Magic: all my dungeons just broke! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-18, 11:54 AM

Beyond that, it seems the highest DC for spell save is 19? I'm trying to figure out how the lich got a 20.

It's either a typo or a product of the fact that monsters are no longer built using the same system as player characters. If this was 3.5 I could just reverse-engineer the lich and tell you everything about it and how to turn a rakshasa into one, too. This is not 3.5. I have no clue how this lich was constructed and no way to accurately reverse-engineer it to its component parts.

Hmm. At a glance and hoping that I'm doing everything right I'd say it's because its Proficiency bonus seems to be +7. Its saves certainly bear this out: It has Con 16, Int 20, and Wis 14, and respective saves in those of +10, +12, and +9. Removing the ability modifiers from each of these gives us a +7 Proficiency bonus. If its Paralyzing Touch (+12) is based off of Intelligence then this also bears out a +7 Proficiency bonus. Its History, Insight, and Perception modifiers also bear this out...though its Arcana doesn't. +18? Less Intelligence is 13, less conjectured Proficiency is 6. Where's that 6 coming from? Who knows? I would have guessed that it has some kind of trait that lets it double its Proficiency bonus on Arcana checks, but that would give us an Arcana modifier of +19, not +18. Best guess is that that is the typo we're looking for and the lich is supposed to have a +19 Arcana skill bonus.

So this means that its spell save DC is 8 + 7 (proficiency) + 5 (Intelligence). Basically the lich gets a 20 on its spell save DCs because it's a cheating bastard and can have a higher Proficiency bonus than +6.

Edit:
Okay, nope, not cheating. A CR 21 creature has a +7 proficiency bonus according to the DMG. I am so glad that I had to go to a different book to figure this out and that its Proficiency progression is in no way related to its Hit Die progression. Put the rules for creating a monster in the same place as all the monsters? Perish the thought!

...

...there are things I did not like about 4th Edition, which got ported into 5th Edition.

...still, near as I can tell the lich should have a +19 Arcana, not a +18. So something constructive came out of this.

Edit the Second
I am equally disquieted by the fact that a lich requires the imprisonment spell to trap a soul in its phylactery in order to feed on it, and yet does not appear to have it prepared (it does at least imply that it's a prepared caster). It's a perfectly good spell, I don't see why it wouldn't.

Naanomi

2015-01-18, 12:00 PM

I just had a level 1 fighter walk across a symbol of pain (cast at level 18) rolling a 16 and adding bonuses to save. This may be the new logic, but, I'm still trying to see that sentence as anything more than gibberish
One of the design principles are that low level things remain a threat to high level people. Goes both ways, I suppose; and low level players can be at least possible threat to high level antagonists.

On the save though... Rolled in the top 25% of possibilities in a proficient save he likely had a sizable stat in? Not too terrible a result to survive to me, and a paranoid caster needs to layer defenses more now than just rely one one unstoppable spell to keep invaders away.

Gnomes2169

2015-01-18, 12:40 PM

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-18, 01:17 PM

Hey, RougeShadows. If you look in the first few pages of the Monster Manual (after dungeon settings/ environments) you can find charst for CR->XP and CR->Proficiency bonus. You do not need to look in the DMG.

The larger point of needing the DMG to actually make a monster, rather than having those rules in the Monster Manual where it makes sense for it to be, still stands, however.

Jeraa

2015-01-18, 01:22 PM

The larger point of needing the DMG to actually make a monster, rather than having those rules in the Monster Manual where it makes sense for it to be, still stands, however.

Everything else about creating your own material is in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Why should that be any different?

The stuff for creating new classes, races, and spells aren't in the Player's Handbook, why should the rules for creating new monsters be in the Monster Manual?

hymer

2015-01-18, 01:44 PM

Please discuss the implications of this new reality.

I don't know if that's part of the discussion exactly. But I don't think there's the implication that dungeon design must conform to what the denizens are game technically capable of doing. If the priestess of Auril has a winter wolf with her, there's no need for charm spells. It's her ally, it came to her, I move on. And the lich may be technically incapable of making a potion that causes the imbiber to grow fungus inside until s/he turns into a skeleton. But it's a nasty and vivid idea, so it's Con save DC 15, lesser restoration to cure, I move on.

Xetheral

2015-01-18, 02:42 PM

I don't know if that's part of the discussion exactly. But I don't think there's the implication that dungeon design must conform to what the denizens are game technically capable of doing. If the priestess of Auril has a winter wolf with her, there's no need for charm spells. It's her ally, it came to her, I move on. And the lich may be technically incapable of making a potion that causes the imbiber to grow fungus inside until s/he turns into a skeleton. But it's a nasty and vivid idea, so it's Con save DC 15, lesser restoration to cure, I move on.

True, a dungeon need not conform to what the denizens are capable of doing under the game rules. But if it *does* conform, the sense of verisimilitude is enhanced. For example, if your players expect such consistency, then you have extra channels for giving information to the PCs. For example, if the big bad is a specialist wizard, the types of spells used to defend the dungeon offer such a clue, but only if the players can rely on dungeons conforming to the needs and abilities of their creators.

pwykersotz

2015-01-18, 03:01 PM

True, a dungeon need not conform to what the denizens are capable of doing under the game rules. But if it *does* conform, the sense of verisimilitude is enhanced. For example, if your players expect such consistency, then you have extra channels for giving information to the PCs. For example, if the big bad is a specialist wizard, the types of spells used to defend the dungeon offer such a clue, but only if the players can rely on dungeons conforming to the needs and abilities of their creators.

This is very true, but I actually find that the ease of laying such clues rises drastically when I don't sweat the details. A dungeon full of wolves? The boss will probably either have or transform into a Worg or Winter Wolf. Lava running down the walls in places? Expect creatures to be fire resistant. How did the druid exactly manage to wrangle those wolves? How did the fire elemental find the lair with lava? I often create reasons, but my players rarely discover them or care deeply about them. Surface clues usually suffice.

Bobbyjackcorn

2015-01-18, 03:04 PM

I am equally disquieted by the fact that a lich requires the imprisonment spell to trap a soul in its phylactery in order to feed on it, and yet does not appear to have it prepared (it does at least imply that it's a prepared caster). It's a perfectly good spell, I don't see why it wouldn't.

the description for a Lich says that it collects many spells, magical items, potions, wands, and scrolls. I think it's fairly easy to assume that a Lich would have created or found a device that would do the imprisoning for them so they could prepare more potent spells. Otherwise, you're right it does look like a writing oversight, but I don't think it's a big one.

Jeraa

2015-01-18, 03:28 PM

I am equally disquieted by the fact that a lich requires the imprisonment spell to trap a soul in its phylactery in order to feed on it, and yet does not appear to have it prepared (it does at least imply that it's a prepared caster). It's a perfectly good spell, I don't see why it wouldn't.

It takes 1 minute to cast Imprisonment. It is not something you would do in combat (then again, the same can be said of Animate Dead, which the lich does have prepared). And since it requires a picture or statuette of the intended victim, its not something the lich can really prepare in advance, unless it is going after a specific target.

Also, nothing says how often the lich needs to feed a soul to its phylactery. If it is something that only needs to be done rarely, there is no reason the lich would need to have the spell prepared all the time.

silveralen

2015-01-18, 06:26 PM

Knaight

2015-01-18, 06:44 PM

Yes, a good roll can beat an effect. We no longer have absurd astronomically high scaling. The fact the fighter both had a good stat in that save for his level and rolled lucky meant he came out ahead.

The implication would probably be quantity over quality. You want multiple traps targeting multiple defenses, which minimizes the chance of a lucky save.

That's not exactly new though.

A better question might be why a lvl 1 fighter was in a dungeon with a symbol of pain from a lich.

Characters getting in over their head is entirely reasonable. Granted, if the fighter doesn't bail shortly after it's cause to start questioning their intelligence, but the fighter is a downright specialist in making the save, and does it only if they're pretty lucky. Them getting in, getting over their head, and getting out is downright genre appropriate. So is them getting in, getting over their head, not getting out, and waking up a week later in some remote shack covered in injuries, which is one of the other possible options.

Yakk

2015-01-18, 08:43 PM

While permanency is gone, magic items are not.

Creating custom magic items using custom recipies, or finding them, and then using them as traps is doable.

In some cases, the trap could be connected to the dungeon as a "power source", preventing it from being removed and sold or repurposed.

Such an explanation (that there is a necrotic energy flow the traps feed off) also means that these "relatively easy to make and maintain traps" might not be positioned at the ideal tactical location, and instead forced to be placed at the location for maximum drama or plot or interest. Plus the "feeds" to power said traps might be discoverable (runes that redirect necrotic energy towards the traps that have to be maintained, and hence accessible), and it gives a way to disable said traps that isn't dispel magic (find the feeds, or the components that absorb the necrotic energy to power the trap, and disable them).

NotALurker

2015-01-19, 01:35 AM

I was constructing a mega dungeon with a story. But...

I'm really happy to say that this new system makes me rethink what was a terrifying dungeon full of magic.

Where have spells like permanency gone?

Beyond that, it seems the highest DC for spell save is 19? I'm trying to figure out how the lich got a 20.

I just had a level 1 fighter walk across a symbol of pain (cast at level 18) rolling a 16 and adding bonuses to save. This may be the new logic, but, I'm still trying to see that sentence as anything more than gibberish.

I'm both elated and terrified!

Please discuss the implications of this new reality.

because they do understand half the purpose of the level system, to show power and to let players power increase from one level to another. therefor it breaks down when you try and have any real gap in levels. You can no longer have a powerful wizard in a tower that needs hero's to stop him, any old army of peasants will do. same for dungeons.

Eslin

2015-01-19, 03:15 AM

While permanency is gone, magic items are not.

Creating custom magic items using custom recipies, or finding them, and then using them as traps is doable.
Not in the 3.5 way where it makes sense, though. 3.5 you had ways to figure out exactly what the power of something was, and if I wanted to make a magic item which reversed gravity I could work out precisely how much it should cost and what you needed to do it. In 5e, like in 4e, it's just arbitrary 'DM has to create it and decide its value' rather than the verisimilitude of being something you could actually make.

It's the verisimilitude thing mentioned earlier in the thread - the more things that have a consistent set of rules, the more the world makes sense. It's why stats being divorced from HD and PCs and NPCs being created on fundamentally different lines this edition is a problem to some people - it's a little too close to the 4e playing a video game setup for comfort.

Hey, RougeShadows. If you look in the first few pages of the Monster Manual (after dungeon settings/ environments) you can find charst for CR->XP and CR->Proficiency bonus. You do not need to look in the DMG.

Why does everyone do this? I don't understand.

Envyus

2015-01-19, 05:51 AM

Also, nothing says how often the lich needs to feed a soul to its phylactery. If it is something that only needs to be done rarely, there is no reason the lich would need to have the spell prepared all the time.

On this. If they stop feeding souls to the phylactery they eventually start to decay and if they still don't feed souls while decaying eventually they decay so much that all thats left is a part of their body that becomes a Demilich.

So it appears the time limit for how long they have to eat souls is how long it would take their skeleton to start crumbling into dust. Pretty much I would say eat a soul once every one or two months and they should be fine.

Dhavaer

2015-01-19, 08:07 AM

Why does everyone do this? I don't understand.

My guess is part muscle memory ('oug' is a fairly common word part, tough, rough, etc) and 'o' and 'u' are right next to each other, with 'g' making a line on qwerty keyboards.

silveralen

2015-01-19, 08:33 AM

Eslin

2015-01-19, 09:02 AM

Didn't basic/2nd edition have a fair amount of this? I seem to recall more than a few things in DMGs/MMs/adventures that had little bearing on what you'd see PCs do.

They did, and the change in approach is one of the things I loved about 3.5 - though the earlier you go, the less you should expect that kind of thing, 4e not having it was a greater sin than 2e. I understand why it was one of the things cut for 4e, just not sure why it wasn't included in 5e.

silveralen

2015-01-19, 10:10 AM

They did, and the change in approach is one of the things I loved about 3.5 - though the earlier you go, the less you should expect that kind of thing, 4e not having it was a greater sin than 2e. I understand why it was one of the things cut for 4e, just not sure why it wasn't included in 5e.

I doubt, when looking through 3.5, it really stood out as a major contribution. A lot of people probably don't even notice, DMs tend to use plot magic and homebrew that doesn't follow the same rules for NPCs regardless, and it added a degree of annoying complexity to encounter and monster design that caused extra work. Designing unified systems is far harder than discrete instances, keeping the former balanced is exponentially harder than the latter.

It certainly added for some people, but I doubt it'd be on most people's short list of what made 3e/3.5 interesting (that'd probably be enhanced character customization and more engaging combat, compared to 2e at least). So it was probably a simple effort to reward ratio not quite adding up for a product that had already taken a good chunk of development time.

Gnomes2169

2015-01-19, 11:39 AM

My guess is part muscle memory ('oug' is a fairly common word part, tough, rough, etc) and 'o' and 'u' are right next to each other, with 'g' making a line on qwerty keyboards.

For me, I was walking about a mile in a Minnesota winter while typing that up on my phone... I was shivering too much to notice or correct it, and my hands weren't working properly (seriously, I corrected so many other typos...)

Once a Fool

2015-01-19, 12:43 PM

Not in the 3.5 way where it makes sense, though. 3.5 you had ways to figure out exactly what the power of something was, and if I wanted to make a magic item which reversed gravity I could work out precisely how much it should cost and what you needed to do it. In 5e, like in 4e, it's just arbitrary 'DM has to create it and decide its value' rather than the verisimilitude of being something you could actually make.

It's the verisimilitude thing mentioned earlier in the thread - the more things that have a consistent set of rules, the more the world makes sense. It's why stats being divorced from HD and PCs and NPCs being created on fundamentally different lines this edition is a problem to some people

It bugs me when people assume verisimilitude necessarily requires this level of rules consistency. A game has verisimilitude when it maintains consistency within the parameters of the setting. That is all.

To present an extreme example, I've run multiple games wherein all of the characters inhabited a dream (The Dream). In these settings, it is important that details change over time and the mechanic I employ to do this relies on the players' faulty memories. The inconsistencies that arise are very much integral to the verisimilitude of the whole.

Further, my memory about the game tends to be better than my players' and I tend to take more (some) notes. Does this mean that NPCs exhibit a different degree of change when their actions aren't witnessed by the PCs? You bet. Are they therefore following a different set of rules? Kind of. Is verisimilitude broken? Absolutely not.

They did, and the change in approach is one of the things I loved about 3.5 - though the earlier you go, the less you should expect that kind of thing, 4e not having it was a greater sin than 2e. I understand why it was one of the things cut for 4e, just not sure why it wasn't included in 5e.

I must confess, this is one thing that I very much looked forward to while 3e was in development. By the end of the 3.5 era, it is the thing I hated most about the system.

Someone elsewhere on the internet once said that 3e gave us everything we thought we wanted. I've personally found the sentiment to be accurate.

Eslin

2015-01-19, 01:54 PM

It bugs me when people assume verisimilitude necessarily requires this level of rules consistency. A game has verisimilitude when it maintains consistency within the parameters of the setting. That is all.

To present an extreme example, I've run multiple games wherein all of the characters inhabited a dream (The Dream). In these settings, it is important that details change over time and the mechanic I employ to do this relies on the players' faulty memories. The inconsistencies that arise are very much integral to the verisimilitude of the whole.

Further, my memory about the game tends to be better than my players' and I tend to take more (some) notes. Does this mean that NPCs exhibit a different degree of change when their actions aren't witnessed by the PCs? You bet. Are they therefore following a different set of rules? Kind of. Is verisimilitude broken? Absolutely not.

No, verisimilitude is enhanced the more of the world makes sense according to the rules you have. Your example has nothing to do with that - I'm talking about, as an example of my own, creating an iron man style suit of magical armour. In 3.5, you could do it yourself - you could work out what you needed, figure out the costs, enchant yourself a suit that flies and shoots (magic) missiles and what have you. If you try that in 4e or 5e, the best you'll get is telling the DM your idea and having him homebrew the abilities and costs of such a thing, since with their own abilities as granted by the game the players are absolutely incapable of doing it themselves. This extends to other things - a lich is an arcane caster who crafted a phylactery etc etc. In 3.5, a caster can do so - he can figure out the costs and requirements to craft the phylactery and become a lich, and will be for instance a human level 15 wizard with the lich template. In 5e, it's impossible - there's no way to become a lich without having your DM invent something for you, and a lich itself isn't something that makes sense according to the rules the players are given (like being say a level 16 halfling sorcerer would), it's just a creature with an arbitrary amount of hit dice and spells.

