# Game Day mini = Spined Devil



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

Our first 4e stats.

4 defenses.

Stats as bonuses, limited skills

Immortal Humanoid rather than Outsider

Role as part of level (Level 6 Skirmisher)

HP/bloodied right on stat block

Defenses as 10+1/2 level+stat bonus

Originals
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1532.jpg

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1534.jpg


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Hey Look 4E stats.
Those don't look that scary.
At least there's all 6 stats. Str Dex Wis Int Cha Con.
Looks promising.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 12, 2007)

I see what they mean about simplified stat blocks!

AC 20, R/F/W18 but Str +7, all the other stats +5. Is AC based on Str?

"Poisoned 5" - damage per round?

"Nethersight" Different varieties of darkvision?

Obviously the same one mentioned here, verifies the poster in Germany, and makes his theory about stats bonuses more interesting.


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

Some other oddities...It's stat bonuses are listed as +7 for Strength, and +5 for the rest, but the actual stats are 19 and a bunch of 15's. 

 Nethersight is listed as a special ability. It has +5 Perception and +10 Spot, which are evidently different skills. 

  It's heavily resistant to fire, but doesn't have the truckfull of minor immunities the 3rd Edition Devil gets. No damage reduction either.

 It also doesn't have a long list of spell-like abilities or the old pain ability, but it's ranged spine attack has been beefed up considerably, making it a real ranged threat.

  As an overall monster, it's much more streamlined and easy to grasp. Decently quick flyer with fire resistance, a powerful (and crippling) but short ranged attack, and decent melee skills. Fits the skirmisher name perfectly.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

Melee attack is listed Attack vs. AC

Ranged attack is listed Attack vs. Ref.

Not sure how the bonuses match the stats - 19 >> +7 for Str yet 14 and 15 track to +5

Damage bonus is +4 which matches to #.x str 19 not +7 as listed on the card.

He does NOT get his level as a bonus on damage like SAGA.

Without seeing another stat block it's hard to tell what the presense of the +7/+5 on a level 6 creature is.  Seems like good bonus = level +1, others is level -1.

(See Spd 5/Fly 7, and all the stat bonuses are +5 except Str at +7)


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Check out that stat block compared to the 3.5 version. 

Simpler and easier to use than I _dared _to expect.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 12, 2007)

Us DDM minis freaks would love to see the skirmish card clearly. Can we get another pic?


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

I got it off MaxMinis so might want to request better picts there.

http://www.maxminis.com/Forums/tabid/104/forumid/51/postid/757358/view/topic/Default.aspx


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Really liking the new ability score notation:

+7 (19)


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2007)

Half Hit points seems to be "Bloodied." 

Ranged attacks seem to be against Reflex rather than AC.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 12, 2007)

Wow, I love the easy 4.0 stat block/card. If they are all that easy, I'll be happy, happy, happy.


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

The Melee Attack/Damage bonuses are a bit harder to figure out. With a +9 ranged attack and +5 Dex, it should have a +4 attack bonus, which is medium progression. However, melee attacks are at the same bonus, despite higher strength. Possibly takes a -2 penalty to attack and half strength damage (rounded up) for 2 claw attacks.


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 12, 2007)

medium immortal humanoid (devil)

Interesting creature type.


----------



## Simon Marks (Oct 12, 2007)

No Alignment listed that I could see either.

Yes, I registered just to say that.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 12, 2007)

The poster Archoangel linked to from this thread guessed that it might mean the bonuses might now be Stat/3 rounded up, not based around (Stat-10)/2 anymore.

Alignment isn't listed _at all_. Just Devil.

Could the claw damage bonus be half the Str bonus?

No Saga-like damage threshold, just the bloodied status.


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 12, 2007)

I am so confused by the ability scores!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2007)

Oh gracious and confused Mod, can we get this thread merged with the other one linked above?


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

There's also no save DC listed for the poison, just the number 5. Looks like if you get tagged by the Spine Attack, you automatically take 5/damage per round are slowed until cured. Nasty effect. 

  If Poison does damage over time, that would explain the old blog comment about Warforged DR not defending vs poison.

  Oh, would also tie into "after-effects". After all, if you're still taking 5 hp every 6 seconds outside of combat, you're pretty much insta-dead. Poison may have a different crippling effect outside of combat.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

_For reference:_

*SPINED DEVIL*
Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)
LEVEL 6 SKIRMISHER

*INIT *+5  *SPD *5  *FLY *7
*Senses*: nethersight. Perception +5
*Resist *fire 20
*Attacks*: *Melee *2 claws +9 vs AC each: 2d4+4
*Spine Rain* Standard; ranged 10; +9 Dex vs. Ref; 1d6+2 + 2d6 fire AND Poisoned 5, Slowed while Poisoned
*SKILLS*: Spot +10

AC 20
FORT 18
REF 18
WILL 18
HP/Bloodied 47/23

Str +7 (19)    Con +5 (14)    Dex +5 (15)    Int +5 (15)    Wis +5 (14)    Cha +5 (15)


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 12, 2007)

This looks promising; the stat block is considerably simpler and clearer.

Now I want to see what the big, complex beastiers (like dragons, or high-end demons and devils) look like!


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 12, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I am so confused by the ability scores!




The formula appears to be the base ability bonus is the same as 3e, but you add half the level to the mod. So a 10th level fighter with a 18 strength would have  a +9.

My only concern is what appears to be a near complete reduction in skill points. That and being poisoned. It seems odd that you can "dodge" or roll with being poisoned (ie, hp damage). I thought 3e poisons were the first edition that got it right.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Is it possible that "Poisoned 5" doesn't refer to damage, but to duration? That is, you are effectively slowed for 5 rounds?

Yes, I'm totally spitballing here.

ps. This thread is *definitely* reminiscent of ENWorld during the approach of 3e.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Ranged attacks seem to be against Reflex rather than AC.




More likely because it is akin to a magic spell attack. I bet arrows will still be vs AC


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 12, 2007)

Note no feats.  Interesting.

It's hard to decompose the attacks and ability bonuses ...  it may be that "rules don't apply to monsters" is really true.  Otherwise, if you assume Str for melee attacks and Dex for ranged, I don't know how +7 Str translates to a +9 melee attack, or how +5 Dex translates to +9 Ranged attack.

If there isn't a system and it's all by eyeball, it will be tough to effectively and consistently tweak monsters and create new ones without some playtesting.

I also wonder about Spot +10 versus Peceptoin +5.  it would seem that at least one of those should be redundant (or the bonus should be the same).


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> More likely because it is akin to a magic spell attack. I bet arrows will still be vs AC



 I'm not so sure of that.  It is listed as "Standard, Ranged 10" and "Dex vs. Ref."


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 12, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> The formula appears to be the base ability bonus is the same as 3e, but you add half the level to the mod. So a 10th level fighter with a 18 strength would have a +9.
> 
> My only concern is what appears to be a near complete reduction in skill points. That and being poisoned. It seems odd that you can "dodge" or roll with being poisoned (ie, hp damage). I thought 3e poisons were the first edition that got it right.




Your math fu wins: I like the 1/2 level to stat mods, because it makes the star wars skills REALLY easy.

Everything's a stat check; trained skills give a bonus to stat checks predicated on that skill.

I *really* like that, woah.


I think your interpretation of poisoned is wrong, though -- the best response is that high level characters should last longer before succumbing to poison, which means either dealing damage in some way associated with hit points (which high level characters have!) or using a lot of saves (which high level characters have!).

This way has less dice rolling.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm happy to see that Fire Immunity in the 3.5 version is Resist Fire 20
in 4e. 

"Medium Immortal Humanoid" = size+metabolism+shape?
Thus a zombie might be Medium Undead Humanoid, a giant a Large Living Humanoid?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 12, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure of that.  It is listed as "Standard, Ranged 10" and "Dex vs. Ref."




  I'd be fairly confident that the 'standard' refers to the action type.  Maybe it's the armor-piercing/bypassing attacks that roll against Reflex instead of AC?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 12, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Your math fu wins: I like the 1/2 level to stat mods, because it makes the star wars skills REALLY easy.
> 
> Everything's a stat check; trained skills give a bonus to stat checks predicated on that skill.
> 
> I *really* like that, woah.




Yeah but it creates a problem with defences if they're 10+(0.5xlevel)+stat, which is what they look like. Defences will advance at a total of 0.75xlevel, while skills will be level/2. At high level it has the same big disparity seen in Saga.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Disappointed to see "Spot" listed.

I was _really _hoping Spot and Listen would have been folded into a generic "Notice" skill.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 12, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I'd be fairly confident that the 'standard' refers to the action type.  Maybe it's the armor-piercing/bypassing attacks that roll against Reflex instead of AC?




At last!  Something to sink our fangs into!

We have been so hungry....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 12, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I'd be fairly confident that the 'standard' refers to the action type.  Maybe it's the armor-piercing/bypassing attacks that roll against Reflex instead of AC?




That's how to handle what were touch and incorporeal attacks, certainly.

I'd have to see arrows and bolts suddenly bypass armor, though.


----------



## ZoA2 (Oct 12, 2007)

I think _Spot +10_ skill modifier could be sum of _Wis +5_ and special bonus listed under senses as _Perception +5_.


----------



## Szatany (Oct 12, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> There's also no save DC listed for the poison, just the number 5. Looks like if you get tagged by the Spine Attack, you automatically take 5/damage per round are slowed until cured. Nasty effect.



Or maybe it means: Slowed for 5 rounds.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 12, 2007)

Man, not enough data points for the ability scores.
We need a creature of a different level, and a bonus that is not 9 or 7.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Disappointed to see "Spot" listed.
> 
> I was _really _hoping Spot and Listen would have been folded into a generic "Notice" skill.



Maybe they are, but it's just named "Spot", because it's used for on-the-spot, heat of the moment perception checks, and "Search" is the one you use for longer, more careful and meticulous study?


----------



## reezel (Oct 12, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> Or maybe it means: Slowed for 5 rounds.



Not sure why no one else thought of this, but wouldn't the 5 after poions be a +5 to the attack roll for it, since stuff like poisons will now be affecting defenses. That would be the same as a DC 15 poison.


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

The only thing I can get from that card is that I can't get anything from that card.

Strength is +7, but there are two attacks with damage mods of +4 each.  The attack bonus is +9.  Dexterity is +5, but the ranged attack bonus is also +9, but with only a +2 damage mod.  Dex bonus does equal Initiative bonus.

Not only do ability score bonuses seem to be calculated differently, they seem to affect what you do differently as well.

Or this could all be an effect of two things:

1) Monsters are built differently from PCs.
2) Miniatures are built differently from RPG monsters.


----------



## Flynn (Oct 12, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> There's also no save DC listed for the poison, just the number 5. Looks like if you get tagged by the Spine Attack, you automatically take 5/damage per round are slowed until cured. Nasty effect.
> 
> If Poison does damage over time, that would explain the old blog comment about Warforged DR not defending vs poison.
> 
> Oh, would also tie into "after-effects". After all, if you're still taking 5 hp every 6 seconds outside of combat, you're pretty much insta-dead. Poison may have a different crippling effect outside of combat.




What if the attack roll is compared against Fortitude to determine if the person is poisoned (one roll to rule them all)? Saga applies poison damage to hitpoints, so I agree with you on that interpretation. In Saga, the poison continues with a check each round, until you defend against the poison attack. It'll be interesting to see how this is handled once we get the rules.

Just some thoughts,
Flynn


----------



## olshanski (Oct 12, 2007)

reezel said:
			
		

> Not sure why no one else thought of this, but wouldn't the 5 after poions be a +5 to the attack roll for it, since stuff like poisons will now be affecting defenses. That would be the same as a DC 15 poison.




My guess  is that the Poison 5 is the attack roll (vs defenders FORT). The effect of the poison is "slowed".


Also, note the attack line indicates both lawful and evil, which seems to imply that not only have alignments NOT gone away, but they also still have mechanical effects.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

I think the normal (3.5) stat bonus + half level is the best math as well.

Initiative is +5, +2 from 15 dex +3 from level.

All skills being Stat bonus+1/2 level is a very good idea as well.

Also that math equals full strenght bonus on both claw attacks.

