this thread, the entirety of the discussion is how hard/easy to use monsters are for the DM (in combat only, which is a different problem).  Personally, I found the mechanics allowing "monsters" to be played as PCs to be one of the best enhancements of the system from lame kludges in 2E.  Losing that-- or being forced into a different kludge of PC and non-PC versions of the *same creatures*-- is a backward step.

Despite some posts to the contrary, using a "monster" race is not solely the realm of powergamers.  Some of us just like playing the oddball.  And, while not every game setting suits that playstyle, lots do (like Planescape).

Heck, I am waiting for Dannyalcatraz to weigh in on this, because I know that his games have even more weirdo oddball characters than mine do.  LOL


----------



## rowport (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Anyone seen Sean K Reynolds take on it over at Monte's Boards?



Thanks, Joe.  SKR is my hero.    Seriously, that nails my point entirely.  It is not ALWAYS about the GM's point of view.  Ultimately, the game is played by players-- so their views should matter!


----------



## Klaus (Aug 26, 2007)

rowport said:
			
		

> Thanks, Joe.  SKR is my hero.    Seriously, that nails my point entirely.  It is not ALWAYS about the GM's point of view.  Ultimately, the game is played by players-- so their views should matter!



 I find myself agreeing with Sean. I'd prefer to see a "CR = ECL = HD" solution.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 26, 2007)

I have immense respect for Sean and see his point, but someone that wants to play a minotaur is not the norm. Yeah, in some ways it makes more sense to make it all the same, but in other ways it doesn't. I prefer quicker set up time as a DM and faster monster creation as opposed to letting every monster be a PC. I do agree on the whole drow point that he made though as no one wants to play a drow like he described. We'll have to see how they handle it. I really hope we don't get into situations where some stuff is watered down.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but that really doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a tight-sphinctered DM who doesn't want the PCs to have any cool toys. But as a designer, as a writer, as a DM, and as a storyteller, the notion that anything a monster can do must be available to the PCs is a non-starter. The monsters and NPCs are, or at least can be, plot points. And most iconic fantasy involves at least some element of heroes finding the way to overcome or get around an ability they don't understand.
> 
> Monsters and PCs serve two very different purposes in the adventure and the campaign. The notion that something one can do must be available to the other is, IMO, detrimental to gameplay and unnecessarily restrictive to creativity.




It's less of a "must" and more of a "could concievably be."

When you create an Evil Wizard, he has the same abilities as a Good Wizard, and just uses them in a different way. When you create an Evil Creature, the same principle should be followed, IMO. 

And though monsters and NPC's can be plot points, they serve at LEAST three roles that, IMO, should be kept in mind: they're setting elements, they're adversaries, and they're allies. Any monster that can't be all three is giving me a third (or more) less bang for my stat block buck. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> We agree on this point, at least. I hate the "NPC X has it, so why can't I?" philosophy. Some things should be restricted to NPCs or monsters only, for whatever reason - usually because in the hands of a player, usable all the time instead of in limited (and controlled) circrumstances, it's overpowered (like the Frenzied Berserker - that thing should NEVER be used as a PC PrC for many reasons, chief among them that it's not a party-friendly class).




But nowhere in the Frenzied Berserker description does it say 'FOR NPC USE ONLY, GUYS!" If a PC wants to get it, and a DM approves that selection, you get it, and, speaking from experience, it works just like it's advertised. 

If something exists as a setting element, as an independent object in the game world, the only thing that should define my choice of which side of the screen it gets to be on should be my choice as a DM. Any other choice, and you're hurting my utility at least, and my verisimilitude at worst.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> What a creature is capable of is determined by its attributes, skill bonuses, special abilities etc - just the same as for a PC. As I think was fairly obvious, and as Mearls has made clear, the changes in monster design aren't to the way in which monster capabilities are described, but the way in which monsters are built.
> 
> If what you want is a system to tell you how good a 4HD monstrous humanoid should be at tying rope, the answer is "As good as they should be, given their talents as a race of rope-tiers". That is, pick the gameworld-appropriate number and give it to them. If you don't know what the gameworld-appropriate number is, then make it up! Or forget about it and move on.




Did you read what you were quoting?

I want a system. Making up stuff sucks as a system. A system, a set of guidelines, keeps me honest as a DM with the way the game world works, keeping my verisimilitude intact. 



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> Except that the game is a set of rules on how to deploy game elements, so it can't help but tell the players and GM what to use those elements for.




But monsters are for more than just squishing.



> Thus, for example, D&D (in its current edition) has no rules for gods as PCs.




Ah, but it does. Not very good rules, but they're there. 



> The real question, therefore, is this: are monsters, NPCs and PCs identical game elements (as some posters on this thread regard them) or not? That is, are they the sorts of things that players can use as their vehicle for gameworld exploration and activity? I can see why the designers have answered "no" to this question. D&D, in its current incarnation, thrives on permitting PCs to be extremely responsive, in details of mechanical build, to player desires. For monsters to meet this goal is for them to become, in practice, unusable for GMs.




Then you make monsters able to be that responsive. They don't have to have it built in, but they should be able to be re-built with that in. 



> In other games it might be possible to treat NPCs and PCs alike. But these games probably do not demonstrate the degree of player-responiveness that D&D does. That is, those games have a different metagame priority.




Yes, PC's are complex while monsters are generally simple. But I should be able to shake hands with the mindflayer and invite him to adventure with us without his psionic powers being crippled as if I had the Black Death.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> When you create an Evil Wizard, he has the same abilities as a Good Wizard, and just uses them in a different way. When you create an Evil Creature, the same principle should be followed, IMO.




And right there, we have such a profound disagreement that I don't think we're ever going to be able to see eye-to-eye on this issue.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly, and even fanatically do _not_ think that evil creatures should be held to the same standard. That's why they're _creatures_, not people.

Should an NPC wizard be limited to stuff that a PC wizard can do? For the most part, yes. (The evil wizard may have access to an unknown spell or great artifact to perform feats the PC cannot, but these are things the PC _could_ do if he had the spell or artifact.)

But should a demon, or an ancient dragon, or a demigod, or a fey of the Unseelie Court, or a genie, or an insanity-wombat from the Plane of Weirdness be limited in the same way? Absolutely and unequivocally _not_.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But should a demon, or an ancient dragon, or a demigod, or a fey of the Unseelie Court, or a genie, or an insanity-wombat from the Plane of Weirdness be limited in the same way? Absolutely and unequivocally _not_.




An example of this is the "destroyer of the world" monster trapped in Rappan Athuk. The thing's unfathomably tough, and has particular abilities designed specifically around the prison holding it. It's pointless to give it stats. It's a plot device. It works great in its particular context.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> about, how they live, what they do, etc.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I know however I tried to condense _Denizens of Avadnu_ I doubt I could ever get all of the fluff, stats, and art in and still manage to fit one monster per page. That's just insanity.




I don't need that much fluff for more monsters than I will ever fit into one campaign. Short writeups are the way to go. Longer, flurry treatments belong in campaign settings, fluffbooks, splatbooks, etc.


As to the rest, I endorse the Sean k Reynolds position.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yuck.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that really doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a tight-sphinctered DM who doesn't want the PCs to have any cool toys. But as a designer, as a writer, as a DM, and as a storyteller, the notion that anything a monster can do _must_ be available to the PCs is a non-starter. The monsters and NPCs are, or at least can be, plot points. And most iconic fantasy involves at least some element of heroes finding the way to overcome or get around an ability they don't understand.
> 
> Monsters and PCs serve two very different purposes in the adventure and the campaign. The notion that something one can do _must_ be available to the other is, IMO, detrimental to gameplay and unnecessarily restrictive to creativity.




But what about this premise?

Anything available to a non-elite hobgoblin should be available to a PC hobgoblin.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Regeneration, Mind Blast at will, _blasphemy_ at will, being healed by fire/cold/etc.




And yet, being healed by fire/cold etc is a staple of the Final Fantasy games.

And it works just fine in superheroes. Should it not be possible to create a fantasy superheroes game by structuring the PC choices? 

At 25th level, a group consisting of a planetar, a 25th level human rogue, an advanced eladrin, a 25th level human archmage, a mace-wielding gargoyle ranger, and a half-god son of the god Mercury would be at least as interesting as a group of standard 25th level characters, and mirrors the Justice League pretty well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Anything available to a non-elite hobgoblin should be available to a PC hobgoblin.




Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.

But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.

Yes, yes, I don't know what's appropriate in someone else's campaign. But the simple truth is that no edition of D&D has been, or can be, all things to all people. And if my choices are

A) Making demons/dragons/powerful fey/insanity-wombats more interesting as monsters but inappropriate for PCs without _major_ reworking, or

B) Making them appropriate for PC use with minimal change, but limiting how wild/funky/powerful I can make them

I'll choose A every time, as both a designer and a gamer. And since the majority of campaigns _do_ use monsters _as_ monsters more often than they use them as player races, I think that's the way to go.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> That 's the good part of it ! Monsters don't need to be balanced agaisn't each other !




Ah, but they do! How else can you judge whether they are worth more, less, or the same XP?


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And right there, we have such a profound disagreement that I don't think we're ever going to be able to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
> 
> I absolutely, wholeheartedly, and even fanatically do _not_ think that evil creatures should be held to the same standard. That's why they're _creatures_, not people.
> 
> ...




Why are you looking at it as the demon as being limited, rather than the PC being empowered?  Why shouldn't PCs have access to abilities of NPCs (at the appropriate level, of course)?  What NPC abilities are there that really, actually, would break the game and yet are correctly powered NPC appropriate?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ah, but they do! How else can you judge whether they are worth more, less, or the same XP?




You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."   

It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.

I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Why are you looking at it as the demon as being limited, rather than the PC being empowered?  Why shouldn't PCs have access to abilities of NPCs (at the appropriate level, of course)?  What NPC abilities are there that really, actually, would break the game and yet are correctly powered NPC appropriate?




Why assume I'm only talking mechanics?

It's true that there are certain abilities (using 3E as an example, because it's all we have) that could break the game if given to the PCs, or at least if given to them as frequently as some of the powerful creatures have them. I have very strong mechanical objections--but they're not my _only _objections.

The notion that "PCs can do anything a demon or fey can do" is absolutely anathema to the mood and feel of both heroic fantasy and grittier, sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Conan, Elric, Final Fantasy, or the myths of Perseus and Odysseus, the villains and monsters _all_ have strange, frightening, and/or potent abilities that the heroes do not and cannot have.

To me, trying to give PCs and monsters the same list of options and powers is lethal to any sort of verisimilitude or enjoyment of the adventure/story/setting.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.
> 
> But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.
> 
> ...




I don't think that describes the 3.5/4e split, though. We already have LA -- monsters. 4e seems to mainly just say, "All monsters are LA -- monsters, you can work out PC versions on your own." I don't see the point, other than to purposefully leaving out one paragraph of information that would make gnomes playable out of the box. 

I'm a long-time Hero system player. Anything that the NPCs can have, the PCs can have, if allowed. On top of that, virtually anything that can be conceived can be given stats. Want to create a unique PC that looks like a hunchbacked anthropomorphic rhino and breathes sleep gas at will? Hero System can do that, out of the box. 

Given that D&D does not use a point based system, I fail to see how D&D has any less flexibility in that regard. Under 3.5, many creatures have funky abilities. I don't need 4e to give me permission to include funkiness... but it would be gratifying if, just in case I ever wanted it, I could offer a minotaur as a PC. I don't see what I would have to limit about minotaurs to make them comprehensible as a PC race.

It isn't necessary that monsters be _balanced_ as PCs, but I believe, emphatically, they should be _intelligible_ as PCs. They can still be LA --.


----------



## rowport (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."
> 
> It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.
> 
> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".



Honestly, as I follow this particular 4e bit of discussion, I find myself wondering why I stopped playing HERO..!  Seriously, I saw 3e/3.5e as the HERO-ization of D&D*, which increased with every new substitution level, or alternate class ability, etc.  That is a *GOOD THING*.  Moving towards standardization makes it more possible to play what you conceive.  In fact, I would be fine with abandoning class level progressions in favor of purely point-based, but I realize that is too big of a change for most D&D fans.

Limiting the ability to play what you want is a move backwards.  Ari, you and I will just have to agree to disagree here.  

* I think it was Hong that came up with that concept, about three years ago on RPG.net.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> To me, trying to make give PCs and monsters the same list of options and powers is lethal to any sort of verisimilitude or enjoyment of the adventure/story/setting.




Seems like I don't really need to participate in this thread anymore as you definitely got my back.


----------



## marune (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."




IMHO, an actual game play evaluation.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".




In fact, I recently understood how much important is the "monsters =! PCs" when I read the rules of the game _The Burning Wheel_.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."
> 
> It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.
> 
> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".




   I have a great deal of fondness for three of those systems in theory (haven't played any of them, and don't own any GURPS material), and yet there's a key difference.

   In the point-based systems, character creation is modular--it doesn't follow level structures like D&D does.  In addition, GMs are encouraged to both keep a close eye on PC designs to avoid disruptive or imbalancing abilities, and not to sweat point accounting for NPCs.  Therefore, NPCs can have abilities that are cost-prohibitive for PCs, or just not allowed by the GM's campaign parameters.  They can also be built with an eye towards encounter utility more easily, without being 'forced' to spend points on things that aren't relevant to their role in the game.  (In 3E monster design, the use of what is essentially a class/level system requires that you may have to include extraneous elements, and getting one or two elements that depend on level up to the 'appropriate' range may require the increase of others that are irrelevant or counter-intuitive for the creature.)

   That philosophy sounds close to what 4E monster design is heading for:  Worry about making the monster a good monster, don't sweat balancing it as a PC option (or, even worse, a _polymorph_ option).  Some monsters will be viable for both, some won't.  If you disagree, get back to me when you figure out how to make a PC-appropriate mind flayer.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".




Depends on a couple of things, including (but not limited to) the intended genre and mood of the game, and how the mechanics worked.

I have no interest in Hero. I have no interest in GURPS. I have no interest in _any_ "one system fits all genres" system. So those examples aren't really suitable for me to discuss.

But I'll say that in any game designed, partly or in whole, to model either heroic or S&S fantasy, I would feel the same way.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Depends on a couple of things, including (but not limited to) the intended genre and mood of the game, and how the mechanics worked.
> 
> I have no interest in Hero. I have no interest in GURPS. I have no interest in _any_ "one system fits all genres" system. So those examples aren't really suitable for me to discuss.
> 
> But I'll say that in any game designed, partly or in whole, to model either heroic or S&S fantasy, I would feel the same way.




LA, however, is an artifact of the class/level system.

Would you say you can envision a heroic or S&S fantasy campain wherein the PCs were a baby dragon, a human swordsman, a flying pixie, and a centaur wizard?


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why assume I'm only talking mechanics?
> 
> It's true that there are certain abilities (using 3E as an example, because it's all we have) that could break the game if given to the PCs, or at least if given to them as frequently as some of the powerful creatures have them. I have very strong mechanical objections--but they're not my _only _objections.




Actually, I cannot see any sample abilities which would cause problems as PC abilities.  I've seen abilities *listed*, but amusingly, most are reconstructable from Core alone.



> The notion that "PCs can do anything a demon or fey can do" is absolutely anathema to the mood and feel of both heroic fantasy and grittier, sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Conan, Elric, Final Fantasy, or the myths of Perseus and Odysseus, the villains and monsters _all_ have strange, frightening, and/or potent abilities that the heroes do not and cannot have.
> 
> To me, trying to make give PCs and monsters the same list of options and powers is lethal to any sort of verisimilitude or enjoyment of the adventure/story/setting.




So your BBEG CR 18 has a nifty ability.  Why shouldn't lvl 20 PCs have access to it?  (I think +1 lvl for underCRing of final bosses and +1 lvl for overCRing of PC classes in RAW for an appropriate PC ability level is pretty darn accurate).  If the demon/demi-god is the final boss, it may not be relevant, but that is less about game design than campaign world design.  It isn't that the PC cannot have the abilities, but rather that they will never get high enough level to get them.  If, on the other hand, you choose to continue the campaign with a higher level adventure arc, well, more powerful abilities will become available to the PCs, including those wielded by the previous BBEG.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm a bit confused here.

There seems to be a blurring of two different ideas.  It is one thing to say that a demon can have special abilities that a human character (pc or npc) should not have.  It is another thing entirely to say that a demon should have access to abilities that make it automatically out of bounds for the demon to be run by a player.  

I agree completely that the best game foundation will include limitations of the expected realm of PC abilities and monsters will have a wider range than PCs.  But it shouldn't follow at all there this cause any hang-ups.

If a player and DM want a full-tilt Minotaur Barbarian or a Demon X PC then the rules should just say "Go for it,you're partly on your own.  Just have fun.  What makes a fair challenge?  Who knows?  Just do your best.  When should the character level?  Who knows?  Just do your best.  We are making a game that 'works soundly' in this range, but should be fun over a much larger range.  Go for it!  Have fun!"

Obviously the minotaur would be less outside the comfort zone than an extreme demon.  But either would work for a group that understands why balance is important to a game and what the implications are of throwing balance out the window.  Because a lack of balance can make a sustained fun game harder to do.  But it is a million miles from true that balance is required.  

The RAW should assume balance and just make that clear to anyone who wants to run into uncharted waters.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So your BBEG CR 18 has a nifty ability.  Why shouldn't lvl 20 PCs have access to it?  (I think +1 lvl for underCRing of final bosses and +1 lvl for overCRing of PC classes in RAW for an appropriate PC ability level is pretty darn accurate).  If the demon/demi-god is the final boss, it may not be relevant, but that is less about game design than campaign world design.  It isn't that the PC cannot have the abilities, but rather that they will never get high enough level to get them.  If, on the other hand, you choose to continue the campaign with a higher level adventure arc, well, more powerful abilities will become available to the PCs, including those wielded by the previous BBEG.




We're going in circles. Sometimes an ability is fine for the PCs to have as a spell, but would be damaging to be an at-will ability, no matter how high-level the campaign. Sometimes an ability (such as the mind-flayer's mind blast) is fine in a single fight, or as a limited power, but can have game-breaking effects if given to a PC to use at will. (Trust me, I've seen it. It's not a pretty sight, either for the DM or for any of the other characters.)

And sometimes, it's not appropriate for the PCs to have an ability no matter what level they are simply for reasons of consistency, logic, or flavor. If there's no difference between a high-level PC and a demon, what's the point of having demons?

Obviously, you don't agree. So be it; nobody's forcing us to game together.  But honestly, I don't think I'd even _play_ in a campaign where I knew in advance that the PCs could eventually do _everything_ we saw demons and dragons and demigods do. It's not believable or interesting to me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 26, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Why are you looking at it as the demon as being limited, rather than the PC being empowered?  Why shouldn't PCs have access to abilities of NPCs (at the appropriate level, of course)?  What NPC abilities are there that really, actually, would break the game and yet are correctly powered NPC appropriate?



A good example is the ability to move through walls at will.  You can design a perfectly fine creature with 6 hit points who moves through walls at will and throw them up against a 1st or 2nd level party.  The PCs would have to ready their actions to hit the enemies as they exited the wall, but it would work fine.

Give that same ability to the players and they can now walk through all the walls of the dungeon all the way to the end without even playing the part of the adventure in between. It just isn't appropriate for players at all.  Even at 20th level, I wouldn't want the PCs having this power without a limitation how often they could use it.

The monster works perfectly in terms of what you're planning on using them for: Monsters.  They would likely be more fun than Orcs to fight.  However, they break down horribly if allowed as players.

Basically, you have two choices of ALL creatures have to have multiple purposes with this creature: Remove the ability or decrease it's power dramatically (like 1 foot of wall per day or something), or never make this creature at all so the PCs never get access to the power.  Neither of them is an especially good answer.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is one thing to say that a demon can have special abilities that a human character (pc or npc) should not have.  It is another thing entirely to say that a demon should have access to abilities that make it automatically out of bounds for the demon to be run by a player.
> 
> ...
> 
> If a player and DM want a full-tilt Minotaur Barbarian or a Demon X PC then the rules should just say "Go for it,you're partly on your own.  Just have fun.  What makes a fair challenge?  Who knows?  Just do your best.  When should the character level?  Who knows?  Just do your best.  We are making a game that 'works soundly' in this range, but should be fun over a much larger range.  Go for it!  Have fun!"




See, I'm okay with that. What I'm objecting to are the notions that

A) Any ability a demon can have, a PC race can have, and

B) Any ability a demon can have must be _numerically and mechanically_ balanced with, and equivalent to, a PC race ability.

Once one accepts that some things a demon (or whatever) can do are simply outside the parameters, then I certainly have no problem with a DM and a player agreeing to wing it, if they're running a monster campaign, or some other campaign where a demon character isn't thematically inappropriate.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.
> 
> But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.
> 
> ...



 Y'see, I see this less as a "Monsters and PCs must have the same abilities available to them", as I see it as a "Monsters and PCs are built in the same way, but with different blocks".

Let's look at LEGO for a bit, shall we? You buy a car LEGO and a Star Destroyer LEGO. You buy the car and the Star Destroyer in the same way, using mostly the same bricks. But the Star Destroyer has some "cheat bricks", i.e. bricks of unusual shapes and sizes, as to make the parts of a Star Destroyer that couldn't be built otherwise. I have no problem with these.

Back to DnD: Look at a human Fighter and a Red Dragon. They are both built the same way: "X" HD + "X" x Con Mod = hp, 1 feat at HD 1 and another at every 3 HD, etc, etc. Sure, the dragon has its own "cheat blocks" (breath weapon, flight, DR, etc). Does the human Fighter get those? No. Just like the dragon doesn't get Weapon Specialization. But the two creatures are built in the same way, just using different bricks.

If you wanna give your Insanity Wombat (go stat it up, Ari! NOW!  ) the ability to chew bits of reality and burp out butterflies that sprinkle Mountain Dew, by all means do so!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'see, I see this less as a "Monsters and PCs must have the same abilities available to them", as I see it as a "Monsters and PCs are built in the same way, but with different blocks".
> 
> Let's look at LEGO for a bit, shall we? You buy a car LEGO and a Star Destroyer LEGO. You buy the car and the Star Destroyer in the same way, using mostly the same bricks. But the Star Destroyer has some "cheat bricks", i.e. bricks of unusual shapes and sizes, as to make the parts of a Star Destroyer that couldn't be built otherwise. I have no problem with these.
> 
> Back to DnD: Look at a human Fighter and a Red Dragon. They are both built the same way: "X" HD + "X" x Con Mod = hp, 1 feat at HD 1 and another at every 3 HD, etc, etc. Sure, the dragon has its own "cheat blocks" (breath weapon, flight, DR, etc). Does the human Fighter get those? No. Just like the dragon doesn't get Weapon Specialization. But the two creatures are built in the same way, just using different bricks.




Interesting metaphor. 

The thing is, I'm not sure that you're wrong. Mike Mearls has said (don't remember if it was in this thread or another; I think it was earlier in this one) that monsters still have stats, feats, etc. They can still be advanced.

So I think your metaphor may actually be entirely accurate: It's just that the monsters make use of a _lot_ of cheat blocks that simply don't mesh well with the PC "model kits."



> If you wanna give your Insanity Wombat (go stat it up, Ari! NOW!  )




lol

I'm considering it.


----------



## Kerrick (Aug 26, 2007)

> Here's the thing, though. I don't believe it's possible to have a scientific or consistent system of LA/ECL.



Sure it is. UK did it. You said yourself that the thri-kreen rogue needed _some_ kind of LA - just not as much of one as it was given. You have to account for all those extra abilities somehow...



> These two concepts are incompatible. Either the game permits monsters to have abilities PCs cannot (as I feel it should), or it does not. But to have an ability and say "You can't have this, but it's equivalent to this ability that you can," doesn't really work. If something is mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then there's no reason PCs can't have it, and it's no longer unique to monsters. If it's not mechanically equivalent to something PCs can have, then assigning a number to it isn't going to change that.



Not really. There are just some monsters, as there are now, that simply don't have an LA, because the designers feel that said monsters wouldn't be appropriate for PC use, because they have abilities that the PCs shouldn't have. The xorn, for example, is a bad choice for a PC. Instead of saying "Ditch the LA system because it doesn't work", they should a) look at all the monsters that could be used as PCs, then b) make adjustments as necessary so they could be usable as PCs; then c) assign LAs. Mind flayers, for example, are arguably too powerful for use as PCs, but then, they're a little too powerful anyway. Rakshasa are another one. 



> My only worry with this design choice is that they are pigeon holing the monsters too far. Every encounter should be something different and I was never a fan of the tactics section in the 3.5 MM. Pit Fiends do this in the 1st round, this in the 2nd round, rinse repeat. I just hope I don't end up playing in games where every time I fight Orcs or Kobolds its all the same stuff.



If you use those tactics as guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules, then you'd be better off, IMO. The tactics are great for newbie DMs, or DMs who've never run a pit fiend before. A experienced DM would certainly deviate from the prescribed list of actions, or throw it out entirely.



> Going back to the monsters being "setting elements, world elements, cultural fantasy salad dressing, villains, characters, and potential ninjas" I am worried that with so little space dedicated to each monster in the MM that they won't go into a monsters background and ecology enough. Cramming 300+ monsters into a 288 page book is an amazing feat. Something has to give. I highly doubt that they could make the stats so short and still have enough room to explain what the monster is about, how they live, what they do, etc.



Agreed. I'm worried that the monsters will be nothing more than a (cut-down) collection of stats and nothing more.



> I think this is a fundamental flaw of the 4E design idea. One of the elements of 3E design (or perhaps just FR design) was "NPCs shouldn't be able to do things that the PCs cannot learn to do." So no writeups of Drizzt having the unique power to instantly kill someone on a really good attack roll (like he did in 2E), or a wizard having an unexplained immunity to a particular group of spells just for the purpose of making that NPC unkillable or an encounter especially challenging. Keeping things in the hands of NPCs (and monsters) like that is basically the DM/designer saying, "Sorry, players, your characters just aren't cool enough, my toys are cooler than your toys." Which sucks.



Oh come on, Sean... it's called DM fiat. Sometimes the bad guys have to have something the PCs don't, just so the DM can maintain an edge over the players and give them a challenge. 2E was rife with this, and while I agree for the most part that PCs should be able to do most things that an NPC could, there should be some things that remain firmly in the realm of the DM, _as long as he can do it within the rules._



> > A breath weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need look no further than the DMG for the Dragon Disciple, which also grants a breath weapon.



> How about, in *YOUR* "core game", monsters will not be PCs. Not everybody agrees with you.



I don't totally agree with the idea of having monster races as PCs, but if other groups want to do it, more power to them - I just think it's silly. Some people are just strange like that, and the rules are flexible enough to allow it, so... *shrug*



> I find myself agreeing with Sean. I'd prefer to see a "CR = ECL = HD" solution.



Never happen. It can't - CR and HD are totally different measures of a creature's power, and should never be equated with each other.



> But nowhere in the Frenzied Berserker description does it say 'FOR NPC USE ONLY, GUYS!" If a PC wants to get it, and a DM approves that selection, you get it, and, speaking from experience, it works just like it's advertised.



Right... but I think maybe it _should_ say "FOR NPC USE ONLY, GUYS!"



> If something exists as a setting element, as an independent object in the game world, the only thing that should define my choice of which side of the screen it gets to be on should be my choice as a DM. Any other choice, and you're hurting my utility at least, and my verisimilitude at worst.



Even if it says "This PrC is intended for DM use only", WotC isn't going to send a hit squad to your house if you let a PC use it. Too many DMs let themselves be strait-jacketed by the RAW, and they refuse to say "I think this is a silly rule, so I'll alter it." I think having a caveat in some cases would be a GOOD thing - "This PrC is intended for DM use, because in playtesting it turned out to be very powerful in PC hands, blah blah blah." Then the DM would at least KNOW that he's introducing a potentially game-breaking element into his game.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> We're going in circles. Sometimes an ability is fine for the PCs to have as a spell, but would be damaging to be an at-will ability, no matter how high-level the campaign. Sometimes an ability (such as the mind-flayer's mind blast) is fine in a single fight, or as a limited power, but can have game-breaking effects if given to a PC to use at will. (Trust me, I've seen it. It's not a pretty sight, either for the DM or for any of the other characters.)




I simply don't buy it.  For example, almost every ability out there can be gotten as a spell.  Spells can be put into wands/staves, which, effectively, turns them into "at will" abilities (with props).  If mind blast at will is gamebreaking, why isn't a staff with Confusion (perhaps an example better paired with umberhulks, but ah well)?  While doing so may be expensive (very expensive), if it is really, truely, gamebreaking, the expense doesn't matter.



> And sometimes, it's not appropriate for the PCs to have an ability no matter what level they are simply for reasons of consistency, logic, or flavor. If there's no difference between a high-level PC and a demon, what's the point of having demons?
> 
> Obviously, you don't agree. So be it; nobody's forcing us to game together.  But honestly, I don't think I'd even _play_ in a campaign where I knew in advance that the PCs could eventually do _everything_ we saw demons and dragons and demigods do. It's not believable or interesting to me.




If a high level PC wants to become a demon (or rather, become demonic in demeanour and ability if not in type), why *shouldn't* he?  If, in *your* game, demons, and dragons, and demigods are CR 25 and PCs cap out at lvl 20, of course the PCs won't be able to do everything the demons, and dragons, and demigods can do.  That is already built into the system, for free, without making any "PCs can't do demony-like things" rule.  But there is no compelling reason for those abilities to be designed such that lvl 25 PCs can't have them.  From a game design point of view, there is every reason to want the reverse.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

> Not really. There are just some monsters, as there are now, that simply don't have an LA, because the designers feel that said monsters wouldn't be appropriate for PC use, because they have abilities that the PCs shouldn't have. The xorn, for example, is a bad choice for a PC. Instead of saying "Ditch the LA system because it doesn't work", they should a) look at all the monsters that could be used as PCs, then b) make adjustments as necessary so they could be usable as PCs; then c) assign LAs. Mind flayers, for example, are arguably too powerful for use as PCs, but then, they're a little too powerful anyway. Rakshasa are another one.




I think, to a small extent, they're already doing this in 4E. They've said, or at least implied, that many of the "PC-appropriate" races in the MM (the kobold and goblin, for instance) will have enough info to play them, albeit not nearly so fleshed out as a PC race in the PHB.

So then, the question becomes, where the line is drawn. For some people, kobolds and goblins are enough. Others want giants and lycanthropes. Others want dragons. Others wand mind flayers and beholders.

It might've been more accurate for me to say that it's impossible to have a scientific LA/ECL system that takes more than the very basics into account. Sure, you can do one for simple creatures that are only 1 or 2 ECL away from a standard race. But I think, as soon as you go beyond that, you lose any real sense of accuracy.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that "PCs can do anything a demon or fey can do" is absolutely anathema to the mood and feel of both heroic fantasy and grittier, sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Conan, Elric, Final Fantasy, or the myths of Perseus and Odysseus, the villains and monsters _all_ have strange, frightening, and/or potent abilities that the heroes do not and cannot have.




Here's the thing, though - WHICH abilities the villains have that the PCs don't depends on which source you're going by.  Within the range of fantasy media, you'll find 'player character equivalents' include, just off the top of my head:

Angels
Anthropomorphic animals
Centaurs
Death Knights*
Dragons (VERY commonly, in my experience)
Drow*
Flying/winged men
Ghosts
Golems (intelligent ones, anyway)
Griffons*
Hook Horrors*
Mascot/pet monster critters
Mind Flayers*
Minotaurs*
Phoenixes
Vampires*
Werewolves
Zombies (intelligent ones, anyway)

Those marked with an * are ones I know for a fact were player character/protagonist characters IN AN ACTUAL D&D NOVEL.  I wouldn't be surprised if several others on the list and many I didn't recall also appear in the many D&D novels out there, but these I absolutely know do.  Any D&D system that can't handle at least those creatures as PCs is explicitly saying "the designers/writers NPCs are cool enough to have these - but yours aren't."

The point is, the designers should not be the ones deciding which particular abilities are off-limits in any given campaign, because what is off limits for a given type of fantasy varies wildly from game to game.  In some games, humans are the only appropriate race (Conan); in others, a very limited selection that does not include the standard PHB races (Final Fantasy); in others, pretty much anything with an even remotely human-comprehensible psyche or the ability to fake it (Planescape).

