# DMG Excerpt:  Customizing Monsters



## Shroomy (Apr 18, 2008)

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 18, 2008)

That's a really elegant set of rules. I especially like the "change level" thing, given how clumsy it used to be to add or remove Hit Dice from creatures in 3.X.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 18, 2008)

Great article plus awesome art too. But the biggest punch is in the intro, next monday we'll have the Warlord class preview from the PH. Two thumbs WotC, great job.


----------



## scrubkai (Apr 18, 2008)

Hmmm... Int adds to AC


----------



## marune (Apr 18, 2008)

Before someone complains that Vampires are no more killed by Sun light, recall that Dracula wasn't


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 18, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Before someone complains that Vampires are no more killed by Sun light, recall that Dracula wasn't



If sunlight does radiant damage 0, then vampires will take 10 damage per round in sunlight.


----------



## psionotic (Apr 18, 2008)

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Int adds to AC




I believe that EITHER Int or Dex add to AC (whichever's higher), as AC is now a function of [Reflex Defense + Armor's rating].


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 18, 2008)

Why do vampire lords resist 5 necrotic at 1st level and 10 at 11th level? They have a prerequisite of 11th level.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2008)

One thing I'm not entirely sure about:



> This process works best for adjusting a monster’s level up to five higher or lower. Beyond that, the monster changes so much that you’d do better to start with another creature of the desired role and level range.




So, I can't take an orc beyond 5 levels up?  No more 15th level orc barbarians?  Or, rather, these rules don't work very well outside of that fairly narrow band of 5 up or down?  

I'm not sure if I'm all that happy about that.

Or, am I missing something vital?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Apr 18, 2008)

> Boosting a monster’s level is easy. Just increase its attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 for every level you add.




This is twice the level bonus for PC and standard monster progression. I wonder why the difference.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I suspect that you would use a class template for that kind of upgrade.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Why do vampire lords resist 5 necrotic at 1st level and 10 at 11th level? They have a prerequisite of 11th level.



Looks like a different way of saying 5+1/2 level.

They probably just standardized it across all the entries that use the format.

Note that the Lich looks like a slightly older style of entry.


----------



## malraux (Apr 18, 2008)

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Int adds to AC



Somewhat more surprising, natural armor and regular armor don't stack.  That's gonna take some unlearning.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Monsters are more than just the stats, the powers have a lot to do with the balance as well.

I would guess that at the extremes, you start getting out of the range that the powers assume the monster is in.

However! The class templates would almost have to be unlimited in scope. That's what you want for the level 15th orc barbarian.


----------



## malraux (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the goal for the adding a few levels is to grab something that's close to what you want and shim it to the right spot.  For more something like 10 levels, you'd want to go a more formal route of adding class levels to an orc.  This is more like a way to get a level 7 "tougher than average" orc as part of a fight.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Interesting. Changing a monster's level changes its atk/def/AC by 1 per level. However, for PCs this is only 1 per 2 levels. Wonder how that works.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> So, I can't take an orc beyond 5 levels up?  No more 15th level orc barbarians?  Or, rather, these rules don't work very well outside of that fairly narrow band of 5 up or down?
> 
> ...




Also you figure, there may be already a couple level 15 Orcs in the MM.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Interesting. Changing a monster's level changes its atk/def/AC by 1 per level. However, for PCs this is only 1 per 2 levels. Wonder how that works.




I have to wonder if it is related to the fact that monsters don't get a power upgrade every time they increase a level.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 18, 2008)

Interesting that they mention Class Templates, as that's something I wanted for monsters for a while.  Since it's no more "non-associative" levels to worry about, and you won't have fire giant spellcasters who suck as spellcasters.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if it is related to the fact that monsters don't get a power upgrade every time they increase a level.



It's probably also why they say not to change the level by more than +/- 5.


----------



## Spenser (Apr 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> I think the goal for the adding a few levels is to grab something that's close to what you want and shim it to the right spot.  For more something like 10 levels, you'd want to go a more formal route of adding class levels to an orc.  This is more like a way to get a level 7 "tougher than average" orc as part of a fight.



Or maybe -- there are a whole bunch of "base" orcs scattered throughout a fairly wide level range. So if you want a higher-level orc, you start by modifying the 13th level Orc Champion rather than the 3rd level Orc Raider. (Edit: Beaten by Fallen Seraph!)

These rules for improving monsters are nice to know. But what about brand new monster creation? In particular, each 4e monster comes with a set of powers with unique names and effects. How do you invent a new 20th level monster and pick a set of unique, self-contained powers that are balanced for that level?


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 18, 2008)

Spenser said:
			
		

> Or maybe -- there are a whole bunch of "base" orcs scattered throughout a fairly wide level range. So if you want a higher-level orc, you start by modifying the 13th level Orc Champion rather than the 3rd level Orc Raider.
> 
> These rules for improving monsters are nice to know. But what about brand new monster creation? In particular, each 4e monster comes with a set of powers with unique names and effects. How do you invent a new 20th level monster and pick a set of unique, self-contained powers that are balanced for that level?




That will probably be in a future excerpt (or we have to wait until the books are released).


----------



## Spenser (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Interesting. Changing a monster's level changes its atk/def/AC by 1 per level. However, for PCs this is only 1 per 2 levels. Wonder how that works.



PCs have magic items with plusses, monsters don't. And when monsters do have magic items, they are nerfed according to level.


----------



## charlesatan (Apr 18, 2008)

Spenser said:
			
		

> These rules for improving monsters are nice to know. But what about brand new monster creation? In particular, each 4e monster comes with a set of powers with unique names and effects. How do you invent a new 20th level monster and pick a set of unique, self-contained powers that are balanced for that level?




I suspect they will have a chart for the appropriate monster roles determining the appropriate AC, Defense, Attack, and HP.

Special abilities however are another thing but you can probably crib some examples from the DMG/MM.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2008)

Thanks guys.  I can see that.  That makes sense.


----------



## breschau (Apr 18, 2008)

I'd like to know what happens to an Elite that gets either of those templates.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> I'd like to know what happens to an Elite that gets either of those templates.





> "You can also advance an elite monster to a solo one by adding a template, then doubling its hit points and adjusting its saving throw as above.
> 
> This method is quick and easy, but it carries some risks. For example, the adjusted monster’s hit points might be lower than those of a typical solo monster of its level and role. Once you’ve finished the process, be sure to “reality check” the monster by comparing its statistics and abilities to others of similar power."



So you can produce solos this way basically.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 18, 2008)

That was one sweet article.

Fitz


----------



## Spenser (Apr 18, 2008)

And also, you can only stack two templates at most. That eliminates some of the craziness possible in 3e.


----------



## baberg (Apr 18, 2008)

I.  Love.  Crunch.

Seriously, WotC?  Keep it up.  Charts and "Levels 1-5 = 0" and "Add 1 to all damages per 2 levels" and "At-will" and...  Just keep it up.  I'm loving it


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Interesting. Changing a monster's level changes its atk/def/AC by 1 per level. However, for PCs this is only 1 per 2 levels. Wonder how that works.




Monsters aren't dirt farmers either, of course! 

Seriously, though, this is very nice. Simple, elegant, and easy to use. Just what I'm looking for when it comes to simple monster changes. 

Now I just want to see the sections on adding Class levels to monsters AND the sections on making up new monsters. If they're as well done as this excerpt, I'll be a very happy camper.


----------



## Colmarr (Apr 18, 2008)

Did anyone else notice that one of the Vampire Lord's powers was given as being "(minor, recharge )" ? (sic)

Recharge what? Does it mean that the power automatically recharges when used, or is it supposed to say recharge 5 6 (for example)?

EDIT: Nevermind, I was reading the printer-friendly version. In the web version, it shows a dice face with 6 dots, so obviously the power is recharge 6. The printer-friendly version has neither the dice image nor the number 6, just a blank. Hence my confusion.

Nothing to see hear. Move along


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

Colmarr said:
			
		

> Did anyone else notice that one of the Vampire Lord's powers was given as being "(minor, recharge )" ? (sic)
> 
> Is that a typo? Recharge what? Does it mean that the power automatically recharges when used?




Each round, the DM rolls a d6 and if it lands on the number or above for that power it recharges. So in this case, it shows the 6-dots, so have to roll a 6.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

And now, for some silliness.
[sblock]Succubus Vampire Lord Level 11 Elite Controller
Medium immortal humanoid (devil, shapechanger, undead) XP 1200
Initiative +8 Senses Perception +8; darkvision
HP 204; Bloodied 102
AC 27; Fortitude 21, Reflex 25, Will 27
Immune disease, poison
Resist 20 fire 10 necrotic
Vulnerable radiant 10
Saving Throws +2
Action Point 1
Regeneration 10 (regeneration does not function while the succubus vampire lord is exposed to direct sunlight)
Speed 6, fly 6

Melee Corrupting Touch (standard; at-will)
+16 vs. AC; 1d6 + 7 damage.

Melee Charming Kiss (standard; at-will) Charm
+16 vs. AC; on a hit, the succubus vampire lord makes a secondary attack against the same target. Secondary Attack: +14 vs. Will; the target cannot attack the succubus vampire lord, and if the target is adjacent to the succubus vampire lord when the succubus vampire lord is targeted by a melee or a ranged attack, the target interposes itself and becomes the target of the attack instead. The effects last until the succubus vampire lord or one of its allies attacks the target or until the succubus vampire lord dies.

If the target is still under the effect of this power at the end of the encounter, the succubus vampire lord can sustain the effect indefinitely by kissing the target once per day. The succubus vampire lord can affect only one target at a time with its charming kiss.

Ranged Dominate (standard; at-will) Charm
Ranged 5; +14 vs. Will; the target is dominated until the end of the succubus vampire lord’s next turn.

Melee Blood Drain (standard, encounter; recharges when an adjacent creature becomes bloodied)  Healing
Requires combat advantage. +13 vs. Fortitude; 2d12 + 10, and the target is weakened (save ends), and the succubus vampire lord heals 51 hit points.

Ranged Dominating Gaze (minor, recharge 6) Charm
Ranged 5; +13 vs. Will; the target is dominated (save ends, with a –2 penalty to the saving throw). Aftereffect: The target is dazed (save ends). The succubus vampire lord can dominate only one creature at a time with this power.

Mist Form (standard; encounter) Polymorph
The vampire lord becomes insubstantial and gains a fly speed of 12, but cannot make attacks. The succubus vampire lord can remain in mist form for up to 1 hour or end the effect as a minor action.

Change Shape (minor; at-will) Polymorph
The succubus can alter its physical form to take on the appearance of any Medium humanoid, including a unique individual (see Change Shape, page 280).

Alignment Evil Languages Common, Supernal
Skills Bluff +15, Diplomacy +15, Insight +13
Str 11 (+4) Dex 18 (+8) Wis 19 (+8)
Con 10 (+4) Int 15 (+6) Cha 22 (+10)[/sblock]


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 18, 2008)

Unholy snappin' armpits, Batman, where'd she get that mallet, Hammerspace?

More seriously: Regen 10?!? Woah. Particularly on that Lich. Sunlight I won't miss killing vampires, but shifting into a bat or wolf I will. Hopefully, that'll be taken care of once they hammer out the wrinkles in polymorph.

Yeah, natural armour not stacking is going to take some getting used to again, not to mention we're back to handwaving away the inevitable question of why. It's a good metagame reason but still.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Yeah, natural armour not stacking is going to take some getting used to again, not to mention we're back to handwaving away the inevitable question of why. It's a good metagame reason but still.




Do you let a chain shirt stack with heavy plate armor?


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 18, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Do you let a chain shirt stack with heavy plate armor?



QFT.  

I never understood why natural armor stacked with regular armor.  I remember thinking "huh??" when I first read that it did.


----------



## Andor (Apr 18, 2008)

The vampire's dominate was sure nerfed wasn't it? So much for the whole "Come to me Lucy" thing.  :\


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 18, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> The vampire's dominate was sure nerfed wasn't it? So much for the whole "Come to me Lucy" thing.  :\




Depends on what Domination actually does.  It appears to be an effect all its own, as the mechanics aren't listed beyond the nastier-than-usual saving throw to get out of it.


----------



## DandD (Apr 18, 2008)

Lucy will come to you. If a round is still 6 seconds aproximately, and you managed to overcome her meager willdefense, she'll be at your side iin no problem. Also, it's harder to save against the domination power. 
Save-or-suck/die/go-home-and-come-back-later-powers never were popular to begin with.


----------



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

Possibly the long-term dominate is more of a ritual thing, since it's more of a narrative device than a combat mechanic.


----------



## KingCrab (Apr 18, 2008)

scrubkai said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Int adds to AC




I'm confused as well.  None of the smartest professors I know would be any good at dodging a punch.


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I'm confused as well.  None of the smartest professors I know would be any good at dodging a punch.




But smart enough not to get into fights nu?


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm impressed.


----------



## KingCrab (Apr 18, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> I never understood why natural armor stacked with regular armor.  I remember thinking "huh??" when I first read that it did.




If you have a tough hide, and you add padding or leather or plates on top of that hide, shouldn't it be able to help you defend (if it doesn't limit your mobility too much)?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I'm confused as well.  None of the smartest professors I know would be any good at dodging a punch.



Strangely enough, they're also not heroic fantasy characters.



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> Before someone complains that Vampires are no more killed by Sun light, recall that Dracula wasn't



Actually, if the minions are damaged by sunlight, but the Lord is just inconvenienced, that would be awesome, and would actually fit a lot of the more recent stuff you see around.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 18, 2008)

Damn, you people are right. I didn't notice the lack of a vulnerability to sunlight. And I just checked and the Vampire Spawn isn't hurt by sunlight, either. Just the Vampire Vizier. What's up with that? Huh. Guess I was so thrilled about the utter disappearance of that stupid Slam Attack that I didn't notice that a pretty important detail was missing from this stat block.  One can only hope that there's a general list of weaknesses or such that apply to all Vampire Templates listed elsewhere, cause damn it, I want my vampires to get their faces melted off their skulls by the sun.


----------



## srn (Apr 18, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Actually, if the minions are damaged by sunlight, but the Lord is just inconvenienced, that would be awesome, and would actually fit a lot of the more recent stuff you see around.




This is how it is going to be in my campaign, RAW or not. Awesome idea.


----------



## KingCrab (Apr 18, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, they're also not heroic fantasy characters.




The smartest fantasy characters I can think of (like Raistlin) also (I imagine) would not be very good at dodging punches.  

I guess I can see a really intelligent (heroic fantasy character) martial artist using his brainpower to predict upcoming blows, but that still requires the dexterity to react.  Perhaps int should add to AC together with dex only if the dex bonus is higher (so you need the reflexes along with the knowledge?)


----------



## Victim (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> If you have a tough hide, and you add padding or leather or plates on top of that hide, shouldn't it be able to help you defend (if it doesn't limit your mobility too much)?




Not if attacks that would be able to pierce the armor would also be able to pierce the tough hide.  Sticking bullet proof vests to a tank doesn't seem particularly useful.

And mechanically, the armor/natural armor stacking allowed many creatures and characters to trivially boost their ACs beyond the apparent intended levels - especially when you look at polymorph effects (which have hopefully been massively changed).


----------



## Craith (Apr 18, 2008)

One small nugget for all those who want Low/No magic Campaigns: 
the Monster Magic Threshold table tells you how you have to modify the stats of your monsters to count for the players magic items.

They will be a bit tougher (same hp, less player damage), but should be doable.


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> The smartest fantasy characters I can think of (like Raistlin) also (I imagine) would not be very good at dodging punches.
> 
> I guess I can see a really intelligent (heroic fantasy character) martial artist using his brainpower to predict upcoming blows, but that still requires the dexterity to react.  Perhaps int should add to AC together with dex only if the dex bonus is higher (so you need the reflexes along with the knowledge?)




Are you bringing _realism_ into a discussion about if Int should add to AC? 

For what it's worth, there are a good dozen or so ways in 3.5 to add Int to AC (starting with the Duelist in the DMG). It's not entirely new.

Think of it like parrying and pre-emptively ensuring you are covered as opposed to dodging. Even wizards (who have spent months-> years in dungeons) would work out where is the best place to stand to avoid being hit.

(Haven't we had this discussion before?)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Apr 18, 2008)

INT adding to AC is long overdue. Tactical thinking and planning is alpha and omega in every fight. A smart fighter will beat a dumb fighter of approximately similar levels of training and strength every time.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Can someone post that awesome ninjae vs Einstein pic again? Thx.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm in for the fighting smarter.  4E is designed with the idea that even the Wizard is trained to be involved in combat. He's not a book-study conclave wizard, he's an ADVENTURER.

Fitz


----------



## charlesatan (Apr 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> More seriously: Regen 10?!? Woah. Particularly on that Lich. Sunlight I won't miss killing vampires, but shifting into a bat or wolf I will. Hopefully, that'll be taken care of once they hammer out the wrinkles in polymorph.
> 
> Yeah, natural armour not stacking is going to take some getting used to again, not to mention we're back to handwaving away the inevitable question of why. It's a good metagame reason but still.




You can always add in the Polymorph ability to turn into bats/wolves. Personally, I don't like vampires turning into wolves because it's encroaching into the lycanthrope's territory. (As for the bat, honestly, how threatening _in combat_ will a bat be unless they're dire bats or part of a swarm?)

As for natural armor and actual armor, let's just say that there are situations when they are redundant, and when they're actually useful (i.e. padding). But a unified rule governing them is nice.



			
				Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Think of it like parrying and pre-emptively ensuring you are covered as opposed to dodging. Even wizards (who have spent months-> years in dungeons) would work out where is the best place to stand to avoid being hit.




I'd also like to add that Int can be "mental" reflexes, being aware of predicting when a blow is about to strike. I'd also like to add that in 3.0/3.5, it's stated that if a creature has no Dexterity score, they use Int instead for determining things like Initiative so Dex and Int going hand in hand isn't that big of a deviation from the rules.


----------



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

Great crunch, and I love the succubus vampire Sojorn..domination up the ying yang!


			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> I want my vampires to get their faces melted off their skulls by the sun.





			
				FIFY said:
			
		

> The Sun causes 10 (or 20 or 30 or whatever) radiant damage per round to susceptible undead


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Great crunch, and I love the succubus vampire Sojorn..domination up the ying yang!




Ouch.


----------



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

hong said:
			
		

> Ouch.



ROFL







			
				RAFANASAURUS said:
			
		

> Ying Yang - Descriptive term meaning ‘all over the place’ and lots of it, for example “I’ve got paperwork coming out of the ying yang.”


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, I can't take an orc beyond 5 levels up?  No more 15th level orc barbarians?  Or, rather, these rules don't work very well outside of that fairly narrow band of 5 up or down?
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm all that happy about that.
> 
> Or, am I missing something vital?



Note that the section on adding class levels to monsters is mentioned up top but isn't there.  There was also a gleemax post from Mike Mearls in January talking about making a (templated) Gnoll Warlock NPC, so I'm sure it will be possible to make 15th level orc somethings (no barbarian class!).

"You’ll also find rules for adding a class to a monster, mining the Player’s Handbook for combat powers."


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Can someone post that awesome ninjae vs Einstein pic again? Thx.



You mean this?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> So you can produce solos this way basically.



The warning about making weak solo monsters with templates is spot-on, I would think.  Elites have 2x the hp of a "normal" monster, solos have 5x.  What we can see in the two templates here is that they upgrade a normal monster to elite status but! instead of doubling its HP, they add on a new stack of HP derived from the template's monster role, which is kinda neat.  (although I'm a bit confused about what you get if the monster's role and the template's differ, or what makes a lich a controller vs an artillery)  So if you add a template to an elite, or two templates to a normal monster, you end up with a solo monster that effectively has 3x the normal hp, instead of 5x.  Which is a rather large difference.

Probably a good way around this would be to double the base creature's hp when adding a template to an elite creature (whether it started off as elite or was made into one by another template).  That would give you an effective 5x hp total.

Also the new solo creature should have 2 action points?  Ah nevermind, Sojurn answered this.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 18, 2008)

Einstein vs. Ninjas is one of those images that will never stop being awesome. I still can't believe it exists...

Anyways, I like today's preview. The new template scheme works really well, and I like both the Lich and the vampire Lord. My only complaint is that the description about how to switch out armor is noticeably less elegant than most other things we have seen about the game. It doesn't sit well with me. Fortunately, I see little need to actually use those rules very often.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Also the new solo creature should have 2 action points?



Gets one from each template or 1 from elite and 1 from template.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm sure someone well tell me I've overlooked something, but there's what seems to be a big inconsistency around the middle of the page, talking about monster magic threshhold.  In one paragraph, it says

"For example, if you give that 8th-level ogre savage a +2 magic greatclub, you add only a +1 bonus to its attack rolls and damage rolls, since its magic threshold is +1."

But almost immediately thereafter it says

" For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal."

Ok, the +3 to AC I get... That's from the upgrade to plate armor.  But we were just told, not two paragraphs earlier, that they would NOT get a +3 to attack and damage because their threshhold allows only a +1.

So how could the author then go on to make such a mistake?  Like I said, I'm sure I'm overlooking something, like I did when I failed to notice the entire Constitution score added to PC hitpoints and not just Con modifier.

Edit:  I see now that the threshhold is *subtracted* from the enhancement bonus, but the numbers still don't add up.  +3 -1 = +2


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

*I noticed that too...*



			
				Vaeron said:
			
		

> I'm sure someone well tell me I've overlooked something, but there's what seems to be a big inconsistency around the middle of the page, talking about monster magic threshhold.  In one paragraph, it says
> 
> "For example, if you give that 8th-level ogre savage a +2 magic greatclub, you add only a +1 bonus to its attack rolls and damage rolls, since its magic threshold is +1."
> 
> ...




Yeah, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Seemed pretty glaring. It seems more like that should be a sidebar "behind the scenes" for *why* they instituted that rule. 

I wonder if there is going to be a similar mechanic for players. Only powerful heroes can get the most out of their magic weapons and armor, which makes as much sense as anything else, and works well from a balance perspective. Also, it allows the DM to place some super powerful quest weapon in the PCs hands or for a character to inherit the sword of his powerful father use it without it taking over the campaign.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

Another intersting tidbit is that raising or lowering a monsters level has a direct effect on its damage, by 1/2 damage per level.  I'm sure it's just a handwave (note that none of the monster upgrade paths involve altering the monster's ability scores), but grist for the +half-your-level-to-damage discussion, nonetheless...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> And now, for some silliness.
> [sblock]Succubus Vampire Lord Level 11 Elite Controller
> Medium immortal humanoid (devil, shapechanger, undead) XP 1200
> Initiative +8 Senses Perception +8; darkvision
> ...



Nasty. Very nasty. 
After two combat rounds, I see two PCs dominated, one charmed. 
Better hope the remaining two have a break enchantment-like spell ready...


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

> Edit: I see now that the threshhold is *subtracted* from the enhancement bonus, but the numbers still don't add up. +3 -1 = +2




Umm, I don't think so. That would mean that high level monsters would get *less* use out of their magic items.


