# MM excerpt: phane



## jaelis (Apr 18, 2008)

There's a new MM excerpt up too!

*Abominations*

Abominations are living weapons that were created during the ancient cosmic war between the gods and the primordials. Some of these creations were enormous (such as today's art preview: the tarrasque), others small. Some were singular beings of terrific power, while others were legion. A few abominations stand apart as failed or incomplete divine experiments that have either been locked away or forgotten.

*Phane*

Phanes can manipulate time, which they use to sow chaos among mortals. Occasionally they form pacts with powerful beings that share their destructive propensities. Consisting of coalescent mist, this creature has the lower body of a hunting cat and the torso, arms, and head of a humanoid. The air ripples around the creature, and though it moves with feline grace, it seems as though it can barely hold itself together.

*Phane Tactics*
A phane uses its great speed to stay out of range of opponents while targeting them with wizening ray. If forced into close combat, a phane uses either its temporal touch or wizening tempest to slow or stun enemies so it can withdraw safely and attack from a distance.

*Phane Lore*
A character knows the following information with a successful Religion check. DC 25: Phanes are native to the Astral Sea, but they are found throughout the cosmos, walking the space between moments, ever on the hunt for prey.
*
Encounter Groups*
Phanes aren’t choosy about their allies. Legend tells of them working with sorrowsworn, nightwalkers, powerful demons and devils, and mighty fey.

*Level 26 Encounter (XP 46,000)*

    * 1 phane (level 26 elite controller)
    * 2 sorrowsworn soulrippers (level 25 skirmisher)
    * 2 dread wraiths (level 25 lurker)

* Phane Level 26 Elite Controller*
    Large immortal magical beast XP 18,000

*Initiative *+23 *Senses *Perception +25; darkvision
*HP *478; *Bloodied *239
*AC *41; *Fortitude *38, *Reflex *41, *Will *38
*Resist *insubstantial
*Saving Throws* +2
*Speed *10, fl y 10
*Action Points *1

    Melee: *Temporal Touch* (standard; at-will)
    Reach 2; +29 vs. Reflex; 2d8 + 10 damage, and the target is slowed until the end of the phane’s next turn. The phane shifts 4 squares before or after making this attack.

    Ranged: *Wizening Ray* (standard; at-will)
    Ranged 10; +29 vs. Fortitude; 2d6 + 9 damage, and the target is dazed and weakened (save ends both). Aftereffect: The target is weakened (save ends). The target appears elderly until the effects of the wizening ray end.

    Close Burst *Wizening Tempest* (standard, usable only while bloodied; at-will)
    Close burst 1; phanes are immune; +29 vs. Fortitude; 2d6 + 10 damage, and the target is stunned (save ends). Aftereffect: The target is dazed and weakened (save ends both). The target appears elderly until the effects of the wizening tempest end.

*Temporal Fugue* (minor; at-will)
    By moving backward and forward in time, a phane can remove one effect afflicting it.

*Alignment *Unaligned *Languages *Supernal
    Str 24 (+20) Dex 30 (+23) Wis 25 (+20)
    Con 23 (+19) Int 28 (+22) Cha 22 (+19)


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 18, 2008)

Very cool, two excerpts!

Hmmm, interesting...I like the flavor effects of the phane's attacks.  Also, check it out, dread wraiths are level 25 monsters now.  Don't want to pick that card out of a deck of many things.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 18, 2008)

It's the return of one of the Abominations from the Epic Level Handbook.

I really hope they have Atropals in MM1, because those were cool.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 18, 2008)

An insubstantial (takes 1/2 damage from attacks) creature with 478 hit points, that can hit PCs with rays that cause them to halve their damage, so it's only taking 1/4 normal damage? Nasty!


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Fain, the phane is in the fane!


----------



## kalyptein (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Fain, the phane is in the fane!




Feign!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Mhmm, both rules and looks is great. That things would be quite eerie to face in-combat.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 18, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> An insubstantial (takes 1/2 damage from attacks) creature with 478 hit points, that can hit PCs with rays that cause them to halve their damage, so it's only taking 1/4 normal damage? Nasty!




Where do you get that insubstantial creatures take half damage from attacks?


----------



## A'koss (Apr 18, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> An insubstantial (takes 1/2 damage from attacks) creature with 478 hit points, that can hit PCs with rays that cause them to halve their damage, so it's only taking 1/4 normal damage? Nasty!



Very.    

It'll be interesting though to see how readily available countermeasures for things like _insubtantial_ creatures are at that level...


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 18, 2008)

I wonder if the two half damages stack...

Fitz


----------



## baberg (Apr 18, 2008)

So he's hitting, on average, 15ish per shot.  From the PHB crunch we got yesterday a Fighter of level 26 will have around 170ish HP.  Seems a bit underpowered, but I guess we should also take into account that this Phane is a lot harder to damage since he's insubstantial.


----------



## Saitou (Apr 18, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Very.
> 
> It'll be interesting though to see how readily available countermeasures for things like _insubtantial_ creatures are at that level...



 "Running away" is still a valid tactic in Epic Tier, I would hope.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 18, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> So he's hitting, on average, 15ish per shot.  From the PHB crunch we got yesterday a Fighter of level 26 will have around 170ish HP.  Seems a bit underpowered, but I guess we should also take into account that this Phane is a lot harder to damage since he's insubstantial.




I think his job is to slow and stun the PCs, and let his brutes do the actual killing.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 18, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> So he's hitting, on average, 15ish per shot.  From the PHB crunch we got yesterday a Fighter of level 26 will have around 170ish HP.  Seems a bit underpowered, but I guess we should also take into account that this Phane is a lot harder to damage since he's insubstantial.



Keep in mind as well that PCs are going to encounter him with several other allies who might be geared more towards damage output...


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 18, 2008)

-sighs- And the Nightwalkers are back. I can hear my group's jokes already.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2008)

The Abominations from the Epic Level Handbook are all sorts of cool, so lets see some comparison.

*Fluff/Description*: The new one is very practical; it matches the illustration from the ELH pretty nicely, though I admit to being more partial to the earlier, more evocative writing style, with the multiple forms and the "two or more emerald eyes." I think the eyes gave it an especially creepy kick, glowing out from the form. "Misty Cat Centaur" is a little "??" Still, I like that 4e is being a bit more grounded with the description, at least it adds some standardization to the critters.

*Level*: Original is CR 25 (about Level 25 Solo), this baby is a level 26 Elite, roughly on par.

*Numbers*: As we might've guessed, they're mostly lower -- lower AC, lower HP. Higher Defenses/Saves, that's kind of neat.  

*Abilities*: Here's where things get most interesting. The old Phane had a rather confusing cocktail of "Stop!"-based abilities, and 4e is very much about removing the "Save Or Don't Have Any Fun" effects. The most interesting of these include the ability to "steal the future" from enemies that it keeps in stasis, and the ability to summon an "alternate parallel time duplicate"

I see the new phane has none of these interesting abilities, but gets some abilities to stun, slow, and weaken...kind of evocative, I guess, but....meh....

*Verdict*: Eh...seems kind of dull in comparison to the original. What this bad boy needs is (a) an ability to "steal time" from the PC's, and (b) an ability to summon an evil mirror cowboy universe version of a PC. It also needs to make that cosmetic effect something slightly more evocative than "I look old for a few rounds." Proposals include:

Give it an ability, perhaps at a recharge to steal actions from the PC's. On a successful attack, it grabs, say, a standard action: the PC can't use it on their turn, but on the next turn, the Phane gains an extra action. Or perhaps it steals action points. Or perhaps it takes minor actions and combines them into bigger actions. This might mean making it a Solo monster?
Give it an ability to "stop time," from a fluff standpoint, not a combat standpoint. When given five minutes, it can put a captured victim into stasis. These are how they feed -- victims in this stasis age unnaturally fast, years in days, and when they die of old age, they fall back "into time," though the whole thing seems instant from their POV. Because not participating is not fun, don't let it be a combat ability.
The "Parallel Past Time Duplicate" is basically a quick template -- any creature -2 levels, weirds you out when you kill it if you *are* it? Sounds like the perfect thing to throw into the mix alongside the Phane itself. 

Overall, the mechanics look much better than 3e, but it looks shallower. All of its abilities are variations on "damage + status." That can work, but if that's all you have, it's a little dull. Compared to the ELH version, it's missing some of its most interesting abilities. Though these abilities weren't implemented very well, I'm sure they could've been reworked, and it would've left the phane significantly more inspiring to me as an adversary because it could do something different. With that much stuff it could do, though, it might be better off being a solo challenge. Given its reputation in the ELH, I'm pretty comfortable with that.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 18, 2008)

Does it mean you have to get 2 successful saves against any of the effects it inflicts on you?

One to get rid of the initial effect, and another to get rid of the aftereffect?  That makes it even nastier, even taking into consideration a 26th level PC gets some bonuses to saves based on items and other abilities.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 18, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> It's the return of one of the Abominations from the Epic Level Handbook.
> 
> I really hope they have Atropals in MM1, because those were cool.




I've always loved Winter Wights myself. Nasty epic monsters those were. I hope they make an appearance in 4e.


----------



## malcolm_n (Apr 18, 2008)

Okay, this is the 3rd type of monster stats I've seen from wizards...  How are stats determined?  Are they base 4 like the devil from D&D Day last year?  Are they some new formula Which apparently grants +20 at 24?  If they don't mesh at all, why even say the creature has stats unless as a placeholder?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 18, 2008)

Any linkage? I cannot find it...

Edit: d'oh the excerpts page is not in date order http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b


----------



## Dalamar (Apr 18, 2008)

We've known for a while that the stat modifier listed next to the ability scores in the stat block (which are not the actual modifier, but the bonus it uses for things such as ability checks) are the old modifier (score/2-5) plus ½ the creature's level.


----------



## malcolm_n (Apr 18, 2008)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> We've known for a while that the stat modifier listed next to the ability scores in the stat block (which are not the actual modifier, but the bonus it uses for things such as ability checks) are the old modifier (score/2-5) plus ½ the creature's level.



I actually didn't know that; hence the question.  Thank you, though, for pointing that out.


----------



## humble minion (Apr 18, 2008)

I dunno.  It's nice seeing a stat block for an epic monster that isn't 17 pages long, but it just seems so uninspiring and bland.

It's a living weapon created for the war between the gods and primordials.  It can _manipulate time itself_.  And what does it DO, in game terms?  Wander around inflicting damage plus a short-lived after-effect.  And that's it.  Can't project itself into the future or alter the past or stop/speed up time or summon the shades of its previous victims from temporal limbo anything.  There's not much flavour about it that screams 'fear me, for I am the primeval personification of time itself!'  It just hits people.  And unless it's been taken down below half hit points, it hits people one at a time.

I do hope this is unrepresentative and that other epic monsters will have more imaginative power sets.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2008)

The problem with summoning mirror shades to fight the party is that the prep work required for that is substantial.  It's just too long.  

As far as not doing a lot of damage, remember, this is a controller, not a brute.  So, it's not there to be laying down the smack, it's there to help the others that come with it lay down the smack.

Heck, considering it's a controller, there's how you flavour the mirror doubles thing.  The sample encounter creatures use the stats for those creatures but look like the PC's.  Done.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 18, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> I do hope this is unrepresentative and that other epic monsters will have more imaginative power sets.




Nope, I definitely think this is what you should get used to for epic monsters. I remember reading the phane in the epic handbook, and I didn't have a clue how to use those abilities. This creature is a lot more straightforward, but I agree its a bit dry.

The big thing to note is, as a minor action it can remove any conditions affecting it. That's pretty huge. Its damage is paltry, but as a controller its job is to stun and weaken. While I agree by itself its not that scary, when you have other things bashing at you and your continuously weakened, stunned, and dazed...I'm sure that adds in the fear factor.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Also it becomes more menacing/interesting with how you describe it.
_
"The Phane dropped to its knees, its form beginning to flicker and ooze away into nothingness. When it vanished; all that could be seen or heard was the creak or armour and shuffling of feet as the party stood there alone. 

What seemed like seconds passed, when the Phane appeared out of thin-air. Its form and shape restored to its previous form; the magical glyphs that were traced over its surface by the Cleric gone. 

It swiped out with its shadowy claws, knocking down the Fighter as it seemed like days had passed without rest. It then instantly appeared behind the Wizard where its cloudy form engulfed him. As it settled away the Wizard lay on the ground ashen-faced and withered.

The Phane quickly moved away from the rest of the decimated party, its green eyes studying them; knowing what they will do next."_

All that is within the rules of the Phane with using an action point.


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 18, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Also it becomes more menacing/interesting with how you describe it.
> _
> "The Phane dropped to its knees, its form beginning to flicker and ooze away into nothingness. When it vanished; all that could be seen or heard was the creak or armour and shuffling of feet as the party stood there alone.
> 
> ...




Now, if they start putting fluff examples like that with every monster, power and character option, I just might buy the game after all


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 18, 2008)

Well it is not really their job to give such fluff; your DM is supposed to do it.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (Apr 18, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think his job is to slow and stun the PCs, and let his brutes do the actual killing.




Right, but every monster we've seen so far deals similarly small damage. I think it's more likely that damage output has just been significantly reduced in 4e compared to 3e.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Well it is not really their job to give such fluff; your DM is supposed to do it.



I agree. Since there are so many opinions on what is good fluff anyway, I think WotC should focus on the objective stuff. Besides, I think a bare bones description can be more evocative and suggestive than a long description. A short description sparks questions which gets the imagination going.

On the damage front: As these guys are elite, they are meant to have allies. Two phanes cooperating could bring down most PCs in not too long time and they are fast and flying, so escape may not be an option when facing them. They have low one-shot potential but OTOH they don't have a glass jaw either.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> Right, but every monster we've seen so far deals similarly small damage. I think it's more likely that damage output has just been significantly reduced in 4e compared to 3e.



I think this is more or less stated outright somewhere (can't remember where). Since groups of monsters are the norm now, you have to take "focused fire" into account when coming up with monster damages. It also means that the spell Heal is less imperative now.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 18, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I really hope they have Atropals in MM1, because those were cool.



Actually I hope they are gone. Their coolness is over as soon as you have a someone at your table who had to suffer the loss of an unborn child. It's a tasteless concept for a D&D monster.

Whith millions of D&D gamers worldwide this sad fate certainly has struck quite a few of them, and such an reminder doesn't belong into the game (at the very least keep it out of the core rules).


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 18, 2008)

An atropal is a key character in one of the FR series that seems to deal with the 3.5-4E crossover so I think they have a secure position for conversion at some point.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 18, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> for I am the primeval personification of time itself!'



Well, he isn't. He's just a lesser aspect of the primeval personification of time created by the true primeval personification of time to fight as soldier in it's war.

I hope the deity/primordial of time will have more abilities to manipulate time (as they are the true primeval personification of time).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> An atropal is a key character in one of the FR series that seems to deal with the 3.5-4E crossover so I think they have a secure position for conversion at some point.




However, the artwork in the W&M for the atropal is quite different from before. It looks like a fully grown being, not a unborn child.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 18, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> Right, but every monster we've seen so far deals similarly small damage. I think it's more likely that damage output has just been significantly reduced in 4e compared to 3e.




That's the overriding impression I've been getting as well. Both characters and monsters will be doing less damage per round - this is going to have a big impact on the way the game works and is much more likely to help games feature more excellent moments and stop the buff/scry/teleport tactic that dominated high-level 3e play.


----------



## Voss (Apr 18, 2008)

Ugh.  A weird centaur-cat time thing?  
This is the kind of goofy monster that was all over the 3e books that I disliked so much.  I didn't really expect them to go, but I'm still a little sad they continue to exist.

Uninspired, overall, both in abilities and concept.  Its a giant bag of hit points, with a few random powers.  Plus, really, opening the manipulation of time can of worms never goes well.

And yay, another creature that enjoys random destruction.  Though apparently it can't actually dish it out.  Say one of these things attacks a town.  The entire town militia turns out.  50 odd people, say.  A level 1 human guard... can't be taken down in 1 round by this thing. (except if it spends its 1 action point).  So it would take a full 100 rounds, minimum for this high level, destructive beast to wipe out the guards of a small town.  Meanwhile, you put 40 punks with bows on rooftops and roll for 20s.  You only need 48 hits with longbows to kill it.  Over 100 rounds, sadly I think the townies win.  Maybe 96 if insubstansial is really half damage, but I'm still not terribly impressed.


----------



## phloog (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm with some of the other posters here - - to me this seems like the bad side effect of the 'no save or die effects' philosophy.

Yes, it absolutely stinks to lose levels, or ability points, or die outright, or AGE...but I think that you kick a lot of the dramatic tension right out the window when you do things like this.

"Look out, Egaddz!  It's a Phane!!!  If he manages to strike any of us with his epic dread power, we will be briefly penalized!  And what is more, we will APPEAR TO BE OLD...until it wears off"

Actually, it's more like a bad side effect of 'no save or die' AND the 'Monster Squad' philosophy...now we have an "epic" creature who makes you look like Irene Ryan for a moment while his far-less-epic friends pummel you.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm reserving judgement until we see a high level PC.

Reason why I say this is because the 3E PHANE at first glance, looks very impressive. Check it out, in the SRD and I was really jazzed up about DMing it.

The reality? Perfect example of why High-Level just plain sucked. If the PCs were prepared for it, they could kill it in one round without any trouble. If the PCs couldn't kill it in one round, they certainly would finish it off in the next.

Conversely, if the PCs weren't optimized/prepared, the Phane would kill a PC every round and you end up with a TPK in short order.

There was NO middle ground, you didn't get actual rounds but worse, the actual time it took for the battle was so unsatisfying. The pre-battle plan would take almost 30 minutes which would result in a 45 minute one round encounter.

As a DM, high level was all types of FAIL,

To those that want a complicated monster, you can have the 3E Phane. I just can't imagine said people actually being DMs given what tended to happen with "complex" monsters.

Seriously, to the people decrying the simpler monsters, have you EVER actually DM one of the more statblock heavy creatures at hgih levels?


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm reserving judgement until we see a high level PC.
> 
> Reason why I say this is because the 3E PHANE at first glance, looks very impressive. Check it out, in the SRD and I was really jazzed up about DMing it.
> 
> ...




This is soooo true. Especially this(for pretty much all of our Highlevel battles): 


			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> The pre-battle plan would take almost 30 minutes which would result in a 45 minute one round encounter.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> To those that want a complicated monster, you can have the 3E Phane. I just can't imagine said people actually being DMs given what tended to happen with "complex" monsters.
> 
> Seriously, to the people decrying the simpler monsters, have you EVER actually DM one of the more statblock heavy creatures at hgih levels?




Thank you! Everything you've said matches my experiences perfectly. These high end monsters look neat on paper, but I can't imagine that most people complaining about how the 3e Phane was better than its 4e counterpart ever ran these kinds of encounters. Yes, those high end 3e monsters are fun to _read_, but I need more than that. I need monsters that are fun to _use_!


----------



## Voss (Apr 18, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Thank you! Everything you've said matches my experiences perfectly. These high end monsters look neat on paper, but I can't imagine that most people complaining about how the 3e Phane was better than its 4e counterpart ever ran these kinds of encounters. Yes, those high end 3e monsters are fun to _read_, but I need more than that. I need monsters that are fun to _use_!




Hmm.  I agree with you, but this monster doesn't look fun to use.  It just zaps you as you grind away its giant stack of hit points.

Its my biggest problem with the design of the solo and elite monsters- a pile of extra hit points and some defense bonuses doesn't make the encounter more fun.  It just drags it out to 'and I hit it again' territory.  That gets boring.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I'm with some of the other posters here - - to me this seems like the bad side effect of the 'no save or die effects' philosophy.
> 
> Yes, it absolutely stinks to lose levels, or ability points, or die outright, or AGE...but I think that you kick a lot of the dramatic tension right out the window when you do things like this.



Battles in 4e are more about tactics than shock tactics or surprise.  It is a battle of attrition and trading blows.

In 3e, a really powerful monster would attack and possible reduce a party member from full hitpoints to dead in one round either because of a save or die spell or because it can do that much damage.  And they have to because 4-6 PCs all attacking it at the same time meant there was no way it was going to survive more than a round.

In 4e, a really powerful monster kills you in 4 rounds but you know there's nothing you can do about it unless you all work together and combine your powers to slow it down or stop it before then.  It then becomes more of a race against time.  More of a slow building tension.

So, when you are fighting a powerful creature like a dragon, it goes like this:
-The dragon breath weapons and everyone takes damage and ongoing damage. 
-It spends an action point and charges someone, attacking them twice.
-The PCs now don't know what will happen.  They are all taking damage every round that may or may not go away depending on the luck of their saves.

Everyone in the group knows that they have enough hitpoints to survive 3-4 rounds of just the continuing damage from the breath weapon, and it might go away after 1 round.  However, what happens if the dragon's breath weapon recharges and he can do it again?  What happens if the dragon hit the character most hurt by the breath weapon 2 rounds in a row?

It instead shift to "long term planning".  Moving in one round in order to set up the right AOE for your next attack, using an attack to weaken the monster so as to be able to survive more easily for the next couple of rounds, and so on.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 18, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> "Look out, Egaddz!  It's a Phane!!!  If he manages to strike any of us with his epic dread power, we will be briefly penalized!  And what is more, we will APPEAR TO BE OLD...until it wears off"




Or it's permanent if you die. 

The abilities it has are fairly scary, especially when you consider there'll be another couple of monsters also attacking you. A Phane with a sneak attacker? Eep.

Phane - attacks with Wizening Ray. You're Dazed (no Opportunity attacks, every enemy has Combat Advantage against you) and Weakened (half damage on attacks). You make your save? You're *still* weakened, until another round.

A Bloodied Phane? Eep. Wizening Tempest - you're stunned (no actions). Make your first save, and then you're Dazed and Weakened.

Those clerics and warlords are going to be busy allowing you to make extra saves...

Cheers!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I agree with you, but this monster doesn't look fun to use.  It just zaps you as you grind away its giant stack of hit points.




We'll have to see the capabilities of Epic tier PCs. For example, I'd lay good odds they would have some way of overcoming the Insubstantial resistance it has. Also, its weakening you while its friends flank, pound, and do whatever else abilities they can to you.


----------



## Li Shenron (Apr 18, 2008)

Interesting special abilities...

But isn't it a bit of a weird choice of monster? I think there were more cool abominations available, like the Hecantoncheires.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with summoning mirror shades to fight the party is that the prep work required for that is substantial. It's just too long.




Not really. Even the original mechanic was: "What's your attack bonus, -2? That's this guy's attack bonus."

The time duplicates were one of the easier parts about the original phane (which I agree, was far too complex to be really useful). They could be added to this phane with a bare minimum of work -- you could add something to the "sample encounter" set that gives it this ability. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Phane - attacks with Wizening Ray. You're Dazed (no Opportunity attacks, every enemy has Combat Advantage against you) and Weakened (half damage on attacks). You make your save? You're *still* weakened, until another round.
> 
> A Bloodied Phane? Eep. Wizening Tempest - you're stunned (no actions). Make your first save, and then you're Dazed and Weakened.




It really sounds more annoying than epic. And it still needs an ability that isn't "damage + status ailment." And the cosmetic effect of being old needs to have a bit more staying power -- it's pretty weak sauce right now.

Really, the dude here is probably a pretty awful menace to fight, but it's not really unique to me, it's not distinct in any way. It's fluff is par, but its abilities are just rather uninteresting, however powerful they may be. Stealing time, a parallel time duplicate, the ability to kill people with old age...these were nifty abilities the old phane had, and I'm kind of surprised they didn't find their way into the new phane in some way, since they are evocative coolness.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I agree with you, but this monster doesn't look fun to use.  It just zaps you as you grind away its giant stack of hit points.
> 
> Its my biggest problem with the design of the solo and elite monsters- a pile of extra hit points and some defense bonuses doesn't make the encounter more fun.  It just drags it out to 'and I hit it again' territory.  That gets boring.




For Solos, I think we've only seen one so far, namely the Black Dragon from DDXP and that gets not only 2 action points but also Immediate Reactions. I think Solos will play definitely different from normal monsters due to those two points. 

Elites are more like sub-bosses I guess to use a videogame term. Not really intended to be epic battles but just stronger than average (the addition of the action point).

That said, there was a playtest by a WOTC designer where they mention that using too high a monster can lead to the exact problem you outlines (I think it was the Angel of Valor) but my impression is that the WOTC designers have designed monsters to have enough interesting actions every round for the length of a fight. For example, you mentioned the worry about battles dragging out but given that in 3E, most battles only lasted one round outside of the sweet spot, that should indicate those were abnormalities. I think they (WOTC) have an idea of what constitues a good battle length.

From playing the low level Raiders of Oakhurst adventure and from seeing the lowered damage of the high end monsters, I get the impression that battles in 4E are more about TACTICS than pre-battle STRATEGY. In 3E, the hour BEFORE a battle was really the determining factor especially at low and high levels where it all came down to rocket tag.

It seems like in 4E, they're focusing on the actual in-battle situation. For example, the use of recharge AND action points AND saving throws AND the lack of major pre-battle buffs means that the actual outcome of a battle will be determined IN battle as well. I don't think 4E will have that planning strategy that 3E had once you past te sweet spot (level 12 IMO).

Battles I think will be a multi round affair where everyone gets to do their stuff and feels like they actually made a contribution to the actual battle itself.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Really, the dude here is probably a pretty awful menace to fight, but it's not really unique to me, it's not distinct in any way. It's fluff is par, but its abilities are just rather uninteresting, however powerful they may be. Stealing time, a parallel time duplicate, the ability to kill people with old age...these were nifty abilities the old phane had, and I'm kind of surprised they didn't find their way into the new phane in some way, since they are evocative coolness.




*GRINS*

You know, I had the exact same reaction as you did when I read about the phane in the ELH. My favourite villains from comics is Kang and I always thought the Time Gem was the "best" of the Infinity Gems.

So you know, this was the first beastie I thought I would spring at the PCs.

Make no mistake about it, it is DAMN COOL to read. However, to RUN in an actual GAME?

NEVER AGAIN. A total letdown. IT was either "PCs are prepared : Round 1, monster is dead" OR "PCs aren't prepared: Prepare for TPK"

Take something as simple as "negative levels" for the duplicate. Want to try and figure out the lost spell levels of a high level spellcaster or psionic?

Or how about the aging thing? So you got to keep track of how many rounds this effect occurs (which will never happen given the lethality of high level combat) THEN if you hit an age category the affected PC has to recalculate EVERYTHING since its the base stat. Ironically enough, even though 4E gets the "It's like WoW", the fact is a computer can much more easily handle many of the 3E high level monsters.

That's the thing about 3.x that I grew to hate. Everything was balanced so that players and DMs are on an equal footing but the truth is, as a DM I got way more things on my plate to handle.


----------



## Samhaine (Apr 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not really. Even the original mechanic was: "What's your attack bonus, -2? That's this guy's attack bonus."



"Oh... you have three 9th level spells prepared, one of which is Time Stop? Okay, he dumps the other two because of the negative levels and casts Time Stop. What are your best remaining high levels spells that can be cast during Time Stop? What do they do?"

I've never been a big fan of exact PC duplicate monsters in general, but at epic level play I expect it would be really complex. Add to that the whole factor of, "all that work you did to make your character competent? Suffer for it!" and it seems like a monster ability that's no fun for the DM or the PCs affected.


----------



## StarFyre (Apr 18, 2008)

*hmm*

Kamikaze  -- i find tons of creatures seem to have lost 'the cool' so just house rule them back 

I've already got spreadsheets in the works for further and more pronounced changes to devils, demons, angels to make them truly how we envision them and have powers that we think they should have.

I can see myself modifying almost every monster above level 15 to some degree AND all dragons.

Sanjay


----------



## maggot (Apr 18, 2008)

"Sorrowsworn soulrippers"?  Arg!  I don't think I could ever say that with a straight face.

Nounabuser Maggotposter


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 18, 2008)

I really don't buy this "the 3.5 version of the monster was too complex, so the only reasonable solution was to strip it down to the point where all it does is damage + a special effect" philosophy. Yes, high-level 3.5 play was too complex, but it's silly to say that this extreme level of oversimplification was the best possible solution.

When used as a level-appropriate encounter, a group of lowly 3.5 _ghouls_ is probably more dangerous than this "epic" monster and its minions.

Not to mention that the fluff associated with this thing is just silly - it hits you, and you look old... for one whole round. "Oh, gods! I've been turned into a crippled old man! I have been laid low by the horr... Wait, I'm all better. Whew... Aw, damn, I'm all wrinkly and wizened again! And my armor doesn't fit right. And it's chafing in a really, really embarassing place... *sigh*"

I really can't imagine any encounter with this thing _not_ turning completely laughable, with people cracking jokes about flipping back and forth between old and young... maybe that's just my group, but I don't think so.


----------



## lukelightning (Apr 18, 2008)

I can't wait to fight one of these!

"I charge at the phane to chop it in half with my vorpal scimitar, what? He zaps me with some strange time ray? ...*zap*... the important thing to know is I was wearing an onion in my belt, as was the custom of the time.... get off my lawn!"


----------



## Gargazon (Apr 18, 2008)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I can't wait to fight one of these!
> 
> "I charge at the phane to chop it in half with my vorpal scimitar, what? He zaps me with some strange time ray? ...*zap*... the important thing to know is I was wearing an onion in my belt, as was the custom of the time.... get off my lawn!"




Oh god, the old people jokes    ... there will be many and they will be bad   

That's it. This monster is IN.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> When used as a level-appropriate encounter, a group of lowly 3.5 _ghouls_ is probably more dangerous than this "epic" monster and its minions.




What a silly comparison.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 18, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> Kamikaze  -- i find tons of creatures seem to have lost 'the cool' so just house rule them back



Fun thing about them: As they're not solo monsters, you can add weaker versions of the PCs as time duplicates. Even more fun: The phane gets a heap of flavour, if it isn't killed on 0 hp, but instead vanishes, just to re-appear later. If one stops to think that flavourful abilities have to be anchored in the statblock, it's easy to "script" fun scenes. 4E already focuses on more linked encounters - a second phane arriving mid-battle (representing a time-stream duplicate) is basically made for the system.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 18, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Fun thing about them: As they're not solo monsters, you can add weaker versions of the PCs as time duplicates. Even more fun: The phane gets a heap of flavour, if it isn't killed on 0 hp, but instead vanishes, just to re-appear later. If one stops to think that flavourful abilities have to be anchored in the statblock, it's easy to "script" fun scenes. 4E already focuses on more linked encounters - a second phane arriving mid-battle (representing a time-stream duplicate) is basically made for the system.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




You, sir, are a farkin' genius.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 18, 2008)

maggot said:
			
		

> "Sorrowsworn soulrippers"?  Arg!  I don't think I could ever say that with a straight face.
> 
> Nounabuser Maggotposter




Agreed!


----------



## Staffan (Apr 18, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> Right, but every monster we've seen so far deals similarly small damage. I think it's more likely that damage output has just been significantly reduced in 4e compared to 3e.



It definitely has. Though I think the monsters doing lots of damage will primarily be the Brutes, and the only previews of those we've seen have been the RPG stats from the miniature game. Some monsters that are listed as level 7-9:

Angel of Valor (soldier 8): Longsword +16 vs AC, d8+3 AND Dagger +15 vs AC, d4+3.
Cleric of Pelor (controller (leader) 8): Mace +13 vs AC, d8+8.
Drow Spiderguard (soldier 8): Longsword +16 vs AC, d8+4
Howling Hag (controller 7): Wind Howl - Line 6, +10 vs Fort, d6+7 and Push 1
Bugbear Headreaver (brute 7): Greataxe - +12 vs AC, 2d10+4
Everfrost Ranger (skirmisher 9): Longbow - +13 vs AC, d8+9
Griffon (brute 7): Claw - +12 vs AC, 2d6+8; can make 2 claw attacks as a standard action

Of course, the critters have more abilities than it says here, usually limited powers that do more damage, but it seems clear that the big consistent damage dealers are brutes.


----------



## ferratus (Apr 18, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Fun thing about them: As they're not solo monsters, you can add weaker versions of the PCs as time duplicates. Even more fun: The phane gets a heap of flavour, if it isn't killed on 0 hp, but instead vanishes, just to re-appear later. If one stops to think that flavourful abilities have to be anchored in the statblock, it's easy to "script" fun scenes. 4E already focuses on more linked encounters - a second phane arriving mid-battle (representing a time-stream duplicate) is basically made for the system.




You know, I have an idea for this encounter.  A couple of adventures before this encounter, tell the party members that had a strange dream where they fought themselves.  Give a generic description of the battle and perhaps feature a major magical item you plan to give them.

Then when you fight the Phane, he summons up duplicates of the party as they were a few levels ago.  If the PC's don't get the hint and still use lethal damage and kill one of their doubles, you can take the character sheet away and force them to go back to where they were a couple of level ago to retrieve the body.    Time paradoxes are fun.

Not something I'd want to see in official rules mind you, but a DM could have a lot of fun creating that ability and building an encounter around it.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 18, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> Kamikaze  -- i find tons of creatures seem to have lost 'the cool' so just house rule them back



It's think it's part of the 3.x to 4e difference in terms of encounter design.  'The cool' is now distributed among the 3-5 different types of monsters that are in a standard encounter instead of all concentrated in one monster.

I think that's nice because A) You can better customize what kind of challenge an encounter brings by changing out specific creatures. B) With 'the cool' spread out a little, the challenge becomes a little more even, rather than the swingy combats people describe above.

In general I think the Phane looks good.  I wish they'd actually show us a whole encounter for one of the previews instead of just one monster at a time.


----------



## Lensman (Apr 18, 2008)

It's damage output seems very low in my opinion and with his massive hitpoints I wonder if combats will be very long and dragged out against it.


----------



## Gargazon (Apr 18, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> It's think it's part of the 3.x to 4e difference in terms of encounter design.  'The cool' is now distributed among the 3-5 different types of monsters that are in a standard encounter instead of all concentrated in one monster.
> 
> I think that's nice because A) You can better customize what kind of challenge an encounter brings by changing out specific creatures. B) With 'the cool' spread out a little, the challenge becomes a little more even, rather than the swingy combats people describe above.
> 
> In general I think the Phane looks good.  I wish they'd actually show us a whole encounter for one of the previews instead of just one monster at a time.




I agree. People seem to be making the mistake of looking at the monster as acting in a single creature vs. party of four situation, like in 3.5, but that's not how it's designed. This Phane would, by itself, be a challenge for two 26th level characters, not four. Four characters would kick its ass in no time.

Also, I like that it's effects are only status+damage, as if it was any worse and the monster was still fighting with three other monsters helping, all of them also dealing status+damage, some DMs could be quickly overwhelmed. The Phane's attacks keep the flavour of a time-manipulating beast, and also help to stop you being overwhelmed whenever you're using it in an equal encounter.


----------



## humble minion (Apr 18, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I'm with some of the other posters here - - to me this seems like the bad side effect of the 'no save or die effects' philosophy.
> 
> Yes, it absolutely stinks to lose levels, or ability points, or die outright, or AGE...but I think that you kick a lot of the dramatic tension right out the window when you do things like this.
> 
> "Look out, Egaddz!  It's a Phane!!!  If he manages to strike any of us with his epic dread power, we will be briefly penalized!  And what is more, we will APPEAR TO BE OLD...until it wears off"




I am not, in any way, intending to suggest that the first-failed-save-loses way that high-level/epic combat played out in 3.x was a good or desirable thing.  It wasn't.

But this post is spot on.

There is nothing EPIC about the phane.  It is not frightening.  It is not profound in any way.  It is a _26th-level creature_ cannot affect the wider world in any truly significant way.  The only way this _26th-level creature_ can threaten the kingdom or provoke an apocalypse is by hitting people, one at a time.  It is an orc with bigger numbers in its stat block.  

Oh, and it makes you look old, for a little while.  Ooh, scary.

Go on, this creature was meant to be created as a living weapon in the primeval war between deific entities.  It basically defines epic.  It's the sort of thing campaigns are built around.  But just try to extract from its stat block anything resembling a plot hook.  I dare you.

It's just so damn _shallow_.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Lensman said:
			
		

> It's damage output seems very low in my opinion and with his massive hitpoints I wonder if combats will be very long and dragged out against it.




What do you consider to long a combat? 

I've noticed this as a valid fear but I'm wondering if people are equating 3e length of a round as the 4E length of a round. The loss of iterative attacks by itself will cut down the length of time a round takes in 4E so even from the getgo, at high levels, the 4E combat round should run faster in real world time.


----------



## Deverash (Apr 18, 2008)

ferratus said:
			
		

> You know, I have an idea for this encounter.  A couple of adventures before this encounter, tell the party members that had a strange dream where they fought themselves.  Give a generic description of the battle and perhaps feature a major magical item you plan to give them.
> 
> Then when you fight the Phane, he summons up duplicates of the party as they were a few levels ago.  If the PC's don't get the hint and still use lethal damage and kill one of their doubles, you can take the character sheet away and force them to go back to where they were a couple of level ago to retrieve the body.    Time paradoxes are fun.
> 
> Not something I'd want to see in official rules mind you, but a DM could have a lot of fun creating that ability and building an encounter around it.




That's an awesome idea.  If/when I ever run a game to epic levels, I'm definately using that.


----------



## Gargazon (Apr 18, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> I am not, in any way, intending to suggest that the first-failed-save-loses way that high-level/epic combat played out in 3.x was a good or desirable thing.  It wasn't.
> 
> But this post is spot on.
> 
> ...




This creature IS Epic. If you sent a party of paragon heroes against it not only would they not be able to hit the ghastly abomination, they'd barely do any damage as the thing transforms them all into old men and women slowly and painfully. The original Phane, as far as I know, didn't have a 'Nuke City' spell, so why should this one? Also, this thing could easily tear apart a city - it wouldn't do it quickly, but time is no object to it, so it doesn't matter.

And the fluff has plenty of plot hooks - the Phane is working for a higher authority, such as a some kind of Lich Archmage, who seeks to make time his plaything through experimentation on how these creatures function. Or a pair of Phane are attacking astral vessels out of boredom - one of which the PCs are riding on.


----------



## Voss (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Battles I think will be a multi round affair where everyone gets to do their stuff and feels like they actually made a contribution to the actual battle itself.




Hmm.  Well, I have to admit I like the 4e tactics, and what you can do in a battle far more than I liked it in 1st, 2nd or 3rd, even just based on the small sample of available info.  But... I do think that solos and elites would be just as interesting without the HP inflation. They can do neat things, which is great.  But the extra hit points don't add to the interesting dimension the combat- they just artficially extend it, and whats worse, is it largely *feels* artificial (with what I've tried out).  It particularly stands out  when compared with the damage dealing capability of things with equal levels, including themselves- this thing is going to pound on itself for, what, 24+ rounds to kill itself?  That just feels wrong, and dreadfully boring.

I'm seriously considering pushing elites down to normal hit point and defense levels and solos down to 'elite' levels.  The interesting abilities will stay just as interesting, but there will be less of the 'miss/miss/miss/hit, ok, it hits bob again'  'miss/miss/hit/miss, Ok it hits bob again, someone use a healing power on him', & etc that solo battles feel like.  (Or as PC levels go up, just the daily, encounter and action point nova followed by beating on it until it dies, 7 rounds later).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Well, I have to admit I like the 4e tactics, and what you can do in a battle far more than I liked it in 1st, 2nd or 3rd, even just based on the small sample of available info.  But... I do think that solos and elites would be just as interesting without the HP inflation. They can do neat things, which is great.  But the extra hit points don't add to the interesting dimension the combat- they just artficially extend it, and whats worse, is it largely *feels* artificial (with what I've tried out).  It particularly stands out  when compared with the damage dealing capability of things with equal levels, including themselves- this thing is going to pound on itself for, what, 24+ rounds to kill itself?  That just feels wrong, and dreadfully boring.
> 
> I'm seriously considering pushing elites down to normal hit point and defense levels and solos down to 'elite' levels.  The interesting abilities will stay just as interesting, but there will be less of the 'miss/miss/miss/hit, ok, it hits bob again'  'miss/miss/hit/miss, Ok it hits bob again, someone use a healing power on him', & etc that solo battles feel like.  (Or as PC levels go up, just the daily, encounter and action point nova followed by beating on it until it dies, 7 rounds later).



I think it was Mike Mearls who wrote in his blog about a monster that he changed a bit differently then usual - he reduced the monsters HP, and instead increased its damage. That would make the combat "swingier", but the overall numeric balance stays the same. You could use this as an approach to handle Elite and Solo monsters. 

For my Iron Heroes campaign, I wrote up a Minion, Elite and Solo template. In the Elite template, I either double hit point, or increase both hit points and damage by 50 %. (from a purely statistical point of view, these do not end up equal. The latter version is a little more powerful. But it's close enough for me). 

Transposed to 4E, Elites could grant only 1/2 the normal extra HP, but also increase damage by 50 %. Solos probably should grant the full hit points and the 50 % damage increase. 

Both approaches only work in games without a significant number of save or die effects. Once they enter the equation, hit points can be bypassed, and damage becomes king.


----------



## phloog (Apr 18, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Or it's permanent if you die.
> 
> The abilities it has are fairly scary, especially when you consider there'll be another couple of monsters also attacking you. A Phane with a sneak attacker? Eep.
> 
> ...




I understand it was said a bit tongue and cheek, but still...

"And if ihe and his minions kill you, you'll not only be dead, but ACTUALLY OLD!  You will die young, but leave an OLD corpse!" - - doesn't really fill one with dread - piling an effect on top of death, it's along the lines of "...and if this beast reduces you to unresurrectable ash, the ash will have a bad smell and will be refused entry into all the best clubs."

I understand it's a different philosophy, it just doesn't jibe with my idea of epic fantasy, and so I see it as a bad fix to the save-or-die problem.  

To use the overused Tolkien analogy...the heroes in the hobbit were up against Smaug, who was deadly and nasty on his own...not Smaug, who stuns you with his breath weapon, his two ogre accomplices, and a goat named Edmund who nibbles you while you stand stunned and terrified.  It all still just feels a bit contrived/artificial.  I can definitely see SOME fights against crews, but for this particular creature it seems like fear of an aging effect led them to make it a group fight, and it just seems odd.

On top of which, it seems to be a bit of a mismatch with the explanation of the power - -this thing is a creature that manipulates time itself...it's putting you in a temporary aging bubble?  The more sensible (admittedly it's fantasy) explanation would be that the creature sends your body through time at an accelerated rate, and you age...but because that would lead to a negative effect they don't want to deal with, now it's this almost illusory effect, or some biological thing.


----------



## LordVyreth (Apr 18, 2008)

Am I the only one who misses the 3rd Edition fluff for these guys?  Weapons of the gods are neat and all, but I prefer the actual bastard children of the gods angle.  And I'm not sure if I want my abominations, Tarrasque, and old high-level monsters like the Nightshades in the same grouping.  I am eager to see the Tarrasque stats, though.  Those are always fun to compare between editions.


----------



## Lensman (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> What do you consider to long a combat?
> 
> I've noticed this as a valid fear but I'm wondering if people are equating 3e length of a round as the 4E length of a round. The loss of iterative attacks by itself will cut down the length of time a round takes in 4E so even from the getgo, at high levels, the 4E combat round should run faster in real world time.




Well I have only run through a couple of combats so far so I cannot speak from much experience in the matter. But depending on how combat damage scales the loss of iterative attacks would add to the number of rounds in a combat with the reduction of damage per round. 

Lets place the creature against itself in a combat. It does on a average of 19 points of damage with it's at will ability. With it hitting 50% of the time it would take about 50 rounds of combat to defeat it's clone.


----------



## Rel (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What a silly comparison.




Now hong, you know we play nicer than that around here.  You get a 1-day ban.


----------



## OchreJelly (Apr 18, 2008)

Epic or no, it's role is still controller.  I think this creature fits that bill nicely.  It stuns, dazes, & weakens the party while his fangy abomination pals dice out the real damage.

And it certainly feels epic to me.  If said creature attacks our hypothetical town, our hypothetical militiamen will pee themselves when they see their captain scream in agony as he ages before eventually turning into a pile of dusty bones before their eyes (i.e. dead).  Will they stand before this thing more smoke than creature that is there and yet not there, or will they falter?

I even see a plot hook where the heroes come to the now ghost town trying to discern what sort of creature turned the inhabitants into dusty piles of bones.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Well, I have to admit I like the 4e tactics, and what you can do in a battle far more than I liked it in 1st, 2nd or 3rd, even just based on the small sample of available info.  But... I do think that solos and elites would be just as interesting without the HP inflation. They can do neat things, which is great.  But the extra hit points don't add to the interesting dimension the combat- they just artficially extend it, and whats worse, is it largely *feels* artificial (with what I've tried out).  It particularly stands out  when compared with the damage dealing capability of things with equal levels, including themselves- this thing is going to pound on itself for, what, 24+ rounds to kill itself?  That just feels wrong, and dreadfully boring.
> 
> I'm seriously considering pushing elites down to normal hit point and defense levels and solos down to 'elite' levels.  The interesting abilities will stay just as interesting, but there will be less of the 'miss/miss/miss/hit, ok, it hits bob again'  'miss/miss/hit/miss, Ok it hits bob again, someone use a healing power on him', & etc that solo battles feel like.  (Or as PC levels go up, just the daily, encounter and action point nova followed by beating on it until it dies, 7 rounds later).




Which is why I'm still withholding judgement on the Epic tier until I know what a high level PC can do.

For example, if PCs add half-damage to their attack (and this might be true) then an encounter power that says W + cha is going to be chewing a fair bit of the HP off a monster at high level.

If at Heroic, battles take 5-6 rounds to resolve and at Epic, they take 8-9 and yet those 8-9 rounds take place under an hour, I'll consider it a success.

I have a hunch that when a PHANE takes on two level 26 PCs, it should force the PCs to use all of their encounter powers plus a couple of rounds of their at-will abilities and maybe a daily as well. We saw how many "encounter" powers a level 26 PC would have a couple of days ago, so I think that is the basis on how long combat is going to be.

I suspect this is true for the length of combat in 4E. You can judge how many rounds of combat a PC will have to be in to defeat a foe by the number of encounter powers they have.

It makes no sense that combat only lasts say 2 rounds at high levels when you have upwards of 17 "powers", I'm guessing length of combat will be roughly half that number in rounds.

EPIC
I think there's a tendency that EVERYTHING at epic has to be Solo monsters (someone at WOTC's board mentioned that just at low level it will be hard to think of Solo Monsters, covnersely everyone tends to think of EPIC monsters as non-Solo monsters).

I think the math behind the 4E monsters will actually allow for single monsters to be used as BBEG even if they aren't Solo per se. For example, I have tried using the 3E phane as a single boss monster for a level 20 group that didn't know about it. Pretty much the first round and it was all over for the party (the disparity in HP between a barbarian and a sorceror is just WAY too much especially at 20th level).

However, even if they were prepared, I doubt there's much they could've done as the PHANE is basically, "unless you have X, don't even bother". However, once they had "X" the fight become a curbstomp in the PC's favour. Its a binary scale which quite frankly sucks.

The 4E phane looks like it won't autokill a level 20 party and at the same time, I doubt a level 26 PC in 4E could one shot the phane in one round (which is what happened the first time I ran a phane and told my player about it).


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Lensman said:
			
		

> Well I have only run through a couple of combats so far so I cannot speak from much experience in the matter. But depending on how combat damage scales the loss of iterative attacks would add to the number of rounds in a combat with the reduction of damage per round.
> 
> Lets place the creature against itself in a combat. It does on a average of 19 points of damage with it's at will ability. With it hitting 50% of the time it would take about 50 rounds of combat to defeat it's clone.




This is a VERY bad basis given that 4E has explicitly said, "PC != NPC". The math behind the phane isn't based on it fighting itself, but figting (and losing) against two level 26 PCs.


----------



## Khur (Apr 18, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> It's the return of one of the Abominations from the Epic Level Handbook.
> 
> I really hope they have Atropals in MM1, because those were cool.



Atropal is in MM1.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Make no mistake about it, it is DAMN COOL to read. However, to RUN in an actual GAME?
> 
> NEVER AGAIN. A total letdown. IT was either "PCs are prepared : Round 1, monster is dead" OR "PCs aren't prepared: Prepare for TPK"




Right, that is exactly what a new edition could fix about it. Nothing about stealing time or alternate cowboy dimension duplicates or killing you with old age needs to bring back the insanity of 3e high-level combat at all. You can keep the cool abilities without making the thing obnoxious to run.

I'm not really saying the 3e version was better, just that its abilities were much more evocative than this knock-off, and that I'm a little surprised the coolness wasn't kept, given that the beast seems pretty bland.



			
				Semhaine said:
			
		

> "Oh... you have three 9th level spells prepared, one of which is Time Stop? Okay, he dumps the other two because of the negative levels and casts Time Stop. What are your best remaining high levels spells that can be cast during Time Stop? What do they do?"
> 
> I've never been a big fan of exact PC duplicate monsters in general, but at epic level play I expect it would be really complex. Add to that the whole factor of, "all that work you did to make your character competent? Suffer for it!" and it seems like a monster ability that's no fun for the DM or the PCs affected.




The first point is that I'm talking about retaining but redesigning the cool evocative abilities. I'm not shouting from the rooftops that this critter was better in 3e, but I am saying that the abilities were more evocative, and that 4e had a chance to retain interesting abilities, but, to all appearances, decided not to.

So the issue with Time Stop is negated because Time Stop itself is negated, so your quote is a false comparison. There's no chance that any encounter with a time duplicate in 4e could ever cause that issue (leaving aside the fact that you no longer have a concern with "highest level spells" or anything like that). 

Secondly, it's pretty easy to say "He has the exact same abilities and just makes all rolls at -2." This is especially true in 4e, since the sheer quantity of abilities will be less. The complexity of high-level play is something that 4e is expressly addressing, so any evil cowboy mirror universe twin would NOT be very complicated. 

Thirdly, the idea of "evil doubles" is a very archetypal conflict, and one that the 3e phane expressly used to its advantage, and that it has lost in the jump to 4e. Causing a player to 
"suffer for competence" has never really been the point -- the point has always been that classic conflict with a you that is slightly...off. To compete against your own shadow. The fact that the time double is obviously less competent than you are (-2 to everything) makes it obviously a horrible choice for DMs who want to make their players suffer for their skill. It's disappointing that the 4e phane doesn't leverage the "fight yourself" conflict idea, just like it's disappointing it doesn't leverage the idea of "stolen time" or "death by rapid aging" at all. These were all things that made the original phane evocative, and these are things that it, to appearances, has surrendered in the move to 4e. And I'm not much of a fan of that, because I don't really think it was _necessary_ to loose any of those abilities, given that they could be retained and redesigned to give the same feel with new rules.

Things like this are the reason I'm really looking forward to the new _Tome of Horrors_. From what Clark has mentioned, it seems like it'll be a better monster manual than the monster manual, because it seems to make some deliberate design choices that are quite different from the path that 4e monsters are taking.



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> Atropal is in MM1.




If it ain't a stillborn giant fetus floating in Astral afterbirth, it ain't an Atropal.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Right, that is exactly what a new edition could fix about it. Nothing about stealing time or alternate cowboy dimension duplicates or killing you with old age needs to bring back the insanity of 3e high-level combat at all. You can keep the cool abilities without making the thing obnoxious to run.
> 
> I'm not really saying the 3e version was better, just that its abilities were much more evocative than this knock-off, and that I'm a little surprised the coolness wasn't kept, given that the beast seems pretty bland.



But there's no way to keep those abilities and still keep to the 4e philosophy on monster design and balance.

I mean alternate cowboy dimension duplicates require you to have stated out versions of the PCs or alternate versions of them at least.  That means you need access to their character sheets in order to apply a template or modifications to them.  They might take those home with them.  Either that or it requires you ask the players what their AC or attacks or damage is each round of combat.  Plus...that PC has 20 different powers you could use, each of which has a paragraph of text describing it.  How do they all work?  Which is the best one to use this round?  How many of them are Immediate actions?  It's easy for the player to keep track of all that, he isn't running 3 or 4 other creatures at the same time.  Plus, you run into a problem with action economy.  By summoning an external creature, the monster now gets 2 standard actions a round and can essentially attack twice.  Does it take the standard action of the time creature in order to keep the duplicate going in order to balance that?  It just isn't a feasible power.  Also, if it is summoning creatures what is the purpose of the time creature?  What role does it serve?  Is it a striker since it is creating creatures to do damage?

Killing with old age.  Fair enough.  What makes killing with old age different than killing with a sword?  Keep in mind, you can't use save or dies.  You can't bypass hitpoints to kill someone more quickly than if you had used a sword.  You also can't have any long term effects that last beyond the end of the combat.  You also can't have an effect that completely prevents a character from acting without a save every round.  So, given this...I know if I was designing it, I'd say that I'd make it a ray which, say, does hitpoint damage and weakens someone as they get older, but the effects of the aging would go away quickly.  Probably after a save or something.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 18, 2008)

Here's a question: Isn't one of the things about 4e design is that there's more than one type of each monster, because they're starting every monster at the top of a page?

Maybe there's a Phane Timeripper 27 Solo Controller that can do the time-duplicate thing (or even cooler, time duplicates of OTHER characters, like ancient kings and the adventurers' possible future offspring)


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 18, 2008)

Honestly, the time duplicate thing is best handled in flavor text, which could describe how to make simple minion duplicates out of the PCs or prominent NPCs, or more likely, what pages to flip to in the DMG to do so. Duplication on the fly is a little much.


----------



## OgreBane99 (Apr 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> -sighs- And the Nightwalkers are back. I can hear my group's jokes already.



What?  You don't like shadowy, buns of steel!!!


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 18, 2008)

So, first...



			
				Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> An insubstantial (takes 1/2 damage from attacks) creature with 478 hit points, that can hit PCs with rays that cause them to halve their damage, so it's only taking 1/4 normal damage? Nasty!




Can someone link me to where that's confirmed? ...or give an example of how they know? Thanks!

Second, Fallen Seraph's description of the phane is pretty sweet.

Lastly, as I was reading through everyone's comments, all I could think of was that it feels like WOTC is giving a basic idea for the monster, but the dms can expand on it giving it powers and fluff. I thought of something that I personally like and may use. A phane who has periodically appeared during combat and fought the PCs. They think it's stalking them or just attacking with random cruelty. However, it's trying to jump back in time to when they're weaker to see if it can give them a serious enough injury to win a fight in the present... which is the future of the ambushed PCs. Then, once the PCs actually meet it they'll be afraid of it and a pretty cool thing could be 'recalling' wounds as a minor action or something. Also, I think it would have to be able to get a usable action point for any and all action points the PCs used in fighting it... thus it could really break time and be super nasty.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 18, 2008)

That One Guy said:
			
		

> Can someone link me to where that's confirmed? ...or give an example of how they know? Thanks!



As far as I know, there's nothing official, but in the D & D Miniatures line, being Insubstantial causes a creature to take half damage from attacks, and being weakened causes a creature to deal half damage.


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with summoning mirror shades to fight the party is that the prep work required for that is substantial.  It's just too long.




Not if you do it using the level adjustment rules for monsters just revealed from the DMG. -2 to attacks, AC, and defenses, -1 to damage, -2 levels of hp, and go!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 18, 2008)

So has anyone tried to build the Phane with the custom monsters thread.  The rules don't seem to match up (which isn't completely strange, as customizing a monster is not necessarily the same as building one).  But I've probably missed some other preview hints and things that might shed light on my questions.  For instance:  the Phane has an attack bonus of +29.  Based on the customizing article, we know that +26 could account for level.  Based on the Shadar-Kai article from Roll v. Role we know that it gets another +2 to attack for being elite, for a total of +28.  So where's that +1 coming from?  It doesn't seem to be related to its ability scores.  So I'm a bit confused.

Also, how do we know what ability score its attacks key from?  Maybe more importantly, does it really matter?

Finally, I really don't understand the inclusion of ability scores and their bonuses.  I know the formula for calculating them (3.x bonus +1/2 level, correct?), but they don't seem to factor into the statblock, except for a few skills and perhaps for ability checks when necessary.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

That One Guy said:
			
		

> Second, Fallen Seraph's description of the phane is pretty sweet.




Thanks, I think it shows that even though the stat-blocks and powers may seem basic and as others put it "less-epic" they only are like that on-paper. It is sorta a reverse of 3e, instead of looking better on paper then in play, it looks better in play then on paper.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2008)

> But there's no way to keep those abilities and still keep to the 4e philosophy on monster design and balance.




Ha!



> I mean alternate cowboy dimension duplicates require you to have stated out versions of the PCs or alternate versions of them at least.




"Your evil twin attacks you. Eddie, roll to attack yourself at -2."

As a DM, I should have a vague idea of what powers my PC's have anyway, and even if I don't remember specifics, it's right there on their character sheet, and THEY have the specifics, so it's no more effort than telling them what the twin does, and letting them figure out what numbers to figure in. It's less DM prep work than most other monsters. 



> That means you need access to their character sheets in order to apply a template or modifications to them. They might take those home with them. Either that or it requires you ask the players what their AC or attacks or damage is each round of combat. Plus...that PC has 20 different powers you could use, each of which has a paragraph of text describing it. How do they all work? Which is the best one to use this round? How many of them are Immediate actions? It's easy for the player to keep track of all that, he isn't running 3 or 4 other creatures at the same time.




You don't need to keep track of it. The player has it done for you. You can also take a glance at their character sheet before or during play, and if you remember a particular ability, you can declare that they use it against themselves (or whatever). Really, you're assuming it's harder than it is (speaking as someone who has run evil cowboy dimension twins against PC parties in the past, they required the LEAST set-up of any monster I've ever run).



> Plus, you run into a problem with action economy. By summoning an external creature, the monster now gets 2 standard actions a round and can essentially attack twice. Does it take the standard action of the time creature in order to keep the duplicate going in order to balance that? It just isn't a feasible power. Also, if it is summoning creatures what is the purpose of the time creature? What role does it serve? Is it a striker since it is creating creatures to do damage?




And now you're careening off the edge.

First of all, we have an example of a monster who summons other monsters, so action economy can be accounted for.

Second of all, the initial idea was to not have it summoned during combat, but appearing as part of the encounter, thus being like any other normal monster or minion, rather than just piling onto the phane. 

Nothing in 4e prevents evil cowboy universe duplicates attacking the PC's, because I'm sure the designers wouldn't be so cavalier as to eliminate that classic trope from the game.

So the only question is: why did the Phane loose this ability?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So the only question is: why did the Phane loose this ability?




I was just re-reading the fluff, the Phane is only oriented towards time, not other dimensions. So, it wouldn't make sense in the new-fluff for the Phane to have this power. 

So, we could very well see this becoming part of another monsters' powers.


----------



## mearls (Apr 18, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> An insubstantial (takes 1/2 damage from attacks) creature with 478 hit points, that can hit PCs with rays that cause them to halve their damage, so it's only taking 1/4 normal damage? Nasty!




You know how in pro football, the first time a hot shot young rookie plays a game, someone slams him to the ground and, while he's writhing in pain, yells at him "Welcome to the pros, m**********r!"

Yeah, that's what getting to epic level is like.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Also, how do we know what ability score its attacks key from?  Maybe more importantly, does it really matter?



I think the idea is, it doesn't matter.  Note that in the customizing monsters article, the displayed templates do not alter ability scores at all, which is a big difference from 3e.  Since one of the complexities in altering monsters (and in using buffs) in 3e was the cascading effect of ability score changes (e.g. + to Str means you need to alter attack bonuses, grapple bonus, damage bonuses by different multiples - 1x, 0.5x, 1.5x, skill bonuses, and the odd Str-based DC), they are probably trying to move away from that.



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Finally, I really don't understand the inclusion of ability scores and their bonuses.  I know the formula for calculating them (3.x bonus +1/2 level, correct?), but they don't seem to factor into the statblock, except for a few skills and perhaps for ability checks when necessary.



That's exactly what they are for - ability checks and untrained skill checks.  It's the alternative to providing explicit skill lists for monsters.  Some have one or two skills they're really good at, but for most you just use the untrained bonus.


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 19, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> As far as I know, there's nothing official, but in the D & D Miniatures line, being Insubstantial causes a creature to take half damage from attacks, and being weakened causes a creature to deal half damage.




Thanks!



			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Thanks, I think it shows that even though the stat-blocks and powers may seem basic and as others put it "less-epic" they only are like that on-paper. It is sorta a reverse of 3e, instead of looking better on paper then in play, it looks better in play then on paper.




I think you're onto something there. I hope it turns out true.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 19, 2008)

Meh. Not particularly impressed with that offering, to be quite honest. It's just a bit on the blah side. Id' expect to see some more interesting/powerful powers on a critter that can manipulate time, like re-rolls for itself and maybe its opponents.


----------



## LordArchaon (Apr 19, 2008)

It was impossible to read every post of the thread, so I'll give you my view even if it may repeat someone else's...

First of all, the artwork rocks. And that wouldn't be so important if not because it characterizes the creature much better than before, allowing DMs to customize it, describe it the way they want, but staying in the theme of such a nightmarish, weird, and suggestive creature.
Then I would like to point you to the tactics section and to the Phane's speed, that the tactics mention. 10 is VERY much. And shifting FOUR squares each time you attack as a standard action with the touch which has range 2, means that the Phane can really make effective "flyby" attacks, even on the ground. 
Speaking of its powers, the _slow_ effect of the touch appears to be NOT SAVABLE. You are slowed and you must deal with it. So that's another difficulty when you're actually trying to BEAT this guy. You may not be able to approach it.
Wizening Tempest is also more wicked than it first seems: the stun effect endures AT LEAST one round. And after that the after effect makes you BOTH dazed AND weakened.
Last but not least, as many already said, the ability to shun ongoing effects and to be insubstantial (note that all the other examples of creatures using "insubstantial" couldn't attack while insubstantial...).

I must say that I discovered these details only the second or maybe third time I looked through the stats and the whole page. They are straightforward, the 4e monsters, but only AFTER you understand them thoroughly. And even if it doesn't take much to understand them, ALL the examples I've seen took quite a bit "cpu cycles" to understand them...
The good thing is that once you understand them, it's like when you master a modern videogame... You can do all sort of badass things with them without even thinking!   
We just have to get used to some new "joypad buttons" like   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,  and


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 19, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I think the idea is, it doesn't matter.  Note that in the customizing monsters article, the displayed templates do not alter ability scores at all, which is a big difference from 3e.  Since one of the complexities in altering monsters (and in using buffs) in 3e was the cascading effect of ability score changes (e.g. + to Str means you need to alter attack bonuses, grapple bonus, damage bonuses by different multiples - 1x, 0.5x, 1.5x, skill bonuses, and the odd Str-based DC), they are probably trying to move away from that.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's exactly what they are for - ability checks and untrained skill checks.  It's the alternative to providing explicit skill lists for monsters.  Some have one or two skills they're really good at, but for most you just use the untrained bonus.




Ok, that's cool.  I can understand the design decision.  It feels strange to me that ability scores do almost _nothing_ in relation to the rest of the stat block.  For instance, I want to call the Phane's abilities Charisma-based, but they're not really.  They just do what they do, based on the monster's level, role, etc.  I'm going to have to let go of some old habits, but I'm ok with that.

Although I'm still trying to figure out where that extra +1 is coming from.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 19, 2008)

I'm starting to become very concerned by the low damage numbers I'm seeing. This obviously implies that 1/2 level will not improve damage, so a 20th level Wizard's magic missile will do no more than a 1st level Wizard's, save for the possible +5 from items. So while HP scale dramatically with level, damage really doesn't, and that's a potentially very serious problem. I shudder to think how long it would take players to kill that Phane, not to mention all of its minions. That, and their low damage will simply be laughed at by most characters, who could last dozens of rounds of attacks by these creatures without even using healing surges.

I really hope I'm wrong. But since these are official stat blocks, it's hard to see how the math can lie.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 19, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> IThis obviously implies that 1/2 level will not improve damage, so a 20th level Wizard's magic missile will do no more than a 1st level Wizard's, save for the possible +5 from items.




Unless they scale with level, like some of the abilities from the rogue article (all the at-wills shown scale with level). Since most abilities we've seen have been attached to pregenerated 1st-level characters, assuming that they don't scale because you haven't seen it is a bit premature.


----------



## DJCupboard (Apr 19, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> I
> There is nothing EPIC about the phane.  It is not frightening.  It is not profound in any way.  It is a _26th-level creature_ cannot affect the wider world in any truly significant way.  The only way this _26th-level creature_ can threaten the kingdom or provoke an apocalypse is by hitting people, one at a time.  It is an orc with bigger numbers in its stat block.
> 
> Oh, and it makes you look old, for a little while.  Ooh, scary.
> ...




I agree that it's stats don't include all the potential coolness, but there's nothing to say that this is what is does to _characters_, those people with destinies who can be resurrected.  Against us lowly normal people, it's wizened ray is permamnent (let's say), and if you don't find and kill it, the newly appointed King has only a few days before he dies of old age at 17.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 19, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Ok, that's cool.  I can understand the design decision.  It feels strange to me that ability scores do almost _nothing_ in relation to the rest of the stat block.



But they do:
Initiative = 23 = 13 (1/2 lvl) + 10 (Dex mod)
Perception = 25 =  13 (1/2 lvl) + 7 (Wis mod) + 5 (trained?)
HP = 478 = ((8 [controller] * (26+1 [level+1])) + 23 [Con score]) * 2 [elite]

And I'm not sure what exactly is going into the phane's defenses, but its AC/Ref is 3 over its Fort/Will, and its Dex mod is 3 over its Str/Wis mods, so those are all being used.  The attack/damage numbers are admittedly a bit strange; it seems to use Dex for Temporal Touch and Wizening Tempest damage, and Int for Wizening Ray, but all three powers have the same attack bonus.

Mess with the base stats (via templates or whatever), and you have to recalculate all sorts of stuff.  Much easier to just add on some bonuses, as in the first customization path.


----------



## phloog (Apr 19, 2008)

DJCupboard said:
			
		

> I agree that it's stats don't include all the potential coolness, but there's nothing to say that this is what is does to _characters_, those people with destinies who can be resurrected.  Against us lowly normal people, it's wizened ray is permamnent (let's say), and if you don't find and kill it, the newly appointed King has only a few days before he dies of old age at 17.




Yeah...I guess maybe that's another flavor stretch I'm having trouble making - that your status as someone with a destiny renders you immune or partially immune to a vast array of powers, rather than just 'more able to be resurrected'.

I've still got the core books on order, but I think I'm finding myself having to make a few too many leaps here.  Again I wonder:  Is there really no better sweet spot on the continuum between "Insta-Death Power" and "Inconvenience and Cosmetic Changes" for monster powers?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 19, 2008)

Debilitating effects that can't be done away with in the middle of a fight, but can be cured with some downtime.  Something like ability damage in 3e.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 19, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Unless they scale with level, like some of the abilities from the rogue article (all the at-wills shown scale with level). Since most abilities we've seen have been attached to pregenerated 1st-level characters, assuming that they don't scale because you haven't seen it is a bit premature.




The Rogue ability only increases from 1[W] tp 2[W] at 21st level. That's rather insignificant.

Also, the part about monsters not adding 1/2 level is not speculation at all, it's blatantly obvious looking at their stats. I really doubt that players will add 1/2 level to damage when monsters don't, as that would really unbalance things in the PC's favor. The Phane is a 26th level monster and it's most powerful ability does 2d8 + 10 damage. That's only an average of 19 damage, which is merely double what a 1st level Wizard does with magic missile, despite the fact that a 26th level Wizard will have several times as many HP as he did at level 1.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 19, 2008)

I posted this on Gleemax, but thought to post it here too... I dunno if this could work (forgotten exact rules for OA... but).

Could a Phane that is really well played by a DM, attack the whole party while not on its turn?

Could the Phane, use its basic attack (Temporal Touch) to OA one PC when he moves. Then shift nearby second PC.

When second PC moves, thanks to either being close enough or PC moving within range, another OA and another shift. 

This could potentially repeat till the end of the PCs turns, and you then have got a bunch of injured and slowed PCs on their own turn.


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I posted this on Gleemax, but thought to post it here too... I dunno if this could work (forgotten exact rules for OA... but).
> 
> Could a Phane that is really well played by a DM, attack the whole party while not on its turn?
> 
> ...




I don't think it functions that way... because if it did then I think it would be logical that PCs could use their at-will powers in an OA. To me, I think it'd be a poor mechanic (and I'd probably ask my group if they're for or against it. Democracy or something), but if you find out how it works... lemme know. Thanks.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 19, 2008)

That One Guy said:
			
		

> I don't think it functions that way... because if it did then I think it would be logical that PCs could use their at-will powers in an OA. To me, I think it'd be a poor mechanic (and I'd probably ask my group if they're for or against it. Democracy or something), but if you find out how it works... lemme know. Thanks.




Well, most at-will powers aren't basic attacks:    Most are just attacks:   

The Temporal Touch attack is shown as being a basic attack:


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well, most at-will powers aren't basic attacks:    Most are just attacks:
> 
> The Temporal Touch attack is shown as being a basic attack:




Ahhh... Nosco.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 19, 2008)

Don't OAs take an immediate action though? Or did I just dream that?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 19, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Don't OAs take an immediate action though? Or did I just dream that?




I dunno. But it says under the Pre-Release:



> When an enemy lets its guard down, you can take an opportunity action. You can only take one opportunity action on each combatant's turn (if available). An opportunity action interrupts the action that triggered it.




So since each OA is in a separate combatant's turn... It could work.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Apr 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> USo it would take a full 100 rounds, minimum for this high level, destructive beast to wipe out the guards of a small town.



100 rounds = 600 seconds = 10 minutes. Eh.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I dunno. But it says under the Pre-Release:
> 
> 
> 
> So since each OA is in a separate combatant's turn... It could work.



...oh, ew.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 19, 2008)

In addition to the DMG excerpt about customizing monsters, there's also a Monster Manual excerpt presenting the Phane (Level 26 Elite Controller), an abomination that can manipulate time.

When I first read this I though wow that sounds cool, when I started reading the article I though the same thing. When I read the stat block my only though was Boooring. A very disappointing critter not quite as disappointing as the Pit Fiend but pretty close.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 19, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> In addition to the DMG excerpt about customizing monsters, there's also a Monster Manual excerpt presenting the Phane (Level 26 Elite Controller), an abomination that can manipulate time.
> 
> When I first read this I though wow that sounds cool, when I started reading the article I though the same thing. When I read the stat block my only though was Boooring. A very disappointing critter not quite as disappointing as the Pit Fiend but pretty close.




I think on paper it may seem boring but, in-game it can be quite different. It is the opposite of 3e, looks good on paper bad in play. To take two examples, I posted previously on this thread:



> Could a Phane that is really well played by a DM, attack the whole party while not on its turn?
> 
> Could the Phane, use its basic attack (Temporal Touch) to OA one PC when he moves. Then shift nearby second PC.
> 
> ...




and (this is entirely in-game):




> _"The Phane dropped to its knees, its form beginning to flicker and ooze away into nothingness. When it vanished; all that could be seen or heard was the creak or armour and shuffling of feet as the party stood there alone.
> 
> What seemed like seconds passed, when the Phane appeared out of thin-air. Its form and shape restored to its previous form; the magical glyphs that were traced over its surface by the Cleric gone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 19, 2008)

That is a wonderful little bit you wrote there no doubt, however i'm sure you could write something equally evocative about a 3E kobold or a 1E flump that doesn't change the nature of the beast.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 19, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> That is a wonderful little bit you wrote there no doubt, however i'm sure you could write something equally evocative about a 3E kobold or a 1E flump that doesn't change the nature of the beast.




I think it does, it means the rules can be just as evocative and engrossing in-game as anything in previous games. Without the need for extremely large and complex stat-block.

That is what is important what happens in-game.

If the rules for a 3E kobold or 1E flump can create engaging situations that is also good. However, if it can be done using a simpler and easier to understand stat-block even better.


----------



## Andor (Apr 19, 2008)

All of D&D so far, even 3e really, has been built from individually defined abilities. The trend has been towards unifying effects so that you don't have odd situations where monster A engulfs you in water save or die, Monster B engulfs you in water hold your breath for x rounds then save or die, and Monster C engulfs you in water save or your armour rusts as tended to happen in earlier editions. Nonetheless monsters could have completely odd effects unlike anything else in the game. Rust monsters, spore pods, green slime, etc. Whenever the players encountered something new there was a real opportunity for novelty and puzzles.

In 4e the trend seems to have reached the end goal and then some however. I'm getting the idea that monsters can produce effects from list 2-3 on page 42 only. These powers will have a range of blah. No exceptions. No "can only be killed by stuffing broccoli in it's mouth while the bard plays a hurdy-gurdy." No funky abilities to taunt you with your own nightmares or take the form of a lost loved one. No implanting young in a PC that will hatch in d4 weeks. Blah.

Sure the GM can put in anything he want. We all know that. So what? If I'm editing every monster to make it fit what I want it to do, why am I bothering to pay wotc for a monster manual? 

Perhaps the play will be so sweet that my fears will be moot, but I'm really starting to worry now.


----------



## One Horse town (Apr 19, 2008)

I think its shift power (along with the getting rid of conditions affecting it) best reflect its time manipulation. 4 squares is nasty, based on what we've seen so far.

What happens is you haven't made a save to shrug off a condition by the end of the encounter? (general question) Do you automatically shrug it off in the subsequent 'down time' between encounters? It could be quite nice if the conditions continued - then you could have a mechanic similar to the recharge rules. Weakened at the end of combat with the Phane? Tough, you're still old when you come up against the Winter Wight. As you were weakened by an epic ability, the 'recharge' is 6 (maybe paragon is 5,6 and heroic 4,5 &6). Roll a d6 at the start of each subsequent encounter - roll a 6 and you're back to normal. Otherwise, tough. This could also explain things like the vampire lords domination giving him an army of dominated souls, when his combat abilities suggest otherwise - although i'm also guessing this could be handled by rituals used to extend durations of abilities or make them permanent.


----------



## prototype00 (Apr 19, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> The Rogue ability only increases from 1[W] tp 2[W] at 21st level. That's rather insignificant.
> 
> Also, the part about monsters not adding 1/2 level is not speculation at all, it's blatantly obvious looking at their stats. I really doubt that players will add 1/2 level to damage when monsters don't, as that would really unbalance things in the PC's favor. The Phane is a 26th level monster and it's most powerful ability does 2d8 + 10 damage. That's only an average of 19 damage, which is merely double what a 1st level Wizard does with magic missile, despite the fact that a 26th level Wizard will have several times as many HP as he did at level 1.




Well, actually according to the new monster development article, for every two levels you add to a monster, you also add +1 damage to it. Now it seems to me like the wotc team used a bit of handwavium to generate the original phane (it has other advantages that compensate for its low damage output, not taking damage, for example) but if it was a brute monster with no striking secondary abilities, (like the Tarrasque, who's primary and only ability is Nom! Nom! Nom!), I'd think that it would get the +1/2 levels damage.

Also, I'd like to take the chance to state once again that it looks like PCs will get half their level added to damage, based on two observations (that may or may not be right),

1.) The aforementioned monster advancement rules
2.) Look at how many hitpoints the Phane has! Just look at it! Its unreasonable to expect PCs at that level to kill that in a reasonable time, unless they got the damage boost, or so I think.

prototype00


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 19, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> All of D&D so far, even 3e really, has been built from individually defined abilities. The trend has been towards unifying effects so that you don't have odd situations where monster A engulfs you in water save or die, Monster B engulfs you in water hold your breath for x rounds then save or die, and Monster C engulfs you in water save or your armour rusts as tended to happen in earlier editions. Nonetheless monsters could have completely odd effects unlike anything else in the game. Rust monsters, spore pods, green slime, etc. Whenever the players encountered something new there was a real opportunity for novelty and puzzles.
> 
> In 4e the trend seems to have reached the end goal and then some however. I'm getting the idea that monsters can produce effects from list 2-3 on page 42 only. These powers will have a range of blah. No exceptions. No "can only be killed by stuffing broccoli in it's mouth while the bard plays a hurdy-gurdy." No funky abilities to taunt you with your own nightmares or take the form of a lost loved one. No implanting young in a PC that will hatch in d4 weeks. Blah.
> 
> ...



Actually, "no exceptions" is exactly not the approach they are using. It's exception-based design, so when you think of an odd-ball ability, you can create.
There are still building blocks you will implement these abilities with. This will give a certain degree of familiarity to anyone, but it still makes new monsters very unpredictable - if you don't know which "blocks" is used, you don't know which of your abilities will prove useful and how you can approach it. 
The end result is that the resolution  of its abilities is easy understandable, because you use common terms, but that the feel of the encounter is still unique, since you have to adapt your tactics to the abilities. If you add some good "fluff" to your description of the monster, its ability and the flow of the encounter, it will get even better.


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 19, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Well it is not really their job to give such fluff; your DM is supposed to do it.




Um, no.

First, it is IMO opinion not the DMs job to give the fluff, but the job of every single person sitting on the table. I may be the DM, but that certainly doesn't mean I don't want to be entertained as well on my RPG-nights and listen to one or more of the players going wild with their imagination.

Second, there are both DMs and Players out there who are able to add interesting fluff to the rules, but they are in my experience few and far inbetween. Good fiction is not an easy thing to do and it is thrice as hard if you'll need to make it up on the fly (which in turn makes in harder again for players who don't know ahead what is coming than for the DM who could potentially prep). 

By consequence, this means that I can use an RPG that gives only the crunch and turn it into an enjoyable evening with only a selected number of creative people who can draw on their imagination to bring a world (or a character) alive at the table.

If, however, an RPG comes with the flavour attached, the potential base of people I can create an entertaining game with becomes much, much wider. The 'creative' people can easily ignore the 'official' fluff and still spin their own thing, the less gifted ones however have something to fall back on and use as inspiration (or straight out of the book if necessary) once it's their turn to do things.

So, the more official fluff there is, the more good games you'll play, because there's more people to play with. It's that simple really. The less official fluff there is, the harder and fewer inbetween the games will be you can look back at and not despair at having wasted yet another day of you're life at a table with some ...... who just doesn't make the effort to translate rules into story.

[edit]
By the same reason, I think fluff is so much more important than crunch. 

If the crunch is bad or missing, it takes one guy (i.e. the DM) to sit down and fix it.

If the fluff is bad or missing, it takes everyone at the table to cover it, with the final result depending on the weakest link. And if the weakest link is 'official' fluff in the book, I know ahead of time that this is the safty net my game will not fall below.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 19, 2008)

prototype00 said:
			
		

> Well, actually according to the new monster development article, for every two levels you add to a monster, you also add +1 damage to it. Now it seems to me like the wotc team used a bit of handwavium to generate the original phane (it has other advantages that compensate for its low damage output, not taking damage, for example) but if it was a brute monster with no striking secondary abilities, (like the Tarrasque, who's primary and only ability is Nom! Nom! Nom!), I'd think that it would get the +1/2 levels damage.




It's not just the Phane. Not a single monster I've seen seems to add 1/2 its level to damage. The Pit Fiend is level 26 and only does 1d12 + 11 damage. The recently revealed War Devil is level 22 and does 4d4 + 8. This damage is simply... pathetic. Even a high level Wizard could laugh off these attacks.

The monster advancement rules seem to be just a very oversimplified way of handling it. They even say you shouldn't increase a monster's level by more than 5 with that method, and looking at the pitiful damage of epic monsters, the reasons for that are obvious. It wouldn't be too long before you had orcs out-damaging Pit Fiends.



			
				prototype00 said:
			
		

> Also, I'd like to take the chance to state once again that it looks like PCs will get half their level added to damage, based on two observations (that may or may not be right),
> 
> 1.) The aforementioned monster advancement rules
> 2.) Look at how many hitpoints the Phane has! Just look at it! Its unreasonable to expect PCs at that level to kill that in a reasonable time, unless they got the damage boost, or so I think.
> ...




I really hope I'm wrong. But the books have already gone to print, and the newly revealed devil and phane stats still show this problem. This has me very worried. I don't want to take 30 rounds to kill one elite monster. 4th edition was supposed to make the rules work just as well at high levels as it does at low levels. I certainly don't consider it working well when it takes 10 times as long to kill things at the epic tier as it did at the heroic tier...


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 19, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> You know how in pro football, the first time a hot shot young rookie plays a game, someone slams him to the ground and, while he's writhing in pain, yells at him "Welcome to the pros, m**********r!"
> 
> Yeah, that's what getting to epic level is like.





So epic level'll feel like competitive sports with little at stake on failure but personal pride and ambitions?

And here I thought heros would pass the sparring stage of "just-get-back-up-and-try-harder" towards the "you-are-our-last-and-only-hope-and-if-you-fail-the-village/nation/world-is-doomed" stage before they even graduate to level 1  ;(


----------



## med stud (Apr 19, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> So epic level'll feel like competitive sports with little at stake on failure but personal pride and ambitions?



Ever read the illiad? 

EDIT: Or any old myth, by the way. The competition is a very common theme throughout the old _epics_.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 19, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Ever read the illiad?



Yes, that would be the one where people actually died...


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 19, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Ever read the illiad?
> 
> EDIT: Or any old myth, by the way. The competition is a very common theme throughout the old _epics_.




Yes, and unlike the NFL, that competition was _epic_ because history hung upon the outcome and even small failure doomed nations. Hector didn't get back into the line-up the next sunday.


----------



## med stud (Apr 19, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Yes, and unlike the NFL, that competition was _epic_ because history hung upon the outcome and even small failure doomed nations. Hector didn't get back into the line-up the next sunday.



It was epic because of the scope and the power of those involved. If it weren't for Achilleus, Helen and all the gods, noone would care if a city was taken 2500 years ago. The historical significance was minor, to say the least.


----------



## med stud (Apr 19, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Yes, that would be the one where people actually died...



Yes, and that's the reason why it's epic! It's the same reason why elder care homes are epic, and car accidents! Oh, wait...


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 19, 2008)

Do people REALLY expect combat to take 30 rounds for either side to kill one another at the EPIC tier?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 19, 2008)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> So epic level'll feel like competitive sports with little at stake on failure but personal pride and ambitions?



Strange, that doesn't sound like what mearls wrote. 

It sounded more like "You come from paragon, think you're the cream of the crop and have seen everything, and then face opposition nastier then you ever expected to. 

But then, I am not a native speaker, so I might have missed the hidden subtext...


----------



## malcolm_n (Apr 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Do people REALLY expect combat to take 30 rounds for either side to kill one another at the EPIC tier?



Yeah, based on the information so far released by wotc, it'll take participants in combat about 1/2 their level in rounds to kill 1 opponent.  So, probably closer to 45 rounds.


----------



## prototype00 (Apr 19, 2008)

malcolm_n said:
			
		

> Yeah, based on the information so far released by wotc, it'll take participants in combat about 1/2 their level in rounds to kill 1 opponent.  So, probably closer to 45 rounds.




You're kidding right? The smiley you're using is a casual indication of your chiding jocularity, right? And not a mockery of my twisting guts as I read your ill omened words?

prototype00


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 19, 2008)

Okay, guys, did you actually look at the war devil's abilities?

Let's say you're facing a standard encounter at level 22--five war devils.

On the first round, each devil will use its trident and its Fiendish Tactics, for a total of five trident attacks and ten claw attacks.  At 18 average damage per trident and 11.5 damage per claw, that's 205 damage if everything hits; if we figure half the attacks do in fact hit, that's over a hundred points on the first round.  Plus there's ongoing damage from the tridents.

On subsequent rounds, it's not quite as impressive, but they'll still be averaging about 69 points of damage a round when you tot it all up (claws normally, tridents and Fiendish Tactics when the abilities recharge, ongoing trident damage, and a 50% chance to hit).  Being intelligent and highly mobile fighters, we can expect them to concentrate that damage pretty heavily.  With smart use of Fiendish Tactics and Devilish Transposition, they should be able to focus all of that firepower on a single target--preferably a squishy one.

Plus you've got people being knocked prone, slid around, and marked... all in all, it gets real ugly, real fast.

As for PCs not getting half their level to damage just because the devil doesn't--well, first, the devil is a monster, not a PC.  It doesn't play by the same rules.  Second, PCs get a damage boost when they hit epic.  And third, do you really think the PCs won't have just as many crazy special powers by that level?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Every time you've brought this up KM, you've used the example of a simple melee attack.  Why?  Did none of your players play casters?  It isn't the grunt types that make evil twins a PITA, it's the high level wizard/cleric.

Now, in 4e terms EVERY PC is going to have about a dozen abilities that can be used, many, if not all of which are better than a simple melee attack.

One other issue that would need to be addressed as well is Daily abilities.  An Evil Twin creature can blow all his dailies ASAP because he's not expected to survive the fight.  But, if the entire party blows their dailies on themselves, they'll die.  Quickly.

Monsters are not supposed to have abilities, as far as I can tell, that are as powerful as Daily's.  Giving the bad guy five slightly less powerful PC's all with their dailies and the ability to blow them all in one round is a recipe for TPK.


----------



## prototype00 (Apr 19, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Okay, guys, did you actually look at the war devil's abilities?
> 
> Let's say you're facing a standard encounter at level 22--five war devils.
> 
> ...




So you're of the opinion that the PCs might get half level to damage? I admit I'm a bit confused as to where you're currently standing on that point.

Good point about the war devils though, mean buggers.

prototype00


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 19, 2008)

Hey all! 

I think I have deciphered the underlying math of damages (about 90% of the tested monsters seem to use this to within 1 point).

Average Damage for any monster will equal:

5 (or d8) + 1/2 Level

Elites x2 damage 

Solo Monsters x3 damage?

Minions possibly just deal the 1/2 level bit

Brutes possibly deal double damage on average.

Grick L7 Brute deals 2d6+4 +5 (Avg. 16), Average for a standard L7 might be 8 (5 + 3)

Grick Alpha L9 Brute deals 2d6+6 +5 (Avg. 18). Average for a standard L9 might be 9.

Skeletal Tomb Guardian L10 Elite AND Brute deals 1d8+6 (four attacks) Avg. 10 x 4 = 40. Average for a standard L10 might be 10.  

A few monsters throw this 'rule' completely out the window, such as the War Devil.

It should be averaging about 32 damage (4d8+8 +5 ongoing or thereabouts).

The Phane should average approx. 36 damage as well. Instead it averages about half that. It may be some trade off for the insubstatial power, but it still seems very low.

The Pit Fiend does almost double its assumed damage average...

The Pit Fiend should average around 36 damage, and has 1d12+11 +5 fire (Avg. 22) and 1d6+11 +15 poison (Avg. 29) and Aura 15 Fire. So it averages 66.

Assuming the Tarrasque is a Level 30 Solo Brute(?) then it should be averaging around 120+ damage per round (and would have about 1800 hp).


----------



## occam (Apr 19, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I think I have deciphered the underlying math of damages (about 90% of the tested monsters seem to use this to within 1 point).
> 
> Average Damage for any monster will equal:
> 
> ...




Thanks, I was about to post the same thing, but you've saved me the trouble of going through all the examples.  

It's funny that so many people think WotC has flubbed the math so badly, when we know they've paid closer attention to the math in this game than in any prior edition of D&D. Other than a greater role for... uh, role (brutes and artillery do more, controllers less, etc.), I think Upper_Krust has got it right. And I suspect that this will result in combats that take a similar number of rounds at any level; maybe a little more at higher tiers, but not much.


----------



## prototype00 (Apr 19, 2008)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> I think I have deciphered the underlying math of damages (about 90% of the tested monsters seem to use this to within 1 point).
> 
> ...




That line of reasoning makes a lot of sense, Upper Krust. *I'm also buoyed up by even more evidence that PCs will get 1/2 level to damage*

prototype00


----------



## Zweischneid (Apr 19, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Okay, guys, did you actually look at the war devil's abilities?
> 
> Let's say you're facing a standard encounter at level 22--five war devils.
> 
> ...




Dunno, only looking at the healing surges of 1st level characters and extrapolating, I'd expect that epic level characters will be able to heal significant amounts of damage each round without much slowing them down, add a few more powerful encounter heals and a few of those "once per day, when you die"; than count in some immunities and resistances (for example to being knocked prone, slid around or marked, which I'd expect most PCs'll be able to avoid at epic) and you're in for one long fight.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 19, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Every time you've brought this up KM, you've used the example of a simple melee attack.  Why?  Did none of your players play casters?  It isn't the grunt types that make evil twins a PITA, it's the high level wizard/cleric.
> 
> Now, in 4e terms EVERY PC is going to have about a dozen abilities that can be used, many, if not all of which are better than a simple melee attack.
> 
> ...




Evil twins may just not use dailies. Instead they have only at will and encounter powers... or even less... (maybe only basic attacks).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 19, 2008)

Howdy occam! 



			
				occam said:
			
		

> Thanks, I was about to post the same thing, but you've saved me the trouble of going through all the examples.




Hey...great minds think alike. 



> It's funny that so many people think WotC has flubbed the math so badly, when we know they've paid closer attention to the math in this game than in any prior edition of D&D.




True, but that doesn't seem to explain the damage output of the War Devil, which seems way underpowered, as well as the Pit Fiend, which actually seems a bit overpowered. I also think the Phane could do with some extra juice (perhaps its Time Duplicate summons a duplicate of itself and gives it a second set of actions while retaining the same hit point total).



> Other than a greater role for... uh, role (brutes and artillery do more, controllers less, etc.), I think Upper_Krust has got it right. And I suspect that this will result in combats that take a similar number of rounds at any level; maybe a little more at higher tiers, but not much.




I think thats certainly the goal. I don't think having epic combat take an epic amount of time is a great idea. Its good for stories, but not for actual games.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 19, 2008)

Hi there prototype00! 



			
				prototype00 said:
			
		

> That line of reasoning makes a lot of sense, Upper Krust. *I'm also buoyed up by even more evidence that PCs will get 1/2 level to damage*




I don't think PCs will get 1/2 level to damage, though I could be wrong on that. Remember that monsters don't get feats and generally don't get magic items (remember that magic threshold). So PCs will ahve other ways to up their damage.

The 5 + 1/2 level is hidden math built into the monsters level.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Strange, that doesn't sound like what mearls wrote.
> 
> It sounded more like "You come from paragon, think you're the cream of the crop and have seen everything, and then face opposition nastier then you ever expected to.
> 
> But then, I am not a native speaker, so I might have missed the hidden subtext...




No, that's how I read it, too.  "Oh, you thought you were big damn heroes?  You don't know anything."

I think he was just trying to make a point about professional sports and 4e.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 19, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Every time you've brought this up KM, you've used the example of a simple melee attack. Why? Did none of your players play casters? It isn't the grunt types that make evil twins a PITA, it's the high level wizard/cleric.




Fair enough.

"Megan, cast Magic Missile on yourself at -2"

"Derren, use Flame Strike on Eddie at -2"

"Lydia, what are your dailies? ....Right. Tide of Iron Derren at -2"

The information is right there: on the PC's character sheet.



> One other issue that would need to be addressed as well is Daily abilities. An Evil Twin creature can blow all his dailies ASAP because he's not expected to survive the fight. But, if the entire party blows their dailies on themselves, they'll die. Quickly.




"Being brought through time deprives creatures of their Daily abilities, but allows their Encounter abilities the feature of Recharge 5,6."


----------



## Ozdec (Apr 19, 2008)

Been lurking for a bit - reading up everything on 4e I could - finally got around to registring 

I just want to make a comment on PCs and damage scaling.

I think a lot of people are missing a couple of points.

They have built in Damage scaling for PCs - just not in the form of 1/2 level

Its through Implements and Attribute boosts

1st level fighter using longsword with 18 Str - Cleave does 1d8 + (4) str damage +4 to adjacent 

8th Level Fighter with + 2 Longsword and 20 Str - Cleave now does 1d8 +2 + 5 Damage +5 to adjacent (3 more damage to primary target - 1 more to secondary)

This does not include that he probably has some additional abilities through feats that may up his to Hit/Damage - therefore increasing average damage /round 

Also as I am almost certain that [W] will include the implement bonus so that will scale up when using encounter powers


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> "Megan, cast Magic Missile on yourself at -2"
> 
> ...




Let's face it though, unless the DM is very prepped for that encounter, that brings the game to a screeching halt.

DM:  Ok, a Phane pops out of the woodwork.  Everyone hand me your character sheets, I need to write down your hp, ac, and whatnot before I run this encounter.

Players hand over their sheets.

DM:  Hang on, just a sec, need to take a look at these abilities.  Hey Bob, what does Golden Wyvern Adept do again?  ()  Lydia, these spells you have, I don't know this one.  What does it do again?  What book's that from?  Oh yeah right.  

((Fifteen minutes later))

DM:  Ok, there, done.  Now, let's roll for initiative.

One of the primary goals of 4e seems to be to stop this sort of thing.  That creatures shouldn't have abilities that cause the game to come to a screaming halt.  

If you want to throw mirror doubles at the party, fine, I'm sure you can do so.  But, to put this ability in the standard creature is too hard to use.  Never mind WAY too swingy since PC's are supposed to be a fair bit stronger than creatures on a 1:1 basis.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 20, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> The Rogue ability only increases from 1[W] tp 2[W] at 21st level. That's rather insignificant.




Insignificant if you don't take into account things like ability score increases, feats, items, and other powers that may contribute to that damage total. You're making this assumption based on what can barely be called a skeleton of information, so I think you're getting way ahead of yourself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 20, 2008)

> Let's face it though, unless the DM is very prepped for that encounter, that brings the game to a screeching halt.




I don't know that the DM has to be any more prepared to run the duplicates than he has to be prepared to run the phane itself (or any of the other creatures in the encounter for that matter). The example you give seems to exaggerate the DM's ignorance, and nothing can really save a DM who can't read a character sheet, or, alternately, can't just tell a player to "use your biggest damage effect against yourself."

A DM who doesn't know what the characters are capable of in at least a general sense, or a DM who can't read a character sheet, has...other problems. Problems that will come up in more than just a battle against a monster.

I could just as easily put up some hypothetical DM who doesn't understand what "weakened" or "insubstantial" means. Really, it's no more difficult (and is, in some ways, easier, since the DM absolutely does not have to have encyclopedic knowledge of character abilities, especially since 4e makes the abilities themselves easier to use and remember).

I mean, just a vague memory of what they did in the last combat is enough to run duplicates: "That ability you used to bump that goblin? It's being used on you at -2."

Alternately, from my own experience running "evil twin" combats, I'm a very improv-heavy DM who doesn't enjoy a lot of prep work, and not being "prepared" absolutely did not in any way negatively effect the combat, because the PC's have done all the prep for me. And this was in 3e, with all of its' fiddly wizard powers and whatnot.

If a DM really needs to prep by writing down a PC's "whatnot" (and I don't really know why he would, since it's going to be WRITTEN ON THE CHARACTER SHEETS, just the same way that the phane's is WRITTEN IN THE MONSTER MANUAL), a moment or two before the game starts, when the DM "looks over" the sheets? Really, is that a tremendous problem? You *chose* to run the phane, you knew the phane involves the "evil twin" schtick, and it catches you by surprise?

I'm getting a little tired of these absurd examples of DM ignorance and awkwardness. A DM that out of sorts will have trouble running goblins ("er...what's the crit value on a dagger? What's the rules for a charge? I'm sorry, I need a few minutes to write down all the stats over again, hold on..."), so it's useless to discredit any specific encounter.



> One of the primary goals of 4e seems to be to stop this sort of thing. That creatures shouldn't have abilities that cause the game to come to a screaming halt.




A template that consists of (a) all rolls are at -2, (b) no dailies, and (c) recharged per-encounters is not going to bring the game to a screaming halt. The vampire and the lich that we've seen are more complex than that. 



> If you want to throw mirror doubles at the party, fine, I'm sure you can do so. But, to put this ability in the standard creature is too hard to use. Never mind WAY too swingy since PC's are supposed to be a fair bit stronger than creatures on a 1:1 basis.




Again, this is a false parallel. The ability CAN BE simple, and there's nothing inherent in PCs that makes this or anything like it "swingy" that can't be solved with a Step 4 for the template. It's no more complex (and, in fact, might be less so) than making a vampire orc. 

Not to mention that even if the designers were absolutely terrified of some mythologically obtuse boogeyman DM possibly maybe having to consult a character sheet for his monster stats, so much so that they absolutely did not want any sort of "evil twin" mechanic to be viable in 4e, which is to be some sort of divine sanctum for idiot-proof simplicity, it doesn't negate any of the _other_ evocative abilities that the phane is loosing.

So, no, that's not really a defense of our rather bland little buddy, here.

Try again without conjuring up phantoms of DMs who are somehow confused into uselessness upon seeing a PC's evil twin.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 20, 2008)

Um, as someone who HAS attempted to run the 3E phane, I'd like to once again state that it was ALL types of FAIL. Again, please don't just READ the text and think "Oh, the 3E version is much better". I don't know as yet how EPIC battles will run (hell, it might actually turn out to be long boring battles where everyone is just plinking away with at-will abilities as some fear) but I DO KNOW how high level EPIC (not) works in 3E.

The Phane ironically, is the prototypical example of what is wrong with EPIC currently.

As for the actual issue of "duplicates", wouldn't that make the Phane a Solo monster though? I still think this is the big issue with EPIC monsters. Most people envision epic monsters as Solo monsters (the same thing happened with the Pit Fiend). At level 26, two PC should be able to beat down either the Pit Fiend OR this Phane by themselves.

Personally, I've always been somewhat leery about running duplicates of characters especially at mid to high levels in pretty much ALL editions of D&D since while I definitely know the general feats/powers/abilities, my players tend to know the exact method of using them which definitely favours them. For example, that selfsame example of "that ability you used to bump that goblin? Well, it's at -2" kinda proves my point. For example, it could have "size restriction/be ineffective versus certain targets/I'm playing a dwarf with stability".

I think it was easy enough to duplicate the high level 1E/2E fighter since really, all it had at high levels was magical items (which could easily be handwaved away for duplicates) but a 3E mid to high level fighter?

Thus, me running a NPC party of the selfsame 5 PCs versus my 5 friend's PC will NOT result in a 50/50 battle especially at mid to high levels. At low levels, yeah, definitely easy to run, but by level 9? Eh...definitely not. By level 18? Forget about it.  My side probably would only have a 20% chance of winning and yet technically, both sides are equal.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 20, 2008)

> The Phane ironically, is the prototypical example of what is wrong with EPIC currently.




Again: Yes. I am in no way defending the 3e phane as somehow absolutely superior. Again.

What I'm saying is that the 4e phane looses some of the evocative flavor of its abilities, and I'm not entirely clear on why it would've lost that. The 4e version is probably challenging enough, probably makes for a pitched combat, but it abandons a few very flavorful abilities in favor of rather bland "damage + status ailment" formula.

One example of this was the "time duplicate," which paired the 3e phane explicitly with the awesomeness of fighting your own double.

I don't really believe that the reason is because 4e somehow can't handle "evil twin" style enemies. I have much more faith in the designers than to assume that conflict is out.



> As for the actual issue of "duplicates", wouldn't that make the Phane a Solo monster though? I still think this is the big issue with EPIC monsters. Most people envision epic monsters as Solo monsters (the same thing happened with the Pit Fiend). At level 26, two PC should be able to beat down either the Pit Fiend OR this Phane by themselves.




Sure, that's entirely possible. And I guess I can understand on some mercenary level why, if the crew needed to fill a "level 26 elite controller" void, and plucked the phane out of the hat to fill it, they made the choices they did.

More critically, I think that this might be emblematic of a pattern of 4e monsters that, when compared to their earlier version, loose a bit of their evocative narrative punch. I can understand a lot of this is due to simplification, and I can easily tolerate it on enemies that have always been meant to be fairly group-oriented. It might be a bigger problem for monsters like the Phane which was intended to be a high-level solo threat in 3e, and being "demoted" to merely an elite in 4e. I'm willing to bet there was a dearth of existing monsters that would fill high-level roles for underlings, however.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> More critically, I think that this might be emblematic of a pattern of 4e monsters that, when compared to their earlier version, loose a bit of their evocative narrative punch. I can understand a lot of this is due to simplification, and I can easily tolerate it on enemies that have always been meant to be fairly group-oriented. It might be a bigger problem for monsters like the Phane which was intended to be a high-level solo threat in 3e, and being "demoted" to merely an elite in 4e. I'm willing to bet there was a dearth of existing monsters that would fill high-level roles for underlings, however.




There probably is an active trend of trying NOT to simply make everything Solo at high levels (and conversely, trying to find a Solo at low levels - The lowest level Solo that is a non-dragon I can think of might be the Chimera - three heads,plus poisonous tail/snake head scream SOLO)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I could just as easily put up some hypothetical DM who doesn't understand what "weakened" or "insubstantial" means. Really, it's no more difficult (and is, in some ways, easier, since the DM absolutely does not have to have encyclopedic knowledge of character abilities, especially since 4e makes the abilities themselves easier to use and remember).



The difference is, that as a DM, I will use weakened, insubstantial, marked, push, pull, shift, immobilized, stunned, dazed, and a couple of others on a regular basis.  PCs will have abilities that do those things to monster, monsters will have abilities that do them to PCs.  I will get to know them quick.

On the other hand, I've read through the book a couple of times now and I don't think I could tell you what the level 15 fighter powers do.  And certainly not what all the 1st through 15th fighter powers do.  And absolutely not what the 1st-30th fighter powers do.  And I definitely couldn't remember the 1st-30th level powers of all 8 classes.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, just a vague memory of what they did in the last combat is enough to run duplicates: "That ability you used to bump that goblin? It's being used on you at -2."



Which is fine...if you want to run the duplicate poorly.  It probably would have even worked well in 3rd when monster actions were pretty much always "stand in one spot and full attack".

However, when a copy of a PC has 20 encounter abilities and 2 at will powers, plus possibly 8 magic items which give encounter abilities it becomes very difficult to keep track of it all.  Especially when that PC is designed to have his powers work together in a building manner that requires proficiency in using them to do it properly.

Is it better to use the power that shifts 2, attacks once, then shifts 2 and attacks again this round or the one that does 3[W] damage and and then pushes the enemy and stuns them for a round?  What about the creature's swift action?  Does the PC have any of those?  What about move actions?  Any immediate actions?  Do any of them trigger when the PC gets hit?  How about when the PC hits an enemy?  What about when the PC is missed?

Are you going to ask the player to see his sheet each time someone attacks the duplicate to check for triggers?  Then reread the 20 powers each round to see which one is the best?

Frankly, I'm glad most monsters have 5 powers at MOST.  It's not too difficult keeping track of that many powers when you are playing only one character and it's all you play every session for a long time.  You get to know all of their powers and which ones are best and can act quickly.

If I'm running 5 monsters, each one should have no more than 1 trigger each, no more than 3 attacks, no more than 1 defense and no more than 1 utility power.  If I can look at a monster and say "It's shtick is to teleport with its move action then double attack with its standard and then give a boost to its AC with its swift" then it can be run fast.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm getting a little tired of these absurd examples of DM ignorance and awkwardness. A DM that out of sorts will have trouble running goblins ("er...what's the crit value on a dagger? What's the rules for a charge? I'm sorry, I need a few minutes to write down all the stats over again, hold on..."), so it's useless to discredit any specific encounter.



I've had to look up the crit value of a dagger before when I just couldn't remember.  I've had to look up the rules for a charge before when something specific about it just wouldn't come to mind and especially when I was first beginning to run the game.

But that's exactly the point.  The LESS I have to do this, the faster the game goes.  I can tell you that an average 15th level character will have about 2-3 pages worth of text on their powers alone, plus at least another sheet for their defenses, stats, hitpoints and the like, and another full page or 2 on their equipment.  I haven't yet stated out a 30th level one, but I can imagine another page or 2 of information.

If you can't imagine how scanning through 6 pages of information on what actions you can take this round might be a lot slower than scanning through the average quarter page stat block of monsters, then I don't know what to say.  Especially when "the most damaging attack" is likely a tie between 5 different attacks.  Meanwhile, the Phane itself only has 3 attacks total(and one is melee, one is ranged, and one is AOE, so they almost choose themselves).  Much more manageable, I'd say.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Again, this is a false parallel. The ability CAN BE simple, and there's nothing inherent in PCs that makes this or anything like it "swingy" that can't be solved with a Step 4 for the template. It's no more complex (and, in fact, might be less so) than making a vampire orc.



A step 4?  Not sure what you mean.

Either way, the numbers of PCs sheets and monster's stat blocks are quite a bit different.  You wouldn't really want to take a PC and just turn them into a monster.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not to mention that even if the designers were absolutely terrified of some mythologically obtuse boogeyman DM possibly maybe having to consult a character sheet for his monster stats, so much so that they absolutely did not want any sort of "evil twin" mechanic to be viable in 4e, which is to be some sort of divine sanctum for idiot-proof simplicity, it doesn't negate any of the _other_ evocative abilities that the phane is loosing.



The idea is to make it so the DM can come up with a decision on what to do for each monster in about 30 seconds.  Therefore, when he runs 5 monsters, his total turn takes about 2 minutes, 30 seconds.  Which is sometimes about what it takes for most players I know to come up with what they are going to do on their turn, because they have so many options to consider and they need to assess the situation tactically, planning which square to move to to get flanking, and so on.

If you give the DM that many options for one of the many monsters in a combat, it will just slow down the combat as he now takes 2 minutes to figure out each monster instead of 30 seconds.

As for the other abilities the phane is losing, I can't speak on those exactly since I never ran one in 3e.  I can tell you that levels in 4e are about estimating combat power, not non-combat influence or power.  Its no more likely that some epic level creature could destroy the world than a 1st level monster.  The main difference tends to be in the amount of damage they dish out and their defenses.

I can't speak directly about the rules, but I fully expect that when I'm level 30 in 4e, I will still be walking to dungeons, using a torch to see, feeling walls for secret doors, afraid to fall into lava, and so on.

The main difference will be my ability to kick some serious butt with my attacks and take a boat load of damage and survive.  The monsters of 4e are no different.


----------



## LordArchaon (Apr 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I posted this on Gleemax, but thought to post it here too... I dunno if this could work (forgotten exact rules for OA... but).
> 
> Could a Phane that is really well played by a DM, attack the whole party while not on its turn?
> 
> ...





			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well, most at-will powers aren't basic attacks:    Most are just attacks:
> 
> The Temporal Touch attack is shown as being a basic attack:





			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I dunno. But it says under the Pre-Release:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Guys... Just listen up to Fallen Seraph...

And I'll tell you more, it is possible, although complicated by the recharge thing, that also the War Devil may use its best attack, the trident, to make OA...

But to stay on topic, the Phane is really meant to do that, I'm convinced: a battle with it is a battle in which the players are destined to fight while _slowed_, remember that the _slow_ effect in fact is not savable, it lasts 1 round. If it invariably ALWAYS slows EVERY PC thanks to incredible amount of chained opportunity attacks, which are a wonderful example of time-shifting... Well, I won't listen to anyone who'll say that the Phane is weak or not suggestive enough...


----------



## D'karr (Apr 21, 2008)

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> Well, I won't listen to anyone who'll say that the Phane is weak or not suggestive enough...




I kind of like it too.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

Glad you like the tactic!

In-Game too, that will look like time-control (or atleast knowledge of what the PCs will do in the future). Since it is essentially all the characters begin to move, when out of thin air the Phane is there ready for them and about to strike before they have a chance.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> On the other hand, I've read through the book a couple of times now and I don't think I could tell you what the level 15 fighter powers do. And certainly not what all the 1st through 15th fighter powers do. And absolutely not what the 1st-30th fighter powers do. And I definitely couldn't remember the 1st-30th level powers of all 8 classes.




You don't have any idea what those powers will consist of, and neither do I.

What we do have is a vague idea that they will be "simple" and "easy to use." 



> Which is fine...if you want to run the duplicate poorly




I didn't know anyone was competing in the DMing Olympics where the judges will pooh-pooh any duplicate who isn't constantly using optimal abilities.



> However, when a copy of a PC has 20 encounter abilities and 2 at will powers, plus possibly 8 magic items which give encounter abilities it becomes very difficult to keep track of it all.




The magic items don't enter into it at all because monsters don't "get" magic items. The number of abilities is significantly less than 20 (remember the powers/level chart?). You're spouting off wild inaccuracies that don't defend your position at all.



> Is it better to use the power that shifts 2, attacks once, then shifts 2 and attacks again this round or the one that does 3[W] damage and and then pushes the enemy and stuns them for a round? What about the creature's swift action? Does the PC have any of those? What about move actions? Any immediate actions? Do any of them trigger when the PC gets hit? How about when the PC hits an enemy? What about when the PC is missed?




4e is promising easy abilities. If abilities are easy, they'll be easy for the DM and the player. Again, a wild inaccuracy.



> But that's exactly the point. The LESS I have to do this, the faster the game goes. I can tell you that an average 15th level character will have about 2-3 pages worth of text on their powers alone, plus at least another sheet for their defenses, stats, hitpoints and the like, and another full page or 2 on their equipment. I haven't yet stated out a 30th level one, but I can imagine another page or 2 of information.




And you really don't have to look at any of them. At all. Really. Honest and true. If you have a vague notion of what the PC can do, and you ask them what their various bonuses/abilities are, or, at most, glance at the character sheet to preserve the surprise, you'll be golden.

I'm 90% sure that 4e will be able to have "evil twin" style combats, so unless you've got something that honestly admits that "evil twins" are waaaaaay too much for something as simplistic and basic as 4e to handle, you're really just shooting smoke up my bum. And if you DO have something from 4e that admits that, I will be forced to laugh said bum right off at the astonishing ignorance of the designers.

Or, you can just give up the ghost and tell me some other reason why they might not have included evil twin powers. For instance, Allister's point about needing Elite LV 26 controllers, and thus not being able to make the Phane a solo monster like the original 3e was intended to be, and thus a deliberate attempt to reduce the creature's footprint is a very good point, and one that I can certainly see the logic of. 

But saying "4e will be confused by evil twins!" sorely underestimates the team that's working on 4e, I think.



> Either way, the numbers of PCs sheets and monster's stat blocks are quite a bit different. You wouldn't really want to take a PC and just turn them into a monster.




Absolutes are rarely true, and competent designers will definitely anticipate this.



> If you give the DM that many options for one of the many monsters in a combat, it will just slow down the combat as he now takes 2 minutes to figure out each monster instead of 30 seconds.




I really think there is a world of difference between the options of a gang of kobold minions and an ancient black great wyrm dragon.

Assuming that all monster abilities will be idiot-simple is a very risky assumption to make.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 21, 2008)

I really have to bow out of this conversation.  Just because at this point, I can't say much without breaking my NDA.  But I know what I'm talking about.  I was one of the 4e DMs at D&D XP.  I am in the midst of brainstorming adventures for Living Forgotten Realms.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> I know what I'm talking about.




If 4e claims that it's too dumb to handle "evil twin" plots, it's a very damning failure on the part of the designers.

But if the designers are pretty good at what they do, 4e will be smart enough to handle "evil twin" plots.

I've got some faith in the team.

If you think your sneak-peak somehow reveals colossal failure of the game to that degree, I will confess that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

And, for at least the third time, "4e is too dumb to handle evil twins" _still_ doesn't explain the OTHER abilities that the phane looses.

Allister's point addresses that, however.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 21, 2008)

I think the bit about needing non-solo epic-tier beasties is probably the most relevant.  The idea of "epic" play seems to lend itself to dealing with creatures that can wipe out nations by themselves, which makes it hard to have "normal" encounters against level-appropriate foes.  I am curious if there's any epic-level minions, and if so what they look like...

A time-controlling monster that fills out the rest of the encounter with PC doubles would be pretty awesome, though:

Level 26 Encounter (XP 46,000)

* 1 phane (level 26 elite controller)
* 4 PC time-duplicates (level 26 various)

People seem to keep missing KM's point that the players have already done all the relevant record-keeping regarding their character.  "What's your best attack?"  "Roll to use it against Fred, please, at -2 to hit."  That's trivially easy to run.  Also the idea that the DM doesn't have some idea of what the players can do, when you see them do it every session is silly.  If you just started the campaign at 26th level, sure.  That's not the typical situation though, and if that was the case... pick a different encounter.

And even aside from that, you don't need an exact copy of the PC's abilities.  Pick a similar monster, change its appearance and the description of its abilities, and presto, instant twin.  This is the flexibility that 4e promises DMs.  It's rather odd seeing ardently pro-4e people here saying, "No, 4e can't do that."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> And even aside from that, you don't need an exact copy of the PC's abilities.  Pick a similar monster, change its appearance and the description of its abilities, and presto, instant twin.  This is the flexibility that 4e promises DMs.  It's rather odd seeing ardently pro-4e people here saying, "No, 4e can't do that."



I'm not saying it can't do that.  I'm saying that you likely won't see published monsters that rely on that as mechanics.  Sure, it's really easy to say "give me your character sheets, I'm now using copies of you as characters."  It just is more complicated to run a PC, even a first level one than it is to run a monster.  And that is on purpose.

Take for example monster stats everyone has seen so I can talk about them, the Black Dragon who is 4th level.

He has darkness, breath weapon, bite, claw, double claw, fear, and bloodied breath.

The premade PCs that have been released have Basic Melee, Basic Ranged, 2 at will powers, 2 encounter powers, and a daily power.  Plus 1 or 2 class abilities and possibly a racial power and the use of 1 or 2 magic item powers.  And all of that is just at first level.

Keep in mind, that the dragon is a solo monster and has many more abilities than the average creature because it needs to be more interesting since it is the only monster in the encounter.

For instance, the Halfling Paladin can:
-attack with +6 to hit AC and do 1d6+3 and gain 3 temporary hitpoints
-attack with +5 to hit AC for 1d6+2 damage(or 1d6+5 against a marked target)
-mark a target as a minor action
-heal someone within melee range as a minor action 3 times per day
-give an ally an immediate saving throw with +3 as a minor action OR give himself +2 damage this round as a minor action but not both during the same combat
-reroll an attack roll against him an an immediate action
-attack with +6 to hit AC for 2d6+3 and give an ally +3 to their ac for one round (once per encounter)
-attack with +3 vs Will for 3d8+3 (half damage on a miss) and the enemy takes 1d8 damage on any round he makes an attack(half if the original attack missed) (only once per day)
-attack as a basic attack with +5 to hit AC for 1d6+2 with his shortsword
-attack as a basic ranged attack with +3 to hit AC for 1d6+2 with his throwing hammer which has a range of 10/20.

Also, keep in mind that he has a +5 bonus to save against fear and +2 to his AC against OAs and +2 to his AC if he is adjacent to two larger enemies.

Which one of the above powers is his "best"?  Is it better to mark someone this round or give the bonus save to an ally?  What about healing?  Is it better to gain temporary hitpoints and do less damage or more damage without the hitpoints?  Is it best to use the encounter ability now or will an ally need the bonus to AC more next round when they might be hit by more enemies?

Compare that to the Skeleton Warrior.  It has 2 powers: Attack(and mark the enemy), and get pluses to hit and damage on OAs.  You know what it is going to do every round: attack enemies and try to position itself so that PCs have to provoke OAs to move past it to get at its allies.

That's the design philosophy of 4e: make the monster so simple that even if you open the book to the page with the monster on it for the first time 30 seconds before you roll for init you'll be able to understand how to run it.  The same can't be said for the above paladin.

I'm also saying that there is a better way, mechanically, to design a "mirror universe" PC in 4e.  Although I can't say how it works and it may not satisfy some people.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 21, 2008)

I wonder if we've been going about this "Time Duplicate" scenario wrong.

Looking at the "Modifying monsters" concept, they talked about a class template. Designers have said that there's nothing preventing a DM from taking the long route and simply adding class levels to a monster, but maybe the class template is better?

The class template seems to indicate that you take the  major parts of the class and apply it to the monster and thus you get a quick and dirty "classed NPC", which is all that you need I imagine.

So here's what I'm thinking.

(Use the race entry in the MM + apply the class template = Time Duplicate in past). Anyone see anything wrong with my reasoning?

As for the PHANE itself, I don't think it necessarily should be a Solo Monster otherwise, looking at the epic monsters, EVERYTHING should be a Solo Monster which ironically turns 4E defiitely into a WoW game at high levels


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> (Use the race entry in the MM + apply the class template = Time Duplicate in past). Anyone see anything wrong with my reasoning?



No - that's why I proposed basically the same some pages before:


			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Fun thing about them: As they're not solo monsters, you can add weaker versions of the PCs as time duplicates. Even more fun: The phane gets a heap of flavour, if it isn't killed on 0 hp, but instead vanishes, just to re-appear later. If one stops to think that flavourful abilities have to be anchored in the statblock, it's easy to "script" fun scenes. 4E already focuses on more linked encounters - a second phane arriving mid-battle (representing a time-stream duplicate) is basically made for the system.



But the main discussion about that part is: It's not a codified ability, it's "DM fiat" to build the encounter that way. Some people have problems with that, some don't have problems with that.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> That's the design philosophy of 4e: make the monster so simple that even if you open the book to the page with the monster on it for the first time 30 seconds before you roll for init you'll be able to understand how to run it.




The mere existence of templates contradicts the absoluteness of this statement.



> I'm saying that you likely won't see published monsters that rely on that as mechanics.




Depends on how soon someone from WotC wants to publish an adventure with an "evil twin" kind of plot, I guess.



> Which one of the above powers is his "best"?




He's a Paladin, right? Role: Defender. Use the mark, unless one of your allies needs some hp, defense, or save boost, in which case, use that. Oddly, this will be the same strategy followed by the actual Paladin 90% of the time. Cue weird "he can use my powers!" moment.

Though I guess our mythic Idiot DM could have some problems figuring out what the Paladin he's been running for 26 levels does?



> I'm also saying that there is a better way, mechanically, to design a "mirror universe" PC in 4e. Although I can't say how it works and it may not satisfy some people.




Okay, then, you agree with me. The 4e phane could have had the ability to make "evil twin" PC's. 

Why didn't it get that ability?



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> (Use the race entry in the MM + apply the class template = Time Duplicate in past). Anyone see anything wrong with my reasoning?




It's all right, but seems more than a little pointlessly abstract. It's not like it's HARD to make the PC's run their own evil twin (since the numbers are the same, or, rather, the numbers are the same -2). I'd be fairly astonished if 4e was too dumb to handle that.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The mere existence of templates contradicts the absoluteness of this statement.




This does not hold.

It's well-recognized that DMs will want some helpful guidelines on customizing monsters. It's also well-recognized that DMs will want to be able to run monsters out of the box _without_ customization.

Templates are one way to accomplish both of these goals.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> He's a Paladin, right? Role: Defender. Use the mark, unless one of your allies needs some hp, defense, or save boost, in which case, use that. Oddly, this will be the same strategy followed by the actual Paladin 90% of the time. Cue weird "he can use my powers!" moment.




Why is it likely that team monster will need the save boost at the same time as team PC?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Though I guess our mythic Idiot DM could have some problems figuring out what the Paladin he's been running for 26 levels does?




Hey, no need to call the guy an idiot for taking a couple minutes figuring out what to do. I mean, he allotted 2 minutes for each player to figure out what to do, and went on to explain why it's a good idea for the DM to take less than that on something other than a solo monster.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Okay, then, you agree with me. The 4e phane could have had the ability to make "evil twin" PC's.
> 
> Why didn't it get that ability?




Because it's fundamentally bad as a monster ability. If you want to perform the "evil twin" plot, make some evil twins. You don't even need to have a full write-up - just 2 or 3 of that paladin's favorite powers works fine for those who don't want 20 options cluttering up their monster stat block. Alternatively, if you _do_ want all the options, you can stat it up. You can even give that "evil twin" some twists, so that not all his powers are the same.

But this is going to require prep time, so the monster can't be played out of the box. The monster also can't have an accurate XP value, because its power level becomes dependent on its opponents.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's all right, but seems more than a little pointlessly abstract. It's not like it's HARD to make the PC's run their own evil twin (since the numbers are the same, or, rather, the numbers are the same -2). I'd be fairly astonished if 4e was too dumb to handle that.




Go ahead. There's nothing in the system that prevents you from saying "Bob, roll that attack again at -2 and apply the results to Sally". But it's not good design to give a monster that ability out of the box.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If 4e claims that it's too dumb to handle "evil twin" plots, it's a very damning failure on the part of the designers.
> 
> But if the designers are pretty good at what they do, 4e will be smart enough to handle "evil twin" plots.
> 
> ...




It's not that you can't do an "Evil Twin" plot, it's that "Evil Twin" plot is NOT easy to run.  You can claim that it's the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't make it true.  It's going to cause most games to come to a screeching halt.  It's not a colossal failure of the game, it's that your plot is too bloody hard for people to run without a great deal of prep work.

Sure, you might have some vague idea about what the other FIVE players at your table can do with their characters, but, come on, at 25th level?  You honestly expect to be able to be even average with a 25th level character without any prep work?

If you can, my hats off to you.  I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can't.  

BTW, you state that duplicates don't have equipment.  The 3e ones sure do.  They come fully equiped.  What are the hypothetical 4e duplicates carrying if not magic items and equipment.  So, the point that the 8 or 10 magic items also having possible actions is certainly valid.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's not that you can't do an "Evil Twin" plot, it's that "Evil Twin" plot is NOT easy to run.  You can claim that it's the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't make it true.  It's going to cause most games to come to a screeching halt.  It's not a colossal failure of the game, it's that your plot is too bloody hard for people to run without a great deal of prep work.




I think actually that the "Evil Twin" plot is fine at the adventure design or even encounter design steps - there are and should be tools for such customizations.

It's just bad monster design, for all the reasons that have been laid out in this thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> It's well-recognized that DMs will want some helpful guidelines on customizing monsters. It's also well-recognized that DMs will want to be able to run monsters out of the box without customization.
> 
> Templates are one way to accomplish both of these goals.




Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.

I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that. 

Templates make a monster more complicated, and make it so that you won't be running a vampire just by flipping to a random page in the MM. 

Regardless of WHY they do that, they provide evidence for the point that 4e isn't exactly terrified of the idea of monsters that are more complex than others.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Why is it likely that team monster will need the save boost at the same time as team PC?




What does that have to do with 4e's ability to run evil twin plots?



> Hey, no need to call the guy an idiot for taking a couple minutes figuring out what to do. I mean, he allotted 2 minutes for each player to figure out what to do, and went on to explain why it's a good idea for the DM to take less than that on something other than a solo monster.




Upthread I made the point that assuming the DM is dumb is not a good way to discredit the "evil twin" idea because such a mythically dumb DM would have problems without the evil twins, with just the way that any other monster worked.

Try to keep up, man. 



> Because it's fundamentally bad as a monster ability.




Thousands of years of human history and storytelling would disagree with you.

If it's bad for 4e, then, in that respect, 4e sucks, because it ain't bad for the game that 4e is trying to be.



> If you want to perform the "evil twin" plot, make some evil twins. You don't even need to have a full write-up - just 2 or 3 of that paladin's favorite powers works fine for those who don't want 20 options cluttering up their monster stat block. Alternatively, if you do want all the options, you can stat it up. You can even give that "evil twin" some twists, so that not all his powers are the same.




Is there an echo in here? 



> But this is going to require prep time, so the monster can't be played out of the box. The monster also can't have an accurate XP value, because its power level becomes dependent on its opponents.




Both of these are rather false.

#1: Because the monster's stats are the player's stats with minor adjustments, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as a lich or vampire.

#2: All encounters' power levels are dependent on their oppoents' power levels. This is the very principle of encounters that challenge you based on your level that has been in every iteration of D&D: the more powerful you are, the bigger challenges you face. The weaker you are, the weaker your enemies. If this stops accurate XP values, then every edition of D&D ever has had wildly inaccurate XP values because that is, essentially, the _basis_ of XP values.



> But it's not good design to give a monster that ability out of the box.




Why the heck not? What is there to be afraid of? What kind of unholy 4e kryptonite is an "evil twin" that it cannot be supported in the core rules, but only in that wild west frontier land?

What's 4e so afraid of, if it won't do it?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If you can, my hats off to you. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can't.




You sell yourself short, methinks. As said, you can even TELL THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES to decide what the monster does. If you think they're being too easy on themselves, either remember an effective tactic they used earlier (even earlier that same night!), or look at their character sheet, even before the game begins. 



> BTW, you state that duplicates don't have equipment. The 3e ones sure do. They come fully equiped. What are the hypothetical 4e duplicates carrying if not magic items and equipment. So, the point that the 8 or 10 magic items also having possible actions is certainly valid.




It's really not. 4e monsters and NPC's have their own ways of accounting for the magic items. So whatever way the phane itself uses, or the NPC rival adventurer uses, or the BBEG uses, these time doubles use.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> It's just bad monster design, for all the reasons that have been laid out in this thread.




Any game that can't handle "evil twin" without freaking out and crying about it really isn't giving me what I need out of a game. It's a failure.

I have more faith in the 4e team than that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.
> 
> I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that.
> 
> ...



What I think is very notable in comparing 3E and 4E is that templates are now in the DMG, not in the monster manual. Basically everything that requires a special effort is part of the DMG. Creating NPCs, using templates, rituals and so on.
So, at best you get a mention in the phanes fluff that they sometimes create temporal duplicates. If you actually want to use this, you'll look into the DMG for advice. (Though I reserve some doubts that there is something specifically for this situation. But I won't discount the possibility, either.)

The Monster Manual is the book where you pick monsters and look to find out how they work in combat. The DMG is for your plot abilities (and evil twins of yourself belong more to plot or storytelling then running combat).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> The Monster Manual is the book where you pick monsters and look to find out how they work in combat. The DMG is for your plot abilities (and evil twins of yourself belong more to plot or storytelling then running combat).




Sure, I'm down with that. Templates in the DMG is fine, and, yes, evil twins (like vampires and liches) are more in the plot zone than in the direct combat zone. The "evil twin" plotline is even useful for more than just the phane -- the doppelganger, the _magic gem_ style soul-stealing, the necromancer who animates you with all your memories of your skills intact, all those can use the same basic "evil twin" thread. 

I am still rather disappointed that the 4e phane doesn't make express use of that idea (just like it abandons the "stolen time" idea and the "age you until you die" idea), though I can understand it in the context of Allister's point about needing some rank-and-file enemies for epic level. 

And I *still* think the idea that 4e is too dumb to handle evil twins in the RAW is either way off-base, or a really deep criticism of what 4e is actually capable of doing.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.




How are you going to put "Evil Twin" in the MM, and why? The PHB already serves as a mechanism for creating Evil Twins.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that.




Yes. But no monster in the MM should come with instructions requiring you to apply a template before running it. They need to be playable out of the box.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Templates make a monster more complicated, and make it so that you won't be running a vampire just by flipping to a random page in the MM.




Adding a template to a creature bumps it up to Elite or Solo. You have to know more abilities for one creature, but have fewer creatures overall, so complexity level doesn't have to increase dramatically.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Regardless of WHY they do that, they provide evidence for the point that 4e isn't exactly terrified of the idea of monsters that are more complex than others.




Yes. Monsters the GM makes up himself are going to be as complicated as he wants them to be. Templates are one tool for doing that, though they don't increase overall encounter complexity.

Monster books are for GMs who either don't want to do that work, or want some baseline creature abilities to build from. In either case, the monsters in the monster book (such as the phane) should be playable out of the box.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with 4e's ability to run evil twin plots?




Perhaps I misread you. I interpreted your statement to be an indication that running an evil twin was "easy" because you could just copy what the PC was doing. If you can't, then you have to spend more time figuring out what the Evil Twin should be doing this round, which leads to more time spent on the GM's turn, which has some negatives that the designers want to avoid.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Upthread I made the point that assuming the DM is dumb is not a good way to discredit the "evil twin" idea because such a mythically dumb DM would have problems without the evil twins, with just the way that any other monster worked.
> 
> Try to keep up, man.




I don't need to assume that the DM is dumb, just that he's going to take the same 2-3 minutes (probably a bit more, since he doesn't know all the nuances) that the PC would per action, and he's going to take that for *each* "evil twin" instead of 2-3 minutes total for team monster. This nearly doubles the RL time of the combat.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Thousands of years of human history and storytelling would disagree with you.
> 
> If it's bad for 4e, then, in that respect, 4e sucks, because it ain't bad for the game that 4e is trying to be.




It's fine to create "evil twin" characters and use them in a game. It's fine to flavor them as having been summoned by the phane. It's fine to use that as a plot device or even stand-alone encounter.

It's bad when you have to say that the phane is worth ___ XP (or ___ CR), because his actual power level varies according to his opponents. It's bad when you put a monster in the monster book that can't be run out of that monster book without getting into PC-level complexity.

Having the *option* of PC-level complexity, on the other hand, is a good thing.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Both of these are rather false.
> 
> #1: Because the monster's stats are the player's stats with minor adjustments, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as a lich or vampire.
> 
> #2: All encounters' power levels are dependent on their oppoents' power levels. This is the very principle of encounters that challenge you based on your level that has been in every iteration of D&D: the more powerful you are, the bigger challenges you face. The weaker you are, the weaker your enemies. If this stops accurate XP values, then every edition of D&D ever has had wildly inaccurate XP values because that is, essentially, the _basis_ of XP values.




1) No, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as N vampire lords with full PC writeup. Plus a phane.

2) So very wrong. No matter how strong you are, an 18,000 XP Pit Fiend is supposed to be 18,000 XP worth of challenge. Its abilities are constant. The evil twin's abilities scale with the party level, and thus the XP value must scale with the party level or the system breaks - it can't be assigned an XP value in the book.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Why the heck not? What is there to be afraid of? What kind of unholy 4e kryptonite is an "evil twin" that it cannot be supported in the core rules, but only in that wild west frontier land?
> 
> What's 4e so afraid of, if it won't do it?




It IS in the core rules. It's called the PHB.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Any game that can't handle "evil twin" without freaking out and crying about it really isn't giving me what I need out of a game. It's a failure.
> 
> I have more faith in the 4e team than that.




The game CAN handle it. It's in the PHB. It doesn't belong in a monster book.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> How are you going to put "Evil Twin" in the MM, and why? The PHB already serves as a mechanism for creating Evil Twins.




Put it with the rest of the templates, because it's an interesting and classic story to tell.



> Yes. But no monster in the MM should come with instructions requiring you to apply a template before running it. They need to be playable out of the box.




Put it alongside the vampire and the lich. The phane would just need to note that these 'time duplicates' often feature as allies.



> Adding a template to a creature bumps it up to Elite or Solo. You have to know more abilities for one creature, but have fewer creatures overall, so complexity level doesn't have to increase dramatically.




This has been covered above. The phane in 3e was obviously a solo creature. Part of the reason for the change is that it is no longer a solo creature. I've agreed with this observation completely, and merely pointed out that it means that some old high-level monsters are going to be greatly simplistic.

A phane accompanied by an "evil twin" time duplicate of a PC or two is fine.



> I don't need to assume that the DM is dumb, just that he's going to take the same 2-3 minutes (probably a bit more, since he doesn't know all the nuances) that the PC would per action, and he's going to take that for *each* "evil twin" instead of 2-3 minutes total for team monster. This nearly doubles the RL time of the combat.




Any DM with a vague awareness of what his PC's are capable of won't have this problem. And DM without that vague awereness will have more problems that are completely independent of "evil twins."



> It's bad when you have to say that the phane is worth ___ XP (or ___ CR), because his actual power level varies according to his opponents. It's bad when you put a monster in the monster book that can't be run out of that monster book without getting into PC-level complexity.




"An 'evil twin' is equal in level to the PC it is created from" will give you an XP value for it. 

Power level ALWAYS varies with the PC's. At 1st level they fight goblins, at 30th level, they fight Orcus. At 1st through 30th level, they can fight their evil twins. 

The phane, at level 26, could specifically use the evil twins. Perhaps the doppelganger, at level 14, could do it, too. Perhaps some ethereal mimic, at level 7, could do it even earlier.



> 1) No, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as N vampire lords with full PC writeup. Plus a phane.




A full PC write up still won't be extraordinarily complex, especially given that you are under no compulsion to make absolutely ideal and prime use of every one of a PC's miscellaneous abilities, or even know what they are or specifically what they do (a general sense is good enough).



> No matter how strong you are, an 18,000 XP Pit Fiend is supposed to be 18,000 XP worth of challenge. Its abilities are constant. The evil twin's abilities scale with the party level, and thus the XP value must scale with the party level or the system breaks - it can't be assigned an XP value in the book.




But that 18,000 XP pit fiend is only a challenge for level 18 characters. By level 28, they're on to other things. At level 8, they're not yet there. 

An evil twin is tied to the level of the PC's. At level 8, it's a level 8 challenge. At level 30, it's a level 30 challenge. Just as the rest of the monsters scale.



> The game CAN handle it. It's in the PHB. It doesn't belong in a monster book.




Then you're telling me the game can't handle it being an adversary?

So a the game can't handle you fighting your evil twin?

So the game fails to deliver?

Yeah, I don't buy it. The designers are, I think, better than that.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 21, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it can't do that.  I'm saying that you likely won't see published monsters that rely on that as mechanics.



Sure, probably not, as what KM is talking about is more of a "DM trick" to make using the players against themselves easier, rather than actual game rules.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Sure, it's really easy to say "give me your character sheets, I'm now using copies of you as characters."  It just is more complicated to run a PC, even a first level one than it is to run a monster.



Well, again, you seem to be missing the point that you're really setting the characters against each other, not running the PCs in their entirety by yourself with 100% opimization of tactics.  You know what they can do, broadly, because you've seen them do it for twenty-someodd levels.  You know how they setup and knockdown foes, and what kinds of monster abilities disrupt their usual tactics, and how they deal with _that_, because you've been designing encounters for them for twenty-someodd levels.  You don't need copies of their character sheets, you don't need to know every little item they have or special-case powers, you just need to say, "Bob, use that encounter power of yours against Fred.  You know, the one that will slide him around.  You hit?  Great, we're gonna slide him over here into the phane.  Mwahahahahah!"  I'm having a hard time imagining these DMs that you talk about that have absolutely no idea of what their players are capable of doing.

But coming up with abstract evil twins that have a few of the characters' signature powers is probably very easy... if not nearly as fun.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Put it with the rest of the templates, because it's an interesting and classic story to tell.




Why do you even need a template? Build the Evil Twin(s) X levels lower (or higher) out of the PHB.

Or, if you're just going to use your PC's character sheet, photocopy it and make a note of the adjustments.

Either way, it doesn't need to be in the MM.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Any DM with a vague awareness of what his PC's are capable of won't have this problem. And DM without that vague awereness will have more problems that are completely independent of "evil twins."




What? Any DM with a vague awareness of what his PCs are capable of is going to take LESS time to pick among the PCs abilities than the player himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "An 'evil twin' is equal in level to the PC it is created from" will give you an XP value for it.




Okay. So now giving the phane the ability to summon these guys in its text means that the phane can't have a written XP value, because it's dependent on the PCs level.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Power level ALWAYS varies with the PC's. At 1st level they fight goblins, at 30th level, they fight Orcus. At 1st through 30th level, they can fight their evil twins.




This is based on a total misreading of my statement. Of course you fight more powerful things. But those more powerful things give you more XP. A creature whose power level scales must have a scaling XP value to match.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The phane, at level 26, could specifically use the evil twins. Perhaps the doppelganger, at level 14, could do it, too. Perhaps some ethereal mimic, at level 7, could do it even earlier.




Then the phane can only actually be a level 26 monster when it faces level 26 PCs (assuming your template balances things that way). Since the PCs could fight one at level 24, or at level 28, its XP value would fluctuate based on the PC level.

Meanwhile, if you build, say, 3 level 26 "evil twins" out of the PHB (or even just the monster creation guidelines and copy over some of the PCs powers) and pair it with the phane, you get a balanced level 26 encounter, but you still have the option of building fewer, higher-level evil twins or more, lower-level evil twins, or whatever combination gets you the encounter balance you want.

You have the tools to do this. They're in the PHB, the DMG, and maybe even the MM. They're just not put in a monster's stat block, because that's not the right place for them.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A full PC write up still won't be extraordinarily complex, especially given that you are under no compulsion to make absolutely ideal and prime use of every one of a PC's miscellaneous abilities, or even know what they are or specifically what they do (a general sense is good enough).




Then just use the "monster-building guidelines" in the DMG to come up with a monster (or set of monsters) that's an appropriately-level challenge and give them some of the PCs favorite abilities. You still don't need anything in the MM telling you how to do this.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But that 18,000 XP pit fiend is only a challenge for level 18 characters. By level 28, they're on to other things. At level 8, they're not yet there.




If the system works as advertised, the Pit Fiend should be appropriate for a much wider range than just level 18 PCs. Maybe the system breaks down when you're 10 levels apart, but most of the time it should be worth 18,000 XP no matter who its up against.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> An evil twin is tied to the level of the PC's. At level 8, it's a level 8 challenge. At level 30, it's a level 30 challenge. Just as the rest of the monsters scale.




Clearly. But a phane which can summon such evil twins has the XP value of a level 26 Elite monster plus some value that's indeterminate until you know what opponents it's facing.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Then you're telling me the game can't handle it being an adversary?
> 
> So a the game can't handle you fighting your evil twin?
> 
> ...




No, I'm telling you that its silly to restate so much information from the PHB and DMG into the MM. I'm telling you that the reason the designers have kept saying that you can stat out NPCs with full PC writeups if you want is because its true. I'm telling you that a creature with a variable-strength summoning spell is itself more like a template than a monster because you can't properly gauge its power level without knowing what it summons.

In short, _I'm telling you_ that the designers are better than that. Everything you want should be available, they just didn't spend pagecount presenting duplicate information and making monsters in their monster book that are harder to run than they need to be.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 21, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But the main discussion about that part is: It's not a codified ability, it's "DM fiat" to build the encounter that way. Some people have problems with that, some don't have problems with that.




Not really. If "DM Fiat" was defined so broadly, then virtually anything the DM does is fiat. DM Fiat usually refers to other things, not the creation and use of plot devices.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> No, I'm telling you that its silly to restate so much information from the PHB and DMG into the MM.




....

You really don't get at what I'm saying, here, I guess.

A few other posters do, so I don't think I'm really being THAT obtuse.

And I *really* don't want to bother re-hashing this point and working out where you're wrong about what I really want out of this. It's, effectively, a tangent of a tangent. I noticed that the 4e phane is less "interesting" than the 3e version, and wondered, broadly, why. I reject the notion that 4e is inherently incapable of handling "interesting" monsters (stolen time, death by aging, or evil twins are all interesting things). I accept that the 4e phane needs to fill a different role in a battle than the 3e phane did, and that 'evil twins,' at least, aren't so much monsters as DM tricks. I still think it's kind of sad that the phane is loosing these powers, but I accept that it's filling a different void. I still think it's rather unneccessarily bland, but at least I can kind of see where the designers might have been coming from.

You'll honestly never get me to accept that the 'evil twins' plotline is something that 4e D&D should not support. If, for some reason, it DOESN'T support that play (and support is quite different from 'allow'), I might go with something that DOES (True 20? Pathfinder?) when I need a game to play, and I'll mock 4e until such a time as it realizes that it SHOULD support that play.

So, if you work out what I'm actually trying to say, maybe we can continue the discussion, but I'm far too lazy to bother spelling out the last 4 pages of discussion for ya. If you have to think that I'm an idiot for that, so be it, I think I'll be able to sleep comfortably still.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 21, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'm also saying that there is a better way, mechanically, to design a "mirror universe" PC in 4e.  Although I can't say how it works and it may not satisfy some people.




Grab the Basic Stats of the NPC Stats by level/role on the DM Screen, pop on the good encounter powers, amybe the dailies, go to town.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> You really don't get at what I'm saying, here, I guess.




Maybe so.

Maybe it's also true that you don't get what I'm saying?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You'll honestly never get me to accept that the 'evil twins' plotline is something that 4e D&D should not support. If, for some reason, it DOESN'T support that play (and support is quite different from 'allow'), I might go with something that DOES (True 20? Pathfinder?) when I need a game to play, and I'll mock 4e until such a time as it realizes that it SHOULD support that play.




I'm not trying to get you to accept that D&D should not support that. I also don't think (correct me if I'm wrong, Majoru) that Majoru Oakheart wants you to accept that D&D shouldn't support that.

I just want you to accept that you may well have what you want without the hoops you seem eager to jump through in order to get it, and that the MM is not necessarily the best place to put those hoops if they have to be there.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, if you work out what I'm actually trying to say, maybe we can continue the discussion, but I'm far too lazy to bother spelling out the last 4 pages of discussion for ya. If you have to think that I'm an idiot for that, so be it, I think I'll be able to sleep comfortably still.




I don't think you're an idiot. And it is possible that I missed a page of the discussion by accident before jumping in. I'll go check it out.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I *still* think the idea that 4e is too dumb to handle evil twins in the RAW is either way off-base, or a really deep criticism of what 4e is actually capable of doing.




I don't really understand what "handle evil twins in the RAW" actually *means*.  It's obvious how to handle twins.  You ask all your players to give you copies of thier character sheets and you put in the skull sweat to figure out how to run their characters.  If you want to make them slightly weaker evil duplicates, you knock off their top few levels.

A solid DM with a lot of confidence could probably run something off the cuff, using only the characters' signature abilities and a quick notation of their appropraite attacks/defenses.  It would be a far from perfect emulation, but it would be doable.

However, 4E certainly isn't going to put something in a monster's stat block requiring the DM to handle evil twins.  That's best left in the realm of encounter design.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> I just want you to accept that you may well have what you want without the hoops you seem eager to jump through in order to get it, and that the MM is not necessarily the best place to put those hoops if they have to be there.




What hoops? When did I say it had to be in the MM?

No, I'm disappointed that the 4e phane doesn't have a nod to the ability that the 3e phane had to create time duplicates AKA 'evil twins' (amongst other things). If the 4e phane had such an ability, such a nod, such a ritual, such a description in its flavor text, such a note in its "encounter" text, I wouldn't have (as much) of a feeling of disappointment. Alternately, if the 4e phane were to bring some evocative coolness of its own, I wouldn't really care, but the 4e phane seems rather dull (if effective) with the "damage + status ailment" formula. 

The entry for the phane should be interesting and evocative of the phane's "plot potential." That's not 'the stat block,' but rather the entire entry in the MM. Yes, even if it's just a note that says "The phanes have learned a ritual to summon a creature's past self into the present, bound into their slavery. Use the 'Evil Twin' template on PG XX of the DMG to represent these time duplicates." Or something along those lines.

Most of this conversation has been various parties telling me that "evil twin" encounters are so horribly complex that they have no place in a game of such beautiful simplicity as 4e, and that such a creature would be horrible, if it were to exist, and thus should only exist, if at all, in the strange realm of my own house rules, never violating the sacrosanct territory of a core book. 

Forgive the hyperbole.  



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> However, 4E certainly isn't going to put something in a monster's stat block requiring the DM to handle evil twins. That's best left in the realm of encounter design.




Sure, but we're getting more than a stat block, here. For instance, when it's talking about designing encounters with the phane, instead of (just) an assorted list of other creatures from the MM, it could talk about time duplicates as evil twins and races against time to liberate people caught in a flow of time that the phane is feeding off of, aging them unnaturally fast, stealing their time from them. 

Viola! It retains the encounter coolness of the 3e phane largely intact. 

It doesn't expressly need any summoning ability or whatever, what it needs is to incorporate the old neat ideas into the new form so that the neat ideas can be retained. 

It doesn't really do that, and that's disappointing.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 21, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Grab the Basic Stats of the NPC Stats by level/role on the DM Screen, pop on the good encounter powers, amybe the dailies, go to town.



Yeah, if creating monsters is as easy as people keep saying it is, abstracting out the combat stats should work just fine.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The entry for the phane should be interesting and evocative of the phane's "plot potential." That's not 'the stat block,' but rather the entire entry in the MM. Yes, even if it's just a note that says "The phanes have learned a ritual to summon a creature's past self into the present, bound into their slavery. Use the 'Evil Twin' template on PG XX of the DMG to represent these time duplicates." Or something along those lines.




Then you're back to the implication that without putting that template into motion the DM is "doing it wrong". I mean, there can definitely be some phrasing that makes it clear, and I don't object too strongly to that, but you've got to be careful with wording there.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Most of this conversation has been various parties telling me that "evil twin" encounters are so horribly complex that they have no place in a game of such beautiful simplicity as 4e, and that such a creature would be horrible, if it were to exist, and thus should only exist, if at all, in the strange realm of my own house rules, never violating the sacrosanct territory of a core book.
> 
> Forgive the hyperbole.




Evil twin encounters as you're describing them are significantly more complex than they need to be. Applying templates to PCs can get pretty hairy. "He can use each of the PCs abilities but at a -2 penalty" - oh wait, except dailies, that's right. And his encounter powers get to recharge? Better remember to roll those. And how many healing surges does he get? How many HP?

The PC started out more complicated than a monster. You're adding a template to make him _even more complicated_. And the result you end up with still needs to be balanced against the encounter rules. The better DM trick (IMO) is to just use a level-appropriate behind-the-scenes generic stat block flavored with some of the PC's powers. It's pre-balanced, and way less complicated than applying a template-form to his HP and attacks and powers and expecting that the result is going to be fully balanced.

I mean, he's going to have a smaller attack bonus, lower defenses, and less HP anyway, right? Are the PCs going to be counting it all to make sure you applied the template correctly? Shorthanding this kind of thing is better.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure, but we're getting more than a stat block, here. For instance, when it's talking about designing encounters with the phane, instead of (just) an assorted list of other creatures from the MM, it could talk about time duplicates as evil twins and races against time to liberate people caught in a flow of time that the phane is feeding off of, aging them unnaturally fast, stealing their time from them.
> 
> Viola! It retains the encounter coolness of the 3e phane largely intact.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't mind having some suggestions on that, but be wary of the possibility of sending the "you aren't really using this monster right" vibe.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> Then you're back to the implication that without putting that template into motion the DM is "doing it wrong". I mean, there can definitely be some phrasing that makes it clear, and I don't object too strongly to that, but you've got to be careful with wording there.




I really don't understand where that vibe could come from. It's pretty evident that encounter design is in the hands of the DM, this is just one suggestion, a tendancy, a "default," maybe, for encounters with the phane. 



> I mean, he's going to have a smaller attack bonus, lower defenses, and less HP anyway, right? Are the PCs going to be counting it all to make sure you applied the template correctly? Shorthanding this kind of thing is better.




Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's an entirely different debate. WotC isn't, by all appareances, even giving us the option of having that debate, since the phane has no noted ability, propensity, desire, or proclivity to make or interest in making time duplicates. That little bit of evocative interest is sucked right out. 

So arguing about how it should be done is fairly pointless -- the phane thus far has told us that it won't be done, period. Which robs some of the evocative interest out of the 4e phane that the 3e phane had. 



> I wouldn't mind having some suggestions on that, but be wary of the possibility of sending the "you aren't really using this monster right" vibe.




I'm not sure it's ever really possible to use a monster wrong, as long as the players enjoy beating the crud out of it and accomplishing whatever goal that lets them accomplish.

Time duplicates, stolen time, and death by rapid old-ization are all interesting things the 3e phane could do that the 4e phane cannot do, and given that 4e should have no inherent problems with the very principles of 'evil twin', 'stolen time,' and 'death by magically accellerated old age,' it's hard to understand why the phane lost these qualities that made it such an interesting possibility (even if the implementation fell short) in 3e.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I really don't understand where that vibe could come from. It's pretty evident that encounter design is in the hands of the DM, this is just one suggestion, a tendancy, a "default," maybe, for encounters with the phane.




If that's where you're going, I feel strongly that the "default" of any monster in the MM should be "play this guy out of the box along with other monsters out of the box".

If the fluff says they usually travel with time duplicates of the PCs, that creates dissonance by making the default suggested in the book not the default of their actual use.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's an entirely different debate. WotC isn't, by all appareances, even giving us the option of having that debate, since the phane has no noted ability, propensity, desire, or proclivity to make or interest in making time duplicates. That little bit of evocative interest is sucked right out.




Who cares about WOTCs permission? If they have a propensity, desire, or interest in making time duplicates, you send the "this monster needs to have time duplicates or else come up with a reason why this particular specimine doesn't" vibe.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So arguing about how it should be done is fairly pointless -- the phane thus far has told us that it won't be done, period. Which robs some of the evocative interest out of the 4e phane that the 3e phane had.




Except that the way you want to do it sounds simple, but isn't (apply a template to the PCs). The way I want to do it takes more words (and thus more page space), but is probably a lot simpler/better for actual "evil twin" combats. Devoting that much wordcount to describing how to do it sends even more of a "this is something that the phane should really be doing" vibe.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's ever really possible to use a monster wrong, as long as the players enjoy beating the crud out of it and accomplishing whatever goal that lets them accomplish.




Sure. But there's a reason you're using creature X instead of creature Y. Frequently this has to do with its fluff text. So if the fluff text leaves heavy implications that a creature does A and B, using that creature without doing A and B will seem silly.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Time duplicates, stolen time, and death by rapid old-ization are all interesting things the 3e phane could do that the 4e phane cannot do, and given that 4e should have no inherent problems with the very principles of 'evil twin', 'stolen time,' and 'death by magically accellerated old age,' it's hard to understand why the phane lost these qualities that made it such an interesting possibility (even if the implementation fell short) in 3e.




Of course the 4E phane can do all these things:

He can make time duplicates. The DM represents these however he wants, (I prefer the simpler way more).
He can steal time with a touch - this causes you to suffer some HP damage from aging as well as being slowed. He uses the stolen time to reposition himself on the battlefield.
He can kill you by aging - his wizening ray causes you HP damage from aging as well as weakening you due to infirmity. Anything that causes HP damage can kill you.

He's got all of it. You seem only to be upset that they're represented more generically (and less permanently?) than they used to be.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 21, 2008)

I think it's more that this is the extent of the given Phane fluff in 4th edition:


> Phanes can manipulate time, which they use to sow chaos among mortals. Occasionally they form pacts with powerful beings that share their destructive propensities.



Now, they go on to spend two sentences to describe the Phane itself, but I think one of those sentences would have been much better spent in describing ways in which the Phane might "manipulate time" to "sow chaos among mortals".

As it stands, it feels like a level 26 displacer beast that can do time tricks instead of being displaced. Especially with the lore entry!


> Phanes are native to the Astral Sea, but they are found throughout the cosmos, walking the space between moments, ever on the hunt for prey.



I can just snatch lore from the old version of the Phane for cool encounter ideas, but none of that is here in the 4th fluff. Even the War Devil is more evocative, and he's non-elite.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> If that's where you're going, I feel strongly that the "default" of any monster in the MM should be "play this guy out of the box along with other monsters out of the box".
> 
> If the fluff says they usually travel with time duplicates of the PCs, that creates dissonance by making the default suggested in the book not the default of their actual use.




I think that's overly simplistic and absolutist. For some monsters (and the phane might be one of 'em), using other monsters with templates might make sense. The vampire and the lich are both typically BBEG's, but even then, the vampire spawn entry in the MM, I bet, references the vampire lord template in the DMG.

If it makes a more interesting and rewarding game experience, why NOT pull in related rules that might not be absolutely contained within the statblock?



> Who cares about WOTCs permission? If they have a propensity, desire, or interest in making time duplicates, you send the "this monster needs to have time duplicates or else come up with a reason why this particular specimine doesn't" vibe.




Because the monster is loosing something in its 4e translation. Other peoples' games won't be quite as interesting as they could be because they'll never know that a phane could use the 'evil twin' idea to great effect. It diminishes, in some slight way, the overall quality of the published rules, if they're not attentive to the interesting things that they could do.



> Except that the way you want to do it sounds simple, but isn't (apply a template to the PCs). The way I want to do it takes more words (and thus more page space), but is probably a lot simpler/better for actual "evil twin" combats. Devoting that much wordcount to describing how to do it sends even more of a "this is something that the phane should really be doing" vibe.




At the moment, I don't really care HOW its done, I care THAT its done. The idea of 'evil twin' combats is something that pops up in more than just the phane (doppelgangers, shadow doubles, necromancers with magic jar). I think it's erroneous to assume that the wordy way you have in mind is the only possible approach that 4e could take. It's their JOB to come up with easy speedy ways for me to do this, and they're pretty good at their jobs. I'm pretty sure they could think of a better way than you or I could, if for no other reason than that they're paid to think about it more often than you or I are.



> Sure. But there's a reason you're using creature X instead of creature Y. Frequently this has to do with its fluff text. So if the fluff text leaves heavy implications that a creature does A and B, using that creature without doing A and B will seem silly.




This is almost approaching the mythical territory of the Idiot DM. Any DM who can't use a monster for what he wants to get out of the monster has bigger problems than any specific monster. 



> He can make time duplicates. The DM represents these however he wants, (I prefer the simpler way more).




Really? Where does the RAW reference time duplicates?



> He can steal time with a touch - this causes you to suffer some HP damage from aging as well as being slowed.




Stealing time generally implies that the phane gets the time that it stole from you. Does the phane heal hp or become hasted? Where do the rules say that?



> He uses the stolen time to reposition himself on the battlefield.




Well, since he can move before he steals your time, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense...



> He can kill you by aging - his wizening ray causes you HP damage from aging as well as weakening you due to infirmity. Anything that causes HP damage can kill you.




It is stated that such effects go away when the effect ends, so it really just seems cosmetic to me. 



> He's got all of it. You seem only to be upset that they're represented more generically (and less permanently?) than they used to be.




I'm disappointed that several interesting opportunities have been lost in the shift between editions for the phane, and I don't see why they would have to be.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 21, 2008)

I think the basic problem is this.

Even at epic levels, not every monster can be the big, bad terror of the cosmos.  As horrible as it sounds, you've got to have your epic goblins that the PCs can fight through on their way to the actual threat to all reality.  All the old 3E epic level monsters were terrifying singular figures that would define the legends of a generation.  If you're going to turn some of them into epic goblins, you have to tone down the fluff/flavor a bit.  The 4E Phane are a speedbump in the adventure.  Epic footsoldiers.


----------



## LordArchaon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget, have you read the Phane tactics discovered (uncovered, maybe) by Fallen Seraph? Because speaking of "Evil Twins", they actually show us that the PCs will have to fight _as if_ there were more than one Phane. Like twins of the Phane. Because the chain-triggered Opportunity Attacks actually allow the Phane to act at what would be contemporary time-frames. It's like it has the gift of ubiquity...
Don't you think this is _at least_ interesting?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

> Even at epic levels, not every monster can be the big, bad terror of the cosmos. As horrible as it sounds, you've got to have your epic goblins that the PCs can fight through on their way to the actual threat to all reality. All the old 3E epic level monsters were terrifying singular figures that would define the legends of a generation. If you're going to turn some of them into epic goblins, you have to tone down the fluff/flavor a bit. The 4E Phane are a speedbump in the adventure. Epic footsoldiers.




I really can accept that.

It's a little disappointing, still, but anything moved out of the territory of "BATTLE ROYALE!" to "Epic-level dung-farmer" will be. 

That explains or even justifies the mundanity, but it's STILL a bland monster, whatever the reason.

And I would still point out that, with regards to the fluff text, this bad boy is rocking the "It kills because it likes to kill!" a little too much. It could *still* be better, even if we're resigned to having it be fairly bland because it's supposed to be epic-level cannon fodder.



> Kamikaze Midget, have you read the Phane tactics discovered (uncovered, maybe) by Fallen Seraph? Because speaking of "Evil Twins", they actually show us that the PCs will have to fight as if there were more than one Phane. Like twins of the Phane. Because the chain-triggered Opportunity Attacks actually allow the Phane to act at what would be contemporary time-frames. It's like it has the gift of ubiquity...
> Don't you think this is at least interesting?




Sure, but I don't revolve a plot around "it's terribly fast in combat." That's not the kind of thing that inspires you to tell much of a story beyond "It does some horrible things to mundane people," which is very generic as far as monster stories go. 

Meanwhile, "Your double from the past wants to kill you, and children who get lost in the woods are turning up dead as incredibly old people" inspire a pretty unique and pretty interesting plot. "Lots of Opportunity Attacks" really doesn't.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, "Your double from the past wants to kill you, and children who get lost in the woods are turning up dead as incredibly old people" inspire a pretty unique and pretty interesting plot. "Lots of Opportunity Attacks" really doesn't.




Doesn't that sorta go beyond the means of just a combat stat-box? You could easily do that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in the stat-box.

I say we should wait and see what kind of rituals or extra abilities it could gain access to outside of the stat-box to judge.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that's overly simplistic and absolutist. For some monsters (and the phane might be one of 'em), using other monsters with templates might make sense. The vampire and the lich are both typically BBEG's, but even then, the vampire spawn entry in the MM, I bet, references the vampire lord template in the DMG.
> 
> If it makes a more interesting and rewarding game experience, why NOT pull in related rules that might not be absolutely contained within the statblock?




Because the default suggested in the fluff should be something that makes a good default. Fighting your evil twin is really evocative once.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> At the moment, I don't really care HOW its done, I care THAT its done. The idea of 'evil twin' combats is something that pops up in more than just the phane (doppelgangers, shadow doubles, necromancers with magic jar). I think it's erroneous to assume that the wordy way you have in mind is the only possible approach that 4e could take. It's their JOB to come up with easy speedy ways for me to do this, and they're pretty good at their jobs. I'm pretty sure they could think of a better way than you or I could, if for no other reason than that they're paid to think about it more often than you or I are.




Poof. It's done.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is almost approaching the mythical territory of the Idiot DM. Any DM who can't use a monster for what he wants to get out of the monster has bigger problems than any specific monster.




He can use whatever monster he wants. But now the fluff text is giving him the suggestion of "put a whole lot more work into this monster" instead of "use this monster out of the box with maybe these other monsters here". I think the second suggestion is more helpful, and more worthy of the space.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Really? Where does the RAW reference time duplicates?




If you need it to be RAW, you need more than just fluff text.

Once you need more than just fluff text, you need a lot more complicated of a monster page.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Stealing time generally implies that the phane gets the time that it stole from you. Does the phane heal hp or become hasted? Where do the rules say that?




No - he just shifts four squares. Since _slowed_ is just a movement decrease, it seems fair to give the phane a movement increase.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, since he can move before he steals your time, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense...




It makes at least as much sense as summoning evil-twin alternate dimension time duplicates.

If he shifts prior to the attack, its because after the attack he sends the stolen time back through time to his prior self.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It is stated that such effects go away when the effect ends, so it really just seems cosmetic to me.




Yes, they end on their own. You think save-or-die was going to leave, but save-or-be-aged-permanently was going to stay? Meanwhile, death by aging is still a possibilty, well within the RAW.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that several interesting opportunities have been lost in the shift between editions for the phane, and I don't see why they would have to be.




So don't lose them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Doesn't that sorta go beyond the means of just a combat stat-box? You could easily do that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in the stat-box.
> 
> I say we should wait and see what kind of rituals or extra abilities it could gain access to outside of the stat-box to judge.




It goes outside of the statblock, but we've got the entry outside of the statblock, where it's still not mentioned.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Because the default suggested in the fluff should be something that makes a good default. Fighting your evil twin is really evocative once.




What makes a "good default" is an assortment inspirational tidbits about the monster. The 3e phane had that. The 4e phane has...well, "less" is being kind of generous.



> He can use whatever monster he wants. But now the fluff text is giving him the suggestion of "put a whole lot more work into this monster" instead of "use this monster out of the box with maybe these other monsters here". I think the second suggestion is more helpful, and more worthy of the space.




Again, pointless to discuss, sine 4e isn't choosing to support that option.



> If you need it to be RAW, you need more than just fluff text.
> 
> Once you need more than just fluff text, you need a lot more complicated of a monster page.




*shrug* Maybe monsters need more complexity than a statblock and an excuse to kill PC's?

I mean, look at the 3e offenders in this regard. Critters like the Phantom Fungus or the Ythrak or the Digester. Critters that weren't much more than stat blocks and an excuse to kill PC's. Frequently, these are the critters that make the roundup for rather useless monsters.

I'd really prefer if the 4e MM was all killer no filler. The phane looks like killer that got its gun taken away and was turned into filler.



> Yes, they end on their own. You think save-or-die was going to leave, but save-or-be-aged-permanently was going to stay? Meanwhile, death by aging is still a possibilty, well within the RAW.




No, but it doesn't need to be a combat power.



> So don't lose them.




4e has lost them. What I do with my own games really isn't relevant when talking about what I'd like Wizards to do with 4e.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 22, 2008)

*rituals, etc.?*



			
				humble minion said:
			
		

> There is nothing EPIC about the phane.  It is not frightening.  It is not profound in any way.  It is a _26th-level creature_ cannot affect the wider world in any truly significant way.  The only way this _26th-level creature_ can threaten the kingdom or provoke an apocalypse is by hitting people, one at a time.  It is an orc with bigger numbers in its stat block.
> 
> Oh, and it makes you look old, for a little while.  Ooh, scary.
> 
> ...




I can see where humble minion (and others) are coming from on this.  The old style "make something really terrifying/difficult/awesome by breaking the usual rules, making up new ones" did have a certain dramatic power... troubles at the table aside.

But a few counter-thoughts...

This is just a stat block, primarily for use in an encounter, so asking it to provide plot hooks may be asking it to pull a little too much weight.  One thing in particular - rituals are the 4e mechanic for impressive effects outside the scope of an encounter, right?  Might an epic baddie like the phane have access to some impressive rituals allowing, let's say, the creation of evil twins, or the ruining of an entire kingdom's harvest by causing the seasons to skip summer, or whatever?

These wouldn't be mentioned in the phane's stat block, and perhaps not necessarily with respect to the phane specifically.  But maybe some general guidelines in a section in the DMG about "making BBEGs"?  (Actually I wonder, has there been any mention about monsters/NPCs using rituals at all?  Maybe it's just out of scope so far.)

Another issue: would that poor phane really be reduced to eliminating the town guard one at a time with its none-too-impressive melee attacks?  Of course, we all know that the DM could easily wave the story wand and have the phane turn all one hundred guards into withered corpses in a single round.  But in addition, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some general mechanics and/or guidelines about how creatures are extra effective against foes that they completely outclass.  "Outclassed" could be determined by that whole "PCs of destiny" thing, level or tier comparisons.  Perhaps heroic-tier characters get no saves at all against epic-tier powers?  Perhaps it _is_ still "save or die" if you're 10 or more levels lower than the power?  

That sort of thing seems to me like it would be a much better way to handle the situation rather than having to put specific "also, it instantly kills wimps" language in every epic creature's power descriptions.  If it's not covered in the official house rules it would seem to be easy and obvious to house rule.  (I guess the advantage of some rules for this over the story wand is to give PC's a chance to save those town guards before they crumble to dust and blow away...)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
> Most of this conversation has been various parties telling me that "evil twin" encounters are so horribly complex that they have no place in a game of such beautiful simplicity as 4e, and that such a creature would be horrible, if it were to exist, and thus should only exist, if at all, in the strange realm of my own house rules, never violating the sacrosanct territory of a core book.
> 
> Forgive the hyperbole.




No, you are misreading what I, at least, said.

What I'm saying is that an "Evil Twin" ability is too difficult to run OUT OF THE BOX.  It is not too difficult to run using the 4e ruleset.

That's why you don't include it in the stat block.  If it can't be used out of the box, it gets axed.  Full stop.  If you want to run that plot, more power to you.  If I want to make my phane a really powerful displacer beast, more power to me.  If I want to be able to put a phane on a random encounter list, I should be able to, without worrying that this creature will grind my game to a halt.

That's the only point I'm trying to make.  YES you can run your evil twins scenario.  I doubt very much you will need specific templates for this.  NO most DM's cannot run that scenario blind.

Sure, if you've been playing with your group for the last two years, starting at level 1, you know the abilities of that group.  What about convention DM's?  Or groups that start at level 25?  I'm supposed to know the abilities of a character I've never seen played?

The whole design philosophy is to enable DM's to not have to do hours and hours of prep work designing a single encounter that lasts for an hour at the table.  Sure, you might be able to wing handling 5 23rd level NPC's blind, but, again, I know that I can't.

So, yes, if you want to do this scenario, you can.  The mechanics certainly won't stop you.  BUT, they will also not encourage you to do so either.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 22, 2008)

> humble minion
> There is nothing EPIC about the phane. It is not frightening. It is not profound in any way. It is a 26th-level creature cannot affect the wider world in any truly significant way. The only way this 26th-level creature can threaten the kingdom or provoke an apocalypse is by hitting people, one at a time. It is an orc with bigger numbers in its stat block.
> 
> Oh, and it makes you look old, for a little while. Ooh, scary.
> ...




Humble has a point here. There's a certain expectation from an epic creature, a certain scale of effect on the world that we aren't getting here.

For example, lets say the Phane's area attack extended across a 1000 mile radius, and did the same ageing effect + damage. Now from a party's perspective, little has changed as far as a fight with the creature goes. However, that creature could now take out an entire kingdom in a single action, ageing people to death (if we assume the majority of a kingdom are peasants that will die to that small amount of damage).

The creature as written has very little direct effect on the world, killing people one at a time. Now its still nigh unstoppable by conventional people, but its offensive is very small.


----------



## humble minion (Apr 22, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> I can see where humble minion (and others) are coming from on this.  The old style "make something really terrifying/difficult/awesome by breaking the usual rules, making up new ones" did have a certain dramatic power... troubles at the table aside.
> 
> But a few counter-thoughts...
> 
> ...




This is a worthwhile point.  It occurs to me that, stepping back from the phane for a minute to get a wider perspective, my major problems with 4e (based on what I've seen thus far) centre around its seeming combat-centredness and the lack of any ability to create lasting effects or changes in anything.  Rituals may well be a mechanism to counterbalance this, but we haven't seen a ritual in any preview yet, so it's pretty hard to judge.  C'mon Wotc, show us one!  It's pretty much the deciding factor for some of us...

My other concern is that the phane doesn't have any unique capability about it.  It just relies on a combination of speed and insubstantiality and inflicting minor penalties along with its hp damage to create the phane 'flavour'.  There's not really a trademark ability there.  I kinda worry that if this philosophy (building critters from a limited palette of abilities and status penalties and never, ever going outside that toolbox) will mean a certain sameness in how combat feels, and give both WotC and 3rd-party publishers problems in creating new monsters (post-MM1) without having them feel like retreads.  Kinda early to be worrying about it admittedly, but that's the impression I get from the monster stat block we've seen so far.



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> Another issue: would that poor phane really be reduced to eliminating the town guard one at a time with its none-too-impressive melee attacks?  Of course, we all know that the DM could easily wave the story wand and have the phane turn all one hundred guards into withered corpses in a single round.  But in addition, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some general mechanics and/or guidelines about how creatures are extra effective against foes that they completely outclass.  "Outclassed" could be determined by that whole "PCs of destiny" thing, level or tier comparisons.  Perhaps heroic-tier characters get no saves at all against epic-tier powers?  Perhaps it _is_ still "save or die" if you're 10 or more levels lower than the power?
> 
> That sort of thing seems to me like it would be a much better way to handle the situation rather than having to put specific "also, it instantly kills wimps" language in every epic creature's power descriptions.  If it's not covered in the official house rules it would seem to be easy and obvious to house rule.  (I guess the advantage of some rules for this over the story wand is to give PC's a chance to save those town guards before they crumble to dust and blow away...)




An application of the mook rules to good guys.  Interesting thought.  It does make certain plotlines more difficult to run ("We must protect the 10-year-old noncombatant prince from the phane sent by an evil wizard to assassinate him ... oops, he's dead through proximity.  Bugger.") but it's not a bad idea.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 22, 2008)

I said this before but it seemed to have gotten lost:

Every monster in 4e starts at the top of a page.
Very few monsters take up a full page.
To make up for this, they include more than one version of those monsters so you still get as many monster options as usual, just now they're easier to read (since each monster section is one, two, three, or four pages exactly)

I don't see this Phane entry taking up exactly a page with the image, so I wonder if there's not a second phane statblock.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 22, 2008)

humble minion said:
			
		

> An application of the mook rules to good guys.  Interesting thought.  It does make certain plotlines more difficult to run ("We must protect the 10-year-old noncombatant prince from the phane sent by an evil wizard to assassinate him ... oops, he's dead through proximity.  Bugger.") but it's not a bad idea.




Actually, I think that if properly handled, it could make make those kinds of plotlines really fun to run.  If you make the phane deadly to mooks using the story wand, it's hard for players to prevent it unless you also use the story wand on their behalf - tricky to do without putting things on rails.  

But if there is some kind of rules framework behind things... perhaps an epic defender power might allow the defender to grant his "epicness" to the prince as long as the defender stays within a certain range?  Then you could have an interesting tactical combat where the defender has to stick close to the prince while the phane & minions try to push/pull them apart.  Maybe the defender can "soak" the attacks meant for the prince as long as the phane doesn't get too close? Then, a chase with the defender desperately trying to keep the prince far enough away from the phane while the other PCs take it down - easier said than done when facing those slow powers!

Well, I guess we'll see... but it seems like there's so much room for this sort of stuff with the tiers framework, all powers having levels, and so forth, I'd be surprised if there isn't at least something in this direction in the official rules.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

On the Phane being Epic -

Something to remember here is that the Phane is a controller.  He's not there to rain devastation down on the countryside.  That's for brutes.  He's going to be the one standing behind three or four other baddies, directing them to wipe out the town.  This thing has a 28 Int.  It's the planner.  The brains behind the brawn.

Could it wipe out a town?  Quite possibly.  It might take it a while, but, very little in the town is going to stop it.  It's temporal touch ability, means that it's going to blow through a group in a very large hurry, particularly if the group is minions, which is pretty much what townies should be.  It simply attacks, shifts, takes it's OA on the next target and shifts on and on and on.  Conceivably, it could wipe out most of the town in one round.

Sounds pretty epic to me.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the Phane being Epic -
> 
> Something to remember here is that the Phane is a controller.  He's not there to rain devastation down on the countryside.  That's for brutes.  He's going to be the one standing behind three or four other baddies, directing them to wipe out the town.  This thing has a 28 Int.  It's the planner.  The brains behind the brawn.
> 
> ...




I also wonder if we could take it beyond the realms of simply being a monstrous destroy towns through force. If it can leap through time and is somewhat shadowy/less material. I could easily see it being something that gathers information, perhaps leaps through time setting in course various events to lead to the destruction of a town, city, maybe a entire kingdom.

It has the intelligence to do so, so why not?

I could see a Phane starting cults, subtly destroying society in some places, assassinating key-figures to start wars, etc. By having control of time, and by having such high intelligence it doesn't need to be good at killing or have "evil PCs" (which still doesn't make sense to me, since that is dimension based not time based) to do its dastardly deeds.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

> (which still doesn't make sense to me, since that is dimension based not time based)




The SF nerd in me wants a word with you.  

But, your basic point is sound I think.  This is not a ravaging beast.  This is a mastermind.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The SF nerd in me wants a word with you.
> 
> But, your basic point is sound I think.  This is not a ravaging beast.  This is a mastermind.



 I know, I know going back in time, go to alternative timeperiod where normal time diverges, etc, etc. Still feels forced. It is still technically a parallel universe (which is essentially another dimension). Too many highschool lunches have been spent discussing time-travel, lol.

Since has to find the evil-PCs, etc, etc. 

Could make a fine-plot point but as a combat power, bleh!

A Phane could actually make a really nice BBEG. I could see a Phane either for its own reasons, or under control of something else trying to throughout time set off a series of events to screw things over. The PCs after being requested by the Fates to stop this must uncover what the Phane has done (this be especially interesting for Star Warlock (for the one concept which is based of Fates and Time)).


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The SF nerd in me wants a word with you.
> 
> But, your basic point is sound I think.  This is not a ravaging beast.  This is a mastermind.




A mastermind that solves problems by hitting things. 

It has melee and close-range burst abilities, and nothing else - you can declare that in your game, it's a mastermind, but you could do the same thing with a high-level fighter with decent Int, with about as much justification. (And since all its ability mods are in the +19 to +23 range, it's hardly defined by its Intelligence. Yet another example of how bland it is.)

The fact that it's a Controller doesn't make it a thinker - a controller is just a debuffer.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Yes, and what's so bad about it? A mastermind can still clober some weak people up. Superheroes (basically, epic-tiered player characters) can deal more easily with him.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 22, 2008)

> A mastermind can still clober some weak people up.




Pfft. It's no different from a level 4 orc in this regard. They'll both wipe out a town full of minions....eventually.

By the appearance, this is a campaign/encounter level failure on the part of the phane. It fails as an Anybody.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, your basic point is sound I think.  This is not a ravaging beast.  This is a mastermind.




One which lacks the powers of stopping or manipulating time, turning invisible, teleportation, detecting magic, speaking in diverse tongues or anything it might need to be a subtle manipulator.  One which even lacks the capacity to inflict any enduring condition, since even if it ages you to decriptitude in a few seconds you may just shake it off, rub some dirt on it, and be back in the trenches.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

One thing though to... Just think about the name; Phane... Only Phane. This could very simply be the base version. Since I am hoping there will be base versions of monsters (very simple ones) then we get into more advance ones.

So your super-crazy time-control mid-combat, detect magic, etc. Can still be the case for the Phane.

I personally think it is fine as is, and can showcase time-control, teleportation, etc. as is. But you could still very well have ones with more abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> One which lacks the powers of stopping or manipulating time, turning invisible, teleportation, detecting magic, speaking in diverse tongues or anything it might need to be a subtle manipulator.  One which even lacks the capacity to inflict any enduring condition, since even if it ages you to decriptitude in a few seconds you may just shake it off, rub some dirt on it, and be back in the trenches.




Yet, somehow, I imagine that if I wanted a creature that can do all of those things, I could add them pretty easily.  Since nearly every one of those things you name are the realm of rituals, WHY IN HELL WOULD THEY BE IN THE BASIC STAT BLOCK?

I'm getting so tired of asking this same questions over and over and over again.

THE BASIC STAT BLOCK ONLY CONTAINS COMBAT INFORMATION.

How many times does this need to be repeated in order for it to take?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2008)

An additional thought.

It absolutely astonishes me that critics of this creature propose exactly the opposite criticism when it comes to flavor text in the PHB.  After all, we're being given all sorts of flavor for the races and classes in the PHB.  Complete histories for the Dragonborn for example, core settings and the like.

And several of the posters in this thread have routinely denounced it as VERY BAD.

Yet, here we have a creature writeup that doesn't force any flavor on you, contains very little in the way of background information and allows DM's to do pretty much whatever they want with the creature.

And that's VERY BAD too.

So, color me confused.  Which is it?  Is flavor text good sometimes and bad in other places?  Exactly how much is good?  Or, is it only that flavor text that happens to satisfy your own personal aesthetics is good and anything else is drek?

Which is it?


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

To the absolute majority of all people, the phane is invulnerable. It is also fast and can position itself to make AOs very easily. Assuming that peasants run in fear from the phane, it will make one OA per round, killing one peasant. With it's other attacks it can kill one peasant more. It will kill one person per three seconds and is able to catch fleeing peasants with no trouble. In a minute it kills 20 people, in an hour 1200.

If you factor in that people will flee from their homes in a disorganized manner as well, you can add starvation and disease to the killing figures.

Really, the phane could in about an hour depopulate a town of thousands of citizens. Give it a day, and the town is defenitly dead. Since dead people can't make saves, everyone that is killed by the phane will be dead of high age. This goes for killed high HP opponents of the phane as well.

If the PCs would come to a town attacked by a phane, they will encounter paniced refugees telling them about the horror that struck town. The PCs come to a deserted town where the bodies of old people are laying everywhere. Somewhere in all this is the phane.

I think it's suitably epic. An epic monster doesn't have to be a nuclear bomb, it just have to be sufficiently dangerous.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

I am sure other people saw the OA strategy right away. But glad I got to write it down first 

Also put in, that the Phane could easily go through time and say lock the gates quickly or other such things to cause even more chaos.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> An additional thought.
> 
> It absolutely astonishes me that critics of this creature propose exactly the opposite criticism when it comes to flavor text in the PHB.  After all, we're being given all sorts of flavor for the races and classes in the PHB.  Complete histories for the Dragonborn for example, core settings and the like.
> 
> ...



Well, we don't know if it are the same critics. But it implies that it's impossible to get it right for everyone. (Unless people treat fluff in the PHB differently then fluff in the MM)


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 22, 2008)

You know, we really need to do this throwing a monster up once a week thing and brainstorming plot hooks even after the previews end.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> You know, we really need to do this throwing a monster up once a week thing and brainstorming plot hooks even after the previews end.



That sounds like an awesome idea. Hey, and it would probably be system-independent, most of the time.


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I am sure other people saw the OA strategy right away. But glad I got to write it down first
> 
> Also put in, that the Phane could easily go through time and say lock the gates quickly or other such things to cause even more chaos.



Even by using only the RAW, the phane could move 26 squares per round in which it attacks; it runs on it's move action, charges someone, steals time from the victim that is enough to shift 4 squares more. Additionally, it is flying if it wants to so it can move around in a mass of people very fast.

If it wants to lock the gates and prevent escape, it can start by landing in the middle of the gate. Few people will try to run by it, so it can take it's time closing the gate. It doesn't really need that, though. Since the refugees have to stop and rest and most likely stick together, it can make a run for the refugee- camps once it is done with the town. If noone is around in the town and the main source of warmth and light is open fires, the town will probably burn to the ground as well.

Really, it doesn't take much to make a single phane into a force of nature, destroying towns and cities in it's wake.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 22, 2008)

Er, the 3E Phane only has a radius of effect of 30 ft and a ranged touch attack of up to a 100 ft. If it wants to destroy Waterdeep, it pretty much has to wade in and take out the city house by house.

This is pretty much true for ALL of the 3E EPIC creatures UNLESS they have access to the EPIC spells themselves.

The EPIC spells are the actual things that can wipe out a city in one action....


----------



## med stud (Apr 22, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, the 3E Phane only has a radius of effect of 30 ft and a ranged touch attack of up to a 100 ft. If it wants to destroy Waterdeep, it pretty much has to wade in and take out the city house by house.
> 
> This is pretty much true for ALL of the 3E EPIC creatures UNLESS they have access to the EPIC spells themselves.
> 
> The EPIC spells are the actual things that can wipe out a city in one action....



The question is also if it is desirable to have that kind of nukes in an enemy, no matter how powerful that creature is. There is no chance for the heroes to save Waterdeep, to use that example, if the enemy can destroy it in minutes. I much rather have an opponent that ravages Waterdeep when the PCs get there. After the showdown, the survivors turn up, people move back into the city and the PCs get snazzy medallions for being the town's saviours.

PS: I know that Waterdeep is very well defended. I just used it as a theoretical example.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 22, 2008)

AlllisterH said:
			
		

> This is pretty much true for ALL of the 3E EPIC creatures UNLESS they have access to the EPIC spells themselves.




True enough. I think that, by itself, it's a minor flaw, but when combined with a dull ability set, it just looks worse. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> THE BASIC STAT BLOCK ONLY CONTAINS COMBAT INFORMATION.




Yes, but we've received more than the stat block in this preview, and perhaps each monster entry should contain more than a statblock and a way to kill PC's, since monsters are much more than simple combat nuggets of XP.

I, at least, am not criticizing the statblock. I'm criticizing the *entire* monster entry, and only fairly mildly at that.



> So, color me confused. Which is it? Is flavor text good sometimes and bad in other places? Exactly how much is good? Or, is it only that flavor text that happens to satisfy your own personal aesthetics is good and anything else is drek?
> 
> Which is it?




Well, I think the big thing you're missing is that most of the people irked about the fluff in the PH are specifically irked about _campaign-specific_ fluff. And none of them are complaining about the phane's campaign-specific fluff (that it was created in a war of gods vs. primordials.) at the moment. 

A lot of people are also irked at the meaninglessness of the names of game mechanics, like feats. Since a monster is more than a mechanical effect, since it actually exists in the world and has a name that people call it, you're going to get less complaints about that.

And there's also the point that any absolutist position is probably deeply flawed. Just as there should be no "Out of the box....full stop....nothing that can't be!" in 4e, there should be no "NEVER INCLUDE FLUFF" in 4e. 

Fourthly, for my own milage, I am only mildly annoyed at meaninglessly vapid feat names, just like I'm only mildly annoyed by absolutely plot-boring monsters, but they are different criticisms. I'm not bringing the phane to task for its ability names or its own name ("phane" is fine...not great, but at least inoffensive, and the ability names are the kind of names that feats should be using -- useful, descriptive names that aren't named 'Purple Monkey Apocalypse'). I'm bringing the 4e phane to task specifically because, outside of an encounter with one, it's boring.

From my history posting here since the first hints of monsters in 4e, I've been wary that 4e monsters would rock in combat, but be kind of absolute suck outside of combat, not having a good place in the world. The Bodak, the phane....at least two monsters now revealed that have received significant "fluff demotions" into generic things that beat up PC's. In different ways that are perhaps interesting to fight, but without much of an existence outside of the fight. 

Hey, maybe they're exceptions to the rule of monsters that you desperately want to use right out of the MM because your mind can't stop spinning plots around their machinations, their troubles, their powers, their potential for havoc in the campaign world....

What I've noticed with the phane was that the 3e phane wasn't too shabby in this regard (partially because of some interesting and evocative abilities), and the 4e phane kind of sucks in this regard (partially because of boring damage + status ailment abilities, partially because of "Kills because it kills" fluff). I really don't want a MM filled with 4e's versions of Phantom Fungi and Destrachans, and I'm concerned that this phane is ripe to become one of them.

"Invisible mushrooms!" "Sonic dinosaurs!" "Cat-centaurs that shoot AARP memberships!"

Combat power alone doesn't make these things interesting or worthy to use in an encounter. 

Maybe that was a deliberate decision by WotC to reduce the "epicness" of the phane, but that's a decision with kind of questionable motives to begin with...


----------



## Silver Jester (Apr 22, 2008)

Correct me if I am wrong, because I certainly might be, but couldn't a DM simply concot a "ritual" to give the Phane the ability create the Evil Twin dynamic pre-combat? I seem to remember reading about a scenario involving a succubus controlling a king - Wizards isn't granting them that ability in the stat block per-se, but the DM is free to create a situation with the succubus having the ability to dominate people out of combat. Isn't it possible that the Phane, as a being that has the ability to move through time's flow at will, could foresee the conflict with the PCs and summon the Evil Twins to its side prior to the PCs even showing up (in the encounter, it is shown with a group of minions anyway). Truly, after reading the ongoing argument, I would think this would be the easiest way to resolve the issue (I also think that the Phane could be a tremendously frightening creature in the hands of an experienced DM - any being that can move through time has the potential to be ultra-destructive - not to bring SF into it, but look at Q from TNG - not a fighter, but potentially a world ender).


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 22, 2008)

Oh, yes, it does seem that 4th edition will give DMs the option to run the phane as a very interesting monster.

The fluff as written however (FAW?) doesn't really spark the imagination as much. Or at least mine. People in this thread seem to be pulling a lot of FAI out. The power "manipulate time" is almost so broad as to be worthless as a plot hook, as is the motivation "causing chaos".

But perhaps that's semi-intentional so monsters are more a description of a general set of creatures rather than a hard set "All phanes do X because of Y". You can either write down what manipulate time means and why its causing chaos, and make it into a BBEG, or just throw it into a devil encounter and just say it was there helping out the devils for fun (and because you thought it'd mesh well mechanically in the fight).

Hm. I still think I'd like just another sentence or so of fluff on the darn thing. Not a deal breaker by any means. Like if it was a piece of artwork that I just happened not to quite enjoy for reasons that are hard to articulate.


----------



## Silver Jester (Apr 22, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> But perhaps that's semi-intentional so monsters are more a description of a general set of creatures rather than a hard set "All phanes do X because of Y". You can either write down what manipulate time means and why its causing chaos, and make it into a BBEG, or just throw it into a devil encounter and just say it was there helping out the devils for fun (and because you thought it'd mesh well mechanically in the fight).
> 
> Hm. I still think I'd like just another sentence or so of fluff on the darn thing. Not a deal breaker by any means. Like if it was a piece of artwork that I just happened not to quite enjoy for reasons that are hard to articulate.




That's precisely what I like. In my opinion, I love the fact that it seems they are actually bringing players' and DMs' imaginations back into the game. To me, the "X because of Y" rule set that 3.X seemed to gravitate to often left the imagination deprived a little bit. I think there is a lot of room for interpretation for these creatures and, I think, that is a good thing. What is one group's Phane need not be another's, beyond the basic tool set that is offered by Wizards. Personally, if I were to ever throw one of these at my hapless group, I don't think that I would go down the route of the Evil Twin minions (I do think that is a great way for a DM to challenge their players, however), but that is only because I think the Phane becomes far more frightening when you think about it in a living, breathing environment. Taking it beyond the stat block, you would have a highly intelligent, motivated creature that is continuing an ages-old conflict - one which it can travel back to at any time and might be recieving orders from even now - that has access to anything that ever happened and - if you subscribe to this line of thought - anything that may happen in the future. I am sure there are numerous fell creatures that could benefit from such a unique set of...services the Phane could provide. Put into that context, I think the "Evil Twin" minion encounter is pretty hum-drum, when you could have a nightmarish creature of the void, a physical manifestation of pure entropy, whatever you want, erupting out of the air in front of your group. That, to me, is what makes them terrifying. That's "big league," in my mind. Not their stats - blah, to be honest - but the fact that this thing potentially knows everything about you, has seen this fight coming, and had ages upon ages to prepare for it. Who knows - perhaps the primordial creature of time shoved it on to the party for some obscure purpose. Isn't it reasonable that such a being could also send far more terrifying minions with it than Evil Twins???


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 22, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> But perhaps that's semi-intentional so monsters are more a description of a general set of creatures rather than a hard set "All phanes do X because of Y". You can either write down what manipulate time means and why its causing chaos, and make it into a BBEG, or just throw it into a devil encounter and just say it was there helping out the devils for fun (and because you thought it'd mesh well mechanically in the fight).
> 
> Hm. I still think I'd like just another sentence or so of fluff on the darn thing. Not a deal breaker by any means. Like if it was a piece of artwork that I just happened not to quite enjoy for reasons that are hard to articulate.



This Phane could even be just the "base" version in the MM. With 2 or 3 other Phanes also in the MM with more advance and intricate mechanics for manipulating time, evil twins, etc, etc.


----------



## DandD (Apr 22, 2008)

Like for example a Pit Fiend Devil and a Balor Demon as buddies. 

Also, the Phane is now (mostly) unaligned. Before, it was a Chaotic Evil Entity. Nowadays, it might perhaps be the bodyguard-captain of a powerful Fey-Lord, or the summoned beast from time beyond that the wizard lets loose upon the kingdom. 
In the end, it can be more than simply the monster that summons evil twins with cowboy-hats.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Like for example a Pit Fiend Devil and a Balor Demon as buddies.
> 
> Also, the Phane is now (mostly) unaligned. Before, it was a Chaotic Evil Entity. Nowadays, it might perhaps be the bodyguard-captain of a powerful Fey-Lord, or the summoned beast from time beyond that the wizard lets loose upon the kingdom.
> In the end, it can be more than simply the monster that summons evil twins with cowboy-hats.




And goatees. All evil twins have goatees.


----------

