If you could change THREE THINGS about 4E...

[Draco_Argentum]

Monster creation in 3e was not fine. It was shit and produced utter crap if you followed the rules. The sections with numbers produced wildly varied results. Some of the numbers weren't given to you by the system (abilities). Powers were about eyeballing stuff based of preexisting monsters.

It stank, only a total rewrite would make it any good.

[JonSetanta]

What are you talking about? Monster creation in 3E worked just fine. The three biggest problem were trying to alter existing already-broken monsters (like dragons), giving a higher-level monster credible magic-based class powers, and determining just how difficult a monster should be.

It's not fine. Not fine at all.

Explanations why can be found all over this subforum.

[Tequila Sunrise]

...Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face after reading that. The 4e DMG's monster creation guidelines are far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than 3e's guidelines. Monster creation guidelines in 3e were an afterthought; they had a guideline for monster AB, but no mention of equally important stats like how much damage a monster should deal or how high the DCs should be for major spells/abilities.

4e at least gives you guidelines for all the important monster stats, even if the designers themselves didn't follow them exactly.

What are you talking about? Monster creation in 3E worked just fine. The three biggest problem were trying to alter existing already-broken monsters (like dragons), giving a higher-level monster credible magic-based class powers, and determining just how difficult a monster should be.

Sure 3e monster creation could work fine, if you worked out an actual standard for monster roles and CR, and then ignored half the math that was supposed to go on behind monster stats. I myself am working on a pdf guide that does just that, because this 'just compare it to other monsters' bullshit is too crude.

But if you wanted to make a horde of half-dragon T-Rexes with a crew of kobold mages flinging low-level spells on them, you could do that. They will play and feel a lot differently than an orc riding on the backs of wyvern.

Are you trying to make a point about differences in monster creation guidelines through the editions, or are you just brainstorming monster ideas that you want to stat out? Whatever the case, the 4e DMG gives much more clear and concise guidelines for stating up your half dragon T-rexes and kobold mages than 3e ever did.

I've read the monster alteration and creation rules in 4E. It's so pitiful they had to banish it to the DMG, and most of the abilities boil down to 'tweak its stats a little bit higher'. Fucking pitiful.

If by 'pitiful' you mean 'mostly usable', than yes I agree. The only mistake that I think the 4e made with the monster creation guidelines is their "N + Level" golden standard for monster stats, which PCs just can't keep up with. It works for monster attacks vs. AC, but not for anything else. Again, when I see a problem, I fix it so you might want to check out my Manual of Monster Creation that I linked to earlier.

TS

[Username17]

Whatever the case, the 4e DMG gives much more clear and concise guidelines for stating up your half dragon T-rexes and kobold mages than 3e ever did.

Much of this is correct, but this bolded statement is just crazy talk. Kobold Magicians in 3e just use the regular mage rules. The 4e Kobold Magician enemies have powers that the DM makes up off the top of his head. That specific instance is a major tanking of usability.

The thing where NPCs stopped being NPCs and started being piles of arbitrarium was a major step backwards. I will agree that dinosaurs and other toothy monsters were always just piles of arbitrarium, so having the game come out and say that is certainly no worse than pretending there was a system like 3e did.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

I'd argue that its better. Cut out the BS maths that is only there to make people feel nice and state that the numbers are level + N.

What both systems lack is a way to give powers out in a balanced manner. 3e only really worked for no HD humanoids. 4e is just not good.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Whatever the case, the 4e DMG gives much more clear and concise guidelines for stating up your half dragon T-rexes and kobold mages than 3e ever did.

Much of this is correct, but this bolded statement is just crazy talk. Kobold Magicians in 3e just use the regular mage rules. The 4e Kobold Magician enemies have powers that the DM makes up off the top of his head. That specific instance is a major tanking of usability.

As we have been talking about monster creation, I made the assumption that LP wanted to stat his hypothetical kobold mages as monsters. But if he wants to stat them as NPCs 4e does that better than 3e too, with its NPC wealth guidelines that make NPCs pathetic glass cannon jokes.

What both systems lack is a way to give powers out in a balanced manner.

This is true. It would be great to have a compilation and guide to all the common types of powers, and assigning them to monsters in a balanced manner. Though such would be a huge project and would involve a good bit of argument if more than one person were to write it.

TS

[Bigode]

This is true. It would be great to have a compilation and guide to all the common types of powers, and assigning them to monsters in a balanced manner. Though such would be a huge project and would involve a good bit of argument if more than one person were to write it.

Maybe that's what the designers' pays are for?

[MartinHarper]

Much of this is correct, but this bolded statement is just crazy talk. Kobold Magicians in 3e just use the regular mage rules. The 4e Kobold Magician enemies have powers that the DM makes up off the top of his head. That specific instance is a major tanking of usability.

The 4e Kobold Magicians can use the NPC rules, in which case the powers are selected from the PHB. They can also use the monster rules, in which case they are indeed made up by the DM.

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is true. It would be great to have a compilation and guide to all the common types of powers, and assigning them to monsters in a balanced manner. Though such would be a huge project and would involve a good bit of argument if more than one person were to write it.

Maybe that's what the designers' pays are for?

