The Gaming Den

I don't think it is at all a good idea for monsters and non-player characters to be built on the same rules as PCs. Really. Even if it was an extremely balanced and fun system--which it is not--you still have the issue of just how much of an incredible time sink it is for the game master.

4e and Fantasy Craft both use pretty good systems. Start with a concept, then fill in the numbers, using these tables and these charts to be within the ballpark of where you want to be. 4e's system is a little simple, and probably wouldn't work quite so well with something with as much variance as Tome. Fantasy Craft on the other hand is a little messy, and their system of xp value as power breaks down really, really fast.

Still, both are in a different league from building an npc from scratch only for it to die.

So, what would the ideal creation system be? Personally, I like the concept of role and level affecting stats. Cross-referencing too. A gm should be able to look at a chart that tells him, at this level, this will be an accurate attack, and this will be a medium damaging attack. He should be able to use those numbers.

Say he wanted to create a golem that fired javelin sized-bolts that have a chance of hitting the party's fighter. He shouldn't have to worry about raising the golem's dexterity up just to boost the attack, then worry about THAT increasing the golem's AC too much for the fighter to hit. He should just say, "THIS is a reasonably accurate attack for level 10, THIS is a reasonably easy defense to pierce for level 10, and this amount of damage reduction should be annoying, but at level 10 they can deal with it."

First off, if NPCs aren't built the same way PCs are, that tends to kill verisimilitude because even the NPCs that are supposed to be like the PCs aren't. It also tends to screw up your loot system, because what PCs get via items NPCs then get via arbitrarium.

Second, 4e's NPC-generation system wasn't remotely good - it led to monsters that have similar names (and even similar ability names) that have very little in common mechanically, NPCs with poison weapons whose weapons inexplicably fail to be poisoned if the PCs pick them up, and a host of other verisimilitude-destroying train wrecks.

Third, Tome classes are designed (okay, they're supposed to be) to function reasonably well against WotC-published monsters. The Same Game Test is based on fighting creatures from the Monster Manual.

Fourth, the Tomes explicitly include NPC classes that are designed to be easy to build and use. At higher level, if it's so damn hard to build NPCs, use classes that are easier to run - Fire Mages, Barbarians, etc.

Fifth, a substantial chunk of Tome material is really good for NPCs. Half of the material from Tome of Necromancy and Tome of Fiends is designed primarily as material for NPCs. Your proposal doesn't work with Tome games, because it functionally cuts out huge chunks of material that Tome games use.

Sixth, any system based on 3.5 is going to include a lot of heavy rules. If you don't like it, go play Savage Worlds or something. Also, keep the 4.Fail out of a system that is antithetical to 4e.

Tome does not need monster creation. It was specifically designed to allow everyone to keep up with team monster (as opposed to only full casters). I think the tome classes overcompensate, but that is a matter of opinion. And if so you should tone down the tome classes, not upgrade the monsters. Fix 30 classes or 3000 monsters, take your pick.

As for NPCs, you can totally build them to mirror PCs, loot and all. Tome wealth rules should ensure you don't get too much out of it. You could possibly enter the wish economy a level earlier or something I guess.

imperialspectre wrote:First off, if NPCs aren't built the same way PCs are, that tends to kill verisimilitude because even the NPCs that are supposed to be like the PCs aren't. It also tends to screw up your loot system, because what PCs get via items NPCs then get via arbitrarium.

Second, 4e's NPC-generation system wasn't remotely good - it led to monsters that have similar names (and even similar ability names) that have very little in common mechanically, NPCs with poison weapons whose weapons inexplicably fail to be poisoned if the PCs pick them up, and a host of other verisimilitude-destroying train wrecks.

Third, Tome classes are designed (okay, they're supposed to be) to function reasonably well against WotC-published monsters. The Same Game Test is based on fighting creatures from the Monster Manual.

Fourth, the Tomes explicitly include NPC classes that are designed to be easy to build and use. At higher level, if it's so damn hard to build NPCs, use classes that are easier to run - Fire Mages, Barbarians, etc.

Fifth, a substantial chunk of Tome material is really good for NPCs. Half of the material from Tome of Necromancy and Tome of Fiends is designed primarily as material for NPCs. Your proposal doesn't work with Tome games, because it functionally cuts out huge chunks of material that Tome games use.

Sixth, any system based on 3.5 is going to include a lot of heavy rules. If you don't like it, go play Savage Worlds or something. Also, keep the 4.Fail out of a system that is antithetical to 4e.

1. Rogue npcs would be fast and sneaky. Clerics could cast healing spells. Wizards hurl fireballs. Etc. I'm talking about the same effects, but a shorter path towards it.

2. Uh...what does the monster creation system in the dungeon master's guide have to do with the monsters in the monster manual having funny names or odd abilities?

3. The Tome classes fail this test, as you readily admit.

4 & 5. It's still a time consuming process. And why would you be unable to use any of the mechanics from the material in a faster creation system?