----------



## Lurker59 (Apr 18, 2008)

I agree. It seems like it should be +2 to hit and damage rolls from wielding +3 greatswords, due to the +1 threshold. It is also possible that the ogre usually uses a greatclub and the greatsword has +1 proficiency and average damage when compared to the greatclub. If that is the case a +3 greatsword would provide +3 hit and damage. Even so the example should be a little more clear about the details.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Einstein vs. Ninjas is one of those images that will never stop being awesome. I still can't believe it exists...
> 
> Anyways, I like today's preview. The new template scheme works really well, and I like both the Lich and the vampire Lord. My only complaint is that the description about how to switch out armor is noticeably less elegant than most other things we have seen about the game. It doesn't sit well with me. Fortunately, I see little need to actually use those rules very often.



BTW. Is this the only pic that exists, or is there an actual comic book for it?


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Yeah, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Seemed pretty glaring. It seems more like that should be a sidebar "behind the scenes" for *why* they instituted that rule.
> 
> I wonder if there is going to be a similar mechanic for players. Only powerful heroes can get the most out of their magic weapons and armor, which makes as much sense as anything else, and works well from a balance perspective. Also, it allows the DM to place some super powerful quest weapon in the PCs hands or for a character to inherit the sword of his powerful father use it without it taking over the campaign.



I think the swords may have higher attack-bonuses than greatclubs. It might be that in combination with the magic bonus he refers to.

About the sword of your father: Even if it's not in the rules, it is a nice touch to a character and since wealth/level isn't the balance factor it was, I think it might be easier to add such a rule this time.


----------



## prototype00 (Apr 18, 2008)

Anyone else notice that monsters get +1 to damage for every two levels? Certainly bodes well for PC damage increasing with level (ala the str mod +1/2 level SWSE rules).

Awesome.

prototype00


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Lurker59 said:
			
		

> I agree. It seems like it should be +2 to hit and damage rolls from wielding +3 greatswords, due to the +1 threshold. It is also possible that the ogre usually uses a greatclub and the greatsword has +1 proficiency and average damage when compared to the greatclub. If that is the case a +3 greatsword would provide +3 hit and damage. Even so the example should be a little more clear about the details.



That makes sense! 

There is still some room for rules mastery, after all


----------



## charlesatan (Apr 18, 2008)

Vaeron said:
			
		

> I'm sure someone well tell me I've overlooked something, but there's what seems to be a big inconsistency around the middle of the page, talking about monster magic threshhold.  In one paragraph, it says
> 
> "For example, if you give that 8th-level ogre savage a +2 magic greatclub, you add only a +1 bonus to its attack rolls and damage rolls, since its magic threshold is +1."
> 
> ...




I know it can get confusing but you have to understand the entire paragraph rather than just those single sentences. Basically, they're saying in

" For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal."

The "three points higher than normal" refers to if you don't apply the threshold.

Instead, it recommends "If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level." in the statement preceding this, and then "That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits." after the quoted message.


----------



## fba827 (Apr 18, 2008)

This is probably old news, but I see in the preview that it labels it as
Lich Elite Controller or Artillery
and
Vampire Lord Elite Controller or Skirmisher

Are there different role classifications (Artillery and Skirmisher) for monsters or something (rather than just the controller, leader, etc that we've been talking about for the PCs)?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Umm, I don't think so. That would mean that high level monsters would get *less* use out of their magic items.



Yes, that's the point.  The idea is that a monster's numbers should fall in a certain range for its level, (mostly) regardless of what equipment it has, so that the DM knows how well it will fare against the PCs (or vice versa).  If that's not true, balanced encounter design becomes much more difficult.


----------



## charlesatan (Apr 18, 2008)

fba827 said:
			
		

> This is probably old news, but I see in the preview that it labels it as
> Lich Elite Controller or Artillery
> and
> Vampire Lord Elite Controller or Skirmisher
> ...




Yes. There are even keywords like Mastermind and the like.


----------



## Lurker59 (Apr 18, 2008)

No, the threshold basically explains why you can't just give all your war devils +1 tridents for an extra +1 to hit and damage. Since they are 22nd level monsters they need at least a +5 trident to gain any benefit to their attacks due to a +4 threshold. You don't need to dump a bunch of minor magic items on an NPC or monster to make them effective. Basically any equipment that an opponent has should be of some value to the PCs. _"Equipment shouldn’t be random but should serve some purpose in the design of an encounter. Make sure to include any such items as part of the overall treasure you’re giving out for the adventure."_


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 18, 2008)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Instead, it recommends "If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level." in the statement preceding this, and then "That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits." after the quoted message.




Yes, the 11th level monster would have +3 to hit (1 per level) and +1 to damage (+1/2 level).  But I'm referring to the part that talks about their bonuses resulting from the use of enchanted items.  If these 11th level beasties were using the +3 greatswords they would get an additional +1 to hit and +1 to damage (+3  weapon -2=+1).  (this subtracting the + number is a bit counter-intuitive here).

"Giving all your ogre savages plate armor and +3 greatswords may seem like a reasonable change, but now they have the attack, damage, and defense numbers of a higher-level monster—which makes them a tougher challenge than other 8th-level brutes."

This statement, and the one I quoted previously, seems to defy the previous magic threshold rules laid out.  Sure, he says to just adjust the level up.  But the math he quotes doesn't mesh with the math quoted just a paragraph before.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> BTW. Is this the only pic that exists, or is there an actual comic book for it?



I hope so, I *need* this comic! Badly.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> cferejohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wait, one of us isn't understanding the other. The threshold, as I understand it, exists to stop you from putting a +5 weapon in the hands of a 2nd level kobold and making him really badass. You can put the weapon in his hands, but he won't get any good out of it.

Obviously at higher levels, both characters and monsters are assumed to have some access to magic gear, so the threshold increases, allowing higher level monsters to fully take advantage of powerful weapons.

What I said above was a response to someone who said that you *subtract* the threshold, which would mean that a 2nd level kobold could get +5/+5 from a +5 sword while a pit fiend or what have you would get nothing out of it, which clearly makes no sense. 

I think they just messed up their example, probably left it in from before they inserted the threshhold idea and were instead just warning DMs that giving low level monsters powerful magic items could result in balance problems.


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

Oh I see the subtract text now. I think that's a typo pure and simple. Clearly a "threshold" implies a cap. Doing it as subtracting the +bonus makes no sense either from a balance stand point or from a design standpoint.

Sort of worrysome that they have chosen to release text that appears to have not gone through final editing. I had assumed these were PDFs of what actually went to the printer, but maybe we're a generation back. Hope so, anyway.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> What I said above was a response to someone who said that you *subtract* the threshold, which would mean that a 2nd level kobold could get +5/+5 from a +5 sword while a pit fiend or what have you would get nothing out of it, which clearly makes no sense.




That was me... My actual post was inquiring as to why ogre savages only get +1 bonus from a +2 magic club, since they have threshold +1, but are then quoted as getting +3 from +3 greatswords with a threshold +1.  It seemed contradictory.

I then observed, in an edit, that the article states threshold is subtracted from the enhancement bonus.  Instead of giving the ogres the +1 I had expected, it would result in the ogres getting a +2.  Yet the article states they'd get the full +3.

This article seemed so straightforward at first!


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Wait, one of us isn't understanding the other. The threshold, as I understand it, exists to stop you from putting a +5 weapon in the hands of a 2nd level kobold and making him really badass. You can put the weapon in his hands, but he won't get any good out of it.
> 
> Obviously at higher levels, both characters and monsters are assumed to have some access to magic gear, so the threshold increases, allowing higher level monsters to fully take advantage of powerful weapons.
> 
> ...



It states in the article that the magic threshold is an abstract number that symbolizes the creatures access to magic weapons, powers and so on. That means that, for example, the pit fiend already has a mace that is almost as powerful as +5, getting only a +1 in the upgrade. The kobold, otoh, only has a rusty spear as a regular weapon. For the kobold, it would be a huge upgrade and it would get +5.

By the way, the article states up front that is an abstract rule. I don't think anything will be gained by spending 3 pages of the thread making literal interpretations and cornercases out of this...


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> It states in the article that the magic threshold is an abstract number that symbolizes the creatures access to magic weapons, powers and so on. That means that, for example, the pit fiend already has a mace that is almost as powerful as +5, getting only a +1 in the upgrade. The kobold, otoh, only has a rusty spear as a regular weapon. For the kobold, it would be a huge upgrade and it would get +5.




Huh. You know I think you are right. From the excerpt:



> Enhancement Bonuses: A monster benefits from an enhancement bonus to attack rolls, defenses, or AC only if that bonus is higher than its magic threshold, as shown on the table below.




Honestly I think I like my way better, and yeah, the whole "subtract the value that has a plus in front of it" thing is really bizzare. If this is what they were intending "theshold" seems like a strange choice of words. I guess its a threshold in the sense that it is the *minimum* plus that applies to them. 

In either case, the example is bricked. 

Personally I like the ideas of magic items that characters (and I suppose monsters) "grow" into, unlocking more powers as they go up in level. I know they started adding "some* items that worked like that in 3.5, but I thought they might make it standard, since it would fit in well with the whole "only 11th+ level characters can use rings" thing.



> By the way, the article states up front that is an abstract rule. I don't think anything will be gained by spending 3 pages of the thread making literal interpretations and cornercases out of this...




Umm, this is not a corner case, someone (evidently me) was confused about how the rule fundamentally worked. Is the threshold the max plus a creature of that level can take advantage of OR is it the minimum plus that the weapon/armor must have for a creature to take advantage of it (on the assumption that if it is lower than this then what they already had was better anyway). It seems from closer inspection that the latter is the case, but the text and (especially) the table are pretty damned confusing.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn, you're right about "threshold" probably being the wrong word to use.  The threshold listed in the chart is the number of magic "plusses" _already built into_ the monster.  The same as its AC - 10 - max (Dex or Int mod) is its built-in armor bonus.  Whatever items you give the creature have to surpass the built-in bonuses in order to have an effect, and even then only the difference applies.  So a 6th-10th level monster gains nothing from wielding a +1 weapon, because its own attacks are already considered to be just as effective as one.  Give the same monster a +2 weapon, and it only gets +1 to hit & damage from it.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> By the way, the article states up front that is an abstract rule. I don't think anything will be gained by spending 3 pages of the thread making literal interpretations and cornercases out of this...




It was an article on customizing monsters.  Therefore, it's reasonable to discuss customization rules on monsters since, well, that's what the article was about.  What I'm trying to figure out is why a monster with a +1 threshold gets +1 from a +2 mace (that makes sense) but +3 from a +3 greatsword with the same +1 threshold (that makes no sense).  

Unless there's some mechanic to greatswords that grants a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage?  A 2-handed bonus, perhaps?


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

Magic threshold is a monster only solution for a monster only problem.

The good: Giving a war devil a +5 trident that the PCs can win from him.
The bad: The war devil gets +5 to damage and attack rolls, messing up his balanced math.
Solution: Lower the bonus he gets so he can have an appropriate level item without messing up the math.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 18, 2008)

That is easily the best lich artwork I've ever seen.  Bravo.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

And again we have

a. Gamist rules which are completely unlogical 
b. Fluff text and game rules mismatch

And the templates are also rather bland.


----------



## Lurker59 (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm curious at the confusion over the meaning of threshold. Straight from the dictionary, _Threshold: The point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response_. Therefore a +2 weapon is needed to overcome a +1 threshold, which is subtracting from the weapons effectiveness.

Personally I think the method of changing armor is harder to explain, though not necessarily flawed. While it's simplicity holds true to 4th edition's guidelines, if seems strange that switching from heavy to light armor allows a monster to suddenly use its DEX/INT, but switching from light to heavy doesn't seem have the opposite effect. The ogre from the example switches from hide (light) to chainmail (heavy) without losing its DEX bonus to AC.


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 18, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Magic threshold is a monster only solution for a monster only problem.
> 
> The good: Giving a war devil a +5 trident that the PCs can win from him.
> The bad: The war devil gets +5 to damage and attack rolls, messing up his balanced math.
> Solution: Lower the bonus he gets so he can have an appropriate level item without messing up the math.




Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?




Do it like in Diablo. The normal equipment of monster can't be picked up. Only the special stuff drops.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?




Give it in its inventory what you believe be a equivalent Trident, hell you can spruce it up a little. While the attack says it is with a Trident, perhaps another uses a spear so put in his inventory a spear.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?



It's assumed zero. It's an abstract rule.

You can say all your devils are running around with +4 tridents if you really want, nothing is stopping you. But, that perhaps puts too much emphasis on ultimately irrelevant items.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Interesting. Changing a monster's level changes its atk/def/AC by 1 per level. However, for PCs this is only 1 per 2 levels. Wonder how that works.



Magic items (weapons, implements, armor, cloaks) probably accounts for one of the (approximately) +1/4 levels.

Ability score increases should account for the second +1/4 levels, allowing PCs to more or less keep pace with the monsters.


----------



## Lurker59 (Apr 18, 2008)

Unless the DM specifically decides a war devil has a magic trident then it's just a trident. It's a more elegant, though decidely non-simulationist, way of avoiding the glut of minor to average magic items that any 3.5 NPC needed to be effective. Now instead of picking up a myriad of minor stat boosting item and generic weapon every time they kill a group of NPCs, the PCs can actually look forward to getting something that won't be pawned off as soon as they get a chance. Personally I'd rather avoid having to pawn off a weak magic trident every time I drop a war devil. The value of the trident will be part of the treasure not being used by the devil, maybe a new sword, wand or such.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 18, 2008)

Lurker59 said:
			
		

> I'm curious at the confusion over the meaning of threshold. Straight from the dictionary, _Threshold: The point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response_. Therefore a +2 weapon is needed to overcome a +1 threshold, which is subtracting from the weapons effectiveness.




The confusion is from the paragraph that states 8 level ogre savages, with a +1 threshold, receive a +3 to hit and +3 to damage from a +3 greatsword.  It seems to defy the rules.  Is it a typo, or is there a +1 hit/damage bonus to using 2-handed weapons, or something else?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

The threshold does two things
1) It says what enhancement bonus a weapon must have to make a difference at all.
2) It is also the reduction that applies to the bonus.

The remaining question is: Are the final numbers for the Greatsword "upgrade" to the Ogres correct or not? 
They might be "self-correcting", if we assume that a Greatclub grants a +1 proficiency bonus, and a Greatsword grants a +2 profiency bonus, compensating the +1 magical threshold. 
Considering that the equipment changes also change the armor from whatever they usually use to (nonmagical) Full Plate, and the article lists the total benefits as +3 to attack, damage and defense, I think it's reasonable to assume that the total benefits are the sum of magical and "mundane" modifiers from the new equipment. The AC improvement hails from the full plate, the attack bonus from a higher proficiency rating and a higher enhancement bonus. (and the damage bonus comes from the different weapon used, too. I presume Greatclubs deal less damage then Greatswords) 




			
				cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?



You don't know it from the stat block, but you know it from the treasure you wanted to assign to that encounter, according to the presumable existing guidelines for treasure per encounter.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 18, 2008)

I really like that article - it seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

I'm sure the final text in the DMG will be proof-read again and hopefully the inconsistency that people have noticed will be cleared up.

REALLY liking the idea that monsters should only have 'relevant' magic items - they've solved the "old adventurers have bucketfuls of magic weapons" problem.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> REALLY liking the idea that monsters should only have 'relevant' magic items - they've solved the "old adventurers have bucketfuls of magic weapons" problem.



It's an interesting inversion. One of the ideas that was previously tossed around to maintain "the math" in a low-magic campaign was for the PCs' equipment to gain a bonus equal to 1/4 (or whatever is the relevant fraction) of the PCs' level which would not stack with the item's bonus (if any). Hence, a 10th-level PC would have a +2 to attack and damage rolls regardless of whether he used a normal, +1, or +2 weapon.

It appears that this same philosophy is being applied to monster equipment in order to remove the need for them to be magical unless the DM specifically decides otherwise.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 18, 2008)

* blink *



> *Class templates*




* blink * blink *



> *Class templates* allow you to add features of a specific character class to a monster.




* blink * blink * blink *

I knew I should have posted one of my class-based templates at some point. Sometimes I feel like someone implanted a mind probe in my head.


----------



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

Lurker59 said:
			
		

> I... seems strange that switching from heavy to light armor allows a monster to suddenly use its DEX/INT, but switching from light to heavy doesn't seem have the opposite effect. The ogre from the example switches from hide (light) to chainmail (heavy) without losing its DEX bonus to AC.



Yep, I hope that is errata. I reckon we are going to see a rather large amount of errata but I really hope I am wrong! There is a couple already on this single excerpt. There is also a lot on the minis as well, already published.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

A message to all involved: The last paragraph of my last post was a bit offensive. It wasn't meant to come across like that. Apologies if I came across as rude.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 18, 2008)

I've always like templates, such a cool idea from 3e. But, like so many cool ideas in 3e, they just didnt work well.

I like the new templates better, but the Monster customising rules really are good. No BS, I just tweak them for what I need.

Now to create a spreadsheet that will print the results onto a 6x4 cards.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Sunlight I won't miss killing vampires,



Who says anything about sunlight no longer killing vampires?

This is the vampire *lord* we're talking about, he could also walk in dayligh in 3.x, the normal vampires have to hide from the sun


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And again we have
> 
> a. Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> b. Fluff text and game rules mismatch
> ...




Derren, I'm going to have to ask you to post something substantial or leave the thread. This may go for the 4e forum too, as nearly everything I've seen you post here recently has been a kind of "drive by shooting".

If you want to post, don't just make assertions - back them up with the data which you are concerned about. Give examples of which rules you consider to be gamist and illogical. Give examples of mismatch between fluff text and game rules.

You don't need to get into arguments, but if you've got a case that you think is worth stating, state it well and then people will make up their own minds.

Thanks


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 18, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I knew I should have posted one of my class-based templates at some point. Sometimes I feel like someone implanted a mind probe in my head.



I'm with you here. I can't even begin to count the number of times my friends and I have had to look for our tin foil hats since the news of 4E features started coming out. We've been working on a home-brew world and houserule set that we have pretty much seen stripped to its bones by much of what they have done with 4E. They have spies among us I tell you. Spies!
 


As for the rules on Gearing a monster... I really like it. I no longer have to have a bunch of monsters walking with the proverbial Xmas trees effect just to be able to handle a party geared at the expected bonuses for their level. It makes it much easier to pick and choose when to add that item drop without breaking balance.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> I'm with you here. I can't even begin to count the number of times my friends and I have had to look for our tin foil hats since the news of 4E features started coming out. We've been working on a home-brew world and houserule set that we have pretty much seen stripped to its bones by much of what they have done with 4E. They have spies among us I tell you. Spies!



What do you think all this "marketing research" is about? Did you think they really just relied on some surveys and feedback cards? Isn't it more likely they have planted spies and use telepaths? Think of the recent DDI videos - do you think the Mind Flayer is just an actor they hired for the video? 





> As for the rules on Gearing a monster... I really like it. I no longer have to have a bunch of monsters walking with the proverbial Xmas trees effect just to be able to handle a party geared at the expected bonuses for their level. It makes it much easier to pick and choose when to add that item drop without breaking balance.



It also seems to provide nice options to introduce tons of magical items, or none at all, in your campaign. Since most monsters don't rely on magical items, and having them won't change their stats much (or at all), this gives DMs lot more leeway.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 18, 2008)

Not sure if it's been mentioned before as I'm too tired right now to read through the entire thread.

It seems to me that they've made templates and monster scaling as simple and workable as possible to enable speedy game play.

I'm a big fan of this style of thinking as I *much* prefer to DM games on the fly, making stuff up as an interactive story with the players input. 3.x killed that for me not just by the complexity and comprehensiveness of the rules, but by the players *expectation* of that complexity and comprehensiveness.

The players could always tell if I was unprepared and it put me off DM'ing altogether given the staggering amount of preparation needed.

These rules, however, on paper seem to give me several tools with which I can easily and quickly adapt any monster to something a little different or more challenging on the fly.

Not only that, but it would seem I still maintain a fairly concrete understanding of the level of challenge I'd be creating, so I won't under or overwhelm the players.

Sweet.


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It also seems to provide nice options to introduce tons of magical items, or none at all, in your campaign. Since most monsters don't rely on magical items, and having them won't change their stats much (or at all), this gives DMs lot more leeway.



I totally agree with more leeway. I am also liking the fact that we are seeing actual crunch to back up the fact that you CAN manage a game with no magic items. I personally like some magic, but hated the 3E need to have dozens of items per person. I don't want my D&D character looking like an MMO character having to worry about filling all my "gear slots" with appropriate magic doodads.  If I want, I can have a world based on something like GRR Martin's Westeros where every "magic" (i.e. Valyrian) blade has a name and a history. Finding a magic item should mean something, and we can manage that now.


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 18, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> It seems to me that they've made templates and monster scaling as simple and workable as possible to enable speedy game play.
> 
> I'm a big fan of this style of thinking as I *much* prefer to DM games on the fly, making stuff up as an interactive story with the players input. 3.x killed that for me not just by the complexity and comprehensiveness of the rules, but by the players *expectation* of that complexity and comprehensiveness.
> 
> The players could always tell if I was unprepared and it put me off DM'ing altogether given the staggering amount of preparation needed.




I feel your pain on this. Our core group of friends that have been playing for (cut to not age myself) years are now scattered around the country. Once a year we actually take a D&D Vacation and go somewhere for a week and just hang out and run a mini-campaign of D&D for the whole week. Being the primary DM, at least I always get told I'm running... hmm... Anyway, as the primary DM, I have t spend months preparing enough material for a game of this style because of the pain the 3E system puts you through for prep time.

The new tools and system seem like they will be much more "on the fly" friendly, and this alone is probably The Biggest selling point for 4E for me. If its even half as hard as 3E, I'm golden.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just start with a base 15th level orc. Since monsters no longer follow the same rules as characters, you can just say "This is an orc WarRager", stat him up as a 15th level Brute, then apply the modifiers.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 18, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Who says anything about sunlight no longer killing vampires?
> 
> This is the vampire *lord* we're talking about, he could also walk in dayligh in 3.x, the normal vampires have to hide from the sun





I though it was mentioned that the sun is Radiant 0, so the Vamp Lord will get 10 Radiant damage per round.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Just start with a base 15th level orc. Since monsters no longer follow the same rules as characters, you can just say "This is an orc WarRager", stat him up as a 15th level Brute, then apply the modifiers.




Or take the basic orc and slap the Class template on him. 

Personally I'll probably avoid class levels for all monsters and most NPCs, my guys never see the stats, they only want a fun and interesting encounter.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 18, 2008)

Just thought I'd toss in a comment about how amazing this system is for DM's. As someone who DM's most of my groups D&D games, I am freaking ecstatic about how much easier it is going to be to tweak monsters that I might want to use and still provide a good challenge for my group.

I'm sure someone out there thinks this is ridiculously "gamist", and just loves either running only level appropriate monsters or spending 6 hours of prep pre-genning something that will be dead in 10 minutes of game time. Thank god that person doesn't play with me.


----------



## ShockMeSane (Apr 18, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I though it was mentioned that the sun is Radiant 0, so the Vamp Lord will get 10 Radiant damage per round.




While this would be extremely easy to houserule in, I doubt that it is actually the case, as many of the Undead we have seen have radiant damage vulnerability. I find it pretty unlikely that a Bodak will be taking radiant damage from being exposed to sunlight.