So you get your normal (3.5) bonus to damage and other key abilities but for skills (maybe initiative is a skill now) and some other things you get that bonus +1/2 level.

Very good math fu indeed, very nice catch ehren37.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> Also, note the attack line indicates both lawful and evil, which seems to imply that not only have alignments NOT gone away, but they also still have mechanical effects.




Only on the 3.5 stat card. The top card (4e preview) doesn't.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 12, 2007)

OK: there is too much information here. 

Could someone please do a comprehensive comparison of the changes.

Thanks!


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 12, 2007)

That card looks so clean...BUT...it has both Percpetion and Spot. Could that be right?


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 12, 2007)

There are 2 versions of the critter on the pic, a 4e preview and the 3.5 version, lets try to keep that in mind when we discuss this.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Oct 12, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I also wonder about Spot +10 versus Peceptoin +5.  it would seem that at least one of those should be redundant (or the bonus should be the same).




Or, each skillgroup (Perception being one of them) has subskills (Spot, Search, Listen, Sense Motive).  You choose your Skill Focus in one of the subskills, granting a +5 bonus.

-TRRW


----------



## DandD (Oct 12, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> My guess  is that the Poison 5 is the attack roll (vs defenders FORT). The effect of the poison is "slowed".
> 
> 
> Also, note the attack line indicates both lawful and evil, which seems to imply that not only have alignments NOT gone away, but they also still have mechanical effects.



 Where is the attack line indicating lawful and evil in the above card? The second card rather seems absolutely like a standart 3.X-edition version.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 12, 2007)

Regarding the stat modifiers.

Maybe we get full str bonus on 2handers, half on onehanders (such as a claw attack) and quarter damage on ranged attacks?


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Disappointed to see "Spot" listed.
> 
> I was _really _hoping Spot and Listen would have been folded into a generic "Notice" skill.




Finally! Something we can agree on!


----------



## Cadfan (Oct 12, 2007)

Or maybe the normal "half strength on off hand attacks" now applies to both attacks in a two handed attack.  There are two claws being used.

Or maybe monster damage is just set by the designer based on a benchmark chart.


----------



## Lorthanoth (Oct 12, 2007)

The top card is 4E, the bottom one is 3.5; and surely it's not hard to work out that if 14 and 15 map across to +5, and 19 is +7... then it must be 16-17 +6, 18-19 +7?

It does look much easier to run.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 12, 2007)

Lorthanoth said:
			
		

> The top card is 4E, the bottom one is 3.5; and surely it's not hard to work out that if 14 and 15 map across to +5, and 19 is +7... then it must be 16-17 +6, 18-19 +7?
> 
> It does look much easier to run.




Someone else explained the stat bonuses. They are 3.5 stat bonus + one-half level. So the +7 STR bonus is +4 from STR 19 and +3 from one half of the creatures level (which is 6).


----------



## Stormtalon (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm curious as to what the "nethersight" that's listed under its Senses is....

[artejohnson]Veeeeery eenterestingk....[/artejohnson]


----------



## dude189 (Oct 12, 2007)

Well heres my guess at everything

the range and melee attack bonus is a +9, but the Strength and Dex modifiers are 7 and 5. This is likely due to the creature *dual wielding* with two claw attacks, providing a -2 to both. This means the creature has a +4 base attack, which would make sense for a 3e monster of the same level (6).

Mind you, I would imagine the base attack progression has changed as well so there may be more in play there.

AC, like the other defense is likely 10+1/2 level + stat bonus (dex), this would leave a +2 natural armor bonus they didn't feel the need to specify. I cant see the extra 2 points being due to ac going off of strength.

As mentioned, the stat bonus are as 3e, with a 1/2 level bonus.

as for the creatures damage, its hard to tell whats base damage and what would be modifiers. 

I would imagine the hand attacks have a base of 2d4+1 with +3 due to 1/2 strength, and the range damage bonuses having nothing to do with the creatures stats.

everything else seems strait forward!


----------



## dude189 (Oct 12, 2007)

Actually, now that i think about it. Could AC just be 10+1/2 level + armor bonus, leaving dex out of the picture completely?

Seems kinda pointless to have it twice.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

In light of the 1/2 level + old bonus being the listed entry for the stats (it's not the stat bonus but rather the skill bonus for those skills) I'll revise my Defense formula.


10+level+raw stat bonus
So 10+6+2

Either 10+1/2 level + adjusted stat bonus (1/2 level + stat bonus) or 10+level+stat bonus get you the same number.

He has a +2 AC bonus or +8 AC bonus (if it doesn't include level)
AC=10+Armor bonus+Dex (SAGA) or 10+level+Armor bonus+Dex (3.x)

The stats along the bottom are shorthand for Str skills check, Dex skills check, etc.  with the real modifier based on 3.x and easily gleaned from the entry (thus the actual stat is still listed).


----------



## dude189 (Oct 12, 2007)

good catch, id agree with that assessment.


----------



## dude189 (Oct 12, 2007)

so stats are the same as they were before, the bonuses listed at the bottom are only really for skill checks that are based off of a particular stat.

As you say for defense, 10+level + stat bonus. In the case of AC, i believe Armor takes the place of a stat bonus.

now for attacks...

+ 4 strength bonus for melee, and +2 dex bonus for range.

I will assume the -2 to melee due to *dualwielding* claws, so that leaves a +7 after you subtract the stats. 6 could be from level, which would make sense. Is the remaining +1 coming from striker? From the monster base itself?

I would imagine attack progression in 4e would go up at the same rate for everyone, classes would simply give a bonus, though this might not hold up to well with multi classing, perhaps this is where roles come in, not really sure on this one.

the +4 melee damage now makes sense giving full str bonus to both attacks.

The range + 2 damage however doesn't fit with the strength score. It could just be the base damage for the attack, but what could be interesting would be the use of dexterity for ranged damage bonuses.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Check out that stat block compared to the 3.5 version.
> 
> Simpler and easier to use than I _dared _to expect.



This assists my theory that _generating_ statblocks will also be extremely easy compared to 3.x.  How much of that statblock is "6th level skirmisher" and how much is "spined devil"?  In other words, if I wanted to invent a new devil, how much work will I have to do to a basic skirmisher?  If I wanted to make the spined devil into a brute instead, how much work would that be?

I'm looking forward to finding out the answers to these questions.


----------



## takasi (Oct 12, 2007)

It doesn't make sense that they would take the level into consideration TWICE for to hit.  (BAB and 1/2 to attribute)

Let's explore the other attribute option (1/3 rounded up):

Stats:
1, 2, 3 = +1
4, 5, 6 = +2
7, 8, 9 = +3
10, 11, 12 = +4
13, 14, 15 = +5
16, 17, 18 = +6
19, 20, 21 = +7

(I personally find this much more streamlined.)

Melee to hit is +7 for strength and +4 for 6th level skirmisher and -2 for two claws.  Ranged is +5 and +4 for 6th level skirmisher.

There could be another formula for determining skills, with this creature getting a +10 to his spot in addition to that formula.

Doesn't explain the damages though, and personally I think it's probably the same formula as 3.5 plus 1/2 level.  However, I still don't see why they would take the level into consideration twice.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Disappointed to see "Spot" listed.
> 
> I was _really _hoping Spot and Listen would have been folded into a generic "Notice" skill.




Same here. Listen is a pretty lame-o skill in and of itself. You're generally going to take both listen and spot anyways (like hide and move silently). I'd assume that they would be folded... arent they the same in Star Wars as well?

Perhaps "Perception +5" grants you a bonus to spot? So while his notice of +5, his spot would be +10? He sees better than he hears or something?

I'm really skeptical of these skill changes if everyone gets level/2 as a bonus to all skills... it makes everyone feel the same.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 12, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> Or, each skillgroup (Perception being one of them) has subskills (Spot, Search, Listen, Sense Motive).  You choose your Skill Focus in one of the subskills, granting a +5 bonus.
> 
> -TRRW




This is actually how I do my current 3rd edition game. You have notice, which covers search, listen, and spot. You can still have a different listen total from your notice, due to racial abilities, spells, magic items, etc. Same with athletics (climb, swim, jump).


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 12, 2007)

dude189 said:
			
		

> Well heres my guess at everything
> 
> the range and melee attack bonus is a +9, but the Strength and Dex modifiers are 7 and 5. This is likely due to the creature *dual wielding* with two claw attacks, providing a -2 to both. This means the creature has a +4 base attack, which would make sense for a 3e monster of the same level (6).
> 
> Mind you, I would imagine the base attack progression has changed as well so there may be more in play there.




Its a 6th level skirmisher. He probably uses the rogue BAB chart, which would put it at +4 BAB.

Which is good news... You'll no longer have to give undead, aberrations etc a billion HD to get a decent attack bonus. Coupling attack/defense etc with the monster's role makes more sense than by type.


----------



## DandD (Oct 12, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> It doesn't make sense that they would take the level into consideration TWICE for to hit.  (BAB and 1/2 to attribute)
> 
> Let's explore the other attribute option (1/3 rounded up):
> 
> ...



I hope and prefered if it were so too. Stat penalties only go to a maximum of -5, but stat bonus is theoretically unlimited. 
Better to make it only a positive modifier all the way.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> This is actually how I do my current 3rd edition game. You have notice, which covers search, listen, and spot. You can still have a different listen total from your notice, due to racial abilities, spells, magic items, etc. Same with athletics (climb, swim, jump).




That's my *exactly* house rule as well---down to the names used.


----------



## takasi (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah, comparing them side by side it really does make more sense the other way IMO.

Rip your soul out for a sec, forget all the nostalgia and look at the game from a newcomer's perspective.  (Like THACO vs to hit.)  Which system seems more convoluted to you?

1, 2, 3 = +1
4, 5, 6 = +2
7, 8, 9 = +3
10, 11, 12 = +4
13, 14, 15 = +5
16, 17, 18 = +6
19, 20, 21 = +7

Or...

1 = -5
2, 3 = -4
4, 5 = -3
6, 7 = -2
8, 9 = -1
10, 11 = 0
12, 13 = 1
14, 15 = 2
16, 17 = 3
18, 19 = 4
20, 21 = 5

The 1/2 level plus the base attack just doesn't sit right with me, but it does seem to explain the damage and skills a little more.


----------



## takasi (Oct 12, 2007)

If it really is 1/2 level plus base attack, then consider a 20th level fighter (instead of skirmisher) with 24 strength:

+7 from attribute formula (score-10/2)
+10 level
+20 bab?

+37 to hit?  That's the baseline?

At 10th it's +22 and at 30th it's +52.  It just seems like the disparity between levels would be too high.  And at high levels the roll would only be there for fumbles and crits, unless the AC is going to scale appropriately.

Or look at a typical 6th level fighter...

+4 from attribute formula
+3 from level
+6 from base attack

That's +13 without taking any other modifiers into account like feats, powers, items or buffs from other party members.  That's supposed to be balanced against this creature with it's 20 AC and no DR?

(Of course, the same would be said of the other chart, at 6th level at least.  +6 for an 18 strength, +6 for bab for a total of +12 before buffs.  At higher levels though that 1/2 level plus bab would get out of hand, at least that's my initial thought.)


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> If it really is 1/2 level plus base attack, then consider a 20th level fighter (instead of skirmisher) with 24 strength:
> 
> +7 from attribute formula (score-10/2)
> +10 level
> ...




I don't think so. I think PCs will follow different rules than monsters. The game needs to leave some room for magic items (magic swords, ability boosts, etc.). By giving opponents a flat level-based bonus, you don't need to equip them with their own magic items to make them competitive with the PCs. And the PCs don't collect endless +1 weapons from fallen minions at higher levels.

A side effect of this approach is that it may be fairly simple to run a low/no magic item campaign. You just substitute in the level-based bonuses for PCs instead of magic items and the monsters are still balanced against the PCs.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> There's also no save DC listed for the poison, just the number 5. Looks like if you get tagged by the Spine Attack, you automatically take 5/damage per round are slowed until cured. Nasty effect.



 Thats how I'd read that, matches up pretty will with how DDM runs poison too. 







