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

[Mouseferatu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Reaper Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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!)