It's an issue of 'verisimilitude' or simulation, yeah. There are aproaches to gaming, or styles of play, that really count on the rules acting more like impartial 'laws of physics' with less abstraction. Rulesets like 3.x/Pathfinder (or as Garthanos pointed out, old-school RuneQuest) cater more to that style of play.
yeah, I was look at Castles & Crusades the other day, I really started to miss that particular brand of D&D.
Anyone have a problem explaining to players that monsters follow different rules than PCs?
I can think of three situations were the PCs felt it wasn't fair.
1. Mounted combat.
2. Monster HPs, one time I had a hard time explaining why the monster who had a class template, Human barbarian (elite brute) had way more hit points then the human barbarian in the party.
3. Action points.
How have you managed these situations in your 4e game?
Even at the start of my adventuring days in CRPG D&D (I guess 2.0 and 3.0/3.5) and TRPG 4.0 D&D I never bothered talking about monsters at all, since I was too busy working on my own character. Ever since I started DMing, I easily saw why monsters follow different creation rules:
1. Player characters take significantly more time to develop, even with the character builder. An experienced DM would definitely take less time in creating monsters using the given template, regardless if the creature is humanoid or not. Giving humanoid monsters different building rules relative to non-humanoid monsters is extra rules that limit the capabilities of humanoid monsters (can never be solo or standard [only elite or minion, and only minion because it's easy to turn standard HP to 1 HP, and rolled damage to average-based static damage], can only have PC powers [even if the story gives them access to unique spells or abilities], can never have themes, etc.), and even if you reuse the templates later on, it's not like players are so stupid that they can't recall attack patterns and monster attacks, so the moment they recognize you using the same player template, they can easily set up for it, just like if you used the same monster template... so why the extra effort needed?
2. Most of the player character components aren't necessary for monsters to function. Do monsters need lots of healing surges? Do monsters need daily powers on a regular basis? Do monsters tend to use skills? Perhaps in other DMs' games they all apply, but for the general setting I do believe monsters use ability checks more often than skill checks, only elites and solos get daily powers, and most of the time healing surges simply delay a fight's inevitability, so most monsters don't even bother with Second Wind, let alone healing.
I once statted out a human cleric, who was the villain of the campaign, as a solo monster. Some of my players were stunned at how he could take on the whole party, despite being "a human cleric". I explained it as the fact that he had the direct backing of his deity at the time, but frankly, some players just dont get that the monsters are statted out according to the story and not to any sense of equality to player characters (who themselves are ridiculously powerful).
That's one way to explain it. Another way is that he simply is too stubborn to die just like that; just because he's human doesn't mean he isn't awesome
More realistically, the monster would actually have a solid edge. A 50%+ chance of dying in every fight is NOT fun.
-SYB
Technically, monsters would almost always have a significant advantage over regular (non-PC) opponents because of advantages in numbers, in firepower, and in terrain advantage (otherwise caravan-raiding would be so disadvantageous a tactic that bandits would just give up and have themselves fed by dungeonkeepers or something like that). PCs are supposed to be elites, and thus are evenly matched or even superior to enemies in spite of numbers, firepower and terrain advantage... but that's assuming we're using the recommendations and builds in the DMG and MM. If, let's say, all bandits in this raid had PC stats, as well as the bodyguards who are helping the PCs:
* The bodyguards and PCs have a long day ahead, so might end up saving their dailies for much later. * The raiders have friends who can take their place after the hit-and-run, so they can spend all their dailies and take extended rests immediately after. * The raiders would likely be superior in numbers, and have terrain advantage on top of that.
Five raiders using Blade Cascade along with five raiders spamming Twin Strike all over the place, with the ranged raiders having cover/superior cover and the melee raiders having Boots of the Fencing Master, and MC Rogue for Hunter's Quarry + Sneak Attack + minor action offhand attack + Twin Strike.
Let's see how quickly the party goes down.
I'd say that PCs vs PC-like monsters would give monsters a 90+% chance of winning unless you put those monsters at a lower level than PCs.
[ EDIT: This is realistically why you have guerilla tactics being so effective in forested and similar areas, the most recent example being Al Qaeda and its hideout(s) in the deserts and mountains. Even if they're all out of their normal element, their sheer numbers combined with adequate strategy would put the players at a seriious disadvantage unless the players come up with additional support and tactics as well, turning our high fantasy RPG into a wargame... which, although technicaly really is going back to the D&D roots -- Chainmail -- isn't exactly focusing on the players as heroes, is it? ]
The only time it's ever caused problems for believability is where the monster is an NPC or a playable race and purportedly with powers similar to the PCs.
