TNE: Monster Ability Interchangability

[K]

OK, look at a monster in any edition of DnD. Chances are good that it has at least one ability that ISN'T available to PCs regardless of class choice.

So is that good?

My idea right now is set monsters and PCs on the same ability tracks. 3e made some moves towards this but failed miserably (go play a PC vampire or rakshasa and tell me that it works..... go on... try it.... I dare you).

So the question is this: how important are "monster specials"? I know that you want variable monsters. Generations of DMs can attest to the value of taking a skeleton and tossing a few extra powers in to flummox and confuse players, but is there a value to making each monster essentially a platform for a power or abilities unsupported in the rest of your system? I mean, a good open-ended monster generation system works just fine for that..

So yeh, I think I'm willing to just put monster powers in with player powers. Dragons get dragon fire and powerful wizards potentially also get the ability to breath fire from their mouths. Gorgons get a head butt ability and potentially so do powerful warriors. Ethereal Filchers get a combat steal ability, and potentially so do rogues.

[Manxome]

If you want puzzle monsters, they may provide a good reason to have powers exist that PCs can't get, (a) so that the players are less likely to be familiar with them when they show up, and (b) so that the players can't break the game by getting abilities that large classes of monsters can't counter.

If you want puzzle monsters.

[MGuy]

I fully support you on this. I just currently started arguing about this sort of thing in the Pathfinder Lowdown thread. I think that PCs development should be influenced by monsters of the appropriate CR.

[Caedrus]

I agree completely with the notion of putting monsters and others on the same track. This opens a lot of doors. For example, you might actually have some hope of making some variety amongst your NPCs (through classed monsters) that is actually meaningful and sensible, as opposed to having Frost Giant Jarls be something of a joke.

[Thymos]

I'm completely with you on this but there are a few considerations.

If you do this it's probably a good idea to make monster HD actually tie into levels so that 1HD = 1 level and so forth. This will give you a far easier time balancing everything. It will also let people play balanced Monster PC's.

The other consideration is that there are a few abilities that in a single encounter would be fine to give a PC, but are inappropriate for the theme and party. For example if an ability tells a PC that they can't move but gain 50% more HP it might be fine for the one encounter. Since other players want to, you know, go other places it doesn't work for a PC. This ability totally works for Monsters though, they don't need to interact with other party members. So there are a few monsters abilities that PC's shouldn't be able to get for flavor reasons.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So yeh, I think I'm willing to just put monster powers in with player powers. Dragons get dragon fire and powerful wizards potentially also get the ability to breath fire from their mouths. Gorgons get a head butt ability and potentially so do powerful warriors. Ethereal Filchers get a combat steal ability, and potentially so do rogues.

Alternatively, if you don't want players to be filching schticks from monsters for some reason or another, you could just make monster options generically inferior to PC options. That way players don't actually have an incentive to try to grab a nymph's blinding aura after they see that it is better than their glitterdust.

[Username17]

The basic form of interchangeability can be retained even if players can't literally have all the monster powers and/or limitations. Enemies like Ropers are good enough as villains but wouldn't be good at all as PCs. Obvious limitations that need to be out there but restricted for player characters include nonsapience and immobility.

But the game can, and I think should make these limits be an extension of limits that PCs can take for themselves. There's no reason that Immobility can't be a clearly derivable level 3 Slowness (or whatever). Even when the monster have things you don't, they should still be playing the same game.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

So the question is this: how important are "monster specials"? I know that you want variable monsters. Generations of DMs can attest to the value of taking a skeleton and tossing a few extra powers in to flummox and confuse players, but is there a value to making each monster essentially a platform for a power or abilities unsupported in the rest of your system? I mean, a good open-ended monster generation system works just fine for that..

It's really not even about making monsters unique. It's about making monsters quickly. I'm probably the biggest supporter of separate systems, and I don't really have any special hard-on that monsters have to have specials. However, I basically don't want to have to go dumpster diving like a PC to find stuff when I want to make a monster. PCs have time to do that shit. I really don't.

If the easiest way to achieve that goal is to give monsters specials, I'm okay wtih that. But speed is the #1 priority of any monster/NPC generation system. If the DM can't do it fast, then it's probably not worth doing in the first place.

[Lich-Loved]

But speed is the #1 priority of any monster generation system.

Other things that are #1 priorities:

* suitability as a foe for the current PCs capabilities
* appropriately themed
* has interesting and diverse capabilities from other monsters
* makes sense within the world/milieu
* has compelling description that may provide hints as to its powers or weaknesses
* has at least some motivational or personality notes to aid interaction that fit the creature's appearance, theme or place in the world.
* ...
* ...
* I am sure there are others but you get the idea

[JonSetanta]

Idea got.
In fact, I'd love for a system to essentially make every caster (or everyone, if anyone can become a caster) like a Blue Mage, able to learn monster techniques by being exposed to them.