6. Cumbersome rules for the sake of cumbersome rules is just silly.

Murtak wrote:Tome does not need monster creation. It was specifically designed to allow everyone to keep up with team monster (as opposed to only full casters). I think the tome classes overcompensate, but that is a matter of opinion. And if so you should tone down the tome classes, not upgrade the monsters. Fix 30 classes or 3000 monsters, take your pick.

As for NPCs, you can totally build them to mirror PCs, loot and all. Tome wealth rules should ensure you don't get too much out of it. You could possibly enter the wish economy a level earlier or something I guess.

Who said anything about throwing out the wealth of material already available? I'm talking about something streamlined creating NEW monsters and npcs. I'm not even saying that other monsters should be converted.

No, I just think it would be nice to have some baseline numbers so that a DM could say to himself, "I'm going to make a giant. He's going to be easy to hit, but have a lot of hp. A little inaccurate, but he'll pack a strong punch." Then he'd look a chart, pick out a low--relative to the PC's level--AC, reflex, and will, high hp and fortitude, and a have an attack that would probably miss the fighter up front but smash the caster in back and would deal a heck of a lot of damage.

Spending more than a minute or two on such a simple monster--something that is literally just there for the PCs to kill, perhaps as a solo, perhaps as a group--just doesn't make sense to me.

The Tomes were designed to be backward compatible. This is not the "backward compatible" of Paizo's Pathfinder where every single class, half the mechanics, and most spells are changed so you actually need to learn a new game to play it, but real backward compatibility. This means design decisions I would not make get reinforced.

That being said, there is some truth in what you are saying. NPCs need to be easy to make and 3e has an overly complicated character generation system and the entire stat system allows for crazy and complicated ways to gain power above and beyond what your level is supposed to do if you overspecialize in one stat (see any Grapple build for an example).

So yes, in my ideal world 3e DnD golems would not even be monsters because a man with a bow and movement auto-wins on these golems and I don't consider that a challenge. My ideal golem looks a little more complicated, and 3.x DnD doesn't represent it at all.

Monsters are characters, and 4e has taught us the valuable lesson that treating monsters as mobs and not characters leads to flat and lifeless dungeon crawl characters AND wild imbalance that no one is really interested in playing. By the same token, 3e's character generation system makes iconic stuff like "mirror match" fights with evil characters like the PCs almost impossible to do without sinking a lot of time into it.

Putting monsters on the same tracks as characters is just good mechanics. I mean, have we really be served by "eyeballing it"? How are you supposed to know how to alter a published monster to fit into your adventure if there are no mechanics about how power is supposed to progress in your system? How do you benchmark a new ability if not against PC abilities and what they are expected to defeat (maybe even in a mirror match fight)?

K wrote:The Tomes were designed to be backward compatible. This is not the "backward compatible" of Paizo's Pathfinder where every single class, half the mechanics, and most spells are changed so you actually need to learn a new game to play it, but real backward compatibility. This means design decisions I would not make get reinforced.

That being said, there is some truth in what you are saying. NPCs need to be easy to make and 3e has an overly complicated character generation system and the entire stat system allows for crazy and complicated ways to gain power above and beyond what your level is supposed to do if you overspecialize in one stat (see any Grapple build for an example).

So yes, in my ideal world 3e DnD golems would not even be monsters because a man with a bow and movement auto-wins on these golems and I don't consider that a challenge. My ideal golem looks a little more complicated, and 3.x DnD doesn't represent it at all.

Monsters are characters, and 4e has taught us the valuable lesson that treating monsters as mobs and not characters leads to flat and lifeless dungeon crawl characters AND wild imbalance that no one is really interested in playing. By the same token, 3e's character generation system makes iconic stuff like "mirror match" fights with evil characters like the PCs almost impossible to do without sinking a lot of time into it.

Putting monsters on the same tracks as characters is just good mechanics. I mean, have we really be served by "eyeballing it"? How are you supposed to know how to alter a published monster to fit into your adventure if there are no mechanics about how power is supposed to progress in your system? How do you benchmark a new ability if not against PC abilities and what they are expected to defeat (maybe even in a mirror match fight)?

Thank you for the input.

I do think that a monster should be created by with the abilities of the PCs in mind. As a mirror to them though. Take hp for example. Say I want to create a hulking behemoth of a monster with enough hp that it can survive even two full rounds against a Tome party and take every hit. In order to achieve that, I would need either pump up its hitdice to ridiculous levels, which increases its attack, skills, etc, or pump up its constitution to something truly ridiculous, which is just as arbitrary as simply picking a high amount of hp except that it also inflates the monster's hp so much that it will never fail a fort save.

And as for eyeballing, I think the current system simply makes it worse. CR and HD tell you little about how much of a pain a monster is going to be. In any case, I don't think that two sets of creation rules would necessarily be mutually exclusive. If both existed, nothing prevents a dm from picking their preferred method or using both in the same campaign. One for the important ones, the other for the throwaway one-shots.

