I think monster design was a bit over complicated in 4e. There was a forumla for AC, HP, Attack, and damage, but it was a bit obtuse.
I think what irked me the most was that all the values scaled with level. I couldn't just tell the party you see 4 knights in black plate mail standing on the bridge and worry about the details when and if combat started. In previous editions I could turn those knights out from the top of my head on the spot. ok platemail is AC 3, +1 for the shield, longsword is 1d8, 5d10 HD, and their thac0 is 15.
With 4e, I had to sit down before the game and calculate all their numbers and/or search the monster manual for an appropriate challenge and reskin it.
At one point, I tried to make a massive table that pre-calculated all attributes depending on level and monster role, but it ended up being too much work. I think it wouldn't have been all that usefull anyway because I would still be required to make a bunch template powers that I could reskin on the fly.
You dont need some kind of massive table, as most of the Monster math is Level based. the only thing I dont like about the card is that you still have to figure out what 12 average damage equals in a die expression, but it's not that hard.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot.
No, it doesn't need to be possible within the system because not everything can be possible within the rules as written and so once you concede that choices need to be made, eliminating an easy way for players to play as massively powerful dragons is not a hard decision to make. Exceptions can be made, and special supplements can be written to help (such as the Council of Wyrms release for 2e or even the monster levels system for 3e), but in general, a dragon or really any, very powerful monster is going to be outside of the normal range for the material covered by the PHB.
Yes it does need to be there, and it will be there. Given WoTC's announcement of modules being placed into adventures that deal with adventure specific material, it only makes sense that the same would hold true for Campaign books and specialty books like the Draconomicon. The module or rules for playing dragon will be present in some expansion or other.
It's a matter of laziness. I'm not going to be lazy and get caught with my pants down when the players get the idea to go to the alchemist and see if he can do something for them. You can't just assume that the players/PCs are going to walk down the narrow avenues you create. They are going to go outside the box and you have to prepare for that the best that you can.
Which is what default monsters are for. They decide to fight the alchemist? Flip to the Human section and pull out the Human Wizard, or pick out some other level appropriate wizard and reflavor it. Takes very little time.
Not building it to the lowest common denominator does =/= make it for the elite only. That is an equally stupid way to design a game. You build the system to fit the needs of the average player and the lowest common denominators and the elite can deal with the system as it is built.
Here's what you don't get: People below the bottom of the game either get constantly confused or simply don't play the game. Witness how many people who, when told wizards are very OP in 3rd edition, react with confusion and/or hostility, even though it is an empirical fact of the way the system is put together. They feel threatened when they realize that their world view is wrong, and rather than confronting the fact that their world view is wrong they lash out. It is very common.
You're always designing for the least able people who play your game, by definition. You have to set that level consciously, or else you will do so at random and it will almost certainly hurt your game by being too high.
Possibly. There's no real reason why you couldn't or shouldn't be able to build a monster in a different way if it is not, or even might not be used like a standard one off monster.
There's no way for the game creators to prevent you from building a PC and having it attack the PCs.
I don't run a railroad game. I'm not going to assume that things are going to go like I plan and need to be prepared for when (not if) the players go outside the box. I also don't like using the same cookie cutter designs for knights, or whatever.
Your personal hangups are not the hangups of most people, and there's nothing preventing you from making a new knight every single time. There are even quick, easy to use guidelines for doing so! You're just making your game worse for it, because you're wasting time on things that are less important than the things that actually make the game fun.
I don't run a "railroad game" either, but I do have some idea of what is going to happen.
For some groups one player may in fact play a dragon while the other plays a sword master. I don't care if you think there is something wrong with that because for some people there isn't anything wrong with it. Some people will enjoy it and others won't but it still needs to be possible within the system.
No, actually, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. A game where you can play a dragon has fundamentally different needs than a game where you can play a dude with a sword. Completely different needs take over.
If you don't focus on doing something well, you end up with GURPS - a game that does nothing well. If a game that didn't focus on doing anything was a good idea, then GURPS would be the dominant game in the market.
Taking away the option to do it is not correct design for this format. Some people want to do it, and some people are okay with it happening. This requires that there be rules described to allow it to happen.
Yeah. Its called "play a different game". D&D is about humanish heroes in a fantastic midieval context. It isn't about people with magic in a post apocalyptic future, and it isn't about being dragons. These sorts of things require different focuses if you want the game to do them well.
I've played in groups were we have just got up and left the town and went in the opposite direction that the DM had clearly planed out.