In any case, it isn't like it's something you can't just rule on the fly if you feel the need for your Vampires to get face-melted by sunlight.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Ok.

-> Gamist rules which are completely unlogical 

Magic Threashold makes no sense. Why do high level monsters not benefit from magical weapons? One explanation is that their magical "monsterousness" overpowers the magical attributes of the weapon. That works for monsters but it is very likely that NPCs will be build with the same system and I can't think a reason why a human level 20 NPC can't benefit from a +2 Weapon.
It solves that PCs get piles of magical weapons but in a very clunky way.

 ->Fluff text and game rules mismatch

Vampire lords create armies of vampire spawns......how? Certainly not through their blood drain ability.
And I fail to see how the Lich template is in any way geared for arcane casters considering that a fighter with a /encounter ability also benefits from it (but that is more of a case of the Lich being bland instead of flavor text mismatch)


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 18, 2008)

I too love the simplicity of the new advancement rules. When i DMed 3.5 i never bothered to use the actual rules for advancement they were just too cumbersome and time consuming, so i just made stuff up when i wanted a tougher monster. This time i can actually see myself using the rules


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

So templates no longer change creatures radically, just make them tougher? That's disappointing. My favorite third party book was Advanced Bestiary by Green Ronin; it contains a few dozen Very Cool templates which did all sorts of things. The Shadow Creature template from Lords of Madness has been used a lot in my games, as well.

No more shadow bandits, half-plant wolves, or elder eidolon ogres, it seems... (all of which have featured in my campaign). I suppose the logic is that monster creation is now so easy that making same-level or slightly-stronger monsters is best done from scratch.

Does the Aura Of Badassitude (tm) apply to PCs? If a 15th level PC uses a +1 sword, does he get no benefit from it?

Regeneration -- so there's no more tracking different damage types. This means that if you keep hitting the lich with radiant damage -- even a smidgen -- you will kill it via normal damage, but if it can acoid it for a turn, it begins regenerating. I can see this; it makes a sort of sense. Keep hitting something with what its vulnerable to and its weaker overall, but if it gets away from that damage source, its powers come back. A lot like Kryptonite.

As I had earlier worried, the lack of any breakdown of natural vs. artificial armor bonus means Armor Is Wonky. 

The lich's spellmaster ability doesn't seem limited to 'magical' encounter powers. I like the necrotic ability. Poor Xykon, though, will mourn the loss of his paralyzing touch.

The Vampire Lord's healing is not limited by surges; it can keep doing it all day. And some saves are tougher than others. No long-term control, though; the Vampire "Lord" is going to have to re-dominate even his weakest servant, who will have a 40% change/round of breaking out of it. 

If you add a template to an already elite monster, does it become a solo? What happens if you add one to a solo? Does it raise its level? (They mention beholder liches, and beholders are solo monsters)

EDIT: Just noticed, vampire lords have to be humanoid? No more vampire dragons? Or winter wolves? Why? (And vampires don't seem to be able to create spawn any more...well, the flavor text says they can, as well as having 'armies of dominated spawn', but the dominate power gets a round-by-round save and explitly applies to only one creature at a time. How's that let you make 'armies'?)


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> -> Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> 
> ...



 Yeah it's a gamist solution, but nothing prevents you from ignoring the magic treshold table if you dislike it. I actually like this way better because now monster don't *need* magic items to challenge the PCs. In 3.X you often had to provide them with magic stuff to bridge the gap.
But if you really dislike the magic treshold just don't use it. Granted, the math gets messed up a bit, but encounter design has always been more of an art than an exact science. 



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> ->Fluff text and game rules mismatch
> 
> Vampire lords create armies of vampire spawns......how? Certainly not through their blood drain ability.



Maybe that is stated in the detailed Monster Manual entry? Remember, the templates are designed as a quick way to modify a creature.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And I fail to see how the Lich template is in any way geared for arcane casters considering that a fighter with a /encounter ability also benefits from it (but that is more of a case of the Lich being bland instead of flavor text mismatch)



Oh my god...i'd never thought i'd say this but... Derren has a valid point!   The lich template sure seems a bit broad.
*Edit: I just checked the old 3.5 Lich template in the SRD and, well, looking back it doesn't appear to be specifically geared for arcane caster either.*


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So templates no longer change creatures radically, just make them tougher? That's disappointing. My favorite third party book was Advanced Bestiary by Green Ronin; it contains a few dozen Very Cool templates which did all sorts of things. The Shadow Creature template from Lords of Madness has been used a lot in my games, as well.
> 
> No more shadow bandits, half-plant wolves, or elder eidolon ogres, it seems... (all of which have featured in my campaign). I suppose the logic is that monster creation is now so easy that making same-level or slightly-stronger monsters is best done from scratch.




<Shudder> Never have liked messing with templates (after creating a whole forest full of fiendish critters that could be summoned) so I dont get your love. 

Still I can imagine someone is working on ideas for a book of more _involved_ templates now that the licensing issues have been (hopefully) sorted.



> Does the Aura Of Badassitude (tm) apply to PCs? If a 15th level PC uses a +1 sword, does he get no benefit
> from it?




I'd guess the monster math (mash??) is different from the PC math, so the PC would get the the benefit.



> Regeneration -- so there's no more tracking different damage types. This means that if you keep hitting the lich with radiant damage -- even a smidgen -- you will kill it via normal damage, but if it can acoid it for a turn, it begins regenerating. I can see this; it makes a sort of sense. Keep hitting something with what its vulnerable to and its weaker overall, but if it gets away from that damage source, its powers come back. A lot like Kryptonite.
> 
> As I had earlier worried, the lack of any breakdown of natural vs. artificial armor bonus means Armor Is Wonky.




I like the regeneration and the natural armour doesn't stack. It does seem a little fiddly: having to work backwards (to get the armour modifier) then forwards with the new armour modifier, but the streamlining on the whole system makes up for it. I can take wonky in small doses.



> The lich's spellmaster ability doesn't seem limited to 'magical' encounter powers. I like the necrotic ability. Poor Xykon, though, will mourn the loss of his paralyzing touch.




I think this is where the system will shine. Just grab a paralysing power from another monster entry that you like and replace or add to the lich template. Bingo, all liches in my campaign have paralysing touch.



> If you add a template to an already elite monster, does it become a solo? What happens if you add one to a solo? Does it raise its level? (They mention beholder liches, and beholders are solo monsters)




Didnt it mention about double templating? standard+template=eilte, (elite+template)xdouble hp=solo.

I guess a Solo+template = higher level using the reality check.

I like that "reality check" is all part of the system. I'm hoping for more in the DMG on this with guidelines and tables so outliers can be spotted and fixed (or left as an achillies heel/mutation)...


----------



## Gargazon (Apr 18, 2008)

One think I'm not sure about there is the concern your elite monsters, when templated to solo, won't have enough hp... let's see, you're ADDING another normal monster's worth of hp and THEN doubling? So it has the hp of... six monsters, surely?

Also, cause I wanna:


> *Grell Philosalich*(excuse the name)* Level 11 Solo Controller*
> *Medium aberrant magical beast (undead) XP* 30000 (I think)
> *Necromantic Aura (Necrotic)* aura 5
> Any living creature that starts its turn in the aura takes 5 necrotic damage
> ...




I missed out the things I didn't need, and the hardest part about adding that was.... um... actually, it was bloody easy


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> -> Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> 
> Magic Threashold makes no sense. Why do high level monsters not benefit from magical weapons? One explanation is that their magical "monsterousness" overpowers the magical attributes of the weapon. That works for monsters but it is very likely that NPCs will be build with the same system and I can't think a reason why a human level 20 NPC can't benefit from a +2 Weapon.
> It solves that PCs get piles of magical weapons but in a very clunky way.




Actually I think its a rather elegant solution. They have basically applied the "no magic" modifications to monsters. A monster does not "NEED" to carry a +X Weapon to hit a PC of the appropriate level. This bonus is already an "assumed" mechanic in the construction of the creature and thus the creature is balanced at its base stats.  If you then start heaping additional bonuses on top of its core math, you break the balance and quickly outstrip the PC's ability to compete. Also this applies to NPCs as well. NPCs are no longer built as a PC. An "enemy" Fighter is no longer built as a PC fighter but as either a monster Brute or Soldier.
If a 6th level Soldier is assumed to already have the equivalent of a +1 bonus to attacks and damage built into its core math, then adding another +1 to attack and damage by giving them "full bonus" from a +1 weapon throws off their balance.  Too many people seem to not understand just how quickly magic item bonuses can break the balance of an encounter.




> ->Fluff text and game rules mismatch
> 
> Vampire lords create armies of vampire spawns......how? Certainly not through their blood drain ability.
> And I fail to see how the Lich template is in any way geared for arcane casters considering that a fighter with a /encounter ability also benefits from it (but that is more of a case of the Lich being bland instead of flavor text mismatch)




This I have to basically agree with. I have to assume that this Preview is not entirely completely verbatim from the book. I would assume that the Vampire also has text for describing how a vampire makes Vampire Spawn or passes their power to a mortal to be a vampire lord.  As for the lich, here too I think there is text not included in the preview. For instance *Spellmaster* seems like it would be geared toward refreshing arcane powers. However, the template does specifically state that it can be applied to any creature that meets the prerequisites. Also note that the most important tie to making the lich most associated to the arcane is the reliance on rituals. Its not clear, I'll give you that. But then again, templates are meant for DMs to apply to monsters and not necessarily to make perfect sense whan applied to the thinking associated with PCs.


----------



## charlesatan (Apr 18, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Oh my god...i'd never thought i'd say this but... Derren has a valid point!   The lich template sure seems a bit broad.




True but I think there are other optimal template choices if the creature isn't either an Artillery or a Controller. Like a Brute-type template I would presume would give more hp per level and perhaps a tougher defense. Sure, there are some abilities from the Lich that are lucrative but I expect there are better, more flavor-suiting abilities from the other templates for the various roles.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> This I have to basically agree with. I have to assume that this Preview is not entirely completely verbatim from the book. I would assume that the Vampire also has text for describing how a vampire makes Vampire Spawn or passes their power to a mortal to be a vampire lord.  As for the lich, here too I think there is text not included in the preview. For instance *Spellmaster* seems like it would be geared toward refreshing arcane powers. However, the template does specifically state that it can be applied to any creature that meets the prerequisites. Also note that the most important tie to making the lich most associated to the arcane is the reliance on rituals. Its not clear, I'll give you that. But then again, templates are meant for DMs to apply to monsters and not necessarily to make perfect sense whan applied to the thinking associated with PCs.



Do we really need rules for how a vampire lord creates vampire spawn? Sure, that they *can* do it is important to know, but hard rules? I can't see what it adds to the game to know that a vampire lord can create level/2 vampire spawns per night by using it's ability Create Vampire Spawn [ritual].

Since the vampire lord is a NPC, the DM can add the desired number of vampire spawns without having to trudge through rules to do it. I'm probably a minority in thinking this, so there most likely is an ability for it, but I can't see the need for rules for something like that.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 18, 2008)

On the Vampire Lord Thrall subject... I'll point out that the Lich creates his phylactery using a ritual.  I would not be surprised in the least if there were a ritual that could be performed to lengthen the duration of a 'dominate' effect.


----------



## Jon Wake (Apr 18, 2008)

Or instead of a mismatch between fluff and crunch (my soul died a little saying that) they leave large portions of it to the DM.   If you want vampires to create spawn only through a blood ritual, you can do it that way.  Or you can do it where anyone who dies of a vampires bite becomes a spawn.   You can set the time to a day later, a minute later, or a week later.  Its your game.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 18, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Oh my god...i'd never thought i'd say this but... Derren has a valid point!   The lich template sure seems a bit broad.
> *Edit: I just checked the old 3.5 Lich template in the SRD and, well, looking back it doesn't appear to be specifically geared for arcane caster either.*




It does seem to be designed that way:




> It best complements an arcane NPC, such as a wizard or warlock, or a monster with arcane powers, such as a beholder or oni.




Since the DM is applying the template, why tell the DM what class/NPCs to apply it too. They will do what they want anyway. I think it the prerequisites are there a guide to what it suits. (Still why limit the vampire lord to humanoid creatures then?). hmm.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Why do vampire lords resist 5 necrotic at 1st level and 10 at 11th level? They have a prerequisite of 11th level.





In case you want to rule 0 it and make a vampire like Claudia from Interview with the Vampire.


----------



## Grimstaff (Apr 18, 2008)

Worn armor, such as a suit of chainmail, and natural armor, such as an insect’s carapace or a dragon’s thick scales, do not stack.

Yay!

Hope this is true for PCs, too!

(Stacking armor and natural armor was one of my pet peeves from 3.5)


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Do we really need rules for how a vampire lord creates vampire spawn? Sure, that they *can* do it is important to know, but hard rules? I can't see what it adds to the game to know that a vampire lord can create level/2 vampire spawns per night by using it's ability Create Vampire Spawn [ritual].




Yes, it does matter.

Can the vampire 'spawn' an entire town in a night? Or one person a year? The rate of spawn creation -- how fast, how often, how many -- tells you how fast vampires can spread themselves. How big a threat they are. What kind of culture they're likely to have. If spawn are disposable nonentities or precious children. Etc, etc, etc.

Can a DM change all this at will? Sure. But it's good to have an "official" baseline. (Given the way in which they've cranked the forced fluff up to previously unheard of levels, it's rather odd that USEFUL fluff is being left out. But, as others have said, it might be in the full description. The rule seems to be that anything long-term is a Ritual.)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Do we really need rules for how a vampire lord creates vampire spawn? Sure, that they *can* do it is important to know, but hard rules? I can't see what it adds to the game to know that a vampire lord can create level/2 vampire spawns per night by using it's ability Create Vampire Spawn [ritual].




It is also possible that the rules might be under Vampire Spawn, something like "A vampire spawn is created when a vampire kills someone with its blood drain" or something similar.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Um, didn't the Bodak entry from the actual MM that was on display at DDXP list that the creation was a Ritual?

I think Lizard is right in that anything LONG_TERM, the default is that it is a ritual.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Oh my god...i'd never thought i'd say this but... Derren has a valid point!   The lich template sure seems a bit broad.
> *Edit: I just checked the old 3.5 Lich template in the SRD and, well, looking back it doesn't appear to be specifically geared for arcane caster either.*






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.




Not ARCANE caster, but caster. A main BBEG in my current game is a druid lich.
The 4e lich template, applied to a non-caster, is pretty useful -- necrotic aura and recharge on any encounter powers. Convert "Any" attack power to necrotic -- give it to a high-level archer-type and have him literally rain down death. Or a stone giant lich hurling 'necrotic boulders'. That's pretty cool, actually.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yes, it does matter.
> 
> Can the vampire 'spawn' an entire town in a night? Or one person a year? The rate of spawn creation -- how fast, how often, how many -- tells you how fast vampires can spread themselves. How big a threat they are. What kind of culture they're likely to have. If spawn are disposable nonentities or precious children. Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Can a DM change all this at will? Sure. But it's good to have an "official" baseline. (Given the way in which they've cranked the forced fluff up to previously unheard of levels, it's rather odd that USEFUL fluff is being left out. But, as others have said, it might be in the full description. The rule seems to be that anything long-term is a Ritual.)



Why is an official baseline needed? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I can't see the need for official rules when it comes to how many vampire spawns that can be created. I've tried to think of a situation where I would wish I had the spawning rate of vampires, but I just can't think of any such situation. Vampire lords can create vampire spawns. That's everything I need to know.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is an official baseline needed? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I can't see the need for official rules when it comes to how many vampire spawns that can be created. I've tried to think of a situation where I would wish I had the spawning rate of vampires, but I just can't think of any such situation. Vampire lords can create vampire spawns. That's everything I need to know.





It is a little bit of a hole in the rules. It could be something like Vampire Spawn are created however the DM wishes, but that is a little lazy. Give something sensical and let DMs change it if the wish, is the ideal.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is an official baseline needed? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I can't see the need for official rules when it comes to how many vampire spawns that can be created. I've tried to think of a situation where I would wish I had the spawning rate of vampires, but I just can't think of any such situation. Vampire lords can create vampire spawns. That's everything I need to know.




I've already told you -- when working out exactly how dangerous/prevalent vampires are, when building their culture, etc.

If a beloved NPC is captured by a vampire, do the PCs need to rush madly to save him from becoming one of the Undead, or do they know they have a week until the ghastly ritual is complete?

If WOTC (or a third party) publishes a module based on the idea a vampire can turn an entire village into his loyal slaves overnight, does this fit with your campaign where a vampire can only control Int bonus servants?

The difference in what the world will be like between "Vampires create spawn every time they feed, unless they deliberately stop the process" and "Vampires must spend a month of time and sacrifice a hit point permanently to creat spawn" is immense. In the former, a hungry vampire can fill the streets with abandoned, useless, ravening, monsters in a matter of days as the plague spreads. In the latter, a vampire will lure and seduce a special, perfect, target as the blessed recipient of the gift of eternal life. There's lots of other options, too, and each one changes the world -- or at least how vampires fit into it.

It's fine to change things to fit your campaign, but there needs to be a baseline to work from. I don't understand why people love fluff that's non-essential and intrusive (like the entire giant/dwarf backstory) but see no need for definitions of actual game mechanics.

Fluff is easy. Mechanics are hard. I expect developers to do the hard stuff.


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The 4e lich template, applied to a non-caster, is pretty useful -- necrotic aura and recharge on any encounter powers. Convert "Any" attack power to necrotic -- give it to a high-level archer-type and have him literally rain down death. Or a stone giant lich hurling 'necrotic boulders'. That's pretty cool, actually.



I thought the same thing, but with a fighter. You could have a character like witch king of Angmar without the magic; a sword that is wreathed by cold flames, "immune" (by regeneration more or less) to normal weapons and so on.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I thought the same thing, but with a fighter. You could have a character like witch king of Angmar without the magic; a sword that is wreathed by cold flames, "immune" (by regeneration more or less) to normal weapons and so on.




You know that there is also a Death Knight template?


----------



## med stud (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I've already told you -- when working out exactly how dangerous/prevalent vampires are, when building their culture, etc.
> 
> If a beloved NPC is captured by a vampire, do the PCs need to rush madly to save him from becoming one of the Undead, or do they know they have a week until the ghastly ritual is complete?
> 
> ...



OK, I see where you are coming from. I understand your position though I don't agree with it. Personally I'm in the "don't let the rules get in the way of a good story"- camp. I don't feel the need for the same rules to apply for all vampires. If the players are used to vampires with their Int-score in spawns and they suddenly come across a vampire lord that can make an entire village to his spawns, my goal is that they should feel that they have come across a real bad-ass vampire. From my side of the screen, I just feel like making that story.

If I buy an adventure that involves vampires, and that adventure uses a different standard than my standard, I will just use those vampires as they are and assume they are a different kind of vampires. Add a skill challenge or History- check for the PCs to find out about it.

What I'm aiming for with my DMing is first and foremost sense of wonder. If I make the players feel that they discover something new every session, I have reached my goal. I understand that some people feel the same about consistency, it's just not for me.


----------



## Wepwawet (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The difference in what the world will be like between "Vampires create spawn every time they feed, unless they deliberately stop the process" and "Vampires must spend a month of time and sacrifice a hit point permanently to creat spawn" is immense. In the former, a hungry vampire can fill the streets with abandoned, useless, ravening, monsters in a matter of days as the plague spreads. In the latter, a vampire will lure and seduce a special, perfect, target as the blessed recipient of the gift of eternal life. There's lots of other options, too, and each one changes the world -- or at least how vampires fit into it.



As I see it you're describing two settings:
- the first one is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", vampires pop out like mushrooms;
- the second is more like Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Why can't I use the one that fits me and my campaign better?
Maybe these details should be left for campaign settings to describe...


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> * blink *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Where is that tin foil hat when you need it?


----------



## Delgar (Apr 18, 2008)

Enjoy the new Lich Pit Fiend. 

*Pit Fiend Lich Level 26 Solo Controller (Leader)*
Large immortal undead humanoid (devil) *XP* 45,000 
*Initiative * +22 *Senses* Perception +23; darkvision 
*Aura of Fear* (Fear) aura 5; enemies in the aura take a –2 penalty on attack rolls. 
*Aura of Fire * (Fire) aura 5; enemies that enter or start their turns in the aura take 15 fire damage. 
*HP* 585; *Bloodied* 292 
*AC * 46; *Fortitude* 44, *Reflex * 38, *Will* 44 
*Resist* 30 fire, 15 poison , 18 necrotic
*Saving Throws * +4 
*Speed* 12, fly 12 (clumsy), teleport 10 
*Action Points * 2
*Regneration* 10, if the lich takes radiant damage its regeneration doesn’t function on its turn
*Spellmaster* (minor; recharge 5, 6)
The lich regains the use of an expended encounter power next turn.
*Necromantic Aura * (Necrotic) aura 5
Any living creature that enters or starts its turn in the aura takes 5 necrotic damage.
*Necrotic Master*
The lich can convert any attack power it has to necrotic.
Change a power’s energy keyword to necrotic, or add necrotic energy to an attack power that doesn’t normally deal energy damage.
*Melee Flametouched Mace * (standard; at-will) • Fire, Weapon
Reach 2; +31 vs. AC; 1d12+11 fire damage plus ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). 
*Melee Tail Sting * (standard; at-will) • Poison
+31 vs. AC; 1d6+11 damage, and the pit fiend may make a free followup attack. Followup: +29 vs. Fortitude; ongoing 15 poison damage, and the target is weakened (save ends both effects). 
*Melee Pit Fiend Frenzy * (standard; at-will)
The pit fiend makes a flametouched mace attack and a tail sting attack. 
*Ranged Point of Terror * (minor; at-will) • Fear
Range 5; +30 vs. Will; the target takes a –5 penalty to all defenses until the end of the pit fiend's next turn. 
*Ranged Irresistible Command * (minor 1/round; at-will) • Charm, Fire
Range 10; affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend; the target immediately slides up to 5 squares and explodes, dealing 2d10+5 fire damage to all creatures in a close burst 2. The exploding devil is destroyed. 
*Infernal Summons * (standard; encounter) • Conjuration
The pit fiend summons a group of devil allies. Summoned devils roll initiative to determine when they act in the initiative order and gain a +4 bonus to attack rolls as long as the pit fiend is alive. They remain until they are killed, dismissed by the pit fiend (free action), or the encounter ends. PCs do not earn experience points for killing these summoned creatures. The pit fiend chooses to summon one of the following groups of devils: 
•	8 legion devil legionnaires (level 21), or 
•	2 war devils (level 22), or 
•	1 war devil (level 22) and 4 legion devil legionnaires (level 21) 
*Tactical Teleport * (standard; recharge 4 5 6) • Teleportation
The pit fiend can teleport up to 2 allies within 10 squares of it. The targets appear in any other unoccupied squares within 10 squares of the pit fiend. 
*Alignment * Evil 
*Languages* Supernal 
*Skills* Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24 
*Str* 32 (+24) *Dex* 24 (+20) *Wis* 20 (+18) 
*Con* 27 (+21) *Int* 22 (+19) *Cha* 28 (+22) 
Equipment flametouched mace, noble signet ring


----------



## jasin (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> No more shadow bandits, half-plant wolves, or elder eidolon ogres, it seems...



