Based on a long and really interesting discussion I got to thinking about two big problems with D&D, and an interesting patch to both.
First, there are a lot of cool monsters in D&D, but more than three-quarters of them will smash, incinerate, petrify or disintegrate a first level character more or less on their initiative, right off the starting line. It leaves a lot of DMs frustrated at having to populate everything with some form of rat or giant spider, which is no fun for anyone. People want to fight dragons, beholders, umber hulks, medusas...that sort of thing, but just can't. Not for a long time. That stinks.
Second, books like Savage Species and others have started what I consider an infuriating and obnoxious habit of turning monsters into classes. See, you can't play one as is right off the bat, so you get a powered down version of one to grow into as you level. Seems like an okay premise, but what are these critters? It's not that the monsters are baby monsters growing into grown up monsters. It's not that they're inexperienced monsters learning the ropes. It's just bald naked mechanics to let cheeseball characters fly, and let people play stuff they ain't got no right playing--to the detriment of the setting. These leveling creatures never exist in the world unless they're being played as PCs. It's just tacky and galling.
So we got talking. What if the average monster in the world WAS the 1st level PC version? What if that was the standard? When you fight a minotaur, you're really fighting a level one minotaur. Then as the levels get higher you come up with exotic names for the creatures as their powers increase. They are more powerful, and likely rarer subspecies--whole different creatures from the original. That way monsters aren't classes, but the classes can be used to represent a whole range of powerscaled monsters from first level to epic (or however far the individual progression goes).
The major criticism I got for it was what about iconic creatures whose signiture powers are so inherant that they can't be stripped without losing the whole flavor of the creature (like giants, or terrasques, or dragons, for example). My thought here was to create lesser creatures of the same ilk as these creatures, the same sort of thing but scaled low enough that they could be common low level badguys. Something like a Pathfinder fire drake for example, but no bigger than a mountain lion. It has scales, but nothing like a dragon--claws, teeth, the ability to fly and breathe gouts of flame. But it deals cougar type damage with its natural weapons and it's breath weapon does 0-1st level spell type damage (1d3-1d6). Instead of giants you could have different flavors of crazy ogre-kin or half-giant types with cultures heavily influenced and flavored by the true giant cultures but with their own spin and much more reasonable abilities on par with a low level adventurer. That sort of thing.
Now granted, we cooked this idea up at something like four in the morning, but I thought I would toss it out there and see what people think of it. I am really liking this. I wondered what all of you thought. I might actually take this idea for a spin here sometime when I run a homebrew game.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, interesting.
Now I don't remember Savage Species for certain, but I know later monster classes listed a CR for each 'level'
I happened to like the 'immature' monsters the advancement charts gave. As for the low level outsiders I always imagined them the freaks.
The problem is that levels come so fast that it's just weird to think of creatures growing up at that kind of crazy frantic rate. I mean jeez, critters would age a whole category in the space of a game session or two. That's just crazy. Plus it's really uneven. I could see not two fighters progressing at different rates because one guy is always on the front lines and the other stays in town telling old war stories for drinks at the tavern. But a monster? Does time go faster when you're adventuring hard? Just doesn't make no sense.
On the other hand, I like the idea that there's all sorts of different creatures that run the whole range of challenge ratings. Some of them have fewer abilities, some of them have more. Then if people want to play a certain kind of creature--they can play the real creature rather than some hobbled version nerfed for game balance.
Just a thought.
(Oh and I can't wait for 4e to finally dispense once and for all with the arbitrary system of CR vs. ECL. I like the idea that a creature with a CR of 1 is equivalent to a 1st level character. The whole "4 adventurers of x level would have to expend 50% of their resources to overcome a creature of their CR" is just dumb. I'm so glad to see it gone. Can I just tell you?)
It would work out for a lycanthrope, I think - levels representing getting accustomed to your new abilities.
Otherwise, I think that these monster levels are a crutch. As I see it, higher ECL creatures should be used to replace higher-level characters. Having a level 4 party, one member dies? Take a creature that is ECL 4 in its "natural" or "full-grown" state, instead of a normal character, and there you go again.
