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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.