Again I cite my Ivalice game, where elves, dwarves and halflings would have been completely inappropriate, but mind flayers, minotaurs and goblins all fit as playable races; a game that makes that decision for me says "you may as well not use this for FFT-era Ivalice."  Depending on how significant the racial crunch in the PHB is, it may also say "you may as well not use this for Conan."  It clearly says "you may as well not use this for Spelljammer."


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Assuming the hobgoblins are roughly the same in 4E as they are in 3E, I can get behind that.
> 
> But the logic doesn't extend to all monsters, because not all monsters are inherently appropriate as PCs.
> 
> ...



An excellent statement of my general position, as well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Those marked with an * are ones I know for a fact were player character/protagonist characters IN AN ACTUAL D&D NOVEL.  I wouldn't be surprised if several others on the list and many I didn't recall also appear in the many D&D novels out there, but these I absolutely know do.  Any D&D system that can't handle at least those creatures as PCs is explicitly saying "the designers/writers NPCs are cool enough to have these - but yours aren't."




Of course, the writers of those books didn't have to worry about balancing mechanics.

Let me clarify something I said earlier:

I have no objection to you, or anyone else, using minotaurs, or mind flayers, or death knights, or angels as PCs in your games.

What I object to is the notion that the game system should mechanically lock those creatures into a numerical box for which they aren't suited. (And to the notion that the standard races should necessarily be able to obtain every ability these nonstandard races have.)

In other words, as someone else said, the game should say "Here are some general guidelines for non-standard races, but they're not mechanically balanced with the standard options. We can offer suggestions, but you're going to have to wing it."

Because, as I keep coming back to, some creatures can, do, and should have abilities that are not mechanically equivalent to anything the PCs can do. Trying to assign a numeric value to those is largely guesswork, even at the design level. Better to acknowledge that and feel free to "get funky" then for the designers to limit themselves to a mechanical system _that doesn't work anyway_.


----------



## spunky_mutters (Aug 26, 2007)

The big problem with the divide between monsters and PCs is when the monster abilities are designed with the idea that they will never be used by PCs, and yet there are ways that PCs can get them.

This is the case with the Sarrukh's manipulate form ability. 

The desire to stat out and label what is essentially a story element as an Su ability opened the gate for PCs to grab. This is obviously the most extreme example, but it just goes to show how badly things can go if you don't have very strict metadesign rules.

I'm all for having a homogeneous system underlying all of the stats, but everybody needs to be aware of the side effects that can occur when you tie everything together tightly. When something is as egregious a game-breaker as Pun-Pun, it's easy to say no, but not all cases are like that. With no balancing or level ratings between various Su abilities (or 4e equivalents), it puts you (as DM) in the position of having to decide everything on a case-by-case basis (where players can gain access to these abilities). 

Short of rating monster abilities with levels like PC spells, I think a series of guidelines for incorporating monsters that are not presented as PC races as characters is about the best way to handle this.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 26, 2007)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Never happen. It can't - CR and HD are totally different measures of a creature's power, and should never be equated with each other.




Why not? A 20HD dwarf Fighter is a CR 20 creature with an ECL of 20. Just MAKE the HD = CR. A CR 12 Beholder? 12 HD. If the hp are too low, bump up Con. A CR 27 Red Dragon? 27 HD. The attack roll will be too low? Bump up Str.

Also, change CR to mean "a PC of this level has a 50% chance of winning against this creature solo". Because that's what it means on a classed PC vs. classes NPC level. A friend was trying to DM 3.x and I was trying to explain the notion of what a "balanced" encounter means - i.e., 4 PCs lose 25% of resources, when to him "balanced" means "50/50 chance of wither side winning".


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> A good example is the ability to move through walls at will.  You can design a perfectly fine creature with 6 hit points who moves through walls at will and throw them up against a 1st or 2nd level party.  The PCs would have to ready their actions to hit the enemies as they exited the wall, but it would work fine.
> 
> Give that same ability to the players and they can now walk through all the walls of the dungeon all the way to the end without even playing the part of the adventure in between. It just isn't appropriate for players at all.  Even at 20th level, I wouldn't want the PCs having this power without a limitation how often they could use it.
> 
> ...




By lvl 5, wizards have Gaeous Form.  By lvl 7, they have Dim Door.  Both can be put into wands.  Eventually you get Ethereal travel.  ALL of it is Core.  It isn't precisely the same as insubstantiality, but it is close enough.  I've *done* the walk through the dungeon ethereally.  I've done the "wind walk through the dungeon fast".  I've done the "massive scrying fest+teleport to bypass dungeon elements".  I've done the "disintegrate the wall to bypass dungeon elements".  And Passwall.  Thoqqua summoning.  *Massive* soften earth and stone/stoneshape/rock to mud usage.  Earth elemental summoning for recon.

The Out of Combat uses of insubstantiality can be mimiced (with adequate cash expenditure) by a lvl 7 party.  The in combat uses of insubstantiality, aren't overpowered as you know: you are talking about sending such creatures against a very low level party (just beware the need for magic weapons).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Why not? A 20HD dwarf Fighter is a CR 20 creature with an ECL of 20. Just MAKE the HD = CR. A CR 12 Beholder? 12 HD. If the hp are too low, bump up Con. A CR 27 Red Dragon? 27 HD. The attack roll will be too low? Bump up Str.




You know, for a long time--a couple of years, in fact--I've been trying, on and off, to figure out a system that did just that. I even began writing it up at one point.

The problem is, it doesn't work.

Let's use the beholder as an example. How can you possibly make it equivalent to a character of a level equal to its HD or CR? In 3.5, a beholder is CR 13. Its huge array of offensive abilities makes it far more dangerous than any 13th-level character. Heck, it's possibly more dangerous than a single 20th-level character. But if we call it a CR 20 creature, it doesn't have nearly enough HP or HD. But if we raise the HP or HD, it becomes even more dangerous...

See the problem? The notion of level = HD = CR is an appealing one on the surface. But it only works if monsters are limited to the same sorts of abilities as PCs. Once you start adding wonky abilities, like the beholder's eye rays or the mind flayer's blast, you wind up in a position where you once again have a creature whose CR cannot equal its HD.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> You use the same system that 3.0/3.5 did. A dartboard. "Yeah, that's a CR 4 right there."
> 
> It's interesting seeing the different takes on the subject.
> 
> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".




Every GURPs fantasy campaign I've run had advantages and abilities available to Monsters PCs would never have been allowed to purchase. 

This seems like the exact same thing.

Just because the GM gives a Troll a certain ability does not mean I'm going to be able to say "yeah, my PC is half-troll so..."


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, for a long time--a couple of years, in fact--I've been trying, on and off, to figure out a system that did just that. I even began writing it up at one point.
> 
> The problem is, it doesn't work.
> 
> ...




Such a system would work fine.  The problem is, monsters in 3/3.5 aren't designed for it.  Beholders/Ogre Magi etc... are examples of poorly designed monsters (glass cannons).  If you want to use such a system, you would have to design your monsters for it (no 1hp, disintegrate CL 30 at will monsters), which means that the offense and defense of a given creature would have to correlate reasonably well.  The fact that retrofitting the 3.5 MM for a system like that isn't feasible doesn't mean you should try to set up the 4th edition MM for one.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Such a system would work fine.  The problem is, monsters in 3/3.5 aren't designed for it.  Beholders/Ogre Magi etc... are examples of poorly designed monsters (glass cannons).  If you want to use such a system, you would have to design your monsters for it (no 1hp, disintegrate CL 30 at will monsters), which means that the offense and defense of a given creature would have to correlate reasonably well.  The fact that retrofitting the 3.5 MM for a system like that isn't feasible doesn't mean you should try to set up the 4th edition MM for one.




Believe me, I considered that. But it leads to a much narrower array of interesting monsters if you can't sometimes do the "glass tiger" or "glass cannon."

Demons suddenly either lose many of their spell-like abilities, or they lose most of their melee abilities, because no class has them both to the same extent. And how would you model dragons?

I'm not arguing that it _can_ be done, if you design for it from the ground up with _no_ preconceptions or prior concepts. But I _am_ arguing that, for a game of heroic fantasy that relies on its wide array of monsters as much as D&D always has and (IMO) should keep on doing, it doesn't function.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 26, 2007)

As much as I am not  interested in playing monstrous characters, and not very happy to run a game where half of the party is made of weirdos, I would definitely like a rule system more if it was able to allow it.

But perhaps the truth is that 4e is also about giving up a lot of hope.

Monsters as PC? Too difficult, let's remove it from the game...
Level drain? We haven't yet managed to make it scary but not frustrating, let's forget about it...
Polymorph? 5 different version in 3ed and not quite right, let's skip it outright...


----------



## Creamsteak (Aug 26, 2007)

A lot of this thread is interesting. There are reasons for both angles. One of the intentions I kind of expect to see in 4e is that a lot of creatures with the "this could be too much in a player's hand" abilities will likely be "elite" encounters of some sort. I know I'm totally overstepping any information I've seen on the gencon stuff, but it seems to me like some creatures are going to be designed at PC levels (So a group of x of them would be equivelent to a group of x PCs) while others are likely to be specifically set aside as designed to be a 1 vs many case (beholder, dragons, etc).

Another odd thought I had was that you can summarize all of the stats of a monster-as-player in that last paragraph of the monster manual entry where they just give you the 6-7 lines explaining the changes you make to a character to make them a drow or whatever else.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I have a great deal of fondness for three of those systems in theory (haven't played any of them, and don't own any GURPS material), and yet there's a key difference.




Have to take the old grain of salt here. Reading and playing are two huge different things.



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> In the point-based systems, character creation is modular--it doesn't follow level structures like D&D does.  *In addition, GMs are encouraged to both keep a close eye on PC designs to avoid disruptive or imbalancing abilities, and not to sweat point accounting for NPCs. *




When the PHB first came out, you might've had a point. Throw in substitution levels, replacement abilities (simliar yet seperate mechanics), tricks (skill point sacrifice for minor feats), and the huge variety of PrC/Feats out there, the GM must keep an even closer eye on PC design. There is no underlying equality in D&D and feats and abilities vary tremendously in power. The eldrtich knight would be a great example of a simple concept, fighter mage, that compared to the hosts of fighter mages that have come out afterwards, is a 'loser' class. Poor hit dice, poor abilities and good only for the 'basicness' of it.



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Therefore, NPCs can have abilities that are cost-prohibitive for PCs, or just not allowed by the GM's campaign parameters.




In many campaigns, we still have those things. They're called the Seven Sisters, Elminster, etc...  And D&D, despite it's more intensive book keeping nature than some other games, still doesn't follow things to their logical conclusions, especially high level rulers of lands whose access to super high levels of gold would allow them to have numerous magic items/artifcats. 



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> They can also be built with an eye towards encounter utility more easily, without being 'forced' to spend points on things that aren't relevant to their role in the game.  (In 3E monster design, the use of what is essentially a class/level system requires that you may have to include extraneous elements, and getting one or two elements that depend on level up to the 'appropriate' range may require the increase of others that are irrelevant or counter-intuitive for the creature.)




And yet, if it was used the right way, probably wouldn't be that much of a problem. Some designer was talking about the terrible trials of advancing an ogre to get heavy armor proficiency instead of just giving that sucker a level of fighter. 



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> That philosophy sounds close to what 4E monster design is heading for:  Worry about making the monster a good monster, don't sweat balancing it as a PC option (or, even worse, a _polymorph_ option).  Some monsters will be viable for both, some won't.  If you disagree, get back to me when you figure out how to make a PC-appropriate mind flayer.




The PC appropriate mind flayer isn't that much of a 'problem' for most GMs I've played with so I'm back to ya.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Believe me, I considered that. But it leads to a much narrower array of interesting monsters if you can't sometimes do the "glass tiger" or "glass cannon."




I'd say the advantages to moving to a system which assumes offense/defense balanced (with a large spread, of course, just both in the same league) vastly outweigh the loss of extreme glass cannons/dwarven defenders.  For example, part of the problem with Turn Undead (one of many, admittedly), was the ridiculous CR/HD ratio for the large skeletons and zombies.  The Holy Word line of spells also became quite wonky, frequently hitting the BBEG (if of a caster persuasion) harder than his (melee) minions.

Of course, you can always recreate a glass cannon by taking a fully balanced kobold and giving him a necklace of fireballs.  I almost want to say that glass cannons and invulnerable, no offense monsters are better handled as traps/environmental hazards.  Glass cannons are "disarmed" by winning initiative.  No offense bricks are "bypassed" however the party so chooses.



> Demons suddenly either lose many of their spell-like abilities, or they lose most of their melee abilities, because no class has them both to the same extent. And how would you model dragons?
> 
> I'm not arguing that it _can_ be done, if you design for it from the ground up with _no_ preconceptions or prior concepts. But I _am_ arguing that, for a game of heroic fantasy that relies on its wide array of monsters as much as D&D always has and (IMO) should keep on doing, it doesn't function.




Given the sheer number of BAB 17/CL 17 gishes available on the charops board (16/17 is the absolute minimum to be taken seriously barring other vastly cool abilities), monsters with decent melee/decent spellpower are *completely* reasonable.  Dragons, in 3ed, are fast melee brutes with very weak spell support.  The whole Dragons=Magic theme breaks down in practice when you examine the CR-CL number (about 8 for Golds).

Again, I think the game as a whole would be better off if glass cannons (and other unbalanced monster designs) were treated as traps or hazards (which is how they play).  Of course, I think that unbalanced monster designs really aren't all that appealing in actual play.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

We'll have to agree to differing tastes, then.

Don't get me wrong, I do see the appeal of a system like the one you're discussing. As I said, I spent some time working on one myself. I just feel, in the end, that the alternative is more interesting, even if less mechanically consistent.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 26, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Every GURPs fantasy campaign I've run had advantages and abilities available to Monsters PCs would never have been allowed to purchase.
> 
> This seems like the exact same thing.
> 
> Just because the GM gives a Troll a certain ability does not mean I'm going to be able to say "yeah, my PC is half-troll so..."




But in some campaigns, you might've been a half-troll. And if you were, the mechanics would've been there in place to buy. Or heck, let's say your GM is running a 'pure' fantasy Euorpe campaign. Is he going to allow Monks or any spellcaster class as written? Probably not.

It's like saying it's not inappropriate to have computer skills for your caveman character. Straw Man. If there was some reason he needed those skills and had access to the training, the game rules for how much it would cost would be there. But in most games, no, there'd be no reason for it. 

Heck, none of my Fantasy Hero characters could fly natively, but if I played a wizard I could build a spell to do such. Or I was was running Melnibone in Fantasy Hero and wanted to play one of the winged people, I could creat the abilities using the same rules that I would use for the monsters.

The difference is that the rule set has the information for you should you need it and doesn't rely on hand waving and designers saying, "Don't look behind the curtain!"


----------



## BryonD (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Once one accepts that some things a demon (or whatever) can do are simply outside the parameters, then I certainly have no problem with a DM and a player agreeing to wing it, if they're running a monster campaign, or some other campaign where a demon character isn't thematically inappropriate.



Exactly.  It'd be nice if WotC would just make that an official stance.
There is nothing wrong with trying to make progress in a Savage Species type product.  But as far as Core is concerned, just don't sweat it.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 26, 2007)

> Quote by Mouseferatu about beholders, which I forgot to actually quote.




Say it's a CR 20. Make it a 20th-level Aberration. Give it 20 HD. And then you'll say "it has too many hp!". Lower the Con, until the hp adjust.

Of course, this would be such an enormous adjustment to the system that the entire MM (and specially the monster types) would need to be rewritten. It certainly can't work with how the types are done now.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Say it's a CR 20. Make it a 20th-level Aberration. Give it 20 HD. And then you'll say "it has too many hp!". Lower the Con, until the hp adjust.




I'm still not convinced. Even a 20th-level PC can't fire off 10 different offensive spells in a single round. (Or even three, if you only want to count a singe "arc" of fire.) Without being completely reconceptualized, beholders simply _can't_ have the same CR and HD.



> Of course, this would be such an enormous adjustment to the system that the entire MM (and specially the monster types) would need to be rewritten. It certainly can't work with how the types are done now.




That much, certainly, is true.  It goes back to the discussion of whether it's worth redesigning the whole system from literally square one.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Aug 26, 2007)

I'm actually kind of hopeful in this new paradigm, with a few reservations.  My hopes are (and I think the dragon example actually does show things moving in the right direction) that monsters will have time to do something that feels right for the monster while not doing something that isn't really dangerous for the PCs.  

Case in point, from my own campaigns.  When demons show up, especially reasonably powerful ones, I want there to be a feeling of unholy and chaotic power along with the physical threat they possess.  I had my PCs run into hezrous a few times, and this is what I discovered.

1.  If the PCs are too far below the hezrou, and it uses something like blasphemy, you've more or less doomed them.  So if you have a non-standard size party, you can't "play up" and let them have an encounter with these guys because 8 or 4 characters at a level that is too low doesn't matter, they will just wipe them out, no fun being had by anyone.

2.  If the PCs are high enough level that powers like blasphemy isn't a big deal, then suddenly it becomes more of an automatic assumption that the hezrou should slam the casters as fast as he can, or maybe summon help, rather than use any of his "chaos and evil" feeling powers.

If the hezrou is just pounding the PCs, and maybe teleporting away, he doesn't feel all that demonic, just like a mobile basher.  He might as well be an ogre with a helm of teleportation for as much as he feels like a demon.

So now, looking at the dragon encounter, and applying some of the "generic" priciples of that fight to redesigning the hezrou, lets say that the PCs close on this guy to attack him.  Instead of having a list of powers and having to chose between them or bashing the PCs, it works like this.

The hezrou throws its head back and speaks some words of Dark Speech as a swift action, then charges the cleric and pummels him.  The dark speech weakens and damages the party, and then they close on him and tear into him with their weapons.

The hezrou can use his Dark Speech ability again two more times per encounter, but since he's been swarmed, he uses his Abyssal Burst ability, which he can only once per encounter as a standard action, to blow everyone away from him 10 feet.  

Next round, the hezrou charges the cleric again, while uttering Dark Speech, and the figher manages to close on him with a charge as well, and the wizard blasts him with a force spell.  He takes serious damage, and now that he is down to 50% of his hit points, his free action teleport triggers and he moves safely away.

The next round, the hezrou uses another once per encounter ability to drain hit points from the PCs to heal itself, and charges back into battle.  This time the PCs manage to get him down to 25% of his hit points, and his ability to summon a creature automatically triggers, summoning a minor demon (that's mainly there to slow down the PCs and divide their attention).

The point being it feels more "demonic" being able to throw fewer abilities that are either swift actions or automatically triggered actions.  No worrying about using tactics that might be suboptimal just to make it feel more "demonic" rather than just a tank with a lot of unused options.

On the other hand, I do like the idea that some creatures had the ability to do certain things.  I don't care if a dragon doesn't have 20 levels of spellcasting like they do now, but I do hope that there is some way for a powerful dragon to at least use high level spells, if they want too.  I don't care if they only have one or two spells that they can use _in the encounter_ as long as they retain the ability to use powerful magic as an option.  That having been said, I know having 20 levels  (or even 10) of spells makes a dragon have so many options, many of which are useless to them, that they are a nightmare to figure out how to make feel "draconic."

As I said, I hope there is enough "grandfathering" to keep spellcasting monsters having some kind of spellcasting options to them, even if the options for them in a given combat are much more limited  (but limited to the higher end of what they used to be able to do, and thus limited to the more useful side of things).


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm still not convinced. Even a 20th-level PC can't fire off 10 different offensive spells in a single round.




Rogues can't make multiple attacks (3e)
Wizards can't cast more than one spell in a round (3e)
Spellcasters can't blast all day (Warlock)
Rogues can't sneak attack undead (Skullclan Hunter)
Constructs can't be PCs (Warforged)
PCs can't be permanently invisible (pixie)

Can't, can't, can't. You know what? If you accounted for it, I think you could build a PC that fired off ten offensive spells in a single round. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be. 

If you had to design a game where the base classes are fighter, rogue, cleric, and beholder, you would find a way.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 26, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> A good example is the ability to move through walls at will.  You can design a perfectly fine creature with 6 hit points who moves through walls at will and throw them up against a 1st or 2nd level party.




I disagree. You could have them _fight_ a 1st or 2nd level party. But a low level party can't stand guard against such foes, can't capture them, can't question them, can't find them if they escape, etc. The argument would be roughly the same as saying a level 10 wizard is a CR 5 threat because he has BAB +5, fights with a dagger, has half the hit points of a fighter, etc. 

Something that walks through walls is a challenge. Shadows have always been a problematic monster, because they show up right before magic weapons become commonly available... so it's magic missile, or TPK. And have you ever used shadows strategically? I've sent a gang of four shadows up against a 6th level party and nearly took out the wizard, using very simple tactics. Why? No ghost touch weapons, one wizard with magic missile, etc. Although the shadows weren't formidable in terms of hit points or damage, they could simply outmaneuver the PCs in numerous ways. A few levels later, the party encountered a half dozen shadows led by a greater shadow and annihlated them in two rounds.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Shadows have always been a problematic monster




So what level would a Shadow PC be? A monster that is incorporeal, does Str damage with a touch attack, and has only 19 hp? How do you balance something like that?


----------



## JustinA (Aug 26, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> A breath weapon.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because if your PC is a type of creature that *has* a breath weapon how the bleeeep did it become a PC and what was your DM smoking at the time s/he allowed it?




_Council of Wyrms_ for the win.

And I guess I don't see why you would ban a cone-effect just because it originates from the mouth. What's so inherently unbalanced about a cone-effect that you could never countenance one being used by your players?



			
				Szatany said:
			
		

> Flying at will, teleportation at will, summoning at will, spontaneous resurrection, splitting yourself into identical copies, magic immunity.




So you don't allow a _cloak of the bat_ in your campaign? 

And so forth.

In the absence of any meaningful explanation of why you feel these abilities should never be duplicated by any spell, magic item, class, or race it's difficult to actually have a discussion on it.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The notion that "PCs can do anything a demon or fey can do" is absolutely anathema to the mood and feel of both heroic fantasy and grittier, sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Whether it's Lord of the Rings, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Conan, Elric, Final Fantasy, or the myths of Perseus and Odysseus, the villains and monsters _all_ have strange, frightening, and/or potent abilities that the heroes do not and cannot have.




I think it's more useful to say, "...[they] have strange, frightening and/or potent abilites that the heroes do not and cannot have AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT."

But saying that, because Conan couldn't cast a magical spell, Gandalf shouldn't be allowed to do it doesn't make any sense to me.

I have a fairly open-ended taste when it comes to RPGs. My reasoning is simple: It's always easier for me to say "no" and ban something which is inappropriate for a particular campaign or game world than it is for me to rewrite the entire rule system to allow for something that the designers thought should be inappropriate for ALL campaigns.

For example, my current campaign world severely curtails _teleport_. This has little to do with game balance, and a lot to do with the fact that my players wanted a campaign that "felt like _Lord of the Rings_". Well, you can't have LOTR if you can just _teleport_ to Mount Doom, so for that first campaign curtailed _teleport_.

But it would be foolish for me to say, "Gandalf was never able to _teleport_, so it shouldn't be in the rules."

This doesn't mean that every ability is appropriate for every level, campaign, character, world, or whatever. But I've played campaigns in which the PCs literally became gods. So, for me, it's rarely a question of, "Is ability X appropriate?" It's a question of, 'WHEN is ability X appropriate?"

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## mearls (Aug 26, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".




This is actually something we talked about at the office on Friday. In some games, it makes tons of sense for monsters/opponents to use the same exact rules as PCs.

In Mutants & Masterminds or Champions, the only difference between a hero and a villain is that the villain is a bad guy. Otherwise, both sides can have super speed, shapeshifting, mind control, or whatever. Consistency makes sense.

In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 26, 2007)

I think the big problem isn't that "PCs shouldn't be able to do X" as much as "Ability X is so powerful that PCs shouldn't have it until X level, but at X level this race will suck."

Take illithids. At will Mind Blast is incredibly powerful. But, they're fairly weak otherwise. At the level when an at will Mind Blast will be balanced, their defenses are too weak. If you make them lower level, then their ability is too powerful.

Level Adjustment just isn't the answer. It's always been a kludge that works sometimes. The general recommendation is, after all, always keep your LA about 1/3 to 1/2 your ECL. That makes a lot of monsters as PCs unplayable in the current system.


----------



## JustinA (Aug 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You know, for a long time--a couple of years, in fact--I've been trying, on and off, to figure out a system that did just that. I even began writing it up at one point.
> 
> The problem is, it doesn't work.




Agreed. What you can do, however, is get to a system where a HD is a HD is a HD.

*Step 1*: No matter where a HD comes from, it should be accompanied by a set of balanced abilities. Thus, a level 1 fighter is equivalent to a level 1 wizard. And both of those are equivalent to a plain vanilla 1 HD animal or 1 HD aberration or 1 HD ooze.

*Step 2*: However, for flexible creature design, you need to be able to give monster's abilities which would not be balanced if they belonged to a PC with the same number of HD. One easy way to balance this is to use the wealth-by-level guidelines: Assign a value to the creature's extra abilities, and apply that as a modifier to the party's total wealth (since those abilities are resources, just like magic items are resources).



> Let's use the beholder as an example. How can you possibly make it equivalent to a character of a level equal to its HD or CR? In 3.5, a beholder is CR 13. Its huge array of offensive abilities makes it far more dangerous than any 13th-level character. Heck, it's possibly more dangerous than a single 20th-level character. But if we call it a CR 20 creature, it doesn't have nearly enough HP or HD. But if we raise the HP or HD, it becomes even more dangerous...




For example, let's pretend that the 3.5 beholder's 11 aberration HD actually equated to 11 levels in a PC class. (They don't, but I want to simplify the example.) The beholder's "extra abilities" are the antimagic cone, the ability to fly, and the eyestalks.

You can go through and price every one of these abilities very precisely using the existing magic item creation rules and get a total "wealth value" for the beholder's abilities.

Why is this useful? Because it eliminates the concept of ECL/LA. A HD is a HD is a HD, and any unusual or powerful abilities a creature are factored into the party's resources just like any other resource.

This doesn't mean that you've gotten to a point where you can play a creature just because their HD is equal to the party's current level. You'll never get to that point (as you rightly point out). The wealth value of their abilities will frequently outstrip an equivalent PC's resources.

But it does mean you've dropped a layer of complexity from the system. And you've also gotten away from the wonkinees where a creature's LA/ECL makes them over-powered in the short-term and then ridiculously underpowered forever after.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2007)

Using the MM1, these are some monsters are ones I think inappropriate for PCs of any level. I'm with JustinA in that many monster abilities are "ok" at a certain level of power but there ARE creatures that we would lose if they HAD to be balanced on the assumption that they would be appropriate for PCs. 

*Aboleth * - The trasnformation power, the enslave power  and the psionics/spell like abilities at will are the major concerns.  
*Barghest * - The Feed ability. No way, no how is that appropriate for a PC
*Chaos Beast* - Sure, it has a save on its corporal instability power but given that as  a PC you'll be using it all the time, this is a way too strong ability.
*Choker* - No extra partial actions for PCs without the use of spells is appropriate.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 26, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> This is actually something we talked about at the office on Friday. In some games, it makes tons of sense for monsters/opponents to use the same exact rules as PCs.
> 
> In Mutants & Masterminds or Champions, the only difference between a hero and a villain is that the villain is a bad guy. Otherwise, both sides can have super speed, shapeshifting, mind control, or whatever. Consistency makes sense.
> 
> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.



 Well, in CoC every Investigator is a Commoner 1, and the lowliest creature is CR 20... 

I am actually eager to see how the monster and PC "build process" differ between them, Mike. Sorry I missed GenCon this year, it was sure fun talking to you last year!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.




To say that D&D is closer to Lovecraftian horror than it is to four-color supers runs completely counter to my experience of the game in novels, in electronic games, in artwork, and in actual play.

Is this not the game often described (often, inappropriately, derided) as 'fantasy supers' because of the mythic-level powers the PCs wield?

A 20th level *barbarian* or *fighter* in 3e is, to an ordinary person, nearly as alien and inhuman in his POWER as Cthulhu, and moreso than most non-'divine' Mythos creatures.  At the very least he is closer to Superman than he is to Batman.  The 20th level character's mindset may be more comprehensible (or is that just a conceit we tell ourselves to be able to play him?), but his power is such that, if there weren't explicitly called-out gods with another 40 hit dice and salient divine abilities to smack him down, he could easily be considered a god by humans.  He is capable of annihilating a moderately-sized army of human or goblin or orc warriors without even bothering with tactics, just by wading into their midst and reaping them by the THOUSANDS.  If he uses his typical array of tactical movement options (i.e. magic items), he can probably kill an entire country by sheer martial might and battle experience.

Now consider that the 20th level barbarian or fighter is a PIKER (and much closer to human) compared to a 20th level wizard.  A 20th level wizard can literally BEND REALITY TO HIS WILL.  It costs some of his life energy to do it in the most potent and flexible manner possible (XP cost for _wish_), but he can do it, and he can do it multiple times per day.  He can stop time.  He can move between two points instantaneously.  He can control another person's mind and force her to do something completely anathema to the core of her being, or he can invade that mind in dreams or even in the waking world, twisting, changing or even protecting its contents.  He can fly (trivially) and rain fire upon the earth and wipe out an army with a word.  He can assume any form he wants (and again, he can do it several times daily).  He can duplicate his body and transcend death itself.  He can walk a million worlds in the flesh or in spirit, perceive entities utterly alien to human comprehension - AND KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF.  He can CREATE WORLDS.

A 20th level wizard in 3e is _more powerful than Superman_ (albeit probably not Silver Age Superman); there is nothing Cthulhu can do that a 20th level wizard can't, and there are things a 20th level wizard can do that have never been described as within Cthulhu's power.  The Great Old One is older and eviler and a whole lot stronger when he manifests physically, but his powers have apparent limits that a 20th level wizard's don't.  The wizard is Nyarlathotep for a few minutes a day, GREATER than Cthulhu - he just runs out of that unbelievable power quickly if he doesn't conserve it.

Somehow, the thought of one of these transcendent beings, superheroes in all but name, at the very least equivalent to Solars in Exalted, being advanced from a corporeal creature with as odd a form as a mind flayer doesn't seem all that strange to me; 20th level PCs transcend mind flayerdom almost as much as they do humanity.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 27, 2007)

Here is a simple example of why LA doesn't work. 

Lets say I made a monster known as a Fairy Charmer. Deconstructed, these are its racial stats.

+2 Cha, -2 Wis
Medium Sized
Fey Type
30 ft move
Low Light Vision
Immune to Sleep Effects
+2 Listen, Search, Spot
Charm Person at Will. 
FC: Bard.

What LA should it be? 0? (Can't, better than an elf). LA +1? (Can't, better than a Feytouched). LA +2?

Is Charm Person as will really worth the same as two wizard levels? Or two bard levels? Or two Fighter levels? It doesn't seem so, but the minute you freely use Charm Person on the town guard to get out of legal trouble, the bartender to get free drinks, the merchant to lower the price on his wares, the cleric to heal your friend for free, the orc guards to let you into the wizard's keep, the princess you want to sleep with, etc it shows itself as a huge problem.

Beyond a scant handful of humanoid races, EVERY MONSTER IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. Minotaur's have size/reach. Ogre's have huge strength and NA. Trolls regenerate. Harpies beguile. Medusa's have an instant-kill at will. Vampire's are immune to most normal forms of PC death. The List goes on. The only option to make them potentially playable is to a.) Remove/limit their natural powers b.) create some LA like Mechanic to make them playable at a certain point, but not useless when they get there, or c.) use a PC version to limit their distrupting powers while keeping the flavor of the monster and allowing them to develop in PC classes. 

I'm betting on the last option, since it gives me what I want (I'm a minotaur) without tying me to a large XP kill in LA (or worse, racial HD) and allows my DM to keep some of his sanity.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> To say that D&D is closer to Lovecraftian horror than it is to four-color supers runs completely counter to my experience of the game in novels, in electronic games, in artwork, and in actual play.
> 
> Is this not the game often described (often, inappropriately, derided) as 'fantasy supers' because of the mythic-level powers the PCs wield?




If you're describing high-level play, perhaps. But I'd argue that low-level play is not even remotely "supers," and even mid-level play doesn't qualify. It may border on mythic, but it's not until high levels that you truly reach the "superheroes in armor" category.