You might consider keeping track of monster levels separately of the class levels, so monsters might have two separate xp tallies. This would require some work to implement. So, you might take an ogre level 2/fighter level 2. This would require 1000 xp for the "ogre class" and 1000 xp for the fighter, as normal. This way, you could use the progressions from Savage Species without the strange effects this causes.
Depending on the creature in question, you might just decide to do away with "creature xp" and judge it based on your common sense - perhaps starting at a certain age as level 1 monster and granting one monster level every year (or whatever seems appropriate - Drow might need ten years game time to gain a monster level.)
(and yes, the CR system does not work - a 21st level commoner is not equal to a 20th level barbarian, or demons or devil of CR 20. Time to get rid of it. It was meant as a help for the DM, but did not work out.)
Stefan
Grimcleaver, while I am fully aware that you don't buy the premise (and I have to sort of agree with you), Savage Species did present the Monster Classes as a way to "lessen" classic monsters to put them up against PCs. And, it too, presented the "less than normal" critters as younger, still growing, critters.
It just so happened (and may have been the real intent) that the Monster Classes allowed PCs to play "cool new races." (A preview, perhaps, of things to come? It might have been.)
Bear in mind, that the XP for PC design has always been fundamentally meant as a far faster progression than "normal." While a Ghaele <sp?> PC might fully develop in a year (not a very good image, granted), the "normal Ghaele <sp?>" would take many years to develop.
((The basic idea fell short in Draconomicon as well. XP to years, and years to XP doesn't work very well as a concept. But there isn't much else to break out of the Human/Dwarf/Elf/etc. mold. YMMV.))
Low level campaigns are a challenge.
That is part of the fun of low level games.
They require the DM to be clever.
Personally I don't want a watered down version of a Medusa or whatever in my games worlds - I think they break the "sense" of the world - all of these monsters running around and more serious versions and more - they would be filling each others niche.
IMO that is part of the fun and challenge of creating a game world.
Having said that I agree withh the monster classes thing.
I don't like monsters as PCs.
And while I wouldn't disallow it - I would strongly discourage it.
My two cents.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
One of the intangible rewards to playing a character who's reached a certain level in D&D is the "welcome to the big leagues" jolt of confronting things like manticores and minotaurs, that would have ground the PC into paste two levels earlier.
That goes away, I think, if the PC has been fighting mini-minotaurs and junior-grade beholders, and tarrasquelings since Level 1.
It would be much easier to just start the PCs at a higher level rather than trying to dumb down every single monster.
And I don't really see the point. A Beholder tweaked to be a challenge for 1st level characters is not a beholder, it's a giant rat in beholder form.
One of the intangible rewards to playing a character who's reached a certain level in D&D is the "welcome to the big leagues" jolt of confronting things like manticores and minotaurs, that would have ground the PC into paste two levels earlier.
That goes away, I think, if the PC has been fighting mini-minotaurs and junior-grade beholders, and tarrasquelings since Level 1.
Could'nt have put it better myself.
Weaker versions of powerful monsters watered down so 1st level characters can handle them takes something away from them.
Also if the party is fighting whimpy versions of Chimeras at 1st level..once the meet a "real" Chimera they could get themselves killed thinking its just another push over monster they whooped up 5 levels ago.
Plus its nice to throw a twist into the game so a monster is something never encountered before or it has a weird varient.
But its good for monsters to remain consistant so players learn.
As a DM I get very proud of my players when they encounter Displacer Beasts for the 2nd time and know what they are up against and what poers they have and change their tactics accordingly.
Sometimes a DM wants there to be a serious threat looming over the next hill that is a Dragon. Now the PCs know that the threat is a dragon, but the DM wants it to be a challange for later, and the PCs remember the last dragon they fought was a dumbed down version; and just go running in wontoningly. And that is how TPKs happen.
