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

[pemerton]

Anyone remember the Monster Mark (I think first published in White Dwarf)?

Yes and yes. (And I'm going to call [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] to join in any Monster Mark discussions.)

The Monster Mark has two problems though, in my view. First, it rates all monsters against a first level fighter, which means that I think it exaggerates the real ingame power of higher HD monsters.

Illustration:

[sblock]Take the following two characters:

1st level fighter with AC 2, 1d8 hp and doing 1d8 damage and hitting AC 2 on 18+;

3rd level fighter with AC 2, 3d8 hp and doing 1d8+1 damage (magic sword) and hitting AC 2 on 15+ (magic sword again).


The 1st level fighter requires, on average, 1 hit to kill itself. This takes it 20/3 rounds to achieve, in which time it takes, on average, the same amount of damage, for a MM of 4.5.

The 1st level fighter requires, on average, 3 hits to kill the 3rd level fighter, which takes on average 20 rounds. In which time the 3rd level fighter deals 20 * 6/20 * 11/2 = 33 hits of damage, for a MM of 33.

Thus, rated against a 1st level fighter, the 3rd level fighter is nearly 8 times tougher.

But now let's rate both against the 3rd level fighter.

The 3rd level fighter requires, on average, 9/11 of a hit to kill the 1st level figher. This takes it 9/11 * 20/6 = 30/11 rounds to achieve. In that time it suffers 30/11 * 3/20 * 9/2 = 81/44 hits, for a MM of a bit less than 2.

The 3rd level fighter requires, on average, 27/11 hits to kill itself. This takes it 27/11 * 20/6 = 90/11 rounds. In this time, of cousre, it takes the same amount of damage it has inflicted, or 27/2 hits, for a MMM of 13.5.

Thus, rated against a 3rd level fighter, the 3rd level fighter is less than 7 times tougher than the 1st level fighter.[/sblock]

The second problem is that the multipliers to MMs for special abilities are somewhat arbitrary, and especially when many special abilities are involved are very difficult to judge and compare. It is a bit like the Bodak issue from 3E - what CR is it, given that it is physically little thread but has a death gaze attack that even high level PCs might fail against?

Still, it was more systematic than the official systems in B/X and AD&D, and I used it back in the day!

 

[Cybit]

Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo".

If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.

One of the things they have discovered in their testing is that 3.5/4E folks actually have a lot in common in what they want, but get put off by how it is presented. Monster creation in 3.5 and 4E is actually very similar, except they threw in some wonky numbers (Natural Armor Bonus, HD bonus) to get monsters to the attack / AC numbers they wanted by level. But because 3.5E covered it in a "system" while 4E was very blatant about it, some folks got themselves jarred from the verisimilitude of the system. So they're going both ways by doing this. They'll have your "average stats by level" chart, as well as showing how every ability a creature has is part of it's core narrative place in the world.

A lot of D&D Next's challenge is showing that the 3.5 and 4E players have way more in common than they all suspect; a lot of the disconnect has to do with the method of presentation (especially on the DM / Monster side).

 

[Victim]

The behir from Monster Manual 2 also gets multiple actions - it gets three standard actions a round, on initiative counts 30, 20 and 10. The ability is callled Lightning Reflexes.

It does seem to me that, because each solo in 4e has a different way of getting multiple actions, that there's no problem for a simulationist here. The extra actions have their own separate justifications in the fiction.

I think the major problem with 4e's monsters for a simulationist is that their stats derive explicitly from how the monster is intended to be used as part of an encounter - its role, level, and 'status' (minion/normal/elite/boss). For example, a rakshasa noble has an armor class of 33 because it's a level 19 controller and not for any game-world reason. It's possible to create such reasons (illusionary armor?) but it would be obvious to the game participants that those are secondary.

For a simulationist, or at least one type of simulationist, I think the game world has to be primary. The game world is what a roleplaying game is about.

Okay, but when has DnD ever been that game?

The explanation for the 4e Rakshasa's 33 AC is EXACTLY the same as the explanation for the 2e rakshasa's -4 AC. There is none.

In terms of in world reasons that are obviously secondary to game ones, how can anything beat drow having tons of +3 gear that PCs can't really use themselves for long?

 

[D'karr]

Okay, but when has DnD ever been that game?

Bingo. The needs of the game engine to be able to handle a broad amount of cases is more important than explaining every single nuance/difference. One of the "beautiful" uses of keywords was that they provided a simplified/unified framework for effects. You could process towards that effect in whatever way seemed best, without breaking the system.

I remember some people "crucifying" certain publishers during the d20 rise because they didn't have "effects" that "followed" the "rules" with exact precision. To the point of complaints because a particular monster didn't have all its skill points, or a point of AC was higher or lower than "calculated". These were the most pedantic arguments because most of them really boiled down to stifling creative things because they did not count every single point. It was ridiculous.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe I'm missing something - but this sounds like it's seen as OK to have the 4e system of different monsters of a given level differing in their toughness, and hence in their XP value, as long as you don't overtly draw attention to it via a tag like "elite" or "solo".

If I've got that right, then it's just bizarre, to me at least.

No, no, you have that right. That's the long and the short of it. All you have to do is look at every single conversation you've been having with 3e fans after the release of Next and you'll see it works exactly like that. So long as you make a point of saying that something isn't 4e, it's perfectly okay for something to actually be 4e.

/snip

A lot of D&D Next's challenge is showing that the 3.5 and 4E players have way more in common than they all suspect; a lot of the disconnect has to do with the method of presentation (especially on the DM / Monster side).

Yup. Good to know they've got a handle on this. Stealth in the 4e stuff and modern design stuff under the radar, throw a few bones out to keep away the scavengers and they're good to go.