How so? All we've seen is the lich and the vampire lord, but that doesn't mean those are the only templates that exist, and they're certainly not the only templates that will ever exist.



> Does the Aura Of Badassitude (tm) apply to PCs? If a 15th level PC uses a +1 sword, does he get no benefit from it?



Probably not.



> As I had earlier worried, the lack of any breakdown of natural vs. artificial armor bonus means Armor Is Wonky.



Why? They just made natural armour simply armour, and then it's like 3E: armour doesn't stack with armour.

And it means no more pit fiends who go from "can be hit half the time" to "can be hit only on a 20" by picking up an ordinary set of plate armour and a shield.



> EDIT: Just noticed, vampire lords have to be humanoid?



Just like in 3E.

In fact, less restrictive than in 3E, since humanoid is a broader category.



> No more vampire dragons? Or winter wolves? Why?



Don't worry, they'll be in the Draconomincon and the Monster Manual III.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 18, 2008)

1) The lich seems quite weak, compared to 3.x Lich. Maybe we need more text on it or something, but I don't see it as powerful as in 3.5. I guess it doesn't fit clerics anymore.
2) That Einstein comic is awesome.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 18, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Where is that tin foil hat when you need it?




4E stole it!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

> Armor: When you add armor to a monster, you first need to determine if the armor is good enough to improve the monster’s AC. Start with the monster’s effective armor bonus—a measure of how much of the creature’s AC comes from its armor or from its thick hide. This number is equal to its AC minus 10 minus the higher of its Dexterity or Intelligence ability modifiers. Do not include the Dexterity or Intelligence modifier if the creature wears heavy armor. Subtract the effective armor bonus from the creature’s AC, and then add the bonus from its new armor. If the creature moved from heavy to light armor, you can also add the higher of its Dexterity or Intelligence ability modifier to its AC.
> 
> ...
> 
> For example, an ogre savage normally has an Armor Class of 19 (it’s assumed to be wearing crude hide armor). Its effective armor bonus is +5 (19 – 10 – 4 [Dex]). Giving the ogre chainmail instead would improve its AC by 1 to 20, since the armor’s +6 bonus is 1 higher than this number.




I think the confusion comes from the difference between Dex modifier and Dex ability modifier (and probably inconsistent use...)

There are two possibilities:
1) The wording is wrong or at least confusing:
Basically you substract (10+1/2level + 3.5 ability modifier), if the monster wears light or no armor, or (10+1/2level) if the moster wears heavy armor. Then you get a number which you can compare to new armor bonus if its heavy or (new armor bonus+ 3.5 ability modifier) if its light. Add the difference to its old AC.

2) The wording is still confusing, but right:
Maybe you add the ability modifier a second time for mathematical reasons: usually if the AC bonus of a heavy plate is higher than for normal people, the monster must have a very thick hide, so that a second +1/2 AC per Level is justified!

As i was writing, the second solution sounds more reasonable, but i have to think it over!


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 18, 2008)

Delgar said:
			
		

> Enjoy the new Lich Pit Fiend.




It's a Pitch Fiend!

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Do we really need rules for how a vampire lord creates vampire spawn? Sure, that they *can* do it is important to know, but hard rules? I can't see what it adds to the game to know that a vampire lord can create level/2 vampire spawns per night by using it's ability Create Vampire Spawn [ritual].
> 
> Since the vampire lord is a NPC, the DM can add the desired number of vampire spawns without having to trudge through rules to do it. I'm probably a minority in thinking this, so there most likely is an ability for it, but I can't see the need for rules for something like that.





Couldn't have said it better.  There are no rules for how orcs make food to keep themselves alive either, but I imagine they do it just fine.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> It's a Pitch Fiend!
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I wonder if that thing is balanced as it can continously spam summons (when it makes the recharge, about every 3rd round) and fly/teleport away when the PCs get too close.


----------



## Delgar (Apr 18, 2008)

That's a good question. I don't have another high level solo to compare it too though. 

Interesting side note, it took me less than 2 minutes to convert it. Cut paste Pit fiend, fix defenses, add abilities and voila done. Nasty 26 solo that will eat your parties. 



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> I wonder if that thing is balanced as it can continously spam summons (when it makes the recharge, about every 3rd round) and fly/teleport away when the PCs get too close.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 18, 2008)

Regarding vampires and their creation of spawn, awhile back we say another writeup on vampires complete with a sample crunchless adventure involving them. Given the previous detailed vampire writeup, I suspect there will be a lot more in the MM about them then just discussed in this 1 template.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

Spenser said:
			
		

> Or maybe -- there are a whole bunch of "base" orcs scattered throughout a fairly wide level range. So if you want a higher-level orc, you start by modifying the 13th level Orc Champion rather than the 3rd level Orc Raider. (Edit: Beaten by Fallen Seraph!)



One of the design principles said by the designers online and in W&M, is that each monster has its place.

So, Orcs are X level, Hobgoblins are Y level, Trolls are Z level.

The idea is that as you level, your opponents change.  You know you are 15th level because you aren't fighting goblins anymore, you are fighting giants.  Instead of sneak attacks and moving around, you are being crushed beneath giant fists.

I wouldn't expect to see extremely high level versions of low level races, is what I'm saying.

That's partially why you can't increase it more than 5.  Plus, it just mathematically fails to make a balanced encounter after about 5.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

i especially like those only 5 levels restriction. And the "reality check". Why? because mathematic models have to be compared with reality after use, otherwise the whole thing is worthless.

I like the design philosophy which says: we have a good model which GUIDES and HELPS you, but at the end, its up to you to decise if it is good or not.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 18, 2008)

I am liking these new crunchful previews.

Although I think the ogre example is kind of weird, I think I see what it's saying, and I agree with it.  I think it's just saying "if you want to add +3 to your monsters, don't use equipment, instead just increase their level."

Anyways, customizing monsters seems easy enough.  I feel as though a few things are missing, like advice on customizing monsters past what's there.  Rules for adding or subtracting just a few abilities.  What if I want shadow orcs, or regenerating skeletons or something but I don't want them to be templated elite monsters?.  I hope the advice on creating new monsters is good and just as easy to use.


----------



## Gargazon (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm surprised noone has tried to lich-ify the Phane yet.

I would, but I'm too lazy


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Apr 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is an official baseline needed? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I can't see the need for official rules when it comes to how many vampire spawns that can be created. I've tried to think of a situation where I would wish I had the spawning rate of vampires, but I just can't think of any such situation. Vampire lords can create vampire spawns. That's everything I need to know.




Exactly.  Here's my take on it..

"What are the needs of the story or adventure?"


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> -> Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> 
> Magic Threashold makes no sense. Why do high level monsters not benefit from magical weapons?




For the same reason that magic weapons and armour have a prereq of 3 levels per +1 to create in 3E.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If a beloved NPC is captured by a vampire, do the PCs need to rush madly to save him from becoming one of the Undead, or do they know they have a week until the ghastly ritual is complete?




You're the DM. Which do you prefer?


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And again we have
> 
> a. Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> b. Fluff text and game rules mismatch
> ...




c. The predictable knee-jerk negative post from the usual suspect.

There is nothing "un"logical about the rules presented, you're just incapable of conceiving of them outside the framework of your own ideas about what they should be, ideas rooted firmly in the way D&D 3.5 did things.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I've already told you -- when working out exactly how dangerous/prevalent vampires are, when building their culture, etc.



And now you know exactly why the information isn't in there.  It is a fluff issue.  In one person's game they may like vampires who can take over a city in 24 hours.  Another may want vampires who can create spawn only under the full moon.

The mechanics tell you how a battle with a creature goes.  The fluff is everything beyond that.

Its part of the whole "the rules are not the physics of the world" philosophy.  The reverse is also true.  The physics of the world are not necessarily reflected with rules.


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 18, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It is also possible that the rules might be under Vampire Spawn, something like "A vampire spawn is created when a vampire kills someone with its blood drain" or something similar.



Exactly. I do think it will be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the rules. And yes, I do believe there should be SOME mechanics involved in this. For example, if a PC party is hunting a vampire lord and keep wiping out his Spawn, how fast can the vampire lord replace his losses?  Does it have to take period of time? Or can it be done in combat "turning" fallen foes?  These kinds of questions can be rather important.


----------



## Storminator (Apr 18, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> Exactly. I do think it will be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the rules. And yes, I do believe there should be SOME mechanics involved in this. For example, if a PC party is hunting a vampire lord and keep wiping out his Spawn, how fast can the vampire lord replace his losses?  Does it have to take period of time? Or can it be done in combat "turning" fallen foes?  These kinds of questions can be rather important.




But what if you don't like the answers to the questions? Just change them right? So make it up, and let the PCs figure it out _in your world_ instead of looking the MM.

PS


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

jasin said:
			
		

> How so? All we've seen is the lich and the vampire lord, but that doesn't mean those are the only templates that exist, and they're certainly not the only templates that will ever exist.




Basing it on the general text that "templates make creatures elite". I didn't get the impression that applied only to a subset of templates. It also fits with the much lower granularity of 4e. 




> And it means no more pit fiends who go from "can be hit half the time" to "can be hit only on a 20" by picking up an ordinary set of plate armour and a shield.




More elegantly solved by giving pit fiends lower natural armor and including plate in their default build, but that's another thread...



> Just like in 3E.




So it is. I always completely ignored that and figured anything which could be made into undead in general could be made into a vampire. Humanoids, giants, monstrous humanoids, dragons, aberrations, magical beasts...


----------



## Doug Justice (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I'm confused as well.  None of the smartest professors I know would be any good at dodging a punch.



I look at it like this, if two people had the same combat training who would be the hardest to hit - the smart guy or the dumb guy? Obviously, a professor with no combat training wouldn't be very good at dodging a punch, but a smart fighter is tougher to hit than a dumb one - all else being equal


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> For the same reason that magic weapons and armour have a prereq of 3 levels per +1 to create in 3E.




Requiring a certain magical power when creating a magical weapon is a bit different from a magic weapon loosing all its magic when wielded by a powerful individual.


----------



## Phaezen (Apr 18, 2008)

Anyone else notice that Lich's no longer come with a phylactery as standard?

Nice for adventure design, easier to design a Lich to be a once off, or recurring villan.

Phaezen


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Phaezen said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that Lich's no longer come with a phylactery as standard?




I noticed that. Another reason why the lich template is bland.
The 4E Lich lost nearly everything which made it unique. Its not caster only anymore, it doesn't need to have a phylactery and their powers are also rather generic. (Does necrotic damage and can recharge powers. Imo thats rather boring compared to things like paralyzes things with a touch).
Its just another guy turned undead for power.


----------



## Dalamar (Apr 18, 2008)

*Mind Flayer Scourge Lich* Level 11 Elite Controller
Medium Aberrant Humanoid (Undead)
-----------------------
*Initiative* +7; *Senses* Perception +12, Darkvision
*Necrotic Aura (Necrotic)* Aura 5
Any living creature that enters or starts its turn in the aura takes 5 necrotic damage
*HP* 188; *Bloodied* 94
Regeneration 10 (if the lich takes radiant damage its regeneration does no work on its next turn)
*AC* 28 *Fort* 24 *Ref* 23 *Will* 29
*Immune* disease, poison
*Resist* 10 necrotic
*Saves* +2
*Action Points* 1
*Speed* 6
------------------------
 *Tentacle Grab* (Standard; at-will)
+13 vs. Ref; 1d8+7 damage AND Restrained (only 1 at a time)
 *Brain Bore* (Standard; at-will)
Restrained living only; +13 vs. Fort; 3d10+7 AND stunned (save ends).
Dies at 0hp.
 *Vicious Dagger* (Standard; at-will) * Weapon
Requires Combat Advantage; +12 vs. AC; 1d4 damage AND ongoing 20 wound damage
 *Mind Warp* (Standard; at-will) * Psychic
Range 5; +13 vs. Will; 1d8+7 psychic damage AND stunned (save ends)
 *Mind Blast* (Standard; Recharge    ) * Psychic
Cone 10; +13 vs. Will; 1d8+7 psychic damage AND dazed (save ends)
 *Lesser Domination* (Standard; Recharge   ) * Domination
Range 10; +13 vs. Will; target can't attack this creature untill attacked by it (save ends)
*Necrotic Master*
The lich can convert any attack power it has to necrotic.
Change a power’s energy keyword to necrotic, or add necrotic energy to an attack power that doesn’t normally deal energy damage.
------------------------
*Alignment* Evil(?); *Languages* Deep Speech (?)
*Str* 11 (+5) *Dex* 15 (+7) *Wis* 14 (+7)
*Con* 17 (+8) *Int* 18 (+9) *Cha* 24 (+12)


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> But what if you don't like the answers to the questions? Just change them right? So make it up, and let the PCs figure it out _in your world_ instead of looking the MM.
> 
> PS




Then why bother with the MM at all? Just make up all the monsters you want/need.

The attitude from both 4e designers and supporters seems to be that nothing outside of the combat round matters.

I find non combat abilities to be among the most interesting parts of a monster's description, because it is THOSE that inspire stories. When I'm desperate for a plot, I will flip through various monster tomes until I find something with an interesting 'hook' to it, something that says "I can build a great adventure around these guys". Note -- not "a great fight scene". A great *adventure*.

Even something like "A vampire must feed once a day or perish" tells you something useful, something you can use to drive the plot. (If we get any fluff, it will probably be akin to "Vampires are the product of Vecna's early attempts at immortality" -- in other words, useless. History, religion, culture...those are things I can easily create. Give me solid bones of crunch on which I can build my world. Tell me how often vampires make spawn, and from that, I will derive vampire society.)


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The attitude from both 4e designers and supporters seems to be that nothing outside of the combat round matters.




To be precise, combat mechanics outside the combat round do not matter.



> I find non combat abilities to be among the most interesting parts of a monster's description, because it is THOSE that inspire stories.




That's what the fluff is for.


----------



## beverson (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then why bother with the MM at all? Just make up all the monsters you want/need.




Maybe because there is only so much space available in the books?  Somewhere along the line, you're going to anger someone with what you included and what you left out - you can't please everyone.  Have they made some choices on included vs. left out stuff that you don't agree with?  Sure.  Does everyone disagree with them?  Certainly not.  It seems to me that the things they are leaving out are things that are most logically going to be changed by a significant amount of GM's anyway, so save the space and use it for something else more valuable.

But yet again, we. don't. have. the. books. yet.  All will become clear once we can read the darn things.  Will everyone agree on everything at that point?  Hell no - but it will be much clearer seeing the whole picture.


----------



## Storminator (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, combat mechanics outside the combat round do not matter.
> 
> That's what the fluff is for.




Just imagine that I had responded exactly like this.

PS


----------



## Spenser (Apr 18, 2008)

I think Lizard has a good point. You can always make things up, but it's nice to get a baseline, particularly for fluff like the monster's ecology and society. 

The 4e philosophy seems to be, monsters are designed to live for a short time anyway, so each entry has to be short and self-contained. This is a huge advance over 3e, where monsters had enormous stat blocks and were often almost as complicated as the PCs. 

But "short and self-contained" can be taken too far. Maybe we'll need a lot more "The Ecology Of..." articles to fill the gap.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, combat mechanics outside the combat round do not matter.




How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL.

I don't want to turn this entire thread into a debate on vampires. It's just another example of the consequences of assuming the combat round is the building block of the world and scaling everything accordingly.

We're having an earthquake. Again. In Southern Indiana.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> -> Gamist rules which are completely unlogical
> 
> Magic Threashold makes no sense. Why do high level monsters not benefit from magical weapons? One explanation is that their magical "monsterousness" overpowers the magical attributes of the weapon. That works for monsters but it is very likely that NPCs will be build with the same system and I can't think a reason why a human level 20 NPC can't benefit from a +2 Weapon.




The conceit in play is that any monster has a built-in bonus to its attacks and damage consistent with what a monster of its level should get from magical gear, but it doesn't actually have the gear. 

Given that as a starting point, there is nothing illogical about subtracting that inherent bonus from the bonus it gets from wielding actual magical items when you advance or otherwise customize the monster.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> It solves that PCs get piles of magical weapons but in a very clunky way.




Actually it solves it in a very elegant way. 4e is taking the power imbalnce created by the PCs access to magical gear into account in monster design in an explicit way. Earlier editions handle this issue very poorly, typically by ignoring it.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> ->Fluff text and game rules mismatch
> 
> Vampire lords create armies of vampire spawns......how? Certainly not through their blood drain ability.




As is so often the case, you look at one three-paragraph excerpt from the rules, find it lacking, and come to the conclusion that the missing information just doesn't exist. That seems to be a fairly typical attitude around here, and no matter how many times it gets pointed out, the 4e detractors just keep doing it. For all you know there are extensive rules for creating vampire spawn in the vampire spawn entry in the MM or elsewhere in the rules. I'd be surprised if it isn't at least mentioned somewhere, and there is no particular reason why it has to be part of the vampire template if there is a good reason to provide that information someplace else.




			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And I fail to see how the Lich template is in any way geared for arcane casters considering that a fighter with a /encounter ability also benefits from it (but that is more of a case of the Lich being bland instead of flavor text mismatch)




You have a point in that the suggestion in the articel that the lich template works best with arcane casters isn't supported by the template itself, but that's a pretty weak complaint. I sort of like the idea of a Paladin Lich myself. There may (or may not) be a Death Knight template or some other way to create a non-arcane undead warrior, but having multiple options is always a benefit, particularly if they are easy to implement.


----------



## DandD (Apr 18, 2008)

I agree that having rules for seeing how fast or how many vampire spawns will be created officially is nice. But they're now just showing combat-rules, which is the meat to D&D whatever-edition. There surely is an official rule for how to create underlings, but that's something not practicable in a battle, and is either more-ritual like, or a condition that has to happen, like needing to be helpless/a willing victim and then getting sucked or so. 

Anyway, we'll see.


----------



## Storminator (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> We're having an earthquake. Again. In Southern Indiana.




You're complaining about 4e... and there's an earthquake... coincidence?!   

PS


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then why bother with the MM at all? Just make up all the monsters you want/need.
> 
> The attitude from both 4e designers and supporters seems to be that nothing outside of the combat round matters.
> 
> ...




But, if you don't like the fluff/crunch they put in the MM what are you going to do?  You're going to change it.  Right?  They skipped a step for you.

Are you told how often Elves eat before they perish?  Do you have human societies?  How did you come up with that society?


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL.




Assume for the moment that the existence of the category of "combat actions" implies the existence of its complement, "noncombat actions", ie those that can only be taken outside of combat. A reasonable conclusion is that vampires creating spawn is not something that can be done in a matter of seconds, else it would appear in the combat statblock.

As for the other possibilities: you're the DM. Which do you prefer?



> I don't want to turn this entire thread into a debate on vampires. It's just another example of the consequences of assuming the combat round is the building block of the world and scaling everything accordingly.




The combat round is the building block of combat. Nothing needs to be scaled accordingly, because combat is not the building block of the world.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Spenser said:
			
		

> I think Lizard has a good point. You can always make things up, but it's nice to get a baseline, particularly for fluff like the monster's ecology and society.
> 
> The 4e philosophy seems to be, monsters are designed to live for a short time anyway, so each entry has to be short and self-contained. This is a huge advance over 3e, where monsters had enormous stat blocks and were often almost as complicated as the PCs.
> 
> But "short and self-contained" can be taken too far. Maybe we'll need a lot more "The Ecology Of..." articles to fill the gap.





Or something even more radical, the actual MM he is complaining about without having seen it.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL.
> 
> I don't want to turn this entire thread into a debate on vampires. It's just another example of the consequences of assuming the combat round is the building block of the world and scaling everything accordingly.
> 
> We're having an earthquake. Again. In Southern Indiana.





Yeah, it's been predicted for a while that the New Madrid fault that runs from MO thru the midwest is due for a big rumble in the years to come.


----------



## Saitou (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL.



So if it said that Spawning took a week, a month, five minutes, any answer at all would appease you?
Seems you just want an answer for th heck of it.

Any requirements WotC would have made for creating Spawns would invariably resonate negatively with parts of the gaming community. Some people wouldn't like it, and change it, and then have PCs moan because he implemented Rule 0.

THIS time around, Rule 0 seems to be Rule 1, by effectively leaving most of the fluff up to you. Cause that is what fluff IS, the flavour you choose to instill into your campaign.


Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but you seem to depend pretty heavily on ready-made fluff instead of making up your own. Is it really that hard to choose how a Vamp Lord creates spawn for yourself?


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> The conceit in play is that any monster has a built-in bonus to its attacks and damage consistent with what a monster of its level should get from magical gear, but it doesn't actually have the gear.




I know the mechanical reason for this, but from a simulationist point of view it does not make sense that items stop working when they are in the hand of powerful individuals.







> There may (or may not) be a Death Knight template.




Some time ago there was a pretty big article about the Death Knight template (without crunch) so it is very likely that there will be a Death Knight in 4E. And considering how bland the Lich template is I really wonder  If there will be a big difference between those two, considering that the lich template works also rather well for fighters.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 18, 2008)

Yeesh.

Where is the simplification they are always talking about here?

All that armor stuff seems to be complicating armor class as compared to 3E instead of leaving it or simplifying which 4E has been doing with everything else.

One of my favorite things about 3E was how natural armor and worn armor stack.

If they want simple they should go with simple: Armor grants +x bonus. Add this to the creature's AC and remember to remove Dex/Int bonus if it is heavy armor - and simply remind DMs to be careful consider the effect of giving monsters such gear.


The magic threshold BS is another example of not simplifying - but just making something more annoying than helpful.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I know the mechanical reason for this, but from a simulationist point of view it does not make sense that items stop working when they are in the hand of powerful individuals.




One of us is misreading that chart, and I don't think its me.

Magic items don't work as well when they're in the hands of _less_ powerful individuals, which is something I think you can work with in a simulationist manner.



			
				el-remmen said:
			
		

> Yeesh.
> 
> Where is the simplification they are always talking about here?
> 
> All that armor stuff seems to be complicating armor class as compared to 3E instead of eaving it or simplifying which 4E has been doing with everything else.




Yeah, that paragraph is definitely awkward. I think it actually _is_ doing it roughly the same way as 3E, except that natural armor and armor don't stack.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> BTW. Is this the only pic that exists, or is there an actual comic book for it?



There is. It's a story called Desert Sun by Jon Rogers (who's currently doing Blue Beetle) which can be found in the "Ninja Tales" anthology from Boom Studios. I don't know if you could still find it in stores, I haven't seen any new copies, well, ever, but second hand compies can be found on Amazon, Ebay and probaby other places.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> So if it said that Spawning took a week, a month, five minutes, any answer at all would appease you?
> Seems you just want an answer for th heck of it.




"If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."

Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.



> Any requirements WotC would have made for creating Spawns would invariably resonate negatively with parts of the gaming community. Some people wouldn't like it, and change it, and then have PCs moan because he implemented Rule 0.




Sure. And I can make ogres stronger, or orcs weaker, or say that all hobgoblins can cast Magic Missile once per day. It's my world. The point is, there needs to be a baseline to vary from, or what are we buying again, exactly? A book of pretty monster pictures?



> Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but you seem to depend pretty heavily on ready-made fluff instead of making up your own. Is it really that hard to choose how a Vamp Lord creates spawn for yourself?