Though to play devils advocate this idea has merit and has been done in some forms already. But certain monsters can't be lowered without making them not those monsters. A medusa that can't turn people into stone is well, just a girl with snakes in her hair. Lower level beholder? Look to beholder kin. Want to make a 1/2 savage species level troll go ahead but just make him smaller and grey. Etc etc. Changing the discription is fine (even great in the right circumstances).
Make a giant's undead hand attack the party and give it the stats and abilites of a giant rat.
Make the old woman in the woods have the same stats and abilites as a giant frog.
Make a pile of intestines have the stats and abilites of an assasin vine.
Enjoy that look on their faces.
What if the average monster in the world WAS the 1st level PC version? What if that was the standard?
I really like the idea behind that. Not all the monsters would have to be CR 1 monsters, they could be spread out over a spectrum of CR 1/8 (nearly harmless) to CR 3 (final boss). This sort of thing would definitely be useful to those DMs that prefer the mechanics of low level play. They could run epic-fantasy encounters with the low level characters.
I personally like the system as it is, with some monsters just being out of the PC's league at the start, however I can definitely see a certain style of campaign that would benefit from the suggested treatment of monsters.
Changing the discription is fine (even great in the right circumstances).
Make a giant's undead hand attack the party and give it the stats and abilites of a giant rat.
Make the old woman in the woods have the same stats and abilites as a giant frog.
Make a pile of intestines have the stats and abilites of an assasin vine.
Enjoy that look on their faces.
Interstesting, this is cool.
Definately going to use this in my low-level game.
Heh.
I think I could try to explain, but the trouble is--I think you all get it and just hate it. That's really okay. I think I just done got run over by D&D culture.
The wierd thing is new critters are cropping up all the time to fill the "weaker version of popular monster X" niche.
I don't see these creatures as "not the monsters they were" though. I mean, really what's the in game difference between a medusa who turns you to stone on a DC 10 and without the +3 natural armor and the full version? The beholder, for example, wouldn't be a rat--but probably would just have thinner hide, a lower damage bite, and a new suite of eye rays that weren't so outright deadly (this one's easy since beholders already have like 50 subtypes anyway).
I think a lot of monsters get their stats inflated beyond where they should be--just to artificially make them a tougher challenge for higher level parties. They could stay just as they are, or work even better with their descriptions, if they were closer to the baseline. Manticore falls here. He's a lion with a guy face and a stinger. Give a lion a monsterous scorpion stinger and what you get is a creature much closer to the concept--the launchy spikes and uber beefiness are conceits to the dungeon and to creating a CR 5 creature.
Mostly though I think a lot of you guys correctly diagnosed where all of this really comes from. I'm frustrated with the idea as PC's as weird hobbled monsters that don't fit anywhere in the setting and would rather see a PC minotaur who's a big guy with first level abilities plus his normal levels if that's what a minotaur in the setting is usually like. I'd like a setting where things are more consistant and my players have the option of playing stuff that's balanced for a character without having to create something that doesn't exist anywhere else in the setting. Personally I'd be interested to take the Savage Species level one Minotaur and toss four levels (I think that's right) of barbarian on him and see how he stacks against the original.
Sorry, in the light of a new day, I think I still like the idea. Not for every game--for a lot of the reasons you've mentioned about established setting integrity--but certainly I think it would be a nice twist to a new homebrew setting.
Kept.
I can't say I'm thrilled at this idea. My base reaction is that you would either end up with WoW monsters (okay, this is essentially the same type of thing you've been fighting before, except a little bigger, red instead of blue, and is has a rend attack now!) or (and this sound more like the angle you're going after) just lots and lots of very similar monsters that really aren't the same at all. In which case... what's the point? That's kinda what happens now, to a certain extent. Want a monster that produces threat X at CR Y? If it doesn't exist, make it. They often are even thematically linked to their "bigger" versions (i.e., many dragon-like creatures which produce dragon-like threats at low levels look very similar to the full-blown version; also, many undead look very similar, despite the actual relation of their CR).
Another thing is that one of the biggest perks of the leveling system is access not only to new powers for you to use, but new powers for enemies to use (and thus scenarios and tactics which weren't really possible at lower levels). Look at the Elder Scrolls, Oblivion in particular: you get nothing new as you go up in level. Whatever abilities you start with are more or less the ones you finish with. The incentive to actually level up is much less, especially if all your foes are keeping abreast of you. There's no "real" power increase, so why level?
