YOU are in charge of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3e...

[PhoneLobster]

It's like this every time. Oh the narrowly defined restrictive class vs the player customizable alternative is such a clear cut victory and the only path to commercial success.

Oh wait? 4E failed and 3.x succeeded? Commercially and as actual working games? Um... and now for endless thousands of words of equivocation in an attempt to pretend that up is down and down is up and 4E was actually 3.x and 3.x was actually 4E.

An extended exercise in cherry picking and misrepresentation to pretend that a system that was unpopular mostly because of it's lack of choice was in fact evil player freedom, while a system that has always been popular because of it's extensive support for player choice is in fact an example of highly restrictive and proscriptive design practices.

If they had a fucking argument worth shit it wouldn't take these constant and elaborate obfuscation exercises in spin mastery to redefine their strategy's past failings and attempt to claim the successes of rival design philosophies.

Hell if they had a fucking argument they would feel comfortable just dismissing both as "freak occurrences probably to do with other factors" instead of having this burning need to rewrite history in their favor.

[Mask_De_H]

Honestly though, did the Beguiler/Dread Necro/Swashbuckler/Knight/Gishblade/yer mum actually stick in the 3.5 player consciousness? We seem to be the only group of people who give the Beguiler the time of day, all of the unique martial classes not backed up by Weeaboo Fightan Magic were non-starters and nobody was really banging the door down to repurpose the Gishblades instead of just trying to make another gish.

brized: You do realize that the amount of money you throw at a thing doesn't automatically make it a better thing, right? In point of fact, the less money you have to spend to get a certain level of sales, the better. And 4e marketing went out of its way to tell the players of the previous system(s) they were having badwrongfun, which is not good marketing. Combine that with the failure to deliver on product, the constant errata, killing of print lines that acted as advertisement (RIP Dungeon and Dragon), and the general clusterfuckery that led to the head of the division getting a pink slip for Christmas damn near every year, and you have poor cultivation of a brand.

You think you've got a point here but you barely have a thought.

[JonSetanta]

(RIP Dungeon and Dragon)

My local library used to carry these mags, but years ago got rid of all of them.

[Aryxbez]

I thought I remembered Frank, in a recent thread but not this one, saying that Tome-style feats were a mistake and feats should only do minor stuff for flavor, not be a major part of the character's abilities.

Edit: Found it, here. Although it doesn't say specifically how important the feats would be just "smaller than Tome feats" and you get them every level. They are described as "minor personal touches" however.

As I recall he also wanted to opt for small piddly feats the like of 3.X/PF did to be something you get at end of every session. So that way while there may be 200+ of them out there, players may actually get to see some of those weird obscure options that recently came out and they want to try immediately.

Also in general, I thought we just wanted to do away with Multiclassing altogether, and just do classplosion to fill the gaps. As well as other stuff can like feats can help I guess.

[JonSetanta]

As for remaking D&D, I was thinking lately.. I really hate the variety of monster HD in 3e compared to AD&D.

Consider: Everything in AD&D was a d8. If you wanted a tougher monster, you added more levels/HD.

Everyone should get full BAB and armor should not be ignored by touch attacks, requiring spellcasters and monsters to increase their AB to moderate amounts.
5e got this right. They kept the bonuses small, which is annoying, but there are no more "touch attacks".

4e did something nice; they added CON score to HP at level 1 only, using the bonus for each level after. This makes a lucky damage roll less fatal.

So, my monster class would look like:

• 5 HP per level
• +1 attack bonus per level
• 4 skills known with 3 + Level ranks
• Save progressions of 1 + 1/2 level



As for the players, they are meant to survive better.
There would be a few kinds:

Warrior
• 10 HP per level
• +2 extra skills
• Knows how to use all Exotic weapons

Expert
• 8 HP per level
• +4 extra skills

Mage
• 6 HP per level
• Spell DCs and bonus spells known based off of INT
• A mana pool equal to WIS score + WIS bonus for each level after 1
• Add CHA to spell healing and damage

They would all share save progressions of 2 + 1/2 level for all saves (the ability scores make the difference), +1 BAB per level, and add CON score to HP at level 1.

