How many monsters does a D&D edition need to start with?

[K]

Just because a single melee bruiser makes for a tedious and boring fight (in a game that isn't about the details of parries and ripostes) doesn't mean you have to skip past sharks, bears, and attack dogs entirely, especially if you're not also going to skip past zombies or guys with swords. I'm not sure where you get the idea that a zombie is scarier, smarter, or more interesting to fight than a shark, anyways.

If I were designing an edition, zombies and guys with magic swords would get more interesting. The advantage of dealing with magic stuff as opposed to real stuff is that you can just do that easily.

Zombies movies and guy with magic sword movies have a huge range of scales and budgets, but shark movies are always cheap and suck.

People love weaknesses on normal PCs when they come in the form of Flaws that aren't actually relevant. They just gobble that variant rule right up.

Yes, the old "weaknesses that don't actually weaken me and let me buy more advantages" ruse. RPG classic.

[DSMatticus]

To summarize: K's argument is now that low level D&D should just not exist. There is never a D&D level where you are supposed to care about sharks or bears or whatever. Despite his claims otherwise, that is not what D&D is "supposed" to look like. That is not what D&D has ever looked like, nor what most of D&D's source material looks like. It's certainly a game that could exist, but it's not precedented in D&D. But seriously: the actual argument right now is that sharks are traps because K doesn't like them.

[K]

To summarize: K's argument is now that low level D&D should just not exist. There is never a D&D level where you are supposed to care about sharks or bears or whatever. Despite his claims otherwise, that is not what D&D is "supposed" to look like. That is not what D&D has ever looked like, nor what most of D&D's source material looks like. It's certainly a game that could exist, but it's not precedented in D&D. But seriously: the actual argument right now is that sharks are traps because K doesn't like them.

Sure, lets ignore all of the glaring mechanical and flavor issues and focus on the fact that low-level DnD has always sucked with it's battles with wolves and giant rats, spawning mocking memes because of that.

The fact that these "monsters" create glaring mechanical problems is also equally important, but we'll pretend that I didn't mention them.

As sacred cows go, this is one that needs to be grilled immediately with an application of BBQ sauce; luckily, any "new" edition gets to make changes like that because new editions don't have to repeat the iconic mistakes of old editions.

Grilling the 100 Spiders was 3e deciding that 2e and 1e were doing something dumb and needing to stop. Putting everyone on the same XP chart was basically calling other editions corrupt and pointless. Letting monsters get PC customization options was 3e telling 2e and 1e that monsters needed to be more interesting characters. Fixing iconic mechanical mistakes and iconic flavor mistakes is why you make new editions at all.

So check out any list of favorite and iconic DnD adventures ever made. Are the iconic DnD adventures featuring rats and wolves, or are they featuring giants and liches? Do iconic DnD heroes sport golden eagles? Do iconic villains get killed by horses?

[deaddmwalking]

Whenever I imagine a situation that D&D seems to do poorly, I try to imagine a book (or preferably) a movie that depicts this event well. Then I try to figure out why the D&D version fails - is it because I'm doing something wrong, or actually a specific mechanical limitation in the source material?

In the case of a shark (singular), I think they have a place in D&D. The Disney movie the Little Mermaid has a shark combat scene. In this particular case, the shark is too powerful for Ariel and her companion to defeat, so it is resolved with a chase scene.

D&D may not do that well, but if your system does not do it better, or worse, does not do it at all, whatever additional simplicity you think you are introducing isn't worth it - especially if the complexity is not 'making a shark', but instead 'turning to page x in Manual of Monsters XV: Beneath the Waves'.

The complete Monster version allows me to use the shark in all kinds of different ways. While some of them may appear trap-like, if I require the ability to move between the two, only the full stats will be helpful. If sometimes a shark is a monster and sometimes it is just a trap, we might end up with two stat blocks.

Surely you can see that it is easier to just make it a monster all the time.

Consider having a complete shark statistic and throwing in a line in an adventure like:

the shark will bite once, but unless the PC is a seal, he'll swim off
Attack +10 Dmg 2d6

That gets you all the 'short reference' you need for that particular use, but if your PCs have a Trident of Fish Command, suddenly there are the possibility of additional interaction.

It seems to me you're saying 'sharks are boring, so make them show up, attack and leave, and don't ever let them do anything more'.

I can get why you feel that way, but I can't believe you would expect everyone to also feel the same way.

And a shark actually becomes kind of an illustrative example because while I wouldn't expect most PCs to try to use one as a mount, I can totally see that happening.