One can only hope that the game designers know what the hell they're doing, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of them compiling and quantifying a bunch of powers for the benefit of amateur designers. That's just bad business, for at least a couple reasons.

TS

[Bigode]

One can only hope that the game designers know what the hell they're doing, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of them compiling and quantifying a bunch of powers for the benefit of amateur designers. That's just bad business, for at least a couple reasons.

Actually, since RPGs (the real ones) are extensible for nature, attention to facilitating said extension's the due of any professionally designed RPG. Of course I'm not holding my breath for WotC to do it, I've much worse problems with it than "alignment's meaningless" (that's what I call "a feature"); again Spycraft wins, IIRC.

[Voss]

Much of this is correct, but this bolded statement is just crazy talk. Kobold Magicians in 3e just use the regular mage rules. The 4e Kobold Magician enemies have powers that the DM makes up off the top of his head. That specific instance is a major tanking of usability.

The 4e Kobold Magicians can use the NPC rules, in which case the powers are selected from the PHB. They can also use the monster rules, in which case they are indeed made up by the DM.

You mean the ones that make them elites with 2.5 times the HP of a PC Wizard? And defenses boosted for no reason? Yeah, those are great rules right there.

'OK, guys, heres a party exactly like you, except they are required to outlast you in combat.'

Mirror matches shouldn't involve the opposition being strictly better. (Or, bizarrely enough, leaving half the party out because each character is suddenly 'elite')

[MartinHarper]

You mean the ones that make them elites with 2.5 times the HP of a PC Wizard? And defenses boosted for no reason? Yeah, those are great rules right there.

That's the class template rules. I'm talking about the NPC rules on DMG p186. So the Wizard NPC has 6hp per level + Constitution Score.

On a side note, a PC is about as strong as an elite monster. That's why the DM sends them up against one elite for every two PC: so he can lose.

[RandomCasualty2]

You mean the ones that make them elites with 2.5 times the HP of a PC Wizard? And defenses boosted for no reason? Yeah, those are great rules right there.

'OK, guys, heres a party exactly like you, except they are required to outlast you in combat.'

For the most part I think the added NPC hp is to make up for the lack of combat healing for monsters.

Monsters only get a few surges and no second wind. PCs get a ton of surges and a lot of abilities to heal, so while PC hp is smaller as a total, combat healing means that PCs can soak as much, if not alot more damage, than monsters can.

Really, the extra hp isn't as bad as it seems in actual play.

As for monster creation, the 4E system is much better than the 3E one, simply because the 4E system is faster. Neither works particularly well and both are magic teaparty for the majority of the time, but the 4E one is actually somewhat useable, while the 3E "build monsters like PCs" mentality is just a garbage concept in a system where PCs take a half hour to an hour to create. That's just not acceptable for monsters at all.

A monster should not take longer to stat up than it takes to kill. Ever.

[Voss]

You mean the ones that make them elites with 2.5 times the HP of a PC Wizard? And defenses boosted for no reason? Yeah, those are great rules right there.

That's the class template rules. I'm talking about the NPC rules on DMG p186. So the Wizard NPC has 6hp per level + Constitution Score.

Right. I had forgotten there were two NPC creation methods in 4e for whatever inexplicable reason: the extra hit point version and the non-extra hit point version. The problem with the non-extra hit point version is it does the mirror match badly the *other* way. It has less than a third of the powers of a PC so it pretty much has no chance of winning at all.

So NPCs either aren't a challenge in anyway whatsoever, or they're a boring grindfest. These aren't good options.

On a side note, a PC is about as strong as an elite monster. That's why the DM sends them up against one elite for every two PC: so he can lose.

Except for HP, which is the only real meaningful measure of strength for anything in 4e, since pretty much everything does crap damage. PCs are only a real match for elites when they have their full complement of powers. Throwing them in at low levels [1-6] is just cruel, since they don't have enough encounter powers to grind off the giant stack of HP.

Although later its still a problem, since doubling the absurd piles of HP higher level monsters get makes the encounter powers seem underwhelming.

[MartinHarper]

So I was listening to the d&d podcast, and they were explaining all the ways that epic d&d play is bad. Very honest, I thought.

1) Epic minions suck. Epic players have lots of auto-damage, and the minion rules don't handle auto-damage.
2) Epic solos are boring. The beholder is the exception.
3) Making epic characters takes hours.
4) Some low-level magic items are must-have at epic because they actually scale (eg, Ring of Protection, Ring of True Seeing).
5) Demi-God is too good and too versatile.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20081006

I had forgotten there were two NPC creation methods in 4e for whatever inexplicable reason: the extra hit point version and the non-extra hit point version.

You need the first version to create a Giant Turtle Crossbow Ranger and make Frank angry. It's also helpful if there's a nice monster-only power you want to use. With the second version you can only make rangers out of the PC races and the NPC races at the end of the Monster Manual. Though sadly giant turtles aren't in the monster manual yet.

Plus, sometimes you want an elite NPC and sometimes you want a regular NPC. If you want an NPC who has a chance of fighting and then running away from a party, it kinda needs to be elite.

