Random roleplaying musings
Jul. 17th, 2015 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackArmour Class
Emblematic of 5e reducing the spread between low and high level is something I noticed in the monster manual, armour class is even flatter than other stats, that first level players are generally fighting monsters with AC 12-15, 20 might be possible for something fragile but really hard to hit. But the highest AC in the whole thing is the Tarrasque with AC only 25. Which doesn't mean level 20s are not mythological compared to level 1s, but that they improve in ways other than "bigger numbers", and low-level monsters are relevant for longer.
"Legendary" monsters
I also like what they did with some really tough monsters, like adult dragons. They have two features which make them effective as a large single monster. They have extra actions they take after other people's turns (often a simple attack). That means that combat is more interactive than "ok, you win initiative you marmelise the dragon before it acts" or "ok, the dragon wins initiative, it kills you, you and you" even if there's only one monster.
And also, instead of spell resistance, they have three "legendary points" which let them pass a saving throw they would otherwise have failed. That means, "I mind control the dragon" is never a game-winner, but nor is it completely useless. I don't know why that feels more appropriate than spell resistance, but it does to me -- maybe that it didn't make sense to me that "big and tough" automatically meant "resistance to magic", but "I'm just that epic" fits naturally into "you can't take me out in one hit".
There is still spell resistance in a simpler form (they have a bonus on saving throw) for a few monsters where it's appropriate.
But I also notice, it's one mechanic that stays leaning into a videogame or story-telling mode than a simulationist mode -- there's no in-world understanding of what this is, it just makes things more dramatic, and is explicitly appropriate for large single monsters (I might use the same mechanic for a party of 0th level halflings fighting a troll, but not for a party of gods fighting a swarm of adult dragons).
Stunts in combat
A problem I often had with players first getting into a mechanics-heavy roleplaying system like DnD is when someone does something dramatic like "I jump over the balcony swinging on the chandelier and attack the orc from above". There are no rules for that, really not, and it's easy for the GM to revert to a habit of saying "you can't" or "ok, you roll an attack" or "ok, here's the rules for jumping, no, it doesn't say you get any benefit". You do want to embrace that! (At least in my sort of 50/50 roleplaying, if you're concentrating on miniature wargaming, then maybe not.)
But I read an article that pointed out, if you default to fancy stunts being "make a str/dex check against DC 15, if you do, you get a small bonus to an attack, or another effect like driving them back", then it usually just works -- the dramatic move has a clear advantage, but not such a big one that usual combat is pointless. So it allows a reasonable amount of adlibbing.
It also suggests allowing the target a saving throw. I might just ignore that in the case of one-off stunts, or stunts against minion-enemies, but it says it's a useful balancing feature in any case where the stunt might make a big different ("I want to push the lich off the cliff", "I want to disarm EVERY COMBAT").
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1248/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon-part-2-restocking-the-dungeon
I definitely used to think "wandering monster, huh, why would you do that?" But now, although I haven't tried it, I can see when it could be a useful approach:
You wouldn't necessarily use this when you know in advance somewhere's important, where you hopefully will plan it in advance.
But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level. Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.
And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"
And it can lead to awesome moments. Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.
Emblematic of 5e reducing the spread between low and high level is something I noticed in the monster manual, armour class is even flatter than other stats, that first level players are generally fighting monsters with AC 12-15, 20 might be possible for something fragile but really hard to hit. But the highest AC in the whole thing is the Tarrasque with AC only 25. Which doesn't mean level 20s are not mythological compared to level 1s, but that they improve in ways other than "bigger numbers", and low-level monsters are relevant for longer.
"Legendary" monsters
I also like what they did with some really tough monsters, like adult dragons. They have two features which make them effective as a large single monster. They have extra actions they take after other people's turns (often a simple attack). That means that combat is more interactive than "ok, you win initiative you marmelise the dragon before it acts" or "ok, the dragon wins initiative, it kills you, you and you" even if there's only one monster.
And also, instead of spell resistance, they have three "legendary points" which let them pass a saving throw they would otherwise have failed. That means, "I mind control the dragon" is never a game-winner, but nor is it completely useless. I don't know why that feels more appropriate than spell resistance, but it does to me -- maybe that it didn't make sense to me that "big and tough" automatically meant "resistance to magic", but "I'm just that epic" fits naturally into "you can't take me out in one hit".