Combat works fine in all editions verisimilitude wise, because the rules are always centered around it. If we transfer the analogy to combat, in 3.5 you might be fighting three ghouls and a werewolf. You have your set of tools, and with them you decide that it is appropriate to use a fireball while they're clumped and have the crusader walk in and activate thicket of blades to keep them from approaching the backline etc etc. If combat was treated the way 4e/5e treat other things verisimilitude wise, by comparison, you'd just request that your characters killed them and your DM would decide if they did and what the costs were.

Once a Fool

2015-01-19, 04:02 PM

No, verisimilitude is enhanced the more of the world makes sense according to the rules you have. Your example has nothing to do with that.

Yes it does. I provided a mechanical game effect that I use and then discussed the implications it has on the consistency of the setting. Included in that discussion was a specific rebuttal to one of your claims: that verisimilitude requires the rules that NPCs use must be identical to those used by PCs.

If combat was treated the way 4e/5e treat other things verisimilitude wise, by comparison, you'd just request that your characters killed them and your DM would decide if they did and what the costs were.

I strongly disagree with your initial premise: that a game must have a codefied rules-set in order to establish verisimilitude. It is true that such a rules-set can establish a specific facet of such (while simultaneously destroying another--I'll get to that in a minute).

However, a DM using a rules-set that is built on the assumption that DMs can and should make rulings situationally does not dictate that it's DMs must run a game lacking in verisimilitude. Neither does it enforce it. Rather, it empowers those DMs to establish it as they see fit. 3.x was often frustrating because it didn't seem to trust its DMs to do so on their own.

Which is why it was actually cumbersome to use in maintaining verisimilitude when the rules created ridiculous corner-cases, or when the DM wanted to run a game that deviated from the implied setting that the rules enforced. The intertwined nature of those rules made it pretty much impossible to make a simple change without screwing something else up.

Give me DM-ruled verisimilitude over rules-enforced verisimilitude any day.

Xetheral

2015-01-19, 06:54 PM

I strongly disagree with your initial premise: that a game must have a codefied rules-set in order to establish verisimilitude. It is true that such a rules-set can establish a specific facet of such (while simultaneously destroying another--I'll get to that in a minute).

However, a DM using a rules-set that is built on the assumption that DMs can and should make rulings situationally does not dictate that it's DMs must run a game lacking in verisimilitude. Neither does it enforce it. Rather, it empowers those DMs to establish it as they see fit. 3.x was often frustrating because it didn't seem to trust its DMs to do so on their own.

Which is why it was actually cumbersome to use in maintaining verisimilitude when the rules created ridiculous corner-cases, or when the DM wanted to run a game that deviated from the implied setting that the rules enforced. The intertwined nature of those rules made it pretty much impossible to make a simple change without screwing something else up.

Give me DM-ruled verisimilitude over rules-enforced verisimilitude any day.

No one is claiming (in this thread, anyway) that "a game must have a codified rules-set in order to establish verisimilitude". What was actually claimed was:

True, a dungeon need not conform to what the denizens are capable of doing under the game rules. But if it *does* conform, the sense of verisimilitude is enhanced.

It's the verisimilitude thing mentioned earlier in the thread - the more things that have a consistent set of rules, the more the world makes sense

The point isn't that codified rules offer more verisimilitude, but that consistent rules offer more verisimilitude.

Person_Man

2015-01-19, 08:19 PM

RE: Verisimilitude

I'm a big fan of consistent rules for magic and whatnot in roleplaying games. But if you're interested in a "high fantasy" game, then I think that its equally important that players can't have access to all forms of magic, because then it becomes impossible to introduce fantastic elements into your game world that the player's themselves cannot master and/or surpass.

I personally deal with this issue by having a homebrew campaign world based on Greek/Roman/Gaiman/Butcher-esque gods, where elemental forces and the power of belief itself have created a range of fantastic monsters, spirits, avatars, demi-gods, actual gods, etc. The PCs have access to magic, but they can't duplicate the creation of everything in the game world, because doing so would requires changing nature or society itself on a massive scale. So if I want a monster or whatever that has stats that don't conform to the expected rules for whatever, that's ok, because the monster is an aspect of something outside of the rules that bind normal beings. Even locations can be transformed this way. For example, the caverns beneath a great volcano might be filled with various earth and fire themed "traps" and hazards, because the volcano itself is a semi-intelligent force of nature that guards a powerful [McGuffin] deep within it, placed there by Hephaestus himself in order to [Whatever the Plotline is]. The players can't duplicate the traps or the McGuiffin, and thus break the in game balance created for player characters. But there's an in game reason they exist.

Once a Fool

2015-01-19, 11:29 PM

No one is claiming (in this thread, anyway) that "a game must have a codified rules-set in order to establish verisimilitude"...The point isn't that codified rules offer more verisimilitude, but that consistent rules offer more verisimilitude.

But, the type of consistency that the 3.x rules convey (and that Eslin was so categorically claiming as integral to verisimilitude) is entirely derived from the codified nature of those rules. It is not inaccurate for me to use the shorthand that I used in this context.

And my point still stands. Rules that lack this codified consistency do not preclude a game from having verisimilitude. They merely don't enforce it.

Xetheral

2015-01-20, 01:10 AM

RE: Verisimilitude

I'm a big fan of consistent rules for magic and whatnot in roleplaying games. But if you're interested in a "high fantasy" game, then I think that its equally important that players can't have access to all forms of magic, because then it becomes impossible to introduce fantastic elements into your game world that the player's themselves cannot master and/or surpass.

...The players can't duplicate the traps or the McGuiffin, and thus break the in game balance created for player characters. But there's an in game reason they exist.

I agree with this completely, and would also add that if the monsters and dungeons usually are seen to "follow the rules", so to speak, it increases the visceral impact on the players when the DM does make the occasional departure.

But, the type of consistency that the 3.x rules convey (and that Eslin was so categorically claiming as integral to verisimilitude) is entirely derived from the codified nature of those rules. It is not inaccurate for me to use the shorthand that I used in this context.

Fair enough. I was interpreting your use of "codified" to refer specifically to having rules for all the different actions a player can take, which Eslin did not mention. But I think instead you're using "codified" to refer to the fact that additional rules would be needed to support, e.g., consistent PC/NPC use of magic items and options such as lichdom.

And my point still stands. Rules that lack this codified consistency do not preclude a game from having verisimilitude. They merely don't enforce it.

Rules that lack PC/NPC consistency miss out on the verisimilitude benefits that come from having such consistency. Such a lack reduces the verisimilitude of the game, but I agree that it doesn't preclude verisimilitude entirely.

Yakk

2015-01-20, 07:00 AM

Not in the 3.5 way where it makes sense, though. 3.5 you had ways to figure out exactly what the power of something was, and if I wanted to make a magic item which reversed gravity I could work out precisely how much it should cost and what you needed to do it. In 5e, like in 4e, it's just arbitrary 'DM has to create it and decide its value' rather than the verisimilitude of being something you could actually make.
Except the 3.5e way means that the lich isn't a lich, she is pun pun or some other equally infinitely powerful being.

Well, not, because some other pun pun like being prevents the lich from being that infinitely powerful being. And everything else about the world -- down to the layout of traps -- is equally at the wim of the pun pun infinitely powerful being.

Or do we stop before we reach infinite power loops when we use the 3.5 rules to model the game reality?

The incredibly simplistic magic rules of magic item creation in 3.5 (esp. if you refer to the optional ones) are broken. They are at best extremely poor guidelines. You are almost always better off picking a similar magic item and basing the proper value/difficulty based off it than using them, because insofar as they work, they are mostly "do it like existing magic items that someone considered and balanced manually".

It's the verisimilitude thing mentioned earlier in the thread - the more things that have a consistent set of rules, the more the world makes sense.
3.5e never made a lick of sense. There are pages and pages of what the mechanics of 3.5e imply if you "took the rules seriously". Everything from pun pun, XP factories, commoner railguns, true strike swords, locate city bomb, magic item factories, wish economy, etc.

3.5e if you take the rules seriously is just gonzo.

Having good rules is better than not having rules, but having bad rules is worse than having no rules. Things like "how do you make a magic trap filled dungeon" being governed by 3.5e rules is an example of bad rules being worse than no rules. It (taking 3.5 rules seriously) is a fun exercise to do a few times, but the "game" that comes out of it doesn't look like 99%+ of D&D games out there.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 11:07 AM

archaeo

2015-01-21, 11:20 AM

In 4E and 5E, the DM has to master two, since he is expected to be able to both create NPCs (including monsters), and to know what is and is not challenging for the PCs (to say nothing of if he wants to not be perma-DM'd and play once in a while)

I mean, when you put it like that, it sounds like an enormous pain. In practice, though, "mastering" the encounter creation rules is hardly an arduous thing to put on DMs, and the result tends to be a statblock that is significantly easier to play than making a new PC every time you want one.

It also isn't really encoded in the rules anywhere; if you built an NPC like a PC, it wouldn't break the game, and the worst thing that would happen is you'd have to do a bit of number crunching to find a CR. Meanwhile, it can also be as easy as picking up a pre-written statblock, switching a few things around, and using it without spending any of that time at all.

It's double the work for a negligible payoff, since in the end both PCs and NPCs use the same traits anyway.

It's not so negligible if the payoff is significantly reduced workload for the DM. YMMV as to what system results in the most work, however.

Eslin

2015-01-21, 11:33 AM

I mean, when you put it like that, it sounds like an enormous pain. In practice, though, "mastering" the encounter creation rules is hardly an arduous thing to put on DMs, and the result tends to be a statblock that is significantly easier to play than making a new PC every time you want one.

It also isn't really encoded in the rules anywhere; if you built an NPC like a PC, it wouldn't break the game, and the worst thing that would happen is you'd have to do a bit of number crunching to find a CR. Meanwhile, it can also be as easy as picking up a pre-written statblock, switching a few things around, and using it without spending any of that time at all.

It's not so negligible if the payoff is significantly reduced workload for the DM. YMMV as to what system results in the most work, however.

Really? Because last I checked the monster creation guideline was literally 20 steps.

archaeo

2015-01-21, 11:42 AM

Really? Because last I checked the monster creation guideline was literally 20 steps.

Looks like the DMG offers the "Creating Quick Monster Stats" option, which offers a relatively quick way to check something you've put together against the system's math or to create a basic monster quickly, and then the full set of rules they use to arrive at the statblocks like what you see printed in the MM.

It could be simpler, maybe, but it's not like they're difficult directions to follow; most of the text is just communicating the various options you have and the effect they have on the game.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 11:42 AM

Really? Because last I checked the monster creation guideline was literally 20 steps.

I'm willing to allow that Step 20: Languages is largely superfluous and shouldn't count. That still leaves you with 19, though. Creating a PC?

1. Pick the level you want.
2. Determine ability scores
3. Select race
4. Select class
5. Select proficient skills
6. Note proficient saves and equipment
7. Note ability modifiers
8. Note features gained at each level; select subclass as appropriate
9. Select background
10. Select spells known (if applicable)
11. Select equipment or use starting equipment

Done! If using this to create an NPC I wouldn't even have to bother with something like the total spells known (as for a wizard)), just spells prepared. And I could wing even that if I wanted to.

I mean, when you put it like that, it sounds like an enormous pain.

Only because it is, archaeo, only because it is.

In practice, though, "mastering" the encounter creation rules is hardly an arduous thing to put on DMs, and the result tends to be a statblock that is significantly easier to play than making a new PC every time you want one.

I disagree. I can bang out a new PC much faster than I can bang out a monster, and even if I achieved a level of system mastery where that wasn't the case, that was still two systems that I had to master to be able to accomplish the same thing.

I'd rather be able to look at a dragon and know that that means "d12 HD, 6 + Int modifier skill ranks/level, (x4 at 1st level if not PF), all good saves (starts at +2, ends at +12), immune to paralysis and sleep, ability score increase at 4th HD and every four thereafter, feats at 1st HD, 3rd, and every 3 thereafter."

archaeo

2015-01-21, 11:47 AM

I'm willing to allow that Step 20: Languages is largely superfluous and shouldn't count. That still leaves you with 19, though.

Eh. Most of the reason those PC-creation rules are only 11 steps instead of 19 or 20 or whatever is because a lot of the monster math steps are separated out so the text can explain what's going on. I tend to think the way they presented the rules makes it look a lot more complicated than it really is.

I disagree. I can bang out a new PC much faster than I can bang out a monster, and even if I achieved a level of system mastery where that wasn't the case, that was still two systems that I had to monster.

Verses 3.5, wherein every character used the same progression.

I think the designers assumed that most DMs would just alter existing statblocks or use the quick creation rules rather than exhaustively create monsters "by the book" every time. But, that said, there's still nothing in 5e preventing you from just making NPCs like PCs, if that's what you want to do. After you're done, compare the result against the table of stats to see what the CR would be, and that's all you need.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 11:51 AM

I think the designers assumed that most DMs would just alter existing statblocks or use the quick creation rules rather than exhaustively create monsters "by the book" every time. But, that said, there's still nothing in 5e preventing you from just making NPCs like PCs, if that's what you want to do. After you're done, compare the result against the table of stats to see what the CR would be, and that's all you need.

We're also talking monsters as well, though. Dragons, undead, elementals. Even simple things like advancing an aboleth - how do its ability scores improve? Its natural armor?

archaeo

2015-01-21, 11:58 AM

We're also talking monsters as well, though. Dragons, undead, elementals. Even simple things like advancing an aboleth - how do its ability scores improve? Its natural armor?

I mean, those are exactly the kinds of questions that are best answered by detailed monster creation rules that explain how the system works. It's not a system designed to "advance an aboleth"; the system doesn't really care to model how monsters "level up" or anything, mostly because it's a bunch of rules that have marginal advantages compared to just having a robust system for turning out individual monster stats and then figuring out how they compare to the game's expected CRs.

Making every monster conform to the advancement system used by the PCs doesn't really seem like a big advantage to me. Am I missing something?

Knaight

2015-01-21, 12:10 PM

The reason why I miss the 3.5 way of doing things - total transparancy between PCs and NPCs, including monsters - is far more fundamental than an issue of verisimilitude. In 3rd Edition, a DM had to master one character creation system and then could use that system for anything, from a tavern wench to an evil wizard to a dragon sleeping in his lair to a freakin' god. In 4E and 5E, the DM has to master two, since he is expected to be able to both create NPCs (including monsters), and to know what is and is not challenging for the PCs (to say nothing of if he wants to not be perma-DM'd and play once in a while)

That's really not the case. We're looking at a pretty general system here, wherein total transparency is fundamental because it halves the work load - this isn't just a 3e-5e concern, it's a general RPG concern.

If the general doubling work load rule held, then it would be harder to have a range in Chronica Feudalis because it has 3 distinct types of NPCs, only one of which is equivalent to a PC, with anyone not a major antagonist being weaker. In practice, major antagonists taking 3 real hits (like PCs) and mooks taking 1 makes it an easier to use system with more power behind it, and the only added load is remembering the three classes of NPCs. Take GURPS - yes, the stats used are the same as with PCs, and derived attributes and such work the same way, but you can completely blow off point totals for NPCs. That doesn't make it harder, the system is easier to GM because of it (if still needlessly difficult).

There's a case to be made for verisimilitude with some of these, though I personally don't find any of them problematic.

I'd rather be able to look at a dragon and know that that means "d12 HD, 6 + Int modifier skill ranks/level, (x4 at 1st level if not PF), all good saves (starts at +2, ends at +12), immune to paralysis and sleep, ability score increase at 4th HD and every four thereafter, feats at 1st HD, 3rd, and every 3 thereafter."
I'd much rather be able to just make a dragon without dealing with all of these constraints. Lets say I want a dragon that flies, is reasonably tough and damaging, and isn't all that bright. Well, I need a certain HD to get an attack in the range that is appropriate, but then I need to assign a constitution score that makes it as tough as I want, except strength is also in their for the attack and damage, so I need to juggle all three of those and find a balance. All good saves just gave it a bunch of will, so now I need to tank its wisdom to get it being kind of dumb and easily manipulated across. Except doing that just tanked the perception, so now I need to give it a bunch of racial bonuses so that it can see, maneuver, etc. along the lines of the dragon in my head I'm designing. Then it incidentally has a bunch of skill points that came from the HD it got mostly to get a baseline, so I need to spend them on something. Then there's a bunch of feats and ability score increases that emerged, and these need to be spent, even if there's not much use for them. The initial scores can be reduced so I now have the desired ones, but there are two possible problems for feats. One is that there aren't enough feat slots to do what I want, which means either clunkily implementing things as special features, or adding more hit dice and fiddling with ability scores again. Or there's enough, but I have to spend the rest somewhere. The obvious thing to do there is just spam toughness, it's even in accordance with the MM, but that still warrants adjusting constitution, which might then warrant taking one of the toughness feats and making it great fortitude instead.