			
				Flynn said:
			
		

> What if the attack roll is compared against Fortitude to determine if the person is poisoned (one roll to rule them all)? Saga applies poison damage to hitpoints, so I agree with you on that interpretation. In Saga, the poison continues with a check each round, until you defend against the poison attack. It'll be interesting to see how this is handled once we get the rules.



Simpest way would be to roll your *Con*  as an attack against the poisoner's_ Fort_, each time you activate.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

One other cool thing I noticed. There's no flight manoeuvrability category listed for its fly speed. Yay!

One of the biggest pains in the ass as a DM is having to deal with 5 different, non-intuitive, confusing different ways of flying.

Good riddance to Perfect, Good, Average, Poor, and Clumsy - I never understood ya!


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Tazawa said:
			
		

> Good riddance to Perfect, Good, Average, Poor, and Clumsy - I never understood ya!




Loathe as I am to invoke GMS, it seems that a lot of simulationism is going the way of the dodo. 

Given that they tended to be confusing and game-stopping, then good riddance indeed!


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 12, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> If it really is 1/2 level plus base attack, then consider a 20th level fighter (instead of skirmisher) with 24 strength:
> 
> +7 from attribute formula (score-10/2)
> +10 level
> ...



If 1/2 level bonus is in attack rolls, then I don't see why BAB needs to advance at the same rate. Fighters may well get +1 BAB at first level and every two after if that is the case. Wizards and the like wouldn't have a BAB at all.


EDIT: Removed stupidity


----------



## takasi (Oct 12, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> If 1/2 level bonus is in attack rolls, then I don't see why BAB needs to advance at the same rate. Fighters may well get +1 BAB at first level and every two after if that is the case. Wizards and the like wouldn't have a BAB at all.




In this case, I'm assuming that the skirmisher is +4 bab.  A skirmisher might have the highest bab, I don't know.



			
				Exen Trik said:
			
		

> Looks like touch attacks and flat footed ACs are still in, there were some thinking it wasn't so I just wanted to point that out.




You're looking at the wrong stats.  There are two sets; one for 3.5 and one for 4th.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> Looks like touch attacks and flat footed ACs are still in, . . .




Dude, you're looking at the wrong card!

Cast thy gaze upward, and let it rest there.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

They took some effort to learn, but they were not incomprehensible. I felt the distinctions were vital to Arial combat through every edition. Going strait up is something almost no winged flier should be capable of.



			
				Tazawa said:
			
		

> One other cool thing I noticed. There's no flight manoeuvrability category listed for its fly speed. Yay!
> 
> One of the biggest pains in the ass as a DM is having to deal with 5 different, non-intuitive, confusing different ways of flying.
> 
> Good riddance to Perfect, Good, Average, Poor, and Clumsy - I never understood ya!



 They are there to prevent things that should be flopping around through the air from performing pin point attacks  on the parties rear ranks.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 12, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> IYou're looking at the wrong stats.  There are two sets; one for 3.5 and one for 4th.



Gah! Thanks for pointing that out.

I need to pay more attention.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

*Saves, Attack, and Damage Bonuses*

Saves could be 10 + level + ability modifier (at least for immortals, other classes could have bad saves equal to 10 + 1/2 level + ability modifier).

Attack bonuses are harder to figure out. The fact that the melee and ranged attacks are the same even though the Str and Dex modifiers are different by 2, suggests that the fact that they're both +9 is either a typo (not likely) or that ability modifiers aren't included in the calculation. Maybe skirmishers get a flat 1 1/2 level bonus as their attack bonus? Sure would make it easy to create a skirmisher on the fly.

The damage bonuses look like they're not modified by level. The devil gets the normal full +4 for a 19 Str for its claws and 1/2 Str (+2) for its spines.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> They took some effort to learn, but they were not incomprehensible. I felt the distinctions were vital to Arial combat through every edition. Going strait up is something almost no winged flier should be capable of.




You're a better man than I. I've been DMing for over 25 years and I still haven't got the hang of them.

I would like to see flying creatures be more or less capable of doing what a flying creature with Good manoeuvrability can do now.

If they need to be able to fly straight up, they can have a special ability in their description that says they can.

If they're lousy fliers, they should either have slower fly speeds than land speeds or have some form of hindered movement while flying, like a zombie's single-action only drawback.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

I think the there's another bonus involved based on role.

Skirmishers are -1 melee, +1 ranged

Brutes may be +1 melee, -1 ranged

Leaders/Bosses may be 0/0 but grant bonuses to followers

Dragon type solo creatures may get +x/+x


In this example:
Level+Str-1=+9 melee
Level+Dex+1=+9 ranged

Level 30 mob vs. Level 30 character defense
Level+Str+/-1+d20 vs. 10+level or armor+Stat


----------



## mhensley (Oct 12, 2007)

Note that speed is now listed only in squares.  Also according to the DDM side of the card, the poison's effect is only to slow the target- no damage.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 12, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> In this example:
> Level+Str-1=+9 melee
> Level+Dex+1=+9 ranged




How do you figure?  His Str is listed as +7 and his Dex is +5.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 12, 2007)

The listings for the Stats are his skill modifiers.

As seen in the damage bonuses the base modifiers seems to be the same as 3.x


----------



## Someone (Oct 12, 2007)

My guess is that 4e's monsers' "base attack bonus", HPs and such will only be (or is only) based loosely on level and won't follow any hard mathematical formula, but that there'll be advice and charts about their recommended value per level (which ncidentally wil alow some interesting combinations, like brutes with many hit points and relatively slow and easy to dodge attacks but that deal a lot of damage). My understanding is that level is closer to CR than to hit die - notice they (hit dice) aren't anwhere on the card.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Note that speed is now listed only in squares.  Also according to the DDM side of the card, the poison's effect is only to slow the target- no damage.



The DDM card is for the 3e version. Also DDM takes major liberties with special abilities. The 4e version of the poison, “Poisoned 5, Slowed while Poisoned” does kind of sound how DDM would word a poison that did 5 damage AND slowed the victim.

And hows about some folks weigh in on Nethersight?  Sounds like those from the beyond get something better than plain ole darkvision this time. It might just be the new term for ‘see in darkness’, though they might even get to see your soul as a default, rendering most illusions moot.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> I think the there's another bonus involved based on role.
> 
> Skirmishers are -1 melee, +1 ranged
> 
> Brutes may be +1 melee, -1 ranged



I think you may be right! Makes a little more sense than the flat 1 1/2 level attack bonus I proposed.


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

> The listings for the Stats are his skill modifiers.




  This is possibly the best explanation. The damage bonuses work out this way. Although that means the math on his attack bonuses only works if he's taking a -2 penalty on melee attacks. Which isn't unreasonable for 2 claw attacks. 

  It also doesn't explain how the attack bonuses are figured to start with. People were assuming +4 BaB and +5 Dex to get +9. I haven't seen any formulas that work with +4 St or +2 Dex.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> My understanding is that level is closer to CR than to hit die - notice they (hit dice) aren't anwhere on the card.



Levels are HD this time around IIRC. He is a 6th level skirmisher. That means a party of five PCs of 6th level would find a flock of five of these skirmishers a 'typical challenge'. Though I'd hazard a guess a flock of flying skirmishers that can slow the PCs will be more aggravating that most other 6th level encounters.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> My guess is that 4e's monsers' "base attack bonus", HPs and such will only be (or is only) based loosely on level and won't follow any hard mathematical formula, but that there'll be advice and charts about their recommended value per level (which ncidentally wil alow some interesting combinations, like brutes with many hit points and relatively slow and easy to dodge attacks but that deal a lot of damage). My understanding is that level is closer to CR than to hit die - notice they (hit dice) aren't anwhere on the card.




Actually it looks like base attack bonus and hit dice are based off level. It also looks like immortals have the same basic attributes as 3.5 outsiders (good BAB, all good saves, d8 hit points).

Attack = Level + Ability Modifier + Role Modifiers (-1 melee/+1 ranged for skirmishers)

Saves = 10 + Level + Ability Modifier

hp = level x d8 + level x (Con modifier + 1/2 level). For the devil the result is:

6d8 (27) + 6 x (Con (2) + 1/2 level (3)) = 27 + (6 x 5) = 47

Note that adding the level bonus to the Con modifier essentially gives bonus hitpoints based on level, allowing higher level opponents to have very high hp totals without having extremely high Con scores.


----------



## Someone (Oct 12, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Levels are HD this time around IIRC. He is a 6th level skirmisher. That means a party of five PCs of 6th level would find a flock of five of these skirmishers a 'typical challenge'. Though I'd hazard a guess a flock of flying skirmishers that can slow the PCs will be more aggravating that most other 6th level encounters.




Well, yes, undoubtedly Level will have much to do with numbers and must have some of the HD roles. Only that I won't be surprised if there are not hard formulas (like "base attack bonus is Level * X") and instead is something more open (like "level 6 skirmishers should have a 'BAB'  between X and Y)

Any luck relating level with HP? The creature has 47 HP and +5 Con bonus. Working 3.X like, 30 of those HP should come from Con, leaving 17 for 'hit dice', which sounds a bit low.


----------



## Tazawa (Oct 12, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> Any luck relating level with HP? The creature has 47 HP and +5 Con bonus. Working 3.X like, 30 of those HP should come from Con, leaving 17 for 'hit dice', which sounds a bit low.




I thought I had (see earlier post), but apparently I suck at math. My formula resulted in 57 hp, not 47.


----------



## Mark (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> ps. This thread is *definitely* reminiscent of ENWorld during the approach of 3e.





No doubt.  Lots of little puzzles that everyone worked at together.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> Any luck relating level with HP? The creature has 47 HP and +5 Con bonus. Working 3.X like, 30 of those HP should come from Con, leaving 17 for 'hit dice', which sounds a bit low.



It seemed being a skirmisher shaved 10 HP off the top. Maybe it is a simple equation of -2 HP per level above 1st for a skirmisher.


----------



## takasi (Oct 12, 2007)

The hp seem to support the 1/2 level added to stat mod theory, IMO.

If the base con mod is still +2, then we have +12 hit points.

If an immortal outsider or skirmisher gets 10 hp at first level, 5 hp every level after that would be 35 from class, resulting in 47 total.

Or maybe you get even more hit points at first level.  Like you con score at first, plus your class.  Who knows.


----------



## Someone (Oct 12, 2007)

Tazawa said:
			
		

> I thought I had (see earlier post), but apparently I suck at math. My formula resulted in 57 hp, not 47.




Eh, looks like we cross-posted, which shouldn't look so bad (for me) if I had actually posted before you.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2007)

Darn it, they WOULD have picked a creature that had 14's and 15's almost all they way across for stats!  Still, kudoes to the people above with the excellent analyses.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

I think things like hit points,damage, and to-hit bonus would be only based on the core ability modifier, not base modifer + (1/2 Level).  So trying to figure hit points out with the +5 will result in not correct numbers.

The bonus listed next to the stat number I think is really only used in place of skill checks.

It's just another way of using the StarWars skill system.

(1/2 LVL + Stat Mod)= Skill without training, so any skill check is right there next to the stat.

If you have a skill or other ability like Perceptive you get a +5 to a particular roll in this case Spot.

Most of the other numbers on the page, reflect just the base ability modifier ie 18= +4.

BAB, Saves (or Defenses), Damage ect will only use the base modifier like now, not the base + 1/2 level.


----------



## ZoA2 (Oct 12, 2007)

Having a second look at the monster in 3.5 version and 4e version side by side I find it interesting that all abilities that would facilitate monster function as NPC or generally make more interesting non-combat focused encounter are dumped (I’m talking about high ranks in bluff, diplomacy and disg. self spell-like ability). I think this is bad omen of the design priorities and a sign that 4e would be more of a tactical combat game and less of a RPG. 

I’ll wait and see before I make final judgment but I fear this dumbing down of monsters by turning them in one trick pony cannon fodder for PCs will be major trend in 4e.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 12, 2007)

First impression - That looks sparse.
Second impression - I need to analyze that!
Third impression - That still looks sparse.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> _For reference:_
> 
> *SPINED DEVIL*
> Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)



First look at the type system for 4E, with size, subtypes, and the "Immortal Humanoid" construct, which may be metabolism and shape as others mentioned. Not what I'd have done (I'd have folded Elementals, Fey, and Outsiders into Spirits and Entities, probably). What other metabolisms are there - Monstrous? Aberrant? Magical? Mortal? Undead?