Thing is... If I want a superhero game, I'll play one. There's plenty of good ones out there. 

As the designers have discussed, the "sweet spot" of the game, on a mechanical level--and, I _think_, tough I don't claim to have proof, on a conceptual level for a majority of D&Ders--is between 4 or 5 and 13 or 14.

That's _before_ you get into the "superheroes in armor" category.

As has been said before, no game can be all things to all people. While you _can_ play D&D as high or low magic, as grim-n-gritty or mythic, as Call of Cthulhu or Justice League, the game cannot be _optimal_ for all of those. It has to choose a baseline.

I don't want my baseline to be supers. I don't want my baseline assuming an end result that can't any longer be called human. I don't want my baseline to assume that monsters--alien horrors, demons from hell, ancient dragons--aren't something to be viewed with awe and fear. And if that's what it takes to make the weird monsters appropriate as PCs out of the box, then I'd just as soon they not be.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> If you're describing high-level play, perhaps. But I'd argue that low-level play is not even remotely "supers," and even mid-level play doesn't qualify. It may border on mythic, but it's not until high levels that you truly reach the "superheroes in armor" category.
> 
> Thing is... If I want a superhero game, I'll play one. There's plenty of good ones out there.




Low-level play doesn't really resemble Call of Cthulhu, either, though, and mid-level play doesn't at all.  D&D as it stands - and this is largely true of past editions, as well: BECMI even ends with 'Immortal' as the default assumption of where characters will end up, as power players on the godly level - never resembles Call of Cthulhu and does eventually resemble Champions.  Mike said the inverse, which, as I said, runs completely contrary to my experience.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As the designers have discussed, the "sweet spot" of the game, on a mechanical level--and, I _think_, tough I don't claim to have proof, on a conceptual level for a majority of D&Ders--is between 4 or 5 and 13 or 14.
> 
> That's _before_ you get into the "superheroes in armor" category.




Agreed, and I do prefer the game at these levels as well - D&D has not traditionally been a very GOOD supers system. 

But a 14th level D&D character could handle any non-'divine' Mythos creature in combat, slay a shoggoth or hack a hunting horror.  It might not be easy and it wouldn't be safe, but he would be able to pull it off.  Even a 6th level D&D character is at the very least at the upper limits of human potential, able to take on weird and powerful monsters from fey to aberrations to even less-powerful dragons and demons.  WITHIN the sweet spot, D&D PCs exceed human limits and go toe to toe with things that Call of Cthulhu PCs would be mooked by in seconds.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As has been said before, no game can be all things to all people. While you _can_ play D&D as high or low magic, as grim-n-gritty or mythic, as Call of Cthulhu or Justice League, the game cannot be _optimal_ for all of those. It has to choose a baseline.
> 
> I don't want my baseline to be supers. I don't want my baseline assuming an end result that can't any longer be called human. I don't want my baseline to assume that monsters--alien horrors, demons from hell, ancient dragons--aren't something to be viewed with awe and fear. And if that's what it takes to make the weird monsters appropriate as PCs out of the box, then I'd just as soon they not be.




So be it.

Obviously 4e will cater to your wishes in this regard, and that makes it completely unusable out of the box for MY wishes.

Which, ironically, have NOTHING to do with playing at the supers level.  Neither of my preferences - JRPG and Sword and Sorcery - actually require the kind of really esoteric stuff we're talking about.  They do, however, require something other than the baseline Tolkienisms, and this will not initially be available in full form.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Here is a simple example of why LA doesn't work.




We differ.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Lets say I made a monster known as a Fairy Charmer. Deconstructed, these are its racial stats.
> 
> +2 Cha, -2 Wis
> Medium Sized
> ...




LA +1 or LA +0.  Better than an elf, but elves are too weak anyway.  It's not better than a dwarf.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Is Charm Person as will really worth the same as two wizard levels? Or two bard levels? Or two Fighter levels? It doesn't seem so, but the minute you freely use Charm Person on the town guard to get out of legal trouble, the bartender to get free drinks, the merchant to lower the price on his wares, the cleric to heal your friend for free, the orc guards to let you into the wizard's keep, the princess you want to sleep with, etc it shows itself as a huge problem.




It does?  It shows itself as a useful ability - but a "huge problem?"  I can count on zero hands the number of times I've seen PCs use charm person more than a couple of times per day.  Most situations where it's useful, it's incredibly dangerous - because if you get caught, there's a very good chance you'll be imprisoned for it.  You can charm your way out of the trouble you got yourself into, but then you'll be in WORSE trouble if you fail.  You may well have a short trip to the gallows.

That's for, say, magicking a merchant or a cleric (especially good luck on the latter; plenty of LN and CN clerics will make their Will saves, fake that they didn't, and cast a _cause_ rather than _cure wounds_ spell.  Using it to sleep with a princess?  Bam - you're dead, right there, if you don't get away with it, for using magic on a member of the royal family and almost certainly causing a diplomatic nightmare in the process.

Anyway, Diplomancer (a character with a high Diplomacy skill) can do any of this in 3e more reliably (and eventually, more potently) than your theoretical fey creature.  A sorcerer with _charm person_ can effectively do it most of the time as he gets to higher levels, and can often pull it off even at 1st or 2nd level if he picks his targets carefully - certainly he can do the cleric or the merchant or the bartender or even the princess just as easily; any one of those takes all of one spell, and a sorcerer has at least four.

Finally, aside from the 'money as balancing factor' problem with the merchant and cleric examples, what's wrong with any of the situations you described cropping up in game?  Free drinks?  Yee gods, so WHAT?!  Seducing a princess or bribing/charming a guard is risky business, but it's rather in-character for adventurers, so why not?  Charming an orc guard?  What, are we only supposed to kill him and take his stuff, and any other mundane or magical solution is 'problematic?'

Frankly, I see no reason _charm person_ wouldn't BE an at-will, or at least per-encounter, spell in 4e.  It's a relatively minor effect with potentially severe drawbacks.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Beyond a scant handful of humanoid races, EVERY MONSTER IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. Minotaur's have size/reach. Ogre's have huge strength and NA. Trolls regenerate. Harpies beguile. Medusa's have an instant-kill at will. Vampire's are immune to most normal forms of PC death. The List goes on. The only option to make them potentially playable is to a.) Remove/limit their natural powers b.) create some LA like Mechanic to make them playable at a certain point, but not useless when they get there, or c.) use a PC version to limit their distrupting powers while keeping the flavor of the monster and allowing them to develop in PC classes.




Or use racial hit dice to balance their abilities.  Everything you're describing (size/reach, strength and NA, regeneration, beguilement, save or die, immunities to various forms of death) is available to PCs.  None of it is game breaking as a magic item or a spell or a class feature, but Principle forfend it be a racial ability?  The problem here is the tendency to treat race as a tiny package of abilities that modify the character in small ways and class as the be-all and end-all of what he can do.  And again, none of your objections address the fact that ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE COMPLETELY POSSIBLE IN OTHER GAMES.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'm betting on the last option, since it gives me what I want (I'm a minotaur) without tying me to a large XP kill in LA (or worse, racial HD) and allows my DM to keep some of his sanity.




Racial hit dice are "worse" because the LA system was a kludge imposed after the fact.  They don't have to be.

I can't speak to your DM's sanity.  I know MY sanity as a DM will be ill-served by, if I switch to 4e as a matter of course, having to write houserule documents as long as the ones I had for 2e before I abandoned that system.

Obviously, if this is the case, I will NOT switch to 4e.  I'll study what is no doubt a brilliant bit of game design (as radically as I disagree with Mike Mearls' apparent vision of what D&D is and/or should be, I consider him the best Tactics/RPG designer and developer working today and know he and the WotC team will execute their design goals extremely well), perhaps play it if others run it, and try to sell material that expands the game back to where it was before what will be for me and the people I play with a crippling, game-killing contraction.

And, I become increasingly convinced, I'll GM a Star Wars Saga Edition-derived fantasy rulesset that can use the incredible wealth of material produced for 3e without being shackled to the clunky, overcomplicated system and its blessed bovines.


----------



## bowbe (Aug 27, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> If you listen to the latest podcast, actually, it's clear that Wizards of the Coast didn't really *have* "monster design guidelines" until David Noonan and the others worked them up while designing _Monster Manual V_.
> 
> Yeah, they had rules about monster *types* and what kind of BAB and save progression, skill points, and Hit Dice size they got based on that, but those rules themselves weren't based on the goal of producing an appropriate challenge at each CR - you made a monster and gauged its CR after it was built in an entirely different system.




I don't effin believe a word of that. It sounds good to bash a current system when your trying to sell $120 bucks worth of core rulebooks in a new system to a taciturn and jaded community of gamers. 

Saying that they had no such rules is quite insulting to the likes of Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jeff Grubb who no doubt indeed had a system. I would say most of the system mistakes that were exposed post core 3.0 were found in the many subsequent monster books. I.E. III, IV, Fiend Folio and so on, and long after the editing had gone to pot. (No Offense on the editing, I've had some gone to pot editing on plenty of my works)

I've been told that the imfamous "Writers Bible" has pretty exacting rules on how to make monsters for 3.5, though have not seen it myself. 

Case


----------



## bowbe (Aug 27, 2007)

On another note. I read that article Wyatt released with the "look into monster design".

More than a few things stood out that I find distasteful.

For a supposedly easy and streamlined system there are too freaking many actions (as noted on the part of monsters).

Immediate Actions, Free Actions, and Standard Actions are retained. Thus the dragon in the description takes an immediate action (evidently they get one per combat), a free action (aka supernatural/magical type effect), and multiple attacks per round. Thats a whole lot o' actions for 1 monster when the PCs allegedly get... 1 action. 

I don't doubt when it comes out in the wash the PCs end up getting a score of free/standard/movement/and immediate actions. A far cry from the 1 attack combat that was touted at Gen Con. Definitely something that fits into the 'streamlined cinematic sequence" that they are going on about. I'm fine with that but don't sell me balogna masquerading as filet mignon. 

Evidently (from continuing the read of the Wyatt article) characters still deal a wopping 250 points of damage on a non critical single attack. I quote _"He charges the dragon and manages to land a solid blow, dropping the dragon down below half its hit points."_

It later mentions that the dragon is "Now under 500 hp." 

250 hp damage in a "solid blow" would certainly make combat quicker I guess. *chuckle* Maybe I would be happier with all the lingo and starry eyed joy of this new system if the designers would shave some of the zeros off of HP and damage. Perhaps its somantics but do bigger numbers really make a game better? I guess im still old enough that triple digit damage seems pretty cheesie unless your sufficiently high level. Triple digits beyone 100 sound Ultra cheesie. 

Case


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 27, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> By lvl 5, wizards have Gaeous Form.  By lvl 7, they have Dim Door.  Both can be put into wands.  Eventually you get Ethereal travel.  ALL of it is Core.  It isn't precisely the same as insubstantiality, but it is close enough.  I've *done* the walk through the dungeon ethereally.  I've done the "wind walk through the dungeon fast".  I've done the "massive scrying fest+teleport to bypass dungeon elements".  I've done the "disintegrate the wall to bypass dungeon elements".  And Passwall.  Thoqqua summoning.  *Massive* soften earth and stone/stoneshape/rock to mud usage.  Earth elemental summoning for recon.
> 
> The Out of Combat uses of insubstantiality can be mimiced (with adequate cash expenditure) by a lvl 7 party.  The in combat uses of insubstantiality, aren't overpowered as you know: you are talking about sending such creatures against a very low level party (just beware the need for magic weapons).



It's possible to put that kind of thing in a wand, but not one that would be affordable by players until decently high level.  Plus, it isn't INFINITE.  And most players I know prefer permanent magic items over charged ones so they won't buy one give the choice.  Even then, all the problem spells are above 4th level, the max level for wands.

Everytime we've had a wand that could do something cool like that, we only used it when ABSOLUTELY necessary.  If we had an inkling there was another way, we wouldn't want to use charges.  Plus its a balancing act, if they spend money on a wand they aren't spending it on a belt of giant strength +4.

Give them infinite ability to do it for free on the other hand, and it's over powered.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 27, 2007)

bowbe said:
			
		

> On another note. I read that article Wyatt released with the "look into monster design".
> 
> More than a few things stood out that I find distasteful.
> 
> ...



You'll need to read around.  That article NEVER says the fighter did 250 damage in one blow.  It said that the fighter hit and that now the dragon was below half (500 hit points).  This is th 4th or 5th round of the combat over which the party did most of the 500 damage it had already taken.  This is confirmed by one of the devs in a couple of message boards where he pointed out that if the fighter did 500 points of damage in one hit he'd be beaten by the development team and kicked out of the game.

As for actions a round.  No one has yet said how many actions players get.  Just that in the Saga edition of Star Wars that you only get one attack per round.

However, the new design philosophy is that a party of adventurers always faces about 5 creatures at once, rarely if ever should it be just one creature.  So, a dragon gets around 5 attacks per round to make up for the fact that it's designed as a solo encounter.  The devs have already said that a dragon is one of the most complex monsters in the game.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It's possible to put that kind of thing in a wand, but not one that would be affordable by players until decently high level.  Plus, it isn't INFINITE.  And most players I know prefer permanent magic items over charged ones so they won't buy one give the choice.  Even then, all the problem spells are above 4th level, the max level for wands.
> 
> Everytime we've had a wand that could do something cool like that, we only used it when ABSOLUTELY necessary.  If we had an inkling there was another way, we wouldn't want to use charges.  Plus its a balancing act, if they spend money on a wand they aren't spending it on a belt of giant strength +4.
> 
> Give them infinite ability to do it for free on the other hand, and it's over powered.




If you want to have a wand of dim door (wands are doable for dim door) at lvl 7, you will need an artificer, or pool party resources.  It is *very* doable.  Many people have a block against abusing charged items, but if you are willing to operate 1 "+" down, you can afford a *massive* array of charged items that more than compensates, and you can afford to renew the items when they get used up.  Note that that wand is only really expensive around lvl 7, and will last till (probably) about lvl 9 or 10.  By then, its replacement will be cheap.  1 wand of dim door, 1 wand of summon monster (checks SRD) III or NA II along with Speak Language (Terran) nets you virtually unlimited uses of walking through walls.

I hold that, if the ability is replicable by PCs under core rules (without abusing poly/shapechange), you really cannot argue that the ability would be broken for PCs.

(charged items are, by far, the easiest way to make your DM cry.  Fireball, CL 5 is only 375 gp... almost affordably by a just created lvl 1 party thats pooling its funds, easily affordable by a lvl 1 wizard after the first adventure.  Yes, you can blow the activation roll, but you can afford extras)


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 27, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The difference is that the rule set has the information for you should you need it and doesn't rely on hand waving and designers saying, "Don't look behind the curtain!"




I have no problem with some monsters working like PCs.

But what about a Beholder? An ooze? 

Designers should have the freedom to make the monster the best it can be, even if that means it has to work differently from PCs.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> This is actually something we talked about at the office on Friday. In some games, it makes tons of sense for monsters/opponents to use the same exact rules as PCs.
> 
> In Mutants & Masterminds or Champions, the only difference between a hero and a villain is that the villain is a bad guy. Otherwise, both sides can have super speed, shapeshifting, mind control, or whatever. Consistency makes sense.
> 
> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.




As others have said, what DnD have you been playing??  DnD is about meeting new, unknown and interesting monsters, killing them and taking their stuff.  Consistancy makes a huge amount of sense.  It makes HD based mechanics (see Holy Word, 3ed Turn Undead) work.  It makes monsters as characters doable.  It makes polymorph and summoning easier.

If anything, the 4ed bent towards rapidly recharging abilities makes such consistancy easier and more valuable.  In 3ed, most "at will" abilities that cause LA (note that I find most LA listed as being, frankly, laughable) cause the LA because they are "at will".  As more abilities are becoming close to "at will", this is less important (although wands and staves have always been a very, very potent arguement against the actual importance of "at will").  I'm disappointed with this apparent bent for monsters in part because of your redesign of Ogre Magi.  Monsters well balanced between offense and defense (still a huge amount of parameter space available), in a system balanced towards per encounter and at will abilities would, inherently, have a low if not 0 LA.

Why throw away the huge opportunities the 4ed hints have suggested at by designing monsters differently from PCs?


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.




Excellent point.  Said opponents are, after all, "monsters".

Anything that re-introduces the unknown, the mysterious, the wonderful, and most of all the non-standard, into D&D is a good thing.


----------



## Samnell (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.




This presupposes a world where monsters are exceptionally rare, or they would not remain unknowns. This is a world where Knowledge (X) can't tell you anything about monsters, since precious few people have ever been in a position to study them. I don't think I've ever seen WotC world where that was the case. I don't know that I'd want to play in one either.

Or, alternatively, it presupposes a world where the average NPC has some sort of serious mental problem that renders then unable to process experiences with monsters or analyze accounts given by those who have. Therefore tales do not spread and the PCs would have no way to know about monsters.

D&D monsters do not, by and large, strike me as anything like CoC monsters. The vast majority of them are not alien beings from other dimensions, or the product thereof. The vast majority of them live in the same world the PCs grew up in. They've been there about as long as humans have, or anyway long enough that it doesn't make a big difference. Monsters are more like animals, or different cultures for the more humanlike sorts, in our world. Some of them live far away or are less known, but they are not fundamentally weird or unknowable to sane minds.

Furthermore, the notion that the best way to encourage a subjective sense of mystery is to create classes of NPC-only (That is, the DM's tools are way cooler than the player tools and the player can never play with the DM tools.) or monster-only (same thing) is a step backwards. It's like a return to the days when players were notionally forbidden to read the DMG.


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.



Mike,

What I would like to know is this:  From a DM's perspective, will a DM be able to take a given monster and add PC class levels to it fairly easily in 4th Edition?  If I have a dragon, a beholder, an ettin, or an umber hulk... Will it be easy enough for the DM to add levels of fighter or wizard or cleric to it?

I don't so much care about making Savage Species style racial classes out of such creatures as I do care about having the ability to advance them.

P.S.  I'm glad that you're working on 4th Edition.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Aug 27, 2007)

The way monsters are being handled is, at first glance, one of the bright spots for me in the analysis of what we know about 4e. It says to me that the designers have wisely recognized that all this interchangability between monsters and PCs was a part of what made the 3.x game boring and uninspiring. I'm not going to go into too much detail here as I'm about to write a blog entry with my thoughts on 4e, but I'll just chime in with a general agreement with Ari and Mike on this particular issue. Monsters should not be built like PCs with horns (oh wait, in 4e the PCs can have horns.  )


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Excellent point.  Said opponents are, after all, "monsters".
> 
> Anything that re-introduces the unknown, the mysterious, the wonderful, and most of all the non-standard, into D&D is a good thing.




Regardless of the rules system, that will NEVER happen with older players. Players may experience that with the rules themselves, but the likely hood of an orc, kobold, goblin, etc... being 'unknown' is slim to nil unless the GM is retrofitting everything.

Once you've gone through the door, as I did in 84', while the mechanics may change, the 'wonder' is pretty gone I think. 

Others experiences may differ. 

Heck, for all the talk of wonderment, isn't Mike the one who HATED with a super capitol H the old Keep on the Borderlands? For new players, that was your wonderment.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 27, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I have no problem with some monsters working like PCs.
> 
> But what about a Beholder? An ooze?
> 
> Designers should have the freedom to make the monster the best it can be, even if that means it has to work differently from PCs.





And who decides that? In today's game, are oozes a 'playable' race?

And as Mike's own design journal show cases, beholders are a bit of an odd beast.

In my vision of the rules, a beholder would have to be rebuilt from the gorund up. In a point based system, that thing, in a fantasy campaign, would probably costs hundreds of points to create. A very powerful entity not appropriate for most campaigns (pretty much as it stands now... something like ELC 10+ no?)

Having rules that work would eliminate the need to make things work differently.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 27, 2007)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> ...the designers have wisely recognized that all this interchangability between monsters and PCs was a part of what made the 3.x game boring and uninspiring.




   Blurring the line between monster and PC is what brought me back to D&D, having skipped from 1e to 3e. Looks like another leapfrog may be in order.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 27, 2007)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> The way monsters are being handled is, at first glance, one of the bright spots for me in the analysis of what we know about 4e. It says to me that the designers have wisely recognized that all this interchangability between monsters and PCs was a part of what made the 3.x game boring and uninspiring. I'm not going to go into too much detail here as I'm about to write a blog entry with my thoughts on 4e, but I'll just chime in with a general agreement with Ari and Mike on this particular issue. Monsters should not be built like PCs with horns (oh wait, in 4e the PCs can have horns.  )





Boring and uninspiring... too much freedom is bad? It's better to want rules for monsters than to actually have them? Am I reading that right?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Aug 27, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Boring and uninspiring... too much freedom is bad? It's better to want rules for monsters than to actually have them? Am I reading that right?




Interestingly, I disagree with the fundamental assertion of your post: I believe that full interchangability with PCs constrains monsters rather than sets them free.


FREE THE MONSTERS, MIKE, FREE THEM FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 27, 2007)

If 4E is moving away from the "assembly line" and "standardized parts" methodology of 3E, that makes me happy.


----------



## The Grackle (Aug 27, 2007)

> Design game elements for their intended use. Secondary uses are nice, but not a goal. Basically, when we build a monster we intend you to use it as a monster. If we build a feat, it's meant as a feat, not a monster special attack. If we also want to make it a playable character race, we'll design a separate racial write up for it. We won't try to shoehorn a monster stat block into becoming a PC stat block. The designs must inform each other, but we're better off building two separate game elements rather than one that tries to multiclass.




Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...)  

If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble.  Other games do it, why not D&D?  In fact, I think --historically-- a lot of D&D's problems come from making a bunch of independent rules sets and glomming them together later on.  This new philosophy might sound cool now, but when stuff meshes awkwardly later on, it could cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns.  

***
I'm hearing a lot of, "it's so much easier for the game designers this way," but why should I care about that?  So what if it is?  How is that a selling point for me?  I'm a player.  All I've got is a bunch of monsters I can't polymorph into.  

I'm sure it _would _be harder for designers to make monsters that were balanced for play, and fun to fight, and simple to read; but that's still what i want.

***
There have always been some people, like me, who want to play monsters and weirdo characters, and it's always been a pain.  The official line has always kinda been, "just don't do that."  I felt like 3E was getting closer, and all that LA/ECL/HD business would get ironed out for 4E into nice flat Levels.  I was hoping for a way to roll up monsters (individuals from MM races and new ones) as easy as making a dwarven fighter.  Maybe not in the PHB, but in the DMG or a new Savage Species.  Instead of nice slick way to do that, it sounds like we're getting more patches.  

***
Still, none of this is a deal-breaker for me; I just would've liked to see it develop the other way.  If nothing else, it looks like the humanoid races will get some attention, and be more useful/usable as playable races, and that's cool.  

I won't really be upset unless the monstrous races/classes/talent-trees suck as bad as or worse than LA does now.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2007)

At the end of the day, one of the largest complaints about 3e is how much work it is to DM.  The game everyone wants to play but no one wants to run, goes the tired refrain.

Anything they can do that takes the burden off the DM and still lets him run the game he wants to run is a good thing.


----------



## DarkKestral (Aug 27, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...)
> 
> If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble.  Other games do it, why not D&D?  In fact, I think --historically-- a lot of D&D's problems come from making a bunch of independent rules sets and glomming them together later on.  This new philosophy might sound cool now, but when stuff meshes awkwardly later on, it could cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns.
> 
> ...




I am of this opinion as well; often times, I've seen that the most imbalanced creations tend to come from designers who aren't planning to look at something like a player will. The signature trick that allowed Pun-Pun's original incarnation obviously came from a designer who thought that if the ability is "monster-only" then they don't have worry about it's balance in the hands of PCs. I'm of the stance that "monster-only" abilities should always be tested as if a PC could get a hold of them, because if they're allowed to be stronger than what a PC can do of that level past a certain point, then PCs will always find a way to use them and abuse them. Either that, or DMs will.



			
				The Grackle said:
			
		

> There have always been some people, like me, who want to play monsters and weirdo characters, and it's always been a pain.  The official line has always kinda been, "just don't do that."  I felt like 3E was getting closer, and all that LA/ECL/HD business would get ironed out for 4E into nice flat Levels.  I was hoping for a way to roll up monsters (individuals from MM races and new ones) as easy as making a dwarven fighter.  Maybe not in the PHB, but in the DMG or a new Savage Species.  Instead of nice slick way to do that, it sounds like we're getting more patches.




I dunno about others, but personally, I think the idea of having the ability to deal with non-humanoid PCs is a good thing, so I'm in agreement with Grackle once more. Not everyone should play a beholder fighter, but it's OK if someone's played almost every previous concept and simply wants to do something objectively DIFFERENT. However, I'd say that most of the classic uses are games which include "mascot characters" (Pseudodragons? Awakened Animal Companions?) which are played by PCs, either as cohorts or as actual PCs. They might not be humanoid, but there is a certain percentage of the playerbase that really like being able to play the "awakened animal companions of a druid going out to rescue their former master" type of games.


----------



## hong (Aug 27, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...)
> 
> If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble.  Other games do it, why not D&D?  In fact, I think --historically-- a lot of D&D's problems come from making a bunch of independent rules sets and glomming them together later on.  This new philosophy might sound cool now, but when stuff meshes awkwardly later on, it could cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns.




Of course it will cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns. But if the new philosophy also changes people's expectations so that they'll realise the game no longer sets out to provide a perfectly balanced ruleset in this context, then it will all be good.

Basically, if you want to make a pun-pun, you'll be able to. It will be nobody's fault but your own, because you'll be going outside the game's explicitly stated design parameters.

In fact, the gearhead rulesets (I'm thinking of HERO and GURPS) both put front and center the GM's role as final authority on what's allowed in a game. There is little of the purely mechanistic view that characterises the 3E zeitgeist, even if gearheads are a large part of the audience.


----------



## hong (Aug 27, 2007)

... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.


----------



## Samnell (Aug 27, 2007)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I'm of the stance that "monster-only" abilities should always be tested as if a PC could get a hold of them, because if they're allowed to be stronger than what a PC can do of that level past a certain point, then PCs will always find a way to use them and abuse them. Either that, or DMs will.




I am of the opinion that "monster-only" or "NPC-only" abilities are pretty much inherently abusive anyway. They break the social compact of the game. It's fudging the dice in the monsters' favor by another name.


----------



## DarkKestral (Aug 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.




I would argue that Pun-Pun is basically the result of not systematizing monster design and making it more PC-ish. No sane designer should give players the chance to give other players any ability ever, and to do this insane feat so over and over again. Yet somehow, one designer DID. It was obvious he was thinking "Oh, this is just a monster. It won't hurt anything..." which is where I think the problem lies. You let monsters follow different rules, and suddenly PCs start trying to abuse the corner cases for their own benefit. Monster abilities that are broken in the hands of PCs are often broken in the hands of monsters, too. In 3.5, many a monster gets umpteen special attacks, which are mystically at the highest attack bonus the monster gets. Yet players must suffer a -5 and a movement penalty to make multiple attacks. So the monster gets something which is apparently a BADWRONGABILITY in the hands of PCs, but is given right to them if they pay a 4th level wizard/sorc spell slot, which indicates that it's powerful, but not BADWRONGABLITY powerful either.

That's why I would much rather see ECL or a modified HD that allows for 1 HD = 1 ECL regardless of type. since we already have HD that can vary, it's not that much of a stretch to say 1 animal HD = 3d6 for the purposes of ECL/CR calculation. Give me rules that work the same for everybody, and a set of rules that don't and I'm sure I can show you that it's a lot harder to accidentally create Pun-Puns in the first system, assuming reasonably intelligent design.

I know there's Rule 0, but I'd much rather not need to invoke it daily or see it invoked to maintain sanity.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 27, 2007)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I would argue that Pun-Pun is basically the result of not systematizing monster design and making it more PC-ish. No sane designer should give players the chance to give other players any ability ever, and to do this insane feat so over and over again.




I agree. The ability does not make sense even for the monster, it simply is not as immediately apparent. Like the efreet's wish, its power is immeasurable, and the designers simply did not apply enough thought into deciding how a power fit into the game world. The ability in question functions within "plot device" parameters (to take a page from Mutants and Masterminds) but clearly functions at a quantifiable level. In other words, the lid popped off. Something was introduced that had no reasonable in-game or out-of-game limitation, and inevitibly, a problem was discovered.


----------



## Creamsteak (Aug 27, 2007)

I'm curious where 4e is drawing the line in the sand. All this speculation (9 pages worth at this point) is still speculation. Good or bad. There are just so many different possible implementations of the differences between the two sides. There are a lot of compromises that will keep some portion of people happy from both sides. And mearls statement leeds me to believe that he made this decision "for this system." And he said that he understand the desire to have some portability. 

Dnd is somewhere other than the cthulhu example given though. The idea of a drow, half-dragon, or minotaur pc falls in line with a lot of dndisms that I've seen. All of these options still "play" like a PC, just 'different.' That's right in line with what the goals are by making distinctions between the dwarf fighter and the elf fighter. By allowing multiple options to play the same classes (or in this case roles) in completely different ways. But a half-(insert cthulhu monster number 7 here) is a completely different game than a regular investigator in CoC.

Some monsters are, I feel, intended to fight on the level of a whole party at once. The dragon or the beholder are the two common examples here. There's a whole lot of examples in between the dragon and the town guardsman. There's going to be some kind of "line" of seperation somewhere.

This brings a totally stray wandering thought to me. What if classes are the base, rather than the race? As it stands in 3e, the race is a set of statistics that are base, and then the class kind of gets "applied" to the racial modifiers. Obviously you "could" build the character around the class first then tack on the racials, there's nothing stopping it, but I mean intuitively. 

It's also possible though that the approach could be reversed in design, which would "imply" some rather significant differences with how monsters and other creatures work.


----------



## hong (Aug 27, 2007)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I would argue that Pun-Pun is basically the result of not systematizing monster design and making it more PC-ish.




No, it was the result of the 3E philosophy that all creatures are supposed to be built using the same rules, even though they have different purposes.



> No sane designer should give players the chance to give other players any ability ever, and to do this insane feat so over and over again. Yet somehow, one designer DID. It was obvious he was thinking "Oh, this is just a monster. It won't hurt anything..." which is where I think the problem lies. You let monsters follow different rules, and suddenly PCs start trying to abuse the corner cases for their own benefit.




That's the abuser's problem. The solution is not to do it. And in fact, nobody does.

Does Pun-Pun appear in any actual game, anywhere in the world? I doubt it very much. A ruleset that attempts to head off problems that don't exist except as thought experiments is wasting its time.



> Give me rules that work the same for everybody, and a set of rules that don't and I'm sure I can show you that it's a lot harder to accidentally create Pun-Puns in the first system, assuming reasonably intelligent design.




Pun-Pun was not an accident. Pun-Pun was a deliberate exercise in breaking the ruleset.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Boring and uninspiring... too much freedom is bad? It's better to want rules for monsters than to actually have them? Am I reading that right?



I thought they clearly said that you can still do make any type of PC character and use that as a monster.  It is just the reverse that does not apply.  So that would definately not be a restriction.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2007)

> Let's use the beholder as an example. How can you possibly make it equivalent to a character of a level equal to its HD or CR? In 3.5, a beholder is CR 13. Its huge array of offensive abilities makes it far more dangerous than any 13th-level character. Heck, it's possibly more dangerous than a single 20th-level character. But if we call it a CR 20 creature, it doesn't have nearly enough HP or HD. But if we raise the HP or HD, it becomes even more dangerous...
> 
> See the problem? The notion of level = HD = CR is an appealing one on the surface. But it only works if monsters are limited to the same sorts of abilities as PCs. Once you start adding wonky abilities, like the beholder's eye rays or the mind flayer's blast, you wind up in a position where you once again have a creature whose CR cannot equal its HD.




There is an amazingly, astonishingly simple solution to this that only a 4e could provide:

Don't link increased HP to necessarily increased combat ninja effectiveness.

In this case, it would be great to "design for it's use." HP is a measure of character toughness, the resource the game is always spending, and a measure of how long a creature can stay in combat.

A giant brontosaurus shouldn't need a +12 Reflex save from high HD just because it'd have a whole bucketload of hit points.