Now, of course that's not what you're proposing here, since you're only altering the enemies and not the PCs. Yet it seems similar to the above concept in that it appears as a much more homogenous, formulaic approach that doesn't strike me as being nearly as interesting as what currently exists.
Just my 2cp.
I don't mind the idea of making teenage minotaurs, frostgiants, illithid or others. I actually like the prom queen version of the medusa.
I was just warning against making iconic and rare into mundane and odd.
"Billy we got another CR 4 mini-tarrasque out in the garbage again. Get yer bow and wake up pa."
I know I'm going overboard on the example but its funny to think of a 4' tarrasque. Ok that one you can make hehhehehe.
One suggestion I have not seen here is just making the monster available when the average level of the party is now appropriate. So in my campaign one could not be a half-celestial or Centaur until the party had gotten to a higher level.
Now if your players rarely die this might not work because you need access to a racial template at low level. In my game this is not a problem. Access to cool new races is sort of the silver lining on the fact that Jeremy has killed your character yet again.
I can't say I'm thrilled at this idea. My base reaction is that you would either end up with WoW monsters (okay, this is essentially the same type of thing you've been fighting before, except a little bigger, red instead of blue, and is has a rend attack now!) or (and this sound more like the angle you're going after) just lots and lots of very similar monsters that really aren't the same at all. In which case... what's the point? That's kinda what happens now, to a certain extent. Want a monster that produces threat X at CR Y? If it doesn't exist, make it. They often are even thematically linked to their "bigger" versions (i.e., many dragon-like creatures which produce dragon-like threats at low levels look very similar to the full-blown version; also, many undead look very similar, despite the actual relation of their CR).
I think I'm splitting the difference between these two. It's not about having a "red one" versus a "blue one" but about being able to have more variety of monsters across all levels. I think what kills MMO monsters is not the variety, it's that the whole purpose of the game is charging up to them, killing them, looting them and getting XP. That will make any creature dull. While I would hope to make my Dusk Minotaurs or Swamp Minotaurs or whatever different and unique (I'd say about as different from each other as two different colors of dragon or two different breeds of giant is what I'm shooting for) I want them all to read as minotaurs and to add to the meat and story of the game.
I want them as options, not so much as grindage farm fodder. I think therein lies their salvation.Another thing is that one of the biggest perks of the leveling system is access not only to new powers for you to use, but new powers for enemies to use (and thus scenarios and tactics which weren't really possible at lower levels).
Not sure where you're coming from here. Characters will still level. A troll PC (heaven help him) will continue to get levels in cleric or bard or whatever he is (Troll bard, heh.) So you get access to the same array of powers as a regular PC. You just don't have to pick between the two unappealing options of either waiting for the game to reach 5th level before you can play something exotic if that strikes you--or having to play a mechanically optimized, but totally out of whack with the setting, morph-o-monster that gains abilities as it levels. Now if someone wants to play a first level centaur they just do and they're playing something that really exists in the world rather than some ramped down version that doesn't. Seems pretty straight-forward and elegant to me.
Now, of course that's not what you're proposing here, since you're only altering the enemies and not the PCs. Yet it seems similar to the above concept in that it appears as a much more homogenous, formulaic approach that doesn't strike me as being nearly as interesting as what currently exists.
Eh. I kind of am. I'm really altering both to bring them in synch with each other, so that PC troglodytes and Monster troglodytes aren't mysteriously totally different creatures from totally different worlds. They're the same. A troglodyte IS the race the character is playing and is the same as the critters out in the swamp. So now everything works by the same rules and lives in the same world without loopy adaption rules even being necessary.