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> LEVEL 6 SKIRMISHER
> 
> *INIT *+5  *SPD *5  *FLY *7



Not much to say here, we have level, role, and the first few numerical stats. Init is presumably Dex plus half level. As far as I know, it's a skill in Saga, but maybe not here?


			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Senses*: nethersight. Perception +5



Nethersight is the new darkvision I suspect. The interesting thing to note is Perception and the later Spot skill. Racial bonus to a specific type of sense? But why doesn't it appear up here as well, if only in parentheses?



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Resist *fire 20
> *Attacks*: *Melee *2 claws +9 vs AC each: 2d4+4



Pretty normal here beyond the notice against which defense to roll. Presumably, there'll be undead with touch attacks against Reflex, but we may even see normal attacks against Will or Fortitude.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Spine Rain* Standard; ranged 10; +9 Dex vs. Ref; 1d6+2 + 2d6 fire AND Poisoned 5, Slowed while Poisoned



A special ability. Name, action type, range, attack roll and target defense, along with damaged. I'll add my vote to "A successful attack imparts the Poisoned 'rider/condition' on the victim for 5 rounds, with the added complication that the poisoned character is slowed."


			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> *SKILLS*: Spot +10



Well, see above. It's curious that Spot comes up here. Could it somehow not be a sense?


			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> AC 20
> FORT 18
> REF 18
> WILL 18
> HP/Bloodied 47/23



The AC disparity is interesting. Probably the AC value uses a slightly different formula since most attacks will target AC? Hit points might be that a skirmisher gets 5 hp as base, and an additional (5 plus Con bonus) times level hp? Bloodied, which we heard before, is a part of the stat block.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Str +7 (19)    Con +5 (14)    Dex +5 (15)    Int +5 (15)    Wis +5 (14)    Cha +5 (15)



Gotta agree, those aren't the base ability mods, but the adjusted ones for various checks.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 12, 2007)

ZoA2 said:
			
		

> I’ll wait and see before I make final judgment but I fear this dumbing down of monsters by turning them in one trick pony cannon fodder for PCs will be major trend in 4e.




Perhaps all we are seeing is the _combat stat block, _(the one that will see use 95% of the time), and text listing role-playing encounter options is appended elsewhere.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

ZoA2 said:
			
		

> I’ll wait and see before I make final judgment but I fear this dumbing down of monsters by turning them in one trick pony cannon fodder for PCs will be major trend in 4e.



Then You as DM can freely give them the ability _Pass for Mortal_ or _Masque of a thousand faces_. I know I've done it with many devils that did not have it in 3E. If some special foe needs it , he gets it. Not every mook devil that crawled it's way out of the pit needs the abilty to be a mastermind disguised as a human.


----------



## ZoA2 (Oct 12, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Perhaps all we are seeing is the _combat stat block, _(the one that will see use 95% of the time), and text listing role-playing encounter options is appended elsewhere.




Hope you are right. If not I’m fairly certain if wizards screw up in this department third party publishers will fill in the void with more interesting monsters



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Then You as DM can freely give them the ability Pass for Mortal or Masque of a thousand faces. I know I've done it with many devils that did not have it in 3E. If some special foe needs it , he gets it. Not every mook devil that crawled it's way out of the pit needs the abilty to be a mastermind disguised as a human.




Well DM can make entire monster from scratch so according to your logic he does not really need MM to begin with, so why would WotC even bother making one?


----------



## Zurai (Oct 12, 2007)

ZoA2 said:
			
		

> Well DM can make entire monster from scratch so according to your logic he does not really need MM to begin with, so why would WotC even bother making one?




Hyperbole much? There's a big leap in logic from "DMs can add minor plot-related abilities to monsters" to "DMs should make every single monster from scratch".


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2007)

ZoA2 said:
			
		

> Well DM can make entire monster from scratch so according to your logic he does not really need MM to begin with, so why would WotC even bother making one?



To save the DM time. It takes less time to grant a pre written devil a minor illusion or shapchanging trick than it takes a DM to write up an entire monster based around a minor illusion or shapchanging trick.


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

Giving all devils the equivelent of change self is a one sentence house rule. (Or brief comment in the monster heading description) I wouldn't sweat it too much either way.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> And hows about some folks weigh in on Nethersight? Sounds like those from the beyond get something better than plain ole darkvision this time. It might just be the new term for ‘see in darkness’, though they might even get to see your soul as a default, rendering most illusions moot.




What if?

Nethersight, lets you see into the Shadowfell at the same time as the real world.  Objects are supposed to exist in both right.  It lets you see like darkvision, plus lets you see creatures that are only in that plane of existance normaly.

and What if?

The same type of vision was available to Fey.  Fey creatures could see into the Feywild and this could replace low-light vison for elves.

Opens up awhole new slew of options for using the planes if party members are contantly looking into one of them.  Makes the sometimes weird mechanics of low-light interacting with torches and stuff go away.  Also makes the black and white vison of Darkvison a better fit.


----------



## nightspaladin (Oct 12, 2007)

As for there not being a 1/2 level damage bonus to the monsters attacks, that may be because he isn't a hero. In Saga, you add half your "heroic" level, which is of course combined levels in all your adventuring classes. Mooks and standard villains don't have these levels so they don't gain such a benefit. It was one of the ways that Saga differentiated between you and the average rebel trooper who is about to be shot and fall off camera dead. 

So I think we still might see 1/2 damage per level, but only for us.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 12, 2007)

ZoA2 said:
			
		

> I’ll wait and see before I make final judgment but I fear this dumbing down of monsters by turning them in one trick pony cannon fodder for PCs will be major trend in 4e.




Except thats kind of what spinagons ARE. Crappy little flaming spike flingers, about the lowest form of devil there is.


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 12, 2007)

In SWSE, your class also provides a one-time class bonus to two or three Defenses. Usually it's one at +2 and one at +1, although a couple of them are all +1. Couldn't the spined devil be getting a similar one-time bonus to his Defenses? Then you'd just have 10 + stat bonus (which includes half level) + one time bonus.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## jasin (Oct 12, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> Any luck relating level with HP? The creature has 47 HP and +5 Con bonus. Working 3.X like, 30 of those HP should come from Con, leaving 17 for 'hit dice', which sounds a bit low.



18 + 5d6 + 6 x (Con +2) = 47?

d6 for skirmisher, triple max at first level like in Saga.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> What if?
> 
> Nethersight, lets you see into the Shadowfell at the same time as the real world.  Objects are supposed to exist in both right.  It lets you see like darkvision, plus lets you see creatures that are only in that plane of existance normaly.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting idea, but I don't think that is what nethersight is. Remember, we are talking about a devil here, which means that for the most part, it is confined to the Nine Hells in the Astral Sea, rather than on the Material Plane or the Shadowfell.


----------



## ZoA2 (Oct 12, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Hyperbole much? There's a big leap in logic from "DMs can add minor plot-related abilities to monsters" to "DMs should make every single monster from scratch".




Quite the opposite, it is reasonable extension of his logic. Purpose of MM is to provide ready to use (or close to that) monsters and NPCs for DM. In another words purpose of MM is to spare DM of additional work and if 4e MM turns out to be less capable of doing that for certain types of encounters or monsters or NPCs compared to previous edition there is a reason to talk about diminished utility of such product. Therefore justifying such diminish utility by saying “you can do it yourself” simply begs the question why MM is necessary to begin with because it exist exactly to avoid that “do it yourself “ part.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> To save the DM time. It takes less time to grant a pre written devil a minor illusion or shapchanging trick than it takes a DM to write up an entire monster based around a minor illusion or shapchanging trick.




Yes, but point is exactly that both of those take DM’s time and therefore both of those should be done by WofC to minimise DM’s work. Presence of NPC and non-combat abilities on a monster does not diminish monster’s combat utility in any way, so I don’t see legitimate reason for WotC to leave them out (of course to keep things easier to handle those abilities could be listed in separate, non-combat, part of monster stats, as Wormwood suggested)


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 12, 2007)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20071012a

  I think Wizards is leaning more towards stuff like this playtest in 4E. Was the "woman" tied to the stake disguising herself with a spell straight out of the PHB with a set caster level, effect and duration? Probably not. Is there a new spell that turns commoners into Zombies and Goblins? Nah. It's all handwaving. 

  While I don't doubt some creatures will mantain "non-combat" abilities not listed in the statblock, ultimately you don't need rules for this sort of stuff most of the time. If you need your arch-villian to infiltrate and seduce the royal court, one agent at a time, it's not like you need to roll a bunch of charm person and diplomacy checks between adventures. He just does it. If he needs to open a portal to the abyss via the recently assembled McGuffin of Plot Furtheration, that's just what he does.


----------



## Stormtalon (Oct 12, 2007)

Paraxis said:
			
		

> What if?
> 
> Nethersight, lets you see into the Shadowfell at the same time as the real world.  Objects are supposed to exist in both right.  It lets you see like darkvision, plus lets you see creatures that are only in that plane of existance normaly.
> 
> ...




While I (reluctantly) agree that a devil might not be able to see into the Shadowfell, I think vision/senses that would allow perception of one of the two "nearby" realms would be absolutely incredible.  Give the Eladrin & Elves (ehh, it fits the current names but it's still sorta 'meh') Feysight & maybe the Tieflings Felsight(?) (note, I'd also make "Felsight" a feat option for Humans) and then you have some interesting RP possibilities, and hit some of the old archetypes of "those who can see things beyond mortal ken."

Furthermore, you could go even farther along these lines (and in the process blatantly rip off Tolkien in spades), and create objects that have a beneficial effect on the mortal plane but which force you to see into one of the others -- and make you visible there in the process (like, say, a semi-cursed Ring of Invisibility that makes you see and be seen in the Shadowfell, to pull a totally random idea out of a hat).    

Darkvision would still be for Dwarves and other subterranean dwellers, of course.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

Hmm...yeah the whole nethersight being conected with Shadowfell might not fit well afterall.

But in thinking more about it, this Felsight idea to see into the Shadowfell would explain why skeletons and such see without having eyes, if all undead had this form of vision and have spells like invisibility to undead just mask your presence in the Shadowfell plane.

The more I think of this the more I like it...if something like this is not in the core rules, I think I might have the start of a new house rule.

A feat to let kids say "I see dead people" is a cool idea too.


Ok back to Nethersight if it's not looking into the Shadowfell, maybe its a term for Unlimited Darkvison or a form of vison that sees past Magical Darkness as well as normal Darkness.


----------



## jasin (Oct 12, 2007)

Anybody got any idea why melee is "+9 vs AC" while spines are "+9 _Dex_ vs Ref"?


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 12, 2007)

I wonder if the Nether*sight* is why his Spot is higher than his Perception.
-blarg


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> Anybody got any idea why melee is "+9 vs AC" while spines are "+9 _Dex_ vs Ref"?




My guess:

Melee works as normal, and lets you know which "Defense" it goes against.

The spines are a special ability, and therefore tell you:

1. What the attack bonus is
2. What the relevant ability is, in case it changes
3. The Defense it attacks

Accordingly, you might see an ability in the future that looks like:

Soul Drain: +8 Wis vs. Fort, etc.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 12, 2007)

> I wonder if the Nethersight is why his Spot is higher than his Perception.




Possible the line is :

*Senses*: Nethersight, Perception +5

and then under skills :

*Skills*: Spot +10

So maybe nethersight gives +5 to Spot.

I don't think Perception is a skill  it sounds more like a special ability though.

So I read it as it has BOTH Nethersight (?????) and Perception (A special ability that adds +5 to Spot skill checks)

My take anyways.

EDIT* 
Added this thought on the Hit Points.

47 - 12(6*2 from Con)=35  Then we have a comment about "What Hit Dice?" from another Blog entry, and maybe we get 10 (Double first level for monsters)+25 (5*5 from levels) =35

Math works, I don't think dice or any even/odd mechanic will be used anymore in 4E.