If a shark is a monster, it can be a trap or it can be a mount or an important encounter element; if it is a trap you have to define what it does when it 'goes off', but also what happens if it is used as a mount.

You've already mentioned that you'd like to give mounts simple 'bonus to rider' buffs, but I don't think that would be a positive change. If I have a warhorse, I expect it to provide a lesser benefit than a gold dragon. I might fight a gold dragon or I might ride it. The fact that it is 'converted' to a simple bonus the moment it becomes a mount just makes it a re-skinned warhorse. If I'm the kind of player that wants a dragon mount, that's not going to cut it.

This just strikes me as 4e-isms, where nothing can actually impact the environment.

That's not a satisfying way to play.

[K]

I can get why you feel that way, but I can't believe you would expect everyone to also feel the same way.

Here's the thing: I know that everyone won't like it because it's impossible to get everyone on board with anything. As a design problem, "making all fans happy" is not even possible. Shit, Avengers made a mountain of money and garnered rave reviews and people are still bitching about Antman not being a character. That's the nature of art.

Making something popular doesn't mean that it has to please everyone. It's sometimes hard to remember that on the forums because the loudest voices dominate.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I present ideas on forums is to get real criticism, and I know that an idea is solid when I only get trolling and name-calling.

And a shark actually becomes kind of an illustrative example because while I wouldn't expect most PCs to try to use one as a mount, I can totally see that happening.

If a shark is a monster, it can be a trap or it can be a mount or an important encounter element; if it is a trap you have to define what it does when it 'goes off', but also what happens if it is used as a mount.

That's not an idea that's been ruled out. There is really no reason why you can't have emergent behavior where some things only are tracked when they become acted on.

For example, I once fought a Yeth hound in an organized play game, and I was a little miffed at the end when I realized that "Yeth Hound Belt" was not something that I could write on my character sheet at the end of the session because all wealth and item gain was abstracted. It had been a great battle and writing down on my character sheet "Yeth Hound Belt" would have been one of the those pointless bits of RP that makes the game fun and I really wanted it.

So I could imagine a system where you never track Yeth Hound Pelts, but can let the DM put that into the game when you wanted to skin something.

Taken the logical end, you could still have animals in a trap-like system until someone tried to make them into mounts or cast a spell on them to turn them into monsters. Then you stat them up appropriately.

The problem with 4e is that nothing ever changed state. You'd get a treasure parcel when you really wanted to just get the Orc's sword, and that kind of thing grates on people. Abstraction is fine, but it doesn't need to be slavishly followed when there is no benefit.

You've already mentioned that you'd like to give mounts simple 'bonus to rider' buffs, but I don't think that would be a positive change. If I have a warhorse, I expect it to provide a lesser benefit than a gold dragon. I might fight a gold dragon or I might ride it. The fact that it is 'converted' to a simple bonus the moment it becomes a mount just makes it a re-skinned warhorse. If I'm the kind of player that wants a dragon mount, that's not going to cut it.

This just strikes me as 4e-isms, where nothing can actually impact the environment.

That's not a satisfying way to play.

Well, gold dragons are actual people and riding them is creepy, but I get your point.

The only issue I see here is that you think that my original idea was a stat buff. I never really saw it that way.

I actually saw them more like items: they grant some abilities and some bonuses and have HPs and things, but you don't track them as independent actors who participate with actions. Worrying about your horse's Will save when a dragon flies over and the Fear Aura washes over both of you is annoying as a story and as a mechanic, but having your horse killed from under you is fine.

This leaves room for riding Nightmares that take you ethereal and dragons that let you direct their flame breath as one of your actions.

---------------------

As for your Little Mermaid example, I think it's a perfect example of a non-monster encounter. there is no point where Ariel is going to fight that beast, so she uses a series of checks to avoid a trap with a limited number of times that it will go off.

In a lot of ways, it's not different than going down a hallway with a lot of traps and knotcutting your way through half of them and Disable Device-ing the rest, but the shark is a trap with a selection of options where each round is avoiding the option that comes up.

[Username17]

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I present ideas on forums is to get real criticism, and I know that an idea is solid when I only get trolling and name-calling.

That's not valid though. Sometimes you only get name calling because your idea is simply really bad. This whole rabbit hole about trying to have monsters not have monster stats in a complicated shell game to prove that they were never important or interesting enough to be worth having stats in the first place is a case in point. You literally haven't gotten anything except to announce that either low level characters don't have monsters to fight or you're starting characters at what is effectively higher level.