The same logic dictates that a 20th level Expert blacksmith doesn't need the bucketload of hit points just because he needs a +umpteen Craft (Blacksmith) check.

In other words, make it possible to add hit points (for instance) without adding a whole truckload of unrelated abilities. Which, actually, makes advancing monsters simpler, faster, and more elegant, which is what a lot of 4e is going for.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There is an amazingly, astonishingly simple solution to this that only a 4e could provide:
> 
> Don't link increased HP to necessarily increased combat ninja effectiveness.
> 
> ...



I vote for this.


----------



## Thurbane (Aug 27, 2007)

IMHO, the "transparency" between monsters and player characters was one of the best things that 3E introduced to D&D.

It would be a real backward step, again IMHO, if it went back to more of an "us and them" mentality in 4E...


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> IMHO, the "transparency" between monsters and player characters was one of the best things that 3E introduced to D&D.
> 
> It would be a real backward step, again IMHO, if it went back to more of an "us and them" mentality in 4E...



You mean the transparency that was constantly slammed for never working? (ECLs that were way off, near-standard races that were near unplayable)

I will completely agree with a goal of being able to play as PCs as many "monsters" as possible.  But to try to have it all is just setting yourself up for failure.

Rather than a step backward, this concept (and the implemenation remains to be seen) is aimed at the best of both worlds.  

Seriously, can someone offer a concrete example of what you had in 3X that will be flat out unavailable in what we know of 4E?


----------



## Klaus (Aug 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In other words, make it possible to add hit points (for instance) without adding a whole truckload of unrelated abilities. Which, actually, makes advancing monsters simpler, faster, and more elegant, which is what a lot of 4e is going for.




By, I dunno, increasing the Constitution score?    

I mean, if the brontosaurus is a CR8 creature and has 8HD, give it a Constitution of, say, 30 and soak up its +10 modifier. That's +80hp without increasing saves or BAB.

The more I read this thread and the Design diaries, the less I can see the difference between what is being proposed for 4e and the way it is already being done in 3.x.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg (Aug 27, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm still not convinced. Even a 20th-level PC can't fire off 10 different offensive spells in a single round. (Or even three, if you only want to count a singe "arc" of fire.) Without being completely reconceptualized, beholders simply _can't_ have the same CR and HD.




Time Stop. One delayed blast fireball per round, plus one quickened and metamagically delayed other spell per round. It's not 10 guaranteed effects in a single round but they are on the other hand much more powerful than a beholder's eye rays. Well within reason for a level 20 wizard.


----------



## Kerrick (Aug 27, 2007)

> See the problem? The notion of level = HD = CR is an appealing one on the surface. But it only works if monsters are limited to the same sorts of abilities as PCs. Once you start adding wonky abilities, like the beholder's eye rays or the mind flayer's blast, you wind up in a position where you once again have a creature whose CR cannot equal its HD.



Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit.



> For example, part of the problem with Turn Undead (one of many, admittedly), was the ridiculous CR/HD ratio for the large skeletons and zombies. The Holy Word line of spells also became quite wonky, frequently hitting the BBEG (if of a caster persuasion) harder than his (melee) minions.



That's why turn undead should've been based on CR, not HD. The designers failed to realize that undead's HD are generally WAY higher than their CR (especially skeletons and zombies), and they were lazy - instead of looking at whether or not the system worked, they just ported the old one over, made it work with the new mechanics, and let it go at that. So we ended up with a system that requires you to look up your result on a chart, is totally different than the normal resolution mechanic (making a roll vs. a DC), and is horribly unbalanced.



> Rogues can't make multiple attacks (3e)
> Wizards can't cast more than one spell in a round (3e)
> Spellcasters can't blast all day (Warlock)
> Rogues can't sneak attack undead (Skullclan Hunter)
> ...



But would if be balanced? Would it be fun for the other players? I mean, come on - look at the above list, and tell us exactly how many of those are balanced.



> It makes HD based mechanics (see Holy Word, 3ed Turn Undead) work. It makes monsters as characters doable. It makes polymorph and summoning easier.



While I agree that unifying mechanics are the way to go, the examples you use above DON'T work, precisely _because_ they're HD-based checks. This goes back to my argument that HD != CR (take note here, Klaus - this is another reason why it can't be done).



> ... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.



Finally! Thank you - I'm glad someone is willing to point out the DM's role as arbiter of "What's good in the campaign". The designers can't cover every single loophole - all they can do is design it the best they can, close the most obvious ones, make sure their mechanics work with the core and with any other systems they're including in that book (like if you're using PrC X from book Y), and ship it. If JoeBob the player find some loophole that he can exploit by combining PrC X from a WotC book and PrC Y from some third-party book, it's not the designer's fault - he couldn't possibly have foreseen it. OTOH, the designers DO let badly designed crap through; but it's still the DM's job as arbiter to say "Sure, this is okay," or "Oh HELL no."



> That's why I would much rather see ECL or a modified HD that allows for 1 HD = 1 ECL regardless of type. since we already have HD that can vary, it's not that much of a stretch to say 1 animal HD = 3d6 for the purposes of ECL/CR calculation. Give me rules that work the same for everybody, and a set of rules that don't and I'm sure I can show you that it's a lot harder to accidentally create Pun-Puns in the first system, assuming reasonably intelligent design.



Why not just do LA like NWN does - it ignores racial HD (I, personally, assumed their were already factored into the LA calculation) and adds the LA to your character level. So, a mind flayer Sor 9 would be ECL 16 (though technically, it should be at least 17, since LA, IMO, should never be less than CR).



> In other words, make it possible to add hit points (for instance) without adding a whole truckload of unrelated abilities. Which, actually, makes advancing monsters simpler, faster, and more elegant, which is what a lot of 4e is going for.



You can do that already - Toughness feats (which I hope they're going to make worthwhile, BTW...). Or, like Klaus said, just boost the Con score (which is a more elegant solution.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Mouse is right. HD=CR is great for creatures with few or no SLA or Su abilities, but once you start stacking those on, its CR is going to exceed its HD by quite a bit.




SLAs and SU abilities don't need to mess with CR/HD ratios any.  Look at wizards and clerics, they have *tons* of the things.  Available spell *levels* need to be tied to HD closely if you want a CR=HD system, but the existance of the abilities poses no problem.  If you make "abberation" into an actual *class* by design, with talents, one of the talents would be: choose 1 spell of a level=level/2, round up.  You can use this ability 1/encounter.  You'd also get an array of lower level abilities somewhat a la Leadership.  Drop the SLA level by 1 to get at will, increase level by 1 to get 1/day.  A beholder would take this a few times (beholders aren't in the SRD and I'm AFB, so no more details).  Turning the SLAs into ranged attacks would be a standard option.

(An ogre would be giant 3: giant 1 talent giving Powerfull build for medium sized creatures, giant 2 gives "brute 1", +4 str, +2 con, prereq powerful build med, giant 3 giving size large, prereq powerful build med or something similar)


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... Heck, the very existence of Pun-Pun indicates that 3E's strongly mechanistic philosophy isn't enough to stop loopholes popping up. So you might as well make explicit the DM's role as final arbiter, rather than assuming a super-intricate ruleset will make such problems disappear.




Agreed.  I don't think that these fundamental problems will be solved in 4e.  They'll just transform into new, unforeseen issues that might not become blatantly obvious until thousands of gamers tear the system apart.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will mean, just like it has from 1st edition, that the DM will have to step in and flex his muscles.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2007)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...)
> 
> If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble.  Other games do it, why not D&D?  In fact, I think --historically-- a lot of D&D's problems come from making a bunch of independent rules sets and glomming them together later on.  This new philosophy might sound cool now, but when stuff meshes awkwardly later on, it could cause a lot of unexpected headaches and pun-puns.



It will only become an awkward mess if the rules for designing monsters are not internally consistent. Even in 3rd editions, there are still some considerable differences between monster creation and character creation. 
Character classes do not map 1:1 to monster types. They are also absolutely not balanced against each other (compare Fey HD to Undead HD to Dragon HD.). Ability score generation is based on some rough guidelines (since 3.x, not before) (there are only rules how to change them when advancing/resizing a monster).
None of these differences make it anyway easier to create or advance monsters compared to creating or advancing PCs. You still have to distribute feats and skill points. Determining the CR is guesswork. If you want to create your own monster with spell-like abilities, the guidelines leave you entirely alone, and you can only hope that your experience with PC creation (and balance) will port over to monster creation (I know for certain that some adventure designers didn't even get so far...)


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It will only become an awkward mess if the rules for designing monsters are not internally consistent. Even in 3rd editions, there are still some considerable differences between monster creation and character creation.
> Character classes do not map 1:1 to monster types. They are also absolutely not balanced against each other (compare Fey HD to Undead HD to Dragon HD.). Ability score generation is based on some rough guidelines (since 3.x, not before) (there are only rules how to change them when advancing/resizing a monster).
> None of these differences make it anyway easier to create or advance monsters compared to creating or advancing PCs. You still have to distribute feats and skill points. Determining the CR is guesswork. If you want to create your own monster with spell-like abilities, the guidelines leave you entirely alone, and you can only hope that your experience with PC creation (and balance) will port over to monster creation (I know for certain that some adventure designers didn't even get so far...)




You could *make* 4ed types map 1:1 to character classes, with Fey being closer to spell casters and monstrous humanoids fighter types.  The end result would probably be about/slightly better than 3ed Magic Item creation guidelines (it would also be great with the DI, taking too much room to fit in the MM proper).  Decently designed monsters in the system would then fit perfectly with the multiclassing rules.  Poor design, or deliberately different design (glass cannons) would cause issues, but then, having a basic rule set where things work if you take a modicum of care is about the best you can get in an RPG with home-brews anyways.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 27, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You could *make* 4ed types map 1:1 to character classes, with Fey being closer to spell casters and monstrous humanoids fighter types.  The end result would probably be about/slightly better than 3ed Magic Item creation guidelines (it would also be great with the DI, taking too much room to fit in the MM proper).  Decently designed monsters in the system would then fit perfectly with the multiclassing rules.  Poor design, or deliberately different design (glass cannons) would cause issues, but then, having a basic rule set where things work if you take a modicum of care is about the best you can get in an RPG with home-brews anyways.




I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).

I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).




I'm not touching the polymorph issue with a proverbial 10 ft. pole, except to say, I wait with baited breath to see how this is addressed.  Because the only versions of shapechanging I've ever seen that worked properly were in HERO and M&M.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.




And yet, for a fair number of people, it IS necessary.  By leaving it out, you exclude those people, whereas by including it you exclude no one.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I think that's where some of us disagree. Some of us don't see "weird monsters" as poor design since in our view they're not SUPPOSED to be designed with the background of "This monster needs to make sense in the case of a player wanting to use it via polymorph or as a race).
> 
> I can see the appeal of "monsters" with a basic guideline that maps to PCs but for a fair number of people, that is an unnecessary since they don't see monsters as possible PC choices.




Wierd monsters, as I mean it, is like the 3ed, pre-Mearls Ogre Magi.  In general, they run really, really poorly.  Either they have vast (albeit possibly overly specialized) defenses, and no offense (Drow), or 1 huge attack with nothing to back it up (Ogre Magi's Cone of Cold).  If you make the offense/defense ratio too wonky, monsters don't just become impossible to PCify (or summoning/polymorph balance), they become extremely hard to use as a DM.  There is a place for them, but they should be exceptions to the rule.  Have a codified system to create most monsters (which will then be reliably usable) and include some more heavily modified ones with warnings to the DM to be careful in their use.

The existence of "unbalanced" monsters doesn't mean you don't want a system to create "balanced" monsters.  It just means you occaisonally bend that system more than usual, and you are doing it *knowing* you are leaving the system behind, and entering uncharted territories.

Note that "monster creation rules as class levels" would include things like "choose a lvl X spell as a spell like ability, used at will".  Like the 3ed Magic Item design guidelines, the rules wouldn't be flawless.  Skill would still go into using them, and monsters would look quite different.  But designing monsters as if each Type were a class would tie monster creation in with the multi-classing rules, making monster advancement, PCification, cross-breeding etc... much easier.  Crossbreeding as racial multiclassing, sounds like fun!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Aug 27, 2007)

Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 27, 2007)

Actually, I totally agree with Mike Mearls. The whole notion that monster should follow the same rules as players sounds great on paper. And from a player's perspective it is pretty cool.

But from a DM's perspective its a nightmare. Oh sure, as a DM you can just give a monster any stats you like, but then there is the whole feeling that you are somehow "cheating" if you don't properly build the monster by the rules.

3.5 is vastly superior to 1e and 2e as a ruleset, but I remember in 2e being able to run entire campaigns on the fly because everything I needed to run a monster was right there in the monster manual entry. I didn't need to go lookup half a dozen abilities and feats. And if I did change monster stats on the fly, I didn't have this strange feeling that I was violating some unspoken taboo by not following the proper monster advancement system.

I have always felt that having monsters operate the same way as characters was a result of a miniatures or wargame mentality that pits the players in opposition to the DM. 3e always feels like the DM has his "warband" balanced by CR and EL vs. the PCs. And I hate that.

It seems like the designers for 4e have realized that a good roleplaying session is not about the DM and the players against each other, but rather the DM and the players working together to have fun and tell a great story. As such it is a great thing when the DM is free to treat monsters as story elements and not feel like he has to field his 200 point warband against the players 200 point warband or the encounter won't be "balanced".


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 27, 2007)

> Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.




Nice! This reminds me a lot of Spycraft 2.0. It looks like the GM will decide the role he wants the monster to play in a battle, and that determines the appropriate modifiers.

I like this a lot.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 27, 2007)

If it does work like the spycraft method, I can see where the quote of "players will find every monster mysterious" comes from.

If monsters are a collection of special abilities added to a template, a player couldn't figure out easily what the stats for a monster would be.

It would also explain how each monster is classified into a certain role and how that is mechanically expressed.

Interesting.....this would make random monsters pretty easy and allow for DMs to use an ogre as a beastie from level 1-30 without even having to "level up" thus it be easier/quicker.

Raises other questions though. Spycraft doesn't really have "exotic" monsters so how would this template work for some like a illithid or a beholder?


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.




The more I think about it, the more disappointed I become.  Bleh.

The big problem in DnD monster design in 3ed, like previous editions, is in special abilites (be they ex, su, sla or spells).  What the design blogs have been talking about is the easy stuff.  The BaB.  The hp.  The AC.  Those numbers are easy.  You can have a lookup table, or a racial type HD progression.  It doesn't matter.  If you are boasting about getting them right, its pathetic.  Its not like 3ed didn't get them right (the combat bruisers are well CRed).

The problem with the Type system in 3ed is that the HD aren't treated fully like class levels.  Or rather, they are treated like NPC class levels: all empty.  If you decided to *elaborate* on 3ed's Type treatement by making the Ex/SLA/SU abilities into D20 modern style talent trees, it would fix the problems.  It would also make PCification of monsters easy (just use the normal multi-classing rules).  It would make monster advancement easy.  It would make monster cross-breeding easy.  It would make monster *design* easy because the HARD stuff (the special abilities) would be built in.  BaB?  HP?  AC?  Saves?  feh.  If your system *doesn't* get them right, its time to retire.

(and if you want monsters that break the rules, well, that poses no difficulty.  just be warned that balancing them will be far more difficult if possible at all.  the 3ed Ogre Magi really *cannot* be well CRed)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 27, 2007)

The main difference seems to me:

In 3e, stat out a monster then figure out its CR.
In 4e, decide what CR* you want then stat the monster out.

It can obviously be more complicated than that, but it seems to be the general philosophy of what they want to accomplish.


*CR being Monster Level, XP, or similar 4e system


----------



## DonTadow (Aug 27, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The more I think about it, the more disappointed I become.  Bleh.
> 
> The big problem in DnD monster design in 3ed, like previous editions, is in special abilites (be they ex, su, sla or spells).  What the design blogs have been talking about is the easy stuff.  The BaB.  The hp.  The AC.  Those numbers are easy.  You can have a lookup table, or a racial type HD progression.  It doesn't matter.  If you are boasting about getting them right, its pathetic.  Its not like 3ed didn't get them right (the combat bruisers are well CRed).
> 
> ...



But the abilities would somehow have to match or balance typical PC ones. 

You weaken your potential for monster design when you weaken it initially to try to accomodate something it was not intended to.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 27, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you decided to *elaborate* on 3ed's Type treatement by making the Ex/SLA/SU abilities into D20 modern style talent trees, it would fix the problems.  It would also make PCification of monsters easy (just use the normal multi-classing rules).  It would make monster advancement easy.  It would make monster cross-breeding easy.  It would make monster *design* easy because the HARD stuff (the special abilities) would be built in.




The worst kept secret of the Challenge Rating system is that PC classes are not CR = Level. It never worked. A Level 5 wizard opponent is not the same as a Level 5 rogue opponent. What you're proposing is ultimately doomed to a failure worse than either the 3e CR system or the 4e system.


----------



## Creamsteak (Aug 27, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Does this change any of the previous posters' thoughts on monsters in 4e and the soundness of the design philosophy thereof? Just curious.




I thought some of it sounded a bit silly.

"fairness and fun"
"fair and fun"
"fair and fun"
"great results"
"easier and more fair"

FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND FAIR AND FUN AND GREAT RESULTS AND EASIER AND MORE FAIR! DID I TELL YOU IT'S FUN? AND FAIR TOO!?!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The worst kept secret of the Challenge Rating system is that PC classes are not CR = Level. It never worked.




Especially given the fact that a PC and an NPC of the exact same class, race, and level would have many thousands-worth of GP difference in their equipment. That alone was enough to throw off the system. If a 6th-level PC was CR 6, then a 6th-level NPC couldn't be, and vice-versa.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 27, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions...



I was thinking this the other day and concluded that this is a desireable result of the 4e monster system (at least, given what I know of it    ).  

At the seminar I attended, Andy Collins said the assumed setting of 4e is "points of light in a dark world."  It sounds like it'll be a world of fear - no powerful kingdom of goodness and light is around to bail out civilization, and no great and benevolent archmage will appear to save the day.  Peasants and other hapless folk beset by savagery and unknown terrors, with only the PCs standing in the way.  At a game mechanics level, this theme of isolation and the unknown is reinforced by making monsters mechanically distinct from PCs - players will never really know the capabilities of the horrors their characters face.

We can argue over whether or not we want D&D to be like this, but I think it's a welcome game mechanics change that moves the theme of D&D closer to it's pulpy, sword & sorcery roots (Conan, Lankhmar, Elric, etc.).


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 27, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Boring and uninspiring... too much freedom is bad? It's better to want rules for monsters than to actually have them? Am I reading that right?



You'll have the rules for _monsters_. That is, _monsters _as _monsters_, not_ player characters.
_


----------



## Sernett (Aug 27, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Nice! This reminds me a lot of Spycraft 2.0. It looks like the GM will decide the role he wants the monster to play in a battle, and that determines the appropriate modifiers.
> 
> I like this a lot.




That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system. 

However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.

I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 27, 2007)

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> I thought some of it sounded a bit silly.
> 
> "fairness and fun"
> "fair and fun"
> ...




That was about the most irritating WOTC blog entry I've read so far (most of them I've enjoyed).  Monsters in 1e and 2e were... unfun?  Unfair?

Wow.  I guess my fun, fair games have been some kind of weird mishap all these decades.  Nice to have some guy who's probably younger than me and has played the original games less than me set me 'straight' about them.

The single most annoying thing about the WOTC communications is the self-congratulatory attitude most of them have.  I even get that from Mike Mearls sometimes, which is too bad because I think he's a sharp guy.  But I don't need any group to constantly tell me how smart they are.  I need them to _show_ me.


----------



## Abisashi (Aug 27, 2007)

Sernett said:
			
		

> Snip




Thanks for stopping by. I think that sounds excellent.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That was about the most irritating WOTC blog entry I've read so far (most of them I've enjoyed).  Monsters in 1e and 2e were... unfun?  Unfair?




It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair.  It's just that they were pretty much static.  And I really like OD&D, 1e, and 2e.  But I liked the feeling of freedom that I felt with 3e.  However, that freedom came at a price--it became much more difficult to just put together an adventure on the fly in 3e.  Not impossible, just more difficult.  So if 4e can keep that feeling of freedom and make things less complicated to run adventures on the fly, I'll be really happy to see that.


----------



## Shade (Aug 27, 2007)

Sernett said:
			
		

> I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.




Oh, bother.    

I know what it can do in the woods, but I'm not sure we'd want to explore that as a monster "role".


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 27, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair.  It's just that they were pretty much static.  And I really like OD&D, 1e, and 2e.  But I liked the feeling of freedom that I felt with 3e.  However, that freedom came at a price--it became much more difficult to just put together an adventure on the fly in 3e.  Not impossible, just more difficult.  So if 4e can keep that feeling of freedom and make things less complicated to run adventures on the fly, I'll be really happy to see that.




I appreciate that point.  I just thought that Mr. Sernett was claiming too much in his blog:



			
				Matthew Sernett said:
			
		

> We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).




Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

Sernett said:
			
		

> That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.
> 
> However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.
> 
> I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.




So in monster design, you are taking the numbers and abilities at the end (choosing hp/AC/damage etc... based on the target level, and choosing a few abilities from column A and maybe some from column B)?  While this will shave some *seconds* off of stating up something from a "Type class progression" where you take your target level (which exists in both systems) and taking your abilities from columns A and B, it removes the ability to interface with the multiclassing system.  (if you aren't choosing abilities from columns A and B, you loose any monster flavor, if columns A and B don't exist, you lose any claim of powerlevel design).

Having type based "class progressions" (with different choices) allows for easy templating (rather than 1 half-dragon template with its LA evilness, you could mix 1, 2, 3, 7 or maybe 15 levels of "dragon" with your normal class or racial levels).  It allows for easy PCification.  It still allows for easy monster design and advancement.  In fact, for the more complicated (non-brutish) monsters, its probably *faster* for anything but the barest bones result as the grunt work goes into the talent trees.


----------



## Abisashi (Aug 27, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So in monster design, you are taking the numbers and abilities at the end (choosing hp/AC/damage etc... based on the target level, and choosing a few abilities from column A and maybe some from column B)?  While this will shave some *seconds* off of stating up something from a "Type class progression" where you take your target level (which exists in both systems) and taking your abilities from columns A and B, it removes the ability to interface with the multiclassing system.  (if you aren't choosing abilities from columns A and B, you loose any monster flavor, if columns A and B don't exist, you lose any claim of powerlevel design).
> 
> Having type based "class progressions" (with different choices) allows for easy templating (rather than 1 half-dragon template with its LA evilness, you could mix 1, 2, 3, 7 or maybe 15 levels of "dragon" with your normal class or racial levels).  It allows for easy PCification.  It still allows for easy monster design and advancement.  In fact, for the more complicated (non-brutish) monsters, its probably *faster* for anything but the barest bones result as the grunt work goes into the talent trees.




Compare what he proposes with statting up an NPC in 3e; to me 4e sounds like it saves much more than a few seconds. Is your suggestion not analogous to 3e NPC creation? If not, could you clarify the difference?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.



Part of the unfairness was a monster could be worth 1000s of XP more for a few trivial spell like abilites than some thuggish monster with lots of damage and AC. Giants vs. minor demons for example


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 27, 2007)

Sernett said:
			
		

> That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification. If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.
> 
> However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.
> 
> I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.




Interesting. I have some comments in my other thread on having monsters be Spcyraft 2.0 style:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205626


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 27, 2007)

Abisashi said:
			
		

> Compare what he proposes with statting up an NPC in 3e; to me 4e sounds like it saves much more than a few seconds. Is your suggestion not analogous to 3e NPC creation? If not, could you clarify the difference?




Monster or NPC creation?
The main difference between 3ed and my suggestion is that in 3ed, the type HD have no special abilities linked to them.  So the special abilities (the hard part of monster design, basic stats are easy) are done ad hoc.  This is part of the reason why LA exists (and sucks).

Now, both the design team and my suggestions differ not in the amount of choices made, but the order.  (remember, the fact that a goblin shaman and a goblin warrior and a goblin rogue are in the MM is a matter of MM inflation, and does not reflect on the design procedure).  I want the relationship of each HD to the abilities gained to be made clear.  This allows one to tie monster design and usage into the multiclassing system.  But the choices made in the design process are the *same*.  Its just that you *know* that the "large" size category came form the talent choice at lvl 3, the SLA blah came from the talent choice at lvl Y.  Because the choices are the same, the time is the same.

Except, perhaps, that I'd like some more precision made.  In 3ed, facing a mage, you know that 1 good dispell magic will drop a lot of defenses.  Facing a fighter, you know you have good odds that sunder/disarm will bypass a lot of his feats.  Because the numbers have *provenance*, you can choose your tactics to match.  Does this matter for NPC really?  Well, what if your players succesfully negotiate with the goblins to jointly raid the kobolds.  Does the goblin shaman's AC include Mage Armor (or any other source for an armor bonus to AC)?  Can you help him by buffing him?  Can you hurt him by debuffing him?  Are there problems if you wait out the duration?  (I know that some of these questions are probably made moot in 4th, but other questions will arise).

Of course, precision in these matters is also complexity.  Which makes design take longer.  Trade-offs...


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 27, 2007)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> It's not that monsters in 1e and 2e were unfun or unfair.  It's just that they were pretty much static.



It's not that monsters in past editions could not be modified, or scaled, it's that it was only illustrated in the various adventures rather than in the DMG or the MM, so the "art" of monster modification wasn't always obvious from the information in the rulebooks.

I'm thinking that 4D&D will attempt to combine the best of both worlds: the freedom to modify monsters from past editions with the systemization sensibilities of the 3e/d20 era.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 27, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.



Well, it kind of makes me think of the catoblepas.  There was a monster that was designed to hose the PCs.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 27, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, it kind of makes me think of the catoblepas.  There was a monster that was designed to hose the PCs.



It was a monster Gary Gygax found described in a medieval bestiary. He designed it in line with its "real" description.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 28, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It was a monster Gary Gygax found described in a medieval bestiary. He designed it in line with its "real" description.



Well, the cockatrice was said to have a poison breath and a poison glance.  It got nerfed down to merely turning you to stone if you touch it (save vs. petrification).  I also remember reading somewhere that the catoblepas was actually designed to hose his players, for whatever reason.  But even without that tidbit, it's clear that you can pick and choose which "real" abilities you port over to the game without modification, and which you bring into line with the desired power level.


----------



## IanB (Aug 28, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Kind of an eyebrow-raising statement in my opinion.




Maybe, but it is absolutely true.

What is fun or fair about the ear seeker? It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)

What is fun or fair about the rust monster or bodak? About the disenchanter? About any monster that inflicts permanent unfixable hp drain (there were several of these in the old days)?

Mind you, this is not a problem that 3E is immune to, but most of the unfair/unfun 3E monsters are legacy entries from the old days.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 28, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> Maybe, but it is absolutely true.
> 
> What is fun or fair about the ear seeker? It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the ear seeker.  Good example.  I suppose that rot grubs and green slime also fall into a similar category of things that are put there to wreck the party without much warning.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> What is fun or fair about the ear seeker?



To make the players cautious and not take things for granted. As a player, circumventing unknown hazards is thrilling. Occasionally, you'll take your lumps, but those are usually the most memorable of the whole session.


> It is a monster specifically constructed to hose an effective tactic (listening at doors.)



It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the ear seeker.  Good example.  I suppose that rot grubs and green slime also fall into a similar category of things that are put there to wreck the party without much warning.



They only wreck rash and incautious parties.


----------



## IanB (Aug 28, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> To make the players cautious and not take things for granted. As a player, circumventing unknown hazards is thrilling. Occasionally, you'll take your lumps, but those are usually the most memorable of the whole session.
> 
> It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?




But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.

Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.

It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.


----------



## Grog (Aug 28, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.
> 
> Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.




Not only that, avoiding ear seekers required metagaming on the part of the PCs. If their characters didn't know about them, there's no reason they should have feared listening at doors. And if they didn't metagame, they ended up with a dead PC.

They really were terribly designed monsters.


----------



## Grog (Aug 28, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's a monster that evolved in the dungeon environment to take advantage of how common ears are pressed up against doors/panels, etc. It's a logical extension of the game environment to monster evolution. Is dungeon ecology only good when it doesn't present a hazard to the players?




So ears being pressed up against doors in this dungeon where the ear seekers live was a common enough occurrence to become a factor in an evolutionary process that probably took thousands of years?

Come on. That's ridiculous. Just how much traffic does this dungeon get? Is it the local equivalent of Disneyland?


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 28, 2007)

Mr. Sernett seems to be claiming that "often" 1e monsters were unfun and/or unfair.  I think that would be a preposterous claim.  That's right: preposterous.

Or does "often" just mean "a couple of times"?  Then we're speaking Politician instead of English.

As to the specific examples, the catoblepas is a mythological monster and not at all out of line: medusas have killer gazes, too.  The ear seeker, well, I've never used one (actually, I don't think I've used the catoblepas either but I could be wrong on that).  I consider that monster to be simply one of those amusing "gotcha" monsters that you might use under certain circumstances.  Ear seekers should probably not be placed by the DM if his player group are a bunch of sobersides who never laugh or smile.  Definitely a joke monster.  But jokes can be fun with the right group (although the ear seeker is one of the few monsters I can think of off hand that really is "unfair" - that is, in fact, the joke, as far as I can tell).


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> But look what it creates for players - it doesn't encourage caution; it just gives them a no-win situation.
> 
> Listen at doors? Get attacked by ear seekers. *Don't* listen at doors? Get ambushed by whatever you were trying to hear in the first place.



You need to read the "Gaming with Gygax" thread in the General Discussion forum. Ear seekers were avoided by employing an ear trumpet by the skilled and expereienced players in the group. 


> It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.



There's nothing adversarial about creating a hazardous environment for the players/characters to interact with. That is part and parcel of adventuring, particularly in a dungeon environment.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Aug 28, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So ears being pressed up against doors in this dungeon where the ear seekers live was a common enough occurrence to become a factor in an evolutionary process that probably took thousands of years?
> 
> Come on. That's ridiculous. Just how much traffic does this dungeon get? Is it the local equivalent of Disneyland?



In the game universe of D&D, dungeons and dungeoneering adventure parties are a common element. Ear seekers evolved in this overall environment, not necessarily any given dungeon.

If that is not background you can live with . . . they were the byproducts of a mad wizard's experiments with incests gone horribly wrong.   

Either way, they are potential hazards to be encountered by those adventuring in a dungeon environment.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 28, 2007)

Sernett said:
			
		

> That's not quite right. Monsters will be designed for their most likely use. Many monsters will have several different stat blocks for different monster uses (something like goblin warrior vs. goblin shaman vs. goblin assassin). That way a DM can use the monster (or a group of the monsters with members of the group having different capabilities) right out of the gate without any need for modification.




How is this different than if the Monster Manual was designed with the design sensibilities of MM IV? Heck, how is it different than if the GM just uses a different monster from the core MM to fill those roles now?

And will monsters just be blocks now? If A, B, and C are 'brutes', will it just be an interchange of names? "Man, those orc berserkers fought a lot like those troll berserkers who fought a lot like those ogre berserkers who seemed really similiar to those minotaur ragers!" 




			
				Sernett said:
			
		

> If you want to make a tougher version of the monster, there might already be one or more provided for you to use (and there might be more resources online or in future products that provide tougher versions), you might give the monster a class, or you might advance the monster and just make it tougher by hitting results in the target ranges for the level you're aiming for, based on that system.




And I don't see any difference than how this is now. Heck, now there are a lot of ways ranging from old Dungeonscape's suggestion of changing feats, skills, default equipment to adding levels and templates.




			
				Sernett said:
			
		

> However, in theory you could take a monster and repurpose it entirely. Lot's of game elements are works in progress at this point, but I think you'll be able to do that. What I mean is, you could theoretically take the stats for the bear, which we'd probably define as a "brute," and strip those away, leaving just the powers that make the numbers feal "beary." Then you could slap the numbers for a different combat role onto the bear. If you did this, your new bear would likely need some additional powers to make if fully suit its new role. For example, the bear's brutish hug-you-to-death power might not suit its new role as artillery unless you give the bear an artillery power.
> 
> I suggest vomitting molten honey which deals fire damage and roots foes in place with stickiness. What else could it do? Think, think, think.