----------



## Szatany (Oct 12, 2007)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> The AC disparity is interesting. Probably the AC value uses a slightly different formula since most attacks will target AC? Hit points might be that a skirmisher gets 5 hp as base, and an additional (5 plus Con bonus) times level hp? Bloodied, which we heard before, is a part of the stat block.



AC is higher by 2 points than the other defenses. Str modifier is also higher by 2 than all other abilities. I hope that means that AC is Str-based.


----------



## dude189 (Oct 13, 2007)

Again, the stat system looks exactly like 3e

a lot of people are still looking at the bottom and thinking that those are the monsters stat bonuses. its just their untrained skill bonuses.

this monsters attribute stats and bonuses are

Str 19 - +4
Con 14 - +2
Dex 15 - +2
Int 15 - +2
Wis 14 - +2
Cha 15 - +2

its exactly the same as 3e

anyways, AC will be 10+level+armor bonus, which in this case will be natural armor bonus of +4.

10 + 6 + 4 = 20

The other defense stats work the same, except use stat bonuses instead of an armor bonus.

10 + level + stat bonus

As for the attacks, and why both melee and the range attack have the same +9 bonus is because the devil is attacking twice with his claws giving his melee attacks a -2 which evens them out with his range bonus. 

removing stat bonuses and dual wielding penalties, his remaining attack bonus for both melee and range is +7

the attack progression will have to keep up with AC, to to extend the *sweet spot* which is what they are going for.

This means the base attack will be based off of level just as the ac is.

so our attack bonus looks like this

stat + level - dualwield if applicable(-2) +?

"?" = 1

I believe this bonus comes from the skirmisher role. A Brute Role might give a +3, hard to say without more information.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 13, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> AC is higher by 2 points than the other defenses. Str modifier is also higher by 2 than all other abilities. I hope that means that AC is Str-based.




  I find it more likely that there's natural armor involved.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Oct 13, 2007)

Natural armor (or just plain "armor", natural or by any other name) makes more sense to me than having armor tied to strength.  The indications so far is that monsters are deigned on an exceptions based "system".  That would mean a particular monster should have the right kind of armor for its level and role and the designers should not be constrained to give one monster better armor just because they gave it better strength.  It would also seem strange to me that strength would somehow improve a PC's armor.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 13, 2007)

Strength should only be related to AC buy use of encumbrance rules.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 13, 2007)

It's probably been brought up before, but I don't like the term 'bloodied,' mainly because so many many things in Dungeons & Dragons don't bleed. Do outsiders even have normal physiologies? Undead, constructs, plants, and elementals certainly don't. Important rules have had weird name in the past (example: hit points, armor class, flat-footed), but there's never been one that's been patently misleading. There are much more appropriate terms; ones that don't imply that something is alive.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 13, 2007)

Maybe undead, plants, and constructs can't get bloodied?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 13, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Maybe undead, plants, and constructs can't get bloodied?




I thought about that, but wanted to avoid bloating my post with potential exceptions. It makes sense that certain creatures would suffer less from the effects of damage, which would be reflected by the rules - or lack thereof.

But if I see an inevitable or gelatinous cube with 'bloodied,' I'm crying foul.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 13, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> But if I see an inevitable or gelatinous cube with 'bloodied,' I'm crying foul.



Its leaking protoplasm out its cell wall.

Now a pudding should shrink as it's HP goes down rather than get 'bloodied'.


----------



## Szatany (Oct 13, 2007)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> It would also seem strange to me that strength would somehow improve a PC's armor.



Why strange? In order to parry blows strength helps a lot.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 13, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> My guess  is that the Poison 5 is the attack roll (vs defenders FORT). The effect of the poison is "slowed".




Then wouldn't it be +5?


----------



## Puggins (Oct 13, 2007)

Quick threory on hit points.  Apologize if it has been posted before.

Skirmisher hit points: d6/level

Triple hp at 1st.

18 + (5 x 3.5) + 12 = 18 + 17 + 12 = 47

Seems to match up, at least.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 13, 2007)

Notice the boost in Intelligence from 8 in 3.5 to 15 in 4e!

I have to say, "AC" looks a bit odd when read alongside Fort, Ref and Will. It'd read better as "Armor". Just nitpicking, though.


----------



## Gundark (Oct 13, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Check out that stat block compared to the 3.5 version.
> 
> Simpler and easier to use than I _dared _to expect.




QFT


----------



## Gundark (Oct 13, 2007)

olshanski said:
			
		

> My guess  is that the Poison 5 is the attack roll (vs defenders FORT). The effect of the poison is "slowed".




Yeah I agree with your assumption.


----------



## Andur (Oct 13, 2007)

Poison 5 is most likely duration of the Slowed effect.  There is a roll against your Reflex Defense, if it succeeds you take all the listed damages.

As stated above the ability modifiers are for untrained skill checks, the base modifiers remain the same.

BAB's are a thing of the past, different roles give different attack bonuses to different types of attacks.  I doubt if there is a penalty for "dual wielding" claws, it is just simply the Skirmisher role grants a higher Ranged Attack Bonus than a Melee Attack Bonus.  (Stated above with the melee bonus of (6+4-1) and ranged (6+2+1))

Using a level based system for both AB and AC makes no sense unless Armour itself offers resistance.  Otherwise you get a situation where two characters of equal level and equal total attack bonus (including ability mods), the unarmoured one would be hit 50% of the time (since the AC=AB) and the armoured one potentially 5%.  (1+4 versus 1+4+15 (+5 Full Plate)


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 13, 2007)

In the cases where the new stat block differs from 3.x I think the first choice of interpretation would be to see if it matches SW Saga.

In the case of the Untrained skills I think these match the Saga system (1/2 level + stat mod).  They are listed with the Stats as a combined bonus.

In the case of the Defenses these match Saga as 10+level+stat mod (class mods come from Herioc classes, and gear mods come from gear).  It's a monster so no class or gear.

Saga doesn't have AC (it uses Ref) but 10+level or armor+Dex+natural armor seems close.  10+6 for level+2 dex+2 NA.  No class bonus or gear bonus involved.

In the case of damage they differ from creatures in Saga since they do not add half level to damage (heroic class and monsters get 1/2 level, non-heroic classes don't).  Damage is Base+str mod for melee.  I think a firmer guess requires more data on the ranged since it seems like more of a special attack than a ranged attack (Base + ability mod for ranged/spell-like damage).

It's possible that adding 1/2 level to damage doesn't transfer from SW Saga.  A cleaner damage would be Dice+relevant stat (thus calling out Dex in the ranged attack).  Melee is Str by default.


For hit points the Saga system seems to match.


As far as the attack bonuses at Melee and Ranged go I think the variance from standard 3.x or Saga is from the new factor introduced in 4e which is role.


I think the poison probably lasts for the entire encounter and the '5' is either the Poison attack strength (5+d20 vs. Fort defense) or per round damage.


----------



## Xyl (Oct 13, 2007)

I realize it's not as fun as speculating, but I'm going to assume that AC, speed, hit points, attack bonuses, damage, and possibly defenses were all pulled out of a hat (or looked up on a table then tweaked by playtesting). Wizards has said repeatedly that building a new monster will not involve calculating its stats from a formula.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Oct 13, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> It's probably been brought up before, but I don't like the term 'bloodied,' mainly because so many many things in Dungeons & Dragons don't bleed. Do outsiders even have normal physiologies? Undead, constructs, plants, and elementals certainly don't. Important rules have had weird name in the past (example: hit points, armor class, flat-footed), but there's never been one that's been patently misleading. There are much more appropriate terms; ones that don't imply that something is alive.




Bloodied is what happens when the critter or pc goes past half hp(it was mentioned in a playtest report). Then a special buff or attack happens as an immeideate action. Maybe its tail spike attack is what happens when it reaches the bloodied condition? It probably takes more damage when bloodied. It sure is interesting.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Oct 13, 2007)

Perception might be the sum of ½Spot and ½Listen. The devil has Spot +10 and Listen +0 (not listed) which is equal to +5. So normally you use perception in surprise situations but you still can Listen _at doors_ and Spot _hidden_.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 13, 2007)

Szatany said:
			
		

> AC is higher by 2 points than the other defenses. Str modifier is also higher by 2 than all other abilities. I hope that means that AC is Str-based.




I suspect that +2 differences comes from a natural armor bonus, since it makes sense for a spined devil to gain some protection from his spines.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 13, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Perception might be the sum of ½Spot and ½Listen. The devil has Spot +10 and Listen +0 (not listed) which is equal to +5. So normally you use perception in surprise situations but you still can Listen _at doors_ and Spot _hidden_.




He has a +5 Listen.  It's a Wisdom check and the Wisdom check bonus is listed as +5 (+2 for 14 Wis and 1/2 level).


Venturing a guess I'd say that some of the skills have subcategories for the folks that compained of too few skills.  And you only train/focus in one subskill of a skill with smaller divisions.

Perception as a Wis skill is +5 base with a +5 from training/focus specific to Spot.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 13, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Perception might be the sum of ½Spot and ½Listen. The devil has Spot +10 and Listen +0 (not listed) which is equal to +5. So normally you use perception in surprise situations but you still can Listen _at doors_ and Spot _hidden_.




Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 13, 2007)

SPECTRE666 said:
			
		

> Bloodied is what happens when the critter or pc goes past half hp(it was mentioned in a playtest report). Then a special buff or attack happens as an immeideate action. Maybe its tail spike attack is what happens when it reaches the bloodied condition? It probably takes more damage when bloodied. It sure is interesting.




Oh, I'm aware of and interested in the concept of the ability, I just loath the name. I remember specifically that one of the creatures in the MMV used to demonstrate the concept that would evolve into 'bloodied' was the Magmacore Golem. I'd prefer not to get a distant look in my eyes whenever I resolve 'bloodied' abilities for creatures that don't bleed.

Keep in mind that I'm inferring a great deal from only circumstantial evidence, so I could be completely wrong.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 13, 2007)

We are also looking at the numbers in a vacuum. Check out the 3.5 stat block. Tell me, from it

Could you determine how its AC is 22? What amount is natural armor, deflection, dex, etc... 
Could you tell me what it skill points per HD is?
It has only two feats listed (Point Blank and Precise Shot. What's its third feat? (hint, DDM cards don't list feats that add static modifiers like imp initiative or weapon focus)

Since the 3.5 card doesn't list the breakdown of how each stat comes into play, I strongly theorize neither does the 4e card. So that AC 20 MIGHT be neglecting some natural armor or skimisher "bonus", or the poison numbers very short hand for a rule that will be stupidly easy in the rulebook.

That said, I'll add a few theories to the pot:

Nethersight = See in Darkness ability
Poison 5 = Pain Ability

Seems clean and simple and more like something I can remember to use easily, rather than the kinda confusing mess the 3.5 card reads as...


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 13, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm aware of and interested in the concept of the ability, I just loath the name. I remember specifically that one of the creatures in the MMV used to demonstrate the concept that would evolve into 'bloodied' was the Magmacore Golem. I'd prefer not to get a distant look in my eyes whenever I resolve 'bloodied' abilities for creatures that don't bleed.
> 
> Keep in mind that I'm inferring a great deal from only circumstantial evidence, so I could be completely wrong.




You know, even in the real world, being "bloodied" doesn't necessarily mean you are literally bleeding.  It simply means you've been beat upon a bit, that you've taken a punch or two . . .

Sooo, in a fantasy world where certain creatures don't bleed their own blood, it still makes perfect sense to say that they have been "bloodied" after suffering a few hits from the PCs.  I'm fine with the term.

Of course, English lesson notwithstanding, you still don't have to like the term!


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 13, 2007)

The thing that puzzles me the most is that Spiked Rain is against Reflex.
It seems to me that armor should protect me against it. A dude in plate will take a lot less spikes than a dude in a loincloth.

I wonder: do all ranged attacks target Reflex and Armor doesn't work as we are assuming? That'd be interesting...

Oh, and another strike against WotC's names... *Rain of Spikes* would be a much better name.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 13, 2007)

One more thing...
wouldn't *Wounded* be a better generic term, both in usage and common parlance, than Bloodied?


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 13, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Maybe undead, plants, and constructs can't get bloodied?



