demi-humans 2 primes, monsters 3 or more

[slimykuotoan]

So an elvan character gets 2 primes, while an elvan npc (monster) gets 6?

[Gnostic Gnoll]

Yes indeed. For as you see, NPC elves, not possessing the self-destructive urge required to become adventurers, chose to utilize their ridiculously long life-span to actually become good at everything, rather than leave themselves with potentially crippling areas of weakness.

[Nifelhein]

NPCs have the greatest setback of all, a Gm running them, so they need not have mechanics that mirror those used as setbacks for the PCs.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[gideon_thorne]

"Who says life is fair? Where is that written?" Grandpa from the Princess Bride. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Julian Grimm]

No offense to anyone but the ideas of 3e and d20 style 'balances' do not apply to C&C.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[serleran]

No. The elf NPC has two. Mental and Physical. These "monster Primes" do not correlate directly to an attribute score (because they can't; monsters don't have them.) This was discussed very recently...

[Tadhg]

Nifelhein wrote:
NPCs have the greatest setback of all, a Gm running them, so they need not have mechanics that mirror those used as setbacks for the PCs.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Julian Grimm]

serleran wrote:
No. The elf NPC has two. Mental and Physical. These "monster Primes" do not correlate directly to an attribute score (because they can't; monsters don't have them.) This was discussed very recently...

Exactly what he said.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[slimykuotoan]

serleran wrote:
No. The elf NPC has two. Mental and Physical. These "monster Primes" do not correlate directly to an attribute score (because they can't; monsters don't have them.) This was discussed very recently...

Could someone provide me a link to that discussion?

[serleran]

Link

I just found it not long ago, which is why I didn't post it before (didn't know where it got off to.)

[slimykuotoan]

Thanks serleran.

Fizz wrote:" ...i personally find the btb method of C&C to be restrictive in the other way. Monsters are either strong physically or mentally (or both or neither), without any further dissemination.

For example, a golem is strong and tough, meaning he'd have P saves. But a golem has never struck me as dextrous. Yet, they'd have as good reflexes as any thief because dexterity saves are lumped in with the physicals. Huh?

IMO, this is why simple attribute scores are the best way to go. In my estimation, this would not increase the power level of the monsters (assuming most monsters have only 1 or 2 primes) because primes are more significant than attribute scores."

I think I'm gonna move in this direction as well.

[serleran]

There's no harm in doing specific Prime attribute assignment. I encourage that for monsters that are abnormal to their kind.

However... golems should not have any Primes, to be honest. They are practically immune to anything that would require a save.... they can't be poisoned, they can't be paralyzed, they can't be hurt by most spells and are generally mindless... now, I mean, a breath attack can hurt them, but because golems have "Dex-equivalent" Prime, they shrug it off, too. On second thought... maybe that's why they have P?

[Mythago]

I still say that slimykuotoan point remains - that current prime allocation for monsters i.e. P, M or both is a bit rough and ready in M&T- of course any CK can adjust it to fit - but I just wish this had been better realised in the M&T cus it would have been a neat upgrade from 1st ed AD&D monster books and a nod to the innovation of monster descriptions found in 3e - too much for some tastes but I really appreciate the fully rounded picture that a full attribute block gives me of a typical example of any particular monster type. And I still dont accept an npc dwarf having 6 primes compared to a pc dwarf with only two - all arguments on this to date have profoundly failed to cure me of this disposition.

cheers

Alex

[Nifelhein]

When I spoke earlier on the thread, I had the same idea I have now, the set of mechanics for any GM run Character is welcome to be simpler and easier than those given for the PCs, the difference in primes, even for those it bothers, need not be a problem, as you can wing changes as needed.

A Golem won't be taking a breath weapon unless you create the situation for it to, and i it will save or not largely remains on you. Usually people have a love for the random element, but it is also a slave of the GM, and by adjusting primes you don't even make it go away, you merely reduce or increase the chances of the random element going in a desired way.

In the case of a dwarf, you can also wing it, an innkeeper could be willed and dexterous, both traits required for a successful management, but he lacks the good relations needed to make his business expand, whenever saves comes in, he has two there.