There is still spell resistance in a simpler form (they have a bonus on saving throw) for a few monsters where it's appropriate.
But I also notice, it's one mechanic that stays leaning into a videogame or story-telling mode than a simulationist mode -- there's no in-world understanding of what this is, it just makes things more dramatic, and is explicitly appropriate for large single monsters (I might use the same mechanic for a party of 0th level halflings fighting a troll, but not for a party of gods fighting a swarm of adult dragons).
Stunts in combat
A problem I often had with players first getting into a mechanics-heavy roleplaying system like DnD is when someone does something dramatic like "I jump over the balcony swinging on the chandelier and attack the orc from above". There are no rules for that, really not, and it's easy for the GM to revert to a habit of saying "you can't" or "ok, you roll an attack" or "ok, here's the rules for jumping, no, it doesn't say you get any benefit". You do want to embrace that! (At least in my sort of 50/50 roleplaying, if you're concentrating on miniature wargaming, then maybe not.)
But I read an article that pointed out, if you default to fancy stunts being "make a str/dex check against DC 15, if you do, you get a small bonus to an attack, or another effect like driving them back", then it usually just works -- the dramatic move has a clear advantage, but not such a big one that usual combat is pointless. So it allows a reasonable amount of adlibbing.
It also suggests allowing the target a saving throw. I might just ignore that in the case of one-off stunts, or stunts against minion-enemies, but it says it's a useful balancing feature in any case where the stunt might make a big different ("I want to push the lich off the cliff", "I want to disarm EVERY COMBAT").
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1248/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon-part-2-restocking-the-dungeon
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show: Simply yelling out “mime” and “airplane” doesn’t make for a comedy show; it requires the improv actors to create a sketch about a mime pilot making an announcement over the plane’s intercom system for that. Similarly, just having random “giant spiders” attack the PCs because the table says so doesn’t make for an adventure; what you need are giant spiders in a particular place for a particular reason and doing a particular thing.
I definitely used to think "wandering monster, huh, why would you do that?" But now, although I haven't tried it, I can see when it could be a useful approach:
You wouldn't necessarily use this when you know in advance somewhere's important, where you hopefully will plan it in advance.
But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level. Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.
And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"
And it can lead to awesome moments. Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-17 03:21 pm (UTC)If I'm running an adventure with multiple terrains or ecologies, I like having a separate wandering monster table for each region... a Forest Wandering Monster Table, a Mountain Wandering Monster Table, etc... or separate tables for each level of a dungeon. That doesn't just help in preventing every random encounter from being too similar, it also is useful as an intellectual exercise for helping me figure out the ecology so that I can know what to use for designed encounters in that region.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-17 03:46 pm (UTC)Good question! I don't actually know, I haven't tried it, but from what I read:
1. Have wandering monsters in larger dungeons with a fair amount of space and rooms that have minor interesting features but no important monsters or plot points.
If it's obvious to the players and characters they've explored everything, it breaks suspension of disbelief to say "monster appeared". If they know they haven't, it's more plausible there's something lurking.
2. Don't have just "monsters" as wandering events. Have the option to hear the monster in the distance but not see it, or find fresh tracks. Don't always leave room static, assume if the players move on and come back, a corpse may have been partly eaten, or dragged away.
some DMs don't like to break the fiction like that
Yeah.
I think it's reasonable to know if that happens ever. If previous there was an understanding that short/long rests usually happened with no interruption, and that changes, even for good reason, it's probably good to point out the change (either explicitly saying "I'm going to shake things up a bit, but it shouldn't change the power balance too much" or starting with simple fairly non-threatening encounters).
But for a specific case, I think you could hopefully handle it with a combination of in-character and out-of-character questions, like "if you camp here, you'll hopefully be ok, but [ranger] sees fresh tracks and thinks it's possible something might stumble into you in the night" either spontaneously or in response to a player's question. If I GM, I don't always get this right, but I try to maintain a distinction between "your character genuinely doesn't know that, and it's part of the game to choose between trade-off A and trade-off B" and "ok, it may not be clear, but your character would know X".
don't like the players to know what is a random monster and what is a in-story designed monster encounter
I think that's actually good. I've not tried it, but I'd try not to be slavish to the random table (unless I was playing a competitive "see how well your characters do" campaign). Ideally there shouldn't be a hard distinction (as I've seen in some modules) with "go here, there's a monster, go here, there's a monster, wait here, a monster suddenly exists", but random monsters should be "oh look, a random goblin, well, it broke off from the group in room 15 and is scavenging" or "oh look, a random goblin, maybe a survivor from when the PCs faced the goblins in room 15". If a random monster is particularly fun, it might get promoted to an ongoing thing.