My thoughts as well, entries for these types would probably look like this:

Hp/Bloodied
50/-

I also suspect that the death at -10 HP rule is replaced by the negative of the bloodied value. That would let higher level creatures and monsters be more survivable, and anything that doesn't get bloodied is destroyed at 0 hp, which keeps things simpler overall.

I'm still scratching my head at the hit points themselves though, none of the formulae so far look quite right to me.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 13, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> The thing that puzzles me the most is that Spiked Rain is against Reflex.
> It seems to me that armor should protect me against it. A dude in plate will take a lot less spikes than a dude in a loincloth.
> 
> I wonder: do all ranged attacks target Reflex and Armor doesn't work as we are assuming? That'd be interesting...




I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure why armor isn't added in. Its odd to be sure.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Oct 13, 2007)

Here are the best formulas from this thread, IMHO:

Trained in perception +5, so Spot now +10 (Wis +5 for skills +5 for Trained)

AC 10+AC Bonus or level (if no armor) + Dex
Skirmisher Fort 10+level+Con bonus, no bonus for class
Skirmisher Ref 10+level+Dex bonus, no bonus for class
Skirmisher Will 10+level+Wis bonus, no bonus for class

Skirmisher HP 18(3*6 at first)+5d6+Con Bonus = 18+17.5+12(6*2) = 47.5 or 47
Skirmisher Attack Bonus Melee: level-1/melee attacks+Str Bonus = 6-1+4 = 9
Skirmisher Attack Bonus Ranged: level+1/ranged attacks+Dex Bonus = 6+1+2 = 9


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 13, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Is it possible that "Poisoned 5" doesn't refer to damage, but to duration? That is, you are effectively slowed for 5 rounds?
> 
> Yes, I'm totally spitballing here.
> 
> ps. This thread is *definitely* reminiscent of ENWorld during the approach of 3e.




Heck it could even be the poisons attack roll against the Fortitude Defense. Then you end up slowed until you can cure it.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 13, 2007)

I just went for a run (no I wasn't be chased, nor was there beer or women at the end... it was for exercise!) and a thought occurred to me about Spiked Rain attacking Reflex versus AC:

Maybe the designers are dictating the defense for each attack based on expected reactions. In this case, if a large volley of spikes is screaming your direction, you WILL try to dodge it. You won't stand there thinking your armor will protect you. One can assume that enough spikes are coming that no remotely sane individual will try the Superman inflate-the-chest-in-the-face-of-the-minigun defense.

Dunno, just my random thought while trying to sprint uphill and not think about sprinting uphill.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2007)

Are we sure this is a real card? Has that been verified?


----------



## Settembrini (Oct 14, 2007)

I hereby proclaim, that every edition´s stat blocks look nice that way:
 







Larger version


----------



## Benabik (Oct 14, 2007)

PeelSeel2 said:
			
		

> Here are the best formulas from this thread, IMHO:



Of course, it is your opinion...  I mostly agree but have some thoughts.  ;-)



> AC 10+AC Bonus or level (if no armor) + Dex



Perhaps AC = Reflex + Armor?  It would make Reflex Defense even more like touch AC.



> Skirmisher Attack Bonus Melee: level-1/melee attacks+Str Bonus = 6-1+4 = 9
> Skirmisher Attack Bonus Ranged: level+1/ranged attacks+Dex Bonus = 6+1+2 = 9



I personally don't like this +/- 1 idea.  It seems to me that BAB + Ability + Level/2 makes more sense. (And very in line with SWSE) For this it would be:

Melee: Str (4) + Level/2 (3) + BAB (4, based on rogue-like BAB for lvl 6) = 11

But, as per SWSE, you take -2 for making two attacks for the +9 on the card.  Ranged has the same formula but the Dex bonus is only +2 and there is no multi-attack penalty, giving the other +9.

And, IMNSHO, the reason the Spine Rain uses Ref instead of AC is because it's a _rain_ - a shotgun like blast that ignores armor because it hits you all over.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 14, 2007)

I'm surprised people have been missing the most important piece of information they have provided us...


*No grapple modifier!*


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 14, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> I'm surprised people have been missing the most important piece of information they have provided us...
> 
> 
> *No grapple modifier!*




With Strength increasing every few levels, it's likely that Grapple as a separate score has been rendered quite obsolete.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 14, 2007)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> I hereby proclaim, that every edition´s stat blocks look nice that way:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




While I agree that the 4e card has a superior layout (hell, it's what I do for a living!), I'd say that your example only uinderscores how ridiculous the _3e _information bloat actually is.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 14, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> With Strength increasing every few levels, it's likely that Grapple as a separate score has been rendered quite obsolete.




Ah, but what I'm seeing is that since there is no Grapple modifier, it suggests grapple rules are far more simple than before, no longer requiring their own 2-pages worth of rules to run anymore.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> My thoughts as well, entries for these types would probably look like this:
> 
> Hp/Bloodied
> 50/-



As Dave Noonan (I think it was) discussed in an old Design and Development column, prior to MMV, "bloodied" is a metagame device - roughly equivalent to "when the encounter is half-over, implement this cool power/transformation/condition etc".

I therefore doubt very much that they would exclude this from whole classes of creatures. Why should nothing cool happen halfway through a fight with an Undead, Construct etc?


----------



## Yonner (Oct 14, 2007)

My thought is that the poison 5 is damage.  It is listed with the damage.  I think how this works is that a single attack roll is made  Did it beat your Ref Def?  Yes, it hit.  Did it beat your Fort Def?  Yes, then poisoned as well, otherwise your not poisoned.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 14, 2007)

Yonner said:
			
		

> My thought is that the poison 5 is damage.  It is listed with the damage.  I think how this works is that a single attack roll is made  Did it beat your Ref Def?  Yes, it hit.  Did it beat your Fort Def?  Yes, then poisoned as well, otherwise your not poisoned.




Poison as damage per round - I like it, however there will be an outcry of people complaining that DND is turning into WoW (replace WoW with pretty much any videogame, at will)


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 14, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Poison as damage per round - I like it, however there will be an outcry of people complaining that DND is turning into WoW (replace WoW with pretty much any videogame, at will)




SPI's Dragonquest had poison inflicting damage per round, and it was published in 1980. I don't know if it was the first RPG to do it that way.

Edit: and as far as I know, Hasbro still owns the rights to Dragonquest. Is this a sign of D&D turning into Dragonquest? How the worm has turned!


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 14, 2007)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Poison as damage per round - I like it, however there will be an outcry of people complaining that DND is turning into WoW (replace WoW with pretty much any videogame, at will)



I do like the idea of per round damage type poisons, it's not really something you see in the real world but I'd half expect it in a fantasy setting. But I doubt poison (or any) damage would be expressed as a set number, instead of a die+mod format like every other damage source. Since it's not expressed as a modifier either, I can't see it as being anything except duration.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 14, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> I doubt poison (or any) damage would be expressed as a set number, instead of a die+mod format like every other damage source. Since it's not expressed as a modifier either, I can't see it as being anything except duration.



I don't think the designers would introduce a mechanics that requires the GM to track rounds elapsed during an encounter, given that they are trying to get rid of such mechanics (and introduced the "bloodied" notion to do just that).


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 14, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't think the designers would introduce a mechanics that requires the GM to track rounds elapsed during an encounter, given that they are trying to get rid of such mechanics (and introduced the "bloodied" notion to do just that).



Ah there is that... well maybe it's something else about the way poison works not mentioned there? It could indicate the nature of the poison... but that would include referring to something else outside of the stat block, again against design intent.

Suppose the number is how many times you need to successfully resist the poison before you shake it off? Seems appropriate, but it still involves some bookkeeping. 

I don't know, any other ideas?


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 14, 2007)

I'll be disappointed if there aren't any poisons that effect stats any more, but damage/round is welcome.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 14, 2007)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> Suppose the number is how many times you need to successfully resist the poison before you shake it off? Seems appropriate, but it still involves some bookkeeping.




Maybe it's a poison number type. 
Poison type 5 will be save or effect for the rest of the encounter.
Poison type 9 will be 20 hp or death.   


More seriously, this is "poison 5" not "poison +5".


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2007)

Remember, the damage/round (if that's what it is) is for DDM.  I can see them REALLY streamlining things for DDM and maybe the stats for D&D will be slightly different.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 14, 2007)

Those *are* the 4e stats.

This photo shows the DDM stats.


----------



## Someone (Oct 14, 2007)

Curiously, the mniatures stats include the abilities 'Devil' and 'Evil'


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 14, 2007)

Devil and Evil in the new DDM indicate subfactions. Apparently they're moving towards a system where instead of distinct factions, you just have larger groupings. No good or evil warbands exactly, you just can't mix the two. Also Borderlands, Civlization, Underdark, ect descriptors that have a similar effect. 

  For what it's worth, on both versions of the mini card, the poison slows without causing damage. (And Standard Poison in DDM is damage per round)


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 14, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> One more thing...
> wouldn't *Wounded* be a better generic term, both in usage and common parlance, than Bloodied?




It's too generic a term.  Kind of like 'level'.

They are stuck with 'level'.

Too easy to confuse 'wounded' as taken some damage and 'Wounded' as at the mid-combat threshold.

Some of the blogs talk about this difficulty in selecting game term with specific meanings.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 14, 2007)

Benabik said:
			
		

> I personally don't like this +/- 1 idea.  It seems to me that BAB + Ability + Level/2 makes more sense. (And very in line with SWSE)
> For this it would be:
> 
> Melee: Str (4) + Level/2 (3) + BAB (4, based on rogue-like BAB for lvl 6) = 11




I'm not seeing a double-dipping formula like this in SWSE.  BAB depends on level and then add 1/2 level again?



> But, as per SWSE, you take -2 for making two attacks for the +9 on the card.




SWSE Rapid Strike is -2 on the roll and you make only one roll for both attacks and add +1d6 damage for the combined attack.  The stat card adds the word 'each' which implies 2 separate attacks.  However in the creature stat blocks they make all their attacks at BAB+Str (see p. 275-77 SWSE).


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 14, 2007)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Devil and Evil in the new DDM indicate subfactions. Apparently they're moving towards a system where instead of distinct factions, you just have larger groupings. No good or evil warbands exactly, you just can't mix the two. Also Borderlands, Civlization, Underdark, ect descriptors that have a similar effect.



I was under the impression that they were moving to a more Magic-esque faction system with "philosophies" (wild, civilized). So rather than that, they are moving to a descriptor system? Or is it a combination of both?



			
				Mad Mac said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, on both versions of the mini card, the poison slows without causing damage. (And Standard Poison in DDM is damage per round)



That strengthens my belief that Poisoned is what Saga would (as far as I know) call a Persistent move on the condition track; you get a penalty that you have to get rid of in a specific way (remove poison). I still think the 5 is a duration in this case, after which the condition move is undone. I doubt it is 5 steps down the condition track (does it even have so many steps?), though it might be a modifier of sort.

And I have to say that something like the Spine Shield ability for the mini game should be in the RPG stats as well. That would mitigate some of the sparseness I perceived and making it a more memorable creature without adding much in the way of complexity.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 14, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> This photo shows the DDM stats.




Any idea what the blue line and symbol below AC, and purple line and symbol below  Defense are?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 14, 2007)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> And I have to say that something like the Spine Shield ability for the mini game should be in the RPG stats as well. That would mitigate some of the sparseness I perceived and making it a more memorable creature without adding much in the way of complexity.




I concur.
I wonder why that isn't in the 4E stats? I figured they would use the new edition of both games to try and synch creatures back up (so they don't have different powers based on the game you are playing) but that doesn't look to be the case from this example.


----------



## Mad Mac (Oct 14, 2007)

> I was under the impression that they were moving to a more Magic-esque faction system with "philosophies" (wild, civilized). So rather than that, they are moving to a descriptor system? Or is it a combination of both?




  It's a combination of both. Creatures with very strong good/evil alignment, (Devils, Celestials) can't fight together. There may be other opposing types, but generally it's as you said. Which is good, if it means we don't have to get 3 new dwarfs in every set just to pad out LG's roster. 

  I have to agree that Spine Sheild would make a good RPG ability, though.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Those *are* the 4e stats.
> 
> This photo shows the DDM stats.