[rasmuswagner]

Look, the right way to do monsters is clearly somewhere between the 2E/4E ALL STEVES paradigm and the 3E "like building characters, but ass-pull dissociated numbers to meet target numbers" worst-of-both-worlds fiddlyness.

[Username17]

Look, the right way to do monsters is clearly somewhere between the 2E/4E ALL STEVES paradigm and the 3E "like building characters, but ass-pull dissociated numbers to meet target numbers" worst-of-both-worlds fiddlyness.

Ideally, you'd have Monster Classes that would give you the number ranges. Like a Level 8 Brute would come with hit points and damage outputs sufficient to make a level 8 party want to kite them. But of course the Giant Slug, the Stone Giant, and the Triceratops are all different monsters despite having the same class. And they should be playable right out of the book. But if you want to make a new monster, it should be in some way comprehensible how you'd reverse engineer a creature that was like a Triceratops but had its special charge attack replaced by a Fire Aura or something.

-Username17

[Mechalich]

Would making ability score boosts part of monster classes help towards that end? A lot of variability in 3.X monsters comes down to ability score modifiers that appear to be assigned purely at authorial whim, but that ultimately matter a lot once you start stacking up a whole bunch of HD or allowing your monsters to cast spells. That would hopefully get things closer to having the primary difference be the special attacks/defenses, and if you did it that way something that had a really bizarrely stilted ability score (like an ethergaunt or a nymph) would have that noted as part of the specials.

[Username17]

Would making ability score boosts part of monster classes help towards that end? A lot of variability in 3.X monsters comes down to ability score modifiers that appear to be assigned purely at authorial whim, but that ultimately matter a lot once you start stacking up a whole bunch of HD or allowing your monsters to cast spells. That would hopefully get things closer to having the primary difference be the special attacks/defenses, and if you did it that way something that had a really bizarrely stilted ability score (like an ethergaunt or a nymph) would have that noted as part of the specials.

There are a lot of pitfalls as regards to monsters and ability scores. Obviously the strength scores you'd expect from a Hill Giant and a Corpulent Ghoul will be very different - but they are both seventh level Brute Monsters who should have the same class because they are supposed to be walls of meat you want to stay out of melee with from a tactical POV. If you set attack bonuses into an X + Y setup where the Hill Giant's higher strength score necessarily adds to their attack bonus in a linear fashion (as 3e does) then the RNG is going to get fucked in the ear. Either the Ghoul won't be able to hit shit or the Hill Giant won't be able to miss. And neither of those is a good answer. On the flip side, if you simply make the stats completely disassociated with the number outputs (as 4e does), that's intellectually insulting and makes the game flail and fail when a Giant drinks a potion of strength or whatever.

My suggestion would be to give each Monster Class a set of suggested monster statlines with attack bonus totals hardwired in at that point. And then monsters would take customization options that would modify these further. So in this model, the way you'd reverse engineer the Hill Giant is that you'd start with the "strong brute" stat template, and then you'd layer the "Dangerously Strong" package on that. Meanwhile the Corpulent Ghoul would take the "canny brute" stat template and take the "Ghastly Stench" package on top of that. And the "Dangerously Strong" package would increase strength and increase attack bonuses accordingly, while the "strong brute" template just comes with the same normal 7th level Brute Monster attack bonuses that the "canny brute" template does. So at the end of the day, the Hill Giant has a larger attack bonus than the Corpulent Ghoul, but he's still on the RNG.

These legos only come apart and get put back together when Mister Cavern goes into tinker mode, obviously the game would come with a bunch of brute monsters in the Monster Manual of all levels and you'd only need to go into the template swapping when you needed to have an Ice Troll instead of a Hill Giant or whatever.

-Username17

[Wiseman]

Yeah, one of my regrets with doing the monsters thread is not doing something like this. While I feel they're perfectly functional now, I really wish I had thought of this earlier. Right now, it would be absolute ass to go back and restat everything. One of the things I actually like about 4e is that monster are statted by role.

So there'd be rolls like Brute which would get d12, good BAB and fort and maybe a few other things. There would be other roles like leader, skirmisher, ambusher, blaster, master, legend and so forth. Then there would be a second type for the standard monster types (outsider, monstrous humanoid, ect. that might give some base abilities but is manly for class features to interact with (like rangers).