And the point is missed by a few light years...

I want to build a world that makes sense. Knowing things like vampire spawn rates gives me a way of determining 'reasonable' vampire populations. Now, if I'm doing a vampire-centric world, then I'd just make up whatever I wanted to fit the overarching game theme. But if I'm doing a broader game, I just want to have a general idea of how common vampires are, and for that, I depend on the rules to give me useful crunch -- just like they tell me that orcs are more likely to be warriors than spellcasters (while giving me the freedom to add orc wizards if I so choose), or that dragons fly. 

I find one of the most enjoyable parts of worldbuilding is working from the dry facts of the MM to the cultural/social/historical implications. That's why I prefer good solid crunch to flavor text. I consider undead creation rates to be crunch, not fluff. The fluff is derived from that crunch.

I also consider a 'shared consensus world' to be valuable, especially in a semi-open gaming environment. The more baseline material is left out in favor just presenting stripped down combat stats, the more different assumptions third party publishers will make, and the less useful any product will be without extensive work.

A vampire-specific sourcebook might contain a whole bunch of rules, options, and guidelines for designing vampires in your game, with essays on the implications of each decision. I'd buy it. The core game, though, should contain a default. "Vampires make spawn" is not enough, any more than "Orcs fight a lot" -- without providing actual combat stats -- is.


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 18, 2008)

Hmmm, not seeing added complication here, really.  Armor is now armor -- natural, manufactured, whatever -- and it doesn't stack.  Quite frankly, I got annoyed in 3.x with how many things _did_ stack, both as a player and a DM and it's nice to see that list being trimmed significantly.  A monster's base innate armor is AC - 10 - dex/int mod; armor added to that only affects it if it's higher.  Where's the complication?

As for the magic item threshold it's only annoying if you plan on equipping every bloody humanoid monster with +x weaponry & armor that the PCs can loot and use/hock, which is something I thought most everybody was wanting to move away from (though I could be wrong, but with so many complaints about the Christmas tree effect and magic item shops, can't see how).  It's more aimed at those times where you want a monster to have something which _someone specific_ in the party will want to use but you don't want the item to overly unbalance the encounter.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Requiring a certain magical power when creating a magical weapon is a bit different from a magic weapon loosing all its magic when wielded by a powerful individual.




Okay, so I have this golf club.  And it has these arrows on it that make it easier to hit the ball.  I give it to tiger woods.  Doesn't help hime any.

"+X" weapons are a simulation weak point anyway.  I explain it with it magically corrects the aim.  People with good aim or really strong don't feel the correction.

Further discussion on this topic of what a +X weapon is in terms of simulation should be discussed outside this thread as it is a side issue


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL.
> 
> I don't want to turn this entire thread into a debate on vampires. It's just another example of the consequences of assuming the combat round is the building block of the world and scaling everything accordingly.



Any example that makes the ability usable within a combat encounter obviously can't be true, since then it had to be part of the combat statistics. 
So, creating Vampires within 1h might be possible, if that's what you want as DM. Any resulting monsters are just extra XP for the PCs. (And possibly a reason the world is doomed)

So, in the end, D&D 4E does not assume a standard baseline for this. Each DM and each world can have different "rules" for non-combat stuff. If you want Vampires to create hordes of them in mere days, you can do that. if you want to make it an elaborate ritual that requires conscious effort, you can do that, too. 

I suppose they could have added a sample ritual for creating vampires to the vampire description. But it appears to me as if a general guideline would be not to do that. Maybe to avoid the "Shadow overrunning small towns"-Scenario.



> We're having an earthquake. Again. In Southern Indiana.



I hope this won't enter history books as "Famous Last Words" with your avatar as a picture beside it! *shudder*


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."
> 
> Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.




You do not need combat stats for noncombat fluff. Contrary to popular belief, fluff is just as significant as crunch.



> Sure. And I can make ogres stronger, or orcs weaker, or say that all hobgoblins can cast Magic Missile once per day. It's my world. The point is, there needs to be a baseline to vary from, or what are we buying again, exactly? A book of pretty monster pictures?




You are buying a book that contains fluff and crunch. If you choose to ignore the fluff, that's your lookout.



> I want to build a world that makes sense. Knowing things like vampire spawn rates gives me a way of determining 'reasonable' vampire populations. Now, if I'm doing a vampire-centric world, then I'd just make up whatever I wanted to fit the overarching game theme. But if I'm doing a broader game, I just want to have a general idea of how common vampires are, and for that,




... you can just as easily make up whatever you want to fit the overarching game theme, which coincidentally happens not to have vampires in a significant role. Or your personal preferences as DM.



> I also consider a 'shared consensus world' to be valuable, especially in a semi-open gaming environment. The more baseline material is left out in favor just presenting stripped down combat stats, the more different assumptions third party publishers will make, and the less useful any product will be without extensive work.




Shared consensus is so WoWish.


----------



## malraux (Apr 18, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Okay, so I have this golf club.  And it has these arrows on it that make it easier to hit the ball.  I give it to tiger woods.  Doesn't help hime any.
> 
> "+X" weapons are a simulation weak point anyway.  I explain it with it magically corrects the aim.  People with good aim or really strong don't feel the correction.
> 
> Further discussion on this topic of what a +X weapon is in terms of simulation should be discussed outside this thread as it is a side issue



Put another way, weapon enhancement and higher level monster innate ability do not stack.  Other than the precedent in 3e, there's no particular reason to think that the magical pluses of weapons enhances a monster's ability to hit differently from its own skill.  If the aphorism "a poor carpenter blames his tools" is correct, that means that the skill of a good carpenter overcomes deficiencies in his equipment.  Why wouldn't the same apply to monsters?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How long it takes a vampire to make spawn can impact combat. If it's a minor action and he has minions to spare...or, as others have noted, if the vampire is alert to invaders. If it takes a minute, he can turn his domestic staff into spawn while the heroes are distracted with a single fight. If it takes an hour, he might have time to get one new ally before they get to his sanctum. If it takes a week...he's SOL..



Well, he doesn't have the ability to do it it combat, for one reason or another.  Otherwise it would be listed in his stat block.

The rest of those things are meta-game concerns.  And very simulationist ones at that.

From a gamist/narrativist point of view(which is pretty much the default assumed by 4e, as far as I can tell) the answer to those questions are simple:

Does an extra vampire make the encounter that the PCs are going to fight too high a level to be balanced?

Do I want the NPC to live for my plot later one?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then the vampire can't create a new ally(or doesn't think of it or fails or is distracted or...whatever).

When I DM I normally have all of those things planned out way in advance.  My DM notes for a situation like that would likely read:

"The PCs will likely have found enough clues by this point to realize that the hostages were taken to the old warehouse on the west side of town.  If they haven't, an old man comes up to them and tells them he saw one of the hostages through a window in the warehouse.  The Vampire Lord has one of his minions following the PCs and when the minion sees that they are heading in the direction of the warehouse he heads back and warns the Vampire Lord.  He knows the village much better than the PCs, so he'll get there a while before they do.

The Lord will then kill all of his hostages in preparation for the combat against the PCs.  He'll turn them all into spawn.  This means the combat will be against the Lord and 3 Spawn.  The Lord is Elite so that will make it a perfect 5 monster encounter."


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 18, 2008)

I don't think its meant to show magic weapons losing power when held by powerful individuals.

I think it is a math fix.

Lets say the appropriate attack bonus for a level 15 brute is X.

Lets say I'm statting up a level 15 brute.  This one is a sentient humanoid with no magical weapons.  It should have an attack bonus of X.  Presumably this is due to its strength score and its base attack bonus, and other intrinsic values.

Now assume I want to create a special level 15 brute of this type, except that this one has a +3 magical weapon for the players to loot after battle.  I now have to make a choice.

Do I add the +3 magical weapon on without adjusting any stats?  If I do, its attack bonus will be X+3.  I might want this.  But then again, I might not.  If I do not, I need to do something to bring the attack bonus back down.  Reducing X a bit will do the trick.

This may not seem like a huge deal.  After all, +3 attack doesn't _seem_ too big.  But if the monster is a Solo Brute, that +3 might be pretty painful.  Or if you're at higher levels and you're dealing with +5s, the increase over the baseline can be awfully significant.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 18, 2008)

For me this is not a "simulation issue" (though that bugs me a bit as well), but rather it is something that goes from as simple as "equiping" a monster by giving it something and just running with it to "customizing it", requiring to figure out a different bonus based on the creature, and what it is "really" like, etc. . .

For me it is a matter of "this thing always gives +X" as compared to, "oh wait, what is this thing in the hands of this monster?"

What if a intelligent monster/foe picks up an item dropped by a careless of disarmed PC, for example? It is something to figure out mid-combat rather than just simple as add X.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> For me this is not a "simulation issue" (though that bugs me a bit as well), but rather it is something that goes from as simple as "equiping" a monster by giving it something and just running with it to "customizing it", requiring to figure out a different bonus based on the creature, and what it is "really" like, etc. . .
> 
> For me it is a matter of "this thing always gives +X" as compared to, "oh wait, what is this thing in the hands of this monster?"
> 
> What if a intelligent monster/foe picks up an item dropped by a careless of disarmed PC, for example? It is something to figure out mid-combat rather than just simple as add X.



 Then the monster gets the regular +X from the item.

The idea is not that a given monster gets weaker by having a +X item. The idea is that you _change_ the monster that you select for an encounter, if it has a +X item. Let's say Fred the orc NPC normally has a +6 atk. If you give him a +2 sword, this would make it +8, which might be too good. Therefore, you give it to Joe the orc instead, who is not as mighty as Fred with only +5 atk. Thus when the PCs get to the encounter where they have to fight an orc, they only have to face a +7.

If you wanted, you could still use Fred, and he would have a +8. But this would be a tougher fight than the rules assume, and therefore you should plan accordingly.


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I also consider a 'shared consensus world' to be valuable, especially in a semi-open gaming environment. The more baseline material is left out in favor just presenting stripped down combat stats, the more different assumptions third party publishers will make, and the less useful any product will be without extensive work.




I'll believe this when I see you apply the same exact reasoning to the naming conventions WotC is using for abilities, as they're _also_ valuable in helping set a 'shared consensus world' just like what you want for vampire lords.


----------



## DandD (Apr 18, 2008)

Just swing it/handwave it. The monster is meant to be killed. The Players won't really care what exact stats it had. Being approximately near is all that matters for the encounter.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> For me this is not a "simulation issue" (though that bugs me a bit as well), but rather it is something that goes from as simple as "equiping" a monster by giving it something and just running with it to "customizing it", requiring to figure out a different bonus based on the creature, and what it is "really" like, etc. . .
> 
> For me it is a matter of "this thing always gives +X" as compared to, "oh wait, what is this thing in the hands of this monster?"
> 
> What if a intelligent monster/foe picks up an item dropped by a careless of disarmed PC, for example? It is something to figure out mid-combat rather than just simple as add X.




Er, I don't think you understand what the EXCERPT was about and this goes for Derren as well. 

Magic items don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures however, if you want a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to lose power.

Basically, Cadfan explained it beautifully.

It seems the DEFAULT situation is that no creature in the MM actually has the EQUIVALENT to the 4E's Big three. )Namely, magic weapon/armour/defenses. The math for them is factored into their original equation.

However, if you want to have a creature with a magical item, the exercept talks about HOW you would balance it so that in effect, the creature is equal to what it would be WITHOUT the magical item.

So in the scenario where for example, a monster picks up a +5 sword, the monster of course is going to have an attack +5 higher but presumably, if you design a monster with a +5 sword, you don't WANT the monster to be stronger than before.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Apr 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Somewhat more surprising, natural armor and regular armor don't stack.  That's gonna take some unlearning.




oh nos!!!! well i can see how the druid is going to balance now...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."
> 
> Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.
> 
> ...



Glad to see you're alive and well. (I suppose. Could be your Ghost in the Machine typing these words. But that would be all kinds of awesome)

It seems to me as if people have different definitions of what is important to describing a monster. Some are content with its statistic describing anything the creature does in the context of an encounter (e.g. any direct interaction with the PCs). Some limit it further to combat encounter, but 4E at least seems to include non-combat stuff, too. (Since all monsters have skill modifiers). But it doesn't include more.
Others also want its statistics including stuff outside of encounters. Like how it "procreates" (if diverging from the baseline), or any other part that is outside of PC/NPC interaction. That's how 3E did it. 

So, the latter group now is forced to come to grips with a system that does only model PC/NPC interaction, and leaves the rest to handwaving, imagination or house-rules. While the former group can enjoy its freedom and hopefully manage to navigate the drawbacks of having to flesh out the NPC/NPC or NPC/World when it arises. 

...

There is, off course, a further possibility. Maybe there are general "fall-back" rules. Maybe the rules for necrotic energy explain that creatures slain by necrotic energy attacks from undead rise as such undeads again. I don't quite believe that, but, just for the sake of it.


----------



## Saitou (Apr 18, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> I'll believe this when I see you apply the same exact reasoning to the naming conventions WotC is using for abilities, as they're _also_ valuable in helping set a 'shared consensus world' just like what you want for vampire lords.



 Asking haters for consistency is pushing it a bit, methinks. They try so hard, too.


I can't help but see that Lizard is using very many words to say that he wants everything a creature does to be statted and crunched, even the non-combat parts. 
Which is just what 4E is enver going to do. And the reason why 3E is so cumbersome.

He also wants the freedom to change anything, but wants the sourcebooks to be confined to their own 'shared consensus'.

I need to lie down for awhile.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, I don't think you understand what the EXCERPT was about and this goes for Derren as well.
> 
> Magic items don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures however, if you want a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to lose power.




No, I do understand.  I just think the answer should be, want it to be "balanced"? (gee, I hate that term)  Then don't give it that item.  Give it something weaker or nothing at all.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This may not seem like a huge deal.  After all, +3 attack doesn't _seem_ too big.  But if the monster is a Solo Brute, that +3 might be pretty painful.  Or if you're at higher levels and you're dealing with +5s, the increase over the baseline can be awfully significant.



It doesn't seem to big in 3e numbers.  But 3e trained players and DMs to expect huge variations in things.  Of course that barbarian was going to have a -2 diplomacy check while the bard has a +45.  A +3 bonus to either of them isn't going to make much of a difference.

Same thing with combat.  Of course the Gargantuan creature has +40 to hit while the wizard has +11.  +3 to either is not a big deal.  And when you are rolling 3d6+30 for damage, 3 extra damage seems rather small.

Still, when the monster has +20 to hit against your AC of 29 and it is doing 1d6+10 damage, the last thing you want is for it to suddenly get +3 to hit and damage.  And in 4e, it's almost the same as increasing the monster's level by 3.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 18, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Okay, so I have this golf club.  And it has these arrows on it that make it easier to hit the ball.  I give it to tiger woods.  Doesn't help hime any.
> 
> "+X" weapons are a simulation weak point anyway.  I explain it with it magically corrects the aim.  People with good aim or really strong don't feel the correction.
> 
> Further discussion on this topic of what a +X weapon is in terms of simulation should be discussed outside this thread as it is a side issue



So a +2 sword is just a sword with "pointy end goes into the other guy" in big red letters? That hilarious .

But seriously, the idea that powerful creature's "innate skill/power/awesomeness" is such that they get nothing out of items that aren't as awesome as them makes perfect sense from a simulationist perspective. (Sure, the fact that PCs don't work that way doesn't, but that's another conversation).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> "If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."
> 
> Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.



*Sigh*, I really wish it wasn't true, but not including there insults, I do agree. While I don't need hard rules, or even details for all the different types I would like a suggestion as to how fast/easy Undead Spawn in general could be pumped out in "normal" circumstances (and possibly some ecology?) . I don't need rules for Orc diet or reproduction, because I have a base to work off, but there's enough different types of vampires and undead around so that if there aren't suggestions, when the throwaway NPC Vampire who wasn't supposed to be important becomes the focus of the Campaign because my players become absoluty fixated on him it's not so obvious what he needs to live, and how he can propugate, which in my experiance leads to confusion and miscommunication between the DM and the players.

Could a be group specific thing though.


----------



## SuperJosh (Apr 18, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> There is. It's a story called Desert Sun by Jon Rogers (who's currently doing Blue Beetle) which can be found in the "Ninja Tales" anthology from Boom Studios. I don't know if you could still find it in stores, I haven't seen any new copies, well, ever, but second hand compies can be found on Amazon, Ebay and probaby other places.



THANKS A -TON- Pumpkin Man, I was able to snag one off your ebay link for 5.62 AFTER shipping.  Can not wait, if this is good I might have to pick up pirate tales.

Thanks again.


----------



## Jer (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I know the mechanical reason for this, but from a simulationist point of view it does not make sense that items stop working when they are in the hand of powerful individuals.




Nothing in the linked article says that they "stop working" - in 3e terms the monster automatically gets an enhancement bonus to attack based on it's level and that enhancement bonus does not stack with the ehancement bonus given by a magic item.  That's all.  If a monster it using a magic item it has exchanged it's enhacement bonus to attack for the bonus from the magic item.

And ... this is the EXACT SAME RULE that they've been telling us applies to PCs, though they've been phrasing it differently.  The way they've been phrasing this rule is "if you want a low magic game, here's the bonus you need to give to the PCs at these levels to keep the math working right".  The PCs get the bonus instead of the magic weapon - the monsters get the bonus instead of the magic weapon.  Same rule.  And frankly I don't see anything wrong at all from a "simulationist" perspective with this setup ... unless what you're trying to "simulate" is 1st edition AD&D.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> No, I do understand.  I just think the answer should be, want it to be "balanced"? (gee, I hate that term)  Then don't give it that item.  Give it something weaker or nothing at all.




Reading the excerpt again, the DEFAULT situation is definitely that no monster in the MM is actually using magical items for its attack/defenses. The same probably goes for the quick NPC tables in the DMG I guess.

You (the DM) have to ACTIVELY give monsters magical weapons and if you do, presumably you don't want the magical weapons to be so strong that they in effect make the encounter more about the weapon.

You can see this when they talk about just making the ogres an 11th level creature by upping its HP. Basically, this excerpt is for people that want to give out treasure as magical weapons/armour but don't want to kill their players presumably.

Personally, I'm ecstatic about this as this is the first time I've seen D&D designers understand the MATH behind the magical item glut economy. You ACTUALLY might be able to run a low magic item campaign in D&D for once.

re: Vampire and Liches
Er, a couple of points. 

1) We know there is a Vampire Spawn from before 
2) How come nobody wants the stats for the ability to grant its power to its minion yet we must know the vampire spawn rate/equation?
3) READ the execpt again. Liches do NOT need a phylactery. Only Liches that use a Ritual get one. 

re: Natural armour and regular armour
Cutting it off at the pass is a good thing. When 3E allowed for natural armour to stack with regular armour, that was one of the most abusive things/broken things that 3E did for the spellcasters. Wildshape/polymorph into high natural AC/boost natural AC via spell/wear armour/boost manufactured armour via spell.

You guys honestly can't see how this "broke" the system?


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 18, 2008)

how vampires create other vampires?

the template we are seeing are from the DMG

I suppose normal vampire (not the lords) will be into the monster manual and so the info on spawning; this vampire lord is quite strong, I suppose we will have Vampire spawn, free willed Vampires and this template....

just guessing


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 18, 2008)

Ummm, wow.  Huge, huge props to FabioMB for somehow noticing and pointing out the obvious answer that all the rest of us (myself included) somehow missed. I'm not being sarcastic here -- we all completely flaked out on that tiny-yet-soooo-cruicial detail that the excerpt is from the DMG and not the MM.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> I'll believe this when I see you apply the same exact reasoning to the naming conventions WotC is using for abilities, as they're _also_ valuable in helping set a 'shared consensus world' just like what you want for vampire lords.




I disagree.

That's like saying I want to be told where vampires come from, what god they worship, and so on.

What I'm asking for is more aking to "Can vampires cross running water?" or "Are they affected by religious symbols". (Also missing from the template description, come to think of it...).


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> That's like saying I want to be told where vampires come from, what god they worship, and so on.
> 
> What I'm asking for is more aking to "Can vampires cross running water?" or "Are they affected by religious symbols". (Also missing from the template description, come to think of it...).





Why do you assume this info is nowhere in the game anyway?


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

After doing a quick search through this thread... am I really the first one to catch on to the Forbidden City reference?



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> The characters are delving into the jungle-covered ruins of an ancient city now haunted by the yuan-ti. There they discover strange arboreal humanoids with long arms that swoop into battle on the backs of giant wasps. What are these mysterious beings?




W00t!


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Ummm, wow.  Huge, huge props to FabioMB for somehow noticing and pointing out the obvious answer that all the rest of us (myself included) somehow missed. I'm not being sarcastic here -- we all completely flaked out on that tiny-yet-soooo-cruicial detail that the excerpt is from the DMG and not the MM.




Fair enough. In 3x, the template text included all salient abilities, but there's no reason to assume this follows through in 4e. There was also no such thing in 3x as "a vampire", just "something with the vampire template". (There was a specific, non-template, vampire spawn, which was pretty backwards. All undead should have been templates. But I digress.) 

So all of these rules might well be in the "Vampire" entry in the MM, along with a lot of Vampire NounVerbers.


----------



## Rykion (Apr 18, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> One of us is misreading that chart, and I don't think its me.
> 
> Magic items don't work as well when they're in the hands of _less_ powerful individuals, which is something I think you can work with in a simulationist manner.



Derren is the one that is right in this case.  The magic threshold number from the chart is _subtracted_ from the magic item's bonus.  Thus a level 1 monster with a +5 sword gets a +5 bonus when using that sword because it has a magic threshold of 0 and 5-0=5.  A level 26 monster with a +5 sword gets no bonus when using that sword because it has a magic threshold of +5 and 5-5=0.  Basically, as others have mentioned, high level monsters have a bonus already built in.  Of course, a level 1 monster isn't likely to be running around with a +5 weapon to begin with.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> You ACTUALLY might be able to run a low magic item campaign in D&D for once.




I been doing that since 2000. 



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Natural armour and regular armour
> Cutting it off at the pass is a good thing. When 3E allowed for natural armour to stack with regular armour, that was one of the most abusive things/broken things that 3E did for the spellcasters. Wildshape/polymorph into high natural AC/boost natural AC via spell/wear armour/boost manufactured armour via spell.
> 
> You guys honestly can't see how this "broke" the system?




It might be one of those things I personally never saw broken, but worked that way for others.  But if it is a necessary fix seems like an unintuitive one.


----------



## Clawhound (Apr 18, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Why do vampire lords resist 5 necrotic at 1st level and 10 at 11th level? They have a prerequisite of 11th level.




Note also that the DM is the final arbiter of whether to apply the template. Although the designers give a prerequisite, the DM can ignore this. The designers full expect and want the DM's to monkey with the game.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 18, 2008)

> As is so often the case, you look at one three-paragraph excerpt from the rules, find it lacking, and come to the conclusion that the missing information just doesn't exist. That seems to be a fairly typical attitude around here, and no matter how many times it gets pointed out, the 4e detractors just keep doing it. For all you know there are extensive rules for creating vampire spawn in the vampire spawn entry in the MM or elsewhere in the rules. I'd be surprised if it isn't at least mentioned somewhere, and there is no particular reason why it has to be part of the vampire template if there is a good reason to provide that information someplace else.