But how will this last part be 'easier' for the GM? And how will the system accomidate this in terms of XP?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 28, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And will monsters just be blocks now? If A, B, and C are 'brutes', will it just be an interchange of names? "Man, those orc berserkers fought a lot like those troll berserkers who fought a lot like those ogre berserkers who seemed really similiar to those minotaur ragers!"




This was specifically addressed by Andy Collins at the GenCon seminar. The monster "roles" are a basic building block, but they're all individual creatures. (He used ettins, and their "separate heads and two rounds of actions" gimmick as an example.)


----------



## BryonD (Aug 28, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This was specifically addressed by Andy Collins at the GenCon seminar. The monster "roles" are a basic building block, but they're all individual creatures. (He used ettins, and their "separate heads and two rounds of actions" gimmick as an example.)



Am I understanding it correctly that it would be in the right ballpark to say that there are 10 - 12 basic blocks and each monster is like a template to apply on top of the basic block?


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 28, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> It is perhaps the single best example of adversarial design, where the DM and the players are set up as opponents - and the other things I listed fall into this category in my opinion. If I wanted to go through all my old OD&D/AD&D/basic/expert etc. stuff, I'm sure I could extend the list greatly.



qft. I'm certainly glad we've left that kind of game design far behind.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 28, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Am I understanding it correctly that it would be in the right ballpark to say that there are 10 - 12 basic blocks and each monster is like a template to apply on top of the basic block?




Not really sure, though I suppose that's one possibility.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't think thats how they are doing it, but it would be cool if they were doing it that way. 

Having say a "brute" role and then giving it stats (BAB, saves, Defense) from levels 1 to 30 would potentially make the game very flexible. You could just slap on a statless monster template and bam you have a monster suitable to challenge a party at any level.

This would also have the added benefit of making polymorph more viable. Monsters should be nothing more than statless templates, and stats should come entirely from a role coupled with a challenge level.

That way, if a player casts polymorph they just temporarily take on that creatures template while retaining their own stats. Could still be some issues with some creatures, but it makes the spell much easier to balance.

There are a huge number of benefits to doing a system like this which I posted in another thread. For one thing it would render the need to advance monsters, or give them class levels, or equip them with magic, as totally unnecessary. I just look up the stats for level 20 brute, slap on the ogre template and I'm good to go.

It looks like WotC is doing something similar but not quite as scalable out of the box. For example, it seems like they will have different versions of the ogre, prebuilt with the most applicable roles. They will have an ogre "brute" and may have an "ogre" shaman (or magi  ), for example. Likely at a preset challenge level.

WotC posters also keep referring to having the monster fit the target numbers desired for a given challenge level, which implies to me that they will at least provide us with the modifiers a monster of a given challenge level should have. I hope they aren't using some secret formula that DMs like me will have to reverse engineer to design our own critters and encounters.

For example, I'm hoping that in the 4e MM or DMG, WotC just comes right out and says that a "brute" (or whatever role) monster of challenge level X should have this BAB, these saves, and this AC in order to be an appropriate and "fun" challenge for a PC of level X.

This way we know exactly what kind of range the monster's numbers need to be in for the role that monster will play. Then we can pick from the prebuilt monsters in the MM, or better yet, be able to build or advance our own by taking a base monster template and then simply upping their modifiers to be appropriate for the desired challenge level.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 29, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I don't think thats how they are doing it, but it would be cool if they were doing it that way.
> 
> Having say a "brute" role and then giving it stats (BAB, saves, Defense) from levels 1 to 30 would potentially make the game very flexible. You could just slap on a statless monster template and bam you have a monster suitable to challenge a party at any level.




To expand on this a bit, I imagine that the monster template would be given as a progression from the monster's starting level up to level 30 and have a list of powers, and that you'd select the top 3 or 5 powers on the list when you apply the template.  So a low-level bear would be a brute with the bear template, and would get "bear hug", while a high-level bear would be a brute as well, but would get "greater bear hug", which would overwrite the instance of "bear hug" lower down.  

The entire process of readying a monster for play (assuming it's not one of the ready made monsters) would involve choosing a role, finding the stats for its level in a standard table, and applying the "finishing touches" of a template.  Level 9 ettin?  Choose brute, find level 9 stats, apply "two heads, two rounds of actions" to the brute.  Done.

I like the sound of it--at least the way I've framed it.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 29, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> To expand on this a bit, I imagine that the monster template would be given as a progression from the monster's starting level up to level 30 and have a list of powers, and that you'd select the top 3 or 5 powers on the list when you apply the template.  So a low-level bear would be a brute with the bear template, and would get "bear hug", while a high-level bear would be a brute as well, but would get "greater bear hug", which would overwrite the instance of "bear hug" lower down.
> 
> The entire process of readying a monster for play (assuming it's not one of the ready made monsters) would involve choosing a role, finding the stats for its level in a standard table, and applying the "finishing touches" of a template.  Level 9 ettin?  Choose brute, find level 9 stats, apply "two heads, two rounds of actions" to the brute.  Done.
> 
> I like the sound of it--at least the way I've framed it.




Except that the way you described it doesn't really work.  "2 heads, 2 rounds" is vastly more powerful than "bear hug".  In 3e terms, its about a 1 CR difference.  As noted before, raw stats is easy (although losing the provenance of the stats is extremely problematic, which might be gotten around by having "weapon skill" brute, and "strength brute" and a few different "magic buffed brute" listings).  Its the special abilities that differentiate the monsters, and its the special abilities that are really hard to get right.  To be at the same level as an ettin, a bear would need much better stats.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 29, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Except that the way you described it doesn't really work.  "2 heads, 2 rounds" is vastly more powerful than "bear hug".  In 3e terms, its about a 1 CR difference.  As noted before, raw stats is easy (although losing the provenance of the stats is extremely problematic, which might be gotten around by having "weapon skill" brute, and "strength brute" and a few different "magic buffed brute" listings).  Its the special abilities that differentiate the monsters, and its the special abilities that are really hard to get right.  To be at the same level as an ettin, a bear would need much better stats.



So throw an adjustment on the template.  It reads "an ettin is a +1 CR monster."  So if you want a 9th level ettin, you apply the template to an 8th level brute.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 29, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So throw an adjustment on the template.  It reads "an ettin is a +1 CR monster."  So if you want a 9th level ettin, you apply the template to an 8th level brute.




And sometimes that will work.  Othertimes, with other abilites, like 3ed's LA, it will result in Ogre Magi.  If you have enough prerequisites in to avoid Ogre Magidom, you might as well do a full-blown level-by-level advancement anyways (because you *are*, in all but name).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And though monsters and NPC's can be plot points, they serve at LEAST three roles that, IMO, should be kept in mind: they're setting elements, they're adversaries, and they're allies. Any monster that can't be all three is giving me a third (or more) less bang for my stat block buck.
> <snip>
> If something exists as a setting element, as an independent object in the game world, the only thing that should define my choice of which side of the screen it gets to be on should be my choice as a DM. Any other choice, and you're hurting my utility at least, and my verisimilitude at worst.
> <snip>
> Yes, PC's are complex while monsters are generally simple. But I should be able to shake hands with the mindflayer and invite him to adventure with us without his psionic powers being crippled as if I had the Black Death.



It is very clear that monster stats in 4E will read the same as PC stats, in that they will consist of numbers allocated to the same categories, and having the same meaning within those categories. The difference will be in the way those numbers are worked out (and I don’t mean "worked out in the gameworld" – which comes from magic, which from natural armour etc; I mean "worked out at the metagame level", by application of the game rules): PCs will be built level-by-level, following rules for feat and talent selection and magic item acquisition, while monsters will be built according to a system of allocating a given set of numbers to fill a particular role at a particular challenge level.

Therefore, there will be no reason at all why the Mind Flayer can’t joint the party. But the way its stats have been built will mean that there will be no completely straightforward way of comparing it to a PC build to work out what level of PC it is.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'see, I see this less as a "Monsters and PCs must have the same abilities available to them", as I see it as a "Monsters and PCs are built in the same way, but with different blocks".



In fact it will be the opposite: monsters and PCs will be built with the same blocks (6 attributes, BAB, hit points, skill bonuses etc), but the build process will be very different.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are at least two questions here. First, should the system tell you what effect a given Rope Use bonus has on challenge level? Yes it should, and it is clear that the aim of the 4e designers is to produce a system that gives these answers (admittedly they seem to be focusing most on combat challenges, but they have also talked about social challenges, and I’m sure the rules will say something about the sorts of “survival” challenges that might bring Rope Use into play).

Second, will the centaur stats in the Monster Manual enable you to derive a rope use bonus? Well, the centaur will have a Dex bonus and skill bonuses, so you’ll be able to look and see. But if the centaur is being presented as filling the role of brute or archer (as seems likely), then the absence of any Rope Use skill can easily be seen as metagame information economy – there is no need to include a Rope Use skill bonus to enable the centaur to play either of those roles – and would not, as far as I can see, preclude the GM from attributing such a bonus to the centaur should the issue come up and need to be resolved.

What considerations would guide the GM in making that decision? The same ones, presumably, as would guide the GM in deciding whether the NPC wizard should have access to 2nd or 3rd level spells – in particular, How competent do I want to make this centaur as an antagonist for my players to have to deal with?

If what you want is a system that models the in-game growth of a creature, so you can look at a centaur’s stats, from them read off its degree of in-game experience, and therefore work out how many skill points it has free to assign to Rope Use, 4e will not give you what you want. It is becoming very clear that the only game element whose stats will be derived in this fashion is the PC. For NPCs and monsters, it is the GM who decides (not the rules) how experienced or capable they are, and then (following the challenge-building guidelines) assigns stats that are appropriate.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> In my vision of the rules, a beholder would have to be rebuilt from the gorund up. In a point based system, that thing, in a fantasy campaign, would probably costs hundreds of points to create. A very powerful entity not appropriate for most campaigns (pretty much as it stands now... something like ELC 10+ no?)
> Having rules that work would eliminate the need to make things work differently.





			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if those who feel that monsters =! PCs would ever play a game where that's just inherently true like Hero, BESM, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, etc... and if their stance is just, "For D&D...".



I don’t know BESM or M&M, but the difference between D&D on the one hand, and Hero and GURPS on the other, is that D&D is not a points-buy system. It is a highly focused class-level system, where every level gives increases in combat ability, hit points, skill bonuses etc. Therefore, if monsters are to be built the same as PCs they must be stuck with the same correlations. This makes it hard to build (for example) large but unskilled monsters (which 3e allows, by giving the creature a high Constitution rather than many hit dice), because their many hit points mean that their hit points and skill bonuses are out of whack compared to the appropriate ratio for PC classes.

Points buy systems introduce more flexibility in this respect, but at the price of losing the focus that is part and parcel of D&D.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Beholders/Ogre Magi etc... are examples of poorly designed monsters (glass cannons).  If you want to use such a system, you would have to design your monsters for it (no 1hp, disintegrate CL 30 at will monsters), which means that the offense and defense of a given creature would have to correlate reasonably well



They are poorly designed only if you think that keeping attack and defence closely correlated is a design goal. It is for PCs. I don’t see why it is for monsters. NPC wizards in 1st ed essentially fit this description, and they don’t make for poor opponents.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> This is actually something we talked about at the office on Friday. In some games, it makes tons of sense for monsters/opponents to use the same exact rules as PCs.
> <snip>
> In D&D, the two sides aren't equivalent. Monsters are supposed to be scary, weird, and unknown. It's more like Call of Cthulhu than Champions, and I doubt anyone would claim that CoC monsters should be built in the exact same way as characters.





			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> To say that D&D is closer to Lovecraftian horror than it is to four-color supers runs completely counter to my experience of the game in novels, in electronic games, in artwork, and in actual play.



I agree with Moogle on this point. I think there are good arguments for going the 4e route on monster design, but Cthulhu-esque flavour is not really one of them.



			
				Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> What I would like to know is this:  From a DM's perspective, will a DM be able to take a given monster and add PC class levels to it fairly easily in 4th Edition?  If I have a dragon, a beholder, an ettin, or an umber hulk... Will it be easy enough for the DM to add levels of fighter or wizard or cleric to it?





			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The main difference seems to me:
> In 3e, stat out a monster then figure out its CR.
> In 4e, decide what CR* you want then stat the monster out.



Exactly right. And this goes to the issue of balance. Balance for monsters is _different_ from balance for PCs.

In D&D PCs are balanced by being built according to the same logic of purchasing stats, then earning class levels which confer talents, feats, hp, BAB and skills. The balance in PC design, therefore, is in making sure all these options produce (approximately) equally playable characters in a D&D game (where combat capability is a big part of playability).

The balance for monsters is in having proper rules for measuring challenge, so that the allocation of XPs for overcoming challenges is fair.

It is possible, therefore, to have a balanced monster (in the sense of a monster whose challenge level, and thus XPs granted, is fair given its abilities) which would not be a balanced PC (because it can’t be generated out of a balanced system of purchasing stats, then gaining levels and thereby acquiring feats etc).



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Part of the unfairness [in old editions] was a monster could be worth 1000s of XP more for a few trivial spell like abilites than some thuggish monster with lots of damage and AC. Giants vs. minor demons for example



Exactly right. Balanced monster building rules will correct this. This is what 4e seems to be aiming at.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Actually, I totally agree with Mike Mearls. The whole notion that monster should follow the same rules as players sounds great on paper. And from a player's perspective it is pretty cool.
> But from a DM's perspective its a nightmare.
> <snip>
> I have always felt that having monsters operate the same way as characters was a result of a miniatures or wargame mentality that pits the players in opposition to the DM.



Agreed. If the goal of the game is PC vs PC, then monsters need to be build as PCs. But if the goal of the game is PC vs challenges, then the monster rules need to very accurately assign challenge levels to a given set of monster stats, but do not need to enable those stats to be generated by way of a PC build process.



			
				Samnell said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that "monster-only" or "NPC-only" abilities are pretty much inherently abusive anyway. They break the social compact of the game. It's fudging the dice in the monsters' favor by another name.



It only breaks the “social compact” if the social compact is that the game is to play as PC vs PC (where the GM controls one party of PCs). But the goal of 4e will be PC vs challenges. So monster-only or NPC-only abilities will not be abusive, provided that the XP rewards for overcoming them are commensurate to the challenge they pose.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> And sometimes that will work.  Othertimes, with other abilites, like 3ed's LA, it will result in Ogre Magi.  If you have enough prerequisites in to avoid Ogre Magidom, you might as well do a full-blown level-by-level advancement anyways (because you *are*, in all but name).



But we're not talking about level adjustment.  We're talking about CR.  The problem with level adjustment was that it was a system that was tacked on to the CR system after the fact.  Even if a monster was a well-balanced challenge for a party of a given level, there's no reason to think that the monster would be well-balanced at any level as a PC.

The system I've been talking about is taking a creature--in the example it is a generic Brute--and adding a template onto it to make it into a specific monster.  Sometimes the template doesn't increase the CR (say, for an ogre), and other times it will (the ettin).  But since the template itself scales (for example, a low-level bear would get "hug" and a high level bear would get "greater hug"), it is designed from the beginning to be an even +X CR at every level.  If a medusa's petrifying gaze is a greater threat at lower levels than at higher ones, the template will need to have something else added at higher levels to maintain the same CR modifier.

Again, we're not talking about PCs at this point, and we're assuming that they design the system to scale properly.  An ogre mage won't have one really good ability and a few crappy ones, so putting that template on will be balanced at all levels, probably with a minimum level below which the template doesn't make sense--e.g. a medusa without petrification because the power is too powerful for low-level characters to face.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If what you want is a system that models the in-game growth of a creature, so you can look at a centaur’s stats, from them read off its degree of in-game experience, and therefore work out how many skill points it has free to assign to Rope Use, 4e will not give you what you want.



I don't know about that.  What if skills have been simplified to the point where you get two or three good ones, and then level-based defaults in all the other ones.  If the centaur has his two or three good skills defined, and Rope Use isn't one of them, then you know exactly what its Rope Use skill is because the system defines it in terms of the centaur's level or hit dice, and there's a table that lists Rope Use for all Xth level characters of the centaur's type.

I think that the process of simplification is going to turn out to be less "throwing out" stuff and more "working it into the system in a less clunky way".


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I like the sound of it--at least the way I've framed it.





LOL

They should let us all just define the game for ourself and print a copy of the book we wrote.

just kidding, of course and absolutely no offense.  But that phrase just made me chuckle.  I've had some damn good ideas myself and they just won't listen.


----------



## Kraydak (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> But we're not talking about level adjustment.  We're talking about CR.  The problem with level adjustment was that it was a system that was tacked on to the CR system after the fact.  Even if a monster was a well-balanced challenge for a party of a given level, there's no reason to think that the monster would be well-balanced at any level as a PC.
> 
> The system I've been talking about is taking a creature--in the example it is a generic Brute--and adding a template onto it to make it into a specific monster.  Sometimes the template doesn't increase the CR (say, for an ogre), and other times it will (the ettin).  But since the template itself scales (for example, a low-level bear would get "hug" and a high level bear would get "greater hug"), it is designed from the beginning to be an even +X CR at every level.  If a medusa's petrifying gaze is a greater threat at lower levels than at higher ones, the template will need to have something else added at higher levels to maintain the same CR modifier.
> 
> Again, we're not talking about PCs at this point, and we're assuming that they design the system to scale properly.  An ogre mage won't have one really good ability and a few crappy ones, so putting that template on will be balanced at all levels, probably with a minimum level below which the template doesn't make sense--e.g. a medusa without petrification because the power is too powerful for low-level characters to face.




If you are running full templates with powers appropriate to the monsters underlying stats (to avoid glass cannondom), you *might as well* stat out by HD and interface fully with the leveling/multiclassing rules, because you are doing the SAME work.  (the only "difficulty" lies in tracking the prereqs)

If you aren't, you basically can't have a set system adding special abilities onto the base stats.  Having prerequisites is needed to avoid the Ogre Mage problem.

The more I think about it, the more I want some indication of whether the "look up" tables they seem to be suggesting divide the stats up into bonus categories or not.  If they do, it'll require many more tables to cover different takes on the same role.  If they don't, it'll cause massive problems when PCs succeed at diplomacy rolls or try cool maneuvers.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  What if skills have been simplified to the point where you get two or three good ones, and then level-based defaults in all the other ones.  If the centaur has his two or three good skills defined, and Rope Use isn't one of them, then you know exactly what its Rope Use skill is because the system defines it in terms of the centaur's level or hit dice, and there's a table that lists Rope Use for all Xth level characters of the centaur's type.



Maybe, but I sort of hope not. I think it would be good for the game - and in particular, for the flexibility of building NPCs and monsters - to divorce hit dice from some notion of skill/experience/prowess.

Thus, _for PCs_, I think that things will be as you say - a PC will have a few good skills, and the rest will default to a level-based bonus a la Star Wars Saga.

But for a monster, I hope it will be possible to have a creature with a high hit dice, and perhaps a few good skills, _without_ that therefore defining a default leve/hit-dice based skill bonus for the creature. For example, a Troll or Minotaur should have a reasonable number of hit dice to reflect its size and toughness (the alternative is giving a very high Con, but at a certain point this becomes a bit inane, eg if Str is 25 but Con 80), and a good Survival skill bonus to reflect its ability to track and live in the wild, but shouldn't get the default skill bonuses that a PC of the same hit dice enjoys. In the case of the PC, that default bonus represents generic heroic capability - the monster having no such capability should not enjoy the bonus.

As per my earlier post, however, that wouldn't mean that the GM couldn't give a particular Troll or Minotaur a particular skill bonus if that was appropriate for that monster (given it's in-game history, background etc and how that fits into the challenge the GM is trying to set for her or his players). What the rules then need to do is tell the GM how to calculate a challenge level/XP that corresponds to the skill bonus assigned.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2007)

Just to go back to the whole Monsters=Cthulu thing for a sec.

IMO, Mearl's wasn't referring to the flavour of monsters, but the comparison of monsters to PC's.  In games like Mutants and Masterminds for example, the difference between the good guys and the bad guys are negligible from a mechanics standpoint.  A superstrong bullet proof guy can be a hero or a villain.

OTOH, in D&D, there is a huge difference between the PC's and the monsters.  Even if you use monstrous PC's, there's still a big difference.  A 1st level PC doesn't come close to comparing in power to a very large part of the Monster Manual.  Even a 10th level PC is easily overshadowed by a large chunk of the monsters.  And, as you progress to the very highest levels, the monsters are still bigger than you.  

This is the point he was making.  Not that the monsters are beyond comprehension or anything like that, but, the power comparison between PC's and Monsters in D&D is closer to COC than Champions.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just to go back to the whole Monsters=Cthulu thing for a sec.
> 
> IMO, Mearl's wasn't referring to the flavour of monsters, but the comparison of monsters to PC's.  In games like Mutants and Masterminds for example, the difference between the good guys and the bad guys are negligible from a mechanics standpoint.  A superstrong bullet proof guy can be a hero or a villain.
> 
> ...





That still makes no sense because in M&M a 10th level 'normal' Champion can be fighting a 20th level one. A 250 point character in Champions can be fighting a 1000 point boss guy and better hope that he and his friends have teamwork to add up the stun that gets past.


----------



## hong (Sep 2, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But for a monster, I hope it will be possible to have a creature with a high hit dice, and perhaps a few good skills, _without_ that therefore defining a default leve/hit-dice based skill bonus for the creature. For example, a Troll or Minotaur should have a reasonable number of hit dice to reflect its size and toughness (the alternative is giving a very high Con, but at a certain point this becomes a bit inane, eg if Str is 25 but Con 80), and a good Survival skill bonus to reflect its ability to track and live in the wild, but shouldn't get the default skill bonuses that a PC of the same hit dice enjoys. In the case of the PC, that default bonus represents generic heroic capability - the monster having no such capability should not enjoy the bonus.




You can still do that with a level-based bonus. Just assign penalties for those skills you think that monster should be crappy at.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 5, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> That still makes no sense because in M&M a 10th level 'normal' Champion can be fighting a 20th level one. A 250 point character in Champions can be fighting a 1000 point boss guy and better hope that he and his friends have teamwork to add up the stun that gets past.




Yes, but, at the end of the day, the only difference between Hero and Villain is fluff text.  Or, to put it in a Marvel perspective;

"This character is a brilliant inventor who battles wearing powered armor armed with a variety of weapons."

Is he:

A)Iron Man
B)The Green Goblin

Based on that description, there's no real way of knowing.  OTOH, it's pretty hard to imagine an Aboleth as anything other than a monster bad guy.  Tentacular, slimy creature living in the depths that mind controls is pretty much screaming "BAD GUY" to me.  Which, I think is the point that Mearls is trying to make.  In D&D, there are races that are "good guys" (standard PC races), races that are "usually bad guys but could be good guys" (Orcs, Drow) and races that are "Pretty much always the bad guy" (Anything that you really can't make a PC race out of in the vast majority of campaigns.).


----------



## the Lorax (Sep 5, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This approach is just so much better. If the designers want a kangaroo to have a +12 jump but only 2 hd, they shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the game
> <snip>
> Instead of having to calculate out each. Individual. Skill. Point., the DM can just look up in a table the max skill modifier for a villain of the appropriate encounter level, and assign that to whatever skills are important.
> <snip>Just set the value where it needs to be, and move on.




Ya know, this pretty much describes how I do it now, I'm not sure how that changes how one should design monsters to be able to be used as PCs or not.

Heck, one of the most recent new (side) characters to join our epic level game is a Harvester Devil.

Going back to a time when you had to kit bash rules together to play a monster as a PC is not especially exciting.

And as far as stat blocks go, I can strip them down pretty far:

Orc Fighter 4  HP:37 AC 16 (chain+shield)  BAB+8 (1d8+5/x3 Battle Ax) F+6 R +1 W+1

which should work pretty well for what you needed the orcs to do.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, but, at the end of the day, the only difference between Hero and Villain is fluff text.  Or, to put it in a Marvel perspective;
> 
> "This character is a brilliant inventor who battles wearing powered armor armed with a variety of weapons."
> 
> ...




But that's still not how the games work. You could have an aboleth in a Super Hero game as some type of Elder Evil. Guess what? It's still built the same as the characters.

"This master of magical arts using the latest in technology to augment his fantastic armor."

Is he a high level fighter/Mage-eldritch warrior with a ton of alchemical and magical items or Dr. Doom?

Heck, don't make me go through some super hero books to find things like the Brood which fight the X-Men or other inhuman entities just to showcase that monstrous entities can be built using the same method.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Even a 20th-level PC can't fire off 10 different offensive spells in a single round. (Or even three, if you only want to count a singe "arc" of fire.) Without being completely reconceptualized, beholders simply can't have the same CR and HD.




Take a look at what they're doing to Demons and Devils and the poor Erinyes.

Reconceptualizing monsters isn't a problem. That's part of what a new edition is for, after all. A Beholder pretty much needs eye rays, but firing off 10 a round? Even 3? Does it really need that?

And if it does get that, if it really does need all those actions, is it really strange to think of a PC who can do more than one thing at a time like that? We're already hearing about Leaders who heal just because they exist. What's the problem with a 15th level character spurting out a Sleep attack of some sort just because they're around, in that context?



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> It is very clear that monster stats in 4E will read the same as PC stats, in that they will consist of numbers allocated to the same categories, and having the same meaning within those categories. The difference will be in the way those numbers are worked out (and I don’t mean "worked out in the gameworld" – which comes from magic, which from natural armour etc; I mean "worked out at the metagame level", by application of the game rules): PCs will be built level-by-level, following rules for feat and talent selection and magic item acquisition, while monsters will be built according to a system of allocating a given set of numbers to fill a particular role at a particular challenge level.
> 
> Therefore, there will be no reason at all why the Mind Flayer can’t joint the party. But the way its stats have been built will mean that there will be no completely straightforward way of comparing it to a PC build to work out what level of PC it is.




Sure, but if I get different numbers, or if a creature who was once a monster becomes an ally and suddenly changes stats, that kicks my realism in the groin and takes it's wallet. If I want to play a drow, I want to *play a drow*, not some sort of pseudo-drow who almost looks kind of like the other drow in the world if you squint.



> There are at least two questions here. First, should the system tell you what effect a given Rope Use bonus has on challenge level? Yes it should, and it is clear that the aim of the 4e designers is to produce a system that gives these answers (admittedly they seem to be focusing most on combat challenges, but they have also talked about social challenges, and I’m sure the rules will say something about the sorts of “survival” challenges that might bring Rope Use into play).




I can tell how well a centaur can tie ropes right now in 3e, and, for some _crazy_ reason, I don't really think the designers really took that into account when assigning the creature CR. The reason? Becaues it doesn't really affect the CHALLENGE of the creature. It's breadth without deapth -- gives it more stuff to do without making it really any more potent in the combat. 

A centaur that can tie a slipknot really doesn't affect your basic centaur combat in the slightest, but it means that if I use the centaur as a setting element rather than as XP gristle, I have a starting point for saying, for instance, if a centaur hangman makes sense, or if the centaurs might have boy scouts with knot-tying merit badges.

Use Rope is kind of an absurd example, and I'm fairly confident we won't even SEE Use Rope in the next edition, but think of the Survival skill. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how a monster gets food, but if the PC's are lost in the forest and befriend an alien creature, it can be useful to know if said creature can feed themselves as well as the PC's.



> Second, will the centaur stats in the Monster Manual enable you to derive a rope use bonus? Well, the centaur will have a Dex bonus and skill bonuses, so you’ll be able to look and see. But if the centaur is being presented as filling the role of brute or archer (as seems likely), then the absence of any Rope Use skill can easily be seen as metagame information economy – there is no need to include a Rope Use skill bonus to enable the centaur to play either of those roles – and would not, as far as I can see, preclude the GM from attributing such a bonus to the centaur should the issue come up and need to be resolved.




But that's the thing: "attributing such a bonus" = "Make Stuff Up." Make Stuff Up sucks. There's no solid reason, as far as I can see, why I should have to do that, when the centaur can be easily designed to fill the role of "brute" or "archer" in combat, as well as the role of "protector of untouched wilderness" in the world, and the role of "potential ally for the party druid" for the PC's (for instance). 



> What considerations would guide the GM in making that decision? The same ones, presumably, as would guide the GM in deciding whether the NPC wizard should have access to 2nd or 3rd level spells – in particular, How competent do I want to make this centaur as an antagonist for my players to have to deal with?




Centaurs are more than just antagonists. They're spirits of hedonism. They're horrible underworld terrors. They're evocative of a Mediterranean atmosphere, and conjure images of Hercules and Poseidon. They're creatures of the sea, they're trainers of heroes. They're sylvan defenders of the forest. They're monstrous savage brutes from distant lands. 

And that's just the standard roles that they *should* be designed to fill.



> If what you want is a system that models the in-game growth of a creature, so you can look at a centaur’s stats, from them read off its degree of in-game experience, and therefore work out how many skill points it has free to assign to Rope Use, 4e will not give you what you want. It is becoming very clear that the only game element whose stats will be derived in this fashion is the PC. For NPCs and monsters, it is the GM who decides (not the rules) how experienced or capable they are, and then (following the challenge-building guidelines) assigns stats that are appropriate.




I don't like just deciding how something is. I like arriving at my conclusions through a logical process of extrapolation (some of that is my improv-heavy DM style speaking, where logic leaps along a path, rather than springing fully formed to my mind unbidden). 

But if I can't take a centaur and not only say how well it peppers PC's with arrows, but also how well it will serve as a tutor for the party's Barbarian, then the 4e team, for all it's efforts, is not designing the monster for it's use. They're designing it for combat and combat alone -- a shallow design goal that does not speak to how monsters are truly used in at least MY campaign.


----------



## Pale (Sep 6, 2007)

Thank you for being so eloquent and in-depth with your post KM, you hit exactly what I'm feeling about this new approach to monsters.

In this respect, we are simpatico.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 6, 2007)

For something like the beholder, I wonder if an aura mechanic might be appropriate. Instead of 10 nasty ray attacks, what if some of the eyes emanated an aura when they are open (assuming you are able to view them).

I mean, this is similar to how gaze attacks work now, affecting everyone that views them. But these would be more passive abilities, so the DM could focus on the 2 or 3 offense eye beams.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2007)

My own belief is that a Beholder doesn't really need to launch off 10 beams at once. Maybe more than one per turn, but things like a Quicken Eye Beam feat, or using some of the weak eye beams as free actions, may work much better than having to roll 10 seperate touch attacks in a round, anyway.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A Beholder pretty much needs eye rays, but firing off 10 a round? Even 3? Does it really need that?
> 
> And if it does get that, if it really does need all those actions, is it really strange to think of a PC who can do more than one thing at a time like that?
> 
> ...



Judging from what Mearls said about the Beholder in his monster makeover column, and also drawing inferences from the Dragon combat example posted in the recent Design and Development column, the logic of a Beholder will be that it is the functional equivalent, in combat, of 5 more typical monsters/NPCs. This requires that the Beholder have many actions, and certainly more than a PC can have.

To allow a PC to be the functional equivalent of 5 characters would defeat the purpose of the mooted monster design principles, because then a Beholder or Dragon, to fill the same niche, would have to be the function equivalent of 5 x 5 = 25 characters - and so on up if PCs are again allowed to scale up equivalently.

An LA/ECL-style "solution", of treating a PC who is the functional equivalent of 5 5th level characters as a 10th level PC is probably not very satisfactory, for two reasons:

*Such a PC will hog time at the table;

*Such a PC, despite the time-hogging, will probably be reasonably ineffective because of the comparative weakness of each of its actions.​
This is just one example to show that monsters can vary in parameters (in this case, the number of typical characters to which they are functionally equivalent) which should not be allowed to vary for PCs, if the desired style of game play is to be preserved.

It may be, of course, that one doesn't care for that style of play, in which case one will not care for (at least this aspect of) 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> if a creature who was once a monster becomes an ally and suddenly changes stats, that kicks my realism in the groin and takes it's wallet. If I want to play a drow, I want to *play a drow*, not some sort of pseudo-drow who almost looks kind of like the other drow in the world if you squint.



There are two cases here.

If a Mind Flayer or Drow encountered in the field becomes an ally and joins the party, then its numbers will not change - they are already known. But there will be no quick-and-easy way of assigning a PC level to that ally.

If a player wants to build a PC Mind Flayer or Drow from the get-go, then there is no guarantee that such a character will be able to built, using the level/skill/feat/talent-tree rules, in such a way as to deliver something numerically equivalent to a Mind Flayer or Drow that one might meet in the field.