So you'd have a Brute Giant or Master Efreet or so forth.

[rasmuswagner]

Nobody rolls monster hps, so why bother pretending that they use dice?

[Wiseman]

Mostly to make it compatible with systems already in place, plus monster advancement. Hence why although I didn't roll hp for tiamat she still has 24HD for effects that care about that.

[GnomeWorks]

On the flip side, if you simply make the stats completely disassociated with the number outputs (as 4e does), that's intellectually insulting and makes the game flail and fail when a Giant drinks a potion of strength or whatever.

Couldn't you design mechanics that got around the lack of stats for monsters, in a 4e-style system?

Instead of a potion of strength giving you "+6 to strength", it instead gave you "+3 to all Strength-based rolls". It's functionally equivalent, and gets around having to have stats for monsters. Or is there a drawback to that idea that I haven't seen?

[ETortoise]

The classic problem in old-school D&D is the spell Web. It gives variable amounts of time to break out based on the subjects' strength. Since monsters don't have strength scores you have to decide whether the monster is as strong as a person, a giant, or a dragon.

Each strength-based challenge that wasn't already in the monster's stat block would need a special exception and DMs would have to ass-pull strength equivalencies on the fly.

[PhoneLobster]

Well yeah, clearly if you make monsters not have certain stats, then you have spells that explicitly interact with the stats the monsters don't have you have an issue.

Presumably you either elect to let your monsters have those stats... or you write your spells so they don't target a null reference error for no reason.

The specific game mechanical values any spell such as web, or indeed any other game mechanic interacts with could be anything. If it interacts with a monster strength score that doesn't exist that's on your own damn head.

[ETortoise]

Yeah, but strength is a good example because it can come up in other ways. Can a giant move a rock? What about Manticore? In the example of a giant drinking a potion of strength, the "+3 to strength-based rolls" would improve its attacks and damage but wouldn't answer the question of whether it could move a rock or break a chain or whatever. There would need to be a number you add +3 to.

[momothefiddler]

Sure, but breaking a chain is already a strength-based roll and moving a rock totally could be if you wanted.

[GnomeWorks]

There would need to be a number you add +3 to.

That is a good point.

I guess Frank's solution of "every monster class has a baseline set of stats, modify by templates" is probably the best one, then. If you have stats at all, and the game uses them as a default for task resolution, then monsters kind of have to have them as well.

[Username17]

That's exactly the issue. If Giants and Owlbears didn't have strength scores, we'd have to make up strength scores for them to have. Because there are going to be webs and shadow sprays and shit that care what the strength scores of monsters actually are. You don't actually save any headache by leaving the strength scores off the Hill Giants.

The question then is what difference it makes that a Hill Giant is strong. The 4e answer is "none," which is bad. The 3e ianswer is "it breaks the RNG," and that is also bad. The goal of any design that has been forced to confront the fact that Hill Giants have to be strong is to produce a set of rules which emergently make the RNG despite the fact that Hill Giants are strong.

It's a tricky issue, because of course it is desirable for there to be monsters of a similar tactical role and similar power level that are not as strong as a giant. The example I chose earlier of the Corpulent Ghoul and the Hill Giant was not random - they really are good examples. Both are meat wall brute monsters, but one is giant strong and the other is not.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Yeah, but strength is a good example because it can come up in other ways. Can a giant move a rock?

That's not the same argument you initially proposed though. You are instead talking about "what happens in the making shit up/fairy tea party part of the game if we don't have broad fall back attributes to resort to?". (Well. Unless you just completely missed the point and are actually trying to argue "but what if ANOTHER specific mechanic arbitrarily refers to a specific number that it didn't need to!" but that would be stupid.)

That isn't the same thing as your web argument of "Well what the fuck happens when specific formal game mechanics refer to something that doesn't exist?".

It's a marginally more sensible question than the web question, but as it turns out the answer is "Not that much and it hardly ever happens anyway".

"How good should an Orc vs a Hobgoblin be in a spontaneously created on the spot mechanic ass pulled by the GM during fairy tea party to determine who wins an arm wrestling match?" is certainly a question Strength can help handily answer. But unlike the web question, it's a stupid question that doesn't matter (instead of a stupid question that does).