That said, I don't imagine that once characters hit level two I'm going to magically replace all 1st level monsters with 2nd level monsters. I hate that video gamey crud. It's not going to be that homogenous. It's more options on the table. That's it. You might run into a tribe of 1 CR ogres at 10th level--or a full blown beholder at 4th and have to run. It's just now you can use anything at any level rather than having to storm rat infested sewer #23 for your whole low level career. Some people might love that, but I think it limits the stories you can tell too much. I would like some more breathing room to use interesting opponents earlier. Much earlier.
I don't mind the idea of making teenage minotaurs, frostgiants, illithid or others. I actually like the prom queen version of the medusa.
Ugh. I don't. I would rather have another kind of medusa (they already have a Greater Medusa, after all) that has nonpoisonous snakes, thinner scales and a weaker gaze attack rather than have the kind of cumbersome awful "age category" thing dragons get. Variety is cool, strange mutation of monsters into "grown up" versions is kinda' not.
I was just warning against making iconic and rare into mundane and odd.
"Billy we got another CR 4 mini-tarrasque out in the garbage again. Get yer bow and wake up pa."
I know I'm going overboard on the example but its funny to think of a 4' tarrasque. Ok that one you can make hehhehehe.
Yeah, I've totally got you here. This is not something I'm looking to apply everywhere indiscriminantly. Mostly it's just an opportunity to integrate a mechanic I've always hated so material I couldn't use before not only becomes useable but awesomely precious. Now I can use all those tables of evolving creatures as a list of variant creatures rather than grumbling and tossing them.
I do think the idea of something that's got the Tarrasque feel, but more reasonable scale and abilities could be a fun race. I actually really do like the idea of little Rasquelings in the garbage--that's just fun. They probably wouldn't bear any more relation to the world-eating cosmic horror Terrasque than a Mind Flayer does to Cthuhlu, but I love the idea of something that shares a lot of that personality, but is totally different out there in an unexpected niche. I dig that kind of freedom.
One suggestion I have not seen here is just making the monster available when the average level of the party is now appropriate. So in my campaign one could not be a half-celestial or Centaur until the party had gotten to a higher level.
Yeah, that's pretty much how we've always run things standard. Basically we just use the Monster Manual CRs as ECL to avoid a lot of weirdness.
The real trouble here is monsters as classes and what to do about them. Up until last night the idea was systematically attempt to destroy every reference to them in every book I see until everyone forgets they exist. Hasn't been working too well. Then it came up in a conversation that this could kill two birds with one stone--give more variety to monsters out there and let players play THEM instead of having the low-level ones be strange freaks that are only ever PCs, and never show up in the wild.
|
This isn't a bad idea. At least, depending on how it is implemented. In my personal opinion, there should be 'lesser versions' of common monsters. Not too long ago I had a party of mine fight a Roc - in it's nest. I put in 'baby rocs' which were much weaker versions. They were reduced to large size - there stats ended up being very similar to the 'Thunder Birds' from the Savage Tide adventure path - and they worked great.
The thing is, some monsters won't scale all the way down to first level. But there should be 'juvenile' versions of the standard creatures. It is a ton of work to work them out, though. I'd personally love to see a quick version of each creature from 1HD to the maximum HD (for creatures that advance by HD). The 'standard' version seems to be the 'mature' version, while older ones get bigger, and presumably smaller ones should be younger.
In any case, I don't think that there need to be the creation of a lot of lesser 'subraces' of each creature. It's more work without more consistency. I mean, if there are a whole bunch of CR 1 hydras out there, where do they live? When the PCs encounter one, is there a strong likelihood that just a couple hundred yards away is a CR 9 Hydra? And if the creatures are hanging out with the greater versions of themselves, why aren't they being destroyed? I mean, if you think of a cheetah as a lesser lion, we know that lions will kill cheetah cubs. So sub-races wouldn't make a lot of sense. But 'young versions' would.
|
I like this Thread -- hopefully I'll be able to make the time to really get into it. Here's my initial thoughts after browsing,
The initial problem you had, Grim, was that your 1st & 2nd level PCs could only fight big spiders, rats, and an occassional skeliton, and the solution is to "water down" the iconic monsters which, unfortunately, makes the game more mundane. How about, instead of making a Quen of May Medusa, make cooler 1st & 2nd level monsters. Spend time reinventing the wheel of low level BBEGs. It can be done: look at the Pathfinder goblin.