This whole thing is a giant hassle, and I have absolutely no issue with not having exact PC-monster transparency if I don't have to deal with it.

Kerrin

2015-01-21, 12:49 PM

Even simple things like advancing an aboleth - how do its ability scores improve? Its natural armor?

I'd think if the aboleth is a PC, then they'd use the PC ability score advancement rules.

If the aboleth is a monster, then its ability scores can be anything the DM finds appropriate.

Eslin

2015-01-21, 12:53 PM

I'd think if the aboleth is a PC, then they'd use the PC ability score advancement rules.

If the aboleth is a monster, then its ability scores can be anything the DM finds appropriate.

Which is why in 3.5 where there was no difference it would be much easier to work with.

silveralen

2015-01-21, 12:58 PM

Which is why in 3.5 where there was no difference it would be much easier to work with.

Lmao. No. Not at all. How could you possibly run one from lvl one without either unconvincing everything awful, homebrewing advancement, or relying on some obscure and probably broken rules to weaken the monster enough it vaguely fit in. Templates? Monster levels? I don't even know if that one had the latter, and we all know how "balanced" the former was.

3.5 was terrible at this sort of thing. You could do it, but it wouldn't actually work. Homebrewing was easier than trying to use the actual rules, because they were generally so awful and attempted to cover tons of different cases in a unified fashion which just didn't work.

Eslin

2015-01-21, 01:04 PM

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 01:13 PM

Lmao. No. Not at all. How could you possibly run one from lvl one without either unconvincing everything awful, homebrewing advancement, or relying on some obscure and probably broken rules to weaken the monster enough it vaguely fit in. Templates? Monster levels? I don't even know if that one had the latter, and we all know how "balanced" the former was.

Actually 3.5 had the right base but just screwed up with the finer details. Undead, Dragon, Fey, Construct, these were all basically classes with a few built-in racial features. Taking the basic chasis of a Dragon, for example, essentially gave you a Fighter with no feats but better skills, saves, and HD, as well as immunity to paralysis and sleep, and built-in Darkvision. The trick was then figuring out some special features to give it to make it actually interesting.

Were I designing 5th Edition I would make each monster class - Dragon, Fey, Undead, Construct, whatever - an actual legit class, with 20 levels corresponding to 20 HD with some basic traits (like the draconic immunity above, but more specifically HD size, ASIs, and number of proficient saves and skills), and then have each different kind of monster (aboleth, red dragon, whatever) basically be a race/template/subclass you could apply on top of each of those. The Monster Manual would then explain at what Dragon level, for example, a red dragon gains 7th-level spells; in addition to having premade stats for a "basic" example of each monster.

An added benefit of this would mean it's super-easy to make variant monsters: take the Red Dragon template, for example, and put it on a Construct or an Undead rather than a Dragon.

(I would also have NPC classes, incidentally).

Kerrin

2015-01-21, 01:14 PM

Which is why in 3.5 where there was no difference it would be much easier to work with.

I am not understanding the complexity involved.

silveralen

2015-01-21, 01:14 PM

How would you run an aboleth at level 1 in any case? They're way too powerful.

Baby Aboleth who rapidly develops, getting larger and gaining access to racial abilities. Plenty of ways to handle it mechanically, from an aboleth racial class to simply scaling back racial abilities initially and spoon feeding them back in some way, in 5e an archetype replacer could be a good way to do this. Or just get some of the racial features basics and have the player stay a relatively young aboleth. So many good options. All requiring very little work, and still better than just tossing in a aboleth to a group randomly (because it wasn't like 3.5 CR was anything like accurate or even useful if we are being honest).

Actually 3.5 had the right base but just screwed up with the finer details. Undead, Dragon, Fey, Construct, these were all basically classes with a few built-in racial features. Taking the basic chasis of a Dragon, for example, essentially gave you a Fighter with no feats but better skills, saves, and HD, as well as immunity to paralysis and sleep, and built-in Darkvision. The trick was then figuring out some special features to give it to make it actually interesting.

Were I designing 5th Edition I would make each monster class - Dragon, Fey, Undead, Construct, whatever - an actual legit class, with 20 levels corresponding to 20 HD with some basic traits (like the draconic immunity above, but more specifically HD size, ASIs, and number of proficient saves and skills), and then have each different kind of monster (aboleth, red dragon, whatever) basically be a race/template/subclass you could apply on top of each of those. The Monster Manual would then explain at what Dragon level, for example, a red dragon gains 7th-level spells; in addition to having premade stats for a "basic" example of each monster.

An added benefit of this would mean it's super-easy to make variant monsters: take the Red Dragon template, for example, and put it on a Construct or an Undead rather than a Dragon.

(I would also have NPC classes, incidentally).

Oh yes, because the CR in 3.5 was anything like accurate. You guys do remember MM 2 right?

3.5 monster design was literally the worst. It was terrible. It made the class balance look good by comparison. It was arguably the worst part of the entire edition. You had some times they managed it to work... with 1000 times it failed horribly because such systems are needlessly complicated and incredibly hard to manage while bringing nothing to the table. It is literally the perfect example of why you don't try to build such unified systems. Touting 3.5 monster design as a thing to keep is just.... ugh.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 01:19 PM

(because it wasn't like 3.5 CR was anything like accurate or even useful if we are being honest).

Speak for yourself, I found CR broadly useful. And no, I don't remember Monster Manual II; I don't and never have owned a copy.

In any event, I'm not talking about, for example, letting a player play an aboleth, only that I find it easier if an NPC aboleth and a PC human Fighter are built using the same system.

silveralen

2015-01-21, 01:34 PM

In any event, I'm not talking about, for example, letting a player play an aboleth, only that I find it easier if an NPC aboleth and a PC human Fighter are built using the same system.

That's... why? They aren't the same. The aboleth's abilities came from its nature and racial abilities, the fighter's abilities came primarily from his training, with minor things from his race. They aren't the same. They shouldn't be. A monster might have tons of HP due to its nature, but not have particularly impressive combat skills because it isn't used to fighting, or bred for fighting. It restricts monster design artificially for no real reason, and doesn't even enhance verisimilitude due to being unrealistic representations of all creatures having the same rough HP/prof/attack/spell ratios as PC characters.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 01:41 PM

That's... why? They aren't the same.

Yes they are. They both have ability scores, proficiency bonuses, trained skills, trained saves, hit points, armor class...and even as you focus on how different an aboleth and a fighter are, consider how similar a lich and a wizard are. Wizards can become liches. Why should they not be built using the same system?

archaeo

2015-01-21, 01:59 PM

Yes they are. They both have ability scores, proficiency bonuses, trained skills, trained saves, hit points, armor class...and even as you focus on how different an aboleth and a fighter are, consider how similar a lich and a wizard are. Wizards can become liches. Why should they not be built using the same system?

I mean, fundamentally, it's because PCs and monsters demand fundamentally different things. PCs are supposed to stick around; their growth from level 1-20 is a huge focus of the system. Monsters show up one time, and then they die (or win). Having one system to do both things, and do both things really well, seems like an awfully hard problem to me. At the very least, it requires that "Level 10" for a PC is equivalent to "HD 10" or something from the monster, a problem in a system wherein any given class level x is not intended to be perfectly balanced with every other class' level x.

I can see the merits of your preferred system, but I think you'd just hear a howl of dismay from all the people who don't want to functionally build a PC every time they build a monster, or bother with picking a "monster class" and stuff like that. The current system is intended to be robust enough to fit virtually any concept the DM can throw at it; monster classes would fundamentally limit that or require a bit of "coloring outside the lines."

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 02:11 PM

I mean, fundamentally, it's because PCs and monsters demand fundamentally different things. PCs are supposed to stick around; their growth from level 1-20 is a huge focus of the system. Monsters show up one time, and then they die (or win). Having one system to do both things, and do both things really well, seems like an awfully hard problem to me. At the very least, it requires that "Level 10" for a PC is equivalent to "HD 10" or something from the monster, a problem in a system wherein any given class level x is not intended to be perfectly balanced with every other class' level x.

Well, yes and no; just as in 3.5, CR is not meant to be a stand-in for character level. A monster templating system wouldn't necessarily be balanced alongside the PC levelling system and nor should it be; the point is for ease of construction, not so that someone can role up a 10th-level Red Dragon to go spelunking with elves and dwarves.

I can see the merits of your preferred system, but I think you'd just hear a howl of dismay from all the people who don't want to functionally build a PC every time they build a monster, or bother with picking a "monster class" and stuff like that. The current system is intended to be robust enough to fit virtually any concept the DM can throw at it; monster classes would fundamentally limit that or require a bit of "coloring outside the lines."

If you say so. I never felt constrained in 3rd Edition just because every dragon had to have a d12 hit die and 6 + Int skill points/level, though.

Beleriphon

2015-01-21, 02:13 PM

Edit:
Okay, nope, not cheating. A CR 21 creature has a +7 proficiency bonus according to the DMG. I am so glad that I had to go to a different book to figure this out and that its Proficiency progression is in no way related to its Hit Die progression. Put the rules for creating a monster in the same place as all the monsters? Perish the thought!

In fairness, the only person that will be tinkering with monster is the DM, and putting all of the tinkering stuff in one book kind of makes sense. Reverse engineering monster's isn't that hard in that they do follow rules (for the most part), they just happen to be different than the rules the players use in the same circumstance.

Knaight

2015-01-21, 02:47 PM

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 03:21 PM

At this point, I refer to my post above, regarding the process of making a dragon when you have a built in monster class, and you don't particularly want the features of said monster class.

You're in the exact same situation right now if you want a red dragon that doesn't breathe fire, so...

Hell, abandon creature types if you want and go for something like what 4E did and have the monster classes instead represent broad role archetypes, like sneaky, fighty, casty, and so on. The point is, don't give me an entirely different set of tools that will simply have me reaching the same end result as what PCs are doing.

silveralen

2015-01-21, 03:35 PM

You're in the exact same situation right now if you want a red dragon that doesn't breathe fire, so...

Hell, abandon creature types if you want and go for something like what 4E did and have the monster classes instead represent broad role archetypes, like sneaky, fighty, casty, and so on. The point is, don't give me an entirely different set of tools that will simply have me reaching the same end result.

That's not even hard with the current rules, you just increase the damage of its other attacks to get the same rough average damage. Tada. It'd be about 7 points extra per attack. That's without touching the CR.

You aren't reaching the same result, you are reaching a better result with less work.

obryn

2015-01-21, 04:12 PM

It's weird when I go through a whole thread mostly agreeing with silveralen, but here we are.

When I'm making a monster (or NPC) I want to jump straight to the end result. I don't want to build them like a character. I want a much simpler process that results in exactly what I was looking for.

Now, fwiw, I think the 5e "simple" system is still to fiddly, with Offense/Defense CR and then averaging them and then refocusing proficiency... But it's still so much easier than the laborious 3.x process, there's no comparison.

pwykersotz

2015-01-21, 04:29 PM

I find the 5e monster building system to be one of ends rather than means. I enjoy it. I don't want to munchkin my own monster creations. I don't want a point buy to eek every benefit out of a system or to balance intricately with every step. I just want to design my monster in the range I'm looking for and let my fluff carry the rest.

The nice part about the 5e system for me is that it lays out the important factors. Damage. To-Hit. AC. Immunities. Expected Party Capabilities. And so on. It tells me what the system is relying on to be within range to have a creature fit the general guideline of CR. Then it tells me to go nuts with the small stuff and to embody my monster concept without needing to codify every little change.

After using it a few times, I now whip up balanced monsters in a couple minutes. I used to spend hours balancing high-end bad guys. No more! :smallsmile:

Fwiffo86

2015-01-21, 04:41 PM

After using it a few times, I now whip up balanced monsters in a couple minutes. I used to spend hours balancing high-end bad guys. No more! :smallsmile:

And for only $49.99, you too can share in the wonder of the monster creation method!!

Vogonjeltz

2015-01-21, 05:19 PM

because they do understand half the purpose of the level system, to show power and to let players power increase from one level to another. therefor it breaks down when you try and have any real gap in levels. You can no longer have a powerful wizard in a tower that needs hero's to stop him, any old army of peasants will do. same for dungeons.

I'm pretty sure the Peasant Army (how large is this army anyway?) membership is probably not going to make their saves vs most things and is equally unlikely to maintain morale (see the DMG for rules) in the face of mass casualties. Peasants aren't heroes, player characters are. Even the least of heroes (level 1 PCs) outstrip peasants in basically every metric.

hawklost

2015-01-21, 05:38 PM

And for only $49.99, you too can share in the wonder of the monster creation method!!

Yes, how dare a company actually try to make some profit off the work they did instead of sending everything to you, the player, for free.

Gnomes2169

2015-01-21, 06:29 PM

And for only $49.99, you too can share in the wonder of the monster creation method!!

As an added bonus, we will give you 70 pages of sample magic items, random dungeons, and tips on how to properly make custom classes, races and worlds. All for the same low price!

But wait, there's more! Call in the next 3 years and we will also include encounter building tips, rest variants, martial combat options, siege equipment, industrial revolution/ modern/ futuristic weapons, epic boons (and other variant rewards) and random dungeon generation ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! Just call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon to redeem your offer! Remember that this is a limited time offer and supplies are limited. Call 1-800-121-2613. This offer will not be around forever, call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon. One more time, that number is 1-800-BE-A-MOTHERFLIPPING-DRAGON

*Coughs nervously* Uh... I got a little carried away at the end there... Can we retake that last bit? ... What do you mean that was live?! Who sends out live infomercials?! D:

Eslin

2015-01-21, 06:44 PM

As an added bonus, we will give you 70 pages of sample magic items, random dungeons, and tips on how to properly make custom classes, races and worlds. All for the same low price!

But wait, there's more! Call in the next 3 years and we will also include encounter building tips, rest variants, martial combat options, siege equipment, industrial revolution/ modern/ futuristic weapons, epic boons (and other variant rewards) and random dungeon generation ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! Just call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon to redeem your offer! Remember that this is a limited time offer and supplies are limited. Call 1-800-121-2613. This offer will not be around forever, call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon. One more time, that number is 1-800-BE-A-MOTHERFLIPPING-DRAGON

*Coughs nervously* Uh... I got a little carried away at the end there... Can we retake that last bit? ... What do you mean that was live?! Who sends out live infomercials?! D:

Is there some way to pay extra to get well thought out magic items?

Knaight

2015-01-21, 08:06 PM

You're in the exact same situation right now if you want a red dragon that doesn't breathe fire, so...
No you're not. Even with the 3e system, you could do something like build an alternate red dragon by just repeating the process used to create the white dragon, including the ice breath. Or you can not use the exact monster creation method, take the green dragon stats, and describe it as red.

Then there's what you can do in just about any system that doesn't demand you make creatures like player characters. Heck, I'll make a dragon using Fudge stats right now:

Dragon
Scale 8 (within 70*(1.5^7.5-8.5) kg), 2000 kg.
Speed Scale 7 (within 20*(1.2^6.5-7.5) km/s), 75 km/hr.
Claws, ODF 3 (11 at scale 0)
Scales, DDF 3 (11 at scale 0)
Fire Breath, ODF 3, close range

Attributes
Great Strength (+2, +10 at scale 0)
Fair Agility (+0)
Good Toughness (+1, +9 at scale 0)
Mediocre Perception (-1)

Skills
Superb scent (+3)
Great flying (+2)
Good brawling (+1)
Fair fire breath (+0)
Fair tracking (+0)
Terrible stealth (-3)

Gifts and Faults
Flame breath
Greedy
Animal intellect

There you go, a dragon. I set their size up, assigned attributes based on what seemed dragony, assigned skills based on what seemed dragony, and picked gifts and faults based on what seemed dragony. ODF and DDF (damage, damage reduction) were picked to be equivalent to a sword and mail. Somehow, this doesn't seem any less valid than if I'd gone through a bunch of hoops to get to this point, instead of just assigning what fits.

It's weird when I go through a whole thread mostly agreeing with silveralen, but here we are.

When I'm making a monster (or NPC) I want to jump straight to the end result. I don't want to build them like a character. I want a much simpler process that results in exactly what I was looking for.

Now, fwiw, I think the 5e "simple" system is still to fiddly, with Offense/Defense CR and then averaging them and then refocusing proficiency... But it's still so much easier than the laborious 3.x process, there's no comparison.
Exactly. I really find no benefit in a bunch of constraints caused by monster classes, when what's being interacted with is the end result anyways. One might as well just get there. NPCs are a bit trickier, if only because there's a class system in use for similar PCs, but even then something like a custom class might have been used before, and cutting that step out is beneficial to everyone involved.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-21, 08:43 PM

And for only $49.99, you too can share in the wonder of the monster creation method!!