"No we are not going to the tomb of the Orgre King, we are taking a boat to waterdeep, screw this hick town Loudwater, let the goblins destory it for all we care. "
I will note that there is a term for this. It is called "being disruptive".
If the DM preps an adventure, and the group deliberately ignores it, then they are being jerks and saying "I don't want to play D&D with you". This is a well known negative player behavior. If you see your players doing this sort of thing, then you need to have a discussion with them.
And yes, this is exactly what they're doing.
No, it doesn't need to be possible within the system because not everything can be possible within the rules as written and so once you concede that choices need to be made, eliminating an easy way for players to play as massively powerful dragons is not a hard decision to make. Exceptions can be made, and special supplements can be written to help (such as the Council of Wyrms release for 2e or even the monster levels system for 3e), but in general, a dragon or really any, very powerful monster is going to be outside of the normal range for the material covered by the PHB.
I will note that both systems -sucked- and were obviously tacked on. Monster levels almost invariably made for pretty terrible characters, and Council of Wyrms was hilariously imbalanced (though the flavor was pretty wonderful). 2nd edition simply was not designed to accomodate dragons as characters.
Yes dragon's as PC's needs to be possible. Some people want to play that character, and some groups are inclined to agree with that character existing. Now if the character is completely impossible given the core rules of the game, guess which game they are going to play (I will give you a hint it isn't the one where that character is impossible). Simply because you think it is wrong does not make it wrong. Like I said there should definately be some advisements on things like that but they should still be possible.
The problem isn't that it is "wrong" in the sense of "good or bad" but it is "wrong" in the sense that the game system is built with certain assumptions in mind, and being a dragon violates pretty much all of them. There are game systems wherein being a dragon is a perfectly acceptable choice, but D&D isn't one of them.
I mean, you CAN tack on rules like that, but they'll suck.
to my knowledge magic items specifically do not work for monsters and NPCs.
Actually the DMG1 pg. 187 talks about magic items and their thresholds.
Thats for bonuses and determining if the monster or NPC actually gets use of the bonus. Not magic item usages. Magic item usages, such as the daily power on vampiric gauntlets, don't work for monsters. Specifically because I could use some of them (at least one of them), to instantly drop a player from full health to full on unrescuably dead (barring a raise dead ritual) with one attack (I can do it to a tank with an on level threat in fact).
Whats more is that the magic threshold chart follows the loot treadmill.
Only at the end of the cusp between those thresholds will you ever give an item the NPC/Monster can benefit from. Even then the most bonus you are really going to be able to give them is a +1 because the threshohld number negates the rest of it. Even if you give a +6 sword to the level 25 monster it will only get a +1 to its attacks. Also they don't benefit from the critical damage dice or any properties of the weapon. You also have to rule if certain things like implements and ki foci will even effect certain monster powers because monster powers don't have those keywords.
It's a matter of laziness. I'm not going to be lazy and get caught with my pants down when the players get the idea to go to the alchemist and see if he can do something for them. You can't just assume that the players/PCs are going to walk down the narrow avenues you create. They are going to go outside the box and you have to prepare for that the best that you can.
Which is what default monsters are for. They decide to fight the alchemist? Flip to the Human section and pull out the Human Wizard, or pick out some other level appropriate wizard and reflavor it. Takes very little time.
Not building it to the lowest common denominator does =/= make it for the elite only. That is an equally stupid way to design a game. You build the system to fit the needs of the average player and the lowest common denominators and the elite can deal with the system as it is built.
Here's what you don't get: People below the bottom of the game either get constantly confused or simply don't play the game. Witness how many people who, when told wizards are very OP in 3rd edition, react with confusion and/or hostility, even though it is an empirical fact of the way the system is put together. They feel threatened when they realize that their world view is wrong, and rather than confronting the fact that their world view is wrong they lash out. It is very common.
You're always designing for the least able people who play your game, by definition. You have to set that level consciously, or else you will do so at random and it will almost certainly hurt your game by being too high.
Possibly. There's no real reason why you couldn't or shouldn't be able to build a monster in a different way if it is not, or even might not be used like a standard one off monster.
There's no way for the game creators to prevent you from building a PC and having it attack the PCs.
I don't run a railroad game. I'm not going to assume that things are going to go like I plan and need to be prepared for when (not if) the players go outside the box. I also don't like using the same cookie cutter designs for knights, or whatever.
Your personal hangups are not the hangups of most people, and there's nothing preventing you from making a new knight every single time. There are even quick, easy to use guidelines for doing so! You're just making your game worse for it, because you're wasting time on things that are less important than the things that actually make the game fun.