In the end a Gm is far more likely to change the end in the benefit of the players than they are to change their behaviour for the benefit of the game as a whole, even causing their own character problems.

With that basic assumption more restrictive rules for the PCs and more open rules for the Gm seems fine. I like it that way, specially given how quick I can change this, contrary to how it was impossibly time consuming to do the opposite in 3.X.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[DangerDwarf]

Mythago wrote:
And I still dont accept an npc dwarf having 6 primes compared to a pc dwarf with only two - all arguments on this to date have profoundly failed to cure me of this disposition.

I'm of the camp that fails to see a major deal in this.

I don't try to rationalize it, I don't try to explain it, I just accept it and roll on.

"But that dwarf has 6 primes and I only have 2!"

*shrug* And?

That doesn't make sense!

And HP's, Fire & Forget spells along with a host of other things do? It's just a game. It's an abstract representation.

Now if that 1d8 HD dwarf with the ultra-primes utilizes his "unfair" advantage to take over the world, yeah then we have a problem. But if the schmoe is just the guy who's fixing the dent in my sheild? C'mon and let him make it, its probably the only cool thing he has going for him.

[Nifelhein]

"But he has 6 primes!"

"And you are still the one calling the spotlights..."

"Imagine what I could do with that!"

"Wanna GM? Be my guest."
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[DangerDwarf]

And interestingly enough, even with "6 whole primes" they regularly get owned by gimpy 2 primed demihumans with a class level.

[DangerDwarf]

#1 Rule of Thumb on why the M, P or Both system works for me?

If I spend more time writing up stats for a critter than it will take my players to kill it....

something is seriously wrong.

[Fizz]

I think this discussion is the difference between practicality and philosophy.

From a philosophical point of view, i think that monsters should be just like other PC races. They should have ability scores, and at most 2 primes, a variable BtH.

But i understand the practical side too. Keep them as-is because then all monsters are easy to adjudicate, calculate, etc.

I actually tend to sit in the middle. IMO, i don't think the addition of attribute scores and a couple primes increases the complexity significantly. Yet it provides a lot more flavor, variability and uniqueness to each monster. To me, that brings a lot to the game with a minimal cost.

But everyone's milage varies, so... whatever works for your game.

-Fizz

[Julian Grimm]

Ok, IMNSHO monsters with stats and supposedly 'balanced' to the pc races and classes is a 3eism that doesn't belong in C&C. Adding stats to monsters doesn't fix anything, in fact, the whols monster system will loose it's simplicity under that addition. How?

Example: The monster system as is allows for a simple and effective way of calculating saves, BtH and even stat checks. It is all tied to the HD of the monster. Thus, a 5 HD monster had +5 to saves, +5 to hit, a 5 CL to any target numbers for saves against it's abilities and so on. Nice simple and effective.

Now added stats opens up a new can of worms the 5 HD creature having stats and being in line with PC's now has 5 HD, a con bonus to track, a strength bonus for attacks, and so on. Tack on a class level ala` 3e and you get a bigger mess to calculate or track during a combat that will possibly only last 20 minutes.

The point is that no the system may not seem fair or 'balanced' under the d20isms that are so prevalant but the system is set for simplicty and ease of play. That means that even though it is based on the SRD there are just as many d20isms you need to divorce yourself from as there are calssic D&Disms that you need to divorce to fully enjoy the elegance and simplicity of the C&C system.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Fizz]

Julian Grimm wrote:
Ok, IMNSHO monsters with stats and supposedly 'balanced' to the pc races and classes is a 3eism that doesn't belong in C&C.

No, i didn't say `balanced'. It's one thing to devise a system like C&C that is more simple to use and understand. It's another to make it deliberately different from 3e just for the sake of making it different.

But as for `simplicity', how is it more simple to have one set of rules for PCs, and another set for monsters? I daresay that is in fact the opposite. Have one universal set of rules, applicable to pcs and monsters alike- that's simple.

Or, put it this way: If the Trolls had given monsters attribute scores and a couple of primes, would we be having this debate? Clearly, there are people who do find the dichotomy of PCs and monster rules to be confusing. Otherwise, these threads would never have started.