Ha! Sucker. I ordered from Amazon. Got it brand-spakin' new for just $30 and change, including shipping and handling. I think Amazon has a deal with WotC or something (because, yes, I bought them new, not used); doesn't matter, point is I only spent ~$90 on the PHB, DMG, and MM combined, basically the same price I paid back in the Aughts for my 3rd Edition rulebooks.

In fact...yup, (http://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421891503&sr=8-1&keywords=D%26D+player%27s+handbook) PHB is, at least, still going for $29.94, and the DMG and MM are still in that range too.

But wait, there's more! Call in the next 3 years and we will also include encounter building tips, rest variants, martial combat options, siege equipment, industrial revolution/ modern/ futuristic weapons, epic boons (and other variant rewards) and random dungeon generation ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! Just call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon to redeem your offer! Remember that this is a limited time offer and supplies are limited. Call 1-800-121-2613. This offer will not be around forever, call 1-800-Be-a-Dragon. One more time, that number is 1-800-BE-A-MOTHERFLIPPING-DRAGON

I'm amused by this because in spite of the 800 number claiming otherwise, there really aren't any decent rules for being a dragon in 5E.

Exactly. I really find no benefit in a bunch of constraints caused by monster classes,

What "constraints", exactly, is there in the 3rd Edition D&D approach? Are you really feeling oppressed by the fact that all dragons get a d12 HD and immunity to sleep? Perhaps I feel equally oppressed by the idea that all CR 10 creatures have a +4 proficiency bonus, or that all Large creatures get a d10 Hit Die.

You're no more constrained then you were, the difference is that individual monsters no longer follow a logical progression as they advance in HD; monsters can't be reverse-engineered to provide racial traits for players who might want to play as a grimlock or ogre or whatever; and you had to master two systems to reach the same end result.

comk59

2015-01-21, 09:32 PM

Honestly, I greatly enjoy both systems. I spent days creating custom monsters in 3e.

That being said... I really like the 5e system better, both for monster-making and modifying. If I wanted a necromancer to make a bunch of skeletons and place them in fullplate in 3e, the stats would be easier (just add fullplate to the profile), but I'd have a much harder time deciding exactly what the CR of these new Ironclad Skeletons are. Now, I just plug in the stats, average out some numbers, and have my monster ready to go. Same thing applies to an off-dufy elite guard in a bar fight, without armor or proper weapons.
It's just personal preference, but I enjoy the simplicity of the creation system (in terms of determining CR) a lot more, since it gives me a nice baseline to work with.

obryn

2015-01-22, 10:16 AM

What "constraints", exactly, is there in the 3rd Edition D&D approach? Are you really feeling oppressed by the fact that all dragons get a d12 HD and immunity to sleep? Perhaps I feel equally oppressed by the idea that all CR 10 creatures have a +4 proficiency bonus, or that all Large creatures get a d10 Hit Die.

You're no more constrained then you were, the difference is that individual monsters no longer follow a logical progression as they advance in HD; monsters can't be reverse-engineered to provide racial traits for players who might want to play as a grimlock or ogre or whatever; and you had to master two systems to reach the same end result.
I am going to have to assume you don't have much experience with games where there's a simpler system for monster creation. This added complexity you're alluding to just doesn't match reality. At all.

The idea is, of course, that you don't learn two systems. You let the players worry about player stuff while you worry about the DM stuff. I, for one, never, ever want to make any NPCs anywhere near as complicated as a good PC. I have better things to do with my time; that's the nonsense that burned me out of 3.x for good.

archaeo

2015-01-22, 10:39 AM

Person_Man

2015-01-22, 10:57 AM

obryn

2015-01-22, 11:03 AM

Presumably, after WotC finally gets around to releasing the conversion tools they told us were coming, you could very well just use your preferred edition's monster creation paradigms and then import the results into 5e.

That's obviously a totally ridiculous thing to do, but hey.
It actually is a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

The best tools for any edition are going to be those designed for that edition.

That's like translating from English to German to Chinese.

Kerrin

2015-01-22, 11:22 AM

Knaight

2015-01-22, 11:32 AM

silveralen

2015-01-22, 12:06 PM

Bubzors

2015-01-22, 12:23 PM

obryn

2015-01-22, 12:50 PM

No. It's technically not what you're supposed to do by either paradigm, but it's a totally functional method that is way less labor intensive.
I do it all the time in 4e. It's encouraged by the system. Change a few keywords and descriptions and you're set.

This is how a Red Dragon became a corrupted Spirit of the Land in my Dark Sun campaign, for example.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-22, 02:18 PM

Am I the only one who just picks the closest approximation from the Monster Manual, adjusts a few numbers, maybe adds or subtracts some abilities, and then just goes with it? For me, the process has never taken more then 5 minutes. Its not like I'm submitting my stuff for publication or whatever.

Typically that's what I do anyway. There's only been a few monsters I've designed from the ground-up. I found it much easier and more sensible in 3rd Edition than I do in 5th Edition, though (why shouldn't all dragons share some basic traits?), and in any event how often it's done isn't the point, it's how easy it is to do once you find the need.

The idea is, of course, that you don't learn two systems. You let the players worry about player stuff while you worry about the DM stuff. I, for one, never, ever want to make any NPCs anywhere near as complicated as a good PC. I have better things to do with my time; that's the nonsense that burned me out of 3.x for good.

The problem here is threefold; one, a good DM should know the PC character creation rules if for no other reason than to be able to accurately judge the powers and abilities of his players' characters when designing monsters to face them; two, not every DM is happy being stuck as a DM all the time (in fact I'd go so far as to say most like to play as well as DM) and would like to be able to play on the other side of the DM screen on occasion, meaning that they're going to be learning the PC creation rules anyway; and three, there's also the idea of someone who starts as a player and wants to try his hand at DMing; it's more efficient, to mine eyes, if the player-turned-DM doesn't have to learn a whole new character creation system that's almost totally divorced from the one he's already familiar with.

That was my situation in 3rd Edition - monsters were absurdly simple to understand once I realized that "Dragon", "Undead", "Plant", and so on, were basically classes with templates applied on top of them. And like I said, I'm not even entirely opposed to the idea of dropping the concept of creature types and instead having the various monster classes represent things like "bossy", "fighty", "sneaky", "magicy", "mooky", and so on.

(I want NPC classes for a different reason - I like "common campaigns.")

obryn

2015-01-22, 09:58 PM

The problem here is threefold; one, a good DM should know the PC character creation rules if for no other reason than to be able to accurately judge the powers and abilities of his players' characters when designing monsters to face them; two, not every DM is happy being stuck as a DM all the time (in fact I'd go so far as to say most like to play as well as DM) and would like to be able to play on the other side of the DM screen on occasion, meaning that they're going to be learning the PC creation rules anyway; and three, there's also the idea of someone who starts as a player and wants to try his hand at DMing; it's more efficient, to mine eyes, if the player-turned-DM doesn't have to learn a whole new character creation system that's almost totally divorced from the one he's already familiar with.
None of these, however, are borne out as actual complications. PC creation rules in latter-era D&D are complex and time-consuming, by design. Having a simple results- rather than process-oriented system for making other stuff in the world has no downside. It's silly to bemoan a simple three-step, one-reference process just because it's different from the 20-step-and-numerous-fiddly-things-through-player-splatbooks system used by PCs.

What's more, a results-oriented approach will always yield more accurate results than a process-oriented one. If you need a monster to challenge Level X PCs ... well, why not just look at a list of stats designed to challenge Level X PCs and tweak to taste?

Xetheral

2015-01-22, 10:02 PM

Kornaki

2015-01-23, 01:47 AM

silveralen

2015-01-23, 02:05 AM

The dirty secret of the thread is both sides talk about how their preferred method is better, but as soon as the details start coming out they totally violate the construction method because it's too complicated. The argument is closer to a cultural or religious war, with the sides fighting over purely ideological items with no practical conflict between them.

Hmm?

The preferred method of mine is to have a separate system for monsters because it results in better balance than trying to build monsters the same as PCs. That's the method I want the people making the books to use, because it makes tweaking easier. It also allows them to provide easy tweak guidelines, the DMG actually does a very good job explaining how removing or adding traits adjusts CR and lets me change things without screwing balance up at all.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 02:28 AM

PC creation rules in latter-era D&D are complex and time-consuming, by design.

Speak for yourself; I've never found creating a PC to be a particularly time-consuming task.

It's silly to bemoan a simple three-step, one-reference process just because it's different from the 20-step-and-numerous-fiddly-things-through-player-splatbooks system used by PCs.

Last time I checked the 5E monster creation rules were twenty steps, dude, while the PC creation steps are quite literally half that. There is the four-step quick monster stats but that's for strictly basic bags of HP, not for the sort of detail that we've been discussing. Even if we discount name, alignment, type, and language steps, that still leaves us with 16 steps verses the PC's 10 or so. Because statting out a PC is easier: you have a class that you then apply a race template, a background template, and a subclass template (if high enough level) on top of.

What's more, a results-oriented approach will always yield more accurate results than a process-oriented one. If you need a monster to challenge Level X PCs ... well, why not just look at a list of stats designed to challenge Level X PCs and tweak to taste?

There's literally no reason why this wouldn't also work with a monster class approach to monster building (indeed it's exactly what Pathfinder did - a CR 7 Dragon means a base of 8 HD, which tells me that the dragon has a BAB of +8, a base of +6 in each of its saves, a total number of skill ranks of (6 + Int modifier) x 8, 4 feats, and 2 ability score increases; as well I know that a challenging DC for any of its abilities would be 14 (10 + 1/2 its HD) + relevant ability modifier), and having monster classes would have the added benefit of using a system that's already been established in the Player's Handbook and by necessity already been mastered by the DM.

But wait, there's more. Because by having monster classes I can also reverse-engineer any monster to be available to a player without having to make stuff up and then be personally annoyed at the fact that the monsters can do things that the players can't or vice-versa. Here, look, I'll do it now, let's pick, oh...the winter wolf.

WINTER WOLF
- Ability Adjustments: +10 Strength, +2 Dexterity, +8 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom. Winter Wolves are strong, agile, tough, and attentive, but somewhat lacking in intellect.
- Magical Beast: Winter wolves are magical beasts, not humanoids. This makes them immune to spells that specifically target humanoids, such as charm person; however, they can be affected by spells that can target magical beasts, such as charm monster.
- Size: Large. As Large creatures, winter wolves take a -4 penalty to Stealth, a -1 penalty to attack rolls and a -1 penalty to AC. However, they can lift twice as much as a Medium-sized creature, and have a +1 bonus on their combat maneuver checks and to their CMD.
- Speed: Winter Wolf base land speed is 50 ft.
- Darkvision: Winter Wolves have Darkvision out to 60 ft.
- Scent: Winter Wolves have the Scent ability.
- Natural Armor: Winter Wolves have a natural armor bonus equal to 4 + 1/2 their Magical Beast HD.
- Cold Subtype. Winter Wolves have the cold subtype, meaning that they are immune to cold damage but have vulnerability to fire damage.
- Racial Skill Bonuses: +2 Perception, +2 Stealth (+8 in snow), +2 Survival
- Racial Bonus: Winter Wolves have a +4 racial bonus to their CMD to resist trip attempts.
- Natural Attack: Bite - 1d8+Strength modifier piercing plus 1d6 cold and trip.
- Trip: A winter wolf who hits with its bite attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the winter wolf is not tripped in return.
- Breath Weapon: Winter Wolves have a breath weapon, a 15-ft. cone that deals 6d6 cold damage. They may use this ability once every 1d4 rounds. A successful Relfex save halves this damage. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 the Winter Wolf's Magical Beast hit die + the Winter Wolf's Constitution modifier.
- Racial Hit Die: A Winter Wolf begins play with 6 levels of Magical Beast. This gives them 6d10 + their Constitution modifier hit points; a +6 Base Attack bonus; +5 to Fortitude and Reflex saves; +2 to Will saves; 3 feats; a +1 bonus to any one ability score; and Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier) x 6. Magical Beast class skills are Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, Swim.
- Automatic Languages: Common, Giant.

Some of the above isn't even spelled out in the Pathfinder Bestiary itself; I was simply able to intuit it from my knowledge of the character creation system (namely how to calculate the DC for the breath weapon, how to calculate the natural armor progression (or close enough anyway; actually in my experience 3 + 1/2 HD is more common but for the Wolf it seems to be 4 + 1/2 HD, but whatever), and noticing that they have a +4 bonus to CMD to resist trip). But now look: I can take this template and do anything I like with it. Winter Wolf necromancer? One of the best NPC villains I ever ran. Winter Wolf druid? You got it! Winter Wolf dragon? Winter Wolf aberration? Weird from a rules perspective but, hey, I can do it! Player comes up to me and says he'd love to run a Winter Wolf? He can do it! All because of a unified character creation system that lets me extrapolate anything I want to know from a monster and then take that knowledge and apply it to anything I want to use it for.

(Also it helps that the Bestiary, like the 3rd Edition MM before it, is explicitly showing us the most typical member of each given monster unless otherwise specified - nothing but 10s and 11s before racial adjustments, for example, allowing us to easily figure out ability score adjustments. Verses the 5E MM which is pretty obviously not, since the DMG says that kobolds merely get +2 Dex, -2 Str, but their entry in the MM suggests that their scores should instead be something like +4 dex, -2 or more everything else)

obryn

2015-01-23, 08:02 AM

Last time I checked the 5E monster creation rules were twenty steps, dude
I'll stop you right there because I agree that 5e overcomplicates what should be a simple process.

...CR 7 Dragon means a base of 8 HD ... BAB of +8, a base of +6 in each of its saves ... skill ranks of (6 + Int modifier) x 8, 4 feats, and 2 ability score increases .... (10 + 1/2 its HD) + relevant ability modifier)
Ability Adjustments: ... Magical Beast: ... Large creatures, winter wolves take a -4 penalty to Stealth, a -1 penalty to attack rolls and a -1 penalty to AC. However, they can lift twice as much as a Medium-sized creature, and have a +1 bonus on their combat maneuver checks and to their CMD. ... Natural Armor: Winter Wolves have a natural armor bonus equal to 4 + 1/2 their Magical Beast HD. ... Racial Skill Bonuses: +2 Perception, +2 Stealth (+8 in snow), +2 Survival ... Racial Bonus: Winter Wolves have a +4 racial bonus to their CMD to resist trip attempts.
... nothing but 10s and 11s before racial adjustments,
I ran 3.x for 8 years. I remember the process. The process is make-work designed to give the illusion of consistency and fairness.

You're giving a new monster racial adjustments, figuring its attack bonus from a combination of hit dice, stats, size, and feats; figuring its saves similarly, etc. You're coming up with base stats and then deriving the important game-functional stats from those.

I am suggesting you start with the monster's hit points, final AC, final saves, etc. Not derive them from basic elementary components.

obryn

2015-01-23, 08:17 AM

The dirty secret of the thread is both sides talk about how their preferred method is better, but as soon as the details start coming out they totally violate the construction method because it's too complicated. The argument is closer to a cultural or religious war, with the sides fighting over purely ideological items with no practical conflict between them.
That's a funny thing. In a results-based system, this is following the construction method.

If you are starting from elementary stats, you're technically doing it wrong.

For example, when I changed a red dragon into a desert sprint, how much should have changed under 3.x? I added Lightning keywords and was done.

Knaight

2015-01-23, 09:40 AM

That's a funny thing. In a results-based system, this is following the construction method.

Exactly. The construction method for a completely new creature can actually just be "stick what you feel fits on, call it a day".

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 10:23 AM

Exactly. The construction method for a completely new creature can actually just be "stick what you feel fits on, call it a day".

I like there being consistency on both sides of the DM screen. It was, in fact, the major draw of 3rd Edition to me - the fact that anything the Bad Guys can do, I as a player could also do, using the same rules. A longsword in my hand does the same base damage as a longsword in an enemy's hand. The enemy's magic missile is the same as my magic missile. He gets the same benefit from chain mail armor that I do. Things like an HD-based breath weapon progression I see as just a natural extension of that, since given the same breath weapon somehow (amulet of the winter wolf?) my own breath weapon would progress in the same vein.

I am suggesting you start with the monster's hit points, final AC, final saves, etc. Not derive them from basic elementary components.

I prefer to derive things from basic elementary components, because I then find it easier to manipulate those components along predictable paths to get the end result I desire, and also ensure that I'm not doing anything that my players wouldn't theoretically be able to duplicate given the same tools but on their side of the DM screen.