Does this mean we are having to squint at pseudo-Drow? I don't think so, because (as I understand the direction that 4e is taking) there is no correct answer to the question "What are the true numbers for a Mind Flayer, or a Drow?" The numbers, for monsters/NPCs, will vary depending on the role and challenge that the GM wants the creature to pose. So your PC Drow/Mind Flayer, with its own PC-build derived numbers, is just as much a genuine creature as any of those that one would encounter in the field.

This approach to monster stats is clearly a departure from previous editions of D&D. It makes it less like Runequest (to pick an example), and other systems where the build rules are meant to reflect an in-game process of character development, and more like Tunnels and Trolls or The Dying Earth (to pick another couple of examples), where monster stats are assigned for purely metagame purposes, and the in-game reality is then read back off those stats.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can tell how well a centaur can tie ropes right now in 3e, and, for some _crazy_ reason, I don't really think the designers really took that into account when assigning the creature CR. The reason? Becaues it doesn't really affect the CHALLENGE of the creature. It's breadth without deapth -- gives it more stuff to do without making it really any more potent in the combat.



It's worth noting that 4e will expand the challenge concept to cover challenges other than combat ones, and in such a challenge (eg a survival or trap challenge) the Rope Use skill of a Centaur would be relevant to its CR. But that's really a tangential point.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Use Rope is kind of an absurd example, and I'm fairly confident we won't even SEE Use Rope in the next edition, but think of the Survival skill. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how a monster gets food, but if the PC's are lost in the forest and befriend an alien creature, it can be useful to know if said creature can feed themselves as well as the PC's.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "attributing such a bonus" = "Make Stuff Up." Make Stuff Up sucks. There's no solid reason, as far as I can see, why I should have to do that



I must confess I don't see the issue. At the moment, if the hungry PCs are wandering lost through a forest, you as a GM have to determine:

*Do they meet anyone?

*If so, is it a centaur?

*If so, is it a centaur Barbarian, Druid or Ranger who might be able to help them survive?​
In 4e you have to answer the same questions. So there is no more or less making up of stuff. If you don't want to decide, and instead prefer to use random tables that reflect the in-game likelihood of encountering creatures, including centaur Rangers of a given skill level, you will be able to use the same tables in 4e.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But if I can't take a centaur and not only say how well it peppers PC's with arrows, but also how well it will serve as a tutor for the party's Barbarian, then the 4e team, for all it's efforts, is not designing the monster for it's use. They're designing it for combat and combat alone -- a shallow design goal that does not speak to how monsters are truly used in at least MY campaign.



In 3e you can only tell how good a tutor the Centaur will be once you have decided what HD the Centaur has (and therefore what extra skill points and feats it may have acquired through advancement), what class levels it has (and therefore what extra skill points, feats and class abilities it may have acquired) and what magic items it has. The GM has to make those decisions, and together they determine the outcome to the question posed.

In 4e the GM will have to make a different set of decisions: What numerical bonuses do I want this creature to have? Once those bonuses are assigned, the question of tutoring utility will be answered. If you don't want to choose, use the same random determination process you are using at present.

I don't see any difference in outcome here between 3e and 4e, nor in the requirement for decisions to be made. Only the process is different - in 3e the one set of decisions (HD, class levels, etc) determines all the numbers by way of a single build process, whereas in 4e there is no comparable "build process" - there's just the assignment of numbers - but there are multiple decisions: is this an "archer" Centaur, a "survival" Centaur, a "brute" Centaur, or is it two or three of these?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't like just deciding how something is. I like arriving at my conclusions through a logical process of extrapolation (some of that is my improv-heavy DM style speaking, where logic leaps along a path, rather than springing fully formed to my mind unbidden).



Sure. But what precludes you extrapolating the Survival skill of a Centaur from your knowledge of Centaurs in your gameworld? Or your knowledge of this particular Centaur.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> the centaur can be easily designed to fill the role of "brute" or "archer" in combat, as well as the role of "protector of untouched wilderness" in the world, and the role of "potential ally for the party druid" for the PC's (for instance).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Some of those roles are "functional", in terms of the sort of game mechanical sub-system they relate to: "brute" and "archer" are both combat roles, for example, while "wilderness protector" suggests a role in either survival or social challenges, and "potential ally" and "trainer of heroies" both suggest a social challenge role.

Others of those roles are broadly "flavour" roles which can overlap with any given functional role: "spirit of hedonism", "underworld terror", "monstrous brute from a distant land", etc.

There's no reason to suppose that the game won't support centaurs filling all those various functional roles, and nor to suppose that it will preclude you from using one or more of the flavour roles.


----------



## Mokona (Sep 7, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> [In *D&D*] 4e there is no comparable "build process" - there's just the assignment of numbers - but there are multiple decisions: is this an "archer" Centaur, a "survival" Centaur, a "brute" Centaur, or is it two or three of these?



As I read your comment you seem to imply a random (or arbitrary) assignment of numbers for monsters.  I want to clarify that I don't think we know that yet.  It seems possible to me that standard monsters, which fill one role at a time, will be semi-template.  Perhaps we have a Stat Block for three different generic brutes (Strong, Fast, and Tough) at each Challenge Level.  The "monster" choice would only provide minor changes to the generic Stat Block plus weapons and special abilities.  In this world only monsters that are a party unto themselves (Dragons, Beholders, &c) would not use the role/template build model.

*Mokona*'s lessons for the 4th edition of the core *Monster Manual*:

1.  I don't want to wait years for _Savage Species_ or the complete guidebook to humanoids before I can play a character version of a monster.  At least not for monsters I already own.

2.  Let's face it...some of the *Dungeons & Dragons* v.3.5 monsters with a level adjustment weren't actually playable as characters.  The cost of playing that monster made it impossible to be an effective member of a party (unless the entire party was similarly penalized) as that creature.  This led to numerous solutions such as buyoff, monster classes, &c.

3.  If it has at least two hands with opposable thumbs, a speed of 4+ squares, intellect, free will/choice, and its size is Large or smaller - then the majority of players will consider it a possible character.  This includes angels, demons, half-breeds, ogres, kobolds, and mind flayers.

4.  If it's the size of a house, a chaos beast, five-characters-in-one, or something equally silly then most players will agree that it needs a major overhaul before it can be their character.

5.  Some abilities are great on one side of the table (under the Dungeon Master's control and used in service of the story) but terrible when used at will by players.  The Wish spell-like ability of the Solar Angel falls in this group.

6.  Have your cake and eat it too.  *Wizards of the Coast* R&D should require all monster submissions that meat certain physical descriptions to include a player character sidebar.  The design guidelines should be flexible enough to allow great monsters but also generate a separate player version as well.  Currently LA creatures already get a second stat block for the PC adjustments so this isn't new.

7.  All humanoids and near-humanoids (i.e. mind flayers) should have a 1 Hit Die playable version so they can be advanced using class levels just like an Elf, Dwarf, or Human.

8.  It should be possible to get the super powers of your monster race by an appropriate level where it's balanced but not necessarily at first level.

9.  It would be really cool for a monster that fits neatly in to a party role (striker, defender, leader, &c) to get it's own 1-30 level class specific to the creature.  These could be rare but I so love the Elf and Dwarf class from the old box set.  The playable version of the monster should still be able to be a wizard or fighter in case the player wants it as a character to fill a different party role.

10.  Why ten?    Because the 10 best ideas sounds better than a Top 9.  

So if *Wizards of the Coast* gives us stripped down monsters with independently designed character versions we can all stop fighting.    Besides, this stretches out the content for the monster books by increasing the page count for each creautre so we can be at MM V in five years.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> you seem to imply a random (or arbitrary) assignment of numbers for monsters.



Not arbitrary or random. Determined by the GM so that the monster can play the encounter role (brute, archer, trap, social etc) that the GM wants it to play, at the level of challenge that the GM wants to set.



			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> It seems possible to me that standard monsters, which fill one role at a time, will be semi-template.  Perhaps we have a Stat Block for three different generic brutes (Strong, Fast, and Tough) at each Challenge Level.  The "monster" choice would only provide minor changes to the generic Stat Block plus weapons and special abilities.



This sounds highly plausible to me. The GM wants a centaur brute of challenge level 5: look at the basic Brute5 stat block, apply the centaur mods and off we go!

Can the centaur also teach the barbarian Survival skill? At this point the GM needs to decide whether or not the centaur has Survival, and if so at what level. How is this decided? The GM makes it up. Or the GM rolls on a random table (this is basically how 1st ed handles these questions about encounters). Or the GM requires the barbarian's player to spend a Fate Point. Or whatever. My only point is that the answer to this question will _not_ be dictated by any method of building centaur stats. A creature's stats will be assigned at the metagame level to fill the in-game need; there will not be generic stats for a centaur from which one can work out, using in-game logic, whether or not it fills this in-game need.



			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> It should be possible to get the super powers of your monster race by an appropriate level where it's balanced but not necessarily at first level.



For the reasons I gave I don't think this will work. If one of the monster's super powers is to be the functional equivalent of multiple ordinary characters, then that power is simply not a viable one to be possess by a PC (who is, by definition, a single ordinary character).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 7, 2007)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Judging from what Mearls said about the Beholder in his monster makeover column, and also drawing inferences from the Dragon combat example posted in the recent Design and Development column, the logic of a Beholder will be that it is the functional equivalent, in combat, of 5 more typical monsters/NPCs. This requires that the Beholder have many actions, and certainly more than a PC can have.
> 
> To allow a PC to be the functional equivalent of 5 characters would defeat the purpose of the mooted monster design principles,




That's exactly why this wouldn't work in 3e, but it's shortsighted. There's no reason a Beholder HAS to be as powerful as 5 other monsters. The new encounter design is 4 monsters/4 PC's. The Beholder can be as powerful as ONE PC, and not loose one bit of it's beholder-osity. 



> This is just one example to show that monsters can vary in parameters (in this case, the number of typical characters to which they are functionally equivalent) which should not be allowed to vary for PCs, if the desired style of game play is to be preserved.
> 
> It may be, of course, that one doesn't care for that style of play, in which case one will not care for (at least this aspect of) 4e.




There's no reason for a Beholder to be as powerful as 5 other PC's in the new edition, so your reason falls flat: if the beholder is designed to be one monster among 4 in an encounter, it can be designed to be one monster among 4 in a PC party of the same level. 



> If a Mind Flayer or Drow encountered in the field becomes an ally and joins the party, then its numbers will not change - they are already known. But there will be no quick-and-easy way of assigning a PC level to that ally.
> 
> If a player wants to build a PC Mind Flayer or Drow from the get-go, then there is no guarantee that such a character will be able to built, using the level/skill/feat/talent-tree rules, in such a way as to deliver something numerically equivalent to a Mind Flayer or Drow that one might meet in the field.




That's a problem, because it shouldn't be hard to do. The designers have an opportunity to address that concern NOW that they won't have again until 5e. 



> Does this mean we are having to squint at pseudo-Drow? I don't think so, because (as I understand the direction that 4e is taking) there is no correct answer to the question "What are the true numbers for a Mind Flayer, or a Drow?" The numbers, for monsters/NPCs, will vary depending on the role and challenge that the GM wants the creature to pose. So your PC Drow/Mind Flayer, with its own PC-build derived numbers, is just as much a genuine creature as any of those that one would encounter in the field.




If the drow fighter in the party and the drow fighter the party is facing have dissimilar and incompatible abilities, my realism is curb-stomped. If the abilities are similar and compatible, there should be no reason the PC can't get it if the NPC can.



> At the moment, if the hungry PCs are wandering lost through a forest, you as a GM have to determine:
> 
> *Do they meet anyone?
> 
> ...




In 3e, the answers to those questions are a few die rolls away: do they meet anyone? Roll encounter chance. Is it a centaur? Roll on the encounter table. Is it exceptional? Not if I don't already have the stats.  Can it help them survive? It has a Wisdom bonus, and it has listed skills, let's roll a check for it. 

I don't really have to make anything up at the table there (unless you count adding class levels to the centaur, which, again, I wouldn't do unless I had set it up beforehand). I just have to let my brain leap from logical point to logical point and let random tables fill in the gaps. 

In 4e, if I have to arbitrarily decide how well a given centaur can find edible food for the party, I will pretty much scrap the monster manual as "not designed for my uses."




> In 3e you can only tell how good a tutor the Centaur will be once you have decided what HD the Centaur has (and therefore what extra skill points and feats it may have acquired through advancement), what class levels it has (and therefore what extra skill points, feats and class abilities it may have acquired) and what magic items it has. The GM has to make those decisions, and together they determine the outcome to the question posed.




There's a centaur in the MM, y'know. And treasure generation methods to find out what kind of stuff it might have. All the descisions there are already made, a few die rolls away at most, and unless I do some extra work for a specific purpose, there's nothing left for me to invent about it's stats. Which is perfect, because then I can concentrate on running the encounter and not pondering the mysteries of centaur skill points. 



> In 4e the GM will have to make a different set of decisions: What numerical bonuses do I want this creature to have? Once those bonuses are assigned, the question of tutoring utility will be answered. If you don't want to choose, use the same random determination process you are using at present.




So what am I paying these guys for, if not stats? Fluff? Artwork? Why should I have to decide what bonuses the creature has when, presumably, the purpose of the MM is to have that work already done for me? 

And my method of "random determination" isn't at all. I look at the stat block, and I say "Well, looks like the typical centaur isn't that good a teacher. Maybe Chiron is an Expert with some ranks in Profession (Teacher). Looks like I may have to do a little pre-prep for this game." Or I say "Well, they're pretty wise, so maybe they can give the PC's some aid." 

I have a starting point and I divert from it for variety. If 4e doesn't give me a starting point, 4e's monster design sucks for my purposes.



> Sure. But what precludes you extrapolating the Survival skill of a Centaur from your knowledge of Centaurs in your gameworld? Or your knowledge of this particular Centaur.




Again, I'm an improv-heavy DM. I don't spend much, if any time pondering the mysteries of centaur survival outside of the times it comes up at the table, and when it comes up at the table, I want to have an answer RIGHT THERE, so the game can keep plugging along. That particular Centaur may not have appeared before I randomly rolled him on an encounter table, or before I had a character in a nearby town mention him (which I didn't anticipate doing) or before the party druid, just five minutes ago, mentioned how he would like to train under a truly wild creature, or before I chose some arbitrary creature of the appropriate CR...in fact, Centaurs may not have existed in the world at all before the party encounters them. 

So my knowledge of centaurs in the world, and of that particular centaur, may not be any deeper than the PC's knowledge at the moment, and may, in fact, be more shallow. I like DMing that way -- it keeps me on my toes and keeps nearly all of my work directly useful. But in order to DM that way, I need a very solid baseline that I can pull from, to keep things fair and to ensure verisimilitude. I need monsters that are more than just XP gristle. I need monsters that are part and parcel of the world I throw them into, down to whatever probably-irrelevant detail that I need to render them complete.



> Some of those roles are "functional", in terms of the sort of game mechanical sub-system they relate to: "brute" and "archer" are both combat roles, for example, while "wilderness protector" suggests a role in either survival or social challenges, and "potential ally" and "trainer of heroies" both suggest a social challenge role.
> 
> Others of those roles are broadly "flavour" roles which can overlap with any given functional role: "spirit of hedonism", "underworld terror", "monstrous brute from a distant land", etc.
> 
> There's no reason to suppose that the game won't support centaurs filling all those various functional roles, and nor to suppose that it will preclude you from using one or more of the flavour roles.




If it doesn't tell me their Diplomacy bonus, it doesn't support me using it as a social challenge. If it doesn't tell me their Survival bonus, it doesn't support me using it as an ally to the PC's. If it's combat abilities would be unbalancing in the hands of a player, it doesn't support me using it as a consistent party member. If it doesn't give me a solid, stable baseline, it doesn't support me departing from that.

If things are excepted because they're "not relevant," and if monsters are designed solely for combat, without considering their game-world and player-character usefulness, there's no reason to believe that Wizards really wants me to play 4e, because they're not going to be designing for what I need at a game table.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 7, 2007)

Somewhere along the line, this conversation changed from "should PCs and monsters use the same build system" to arguing whether monsters even _have_ a build system.   

For the record, the designers have already said that yes, there's a system to building critters--it's not just handwaved--and yes, they're going to have things like skills.

Just in case that fact's been lost.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 7, 2007)

> For the record, the designers have already said that yes, there's a system to building critters--it's not just handwaved--and yes, they're going to have things like skills.




Righty-oh. And this means we're back to my point of why the monster build system and the PC build system have to be fundamentally incompatible, including the point about Beholders probably not needing 10 eye rays at once to be beholder-y.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's no reason a Beholder HAS to be as powerful as 5 other monsters. The new encounter design is 4 monsters/4 PC's. The Beholder can be as powerful as ONE PC, and not loose one bit of it's beholder-osity.



Ahh, I beg to differ.
There's lots of reasons why a beholder should be the equivalent of 5 PCs. There are creatures who are solitary by nature.

To give a more obvious example: The Tarrasque is rarely encountered in groups.
A slightly less obvious example that's already 'official': An ancient red dragon.

Personally, I like the concept of tough, BBEG-type monsters to get more actions than pcs or social monsters.
Other games have been doing that for ages; take Horrors (cmp. Lovecraftian Mythos creatures) in the Earthdawn system:

They get a number of spellcasting actions and a number of attack actions to make sure they're able to compete with a group of 6-8 pcs (the default party size in Earthdawn). They also get 'Karma Dice' to boost any of their rolls.


----------



## Mokona (Sep 7, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If one of the monster's super powers is to be the functional equivalent of multiple ordinary characters, then that power is simply not a viable one to be possess by a PC (who is, by definition, a single ordinary character).



See Mokona's Rule #4 - "If it's the size of a house, a chaos beast, five-characters-in-one, or something equally silly then most players will agree that it needs a major overhaul before it can be their character."  This means I agree that some capstone monsters like dragons should be treated differently.

My Summary:

Faction A - "There can be only One [system]!"
The system lacks verisimilitude if all creatures aren't built as characters; it doesn't matter if they're player characters, monster characters, or non-player characters.  _Irrelevant_ abilities provide inspiration for Dungeon Masters and quirks for otherwise pin cushion creatures.​
Faction B - "K.I.S.S. 4 M.E. (Keep It Simple, Silly, for Monsters Especially)"
*D&D* 3rd edition has proven that the game bogs down when all monster situations must abide by character generation rules.  We need the flexibility to use monsters on the fly and have some strategy (e.g. combat roles) amongst the bad guys in combat. In some extreme examples the needs of the monster encounter just break the player character system.​
Faction C - "You can please everyone, some of the time"
Both factions A and B can have their way if only *Wizards of the Coast* will require most monsters to have two stats.  One _Combat Block_ of encounter rules and another character build system sidebar.  This is more work for R&D but we’re paying them for their efforts,    aren’t we!​


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Somewhere along the line, this conversation changed from "should PCs and monsters use the same build system" to arguing whether monsters even _have_ a build system.



I'm not saying that there won't be a build system. I'm predicting that it won't be the same as the PC build system.

The PC build system works by starting with the base of a race and class, then adding levels. At each stage this adds skills, feats, class abilities and race abilities.

As I understand it, the monster build system will work differently. A GM works out what role they want the monster to play, at what challenge level, and then (as a result of those two choices) reads the monsters stats off (whether from a table, or a formula, or a list of examples I don't know - the designers' comments suggest, however, a combination of examples and general tables).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If it doesn't tell me their Diplomacy bonus, it doesn't support me using it as a social challenge. If it doesn't tell me their Survival bonus, it doesn't support me using it as an ally to the PC's. If it's combat abilities would be unbalancing in the hands of a player, it doesn't support me using it as a consistent party member. If it doesn't give me a solid, stable baseline, it doesn't support me departing from that.



Have you seen the Dying Earth rules? Creatures in that game don't have fixed stats. A number of key creature stats are defined as N*X, where N is a constant and X is the average of the PCs' bonuses in a particular skill. The idea of this mechanic is that, whatever the skill level of a particular party of PCs, a given monster will always be sneaky, or a physical challenge or whatever. This is a different approach to monsters from traditional D&D, but it is neither arbitrary nor handwaving. It just supports a different approach to play.

My impression is that 4e is also intended at supporting a different approach to play. As I read it, there may be a centaur statted out as a brute, or an archer, in the MM, but this is just an _example_. It is not a _generic centaur_. Thus, from the fact that this centaur brute is statted out with no Diplomacy or Survival bonus it does _not_ follow that it does not have one, or that other centaurs typically do not. The point would be that, if you want to use the centaur for one of those other roles (social, or survival, challenges) you look at a different part of the rules - the social challenge builder, for example - to work out what it's stats are, based on the level of challenge you want it to pose.

This is not handwaving in place of building. The rules tell you what numbers a given monster has if it is to play a given role at a given level of challenge.

But it _is_ a change from typical D&D, because it does away with the notion of a "generic centaur" (just as one of the designers gave the example that there is no "generic orc", and the players won't know what an orc can do till they encounter it and see what role it is playing). It puts the onus on the GM to _choose_ what sorts of challenges, at what level, to pose to the players. Just as, at the moment, you must _choose_ whether or not to advance a monster or give it class levels.

You have said that you don't use non-MM creatures if you haven't prepped them. The equivalent in 4e might be saying that all MM-statted brutes default to 1st level social challenges unless you've prepared something else in advance. Or maybe the DMG will give guidance on other ways to handle a change of role, if the players decide to talk to the centaurs rather than fight them.

If, instead of the approach I am describing, you want monster-build rules that (in effect) model in-game environmental processes, so that they deliver a "generic centaur" which is the typical gameworld representative of that species, I don't think that 4e will deliver that. (Except, perhaps, for those animals or beasts which are only capably of filling one role - but even then one of the designers was talking about having a bear fill different roles by statting it up in a different way.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> it's shortsighted. There's no reason a Beholder HAS to be as powerful as 5 other monsters. The new encounter design is 4 monsters/4 PC's. The Beholder can be as powerful as ONE PC, and not loose one bit of it's beholder-osity.



The whole point of a Beholder, in 4e (I'm inferring here from Mearls' column, and the Dragon example) is to be the functional equivalent of 5 PCs. Not just in terms of its power (eg damage delivered per round) but in terms of its actions per round.

This is not shortsighted design. It is deliberate design - it means that a fight with a Beholder will play out in a fashion quite differently to a fight with an NPC wizard, because the NPC wizard will have (approximately) one action per round, while the Beholder will have many. The single Beholder is therfore a satisfying battle for the whole party.

It would, of course, be _possible_ to design monsters in such a way that none were able to play this sort of role. In that case, all satisfying fights would require the use of multiple monsters - multiple Beholders, multiple Dragons, etc.

There are therefore two design alternatives: make all monsters equivalent to a single character and rule out satisfying one-on-many fights; or make some monsters equivalent in power and actions to multiple characters, and rule out PC versions of those monsters. I don't see what is wrong with going the second way.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 7, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> My Summary: <snip summary of 3 Factions>



There is a 4th Faction, namely, me.

I don't think verisimilitude is under threat, because monsters and PCs will have stat blocks that look more-or-less the same: abilities, skill bonuses, save values, feats, attack bonuses, damage output, special ability descriptions. That is, verisimilitude is preserved by build _output_, not build _process_.

But I don't think that monsters have to be built in the same way as PCs. This is not, for me, an issue of simplicity (though that's good too). It's a recognition, as Mearls put it, that monsters are a different game element from PCs. They are challenges. The rules should therefore support the building of challenges.

The current monster rules build monsters like PCs, and then leave the GM to guess what sort of challenge the monster is. The 4e rules, as I understand them, will tell a GM what numbers to assign to a given monster so that it constitutes a challenge of the desired role and level.

The upshot of the new build process is that GMs should find it easier to build satisfying challenges. Another upshot is that there will be no simple way of determining what level of PC a monster is equivalent to (because the answer cannot be read off the build process like it currently is). To me, the price seems worth paying (especially because, at the moment, the reading of PC-level-equivalence is pretty rough-and-readay anyway).


----------



## Mokona (Sep 9, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> There is a 4th Faction, namely, me.



Nope, look again.    There is no difference between the opinions you express and Faction B.  You just take issue with my nickname for that group.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Righty-oh. And this means we're back to my point of why the monster build system and the PC build system have to be fundamentally incompatible, including the point about Beholders probably not needing 10 eye rays at once to be beholder-y.



It's because the most "fun" encounter is one where the enemy is relatively equal to the party in terms of its to hit and damage for its abilities but one that survives longer than one of the PCs would if it were being attacked by 5 monsters at once.

Also, it's more "interesting" if a monster has more interesting things to do than just attack once per round.  Most combats only last 3 or 4 rounds, so the encounter has to have a variety of interesting things happen during that time.  With 5 enemies, you will have a number of things happen each round.  With one creature, you only get one thing happening each round.  But it doesn't make sense to throw 5 beholders at a party just to fix that.

Unfortunately, there currently isn't a way to create a creature like this in 3.5e.  If a creature has enough hit points to create a longer, more epic feel to the battle, its attacks are likely going to hit near 100% of the time and it will have way more feats than the party, way more skill points and will have way too high DCs for its special abilities.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 9, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Somewhere along the line, this conversation changed from "should PCs and monsters use the same build system" to arguing whether monsters even _have_ a build system.
> 
> For the record, the designers have already said that yes, there's a system to building critters--it's not just handwaved--and yes, they're going to have things like skills.
> 
> Just in case that fact's been lost.




The blogcast seems to be slightly against you with more handwaving and advancement as an 'art' and not a science.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 9, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> There is no difference between the opinions you express and Faction B.  You just take issue with my nickname for that group.





			
				Mokona's Faction B said:
			
		

> D&D 3rd edition has proven that the game bogs down when all monster situations must abide by character generation rules. We need the flexibility to use monsters on the fly and have some strategy (e.g. combat roles) amongst the bad guys in combat. In some extreme examples the needs of the monster encounter just break the player character system.



My explanation and defence of the mooted 4e monster generation rules really has nothing to do with simplicity, bogging down or doing things on the fly.

It is to do with making the mechanical generation of monsters fit their metagame purpose. This could be achieved - and it therefore be the case that the monster generation rules cannot be used to build PCs - even if the monster generation rules weren't especially simple.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 10, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> My explanation and defence of the mooted 4e monster generation rules really has nothing to do with simplicity, bogging down or doing things on the fly.
> 
> It is to do with making the mechanical generation of monsters fit their metagame purpose. This could be achieved - and it therefore be the case that the monster generation rules cannot be used to build PCs - even if the monster generation rules weren't especially simple.




Overly focusing monster generation on metagame purposes breaks down when, as happens *extremely* often, monsters get used for other purposes.  Enhanced diplomacy rules or a well placed charm spell can take nigh any creature and put it in a position where you need to know what skills it has, how it interacts with equipement or buff spells and everything else that you decided to ignore because it was *only* a combat brute that would live for 5 rounds, max.  Only a very, very limited subset of monsters (oozes?) will never be forced to interact with the PC rule set.  Certainly anything even vaguely humanoid will.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 10, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Overly focusing monster generation on metagame purposes breaks down when, as happens *extremely* often, monsters get used for other purposes.  Enhanced diplomacy rules or a well placed charm spell can take nigh any creature and put it in a position where you need to know what skills it has, how it interacts with equipement or buff spells and everything else that you decided to ignore because it was *only* a combat brute that would live for 5 rounds, max.  Only a very, very limited subset of monsters (oozes?) will never be forced to interact with the PC rule set.  Certainly anything even vaguely humanoid will.



Extremely often?  I don't know about that.  I played in weekly campaign for almost every week since about 1993(2 weekly campaigns for a number of those years), and I've been a Triad member for Living Greyhawk for 2 years and played in LG for 6 years.  I can fairly certainly say that the number of times that I've need to know those things has been maybe...2 or 3 times.  We did all play monsters during one campaign, but the only reason we did so is because Savage Species came out and we wanted to try it out.

Besides, none of that really matters, they've said that creatures have ALL of that information.

The difference between player characters and monsters(from everything I've read) is that a player race will say:
+2 strength, -2 con.  At 5th level they get Super Luck, and 10th level they can choose to be able to jump really high or turn into a frog.

monsters will say:
Goblin Clubfighter
Level 10 Monster
xp: 570
Str 26, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 15, Wis 12
Attacks: +14 (Club) 1d6+8
HP: 258
Saves: 20 Ref, 15 Fort, 17 Will
Skills: +14 Diplomacy, +12 Tumble, +3 Craft, +10 Concentration
Special Abilities:
Hit Hard With Club (Ex): Once per combat, he can spend a swift action to do an extra 2d6 damage with his club.
Low Light Vision (Ex)

Does that mean that Goblins have +15 strength?  Nope, just that this one has that strength.  Does that mean that all goblins can Hit Hard With Club?  Nope, this one can though.  You can run this monster through virtually any situation you want.  Although, you can't figure out HOW it got 258 hitpoints or how it got +14 to hit.  It just does, since it is a level 10 monster designed to be a brute, and it needs about +14 to hit so that it can hit level 10 PCs on average 60% of the time.  It has 258 hit points so that it can survive about 5 rounds of attacks since the average striker at 10th level does 50 damage.

Does it compare directly to the players?  Nope.  It likely has WAY more hit points and some of its abiltiies will be extremely powerful for a 10th level character.  Nor does it give you enough information to make a character out of the monster, but you still have all the same stats as a character.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Sep 10, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The reason monsters as players don't work as smooth as it should not isn't in the details of the monster races, it's in the fact that ECL/Level Adjustment is just broken.




Coming late to this thread, I just want to say I agree with Joe G. Kushner.

Actually, when I first heard of monsters-with-ability-scores in the proposed 3rd edition back in 2000, I was like, "That's crazy talk!" But after nearly eight years of playing and DMing D&D3e (my DM got pre-release rules from a friend at WotC), I think the way it currently works is awesome. If you don't want to take a lot of time designing a monster, it's easy to just take an existing monster and rename it and change its appearance and give it fire breath or whatever; but if you want to really tweak a creature and craft it into something new, the existing rules are great.

And plus, as a longtime player of simulation-focused RPGs (not so much GURPs, but lots of Call of Cthulhu), the game just makes more sense when monsters and PCs are made with the same basic toolkit and have meaningfully comparable statistics and skills.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Sep 10, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They're designing it for combat and combat alone -- a shallow design goal that does not speak to how monsters are truly used in at least MY campaign.




I agree completely.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Overly focusing monster generation on metagame purposes breaks down when, as happens *extremely* often, monsters get used for other purposes.  Enhanced diplomacy rules or a well placed charm spell can take nigh any creature and put it in a position where you need to know what skills it has, how it interacts with equipement or buff spells and everything else that you decided to ignore because it was *only* a combat brute that would live for 5 rounds, max.  Only a very, very limited subset of monsters (oozes?) will never be forced to interact with the PC rule set.  Certainly anything even vaguely humanoid will.



I don't entirely agree, for the reasons I gave in my replies to Kamikaze Midget: When the nature of the challenge changes (eg the PCs try to sweet-talk the Brute) then the GM has to make a call (perhpas off the cuff, or perhaps there will be default rules in the DMG or the MM) about the parameters of the Brute as a social challenge. In that sense, metagame purposes can be flexible.

But I do think you're right that it becomes trickier if the PCs charm a Brute and want to use it for some non-combat purpose. What non-combat stats should it be given? If I was thinking about how to implement mechanics to resolve this sort of situation without any prior constraints, I would look at some sort of system to facilitate player-GM negotiation: whether through Fate Points, or other concessions, the player who charmed the Brute is able to work with the GM to stipulate its other abilities.

Given that we're talking D&D, it's unlikely those sorts of mechanics will be adopted. So I don't know how it will work, and I agree with you therefore that it might be a problem.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> <snip monster stat block>
> 
> Does it compare directly to the players?  Nope.  It likely has WAY more hit points and some of its abiltiies will be extremely powerful for a 10th level character.  Nor does it give you enough information to make a character out of the monster, but you still have all the same stats as a character.



There is one thing that might complicate the situation. You are assuming that your sample stat block is complete, in that it is a total picture of the monster. If that is what the designers intend, then I agree with those who say we have a design for overly limited purposes (eg designing purely for combat).