Once I had an NPC wizard who was supposed to have been trained by the same wizard mentor the PC possessed. The players noted that the NPC wizard's spells did more damage than the PC wizard's spells, among other issues.
Since then I've always taken care to make the NPCs (as oppoeed to the monsters) more carefully similar to the PCs statwise.
I'd say that the NPC Wizard ought to have been a Character Companion instead, which would have put his damage well below PC expectations (level/2 + stat modifier, which at level 12 and 18 starting Int would be +10; in comparison, a level 12, 18 starting Int PC wizard would have +6 from Int, +3 from enhancement bonus, and maybe +2 from implement focus for a total of +11 [which isn't even the best that he could do; our level 12 LFR Wizard pumps out +17 damage regularly, +23 damage against a single target via Silver Fire]).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
In older editions it is true that most monsters used Hit Dice (d8's) to determine HP's, but that die was the middle ground for hit points in the system. Overall I think it worked out great because it made the Rogues and wizards a little weaker than the monsters, kept the clerics at the same, and made the fighters a little stronger. In previous editions, even before 3.5e, npc used the same rules for selecting spells and they even had spell books. If you could cast a particular spell so could an npc wizard. Maybe you are thinking about one particular game mechanic that I'm forgetting about, but in general, weapon damage, armor class, spells etc were all the same. I really do think it is a D&D tradition to keep the rules the same.
Prior to 3e, monsters rarely had stat numbers called out beyond a range of INT (like 'animal,' or 'low' or 'supra-genius') some, like Ogres and giants had specific STR scores, but, even then, they didn't add to monsters' attack & damage, it was all 'assumed' to be part of their hit dice. Hit dice didn't map to levels, either. Monsters used their own hit-dice based attack matrix. Where PCs had stats, classes, race and equipment, monsters had a completely different stat block. Monster AC didn't map to the kind of armor they wore, nor did their weapon use map to their damage. Monsters just got whatever the author or DM felt like giving them. A monster might 'cast sells as a 7th level magic user' or use 'continual light' at-will 'as the spell,' but they were just referencing mechanics, they didn't follow the same rules as the PCs, at all. I think 2e might have started giving monsters stats... but they were still quite distinct from PCs
3e gave all monsters the same 6 stats as PCs, the same bonuses for those stats (which made giants and other very large monsters horrifyingly effective due to overwhelming STR), similar skill-point distributions and feats. Monsters could have classes just like PCs or even be played as PCs via Level Adjustments.
4e returned to monsters being very different from PCs, with just the mechanics needed for their roles as monsters. Relatively few monsters were made playable as PCs, and even those that were varied a bit between the 'monster' and 'race' versions.
I've never had it come up, personally. I don't think anyone in my group cares. The only questions I ever get are ones like, "Can I headbutt the dragon?", "How much damage can I do hitting the orc with his dead friend?", "How hard would it be for my goliath to pull the goblin's head off?", "Do kobolds taste good?"
Yes; 1d20 + your Strength modifier; POP!; Let's ask Mr. Owl
It's an issue of 'verisimilitude' or simulation, yeah. There are aproaches to gaming, or styles of play, that really count on the rules acting more like impartial 'laws of physics' with less abstraction. Rulesets like 3.x/Pathfinder (or as Garthanos pointed out, old-school RuneQuest) cater more to that style of play.
Not directed at you, but I don't think any system has done simulation right. What's the effect of the Michelson–Morley experiment on the point of origin of spell casting. Does relativity exist? How does genitics work? What is the chemical psychology inside an NPCs head and how does it respond to stimuli?
The rules for even a simple fantasy world couldn't fit in a book let alone a library of books.
Let anyone who complains DM an encounter with five or more fully statted PC-type enemies to run, which they have to build themselves, and then see how they like it. Then you can bust their chops by looking at the character sheets for each monster and pointing out the illegal elements
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
Oh look, another thread with kev being unhappy with 4th edition.
Will wonders never cease.
On topic, my players expected the monsters to be lesser than them, to not fucntion as a PC would.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
Oh look, another thread with kev being unhappy with 4th edition.
Will wonders never cease.
It's an interesting exercise to see why his being unhappy is wholly out of place.