I'm not saying the 3rd Edition process was, itself, perfect, it wasn't - it totally produced unfair results. But they were at least unfair results that I could hand to my players for them to meaningfully use, or which I could use to make "fair" NPCs. And I would rather that 5th Edition started from that most basic premise: transparency between player tools and DM tools so that either could make use of them on their own side of the DM screen if needed. That doesn't exist in 5E, and I note the lack with no small amount of disappointment. DM fiat should be a tool of last resort, not a guiding principle.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 10:31 AM

I like there being consistency on both sides of the DM screen. It was, in fact, the major draw of 3rd Edition to me - the fact that anything the Bad Guys can do, I as a player could also do, using the same rules. A longsword in my hand does the same base damage as a longsword in an enemy's hand. The enemy's magic missile is the same as my magic missile. He gets the same benefit from chain mail armor that I do. Things like an HD-based breath weapon progression I see as just a natural extension of that.

I mean.... hypothetically yes you could. Except you actually couldn't, because DMs had to lock options because that sort of system is ripe for abuse and inevitably led to awful nonsensical results (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)). At the average 3.5 table you couldn't even sue every option in the PHB due to the DM effectively having to lock out unbalanced choices, same goes for books outside it. The DM had to rebuild the entire system effectively, making any such verisimilitude completely worthless in the long haul . This is the inevitable result of all systems which attempt it, it never works.

I'm not saying the 3rd Edition process was, itself, perfect, it wasn't - it totally produced unfair results. But they were at least unfair results that I could hand to my players for them to meaningfully use, or which I could use to make "fair" NPCs. And I would rather that 5th Edition started from that most basic premise: transparency between player tools and DM tools so that either could make use of them on their own side of the DM screen if needed.

Why? That's like saying you want them to fail. The problems with 3rd edition existed because of that transparency being an inherently unmanageable mess. It is too complicated to work with any significant number of options, it quickly breaks down due to the complexity required as additional elements are introduced.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 10:36 AM

I mean.... hypothetically yes you could. Except you actually couldn't, because DMs had to lock options because that sort of system is ripe for abuse and inevitably led to awful nonsensical results (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)).

Pun-pun is the result of a poorly-worded special ability in one splatbook for one campaign setting; if we're in Athas or Greyhawk or Mystara or some custom campaign world, he doesn't and can't work.

(More to the point Pun-pun is explicitly a thought exercise never meant to actually be run by anyone and, in fact, advised against actually being run - a person deliberately doing his damnedest to break the system using the system's rules. Give 5E a dozen splatbooks and we'll start to see the same)

More generally for 3rd Edition, all of the problems with 3rd Edition start on the player side of the DM screen, not the DM's side. Specifically spells, or magic items that duplicate those spells, or 3.5 onwards assuming unlimited PC access to prestige classes.

It has nothing to do with monsters (except insofar as spells or magic items that allow a player to summon the monsters and use them in ways WotC never intended, but even then, that's once again a problem with player spells, not anything in the DMG), which is the sum total scope of our discussion today. No DM in the history of 3rd Edition was worried because his player wanted to roll up a winter wolf, as long as the player was doing so at what was perceived as a roughly level-appropriate point to do so.

Why? That's like saying you want them to fail.

Because sometimes you want to run a Winter Wolf necromancer, damnit. More broadly it was useful when I was constructing an entirely-underdark campaign setting in 3.0 (so before the MM started including racial traits for many monsters) and so reverse-engineered some racial traits stats for orcs, kobolds, grimlocks, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. I was immensely pleased with myself when the FRCS came out and I found myself basically spot-on with those last three.

The problems with 3rd edition existed because of that transparency being an inherently unmanageable mess. It is too complicated to work with any significant number of options, it quickly breaks down due to the complexity required as additional elements are introduced.

3rd Edition broke down because of too many +1s and poorly worded spells. That's it. 5th Edition has eliminated almost all +1s, and has far more carefully worded spells. It can still be broken, I'm sure, but it won't be broken in the same way that 3rd Edition was, and whether or not it can be will have nothing to do with whether or not it should have given the DM tools for extracting winter wolf racial traits from the Monster Manual.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 11:05 AM

It has nothing to do with monsters, which is the sum total scope of our discussion today. No DM in the history of 3rd Edition was worried because his player wanted to roll up a winter wolf, as long as the player was doing so at what was perceived as a roughly level-appropriate point to do so.

Oh? So say... templates weren't a problem? What was that fun combo.... oh right the feral incarnate half minotaur warforged with a +0 LA. Though just tossing saint on there instead could be fun. Or would you violate the sacred vow of transparency to prevent it?

Of course, I suppose the other issues in 3e made these issues practically unnoticeable by comparison.

Because sometimes you want to run a Winter Wolf necromancer, damnit. More broadly it was useful when I was constructing an entirely-underdark campaign setting in 3.0 (so before the MM started including racial traits for many monsters) and so reverse-engineered some racial traits stats for orcs, kobolds, grimlocks, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. I was immensely pleased with myself when the FRCS came out and I found myself basically spot-on with those last three

I fail to see why that's hard in 5e. It just requires DM permission... which it always did.

3rd Edition broke down because of too many +1s and poorly worded spells. That's it. 5th Edition has eliminated almost all +1s, and has far more carefully worded spells. It can still be broken, I'm sure, but it won't be broken in the same way that 3rd Edition was, and whether or not it can be will have nothing to do with whether or not it should have given the DM tools for extracting winter wolf racial traits from the Monster Manual.

3e broke down for a lot of reasons. I think that they spent far too much of their time worrying about codifying a system rather than making a game, but that's the exact thing you seem to want, more system time less game time.

Because it hurts them when designing the monsters. The winterwolf has a very different HP/offense ratio than any player character. That's how they wanted it. By making the winter wolf mirror PCs it can no longer do so. It can no longer have a breath attack that recharges mid combat, because such an ability doesn't exist for PCs. It becomes a less interesting monster because it has to fit into a certain box. There is no good way to "extract" it, because it is built fundamentally different.

On the other hand, playing as a winter wolf is easy in 5e because homebrew is such a snap. Take dragon born, set breath weapon and resistance to ice, replace cha boost with wis (or con) boost. Done. If it isn't a talking wolf, you could add in advantage on perception checks with smell/hearing to compensate for the character not being able to speak. It isn't hard, and it allows you to play a winter wolf without forcing winter wolves as a whole to mimic PCS. Does it follow the same exact rules? No, but removing monster diversity so they lack any abilities a PC couldn't have doesn't improve the game.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 11:24 AM

Oh? So say... templates weren't a problem? What was that fun combo.... oh right the feral incarnate half minotaur warforged with a +0 LA. Though just tossing saint on there instead could be fun. Or would you violate the sacred vow of transparency to prevent it?

That's not even a rules-legal template series. Incarnate Construct is an acquired template; Feral and Half-Minotaur are inherited. Inherited templates are applied first (for obvious reasons), and a warforged doesn't qualify for feral or half-minotaur (being neither humanoids, nor monstrous humanoids, nor giants, at the time that the template would be applied). So the best you could be is an Incarnate Warforged with a -2 LA, unless the DM (sensibly) rules that minimum LA is +0 (vis-a-vis the precedent that there has never been an LA -2 race).

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 11:59 AM

I fail to see why that's hard in 5e. It just requires DM permission... which it always did.

DM permission and then the DM tearing out his hair trying to figure out what the "basic" stats for a winter wolf is supposed to be. Whereas 3rd Edition gave you the exact tools to find that out. Again: DM fiat should be a tool of last resort, not a basic design principle.

3e broke down for a lot of reasons.

No, it pretty much boils down to too many +1s and poor spell wording. A related problem is too many splatbooks, but even that is only problematic because those splatbooks that gave you more +1s and poorly worded spells. If 5E adopts a trend of few splatbooks, focusing on giving players new things to do rather than +1s to existing tasks, and taking the time to seriously consider and carefully word spells, magic items, and various other new things, then it won't fall into the traps it used to.

And it has naught to do with yon Savage Species, regardless.

Because it hurts them when designing the monsters. The winterwolf has a very different HP/offense ratio than any player character.

Actually if you consider it as being a 6th-level character to start with it ain't really that bad at all; certainly I think it's balanced alongside a 6th level wizard or warblade. Remove the Magical Beast HD and you're left with, well, admittedly, a much too powerful race, but then I don't think anyone seriously expects to run a 1st-level winter wolf anyway.

That's how they wanted it. By making the winter wolf mirror PCs it can no longer do so. It can no longer have a breath attack that recharges mid combat, because such an ability doesn't exist for PCs.

True enough, but then again before the Warlock there was no PC class that granted at-will spell like abilities. A PC is not unbalanced by access to a 15-ft. cone of cold once every 1d4 rounds, and there's no reason a 6th-level PC in particular shouldn't have access to it.

It becomes a less interesting monster because it has to fit into a certain box. There is no good way to "extract" it, because it is built fundamentally different.

It really isn't. Going by the 3rd Edition Monster Manual entry it's an 18-level class that's front-loaded but gives a scaling bonus to natural armor and breath weapon progression, as well as a size increase at 10 HD to Huge.

On the other hand, playing as a winter wolf is easy in 5e because homebrew is such a snap. Take dragon born, set breath weapon and resistance to ice, replace cha boost with wis (or con) boost. Done.

You forgot to take into account the fact that it's a Large quadruped with no hands. And why the Hell is my winter wolf merely resistant to ice when every other winter wolf in the world has immunity to cold? Why don't I have snow camouflage or pack tactics? Why do I become winded after a single use of my breath weapon when every other winter wolf in the world can use theirs at-will?

You're forcing me to play - and I mean this literally, not insultingly - a retarded winter wolf. A winter wolf that is severely underdeveloped by the standards of its kind. Although apparently I picked up the ability to walk around on two legs, so that's neat, I guess. Kinda' would have preferred immunity to cold and not suffering from asthma after every breath attack.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 11:59 AM

That's not even a rules-legal template series. Incarnate Construct is an acquired template; Feral and Half-Minotaur are inherited. Inherited templates are applied first (for obvious reasons), and a warforged doesn't qualify for feral or half-minotaur (being neither humanoids, nor monstrous humanoids, nor giants, at the time that the template would be applied). So the best you could be is an Incarnate Warforged with a -2 LA, unless the DM (sensibly) rules that minimum LA is +0 (vis-a-vis the precedent that there has never been an LA -2 race).

Fine, take your pick of half dragon, mineral warrior+dragonborn, or phrenic. I seem to recall inherited and acquired could be swapped around in some way, I think ti was part of savage progression, but sure. The point sitll stands lots of tools that made sense for DMs (incarnate construct) became abusable in player hands.

You forgot to take into account the fact that it's a Large quadruped with no hands. And why the Hell is my winter wolf merely resistant to ice when every other winter wolf in the world has immunity to cold? Why don't I have snow camouflage or pack tactics? Why do I become winded after a single use of my breath weapon when every other winter wolf in the world can use theirs at-will?

You're forcing me to play - and I mean this literally, not insultingly - a retarded winter wolf. A winter wolf that is severely underdeveloped by the standards of its kind. Although apparently I picked up the ability to walk around on two legs, so that's neat, I guess. Kinda' would have preferred immunity to cold and not suffering from asthma after every breath attack.

Your a runt, so what? You also wanted to play one that can cast spells so you clearly are an abnormal example as is.

I mean... no you aren't going to gain access to idiotically powerful features. Shocking. Would you rather be less winter wolf than most or crippled by a horrible and virtually useless LA system? My version has your winter wolf actually be halfway passable as the necromancer you wanted to play, a version closer to an actual winter wolf becomes 100% garbage (in no small part because.... he can't cast spells).

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 12:03 PM

Fine, take your pick of half dragon, mineral warrior+dragonborn, or phrenic. I seem to recall inherited and acquired could be swapped around in some way, I think ti was part of savage progression, but sure. The point sitll stands lots of tools that made sense for DMs (incarnate construct) became abusable in player hands.

...because of too many +1s. Which has naught to do with the idea of extractable PC stats from the Monster Manual, especially if we aren't trying to force them to be playable from level 1. I'm not trying to force that, anyway.

Would you rather be less winter wolf than most or crippled by a horrible and virtually useless LA system?

I'd rather have an LA system that works so that I can actually play an actual winter wolf starting with when it would be level-appropriate to do so. 1st level is too early. 10th level is too late. So somewhere between there is the point at which it is balanced to roll up a winter wolf, and then from there I should be able to start gaining levels in some other class. Paladin, perhaps, or necromancer, sure. I won't lag behind any worse than any other multiclass character would, and I'm mature enough as a player to accept that as a cost of doing business.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-23, 12:08 PM

Because by having monster classes I can also reverse-engineer any monster to be available to a player

Have you considered that the "monsters" were never intended to be played as characters?

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 12:11 PM

Have you considered that the "monsters" were never intended to be played as characters?

Sure, but that doesn't mean a tool shouldn't exist to extract them if a player wants to play them, or a DM wants to construct a monstrous NPC fighter or warlock, and they want to maintain some level of consistency. Monsters weren't intended to be played in 3rd Edition either but the DMG still gave the DM rules with which to do so, and the whole process was made easier by the fact that monsters and PCs were build along the same basic lines of tying some basic traits into HD progression.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 12:12 PM

...because of too many +1s. Which has naught to do with the idea of extractable PC stats from the Monster Manual, especially if we aren't trying to force them to be playable from level 1. I'm not trying to force that, anyway.

I'd rather have an LA system that works so that I can actually play a winter wolf starting with when it would be level-appropriate to do so. 1st level is too early. 10th level is too late. So somewhere between there is the point at which it is balanced to roll up a winter wolf, and then from there I should be able to start gaining levels in some other class. Paladin, perhaps. I won't lag behind any worse than any other multiclass character.

There is no correct level. Your prof bonus is +2 and you have 10 hit die. There is no point where that happens. It doesn't translate well at all. If you say anything about reducing hit die.... well you are playing a weak winter wolf with a fraction of their normal health, not a real one, at least with your "logic". It doesn't work.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a tool shouldn't exist to extract them if a player wants to play them, or a DM wants to construct a monstrous NPC fighter or warlock, and they want to maintain some level of consistency.

Yes it does. It means it is outside the normal scope and thus appropriate for homebrew.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-23, 12:13 PM

More generally for 3rd Edition, all of the problems with 3rd Edition start on the player side of the DM screen, not the DM's side. Specifically spells, or magic items that duplicate those spells, or 3.5 onwards assuming unlimited PC access to prestige classes.

I interpret this to be in agreement with my belief that 3.x put entirely too much power in the hands of the players, and not the DM.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 12:15 PM

I interpret this to be in agreement with my belief that 3.x put entirely too much power in the hands of the players, and not the DM.

Yep. Now, monster PCs are in the hands of the DM, a player can't point to x rule and demand to play one. Much less disruptive.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 12:17 PM

There is no correct level. Your prof bonus is +2 and you have 10 hit die. There is no point where that happens. It doesn't translate well at all. If you say anything about reducing hit die.... well you are playing a weak winter wolf with a fraction of their normal health, not a real one, at least with your "logic". It doesn't work.

Except here we return to my problem with 5th Edition: that Challenge Rating was used as the basis for determining monster statistics, rather than Hit Die giving you a set of statistics from which you extract Challenge Rating, which just makes more sense to me since the CR of something is going to be the sum of its parts. Hell, the monster creation rules even support this: you pick a goal CR, go through fifteen steps, and then find out what your CR actually is.

Yep. Now, monster PCs are in the hands of the DM, a player can't point to x rule and demand to play one. Much less disruptive.

A player couldn't demand that anyway unless the DM was unwilling to put his foot down. That's a problem with the DM, not the player.

Besides which, no monster every broke a 3.5 game. Templates, sure, but no game was ever broken by playing a grimlock, a winter wolf, a rakshasa, etc. As was pointed out to use, silveralen, in another threat, +1 LA and 1 racial HD were the absolute cutoff point for anyone looking to break the game in 3.5.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 12:21 PM

Except here we return to my problem with 5th Edition: that Challenge Rating was used as the basis for determining monster statistics, rather than Hit Die giving you a set of statistics from which you extract Challenge Rating, which just makes more sense to me since the CR of something is going to be the sum of its parts. Hell, the monster creation rules even support this: you pick a goal CR, go through fifteen steps, and then find out what your CR actually is.

So? This one actually works. MM2 showed that the 3.5 version didn't.

Doug Lampert

2015-01-23, 12:23 PM

Have you considered that the "monsters" were never intended to be played as characters?

And 3.5 didn't allow the ones that were playable as PCs to use the rules they used as NPCs.

NPCs had CR, which is different from level or HD or class level.
PCs had ECL, which is different from level or HD or class level.
And many monsters had LA -, which means not playable as a PC at any level.