I'm hoping for a Ritual called "Create Vampire Spawn" or something similar, which only Vampires and Vampire Lords can take. The requirements for such a ritual could involve Dominating the target and forcing them to drink the vampires blood, then using Blood Drain to reduce them to 0 Hit Points, and burying them. If they lay undisturbed for three days then they rise again as Vampire Spawn. Nice and simple.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So all of these rules might well be in the "Vampire" entry in the MM, along with a lot of Vampire NounVerbers.



That is my suspicion.

As for the "Magic Items and Monsters" debate, let me throw my take into the ring:  Monsters are given certain bonuses at each level.  We do not worry about where they come from because, ultimately, they aren't important.  Whether it was a Racial Weapon Training ability, a Weapon Specialization class feature, some Hit Things Really Hard feat, or maybe some special Favored Enemy: Adventurer bracelet it picked up from Grendel's Ma just doesn't matter.  When you are creating a creature for an encounter and you decide to equip said creature with a magical weapon, said weapon replaces some of the "unnamed" bonuses the monster would have had otherwise.

This is not retconning - the monster didn't even exist until you started thinking him - he just went from being "generic monster" to this specific monster who has this neat toy instead of something else that his more generic brethren would have instead.


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 18, 2008)

Sigh, again with the simulationists arguments creeping in yet another thread that is analysing the information we have so far. DnD4 is not a simulationist game.

It is relentlessness to keep trying to define it or view it with that kind of glasses while it's been obvious for a while that it wasn't so.

No amount of complaining or arguing about it will change it, especially when the majority of ppl are in favor of DnD 4E's current announced style.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 18, 2008)

> You have a point in that the suggestion in the articel that the lich template works best with arcane casters isn't supported by the template itself, but that's a pretty weak complaint.




That's an issue easily solved with the inclusion of one word. 



> *POWERS
> Spellmaster* (minor; recharge 5, 6)
> The lich regains the use of an expended arcane encounter power.


----------



## Ipissimus (Apr 18, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> I never understood why natural armor stacked with regular armor.  I remember thinking "huh??" when I first read that it did.




-sighs-

No, I don't let characters get bonuses from wearing 2 sets of armour, particularly plate and chain. This is because most armours, like plate mail, used various layers and combinations of armour types in order to gain maximum protection while maintaining mobility. Underneath all that, though, the human body is soft and squishie and I can say from personal experience that getting hit through heavy chain mail still hurts.

Now, take someone with tough, scaly, hide that has a better dispersive effect against blunt trauma and put plate mail on him and yeah, I CAN believe that stacks.

Maybe you don't remember, weren't around or never had the question asked in 2E by players, but yeah, I had many a player try to convice me that natural armour should stack back then. Long and, frankly, tedious arguments where the only thing I could do was say 'yeah, the rules say no, so no'. 3E stopped that so we were all happy. Now it's back. -sigh-

I understand the reasoning from a game standpoint and I even agree with it. But I just know people are going to try it on again.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What I'm asking for is more aking to "Can vampires cross running water?" or "Are they affected by religious symbols". (Also missing from the template description, come to think of it...).



These things change _wildly_ depending on the particular vampire story you're telling.  It's absolutely something I _don't_ want to see in the rules, as there's no consensus on it, but everyone has their own ideas of what a vampire does.


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 18, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> It's a Pitch Fiend!
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Damnit, now I have to form a geek big beat band


----------



## lexoanvil (Apr 18, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> That is easily the best lich artwork I've ever seen.  Bravo.



i agree gave me some ideas for a very cool villian


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?



It's nothing, just a normal (size large) trident.  The war devil's attack & damage bonuses just _are_, they don't depend on magic items.  It gets less benefit from a +5 weapon than a PC would simply because it's a monster and it's expected to have a certain range of attack & damage bonuses for its level, which would be thrown off if you added +5/+5 to it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> I'm hoping for a Ritual called "Create Vampire Spawn" or something similar, which only Vampires and Vampire Lords can take. The requirements for such a ritual could involve Dominating the target and forcing them to drink the vampires blood, then using Blood Drain to reduce them to 0 Hit Points, and burying them. If they lay undisturbed for three days then they rise again as Vampire Spawn. Nice and simple.




Sounds cool.

Rituals really are being asked to do all the heavy lifting in 4e, aren't they?


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Rituals really are being asked to do all the heavy lifting in 4e, aren't they?




Yes. Whenever a hole in 4E rules gets discovered people say "rituals will do it" even though we know next to nothing about them.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sounds cool.
> 
> Rituals really are being asked to do all the heavy lifting in 4e, aren't they?




As well they should.  If it is not used in combat it makes more sense for things to be "mechanically" described and adjusted elsewhere.


----------



## rjdafoe (Apr 18, 2008)

*Not the whole entry*

I think the things that is probably the case here is that these articles contain information from the books.  It may (and reading it probably not?) be the entire section.

Take the vampire for instance.  it looks like it is the opening paragraph with it's stat block only.  From what I remember, they have said there is more than the stat block to each entry.  It probably is no the entire entry.  So, alot of these discussions are really nothing more that discussing a preview of a movie, without seeing the movie still.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes. Whenever a hole in 4E rules gets discovered people say "rituals will do it" even though we know next to nothing about them.




And the only reason a "hole" exists is because some want to threadcrap eternally about it.  The assumption by those is that the pinhole view they have is a complete one.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 18, 2008)

Y'know, this is a tempest in a teapot.  I'd rather have a D&D standard for how vampires spawn, since it's the sort of thing I might not realize isn't in there until it comes up.  So, I might not have an answer prepared.

Seriously, could some WotC guy just tell us whether the info is in there somewhere or not?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> These things change _wildly_ depending on the particular vampire story you're telling.  It's absolutely something I _don't_ want to see in the rules, as there's no consensus on it, but everyone has their own ideas of what a vampire does.



Well, like Lizard says, this runs into problems when vampires (or whatever) appear in supplements (WOTC-made or otherwise).  If everyone has their own individual take, that reduces the use you can get out of someone else's work.  The implied setting is there for a reason.  As another example, people have different idea about what the faerie realm should be like.  But there's still a very specific Feywild in 4e, that is going to be built upon in various supplements.  If you don't like WOTC's Feywild, you're free to change it, but the baseline is there and most people will use it, if for no other reason than convenience.  It saves people the trouble of coming up with their own stuff, which is pretty much all Lizard is getting at.  And if you don't use the Feywild, supplements that deal with it are not so great a purchase for you.  Everyone arguing against Lizard is essentially arguing against the implied setting, which ironically was the 3e-defender's position a few months ago.  But then, it's April, right hong?

I also see a newbie DM issue here, as the game is supposed to be making things easier for such DMs, and a part of that is answering these kinds of questions ahead of time so that the DM doesn't have to (because the newbie won't know to).  Advanced DMs will anticipate such issues before they arise, and are much better equipped to make changes to the baseline assumptions.

Anyway, it's conjecture on both sides.  We don't know that the info isn't there.  We don't know that it is, either.  So extolling the virtues of either approach is premature (and some of those taking one position now would no doubt reverse themselves if the books end up contradicting them).


----------



## DandD (Apr 18, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> -sighs-
> 
> No, I don't let characters get bonuses from wearing 2 sets of armour, particularly plate and chain. This is because most armours, like plate mail, used various layers and combinations of armour types in order to gain maximum protection while maintaining mobility. Underneath all that, though, the human body is soft and squishie and I can say from personal experience that getting hit through heavy chain mail still hurts.
> 
> ...



You don't have to worry about that discussion, because the Armour Class-system of D&D is ass-dumb anyway. It assumes that you actually try to hit the non-protected places, not trying to hit through the armour of the enemy. So, really, if you're fighting a monster with thick hide, you're not trying to pierce its skin, but hitting on vulnerable joints, or its eyes, the neck, anywhere where you approximately know that its not that well protected. 
Unless playing with optional rules, armour doesn't give Damage Reduction, which would really be the logical way. But because of the AC-system, it doesn't (or wouldn't) matter if the monster with +8 Natural Hide Armour wears a chainmail. You wouldn't try to hit it in its stomach section anyway, but its head, or its foot, or something similarly inane. 
That's how AC really works. The fact that D&D 3rd edition allowed the stackability of natural and worn armour while stating that fighting with the AC-system means you try to hit the non-protected area was just contradictionary crap... Natural AC and worn AC shouldn't have been able to stack at all by their definition, but the designers for 3rd edition didn't think that really through.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I know the mechanical reason for this, but from a simulationist point of view it does not make sense that items stop working when they are in the hand of powerful individuals.




From a simulationist point of view, D&D - any edition - is a terrible game to begin with. You've chosen a game that has always done a lousy job of simulating anything other than itself, and then you complain that the newest edition isn't sufficiently simulationist for you. 

This is why I have a hard time thinking of you as anything other than a troll.


----------



## Grossout (Apr 18, 2008)

Delgar said:
			
		

> Enjoy the new Lich Pit Fiend.
> 
> *Pit Fiend Lich Level 26 Solo Controller (Leader)*
> Large immortal undead humanoid (devil) *XP* 45,000
> ...




I know this is an "unofficial" monster creation, but I thought 4E was aiming at simplified stat blocks!  That thing is huge!  

No offense to you of course, Delgar.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 18, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> As well they should.  If it is not used in combat it makes more sense for things to be "mechanically" described and adjusted elsewhere.




Exactly. It's an out-of-combat thing, so it's not going to appear in the combat statistics. And really, how many vampire stories are out there where vampires turn others into vampires within seconds? That's something that happens over the course of time. The vampire has to bite the victim, the victim may or may not have to drink the vampires blood, and in a lot of cases the victims gotta lay dead for a good long while before rising up again as vampires. That's not something that occurs within your typical combat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

hmmh... mgical items beeing less usefull in higher level monsters...

like gantlets of oger power and boots of elvenkind in ADnD,

actually, its a fine solution to hve its bonus decrease smoothly... compare it to the help of microsoft office... it helps when you begin using a program, when you get more experienced, you only use it now and then and usually it doesn´t help a lot. And finally, when you are experienced enough, it doesn´t offer anything...


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> As well they should.  If it is not used in combat it makes more sense for things to be "mechanically" described and adjusted elsewhere.




And I like the idea of rituals just fine. I just think an awful lot of stuff is seemingly being dumped into the ritual bucket. 4e, in general, is asking a small number of mechanics to do an awful lot of things. (Saving throws, for example...poison? Being on fire? Hit by an aging ray? One roll to rule them all...)


----------



## D'karr (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And I like the idea of rituals just fine. I just think an awful lot of stuff is seemingly being dumped into the ritual bucket. 4e, in general, is asking a small number of mechanics to do an awful lot of things. (Saving throws, for example...poison? Being on fire? Hit by an aging ray? One roll to rule them all...)




That had already started this "trend" in 3.x.  The d20 systems idea was to have a small number of mechanics to handle most situations.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with that approach.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 18, 2008)

Grossout said:
			
		

> I know this is an "unofficial" monster creation, but I thought 4E was aiming at simplified stat blocks!  That thing is huge!
> 
> No offense to you of course, Delgar.



It's also a level 26 solo.

Seeing as all the relevant data about it is in the block (no looking up random feats) I'm amazed it's not even bigger 

Gah! Silly monster data! Gotta staple the war devil and legion devil data to it too!


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> You don't have to worry about that discussion, because the Armour Class-system of D&D is ass-dumb anyway. It assumes that you actually try to hit the non-protected places, not trying to hit through the armour of the enemy. So, really, if you're fighting a monster with thick hide, you're not trying to pierce its skin, but hitting on vulnerable joints, or its eyes, the neck, anywhere where you approximately know that its not that well protected.
> Unless playing with optional rules, armour doesn't give Damage Reduction, which would really be the logical way. But because of the AC-system, it doesn't (or wouldn't) matter if the monster with +8 Natural Hide Armour wears a chainmail. You wouldn't try to hit it in its stomach section anyway, but its head, or its foot, or something similarly inane.
> That's how AC really works. The fact that D&D 3rd edition allowed the stackability of natural and worn armour while stating that fighting with the AC-system means you try to hit the non-protected area was just contradictionary crap... Natural AC and worn AC shouldn't have been able to stack at all by their definition, but the designers for 3rd edition didn't think that really through.




Of course that assumes that the both the natural armor and the manufactured armor protect the same parts which is exactly how it would not work. The manufactured armor covers those parts which are not covered by natural armor.
Try to slide a dagger under a scale when it is also covered by mail. Head is not covered by natural armor? Thats what a helmet is for.



			
				Ingolf said:
			
		

> From a simulationist point of view, D&D - any edition - is a terrible game to begin with. You've chosen a game that has always done a lousy job of simulating anything other than itself, and then you complain that the newest edition isn't sufficiently simulationist for you.
> 
> This is why I have a hard time thinking of you as anything other than a troll.




Ah the familiar "3E was not perfect, so 4E can suck as much as it wants" approach. Guess what, 3E was obviously simulationist enough for me and a couple of other people and 4E isn't.



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> hmmh... mgical items beeing less usefull in higher level monsters...
> 
> like gantlets of oger power and boots of elvenkind in ADnD,
> 
> actually, its a fine solution to hve its bonus decrease smoothly... compare it to the help of microsoft office... it helps when you begin using a program, when you get more experienced, you only use it now and then and usually it doesn´t help a lot. And finally, when you are experienced enough, it doesn´t offer anything...




Except that magical weapons don't tend to summon small paper clips which tell you where to strike but improve the quality of the weapon like making them sharper and I fail to see how a experienced fighter suddenly stops benefiting from having a better weapon.


----------



## StarFyre (Apr 18, 2008)

*oh well...*

ANything players don't like just means more house rules for them, and less house rules for the people who like the changes.

Overall, nothing has changed from older editions.

Sanjay


----------



## D'karr (Apr 18, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> ANything players don't like just means more house rules for them, and less house rules for the people who like the changes.
> 
> Overall, nothing has changed from older editions.
> 
> Sanjay




Well said.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And I like the idea of rituals just fine. I just think an awful lot of stuff is seemingly being dumped into the ritual bucket. 4e, in general, is asking a small number of mechanics to do an awful lot of things. (Saving throws, for example...poison? Being on fire? Hit by an aging ray? One roll to rule them all...)




I thought the consensus was that the 4E saving throw was the 3E version of "X lasts for 1d4 rounds".


----------



## Argyuile (Apr 18, 2008)

In addition to the rules on vampire spawning time frames I'm going to need some Orc rules.   I need to know.

How fast they breed, if 5 Orcs walk into my campaign world how long till there are 50 Orcs?

How fast they eat.  If one of my PC's is captured by Orcs how long do they have to rescue him before they eat him.  If they capture 2 is one sufficient for all the Orcs or will they eat both?  Does it depend on the number of Orcs, if so how many people per Orc do they need to eat, whats the ratio? Will they eat one in preference to another and if so how do they choose?

Will they torture the PC to death and if so how fast?  Will they just leave him in a cage for a while or will they start torturing him immediately?

Will they try to breed with the PC's? If so whats the gestation period on half Orc offspring?



The point is as many people have already said,  It takes exactly as long as it needs to for the story for these things to happen.

Close Impregnate PC (Out of Combat, usable 1 once every 10 minutes for males, at will for females.l)
Close burst 1;  +3 vs. Charisma; 1d4 + 1 damage, and the target is stunned (save ends). Aftereffect: The target is impregnated or becomes impregnated with a Half Orc offspring that will be born in 6 months.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ah the familiar "3E was not perfect, so 4E can suck as much as it wants" approach. Guess what, 3E was obviously simulationist enough for me and a couple of other people and 4E isn't.




That is certainly not my argument and you well know it. 3.5 sucks from a simulationist perspective, and so complaining that 4e does too is a lousy argument.

But fine - let's say I grant that 3.5 is "simulationist enough" for you and 4e isn't. If you say so, I'll believe you - I think you have a poor idea of what constitutes a "good enough" simulation, but that's your business. Your original complaint about "unlogical" rules is still invalid. The rule you complain about is perfectly logical within the framework of 4e, you just don't like the rule because you don't like the conceits on which 4e is built. You're well aware that "simulationism"  is not really a design goal for 4e, but you still feel compelled to point out every time 4e fails to be simulationist enough for you. You're trolling and it's tiresome.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 18, 2008)

One thing I think that needs to be mentioned here is that the "Give a monster a magic item" issues being brought up seem to be assuming something: that every base monster is completely naked and bare-handed with no attack skills whatsoever, and therefore anything you add should "make it more powerful", and anything that doesn't only doesn't for balance reasons.

The "threshold" is meant to specify the weapon (be them natural, mundane, or magical) that the monster _already has_.  Think of that unarmed Orc as having a +5 Orc Fist of Punching.  The threshold rule is therefore just saying that you can't replace their +5 Orc Fist of Punching with a +4 Sword of Sharpitude since it's worse.

A lot of the monsters already have weapons, too, explicitly: The Water Archon in Worlds of Monsters has a spiked chain.  If you want to give it a magical spiked chain, it has to be already be better than the spiked chain it has.

It's the same thing with the natural armor rules: It isn't always natural armor.  Sometimes that monster is already wearing a chain shirt.  Sometimes it's already wearing full plate.  That natural armor bonus refers to both of these, and putting on a new set of armor is going to replace that (either by actually replacing the armor, or bypassing it in the case of hide/scales)


----------



## Lizard (Apr 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I thought the consensus was that the 4E saving throw was the 3E version of "X lasts for 1d4 rounds".




True. It's an interesting psychological quirk. By making it a player-rolled save, instead of a DM-rolled time, the implication is that the character is somehow actively doing something, as opposed to a passive agent working its way through the system. This is also exacerbated by the fact elite monsters get +2 on all saves.


----------



## StarFyre (Apr 18, 2008)

*hmmm*

Is it just me, or does anyone else see experienced DMs spending just as much time creating custom creatures? Not less...since so many things may have been removed that DMs want back, they have to spend time adding the extra crunch as someone mentioned (the vampire example), back? 

Me, the vampire example, I agree with the argument but I don't personally care since I mess around with monsters so much, it doesn't really matter what the MM says in that regard 

Sanjay


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> The "threshold" is meant to specify the weapon (be them natural, mundane, or magical) that the monster _already has_.  Think of that unarmed Orc as having a +5 Orc Fist of Punching.  The threshold rule is therefore just saying that you can't replace their +5 Orc Fist of Punching with a +4 Sword of Sharpitude since it's worse.




That is of course a solution, and a rather good one, but it requires the DM to know what magical weapons and armor each monster has in the case that the PCs pick it up. It would be easier if that would be written in the statblock.




			
				Ingolf said:
			
		

> That is certainly not my argument and you well know it. 3.5 sucks from a simulationist perspective, and so complaining that 4e does too is a lousy argument.




If you say so, but do you want to dispute that 4E is less simulationist than 3E?







> Your original complaint about "unlogical" rules is still invalid. The rule you complain about is perfectly logical within the framework of 4e, you just don't like the rule because you don't like the conceits on which 4e is built. You're well aware that "simulationism"  is not really a design goal for 4e




So 4E is not build to be logical/simulationist and people who, because of this change, get forced to search another game system or, when continue to play D&D, will have less fun complain about it. What a surprise. And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.







> You're trolling and it's tiresome.




Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that magical weapons don't tend to summon small paper clips which tell you where to strike but improve the quality of the weapon like making them sharper and I fail to see how a experienced fighter suddenly stops benefiting from having a better weapon.



Right, but there's a threshold there.  In the examples with the ogres, you can't give them a +1 weapon and expect it to make +1 worth of difference.  The ogres are already so powerful that it won't.  If you give them a +2 weapon it will help them, but only as much as a +1 weapon helps a lesser monster.

The stronger the monster is, the stronger the weapons need to be for them to make a difference.  No doubt the rule was instituted at least partly for "gamist" reasons, like you said.  But that doesn't mean it makes no sense from a simulationist perspective.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.




We can decide you are trolling and tiresome all we like.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 18, 2008)

I find the Magic Threshold to be very simulationist.  Why you may ask?

I image a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 monster for the the same 
reason  a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 adventurer.

Give a level 15 adventurer a +1 sword and they'll go, "A +1 sword?  And this is useful treasure how?  I already have a +5 and +4 sword.  This item is useless to me.  Guess I can sell it later or something."

I imagine a level 15 monster to react the same way to a +1 sword too.


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.




I can't speak for Ingolf, but I would point you to this excellent extension of the same concept to PCs by Irda Ranger by way of example: Threshold Extended to PCs.

For a more slimmed-down explanation, WotC has trimmed down the number of types of bonuses, and thus the number of types which stack.  Thus, monsters of a certain level have an inherent +x Enhancement bonus to attack & damage; any magic items with an equivalent Enhancement bonus don't stack; if it's greater, only the amount by which the item exceeds the monster's inherent bonus is added on.  QED.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And I like the idea of rituals just fine. I just think an awful lot of stuff is seemingly being dumped into the ritual bucket. 4e, in general, is asking a small number of mechanics to do an awful lot of things. (Saving throws, for example...poison? Being on fire? Hit by an aging ray? One roll to rule them all...)




But please keep in mind it is being dumped in there by a bunch of people who are trying to answer you and Derrens questions of why the holes exist in the leaked info without having any more info than you do.  We just don't believe as you do that because EVERY single tidbit of info is not leaked that that info will not EVER appear anywhere in the game.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Ah the familiar "3E was not perfect, so 4E can suck as much as it wants" approach. Guess what, 3E was obviously simulationist enough for me and a couple of other people and 4E isn't.




Actually that is a trollish misrepresentation of what he said.  What he was sayign is that maybe you're playing the wrong game.  And, I might add, if 3.xe is so hunky dory with you, whay are you wasting everyone's time (including your own) on here arguing?


----------



## D'karr (Apr 18, 2008)

> Me: You see a group of centaurs approaching at high speed.
> Druid: What are they riding?




Stormtalon, that part of your sig just cost me a keyboard.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> True. It's an interesting psychological quirk. By making it a player-rolled save, instead of a DM-rolled time, the implication is that the character is somehow actively doing something, as opposed to a passive agent working its way through the system. This is also exacerbated by the fact elite monsters get +2 on all saves.




There's two more differences too:

You can't know how long the ability is going to last until it ends

Everything might be over in 1 turn or might last virtually forever depending on the rolls.


In 3.5 if you roll 1d4+1 then it'll be either 2,3,4, or 5 rounds, and you can count them down


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> If sunlight does radiant damage 0, then vampires will take 10 damage per round in sunlight.




That would be _sweet_.


----------



## eleran (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.




He is stating his (and many other's) opinion which is no less valid than your contention that 4e is "unlogical".


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 18, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Stormtalon, that part of your sig just cost me a keyboard.




That player has yet to live that day down, though to be fair, she _was_ under the influence of NyQuil....  It didn't end there, tho.

Me: Ummm, they're _centaurs?_
Druid: Yeah, but what are they riding?
Everyone: They're CENTAURS!
Druid: But what are they _riding??_
Me: Ummm, themselves?


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 18, 2008)

occam said:
			
		

> That would be _sweet_.