For this sort of design approach to work, I think that it must be understood that the stats of a Brute are not the totality of its stats, but the stats it needs to play in the role the GM has assigned it. If the situation suddenly changes, and the Brute becomes the focus of a social challenge, then I am assuming the GM has to, at that point, generate a new statblock (off the cuff, or by application of some sort of default rule). In that sense, I am assuming that under the new system monster stats will be deliberately incomplete. Only PC stats will be complete, because only a PC has the metagame purpose of engaging in any challenge at any time.

Thus, when the PCs charm the Brute and want to use it as part of a social ploy, it can't be assumed that the Brute's combat stats exhaust its abilities.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Extremely often?  I don't know about that.  I played in weekly campaign for almost every week since about 1993(2 weekly campaigns for a number of those years), and I've been a Triad member for Living Greyhawk for 2 years and played in LG for 6 years.  I can fairly certainly say that the number of times that I've need to know those things has been maybe...2 or 3 times.



If that's correct its reassuring, given the potential problem that I think Kraydak has raised.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2007)

If the monster is a "Brute", he is just like most meelee combat monster (Troll, Ogre, Giant) outside of combat: He sucks at it. 

It might also be important to keep in mind these two things: 
1) The designers brag about how all the parts of the system works together and each subsystem is informed by the others. This indicates to me that the designers are very well aware that their combat brutes must be usable in a social challenge, too, if they are designing social challenge rules! But usable can just be: Has the default modifier for bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive and gather information for a 10th level monster. But that's not different from what we have now.

2) None of the character or combat roles discussed about tell anything about social encounters. Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller (and what where the monster roles again?), nothing says anything about how this affect social challenges. The "roles" in social challenges have not been discussed yet. Maybe there are some (and maybe there are social equivalents of striker, defender, leader and controller), maybe there are not. (Seems like a possible weakness to me.) We'll see.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 10, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But I do think you're right that it becomes trickier if the PCs charm a Brute and want to use it for some non-combat purpose. What non-combat stats should it be given? If I was thinking about how to implement mechanics to resolve this sort of situation without any prior constraints, I would look at some sort of system to facilitate player-GM negotiation: whether through Fate Points, or other concessions, the player who charmed the Brute is able to work with the GM to stipulate its other abilities.



Right now, the stat block of a creature tells you how it works in both combat AND non-combat situations, in that the stat blocks list their non-combat skills.  The designers have already said that the stat blocks of creatures in 4e will be complete as well.

I think you are reading too much into "social challenges".  From everything I've read so far, I believe that the "social challenge" system will be a lot like dealing with a combat is now or dealing with an encounter trap from Dungeonscape, but with social skills.

So, for instance, you might have a "social encounter" where you have to convince a guard to let you past.  You will need to adjust the guard up to 20 "social points" to succeed.  If you succeed on a 15 bluff check, you add 2 "social points", if you succeed at a 25, you add 3, if you succeed at a 15 diplomacy check it adds 5, etc.  The social points go down by 5 every round.  I can see this sort of system as being easy to remember, engage the whole party, and integrates into the current system without much effort.

It also had the benefit of not needing any more information in any monster's stat block to use them as combat or social encounters.  You just need to know their bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, and other social skill modifiers.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There is one thing that might complicate the situation. You are assuming that your sample stat block is complete, in that it is a total picture of the monster. If that is what the designers intend, then I agree with those who say we have a design for overly limited purposes (eg designing purely for combat).



I'm missing something.  Why would the stat blocks be anything but complete in the same way the current ones are.  The designers have just said they've managed to make them a lot smaller but that monsters will still have skills, feats, and all the other things they had before.  This is already what we have now, it just takes up less space on paper in the new version and you don't have to limit creatures based on their type, race, hit dice or any other arbitrary number.  If you want a goblin with +400 to hit, but 5 hit points, a 2 strength, and +40 to diplomacy, you can.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> For this sort of design approach to work, I think that it must be understood that the stats of a Brute are not the totality of its stats, but the stats it needs to play in the role the GM has assigned it. If the situation suddenly changes, and the Brute becomes the focus of a social challenge, then I am assuming the GM has to, at that point, generate a new statblock (off the cuff, or by application of some sort of default rule). In that sense, I am assuming that under the new system monster stats will be deliberately incomplete. Only PC stats will be complete, because only a PC has the metagame purpose of engaging in any challenge at any time.



I seem to be missing something.  Why would you believe you'd have to generate a new stat block?  At the most, I could see that if the Brute became a target of a social encounter, you MIGHT have to invent a number for how "easily convinced" they were.  But other than that, their social skills would all be listed and nothing would need to be changed.

As far as I know all the comments about a "social stat block" just mean that for purely social situations, you should be able to compress the stat block even more, since you wouldn't have to list combat stats at all.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 10, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Extremely often?  I don't know about that.  I played in weekly campaign for almost every week since about 1993(2 weekly campaigns for a number of those years), and I've been a Triad member for Living Greyhawk for 2 years and played in LG for 6 years.  I can fairly certainly say that the number of times that I've need to know those things has been maybe...2 or 3 times.  We did all play monsters during one campaign, but the only reason we did so is because Savage Species came out and we wanted to try it out.




So your DnD experience rarely involves Charm, Diplomacy, Disarm, Sunder, Dispell Magic in combat, Calm Emotions or any other such action?  All of those require moving to a more complicated rule set.



> Besides, none of that really matters, they've said that creatures have ALL of that information.
> 
> The difference between player characters and monsters(from everything I've read) is that a player race will say:
> +2 strength, -2 con.  At 5th level they get Super Luck, and 10th level they can choose to be able to jump really high or turn into a frog.
> ...




So, what happens if the goblin gets disarmed?  Dispelled?  If his AC doesn't include a bonus breakdown, what happens if he gets surprised?  What happens if he gets surprised *after* a rust monster attack (or a Rusting grasp spell)?  Are any of his combat stats Morale based?

A black box approach to monster stats limits players (and other monsters...) heavily in terms of tactics allowed.  Named bonuses can be targetted directly, unnamed bonuses cannot be.  This wouldn't be that significant for an animal say, but a humanoid probably has a disarmable/sunderable weapon and some armor.  Which might be magical.  A fey warrior probably has stats that come from magical buffs, which should be dispellable.

The end result, if monsters are *only* used for combat, of simplifying the system is to remove tactical options.  Including such extremely basic ones as disarm and dispell.  If people are using charm or the new and improved diplomacy rules (and they often do, remember Meepo...), the time saved in monster generation is lost in trying to reverse engineer something that was never designed to be reverse engineered.  Maybe more time is saved by going black box, but the time gained is prep time.  Reverse engineering time can be game time.

I can't see it as worth it.  Adding in the complexity of a "special abilities" system (which WILL NOT be as simple as reading the combat stats off a table) and you end up with the black box system not netting you much prep time at all in the end as opposed to a PCesque design system.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 10, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So, what happens if the goblin gets disarmed?  Dispelled?  If his AC doesn't include a bonus breakdown, what happens if he gets surprised?  What happens if he gets surprised *after* a rust monster attack (or a Rusting grasp spell)?  Are any of his combat stats Morale based?



Considering that we dont know what the actual monster stat block will look like, isnt it a bit premature to be complaining about what information will be missing from it?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 10, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Considering that we dont know what the actual monster stat block will look like, isnt it a bit premature to be complaining about what information will be missing from it?



I agree.  This entire thread sounds like a room full of 19th-century philosophers arguing about why horseless carriages should have six legs, rather than four.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 10, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Considering that we dont know what the actual monster stat block will look like, isnt it a bit premature to be complaining about what information will be missing from it?




True, except for the simple fact that simplicity comes at the cost of complexity (and I sure hope that doesn't sound profound).  *Any* simplification will come at a cost.  That cost may be grinding the game to a halt after a charm spell.  It may come at the cost of removing Disarm and Sunder and Dispell Magic as useful tactical options.  The descriptions that have come out of WotC have NOT detailed the complicated things (Ex, SLA, SU and spell abilities in 3ed parlance) but only the frankly trivial ones (BaB, HP, AC, Saves).  Of course the stat block can have all the important information, but if you have *that*, you have gone and done all the work that you were going to save.  So why not do the work right, allowing you to interface with the PC system fully?

I'm worried that by doing the easy stuff first, in the way that they seem to have been, will lock them into in a system that makes lots of people unhappy (the roll-playing is badwrongfun croud, the swashbuckling croud and the tactical croud all have cause to worry).  I see a great opportunity to take 3e's Type system and make it *work* that is being wasted for something that makes life easier 9 times out of 10 and grinds the game to a halt that 1 time in 10.  Or says "you can't do that".  It seems so out of character with everything else coming out about 4e.


----------



## Forrester (Sep 10, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I'm in agreement.  I loved the idea when 3rd Edition first came out, but in actual practice it possibly ended up being a horrendous pain in the butt in preparing for and running a game.




Yep yep and yep.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Right now, the stat block of a creature tells you how it works in both combat AND non-combat situations, in that the stat blocks list their non-combat skills.  The designers have already said that the stat blocks of creatures in 4e will be complete as well.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The reason I had been suggesting stat blocks might be incomplete was because a role-oriented stat block would only give information necessary for that role. Otherwise it would not be role-oriented. I had missed the designers' remarks about complete statblocks. If this is the case, then my thoughts about role-oriented stat blocks must be wrong.

(Though the suggestion that a GM might have to invent a number for how "easily convinced" a brute is some sort of concession of less-than-complete stat blocks, because that's a bit like saying the stat block is complete but for hit points - just a minor detail!).

The alternative interpretation of the designers' remarks on roles, if stat blocks are to be taken as complete not just for that role, but in totality, is that it is not stat-blocks that are role-oriented but creatures themselves. I would see that as a less attractive way to go, because it is less flexible. Rather than simplifying the presentation of creatures via stat blocks, it would be simplifying the creatures themselves.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 11, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The reason I had been suggesting stat blocks might be incomplete was because a role-oriented stat block would only give information necessary for that role. Otherwise it would not be role-oriented. I had missed the designers' remarks about complete statblocks. If this is the case, then my thoughts about role-oriented stat blocks must be wrong.



They never said there will be "role oriented" stat blocks.  They've said that monsters would HAVE combat roles.  For instance, one monster might be good at ranged attacks and another one might be good at healing and another one might be good at hindering the movement of the PCs.

This is the same way that Rangers are good at ranged attacks, clerics are good at healing and wizards are good at hindering the movement of enemies.  The players have roles, the monsters have roles.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Rather than simplifying the presentation of creatures via stat blocks, it would be simplifying the creatures themselves.



This is pretty much what I've gotten from everything that's been said.  They are simplifying the monsters and streamlining them for their "purpose".

If a creature as the ability to do an area of effect attack, hit really hard, hold all of the enemies in a goo, heal itself, teleport, and protect itself with a forcefield...then DMs might not know what to do with the creature each round.  Which option does it use?  What does the creature do in combat other than "whatever is best for it that round"?  Is an encounter with 5 of them too powerful since each one of them is so versitile?

However, if you have a creature who teleports and hits really hard, you know what the creature does.  It has hit and run tactics.  It has less options per round making it easier to run.  Plus, you can see the effect that will happen if you put a big brute of an enemy in the encounter who could block the PCs and protect the hit and run monsters.  They will work well together.

That's what roles are about, not artificially restricting stat blocks to less information.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So your DnD experience rarely involves Charm, Diplomacy, Disarm, Sunder, Dispell Magic in combat, Calm Emotions or any other such action?  All of those require moving to a more complicated rule set.



No, I'm saying that all that information is in the stat block and it's never been suggested that we lose any of it.  Charming an enemy doesn't require knowing more about it than using it as an enemy.  Neither does any of the other options.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> So, what happens if the goblin gets disarmed?  Dispelled?  If his AC doesn't include a bonus breakdown, what happens if he gets surprised?  What happens if he gets surprised *after* a rust monster attack (or a Rusting grasp spell)?  Are any of his combat stats Morale based?



Remember when the designers said that the system is very interconnected?  Who says that in 4e disarm isn't an opposed strength check meaning that we now have the information?  Assuming dispelling won't change this monster at all, no information needs to be in the stat block.  Maybe your AC doesn't change when flatfooted so more information is not needed.  Maybe there is a general rule that states that all creatures do 1d3 damage with their unarmed strikes and that they have the same plus to hit with their unarmed strikes as their normal attacks.

Plus, my example was just an example...I probably missed some information in there, but not much.

The only thing I've heard from the designers are:
-Stat blocks have been shortened through an ingenious method, you'll have to see it
-Monsters still have all the stats they did before(they still have feats, saves, skills, etc)
-Monsters have roles in the same way that classes have roles



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> The end result, if monsters are *only* used for combat, of simplifying the system is to remove tactical options.  Including such extremely basic ones as disarm and dispell.



I never suggested this options would be removed.  I think all the same options would be available as before.  The options themselves will be simpler and therefore require less information.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> I can't see it as worth it.  Adding in the complexity of a "special abilities" system (which WILL NOT be as simple as reading the combat stats off a table) and you end up with the black box system not netting you much prep time at all in the end as opposed to a PCesque design system.



What?  Why won't it be as simple as reading the combat stats off a table?

If a creature has an ability that says:
Fire Breath (Ex): 60 ft Cone of Fire, 10d6, +10 to hit
or
Teleport (Su): 1/encounter put the creature in any square within 100ft that it can see

Those seem simple to me.  I don't need to read any other sections of the book to understand them.  It doesn't require any prep time (since the monster is already written in the Monster Manual and I'm just reading it as I'm running the creature).

As it is now, creatures are listed as having spell like abilities, which have to take standard actions, since that's the general rule(you have to make up a special ability if you want to be able to use a spell as a swift action, for instance).  They refer to spells in the PHB, which you have to look up if you don't know what they do.  Then you need to read the half page long description of the spell to figure out what it does.

I see it as removing 10 layers of complexity and then adding 1 back.  Does it mean that monsters now can just have abilities that you'd never give to players in a million years?  Yup.  Does it mean that you likely won't be able to create a 10th level Goblin without a LOT of pre-session work?  Yep, I think so.  It will make us more reliant on Monster Manuals for creatures instead of making them up ourselves, and increase the number of very similar monsters we have.  In exchange, the actual running of the monsters will be a lot easier since you won't be trying to remember 20 general rules about monsters, instead just using the stats as written.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that all that information is in the stat block and it's never been suggested that we lose any of it.  Charming an enemy doesn't require knowing more about it than using it as an enemy.  Neither does any of the other options.




Charming an enemy does mean that if you want to buff it, you need to know what bonus types it is running.  If you want to give it stuff (weapons/armor) you need to know its current equipement, proficiencies and gear related abilities.  If you want to do things like that, you need to know the *provenance* of the bonuses.  Which means you need the complications.  Can you simplify meaningfully while keeping adequate complexity?  I find it quite unlikely.



> Remember when the designers said that the system is very interconnected?  Who says that in 4e disarm isn't an opposed strength check meaning that we now have the information?  Assuming dispelling won't change this monster at all, no information needs to be in the stat block.  Maybe your AC doesn't change when flatfooted so more information is not needed.  Maybe there is a general rule that states that all creatures do 1d3 damage with their unarmed strikes and that they have the same plus to hit with their unarmed strikes as their normal attacks.




As I noted, if you remove meaningfull combat options (disarm, sunder, surprise, dispell etc...) you remove the need to include the stats those options need.  I have to say though, I cannot find the idea to be particularly appealing.



> Plus, my example was just an example...I probably missed some information in there, but not much.




Among other things, you missed AC and its breakdown, as well as the ability of the goblin to use other weapons.  The rogue wants to sneak up to the camp at night and steal the gear?  You convinced the goblins to join you on an attack against some kobolds and you wanted to loan them some excess gear?  Oops.  And that is one of the simplest humanoid brutes available.  How about a skilled warrior brute template?  Or a mystical fey warrior brute template?  Or a berserking goblin template?  Or an exotic weaponsmaster brute template?



> The only thing I've heard from the designers are:
> -Stat blocks have been shortened through an ingenious method, you'll have to see it
> -Monsters still have all the stats they did before(they still have feats, saves, skills, etc)
> -Monsters have roles in the same way that classes have roles
> ...




What are you going to remove and keep the options in a meaningfull manner?!  The 3.5 stat block has precious little fat.  Skills might be simplified, but will still need their section.  Gear *should* mean something.  You *can* cut down on the number of special abilities monsters have, but that isn't going to simplify the simpler monsters in play, nor simplify the *design* of more complicated monsters.



> If a creature has an ability that says:
> Fire Breath (Ex): 60 ft Cone of Fire, 10d6, +10 to hit
> or
> Teleport (Su): 1/encounter put the creature in any square within 100ft that it can see
> ...




The difficulty of SU abilities et al. comes in getting the right ability at the right HD/CR/whatever.  Ogre Magi are the classic example of getting it wrong.  It has nothing to do with running them in game.  The difficulty in running abilities in 3e comes from excessive referencing of other material (a presentation issue, not a development one) and an excessive numbers of abilities (a development one, greatly improved by 3.5).

Any system which gets the *power level* right will have similar complexity as a system which gets the power level right by stating up monsters HD by HD.  After all, the decisions are *the same*.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> True, except for the simple fact that simplicity comes at the cost of complexity (and I sure hope that doesn't sound profound).  *Any* simplification will come at a cost.  That cost may be grinding the game to a halt after a charm spell.




The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.




We can argue the percentages (both in time saved, and times problems are encountered, which will correlate strongly).  Note however that DMs making stuff up can have problematic results, causes frequent inconsistent rulings, and, hugely important, eats into *game time*.

More complete rules eats into prep time ONLY if DMs are designing their own monsters (in which case more complete rule designs have a distinct chance of saving time).  MM monsters, being stated up by other people, cost a DM the same regardless of design principles (unless the players do wierd stuff, which they are wont to do, in which case complexity makes things easier).  As DM designed monsters (as opposed to MM monsters) tend to be "named", they also tend to be the ones people try wierd stuff against.

Once you have decided to do a "full stat" monster design paradigm, tying it into the PC generation system costs little, and promises huge gains (monster PCs, long lived monster NPCs, templates/half breeds that work etc...).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> That's what roles are about, not artificially restricting stat blocks to less information.



Excpet that the designers have also said that one's players will not know what orcs can do, until one actually sees the roles they start playing on the battlefield; and have canvassed the use of a dire bear in a different-from-usual role, which would then require putting new abilities in its stat block.

One way of interpreting those remarks is that there are many different sorts of orc or dire bear. Another way is that there are many different ways of _presenting_an orc or dire bear, depending on what one wishes to do with it.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> We can argue the percentages (both in time saved, and times problems are encountered, which will correlate strongly).  Note however that DMs making stuff up can have problematic results, causes frequent inconsistent rulings, and, hugely important, eats into *game time*.




If you have players who like to argue the 1% of cases where the DM is making stuff up, they should go play video games.




> More complete rules eats into prep time ONLY if DMs are designing their own monsters (in which case more complete rule designs have a distinct chance of saving time).




Or if they are trying to go beyond the MM's basic assumptions. Like, you know, when a brute gets charmed.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If you have players who like to argue the 1% of cases where the DM is making stuff up, they should go play video games.




If you are only having issues in 1% of the cases, you aren't saving any time.



> Or if they are trying to go beyond the MM's basic assumptions. Like, you know, when a brute gets charmed.




Um, charm causes problems if the MM's description isn't complete.  I'm arguing for a complete description...


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you are only having issues in 1% of the cases, you aren't saving any time.




By that argument, if you are only having issues in 1% of cases, you also aren't losing any time.



> Um, charm causes problems if the MM's description isn't complete.  I'm arguing for a complete description...




Charm causes problems because the MM's description is predicated on certain build assumptions which may or may not be adequate for all situations in which people find themselves, but will cause difficulties if people want to go beyond them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2007)

hung said:
			
		

> The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.




Monster Combat isn't 99% of my game, though. It's maybe 25-75% depending upon what the party's doing at the moment and where their focus lies. When I'm not hurling XP gristle at 'em, the monsters serve as background population, NPC's, advisers, party members, social rivals, contacts, trainers, etc.: basically as a role in the world and in the party. Designing them for combat is an important goal, probably even THE most important goal, but to make it basically the only goal is to totally miss the boat on the other reasons monsters exist.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The whole point of a Beholder, in 4e (I'm inferring here from Mearls' column, and the Dragon example) is to be the functional equivalent of 5 PCs. Not just in terms of its power (eg damage delivered per round) but in terms of its actions per round.




If that is true, I have to wonder why. 

Or, perhaps more relevantly, why you just can't use a "higher level" beholder or throw a beholder at a lower level party to gain the BBEG challenge you seek. Or even have some sort of template or guidelines for when you want to use a monster (any monster) as a solitary boss.

Designing monsters for only one purpose is narrow minded design. If Beholders only exist to challenge a party as a boss monster, the designers are artificially limiting what I should be able to do with a Beholder (which should include "playing one as a PC" IMO). 

I don't believe for a second that you need to sacrifice combat awesomeness in order to maintain PC or simple "world element" balance when you're starting from scratch like 4e is.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Monster Combat isn't 99% of my game, though. It's maybe 25-75% depending upon what the party's doing at the moment and where their focus lies. When I'm not hurling XP gristle at 'em, the monsters serve as background population, NPC's, advisers, party members, social rivals, contacts, trainers, etc.: basically as a role in the world and in the party. Designing them for combat is an important goal, probably even THE most important goal, but to make it basically the only goal is to totally miss the boat on the other reasons monsters exist.




So Make It Up. Think of it not as a problem, but an opportunity to get into some serious design hacking.



> Designing monsters for only one purpose is narrow minded design. If Beholders only exist to challenge a party as a boss monster, the designers are artificially limiting what I should be able to do with a Beholder (which should include "playing one as a PC" IMO).




The designers are not limiting what you can do in the slightest. You can always Make It Up.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Sep 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So Make It Up. Think of it not as a problem, but an opportunity to get into some serious design hacking.




Wheee!  I not only get to PAY MONEY for incomplete material, I also get to TAKE TIME AWAY FROM MAKING MORE so I can complete it?  What next?  Do I get to pay a subscription, not to have more content delivered, but to have it actually, physically removed from my books?

What is the point of buying the book (which, among other things, is claimed to SAVE time) if I end up having to do 'serious design hacking?'  I don't have to do 'serious design hacking' to bring the awesome in existing, well-designed systems.  I have to buy a book and use its rules to do what I want to do.

If I have to do that ON THE FLY, then it's even worse - now I'm wasting my player's time as well as my own.  If we assume even an average hourly wage of $8, that means a single hour taken to do this during a session, or, heck, a campaign, would run us $72.  We could collectively buy copies of Mutants and Masterminds and Spirit of the Century and have a pair of complete games for the money spent doing 'serious design hacking' for just an hour over the course of a campaign.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The designers are not limiting what you can do in the slightest. You can always Make It Up.




The designers are, however, claiming it as a time saving measure.


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> What is the point of buying the book (which, among other things, is claimed to SAVE time) if I end up having to do 'serious design hacking?'




To play the game. As opposed to building worlds. If building worlds is in fact your primary goal in buying RPG books, then perhaps D&D 4E indeed is not for you, given its emphatic shift from HEROization to Iron Heroization.



> I don't have to do 'serious design hacking' to bring the awesome in existing, well-designed systems.  I have to buy a book and use its rules to do what I want to do.




I do (or did) serious design hacking all the time. Never again.




> The designers are, however, claiming it as a time saving measure.




And as someone who habitually rolls his own monsters, it certainly is.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Monsters still have all the stats they did before(they still have feats, saves, skills, etc).



They will have the sams sorts of stats, yes. But I'm not sure they will have complete or total stats in the way that PCs do.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The basic idea is that monsters will be designed for what, 99% of the time, they will be doing. The DM is supposed to make stuff up (with certain guidelines in mind) the other 1% of the time, instead of eating up prep time to account for it. If the DM cannot make stuff up 1% of the time, they should not be DMing.



That's not too far from what I've been saying. It suggests that in some cases the GM has to add to the stat block on the fly (eg by working it out as a social rather than a combat challenge).



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> DMs making stuff up can have problematic results, causes frequent inconsistent rulings, and, hugely important, eats into *game time*.



If the "making up" is deciding, on the spot, whether the orc in front of you is a skilled speaker or not, or whether his chain armour is +1 magic or +1 quality, then there is no danger of inconsistent rulings. Because these are not rulings, they are encounter design decisions.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> More complete rules eats into prep time ONLY if DMs are designing their own monsters (in which case more complete rule designs have a distinct chance of saving time).  MM monsters, being stated up by other people, cost a DM the same regardless of design principles



This claim has already been shown to be false - for example, using spell like abilities for monster abilities eats into playing time by necessitating cross-referencing.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Once you have decided to do a "full stat" monster design paradigm, tying it into the PC generation system costs little, and promises huge gains (monster PCs, long lived monster NPCs, templates/half breeds that work etc...).



This is obviously not true.

First, a monster can have full stats but still be generated in a very different manner from a PC, because its generation system is designed to serve a different metagame purpose (of generating a challenge, rather than a player vehicle).

Second, there would be obvious costs of going this way, such as ruling out Beholders and other creatures which will be the functional equivalent (in terms of useful actions available) to several ordinary characters.

Third, it's not obvious what the gains are. How is the game better off because multi-function monsters are excluded, and every opponent of the PCs is (in effect) a PC under the GM's control? There are other sorts of challenges which players cannot play in D&D - walls, for example, or poison needle traps, or the positive material plane, to name some environmental ones. Why is it important that every personal challenge (monster or NPC) be, in effect, a PC under the GM's control?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If Beholders only exist to challenge a party as a boss monster, the designers are artificially limiting what I should be able to do with a Beholder (which should include "playing one as a PC" IMO).



And, conversely, if Beholders were designed so as to be playable as PCs (and therefore to be limited to PC parameters of actions per round) than the designers would be (artificially? I'm not sure what that means here) limiting what I can do with that Beholder. In particular, they would be preventing me from using it as 4e will allow me to use it, namely, as the functional equivalent of ordinary characters.

The question is, which is the better set of limits? I think the designers are right to think building monsters to work well as monsters is a higher design priority than building monsters to work well as PCs.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> If building worlds is in fact your primary goal in buying RPG books, then perhaps D&D 4E indeed is not for you, given its emphatic shift from HEROization to Iron Heroization.



Agreed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Monster Combat isn't 99% of my game, though. It's maybe 25-75% depending upon what the party's doing at the moment and where their focus lies. When I'm not hurling XP gristle at 'em, the monsters serve as background population, NPC's, advisers, party members, social rivals, contacts, trainers, etc.: basically as a role in the world and in the party. Designing them for combat is an important goal, probably even THE most important goal, but to make it basically the only goal is to totally miss the boat on the other reasons monsters exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are doing that in D&D 3.x, and it works sometimes, and sometimes not.
The Beholder is not by any means a playable creature. It's 10 eye rays will ramp up its Level Adjustment so high that you could as well say you can't play the creature. D&D 4 will explicitly tell you and not bother giving you guidelines to do it differently. If you want a beholder that serves as a minion, you either make up the statistics yourself or they are provided by the MM.

Ever looked at how many attacks a Dragon has per rounds, and at what attack bonuses they are? A Dragon _is_ the functional equivalent of 4-5 characters - at least if he gets a full round attack. If not, this might change (but he has area attacks and spells to make up for that). And that can be a problem, because it can turn into a glass jaw syndrom (it doesn't in the case of the dragon because dragons have little ways how you could exploit their "weaknesses" - high saves, great size, spell resistance, ability to fly)
It's also next to impossible to play a dragon, because HD and LA will jump its ECL into the high level to epic level region.

--
A lot of these problems can also be solved by assuming that there are some standard guidelines for monsters: 
- Unless noted otherwise, a monster has a skill modifier equal to one half its level (plus its ability modifier)
- Unless noted otherwise, a monsters attack deals bludgeoning damage according to size seen on the following table. [...] A game master may decide that a specific creature might deal slashing or piercing damage instead. Apply the creatures strength modifier to the attack as with a one-handed weapon. Use this damage if no other natural weapon is provided and the monster is disarmed of its usual weapon.
- Unless noted otherwise, a monster attacks bonus is equal to its level + its relevant ability modifier. Use this modifier if the monster has been disarmed of a weapon or uses a weapon not listed in its description.
- Unless noted otherwise, a monster statistics do not include any magical item or spell based modifiers. 
These are the most obvious ones, but others might add:
- Unless noted otherwise, a monsters armor class against touch attacks is reduced by 5 points, and a monsters armor class when flat-footed is also reduced by 5 points. These modifiers stack.

Using such guidelines, all interaction with the characters is easy to adjudicate. You don't have to write anything in the stat block.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> A lot of these problems can also be solved by assuming that there are some standard guidelines for monsters:
> 
> <snip example guidelines>
> 
> Using such guidelines, all interaction with the characters is easy to adjudicate. You don't have to write anything in the stat block.



I agree. This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I suggested the possibility of "default" settings when the Brute suddenly becomes a player in a social challenge.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> They are doing that in D&D 3.x, and it works sometimes, and sometimes not.
> The Beholder is not by any means a playable creature. It's 10 eye rays will ramp up its Level Adjustment so high that you could as well say you can't play the creature. D&D 4 will explicitly tell you and not bother giving you guidelines to do it differently. If you want a beholder that serves as a minion, you either make up the statistics yourself or they are provided by the MM.




The beholder is almost Ogre Magi kin.  It has the defense of an 11 HD monsters (way lower than an 11th lvl PC's) but the offence of a 13-14th lvl wizard.  This split is what causes the problems.  Add several (6?) HD to a beholder and the LA starts to melt away (and the CR rises some, the offense/defense split evens out and the beholder becomes more fun as a monster).



> A lot of these problems can also be solved by assuming that there are some standard guidelines for monsters:
> - Unless noted otherwise, a monster has a skill modifier equal to one half its level (plus its ability modifier)
> - Unless noted otherwise, a monsters attack deals bludgeoning damage according to size seen on the following table. [...] A game master may decide that a specific creature might deal slashing or piercing damage instead. Apply the creatures strength modifier to the attack as with a one-handed weapon. Use this damage if no other natural weapon is provided and the monster is disarmed of its usual weapon.
> - Unless noted otherwise, a monster attacks bonus is equal to its level + its relevant ability modifier. Use this modifier if the monster has been disarmed of a weapon or uses a weapon not listed in its description.
> ...




So tigers have Forgery 4 and barbaric 10 HD goblins have Craft: Calligraphy 5.  All monsters have full BaB and are proficient with all weapons (including exotics).  Iron golems have dex scores of 20 and naked goblins are wearing chain mail.  Yup, you don't have to write things in a stat block if you are aiming for comedy or are removing interaction options.

Is the above fixable by adding stuff to a stat block?  Of course, easily.  Mind, if you add it, why not do it right in the first place?

Of course magic bonuses should be written up in the stat block.  There are "brute" designs for whom magic bonuses are central though, so we will need an attack bonus breakdown in the stat block.  And an armor bonus break down in the stat block, etc...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 11, 2007)

I suspect that much of the simplification of the stat line is a result of both the rules itself (See how skills are being handled now) with some compacting of common traits into a main list.  

The big change is in how those stats are going to determined.  They will not be decided using the same rules as PCs, but they are still being determined using consistant rules.  So long as we have the formulas/tables/whatever for it, (And I have little reason to doubt they'll not include ithem), we know all the information needed for adjusting them and determining new values for different roles.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The beholder is almost Ogre Magi kin.  It has the defense of an 11 HD monsters (way lower than an 11th lvl PC's) but the offence of a 13-14th lvl wizard.  This split is what causes the problems.  Add several (6?) HD to a beholder and the LA starts to melt away (and the CR rises some, the offense/defense split evens out and the beholder becomes more fun as a monster).



Yes, that's what they will probably do in D&D 4. BUT: Adding HD doesn't change the LA. Maybe changing it to Undead HD could, but a monster that shots up to 6+ magic rays with powerful spells and with a Antimagic Aura cannot have a low LA. It is so totally more powerful in the "spellcasting/ranged" combat department than any PC that you just can't do it. 



> So tigers have Forgery 4 and barbaric 10 HD goblins have Craft: Calligraphy 5.