So the claim that you could make monsters into PCs more easily because lots of stuff tied to HD was rejected by the designers in those cases where they allowed monsters to be made into PCs. PCs used ECL, monsters CR.

And straight by the book a PC would be eligible for Epic feats at a point where an otherwise EXACTLY identical build NPC would not be. The two categories were rulebook different.

OTOH fourth edition had a short summary at the back of the first MM, taking up about 2 pages, that would let you play a fairly large number of monsters as characters. Different rules meant that you didn't NEED to specify how the monster got every power it has, many were the monster's equivalent of class powers and PCs have different classes because they train and behave in different ways. You picked the monster's powers that were appropriate to a PC and made them racial powers or feats and it worked fine.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 12:24 PM

So? This one actually works. MM2 showed that the 3.5 version didn't.

So we're ignoring MM I and III-V, then? As well as the Fiend Folio, Monsters of Faerun, the various monsters in things like Stormwrack...

And as well, most of the problems with calculating CR in 3rd Edition came, once again, from too many +1s floating around. 5th Edition doesn't have that problem.

hawklost

2015-01-23, 12:25 PM

Sure, but that doesn't mean a tool shouldn't exist to extract them if a player wants to play them, or a DM wants to construct a monstrous NPC fighter or warlock, and they want to maintain some level of consistency. Monsters weren't intended to be played in 3rd Edition either but the DMG still gave the DM rules with which to do so, and the whole process was made easier by the fact that monsters and PCs were build along the same basic lines of tying some basic traits into HD progression.

Not sure how you get that logic at all, looking at d20srd.org and looking at playable monsters, I am not getting a LA related to HD at all.

Bugbear - LA +1, HD 3d12
Deva - LA + 8, HD 12d8
Centaur - LA +2, HD 4d8
Grid LA+3, HD 1/2d6

So now, HD have nothing to do with LA calculations alone. You have to take the monster as a whole to get LA

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 12:49 PM

So now, HD have nothing to do with LA calculations alone. You have to take the monster as a whole to get LA

My point, though, is that you have the ability to do so. A 5th-level Bugbear Fighter PC is theoretically the equivalent of a 9th-level PC (Fighter 5 + 3 Humanoid HD + LA +1). We know this is bull**** because 3rd Edition wasn't good at calculating such things, but at least I have a starting point to work with, and I can create it while remaining true to the Monster Manual. I'm not pigeonholed into playing a runt bugbear just so that my character can be balanced alongside a 1st-level party.

Now suppose I want to do the same with 5th Edition - create a 5th level bugbear fighter while remaining true to the basic bugbear printed in the Monster Manual. How do I do that? How do I figure how effective it is next to a human fighter of the same fighter level? No one knows...

At the other end of the DM screen, we know in 3rd edition that a 5th-level bugbear fighter has a total of CR 7 (Fighter 5 + CR 2) (theoretically, again, the reality could change). Whereas in 5th Edition trying to figure out its CR is an exercise in guesswork. What effect does Action Surge have on challenge rating, hmm? Student of War? Weapon Bond? Who knows? It's left entirely to DM fiat to figure out whether a 5th level fighter bugbear is much more dangerous than the default bugbear (and how much more), whereas before in 3rd Edition DM fiat may have been necessary but at least WotC gave you a solid, numerical starting point of CR 7.

obryn

2015-01-23, 01:01 PM

I like there being consistency on both sides of the DM screen. It was, in fact, the major draw of 3rd Edition to me
Back in 2000, it was for me, too. And certainly, that's one way to design an RPG. (It was very popular in the 80's and 90's, for example.) However, that comes with costs. Several big ones for me.
(1) Ballooning complexity on the DM side of the screen, where player options are also DM options. I know you're claiming this is easier, but you shouldn't mistake your personal expertise in the system for actual simplicity of process.
(2) Time-consuming generation of statistics derived from baseline statistics.
(3) Poorly-balanced results for actual play. Which you even allude to. When 20 Fighter and a 20 Wizard are the same CR in 3.x, that's bananas.

obryn

2015-01-23, 01:04 PM

Now suppose I want to do the same with 5th Edition - create a 5th level bugbear fighter while remaining true to the basic bugbear printed in the Monster Manual. How do I do that? How do I figure how effective it is next to a human fighter of the same fighter level? No one knows...
As a PC, whip up a Bugbear race (+1 Strength, +2 Dex, some kind of bonus to stealth skills, some kind of extra backstab ability, maybe an ability to use big weapons) and make a 5th level Fighter. Remaining true to the MM bugbear's stats is a fool's errand because the theme of "bugbear" is sufficient.

As an NPC, you don't focus on what level fighter the dude is. You focus on stats and abilities.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 01:10 PM

(1) Ballooning complexity on the DM side of the screen, where player options are also DM options. I know you're claiming this is easier, but you shouldn't mistake your personal expertise in the system for actual simplicity of process.

A result of too many +1s in 3rd Edition. At present players and DMs share many resources anyway - weapons, magic items, spells, the last granting access to a huge number of monsters and thereby monster abilities (i.e., planar binding can still net you a djinn, and in fact is arguably better now that it no longer has a CR/HD cap). It doesn't much matter whether Mordenkainen casts plane shift or his bound djinn does since either way it still gets cast.

Sure, it takes a while to cast, but then again it took awhile in 3rd Edition too.

(2) Time-consuming generation of statistics derived from baseline statistics.

5th Edition fixes this by, again, eliminating the +1s and instead simply having almost everything derived from Proficiency + Ability modifier (AC and HP being the only real exception). Mostly you get new things to do rather than improvements to the things you already had, and improvements generally translate out to simply being able to gain advantage.

(3) Poorly-balanced results for actual play. Which you even allude to. When 20 Fighter and a 20 Wizard are the same CR in 3.x, that's bananas.

Of course. But that has naught to do with the ability to extract monster stats from a Monster Manual for PC use.

As a PC, whip up a Bugbear race (+1 Strength, +2 Dex, some kind of bonus to stealth skills, some kind of extra backstab ability, maybe an ability to use big weapons) and make a 5th level Fighter. Remaining true to the MM bugbear's stats is a fool's errand because the theme of "bugbear" is sufficient.

And if I want to play a winter wolf? Large, quadrupedal, cold immunity, extra stealth in snow, pack tactics, at-will cold breath weapon, bite attack with a built-in trip. Strong, tough, agile, attentive, but not particularly bright. Silveralen would pigeonhole me into being a bipedal runt, but suppose my character concept doesn't have me as being a runt or magically able to walk on two feet and use my front paws like hands?

It's perfectly fine if the DM says "no, I don't want winter wolf PCs in the campaign," but a useful tool should exist for DMs who are okay with the idea.

(this extends to any powerful or unusual creature, like a hound archon, an illithid, a giant, a pseudodragon, etc. Some campaigns get weird, and 3.5 knew this and took it into account)

pwykersotz

2015-01-23, 01:16 PM

I enjoyed 3.5's system for creation while using it, but I've outgrown it now. Micromanaging small numbers to affect the greater whole appealed to the coder in me and it certainly was wonderful to put together something that just worked so well. Then the players killed it in about 15 minutes and it was done. I began to realize that all the micromanaging was being done for my own sake, not theirs.

I enjoyed the thought that it was "fair". I enjoyed the time I spent. But as time constraints began to creep into my life I got less and less fun out of building a swiss watch rather than a cheap plastic Walmart timer which would serve my same ends. What's more, it would let me focus on other elements of my game that my players would meaningfully interact with and create richer environments and stories.

And yeah, I've begun refluffing statblocks more often too. I think I felt unable to do that in 3.5 because the game was so broken by the time I got to it that an equal CR encounter never felt like a decent challenge, but if you picked from higher CR's the numbers got insane. Bounded accuracy is nice now. Maybe not quite perfect, but nice.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 01:17 PM

And yeah, I've begun refluffing statblocks more often too. I think I felt unable to do that in 3.5 because the game was so broken by the time I got to it that an equal CR encounter never felt like a decent challenge, but if you picked from higher CR's the numbers got insane. Bounded accuracy is nice now. Maybe not quite perfect, but nice.

Hey, I have nothing bad to say about bounded accuracy. When I'm talking about 3.5 monster rules, I'm talking strictly about an ability to extract useful PC stats from any given NPC stat block, to create consistency between PCs and NPCs. If I'm playing a winter wolf I don't want to be forced to be a medium-sized asthmatic runt; if I'm playing a pseudodragon I don't want to be forced to be a giant; if I'm playing a mind flayer I want to be a damn mind flayer, psionics and all. I accept that this will make me more powerful than a 1st-level elf or human or whatever, and I likewise would accept needing to start when the other PCs in the group are higher level to compensate.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 01:28 PM

And if I want to play a winter wolf? Large, quadrupedal, cold immunity, extra stealth in snow, pack tactics, at-will cold breath weapon, bite attack with a built-in trip. Strong, tough, agile, attentive, but not particularly bright. Silveralen would pigeonhole me into being a bipedal runt, but suppose my character concept doesn't have me as being a runt or magically able to walk on two feet and use my front paws like hands?

I never actually said you were bipedal.

Your theme apparently is "I want to have all the traits on the stat block". You can't be a different variant on winter wolf, or another type, you have to be that exact sort with those exact abilities. Which has nothing to do with RP.

Honestly, I'd say no to someone demanding specific stats on it because they aren't interested in RP.

Xetheral

2015-01-23, 01:39 PM

Remaining true to the MM bugbear's stats is a fool's errand because the theme of "bugbear" is sufficient.It depends on the group. For many I'd agree it's sufficient, but I'd consider it barely so. For some, the extra verisimilitude offered by avoiding mechanical dissonance between two ostensibly-identical creatures is valuable, even if it isn't strictly necessary.

Honestly, I'd say no to someone demanding specific stats on it because they aren't interested in RP.

Actually, in my experience the players most interested in the RP are also the players who find the mechanical disconnect most jarring. Admittedly, the sample size of my personal experience is necessarily small compared to the playerbase as a whole, but interest in RP and interest in extra verisimilitude are by no means mutually exclusive.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 01:55 PM

Your theme apparently is "I want to have all the traits on the stat block". You can't be a different variant on winter wolf, or another type, you have to be that exact sort with those exact abilities.

I want to be able to start with a typical example of my kind and work from there, the way I could in 3rd Edition. You're pigeonholing me into playing a runt, which is a problem if my character concept was, for example, a winter wolf barbarian champion come down from the cold mountain steppes seeing an artifact of my people that some bastard adventurers stole.

You don't require barbarian high elves to not develop their cantrips or seafaring dwarves to not have stonecunning; you shouldn't, for the same reason, force barbarian winter wolves to be Medium and develop asthma. This has everything to do with roleplaying - specifically you, as a DM, are forcing certain RP features onto me, as a player, that were not a part of my concept and might not make a lick of sense with them. If you want to deny the winter wolf outright than do so. But if you're going to let me play a winter wolf at all then let me play a damn winter wolf, not some asthmatic runt.

This is particularly the case with traits which are logically inborn verses traits which are logically cultural; or traits which would logically naturally develop verses traits which logically could be stunted depending on upbringing. For example, in 3rd Edition my default character was a human-raised dark elf named Iliira.

Being human-raised she lacked the drow +2 to Intelligence and Charisma - her mind was never tested enough growing up to develop that - but she retained elven dexterity and frailty. Her darkvision was shrunk to 60 ft. but she lost any kind of bright light penalties, because years in the sun had both negated its dazzling effects on her eyes and burn to her skin but had also, by drow standards, irreparably damaged them. The Drizzt origin trilogy showed that dark elf spell-like abilities are something that have to be taught and trained, so logically Iliira, growing up amongst humans, would not have been able to learn drow spell-like abilities (though it was possible she might be able to learn them later in life, but that was never a priority for me); similarly drow spell resistance is suggested to be weakened by sunlight, so she lost that, though she retained her inborn elven +2 racial bonus to Will saves against enchantments and immunity to sleep (but, as she never learned to trance, she herself still slept rather than trancing). She lost drow weapon proficiencies, having no one to teach them to her. She retained the inborn elven +2 bonus to Listen, Search, and Spot, but lost the elf ability to detect scret doors because Races of the Wild suggests that this is a cultural trait of elves and thereby drow. She gained human extra skill points due to being raised amongst humans (and as a partial "legacy" of her lost drow Intelligence bonus) but not the human bonus feat because that simply couldn't be taught apropos nothing. She didn't know Elven as an automatic language and gained the ability to select from any bonus language and any favored class, like a human. Finally she was still Medium and still had a base speed of 30 feet.

So in the end Iliira's racial traits were:
- +2 Dex, -2 Con
- Medium
- Base speed 30 ft.
- Darkvision 60 ft.
- 4 extra skill points at 1st level and 1 extra skill point each level thereafter.
- +2 bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.
- +2 racial bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells and effects, and immunity to sleep spells and effects.
- Automatic Language: Common. Bonus Languages: Any.
- Favored Class: Any
- Level Adjustment: +0. Iliira is no longer so markedly more powerful than PHB races that she requires an LA.

Now, conversely. If I'm playing a winter wolf barbarian come from the land of the ice and snow from the midnight sun where the hot springs flow, there is no reason why such a creature shouldn't still be large, shouldn't still have an at-will breath attack, and so on.

pwykersotz

2015-01-23, 01:56 PM

It depends on the group. For many I'd agree it's sufficient, but I'd consider it barely so. For some, the extra verisimilitude offered by avoiding mechanical dissonance between two ostensibly-identical creatures is valuable, even if it isn't strictly necessary.

Actually, in my experience the players most interested in the RP are also the players who find the mechanical disconnect most jarring. Admittedly, the sample size of my personal experience is necessarily small compared to the playerbase as a whole, but interest in RP and interest in extra verisimilitude are by no means mutually exclusive.

I agree with both of these. If I want to be a Bugbear, I want to be an actual Bugbear, not a refluffed Half-Orc. However, I hold HP exempt from this, as well as Proficiency Bonus. Keep those based on class level, and go ahead and take the substandard stat array and special abilities. I don't think it's too bad. Certainly some class options are far more swingy.

That said, I understand entirely why some people want a system to calculate these things. But it won't be happening. Monsters != Players in this edition.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-23, 01:57 PM

hawklost

2015-01-23, 01:59 PM

Actually, in my experience the players most interested in the RP are also the players who find the mechanical disconnect most jarring. Admittedly, the sample size of my personal experience is necessarily small compared to the playerbase as a whole, but interest in RP and interest in extra verisimilitude are by no means mutually exclusive.

As someone who both DMs a game and plays in a different game both in 5e. I appreciate from both sides of the screen that monsters are 'simple' and can be changed quickly.

Want a lower level caster than the one in the block? Drop their HP and possibly proficiency, drop some of their higher spells, Done.

Want a Giant Hamster instead of a Wolf attack someone? Change the trip ability to something else, modify stats slightly and be done.

Need a human who somehow has 2 heads? Look at the ettin specials and give the human some of them. Now he is resistant to charm effects and is still medium. Possibly increase CR and you are completely done, no need to level him up. You can do it for a Ruffian, a Peasant, a Knight a Noble. Any kind of NPC you want and be done real quick with different levels of stats.

obryn

2015-01-23, 02:00 PM

A result of too many +1s in 3rd Edition. At present players and DMs share many resources anyway - weapons, magic items, spells, the last granting access to a huge number of monsters and thereby monster abilities (i.e., planar binding can still net you a djinn, and in fact is arguably better now that it no longer has a CR/HD cap). It doesn't much matter whether Mordenkainen casts plane shift or his bound djinn does since either way it still gets cast....
Monsters shouldn't share spells, either. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I agree - big balance problems.

It's perfectly fine if the DM says "no, I don't want winter wolf PCs in the campaign," but a useful tool should exist for DMs who are okay with the idea.

(this extends to any powerful or unusual creature, like a hound archon, an illithid, a giant, a pseudodragon, etc. Some campaigns get weird, and 3.5 knew this and took it into account)
Why should such a tool exist? This is a really fringe concern, and page space should not be devoted to it.

It depends on the group. For many I'd agree it's sufficient, but I'd consider it barely so. For some, the extra verisimilitude offered by avoiding mechanical dissonance between two ostensibly-identical creatures is valuable, even if it isn't strictly necessary.
You're not an identical creature, though. You're Bunny the Bugbear Barbarian.

Mechanical consistency isn't the same as verisimilitude. I'd argue they're often at odds, personally.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 02:00 PM

Actually, in my experience the players most interested in the RP are also the players who find the mechanical disconnect most jarring. Admittedly, the sample size of my personal experience is necessarily small compared to the playerbase as a whole, but interest in RP and interest in extra verisimilitude are by no means mutually exclusive.