[RandomCasualty2]

1) Epic minions suck. Epic players have lots of auto-damage, and the minion rules don't handle auto-damage.
2) Epic solos are boring. The beholder is the exception.
3) Making epic characters takes hours.
4) Some low-level magic items are must-have at epic because they actually scale (eg, Ring of Protection, Ring of True Seeing).
5) Demi-God is too good and too versatile.

Minions can be fixed by adding a resist all 10-15 to their stat blocks. That way someone can't kill them with a cloud of daggers and needs to deal them significant real damage to take them out. Another solution I've considered is to make area effects deal their damage at the start of the effect controller's turn instead of the start of the monster's turn. That way the creature's have an option to move out of the area before they get dealt autodamage.

Solos are boring period. They take tactical positioning out of the game pretty much and you're just left with grinding a single monster. There aren't many tactics you can use besides just trying for stunlocks. It's dull as shit.

And yeah, demigod regeneration is just insanely powerful. It pretty much means you're going to win the encounter you use it in, and there's no great counter to it.

[Tequila Sunrise]

So NPCs either aren't a challenge in anyway whatsoever, or they're a boring grindfest. These aren't good options.

Or you could make NPCs exactly as PCs are made. Or just add powers until you're happy. It's not exactly by the book, but it's still simpler and far more elegant than the 3e ways.

TS

[Voss]

Do whatever you want because the rules suck isn't simple and elegant.


@MartinHarper- actually, the frustrating thing is you can make an orc, goblin, kobold (or whatever) npc through either option. You can either make the crappy version that way, or you can just cram a fighter template on Crazy Orc Battlerager and make it elite.

So, regarding the podcast, if it sucks (and it does, the tiny epic feat list made clear it was a complete afterthought), why the fuck did they make it that way? I mean, shit, they're the ones that pulled a half-assed version of levels 21-30 out of nowhere and displaced useful shit from the book.

[Username17]

Or you could make NPCs exactly as PCs are made. Or just add powers until you're happy. It's not exactly by the book, but it's still simpler and far more elegant...

I'm going to stop you right there. While there are simple and elegant things you can do that don't follow the rules, they are not following the fucking rules! Once you leave the book and are just making shit up, then the relative elegance of the original rules isn't even up for discussion because you are not using them.

Oberoni Fallacy, in the face.

-Username17

[Tequila Sunrise]

Or you could make NPCs exactly as PCs are made. Or just add powers until you're happy. It's not exactly by the book, but it's still simpler and far more elegant...

I'm going to stop you right there. While there are simple and elegant things you can do that don't follow the rules, they are not following the fucking rules! Once you leave the book and are just making shit up, then the relative elegance of the original rules isn't even up for discussion because you are not using them.

Oberoni Fallacy, in the face.

-Username17

Sorry I'm not a Star Wars fan so I don't know what Obi Wan has to do with this discussion. Like I said picking and choosing rules from different areas of the books to make an NPC isn't exactly by the book, but it's only a step away from RAW. You don't like it, whatever, I don't care. But it's still more elegant than the 3e NPC method of 'stat out a PC, except with shit for gear.'

TS

[Voss]

It sounds exactly the same.

[Username17]

Sorry I'm not a Star Wars fan so I don't know what Obi Wan has to do with this discussion. Like I said picking and choosing rules from different areas of the books to make an NPC isn't exactly by the book, but it's only a step away from RAW. You don't like it, whatever, I don't care. But it's still more elegant than the 3e NPC method of 'stat out a PC, except with shit for gear.'

The Oberoni Fallacy has nothing to do with Star Wars, and much to do with a guy called Oberoni. At its most simple form it is stated thusly:

"If you say that the rules do not have problems because you can change them to fix the existing problems, then you are wrong."

The fact that you are admitting that what you are doing is not what the 4e rules tell you to do means that any comparison you make between what you are doing and anything else has exactly fuck all to do with how the actual 4e rules compare to anything else.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

The Oberoni Fallacy has nothing to do with Star Wars, and much to do with a guy called Oberoni. At its most simple form it is stated thusly:

Troll'd

When it comes to NPC vs PC design I see it as an ends-justify-the-means.
NPCs are legion and made for potential killing. They don't need to be as complex as PCs, ever.
An NPC (which includes monsters) have a lifespan that lasts until their encounter with the PC part.

PCs however are extended-play dynamic characters. They need that level of detail.

"Winging it" does not solve the problem because the end result of an NPC build must appear as if it has a similar level of detail, but actually doesn't.
It's a waste of time to give an NPC a list of irrelevant skills, items that aren't used in combat or given to PCs (willingly or not), and abilities that aren't used in 1-2 encounters.

In effect NPCs are all smoke and mirrors.
Like a Huldre, there's simply nothing there if viewed from behind.. but only the DM can see that.

[Voss]

Recurring villains don't ever happen? Thats... weird.

[RandomCasualty2]

Recurring villains don't ever happen? Thats... weird.

In 3.5, very rarely. It's hard to ever survive a battle in 3.5 to fight another day unless you have some contingent teleport. But I don't really consider that even a recurring villain, that's just more of a taunting villain, because you never fight him for real until the final battle.