It would, but I doubt that's the case. After looking over the Vampire Lord's stats, again, it says that he loses Regeneration in direct sunlight. Seems odd that they'd include that and not include that he gets fried in the sunlight. So the situation is probably that they consider Vampire Lords to be powerful enough to be able to survive in direct sunlight, although they're weakened by it. I don't much care for that, but oh well. There's still the regular vampire, which apparently does catch fire in sunlight (if the Vampire Vizier is anything to judge by).


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> True. It's an interesting psychological quirk. By making it a player-rolled save, instead of a DM-rolled time, the implication is that the character is somehow actively doing something, as opposed to a passive agent working its way through the system. This is also exacerbated by the fact elite monsters get +2 on all saves.




Well, at the bare minimum, it replaces 3e-style duration:

DM: "Okay Bob, Regdar has been paralyzed and won't be able to act for...(rolls dice) 4 rounds."
Player: "Four rounds? That's about 15 minutes, right? I'm gonna go play _Dark Forces_ on the XBox (or run to the bathroom, or get some pizza, or...). Call me when it's my turn to act again."
(play continues)

with the following:

DM: "Okay Bob, Regdar's been paralyzed. Save ends."
Player: "Shoot...okay...(rolls die)...9...still paralyzed. Maybe I'll get it next round!"
(play continues)

Psychological? Maybe. But it keeps the player involved in the game. And that's a decided benefit.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 18, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> That player has yet to live that day down, though to be fair, she _was_ under the influence of NyQuil....  It didn't end there, tho.
> 
> Me: Ummm, they're _centaurs?_
> Druid: Yeah, but what are they riding?
> ...




I don't think I could have resisted the temptation to say: "Motorcycles!"


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 18, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I don't think I could have resisted the temptation to say: "Motorcycles!"




Let's get Klaus in here to do some concept art.


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Vaeron said:
			
		

> The confusion is from the paragraph that states 8 level ogre savages, with a +1 threshold, receive a +3 to hit and +3 to damage from a +3 greatsword.  It seems to defy the rules.  Is it a typo, or is there a +1 hit/damage bonus to using 2-handed weapons, or something else?




There is informed speculation (I think it's speculation, I haven't seen it officially confirmed anywhere) that proficiency with more "accurate" weapons, such as blades, grants an attack bonus. And using a weapon two-handed does grant +1 to damage. So that could explain the apparent discrepancy.


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> I'm sure the final text in the DMG will be proof-read again and hopefully the inconsistency that people have noticed will be cleared up.




There isn't necessarily any inconsistency; we don't yet have the context of the full rules set, in which everything in the preview may fit together perfectly.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> If you say so, but do you want to dispute that 4E is less simulationist than 3E?




4e is less simulationist that 3e to the exact same extent it's less like Hero System than 3e is.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> So 4E is not build to be logical/simulationist and people who, because of this change, get forced to search another game system or, when continue to play D&D, will have less fun complain about it. What a surprise.




I don't blame you for complaining, I'm just sick and tired of the same tired old gripes being trotted out again and again. We get it - 4e is not your cup of tea. Presumably you are disappointed that WotC went the route with it they did - no amount of complaining is going to change that, however. 



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.




That would be illogical. But as that's not what happens, I fail to see the problem.

All monsters have a built-in bonus that is intended to level the playing field between them and the PCs. It doesn't come from a specific magic item, it comes from the design conceits of 4e. If a monster with an assumed +3 enhancement bonus picks up a +5 weapon, his assumed +3 bonus goes away and is replaced by the bonus of the +5 weapon for a net gain of 2.

Any other result _would_ be illogical.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.




No, I've pretty much decided, I'm just not in a position to do anything about it.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 18, 2008)

Just for you *Derren*, i quote AllisterH again. Maybe you didn't read it, maybe you don't care, but this should clear up your missunderstanding.
Emphasis mine.


			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Magic items *don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures* however, if you *want* a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to *lose* power.
> 
> Basically, Cadfan explained it beautifully.
> 
> ...


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> No amount of complaining or arguing about it will change it, especially when the majority of ppl are in favor of DnD 4E's current announced style.




We don't really know that. The majority of posters to this forum may support the changes in 4e, but forum-posters are by no means representative of "ppl" as a whole. We'll see how it goes after the game's released.


----------



## spuppett (Apr 18, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Y'know, this is a tempest in a teapot.  I'd rather have a D&D standard for how vampires spawn, since it's the sort of thing I might not realize isn't in there until it comes up.  So, I might not have an answer prepared.
> 
> Seriously, could some WotC guy just tell us whether the info is in there somewhere or not?




I don't know.  That seems like something that 'Ask Wizards' or something in that vein is for.  If you need to know _right now_, make it up, then get an 'official' reading when the session is over.


----------



## occam (Apr 18, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The idea is that as you level, your opponents change.  You know you are 15th level because you aren't fighting goblins anymore, you are fighting giants.  Instead of sneak attacks and moving around, you are being crushed beneath giant fists.
> 
> I wouldn't expect to see extremely high level versions of low level races, is what I'm saying.




*Legion Devil:* Hey Boss, what do you about all these do-gooder adventurers that keep showing up? They're really annoying.

*Pit Fiend:* You know, when I started off as a despicable lemure, I faced opponents like that, and I was lucky to survive. As an imp, I was in a better position to influence humanoids than to fight them, but it still happened. After being promoted to bearded devil, it was non-stop adventurer-fighting action. Same when I reached your status.

*Legion Devil:* So what did you do then? How do you get out of that?

*Pit Fiend:* Well, that's the thing... I don't know. Now that I'm one of the most powerful beings in the multiverse, I still have to deal with those pesky humanoids. I mean... What in the Nine Hells??! I thought by now I'd be facing dragons, or the tarrasque! But NO! More humans, more elves, more dwarves... Is this what I get for scaling the heights of infernal power?!!

*Legion Devil:* ...

*Pit Fiend:* ...

*Legion Devil:* Sorry, Boss.

*Pit Fiend:* No, no, forget about it. I just get so frustrated when I think about all the cool monsters those so-called "heroes" get to fight... I let my emotions get out of hand a bit. Pay it no mind.

*Legion Devil:* Thanks, Boss!

*Pit Fiend:* Besides, I need you to blow up the next time some of those adventurers drop by.

*Legion Devil:* ...


----------



## Spatula (Apr 18, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> I find the Magic Threshold to be very simulationist.  Why you may ask?
> 
> I image a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 monster for the the same
> reason  a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 adventurer.
> ...



Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all.  If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature.  The level 15 monster has the bonuses it does, and gets less benefit from whatever items you give it, because that's what it's required to have to challenge the players.  It's not 100% gamist (wherein the items would have no effect at all, perhaps), but it's certainly not simulationist.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 18, 2008)

There are a number of folks in here bickering in here about accusations of trolling.  All of you, stop it.

If an accusation of trolling is accurate, it feeds the troll.  If inaccurate, it is insulting. Continuing to engage in back-and-forth about such accusation disrupts the thread, and overall makes this look like an argumentative, unpleasant place.  Good work, people!

So, cut it out, please.  If you don't like what someone has to say, you are free to _ignore it_, or report it.  Getting argumentative helps nobody.  So don't do it.  Thank you.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> So 4E is not build to be logical/simulationist and people who, because of this change, get forced to search another game system or, when continue to play D&D, will have less fun complain about it. What a surprise.




I think the question is here is why they choose to repeat their already well known complaints ad nauseam, when its really not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful form.


----------



## Serensius (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I noticed that. Another reason why the lich template is bland.
> The 4E Lich lost nearly everything which made it unique. Its not caster only anymore, it doesn't need to have a phylactery and their powers are also rather generic. (Does necrotic damage and can recharge powers. Imo thats rather boring compared to things like paralyzes things with a touch).
> Its just another guy turned undead for power.




This is something that concerns me too, about 4E. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the new changes as much as the next guy; but it seems that, because everything is going to get hooked into the the same system of level-appropriate damage etc (PCs too, everyone basically gets the same things), everything seems kind of generic. I'm really hoping to see some awesome fluff with monsters and powers at release.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 18, 2008)

spatula said:
			
		

> Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all. If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature.




It's not actually that it _doesn't_ have a + weapon, it's that it doesn't matter if it has a + weapon.

After the battle, when the players are looting the corpses, the DM can say, "It, uh... has a +2 sword." Or he can decide to give that same treasure value in coins instead. At level 15, both approaches probably come out to the same thing, since everyone probably has +2 or better weapons.

It really means that only loot that will be important to the PCs will be important in the battle.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all.  If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature.  The level 15 monster has the bonuses it does, and gets less benefit from whatever items you give it, because that's what it's required to have to challenge the players.




Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?


----------



## malraux (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
> I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?



He might not have a magical aura, but perhaps he has an enhancement bonus to his attack.  Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs.  And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 18, 2008)

I remember when I used to play Torg, which was a game that often had to deal with adjudicating multiple bonuses from different sources much like D&D (Though in Torg you had to worry about what happened if somebody enchanted the armor of a sherman tank). Torg had the concept that because each + and each power increase was slightly exponential eventually you reached a point where a minor boost just wasn't significant enough to increase something's power anymore. The example they gave was that wrapping a battleship in leather armor would not make it significantly harder to destroy.

That's kind of how I view the stacking in 4e....that 20th level creature is hitting so hard that it takes more then a minor sharpening enchantment to significantly increase it's power. The key thing to remember is that +1 on a D20 represents an exponential increase in power, not a static increase in power. At some point things are so powerful that it requires more and more to give them that exponential increase.


----------



## Derren (Apr 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs.




Thats a good point. Its not perfect but it does reduces the number of headaches.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Apr 18, 2008)

Well, this discussion has convinced me of two things.  One, I'm going to get rid of magical plusses in my game, most likely.  I really dislike the feel that instead of being something "extra," they're a crutch that the PCs have to have because they're not as awesome as the NPCs and Monsters (which is what the underlying math does to the game world.)  Essentially a member of a PC class needs a ton of equipment to make up a shortfall vs. some filthy NPC who gets everything he needs from his role.  Thats unacceptable to me, the PCs are supposed to be badasses.  (And if the high level NPC does have all that equipment, then, well, the PCs are probably just going to take it.  Also probably bad.)

Secondly, it makes way more sense why they don't like disarm.  Disarming a 27th level fighter and grabbing his sword and hitting him with it will mess up the whole damned game, apparently.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs.  And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.




That's a really good way to think about it. Thanks.


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
> I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?




I think the trouble is that you're thinking of the NPC as a "level 6 veteran".  He's not a level 6 veteran.  He's a guy with a +9 melee attack that does 1d8+4 damage who can use the "veteran's gambit" power once per encounter.  Those abilities are not computed from class levels.  They are just a set of modifiers that are appropriate for a level 6 challenge.

The challenge here is that, if you give him a +3 blade, he only gets a +2 benefit and you want to know why.  If he starts out the encounter with the +3 blade, then maybe he never really did have a +9 melee attack with an ordinary sword.  Maybe his "natural" ability is really +8?  Or maybe, that warcaster behind him cast a buff on his sword?  Or maybe, he really does have a featureless +1 sword, which is a particularly sucky magic item in 4E?

Personally, I might say that more powerful folks can get more out of a non-magical sword once they sharpen it themselves and have a bit of practice.  So, IMG, if a 7th level character loses all his equipment, he can probably find a sword and squeeze a +1 (no special bump) bonus out of it.  I'd figure that poor NPC soldiers use this as their bread-and-butter and that PCs could use it too, if they found themselves in a bad spot.  Think of it as a martial ritual...

Of course, you may say, "that's all fine and good, but it's not RAW".  To which all I can say is (A) we haven't seen the whole RAW and (B) even if it isn't (which to be fair, does seem likely), it's not a core scenario of 4E, so we'll have to look towards the commentaries, not towards the text of the RAW itself.


----------



## DangerAbe (Apr 18, 2008)

Hi, I'm new to these boards but I've been playing D&D since the start of 2nd Edition. 

First off, the preview is lacking in a lot of areas. There should be rules for creating vampire spawn. However, just because the rules aren't in the Vampire Lord template, that doesn't mean they won't be in the Monstrous Manual under the vampire/vampire spawn entry. 

I firmly believe that there will be rules for creating vampire spawn somewhere in 4E. It would be a gross oversight if there weren't. Heck, it could also be a ritual, as many have speculated.

As far as the orc breeding argument. I think it's safe to say that orcs breed at a similiar rate to humans, so... that's silly... Hmmm, unless they don't...but then it would be worth mentioning.

Second, the magic item thing seems weird. My immediate reaction was: Gee, there's a chart I'll never use. But many people have made excellent points concerning play balance and the abstract nature of "pluses".  I don't know if i'll adopt that system when DMing. But honestly, my players probably won't notice either way. I don't let them look at monster stats during fights.

Third, I'd like there to be more information on the lich's creation process (since I've had PC wizards who actually want to become liches); that will undoubtably be a ritual though, so I'm not worried about if it not being in the preview.

Finally, I've been reading these boards for a little while now without posting. Some people here just seem like hardcore haters who disagree with everything WotC does. Why hate people? Really? Don't hate. D&D is awesome. Your old books aren't going to explode when 4e hits the shelves. And if you're upset because you know everyone else is going to start playing 4e and you'll look like one of those fools who kept saying 2nd Edition was better (like my brother, he wanted to get the word: THAC0 tattooed on his arm), well guess what? You've already lost. The future is coming people.

Don't hate it. You look silly when you hate.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 18, 2008)

Before I complain, I would like to say that this is just about as good an approach to monster customization as you can get given the theoretical approach WotC took in 4e.  I am not happy by their fundamental ideas, but the execution appears decent.  Except for some gaping holes.

Some monster-equipment wierdness: all high level (non-pc classed) NPCs have insane natural armor.  Why?  Their effective armor bonus is AC-10-(sometimes) dex/int.  This means that high level, their effective armor bonus will be rapidly rising above *anything* armor can provide.  Remember, this number is scaling at 1/level (and if you reverse-scale the pit fiend, say, that 1/level scaling seems to work all the way), which armor enhancement bonuses appear to be scaling at about 1/5 levels.  Another question: shields.  Shields tend to stack with armor... which makes them functionally incompatible with the listed equipment changing rules.

In short, the armor changing instructions will not work outside of the Heroic tier.  Also note that the DDXP kobold slinger with AC<Reflex, previously tagged as odd, does appear to be suffering from wearing leather armor of AC *-1*.

Lastly, *why* did they have to include


> monster’s magic threshold is an abstract representation of its *equipment* ...



in the text.  It is just asking for trouble.  NPCs should either explicitly have magic gear, or not.  Anything else *will* cause problems, especially for newer DMs who can have a hard time separating fluff from crunch appropriately.  I can just see the Sage Advice questions now...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> He might not have a magical aura, but perhaps he has an enhancement bonus to his attack.  Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs.  And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.




yes, that´s it...

no npc needs to boil up an anthill, just to be able to swing a sword right... NPCs actually learn their trades by training... not by stumbling into fights


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I think the confusion comes from the difference between Dex modifier and Dex ability modifier (and probably inconsistent use...)
> 
> There are two possibilities:
> 1) The wording is wrong or at least confusing:
> ...




Dumb post...

article is fine... still a bit confusing, but after reading it more carefully, it makes nearly perfect sense. (You should also add your dex or int modifierer when you use a better light armor... if i am not mistaken again :/)


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 18, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Another question: shields.  Shields tend to stack with armor... which makes them functionally incompatible with the listed equipment changing rules.



If I am not mistaken shields no longer grant a bonus to AC in 4E.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 18, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Some monster-equipment wierdness: all high level (non-pc classed) NPCs have insane natural armor.  Why?  Their effective armor bonus is AC-10-(sometimes) dex/int.  This means that high level, their effective armor bonus will be rapidly rising above *anything* armor can provide.  Remember, this number is scaling at 1/level (and if you reverse-scale the pit fiend, say, that 1/level scaling seems to work all the way), which armor enhancement bonuses appear to be scaling at about 1/5 levels.



Actually, this is not certain...

Remember that armor in 4E D&D is looking to be quite a bit different than it was in 3E. In one of the previews of the equipment chapter shown at D&DXP, it mentions how there are increasing tiers of armor types, such as fullplate that gets replaced by godplate (presumably at epic levels). Since this seems to be a listing of _base_ armor, rather than just magical armor, it is very possible that armor will increase in bonus far beyond just +5 bonus, because characters are actually swapping out base armor type as well as increasing magical bonuses as they increase in level. Since Heavy Armor doesn't let you add your Dex or Int modifier to AC, there may not necessarily be any way for a PC in Heavy Armor to increase AC at all without _really_ good armor (though I admit I don't know enough about this to be certain).

It might very well be possible that normal armor can be powerful enough to improve the AC of even very high level monsters.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2008)

You are mistaken. You add shields armor to AC and Reflex save. Its armor bonus however should be compensated by lower attack damage.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not entirely sure about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that with those special cases you'd stat it up using the PHB rules, rather than the MM rules (or, you know, whatever book has the barbarian in it).  I don't see a problem here.  If a 3rd edition party of mine ever encountered a 15th level orc, he'd be a special orc hero.  Most orcs are <5th level nobodies anyway.  A 15th level orc is a high chieftain, whom you might encounter hanging around with his 13th level ogre bodyguards, some 12th level minion pet dire wolves, and the 17th level giant he was forming an alliance with when you busted in on his party.  Or something like that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 18, 2008)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I'm confused as well.  None of the smartest professors I know would be any good at dodging a punch.



It's the difference between being having naturally fast reflexes (Dex) and studying and practising techniques that increase your defence (Int).  Being quick to react makes you good at dodging blows, but being bright means that you'll learn quickly how to avoid opening yourself up to attacks, maybe even talk over technique with your party members.  I know a fencer who is a complete klutz most of the time, but just sort of snaps into his fencing motions when he competes.  Low Dex, high Int.  That there is no synergy between the two is where things are abstracted for game balance.  Ideally, you should be able to some extent shore up the weak parts in your practised defence with quick reflexes.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 18, 2008)

> As far as the orc breeding argument. I think it's safe to say that orcs breed at a similiar rate to humans, so...




Generally, orcs are described as 'fecund', which means they should have a breeding rate higher than the norm.

On another note, is there a way on here to avoid seeing a given person's posts?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 18, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Umm, this is not a corner case, someone (evidently me) was confused about how the rule fundamentally worked. Is the threshold the max plus a creature of that level can take advantage of OR is it the minimum plus that the weapon/armor must have for a creature to take advantage of it (on the assumption that if it is lower than this then what they already had was better anyway). It seems from closer inspection that the latter is the case, but the text and (especially) the table are pretty damned confusing.



Yeah, why wouldn't they just make the table say "-1, -2, -3, ..." instead of "+1, +2, +3, ..."?  Then they could just say "the magic threshold is a special penalty that applies to enhancement bonuses of weapons and armour wielded by monsters, based on the level of the monster."  Easy.  As a design principle, you should never make people subtract anything.  When you absolutely need to subtract something, add negative numbers instead.  It's more intuitive to say -1 than -(+1).


----------



## DandD (Apr 18, 2008)

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> On another note, is there a way on here to avoid seeing a given person's posts?



Use the Ignore-Function. Just click the user-name, and then go to "Add XXX to your ignore list".


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 18, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Actually, this is not certain...
> 
> Remember that armor in 4E D&D is looking to be quite a bit different than it was in 3E. In one of the previews of the equipment chapter shown at D&DXP, it mentions how there are increasing tiers of armor types, such as fullplate that gets replaced by godplate (presumably at epic levels). Since this seems to be a listing of _base_ armor, rather than just magical armor, it is very possible that armor will increase in bonus far beyond just +5 bonus, because characters are actually swapping out base armor type as well as increasing magical bonuses as they increase in level. Since Heavy Armor doesn't let you add your Dex or Int modifier to AC, there may not necessarily be any way for a PC in Heavy Armor to increase AC at all without _really_ good armor (though I admit I don't know enough about this to be certain).
> 
> It might very well be possible that normal armor can be powerful enough to improve the AC of even very high level monsters.




The thing is, the devs are making noises about gear being less critical.  If you are budgeted a 1AC/level in gear (whether that be in magical pluses or base value is immaterial to this), you *cannot* afford delaying upgrading.  Worse, if the AC increase is coming from armor type rather than enchantment, you need to dump your old suit, basically every level.  It is much harder conceptually to turn steel full-plate into mithril full-plate than to turn +1 armor into +2.  What you are suggesting is on the outer edges of plausibility.  I'm not willing to entirely discount the option, but it would be *wierd* and very counter to other 4e design decisions.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 19, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But the War Devil entry says nothing about the + of the Trident, so if the PCs take it from him, how do we know that its +5 or +3 or whatever?



Assume it's equal to his magic threshold?


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 19, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all.  If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature.



If you're still stuck in the 3.x mindset, *The Monster has an innate enhancement bonus to attacks*.  It's just that simple.


Oh, and the "Ogres and +3 greatclubs" example?  Here's what it's really saying: "Think about why you're giving monsters magic weapons.  Is it to make them better fighters? Then maybe you should just increase their level and make them tougher that way.  Your players probably don't want to cart around half a dozen _large +3 greatclubs_ (although, maybe they really do want that +18 teepee of shelter).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 19, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> <Shudder> Never have liked messing with templates (after creating a whole forest full of fiendish critters that could be summoned) so I dont get your love.
> 
> Still I can imagine someone is working on ideas for a book of more _involved_ templates now that the licensing issues have been (hopefully) sorted.




"Have plain vanilla mind flayers got you in a rut?  Does your beholder need some extra tentacles?  Do you ever say to yourself 'why can't a dire ape spit acid-glue?'  Well, have we got the solution for you!  Coming this fall: The Book of Involved Templates.  Listen to the following testimonials from actual gamers like you:

"My evil druid was dull and lifeless until I started throwing the plant template on everything in the monster manual.  Next week my PCs will fight plant aboleths, plant dopplegangers and plant Demogorgon!"  -- Smedley P. Cruikshank

"My party tried to ambush the BBEG, but I had slapped the insectile template on him.  Little did they know, four-armed is forewarned!  Thanks, BoIT!" -- Mercedes Spengler

"With the gingerbread template, now the PCs can eat what they kill.  And they can wash it down with monsters with the dairy template." -- Dagwood L. Sparrow

"Not only are there great monster templates in here, but you can also apply templates to an entire adventure.  My favourite has got to be the fane template.  You can revitalize your entire library." -- M. Kook

The Book of Involved Templates will be available in October, in PDF or 640-page hardcover, from PageVapor Publishing.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 19, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Do we really need rules for how a vampire lord creates vampire spawn? Sure, that they *can* do it is important to know, but hard rules? I can't see what it adds to the game to know that a vampire lord can create level/2 vampire spawns per night by using it's ability Create Vampire Spawn [ritual].
> 
> Since the vampire lord is a NPC, the DM can add the desired number of vampire spawns without having to trudge through rules to do it. I'm probably a minority in thinking this, so there most likely is an ability for it, but I can't see the need for rules for something like that.