The problem I have is that they largely shouldn't be aware of any dissonance as a player. Many creatures I run get modified, meaning that two winter wolf enemies may not look exactly the same, so I fail to see why there character has to conform to a stat block mine does not. I actually had a variation on psuedo dragons that breathed elemental attacks instead of having a tail, yet they were still psuedo dragons and no one considered them to be a seperate species in universe.

The MM stat blocks are abstractions, every creature doesn't have the exact same abilities and its odd to think they should.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 02:06 PM

Actually, its in the DMG I think. I remember reading how to add Class Levels to monsters. There is a whole section on it in the 5e books.

Yes, but it leaves the final CR up in the air and purely DM fiat. Verses 3rd Edition, which gave you a concrete number to work with (while freely admitting that you as a DM would need to adjust it based on the circumstances). Annoyingly, 5th Edition doesn't even give you a concrete challenge rating based on class level anyway. A 5th level half-orc fighter's CR is determined by going through a multi-step process. A 7th-level elf wizard requires you to go over three books to arrive at its CR...

Why should such a tool exist? This is a really fringe concern, and page space should not be devoted to it.

We devoted page space to honor, sanity, carousing, madness, and frickin' laser beams. Don't try to pretend that an extra two pages for PC monster stats is more niche than any of those.

Mechanical consistency isn't the same as verisimilitude. I'd argue they're often at odds, personally.

I disagree wholeheartedly and take exactly the inverse position. If a creature is described as being "particularly stealthy", then it damn well better have a large Stealth bonus for its CR.

The MM stat blocks are abstractions, every creature doesn't have the exact same abilities and its odd to think they should.

Today is the day that I learned that not every red dragon has a fly speed and it's absurd to expect otherwise. Logically it's also absurd to assume that every high elf has cantrips and every barbarian has rage.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 02:18 PM

Today is the day that I learned that not every red dragon has a fly speed and it's absurd to expect otherwise. Logically it's also absurd to assume that every high elf has cantrips and every barbarian has rage.

It is absurd to expect them to all have the same version.

Afterall, wouldn't it seem odd if every single red dragon moved at exactly the same speed? Surely there would be some variance? One might be bigger and slightly slower, with more powerful attacks. You could also have one with a faster recharging breath weapon, but not as physically powerful.

Do you mean to tell me every dragon is identical to others of its own age with no variance? Such a campaign has no verisimilitude to be lost, unless cloning technology happens to popular.

Similarly, every elf knows a cantrip, not the same cantrip. Every barbarian can rage, but their actual rages will vary (totem barbarians and berserker have different rages mechanically, as do different types of totem barbarians).

It'd be silly and completely implausible if creatures were completely identical to one another.

Tvtyrant

2015-01-23, 02:22 PM

To the OP: My suggestion is to make your dungeons have more stuff. A bricked off door with a room full of skeletons behind it, a room with 4 statues and a rug where the rug comes alive and tries to eat the party, two torches by an unlocked door with one lit and one not. When you light the unlit torch a fireball goes off, etc.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 02:25 PM

It is absurd to expect them to all have the same version.

But it is not absurd to expect the Monster Manual to present the most basic, common version of a given monster. Sure, some dragons are faster, but that's not typical. Some dragons have a higher Strength score, but that's not typical. I expect and desire the Monster Manual to present the most basic and common version of a given monster from which to derive its basic statistics. Even if I wasn't concerned with PC playability at all I'd want it to do that. My absolute favorite line in the 3.5 Monster Manual is on page 7 under the Advancement header: "this book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found)." A line in the DMG identifies that every monster in the MM is build using 10s and 11s as basic ability scores, and any deviation from these numbers is a result of racial modifiers. The sole exception are monsters explicitly identified as belonging to some kind of class, such as goblins, which are built using the NPC array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, AKA 15-point buy).

This means that the behir on page 25 is to behirs what a 1st-level human commoner with 10 in everything is to humans. That is ****ing awesome to me as a DM because it allows me to logically extrapolate from those statistics what other behir should be like, while remaining consistent with the basic behir.

hawklost

2015-01-23, 02:28 PM

It is absurd to expect them to all have the same version.

Afterall, wouldn't it seem odd if every single red dragon moved at exactly the same speed? Surely there would be some variance? One might be bigger and slightly slower, with more powerful attacks. You could also have one with a faster recharging breath weapon, but not as physically powerful.

Do you mean to tell me every dragon is identical to others of its own age with no variance? Such a campaign has no verisimilitude to be lost, unless cloning technology happens to popular.

Similarly, every elf knows a cantrip, not the same cantrip. Every barbarian can rage, but their actual rages will vary (totem barbarians and berserker have different rages mechanically, as do different types of totem barbarians).

It'd be silly and completely implausible if creatures were completely identical to one another.

Why is it every Rogue can sneak attack? Why can't I build one who is just an awesome thief who can sneak in and take things or find traps?

Why is it every Wizard has to know 4 cantrips from their studies? Why can't I have a wizard who can cast more low level spells instead of gaining more high level spells? (I want to sacrifice a 3rd level slot for 2 first level ones!)

Why does every wizard never learn to wear medium armor? It would help them greatly

Why does the (enter X here) only have (Enter Y here)

The reason these are limited is because it is a game. They only have so much room for rules and only so much room for things like Monsters. the MM is to give people a place to look up generic versions of a monster. There is nothing in there saying a Dragon cannot be faster or slower, or smarter or stronger. It does not limit you unless you feel you can only take the stat blocks as-is.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 02:29 PM

But it is not absurd to expect the Monster Manual to present the most basic, common version of a given monster. Sure, some dragons are faster, but that's not typical. Some dragons have a higher Strength score, but that's not typical. I expect and desire the Monster Manual to present the most basic and common version of a given monster from which to derive its basic statistics.

So? A PC version of a character is not, by definition, the most common version. It shouldn't break verisimilitude for them to differ in certain ways, as presumably other members of their race differ as much.

Still, I dislike the idea any player feels they actually know what the "typical" abilities of a monster are in a campaign well enough to notice slight divergences. It reminds me of the behavoir of players who complain if a monster they fight isn't identical to its stat block. The player should accept that they honestly don't know alot of this player side, that it will vary.

If you ask to be a winter wolf and the stats I have list you as being resistant to ice, you should accept it, not immediately object that "that's not what winter wolves are" because, as the player, you literally do not know what their typical stats are in my campaign. You don't even know for a fact if a winter wolf you fought was typical. It could have been a winter wolf who was part dire wolf.

This is why DM/player transparency is bad. It should never even be assumed to exist because the DM creates the world and should not share every detail with the players.

Fwiffo86

2015-01-23, 02:36 PM

Yes, but it leaves the final CR up in the air and purely DM fiat. Verses 3rd Edition, which gave you a concrete number to work with (while freely admitting that you as a DM would need to adjust it based on the circumstances). Annoyingly, 5th Edition doesn't even give you a concrete challenge rating based on class level anyway. A 5th level half-orc fighter's CR is determined by going through a multi-step process. A 7th-level elf wizard requires you to go over three books to arrive at its CR...

Power in the hands of the DM. All I'm saying.

Why does this have to be a concrete rule anyway? Do we generally agree that needing to Revgineer a monster is only going to be occasionally useful or needed? If not, the system already places the power in your hands as DM to modify whatever you want.

I am not seeing enough of an issue to warrant needing this codified.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 02:36 PM

So? A PC version of a character is not, by definition, the most common version.

But the basic "high elf" racial template he used to make his high elf wizard is. Sure, some high elves probably have increased speed rather than a cantrip, but that's not typical, so that's not what is presented. It can be generally presumed that every high elf has a cantrip and is Medium-sized.

It should be possible to generally presume that every winter wolf is Large and has an at-will breath weapon.

Still, I dislike the idea any player feels they actually know what the "typical" abilities of a monster are in a campaign

Confirmed for hating the Ranger class...

well enough to notice slight divergences. It reminds me of the behavoir of players who complain if a monster they fighter isn't identical to its stat block. The player should accept that they honestly don't know alot of this player side, that it will vary.

If I'm fighting a Red dragon that my party's ranger has successfully identified as a Red dragon 'cause he's spent his whole life studying red dragons, but then that red dragon breathes out a line of lightning and is hurt by a falling torch, but we are absolutely, 100%, DM-confirmed still fighting a Red dragon, Imma be a little pissed off at someone even in-character. Deviating slightly from the norm is fine. Building an entirely different monster and then dressing it in a Red dragon-shaped suit and telling us that no, it totally is still a red dragon, is poor form.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 02:37 PM

I am not seeing enough of an issue to warrant needing this codified.

Again: Carousing, madness, sanity, honor, and frickin' laser beams. I am certain that monsters-as-PCs is no more niche than any one of those.

obryn

2015-01-23, 02:39 PM

We devoted page space to honor, sanity, carousing, madness, and frickin' laser beams. Don't try to pretend that an extra two pages for PC monster stats is more niche than any of those.
It would be considerably more, given that you'd need to revamp monsters, first.

But yes, I think more campaigns will include Buck Rogers ray guns than winter wolf PCs. And it's certainly an easier rules module to test and implement.

I disagree wholeheartedly and take exactly the inverse position. If a creature is described as being "particularly stealthy", then it damn well better have a large Stealth bonus for its CR.
That's neither here nor there with how you arrive at the final destination.

archaeo

2015-01-23, 02:50 PM

Again: Carousing, madness, sanity, honor, and frickin' laser beams. I am certain that monsters-as-PCs is no more niche than any one of those.

Is the section on creating races not enough? It lays out all the assumptions of what a race should be, offers cogent suggestions on how to mix-and-match mechanics, and gives a couple examples.

At worst, the only thing the system lacks is an easy way to make it possible for some players to play normal PCs, and some players to use monsters' stat blocks. Given that we know the assumptions of the CR system, however, it seems like you could just adapt the existing Moon Druid rules to figure out appropriately CR'd monsters for the players to use. In my campaign setting, the MacGuffins basically let you become dragons-in-all-but-name, and my plan would be to restrict players to the Moon Druid advancement and adjust the dragon statblocks accordingly, with a few exceptions where the players just get to be Ancient Gold Dragons fighting some absurd battles.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 02:51 PM

But the basic "high elf" racial template he used to make his high elf wizard is. Sure, some high elves probably have increased speed rather than a cantrip, but that's not typical, so that's not what is presented. It can be generally presumed that every high elf has a cantrip and is Medium-sized.

It should be possible to generally presume that every winter wolf is Large and has an at-will breath weapon.

Again, it doesn't matter. Typical winter wolfs don't adventure and get levels in character classes. The moment you ask to play a monster "typical" ceases to be the defining factor. You are abnormal by definition.

Confirmed for hating the Ranger class...

Ranger's have an ability to look through the monster manual/my notes at will? No? Yeah, didn't think so. They can know what is appropriate for a character, an extremely well versed one even. That doesn't mean they know the exact abilities, certainly they don't know the game statistics.

If I'm fighting a Red dragon that my party's ranger has successfully identified as a Red dragon 'cause he's spent his whole life studying red dragons, but then that red dragon breathes out a line of lightning and is hurt by a falling torch, but we are absolutely, 100%, DM-confirmed still fighting a Red dragon, Imma be a little pissed off at someone even in-character. Deviating slightly from the norm is fine. Building an entirely different monster and then dressing it in a Red dragon-shaped suit is poor form.

And when you kill it and finally decide to investigate it, you are shocked to discover someone cleverly painted a blue dragon red. Shame no one thought to make an investigation check to inspect it mid fight (ranger would have had advantage!)

Fun fact: that's actually a thing a DM did to my group once. It was hilarious, though obviously we needed spot checks back then and he used a white dragon to further annoy us (since everyone's instinctive reaction to red dragon=cold spells).

Players need to step back and remember they are players sometimes.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 03:08 PM

Again, it doesn't matter. Typical winter wolfs don't adventure and get levels in character classes. The moment you ask to play a monster "typical" ceases to be the defining factor. You are abnormal by definition.

Yes, but I see no particular reason why my barbarian winter wolf champion of his tribe out looking for a lost artifact (the tooth of a white dragon, perhaps) should be forced to be Medium and develop asthma and also run slower (forgot that part - base winter wolf speed is 50 feet but you're forcing me to be a dragonborn ripoff, so now I'm 20 feet slower to. How, exactly, am I the champion of my tribe when I am visibly so sucky compared to them? Weaker, slower, frailer, smaller, asthamtic, more vulnerable to cold...). This in particular stands in contrast to, say, a similar backstory for a half-orc. The half-orc PC showing up very well could be exemplary of his tribe because his statistics will actually support this.

Can you logic up an in-game reason? 'Cause I sure can't. It's entirely out-of-game: you are forcing me to play something that's balanced from level 1 when I don't necessarily want to be balanced at level 1. I wouldn't be suggesting this for a level 1 game, I'd be suggesting it for whenever it would be balanced for a new PC with basic Winter Wolf traits to show up.

Ranger's have an ability to look through the monster manual/my notes at will? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

I'm a 10th-level Ranger with a 20 Intelligence because I rolled well. I have advantage on Intelligence checks to recall information about dragons. My whole life I have been studying dragons, red dragons in particular If I roll a 20 - thereby getting a 25 on my Intelligence roll - then I better damn well be able both recall essentially anything I want to about red dragons in general and be able to easily determine any kind of differences in this dragon from the ones I am familair with. And fine, sure, let's throw in a 20 Wisdom (I rolled really well) and a 25 on my Insight check, too.

You're essentially arguing that an Egyptologist who's been studying Ancient Egypt for all his life, is fluent in hieratic and hieroglyphics, can name every single pharaoh and has written five 500-page books on the subject of ancient Egypt, should be flying nearly blind when entering a new Egyptian tomb. That's not the case. Even if he finds hieroglyphs he somehow isn't familiar with he'd be familiar enough with the language to extrapolate their meanings. Even if he found a mummy for a lost pharaoh he'd be able to read on the sarcophagus who it was and use the names of other pharaohs mentioned or the artwork depicted to determine what dynasty he most likely belonged to.

You're saying he shouldn't be surprised, and should simply expect it as a cost of doing business, when his Egyptian hieroglyphics-covered tomb filled with Egyptian artifacts and an Egyptian sarcophagus marked with rites to the Egyptian gods in which lies a traditionally wrapped Egyptian mummy, turns out to actually have been some dude from Mycenae that tripped and accidentally mummified himself.

And when you kill it and finally decide to investigate it, you are shocked to discover someone cleverly painted a white dragon red.

Ah-ah-ah, I specifically pointed out that the DM confirmed it was a Red dragon. And yes, I meant the species, stop being facetious. Hugely facetious, actually, since as we established this dragon was breathing lightning.

It would also be more hilarious if it weren't a "twist" as old as time. Pretty sure there was an Order of the Stick comic that did that...but even if it didn't it still shouldn't work because a white dragon's physical appearance is distinct from a red's in more ways than just color. That's like painting a flamingo black and white and trying to pass it off as an ostrich. I don't have ranks in Knowledge (birds) but I think I could still spot the difference...

Fwiffo86

2015-01-23, 03:15 PM

It's entirely out-of-game: you are forcing me to play something that's balanced from level 1 when I don't necessarily want to be balanced at level 1.

I believe here is your issue. If I am understanding this correctly, You don't want to be balanced against the rest of the party. You want rules to back your desire to be more powerful than the rest of the party. This is my interpretation of this statement.

I wouldn't be suggesting this for a level 1 game, I'd be suggesting it for whenever it would be balanced for a new PC with basic Winter Wolf traits to show up. If you're going to allow me to be a winter wolf at all

Continuing what I stated above, this sounds more like an attempt to guilt the target DM into allowing it, mixed with a thinly veiled justification to get what you want.

You seem to be forgetting that a monster with a CR is balanced against 4 characters, not 1. If anything, multiply the CR of the winterwolf by 3, and that I think, would give you an acceptable level for the rest of the party. This may be too high, depending. I am AFB, and cannot judge the stats of the WW at this time.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 03:25 PM

I believe here is your issue. If I am understanding this correctly, You don't want to be balanced against the rest of the party. You want rules to back your desire to be more powerful than the rest of the party. This is my interpretation of this statement.

I don't want to be balanced against a 1st-level party, but I also don't want to necessarily adventure alongside a 1st-level party; I want my winter wolf PC to show up at a level-appropriate time and then be able to advance from there to level up. For the sake of argument say that we somehow determined that a winter wolf is balanced against a normal PC character of level 6; I therefore want Irkutsk the Winter Wolf to make his first appearance when the rest of the party is level 6, and from there as the PCs gain levels I want a consistent mechanism by which Irkutsk can level up alongside and remain a balanced member of the party even as the, say, half-elf wizard reaches level 7, 9, 13, 17, and 20. Namely by taking a level in a PC class and beginning to advance from there. So for example, Winter Wolf Barbarian 1 = 7th level character, Winter Wolf Barbarian 5 = 11th level character, and so on.