Second: Savage Species may not be your favorite but it is a great book -- conceptually. It's the first of its kind and (especially as 3.0) is naturally quite raw. Of course it needs development but it gives us a new way to look at monsters. Now, I'm with the roleplayers here in that I don't, won't, allow my players to run monsters -- that's friggin stupid. But it's good that designers are working on monster progression. And hey, it is fun, once a year or so, for just a one-nighter, to let everyone run a monster in an over-the-top game. Just not a campaign, and Savage Species gives us a way to do that.
Back to the problem. For those that like the "maturing monster," fine, use it, but man, it just feels dumb to me. As does a "green medusa" and "red medusa" for that matter -- sure, it works with an occassional monster when there is a developed background/ecology, such as Slaadi. But to do this for all or even most monsters, yuch. Further, it is so incredibly stupid to have those baby age categories for dragons! "Look, a pony-sized green DRAGON! Aaahhh!" And this is the problem the Thread brings to light. We want dragons but we can't fight them until high levels. My opinion, BIG DEAL. You guys want to fight a dragon? Wait 'till your APL 16 then we'll talk. I ain't making some soft-ass, My Little Pony Red Dragon with pig tails and a Hello Kitty purse just so you can fight a Dragon at APL 7!
-W. E. Ray
|
|
I think making the book Minotaur a standard 1st level Minotaur with its own progression is not unlike having "color" levels to medusae, Red mudusa, Green Medusa, etc. Again, it's good for a few monsters but if you do this with all or most monsters it will ruin it. Not only that, think of the mechanics you have to come up with as DM. Face it, after 3 or 4 monters you're ideas for progression are going to get stale.
When the PCs are APL 1 let them face Pathfinder goblins. As you say, they aren't there for very long so don't worry about the fact that there's only a few low-level BBEGs. When the PCs are a little stronger, let them fight minotaurs. When they're stronger, still, don't progress the minotaur, let 'em fight a {i]real[/i]dragon.
I know this is like saying that the hours long discussion you and your group had was for no reason, but, um....
There's a couple of fantastic points made earlier in the Thread that I want to point out before I finish,
A Beholder tweaked to be a challenge for 1st level characters is not a beholder, it's a giant rat in beholder form.
Thus,
Low level campaigns are a challenge.
They require the DM to be clever.
-W. E. Ray
I dunno. All I can do is try it out and see if it ends up being as pathetic and lame as everyone seems sure it will unavoidably be. I can't see how more options and room to play with things is so doomed to be stale and dumb, but I guess time will tell.
Really not trying to do the immature/teenage monster thing. Really, really not. Hopefully when it's all said and done it won't be the "red medusa" thing either (unless what's meant by that is "different from each other in the same cool ways that a red dragon is different from a blue dragon...which it isn't).
It really could have been cool to explore the idea, and to shoot around some options. Shame. It feels like all that's happened here is the idea getting the crud kicked out of it a bunch by a whole lot of people....
Anyhow I'll play it through and call in the verdict. Maybe it'll suck. Maybe it won't. Right now that's really all I can say.
I don´t think the idea is lame. It just requires a lot of work to implement, and the success is (obviously) open to debate. Seems most folks here are loath to put the required amount of work into this concept. I like the basic idea of more variety in monsters, the MMs give the progression up since 3.0. But toning down won´t work for all monsters. As somebody said somewhere in the past, you can´t turn a demon prince into a teddy bear without the whole thing getting ridiculous.
Toning down ogres, minotaurs, trolls and similar melee oriented creatures should not be too hard, but creatures with magical abilities, like medusae or beholders, will be more difficult. And, as said before, they might not be downgradeable beyond a certain point.
Stefan
I think a lot of monsters get their stats inflated beyond where they should be--just to artificially make them a tougher challenge for higher level parties. They could stay just as they are, or work even better with their descriptions, if they were closer to the baseline.