Oops.  My bad.  I'll go back to watching again.  :\


----------



## Benabik (Oct 15, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing a double-dipping formula like this in SWSE.  BAB depends on level and then add 1/2 level again?



It may be that they're trying to add level most places they use the stat.  I don't know.  But the math with the multi-attack penalty works best this way.  It might be +4 Str, +6 BAB, +1 other (weapon focus?), -2 multi-attack.  Makes a lot more sense to me than -1 melee, +1 ranged which limits your options based on your role for no particular reason I can see.  Adding bonuses to specific weapons like Weapon Focus yes, but a penalty to all melee attacks?  Not such a fan.



> SWSE Rapid Strike is -2 on the roll and you make only one roll for both attacks and add +1d6 damage for the combined attack.  The stat card adds the word 'each' which implies 2 separate attacks.  However in the creature stat blocks they make all their attacks at BAB+Str (see p. 275-77 SWSE).



DND4 is only similar to SWSE, not identical.  I'm guessing they're keeping the multiple attack rolls.  Two weapon fighting is two rolls at -2 now, so they might keep it that way.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 15, 2007)

Benabik said:
			
		

> It might be +4 Str, +6 BAB, +1 other (weapon focus?), -2 multi-attack.  Makes a lot more sense to me than -1 melee, +1 ranged which limits your options based on your role for no particular reason I can see.





So why list Skirmisher in the creature type area if it has no statistical effect?  

To me, the roles are there to focus combat decisions (by strengthening one area and possibly weakening another).  This creature is better at X than something else and the mechanics reinforce that. 

You've stated twice that you "'don't like" the idea so that's really going to nullify any defense I might make.




> DND4 is only similar to SWSE, not identical.  I'm guessing they're keeping the multiple attack rolls.  Two weapon fighting is two rolls at -2 now, so they might keep it that way.




My point was that your point did not match SWSE and as you say, we don't need to even leave D&D to find a -2 penalty for using two attacks.  

However since you appealed to SWSE I wanted to point out SWSE does NOT penalize creatures for multiple attacks at all.


----------



## Xyl (Oct 15, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> So why list Skirmisher in the creature type area if it has no statistical effect?



Why assume that the attack bonus can be calculated from the other stats at all? We already know that you can make a new creature by just picking numbers; having to calculate the attack bonus would be an unnecessary complication. The most reasonable assumption is that attack bonus is a basic stat for monsters.

There are plenty of reasons to list skirmisher on the card even without any statistical effect. It helps the DM decide what monsters make an appropriate encounter; it suggests the environment the creature can use most effectively; it helps the DM know how to play the monster appropriately...


----------



## jodyjohnson (Oct 15, 2007)

Xyl said:
			
		

> Why assume that the attack bonus can be calculated from the other stats at all?




For the purpose of speculation.

The numbers could all be pulled from a hat but there isn't much to talk about with numbers that are completely arbitrary.


How many threads are there out on the internet about the meaning of this week's lottery numbers?  (Rhetorical question - I'm sure people do build theories on this week's lotto)


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 15, 2007)

> Any idea what the blue line and symbol below AC, and purple line and symbol below Defense are?




We are surmising they are the new factions.


----------



## Benabik (Oct 15, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> So why list Skirmisher in the creature type area if it has no statistical effect?



6 BAB, from 6 levels of Skirmisher perhaps? If it was a Controller or a Leader (hope I'm remember roles correctly), perhaps it would only have 3 BAB or something.  And they'll probably list the role of every creature anyway just as part of the "standard" block.

The +1 random mod (that I assumed was weapon focus) is a Skirmisher bonus feat?



> To me, the roles are there to focus combat decisions (by strengthening one area and possibly weakening another).  This creature is better at X than something else and the mechanics reinforce that.
> 
> You've stated twice that you "'don't like" the idea so that's really going to nullify any defense I might make.



Penalizing melee attacks because the skirmisher "isn't supposed to do that" seems very heavy-handed and pointless (IMNSHO).  Making a role better at X doesn't have to mean making them worse at Y.  Giving a bonus to X makes you better there without killing other options (like Y).  Penalizing Y means that you have to work against that penalty.

For a more concrete example, how does it make the Skirmisher stronger (not better numbers, but a better concept, choice, etc) to penalize them because someone got into melee with them?  I think that such a penalty would simply force many people to give their Skirmishers stronger strength so that they don't have such weak melee attacks (especially at low levels where a -1 can be very important).

I didn't quite mean that I don't like the mechanic (although I don't).  I meant that I don't favor it as being likely.  It cuts down on customization and doesn't meet the definition of a skirmisher:



			
				Answers.com said:
			
		

> Skir·mish·er
> n.
> One who skirmishes. Specifically: pl. (Mil.) Soldiers deployed in loose order, to cover the front or flanks of an advancing army or a marching column.



That doesn't mean ranged combat, just flanking and mobility (meant strategically, not DND mechanics).



> My point was that your point did not match SWSE and as you say, we don't need to even leave D&D to find a -2 penalty for using two attacks.
> 
> However since you appealed to SWSE I wanted to point out SWSE does NOT penalize creatures for multiple attacks at all.



That's fair enough.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 15, 2007)

Benabik said:
			
		

> 6 BAB, from 6 levels of Skirmisher perhaps? If it was a Controller or a Leader (hope I'm remember roles correctly), perhaps it would only have 3 BAB or something.  And they'll probably list the role of every creature anyway just as part of the "standard" block.



From everything I've read this is just WAY too much formula for 4th Edition.  I got the impression that they were instead going with a system where they carefully controlled the rate at which the PCs gained AC and attack bonuses then based the monsters stats on that.

So they have a chart internally that says (for example, likely to be wrong numbers):
Level 1: AC 16, attack +2
Level 2: AC 18, attack +4
Level 3: AC 19, attack +5
Level 4: AC 21, attack +7
Level 5: AC 22, attack +8
Level 6: AC 23, attack +9

Then they say: Alright, this is a level 6 skirmisher.  As part of being a skirmisher, we want the monster to stay mobile, always trying to stay away from standing in melee.  In order to make sure it FEELS like that's what its best at, we lower its AC from the average down to 20.  Now it gets hit more often than most enemies of its level so it wants to be careful.  We give it a ranged attack so that it has something to do while staying out of melee.  Then we lower its melee attack so that it is less effective in melee, giving the monster (and the DM) more reason to play it in its skirmishing role.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 16, 2007)

Some guesses, a fear and an observation.

I'll start with the observation first: 

Keep in mind what this is. Those were 4e stats on the back of a minis card many months before release, when the PHB isnt even really final and the MM is no where near final. Please dont presume that those are even close. Those who remember 3E release remember how some monsters were trickled out AFTER they had completed the MM and those were still wrong. In this case, we arent even that far along. Its a nice glimpse. And we are all ready to tear it apart to try to figure out the system behind it. But I suggest that we draw big picture inferences from it rather than try to deconstruct the math behind it. 

Guesses:

1. Those stats are not all of the things you will see in the MM. I have to believe things like the spined defense etc will be in the final monsters. they just werent there for stats for miniature purposes. 

2. I think I know what is up with the "skirmisher" designation. I think they want to make monster design using a "skinning" theory. I'll explain what I mean. I think for each type and subtype (humanoid skirmisher or beast brute or whatever) they will have a set of stats and abilites all laid out in a grid. Then, each monster gets "skinned" with what makes that monster unique. For instance, you want a 10th level orc brute, then go to humanoid brute chart, cross index 10th level and there are your monster stats. Now pull up Orc in the MM and add the special Orc abilities, like say "Axe Wielder" that gives them +2 damage with an axe or whatever. Or maybe gnolls get "Pack Tactics" that give them +2 circumstance bonus to attack when 2 or more are attacking a single creature, whether or not they are flanked. That sort of thing. Now I dont know if we will ever see this "table" that I talked about, but my quess is that something like that is underlying monster design in 4E, which frankly I think is awesome. I love the idea. For instance, I would expect to see the spined devil work like this: it is a immortal humanoid level 6 skirmisher. so go to the immortal humanoid table and cross index skrimisher with 6th level and there you have it. those are your stats as a baseline. then you add the things that make that monster unique. it is a devil, so add whatever that gives you. it is a spined devil so add its special abilities, such as spine rain and spike defense and its other abilites. and voila there you have that monster. 

3. Poison will be damage over time. Ability damage is a total bitch to calculate on the fly. It changes skills and everything. It sucks to do right. It stops play for massive recalculation. It is "un-fun" and a slow down. Personally, I thought 3E poison damage was one of the worst parts of the game. I liked the idea, but the implementation and the workability at the game table blew. I think the new designers are totally fixated on workability of the game at the game table. I think that is an admirable goal. 

Fear:

1. I really hope I am right about the fact that the spined devil will have more abilities than the spike rain. Its a cool ability. And I like that they beefed it up. But I dont like this "one trick pony" way of looking at monsters. I dont want to see other cool abilites go away just to make the monster more easy to run. This fear of mine started when I read Mearls' articles on the ogre mage and the rust monster. I get the idea of trying to boil the monster down to its core. But the logic was all wrong--too many abilites, cant use them in an encounter, cant get them all off, too low level, etc. Monsters are more than "combat obstacles" in D&D. They are often story points. Sure, maybe alter self has no real impact on the battlefield. But it sure helps me tell a story with that monster. It helps me know what its lair is like. 

Here is a quote from Mearls' article (now remember, I think Mearls is a stud, I just disagree with this thinking that it is all about how a monster works on the game table. There is also the whole adventure design and story element to consider): 



> Now comes the ogre mage's offensive spell-like abilities. Sleep still has a HD limit, making it a poor choice against many parties. Charm person just clutters the list. The ogre mage rules by intimidation, not by magic. Cone of cold does lots of damage, but it might be hard for the ogre mage to avoid catching its Large-sized ogre followers in the cone. Finally, darkness covers the same ground as invisibility in that it conceals the ogre mage. It might prove useful if the standard ogre had the Blind-Fight feat, but without it the spell can cause more trouble for the ogre mage and its followers than it solves.
> 
> To replace these spells, the ogre mage gets lighting bolt and swift invisibility, both usable once per day. Swift invisibility allows an already endangered ogre mage to escape or to make a quick sneak attack. Lighting bolt deals good damage, plus as a line the ogre mage can thread the spell through its followers to hit the PCs.




I just dont agree completely with this way of thinking. I'm worried that perhaps 4E is taking this to the extreme--if it doesnt come out on the game table who needs it? You saw that mentality with the Dungeon Delve stuff recently. They were cutting spells and abilities right and left because they were too hard to use for casual DMing in the delve environment. That is not my D&D. D&D is not a one of ready to run no prep wing it game. It takes some experience and prep. Great DMs can wing it, yes. But the game shouldnt be stripped down like I am afraid it is being stripped down--give that monster one cool ability and let it use it several times in my view is not ideal monster design. I get why that might be a goal--make it easy on the DM. But this is D&D. Smart people play this game. Even smart kids play this game. I hope I am wrong, but I smell a trimming of abilities and I'm not sure I like it. 

I cant believe I am saying this, but it isnt all about how the monster works in combat. I really hope i am wrong, but that is a fear I have. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Oct 16, 2007)

By the way, if you go back and read Mike's article on the Ogre Mage I think in the end he designed a great monster that is fun and playable in the game. Probably more playable than the 3E version. Im not talking about how to develop a new monster. I think Mike is on the right track there. I am talkign about retrofitting old monsters.


----------



## Melan (Oct 16, 2007)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I think Mike is on the right track there. I am talkign about retrofitting old monsters.



Are you also talking about the rust monster, Clark? I am (genuinely) curious about your answer.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 16, 2007)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Fear:
> 
> 1. I really hope I am right about the fact that the spined devil will have more abilities than the spike rain. Its a cool ability. And I like that they beefed it up. But I dont like this "one trick pony" way of looking at monsters. I dont want to see other cool abilites go away just to make the monster more easy to run. This fear of mine started when I read Mearls' articles on the ogre mage and the rust monster. I get the idea of trying to boil the monster down to its core. But the logic was all wrong--too many abilites, cant use them in an encounter, cant get them all off, too low level, etc. Monsters are more than "combat obstacles" in D&D. They are often story points. Sure, maybe alter self has no real impact on the battlefield. But it sure helps me tell a story with that monster. It helps me know what its lair is like.