Continuing what I stated above, this sounds more like an attempt to guilt the target DM into allowing it, mixed with a thinly veiled justification to get what you want.

The basic premise of this scenario must assume that the DM is willing to allow a Winter Wolf PC in the first place. My argument is that a Winter Wolf PC at its first possible appearance (again, for the sake of argument, level 6) should resemble the Monster Manual's version as much as possible (with allowances for having rolled up/point-bought/whatever different ability scores, but then those scores should be adjusted in a way that is consistant with the MM's Winter Wolf so that, for example, if I want to claim to be the "strongest in my pack" then I'd need a strength score of at least 19), under the assumption that the MM is presenting the most common statistics for a Winter Wolf. A Winter Wolf commoner, if you will. A Winter Wolf adventurer is going to be exceptional, but he'll be exceptional by taking levels in a PC class and improving on his base, just as an elf adventure is an improvement on an elf commoner.

You seem to be forgetting that a monster with a CR is balanced against 4 characters, not 1. If anything, multiply the CR of the winterwolf by 3, and that I think, would give you an acceptable level for the rest of the party. This may be too high, depending. I am AFB, and cannot judge the stats of the WW at this time.

That is a bit too high by my read (and for the record, again my "level 6" above was pulled apropos nothing and was used simply for example); but on the other hand I assure you I am remembering that. Again, I do not want to play a Winter Wolf that is balanced against 1st level elf PCs, but at the same time I don't expect such a Winter Wolf to be part of such a party in the first place anyway.

The Winter Wolf is just being used as an example, by the way; it could be replaced by any monster - psedodragon, sprite, rakshasa, illithid, orog, behir, hound archon, and so on.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 03:34 PM

Yes, but I see no particular reason why my barbarian winter wolf champion of his tribe out looking for a lost artifact (the tooth of a white dragon, perhaps) should be forced to be Medium and develop asthma and also run slower (forgot that part - base winter wolf speed is 50 feet but you're forcing me to be a dragonborn ripoff, so now I'm 20 feet slower to. How, exactly, am I the champion of my tribe when I am visibly so sucky compared to them?

Can you logic up an in-game reason? 'Cause I sure can't. It's entirely out-of-game: you are forcing me to play something that's balanced from level 1 when I don't necessarily want to be balanced at level 1. I wouldn't be suggesting this for a level 1 game, I'd be suggesting it for whenever it would be balanced for a new PC with basic Winter Wolf traits to show up.

You aren't the champion of your tribe with normal winter wolf stats anyways. You'd be normal and completely unimpressive.

Plus, who says your tribe of winter wolves resemble the MM? I didn't say that. You seemed to assume, but again you'd be wrong. Remember, you are the player, you know what the DM tells you. Turns out, your tribe is smarter than most winter wolves (who are wild unthinking animals in my campaigns typically) but not as physically impressive. Obviously you aren't going to roleplay a wild unthinking animal with your background, they can't even have religious artifacts, so you must be from the smarter but smaller variant :smallsmile:

Maybe this will help you understand how this should work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bYlxqWRe3M)

I'm a 10th-level Ranger with a 20 Intelligence because I rolled well. I have advantage on Intelligence checks to recall information about dragons. My whole life I have been studying dragons, red dragons in particular If I roll a 20 - thereby getting a 25 on my Intelligence roll - then I better damn well be able both recall essentially anything I want to about red dragons in general and be able to easily determine any kind of differences in this dragon from the ones I am familair with. And fine, sure, let's throw in a 20 Wisdom (I rolled really well) and a 25 on my Insight check, too.

Sure, then you have all information you could logically have. If it wasn't actually a red dragon, or was a atypical, you'd be able to tell. You wouldn't 100% know everything about it, but you'd know most general species related things.

That being said, whether or not it can cast spells is beyond your purview. What sort of combat techniques it favors, and indeed whether it knows some tricks most dragons don't employ, are beyond your scope of knowledge. You know things about the species, and can possibly judge some things about the individual, but you do not know everything about it. No amount of rolling will let you know its an 8th level sorcerer, or that it it has a special tail attack it perfected that knocks people down. It doesn't matter how well you roll, you couldn't know those things.

Ah-ah-ah, I specifically pointed out that the DM confirmed it was a Red dragon. And yes, I meant the species, stop being facetious. Hugely facetious, actually, since as we established this dragon was breathing lightning.

Your group had no way of knowing anything more than what you could see, and you saw a red dragon. So yes, it was a red dragon to you.

Yeah, the white dragon was from an old session I played actually, I corrected that above before you posted. Sorry, I tend to be edit happy.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 03:52 PM

You aren't the champion of your tribe with normal winter wolf stats anyways. You'd be normal and completely unimpressive.

As mentioned, the presumption is that the Monster Manual should represent completely typical members of a given race. As a PC I am, at the very least, entitled to roll/point buy/default array/whatever my stats, which should give me better scores than the typical winter wolves of the Monster Manual after racial adjustments. If the game followed any kind of sensible logic than the save DC for its breath weapon would be tied to one of those ability scores (probably CON following the 3rd Edition Winter Wolf, which...actually, yeah, CON totally works if we follow the 8 + Proficiency + Ability rule, since the Winter Wolf's proficiency bonus is +2 thanks to its CR) and so have a good chance at increasing depending on where I placed my scores.

Plus, who says your tribe of winter wolves resemble the MM? I didn't say that. You seemed to assume, but again you'd be wrong. Remember, you are the player, you know what the DM tells you. Turns out, your tribe is smarter than most winter wolves (who are wild unthinking animals in my campaigns typically)

You're entitled to do that, but understand that it's at-odds with the default assumptions of the game and has been since 2nd edition at least, which is the only thing worth debating. In my campaigns gunpowder is a standard thing - when I ran Red Hand of Doom I changed Ulwai Stormcaller to be a gunslinger, it was great - but I wouldn't ever come on the Internet and make proclamations based on the idea that gunpowder is a going thing in every world.

Maybe this will help you understand how this should work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bYlxqWRe3M)

Remind me never to play in your campaigns where ranks in Knowledge skills appear to be wasted skill points.

Your group had no way of knowing anything more than what you could see, and you saw a red dragon. So yes, it was a red dragon to you.

Well, again, if it's actually a member of one of the other dragon species I should be able to tell that with even a basic Intelligence check. Even beyond color, the physical appearance of a white dragon and a red dragon are as distinct as a flamingo and an ostritch (or, let's be fair, an ostritch and a rhea or an emu), and if I've spent my life studying them then I should be able to know the difference at a glance just as any ornithologist, but especially one specializing in ostriches, can tell the difference between ostriches, rheas, and emus at a glance.

Saying "ha-ha, no, it was a white dragon painted red!" to a draconologist is just a **** move, plain and simple.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 04:07 PM

You're entitled to do that, but understand that it's at-odds with the default assumptions of the game and has been since 2nd edition at least, which is the only thing worth debating. In my campaigns gunpowder is a standard thing, but I wouldn't ever come on the Internet and make proclomations based on the idea that gunpowder is a going thing in every world.

Winter wolves don't even have a a blurb this edition. So... no. There is no default. No idea how they acted in old editions, but in this one they are listed alongside the other wild animals, nothing to suggest they are any different.

Remind me never to play in your campaigns where ranks in Knowledge skills appear to be wasted skill points.

Knowledge skills are useful. Reading the MM front to back is much less so. Big difference. You roll well, I'll give you whatever info you could possibly have. Some of it you get regardless. But if you try to munchkin it up by reading the "official stats" out of a book, I will ensure it goes poorly for you.

Well, again, if it's actually a member of one of the other chromatic species I should be able to tell that with even a basic Intelligence check. Even beyond color, the physical appearance of a white dragon and a black dragon are as distinct as a flamingo and an ostritch (or, let's be fair, an ostritch and a rhea or an emu), and if I've spent my life studying them then I should be able to know the difference at a glance just as any ornithologist can tell the difference between the two species at a glance.

Saying "ha-ha, no, it was a white dragon painted red!" to a draconologist is just a **** move.

/shrug, We just saw a red dragon, and when cold spells didn't work we assumed it had a spell on it, then assumed it had a magic item when dispel magic failed. Never even occurred to us to check, and I am going to side with my old DM on not giving that information away unless somebody at least thought to ask (if they did, they'd roll. For a hunter who specialized in killing dragons it'd be an easy roll I imagine).

Imagine being chased down by a horde of emus disguised as ostriches trying to peck your eyes out and doing a good job. Even if the disguise is poor, you are a little preoccupied. It isn't a given you'll notice. Even for an expert. At least, imo. Now imagine both birds literally radiate an aura of fear and are higher on the food chain than you. Even obvious things can be overlooked.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 04:13 PM

Winter wolves don't even have a a blurb this edition.

What? Yes they do. They totally do. "The arctic-dwelling winter wolf is as large as a dire wolf but has snow-white fur and pale blue eyes. Frost giants use these evil creatures as guards and hunting companions, putting the wolves' deadly breath weapon to use against their foes. Winter wolves communicate with one another using growls and barks, but they speak Common and Giant well enough to follow simple conversations."

I mean, they're not building resorts or composing epics or anything or anything, but they speak their own language (Winter Wolf, it's listed right there, even made distinct from Worg, while creatures like apes, ravens, and killer whales are given no language), speak Common and Giant (also included in their languages section as well as their blurb), and have an Intelligence of 7, making them as intelligent as the typical orc. At best you could argue that they don't have a separate culture from Frost Giants by default since none is mentioned, but you cannot argue that they're unintelligent beasts by default.

Hell, exact wording even says speak Common and Giant well enough to follow simple conversations, so that means that by default a Winter Wolf can communicate with anyone who shares a language with them - no need to Chewbacca things up.

Other intelligent creatures (denoted by Intelligence of 3+ and a language) in that section include awakened shrubs, awakened trees, blink dogs, and worgs.

silveralen

2015-01-23, 04:25 PM

What? Yes they do. They totally do. "The arctic-dwelling winter wolf is as large as a dire wolf but has snow-white fur and pale blue eyes. Frost giants use these evil creatures as guards and hunting companions, putting the wolves' deadly breath weapon to use against their foes. Winter wolves communicate with one another using growls and barks, but they speak Common and Giant well enough to follow simple conversations."

I mean, they're not building resorts or composing epics or anything or anything, but they speak their own language (Winter Wolf, it's listed right there, even made distinct from Worg, while creatures like apes, ravens, and killer whales are given no language), speak Common and Giant (also included in their languages section as well as their blurb), and have an Intelligence of 7, making them as intelligent as the typical orc. At best you could argue that they don't have a separate culture from Frost Giants by default since none is mentioned, but you cannot argue that they're unintelligent beasts by default.

Yeah, completely overlooked that my bad! I assumed languages meant languages understood, the fact they apparently speak languages... eh.... I mean at this point no one gets to play a MM winter wolf at my table because they aren't going to be in my games. Same with worgs, since when have worgs been able to talk? But that's my table, and me disliking talking wolves.

Which is why DM/player transparency is bad. If you actually played at my table, you'd already be basing a character off something that outright doesn't exist in my game. It's one thing to tell you if the default options don't apply, but DMs shouldn't have to run through every MM entry for their players, to explain how each one is different in world.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 04:32 PM

Same with worgs, since when have worgs been able to talk?

Uh...since The Hobbit, when they were called wargs? The wargs could totally speak - they were the ones that trapped Gandalf and crew up in the tree in the book, there were no orcs or goblins - and in the book the Battle of the Five Armies is explicitly identified as Men, Elves, and Dwarves on one side against Goblins and Wargs (as a distinct force on their own) on the other.

Talakeal

2015-01-23, 04:40 PM

Why is it every Rogue can sneak attack? Why can't I build one who is just an awesome thief who can sneak in and take things or find traps?

Why is it every Wizard has to know 4 cantrips from their studies? Why can't I have a wizard who can cast more low level spells instead of gaining more high level spells? (I want to sacrifice a 3rd level slot for 2 first level ones!)

Why does every wizard never learn to wear medium armor? It would help them greatly

Why does the (enter X here) only have (Enter Y here)

The reason these are limited is because it is a game. They only have so much room for rules and only so much room for things like Monsters. the MM is to give people a place to look up generic versions of a monster. There is nothing in there saying a Dragon cannot be faster or slower, or smarter or stronger. It does not limit you unless you feel you can only take the stat blocks as-is.

Not all games. D&D is full of arbitrary restrictions and sacred cows. Many people think that is part of its charm. Other RPGs don't have similar baggage.

I don't want to be balanced against a 1st-level party, but I also don't want to necessarily adventure alongside a 1st-level party; I want my winter wolf PC to show up at a level-appropriate time and then be able to advance from there to level up. For the sake of argument say that we somehow determined that a winter wolf is balanced against a normal PC character of level 6; I therefore want Irkutsk the Winter Wolf to make his first appearance when the rest of the party is level 6, and from there as the PCs gain levels I want a consistent mechanism by which Irkutsk can level up alongside and remain a balanced member of the party even as the, say, half-elf wizard reaches level 7, 9, 13, 17, and 20. Namely by taking a level in a PC class and beginning to advance from there. So for example, Winter Wolf Barbarian 1 = 7th level character, Winter Wolf Barbarian 5 = 11th level character, and so on.

The basic premise of this scenario must assume that the DM is willing to allow a Winter Wolf PC in the first place. My argument is that a Winter Wolf PC at its first possible appearance (again, for the sake of argument, level 6) should resemble the Monster Manual's version as much as possible (with allowances for having rolled up/point-bought/whatever different ability scores, but then those scores should be adjusted in a way that is consistant with the MM's Winter Wolf so that, for example, if I want to claim to be the "strongest in my pack" then I'd need a strength score of at least 19), under the assumption that the MM is presenting the most common statistics for a Winter Wolf. A Winter Wolf commoner, if you will. A Winter Wolf adventurer is going to be exceptional, but he'll be exceptional by taking levels in a PC class and improving on his base, just as an elf adventure is an improvement on an elf commoner.

That is a bit too high by my read (and for the record, again my "level 6" above was pulled apropos nothing and was used simply for example); but on the other hand I assure you I am remembering that. Again, I do not want to play a Winter Wolf that is balanced against 1st level elf PCs, but at the same time I don't expect such a Winter Wolf to be part of such a party in the first place anyway.

The Winter Wolf is just being used as an example, by the way; it could be replaced by any monster - psedodragon, sprite, rakshasa, illithid, orog, behir, hound archon, and so on.

While I agree with you overall, it would be nice if there was a way to play nonhuman creatures at lower levels, something akin to Savage Species system. If I want to play a winter wolf I don't like having to sit out or play a placeholder character for the first five levels of the campaign.

obryn

2015-01-23, 05:28 PM

One player in Gygax's campaign had a Balrog PC starting from 1st level. They apparently homebrewed up a custom class for it, so it could start on even footing.

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-23, 09:08 PM

While I agree with you overall, it would be nice if there was a way to play nonhuman creatures at lower levels, something akin to Savage Species system. If I want to play a winter wolf I don't like having to sit out or play a placeholder character for the first five levels of the campaign.

I definitely concur, I'd love a Savage Species splat as a way to "grow into" a normal monster, if necessary. What I don't want is to be forced to play a dragonborn but then told that no I'm totally a winter wolf.

Which is why DM/player transparency is bad. If you actually played at my table, you'd already be basing a character off something that outright doesn't exist in my game. It's one thing to tell you if the default options don't apply, but DMs shouldn't have to run through every MM entry for their players, to explain how each one is different in world.

I'm going to disagree here. If I'm running around in a world where halflings are cannibals; or drow live above ground in tribal structures and worship scorpions; or centaurs are a major facet of the world and a playable race, I expect to be told this up-front. Sure, some things should be kept secret for surprise value, but it'd be a **** move for a DM to create an entirely underdark campaign world where the surface is a barely-survivable frozen wasteland with naught but postapocalyptic barbarian tribes, and all the campaign is mostly going to take place in the Underdark cities of drow and duergar and svirfneblin and so on, and not tell the players this up-front.

...The Night Below, I called it, by the way, after the old 2E module. It was awesome. Admittedly the players started on the surface as adventurer-explorers of frozen kingdom wastes, but I told them ahead of time that their racial options included hill, mountain, and deep dwarves, dark elves, svirfneblin, orcs, kobolds, grimlocks, and drokah, a custom race that was half-drow/half-orc. Similarly I told them that any other kind of elf, gnome, halfling, dwarf, or human was out.