I agree with you on this, Grimcleaver. I think a lot of monsters (like Mind Flayers) get 'buffed up' in terms of HD. I understand they're meant to be 'boss monsters' with enough hp that one swing doesn't kill them, but I see them more like Star Trek- everyone is about as tough as each other (Klingons probably get a Con bonus for their lumpy foreheads) but their personalities are what make them dangerous.
So Mind Flayers have massive psionic powers? Why not just make them 1HD critters with some psionic-like abilities and Psion as their favoured class? Or is it that important to have them with 7HD so that when your fighter (finally) hacks them down, they suddenly become a massively powerful Medium Zombie, much more scary than a human one, even though the body type is about the same (human are beefier, by the pictures)?
Or am I going to get in trouble for suggesting that one of the non-SRD sacred cows- Illithids- is changed?
Or am I going to get in trouble for suggesting that one of the non-SRD sacred cows- Illithids- is changed?
Why would you? I always thought playing illithids as a mutated experiment gone horribly wrong *cough* Akira *cough* could be fun. :)
|
|
There is an argument for that sort of appoach, especially with intelligent monsters like mindflayers. But creating and levelling up NPCs is HARD WORK, which is a good reason for using out-of-the-box baddies and monsters of the appropriate CR.
I would suggest that the issue is not the CRs of the monsters, and whether we need "modular" mosters which can be reduced or elevated as necessary, but the fact that a lot of the lower level monsters are a bit samey - humanoids of one kind or another. There may be a lack of variety of suitable mosters that are not orcs or goblins for the players to face. Fighting what is basically a human, only green, is not that fantastically memorable an achievement.
In the flip side, I don't really see why lvl 1 PCs might feel an entitlement to go toe-to-toe with the tarrasque-lite. Everyone has to start somewhere. It is a fundamental issue with the level-based system that some monsters are just too tough for low level characters, and the sort of accidental heroics where the farmboy (HP 4, BAB +0) kills the dragon (HP 200 (on the conservative side), BAB +18) are just ridiculously unlikely, if not impossible, under such a system. I can see where Grimcleaver is coming from, but unless soemone comes up with monsters that are interesting, compelling and different, I don't see that changing much. And anything that is CR1 or 2 is always going to be considered a push-over.
So the initial comment might be a call for a different sort of system, where random effects can have a much bigger effect on play (a bit like RQ, where your hit points don't really move at all as you advance, and a crit in the head will kill just about anything).
Fighting what is basically a human, only green, is not that fantastically memorable an achievement.
And that is exactly why humanoid races need more defined personalities and cultures; not just so there's an aesthetic difference between them, but the whole feel of an encounter with goblins is totally different than an encounter with gnolls or orcs or even human bandits. Someone mentioned Pathfinder above, and I think it's a great example. It took goblins, didn't mess with their stats at all, and made them into something both fun and terrifying at the same time. Those little buggers are not just a walking stat block and chunck of XP waiting to be claimed!
Likewise, I don't see why low-level, even 1st level, adventures (and the monsteres therein) need to be staid and boring. Even before burnt offerings, things like the Whispering Cairn provided a really inspired approach to 1st level dungeons and adventures.
I suppose that for many of us who have detracted from the idea proposed, we see it as trying to overcome stat-block-y 1st level encounters by making new stat-block-y 1st level encounters. Most monsters have their identity bound up heavily in abilities that simply don't scale down to 1st level (we think). And many of us, at least in recent years, have found ways to spice up low level encounters, even with goblins, so the need to make a whole slew of new monsters doesn't seem that great.
I know my players would balk at the proposed idea, since they appreciate the fact that they have to get to certain levels before they can contend with given monsters; they appreciate having grown in their abilities enough to tackle with those things. Further, whether you called it "scaling down" or simply proposed a new monster which looked suspiciously like a previously-existing, but stronger, monster, they would think it cheap and simply an attempt to appease and pander to whiney players who want to fight the dragon (or whatever) at 1st level, rather than working for and actually achieving something of note.