I don't run a "railroad game" either, but I do have some idea of what is going to happen.
For some groups one player may in fact play a dragon while the other plays a sword master. I don't care if you think there is something wrong with that because for some people there isn't anything wrong with it. Some people will enjoy it and others won't but it still needs to be possible within the system.
No, actually, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. A game where you can play a dragon has fundamentally different needs than a game where you can play a dude with a sword. Completely different needs take over.
If you don't focus on doing something well, you end up with GURPS - a game that does nothing well. If a game that didn't focus on doing anything was a good idea, then GURPS would be the dominant game in the market.
Taking away the option to do it is not correct design for this format. Some people want to do it, and some people are okay with it happening. This requires that there be rules described to allow it to happen.
Yeah. Its called "play a different game". D&D is about humanish heroes in a fantastic midieval context. It isn't about people with magic in a post apocalyptic future, and it isn't about being dragons. These sorts of things require different focuses if you want the game to do them well.
I've played in groups were we have just got up and left the town and went in the opposite direction that the DM had clearly planed out.
"No we are not going to the tomb of the Orgre King, we are taking a boat to waterdeep, screw this hick town Loudwater, let the goblins destory it for all we care. "
I will note that there is a term for this. It is called "being disruptive".
If the DM preps an adventure, and the group deliberately ignores it, then they are being jerks and saying "I don't want to play D&D with you". This is a well known negative player behavior. If you see your players doing this sort of thing, then you need to have a discussion with them.
And yes, this is exactly what they're doing.
No, it doesn't need to be possible within the system because not everything can be possible within the rules as written and so once you concede that choices need to be made, eliminating an easy way for players to play as massively powerful dragons is not a hard decision to make. Exceptions can be made, and special supplements can be written to help (such as the Council of Wyrms release for 2e or even the monster levels system for 3e), but in general, a dragon or really any, very powerful monster is going to be outside of the normal range for the material covered by the PHB.
I will note that both systems -sucked- and were obviously tacked on. Monster levels almost invariably made for pretty terrible characters, and Council of Wyrms was hilariously imbalanced (though the flavor was pretty wonderful). 2nd edition simply was not designed to accomodate dragons as characters.
Yes dragon's as PC's needs to be possible. Some people want to play that character, and some groups are inclined to agree with that character existing. Now if the character is completely impossible given the core rules of the game, guess which game they are going to play (I will give you a hint it isn't the one where that character is impossible). Simply because you think it is wrong does not make it wrong. Like I said there should definately be some advisements on things like that but they should still be possible.
The problem isn't that it is "wrong" in the sense of "good or bad" but it is "wrong" in the sense that the game system is built with certain assumptions in mind, and being a dragon violates pretty much all of them. There are game systems wherein being a dragon is a perfectly acceptable choice, but D&D isn't one of them.
I mean, you CAN tack on rules like that, but they'll suck.
Yet again stop forcing me to play the game in the exact same way you do. We are playing D&D we all want to play dragons there should be a way to make that happen. A way that isn't tacked on shottily. If it is possible within the base rules of the game (especially with guidelines illustrating the change in dynamic this will cause) then you can simply say no when it comes up as a question in your games, and I can talk to my group and see if everyone's okay with it because maybe that will be an interesting character. You can't make it impossible without precluding certain and explicit stories from being told. Your preconcieved notions about what D&D is about mean nothing in the grand sceme of what should be possible within the system.
Here's what you don't get: People below the bottom of the game either get constantly confused or simply don't play the game. Witness how many people who, when told wizards are very OP in 3rd edition, react with confusion and/or hostility, even though it is an empirical fact of the way the system is put together. They feel threatened when they realize that their world view is wrong, and rather than confronting the fact that their world view is wrong they lash out. It is very common.
I don't care. You don't build to the lowest common denominator. People below the bottom of the game can go play something else that they can understand. Checkers is good. I also disagree with your assertion that people who don't understand that wizards are OP are "Below the bottom of the game." Many people who are average or better either don't get that or their opinion of what is OP is different from ours. I'm not talking about those people.
You're always designing for the least able people who play your game, by definition.
I have no desire to play a game built for 7-9 year olds.
I've played in groups were we have just got up and left the town and went in the opposite direction that the DM had clearly planed out.
"No we are not going to the tomb of the Orgre King, we are taking a boat to waterdeep, screw this hick town Loudwater, let the goblins destory it for all we care. "
I will note that there is a term for this. It is called "being disruptive".