Yes, you'd have to add attribute bonuses to monsters. But so what? Like i said, imo, the small increase in complexity is worth a lot more in flavor. Goblins wouldn't just be orcs in drag.

But I would agree about not giving monsters classes except in very special cases. If it's an exceptional or recurring villain, it might be worth doing. It's all a tradeoff between work and payoff.

-Fizz

[Nifelhein]

If Monsters followed the same set of rules that PCs did it would not simply be a matter of adding attributes, we would then have to define primes, then we would have to add attribute bonuses to saves, then come attacks, then damage, then check bonuses.

After that you have to redefine weapon damage, as monsters now apply their attribute to damage, and this means dragons will have both a lot of damage from die and bonus.

In the surface it may seem like just a little complexity, but it is actually a chain reaction, that ultimately brings back all 3.X problems with the monsters, you had to read them and know each of their saves, stats, abilities, feats and skills.

In C&C you know their HD, hp, damage and primes plus the special abilities. really, it is a whole new layer of trouble that I have seen more than one person say 4th edition should do away with, mainly because none wants to Gm anymore, too much work, taking too long for little benefit over the older editions (or C&C for that matter).

if a single gob or orc is special enough to deserve that kind of attention, then he will not only gain mechanical complexity, i will add a whole layer of story/roleplaying complexity over it as well.

But given that most gobs are just that, I would rather have rules for them and wing the special one than the other way around.

And it is good to see you again Fizz.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[gideon_thorne]

Fizz wrote:
Yes, you'd have to add attribute bonuses to monsters. But so what? Like i said, imo, the small increase in complexity is worth a lot more in flavor. Goblins wouldn't just be orcs in drag.

Its a matter of time and practicality. Coming up with ability scores for every creature, both current and new is an addition of unneccessary time.

Monsters already have attribute bonus's. The # of HD of a given critter, fpr all practical purposes, is its attribute bonus. So adding another set of numbers when one is already there is redundant.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Like I said in a previous thread (the other one) recently (like two minutes ago): monsters don't get HD for saves/checks/abilities (whatever you want to all them) for things they don't have. A golem, for example, does not get its HD for move silently, or pick pockets. It may try them, like a fighter with Dex Prime can, but a 1st level rogue will always be better. The golem is also worse than the fightr, in theory, because it doesn't get a Dex bonus. And, I'd probably ad hoc rule that because its a non-intelligent creature, it wouldn't even think of doing it.... something one must always factor when dealing with monsters.

Yeah, they have one score semi-defined (its not really defined, but given a range) but only to indicate their level of reason, so the CK has some gauge n how the monster thinks, aside from the description... it pure mechanical terms. Their other stats are listed in their statblocks... there is no need for a C&C monster to have attributes.

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Its a matter of time and practicality.

Exactly. I think different people will have different views on what is worth putting that extra time and how much of a payoff it is.

Quote:
Monsters already have attribute bonus's. The # of HD of a given critter, fpr all practical purposes, is its attribute bonus. So adding another set of numbers when one is already there is redundant.

Well, sort of. The bonus from the HD is an amalgam of attribute bonuses and hit dice, just like the total bonus for a PC is it's attribute bonus plus level.

I understand that point, and there is a certain appeal to it. If all the work in giving attribute scores and hit die all work out to a value only +1 different from it's hit die, then you're right; all that work is really for naught.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

Nifelhein wrote:
After that you have to redefine weapon damage, as monsters now apply their attribute to damage, and this means dragons will have both a lot of damage from die and bonus.

Hmmm... you just struck a nerve with me there. I agree i do not want giants dealing out 1d10 + 20 damage, where the modifier outweighs the die roll. Always hated that.

Since C&C doesn't have feats or skills, i don't think the snowball effect would be as bad as you suggest. But i understand and appreciate your point.

I think what i'm likely to do is just define primes for every monster, instead of just the P/M split. That gives must more variability with monsters but without having to adjust a bunch of numbers.

Quote:
And it is good to see you again Fizz.

Same here. Nice that we found another forum in common. What is it they say about great minds and all...
-Fizz

[Nifelhein]

See, I think it would certainly not be as bad, since I have kind of gone overboard, but it would certainly make monsters a lot harder to remember, and when it comes down to the general groupings of monsters, you need not have overly complex rules for them, for they will not be around longer than 20-30 minutes anyway.