You have to understand that I look at game mechanics like a Marxist revolutionary: I seize the means of production to advance my goals.

So I want a bruiser that can take a good five rounds of beating and not one-shot anyone. I take that goal, and if the system won't do it for me (and I can optimize as much as anyone), I write a feat called Big As A Mountain. It adds Hardness 25 to a monster of that CR and immunity to death magic in its various forms (sleep, paralyze, death, etc), and in return you lose run speeds and it requires you to be Huge. Basically, its the package golems should have.

Sure, in an ideal system I would not need to write that feat, but DnD has yet to deliver an ideal edition so I hack together bits of the system and rewrite code where necessary.

Ps. considering how long DnD rounds are to play out, I'd never WANT a monster to last 5 rounds in anything but a very low leveled game.

Apalala wrote:I do think that a monster should be created by with the abilities of the PCs in mind. As a mirror to them though. Take hp for example. Say I want to create a hulking behemoth of a monster with enough hp that it can survive even two full rounds against a Tome party and take every hit. In order to achieve that, I would need either pump up its hitdice to ridiculous levels, which increases its attack, skills, etc, or pump up its constitution to something truly ridiculous, which is just as arbitrary as simply picking a high amount of hp except that it also inflates the monster's hp so much that it will never fail a fort save.

Actually, boosting the constitution to ridiculous levels is probably what you want. Otherwise it will be dead in a round to an SoD.

Anyway, I'm a fan of NPC classes for 3e. 'Purified' classes that do the important stuff while reducing complexity. They shouldn't get feats (like the Warrior), or if they do there should be premade selections (which is better for letting players use the class). Some equipment should always be preselected and factored into the NPC stat block (e.g. basic stat boosters). Random tables are great for determining items or enchantments that don't add bonuses, assuming you don't want to spend a few minutes selecting them yourself. The standard attribute array also takes a bit of work out of the task (everyone starts with a 15 in her prime requisite).

The use of monster/NPC classes for monster generation is also fine. If you've already decided to put in some work rather than filing off serial numbers or adding class levels to existing monsters, you should be rewarded with a system that helps you turn out fairly balanced creatures and gives plenty of options.

K wrote:You have to understand that I look at game mechanics like a Marxist revolutionary: I seize the means of production to advance my goals.

So I want a bruiser that can take a good five rounds of beating and not one-shot anyone. I take that goal, and if the system won't do it for me (and I can optimize as much as anyone), I write a feat called Big As A Mountain. It adds Hardness 25 to a monster of that CR and immunity to death magic in its various forms (sleep, paralyze, death, etc), and in return you lose run speeds and it requires you to be Huge. Basically, its the package golems should have.

Sure, in an ideal system I would not need to write that feat, but DnD has yet to deliver an ideal edition so I hack together bits of the system and rewrite code where necessary.

Ps. considering how long DnD rounds are to play out, I'd never WANT a monster to last 5 rounds in anything but a very low leveled game.

So you can slap whatever stats and abilities you want on a monster, slap on a feat justifying it, and call it a day?

And yeah, 5 rounds in dnd time would stretch out to infinity. Even having a monster able to survive two rounds is pushing it.

K wrote:By the same token, 3e's character generation system makes iconic stuff like "mirror match" fights with evil characters like the PCs almost impossible to do without sinking a lot of time into it.

Photocopiers take that long to use? :p

That being said, I know what you mean. I tried to make a mirror match for a paladin/bard/actual-useful-PrCl and it was time consuming and annoying to find ways for them to actually be a challenge.

Apalala wrote:
So you can slap whatever stats and abilities you want on a monster, slap on a feat justifying it, and call it a day?

Nothing so simple: you figure out what you want to do, then you create a reusable feat that you can use the rest of your gaming days that is balanced against what characters and monsters at that level should be doing.

Altering stats willy nilly doesn't work. For example, I want a giant to last 3 rounds so I give him a giant Con which gives him a pile of HPs and giant Fort save..... and the party wizard auto-kills him with a Will save spell.

The key issue is that we want him to live long enough. We don't want save or dies or spike damage to take him out. Raising or lowering specific stats won't work, so we look at what monsters and characters at the level are doing and give them abilities that are level appropriate (notice how PC fighters tend to figure out a way to avoid save or dies around the time they show up).

Then we write some awesome flavor text where you become partly golemized and add that to the plot.

Your key issue is: don't balance monsters to the level of characters.

My argument: set monsters to characters if you want them to be more than speedbumps and instead be actual challenges. Sometimes this means to need to write content to fix a flawed system.

K wrote: Nothing so simple: you figure out what you want to do, then you create a reusable feat that you can use the rest of your gaming days that is balanced against what characters and monsters at that level should be doing.

I'm wondering; would you happen to have any of these sorts of reusable feats lying around that you'd be willing to share? An actual set of "challenge archetype" or whatever feats could be really handy.