In Conan's first adventure, he fights a wolf. By announcing that wolves are below your give-a-shit threshold, you've snipped that adventure out of what your system is capable of modeling. But you haven't really changed the underlying dynamic. Whatever the lowest level monster you simulate actually is, you're still going to have to simulate it. And fundamentally, you are going to have to have a monster who is basically just fast and has snapping jaws eventually. If you insist on it not being a wolf, then it will be a tiger, and if you insist on it not being a tiger, it will be a leogryph, and if you insist on it not being a leogryph it will be a sirrush. Eventually you are going to have to nut up and make a fucking rampaging beast with some actual fucking stats.

You do not gain anything at all by playing shell games with wolves. People want to ride them. People want to fight them. People want to train them to do things. People want to sneak past them. People want to track them. People want to use them to track other things. There are simply a lot of ways that low level characters want to interact with wolves. And if you say "sorry, that's too low level, the guard dogs in this goblin warren are all tigers, razor boars, sirrushes", then the players of the first level will call bullshit on you. And they will be right to do so.

Because that is bullshit.

I'm actually just going to leave you with this highly relevant quote from you:

Now, 4e totally leans into a counter-simulationist gaming, so they just accept that the players are used to things being described but having no in-game effect. They know that you'll describe Divine Favor once, beat down any players trying to be simulationists, then never describe it again and it'll be one of the required set of times you'll need to crush player imaginations before they stop asking questions.

Now, imagine how this is relevant to your current crusade to refuse to simulate dogs, birds, sharks, war horses, bears, dire weasels, and whatever the fuck else.

-Username17

[Parthenon]

Taken the logical end, you could still have animals in a trap-like system until someone tried to make them into mounts or cast a spell on them to turn them into monsters. Then you stat them up appropriately.

This doesn't quite make sense to me. You are specifically saying that a wolf should be a trap, a mount and a monster. At the same time as saying that a wolf should never be a monster.

Have I missed something, is this a mistake, or is your argument just bullshit?

[violence in the media]

I just can't shake the feeling that the "monsters as traps" meme is just overly reductionist. I mean, dart traps already feel stupid and boring and pointless and it seems a shame to diminish a bunch of creatures to that level, even if that's what they already functionally are.

Like Frank has been saying, where do you draw the line? An orc or bandit is just a vehicle for delivering a 1d8+2 sword attack. Yes, you could charm or talk to the orc or bandit, but you can charm or talk to the wolf with certain characters too.

Further, though this might be worthwhile to do, if our 1st level opponents are storm-summoning, lightning-throwing, metal-clad demon sharks, then we probably need to ditch all of the Normal Joe hero back stories. If we're not allowed to fight normal threats, we shouldn't be allowed to pretend we're normal people either. Though this would probably help get rid of the fighter problem, so there is that.

[Ancient History]

Heh. Traptalker class. Speaks to the spirit within mechanisms, telling them not to fire their lethal loads.

[deaddmwalking]

Taken the logical end, you could still have animals in a trap-like system until someone tried to make them into mounts or cast a spell on them to turn them into monsters. Then you stat them up appropriately.

If you think it is likely that they will have to be statted as monsters, you're not saving time by not doing it up front; you're shifting the time burden to the back end.

The thing is, I think I generally agree with you that you can make these types of creatures much simpler than in 3.x. As you simplify, you make things easier to use, so that's good. But you'd like to simplify all the way to trap, and if the process needs to be reversed, it gets much more complicated.

It's ultimately easier to just make them creatures and focus on making the stat block simple.

I'm thinking you could have something as simple as 'Beast 2' and use it for a bear or a shark. The only difference is you throw on an 'aquatic' template and a shark mechanically works like a bear that can't walk on land. They have the same attack/damage/defense etc. If you simplify attacks so instead of claw/claw/bite you just combine to a single attack it can work.

Looking at 3.x:
Black Bear (medium animal)
HP 19, Spd 40, Init +1, AC 13, Grapple +6, Attack +6/+6/+1 (1d4+4/1d4+4/1d6+2), Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +2
Shark (medium animal - aquatic)
HP 16, Spd 60, Init +2, AC 15, Grapple +3, Attack +4 (1d6+1) Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +2

A simple stat block that could be used for both of them, plus a lion or a tiger might be something like this:

Beast 2
HP 20, Spd 40, Init +2, AC 15, Grapple +5, Attack +5 (2d6+2), Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +2

If you lump all attacks together, that's close enough that in an actual fight, players shouldn't notice that a bear and a lion and a tiger and a shark have the same attributes - since the differences are so small.

But trying to turn all the beasts into traps with no stat block ruins the ability to tell particular stories, which would be alright if you got something for doing so - but ultimately it doesn't get you anything - not even an easier creation process.