For instance, for wilderness hexcrawls, some rules suggest a chance of discovering an existing creature planned for the hex, or from a neighbouring hex, or a previously-unrecognised lair, which now is a permanent feature of the hex in future whether the monster is encountered/killed or not. But that only works for wilderness or really large dungeons where there's a reasonable chance it might have been there and not noticed.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-19 08:03 pm (UTC)To my mind that's one of the useful distinctions between the more dangerous and less dangerous chunks of a setting; getting interrupted every time you settle down to rest is a clue in and of itself (towards going back home and restocking, or seeking out the source of the attackers and dealing with that) more than something that warrants a clue. (Though definitely, fair indication when people have wandered into a more dangerous area than they are ready for is appropriate.)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 12:22 pm (UTC)But what I meant was, an encounter that might have been fair if the characters have learned where's safe to camp overnight and where isn't, etc, etc, may not be fair if previously all that was handwaved and the GM assumed overnight encounters never happened. And most GMs would probably do this instinctively, but that if there's a transition for an out-of-character reason, it probably still needs to happen gradually (or with abruptly, but with consent from the players).
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 12:16 pm (UTC)Oh yes, it hadn't occurred to me not to do that. I think I've seen lots of articles about when random wandering tables are useful, but I've not actually seen "old school" "you walk down the corridor and meet... a basilisk" play ever. And I don't know if it was like that or not, but if it was that random and intrusive, then I agree I don't really want that.
Having a table of APPROPRIATE monsters (sometimes, "ones which are already keyed on the map, or are likely to be here without specific lairs or entered from outside") is what you'd want.
And yes, I'd agree, thinking about what might be wandering is a useful exercise in thinking about what's there and why in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-19 07:59 pm (UTC)Tempting though that would be, you're probably right. (I do want to keep an eye on what the orc who actually has bubonic plague is doing, though. Him bumping into the party is different from the others.)
Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.
I agree entirely. That is organised enough for me not to really think of it as a random monster, though.
And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"
A lot depends on what kind of dungeon it is, though. A cave system with a couple of high-end predators lairing in it, and a group of smaller scavengers in a side cave too small for the big predators to get into, and maybe a couple of people who have been there for a week or two trying to take advantage of the situation, and sundry fungi and slimes of the sort that go back and forth between counting as monsters and as hazards depending on the edition you are using, is one thing, and in that case, where you expect to meet the giant spider wandering about would totally depend on whether the dragon's out hunting or no; on the other hand, if you're in the basement of a frost giant fortress, I'd expect patrols, but I'd also expect that the particular frost giants hammering out weapons in the smithy or tanning leather in the tannery would stay in their rooms most of the working day and in the barracks or dining rooms at predictable points the rest of the time, and random giant centipedes showing up is unlikely without some specific circumstance to explain them. And then again if you happen to be a powerful evil wizard who is setting up a vault full of traps and monsters to keep passing adventurers off your treasure, it's to your advantage to go for the kind of monsters that won't eat each other or wander off, and you can populate quite a satisfactory dungeon with undead and golems and bound demons that will all plausibly default to staying where they are put.
Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.
I don't think I'm quite in sympathy with this.
I do, as a GM, firmly believe there's a place for "this monster is way too tough and if you take it on directly it will eat you all, but right now you want to rescue the kid it's captured and get the heck out". (Also for "you are strong enough to massacre these monsters without breathing hard, maybe that's not the optimal solution here and you should look more closely at what's going on".) Both of which are, IMO, easier to signal to your players if planned in advance than if they come up on a random roll. And the alternative of having a random encounter table that's only challenges within a fairly narrow range that the party can handle tends to break my suspension of disbelief without fairly specific large-scale setup. (If your party's of a level to be fighting mostly regular orcs, breaking into an orc encampment and meeting mostly orcs as wandering monsters makes sense for them. An encampment where most of the wanderers are ogres is probably not a pro-survival place for them to be at that level anyway.)