In such a system there would be two options for learning new spells and powers:
• Taught by a more experienced character
• Survived an attack from a monster that uses the desired ability

[Draco_Argentum]

Frank beat me to it. I don't have a problem with the NPCs getting things the PCs can't have for flavour/playability reasons. No necromancer PCs in a game about shiny knights is fair enough.

That being said all abilities, no matter who can or can't get them, should be designed as a coherent group. They should all interact with resistances/other abilities sensibly. They should all have the same format. None of them can screw up the world if someone uses them intelligently. There shouldn't be pairs of abilities that have only minor wording changes.

[K]

The basic form of interchangeability can be retained even if players can't literally have all the monster powers and/or limitations. Enemies like Ropers are good enough as villains but wouldn't be good at all as PCs. Obvious limitations that need to be out there but restricted for player characters include nonsapience and immobility.

But the game can, and I think should make these limits be an extension of limits that PCs can take for themselves. There's no reason that Immobility can't be a clearly derivable level 3 Slowness (or whatever). Even when the monster have things you don't, they should still be playing the same game.

-Username17

Well, if you are immobile and nonsapient, then you are a "trap" and not a "monster" per se. One of 3e's wins was when they classified the classic monster "brown mold" as a trap and not something that belonged in the MM.

That being said, I can't think of any ability I'd put on a monster that I couldn't imagine being on some kind of character that would fit into the mishmash of tropes found in DnD. Certainly specific settings might disallow some elements, but those would be blanket across that setting (like no necromancers in a setting with no undead, so no form of life-drain exists).

[MartinHarper]

How about abilities that activate when you kill an enemy? Those things are more powerful in the hands of a PC than a monster. Conversely, abilities that activate when you die are more powerful in the hands of monsters. If they are available to both PCs and monsters, they need to be costed differently.

[K]

How about abilities that activate when you kill an enemy? Those things are more powerful in the hands of a PC than a monster. Conversely, abilities that activate when you die are more powerful in the hands of monsters. If they are available to both PCs and monsters, they need to be costed differently.

To be honest, I wouldn't class either of those as abilities (but I might class them as abilities that are fatally flawed from a design standpoint).

I mean, if you get the benefits of an ability after the combat is over, then you don't actually get the benefits of the ability.

If you are carrying benefits of an ability from one combat to another, then any "set-up criteria" is a sham which is mostly likely being used as an excuse for a power-up of that ability and an opening for abuse (See Bag of Rats Cleaving in 3e).

So yeh, I don't count "broken on first principles" abilities. I know that classic DnD had exploding Balrogs and draconians that stole your weapons by turning to stone when you stabbed them, but then we also has PC insta-gibs when the dark portal in the statues mouth was a Sphere of Annihilation. Some classics are classic because they suck.

[MartinHarper]

I mean, if you get the benefits of an ability after the combat is over, then you don't actually get the benefits of the ability.

In a 5 vs 5 combat, a benefit-on-kill or a benefit-on-death isn't useless. I wasn't imagining carrying the benefits on to the next combat.

[MartinHarper]

I mean, if you get the benefits of an ability after the combat is over, then you don't actually get the benefits of the ability.

In a 5 vs 5 combat, a benefit-on-kill or a benefit-on-death isn't useless. I wasn't imagining carrying the benefits on to the next combat.

[virgil]

Wouldn't a 'this combat only' death benefit be good when resurrection is more easily available? What of combos that requires hitting an opponent for a set-up, and not necessarily the same person (get some very fresh blood on the blade or something)? Are those bad too?

[Username17]

Idea got.
In fact, I'd love for a system to essentially make every caster (or everyone, if anyone can become a caster) like a Blue Mage, able to learn monster techniques by being exposed to them.

In such a system there would be two options for learning new spells and powers:
• Taught by a more experienced character
• Survived an attack from a monster that uses the desired ability

I really really do not like this idea. What you are describing is essentially removing the character class portion of a character's power and shifting it entirely to magic items. Under such a system the DM would have complete control over your character growth. Frankly, I don't understand why the player actually bothers to show up.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Yeah. I once had a player that wanted to play a Blue Mage. I let them, but I felt I had the duty to go out of my way to throw a variety of SLA-using critters and spellcasters around for their benefit. Because not doing so would make them weak. I even had a summoned Air Elemental pick them up and whirl them around for a few rounds so they could cast that.

It was a bit annoying, and I don't think the idea would be that great as a standard mechanic.

[MGuy]

So how many monster sources would be used to make a grab bag of abilities?