[GnomeWorks]

But unlike the web question, it's a stupid question that doesn't matter (instead of a stupid question that does).

I disagree.

One of my big hang-ups about 4e was the lack of non-combat information for critters. If you are trying to at least reasonably model a world, it would be nice to know things like if a Hill Giant can move boulders around, but a Corpulent Ghoul can't: it gives MC more information to work with when building encounters and can help give the players more information ("hey look, these giant rocks were clearly moved... well, that probably means things strong enough to move them are around"), so they can make more informed decisions.

Given that you can't write rules to govern every single possible action, you need to have rules that say "in the case of X rule not existing, here are Y default mechanics you can use and maybe tweak a bit depending on circumstance." But I think I'd argue that's not really MTP at that point, as it's a sensible design decision: we don't need specific rules about arm-wrestling, so just use the default task resolution mechanics, done. But in order for those default mechanics to be usable, everything in the game has to have the mechanical bits necessary to interface with them.

[Red_Rob]

When I first heard about 3.5e and how it had streamlined and codified things from the bad old 2e days I was pretty excited to see the monster creation system. After the extremely rough and ready 2e rules (basically assign HD and guess the rest) I was looking forward to some guidelines for expected attack and defence levels, suggested damage output, and a table showing what level various monster powers were safe to introduce. Of course, what was provided was pretty much a way to tweak existing monsters rather than build them from scratch.

Wouldn't it be possible to provide a table of the "expected" range of attack, defence and HP ratings per CR and then you could build up to those ratings using BAB, Stat bonuses, and special abilities? So a Hill Giant might be on the high end of damage but the lower end of attack bonus, gaining attack and damage from high STR but having a lacklustre BAB for it's level. On the other hand a Corpulent Ghoul would come in around or below the average on the attack front but have high defences and HP from it's undead hit dice.

[PhoneLobster]

One of my big hang-ups about 4e was the lack of non-combat information for critters.

And yet lets look at the thing you are complaining about here. A lack of detailed encumbrance rules worse, possibly a lack of maximum bench press/lift rules. Hell maybe even a lack of maximum push/drag rules. These are rules which even when they do exist are notorious for never being used, for being little more than an annoying waste of time far better covered by fairy tea party in the rare event that they come up.

If you are trying to at least reasonably model a world

BZZZZT! Pro tip, you are WRITING A GAME, you are NOT creating an alternative reality simulator.

Given that you can't write rules to govern every single possible action, you need to have rules that say "in the case of X rule not existing, here are Y default mechanics you can use and maybe tweak a bit depending on circumstance."

And X and Y don't have to be a Strength score. Hell "in the case of rule not existing" they very much don't have to be anything in particular because with a broad remit like that when you pull a "rule" out of your ass on the spot for a one off bullshit rando event you are FIRMLY in 100% fairy tea party territory.

But I think I'd argue that's not really MTP at that point

And what a stupid fucking argument that would be. What with you starting out from deciding to argue from a premise that is obviously fucking wrong.

Lets be absolutely clear here. I'm somewhat against ability scores, at least as traditionally represented, in general, though personally I think if you are going to have them monsters should have the same ones and in general as much as possible use the same general rules as characters.

But what numbers your mechanics refer to is utterly arbitrary and flexible. Even if you DO so desperately need to know exactly how good a Minotaur is at carrying pianos casually, lifting them briefly, or pushing them along the ground the number or numbers you refer to in order to do that can be as broad as "Strength" as specific as "piano drag capacity", a more broad "Toughness" that covers "Strength" AND "Constitution", an even broader "Physical" that covers toughness AND agility, or you could refer to Size, Level, Monster Role, Attack Bonus, HP Total, or a simple "Fuck it insert FTP ruling here based off fluff and background and wishful thinking because seriously how fucking often do we even really care?".

The exact attributes even a base attribute using system uses, or not, are entirely arbitrary and the exact things a system lets "fall through the cracks" of it's rules AND it's formal attribute rules specifically, are pretty damn variable but how you deal with "no rules for this" is ALWAYS fairy fucking tea party. Vaguely fairy tea party relevant sounding attribute or not.