That's how my players would traditionally approach the proposed issue, and I get the feeling from the commentary that's how many other DMs and/or their groups would do the same. So, that might give more insight to where we're coming from when we don't seem thrilled at this prospect. Or maybe not.
At any rate, I think everyone should fight goblins or something very similar (like kobolds) at some point in their career. Imagine the scene when they're 20th level and some peasant asks them for a story of way-back-when about them fighting goblins. "Uhm... I never did."
""
"I've never killed a goblin."
""
How embarrasing! :P
There is an argument for that sort of appoach, especially with intelligent monsters like mindflayers. But creating and levelling up NPCs is HARD WORK, which is a good reason for using out-of-the-box baddies and monsters of the appropriate CR.
I would suggest that the issue is not the CRs of the monsters, and whether we need "modular" mosters which can be reduced or elevated as necessary, but the fact that a lot of the lower level monsters are a bit samey - humanoids of one kind or another. There may be a lack of variety of suitable mosters that are not orcs or goblins for the players to face. Fighting what is basically a human, only green, is not that fantastically memorable an achievement.
In the flip side, I don't really see why lvl 1 PCs might feel an entitlement to go toe-to-toe with the tarrasque-lite. Everyone has to start somewhere. It is a fundamental issue with the level-based system that some monsters are just too tough for low level characters, and the sort of accidental heroics where the farmboy (HP 4, BAB +0) kills the dragon (HP 200 (on the conservative side), BAB +18) are just ridiculously unlikely, if not impossible, under such a system. I can see where Grimcleaver is coming from, but unless soemone comes up with monsters that are interesting, compelling and different, I don't see that changing much. And anything that is CR1 or 2 is always going to be considered a push-over.
So the initial comment might be a call for a different sort of system, where random effects can have a much bigger effect on play (a bit like RQ, where your hit points don't really move at all as you advance, and a crit in the head will kill just about anything).
I get what Grimcleaver is trying to accomplish - I just don't think the mechanicism proposed works - for a variety of reasons.
I think one item that has sort of been lost in the discussion is that encounter doe not mean combat and expereince does not have to mean kill. Using good judgement to flee at low level, negotiating support from higher CR creatures, tracking higher CR creatures and providing information to allies up to the task, spying on higher level NPCs and developing a plan over levels, are all good ways to introduce a variety of creatures NPCs beyond the PCs ability to fight.
OR PCs can develop traps/scenarios that confer enough advantage to take on a manticore or whatever.
I understand that Grimcleaver is talking about using this selectively but I think PCs earn the right to more challenging monsters.
|
I agree with you on this, Grimcleaver. I think a lot of monsters (like Mind Flayers) get 'buffed up' in terms of HD. I understand they're meant to be 'boss monsters' with enough hp that one swing doesn't kill them, [snip]
So Mind Flayers have massive psionic powers? Why not just make them 1HD critters with some psionic-like abilities and Psion as their favoured class?
Or, 1 HD critters who have some *minor* psi-like abilities, and Psion as their favorite class, who are never encountered outside of their communities until they have reached 5th-8th level, or higher, in Psion, as they don't consider themselves 'mature' until they have mastered certain levels of power. Bang, all 'Mind Flayers' end up with high HD by virtue of their high level.
Humanoids with extra HD really really annoy me, and size Small creatures with 4 or 5 HD are just completely out of whack. Even Ogres and Giants could probably get away with just having obscene Con scores and only a few more HD based on their size, with the rest of their HD coming from levels in Barbarian / Fighter / whatever.
Far too many races in the Monster Manual have completely bogus Hit Dice, Armor Classes and / or Attributes for their racial description. Lizardfolk scales are as protective as a steel breastplate? Bugnuts insane Ghouls running around naked eating people have higher Charisma scores than the king of the Dwarves? Eh. Weirdness abounds.
In the decades I've been gaming, I've always loathed systems where the PCs follow one set of rules and the NPCs / Monsters follow a different set of rules. It should be *one game,* and if the designer can't make a monster using the same guidelines he'd use to make a PC, if he has to use all sorts of exceptions with 'racial HD' and 'level adjustments,' then the *system* is flawed.