I'm not sure I see the difference between the scale of "GM screwing with us" your examples are and the scale at which a whole campaign is that. Then again, necessary plot tokens are absolutely the last thing I would randomly give out, and if I send a giant earthworm against people half-way across a pit-trap, it's either because that was part of the plot from the beginning, or because the previous four pit traps were meant to be a significant challenge and the players have been breezing through them so I want to readjust the degree of challenge this particular bit is.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 12:43 pm (UTC)I commented above, I think I've seen a lot of recent articles about how random monsters (maybe "procedurally generated" would be a better term :)) can work well (basically if it feels a natural extension of the place, it's not usually obvious or doesn't matter which encounters are "random" and which aren't, it would feel odd if it were more static than that). But I've not seen old school play, I've seen pariodies of "you walk into a room and there's a... 20-ft basilisk there", and I don't know how much that's an accurate description... but if it is, I agree, that's not what I usually want.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 02:26 pm (UTC)Oh, I do like that, that very much makes the distinction I was flailing around for.
I've seen pariodies of "you walk into a room and there's a... 20-ft basilisk there", and I don't know how much that's an accurate description... but if it is, I agree, that's not what I usually want.
Certainly, "random monsters are supposed to be random and oops, I rolled something from the last three entries on the d% table that is way too strong for you to fight, so there goes that party" is a problem I have hit with DMs and wish to avoid as a DM myself.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 12:50 pm (UTC)Oh yes. I mean, "it's usually useful" not "you always have to do it". In the one-shot I ran it was fairly small and I didn't have any random elements.
Although there were a few things like hazardous static obstacles which could have gone in multiple places and I dropped in when they felt appropriate. And though I did have things like "assume the players spot about 75% of the things they MIGHT spot, and make sure the adventure works in that case (everything else is either spotted automatically, or doesn't need to be spotted.)"
In the frost giant example, I can see the GM either saying "the patrols and snack-breaks are negligible, it's more fun to just concentrate on the infiltration" or "I want the players to be cautious of patrols even if they're not continuous, wandering monsters are 10% patrol 10% one giant on an errand 80% nothing" depending which they think is more fun and captures the feel of the fortress better.
I agree, if there's no centipedes, there's no need to centipedes :) Although a few challenges which SOMEHOW give a small chance of discovery may keep things tense, eg. areas where it's easy but not trivial to pass unseen.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 01:09 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, I think I didn't quite have a good enough idea what I was trying to get across and I think I again chose a bad example. I'm not talking specifically about tougher monsters, I'm talking about a random element having a beneficial effect on the story, and I thought that might have been a useful example but it obviously wasn't.
I think one of the interesting things about roleplaying games is the potentially beneficial effect random elements can have on the experience. I'm not sure I have a comprehensive understanding of that, but I feel like there are ways that happens.
One is, the effect of increased variance on creativity -- that if people just make something up, they can repeatedly fall into the same cliches, but if they have an external source of input to riff off, you can produce lots more ideas. cf. the example given of improv shows and stand-up comedians asking the audience for a random premise for a sketch. cf. authors seeking prompts, even random, bad or bizarre prompts, to get ideas flowing. Maybe some people do this so instinctively they don't notice that having a framework for it can help other people. But it's easy for many GMs (notably me) to fall into the same cliches for NPCs, etc. But if you seed one with one or two somewhat less usual elements, it can be memorably different and some can grow. I think you get the same effect by throwing characters into your setting, and having them do what you didn't expect. But you can also get it from (judicious) explicit randomness, common in combat ("you remember that time when?"!), but also in "just happening to walk into the right/wrong monster at the right/wrong time".
And I think, some randomness makes it more exciting. If the GM decides in advance which combats will be a success and which won't, that makes a good book, but loses what's special at roleplaying, that the story depends on how well the characters genuinely do (both due to player tactics and character luck). If the players surprisingly succeed or surprisingly lose, they often talk about it for ages. And I think it's hard to capture that same feel if the encounter result is purely decided, not determined through play. And I was trying to say, I think the same sort of thing can happen with (judicious) randomness in other areas, such as whether the party do, or do not, end up slap-bang face-to-face with the orc patrol :)
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 03:20 pm (UTC)It depends on the scale of random event, to my way of thinking.