Yes and no. Forgery cannot be used untrained, so it doesn't matter that they have a modifier in the skill. (And the modifier would be far lower, if animals keep their Intelligence of 1-2). To have a specific subset of a Craft skill, you must be trained in it, meaning that the Goblin just has Craft (Everything) +5, which they typically use to build crude traps or cave paintings of their heroic deeds in killing adventurers that try to mock their cave paintings or their inability to read and write (or just wanted to kill them and loot their stuff).



> All monsters have full BaB and are proficient with all weapons (including exotics).



Oh, I might have been missing a paragraph for that case.
But I think, why bother: Yes, they are proficient with all weapons. Because how likely is it that they will end up with an exotic weapon if it is not already in their stat block? Oh, sure, maybe the PCs give them the stupid two-bladed sword nobody wanted to use then. Well, if you don't like your NPC using it, let him say he doesn't want it and they better give him his own weapon back!



> Iron golems have dex scores of 20



Maybe. But all creature that are flat-footed take at least a -5 penalty to defense. (But actually, if that was not the mechanic, the value might still be written into the stat block, and wouldn't make it any worse, because you just add 2 words and 2 numbers to the AC line.)


> and naked goblins are wearing chain mail.
> [/QUTE]
> No. This naked Super Goblin Brute does obviously have natural armor. (have you looked at the HD and attack bonus of that damn Goblin?) Didn't I write that in the guidelines above or did I just think about writing that down?
> 
> ...


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

I think some of our arguement is drifting out to sea due to a lack of a solid 4e preview anchor.  Please allow me to try and state my full position.

The preview information suggests that (for brutes, maybe strikers, the suggestion that they tried to do the easy things, namely raw stats, before working out the hard things, namely cool abilities first is somewhat disheartening) they are putting in a set of look-up tables with the raw stats (and, potentially, special abilities).  This has a few problems.

Firstly, if you want to allow for varied tactics (such as disarm, charm, dispell, calm emotions), you need to know the provenance of the stats (the bonus types).  Of course, different monsters will have different bonus types.  An animal will have raw, relatively untyped stats (a very few might get a morale bonus at low hp).  Humanoids however, even restricting one to the brute role, will have many different types, in different amound based on concept.  The barbaric humanoid should have different bonus types (and different stats) than a skilled civilized fighter who in turn should have different stats (and especially abilities) than an exotic weaponsmaster who in turn will have different bonus types than a mystical fey warrior.  Because typed bonuses are less valuable (stacking difficulties, ability to target them directly), and some types carry penalties (heavy armor slows one down), the stat totals should not be the same.

This means that, instead of 1 look up table for brutes, you need several.  Effectively, each brute subtype is becoming its own class.  If you don't have seperate lookup tables, your goblin berserker plays the same as the skilled warrior, who plays the same as the fey knight (I consider this tradeoff to be far too expensive, and I fear it is the direction WotC is heading).

Now, if each brute subtype is effectively becoming its own class, why not MAKE IT A CLASS.  In practice, using D20 modern terminology because I don't have SWSE, each *type* would become a Basic Class, with a talent tree for each Role+Style (brute being a role, skilled warrior in plate being a style).  The Type classes would be perfect DI information (too long for the print MM).  This would make things like monsters as PCs (duh) and half-breeding (half dragon template would become a varying number of Dragon Type HD, based on how draconic you want the result to be) easy.  In fact, the whole abomination that is templates (which, like anything that involves a non-zero LA, works poorly) could be removed entirely.  In terms of design difficulty, you replace reading off a line on a table with a BaB/Saves progressions and 1 talent tree taken in the obvious order (allow only one order for simplicity's sake).  Somewhat more work?  Maybe, albiet marginally.  If you want something other than a *pure* brute though, it becomes less work.

All of this largely independant of stat block layout, where you have to balance simplicity of layout (difficulty in finding the information you want) with complexity of stats (having the information you need included in the stat block), although have a design procedure that produces all the information you'll want is needed.  I certainly agree with people who say that special abilities should be written out in the stat block, but that has little bearing on the design procedure of the monster/ability.

(As a side note, HD does change LA.  A 2nd lvl SLA on the 20HD monster will affect the LA not at all, while it will have a huge effect on the LA for a 1HD monster.  This obviously causes problems if you level out of the range the LA was designed for.  As the wotc optimization board long ago realized, most printed LAs are *way* out of whack.  Going through the MM and changing HD until well balanced LAs became 0 would go a long way towards avoiding Ogre Magi.)


----------



## SavageRobby (Sep 11, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm the exact opposite. I thought the notion of designing monsters and PC races the same way was a good idea when 3E first came out, but the last eight years convinced me I was wrong. It straightjackets the designers, in terms of monster design, and is also partly responsible for the constant growth of the monster stat block.
> 
> I'd much rather see "purpose-built" monsters. It might make things harder for the tiny fraction of the player base that wants to use beholders, or displacer beast paladins, in a PC party. But it makes things a lot easier for the vast majority of gamers, to say nothing of allowing more interesting and "out there" monsters, and honestly, I think that's a more important consideration.




I'm in the same boat as the mouse on this. 


Also, IMO, characters should be special. They're the ones performing acts of derring do, and all that good stuff. The rules for everyone and everything else don't _need_ to be the same as the rules for PCs. In fact, by doing so, it lessens how special PCs (and certain NPCs) are. "If everyone is special, no one is special."

Also, as a DM, having more a less intensive rules set for monsters means that I can focus my time and energy on the setting and story, not on the stats. And that is a good thing.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 11, 2007)

Plus the designers can take their time and work out rules for PC-playable monsters in a subsequent, well-developed, _optional_ book. I still think the LA/ECL rules in the DMG were a flat-out waste of time, and I'd rather not have had them at all.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 11, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Plus the designers can take their time and work out rules for PC-playable monsters in a subsequent, well-developed, _optional_ book. I still think the LA/ECL rules in the DMG were a flat-out waste of time, and I'd rather not have had them at all.




Won't work.  We saw the results of trying to shoe-horn PC monsters into a system not designed with that in mind.  It wasn't pretty.  It wasn't pretty for the same reasons that the template rules weren't pretty.

People are massively overestimating the time saved by going (monsters =/= PC)+(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) v.s (monster = PC).

(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) means the final stat block in either case is the same.  Which means the same design decisions are made.  Which means it takes the same time (monster=PC takes more designer time at WotC to flesh out the system).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> The big change is in how those stats are going to determined.  They will not be decided using the same rules as PCs, but they are still being determined using consistant rules.  So long as we have the formulas/tables/whatever for it, (And I have little reason to doubt they'll not include ithem), we know all the information needed for adjusting them and determining new values for different roles.



Agreed. This is exactly what I've been saying for many posts now.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 11, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> People are massively overestimating the time saved by going (monsters =/= PC)+(adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) v.s (monster = PC).
> 
> (adequate complexity)+(avoiding Ogre Magi) means the final stat block in either case is the same.  Which means the same design decisions are made.  Which means it takes the same time (monster=PC takes more designer time at WotC to flesh out the system).



Kraydak, here are two questions you haven't answered:

*If the purpose of a Beholder is to behave, on the battlemat, as the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters of its level, how can it _ever_ be a viable PC? As I said in one of my earlier posts, such a creature would not be a viable PC, whatever the LA, for two reasons: (i) given its number of actions, it would take up too much time for a single player at the table; (ii) an adequate LA would mean that its abilities would be ineffective compared to the abilities of an ordinary PC of that level.

*_Why_ are "glass jaw" monsters poorly designed? One can reach this conclusion if one starts with the premise that monsters = PCs. But if one does not assume this premise (which one cannot if one is using the "glass jaw" claim as a premise in an argument to the conclusion that monsters = PC), what is the argument?


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 12, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Kraydak, here are two questions you haven't answered:
> 
> *If the purpose of a Beholder is to behave, on the battlemat, as the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters of its level, how can it _ever_ be a viable PC? As I said in one of my earlier posts, such a creature would not be a viable PC, whatever the LA, for two reasons: (i) given its number of actions, it would take up too much time for a single player at the table; (ii) an adequate LA would mean that its abilities would be ineffective compared to the abilities of an ordinary PC of that level.
> 
> *_Why_ are "glass jaw" monsters poorly designed? One can reach this conclusion if one starts with the premise that monsters = PCs. But if one does not assume this premise (which one cannot if one is using the "glass jaw" claim as a premise in an argument to the conclusion that monsters = PC), what is the argument?




Beholders: Designing monsters to be the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters has many draw-backs.  There are two ways to do it.  Firstly, you can just use a more powerful (but well balanced) monster (in 3e terms, use CR=APL+2-3).  While this entails no special design requirements, it can cause issues when the numbers get too extreme (PCs needed 20s to hit, melee brutes 1 rounding PCs).

Secondly you can have a monster that has many more hp than normal for its "level" and can take more actions or otherwise has a higher offense than normal for its "level" but the basic interaction stats (to hits, saves, save DCs, AC, skills) are appropriate for its "level".  Everquest (and WoW, to a lesser extent) did this, in a large part due to programming limitations.  It works, much of the time.  It breaks *horrifically* if PCs use Charm effects.  All of a sudden the PCs have an ally with a power level all out of scale with the difficulty of landing the charm.  If facing such monsters (and note, beholders AREN'T such as designed in 3e.  In 3e beholders are closer to a trap, with offense>>>>defense.  A party that can absorb a beholder's output for 1-2 rounds will drop it in the same time span).  In D&D, the programming limitations are replaced by DM congnitive load, but the cognitive load of a monster with many abilities to forget about isn't that different that that of many monsters with few abilities each...

Glass Jaws:  Glass Jaw monsters (henceforth OMs for Ogre Magi, how I loathe thee) pose several problems.  In 3e terms, they are functionally impossible to CR well.  If you CR to the defense, they WILL cause TPKs (unless the PCs get a jump on the OMs).  If you CR to the offense, they will achieve nothing.  You can hedge your bets by CRing in the middle, but it doesn't really work.

In addition to being actively hard use as a DM (the CRing difficulty also makes them hard to place reasonably as a DM), they just aren't that fun to face as a player.  They end up playing more as traps than as monsters: instead of a search roll, you have a search roll.  Instead of a save, you have an initiative roll.  Either way, the encounter is over very fast.  (yes, it has to get quite extreme for the problems to become untenable, but OMs are that).

This doesn't mean that there isn't a place for OMs.  However, they should be the corner cases.  A monster design protocol should be set up to produce well balanced monsters, which can interface well with a CR system (or whatever 4e uses to balance encounters).  Because OMs *inherently* need DM intervention/skill/special placement, you can treat them as special cases (and, whatever you do, for the OMs included in the MM, GIVE A DM WARNING).

I apologize for poor writing, off to a game.


----------



## hong (Sep 12, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Is the above fixable by adding stuff to a stat block?  Of course, easily.  Mind, if you add it, why not do it right in the first place?




Because "doing it right in the first place" commits you to additional prep time for every monster you tweak. And after a while, you quickly realise that in 99% of cases, that additional prep time adds no value at all, so you end up handwaving it. Which is the reality the 4E approach is addressing.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 12, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Designing monsters to be the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters has many draw-backs.  There are two ways to do it.  Firstly, you can just use a more powerful (but well balanced) monster (in 3e terms, use CR=APL+2-3.
> 
> Secondly you can have a monster that has many more hp than normal for its "level" and can take more actions or otherwise has a higher offense than normal for its "level" but the basic interaction stats (to hits, saves, save DCs, AC, skills) are appropriate for its "level".  Everquest (and WoW, to a lesser extent) did this, in a large part due to programming limitations.  It works, much of the time.  It breaks *horrifically* if PCs use Charm effects.



A more powerful but well-balanced (by your criteria) creature is not the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters. It is the functional equivalent of one such character, though of a higher level. An example in D&D would be an Ogre fighting 1st level characters.

But when we look at creatures with a "higher than normal offence" for their level, things become more complicated, and it is these complications that I believe you are not taking account of.

First, if such a creature has both higher hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then what we have is simply a higher level "well-balanced" creature.

Second, if such a creature has normal hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then we have a "glass jaw" creature - see below for my thoughts on them.

Third, if such a creature has multiple actions, it does not necessarily need more hit points to play quite differently from an ordinary creature of its level: in terms of output, 10 actions per round and normal hit points is the same as 5 actions per round and double normal hit points.

Fourth, creatures with multiple actions impose different (and more complex) requirements on the GM. Each Hydra's head, for example, might have its own hit point total to track. We can imagine a creature drawing on multiple power sources, each of which has to be tracked separately.

Fifth, and a reason for having multiple action creatures despite their complexity, is that the number of actions also affects the character of game play. Thus, a death ray dealing 20d6 hits on a failed save is equivalent, in terms of hit points inflicted, to two death rays each dealing 10d6 hits on a failed save. But they play very differently. The second option creates a creature who takes more time to resolve at the table, but who interacts with more than one PC at a time.

I don't see that creatures with multiple actions are a detriment to the game. I don't see that they are especially hard to design well (although the design parameters are obviously different from ordinary creatures). I don't see that they are viable as PCs (for the reasons I have given in my earlier posts). Therefore, we have to choose between two alternatives: either monsters = PCs, or multiple action creatures are possible. I don't see what's wrong with choosing the second way.

As for the charm question, there are a few ways of going. Perhaps Beholders are immune to Charm. Perhaps each spell only affects one of the Hydra's or Ettin's heads. To be honest, if something has to give between charm spells and the fundamentals of creature design, I think it is the charm spells that will give.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Glass Jaw monsters (henceforth OMs for Ogre Magi, how I loathe thee) pose several problems.  In 3e terms, they are functionally impossible to CR well.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In addition to being actively hard use as a DM (the CRing difficulty also makes them hard to place reasonably as a DM), they just aren't that fun to face as a player.



The above comments on OMs appear to presuppose that the OMs are solo, or in a group of their ilk. But what about OMs behind meat shields? This is a standard trope of D&D from way back (eg the example combat in the 1st ed PHB, which involves an Illusionist and 20 Orcs). The tactical challenge becomes finding a way to shut down the OM without having to hack through all that meat.

Looked at in that light, the OM is really just a variant on the NPC magic-user. Often, however, it has melee or other potential that precludes it being used as a PC, because this extra functionality would tread on the toes of non-wizard characters.


----------



## Kraydak (Sep 12, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> A more powerful but well-balanced (by your criteria) creature is not the functional equivalent of 5 ordinary characters. It is the functional equivalent of one such character, though of a higher level. An example in D&D would be an Ogre fighting 1st level characters.
> 
> But when we look at creatures with a "higher than normal offence" for their level, things become more complicated, and it is these complications that I believe you are not taking account of.
> 
> First, if such a creature has both higher hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then what we have is simply a higher level "well-balanced" creature.



That depends on the monster's BaB/AC/Saves in addition to his hp/damage.


> Second, if such a creature has normal hit points and a single attack that is more damaging than normal, then we have a "glass jaw" creature - see below for my thoughts on them.
> 
> Third, if such a creature has multiple actions, it does not necessarily need more hit points to play quite differently from an ordinary creature of its level: in terms of output, 10 actions per round and normal hit points is the same as 5 actions per round and double normal hit points.



I disagree strongly.  10 actions/round will 1 round a PC far more often than 5 actions/round.  The latter gives people more time to react and try to survive.  A 1 round monster with 10 actions is a very dangerous trap.  A 2 round monster with 5 attacks, is more interesting (but still extremely hard to use as a DM).


> Fourth, creatures with multiple actions impose different (and more complex) requirements on the GM. Each Hydra's head, for example, might have its own hit point total to track. We can imagine a creature drawing on multiple power sources, each of which has to be tracked separately.
> ...
> I don't see that creatures with multiple actions are a detriment to the game. I don't see that they are especially hard to design well (although the design parameters are obviously different from ordinary creatures). I don't see that they are viable as PCs (for the reasons I have given in my earlier posts). Therefore, we have to choose between two alternatives: either monsters = PCs, or multiple action creatures are possible. I don't see what's wrong with choosing the second way.



I noted that the cognitive load on the DM of 1 monster with many abilities will be similar to that of many monsters with few abilities.  Now, any claims that the Beholder, as designed in 3e, is designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 PCs is fairly absurd.  If you compare it to 5 PCs with a beholder's level of offense, it is made of tissue paper.  If you compare it to 5 PCs with its level of defense, it is armageddon incarnate.  Another thing to think about is that 5 different PCs are unlikely to all have a good line of fire on a single opponent.  If a monster with 5 actions has a line of fire on a PC, it has 5 lines of fire on that PC.  Spreading out the opposition in multiple bodies also spreads it out on the battlemat... avoiding focused fire and the gibbage that is all to often its consequence.  There is precious little reason to try and make a single monster the funcitonal equivalent of 5 PCs, and plenty of reasons not to.


> As for the charm question, there are a few ways of going. Perhaps Beholders are immune to Charm. Perhaps each spell only affects one of the Hydra's or Ettin's heads. To be honest, if something has to give between charm spells and the fundamentals of creature design, I think it is the charm spells that will give.



Why should a beholder (or and ettin, or a hydra) be designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 (or 2, for the ettin) PCs?  They aren't in 3e (if the designers intended to, they failed miserably).


> The above comments on OMs appear to presuppose that the OMs are solo, or in a group of their ilk. But what about OMs behind meat shields? This is a standard trope of D&D from way back (eg the example combat in the 1st ed PHB, which involves an Illusionist and 20 Orcs). The tactical challenge becomes finding a way to shut down the OM without having to hack through all that meat.
> Looked at in that light, the OM is really just a variant on the NPC magic-user. Often, however, it has melee or other potential that precludes it being used as a PC, because this extra functionality would tread on the toes of non-wizard characters.



OMs don't compare to wizards.  Their defense is *pathetic*.  A 9th level wizard (who can also cast cone of cold CL 9) will have more hp (made up for by regen, maybe), higher AC (I mean, 18?!) and better saves (even fort).  In DnD, you can't protect a glass cannon whose offense is PC appropriate, mooks or no mooks.  You can't survive a glass cannon whose defense is PC appropriate, even without mooks.  Note that in 3e, wizard offense is not *that* high compared to other PCs, nor their defense that low.  Wizard level offense/defense splits aren't that big a deal.

Glass cannons are very, very hard to use as a DM.  The margin between cakewalk and TPK is razor thin for them.  Glass cannons should be *rare*, come with DM warnings, and should be party (and partly) customized.  This means that your default monster design protocol doesn't need to be usable for a glass cannon.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 12, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> That depends on the monster's BaB/AC/Saves in addition to his hp/damage.
> 
> I disagree strongly.  10 actions/round will 1 round a PC far more often than 5 actions/round.  The latter gives people more time to react and try to survive.  A 1 round monster with 10 actions is a very dangerous trap.  A 2 round monster with 5 attacks, is more interesting (but still extremely hard to use as a DM).



That's a good point. Since this is the case, I will assume that the designers also found a way to circumvent this. 
If the actions of the creature are not always on the same (its own) initiative count, the PCs have time to act between.
The Dragon Encounter example might give some ideas here: The Dragon did several things in reaction to others (breathing fire because its hit point were reduced below a certain threshold). I am not sure when it did its tail sweep attack, but it seemed limited so that it couldn't be used on just any PC, which means that while it had many actions, it couldn't spend them all on the same creature.

A Beholder for example might be able to take 10 actions, one for each ray. But during any given round, it can fire only 1 or 2 at a specific PC. 



> Why should a beholder (or and ettin, or a hydra) be designed to be the functional equivalent of 5 (or 2, for the ettin) PCs? They aren't in 3e (if the designers intended to, they failed miserably).



Because they are usually encountered solitary. Beholders, Dragons, Ettins, they are all some kind of "boss" monsters (to use the video game term). You don't really expect to fight multiple of them (well, maybe in the case of the Ettin). So, currently you typically use them against a party with a average level 2 to 4 points below their CR. 

The game assumes that each doubling of the number of creatures increase the EL by +2 (IIRC). This implies he reserve is also true - if you increase a monsters CR by 2, it becomes twice as powerful. But this is only "roughly" true. There are many cases in which it doesn't work that way. If a monster doesn't happen to have a few weak spots, it works fine, i guess. But if it has a single weak Saving Throw or Armor Class, or not enough hit points, the fact that a party has 4 times as much actions as the NPC will shine through a lot more, because this gives them 4 opportunities to exploit its weak spot. The problem here is that the weak aspects usually do not scale that well with CR. (Weak Saves increase slower than the typical spell level advancement, meaning that the chance to resist a spell of equal level decreases with level/CR)


If you increase a Beholders HD to remove the disparity of Offense and Defense, you still increase its Offense, because its attacks hit even easier. Suddenly, even its Bite might become dangerous. And it's weak saves stay weak.
And, if monsters should be the same as PCs, why isn't its HD equal to its CR?

The Dragons are actually already designed as the functional equivalent of 4-5 PCs. They are stronger than their CR indicates. They manage to be this equivalent by their massive amount of meelee attacks at high attack bonuses and a powerful breath weapon. They also have high hitpoints, good saves and Spell Resistance.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 13, 2007)

Mustrum, you made my points for me! Just to reiterate:

*As indicated in Mearls' Beholder makeover and the Dragon playtest, a multi-aciton monster need not act all on the same initiative count;

*Nor need it be able to concentrate all its fire on a single PC;

*And there a good reasons within the context of fantasy RPGing to want to have single creatures that are able to operate effectively against multiple PCs, which requires those single creatures to play mechanicaly as if they were multiple opponents.​
As for "glass cannons", I suspect that 4e will have alternative ways of taking out PCs besides character death (similar to SWSE if I understand that system properly) so that they are able to be used dramatically without threatening TPK.


----------



## IanArgent (Sep 13, 2007)

Interestingly enough, in DDM, the really big dragons are _deliberately_ constructed and have rules that allow them to act as the functional equivalent of an entire 5 or so piece warband. As you damage them, they degrade in actions.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2007)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Charming an enemy does mean that if you want to buff it, you need to know what bonus types it is running.  If you want to give it stuff (weapons/armor) you need to know its current equipement, proficiencies and gear related abilities.  If you want to do things like that, you need to know the *provenance* of the bonuses.  Which means you need the complications.  Can you simplify meaningfully while keeping adequate complexity?  I find it quite unlikely.



Sure.  Easy enough.  Unless specified all equipment is nonmagical, all attacks are simply BAB+strength, all creatures are proficient in whatever weapons they have, armor and weapons will be listed in the stat block.  That eliminates information from 99% of all stat blocks as most creatures have no magical bonuses at all.

Will this mean that you might have to figure out if THIS Ogre knows how to use a sword if someone charms him and gives him one instead of his greatclub?  Maybe.  Is is easy enough to say "Nope, only the weapon he has"?  Yep.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> As I noted, if you remove meaningfull combat options (disarm, sunder, surprise, dispell etc...) you remove the need to include the stats those options need.  I have to say though, I cannot find the idea to be particularly appealing.



I didn't say you needed to eliminate meaningful options.  Just make the mechanics for those options simple enough that you need less information to adjudicate them.

For instance, right now you need to know a creatures BAB so that you know how much he can power attack, combat expertise, how many grapple attempts it gets each round, how many iterative attacks it gets with weapons, and what happens if it loses its current weapon and gains a new one.

However, if you make it so that power attack and combat expertise are not valid monster options(since they aren't built the same way as players) and instead they get the special ability to minus 5 from their attacks to add 5 damage, then you don't need a BAB entry for that anymore.  If grapple attempts are opposed attack rolls, then you don't need BAB for that anymore.  If there are no more iterative attacks anymore, you don't need BAB for that anymore.  If you remove all combat bonuses from monsters and give them the same "attack roll" with all weapons they use, then you don't need BAB for that anymore.

Thus, you remove BAB as a needed option in a stat block without removing the ability to do anything you could do before.  You can still disarm, you can still switch weapons, you can still do power attack like effects, you can still grapple, etc.

All you lose is some complexity from the monster.  You don't know that the monster has +1 to hit with ONLY longswords.  Since 99% of the time, you don't need to know that...and it doesn't hurt balance to let it use a greatsword with the same bonus.  So, you can simply remove the abilities that don't matter.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Among other things, you missed AC and its breakdown, as well as the ability of the goblin to use other weapons.  The rogue wants to sneak up to the camp at night and steal the gear?  You convinced the goblins to join you on an attack against some kobolds and you wanted to loan them some excess gear?  Oops.  And that is one of the simplest humanoid brutes available.  How about a skilled warrior brute template?  Or a mystical fey warrior brute template?  Or a berserking goblin template?  Or an exotic weaponsmaster brute template?



Yes, I missed that, and it's my fault.  Then again, as I said above, it may not be NEEDED information in the new system, we don't know.  It's really easy to say "It has +15 to hit with any weapon you give it" and not have any problem with it.  I imagine that weapons and armor will be listed with a creature, same as it is now.

I'm not sure what you mean by template.  I do not believe it will be templates like some people are thinking.  There is a quote somewhere (don't remember where) from one of the designers talking about there being a difference between a goblin shaman and a goblin warrior and a goblin scout, and each would be different from a goblin PC who was a 3rd level fighter.  Each would have enough in common to know they were the same type of creature, but each would be built entirely differently.

I take this to mean that we are going to get a goblin entry that has 5 or 6 different stat blocks for goblins, each designed for a different purpose.  Each has different special abilities, equipment and "feel" to them.  Designing them each for their purpose.  The Goblin Scout will be a "striker" and will have a special ability to hide in the middle of combat and shoot two arrows at once.  The Goblin Shaman will have the ability to heal 5 targets for 20 points as a standard action.

They aren't designed like PCs, since there is(might be) no spell or feat that lets you hide in the middle of combat and is instead unique to the Goblin Scout.  They aren't designed like PCs in that they don't have levels or classes or BAB.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> What are you going to remove and keep the options in a meaningfull manner?!  The 3.5 stat block has precious little fat.  Skills might be simplified, but will still need their section.  Gear *should* mean something.  You *can* cut down on the number of special abilities monsters have, but that isn't going to simplify the simpler monsters in play, nor simplify the *design* of more complicated monsters.



Sure it will simplify monsters in play.  If I have to choose between 20 different spells an enemy has (or 20 special abilities) vs 2, it's going to be a lot faster for me to choose the best course of action for each monster.

And it simplifies the design process a lot.  Previously, you'd have to think "Ok, we are making a really big magma creature.  It has a partially hardened shell, so is should have a natural armor bonus due to that.  This other creature has +8.  It makes sense that rock is harder than that.  We'll give it +10.  Now, it's BIG, so it needs a lot of hit dice.  Let's say 40.  Since it's made out of fire and rock, that makes it an elemental.  So, it gets a BAB based on 40 hit dice worth of elemental.  Also, it's Huge sized, so it gets bonuses to its stats based on size.  And I think it should be pretty strong...more than this other creature, so let's give it a 28 strength.  Now...special abilities..."  And so on.  Then you have to guess it's CR based on how powerful you THINK it is compared to other creatures.  It may have WAY more pluses to hit and damage than most creatures of CR 15, but have no SR or DR and its Will save might be extremely low for its CR, but you have to pick one, so 15 is a good balance.  Most parties will be able to use Will save spells to kill it really early, however, so it might be way under CRed.

The new method creates creatures like so:  "We want a creature who is the brute type, lots of hit points and armor class made for 15th level PCs to fight.  We'll describe it as being a magma creature.  Our chart says for a 15th level monster designed as a brute it should have between +15 and +17 to hit and have an AC between 25 and 27 and around 400-425 hitpoints.  Alright, let's say +15 to hit and 27 AC and 417 hp.  It's strength sounds like a 28 to us.  The math works out that whatever bonus it doesn't get from strength it gets from somewhere else to add up to our target number.  Then we just give it special abilities like the ability to harden itself and add bonuses to its own AC and to set people on fire(but a single target attack as area of effect attacks aren't part of the Brute concept)."  This method gives us numbers across the board that we KNOW will work without any unintended side effects.  We know it has the right pluses to hit and damage for its level.  We know its saves are not too weak or too strong.  We know all of this because we figure out the math for the "sweet spot" in advance and applied the numbers to the creature.

The monster will appear nearly identical to any other 15th level brute monster except for a couple of points different here and there and special abilities.  However, the special abilities will make the creature what it is.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Any system which gets the *power level* right will have similar complexity as a system which gets the power level right by stating up monsters HD by HD.  After all, the decisions are *the same*.



The only important thing is the math, when it comes down to it.  Whether a PC hits or not doesn't matter if the enemies AC comes from a suit of full plate or natural armor (90% of the time) it matters if it is 20 or 25.  You can reduce *complexity* without reducing *power level*

The idea is that be stating up monsters HD by HD you can't create an animal with a GOOD will save without fudging numbers and increasing the complexity.  You can give it a +10 nature bonus to its will save in order to do it, sure.  But now you have to figure out: "What happens when someone dispels the bonus or wishes it away or something?"  If, on the other hand, you are using the new system, you simply say "I know that 15 is the appropriate will save for a level 15 striker.  However, this one will have 25, since I want it to be strong willed."  If you give a disadvantage, it will be a *planned* one rather than one that happens due to an accident of math.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 13, 2007)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, in DDM, the really big dragons are _deliberately_ constructed and have rules that allow them to act as the functional equivalent of an entire 5 or so piece warband. As you damage them, they degrade in actions.



Somehow I immediately think of Hydras. Slice off one head, and you have one attack less against you...

Hydras are probably also a good example of "Boss" Monsters...


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Sep 13, 2007)

On the thread thus far: 







			
				JustinA said:
			
		

> But saying that, because Conan couldn't cast a magical spell, Gandalf shouldn't be allowed to do it doesn't make any sense to me.



As I see the argument going via this analogy, given Gandalf is a Maiar, it's more that because Gandalf *can* cast a magical spell, Conan *can't*. Cimmerians don't have those abilities, Maiar do. Of course there are no Maiar in Hyborea, but you get the idea.







			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> Excellent point.  Said opponents are, after all, "monsters".
> 
> Anything that re-introduces the unknown, the mysterious, the wonderful, and most of all the non-standard, into D&D is a good thing.



I second the motion tabled by the representative from Barbaria.







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I agree.  This entire thread sounds like a room full of 19th-century philosophers arguing about why horseless carriages should have six legs, rather than four.



I think by this point in the thread people were just arguing about how they like to treat monsters.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They're designing it for combat and combat alone -- a shallow design goal that does not speak to how monsters are truly used in at least MY campaign.



Back-handed denigration aside, what is it that tells you the monster entries for 4e will contain absolutely no information for them to be used with this much touted non-combat encounter/social challenge system? Doesn't that strike you as a completely untenable theory? "We're designing a whole new system that covers something never before done with any level of detail in any prior edition of D&D - however, we won't bother to include the information to USE this system in the core books."

In my not particularly humble opinion, people who aren't willing to "make stuff up" should put away their DMG and go back to passively absorbing the DM's plot alongside the official rules. Likewise, it boggles the mind - like, steam comes from my ears - that someone could complain about a loss of the setting's verisimilitude because the rules won't let them play a megalomaniacal parasite in permanent control of a formerly humanoid body that regards other sentient beings as either a threat, a potential pawn, or _food_  - usually all three at once - and that as a race desires to *extinguish the sun*. Somebody show me why that's a good PC in an average D&D game?


More generally? I'm with the mouse and Mearls.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 21, 2007)

Stephen Schubert had an interesting blog entry:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13847339&postcount=15


At the end, he is describing an encounter he run where he uses some monsters without using any fixed stat block, just by using some "default attack bonus" and similar statistics. 

If the new system is able to support such easy improvising of creatures, I think that's pretty cool. Especially if it's not just allows picking some numbers (theoretically, you could do that in 3rd edition, too), but also making them work...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 22, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Stephen Schubert had an interesting blog entry:
> http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13847339&postcount=15
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it's the last bit there that's the tricky part, isn't it.  It's what 3rd ed. lacked: a good framework for throwing some numbers together into something appropriate.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Sep 22, 2007)

It goes back to what Dave Noonan said in the podcast about having to figure out what the stat ranges for monsters of a certain CR were by looking at everything they'd called "CR 5", for example, and determining the range of the stats across the spectrum of CR 5 monsters . . .

. . . and then they realised that they should have been able to *start* with those numbers, numbers which are appropriate to a CR 5 challenge, and designed monsters with those numbers in mind, instead of designing a monster according to the Hit Dice/special powers "system" and figure out what its CR should be afterwards.


----------

