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.