[GnomeWorks]

And yet lets look at the thing you are complaining about here. A lack of detailed encumbrance rules worse, possibly a lack of maximum bench press/lift rules. Hell maybe even a lack of maximum push/drag rules. These are rules which even when they do exist are notorious for never being used, for being little more than an annoying waste of time far better covered by fairy tea party in the rare event that they come up.

Just because past mechanics have done a poor job of handling these things does not mean that they can't be handled well in a sensible manner that isn't a pain in the ass to use.

I've mentioned none of the things you bring up here. In fact I think I specifically pointed out that some things are best left to a default mechanic of some variety, without necessarily getting into the level of minutiae you're going on about.

The goal - I think - would be to get the mechanics to the point where they're playable and see use at the table (thus minimizing word count given to chaff like "how much dudes can bench press"), while providing enough information that needed random details ("hey, can I bench press this car?") can be answered in a not-unreasonable amount of time.

BZZZZT! Pro tip, you are WRITING A GAME, you are NOT creating an alternative reality simulator.

Please define "game," as you are using it. Because that's where this conversation is going to go, down the same rabbit-hole Edwards went, and look how that wound up.

The two concepts here - "game" and "alternative reality simulator" - are not oil and water. They can coexist.

And X and Y don't have to be a Strength score. Hell "in the case of rule not existing" they very much don't have to be anything in particular because with a broad remit like that when you pull a "rule" out of your ass on the spot for a one off bullshit rando event you are FIRMLY in 100% fairy tea party territory.

What are you even saying here... that when the game says "we have no rules for this, here are default mechanics, try to handle it," that that is MTP? Because... in a sense I suppose I agree, but you can't have rules cover every corner-case, it's just not feasible.

You have to accept that at some point a group will encounter something that the rules don't cover, and for that all you can do as a designer is say "here are some default mechanics and some rough guidelines."

I mean, this is basically an incompleteness theorem issue.

What with you starting out from deciding to argue from a premise that is obviously fucking wrong.

Which is that you're referencing, exactly?

[PhoneLobster]

Just because past mechanics have done a poor job of handling these things does not mean that they can't be handled well in a sensible manner that isn't a pain in the ass to use.

But it also doesn't mean that they CAN be handled well. Any action sufficiently uncommon and sufficiently unimportant is, for those reasons alone, impossible to provide a good formal ruling for.

Strength and lifting capacity is a very good example to consider because it's very clearly somewhere around the point that line is drawn. It sounds sort of important, but the more you consider it and the more you observe actual game play... it really isn't. And when you look at it historically I don't think D&D or any D&D clone has ever adequately managed to put it on the formal rules side of the line without failing at it.

In fact I think I specifically pointed out that some things are best left to a default mechanic of some variety

No, you didn't outline a default mechanic you outlined advice that fairy tea party could maybe possible decide to reference existing possibly related numeric values in some way with the addition of utterly unspecified modifications. There is a solid difference.

It isn't necessarily bad advice, but it isn't a default mechanic it is 100% default fairy tea party. It is of no particularly greater value than, or any particular difference to, "make arguments from character description/background elements for some arbitrary modifiers, then try and use one of the game's commonly used dice with that somehow"

The two concepts here - "game" and "alternative reality simulator" - are not oil and water. They can coexist.

Oh fuck off with your lame attempt to semantics argument your way out of that. The meaning is fucking obvious.

Don't waste your time and your players time with obsessive compulsive attempts at simulating details that are of highly limited importance to the actual focus of your GAME.

You don't get to attempt to keep redefining simulation and game until that advice stops being valid.

What are you even saying here...

When your "default mechanics" are "I dunno FTP something out of your Strength score?" it is not a "mechanic" it is just Fairy Tea Party. It also CAN be "I dunno FTP something out of your fluffy character description" or "I dunno FTP something out of your monster class and level" and so on.

The argument for attributes as a fall back mechanic is to use them as an ACTUAL fall back formal mechanic once you resort to "just use it as a spring board for your FTP inspirations" you are no longer making a case for the existence of any single given attribute because ANYTHING can fit into that role.

Which is that you're referencing, exactly?

Your apparent inability to recognize that "I dunno FTP something that maybe references your Strength score in some way" is not a functioning formal game mechanic.