I'm with you there.  The vampire lord can churn out enough vampire spawn to populate a dungeon with exactly as many spawn as I need him to have.  If he were able to make any number other than what I need him to have, the rule would be useless.  There is no reason to specify the number, because I'll just change it to "however many I need."  A little note in the flavour text explaining how he accomplishes the transformation would be nice (does he bite them in a special way, feed them his blood, perform a dark ritual, or what?), because that might be a useful bit of info.  But to arbitrarily limit him, and therefore me, to some number of spawn is the opposite of useful.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 19, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> If you're still stuck in the 3.x mindset, *The Monster has an innate enhancement bonus to attacks*.  It's just that simple.





This. This is the concept to get your brain around.

If all monsters of a given level X have an innate enhancement bonus Y, then picking up a +Z weapon will give that monster a net gain of (Z-Y).

Does it make "sense" in the simulationist mindset? No. On the other hand, why should it? You already know that PCs and NPC use different rules; this is just another place they differ. And here is the kicker - if you want to run a game where magic gear is de-emphasized and less important, you can with one simple tweak: give the PCs an innate enhancement bonus to their attacks and damage that's equal to what a monster of their level would get, and bang, Robert's your father's brother.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> *Sigh*, I really wish it wasn't true, but not including there insults, I do agree. While I don't need hard rules, or even details for all the different types I would like a suggestion as to how fast/easy Undead Spawn in general could be pumped out in "normal" circumstances (and possibly some ecology?).



Where do you get the idea that you won't have any of this info?  We haven't seen the fluff text for vampires.  We have seen the template statblock.  If a vampire could create spawn in combat, it would be in the statblock.  The fact that this information is not in the statblock doesn't say anything about the vampire except that it can't create spawn in combat.  I expect there will be some mention that they can create spawn, and maybe even some indication of how this can be accomplished, but I don't expect any kind of "2 HD/level" benchmark.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 19, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> And here is the kicker - if you want to run a game where magic gear is de-emphasized and less important, you can with one simple tweak: give the PCs an innate enhancement bonus to their attacks and damage that's equal to what a monster of their level would get, and bang, Robert's your father's brother.



Chris Simms mentioned in a post right here on EnWorld that it would be easier to just tweak with the monsters instead of PCs in order to come up with a low magic items game.


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 19, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> -sighs-
> 
> Now, take someone with tough, scaly, hide that has a better dispersive effect against blunt trauma and put plate mail on him and yeah, I CAN believe that stacks.




Take an iron golemn... put him in plate...now explain why it stacks...

I'm biased though... I've been ignoring armor stacking with natural armor since pre 3.5


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 19, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Psychological? Maybe. But it keeps the player involved in the game. And that's a decided benefit.




And with faster game rounds he might even stay at the table


----------



## Lizard (Apr 19, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> I think the question is here is why they choose to repeat their already well known complaints ad nauseam, when its really not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful form.




Why do people vote for third parties? Silence==Consent.

I was really looking forward to templates and customization, only to find they're really stripped down. Right now, I'm starting to think the basic unit of DM Tinkering Fun in 4e is going to be the Encounter Group, not the monster.

It also occurs to me that a key point of 4e philosophy is that each monster is a very specific tool for a very specific job, and that modifying it is very much just a matter of extreme fine tuning. Compare to 3e, where you can take a lowly orc and via templates, class levels, and/or equipment, turn him into anything you want from a grunt warrior to a half-fiend vampiric sorceror weregoat. In 4e, you just say "Orc Vampiric Sorceror Weregoat", stat him up as a level 15 controller, and give him one 'vampirish' ability, one 'fiendish' ability, and one 'weregoat' ability and call him a new monster. You don't really vary creatures, you build them.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 19, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> "Have plain vanilla mind flayers got you in a rut?  Does your beholder need some extra tentacles?  Do you ever say to yourself 'why can't a dire ape spit acid-glue?'  Well, have we got the solution for you!  Coming this fall: The Book of Involved Templates.  Listen to the following testimonials from actual gamers like you:




I already own it. It's called Advanced Bestiary from Green Ronin, and it's one of the Top 5 D&D supplements EVAR, IMHO. Cannot recommend highly enough.



> "My evil druid was dull and lifeless until I started throwing the plant template on everything in the monster manual.  Next week my PCs will fight plant aboleths, plant dopplegangers and plant Demogorgon!"  -- Smedley P. Cruikshank




You've read my campaign notes!


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 19, 2008)

> half-fiend vampiric sorceror weregoat




Nitpick: This isn't possible in 3e RAW. Vampire template requires the creature to be a humanoid or monstrous humanoid. It changes the creature's type to undead. Half-Fiend template requires the creature to be a living, corporeal creature. It changes the creature's type to outsider. Once you apply one of those templates to the creature, it becomes ineligible for the other template.

And that doesn't even touch on the Lycanthrope requirement for humanoid or giant, which is violated by the change to undead/outsider, as well.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 19, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Nitpick: This isn't possible in 3e RAW. Vampire template requires the creature to be a humanoid or monstrous humanoid. It changes the creature's type to undead. Half-Fiend template requires the creature to be a living, corporeal creature. It changes the creature's type to outsider. Once you apply one of those templates to the creature, it becomes ineligible for the other template.
> 
> And that doesn't even touch on the Lycanthrope requirement for humanoid or giant, which is violated by the change to undead/outsider, as well.




I retroactively follow the advice I've been given for everything in 4e, and ignore the rules.  If making vampire dragons is wrong, I don't want to be right.

(I think Fiendish would work, though. Let's see. Take an orc. He was born Fiendish. Give him 10 sorcerer levels. Then make him a weregoat. Still doesn't change his type. Then make him a vampire. So it works so long as you apply the templates in the right order and replace 'half-fiend' with 'fiendish'.)

As a fiendish weregoat, he's probably a follower of Orcus. Hmmm. (Scribbles notes)


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So it works so long as you apply the templates in the right order and replace 'half-fiend' with 'fiendish'




And so long as you can't retroactively fail to meet the requirements. For example, if you apply the half-celestial template to yourself, then change your alignment to evil.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 19, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> I think the trouble is that you're thinking of the NPC as a "level 6 veteran".  He's not a level 6 veteran.  He's a guy with a +9 melee attack that does 1d8+4 damage who can use the "veteran's gambit" power once per encounter.  Those abilities are not computed from class levels.  They are just a set of modifiers that are appropriate for a level 6 challenge.
> 
> The challenge here is that, if you give him a +3 blade, he only gets a +2 benefit and you want to know why.  If he starts out the encounter with the +3 blade, then maybe he never really did have a +9 melee attack with an ordinary sword.  Maybe his "natural" ability is really +8?  Or maybe, that warcaster behind him cast a buff on his sword?  Or maybe, he really does have a featureless +1 sword, which is a particularly sucky magic item in 4E?




This is how I interpret it.

All we know, and all that _matters_ from an encounter building standpoint, that a "Level 6 Whatever" will have a +9 attack bonus.  What sums up to create that attack bonus does not matter.

It could be from a _+2 sword_, and +7 from somewhere else, or an ordinary sword with the +9 solely from inherent ability.  It's a +9 bonus, and that is all that matters to the PCs.

If you want to make sure to have a _+2 sword_ as the treasure from one of your guards, assume that one of the guards has one.  His attack bonus is still +9, but +2 of that is from the sword, and the rest from "somewhere else."  You can have seven guards with identical statistics, yet wielding magic weapons of different levels, and simply assume that due to different backgrounds, different amounts of training, and the luck of the gods is there to make up for any missing attack bonuses.


----------



## epochrpg (Apr 19, 2008)

Lurker59 said:
			
		

> I agree. It seems like it should be +2 to hit and damage rolls from wielding +3 greatswords, due to the +1 threshold. It is also possible that the ogre usually uses a greatclub and the greatsword has +1 proficiency and average damage when compared to the greatclub. If that is the case a +3 greatsword would provide +3 hit and damage. Even so the example should be a little more clear about the details.




I think that you are making the problem way more complex than it is.  Threshold +1 means max enhancement bonus from items is +1.  So an Ogre with +1 Threshold with a +5 Unholy Avenger does +1 to hit and damage with it.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 19, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I think that you are making the problem way more complex than it is.  Threshold +1 means max enhancement bonus from items is +1.  So an Ogre with +1 Threshold with a +5 Unholy Avenger does +1 to hit and damage with it.



I am beginning to think they should have been a little clearer in the DMG article...

An Ogre with +1 magic threshold and a +5 Unholy Avenger gets a +4 bonus to attacks. Treat the "Magic Threshold" like it was a magical enhancement bonus that is innate to the creature and already figured into the stats, and you get pretty close to the actual rules.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 19, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> An Ogre with +1 magic threshold and a +5 Unholy Avenger gets a +4 bonus to attacks. Treat the "Magic Threshold" like it was a magical enhancement bonus that is innate to the creature and already figured into the stats, and you get pretty close to the actual rules.




That's exactly right.  I'm just going to go ahead and assume the +1 threshold ogres with +3 greatswords getting +3 to hit/damage was a type-o...  So I hope that wasn't a real excerpt from the DMG, but just a guy typing it up real fast and not paying attention to his own math.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 19, 2008)

Vaeron said:
			
		

> That's exactly right.  I'm just going to go ahead and assume the +1 threshold ogres with +3 greatswords getting +3 to hit/damage was a type-o...  So I hope that wasn't a real excerpt from the DMG, but just a guy typing it up real fast and not paying attention to his own math.




Sadly after all the typos and faulty examples in the 3.0 books, my hopes aren't too high that 4.0 will be pristine. I'll just be happy if they cut them down.


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 19, 2008)

I just assumed that the Ogre's weren't 8th level but instead were 5th level...

Example works fine then.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 19, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> No, I do understand.  I just think the answer should be, want it to be "balanced"? (gee, I hate that term)  Then don't give it that item.  Give it something weaker or nothing at all.




The reason they don't do that is because the monster may have, in its treasure, a +5 set of chain mail and a +4 greatsword. If the monster has this treasure, he should be using it. HOWEVER, those bonuses will unbalance the monster's stats beyond where they should be. This is one of the reasons why previous editions had a bit of craziness at higher levels, with one member of your party hitting an enemy on a 13 or higher, and another only on an 18 or higher, and everyone else needing a 20. And so on.

Basically, the monster should be using the treasure he has. He SHOULDN'T, though, receive the full benefits of that treasure to maintain game balance (thankfully, one of their primary focuses, above and beyond simulationist concerns).

The PCs don't know what that the monster lost some of his base attack bonus when he got that magical weapon. But the encounter will run smoother and they can find their loot when it's over. 

Better to adjust the monsters stats a bit, "behind the curtain", so that appropriate level magic items can be found, then to adjust things "in the open" by limiting magic items to small bonuses and not appropriate ones.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.




That's the thing. The NPC DOESN'T loose power when holding a high level magical item. The actual numbers used in play are modified to keep things in a reasonable range. No one, absolutely no one, other than the DM, knows that the NPC is not benefiting completely from a particular item. It's all happening under the hood, and off stage, so to speak.

It keeps the numbers you need to roll, and the numbers your players have to roll, within a target range. Unless you tell them, or let them look at your monster notes, they have no way of knowing how much benefit the monster is getting from a particular item.

Frankly, I much prefer solutions that happen behind the scenes like this. It may feel funny when you're setting up your encounter, but the PCs won't know the difference, other than the encounter was properly balanced.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 19, 2008)

I like posting as I read a thread this long because it piles my posts all at the end like I'm a jerk talking to myself. Isn't that great? 

Okay, one more.  I notice a lot of people arguing over possible explanations for what the article means when it talks about the magic item threshold and then gives the example of the ogres with +3 greatswords. 

Reading the article again, I don't think there's anything wrong or mistyped with it. I wondered what was going on when I saw the discussion but didn't remember anything that caught my eye last night when I first read it. So, here's what I read and what I understood it all to mean:

Monsters are designed to have certain AC, to-hit, and damage bonuses based upon their level and role (type). This math, which the PCs don't usually witness directly but only after being filtered through a DM's d20 roll and result/action arbitration, has been very carefully tweaked to fall into a certain range. Remember, they're actively trying to maintain that "sweet spot". 

Because of the above, monsters do not benefit from magical items (in the bonus department) that are equal to or less than the magical threshold for their level. The PC don't know this, but it minimizes the impact the items will have on the math for any given monster level.

The article then goes on to give an example: 







> . For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal. That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits.




Now, this seems like a misprint because the article says the monsters have bonuses +3 higher than normal, contrary to their own threshold table. That's not a misprint, though. They are merely saying that if you want those ogres to HAVE +3 bonuses to AC, attack, and damage rolls than don't give them the swords, raise them to 11th level instead. Their magic threshold table was never factored in to that example. It's just an example to show that, instead of adding magical items to achieve a certain bonus for your monster, just raise its level instead so that he can get the other benefits that go along with that ... and the PCs can get the experience they deserve from facing the more difficult encounter. Their table never entered the picture, so the numbers aren't wrong. 

In other words, consider making monsters tougher by adding a few levels instead of adding a few magic items. 

Oh, and if you decide to give those ogres the +3 greatswords anyway then the bonuses would be +2 IF you use the magical item threshold table.


----------



## Derren (Apr 19, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> That's the thing. The NPC DOESN'T loose power when holding a high level magical item.




Read again what I wrote, not the NPC looses power but the magical weapon.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 19, 2008)

AZRogue, there is an alternate explaination:
Original Ogres use a unknown armor. The new armor you gave the (plate mail) grants it an effecive 3 points higher bonus. (The text mentions no magical bonus for the armor)
They use a (Great?)Club as weapon (+1 profieincy bonus), but switch to Greatsword +3 (+2 proficiency bonus, +3 bonus to attacks, -1 for magical item threshold => net effect +3 compared to clubs). The damage is 3 points higher for +3 enhancement, -1 threshold, +1 two-handed. 
So, they get +3 to attacks and AC, and +3 to damage from their equipment selection.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> AZRogue, there is an alternate explaination:
> Original Ogres use a unknown armor. The new armor you gave the (plate mail) grants it an effecive 3 points higher bonus. (The text mentions no magical bonus for the armor)
> They use a (Great?)Club as weapon (+1 profieincy bonus), but switch to Greatsword +3 (+2 proficiency bonus, +3 bonus to attacks, -1 for magical item threshold => net effect +3 compared to clubs). The damage is 3 points higher for +3 enhancement, -1 threshold, +1 two-handed.
> So, they get +3 to attacks and AC, and +3 to damage from their equipment selection.




You also subtract the treshold from damage IIRC, so i assume one point of the damage come from the better average damage of a great sword compared to a club. Plate mail is 2 points better than the chain mail which is one point higher than the natural armor + hide. I bet it makes sense when we see the equipment list.

Still i am worried about the wording of the armor change article. Also i get the imression natral armor should stack with light amor (like cloth AC 0, leather AC 1 or hide AC 2), which it obviously does in the ogres case. So it would be convenient if that Natural Armor was mentioned in the monsters entry (i considered that one of the biggest imrovements in MM 3.5).


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 19, 2008)

1. Ogre's armour

Did we forget to add in the +4 unstated bonus the ogre gets from just being an 8th level creature. A poster on the WOTC board mentions that adding that in seems to make all the numbers work out for the ogre's armour class.

Would that also explain the attack bonus for the ogre as well?

Again, my reading of this is that if in battle, a creature picks up a random weapon, then you use the standard weapon bonus but if for some reason you want a creature to have a SPECIFIC set of armour/defenses/weapons available for the PCs to loot, heres what you need to do to make the encounter balanced.

From the PC side of the table, you wouldn't know the difference between random Joe monster and cutomized Joe Monster with magic weapon. The goal seems to be that in 4E to divorce treasure directly from the critter unless the DM specifically wants it.


----------



## eleran (Apr 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Read again what I wrote, not the NPC looses power but the magical weapon.





And what you wrote is still wrong.  Read again what AZRogue wrote.  It is behind the scenes.  It keeps things balanced and makes for a better game.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 19, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Chris Simms mentioned in a post right here on EnWorld that it would be easier to just tweak with the monsters instead of PCs in order to come up with a low magic items game.





I guess we'll see. Strikes me as easier to just give the PCs a little boost rather than adjust every encounter, but I haven't seen the rules yet.


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 19, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> I guess we'll see. Strikes me as easier to just give the PCs a little boost rather than adjust every encounter, but I haven't seen the rules yet.



Ditto. I fail to see how "You may treat each weapon/implement/holy symbol you pick up as though it had the same + as is your due at this level" is harder than "OMG MATH ON EVERY MONSTER".

So I know which way I'm going -- though I'm glad it's not core, since I'm given to understand that most D&D players enjoy the phat lewts.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 19, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Ummm, wow.  Huge, huge props to FabioMB for somehow noticing and pointing out the obvious answer that all the rest of us (myself included) somehow missed. I'm not being sarcastic here -- we all completely flaked out on that tiny-yet-soooo-cruicial detail that the excerpt is from the DMG and not the MM.




thanks 

happy to be usefull to the comunity


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Apr 19, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I like posting as I read a thread this long because it piles my posts all at the end like I'm a jerk talking to myself. Isn't that great?



I've been asking for a function to merge adjacent posts I've made for a couple of years now.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 19, 2008)

I think the most important thing has not been mentioned: If orc joe has 2 more STR, 4 more CON, 2 more DEX and 2 more WIS than Jack, he is about 1 Level higher. Which means: you now know how fudging with stats makes an encounter more or less difficult.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> AZRogue, there is an alternate explaination:
> Original Ogres use a unknown armor. The new armor you gave the (plate mail) grants it an effecive 3 points higher bonus. (The text mentions no magical bonus for the armor)
> They use a (Great?)Club as weapon (+1 profieincy bonus), but switch to Greatsword +3 (+2 proficiency bonus, +3 bonus to attacks, -1 for magical item threshold => net effect +3 compared to clubs). The damage is 3 points higher for +3 enhancement, -1 threshold, +1 two-handed.
> So, they get +3 to attacks and AC, and +3 to damage from their equipment selection.





That could be so, but I think the explanation is a lot more simple. I think they were addressing the DM's intent giving those +3 greatswords to the ogres. I think they're just saying that if you want to give them a +3 bonus, think about raising the ogre by 3 levels instead so the encounter will be more appropriate for the difficulty (numbers) being used.


----------



## Just Another User (Apr 20, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That is of course a solution, and a rather good one, but it requires the DM to know what magical weapons and armor each monster has in the case that the PCs pick it up. It would be easier if that would be written in the statblock.




Besied, IIRC someone mentioned that in 4e there would have been a ritual to drain magic items and use them to create new magic items.If that is true to know if a monster have magic weapons or not, is not exactly irrelevant.


----------



## med stud (Apr 20, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Besied, IIRC someone mentioned that in 4e there would have been a ritual to drain magic items and use them to create new magic items.If that is true to know if a monster have magic weapons or not, is not exactly irrelevant.



I think the point is that you can add magic weapons at your leisure. Some level 12 monsters have +2 weapons, some don't. I wouldn't want every specimen of monster X to have a +3 weapon, while there is a point that you would want to add a magic weapon without throwing the math out of whack. What magic weapons do monsters carry? Well, what do *you*, as the DM, want them to carry?


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 20, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I think the point is that you can add magic weapons at your leisure. Some level 12 monsters have +2 weapons, some don't. I wouldn't want every specimen of monster X to have a +3 weapon, while there is a point that you would want to add a magic weapon without throwing the math out of whack. What magic weapons do monsters carry? Well, what do *you*, as the DM, want them to carry?




Exactly.

I think the default is that no entry in the MM is assumed to have magical items and similarly, any NPC creation rules in the MM work without the DM having to use magical items. They've basically divorced magical items from NPCs UNLESS the DM specifically wants them to have it.


----------



## ZetaStriker (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't think this has been said yet, but about the Lich template's uses:

Yes, it could be useful for all types of characters, but I believe it can only be granted to casters. It isn't in the requirements, but since a ritual is likely needed to attain the template, this would restrict its possibilities. You my be thinking that I'm pulling this out of my nether regions at this point, but here's what I think backs up this argument: the template only lists HP changes for Controllers and Strikers... i.e., Wizards and Warlocks.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

What about then, Rogues and Rangers who are also Strikers? Those certainly are not arcane-based.

I think it states only Controllers and Strikers because they have lower HP then the other roles, so as such as part of this template they are given a boost. This is probably to show that they have gained more of the physical stamina/physical ability to withstand punishment by being undead. That the other roles already poses. 

It also states:


> “Lich” is a template you can add to any intelligent creature of 11th level or higher. It best complements an arcane NPC, such as a wizard or warlock, or a monster with arcane powers, such as a beholder or oni. Other highly intelligent creatures might also become liches; for example, mind flayers, who draw on psionic power.



So while it best suites arcane characters it isn't limited to them.

Also while re-reading noticed:


> Some liches know a ritual that sustains them beyond destruction by tying their essence to a phylactery. When a lich who has performed this ritual is reduced to 0 hit points, its body and possessions crumble into dust, but it is not destroyed. It reappears (along with its possessions) in 1d10 days within 1 square of its phylactery, unless the phylactery is also found and destroyed.



So perhaps we should keep our eyes open for rituals in the fluff of creatures, not in stat-blocks.

This also then would reinforce stat-blocks are purely the combat-stats.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 20, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> I don't think this has been said yet, but about the Lich template's uses:
> 
> Yes, it could be useful for all types of characters, but I believe it can only be granted to casters. It isn't in the requirements, but since a ritual is likely needed to attain the template, this would restrict its possibilities. You my be thinking that I'm pulling this out of my nether regions at this point, but here's what I think backs up this argument: the template only lists HP changes for Controllers and Strikers... i.e., Wizards and Warlocks.




The way I read the DMG template information, if a template is applied to a base creature, its role changes to one of the defaults of the template.  My reading is based on this part of the text:

"In general, if a template does not alter a certain statistic, that entry does not apppear in the list."

If a template could only be applied to a creature with a certain role, I think that information would have appeared under prequesites.


----------



## Primal (Apr 20, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> I don't think this has been said yet, but about the Lich template's uses:
> 
> Yes, it could be useful for all types of characters, but I believe it can only be granted to casters. It isn't in the requirements, but since a ritual is likely needed to attain the template, this would restrict its possibilities. You my be thinking that I'm pulling this out of my nether regions at this point, but here's what I think backs up this argument: the template only lists HP changes for Controllers and Strikers... i.e., Wizards and Warlocks.




I think the only requirement are Level 11 and INT 13+ -- which means that you could create an Orc Battlerager Lich, a Rogue Lich or a Ranger Lich, Giantborn Shadowstirge Lich etc. Which kind of makes me wonder about the 'Spellmaster'-ability... is any power treated as a spell, now? If not, should it rather be called 'Powermaster' instead, since the ability does not restrict recharging to just Arcane powers?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 20, 2008)

Well in the actual rule-section it states simply "power" so I think the name is simply just fluff/feel.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 20, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think the only requirement are Level 11 and INT 13+ -- which means that you could create an Orc Battlerager Lich, a Rogue Lich or a Ranger Lich, Giantborn Shadowstirge Lich etc. Which kind of makes me wonder about the 'Spellmaster'-ability... is any power treated as a spell, now? If not, should it rather be called 'Powermaster' instead, since the ability does not restrict recharging to just Arcane powers?




While possible, I wonder if it will be rare to see monsters with Int of 13+ that are not already controllers/strikers or have supernatural powers.


----------