If the DM preps an adventure, and the group deliberately ignores it, then they are being jerks and saying "I don't want to play D&D with you". This is a well known negative player behavior. If you see your players doing this sort of thing, then you need to have a discussion with them.
And yes, this is exactly what they're doing.
I agree that for your particular style of playing D&D that is distruptive, but that's only because your style of play can't handle it.
I often encourage my group to play that way all the time. The PC's are always free to do what they want and that's the most important thing in my game. I'll gladly change the game for them, and the reason is that I'm very interested in what the PCs chose to do. Sometimes I think the only reason I DM is to see what kind of crazy things the PCs will do in any particular situation. The more they surprise me the more fun I have.
You really should find a good sandbox campaign and give it a try, then you'll understand.
Given WoTC's announcement of modules being placed into adventures that deal with adventure specific material, it only makes sense that the same would hold true for Campaign books and specialty books like the Draconomicon.
Well, I did specifically mention that such supplements are not a problem, but a supplement is different than allowing something as possible as part of the core rules, in whatever form that might take. As an example, the Council of Wyrms expansion, as far as I can remember, is kind of insular where all players are dragons working on dragon-related issues. Even a Savage Species monster level system is a completely different set of rules from a standard monster entry.
you say the DM should know what purpose the knight serves when he puts the knight in the game. Unfortunately this doesn't always work. Sometimes the DM can't at all know what the characters are going to do.
What the characters plan to do with regards to the knight is a different issue then what I, as the DM, planned to do with the knight. If I expected a fight, but instead the party negotiated with him and cut a deal with him, that's fine, I roll with the punches, but I knew why the Knight was there and whether he could be negotiated with and what my goals for him where. My goals and the player's plans don't always coincide, but when that happens, you roll with it, but that doesn't mean I throw in a random "knight" with no plan and no pre-conceived idea of why that knight is there. We had a conversation earlier in this thread about how some people like a living world where things make sense. I agree with this and I support it, but only so far as I understand my responsibility as the DM to create a world that the players have fun being a part of.
Some people want to play that character, and some groups are inclined to agree with that character existing. Now if the character is completely impossible given the core rules of the game, guess which game they are going to play.
The same could be said for every rule that could possibly be part of the game. It won't happen. It can't. Not every rule or character concept / possibility can be part of D&D. And even if their goal was to make it part of D&D, it can't happen very quickly. If someone is not going to play D&D because a character concept is impossible, I think those same people won't play if you tell them to wait 3 - 4 years for rules that support their character concepts.
The reason detailed offscreen interaction has to do with monster and NPC creation rules is because some DM's like their NPC's to follow the same rules the players have to work within.
I think those situations could be understood as the randomness of d20 resolutions (if you wanted to explain it that way), or were caused by external measures (secret pressure or blackmail instead of a bluff checks or what-have-you). It could also be a sign of a simple mistake on the part of the DM or a mix-up in his notes where a result was attributed to the wrong DM.
For some DM's there are in fact stats for every baker you meet and every noble has a story and stats the players can inquire about. Just because you don't play that way doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported.
Some DM's make stats for every baker, innkeeper, barmaid, shoe shiner, town guard, random citizen passing on the street that the party passes by? Nope, sorry, I don't believe it. I simply do not believe that there is a DM out there that creates a stat block for litterally every person that a party might encounter unless their campaign is very localized (ie. the campaign / adventure is based around some small hunting lodge where the NPC cast is absolutely limited).
The PC's are always free to do what they want and that's the most important thing in my game. I'll gladly change the game for them, and the reason is that I'm very interested in what the PCs chose to do. Sometimes I think the only reason I DM is to see what kind of crazy things the PCs will do in any particular situation. The more they surprise me the more fun I have.
There is a difference between being disruptive PCs and playing in a sandbox campaign. As an example, I love living, breathing worlds where the PCs can go where they want to and find new adventures, but if they decide to start down an adventure thread where one session ended with them just entering the Dark Castle of Evil, then at the beginning of the next session, they decide to turn around and go somewhere else after I spent the time between sessions making the Dark Castle of Evil interesting for the players to be in. That's disruptive. It's disruptive if they constantly say they are going to do one thing and then switch right in the middle to do something completely unrelated and unannounced.
This is not even something along the lines of trying to attack the local king or something like that, since that can lead to interesting adventures (breaking out, retrieving stuff, etc.), but going to a town one day, gathering all kinds of interesting adventure hooks and clues, then leaving that town to go to another town and doing the same thing over again. That's just not being very nice to your DM.