[Username17]

Taken the logical end, you could still have animals in a trap-like system until someone tried to make them into mounts or cast a spell on them to turn them into monsters. Then you stat them up appropriately.

This doesn't quite make sense to me. You are specifically saying that a wolf should be a trap, a mount and a monster. At the same time as saying that a wolf should never be a monster.

Have I missed something, is this a mistake, or is your argument just bullshit?

There's a thing he is talking about that sort of isn't bullshit. Let's say that a blue fairy transforms a handful of mice into soldiers. Bibbity bobity boo. The fact that they were mice a few seconds ago doesn't actually make fuck all difference in that equation, so having mouse stat lines isn't at all important or helpful. Basically, you're just summoning a new creature and the fact that you used a mouse as a material component is just flavor text.

But the part where it totally is bullshit is that this isn't a universal case. Yes, some magic is completely transformative, but some isn't. Sometimes you just have a spell that gives the target an iron body (making them tough and strong), and you'd like to cast it on some pigs or dogs or something. Then it's just a pain in the ass if you have to make iron pigs or steelhounds from scratch rather than just applying the buff effects to a previously extant chassis.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I present ideas on forums is to get real criticism, and I know that an idea is solid when I only get trolling and name-calling.

By that logic, Shadzar has the most solid ideas of anyone here.

As for your Little Mermaid example, I think it's a perfect example of a non-monster encounter. there is no point where Ariel is going to fight that beast, so she uses a series of checks to avoid a trap with a limited number of times that it will go off.

No, that's a terrible example of a non-monster encounter in an RPG, because RPG players may decide to fight it. In an RPG you can always choose not to run, and in such a case you need some combat stats. You aren't forced to follow the plot railroad.

I feel like you're going off the same game logic Mearls did when he created skill challenges in 4E.

[virgil]

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I present ideas on forums is to get real criticism, and I know that an idea is solid when I only get trolling and name-calling.

But without something to back it up, the ideas are nothing but empty promises. Mearls talks a good game, but the moment he actually tries to design what he promises, it's utter failure. Examples of your ideas are essentially nonexistent; a monster generation system that can be done mid-game by the DM with an even simpler trap/hazard generation system, yet still provide a more tactical experience than FATE? Frank's claims err toward understandable improvement on the same paradigm of 3E, so the onus of explanation is justifiably smaller.

I still do not understand the point in wantonly tossing low level threats off the table. If you're only refusing to give stats to an eagle for narrative aesthetic, that seems petty to focus on defending, because I'm presuming you're going to stat a roc which is just an eagle with bigger numbers. If everything that fills the same tactical role is getting thrown under the 'hazard' bus, from eagles and wolves to fire rocs and giant scorpions, then what's farkin' left? The entire game has become PC duels with the most robust trap minigame I've ever seen; and I'm dead honest in seeing what this trap minigame system looks like, because I can think of several adventures right now that would use nothing but.

Until something is actually made by either of you two though, none of this bloviating matters, does it? I think we can expand on stuff fairly well, but it should be obvious that churning out even a skeleton of a foundation is not the trivial exercise you make it out to be. The same goes for a Diplomacy system that works; you can promise all sorts of outputs and crap, but until we see one that's actually good, it's a holy grail that will unlikely ever see fruition.

[hogarth]

Examples of your ideas are essentially nonexistent; a monster generation system that can be done mid-game by the DM with an even simpler trap/hazard generation system, yet still provide a more tactical experience than FATE?

I'm still hoping to some day see K's proposed level 1-20, 100 page 3.5E adventure path (including maps and art).

[virgil]

Examples of your ideas are essentially nonexistent; a monster generation system that can be done mid-game by the DM with an even simpler trap/hazard generation system, yet still provide a more tactical experience than FATE?

I'm still hoping to some day see K's proposed level 1-20, 100 page 3.5E adventure path (including maps and art).

I can believe that assertion though. Looking at one of Paizo's recent adventure path releases; once you remove the short fiction, the pure fluff pieces like "Ecology of the Efreet," replace the huge majority of the stat blocks with single-line stuff like [Advanced Bugbear, Fire Subtype, +1d6 fire damage from fire aura, CR 3] and edited for reasonable brevity, I wouldn't be surprised if it got cut to like 20 pages. Since Paizo aims for about 6 parts to their paths, you can fit their entire adventure path in less than 200 pages.

Hell, remember the One Page Module/Adventure stuff you can find on the internet with some simple use of Google? That alone shows that it can be done. The real debate is to whether anyone with the skill/budget to have it look half as nice as something made by Paizo would ever be willing to do it.