One is, the effect of increased variance on creativity -- that if people just make something up, they can repeatedly fall into the same cliches, but if they have an external source of input to riff off, you can produce lots more ideas.
I can see this in principle. In practice.. I am reasonably confident that I don't feel a huge need for it as a DM, playing off good players there's usually been enough creative synergy that I am not often minded to throw in large-scale randomness. (And also that the creative benefit of large-scale randomness does not always outweigh the degree of work I have to do on the fly if a fairly complex set-up has just been significantly altered.)
And I think, some randomness makes it more exciting. If the GM decides in advance which combats will be a success and which won't, that makes a good book, but loses what's special at roleplaying, that the story depends on how well the characters genuinely do (both due to player tactics and character luck). If the players surprisingly succeed or surprisingly lose, they often talk about it for ages. And I think it's hard to capture that same feel if the encounter result is purely decided, not determined through play.
I pretty much agree, within certain limits.
My opinion here is basically; killing everybody at random is usually not much fun, and less so the more focused one's game is on character development and complex narrative arcs and so on. At the other extreme, I also prefer not to have random elements make everything boringly easy. Ideally in a D&D-type setting I am aiming for a feel of significant challenge, tension and high stakes and drama, and I don't know that there's any hard and fast way of determining how to establish that in advance particularly as it is so dependent on your players.
There is also a certain art to scaling things to teach new players tactics. A fairly early encounter with a level-appropriate flying enemy to teach them that everyone who can should carry a missile weapon at all times, for example.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-19 08:15 pm (UTC)That would strike me as a problem at the scale of how much damage can be done per round vs. how much damage players and monsters can take, though, and adding extra actions feels like a surface patch for an underlying issue. (Which, to be fair has been a thing particularly in higher-level play for as long as there has been D&D.) How is 5e for frequency of one-shot save-or-die (or at least save-or-be-out-of-combat) spells ?
I tend to think about this from a meta-level starting with how long one ideally wants a combat to take, and how much range does one want to have plus or minus on that. Which again seems kind of harder to balance given a flatter curve of things like armour class.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 12:08 pm (UTC)That's true. I'm sorry for choosing a bad example in this case.
I think, having a 4-on-one fight in DnD or any turn based system has suffered from the swingyness of "does it go first or not", exacerbated because ambushing it and trying to incapacitate it before it can kill you is what the party usually SHOULD do in that case. And I think the legendary actions is an interesting (and hopefully effective) solution to that problem.
That problem is worse in high-level combat which has often been ridiculously swingy in LOTS of different ways, so I shouldn't have used it as an example for the "actions of a solo monster" problem, even though it was the most obvious example of the problem.
(Which, to be fair has been a thing particularly in higher-level play for as long as there has been D&D.) How is 5e for frequency of one-shot save-or-die (or at least save-or-be-out-of-combat) spells?
I believe they have attempted to find a middle ground between 3.5e where they were overly deadly, and 4e where they were sometimes ineffective (I think?). For instance, I think there are a greater number of spells which temporarily remove someone from combat, allowing repeated saving throws. And a most ongoing spells require ongoing concentration from the caster (one spell at a time), so there's more chance something will disrupt her and the taken-out-of-combat spell will end.
It seemed like a good approach, but I've not played at higher levels so I don't know how well they succeeded out-of-the-box :)
how long one ideally wants a combat to take
I agree that's the right way to think of it.
Although now I think about it, it may be necessary that higher-level combat is a BIT more swingy, to make the higher-level monsters feel threatening, not just "oh, at every level, every monster hits for 1/3 hp". This might be way resurrection magic (where I dislike the flavour) nevertheless serves a useful purpose, that it allows characters to face deadlier enemies, but have a fallback resource beyond HP, that there's a middle ground between "never die" and "game over".
again seems kind of harder to balance given a flatter curve of things like armour class.
I think you might be right here, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying -- at any level (in any edition) you have the numbers to play with "monster attack bonus vs player AC, monster AC vs player attack bonus, monster HP, monster damage vs player HP", and all of those can be adjusted for how long the monster takes to die, how much variance, how much damage it does, etc. But why does it matter if those ACs are significantly higher than they were at the previous level, or not?