Off-topic, I might risk an edition war or something to that degree, but from all the posting I've seen in the past few months about 3.xE relative to other editions (not just 4E), i'm beginning to think that of all editions, 3.xE was the least D&D-like edition, and 4E is the closest to the original feel and mechanics set by 2E and earlier, contrary to supporters of the 3.xE edition. Feel free to convince me otherwise, but probably through PM rather than through discussion here (unless you're willing to keep the conversation civil and as close to the original post as possible).
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
{Philosoraptor}Why are the PCs different from commoners?{/Philosoraptor}
Or, a better question, two farmboys join the militia and recieve equal training, and are the only survivors when they are ambushed by monsters. One becomes a PC. One becomes an NPC. Why are they different?
This is realistically why you have guerilla tactics being so effective in forested and similar areas, the most recent example being Al Qaeda and its hideout(s) in the deserts and mountains. Even if they're all out of their normal element, their sheer numbers combined with adequate strategy would put the players at a seriious disadvantage unless the players come up with additional support and tactics as well, turning our high fantasy RPG into a wargame... which, although technicaly really is going back to the D&D roots -- Chainmail -- isn't exactly focusing on the players as heroes, is it?
It is a bit more philosoraptorian, but really: that depends a lot on what your definition of "hero" is.
Why not just tell the players "balance"? The characters are unlikely to notice it being off anyway
Who cares what the characters notice or think? While talking about out-of-game concepts, it's way more important what the players notice or think, no? :P
As for "balance", that's one of those answers that explains the why, but isn't particularly satisfying, and invites the question of, or at least wondering, "why was it designed to be balanced like that?"
Let anyone who complains DM an encounter with five or more fully statted PC-type enemies to run, which they have to build themselves, and then see how they like it.
Speaking of experience from 3x, rather than 4e, but I don't see how it differs that much ... It's actually pretty fun. What point are you trying to make?
Or, a better question, two farmboys join the militia and recieve equal training, and are the only survivors when they are ambushed by monsters. One becomes a PC. One becomes an NPC. Why are they different?
Because the one who becomes the PC is the elite who is central to the story, while the NPC is the companion who simply supports the PC. If they have equal importance in the story, or if the NPC is more important to the story than the PC is, then what are the players there for?
It is a bit more philosoraptorian, but really: that depends a lot on what your definition of "hero" is.
In the general sense of "hero", even the average joe sacrificing his time and effort to help others can be considered a "hero", but as mentioned in the PHB 1:
You take on the role of a legendary hero—a skilled fighter, a courageous cleric, a deadly rogue, or a spell-hurling wizard
Your character is a combination of the fantastic hero in your mind’s eye and the different game rules that describe what he or she can do.
(emphasis mine)
Simply put, no we're not talking about normal day-to-day heroes, we're talking about Heroes level heroes and beyond. We're talking about heroes who rise up to the call of adventure and who dare go where even the gods fear to tread.
Who cares what the characters notice or think? While talking about out-of-game concepts, it's way more important what the players notice or think, no? :P
As for "balance", that's one of those answers that explains the why, but isn't particularly satisfying, and invites the question of, or at least wondering, "why was it designed to be balanced like that?"
I'm pretty sure it's "balanced like that" in order to put emphasis on the PCs without overwhelming them or underthreatening them.
Why? Because as mentioned before, the players are central to the story and are meant to go through various challenges, both combat-wise and non-combat-wise, so the normal opponents they face should be powerful enough to threaten, but not too powerful as to cut the story short.
How do you do that if your players and monsters have the same design template, and not have combat break down into an arms race between player and DM? And if players and monsters have the same design template, then how do you create fantastic monsters that do unique stuff, as opposed to simply humanoid monsters who are higher level than player characters?
And coming from someone who actually does pilot/manage multiple player character sheets at a time -- sometimes up to 4 character sheets (my wife's while she's taking care of the baby, my own, and up to two players who are absent or in the comfort room or what not) -- even if it is possible to use the powers, look up the traits, monitor everything, and even roleplay each character as how I know they ought to be done, it is not an easy task, especially for newbie players. If a DM has to monitor two dozen different types of monsters over the course of a game -- even if half of them are mere alterations or modifications to one or two monster types -- it definitely helps if the monster stats are as simple as possible, without having to go through all sorts of convoluted stuff, so that not only is the creation simple enough, but also the actual use of these monster stats.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