[Sashi]

Letting monsters pick up weaknesses means that you can't ever actually playtest them. The CR 7 Dire Bear is always going to lose to the CR 7 Dragon and the level 7 archer even when it has melee attacks powerful enough to one-shot them.

That's a playtesting failure. There is no way to figure out the general power of something with an easily exploited weakness.

This is where I realize we're speaking a different language.

I'm saying that PC's need to have general power levels, but monsters don't. The idea that you have to run an Int2 bear through the same game test in order to see if it qualifies to be a bear is nonsense. A level 7 bear and dragon should be about equivalent in melee combat, but the dragon gets tagged with "Extra awesome because it's a bear with wings and spellcasting".

People who want to play bears want to play Sir Bearington, you don't play a bear and then complain about it's lack of flight or a breathweapon, you don't even complain about the lack of hands. Because you wanted to play a bear and bears don't have hands.

[hogarth]

I can believe that assertion though. Looking at one of Paizo's recent adventure path releases; once you remove the short fiction (etc.)

To quote Jerry Seinfeld:

"Oh, no. It’s not that I don’t think you can. I know that you can’t, and I’m positive that you won’t."

[Foxwarrior]

Sashi: If a level 7 bear is the same as a level 7 dragon, but without wings or spellcasting, in what way do they both deserve the Level 7 tag?

[Username17]

Sashi: If a level 7 bear is the same as a level 7 dragon, but without wings or spellcasting, in what way do they both deserve the Level 7 tag?

He said that they would have the same melee combat ability, not that they'd be the same overall threat. Basically, he just wants to do 4th edition's elites and solos without the really terrible math.

So the level 7 devil bear has attacks and defenses that are scaled to 7th level expectations. And so does the level 7 skull dragon. But the level 7 skull dragon has mobility and ranged attacks and special abilities and special resistances and stuff that make it a much deeper foe. It probably also has more hit points. And the 7th level skull dragon has the [awesome] tag that lets you know that it takes up four monster slots when determining how tough the encounter is, while the devil bear has the [brute] tag to let you know that it uses up only 1.

-Username17

[Avoraciopoctules]

The entire game has become PC duels with the most robust trap minigame I've ever seen.

You know what game you just reminded me of?
http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/d ... d-falling/

[violence in the media]

Sashi: If a level 7 bear is the same as a level 7 dragon, but without wings or spellcasting, in what way do they both deserve the Level 7 tag?

If I had to hazard a guess, it's because they do those things at a "Level 7" of ability. The Dragon is a monster that gets to be Level 7 in a wider array of circumstances, but it still isn't in a position to compete against a Level 9 thing. In theory.

Does a Level 7 wizard have Level 7 spellcasting? Of course. Does he have Level 7 melee ability? Probably not.

[Ancient History]

And if this is D&D4, you can't really tell the difference between the two anyway.

[Foxwarrior]

But if the Devil Bear is worth a quarter as much experience and loot, couldn't a single Devil Bear be a challenge for a level 3 party?

Or is the idea with this combination of tags to ensure that the DM doesn't use a single boring [brute] monster? That's sensible from a gameplay perspective, I suppose.

Slight tangent: attack and defense scaling being the centerpiece of level is a Diablo mechanic. Diablo is a game about collecting and curating a set of item bonuses so that your character can remain level-appropriate. Without having the monster numbers scale through the roof, eventually you wouldn't have to care about items and the game would be completely uninteresting. D&D also has had scaling monsters who you're supposed to keep up with, but you get your level-appropriate modifiers primarily by using the least interesting magic items and feats.

So, if you're going to scale monster stats endlessly and fight only monsters of similar level to yourself, you'd better make Rings of Water Walking give bonuses to saving throws.

[...You Lost Me]

Fox, I think it would allow for "You must be this tall" abilities (like big DR on the bear) that are level-7 appropriate.

[K]

Taken the logical end, you could still have animals in a trap-like system until someone tried to make them into mounts or cast a spell on them to turn them into monsters. Then you stat them up appropriately.

This doesn't quite make sense to me. You are specifically saying that a wolf should be a trap, a mount and a monster. At the same time as saying that a wolf should never be a monster.

Have I missed something, is this a mistake, or is your argument just bullshit?

It's mount or a trap depending on whether it's controlled or uncontrolled. The stats are almost the same because they are object stats.

As a spell, it's a monster fueled by magic and not a wolf at all. It'll have stats based on the level of the spell and magic powers.

This means that there is still no "wolf" in the MM.