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 03:56 pm (UTC)Heh. That's perfectly true as specified, but I think the issue here is when one actually wants the experience of a 4-on-1 fight in the first place. The situation where the party can arrange an ambush certainly makes sense as desirable for them and often makes sense for them to be able to implement; otoh, I think making a climactic feel climactic benefits from not being 4-on-1, even for 1st-level characters facing the goblin chief who suddenly realise there are two more goblins and a giant rat coming up from behind.
Although now I think about it, it may be necessary that higher-level combat is a BIT more swingy, to make the higher-level monsters feel threatening, not just "oh, at every level, every monster hits for 1/3 hp". This might be way resurrection magic (where I dislike the flavour) nevertheless serves a useful purpose, that it allows characters to face deadlier enemies, but have a fallback resource beyond HP, that there's a middle ground between "never die" and "game over".
Being able to use resurrection magic is to my mind definitely a flavour-changing milestone (though not IME so great as the one you get when a tactically smart party reaches the level at which they can dispel magic, fly, and use some value of short-range teleport.)
I think you might be right here, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying -- at any level (in any edition) you have the numbers to play with "monster attack bonus vs player AC, monster AC vs player attack bonus, monster HP, monster damage vs player HP", and all of those can be adjusted for how long the monster takes to die, how much variance, how much damage it does, etc. But why does it matter if those ACs are significantly higher than they were at the previous level, or not?
Granularity, basically.
If the overall range in what you are trying to hit goes from, to use the numbers in your post, starting off at 12 to 15 and getting to 25 for the iconic ultimate monster, that gives ten or so gradations. If you're using a d20 to hit that (setting aside other modes of making more dangerous monsters for a moment), and you're operating across a twenty-level spread, unless I'm missing something mechanistically that's giving you something roughly akin to a five per cent increase in chance to hit the same monster every two levels. And to my taste that (again,, setting other considerations aside) does not feel to distinguish low-level play enough from high-level play, or make going up in levels feel like enough of an achievement.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 06:45 pm (UTC)Good question, that puts it in better perspective. I probably should have been more explicit about it in advance, that as written, the "extra actions" thing applies only to a small number of important monsters, mostly big dragons, even though I ran away with the idea considering how it could be applied in other situations.
It's true, four players vs one humanoid probably should feel like four wailing on one, even if the humanoid is enough of a challenge it's something like a fair fight. And it's usually sensible to make the fight more varied by using more than one enemy, even if one is the big boss.
But players fighting a dragon, I feel like the expected tone is players feeling awed and outclassed, even if it's a fight they can handle. And iconically, just fighting ONE dragon should be as varied and challenging a combat as fighting a greater number of lower level enemies. That's what I think this mechanic is supposed to do -- usually you do fight a combination of enemies, or one enemy that isn't a big challenge, but occasionally you want an epic confrontation with the players against one giant monster, and this mechanic makes a way to make those fights also interesting.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 07:15 pm (UTC)Even if it doesn't have a bunch of charmed or otherwise controlled minions to hand.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 06:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, agreed.
Granularity, basically.
Thank you, I see. Let me mull that over.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 05:32 pm (UTC)(This is particularly manifest in NetHack, where bonusses to hit are even more readily available and not under any kind of GM control - after a bit in NetHack you never miss, and if monster ACs improved so that you could even when well-equipped, it wouldn't take much less in the way of bonuses to miss all the time.
Conversely _player_ AC maximisation is of limited effect thanks to a clever diminishing-returns mechanism).
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 04:17 pm (UTC)Depending on what you are trying to achieve, that can be a feature rather than a bug.
"The 1st-level fighter can't lay hands on a troll, the 7th-level fighter is a pretty even match for it, and the 15th-level fighter is guaranteed to steamroll it one-on-one without taking any damage" does not strike me as a problem unless all your game world has is trolls; if it also has goblins who are a pretty even match for the 1st-level fighter and storm giants who are a fairly even match for the 15th-level fighter, that feels like a plus to me with judicious DMing, given players who find being exceptional characters within the world rewarding, and given players who find the progression of becoming more powerful to that extent rewarding (which were both definitely the case with the players with whom I have most of my experience.)