We are a lot less likely to make golems tumble between the fighter and barbarian to hit the wizard than the Players are going to be, so we need not have rules telling us a golem has a hard time doing that.

As i said before, the Gm is a gret setback already. And it is really good to have more in common then "just" Midnight.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Gnostic Gnoll]

Nifelhein wrote:
If Monsters followed the same set of rules that PCs did it would not simply be a matter of adding attributes, we would then have to define primes, then we would have to add attribute bonuses to saves, then come attacks, then damage, then check bonuses.

After that you have to redefine weapon damage, as monsters now apply their attribute to damage, and this means dragons will have both a lot of damage from die and bonus.

In the surface it may seem like just a little complexity, but it is actually a chain reaction, that ultimately brings back all 3.X problems with the monsters, you had to read them and know each of their saves, stats, abilities, feats and skills.

This line of thinking is also something of a 3.5ism. Monsters and NPCs do not necessarily need ability scores if the primes are split up; it would simply be a matter of deciding on a finer basis where the primes go. Their bonuses would still be determined by their hit dice, as normal, but a clunky monster with Strength and Constitution as primes simply rolls that much better on those than their Dexterity-based checks.

Come to think of it, I think Fizz just got to this point in the last post...

Nifelhein wrote:
See, I think it would certainly not be as bad, since I have kind of gone overboard, but it would certainly make monsters a lot harder to remember, and when it comes down to the general groupings of monsters, you need not have overly complex rules for them, for they will not be around longer than 20-30 minutes anyway.

Pshaw. Any player worth the title has memorized the Monster Manual anyway. Any GM can do the same.

[Julian Grimm]

Fizz wrote:
No, i didn't say `balanced'. It's one thing to devise a system like C&C that is more simple to use and understand. It's another to make it deliberately different from 3e just for the sake of making it different.

I don't think that it was done to make C&C different but more to bring C&C in line with classic games that did not need such things as monster stats.

Quote:
But as for `simplicity', how is it more simple to have one set of rules for PCs, and another set for monsters? I daresay that is in fact the opposite. Have one universal set of rules, applicable to pcs and monsters alike- that's simple.

D20 thought this way and see the confusing mess it made with it's monsters. When you have to calculate more than a general desricption of monster strength (i.e. HD) you move into the mess of CR and other factors that overly complicated d20. Supposedly that was simple too but how many headaches did that create?

Quote:
Or, put it this way: If the Trolls had given monsters attribute scores and a couple of primes, would we be having this debate? Clearly, there are people who do find the dichotomy of PCs and monster rules to be confusing. Otherwise, these threads would never have started.

No we'd be debating on how such things made it to complex and that the system was too much like d20. I find it hard that people find the current system that hard to understand unless they are overthinking the system.

Quote:
Yes, you'd have to add attribute bonuses to monsters. But so what? Like i said, imo, the small increase in complexity is worth a lot more in flavor. Goblins wouldn't just be orcs in drag.

It's not worth it and if I wanted that my d20 stuff wouldn't be locked away in a dark room awaiting it's fate at Ebay or a Garage Sale. Goblins aren't orcs in drag anyway. Look at the 1e or 2e MM's and then at M&T and you'll see the similarities and flavor that makes them different. Mechanics do noit define flavor that is another lie given by d20 to make you think added complexity is better. Which has clearly been prooven wrong time and time again.

Quote:
But I would agree about not giving monsters classes except in very special cases. If it's an exceptional or recurring villain, it might be worth doing. It's all a tradeoff between work and payoff.

At the most I up HD and add the class abilities and adjust xp as needed evenything else stays the same.

Quote:
-Fizz

-Julian
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[gideon_thorne]

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Pshaw. Any player worth the title has memorized the Monster Manual anyway. Any GM can do the same.

*smiles* Ya, but as Game master, why would one want too? Just make up what you feel like and use the M&T as a vague point of reference.

Keeps the players on ther toes when all their careful memorization of the M&T doesn't mean diddly.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley