# worlds and monsters is in my hands



## kave99 (Jan 8, 2008)

only have a second but first impressions are, loots of nice art,  lots of fluff, lots stuff we already know, less  mechanical peeks than R&C. must go to work will follow up ween i know more


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Dangit. I bought W&M and I wanted to give scoops. 

Dangx2 about less mechanics.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 8, 2008)

No info and a new poster.  Welcome I guess.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 8, 2008)

Where are you guys getting it from?  I was at the book store today with no luck.


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 8, 2008)

I have mine as well - race ya!


----------



## Sitara (Jan 8, 2008)

Ahhahah.

going to sleep now, look forwar to waking up tommorow and learning whats up 

Hope we get some interesting info (like maybe darksun being released?)


----------



## havard (Jan 8, 2008)

Anything on old/existing settings there?

Havard


----------



## Asmor (Jan 8, 2008)

Come on, this is just teasing!

Seriously, at the very least, give us a list of all the settings that are mentioned.


----------



## Elsenrail (Jan 8, 2008)

Please, provide the list of setings mentioned and if they are planned to be released.


----------



## kave99 (Jan 8, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Come on, this is just teasing!
> 
> Seriously, at the very least, give us a list of all the settings that are mentioned.




dint see any thing  on established worlds, just lots fluff on the core "points of light" world


----------



## takasi (Jan 8, 2008)

Are there guns, trains and robots in this new setting?


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 8, 2008)

So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.

D&D and the Birth of a New Edition (2 pages)

The Process of Re-Cration (4 pages)
	Sections about reimagining monsters for 4e

The Setting of D&D (4 pages)
	Sections about the Points of Light setting, and how it came about

The New Cosmology (2 pages)
	Sections about an overview of the new cosmology and the end of the great wheel

The World (8 pages)

	Includes sections Fallen Empires, Locations of Note, The End of Human Dominion

Dragons (6 pages)

Giants (2 pages)

The Underdark (4 pages)

The Feywild (8 pages)

The ShadowFell (8 pages)

Art Gallery (1 page)

The Elemental Chaos (12 pages)
	Includes sections on Elementals, Locations of Note, and the Abyss

The Astral Sea (10 pages)

	Includes sections on The Gods, Angels, Devils

The Far Realm (6 pages)
	Sections on Aberrant Creatures and Mind Flayers

Staff Thoughts on 4th Edition (13 pages)
	Sections about... lots of things

The Next Word (1 page)
	A few words about what's coming


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Too much world, not enough monster.

Thanks, Wartorn.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jan 8, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Too much world, not enough monster.




Unless they talk about the monsters in their appropriate section of the world. (I hope!)


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 8, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.



More Worlds and less Monsters ... [BORAT]Very nice.[/BORAT]

I really hope they decide to redesign some of the old 1e adventures (Demonweb Pits, Against the Giants, ToEE, etc.).  Given the changes to Tharizdun and demons, and given how they're changing the role of giants, I think they might be doing just that.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 8, 2008)

The inclusion of the Far Realm as a separate element of the cosmology is a pleasant surprise, since I don't recall its having been mentioned before now. Can we have some more detail on what's been said about it?


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 8, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The inclusion of the Far Realm as a separate element of the cosmology is a pleasant surprise, since I don't recall its having been mentioned before now.



They were hinted at about the warlocks power sources... "the stars and the darkness between them". Maybe "far realms" will look more like "outer space" (E.T. alien-like) rather than "abominations from a outside reality".


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jan 8, 2008)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> They were hinted at about the warlocks power sources... "the stars and the darkness between them". Maybe "far realms" will look more like "outer space" (E.T. alien-like) rather than "abominations from a outside reality".




I'm hoping the latter!


----------



## Rechan (Jan 8, 2008)

Any mention of said Stars and the Darkness Between them in W&M, particularly the Far Realms area, please pipe up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 8, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.




Many thanks!

Would you say that you are generally happy with the book so far? Compared to Races and Classes?

Cheers


----------



## Belorin (Jan 8, 2008)

Anyone got any indepth info?
I should be receiving mine from Amazon soon, I'm just impatient.


----------



## Voss (Jan 9, 2008)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> They were hinted at about the warlocks power sources... "the stars and the darkness between them". Maybe "far realms" will look more like "outer space" (E.T. alien-like) rather than "abominations from a outside reality".




Hopefully the second.  Aliens (& sci-fi) in fantasy has been done before and is always rather goofy.  I'd rather not see another return to the temple of the frog or expedition to the barrier  peaks.  

Anyhoo, the bare bones is pretty much what I expected.  I'd like to hear about some actual meat, but this one seems slightly more useful than R&C.  There might be ideas to work into plot lines and settings, and not just 'and this is why we did it'.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 9, 2008)

Ugh, Far Realms... I was hoping that one would fade away.

On the other hand, the rest of the cosmology looks great, so I am happy.

Any more information on the Shadowfell and Elemental Chaos?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 9, 2008)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> They were hinted at about the warlocks power sources... "the stars and the darkness between them". Maybe "far realms" will look more like "outer space" (E.T. alien-like) rather than "abominations from a outside reality".



They're one and the same, HP Lovecraft/RE Howard style.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

I wonder though how closely they will follow the old-style/Lovecraftian style or go someplace entirely new, with it.

I personally would LOVE to see some sort of plane of existence where beings that weren't gods persay, but have the ability to "twist" the turns of someone's life to change fate. Since that was what I originally thought of when they said "stars" since stars play such a important role with the idea of fate and/or future events, ie: star-crossed lovers.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 9, 2008)

Far Realms is in! Sweet. I love the weird stuff, and the Far Realms gives a DM plenty of opportunity to put in the weird stuff. I am pleasantly surprised by this.


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 9, 2008)

Here's a rundown on the Far Realm (which I jumped to because I'd never heard of it )

In summary, based on the fluff, it is definitely Lovecraftian but more on the 'outside and bizarre reality' side than the 'outer space' side.  


The Far Realm is formally acknowledged in the cosmology, and 'is responsible for monstrosities that haunt the universe'.  Specifcally, all aberrations are linked to it.  

A Far Realm specific reason is suggested as a source of the conflict between the illithid and aboleth.

Perhaps taking a cue from WFRP, the Far Realm is said to 'seep in' sometimes, overlaying the landscape with an unnerving sense of dread, even distorting it, and tainting the flora and fauna.  Strange new creatures emerge from this 'polluted reality' and insane practitioners sometimes 'willfully merge the natural and the obscene'

Also mentioned is that aberration is not a type.  Type is now distinct from Origin - so you have Humanoids (type) with an Origin of fey (eladrin) , aberration (mind flayer), elemental (archon) , natural (man)

Finally there's a page and a half or so on the mind flayer:  in short: they are essentially the same as in the previous edition just with fewer powers (taken from the set of those that most define them) that are easier and clearer to run.  There are a few mechanical tidbits about mind blast and dominate each being a 'renewable power - useable once per encounter', whereas tentacle lash and grab are basic attacks backed up by situational powers 'bore into brain', 'thrall' and 'interpose thrall'

So far the book seems to be pretty close to Races and Classes in terms of value - and for me it is having the same effect: reinforcing my faith in the designers, making some things clearer in a positive way, increasing my enthusiasm for 4e.  If you enjoyed R&C I'd recommend it.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 9, 2008)

ugh...you guys with the book but no info to give....bastards....


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

Hmm... The Far Realm may have taken the place of the Feywild in my game-world. The sounds of it, fits literally perfect with my game.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> In summary, based on the fluff, it is definitely Lovecraftian but more on the 'outside and bizarre reality' side than the 'outer space' side.



Hmmm, so maybe the Far Realm is not the source of star-pact warlocks?  



> A Far Realm specific reason is suggested as a source of the conflict between the illithid and aboleth.



Did they say what that was, or did they leave the source of conflict uncertain?



> Perhaps taking a cue from WFRP, the Far Realm is said to 'seep in' sometimes, overlaying the landscape with an unnerving sense of dread, even distorting it, and tainting the flora and fauna.  Strange new creatures emerge from this 'polluted reality' and insane practitioners sometimes 'willfully merge the natural and the obscene'



This reminds me of "The Lost Vault of Tsathzar Rho" from the DCC line of adventures.  



> Also mentioned is that aberration is not a type.  Type is now distinct from Origin - so you have Humanoids (type) with an Origin of fey (eladrin) , aberration (mind flayer), elemental (archon) , natural (man)



Cool!


----------



## Raduin711 (Jan 9, 2008)

I'm worried about the Mind Flayer.  They always come out before the PsiHB, and they never work just the same way.  I find this annoying.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

Hmm, the Type/Origin thing could lead to interesting bonus type stuff. Ie: You have a weak bonus if you specialize in Humanoids (you know the slice off the head, or cut the hamstring,etc.) but you get a larger bonus for a Origin, since that is more specific to that creature, (you know that fire-elementals are weak against water, etc.)


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 9, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Hmmm, so maybe the Far Realm is not the source of star-pact warlocks?




Nothing is said about this in that section, but my feeling is that even if the Far Realm isn't the source for star-pact Warlocks, it must be a source for _some_ Warlocks.  It's a concept too cool to pass up. 




			
				Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Did they say what that was, or did they leave the source of conflict uncertain?




Well yeah they did but it's better read in context; to summarize: the aboleth want the Far Realm to consume all, the Mind Flayers would prefer to rule all.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

Hehe, I can just imagine a lonely human accidently wandering into the Far Realm through one of these "layers" and that standing frozen in fear as a aboleth and a illithid agrue over whether to kill him or brainwash/dominate him.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> I'm worried about the Mind Flayer.  They always come out before the PsiHB, and they never work just the same way.  I find this annoying.




With their new "exceptions-based approach" to monster design, I think you'll see Mind Flayers work from the start in 4E.

Rather than just having "spell-like abilities," I imagine the Mind Flayer will offer a significant preview of some of the powers that we'll see when the Psion is ready for "prime-time."

Make sense?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Finally there's a page and a half or so on the mind flayer: in short: they are essentially the same as in the previous edition just with fewer powers (taken from the set of those that most define them) that are easier and clearer to run.




I'm not sure that I like this approach, since it sounds like it turns monsters into 'cookie cutter' monsters - whereas creatures which can make long term cunning foes deserve a wider array of tactical and strategic abilities.

In my last campaign, Mindflayers maintained some of their traditional abilities which were removed in 3.5 - most especially Astral Projection. So all the mind flayers working in the prime material were actually astrally projecting here from their home plane... kill the body and a week later they are ready to astrally project again and start a new plan, with the advantage of knowing their opponents strengths...

Still, modifying Mindflayers to suit my campaigns will be a trivial thing I'm sure.

The book itself sounds interesting. Evocative even.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Hmmm, so maybe the Far Realm is not the source of star-pact warlocks?




We are not even sure that they exist though... Races and Classes mention them, but in a more recent reveal about warlocks it talked about them having _"a fundamental choice of a pact with one of *three *varieties of supernatural patron"_ 

These were later identified as Feral, Shadow and Infernal (although I can't place the reference at the moment).

It looks as if star-pact disappeared...


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 9, 2008)

I just hope the Far Realms don't become a catchall for "We had this cool idea for a monster but couldn't be bothered to make it make any sense outside of combat."


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Well yeah they did but it's better read in context; to summarize: the aboleth want the Far Realm to consume all, the Mind Flayers would prefer to rule all.



Sounds almost exactly like the motivations I ascribe to demons vs. devils in my campaign.


----------



## Wepwawet (Jan 9, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I just hope the Far Realms don't become a catchall for "We had this cool idea for a monster but couldn't be bothered to make it make any sense outside of combat."



Well, I'm sure it will be the case 
At least then all of those weird monsters and creatures we see in the Monster Manuals could make more sense!
I mean, I know it's fantasy, but having all sorts of weird beasts appearing everywhere without much reason... That's some truly messed up ecology (even for fantasy)


----------



## Abstraction (Jan 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> We are not even sure that they exist though... Races and Classes mention them, but in a more recent reveal about warlocks it talked about them having _"a fundamental choice of a pact with one of *three *varieties of supernatural patron"_
> 
> These were later identified as Feral, Shadow and Infernal (although I can't place the reference at the moment).
> 
> It looks as if star-pact disappeared...




I'm sure one of the pacts was Fey.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> Well, I'm sure it will be the case
> At least then all of those weird monsters and creatures we see in the Monster Manuals could make more sense!
> I mean, I know it's fantasy, but having all sorts of weird beasts appearing everywhere without much reason... That's some truly messed up ecology (even for fantasy)




Or the idea of these "folds" or "layers" of the Far Realm that occasionally blanket the material-world and twisting the flora and fauna can also lead to bizarre creatures that don't match the ecology. 

You could have a fold touch down for a little while in a forest and when it leaves all manner of bizarre mutated creatures rear their heads and completely alien and otherworldly plants sprout up amongst the evergreens and wild-flowers of our world. Hell if they pollinate alot they could even become a highly abundant plant that has forced its way into this world's ecology. 

These new twisted animals and plants could also start to take over and kill/throw out natural creatures/plants. Sorta like what happens when you introduce foreign animals and plants to a isolated enviroment, ie: Australia and rabbits and feral cats.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 9, 2008)

The Far Realm is by far my favorite planar addition to D&D - Bruce Cordell's "Gates of Firestorm Peak" is still on my all-time favorite adventures list. And I'm glad they kept it outside the rest of the cosmology and not try and fold it into the Abyss or some Astral Realm. It needs to keep it's mystique that there are some places man (or god) was just not meant to go...


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 9, 2008)

*plane...*

plane sailing...

My friends and I agree with you...

Monsters ARE becoming more cookie cutter; although I agree with how they are designed, my envisionment of the special type monsters at least (mind flayers, balors, pit fiends, mariliths, avatars, dragons, etc) require tons of ablities (that dont need to be similar to character ones, but lots to allow them to be true survivors, bosses, and just bad asses).

I think this is for the modern/common gamer.  I can't even remember every time i've watched a pure video gamer play something like baldur's gate, etc and not be able to handle tactics to handle a creature which is immune to something, or is harder to beat than just unload tons of stuff at it ala WoW styles in specific times so that the agro mechanic stays as you need it to stop the boss from charging the mages in the back, etc).

However, there is an easy solution to this.  We can just add back abilities that we envision for such creatures for our own cosmologies 

Regarding Far Realm - THIS IS AWESOME. I used the far realm for about 3 months in the game i Dm'ed and will bring it back later...much to the fright of my players.

I will keep it as lovcraftian and discordiant as before...hopefully 4E does the same. If they try to make it even a sense more 'normal' so that they can sell adventures with 20x20 environment rooms for it (which they couldn't do for the great wheel planes such as pandemonium, etc...prob causing the marketting decisionto make the planes much more 'normal' ehhehhee), I will be quite upset.

But so far...as expected, I like about 50% of 4E, and the rest I will house rule heavily (which I do quite a bit now anyways) so no big deal.

bring on 4E 

Sanjay


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 9, 2008)

I like the inclusion of the Far Realm, and always liked to play with monsters linked to that plane such as Illithids, Aboleths, Kaorti and the like.  And really Bruce Cordell is still involved with D&D, of course there's going to be the Far Realm, it's one of his favourite subjects in D&D.

But yes Monsters are becoming cookie-cutter, but I feel that leaving many of their abilities simpler might make them easier to modify later on.


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 9, 2008)

Some more details:

The Temple of Elemental Evil is mentioned as a Location of Note.  This section is said to contain 'future adventuring locales'...

Dragons:

Bunches of stuff here, the highlights include:

The different colors of Dragon have different monster roles - in other words, some are artillery (blue), some are brutes (white), some are soldiers (red) and so on

Dragons are solo monsters who 'get to do more on their turn than most monsters do' and also 'get to do a lot when it's not their turn' (like the tail slap we already knew about, but also mentioned is the green dragon's ability to poison you if you get too close)

Dragons have fewer abilities, focused on the most iconic ones (continuing the theme).  For example, the oldest black dragon is said to have only five possible standard actions, with unique magical abilities taking the place of spells simply taken from the wizard's lists.

Dragons aren't forced into specific 'alignments'.  Their motives can vary from a baseline - chromatic are wild, metallic like to be in control but good and evil manifests in each.

There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.

Chromatic dragons grow in raw elemental power as they age which manifests as unique new powers related to the appropriate element.  An ancient red's breath weapon, for example, can 'scour the fire resistance right off you'

An all new look and set of powers for the green dragon; they are back to breathing poison!

Giants:

There are Huge versions of the standard giants called Titans - these are more closely tied to the elements and have greater power

Giants in general are more elemental in nature, and there is greater variety between the standard types

The Giant type is specifically for Giants.  Trolls, ogres, ettins don't 'necessarily' have the Giant 'type'


Underdark:

Now considered easier to get to

Mentioned are Drow, Troglodytes, Mind Flayers, Kuo-Toas (aboleth servant/worshippers), aboleths, myconids

Vault of the Drow is mentioned as an Underdark Location of Note


Feywild:

Mentioned inhabitants include hags, yeth hounds, centaurs, eladrins, treants, fomorians, unicorns, elves, firbolgs, the Wild Hunt, red caps, quicklings, will-o'wisps, dark ones, pixies

There is a fey reflection of the underdark, ruled over by fomorians

The Isle of Dread is mentioned as a Location of Note

Gnomes are a possible fey-dwelling race

Pixies, well, don't want to ruin the surprise 


Shadowfell:

Merges Negative Energy Plane and Plane of Shadow, removing the irritating bits that make these places a pain to visit

Shadow is a power source.  Involved with stealth, illusion, dread, 'devastating enemies' and 'necrotic energy'

They've re-concepted the undead, adding the animus, providing 'vitality and mobility',  as a companion to the soul and the body.  

Very interesting descriptions of how different varieties of undead are now explained.  Shadow are the animus freed of body and soul, for example.

Lots of details about how the new cosmology explains resurrection and reincarnation

Shadowfell is inhabited by ... the Shadar-kai.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

Well I think that will be the case atleast as far as it sounds with Dragons. How there are basic out of the box Dragons, but with the ability to build-up and expand upon them. I could see the same happening with other creatures/monster races.

So for the person who simply wants a illithid to fight they have a basic-model for one right in the book. If another person wants a complex, ongoing antagonist that is a mind flayer they can build one off the base-model.


----------



## thundershot (Jan 9, 2008)

ISLE OF DREAD and TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL are both in the core setting!!! YESSSSSS!! Bring on the Rakasta!!!




Chris (would much rather the name Rakasta be used for whatever Catfolk race they decide to use)


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Dragons aren't forced into specific 'alignments'.  Their motives can vary from a baseline - chromatic are wild, metallic like to be in control but good and evil manifests in each.



My FAVORITE part about Eberron---and the coolest thing I've heard about 4e in days. This really is auspicious.



> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.



Sweet Jeebus do I like the taste of sacred beef.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 9, 2008)

I like a lot of what I'm hearing here.   

Dragons - I love the fact that they steering them away from the stat abominations they were in 3e (I remember starting a post about this very thing a couple of years back). It looks like they're putting the _monster _back into the dragon.

It's interesting that different dragons have different roles, even though they are solo monsters and therefore not generally found in entourages which would naturally fill out the other roles in an encounter.

I like the removal of hard alignments but was quite surprised that they are pruning a couple of the metallics. Iron & Adamantine dragons? Sounds good t'me!

Giants - We've heard most of this already, but I like the approach and it sounds like they will be closer to their mythological counterparts.

Nice to see the few Greyhawk references they tossed in there...

Feywild - I hate fae... moving on.

Shadowfell: The Land of the Dead essentially. We can see what kinds of powers the new Necromancer will have (whenever it comes out). The Animus? *shrug* Okay...

I'd like to know more about how Resurrection & Reincarnation work in 4e though, it's always been a big sticking point in my (and many others') games. And who are the Shadar-Kai again?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 9, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I'd like to know more about how Resurrection & Reincarnation work in 4e though, it's always been a big sticking point in my (and many others') games. And who are the Shadar-Kai again?



Introduced in the 3.5e Fiend Folio, they're a race of cursed Fey who live in the Plane of Shadow and wield spiked chains as weapons.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 9, 2008)

I like the Iron Dragon. I don't like the Adamantine Dragon. I could never remember the difference between the Brass and Bronze dragon 

I don't like the Adamantine Dragon because it's not one of the classical metals -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planets_in_Western_alchemy -- and because it's just a supermetal, more "iron" than iron is. Blech. I would have preferred Mercury or Lead as a dragontype, instead. Indeed, depending on what Adamantine Dragons get, I may just _call_ them Leaden Dragons.

Looking forward to the shadow power source.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 9, 2008)

I'd like to know what details do they have on the Dark Ones? 

And is there anything on the Yuan-ti?  Since they became a lot more significant and cooler in 3e, than they did in the editions before that.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.




Iron Dragon *yay*   

Adamantine Dragon *boo*


----------



## A'koss (Jan 9, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Introduced in the 3.5e Fiend Folio, they're a race of cursed Fey who live in the Plane of Shadow and wield spiked chains as weapons.



Ah, okay - thanks. I've got that book and I think I remember the picture, I'll have to look them up again...


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Some more details:
> 
> The Temple of Elemental Evil is mentioned as a Location of Note.  This section is said to contain 'future adventuring locales'...



Kickass!



> Dragons aren't forced into specific 'alignments'.  Their motives can vary from a baseline - chromatic are wild, metallic like to be in control but good and evil manifests in each.



Interesting.  



> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.



Not too much of a change IMO, but I'll be interested in seeing how this works out.



> Chromatic dragons grow in raw elemental power as they age which manifests as unique new powers related to the appropriate element.  An ancient red's breath weapon, for example, can 'scour the fire resistance right off you'



Only chromatic, and not metallic?  Weird ...




> Giants:
> 
> There are Huge versions of the standard giants called Titans - these are more closely tied to the elements and have greater power
> 
> Giants in general are more elemental in nature, and there is greater variety between the standard types



I'm a pretty big fan of the new giants.



> Shadow is a power source.  Involved with stealth, illusion, dread, 'devastating enemies' and 'necrotic energy'



Pretty much a necromancer thing here    .  It wouldn't surprise me if the assassin is a Shadow Striker.



> Lots of details about how the new cosmology explains resurrection and reincarnation



That'll be an interesting read!



> Shadowfell is inhabited by ... the Shadar-kai.



I've never heard of these guys ...


----------



## Raloc (Jan 9, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or the idea of these "folds" or "layers" of the Far Realm that occasionally blanket the material-world and twisting the flora and fauna can also lead to bizarre creatures that don't match the ecology.
> 
> You could have a fold touch down for a little while in a forest and when it leaves all manner of bizarre mutated creatures rear their heads and completely alien and otherworldly plants sprout up amongst the evergreens and wild-flowers of our world. Hell if they pollinate alot they could even become a highly abundant plant that has forced its way into this world's ecology.
> 
> These new twisted animals and plants could also start to take over and kill/throw out natural creatures/plants. Sorta like what happens when you introduce foreign animals and plants to a isolated enviroment, ie: Australia and rabbits and feral cats.



That could be a really cool campaign.  Maybe something like the PCs were caught in a power magic-user's inter-planar hideout, where time passes at a much slower rate, and most of the natural beasts of their plane have become tainted, and they have to find out why.

I'm actually planning to start a city campaign sometime soon, so I think I might do that for the early levels, then soul trap or spirit my players off to such a planar hideout.  After they escape it, they'll find a bunch of time to have passed and this taint having fallen upon everything.

The idea reminds me a lot of the second trilogy of Thomas Covenant.


----------



## Markustay (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks for all the great info guys...

It all sounds pretty interesting - I might even pick up this tome (even though I HATE the idea of paying for previews).

Loving the Giants.   

I was never a big fan of the Far Realms, but I trust Bruce Cordell, his work is solid, so maybe it won't be so bad.

I guess someone finally figured out that Brass and Bronze were alloys.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> We are not even sure that they exist though... Races and Classes mention them, but in a more recent reveal about warlocks it talked about them having _"a fundamental choice of a pact with one of *three *varieties of supernatural patron"_
> 
> These were later identified as Feral, Shadow and Infernal (although I can't place the reference at the moment).
> 
> It looks as if star-pact disappeared...




It was infernal, wild and "shadowy" which was a reduction of one from the four we were told about in _Races and Classes_. That list was infernal, star, fey, and vestige. As I understand, vestige has been eliminated from PHB I, but the fey, infernal, and star pacts remain. Star is supposed to be the "shadowy" one...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

It works really well for my campaign too, since mine had originally the Feywild collapsing into our world and its magic warping the world. But now that the Far Realm is actually built around the idea of warping our world and having layers that spread over our world, the Far Realm works even better.

The whole Otherworldly beings of the Far Realm also work since Arcane Magic is done by going to a certain plane of existence from which you originally draw your magic (magic works differently in my world), and certain beings know more about this plane then us and can control it more. This was gonna originally be the Fey and the Collapse was gonna be that going to this plane destabilized the magic of the Feywild causing it to collapse. But now, I am thinking arcane users after leaving this plane brings some of the Far Realm with it/peeks the interest of those who have power over this plane of magic.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 9, 2008)

Hmm ... I wonder what the most powerful metallic dragon is now, gold or adamantine.  Actually, I wonder if they are even going that route any more - maybe the dragon colors are all roughly equal in power.

It's weird for me to think that there could be a good red dragon ...


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Hmm ... I wonder what the most powerful metallic dragon is now, gold or adamantine.  Actually, I wonder if they are even going that route any more - maybe the dragon colors are all roughly equal in power.
> 
> It's weird for me to think that there could be a good red dragon ...




I kinda like it. But then I was on the verge of houseruling dragons anyway. I like people having to rely on local reports to know what a dragon's breath weapon and personality is, rather than having it all predetermined based on color.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

I imagine Dragons will be generally unaligned like most "ordinary" PC races. Since if Dragons are entirely sentient-beings they should be able to develop their own personality. Though like ordinary PC races I imagine each type of Dragon would have certain "dominant personality traits" so a Red Dragon could have less-wholesome personality traits when compared to say a Gold, but not necessarily evil.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 9, 2008)

Love, just LOVE everything from wartorn's post. Especially the bits about the undead--that "animus" concept is how I've houseruled undead for quite some time now.

I like the dragons, too, especially the removal of brass & bronze and the addition of iron dragon. But adamantine dragon? No thanks. I'd much rather they did the excellent suggestion of a Mercury dragon. The Adamantine dragon does indeed seem like simply a dragon that's more "iron" than an Iron Dragon. So now we're back to the whole brass & bronze similarity...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 9, 2008)

Iffy. I was a HUGE fan of the 3e dragon set-up, and I think we might loose some of the cool dragon schticks: brass dragons being loquacious and wind-based, clever trickster copper dragons being able to build entire canyons, bronze dragon's fascination with humanity and their coastal habitat and fog-based powers....

They could have used some simplification, but really.....

Cookie-cutter monsters bore me. If you don't hit the three points of Ally, Adversary, and Anybody, you're not so much a piece of the world as you are a piece of game mechanics with a name attached. YAWN.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 9, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> This [the Far Realm] reminds me of "The Lost Vault of Tsathzar Rho" from the DCC line of adventures.



...which was written by... Michael Mearls!


----------



## Blackwind (Jan 9, 2008)

I'm surprised they didn't include...

Steel Dragon.







Now _that_ would be METAL.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jan 9, 2008)

What? No brass or bronze dragons?

Well, looks like I'll have to make those up for myself if I'm going to write up some Dragonlance 4e conversion notes. Sheesh.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 9, 2008)

I was never a big fan of chromatic and metallic dragons, but I guess that they are going to stick around in D&D for a while longer. Oh well, as long as they aren't all absurd spellcasters anymore, it is an improvement.

On the specifics, though, I approve of Iron Dragons. It is so obvious that I am surprised it did not occur from the beginning. The image of a dull black dragon whose scales are slowly fading to a blood red rust color at the edges... I hope they are as cool-looking as that. I am willing to bet that if any of the metallics other than Golds are fire-breathers, it will be the Iron Dragons.

I agree with the idea that Adamantine Dragons don't sound like a good idea. Mercurial Dragons sound like a much better concept, if you ask me. Mercury is an underused metal in D&D. We got every kind of Golem imaginable, including absurd things that should have been oozes or undead instead, but never a Mercury Golem?

I also like the sound of the Shadow Power Source, so long as its flavor is designed better than it was in the Tome of Magic. I never really liked that section of that book, and a lot of that has to do with the overly intrusive to campaigns flavor they gave Shadow magic. I would prefer it more if it resembles the shadow powers from the videogame Odin Sphere (a great game for D&D to steal ideas from if I have ever seen one).


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

Mercury golems would be cool- all liquid metal killing machines like the T-1000...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 9, 2008)

I could just see a Mercurial Dragon slithering on its belly (I imagine a very long dragon, more like a snake with a skin that seems to flow over it). You could also track it from the dead-plants it leaves behind.


----------



## Tewligan (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Cookie-cutter monsters bore me. If you don't hit the three points of Ally, Adversary, and Anybody, you're not so much a piece of the world as you are a piece of game mechanics with a name attached. YAWN.




Why are people jumping to conclusions that monsters will be any more cookie-cutter than what they are in all prior editions of DnD?

Is it that people think the fluff is going to be worse? Why not write the fluff you want if this is the problem?

Is it that people think there will be less mechanical diversity? If its this, I'm confused, so far what I've seen of 4E suggests there will be more mechanical diversity among even single creature names (eg Fire Archon).  Because really the ultimate example of cookie-cutter is template monsters like the Zombie - killed a Human Zombie at 1st level, much the same as killing an Ogre one at 5th level. That seems to me to be a problem that is going away.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Also mentioned is that aberration is not a type.  Type is now distinct from Origin - so you have Humanoids (type) with an Origin of fey (eladrin) , aberration (mind flayer), elemental (archon) , natural (man)




Thanks, that finally clears up the Spined Devil preview card, which listed it as "Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)." Does it mention any other types apart from Humanoid and Giant?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Mercury golems would be cool- all liquid metal killing machines like the T-1000...




Those are in the 2n Ed _Dragon Mountain_ boxed set.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Does it mention any other types apart from Humanoid and Giant?





Wouldn't a giant be a Large Humanoid (Giant)…?

I'm a bit confused by the monster type bit – would a drow be a Medium Humanoid (Fey) or Medium Fey Humanoid (Drow) or something else?

What about an Illithid – Medium Humanoid (Aberration) or Medium Aberration Humanoid (Illithid)?


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

I dislike nearly everything about the new dragons as I see this changes as either unneeded (new dragons instead of already well established bronzes and brass) or as step into the wrong direction (giving specific roles to dragons and removing their spellcasting which reduces them to brutes which are unable to affect the outside world except through combat.


Some question:
How is the dragon art, especially the art of the new dragons? Better or worse than the old Lockwood dragons? Are there more "stupid nose horns"?

Are there examples of what magical abilities of dragons are? How do they now shape their lair and ward it with traps now when they have no magic? Are all dragons doomed to be killed in their sleep by rogues because they can't cast alarm and teleport blocking spells anymore?

Also are the relations the different races in the PoL setting described? Some people argue that in a xenophobic PoL setting everything which does not human (mainly dragonborn) would get attacked on sight and therefor shouldn't a PC race. is this addressed?


----------



## Rechan (Jan 9, 2008)

The only thing I dislike thusfar is that Chromatic = Wild, Metallic = Control.

Always pictured dragons as traditional masterminds and bosses in the "Behind the scenes" situation.

Mm, mercury dragons causing insanity.

This does explain why Noonan had to recreate a Brass dragon.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 9, 2008)

I like how dragons aren't bound to alignments much like dragons in Eberron.  I always found it a cop-out if you could tell a dragon would be malevolent or benevolent based on it's colour.


----------



## Drevan (Jan 9, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I like how dragons aren't bound to alignments much like dragons in Eberron.  I always found it a cop-out if you could tell a dragon would be malevolent or benevolent based on it's colour.




But...but they're color coded for our convenience!


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Drevan said:
			
		

> But...but they're color coded for our convenience!




They still are.
Red Dragon -> Fire Protection -> Easy combat. Now without magic dragons can't even defend themselves against this.


----------



## Mr Jack (Jan 9, 2008)

I am _so_ glad to see the traditional spellcasting removed from dragons. Dragons have plentiful powers and abilities without having to mess around wading through spell lists in order to play them properly.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> I am _so_ glad to see the traditional spellcasting removed from dragons.




I'm glad they are removing spell-like abilities from monsters, it never made sense to me that a monster should have _Bigby's throbbing member _ or what have you as a natural ability and the party wizard also has it written down in a book.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> I am _so_ glad to see the traditional spellcasting removed from dragons. Dragons have plentiful powers and abilities without having to mess around wading through spell lists in order to play them properly.





Imo this is not the case. Dragons have some melee attacks and a elemental attack which can be defended aginst rather easily by magic in 3E at least.

Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs and place treps (alarm spells) without magic? How to they ward it against extraplanar intrusion? How do they keep an eye on adventurers and other important people in the area? How do they communicate with allies and spies? How do dragons without magic infiltrate human societies?

I have the feeling that WotC will give dragons only combat abilities and will completely ignore every non combat application spells gave them which reduces dragons to pure combat beasts. And this means that dragons can't perform many of the roles they performed in 3E (masterminds) unless you rule 0 that they simply have everything they need without explanation (unlogical) or rely heavily on minions (making the minions the real encounter, not the dragon).


----------



## Rechan (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs



With their breath weapon. 



> and place treps (alarm spells) without magic? How to they ward it against extraplanar intrusion? How do they keep an eye on adventurers and other important people in the area? How do they communicate with allies and spies? How do dragons without magic infiltrate human societies?



This is where "Making friends, allies and minions" comes in. It makes more sense than expecting the dragon to do _everything_. It's also harder for the dragon to do all that spying and networking when they sleep for years at a time.

If you want your dragon to do other stuff, add stuff to it. It's a baseline.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Jan 9, 2008)

love all that I am reading, the new cosmology is a vast improvement as the new monster philosophy

as for dragons (or other monster) not able to be mastermind since they don't have spells.... well they could have dragon rituals 

I mean every monster that is supposedly strong in magic could have access to magical rituals and what you like


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs and place treps (alarm spells) without magic? How to they ward it against extraplanar intrusion? How do they keep an eye on adventurers and other important people in the area? How do they communicate with allies and spies? How do dragons without magic infiltrate human societies?




Take levels in wizard.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 9, 2008)

Quite like all I have heard and this sounds like something I would like to read.

Elemental giants = exactly what we have in our Kage campaign. In fact I have created a 20 level racial progression where giants start much like those in Monte Cooks (though in the rage/combat mode) and advance and grow through ceremonies. Also along the way they adapt to their environment/elements...thus at certain levels they gain abilities that steer them towards traditional fire, frost, stone, etc giants. This allowed us to have fire giants at low levels etc.

Anyone interested in this approach can download word version from website: http://home.austarnet.com.au/connors1/Races Page.htm.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 9, 2008)

Hmm the more I think about it the more I like this, it works a lot better for where I'm going with my campaign setting...

Does the book list the actual gods and their portfolios?

What does it say about the primordials and the gods?


----------



## The Cardinal (Jan 9, 2008)

more info about the PoL setting? _Please_?


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Red Dragon -> Fire Protection -> Easy combat. Now without magic dragons can't even defend themselves against this.




Previous reviews have both shown that dragons are quite mobile and effective in combat without their breath attack and that blanket immunities are gone.

So casting fire protection in 4e is unlikely to stop a red dragon for very long.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 9, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Previous reviews have both shown that dragons are quite mobile and effective in combat without their breath attack and that blanket immunities are gone.
> 
> So casting fire protection in 4e is unlikely to stop a red dragon for very long.



Not to mention that it comes out and says "Red dragons can kill a fire elemental with their breath weapon", so just fire prot spells aren't going to save your bacon.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> With their breath weapon.




Because poison and frost is so effective in shaping stone...
And even fire will have a hard time to melt stone in a way the dragon wants it (so that the lair itself is defensive and inhibits non dragon creatures). And how does a dragon create traps and magical effects with its breath weapon?
In 3E a lair without alarm spell means a dead dragon when a prepared group of adventurers arrive. I assume in 4E it will be the same, only that dragons don't have a reasonable way anymore to cast this spell. Magical items? How did they get one?







> This is where "Making friends, allies and minions" comes in. It makes more sense than expecting the dragon to do _everything_. It's also harder for the dragon to do all that spying and networking when they sleep for years at a time.
> 
> If you want your dragon to do other stuff, add stuff to it. It's a baseline.




Who said that dragons sleep for years? WotC certainly didn't. Also as I said before when dragons need minions to do everything then the minions are the real encounter, not the dragon. Also it is confirmed that dragons are solo monsters. So by design minions don't fit.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Because poison and frost is so effective in shaping stone...



We don't know that Green Dragons still don't have acid. Yes, it says they poison you when you get close, but this doesn't mean they spit poison. 3e greens did acid damage. That east through stone.

Lairs of ice = easy to carve through for the white. 



> And even fire will have a hard time to melt stone in a way the dragon wants it (so that the lair itself is defensive and inhibits non dragon creatures).



When the Red Dragon can _kill a fire elemental_ with its breath, I think stone is the least of its worries.



> Who said that dragons sleep for years? WotC certainly didn't.



WotC doesn't need to tell me that dragons sleep a long time for me to know it.



> Also it is confirmed that dragons are solo monsters. So by design minions don't fit.



Dragons being a solo monster = when you fight a dragon you fight it alone. 

That doesn't mean that there isn't anyone working for the Dragon, being their spies, a wizard who doesn't live with the dragon that sets up the wards, a pack of kobolds that live at the mouth of the dragon's cave, etc etc etc. 

In other words, just because the dragon is the boss doesn't mean you won't encounter its minions earlier in the dungeon.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I like this approach, since it sounds like it turns monsters into 'cookie cutter' monsters - whereas creatures which can make long term cunning foes deserve a wider array of tactical and strategic abilities.
> 
> In my last campaign, Mindflayers maintained some of their traditional abilities which were removed in 3.5 - most especially Astral Projection. So all the mind flayers working in the prime material were actually astrally projecting here from their home plane... kill the body and a week later they are ready to astrally project again and start a new plan, with the advantage of knowing their opponents strengths...
> 
> ...



Your example is a good one that is indeed easy to add in later. It's not in the rules, but it doesn#t really affect an individual encounter whether the Mind Flayer is astrally projected or not. It's a bit like seeing that the 4E rules might contain rules for slaying gods, and some DMs deciding that it means just slaying his Avatar.

It's an ability that has little effect on the actual game experience whether its there or not, so you can add it if you feel the need. 
The advantage can be that DMs feel safer adding abilities to monsters if they make for a good story, and which can keep the players guessing. 

Other things are more difficult, but here are a few things to consider: 
- Do monsters need Charm Person as a spell? Why can't they just command people by intimidation or sweet talk?
- Do monsters need Telekinesis? Why can't they just use allies for jobs they can't reasonably on their own?

There are probably a lot of other spells that can be replicated by spells or allies. I think it's a good idea that even powerful monsters don't do everything alone (as long as they are smart enough to gather allies, slaves or other tools). Monsters relying on the right enviromnent for them means that they usually will interact more with it, and this alone can give you plot hooks and add complications.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs and place treps (alarm spells) without magic? How to they ward it against extraplanar intrusion?



Rituals, the same way wizards create magic items. Much more flavourful to do a ritual to create a barrier than to simply cast _wall of force_.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dragons being a solo monster = when you fight a dragon you fight it alone.
> 
> That doesn't mean that there isn't anyone working for the Dragon, being their spies, a wizard who doesn't live with the dragon that sets up the wards, a pack of kobolds that live at the mouth of the dragon's cave, etc etc etc.
> 
> In other words, just because the dragon is the boss doesn't mean you won't encounter its minions earlier in the dungeon.




Dragon: "MINIONS! Adventurers have intruded my lair. Now go away and hide while I fight the adventurers alone."
Minions #1: "But dragon, I have arcane might with outmactches everything those adventurers have. You know that because I always have to cast scry spells for you as you are unable to do so. And Minion #2 who places all the wards around your lair so that you are not completely helpless against your enemies is a devout priest of the dark god. Together with our apprentices and Minion #3 who crafted all traps in your lair we could aid you in the combat.
Dragon: "NO! I am a solo monster. You aiding me in combat would be an unbalanced encounter. Therefor you must leave."
Minions #1: "Very well. (To other minions) Lets go and let this dragon be killed by those well prepared adventurers who all have protected themselves against his element. Its a good thing they don't know that we are the real boss encounter in this lair and not the dragon as together we are much stronger than him. That way we can surprise the adventurers. (To dragon). If you somehow manage to win the fight you are allowed to keep 30% of the loot. And if you die make sure that your corpse block the exit of the lair."
Dragon:" But we agreed on 50%!" 
Minion #1: "Don't be silly. Without our magical powers you would be helpless. Or do you think that your little fire tricks would allow you to amass any form of wealth?You would spend your time with raiding caravans for meager profit and threaten small villages. And sooner or later a band of adventurers will enter your unprotected lair, if you even have a lair, and kill you in your sleep. You need us more than we need you."
Dragon:"Ok boss"

That is of course a bit overdramatized but it does capture the problem dragons have when they don't have magic. They are unable to do anything big except looking intimidating and terrorizing small villages. For all other things they need minions which provide the dragon with magical and other powers. And that means that in the end the minions are more dangerous than the dragon.



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Rituals, the same way wizards create magic items. Much more flavourful to do a ritual to create a barrier than to simply cast _wall of force_.




How do you know that dragons can cast rituals? So far it doesn't look like it.


----------



## Grazzt (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs...




Because you as DM can say 'this is what the dragon's lair looks like and here's how its shaped'? 

I'm guessing if your PCs are facing off against a dragon the last thing on their mind is "Hmmm, how'd this big, giant, huge, monstrous red dragon gets its lair to look like this?" (i.e., the last thing they may wonder just before the dragon decides to have BBQ Adventurer for dinner)


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> How do you know that dragons can cast rituals? So far it doesn't look like it.




Have you seen a dragon writeup? If so, could you point me as to where I might find it, I would be very interested in reading it. Also, If you happen to have access to any info about rituals that the rest of us don't have, please share the wealth, we are all curious.

Based on the info we have access to, there is nothing that says that dragons won't have access to (some) rituals, or to something else, giving it more possibilities than just claw/bite/tail/wing/breath weapon.

However, should it not be the case, I agree with you, that it would give me some issues as to how they would fit in, and survive, in a realistic and logical manner.

Cheers


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> removing their spellcasting which reduces them to brutes which are unable to affect the outside world except through combat.




So Lord Dargus, Level 19 Fighter and Leader of the Chaos Hoard in my campaign is not a matermind because he can't cast alarm.  My mistake, sorry.



> How do they now shape their lair and ward it with traps now when they have no magic? Are all dragons doomed to be killed in their sleep by rogues because they can't cast alarm and teleport blocking spells anymore?




Big Freaking Claws.  I thought they did that now.  No wonder I hated 3e dragons before MMV Xorvintaal.  More hitpointd than the rogue can dish out in a sneak attack.

D&D is not a world simulator.  If you need it to be keep playing 3e.  It's TERRIBLE at that job, but makes the pretense of it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That is of course a bit overdramatized but it does capture the problem dragons have when they don't have magic. They are unable to do anything big except looking intimidating and terrorizing small villages. For all other things they need minions which provide the dragon with magical and other powers. And that means that in the end the minions are more dangerous than the dragon.




I want dragons that rogues can creep into their lair and take a cup back to the dwarf king.


----------



## Kesh (Jan 9, 2008)

The Cardinal said:
			
		

> more info about the PoL setting? _Please_?



 Seconded. Though I love the info we've been getting, I'd like to hear more about their plans for PoL in the core books.

Wish Amazon would hurry up…


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Dragon: "MINIONS! Adventurers have intruded my lair. Now go away and hide while I fight the adventurers alone."
> Minions #1: "But dragon, I have arcane might with outmactches everything those adventurers have. You know that because I always have to cast scry spells for you as you are unable to do so. And Minion #2 who places all the wards around your lair so that you are not completely helpless against your enemies is a devout priest of the dark god. Together with our apprentices and Minion #3 who crafted all traps in your lair we could aid you in the combat.




As noted by others, your arguments here indicate that you consider only spellcasters and those with plentiful spellcasting powers worthy mastermind enemies.  I am hoping that the 4e rules will work to reduce this, by allowing far more ways for non-spellcasters to deal with magical foes.  If magical wards are always needed at a certain level of play "so that you are not completely helpless", I'd call that a pretty poorly balanced rules set.  Non-spellcasters are always helpless in your campaigns after a certain level is reached?  In that case, they should just give all enemies past a certain level the power to create such wards.  

There are a large number of ways to have dragons have cool and memorable lairs, without having to give them sorcerer levels.  In fact, thinking about the dragon write-ups in 3e I have seen, I don't think many of them learned sorcerer spells that would allow them to create and manage huge lairs.  How many times did an Old Dragon in 3e have in its write-ups the appropriate spells to create magical wards and traps?  I think almost never.  They were typically assumed to use scrolls or magical items.

If we look at Smaug from the Hobbit, he moved into a lair created another race entirely.  In the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, this is quite common, as dragons tend to move into pre-existing ruins and lair.  I can't recall many dragons in fiction that are given the magical power to create massive lairs or magically create traps.  Minions are indeed normally used for such.  As to why those minions don't show up for the climatic encounter, you'll have to ask that of darn near every adventure and campaign in D&D.  It isn't specific to dragons.  Pretty much every mastermind in D&D, you could always ask why they don't all work to gang up at once on the poor party with all minions in tow.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Because you as DM can say 'this is what the dragon's lair looks like and here's how its shaped'?




Is that the answer you give your players when they want to find out more about the layout of the lair, its traps and magical protections? Some people are contend with this explanation but some are not. They want to know how certain creatures affect the world around them as this is also part of a living world. Simply saying "Because I say so" isn't good enough.



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> Have you seen a dragon writeup? If so, could you point me as to where I might find it, I would be very interested in reading it. Also, If you happen to have access to any info about rituals that the rest of us don't have, please share the wealth, we are all curious.
> 
> Based on the info we have access to, there is nothing that says that dragons won't have access to (some) rituals, or to something else, giving it more possibilities than just claw/bite/tail/wing/breath weapon.
> 
> ...




I haven't seen it but based on WotC track record and 4E design philosophy (monsters = XP containers to kill. Don't care about story of monsters) and the information from W&M it doesn't look like they will have rituals.



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> So Lord Dargus, Level 19 Fighter and Leader of the Chaos Hoard in my campaign is not a matermind because he can't cast alarm.  My mistake, sorry.




Is your Lord Dargus member of a huge, monsterous race which is unable to interact peacefully with other races and lives solitary lives and very remote places and is also unable to craft things because its "hands" are not dexterous enough?







> Big Freaking Claws.  I thought they did that now.  No wonder I hated 3e dragons before MMV Xorvintaal.  More hitpointd than the rogue can dish out in a sneak attack.




"Big Freaking Claws" can't craft traps, place alarms or ward against teleportation.
And ever heard of CdG?







> D&D is not a world simulator.  If you need it to be keep playing 3e.  It's TERRIBLE at that job, but makes the pretense of it.




Who says that it isn't? You? There are many people who play D&D not as "hack Simulator" where the world is in stasis unless the PCs interact with it but instead want a living world where nothing happens "Because the DM says so".



			
				FourthBear said:
			
		

> As noted by others, your arguments here indicate that you consider only spellcasters and those with plentiful spellcasting powers worthy mastermind enemies.  I am hoping that the 4e rules will work to reduce this, by allowing far more ways for non-spellcasters to deal with magical foes.  If magical wards are always needed at a certain level of play "so that you are not completely helpless", I'd call that a pretty poorly balanced rules set.  Non-spellcasters are always helpless in your campaigns after a certain level is reached?  In that case, they should just give all enemies past a certain level the power to create such wards.




Maybe, but I doubt it. WotC was never concerned much with "Out of Combat" abilities and one of the design goals is/was it to remove such non combat abilities to make monsters easier to play.

Also not every manstermind needs to be a wizard (but it helps). Dragons are "extra handicapped" because they can't interact with most other folk because of their size,body form and reputation, are not member of a society which works together and their claws are not dexterous enough to craft things. What other creatures can achieve through work with their own hands and cooperation the dragon has to achieve through magic.







> There are a large number of ways to have dragons have cool and memorable lairs, without having to give them sorcerer levels.  In fact, thinking about the dragon write-ups in 3e I have seen, I don't think many of them learned sorcerer spells that would allow them to create and manage huge lairs.  How many times did an Old Dragon in 3e have in its write-ups the appropriate spells to create magical wards and traps?  I think almost never.  They were typically assumed to use scrolls or magical items.




And where do this scrolls and items come from? You can't always use the explanation that a caravan they raided contained exactly those scrolls and items.
That old dragon writeups didn't contain such spells is what I mean with WotC bad track record. Most spell lists for dragons made by WotC were extremly bad. (Only combat application and then most direct damage spells with the same element as the breath weapon. Very easy to defend against). Thats why I don't think that WotC will givedragon rituals.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Is that
> I haven't seen it but based on WotC track record and 4E design philosophy (monsters = XP containers to kill. Don't care about story of monsters)




Judging from the fire archon article this doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 9, 2008)

*actually*

Any rpg is somewhat of a world/life simulator.

The difference is, the world/life takes place on a different planet than earth and could be in a different style of setting (fantasy, gothic, sci-fi, etc).

THe thing is, you can do anything.   You can go anywhere (as long as the DM is good enough at making up stuff on the fly if needed), do anything (eat, sleep, go to the washroom behind a tree, kill, rape, maim, shop, work, go fishing, climb, hunt, you can break objects and make new things if you have the tools, etc).  All of these, whether there are strict rules are not, CAN be done in a pnp rpg.  That essentially along with 100s of more stuff, makes it like a life simulator.  Technically, many groups even track age very strictly and then characters die due to old age in some cases, if the DM doesn't give them adventures with fountains of youth or wishes that can make you younger (yes, a wish technically can IF the DM allows and it's worded properly). 

As for the characters, their personality really, at least for hardcore groups, it goes down to acting.

The players truly act like their characters.  I've had my friend's sister start crying cause another player, roleplayed his character so well, (a smart allick rogue), being jack sparrow basically but meaner, she couldn't take it....now she is a much better 'actress' so to speak and she isn't angry.  She wasn't ready to enter a campaign that is more 'hardcore' in that respect.

4E though, isn't made for players like that (my group), it's made for the "kick down door, kill monster, get treasure, wash hands, repeat" style of play IMHO.  Not that it's bad.  Many of it's changes I think are spectacular.  THe ones that I am not a fan of or players are not a fan of, I will houserule/re-write.

In another thread, talking of how shadowfell is just negative energy plane + plane of shadow BUT taking away what made those planes so difficult to adventure in; as another board member said some months ago....Hasbro knows some planes were hard to write an adventure for, and make a nice 20x20 dungeon room they could sell tiles for, so they wanted those 'more advanced' settings changed.  

When my players went to pandemonium, they did research in sigil first (i do lots of custom work/house rules for cosmology, but most planes i like their uniqueness so i keep them as is...even shadowfell, feywild will find a way into my version of the D&D universe). in some 2e supplements it mentions places where such researchinto plnes could be done..so they spent about 2 hrs roleplaying, finding info on stuff (gametime was a couple days).  In the end, they had some info before they went there so they weren't totally ill prepared (but there were surprises still).

But again, this style of play isn't what they are catering for....

Hell, we don't even let people draw maps or takes notes UNLESS they have paper/ink on their character sheet UNLESS they can think of a cool way to take notes on their skin or clothes, etc. The # of times people have got lost in dungeons since they forgot to bring paper/ink, etc is priceless, however, and the reason I only DM hardcore styles like this, watching my friends think of some ingenious method around this gap...makes me smile; and that IMHO, expands their problem solving and thought processes around problems, even in some cases, real world issues (general problem solving, analytical skills, etc).  I've seen people who couldn't think their way through more complex problems, manage very difficult riddles, and mathematical/art based puzzles and learn from them over time.  They got better and learned.  THis is priceless. 

WIth regards to Cailte -- templates don't make monsters cookie cutters; they make it easier for you to customize anything to what you need.

Granted, DM's have been doing this already; the issue with the 3.5 method which I think 4E does fix, is that 4E goes back to the 2E design model.  Creatures had whatever powers the designers thought they should have. 3.5 gave the impression that the system was balanced at every level (it is preetty good IMHO, but at higher levels it has some issues), but to maintain this, you should change creatures accordingly. If you want to give it some unique power, make it like a feat and advance it 3 HD, then give it the feat, then raise it's saves and increase CR accordingly.

4E, is going with the model of this is a creature as we envision it.  We don't think we need the possibility of 1000 types of zombies, so here's 3...just change your description for them. 

THis is fine and works perfectly as well except in a few cases that DMs will prob just convert a 3.5 version anyways (ie. zombie dragon comes to mind).  The problem is the implied difference.  The prior cocnept was that, a zombie made from a different body type WAS different.  ie. a gnoll zombie is a bit larger than a human zombie, so some aspect of it is a bit different.  (ie. maybe does more damage, stronger, slower, whatever). 4E is saying it's easier to keep them all the sme since the differences aren't big enuff to warrant a totally unique creature.  That is fine, but THAT makes them more cookie cutter than having a list of a zombie of almost any creature type yourselves, with differences in each of them.

Which model do I like better? Honestly, after all my ranting above, i like teh 4E model EXCEPT For special cases....ogres, giants, dragons, etc.  These 'rarer' type of creatures, should be different. A zombie dragon will be different than some humanoid zombie of course.  But that I can house rule and write up myself or convert a 3.5E version.  

Anyways...rant off  

Sanjay

ps:  I am very interested in more info on The Far Realm...do they have new artwork, etc for teh Far Realm in Worlds & Monsters? If so, it may be worth me actually buying it....


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 9, 2008)

I hated the color-coded spellcaster dragons of previous editions, and had planned to remove them entirely in my first 4e game in favor of a homebrewed 'real' dragon.  But I'm intrigued by this new direction.  Plus brass and bronze dragons kicked out in favor of iron and adamantine?  Nice.

I like the Adamantine dragon in theory.  But I hope we get a Mithril dragon, too, at some point.


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> <Snip>
> And where do this scrolls and items come from? You can't always use the explanation that a caravan they raided contained exactly those scrolls and items.
> That old dragon writeups didn't contain such spells is what I mean with WotC bad track record. Most spell lists for dragons made by WotC were extremly bad. (Only combat application and then most direct damage spells with the same element as the breath weapon. Very easy to defend against). Thats why I don't think that WotC will givedragon rituals.




As I can recall, *no* edition of D&D has ever given dragons in their write-ups the magical power to create the lairs and the traps therein.  Certainly none of the dragons I recall in 1e or 2e had such powers in their write-ups.  And in 3e, their spellcasting power typically wasn't adequate to do so until very high or epic levels (and even then, as noted, they typically did not have use their limited spells in write-ups for such).  You seem to be arguing that dragons have never been written well in D&D (the TSR era to the present day) because they've never been given certain magic powers.  

If over the past 30-someodd-years, dragon write-ups have managed to get by without giving all dragons "Create Level-Appropriate Trap", "Create Adventurer Proof Wards" and "Shape Walls of Lair", I suspect that they don't really need them now in 4e.  Further, in 4e the monster and NPC creation philosophy is based far more around particular monsters being written with the particular powers appropriate for the encounter.  If a DM wants a dragon with the power to scry out enemies in a magical pool, there's absolutely no need for him to have to declare that *all* dragons have this power.  He either grants that power to that particular dragon, if he deems it level appropriate, or he declares the pool itself magical or any number of other explanations.  This helps eliminate the ridiculous stat-block and power creep in 3e.  If we need a dragon mastermind with the power to create cavernous lairs and to create wards, just give those power to *that* dragon.  There's no need to give those powers to all dragons.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 9, 2008)

I don't think there's any need for dragons to be casters.  Why does a dragon have to have all these wards and traps?  As far as defense goes, all it needs are supernaturally keen senses, so that you can't coup de grace it in its sleep.  For the rest, keeping in touch with its minions (if it has any) and the like, I would expect a dragon "overlord" to have a lieutenant who handles the day-to-day operations of its domain.

One thing I wonder about the Far Realm is how it fits in with the Abyss.  That's always been my problem with the Far Realm; it's a cool concept, but the Far Realm and the Abyss occupy the same conceptual territory as "plane of mind-warping weirdness, hideous abominations, and horrific evil."  I don't feel like we need more than one of those, so I'm curious to see what WotC has in mind to distinguish them beyond mere technical details.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> As I can recall, *no* edition of D&D has ever given dragons in their write-ups the magical power to create the lairs and the traps therein.  Certainly none of the dragons I recall in 1e or 2e had such powers in their write-ups.  And in 3e, their spellcasting power typically wasn't adequate to do so until very high or epic levels (and even then, as noted, they typically did not have use their limited spells in write-ups for such).  You seem to be arguing that dragons have never been written well in D&D (the TSR era to the present day) because they've never been given certain magic powers.




All previous edition dragon had access to spells sooner or later. And those spells can be used for "world interacting" spells. It doesn't have to be gate, simple spells are very often enough. Mage hand can be very useful for a dragon as can other low level spells.
Dragons did not have an explicit "Create Trap" power, but they had spells which can be used for this.

The only dragons who did lack such spells were those statted by WotC because they pay no heed to how creatures interact with their surroundings and instead stat them as pure combat monsters (and even for this goal the spell lists of statted dragons were bad).







> If we need a dragon mastermind with the power to create cavernous lairs and to create wards, just give those power to *that* dragon.  There's no need to give those powers to all dragons.




And that is exactly what I don't like.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Dragon: "MINIONS! Adventurers have intruded my lair. Now go away and hide while I fight the adventurers alone."



If you want a Dragon to have Minions helping him, use a Dragon with a level that makes it possible to add Minions to the encounter. (By finding a level of the Dragon where his XP will still allow to add Minions). The "Boss" designation means that a monster is capable of dealing with multiple foes of the appropriate level, but not that it always has to be used that way.

Dragons are quite capable of dealing with normal people. They just don't do it like normal people.
You can bet if a Dragon flies over a village, lands in the market place and asks for some experts to help him build his lair, few will object. And if he promises them some gold, they will be even happy to do so! 

A Dragon sleeping in his lair doesn't need spells to keep him alive, he just needs a sleep light enough, or a craftsmen that build some cunning and deadly alarm traps for him.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> All previous edition dragon had access to spells sooner or later. And those spells can be used for "world interacting" spells. It doesn't have to be gate, simple spells are very often enough. Mage hand can be very useful for a dragon as can other low level spells.
> Dragons did not have an explicit "Create Trap" power, but they had spells which can be used for this.
> 
> The only dragons who did lack such spells were those statted by WotC because they pay no heed to how creatures interact with their surroundings and instead stat them as pure combat monsters (and even for this goal the spell lists of statted dragons were bad).
> ...




I would much rather WotC build dragons that can stand on their own without spells.  Then, if I want a particular dragon to have spells, I can always give it spellcasting, but if I want a dragon that's a combat brute, I can have that too.  I don't have to worry that stripping out the dragon's casting is going to result in a cakewalk for the PCs.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> All previous edition dragon had access to spells sooner or later. And those spells can be used for "world interacting" spells. It doesn't have to be gate, simple spells are very often enough. Mage hand can be very useful for a dragon as can other low level spells.
> Dragons did not have an explicit "Create Trap" power, but they had spells which can be used for this.
> 
> The only dragons who did lack such spells were those statted by WotC because they pay no heed to how creatures interact with their surroundings and instead stat them as pure combat monsters (and even for this goal the spell lists of statted dragons were bad).



I saw that too, but then I realized from a strict usability standpoint, that I don't want "Craft Fiery Trap" to occur in the middle of the combat statistics in the Monster Manual. And so on down the line; if it can't be used in combat, I don't want it in the same statblock as the attack bonus, armor class, and number of hit points.
I'm disappointed that I've heard nothing about a parallel stat block, containing the things I would like to see, though.

But, still -- while designing your first dragon encounter, figure out which bits of dungeon are due to the dragon. Give those as abilities to that, and every other, dragon.
Done.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Imo this is not the case. Dragons have some melee attacks and a elemental attack which can be defended aginst rather easily by magic in 3E at least.
> 
> Also please answer me how dragons will be able to shape their lairs and place treps (alarm spells) without magic? How to they ward it against extraplanar intrusion? How do they keep an eye on adventurers and other important people in the area? How do they communicate with allies and spies? How do dragons without magic infiltrate human societies?
> 
> I have the feeling that WotC will give dragons only combat abilities and will completely ignore every non combat application spells gave them which reduces dragons to pure combat beasts. And this means that dragons can't perform many of the roles they performed in 3E (masterminds) unless you rule 0 that they simply have everything they need without explanation (unlogical) or rely heavily on minions (making the minions the real encounter, not the dragon).




Uh . . . they shape their lairs the same way lair creatures do in the real world, or they do what dragons in fantasy do, take it from someone else. Note also that typical dragons NEVER had the level of magic needed to magically shape a wonderous fantasy lair the way modules and DMs had them doing. Dragons usually took the lair from someone else, they had minions build it or they made it themselves with their own brute strength and intelligence. 

As for traps, first of all, real world creatures set traps without any magic at all (spiders being classic). You don't need opposable thumbs to do it. Second of all, nothing says the dragon can't cow kobolds or something near its lair to do it for it. The fact that the dragon isn't listed as a mastermind by default doesn't mean that no dragon is ever  a mastermind. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> As for traps, first of all, real world creatures set traps without any magic at all (spiders being classic). You don't need opposable thumbs to do it.




And do you think the trap made b a spider is enough to stop an adventurer? It might be good enough to trap insects,but adventurers with access to magic? I think not.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And do you think the trap made b a spider is enough to stop an adventurer?




…Depends on the spider (size, type, size, possible supernatural qualities etc – this is _D&D_ after all).


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And do you think the trap made b a spider is enough to stop an adventurer? It might be good enough to trap insects,but adventurers with access to magic? I think not.




Insects are a spider's natural prey, so it makes a trap that can catch them.
Adventurers are a dragon's natural prey, so it makes traps that can catch _them_.

Anyway, it seems like you're still locked into the 3E mindset of "casters can do anything."  I very much doubt this will be the case in 4E.  As long as the dragon has a way to defend itself from a coup de grace while it's sleeping, it really doesn't need much else.  Sure, you can teleport into its lair.  What was it you were planning on doing next?


----------



## ferratus (Jan 9, 2008)

Dragons building their own lair is the exception, not the rule, anyway.    They generally take over salt mines, natural caves, or dwarven strongholds, if Shimmergloom and Smaug are any indication.

There was that white dragon in Dungeon Magazine who had a lair shaped out of a glacier...  but he also had a sorcerer minion to help him with that, along with various monstrous humanoids and half-dragon spawn.

On the other subject of dragons both the non-aligned and new metallic dragons do indeed put them out of step with traditional Dragonlance (plus the FR Wyms of the North article).   The drift in alignment could be explained by the death of Takhisis and the "undiefication" of Paladine  if a DM was so inclined, but I don't think I'd make it an official part of the setting.  (Though it would be the first interesting storyline to come out of that waste).   Tiamat in general makes less sense, given that the evil dragons are no longer strictly evil... why not have 10 heads instead of 5?

For the new dragons, put me down as displeased about the adamantine dragon, and do agree lead or mercury would be a better fit.  Lead more than mercury, because mercury's personality traits seem to have been taken by Copper in 3e.  Lead does its job well as a comparison to "base metal" in medieval alchemy (contrasted to the highest metal gold), and would be good to depict a good dragon that is slow, sluggish and stupid, a good counterpart to the white dragons.

Iron is a fitting substitute for bronze, and can adopt all of the bronze's personality traits.  They wouldn't really make sense as sea dragons anymore, but gold dragons live underwater anyway.  The good dragons need a good mountain dragon to compete with the reds.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> All previous edition dragon had access to spells sooner or later. And those spells can be used for "world interacting" spells. It doesn't have to be gate, simple spells are very often enough. Mage hand can be very useful for a dragon as can other low level spells.
> Dragons did not have an explicit "Create Trap" power, but they had spells which can be used for this.
> 
> The only dragons who did lack such spells were those statted by WotC because they pay no heed to how creatures interact with their surroundings and instead stat them as pure combat monsters (and even for this goal the spell lists of statted dragons were bad).
> ...




Which low-level spells are we talking about that can realistically be used to create a serious trap for a creature that would threaten a dragon? Before you seriously suggest _Unseen Servant_ or _Mage Hand_ I suggest you read the spell descriptions carefully.

Tzarevitch


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jan 9, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Insects are a spider's natural prey, so it makes a trap that can catch them.
> Adventurers are a dragon's natural prey, so it makes traps that can catch _them_.
> 
> Anyway, it seems like you're still locked into the 3E mindset of "casters can do anything."  I very much doubt this will be the case in 4E.  As long as the dragon has a way to defend itself from a coup de grace while it's sleeping, it really doesn't need much else.  Sure, you can teleport into its lair.  What was it you were planning on doing next?




Actually a spider's natural prey is anything it can catch and kill. They eat mice, birds, snakes etc. too. Sometimes ones larger than they are.

Tzarevitch


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 9, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> 4E though, isn't made for players like that (my group), it's made for the "kick down door, kill monster, get treasure, wash hands, repeat" style of play IMHO.




How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

Certainly 4E will be conducive to the style of play you describe as well, those players will kick more doors, kill more monsters, and get more treasure, but that in no way makes it less RP centric.

If anything, based on what I know of 4E, I suspect it will suit your group better - their characters will be able to do more - so the RP will flow more smoothly. They will be less hung up on "can I do this" and more doing what they want. 

Less mechanical hindrance => better RP.

For example 7th Sea makes it really easy to kill lots of "minions" at once, I found that gave players a lot more scope to RP. They got to the fight, they RPd the fight rather than number crunched the fight, an experience that matches my testing of the Crusader from Bo9S as well, a more conceptually 4E class. 1 Attack a round means faster flow around the table, and things like the Stances that require you to co-ordinate the other PCs become RP opportunities that you have time for. It was funny - I had time to attack and RP, the duel-wielding fighter/ranger with his 7 attacks spent the same time just attacking...


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> Which low-level spells are we talking about that can realistically be used to create a serious trap for a creature that would threaten a dragon? Before you seriously suggest _Unseen Servant_ or _Mage Hand_ I suggest you read the spell descriptions carefully.
> 
> Tzarevitch




Silent Image placed over a very deep pit for example.
Of course the dragon must know that the adventurers are coming to do this. Thats what the alarm spell is for which in itself is already a trap.


----------



## Stephenls (Jan 9, 2008)

Doubtless this'll be ignored amidst the storm of controversy, but: Remember earlier preview material suggests monsters will be customizable with template-type things, not of the "this gnoll is half-demon" variety but rather "this gnoll has learned some magic."

Taking away intrinsic draconic spellcasting doesn't mean dragons can't cast spells anymore. It just means that a dragon that's also an accomplished mage is special even above and beyond other dragons. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to say "Yeah, but _this_ dragon knows a bunch of wizard spells" and be done with it. Just now, not all dragons have spells, so that people who want to run basic combat encounters with dragons that aren't campaign masterminds have a simpler time of it.

Smaug didn't do a lot of spellcasting. That a lot of authors following Tolkien decided that _their_ dragons should be even more powerful than his doesn't make his dragon any less impressive.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And do you think the trap made b a spider is enough to stop an adventurer? It might be good enough to trap insects,but adventurers with access to magic? I think not.




Have you read the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings? Shelob ring a bell? Mirkwood spiders? Fantasy spiders have more precedent for trap setting that dragons do. You seem to think "magic" is good enough to get out of a fantasy spider's trap but not good enough to get out of a fantasy dragon's trap. I guarantee you the spider is the better trap builder because that is what it does and it does it for free, magic not required. If a dragon wants a trap built, it cows minions into doing it or it or it just hires out for dwarves to come and do it. It doesn't depend on its own feeble magic and lack of skill in the area to accomplish the task. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Silent Image placed over a very deep pit for example.
> Of course the dragon must know that the adventurers are coming to do this. Thats what the alarm spell is for which in itself is already a trap.



How did the dragon create such a pit?  With what listed ability/spell?

And frankly, any adventuring party that is taking on a dragon in 3rd ed is NOT going to be troubled much by an image covered pit trap.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks to the people that posted summaries. I really like what I read. By far, the best part of the previews so far. While I'm still not thrilled with some of the dumbing down of the monsters (I like some monsters to have too many powers, so the players don't KNOW what they'll do), the FR, Shadowfell and some of the other stuff mentioned here sounds great.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Silent Image placed over a very deep pit for example.
> Of course the dragon must know that the adventurers are coming to do this. Thats what the alarm spell is for which in itself is already a trap.





Alarm is the one and only low level spell useful for defending a lair and even then it is hardly something a dragon couldn't do without. Physical alarms work just as well and can actually harder to find and disarm and a dragon can certainly put one in itself. They also do not require re-casting. Minions work even better than alarms. 

_Silent image_ requires the dragon to concentrate on the image AND maintain line of sight AND not itself be seen by the adventurers. All this while it could be doing something more useful.

The spells you are looking for to cover a pit with an illusion are _hallucinatory terrain _ (4th level) or _Permanent Image_ (which is 6th). If the dragon wants a pit it can dig one and conceal it ahead of time with a false floor. Animals do this, a dragon can certainly do it too. 

Before this argument goes further I should tell you I have heard it before. Low level dragon spells are NOT terribly useful for the dragon to defend its lair against a creature or group of adventurers powerful enough to challenge it in the first place. When people argue for those low-level spells they are almost always exaggerating what the spell actually does.

But enough on this, let's get back to getting more info on _Worlds and Monsters_. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Silent Image placed over a very deep pit for example.
> Of course the dragon must know that the adventurers are coming to do this. Thats what the alarm spell is for which in itself is already a trap.




Derren,

If you wish to talk further about problems that your percieve with spell-less dragons, this is the time to start a new thread about it.

We'll let this thread get back to talking in general terms about the contents of 'worlds and monsters"

Thanks


----------



## Conjurer (Jan 9, 2008)

warton said:
			
		

> Dragons have fewer abilities, focused on the most iconic ones (continuing the theme). For example, the oldest black dragon is said to have only five possible standard actions, with unique magical abilities taking the place of spells simply taken from the wizard's lists.



I liked my spellcasting dragons. I expect that I'll still be able to give Wizard or Warlock levels to dragons, just to give them the ability to cast spells again.



> Dragons aren't forced into specific 'alignments'. Their motives can vary from a baseline - chromatic are wild, metallic like to be in control but good and evil manifests in each.



Good. Excelent, in fact. I've done this in the past myself. One of my old campaigns (3.0) ended with a fight against an evil Silver Dragon.



> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group. The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.



A shame, really. Bronze Dragons were easily my favorite metallic dragons. I guess I'll be re-creating them for my own use.[/list][/quote]



> Shadowfell:
> 
> Merges Negative Energy Plane and Plane of Shadow, removing the irritating bits that make these places a pain to visit.



For some reason, I really like this idea.



> Shadow is a power source. Involved with stealth, illusion, dread, 'devastating enemies' and 'necrotic energy'



So I guess we can start speculating whether Necromancers are Shadow Strikers while Illussionists are Shadow controllers or viceversa.



> They've re-concepted the undead, adding the animus, providing 'vitality and mobility', as a companion to the soul and the body.
> Very interesting descriptions of how different varieties of undead are now explained. Shadow are the animus freed of body and soul, for example.



This got my attention. More details would be welcome.


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

Very Well. Feel free to move all those dragon - spellcasting posts into another thread if you like as they are quite big.

Back to the other questions:
- How is the art?
- Do more dragons have those silly nose horns?
- Any informations about the relation between different races in PoL?
- Any information about the general danger level and/or xenophobia in PoL?.

A small summary of "The Next Word" would also be nice.

PS: The Wild Hunt? Someone played too much The Witcher.
And lets all wait for ArttToEE. Another return to the Temple of Elemental Evil


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 9, 2008)

Non-spellcasting Dragons by default, yessssss!!!

I like my dragons like my women, beastly....


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 9, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Rituals, the same way wizards create magic items. Much more flavourful to do a ritual to create a barrier than to simply cast _wall of force_.




It would also explain why a dragon would keep a plethora of magical items in its hoard.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 9, 2008)

I want to know more about Fomorians and Firbolgs... What design did they choose for 4e ?


----------



## glass (Jan 9, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> But yes Monsters are becoming cookie-cutter, but I feel that leaving many of their abilities simpler might make them easier to modify later on.



They have explicitly said that each monster's abilities will be designed especially for that monster. Based on the four monster sample we have seen so far, that appears to be true.

Monsters are becoming less 'cookie-cutter', not more.


glass.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> PS: The Wild Hunt? Someone played too much The Witcher.




Yes, the concept of the Wild Hunt definitely originated in a video game released in 2007.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I want to know more about Fomorians




Fomorians are fey-like giants that kick back in the Feywild, I believe, and rule the underdark of the Feywild.


----------



## jaer (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Silent Image placed over a very deep pit for example.
> Of course the dragon must know that the adventurers are coming to do this. Thats what the alarm spell is for which in itself is already a trap.




Most traps I create for monsters don’t perfectly mimic spells.  I don’t need to explain to my players how the blue dragon managed to set up a permanent rain storm in the cavern passage.  When they entered storm, they found it zapped one of them randomly with lightning and that thunder rumbled throughout the cavern, alerting everything within that someone was passing through the storm. They marveled at it, attempted a dispel magic (which failed miserably), and then warded themselves against the electricity damage and passed through.  There are no spells to create this kind of effect in a cave, but there it was.

Making something unique gives this dragon’s lair flavor and shows the innate power of the dragon.  My players don’t scoff at it and say it’s against the rules, so I can’t do it.  They don’t say that blue dragons don’t command such power.  They appreciate the time and effort I take to craft an adventure and the challenges it presents and accept the fact that there are things beyond their scope.  They may be powerful, but they are not all-powerful.

I want the monsters to be well statted for combat.  I need to know how to balance a fight for my players to be challenged.  I don’t need WotC to tell me what a creature like a dragon is doing in its spare time.  If I am placing a dragon in a campaign, I am doing so with a purpose and I know what it is doing in its spare time.  Out of combat spells and abilities (such as alarms, traps, and lair crafting) I can, have, and always will fluff up on my own as I see fit.

My players would never say “Dragons don’t cast spells anymore so how does this one have magical traps?” and even if they did ask it, I would tell them that their character’s arcane knowledge is good enough to know that, while dragons are not sorcerers, they are still highly magical creatures that can bend magical powers to their will, given enough time and concentration, something they cannot muster in the middle of combat.  Just because WotC didn’t write that in a MM doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I’d rather have complete and balanced combat stats and make up my own non-combat stuff than have twice as much in a stats block, a full list of everything a creature can do, and ignore it because the out-of-combat fluff didn’t fit my needs anyway.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 9, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.




I like this idea...you remove the man-made alloy metallics, and replace them with naturally occurring metals (well, natural in a D&D setting).


----------



## glass (Jan 9, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Wouldn't a giant be a Large Humanoid (Giant)…?



Or even Large Natural Humanoid (Giant). But a couple of posters have referred to Giant as a type unfortunately.


glass.


----------



## Silvergriffon (Jan 9, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I like this idea...you remove the man-made alloy metallics, and replace them with naturally occurring metals (well, natural in a D&D setting).



But, if we add Tin and Zinc dragons, we can make Bronze and Brass hybrids!  

Actually, "alloy dragons" is sort of an interesting idea.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Or even Large Mortal Humanoid (Giant). But a couple of posters have referred to Giant as a type unfortunately.





So a Human is a Medium Humanoid (Natural), Illithid is a Medium Humanoid (Aberration) and drow are a Medium Humanoid (Fey)?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 9, 2008)

> I have the feeling that WotC will give dragons only combat abilities and will completely ignore every non combat application spells gave them which reduces dragons to pure combat beasts.




Replace "dragons" with "every monster," and I fear this is what will happen.

Reducing the monster to it's lowest common denominator (XP Speedbump) won't work for me. I want rules for how the monster interacts with the world, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately, I fear most of these abilities and traits will be shunted aside due to the process of streamlining the monster for a single purpose -- combat.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Jan 9, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> So a Human is a Medium Humanoid (Natural), Illithid is a Medium Humanoid (Aberration) and drow are a Medium Humanoid (Fey)?




I´m thinking that it shoud be human is Medium natual humanoid, giant Large natural(maybe elemental) humanoid (giant), Illithid medium aberration humanoid and drow medium fey humanoid as the spiked devil is a medium imortal humanoid... Size-origin-type, type as a format thing (hunoid = 2 arms, 2 legs, a head etc..) Makes sense?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:
			
		

> I´m thinking that it shoud be human is Medium natual humanoid, giant Large natural(maybe elemental) humanoid (giant), Illithid medium aberration humanoid and drow medium fey humanoid as the spiked devil is a medium imortal humanoid... Size-origin-type, type as a format thing (hunoid = 2 arms, 2 legs, a head etc..) Makes sense?




Absolutely, I was wondering the same thing – drow =  Medium Fey Humanoid (Drow)…?


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Replace "dragons" with "every monster," and I fear this is what will happen.
> 
> Reducing the monster to it's lowest common denominator (XP Speedbump) won't work for me. I want rules for how the monster interacts with the world, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately, I fear most of these abilities and traits will be shunted aside due to the process of streamlining the monster for a single purpose -- combat.



As a counterpoint - initially, I loved 3E's more simulative focus (as compared to 2E), and I dove into making sure that everything would 'interact with the world' in a plausible way.  Then I realized that it added absolutely nothing to my games, and the players didn't notice that I had given the BBEG ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or that the too-big-for-its-farmland community was exactly as big as it could be with the conveniently-located 9th-level druid supporting their crops or whatever.

Statblocks with pure combat stuff are just fine by me.  I wouldn't mind a 'rituals' section afterwards, but I can live without it.


----------



## glass (Jan 9, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> So a Human is a Medium Humanoid (Natural), Illithid is a Medium Humanoid (Aberration) and drow are a Medium Humanoid (Fey)?



Well, if it follows the Spined Devil pattern, a human would be Medium Natural Humanoid and drow would be Medium Fey Humanoid. 

I guess Ilithid would be Medium Abberation Humanoid, although that sounds clumsy to me.


glass.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 9, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> I guess Ilithid would be Medium Abberation Humanoid, although that sounds clumsy to me.




Yeah, but it sure beats Medium Tentacle-Head Humanoid!


----------



## Derren (Jan 9, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> As a counterpoint - initially, I loved 3E's more simulative focus (as compared to 2E), and I dove into making sure that everything would 'interact with the world' in a plausible way.  Then I realized that it added absolutely nothing to my games, and the players didn't notice that I had given the BBEG ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or that the too-big-for-its-farmland community was exactly as big as it could be with the conveniently-located 9th-level druid supporting their crops or whatever.
> 
> Statblocks with pure combat stuff are just fine by me.  I wouldn't mind a 'rituals' section afterwards, but I can live without it.




That are simply two times of gaming. Some people have fun when they play (or create) such living worlds where everything is connected and plausible (and also exploit that) and some like plots where things happen just because they would be interesting.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 9, 2008)

> As a counterpoint - initially, I loved 3E's more simulative focus (as compared to 2E), and I dove into making sure that everything would 'interact with the world' in a plausible way. Then I realized that it added absolutely nothing to my games, and the players didn't notice that I had given the BBEG ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or that the too-big-for-its-farmland community was exactly as big as it could be with the conveniently-located 9th-level druid supporting their crops or whatever.
> 
> Statblocks with pure combat stuff are just fine by me. I wouldn't mind a 'rituals' section afterwards, but I can live without it.




It's not about simulating, it's about ease of play. 

One of 4e's stated purposes is to speed up play. I fully agree that not every demon needs to be able to teleport, and that streamlining monsters is a good goal to help achieve that.

However, more so than running combats, what slows down my games is when I hit a "mental speedbump," when I have to stop and think about what adventure is going to take place next and how to give it linking traction with the current group's activities. It's a bigger risk for me as an improvosational DM, but even well-prepared DMs suffer it when the PC's go in a direction you didn't expect or prepare for. 

These are the infamous "let's take 5 or 10 while I pull something out of my behindus" moments that grind the game to a halt.

These moments are avoided by monsters who are part and parcel of the world they occupy. Because it gives me linked inspirational juju: I can look at the terrain they're inhabiting, look at the monsters listed in that terrain, see what they're associated with, figure out how that works in the world....

Say I have a BBEG who, for some reason, has ranks in Religion. I want the group to fight him. They're in a tavern. How do I get them from point A to point B? How do I give them the dozen or so encounters they need to gain a level when they kill the BBEG (no better feeling in the world!)? Well, let's see, his ranks in Religion means he might be associated with some clerics of Evilgod. It means that servants of Evilgod would help him out. I can grab some Demons and Devils...this means that we can have a summoner. Summoners are arcane spellcasters, arcane spellcasters need a school, we're in a big city, this city has a magical academy, academeys are schools, schools have students, students like drinking BAM.

Now, I have a way for them to get from Point A to Point B. They meet a drunk arcanist who lures them (somehow) back to the magical college, where they uncover a demon-summoner who is sending his underlings to go work for the church of Evilgod, where the clerics are actually on the payroll of the BBEG.

I can probably milk 13 encounters out of that.

All because of inspiration on the fly by an offhand skill.

The same is true of the druid who helps the fields.

I don't look just look to D&D to fill roles in my pre-imagined adventure. I look for D&D to give me the adventure on a silver platter, just waiting for me and my friends to connect the dots.

4e doesn't look like it will have as many dots to connect.

This will make me spend more time developing adventures, leading D&D to become a bigger time sink for me. 

This is bad.


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That are simply two times of gaming. Some people have fun when they play (or create) such living worlds where everything is connected and plausible (and also exploit that) and some like plots where things happen just because they would be interesting.




Plausible? Which version of D&D where you playing?

The one where you got better at singing by murdering orcs or the one where bringing in 100,000+ pieces of gold did nothing to affect inflation.

I understand that 'simulation of an environment' is a valid aim for game play - but I don't think that D&D in any format has done very well at it and 3.5 is probably the apex of that trend.

I, personally, don't think that D&D fares too well if it gets bogged down in too much 'realism'.

The stats in the Monster Manual will show just their combat role. That doesn't mean they won't have a non-combat role. It just won't be listed.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 9, 2008)

> An ancient red's breath weapon, for example, can 'scour the fire resistance right off you'




This reminds me of the red dragon in DDO...and that's not a compliment.   :\


----------



## Gort (Jan 9, 2008)

Personally, I thought it was rubbish when players could make themselves immune to the iconic power of a monster - in this case the breath weapon of a dragon.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 9, 2008)

Still not at my local Books a Million.


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 9, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> This reminds me of the red dragon in DDO...and that's not a compliment.   :\




I can see how the ability of a breath weapon to strip away magical protections is pretty "meta-gamey".  But I also think that if you're going to have elemental protections in the game, there should be some way to represent that a particularly potent attack can overcome it.  And just pumping up damage totals or making the breath utterly ignore those protections don't really seem appropriate.  Depending on what they mean by "strip away", it could be pretty easily explained.  Definitely, blanket immunities in 4e will be rare to non-existent from what has been said.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 4e doesn't look like it will have as many dots to connect.
> 
> This will make me spend more time developing adventures, leading D&D to become a bigger time sink for me.
> 
> This is bad.



An interesting point that I hadn't considered before.  I think we just have very different styles of constructing a game.  Or, maybe I am discounting the utility of non-combat-related information.

In any case, if 4E comes up short on 'ecology' blocks, that sounds to me like a ripe opportunity for a third-party publisher.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 9, 2008)

> An interesting point that I hadn't considered before. I think we just have very different styles of constructing a game. Or, maybe I am discounting the utility of non-combat-related information.




Probably a bit of both. I have an improvosational style when I DM, which means that I don't have to do a lot of prep, but also means that I lean harder on the prep done for me by the designers. I don't sit down one night and come up with an adventure. I flip through the MM just before the game and see a monster in the right CR range that I think it would be fun to fight. Then I figure out how to get them to fight it. 

But monsters more tied to the world allow me to do that seamlessly. They also allow me to use them as things other than combat XP bumps. I can use centaurs as guides in the forest, and dryads as allies against the orcs, and angels as benefactors of the party. If the Centaurs don't have skill information and the Dryads are over-powered if they help the PC's, and the only angels are those that want to kill the PC's for various reasons, the MM has failed it's duty to me; it's failed to give me creatures that can populate my world, only creatures that can populate my battles.

That's a very good goal for the monsters, and they need to fill that niche, too. But it's not ALL they need to do. And it's not because I desperately want to simulate a working world. It's because someday the PC's are going to take a step that I haven't really thought about and I'm going to need all the advice possible on how to deal with that step. 



> In any case, if 4E comes up short on 'ecology' blocks, that sounds to me like a ripe opportunity for a third-party publisher.




It is, but I don't have $5,000.


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 9, 2008)

*like this...*

The implied nature that the new addition moves further away from RP...yes, any system can have heavy RP since that'sthe style of the DM....BUT, the game itself, when they say that they are taking away the more difficult or harsh parts of certain planes to  make them easier to use...that not only takes away the challenge of those places but makes it much more cookie cutter.

In older adventures, it mentions that players have to do research on stuff, prepare, etc.

Now, and I understand it probably does make it more fun for most people, they don'[t have that issue.

People don't need to ask the right questions to research as often, prepare, properly equip, etc.

Creatures have less or no immunities, most creatures won't have spells that can cause a hindrance to the party, planes are easier to survive in.

It's not a bad thing overall IMHO; it's a bad thing for my players and my style..but again, we'll just house rule the 50% of 4E that we don't like and keep the 50% we do like 

Regarding Far Realm again..someone mentioned they feel it was too close to teh abyss.

Really? my readings on it made it a very clear distinction.

THe abyss was supposed to be chaotic....unpredictableand there were parts that were just nuts BUT the descriptions of the far realm, with dimensions coexisting, moving through other realities, giant whale like godbeings floating around within their own insanity, etc.  Even that, I do not remember the abyss being truly insane in that respect.

BUt, I understand from thinking about it, maybe it was a bit too close in some respects. Do you see them making the far realm even MORE crazy?

Sanjay


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 9, 2008)

The Far realms now gives me a better place for the Horrors that infest Barsaive to have come through from. Cool!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 9, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> The implied nature that the new addition moves further away from RP...yes, any system can have heavy RP since that'sthe style of the DM....BUT, the game itself, when they say that they are taking away the more difficult or harsh parts of certain planes to  make them easier to use...that not only takes away the challenge of those places but makes it much more cookie cutter.
> 
> In older adventures, it mentions that players have to do research on stuff, prepare, etc.
> 
> ...




I'm obviuosly just speculating, but I don't think they mean the other planes will be any less deadly. They seem to be moving toward more interesting landscapes with new challenges to make it dangerous to travel the planes. Planes like the Positive/Negative Material and the Elemental Planes weren't fleshed out very well in the core books. They were bleak landscapes of nothing but the 'element' they dervied. The plane of fire saw some development in artwork like the City of Brass. But that artwork depicted islands of stone amid a sea of fire. Why is there stone in the elemental plane of FIRE? Now with the elemental maelstrom you have all the elements available to create interesting locales. I don't think the planes will designed as less dangerous places, just much more interesting places to adventure in.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 9, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> As noted by others, your arguments here indicate that you consider only spellcasters and those with plentiful spellcasting powers worthy mastermind enemies.  I am hoping that the 4e rules will work to reduce this, by allowing far more ways for non-spellcasters to deal with magical foes.




My hope is that with 4E, we'll see a reduction in the idea that 'magic solves all problems'. I don't think that 'the entire party teleports into the dragon's cave in prepared attack formation' will be a valid tactical option anymore.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 9, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> The implied nature that the new addition moves further away from RP...yes, any system can have heavy RP since that'sthe style of the DM....BUT, the game itself, when they say that they are taking away the more difficult or harsh parts of certain planes to  make them easier to use...that not only takes away the challenge of those places but makes it much more cookie cutter.
> 
> In older adventures, it mentions that players have to do research on stuff, prepare, etc.
> 
> ...



To rebut and expand: Imagine two planes. One is the Plane of Nothing But Cheese, and the other is the plane of Random Unexpected Cheese.

On the plane of Nothing but Cheese, travelers know that there is nothing but petrifying Gorgonzola and beneficent Gouda cheese, and thus they go in buffed to the gills vs. cheese. Anything that requires that much protection becomes uninteresting: the actual effects of the plane are so deadly that full protection must be worn which, paradoxically, removes all danger of the surroundings.
On the plane of Fire, _Dispel Magic_ is scarier than _Fireball_.
That's bad.

On the plane of Random Unexpected Cheese, travelers know that there are rivers of molten cheese and wild bands of Monterey Jacks out there, but they can see them coming. Cheesepuffs blow on the wind, so they need to be a bit careful, but the protection they need to bring isn't the same; if they get dispelled, they'll need to take cover, but they can survive with some pluck and luck.
Consider the Shadowfell which is ghost-haunted and shot through with spectral doldrums, which has sudden unexpected soul storms blowing through, bringing grim reminders of the briefness of all mortal existence. Contrast this with the Negative Energy Plane, which kills you in about as many rounds as you have levels.

I would still want to prepare to visit the Shadowfell, but it's a *lot* more interesting. If I don't last long enough on the negative because of its homogeneity of hostility, I don't get to have fun. That's not interesting -- focused areas that Just Kill You are fine, but an entire plane? Why bother? You have to shield yourself so heavily to go there that it `doesn't count` anymore.


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 9, 2008)

*response*

Lackhand...

And that's why I say for some players or specifically my group...

All the players/DM's I have played with ENJOY those types of challenges. Finding ways to survive in the worst possible places.

However, i see your point with teh elemental plane of fire, where 1 thing can protect you from all challenges of the plane...but from what I remember of negative energy plane, there are tons of things there that cause issues. Some of which are quite harsh, others become more environmental challenges.

My party would try to find ways to protect from the former, and then intelligently deal with the latter. (referring to the negative energy plane)

Then again, my players are messed....they wanted to risk insanity, to roleplay and fight IN the Far Realm!!!!

!!!  

I think also some of my hatred for aspects of the new cosmology is due to the customizations I have for my universe of D&D..that uses aspects of the great wheel, will be adding stuff from 4E BUT has a whole bunch of 'stuff' added/modified.  Much of those changes make some of the issues, not as big a deal or make them easier to deal with for parties.

But then that gets into me house ruling.

YOu know what....maybe, due to all the houserules we have, we havent' noticed many of the 'unfun' areas of 2e/3.X, and never realized what other people are talking about..... hehehehe

ADDITION:  I feel very stupid right now. Thinking more, I think many of the complaints player have (not in all respects, but many) we have house ruled, while keeping the general flavour of planescape as we liked it, so we never ran into many of the issues as others.  Damnit! all my arguments were due to our over excessive house ruling...as opposed to intelligent arguments! *sigh*  hehe atleast i know our game will be fine ongoing 


Sanjay


----------



## ~Johnny~ (Jan 9, 2008)

Hey, if anyone's jumping into this thread looking for details from the book, skip the past three pages (if you have the 30 posts per page view).

Not that the discussion isn't great, but it would be lovely to keep the focus on direct Q&A from people who have the book.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 9, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> I would still want to prepare to visit the Shadowfell, but it's a *lot* more interesting. If I don't last long enough on the negative because of its homogeneity of hostility, I don't get to have fun. That's not interesting -- focused areas that Just Kill You are fine, but an entire plane? Why bother? You have to shield yourself so heavily to go there that it `doesn't count` anymore.




Yup.  Adventuring on the 3E Inner Planes is actually pretty easy, because there's only one environmental hazard per plane.  Get the spell or magic item that counters that hazard, and you're good to go.  Of course, I don't know why you would want to go, because there's not much in those planes that's worth bothering with.  When all four elemental planes are dumped together into one, with Limbo tossed in for good measure, that's a _much_ more challenging environment than just "a whole lotta fire."

Consider: How many adventures have you run that took place on the Inner Planes?  How many have you run that took place on the Outer Planes?  For me, at least, the latter vastly outnumber the former.  In fact, I think I've only gone to the Inner Planes once in my entire 20 years of playing D&D.


----------



## Xyl (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I want rules for how the monster interacts with the world *in the statblock*, because *nothing outside the statblock matters*. Unfortunately, I fear most of these abilities and traits will be *moved outside the statblock* due to the process of streamlining the monster *statblock* for a single purpose -- combat.



Fixed.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 9, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Depending on what they mean by "strip away", it could be pretty easily explained.  Definitely, blanket immunities in 4e will be rare to non-existent from what has been said.




I think a great way to explain it is the magic being overpowered by the sheer force of what its protecting against. Think of this in game fluff surrounding it: Jozan casts _protection from fire_ on the Regdar to protect him from the dangers they will soon be facing. When they come across the dragon's fire archon minions who flank him, Regdar's protections flare up, a glowing red rune appearing on his arm signifying the spell. Later, when Regdar is hit by a red dragon's fiery breath, the rune glows red, then orange, then white, and finally it is gone, the fire far too hot for the spell, its sheer force overpowering it and dissipating its effect, at least for a time until the magic can reassert itself (or perhaps permenantly).

I like it!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 9, 2008)

> Fixed.




I don't really care if the rules are in the statblock or elsewhere (and a streamlined statblock is a great goal that doesn't need a lot of secondary information), but I do want to be able to reference it during play (e.g.: without having to re-read a paragraph). 

I just want them to BE THERE. And to actually BE RULES. It'd be a plus if they were good, and not 300 variations on "this is from the far realm!" and "this was crafted by the primordials!"

I would also want it to inform the mechanical choices made in the stat block. The combat statblock shouldn't invalidate use on the PC's side (by being too powerful, for instance), and should be consistent with the monster in the broader world context (how it lives shouldn't contradict how it fights).


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 9, 2008)

*I don't know...*

The 3E planes weren't as detailed as the 2E.

I use the 3E for some things, but any plane is refered to only via official 2E PS works...I find there are much more hazards and benefits listed there...only, it takes house ruling for much of the effects.

The whole fire elemental vs fire breathe I still don't agree with.  We use fire elementals to be a small sun almost (yes, in our games, a fire elemental will melt the environment around them and cause some pockets of air to ignire, etc).... a beam of fire (breathe weapon wouldn't hurt a star...it just won't!) That change I am very much against.  

I think immunities have their place.  But, some creatures in 3E have so many, it becomes a pain for parties to fight them.

I can appreciate that; but  I still don't agree with the blanket statement to get rid of them all.  Very...videogamish...

Sanjay


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jan 9, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> I can appreciate that; but  I still don't agree with the blanket statement to get rid of them all.  Very...videogamish...
> 
> Sanjay




No, most video games have flat immunities, a more detailed and staged system is _less_ videogamish.

Not saying it's better, just saying it has absolutely nothing to do with making D&D more like a video game.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's a very good goal for the monsters, and they need to fill that niche, too. But it's not ALL they need to do. And it's not because I desperately want to simulate a working world. It's because someday the PC's are going to take a step that I haven't really thought about and I'm going to need all the advice possible on how to deal with that step.
> 
> It is, but I don't have $5,000.




Well, then you'll just have to wait until June to get the rules, and wait until next January to publish. People who choose not to pay for the developers' kit aren't shut out, they'll just get access to the SRD later, and won't be able to publish before January 1, 2009. Which means that by this time next year, you'll be able to publish whatever you feel like.

As far as "simulationist" monsters go, I can understand the theory of not wanting all monsters to be the same. However, I imagine there will be a section in the _Monster Manual_ or DMG on how to customize monsters. If creatures are balanced primarily based on the actions they can take, there's nothing unbalancing about giving a monster a different (or maybe even extra) option that's roughly as powerful as its default abilities. This reflects the fact that a monter may have more abilities than the ones listed in its MM statblock, even if they are rarely useful in combat.

If those rules are good, that will provide all the benefits of 3e (totally customizable monsters) with one advantage 3e does NOT have - monsters that are playable right out of the book without any work on the DM's part. And for a lot of monsters (like dragons), that's somthing that just hasn't been true in previous editions.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But monsters more tied to the world allow me to do that seamlessly. They also allow me to use them as things other than combat XP bumps. I can use centaurs as guides in the forest, and dryads as allies against the orcs, and angels as benefactors of the party. If the Centaurs don't have skill information and the Dryads are over-powered if they help the PC's, and the only angels are those that want to kill the PC's for various reasons, the MM has failed it's duty to me; it's failed to give me creatures that can populate my world, only creatures that can populate my battles.



It's possible that you'll no longer find that kind of information in the 4E monster manuals. However, maybe that's because this book isn't the best place for that kind of information. Isn't such information better placed in books like the 3E Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and Lords of Madness?

Furthermore I had the impressions that for 4E monsters the designers didn't want to set the non-combat abilities of monsters into stone.
You want centaurs to be good forest guides? Fine, give them the appropriate skills.
You want centaurs to be the keepers of ancient lore? Fine, give them the appropriate skills.
Imho, this approach actually empowers the DM. You've got more creative freedom when populating your campaign world.

And, as has been mentioned already, this creates an excellent market niche for ecology style supplements from 3rd parties.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 9, 2008)

Will someone with 'Worlds and Monsters' PLEASE start a new thread where we can see the info without having to wade through arguments that have been had on MANY threads. I just want to know what is in the book....NOT what everyone thinks about something that is 'implied'.  A new thread would be better from someone willing to reveal some info and answer Q's, not just 'Ha, I got it so I'll start a thread and leave'. 

Just for the record....where does it say that monsters will NOT have a section devoted to non combat abilities? If dragons are casters just add levels of a spellcasting class = obvious to me. Combat  abilities only? What? Haven't some of these creatures ALREDY had several pages of fluff write-up and we aren't even at release yet? What will make these people happy?  ....Now back to thread - or a new one preferably.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Jan 9, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> It's possible that you'll no longer find that kind of information in the 4E monster manuals. However, maybe that's because this book isn't the best place for that kind of information. Isn't such information better placed in books like the 3E Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, and Lords of Madness?
> 
> Furthermore I had the impressions that for 4E monsters the designers didn't want to set the non-combat abilities of monsters into stone.
> You want centaurs to be good forest guides? Fine, give them the appropriate skills.
> ...




Holy Crap!  Empowering the DM!?!  You speak madness sir!

Seriously, I share your view.  I don't so much care about 3rd party products, but the empowered DM thing is right on.


----------



## Propheous_D (Jan 9, 2008)

I would like to tell you all how it is but its opinion and opinion means nothing. So I wil state this.

I want RULES in my RULES books. I want FLUFF in my FLUFF books. That means in the Core 3 I want 80% rules/guidelines and in my fluff books I want 80% fuff. 

This allows me to get exactly what I want and how I want it. How many of you remember the Realms when the books you bought for it were full of details and only a apendix or so of rules? I want to run a game in the Bloodstone Lands I pick up the splat bookf or relatively cheap and it gives me all the adventure hooks and details I need. The monsters are pretty much covered in the MM or the MM exert for the Realms itself. I get detailed information for what I want in relevance for what I want it for.

Who here remembers the ecology exerts from Dragon magazine. Through my fluff in the DNDI and magazines that I can poke through and enjoy. I want inspiration to be were I need it.

That is my opinion. 

As for this book looks awesome and I love everything I have heard. Dragons don't need magic to make thier lairs plausible I mean the pharoah didn't use magic to make the pyramids. Anyone thinking a dragon is useless with out its magic is silly. I never once ever feared a dragons ability to spell cast. Its toooooooo easy to counter. Now thier breath and thier melee that was scary.

I am glad they got rid of the whole alignment thing. DND has been way to hooked into the Alignment thing and no one ever got it right. The endless pathetic arguements about what chaos and lawful meant and weather it was a social reference or a ideological reference was mind numbing and such a hinderance to true RP.

More give us more.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> anyone thinking a dragon is useless with out its magic is silly.




Welcome to ENWorld 

I do hope you enjoy participating in the many threads we have here, but I must remind you that it is not OK to be rude to other people, and that includes calling other people silly with blanket generalisations.

If you've got any questions about this, feel free to email me.

Thanks


----------



## Imban (Jan 9, 2008)

For me, it's a bit of a balancing act. Obviously, it'd be unreasonable to expect, and I know I don't expect absolutely everything you do to be straight out of a book somewhere. Fantastic eldritch machines that power floating cities are cool, and we probably don't really need to know the exact area or amount of weight they can support. On the other hand, something like the "spell you've never heard of or seen with no roll made that's astoundingly effective" that I've run into a good few times - both in personal experience, and in some printed sources like the Avatar Trilogy modules that bridged 1e and 2e FR - instantly disengages me from the game and annoys me with the story. I personally lean much more towards wanting rules and stats for everything, because I'm a worldbuilder and a sandbox GM much more than I am a storyteller, so I address things from "does this result in a fun world structure that isn't laughable from a 5000' view, or maybe even a 2000' view" perspective.

For example, the Nine Hells in 3e were pretty laughable from a 5000' view. Asmodeus managed to rule them unquestionably. However, a lot of deities made their homes in the Nine Hells. By their written statblocks, even the god of kobolds could appear directly before Asmodeus at any time and nearly unfailingly slay him in a single blow. As such, the world structure was difficult to take seriously, because it failed to work within the rules presented.

A town of regular humans without any food supplies or trade would be pretty laughable from a 2000' view, as would the existence of tribes of kobolds whose weakest members were CR 19 who did not gravely impact regional politics, high-level (12+) brigands fully decked out in magic items and preying on 1st-level travelling commoners, et cetera.

I don't care quite so much about the sea-level view. I don't study how landmasses are formed, or study medieval economics, or whatnot, so I don't worry too hard about the economic model of the game working for commoners or whatnot. I just care when the error is so blatant that I can see it from 2000 feet up.

While the kobolds and the Nine Hells structure both fall into these sorts of errors, the former being bad worldbuilding and the latter being bad *for* worldbuilding because of its place in the assumed cosmology of pre-4e D&D, the main objection is to things like the latter where, without extensive writing, a being cannot actually do the things it has been described as doing or is described as doing, because it is a combat statblock with a description stapled on.


----------



## Greenfaun (Jan 9, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> I like the Iron Dragon. I don't like the Adamantine Dragon. I could never remember the difference between the Brass and Bronze dragon
> 
> I don't like the Adamantine Dragon because it's not one of the classical metals -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planets_in_Western_alchemy -- and because it's just a supermetal, more "iron" than iron is. Blech. I would have preferred Mercury or Lead as a dragontype, instead. Indeed, depending on what Adamantine Dragons get, I may just _call_ them Leaden Dragons.
> 
> Looking forward to the shadow power source.




I totally agree. Iron Dragons yay, Adamantite boo. Even if you're using fantasy metals, Mithril would be better, and even Mithril would be stupid. 

Although, Mercury Dragons are a very interesting possibility... Especially as a poison-breathing metallic... hmmm...


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 9, 2008)

Greenfaun said:
			
		

> I totally agree. Iron Dragons yay, Adamantite boo. Even if you're using fantasy metals, Mithril would be better, and even Mithril would be stupid.
> 
> Although, Mercury Dragons are a very interesting possibility... Especially as a poison-breathing metallic... hmmm...



I considered that in my post, but cut it because it wasn't pithy enough for me.

Iron is to adamantite as Silver is to Mithril as Gold is to Orichalcum as Copper is to... Bronze?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 10, 2008)

Greenfaun said:
			
		

> I totally agree. Iron Dragons yay, Adamantite boo. Even if you're using fantasy metals, Mithril would be better, and even Mithril would be stupid.
> 
> Although, Mercury Dragons are a very interesting possibility... Especially as a poison-breathing metallic... hmmm...




Adamant is an ancient word for "diamond" that was sometimes applied to superhard mythical substances. 

For example, in some versions of Norse mythology, Loki was bound underground by adamantine chains.

"Adamant" or "adamantine" is also used in Edmund Spenser's _Faerie Queen_ and John Milton's _Paradise Lost_, and Greek mythology, so it has fairly old precedent in mythology and fantasy literature. More recently, Marvel Comics has 'adamantium' and _World of Warcraft_ and _Runescape_ both have 'adamantite.'

So 'adamantine' is older, more widespread, and has far more mythological tradition than 'mithril' which Tolkien pretty much invented (and D&D swiped with a slight respelling).


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 10, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Adamant is an ancient word for "diamond" that was sometimes applied to superhard mythical substances.
> 
> For example, in some versions of Norse mythology, Loki was bound underground by adamantine chains.
> 
> ...



Yes But. That's just not what it means in D&D, especially in the context of metal. But, yeah, it's a pretty kickass word 

Doesn't stop Mithril from being more poetic in this specific context, to me. I wouldn't want a Mithril dragon, either -- more silver than silver.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 10, 2008)

Every time someone suggests Mercury dragon I'm thinking "why would I want a dragon which is liquid at room temperature??


----------



## Klaus (Jan 10, 2008)

No, not the Bronze! It had the coolest design of all 10 core dragons!!!


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 10, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Every time someone suggests Mercury dragon I'm thinking "why would I want a dragon which is liquid at room temperature??




Think the T-1000, only with wings.


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 10, 2008)

> How many of you remember the Realms when the books you bought for it were full of details and only a apendix or so of rules?




You mean the vast majority of 3e FR books? 

Anyways, I don't see Adamantine or Mithril as 'perfected' metals at all.  Just like titanium and aluminium (or platinum) aren't 'more iron than iron' or 'more silver than silver'.  They're different metals.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 10, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Yes But. That's just not what it means in D&D, especially in the context of metal. But, yeah, it's a pretty kickass word
> 
> Doesn't stop Mithril from being more poetic in this specific context, to me. I wouldn't want a Mithril dragon, either -- more silver than silver.




Sure it is. In D&D:

Adamantine = hard, dense, easily enchantable metal.

In a D&D world, adamantine and mithral are elemental metals as real as gold, silver, copper, tin, mercury, lead, zinc, nickel, chromium, platinum or a host of others. By contrast, brass and bronze are just alloys, like steel.

I think that's why they chose to go with iron and adamantine. I admit mercury might have been compelling, but  most of the other metals aren't exactly "sexy."

Tin dragons? Lead? Zinc? Please.

Bronze and brass were fine for legacy value...but that's about it. On the other hand...can dragons of different colors interbreed? Is it possible there is a "tin dragon" out there somewhere, so that the offspring of a copper and a tin dragon would be brass? :\ 

Personally, I liked the presentation of dragons in _Dragonheart_ and many other places, where color wasn't necessarily indicative of anything. Although I generally make an exception for the one variant dragon type that makes sense to me - the "frost" dragon.

Everything else seems so...arbitrary.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 10, 2008)

Howdy! 



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Mercury is an underused metal in D&D. We got every kind of Golem imaginable, including absurd things that should have been oozes or undead instead, but never a Mercury Golem?






			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Mercury golems would be cool- all liquid metal killing machines like the T-1000...




There are Mercury Golems (along with Mercury Guardians, Mercury Sentinels, Mercury Gargants, Mercury Colossi and Mercury Leviathans) in the *Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary: Volume One*.

The Mercury Golem in that book is CR 19, although the Mercury Guardian (Medium Size: CR 12) is probably more the T-1000 you are looking for.

/End Shameless Plug.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 10, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sure it is. In D&D:
> 
> Adamantine = hard, dense, easily enchantable metal.
> 
> ...




While I see your point, mine was that the classically alchemical metals are cool for dragons, but as you drift from that, I become a sad panda.
Adamantine Dragons just sort of channel the Turbonium Dragon (from Hackmaster) for me.
And as for "not more iron than iron" -- you described adamantine as a hard, dense, and easily enchantable metal.
So then what's steel? What's iron? My point is that the magical qualities of iron and steel are precisely those, and so while it's not *ridiculous* to have an adamanatine dragon, it's not as good (for me) as a Lead dragon.

But, yeah. A Tin or Zinc dragon would be ridiculous. At least they avoided those


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 10, 2008)

Edit: deleting this, posted after reading a few pages, then saw mods have asked the issue to be dropped...


----------



## zen_hydra (Jan 10, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Bronze and brass were fine for legacy value...but that's about it. On the other hand...can dragons of different colors interbreed? Is it possible there is a "tin dragon" out there somewhere, so that the offspring of a copper and a tin dragon would be brass? :\




I am pretty sure that bronze is an alloy of tin and copper (not brass).  

Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc.


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 10, 2008)

Mercury always makes me think of horrible, debilitating brain damage.  I really don't like mercury as a fantasy metal.

And Iron has a pretty boss anti-magic vibe going on.  Cold iron vs fae, for example.


----------



## zen_hydra (Jan 10, 2008)

double post


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 10, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> The different colors of Dragon have different monster roles - in other words, some are artillery (blue), some are brutes (white), some are soldiers (red) and so on



whites.. _brutes_? Did they beef the the white dragon up? Might explain why the gargantuan while dragon mini looked so buffed. 







			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> Dragons have fewer abilities, focused on the most iconic ones (continuing the theme).  For example, the oldest black dragon is said to have only five possible standard actions, with unique magical abilities taking the place of spells simply taken from the wizard's lists.



I so hope the black dragon gets a horn attack.







			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> Dragons aren't forced into specific 'alignments'.  Their motives can vary from a baseline - chromatic are wild, metallic like to be in control but good and evil manifests in each.



I am so glad to hear this. For too long have metallic dragon minis sat on shelves. Bad guy gold dragons are the first step. The second step involves those tentacle whiskers…







			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> There are two new flavours of metallic dragon which displace bronze and brass from the core group.  The new metallics are Iron and Adamantine.



Cool. I had trouble telling them apart myself.  Adamant better have kick ass AC. Yes this means that silver, iron and adamant dragon minis now play the look alike game, but at least now shading can help differentiate them. Dark metal and dull coat = Adamant, Mid range metal tinged with rust =  iron, Bright and glossy = silver,




			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> chromatic dragons grow in raw elemental power as they age which manifests as unique new powers related to the appropriate element.  An ancient red's breath weapon, for example, can 'scour the fire resistance right off you'



Also like the bursts of elemental energy they can now fart out like that preview red dragon did.







			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> An all new look and set of powers for the green dragon; they are back to breathing poison!



The nose horn looks stupid. Though good to hear they are toxic again.







			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> There are Huge versions of the standard giants called Titans - these are more closely tied to the elements and have greater power



Heard bout this from the wotc guy who wanted ALL giants to start at huge. Now that would have been cool.

THANKS WARTORN!


----------



## Propheous_D (Jan 10, 2008)

I have to agree that I am a bit bewildered why people are frowning on the idea of an adamantine dragon. I mean hasn't adamantine been in DnD forever? I think aside from the mercurial swords in one reference resource I rarely if ever have seen mercury mentioned at all. So I would personally think it would definately be a tougher fit in the universe.

I think the idea of a Cold Iron Dragon could be quite interesting if done in combination with a Fey based adventure. I mean that to me just says mortal enemy right there. Especially if you tie it into a Warlock who gains his power form wild/fey like influences.l Could even take it one step further into a Wizard who has managed to alter a baby iron dragons eggs, or even sending the adventurers out to get a baby iron dragons eggs so that a wizard can alter the baby into something that he can use against an encroachment of fey.....


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Reducing the monster to it's lowest common denominator (XP Speedbump) won't work for me. I want rules for how the monster interacts with the world, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately, I fear most of these abilities and traits will be shunted aside due to the process of streamlining the monster for a single purpose -- combat.




I've looked at the same information and come to the opposite conclusion.

I *prefer* monster stats to be limited solely to combat stats. That way, I can--within the rules--give my monsters whatever noncombat abilities I wish.

If I want a standard orc to also be a master craftsman with a +20 Blacksmith check, I can. 

If I want a Dragon to be a dullard bully with a zero ranks in any social skills, I can.

In 3E, neither of those would be possible. In order to "earn" the required skill points, that blacksmith would have to be advanced with HD and class levels, which would add unwanted HP, BAB, Saves, and other nonsense. The Dragon would have to have a humongous penalty to Int and Cha, or suffer some kind of curse, of something. 

It seems like 4E is going toward giving monsters what they *need*--combat stats--and leaving the noncombat bits intentionally vague, for DMs to fill in as the adventure warrants.

I realize that 3E had rule zero, and certainly DMs can (and have) been improvising since the dawn of time. My point is that 4E seems like it's going to explicitly encourage such improvisation. The tone seems to be "This monster has these combat stats, but it fills whatever noncombat story role you as DM require."

-z


----------



## Shroomy (Jan 10, 2008)

Let's face it, 99.9% of monsters are in the game to be killed in a few rounds, so it makes sense IMO to design them around that fact.  As long as I can make a monster more complex via a template (or a similar mechanic), add classes, or otherwise tinker with them, I'm cool with what they are doing.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 10, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I realize that 3E had rule zero, and certainly DMs can (and have) been improvising since the dawn of time. My point is that 4E seems like it's going to explicitly encourage such improvisation.




Oh no!

A game that encourages imagination?! What ever will we do!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I can't help but feel a little...puzzled, by the attitude that GMs have all these rigid limitations to what they can do. In the olden days, and in every other RPG on the market, a GM was _supposed_ to come up with new stuff all the time. It was expected.

As for the other side of the debate- if a monster ability doesn't come up in combat, why even bother to stat it out at all? If you want a dragon to be able to, I dunno, create mountains or something, just say it can do that.


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 10, 2008)

Ok here's the significant details on the remainder of the book:

The Elemental Chaos:

An evolution of the inner planes better suited to adventuring (and not just one homogenous mass of element) - more dangerous than lethal.

Inahbitants include:  Primordials, Elementals, Efreet, Djinn, Demons, Slaads, Titans, Githzerai

The City of Brass is mentioned as a location of note

The concept of "Elemental Evil" as represented in TOEE is recognized as core, on par with the Nine Hells

Consists of four factions with noteworthy differences between them.  A 'fire elemental' can refer to any of a number of different shaped creatures, which can be composed of more than just fire; a 'serpentine trail of flame that spits magma' or a 'hill-giant sized humanoid of burning cinders who breathes gouts of fire' are given as examples

The Abyss is now part of the Elemental Chaos, with the stock Demon Princes recast as corrupted primordials

'at least one Demon Lord' appears in the Monster manual as an epic level adversary

They were considering at time of press allowing demons to gain immunity to a damage type of their choosing a few times per day

Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons (of which the first is confirmed to be in the Monster Manual)


The Astral Sea:

Counterpart to the Elemental Chaos

Inahbitants include:  Gods, Angels, Devils,

Dominions, especially Abandoned ones, found throughout the Astral Sea are 'adventure sites custom made for epic characters'

Continuing the theme, the Astral Sea and its Dominions are much easier to play in, at least for epic level characters.

The pantheon mentioned is: Bahamut, Vecna, Avandra, Zehir, Ioun, Pelor, Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, Corellon, Moradin, Kord, Bane, The  Raven Queen, Asmodeus, Torog

The full pantheon has 'twenty plus one' gods 

The gods are less connected with Race

There are Angels for all gods, both good and bad- they are described as 'the cold, clinical expression of a deity's plans' and 'the frontline warriors in the wars amongst the gods'.  Some interesting fluff to back all that up.

Demons and Devils are more distinct in battle.  This is summarized as:

- 'Demons are chaotic, Devils are organized'
- 'Demons kill, Devils subvert'
- 'Demons are tough, Devils are slippery'

The section 'Staff thoughts on 4th Edition' is largely reprinted material from blogs and articles

Lastly thought I'd point out that they explicitly state that the bronze and brass dragons will be released by WOTC in a future supplement.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jan 10, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Lastly thought I'd point out that they explicitly state that the bronze and brass dragons will be released by WOTC in a future supplement.




Phew! Thank you for pointing that out.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons (of which the first is confirmed to be in the Monster Manual)



Rock on!

The alignment shakeout continues, and I definitely approve.



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> The pantheon mentioned is: Bahamut, Vecna, Avandra, Zehir, Ioun, Pelor, Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, Corellon, Moradin, Kord, Bane, The Raven Queen, Asmodeus, Torog
> 
> The full pantheon has 'twenty plus one' gods
> 
> The gods are less connected with Race



Interesting pantheon---it's like the D&D Dream Team.

Since removing racial gods was the *first* thing I did in my initial 3e homebrew, that's another point in the '4e looks like my house rules' column.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2008)

(double post)


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 10, 2008)

The interesting thing to do might have been to eliminate chromatic dragons altogether and go with more metallic dragons...

Black --> Iron Dragon
Blue --> Cobalt Dragon 
Red --> Cadmium Dragon


----------



## A'koss (Jan 10, 2008)

- The Elemental Chaos I find to be the most interesting change to the core cosmology. Elemental Evil written into the core books fills me with giddy glee.   

- The City of Brass gets mentioned... awesome. 

- Creating a wider range of elemental mosnters... even more awesomer.

- Demon Lords as corrupt Primordials... I need to see more on this before saying one way or the other.

- Including "at least one" Demon Lord in the MM, okay. But once again I pray that they are created powerful enough to be able to believably control their realms. That means they have to be *head and shoulders *more powerful than any generic monster. The one thing that always gnawed at me was that WotC published loads of Fiend Lords who weren't even as powerful as Elder Dragons. 

- Demons with immunities of their choice? Odd... I'd like to know more to see where they're going with this.

- Mezzo/Nyca-demons or _daemons_? Are Daemons getting folded into Demons now? What about the Arcanadaemon (the most interesting of the lot)?

- Astral Dominions sound cool, a nice Epic Level playground.

- The Gods and the Good & Evil Angels we knew about - it'll be interesting to see what Angels they come up with.


----------



## Tuerny (Jan 10, 2008)

I must admit I am sad to see the yugoloths go. But not so much that I won't adopt 4e.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Oh no!
> 
> A game that encourages imagination?! What ever will we do!
> 
> ...




Well, yeah, that's why 4E rocks.  It's moving things back in the direction of encouraging (or even requiring) DMs to improvise, and away from requiring everything to use the exact same mechanics. 

Again: 3E had the rule zero, but the perception was that using that rule was a last resort. DMs were "supposed" to follow the mechanics, and if a 1 HD orc simply cannot have a +20 Craft check because his max rank is +4, then that's the way it's supposed to be. A DM (particularly, a Living Greyhawk DM or module writer) would be required to level up that orc or patch in all sorts of crazy feats if his adventure called for a skilled blacksmith orc.

No longer, it seems. I get the strong impression that 4E doesn't use PC the ruleset for generating NPC abilities, or even generally stat up anything but combat stats. And to be clear: I think that's a _very_ good thing.

From a mechanical standpoint, I imagine that there are monster combat stats, and then there are general suggestions for monster role. For example, the white dragon is described as a brute. I imagine the white dragon will have hard combat stats, and the brute--a separately-referenced stat block--will have it's own combat ability or two, plus suggestions for noncombat abilities. Something like "Generally, brutes have Intimidate at [party level +4], physical skills such as climb and jump at [party level +1], and knowledge, bluff, and diplomacy social skills at [party level -6]." This way you can have, say, an Orc Brute, Orc Leader, and Orc Sneaker, and be able to quickly generate stats and abilities. One entry for Orc that's specific for that particular monster, and three entries for the monster's role (essentially templates). 

But even that might be too much rules. However it turns out, I like the direction they're going.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 10, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Bronze and brass were fine for legacy value...but that's about it.




I don't care one whit about legacy, but I'm still gonna miss these guys.

Because their concepts (A coastal dragon that manipulates the weather and is close friends with mortal races, and a dragon of the rocky deserts who carves their home into living rock and likes to tell riddles from secluded caves) are really cool concepts. 

Missing that from the game is sad, though I'm willing to give them a chance to make it up with the new dragons.



			
				Zarathustran said:
			
		

> I've looked at the same information and come to the opposite conclusion.
> 
> I *prefer* monster stats to be limited solely to combat stats. That way, I can--within the rules--give my monsters whatever noncombat abilities I wish.
> 
> ...




If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:

I want RULES. "Make Stuff Up" is a profoundly crappy rule.

And you're looking at it backwards. It's not that I need an orc with a +20 Blacksmith skill. It's that I look at an orc, see that it has +20 blacksmith, and infer a whole host of world details from that. These world details ground the creature, and give me dots to connect to other features of the world. If it has +20 blacksmith, that must mean that it has a forge somewhere, makes a lot of weapons maybe, that other nations will buy because they're very good, and if other nations buy them, this orc must be fairly friendly with regards to at least some other nations, but if he's still Evil, maybe these nations are Evil too, meaning he's the chief blacksmith of a vast goblinoid empire.

I took a skill bonus, spun it into an Empire. These are things that I can do on the fly easily in 3e. It's something 4e will make harder for me, it seems, and this means that it will take longer to prep a game for me, and thus 4e will fail miserably at it's goal to reduce the fiddly bits in D&D by not giving me what I need out of the game, forcing me to create it myself if I want it. 



> In 3E, neither of those would be possible. In order to "earn" the required skill points, that blacksmith would have to be advanced with HD and class levels, which would add unwanted HP, BAB, Saves, and other nonsense. The Dragon would have to have a humongous penalty to Int and Cha, or suffer some kind of curse, of something.




This completely untrue.

You're forgetting the most prominent rule in any edition of D&D:

The DM can do whatever the heck he wants.

This has always been ESPECIALLY true with monsters. No part of 3e or any other edition prevented you from having an orc or a dragon like you describe, and many, many parts actually encouraged it.



> It seems like 4E is going toward giving monsters what they *need*--combat stats--and leaving the noncombat bits intentionally vague, for DMs to fill in as the adventure warrants.
> 
> I realize that 3E had rule zero, and certainly DMs can (and have) been improvising since the dawn of time. My point is that 4E seems like it's going to explicitly encourage such improvisation. The tone seems to be "This monster has these combat stats, but it fills whatever noncombat story role you as DM require."




You see, that's the problem. I don't have a specific story requirement I need filled. My games are flexible, on-the-fly kinds of things, rather than heavily pre-planned and pre-meditated. I don't know what I'm going to need a monster for. That's why I rely on the designers to tell me what the monster is supposed to be doing.

They're going to do an admirable job of telling me what the monster should be doing in combat, I'm sure, but I am going to need more than that. I'm going to need to know what the monster is doing in the world, in the woods, in this neighborhood, what it's doing interacting with the PC's, what it's dreams and goals are, what it's life is like before it meets the PC's, and what it will be doing when they are gone. 

If they ignore that, then they've made me pre-plan my games more than I have had to before, _increasing_ the prep time I need to run a game.

This is a problem.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm going to need to know what the monster is doing in the world, in the woods, in this neighborhood, what it's doing interacting with the PC's, what it's dreams and goals are, what it's life is like before it meets the PC's, and what it will be doing when they are gone.




Do you need rules for that?  Isn't that what the background fluff and ecology information are for?

The way I look at it, the only thing I _need_ a stat block for is _if_ my players end up fighting that monster.  This allows me to assign situationally appropriate out of combat abilities when they are needed and not create a tie between those abilities and combat abilities.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Jan 10, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Since removing racial gods was the *first* thing I did in my initial 3e homebrew, that's another point in the '4e looks like my house rules' column.




Hold on a second - 3 of those gods are racial specific. Grumush, Correleon and Moradin. I'm coming to the thread late but I would guess the halflings will get their own god too (the Raven Queen?) I haven't read the book but I would be surprised if worshipping Grumush was a logical possibility for the human in the party.

Looks to me like they have kept quiet a few racial specific dieties which I don't mind.


----------



## Sonny (Jan 10, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:
			
		

> Hold on a second - 3 of those gods are racial specific. Grumush, Correleon and Moradin. I'm coming to the thread late but I would guess the halflings will get their own god too (the Raven Queen?) I haven't read the book but I would be surprised if worshipping Grumush was a logical possibility for the human in the party.
> 
> Looks to me like they have kept quiet a few racial specific dieties which I don't mind.





Those deities are no longer just for elves, dwarves and orcs. Heck, the elf write-up even mentions evil elves sometimes worshiping Gruumsh.


----------



## Roman (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I want RULES. "Make Stuff Up" is a profoundly crappy rule.




I agree completely. 



> The DM can do whatever the heck he wants.
> 
> This has always been ESPECIALLY true with monsters. No part of 3e or any other edition prevented you from having an orc or a dragon like you describe, and many, many parts actually encouraged it.




Yes, the DM can do whatever he wants - that much is obvious and need not even be stated. I buy a D&D game, however, to give me rules, not to be forced to make them all up myself.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jan 10, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Inahbitants include:  Primordials, Elementals, Efreet, Djinn, Demons, Slaads, Titans, Githzerai
> 
> The City of Brass is mentioned as a location of note



Good.  I want more info on these Primordials, though.



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons (of which the first is confirmed to be in the Monster Manual)



Closer to their original names and, hopefully, closer to their original concepts. Does anyone know if they'll have the correct number of limbs this time?



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> The pantheon mentioned is: Bahamut, Vecna, Avandra, Zehir, Ioun, Pelor, Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, Corellon, Moradin, Kord, Bane, The  Raven Queen, Asmodeus, Torog



Asmodeus, a deity? The devil, you say...  :\ 

and Lolth should get back down in the Abyss where she belongs! 



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> The gods are less connected with Race



That's a positive step.

Sam


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 10, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think that's why they chose to go with iron and adamantine. I admit mercury might have been compelling, but  most of the other metals aren't exactly "sexy."
> 
> Tin dragons? Lead? Zinc? Please.




Precious Molybdenum!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 10, 2008)

Do they explain what Exarchs are?  And how they're something else different from Angels?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 10, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> Asmodeus, a deity? The devil, you say...  :\




Indeed. Devils are now angels who rebelled and slew the god they served. Asmodeus, being the greatest of the rebels, took on the godhead. The astral realm of the god twisted into a prison called the Nine Hells, from which Asmodeus and his followers wish to escape.



> and Lolth should get back down in the Abyss where she belongs!




Apparently, she still will be. Although the origin story is slightly different, she still becomes the Demon Queen of Spiders.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Apparently, she still will be. Although the origin story is slightly different, she still becomes the Demon Queen of Spiders.




Really, I thought the Demon Web Pits might be an Astral Dominion?


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And you're looking at it backwards. It's not that I need an orc with a +20 Blacksmith skill. It's that I look at an orc, see that it has +20 blacksmith, and infer a whole host of world details from that. These world details ground the creature, and give me dots to connect to other features of the world.




I find it ironic that you are complaining about there not being enough "fluff" rules while many other people are complaining that the "fluff" is messing the rules up.

The strangest thing is that we both use "improve" DMing, but I find the current stat blocks overwhelming and distracting from doing that. There is _to much_ rules there for my use. So I'm happy to see the statblocks reduced to "combat abilities" with the flexibility to assign whatever social role I want to monsters. 

It might also pay to wait to see a full 4E monster write up before condeming the 4E monster rules - because so far we haven't seen a single MM entry and so have no factual evidence to debate the quality of monsters on at all. (Yes I know of the Bone Devil DDM card - but its not a MM write up, its a summary card for quick reference.)


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

What I didn't like about the 3rd Ed Skill system is that if you wanted a wicked NPC musician, he would have to have tons of HD (a lot of hp) so you could pump up that Perform (instrument) check, which doesn't make sense, I mean look at guys like Mozart, Jimi Hendrix and Allan Holdsworth, these dudes would have a sick amount of Ranks in Perform (instrument), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 10, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> What I didn't like about the 3rd Ed Skill system is that if you wanted a wicked NPC musician, he would have to have tons of HD...




And in 1e if you wanted a bard, you had to begin as a fighter for L6-8, switch over to thief for L7-9, THEN you could become a bard.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 10, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> And in 1e if you wanted a bard, you had to begin as a fighter for L6-8, switch over to thief for L7-9, THEN you could become a bard.




You forgot the Druid levels


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> And in 1e if you wanted a bard, you had to begin as a fighter for L6-8, switch over to thief for L7-9, THEN you could become a bard.




Yep, you were a fighter/thief under druidic tutelage.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 10, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> What I didn't like about the 3rd Ed Skill system is that if you wanted a wicked NPC musician, he would have to have tons of HD (a lot of hp) so you could pump up that Perform (instrument) check, which doesn't make sense, I mean look at guys like Mozart, Jimi Hendrix and Allan Holdsworth, these dudes would have a sick amount of Ranks in Perform (instrument), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.



 Sharmahoc The Great - Human Expert 4
S 8 D 10 Co 9 I 11 W 12 Ch 14
HD 4d6-4 hp 4
Skills Bluff, +9, Craft (music) +10, Perform (string instruments) +12, Profession (musician) +8, Listen +10, Knowledge (local) +7, Spot +3.
Feats Skill Focus (Perform), Skill Focus (Craft [music]), Alertness.
Attack: dagger +2 melee (1d4-1).

Perform +12 isn't good enough for you?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Perform +12 isn't good enough for you?




Not to pull of Allan Holdsworth's technique:


http://www.therealallanholdsworth.com/


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 10, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Sharmahoc The Great - Human Expert 4
> S 8 D 10 Co 9 I 11 W 12 Ch 14
> HD 4d6-4 hp 4
> Skills Bluff, +9, Craft (music) +10, Perform (string instruments) +12, Profession (musician) +8, Listen +10, Knowledge (local) +7, Spot +3.
> ...




If you don't mind that by mid-levels, PCs and NPC characters are going to be beating that Perform bonus ragged.  "The Great" won't be able to win any Perform contests against even mid-level PCs or NPCs that keep Perform max ranked at all (let alone if they use feats or magic).  So in Greyhawk or the Realms, if there was a kingdom wide contest, the only way Sharmahoc could rank anywhere is if none of the mid or higher level bards in the kingdom bothered to show up (bards noted to exist in the DMG standard community tables).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't care one whit about legacy, but I'm still gonna miss these guys.
> 
> Because their concepts (A coastal dragon that manipulates the weather and is close friends with mortal races, and a dragon of the rocky deserts who carves their home into living rock and likes to tell riddles from secluded caves) are really cool concepts.
> 
> Missing that from the game is sad, though I'm willing to give them a chance to make it up with the new dragons.




You must have missed Wartorn in post #197 where he says



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> Lastly thought I'd point out that they explicitly state that the bronze and brass dragons will be released by WOTC in a future supplement.


----------



## Derren (Jan 10, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> If you don't mind that by mid-levels, PCs and NPC characters are going to be beating that Perform bonus ragged.  "The Great" won't be able to win any Perform contests against even mid-level PCs or NPCs that keep Perform max ranked at all (let alone if they use feats or magic).  So in Greyhawk or the Realms, if there was a kingdom wide contest, the only way Sharmahoc could rank anywhere is if none of the mid or higher level bards in the kingdom bothered to show up (bards noted to exist in the DMG standard community tables).




And how is that a problem? I don't think it is wrong that people who dedicate their entire career to music and are so powerful that they can alter reality through song and music are among the best musicians in the world.

I would be more concerned if Ugoff the ork barbarian who never touched a musical instrument in his life would  be a great musician (thats how it works in SAGA).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 10, 2008)

> Do you need rules for that? Isn't that what the background fluff and ecology information are for?




If they're going to say "orcs are the greatest blacksmiths ever," I should get rules to support that in my game. Otherwise, they're telling me to make stuff up, which, again, sucks as a rule.

If they're going to say "dragons are bestial marauders," then they should mechanically BE bestial marauders, low on Int, high on Con, ready to melee-rumble, but also with great perception to lead them to prey. 

It also takes time out of the middle of the game if I have to read a paragraph of prose to get to the business end of what, outside of combat, these things can do, whereas a quick reference to a skill or a feat or an alignment or a habitat/terrain or a specific noncombat ritual can communicate the idea much more effectively, and link to other mechanics that are shared between this creature and others.

There's also the issue of this not really being "fluff." It doesn't affect combat, but with things like the Social Encounter system being presented, noncombat doesn't just boil down to opposed skill checks. 



> The way I look at it, the only thing I need a stat block for is if my players end up fighting that monster. This allows me to assign situationally appropriate out of combat abilities when they are needed and not create a tie between those abilities and combat abilities.




But players will do much more with monsters than fight them.

And a monster's noncombat abilities give it a pre-packaged niche in the world that can be used and expanded on the fly. The designers can tell me where this mosnter was intended to go, and then I can put it there in an instant. If they don't tell me that, I have to do the work myself, which eats up time.



> I find it ironic that you are complaining about there not being enough "fluff" rules while many other people are complaining that the "fluff" is messing the rules up.
> 
> The strangest thing is that we both use "improve" DMing, but I find the current stat blocks overwhelming and distracting from doing that. There is to much rules there for my use. So I'm happy to see the statblocks reduced to "combat abilities" with the flexibility to assign whatever social role I want to monsters.




I don't know what social role I want them to have when I choose them out of the MM. I rely on the noncombat information to tell me, at a glance, what social role they could/do occupy. That +20 Religion might be useless for the BBEG's combat prowess, but it gives him a context that implies other relations that I can use on a moment's notice. 



> It might also pay to wait to see a full 4E monster write up before condeming the 4E monster rules - because so far we haven't seen a single MM entry and so have no factual evidence to debate the quality of monsters on at all. (Yes I know of the Bone Devil DDM card - but its not a MM write up, its a summary card for quick reference.)




That's why all I'm doing is expressing a concern. I'm not condemning them yet, I'm just saying that I would, under these circumstances. And it appears, from the language they use and the direction the design is taking, that these circumstances are not entirely unlikely. So it's a valid concern to have and voice.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 10, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Not to pull of Allan Holdsworth's technique:
> 
> 
> http://www.therealallanholdsworth.com/



 With Perform +12, this musician can pull off great performances (DC 20, as defined in the PHB) without even trying (i.e., Taking 10). With the barest of efforts, he can make memorable performances (DC 25).

If you factor in a masterwork instrument and a four-man band aiding his check (in other words, the band works to make the frontman look great), you're looking at a +20 modifier. With the barest effort, that's enough to attract the attention of extraplanar beings (DC 30)!

Not bad for a 4th-level NPC with 4 hit points.


----------



## Derren (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If they're going to say "orcs are the greatest blacksmiths ever," I should get rules to support that in my game. Otherwise, they're telling me to make stuff up, which, again, sucks as a rule.
> 
> If they're going to say "dragons are bestial marauders," then they should mechanically BE bestial marauders, low on Int, high on Con, ready to melee-rumble, but also with great perception to lead them to prey.




3E Mind Flayers are a good example for this.
Their fluff says that they created huge empires consisting out of dominated slaves (and they still build their cities that way). but they lacked any dominate ability. They could only charm monsters and they charmed individuals are no slaves.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Not bad for a 4th-level NPC with 4 hit points.




Yeah, but still not Epic as our old Allan!


----------



## takasi (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It also takes time out of the middle of the game if I have to read a paragraph of prose to get to the business end of what, outside of combat, these things can do, whereas a quick reference to a skill or a feat or an alignment or a habitat/terrain or a specific noncombat ritual can communicate the idea much more effectively, and link to other mechanics that are shared between this creature and others.




I am not going to remember "+2 racial bonus to Jump, Climb and Craft" in a monster book.  A little prose will make it easier though, especially if there's a little backstory that explains why they are such great blacksmiths, or what they have crafted.

And I am rarely building cultural qualities about of my campaign world in the middle of the game.  I am, however, running combat in (almost) every game and often using stat blocks I'm unfamiliar with.


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And how is that a problem? I don't think it is wrong that people who dedicate their entire career to music and are so powerful that they can alter reality through song and music are among the best musicians in the world.
> 
> I would be more concerned if Ugoff the ork barbarian who never touched a musical instrument in his life would  be a great musician (thats how it works in SAGA).




The problem that many people perceive is that in D&D, skill ranks are innately tied to level, which intimately links attack bonuses, save bonuses and many other bonuses to skill ranks.  Because of this, you indeed get the phenomena as noted above that the most skilled person in any profession is always a combat and adventuring capable character.  If this is reasonable to your world-building, that is fine.  It would result in the world's greatest authors, rock stars, scientists and historians all having high levels and therefore being capable combatants and adventurers.  Many world builders prefer not to tie skill ranks to level so tightly and therefore allowing the world's greatest painter not to  be a high level Expert.

The obvious answer is that there is no reason to tie skill rank to level for NPCs or monsters.  The whole reason skill rank in the PH are tied to level is because PC creation rules are designed to create starting PCs that are members of adventuring parties.  It assumes that PCs using these rules will be part of typical D&D campaigns and be spending time overcoming combat and non-combat challenges along the way.  It also assumes that there is some need to balance their relative skills against each other and the level appropriate challenges they face.

NPC generation and simulation should not be limited by any of these factors.  An NPC who spends their entire life away from combat and adventuring situations should very well be able to have a Knowledge (History) that has no relation to their level.  There is no need to require that NPCs be generated with a system created for entirely another purpose.  If world-builders wish to create a world resembling many fantasy fictional worlds where the most highly skilled poet may be a sheltered person without all the trappings of high level, there is no need to use such a system.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Jan 10, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I've looked at the same information and come to the opposite conclusion.
> 
> I *prefer* monster stats to be limited solely to combat stats. That way, I can--within the rules--give my monsters whatever noncombat abilities I wish.
> 
> ...




Zaruthustran is my hero...and a snappy dresser to boot.  Well put good sir.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 10, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> wartorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounding like it so far. 

My money is riding on the "plus one" is good old Tharizdun.







			
				A’koss said:
			
		

> - Demon Lords as corrupt Primordials... I need to see more on this before saying one way or the other.



Hmm, think the elemental princes of evil will be bumping shoulders with demon lords now? Maybe they will now be one in the same…







			
				A’koss said:
			
		

> - Mezzo/Nyca-demons or daemons? Are Daemons getting folded into Demons now? What about the Arcanadaemon (the most interesting of the lot)?



They are probably demons. I am hoping the Arcanadæmon is the ‘walking around form’ of the Glabrazu. Kinda like a were-demon.



 frankthedm 10-23-07 said:


> Most of the Daemons will get absorbed by the demon camp just because of their appearances. The Arcanaloth could be tied into the Glabrazu some how, possibly even combining the two, with the huge Glabrezu being the Crinos / Warform.
> 
> and I bet the piscoloth and Hydroloth will team up with the Hezrou. Though I have a hard time picturing them not merging the Hydroloth with the Hezrou.


----------



## Derren (Jan 10, 2008)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Zaruthustran is my hero...and a snappy dresser to boot.  Well put good sir.




Monsters having social stats does not prevent you from anything. You can always change it.
But when they have those stats you can easily recognize how this monster would fit into the world and what it would do. You wouldn't need to make it up.
Also those stats might give an idea about possible plot hooks. I certainly can thing of more plot hooks involving "+20 blacksmithing" than "Deals 1d6 unholy damage on a critical hit".


----------



## jaer (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 3E Mind Flayers are a good example for this.
> Their fluff says that they created huge empires consisting out of dominated slaves (and they still build their cities that way). but they lacked any dominate ability. They could only charm monsters and they charmed individuals are no slaves.




True, but once charmed, someone is easy to shackle.  Once imprisioned, someone is easy to break.  Keep charming a Handeler of some sort to carry out your work, to keep them in line.  Use something big and bad and mean.  The position of power will eventually be it's own reward and you won't need to charm them anymore.

Every so often charm random people to pump them for info about any up-coming rebellions or discontents, then publicly eat the brain of the those planning revolts.  With just a charm monster power, one can easily rule with fear.  Your slaves can never organize anything, for at any time, friend and ally can become spy for the enemy.

There are more ways to dominate someone than the spells with that name.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Monsters having social stats does not prevent you from anything. You can always change it.
> But when they have those stats you can easily recognize how this monster would fit into the world and what it would do. You wouldn't need to make it up.
> Also those stats might give an idea about possible plot hooks. I certainly can thing of more plot hooks involving "+20 blacksmithing" than "Deals 1d6 unholy damage on a critical hit".



Right, right.  But I believe the point being made here is that things like "are often really good blacksmiths" belong in the monster description, not in the monster stat block.  Putting that in the monster stat block shackles the monster in a way that putting it in the description does not.  And even worse, it commits an unforgivable sin- cluttering up the stat block with information not relevant to combat, where the stat block is actually used.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I
> If they ignore that, then they've made me pre-plan my games more than I have had to before, _increasing_ the prep time I need to run a game.




Aren't they increasing the fluff-per-entry in the MM? Like ecology and society stuff?


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 10, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> whites.. _brutes_.Heard bout this from the wotc guy who wanted ALL giants to start at huge. Now that would have been cool.




Guess which Uncommons and Rares the next Huge boosters will feature?


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 10, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Guess which Uncommons and Rares the next Huge boosters will feature?



Titans. Like the Fire titan they have the concept art for.






I feel giants should start at huge, leaving large for ogres and trolls.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 10, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> giants should start at huge,leaving large for ogres and trolls.




I thought they said giants will come in large and huge varieties, with huge having more elemental abilities?


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 10, 2008)

Hags as feywild, eh? Has as fey creatures is a concept I toyed with, some time ago, so that change doesn't scare me... so long as I can add "Ecology of the Greenhag" from DRAGON #125 into the mix.


----------



## Imban (Jan 10, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> True, but once charmed, someone is easy to shackle.  Once imprisioned, someone is easy to break.  (snip)
> There are more ways to dominate someone than the spells with that name.




Well, that description and powerset alone does indeed give worldbuilders the choice to cast Mind Flayer thralls like that. They could assume, like you did, that Mind Flayers' slaves aren't actually fully mind-wiped, but just enslaved by terror and the superior power of Mind Flayers. That's actually rather cool. The "problem" for those of us who like monster stats to represent what monsters are capable of is when the choice is made explicit that Mind Flayer thralls are actually Dominated in some way - perhaps they have no minds left at all anymore and fall dead when their master is slain - but yet no information is provided on how this status comes about.

A little phrasing explaining that, for instance, Mind Flayers create their Dominated thralls by sucking out their target's brains and replacing them with magical goo, or through a five-minute version of their Charming process that can only be performed on a helpless foe, or whatever, goes a long way. It's good to let DMs make up how and whether monsters fit into their setting. It's bad to force DMs to make up stuff in order to explain how a monster makes sense or does its presented schtick at all.


----------



## Derren (Jan 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right, right.  But I believe the point being made here is that things like "are often really good blacksmiths" belong in the monster description, not in the monster stat block.  Putting that in the monster stat block shackles the monster in a way that putting it in the description does not.  And even worse, it commits an unforgivable sin- cluttering up the stat block with information not relevant to combat, where the stat block is actually used.




Ok, but lets use another example.
Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.

And I just one of those things (fluff or abilities) will make it into the MM I would prefer the abilities because then I can decide for myself what this demon does with that ability or how it might use them otherwise.
When only the fluff text is in the MM I have to figure out how this monster does that and what to do when one of my PCs want to turn the uncontrolled undead in the army against each other and things like that.

I would rater have (non combat) stats which can inspire me what this monster could do instead of some fluff but no real way to use it.
But either is still better than no fluff and no stats and sadly it looks like that is how it will be in 4E.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But players will do much more with monsters than fight them.
> 
> And a monster's noncombat abilities give it a pre-packaged niche in the world that can be used and expanded on the fly. The designers can tell me where this mosnter was intended to go, and then I can put it there in an instant. If they don't tell me that, I have to do the work myself, which eats up time.




Oh, totally.  But I don't need the stat block to contain those noncombat abilities.  I want the statblock to just tell me what it's like in a fight.  Everything else, I'll figure out based on the monsters' fluff information and the context in which the party encountered it.  4E's skill system and discreet breakdown of powers into different categories of usability look like they're going to make this pretty darn easy.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But either is still better than no fluff and no stats and sadly it looks like that is how it will be in 4E.




Where do you get that impression?


----------



## Derren (Jan 10, 2008)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Where do you get that impression?




The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.

Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 10, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> I thought they said giants will come in large and huge varieties, with huge having more elemental abilities?



Yes, they did. The Name for those huge giants with strong elemental ties has been revealed as 'titans'.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Monsters having social stats does not prevent you from anything. You can always change it.
> But when they have those stats you can easily recognize how this monster would fit into the world and what it would do. You wouldn't need to make it up.
> Also those stats might give an idea about possible plot hooks. I certainly can thing of more plot hooks involving "+20 blacksmithing" than "Deals 1d6 unholy damage on a critical hit".



The best thing would be to have a "stat block" along with a "fluff block".
The stat block contains all combat related stuff, the fluff book contains the "flavor" text and a few describing keywords. 

Like, say: 
Dragon
Dragons are flying lizards that can often breath fire. They typically live in lairs like abandoned ruins or deep caves. Many dragons rule the territory around them with fear, though some also offer their assistance in exchange for services rendered (and many use a combination of both). 
Environment: Any (see individual Dragon)
Organization: Single Dragon oversees Minions inside lair, villages or cities.
Offspring: Dragons lay eggs and usually hide them in safe places. They don't care much for their hatchlings.
Food: Animals and Humanoids
Allies: Dragonborn, Kobolds
Enemies: Goblins, Giants
Activities: Sleeping, Hunting, Scheming

Orc
Orcs are barbarian humanoids that live in nomadic clans. If near humanoid settlements, they often raid them for crops and money. Powerful Orcs sometimes unite several orc clans to assault a large city. Many Orc clans also send their hunters and warriors out as mercenaries for local nobles.
Enviroment: Plains (Deserts and Hills)
Organization: Band (2-6 Orcs) or Clan (20-60 Orcs) or 
Offspring: Born alive. Children grow adult within 12-15 years.
Food: Animals, rarely Humanoids
Allies: Goblin, Ogre
Enemies: Dwarves, Elves and Humans
Activities: Hunting, Raiding, Sleeping


---

But I am not convinced that this is really neccessary. If I am considering to integrate a monster in my campaign world, I will read the fluff text entirely, not just look at a few check marks.


----------



## Counterspin (Jan 10, 2008)

I'm not particularly interested in out of combat info on the monsters.  If that can be cut and more solidly balanced monsters included, cut cut cut..  I don't use monsters with their set fluff or even their set appearance generally, just pick and choose them for interesting combats and then add on some new appearance to keep my group off gaurd.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.
> 
> Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.




There is an emphasis on making simple monsters - that you can fleshen.

The problem is the reverse also - too much fluff and all applied, often.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok, but lets use another example.
> Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
> I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.




From what little I do know about 4E its as easy as creating an interesting encounter with said demon and his undead minions. That's basically how it would have happened back in 1E. And if the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, just smile and say "Ancient DM Secret!"   

3E tried a new take on monsters that sounded like a great idea. I was excited to know the workings behind the monsters that largely didn't exist in previous editions. It created a side effect I didn't expect though. It strangled creativity. As players became more savvy in the 3E ruleset they started to question how a monster was able to achieve the effects that it was using against them. Instead of just making an interesting encounter using an established monster, the DM was pulled down to the same level as the players and had to explain the mechanics behind his creations. Admitedly, a DM could take the same approach being suggested for 4E monsters in 3E, but it often caused ill feeling in players and started to re-foster the DM vs. Player mentality if the 3E ruleset was not adhered to by the DM.


----------



## jaer (Jan 10, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Well, that description and powerset alone does indeed give worldbuilders the choice to cast Mind Flayer thralls like that. They could assume, like you did, that Mind Flayers' slaves aren't actually fully mind-wiped, but just enslaved by terror and the superior power of Mind Flayers. That's actually rather cool. The "problem" for those of us who like monster stats to represent what monsters are capable of is when the choice is made explicit that Mind Flayer thralls are actually Dominated in some way - perhaps they have no minds left at all anymore and fall dead when their master is slain - but yet no information is provided on how this status comes about.
> 
> A little phrasing explaining that, for instance, Mind Flayers create their Dominated thralls by sucking out their target's brains and replacing them with magical goo, or through a five-minute version of their Charming process that can only be performed on a helpless foe, or whatever, goes a long way. It's good to let DMs make up how and whether monsters fit into their setting. It's bad to force DMs to make up stuff in order to explain how a monster makes sense or does its presented schtick at all.




It's much like the gray or green slaad entry which states they make and aquire magical items to increase their own spell casting, but have no feats, no magic items, and few items that would help them increase their power since they have little way of using wands or staves, being that they have no spell list, on spell-like abilities.

The angle I come from is, I'd rather be told that I am being given the combat stats and a fluffy statement to flesh out myself then given an entry that should contain all there is to know about a creature and not have it make sense with what was told in the fluffy.

I do understand the want to have the information.  I don't need to be told how a devil is creating and controlling an undead army (the control undead rules never supported such a thing in the first place, really) if such a broad, blanket statement were made in the fluffy paragraph.  I would simply make up a way and a reason for it to do so.

But I can understand the want to have a a stat block saying they have an animate dead ritual that involved the devil in question flaying the skin off the victum and weaving a piece of that flesh into a belt, and that should the belt be destroyed (by burning, perhaps), all the undead who's skin was woven into that belt would fall to dust.  Loosing the belt causes the devil to loose control of the undead it created, but no one else can control the undead with the belt except the demon.

One statement, the devil creates army of the undead, is a bit lacking (in the very least, it should cross reference the type of undead it creates [i.e., _See cankerous zombies on page 248 of the MM_] and how many it should have with it in order to help DMs build a level-appropriate challege).  The other at least gives DMs something to work with plotwise: it's a ritual, it takes some time and the devil's direct involvement, and the undead army can be defeated at its source: destroy the belt, destroy the army.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Jan 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right, right.  But I believe the point being made here is that things like "are often really good blacksmiths" belong in the monster description, not in the monster stat block.  Putting that in the monster stat block shackles the monster in a way that putting it in the description does not.  And even worse, it commits an unforgivable sin- cluttering up the stat block with information not relevant to combat, where the stat block is actually used.





Ding!!


----------



## infax (Jan 10, 2008)

@*Mustrum_Ridcully*:
Although you don't think it is necessary (and I admit I don't think it is either) I must say I would like to see stats just as you described.

Such blocks (or rather a variant of those, with different data, often encountered skills and the like) could come in really handy for improvising GMs (those of us that can't always "the fluff text entirely" before using a moonster in a campaign).


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 10, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't know what social role I want them to have when I choose them out of the MM. I rely on the noncombat information to tell me, at a glance, what social role they could/do occupy. That +20 Religion might be useless for the BBEG's combat prowess, but it gives him a context that implies other relations that I can use on a moment's notice.




I think 4E will be a delight for you, then, because it seems like 4E monsters are grouped according to role. We know of “Brute” and “Mastermind” so far. Right away, you can tell—at a glance—what role this monster is meant to play. I bet the MM will even index monsters by role, for your convenience.

Regardless of noncombat skill choices, that information is useless in a fight and does not belong in the stat block. Put noncombat information with the rest of the descriptive information (such as temperament, appearance, and so on), in the text area below the stat block. Which, come to think of it, should be probably be renamed "combat stat block".


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.
> 
> Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.




I agree that they seem to be focusing on combat, but that could just be a product of the fact that all we've been told about the rules revolves around combat.  Just because they haven't been talking much about how the game operates out of combat doesn't mean that the game doesn't operate out of combat.  It's a little ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that the MM won't contain fluff information about monsters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 10, 2008)

> I am not going to remember "+2 racial bonus to Jump, Climb and Craft" in a monster book. A little prose will make it easier though, especially if there's a little backstory that explains why they are such great blacksmiths, or what they have crafted.




Well, 4e seems to be embracing the same philosophy as SAGA in that bonuses shouldn't be common and minor, but should be rarer and more significant. So random +1's and +2's will likely be whittled down anyway, and the bonuses there still are will be large enough that you notice them (especially because there's less of them).

But putting the backstory with a "+20 Blacksmith" note is a complimentary, not incompatible, goal.



> And I am rarely building cultural qualities about of my campaign world in the middle of the game. I am, however, running combat in (almost) every game and often using stat blocks I'm unfamiliar with.




I'm building cultural qualities in the middle of my game, AND running combat in almost every game, using statblocks I'm unfamiliar with.

Why can't we have both?



> Oh, totally. But I don't need the stat block to contain those noncombat abilities. I want the statblock to just tell me what it's like in a fight. Everything else, I'll figure out based on the monsters' fluff information and the context in which the party encountered it. 4E's skill system and discreet breakdown of powers into different categories of usability look like they're going to make this pretty darn easy.




The combat statblock? No, that doesn't need to include this stuff. But it does need to be included, preferably called out in a notation, not shunted off in the middle of a paragraph somewhere. And it does need to be ALREADY DONE FOR ME. 

Which is what I mean when I say I don't want monsters that are just XP speedbumps, I want monsters that exist in context in the world. 4e could easily just give me the former and expect me to do the latter, and that would irk me every time I opened the MM, because it would be work I had to do to make the monster usable for me. 



> I think 4E will be a delight for you, then, because it seems like 4E monsters are grouped according to role. We know of “Brute” and “Mastermind” so far. Right away, you can tell—at a glance—what role this monster is meant to play. I bet the MM will even index monsters by role, for your convenience.




All those roles have one glaring problem.

They're all combat roles.

Nothing about "brute" will tell me if the creature is, for instance, a herbivore or a carnivore. Nothing about "mastermind" tells me which creatures it especially hates. 



> Regardless of noncombat skill choices, that information is useless in a fight and does not belong in the stat block. Put noncombat information with the rest of the descriptive information (such as temperament, appearance, and so on), in the text area below the stat block. Which, come to think of it, should be probably be renamed "combat stat block".




Sure, do that. And give DM's like me a "noncombat stat block" where they have skills and alignments and environments and ally creatures already mentioned for me. 

And I'd be a happy little pea in a pod.

But the talk so far says "Give me a streamlined monster with no information other than the barebones combat stuff!" and that, for me, blows.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 10, 2008)

If we're putting all the fluff text of how it interacts with the monster in the statblock, why do we need a monster manual?

For monsters, I'm sure they will tell you what they are good at, how their culture functions, etc.  So if you see an illithid for example, I'm sure you'll know what they do and how they go about it at least as well as 3e.   The deep detail would involve a "lords of madness" book, either available from WotC or from a 3rd party publisher (depending on how 3e versions sold).

NPC's will probably have their plots, plans and ambitions published based on how important they are.   They will probably have stats published to deal with combat and non-combat interactions with PC's.  After that, I don't really understand your argument Kamakazie... how in the heck is it harder to wing Evil Lieutenant Smith's motivations and goals than to generate feat and skill lists for him and 2 or 3 other boss henchmen?  Like you I like to wing things, and frankly generating NPC's and trying to keep straight all the meaningless spells, abilities, skills and feats that they only used in 1% of encounters was far more work than I wanted.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok, but lets use another example.
> Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
> I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.



That's a fair enough example, except that it doesn't really critique 4e very well.  There is an entire monster "role" for monsters of this sort- Mastermind.  And the fact that it is often accompanied by an army of the undead under its control is a combat relevant piece of information.

Your Blacksmithing +20 really was the better example.  I'm sure there will be a giant or something that has as an affinity for forging metal.  Does it really make a difference if there's an entry in its statblock under Skills detailing that it has 15 ranks in Craft: Blacksmith?  What's wrong with just creating the generic statblock, and putting a line in the monster's textual description saying that this monster is acclaimed for its fine skill at forging metal?

We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies.  Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?"  Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"

I can't really see the difference.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies.  Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?"  Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"
> 
> I can't really see the difference.



Hobgoblins are mentioned as one of the races that will get PC stats, so they'll probably get a skill bonus especially if it's essential towards a certain build as a PC.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 10, 2008)

> After that, I don't really understand your argument Kamakazie... how in the heck is it harder to wing Evil Lieutenant Smith's motivations and goals than to generate feat and skill lists for him and 2 or 3 other boss henchmen? Like you I like to wing things, and frankly generating NPC's and trying to keep straight all the meaningless spells, abilities, skills and feats that they only used in 1% of encounters was far more work than I wanted.




Yeah, in 3e, generating NPC's was a waste of time (which is why my games tended to have big monster fights over big NPC fights). They kind of fixed this by the end with the Exemplars of Evil and Elder Evils supplements, which I ADORE, but those came out next to or after the 4e announcement, making them slightly less than useful. 

The reason I need this "useless" information is so I can link the fun parts together in a cogent narrative on the fly. I come to the table bare, and I run a game right from the hip, in an ideal circumstance. This means that I need to be able to draw connections between world elements and monsters very quickly. Noncombat information helps me to do this, because it suggests trappings and world elements around the monster that I can find a place for. +20 Blacksmithing doesn't just mean that the guy can make a really nice horseshoe. It means, perhaps, an epic battle in a massive forge, where he's bristling with black armor he created himself. It means, perhaps, an intelligent evil sword dropped into the party's take of loot in order to sow dissent amongst them. It means, perhaps, a turncoat dwarf who trained him as a youth, who is truly the mastermind behind this forge-orc.

If that information is no longer there, the idea doesn't build itself. It just falls flat.



> We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies. Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?" Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"
> 
> I can't really see the difference.




Think about the shoe being on the other food. We know that beholders can shoot eye beams. Does the typical beholder need 10 different specific spell-like beams that it can shoot? Or can we just say "Beholders often have eye-beams, including a hold, a disintegrate, and an telekinesis beam."

The specificity helps on-the-fly play because I don't need to guess about how well they control an unruly X, or how well they can domesticate a wild Y, or even if they meet an A, B, or C, if they can use their training to calm it in some way. I don't need to make this up. I'll have rules for it.

If it's called out in a notation, I'll also be able to draw my eye to it while I scan the entry, rather than having to read an entire block of text to get the information.

The faster that info gets from the page to my brain, the faster my PC's will be on to finding the Hobgoblin Beastmaster who can perhaps tame the wild nightmare that's ravaging the countryside, because his +10 Handle Animal skill is better than any of their +2's. Or perhaps fighting him if they do have a better HA score.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 10, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> The concept of "Elemental Evil" as represented in TOEE is recognized as core, on par with the Nine Hells



Awesome.  



> Dominions, especially Abandoned ones, found throughout the Astral Sea are 'adventure sites custom made for epic characters'



I really like the idea of abandoned dominions.  Much like how the ruins of ancient empires dot the mortal world, the ancient houses of gods long forgotten float aimlessly through the Astral Sea ...


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 10, 2008)

> From what little I do know about 4E its as easy as creating an interesting encounter with said demon and his undead minions. That's basically how it would have happened back in 1E. And if the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, just smile and say "Ancient DM Secret!"




In 4e, when the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, we'll just smile and say "Ancient and Profane Ritual/Eldritch Machine!"

Seems pretty simple, to me...


----------



## kave99 (Jan 11, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> I have mine as well - race ya!




thanks for doing this, the arrival of worlds and monsters in my hands came just as i started a new job, so I've been super busy and was glad to let you do all the work    just guessing that your in the GTA ?


----------



## AntlerDruid (Jan 11, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> The pantheon mentioned is: Bahamut, Vecna, Avandra, Zehir, Ioun, Pelor, Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, Corellon, Moradin, Kord, Bane, The  Raven Queen, Asmodeus, Torog
> .




I thought Sehanine was supposed to be one of the Core Gods now???? Was she mentioned at all?

Anything else mentioned about Lolth besides just her name? Any pictures of Lolth?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 11, 2008)

Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space. If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.

I'm not sure why you're using the MM to brainstorm plotlines anyway. If that's something that WOTC needs to help with, it'd make a lot more sense to put it in the DMG. They could probably come up with some pretty decent tables of monster levels and habitats, or maybe even monster behavior.

(By the way, I like how there's a 9-page argument about blacksmithing when I'm pretty sure they've said that the Profession skills are gone in 4e...)


----------



## Derren (Jan 11, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space. If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.




No one said that those abilities must be in the statblock. But they should be in the MM as rules. A small section in the DMG can't possibly cover all monsters as good as some few lines of extra rules for each monster could.

And be honest, its much easier to create a new monster for the party to fight than to place and integrate this monster into the world and create a plot around it.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 11, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And be honest, its much easier to create a new monster for the party to fight than to place and integrate this monster into the world and create a plot around it.



It is? I do not find this to be the case.
Also, all signs point to ("Fire archons make high quality weapons", "::here are some illustrations of tiefling weapons::", "Hobgoblins are militaristic and keep nasty pets!") there being points for this already.

So, yeah, I'd say it sounds like people are asking for hard-and-fast, crunchy game-mechanical rules on how to integrate monsters into adventures.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2008)

> Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space.




Whereas I would use it as an essential part of how I DM. Quick, they're on the coastlands, I need to have them fight something, let's scan the terrain/habitat index....ah! Here we go! Giant Crabs are about the right CR. BAM. Fight it. A few moments in the middle of the session where I scan an index is all I need to give them a battle that doesn't stretch their believability to the breaking point.

If I don't have that in 4e, I've gotta go insert it myself, meaning I'm going to be taking a lot of pre-prep time. Alternately, I guess I could just pre-plan encounters, but that's profoundly dull for me. 



> If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.




Well, the bullet points don't take up a half-page. That's kind of why they're there. WotC has a history of doing this, for instance, with the MMV: under a Habitat heading, they give a quick prose run-down of where it lives, and then bullet point it for quick reference in the game. That, with the index, is all I need. But because some of the designers may see that material as useless (simply because they don't play the game how I play the game), it might be cut. 



> I'm not sure why you're using the MM to brainstorm plotlines anyway. If that's something that WOTC needs to help with, it'd make a lot more sense to put it in the DMG. They could probably come up with some pretty decent tables of monster levels and habitats, or maybe even monster behavior.




It would be much more convinient to list it with the monster's combat stats so that I'm not referencing three different books to try and figure out what monster my party should be facing RIGHT NOW. 

And I brainstorm plotlines with the MM because D&D revolves around combat. The plotlines are basically a chain of things you fight, linked together by story. The things I fight should also provide me anchors for the story I'm telling. 



> (By the way, I like how there's a 9-page argument about blacksmithing when I'm pretty sure they've said that the Profession skills are gone in 4e...)




I bet the Craft skill will stay, though. 



> So, yeah, I'd say it sounds like people are asking for hard-and-fast, crunchy game-mechanical rules on how to integrate monsters into adventures.




Kind of, yeah. I need statistics for noncombat so I can do a quick word-association game and get my players to the next sword-slicing, spell-slinging combat.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jan 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Whereas I would use it as an essential part of how I DM. Quick, they're on the coastlands, I need to have them fight something, let's scan the terrain/habitat index....ah! Here we go! Giant Crabs are about the right CR. BAM. Fight it. A few moments in the middle of the session where I scan an index is all I need to give them a battle that doesn't stretch their believability to the breaking point.
> 
> If I don't have that in 4e, I've gotta go insert it myself, meaning I'm going to be taking a lot of pre-prep time. Alternately, I guess I could just pre-plan encounters, but that's profoundly dull for me.




This statement assumes that because habitat information isn't listed in the combat statblock for a monster (e.g., Giant Crabs) that there will not be a table in the MM or DMG with encounter tables by habitat.  I see no reason why WotC would want to do away with encounter tables just because they are reducing the amount of non-combat info presented in the statblock.  Just something to keep in mind; there is a great deal about 4e that we don't know yet.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The reason I need this "useless" information is so I can link the fun parts together in a cogent narrative on the fly. I come to the table bare, and I run a game right from the hip, in an ideal circumstance. This means that I need to be able to draw connections between world elements and monsters very quickly. Noncombat information helps me to do this, because it suggests trappings and world elements around the monster that I can find a place for. +20 Blacksmithing doesn't just mean that the guy can make a really nice horseshoe. It means, perhaps, an epic battle in a massive forge, where he's bristling with black armor he created himself. It means, perhaps, an intelligent evil sword dropped into the party's take of loot in order to sow dissent amongst them. It means, perhaps, a turncoat dwarf who trained him as a youth, who is truly the mastermind behind this forge-orc.
> 
> If that information is no longer there, the idea doesn't build itself. It just falls flat.



All due respect, but this is a bit of an odd argument. You're advocating the inclusion of non-combat information in the statblock because it gives you some random raw material from which to build a "hook," but from the sound of it, WotC is going to be _providing you the hook itself instead_, which is taking things one step further in the right direction, no?


> Think about the shoe being on the other food. We know that beholders can shoot eye beams. Does the typical beholder need 10 different specific spell-like beams that it can shoot? Or can we just say "Beholders often have eye-beams, including a hold, a disintegrate, and an telekinesis beam."



Actually, this is a matter of apples and oranges. You need specific info about beholder eyestalk powers _in combat_, which is the number one priority area for streamlining and speeding play. Thus, it should go into the stat block. The _non_-combat info, on the other hand, _clutters_ the statblock and clouds the information that is immediately useful in combat, so it should come out. I think that's the design philosophy anyway.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure, do that. And give DM's like me a "noncombat stat block" where they have skills and alignments and environments and ally creatures already mentioned for me.
> 
> And I'd be a happy little pea in a pod.
> 
> But the talk so far says "Give me a streamlined monster with no information other than the barebones combat stuff!" and that, for me, blows.




I've read this whole thread, and I don't think anyone has espoused a MM full of nothing but stat blocks.  Indeed, if this is the case, I'll be hopping mad also.

What most people object is the abilities like Blacksmithing +20 and "Casts animate dead once a week as a ritual." right in the stat block next to important things like HP and AC.


----------



## mhensley (Jan 11, 2008)

My local book store finally go this in today and I had a chance to read a bit.  I must say that I agree 110% with the part about the problems with 3.x monsters and encounters.  I'm running a 10th lvl 3.5 game right now and everything they said is very evident and annoying.  Groups of low level monsters are useless as they can barely hit anyone.  Big monsters don't have enough actions and don't do enough damage to be a real danger to the party.  Most encounters are just too fragile- if the monster doesn't take someone down in round one by surprise, it gets overwhelmed by the party by round 2 or 3.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 13, 2008)

wartorn said:
			
		

> Ok here's the significant details on the remainder of the book:
> 
> The Elemental Chaos:
> 
> ...




Ok, I just want to put in my 2 cents, probably I'm in a miniority in this but, all this setting, this new planes, yes, they are nice, even  *ugh* Cool, but it a all just sound "fake" to me, it sound artificious, it is not a setting, it is more a theme park, with all his carousels, here there are the dungeons, here there are the elemental planes, there the god's domains and far realms, all tidy, clean, organized and easily accessibile, make so that you can enter in them to have adventures  that they will be dangerous, but not too much. and every monster will have a place and a purpose, so that it will be easily (but not too much) defeated.

Yes, yes, I'm exagerating a little, but that is the feeling I get from the setting, something fake, just made up so PCs will have an excuse to go adventuring, yes, all setting are, more or less, created for that reason, but here seems they are not even trying to hide it. Many probably have no problem with this. 

But I do. It is like to see the wires in a wuxia movie, it takes away most, if not all, of the fun.

mmh, yeah, that's all.

bye.


----------



## Stogoe (Jan 13, 2008)

As opposed to the completely orderly Wheel of Alignments that's supposed to be half lawful and half chaotic, a clockwork march of Lawful Good to Goodly Lawful to Goodish to Slightly Less Lawful good, etc round and round.

I mean, that seems pretty 'artificial' to me.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 13, 2008)

You only know that the design purpose is to make places more suitable for adventuring is because you're reading the preview material, or forum commentary about such material, which includes the designer's explaining "why we did it this way."

It's like watching the DVD extras for a Wuxia movie, which show _how_ they did the special effects, and complaining that you can see the wires there.  

You want your wires hidden? Wait until the PHB and MM come out, and read those. The DMG I'm thinking will still have some wires showing, as it will probably contain advice on doing things yourself. But you can probably skip those sections, too.

Me, I like these explanations, and knowing that at higher levels, some planes aren't just "cool sounding places that you'll never survive in, even if you had a reason to go there." And, as Stogoe points out, the new planar mythology feels much more organic and "real world" than the Great Wheel, which was first-and-foremost built around a game mechanic - alignment - then had a hodge-podge of deities crammed into it, and rarely in a logical fashion.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 13, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> As opposed to the completely orderly Wheel of Alignments that's supposed to be half lawful and half chaotic, a clockwork march of Lawful Good to Goodly Lawful to Goodish to Slightly Less Lawful good, etc round and round.
> 
> I mean, that seems pretty 'artificial' to me.




As opposed to "nothing". Is it possible that every time someone make a critic to 4e the usual answer is "there was something like that even in previous editions"? So, because previous edition had problems is all right for 4e have problems, too? I thought that they made a new edition to try to *fix* problems.

And what is the problem with the big wheel anyway? alignements were part of the previous editions, they were pratically part of their laws of phisics, actually they *were* part of the natural world, it is just normal that the universe was structured around them, to complain that the Wheel seems artificial it is like complain that grativy or elettromagnetism feel artificial, things in previous edition works like that, period.(geez,I'm sure that in some parallel universe there is a fantasy RPG with rules that simulate gravity and people that complain that a thing like that is just too unrealistic   )

Now, like I wrote in my message maybe you have no problem with it, and I'm fine with that, but to me things like the elemental planes that are calibrated so that PCs can easily go adventuring or the plane of shadow replaced by something else because it is more confortable to adventurers just sounds wrong, it ruin my SoD, why should be interested to what happen to my character if everything in the universe scream "it is all fake, it is just a game" to me? I know it is just a game, I don't need a continual reminder while I play, if all I wanted in D&D was tactical combat I'd play Baldur's gate or NWN.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> As opposed to "nothing". Is it possible that every time someone make a critic to 4e the usual answer is "there was something like that even in previous editions"? So, because previous edition had problems is all right for 4e have problems, too? I thought that they made a new edition to try to *fix* problems.



By comparison, 4E *is* a fix. You're "alignments  as part of the natural world" was something that was a constant thump on the head to many players, saying "this is an artificial game construct"!

If you want planes which are physically impossible to travel in, or that one Dispel Magic will result in a TPK, go ahead and add them to your campaign. But why would the PCs, or even their players, care?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> And what is the problem with the big wheel anyway?




See many previous threads here about the wheel O' alignments for discussions about that!



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> Now, like I wrote in my message maybe you have no problem with it, and I'm fine with that, but to me things like the elemental planes that are calibrated so that PCs can easily go adventuring or the plane of shadow replaced by something else because it is more confortable to adventurers just sounds wrong,




But why should there be an elemental plane of earth that is just solid earth and rock? Why should there be an elemental plane of water that is just water?

Essentially they've simply got rid of those simplistic 'planes of element x' and used the 'Great Wheel' version of Limbo as the model for the source of elements. Most people consider Limbo to be an interesting place to set adventures - what with the swirling chaos, the mad surges of different elements and so forth.

It may be that the planar setup they created for Eberron recieved huge plaudits - an Orrerry of planes which eschewed having 'elemental planes', but did have some which are more closely associated with elements than others.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 13, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But why should there be an elemental plane of earth that is just solid earth and rock? Why should there be an elemental plane of water that is just water?




I don't know. Why the sun should be a big ball of nuclear plasma and the pression of the deep sea enough to crush a unprotected man? I suppose in 4E the surface of the sun is just luke-warm and you don't need to breath underwater or to fear deep pressure, how could you be able to have adventures there, else? 

And I've read the articles, you don't need to explain them to me, I understand why they made the changes, i just disagree with their decisions.

and Eberron planes are still place hard to reach and very dangerous to visit, not the easily accesible place for an adventure that 4e planes seems to be.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I don't know. Why the sun should be a big ball of nuclear plasma and the pression of the deep sea enough to crush a unprotected man? I suppose in 4E the surface of the sun is just luke-warm and you don't need to breath underwater or to fear deep pressure, how could you be able to have adventures there, else?



If you want to model your sun and sea bottoms after their real-world counterparts, go ahead. It probably does help players relate to your fantasy world better.  (Though I would content that plenty of D&D adventures and fantasy literature in general ignore issues of water pressure.) But what real world counterpart is your elemental plane of fire replicating? Oh, wait. Nothing. So, if you're starting from scratch, why make the plane inhospitable rather than someplace you might actually be able to set an adventure? As a fantasy concept, there's suspension of disbelief in either model, but one happens to be actually useful in playing the game and coming up with stories.



			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> and Eberron planes are still place hard to reach and very dangerous to visit, not the easily accesible place for an adventure that 4e planes seems to be.



I think you're over-emphasizing the "easily accessible" idea. It's not like the local blacksmith jaunts over to the Elemental Tempest to get hot coals for his forge every week.  They've mentioned the planes as places that might be occasionally visited for Paragon-level (10+) characters, and part of normal adventuring for Epic-level characters. To me, this doesn't seem too much out of line with previous editions. I also don't imagine that these places are so safe that one would go there without some magical precautions. The Eberron planes are probably a pretty good comparison.

And no, you can't place an adventure on the sun. It's just a hole in the celestial dome that the light of the Astral Sea shines through, so you couldn't actually land there, silly


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> And what is the problem with the big wheel anyway? alignements were part of the previous editions, they were pratically part of their laws of phisics, actually they *were* part of the natural world, it is just normal that the universe was structured around them, to complain that the Wheel seems artificial it is like complain that grativy or elettromagnetism feel artificial, things in previous edition works like that, period.(geez,I'm sure that in some parallel universe there is a fantasy RPG with rules that simulate gravity and people that complain that a thing like that is just too unrealistic   )



There's an RPG in this universe with rules to simulate gravity that people complain are too unrealistic.  It's D&D.  Drop a 20th level fighter off a 200 foot cliff, and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 13, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I've read this whole thread, and I don't think anyone has espoused a MM full of nothing but stat blocks.  Indeed, if this is the case, I'll be hopping mad also.
> 
> What most people object is the abilities like Blacksmithing +20 and "Casts animate dead once a week as a ritual." right in the stat block next to important things like HP and AC.



I'd be happy if they put "grab bag" abilities like that into the fluff text and saved the statblocks for combat-only info.  Just because it's not in the statblock doesn't mean it's not there, and not important, it's just not important to the question of who dies at the end of the combat.


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 13, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> There's an RPG in this universe with rules to simulate gravity that people complain are too unrealistic.  It's D&D.  Drop a 20th level fighter off a 200 foot cliff, and you'll see what I mean.




Touche, my friend, touche.  

But, of course, D&D simulate the gravity of a D&D world, that iit was never sadi to work the same as that of our world.   

But now something that I've missed before



			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> By comparison, 4E *is* a fix. You're "alignments  as part of the natural world" was something that was a constant thump on the head to many players, saying "this is an artificial game construct"!




those player were wrong, then. Alignement in D&D is always been a natural law/force of the universe, something real and almost tangibile,you have spells that react to it, you have creature that can be considered alignements incarnate, and of course there are the planes, the phisical  (for given values of phisical) manifestation of alignement. Alignement is as much real and concrete in D&D as electromagnetism is in the real world.



			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> If you want to model your sun and sea bottoms after their real-world counterparts, go ahead. It probably does help players relate to your fantasy world better.  (Though I would content that plenty of D&D adventures and fantasy literature in general ignore issues of water pressure.) But what real world counterpart is your elemental plane of fire replicating? Oh, wait. Nothing. So, if you're starting from scratch, why make the plane inhospitable rather than someplace you might actually be able to set an adventure? As a fantasy concept, there's suspension of disbelief in either model, but one happens to be actually useful in playing the game and coming up with stories.




what I'm trying to say is that the universe is not made "for human consumption" so to speak (i'm sure there is a better expression for what I mean, but I can't remember it), and that IMHO not even a game universe should be, not in a so obvious manner, at least. if it is then, as I said it give the impression to be fake, to be just a huge theme park, something that don't have a life of his own, but is just designed so that adventurers can go around fighting monster and having adventures. Now rationally I know that every setting is like that, but making is so obvious, like they are doing, ruin the magic for me.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 13, 2008)

The trick with fantasy is that you can easily access otherwise inhospitable places fairly easily, and there's usually a non-dispellable method that the DM can cook up readily enough.

Visiting the Plane of Fire?

Why just swallow some air spores and put on your Hair of the Fire Rat robes and you'll be just fine.

Visiting the bottom of the sea, but worried about the pressure?

Don't worry, I have some pressure pills.

Look too big to be swallowed?  Well good news!...


----------



## Stilvan (Jan 13, 2008)

kave99 said:
			
		

> thanks for doing this, the arrival of worlds and monsters in my hands came just as i started a new job, so I've been super busy and was glad to let you do all the work    just guessing that your in the GTA ?




No no I live in it's sawed-off half-brother, Ottawa    I ordered mine from Chapters online.  It was a bit of a stretch to find the time for me too - I'd put off work readying a resume to find a new job .  I put up the TOC first hoping you'd put up the first of the meaty info - I didn't want to steal your fire.  Anyhow grats on the new job!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 14, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> The trick with fantasy is that you can easily access otherwise inhospitable places fairly easily, and there's usually a non-dispellable method that the DM can cook up readily enough.



Except nothing like that ever happens in any game I'm in.  The DM looks through all the D&D books printed for a way to survive the heat of the Elemental Plane of Fire and only finds some really expensive magic items.  In order to balance his game, he doesn't want to introduce non-magical items that the PCs can get for free or even for the same price that has the same effect of a magic item, since his players are sure to find a way to abuse it.

So, he uses the items in the book, which the PCs might not be able to afford and he doesn't want to just give them free items.  So, he decides it's best to not use the Elemental Plane of Fire as a setting for an adventure and instead have it take place inside a volcano where it's hot, but the PCs can walk on solid ground, not go close enough to the fire to die, etc.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 14, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Except nothing like that ever happens in any game I'm in.




Then you should probably be playing in one of MY games.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 14, 2008)

> hose player were wrong, then. Alignement in D&D is always been a natural law/force of the universe, something real and almost tangibile,you have spells that react to it, you have creature that can be considered alignements incarnate, and of course there are the planes, the phisical (for given values of phisical) manifestation of alignement. Alignement is as much real and concrete in D&D as electromagnetism is in the real world.



Why is this not an artifical game construct? Someone decided "In D&D, we have 4 alignment components and they are cosmic forces. Let's build our world around that idea!" 
The problem is that this base assumption alone might seem wrong to many game(r)s. And even if the cosmic forces of evil/good/chaos/law exist, that doesn't mean that every world should follow the Great Wheel. Because the wheel is just one possible setup. 




			
				Just Another User said:
			
		

> I don't know. Why the sun should be a big ball of nuclear plasma and the pression of the deep sea enough to crush a unprotected man? I suppose in 4E the surface of the sun is just luke-warm and you don't need to breath underwater or to fear deep pressure, how could you be able to have adventures there, else?
> 
> And I've read the articles, you don't need to explain them to me, I understand why they made the changes, i just disagree with their decisions.
> 
> and Eberron planes are still place hard to reach and very dangerous to visit, not the easily accesible place for an adventure that 4e planes seems to be.



Well, in 3E, the moon, the deep sea and the sun don't have any supplements describing how they look exactly to visitors.
But the elemental planes did. 
The sun and the bottom of the seas are rarely (not never) an important part of a fantasy setting that the adventures get to explore or visit. 

But that's not really to the point. The Great Wheel is probably even a step more artificial then the 4E Astral Sea & Elemental Chaos setup. From what I saw so far, the new cosmology supports a lot more variety and unpredictability into the whole planar travel thing. 


On a said note: 
What I don't understand is why there is even the assumption that either anew or the old cosmology is somehow more important then others. The Astral Sea & Elemental Chaos will be part of the implied setting (Points of Light) for 4E. But that doesn't mean that it has to be used in every campaign setting. In 3E, the focus on alignment as game-mechanic made it hard to shred the core assumption of good vs evil & chaos vs law out of a game or game world, but nothing really forced one to use the Great Wheel in its entirety. The Astral Sea seems even a bit more "forgiving" in this regard.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 14, 2008)

The main thing with the Great Wheel is that they had to cram more complex real world mythologies into it.

It was, also, very specifically explained as not necessarily being a "Great Wheel."

Most of the planes were infinite, the Great Wheel was just a way to depict them for the sake of use, not an actual map.


----------



## Gort (Jan 14, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> There's an RPG in this universe with rules to simulate gravity that people complain are too unrealistic.  It's D&D.  Drop a 20th level fighter off a 200 foot cliff, and you'll see what I mean.



Ah, when I'm DMing and that's a likely occurrence, I just stick lava at the bottom to finish the job


----------



## Ant (Jan 14, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> My local book store finally go this in today and I had a chance to read a bit.  I must say that I agree 110% with the part about the problems with 3.x monsters and encounters.  I'm running a 10th lvl 3.5 game right now and everything they said is very evident and annoying.  Groups of low level monsters are useless as they can barely hit anyone.  Big monsters don't have enough actions and don't do enough damage to be a real danger to the party.  Most encounters are just too fragile- if the monster doesn't take someone down in round one by surprise, it gets overwhelmed by the party by round 2 or 3.



I strongly disagree.  I'm DMing a party of 7 with an average character level of about 10. They recently went up against a dragon, a sorceress and a horde of various minions ranging from spawn of Tiamat to giant crocodiles to an evil elvish warband.

The low-level monsters did exactly what they were meant to do -- obstruct and harass the PCs and act as cannonfodder (it's always good for the PCs to get a chance to wade in and kick butt).  A few even managed to cause some damage and a little strife.  The dragon and sorceress were a perfect challenge ... most PCs got whittled down to less than one-quarter hit points and one PC went down right at the end of the battle -- perfect!

I spent little effort trying to balance the encounter ... a look at the PCs capabilities, check against a few key monster abilities, a pinch of salt, stir and we're done.

If 4ed can make that process more intuitive or easier or quicker or whatever then great ... but there's nothing wrong with 3.5.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 14, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Now, like I wrote in my message maybe you have no problem with it, and I'm fine with that, but to me things like the elemental planes that are calibrated so that PCs can easily go adventuring or the plane of shadow replaced by something else because it is more confortable to adventurers just sounds wrong, it ruin my SoD, why should be interested to what happen to my character if everything in the universe scream "it is all fake, it is just a game" to me? I know it is just a game, I don't need a continual reminder while I play, if all I wanted in D&D was tactical combat I'd play Baldur's gate or NWN.




I really like the recalibration of Shadowfell and the Feywild in particular. It just makes sense to me that these planes would be somewhat approachable, if extremely dangerous. Shadowfell makes me think of Tad William's Shadowmarch books, for example, and of course the Feywild is Faerie in its oldest incarnations. A great hero ("heroic" tier) faces terrible perils in either place, and will be lucky to come out alive; a hero of legend ("paragon") might be able to hold his own, and an epic hero can begin to challenge the fae and shadow lords.

It's not about making the planes Disneyland; it's about bringing them in line with myth and legend, where most heroes barely tiptoe into the Paragon level. And hey, if it also reduces reliance on magical items and spellcasters, all for the better! If 4e fighters are supposed to be on par with wizards and clerics, that shouldn't mean "unless they go to any other plane, where anyone without access to protective magic will die in under a minute."


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 14, 2008)

Ant said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree.  I'm DMing a party of 7 with an average character level of about 10. They recently went up against a dragon, a sorceress and a horde of various minions ranging from spawn of Tiamat to giant crocodiles to an evil elvish warband.
> 
> The low-level monsters did exactly what they were meant to do -- obstruct and harass the PCs and act as cannonfodder (it's always good for the PCs to get a chance to wade in and kick butt).  A few even managed to cause some damage and a little strife.  The dragon and sorceress were a perfect challenge ... most PCs got whittled down to less than one-quarter hit points and one PC went down right at the end of the battle -- perfect!
> 
> ...




Nifty encounter. Bushel of apples, single orange: Complaint is that you can't send a single dragon against a party, and you sent a single dragon, a single spellcaster, and a single mob of miscellaneous monsters.

 Still, nifty encounter.


----------