Making sure players have the opportunity to equip themselves to meet the scale of threats they are up to engaging is a dynamic process. Putting the right treasure at the right spots in dungeons, and keeping track of how much opportunity they have to go shopping for stuff between adventures, is overhead but it's worth it. Having top-end-of-what-you-can-face-at-this-level monsters that a sensibly equipped fighter can hit with a sword and a less sensibly equipped fighter (or a perfectly reasonably equipped wizard or cleric) can't is only a problem to my mind if you as DM spring it on your players without the chance for them to get the equipment or the understanding that the wizards and clerics and so on shouldn't be trying to hit it with a sword in the first place, but hitting it with a fireball or enhancing the fighter's ability to hit it.
I don't play NetHack, I have enough obsessions already and it seems way too easy to become another one. But monsters you can never miss feel to me more like a world-building limitation than a mechanics flaw. I kind of want the option to be there, so that if someone is playing a 19th-level character, charging through the army of goblins to get to the Dark Lord without having to worry about rolling dice for any of those goblins keeps the focus at the right scale of legendary/superheroic.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 06:36 pm (UTC)3e does slightly better here because of the way you get multiple attacks at -5 to the BAB each time - so yes, the fighter might hit all the time with their first attack, but there's still a point where they can whiff and so they're still desirous of more bonuses to hit; and then the non-fighter has a chance to connect with their best attack.
And "wizards and clerics and so on" should be trying to hit it; spells which give Touch attacks, backstabs, the cleric's mace, etc. It's not the only trick in their bag, as it is for Urist McSmitey, but it's always a possibility.
The thing about NetHack is not that you never miss the goblins (although too many windshield kills is not so desirable in a roguelike). It's that you never miss the Dark Lord; you never miss anyone, and any ordinary malus to hit is completely irrelevant. Monks get a -20 (D&D scale) penalty to hit if wearing body armour; monks don't wear body armour in the late game not because they would miss but because you get a message about it on each attack and the message spam is too tedious.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 07:33 pm (UTC)Like I said, I don't see that as necessarily a problem.
Given a well-synergised party, I don't see a cleric going from 1st to 20th level without ever once hitting anything in melee combat (or trying to) as a problem. I'd argue that a player who is primarily motivated by desire to hit things would probably do better to play a character class designed around that goal.
And "wizards and clerics and so on" should be trying to hit it; spells which give Touch attacks, backstabs, the cleric's mace, etc.
I'd argue that, given the classic fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue split, the balance of efficiency there favours the fighter being up front hitting the monster, the rogue sneaking around and backstabbing with whatever boni that provides being enough to hit the monster, and the fragile wizard and cleric staying back well out of the way and concentrating on smacking the monster with ranged spells and/or healing and buffing the fighter-types well over them getting close enough for touch attacks. The cleric's mace is insurance against orcs sneaking up behind you while you're facing the dragon, in that paradigm, and it should be able to hit them.
I have a whole other rant about how much I dislike mechanics that conflate "landing a hit on someone with a weapon" and "getting through their armour" into a single mechanic, particularly when they have the failure mode of "this shiny new armour gives a +x defensive bonus, but it's also slowing you down because of its weight so you take a -y penalty for that on the same roll."
The thing about NetHack is not that you never miss the goblins (although too many windshield kills is not so desirable in a roguelike). It's that you never miss the Dark Lord; you never miss anyone, and any ordinary malus to hit is completely irrelevant.
That does sound tedious and lacking in challenge past a certain point, but also the sort of thing a human DM would have any number of avenues to avoid falling into.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-24 04:09 pm (UTC)Even a magic-user who never hits at all, well, one has to wonder what all those touch spells are for.
AC is not an ideal mechanic, but it's the mechanic we've got; and damage reduction mechanics seem attractive but don't work as well as one might hope. WFRP used damage reduction mechanics, producing a situation where if an enemy is a meaningful threat to the PC with the most armour/Toughness it can probably one-shot the more fragile PCs. In general damage reduction has the awkward characteristic that it does little against big beasties and renders small ones irrelevant. Percentage damage reduction is better but more book-keeping.
A human DM can avoid such situations, but mechanics can help - for example, if the likely variance in bonuses to hit doesn't exceed the total span of the dieroll to hit.