My first thoughts reading the stats were: "Hmm, that is a really boring Monster to play."
Taking into account what Clark said and that these are most probably not the final stats I hope that there will be more to the spinded Devil than spine rain, poison and fire immunity.

Don't get me wrong; I really like an easy to use Monster. But stripping the Devil down to a one trick pony is like throwing the minatures away and using cardstock counters. Both do the work, but the miniature looks better and is more un to use.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 16, 2007)

I, on the other hand, would love if the spined devil stayed that simple, and you just got a big pool of special abilities you could tack on any enemy as you saw fit. If D&D got to be a quick prep game you could DM on the fly but left room and provided tools for enemies with depth, this would be a win-win-situation. YMMV etc.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 16, 2007)

Benabik said:
			
		

> Makes a lot more sense to me than -1 melee, +1 ranged which limits your options based on your role for no particular reason I can see.




The pretty obvious reason is it's role as a skirmisher thus it favours ranged combat, over melee.  You could expect the melee types to have +1 melee, -1 ranged. Defender types might get a bonus to AC instead. It doesn't limit your options it helps you fit your role better.


----------



## GSHamster (Oct 16, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> My first thoughts reading the stats were: "Hmm, that is a really boring Monster to play."
> Taking into account what Clark said and that these are most probably not the final stats I hope that there will be more to the spinded Devil than spine rain, poison and fire immunity.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I really like an easy to use Monster. But stripping the Devil down to a one trick pony is like throwing the minatures away and using cardstock counters. Both do the work, but the miniature looks better and is more un to use.




Well, keep in mind that 4E is really pushing the concept of fighting groups of monsters.

If you have a bigger devil (brute?) with 3 of these guys, that's going to be a nicely complex battle, but one that won't overwhelm the DM, even if the Spined Devil only has a spine rain attack.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 16, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong; I really like an easy to use Monster. But stripping the Devil down to a one trick pony is like throwing the minatures away and using cardstock counters. Both do the work, but the miniature looks better and is more un to use.




In my experience, both as a DM and a player, 95% of all abilities on a creature with 3 or more special ones never really got used, unless it was the BBEG (who is usually a fairly unique character, rather than just something picked out of the MM). With the whole "it's simple to add class levels to a monster to make it beefier for an encounter," I think a long list of hardly used abilities is a thing of the past.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 16, 2007)

/off topic

I felt that Mike Mearls' Ogre Mage makeover completely mishandled the fundamental aspects of the creature. He came at it from a certain perspective that meant that sleep, charm person etc were just 'cluttering the list'.

The thing is, I've always seen Ogre Mages used as infiltrators, making their way into human society with their polymorph and invisibility to hide, their sleep and gaseous form to bypass obstacles, their charm person to make friends in high places and gain positions of influence in order to further their evil schemes.

They are a great relatively low level 'mastermind of evil schemes', BBEG's who are pulling the strings and have some punch for the final showdown.

Mike views it as a "kick in the door and face an Ogre Mage. It isn't as much of a threat as a stone giant" kind of problem. I think the problem is with an inadequate view of how the monster can be used in an adventure.

I'm going on about this at length because I fear that what other designers see as 'a mess of incompatible abilities' *I* see as interesting alternative hooks for using the creature in an adventure. I ran a great 3.0e adventure with a planar bound bearded devil helping a wizard to create a vast undead army by slaughtering whole villages and using its 'animate dead at will' ability. An ability which was removed from the bearded devil in the 3.5 revision to help it focus on its melee fighting as a sole tactic.

I want monsters with a rich array of tactical and strategic uses, not single-focussed foes.

Cheers


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Oct 16, 2007)

I think one of the issues with the Ogre Mage rework was that he looked at the name and saw "Ogre" in it while the orginal basis of the critter wasn't really an Ogre at all.  This is backed up by his line "Cone of cold does lots of damage, but it might be hard for the ogre mage to avoid catching its Large-sized ogre followers in the cone."  I agree with Mike in that aspect.

The Ogre Mage didn't say "Ogre" to me either.  The idea of a Spirit/Demon/Oni that controlls an entire town through magic is a great concept.  The rewrite does a much better job of 'magic wielding Ogre' to me.  YMMV.

To bring this back to the topic at hand...

I like the idea of dumping abilities that likely won't be used.  Why have twenty special powers if ten of them won't see the light of day in actual play?  Now, notice I didn't speicify 'in combat' there.  I understand the concern that some are expressing about critters only being combat machines.  I fully agree that there should be a Spirit/Demon/Oni that can take over the nearby town and that the monster needs charm and illusion based abilities.  I just don't think a magic wielding ogre is the one to fill that role and that is what the name "Ogre Mage" says to to me.

We'll just have to wait and see what we get delivered.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 16, 2007)

I think the Ogre Mage issue was more of a problem with the Role Mearls chose.  He designed it more as a bruiser.  I suspect that if he chose a Leader role or a Social role for it, we'd end up with a much different beastie.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 16, 2007)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand, would love if the spined devil stayed that simple, and you just got a big pool of special abilities you could tack on any enemy as you saw fit. If D&D got to be a quick prep game you could DM on the fly but left room and provided tools for enemies with depth, this would be a win-win-situation. YMMV etc.




If there is a pool of special abilities I could use if I want to but don't have to, I would be happy.
Indeed a win-win situation. Let's hope for the best!


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 16, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> In my experience, both as a DM and a player, 95% of all abilities on a creature with 3 or more special ones never really got used, unless it was the BBEG (who is usually a fairly unique character, rather than just something picked out of the MM). With the whole "it's simple to add class levels to a monster to make it beefier for an encounter," I think a long list of hardly used abilities is a thing of the past.




Sure, most of these abilities will not be used in a fight. But I could use them as they are there.
The Devil is clearly dsigned as a combat encounter. It has no useful abilities listed it could use in Non-Combat encounters. For example, the 3.5 barbed Devil could use greater teleport or major Image. Cool abilities that can even be used as plot devices.

If I have to slap class levels on the monster to get some of these abilities, it does make prep. time longer again.

So, I still hope that more complex Monsters like Demons, Devils, Dragons and so on still have cool abilities that I can use outside of combat.


----------



## Adso (Oct 16, 2007)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I just dont agree completely with this way of thinking. I'm worried that perhaps 4E is taking this to the extreme--if it doesnt come out on the game table who needs it? You saw that mentality with the Dungeon Delve stuff recently. They were cutting spells and abilities right and left because they were too hard to use for casual DMing in the delve environment. That is not my D&D.
> 
> Clark




Huh...it's kinda 1st Edition, with better tech. Just say’n

I think there’s something very comforting to old-timey gamers who've slogged through the prior editions that the amount of prep makes the experience, but too often in 3rd Edition that prep time is wasted on things wasted in a standard encounter. I’d rather have the basics of encounter design be the general things that matter in the meat and potatoes of D&D--the combat round and the action--and leave interesting story details to the whim and of the DM with the interesting narrative ideas under her hat. 

Too often in 3e story things have been masquerading as combat rules, which have just complicated the monster to a point to be almost unplayable by all but the truly initiated. 

Again, just say’n.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 16, 2007)

I dont understand what you are "just say'n".

Clark


----------



## BryonD (Oct 16, 2007)

Not to just ride on coat tails, but Orcus rather nicely stated the things that concern me.  
When the 4E announcement came out, I was very strongly pro 4E.

But I've become concerned that they are stripping all the life and dimension out of the game.  It is like making the game easy for a brand new DM to run by following a script is more important than keeping the world dynamic.  

IME the uninitiated will have some bumps in the road, but then they become "truly initiated".  But if everything becomes cookie cutter then the ability to learn and grow will be undercut.  And the ability for good dms to really work the system will be diminished. 

Those "story things" are an important part of what makes the game.  

I heard the same type comment in the last podcast when someone said something to the effect of "only a really good DM could make a fight with orcs different than a fight with gnolls."  I'm all for helping new DMs learn.  But if the plan, as it sounds, is to build into the system "the way" that gnolls fight, then you might move a new DM up to a 3 from a 1 on the gaming quality scale, but you just might lower the top threshold from 10 down to 7.  

And, IMO, even if you turned 1s into 5s and the only cost was turning 10s into 9s, that would be too grave a price.  If someone has the potential and desire to be a good DM, they will get there.  And usually it doesn't take all that much experience.  

I would jump at a chance to play in a D&D game DMed by Piratecat.   If the game was Descent, then it wouldn't really matter much to me who was running the game.  Descent is fun, but no game of Descent, no matter how well played, is ever going to be as fun as a really well run game of D&D.   I'm not claiming that 4E will be like Descent.  That is just an extreme example.  But any motion in that direction sounds quite bad.

Here is hoping I'm worried about nothing.  But the statements so far have created this concern.


----------



## Adso (Oct 16, 2007)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont understand what you are "just say'n".
> 
> Clark




Fair enough.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 16, 2007)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont understand what you are "just say'n".



I believe what he is trying to say is that when someone who isn't really into D&D, who plays it very rarely or who plays it for the first time is running an adventure they purchased from the store and the PCs open up a door and there is a monster behind it.  The DM looks at the monster, they see a big long sheet of information about it.

And that sheet of information says "disguise self at will" and "25% chance of summoning another demon" and "Charm Person 1/day".  And that DM is left wondering "Can disguising himself be useful in combat somehow?  How does the spell work?" and "What type of action does it take to summon a creature?  Does he want to risk a 25% chance to do something this round?" and "Can charming someone be useful in a combat?  How does the mechanics for it work?  What can someone do while charmed?"

Experienced people know that the above abilities are just plot hooks written into the monster's description.  They know that the reason that a monster would disguise himself isn't for a combat advantage but as a reason to allow the monster to infiltrate the military.  They know that the demon summoning power is short hand for "this creature may have demon allies who owe them a favor and will come to their aid."  They know that charming is a lot like disguising in that it sets up adventure hooks and plots, but isn't so good for combat.

I believe that's what he means by "story things have been masquerading as combat rules".  Whether you are a DM that looks up the monster on the fly or preps in advance, you need to look up all of the abilities of the creature if you don't know what they are.  So, you spend valuable prep time trying to figure out how Charm Person works since you don't know or haven't used it in a while only to find out that you planned on using this monster in 4 rounds of combat and it was never going to use it.


----------



## Adso (Oct 16, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But I've become concerned that they are stripping all the life and dimension out of the game.  It is like making the game easy for a brand new DM to run by following a script is more important than keeping the world dynamic.
> 
> IME the uninitiated will have some bumps in the road, but then they become "truly initiated".  But if everything becomes cookie cutter then the ability to learn and grow will be undercut.  And the ability for good dms to really work the system will be diminished.
> 
> Those "story things" are an important part of what makes the game.





The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.  

So, what is the spined devil missing? 

Well the _Summon Baatezu..._and that ability has always been either useless or problematic. Not only has it never worked very well in the rules space it was allotted (spell-like ability) it’s a real story killer, as DMs are pushed toward fudging that roll to fit their narrative or live with the fact that an encounter with these lawful icons is really friggen random. 

Here’s my novel approach—if you want more spine devils in an encounter, put more devils in an encounter! If you want them to gate in, have them gate in—the resource of Hell can make it happen in a variety of ways, it doesn’t have to sit entirely in the monster's ability entry. This ability should have always been on the encounter-design/story-design side of the D&D fence, and it wasn't purely because of legacy. Devils had it from the go, for reason that are thematic but strangled by bad rules (IMO). Don’t let the rules hamstring the story, rather let them serve the story and play. 

Yes, I know, it’s an interesting design stance for a developer to take. 

Then there is the ever-edition-shifting array of spell-like abilities devils have had. Now I am not saying that all devils should not have spell-like abilities, but I don’t know if all of them or even most of them need it. I think it might even be better to say something like “many devils are versed in the arcane arts” and give the DM guidance for making devils that do this in ways that serve the play and story of a campaign. In this way devil encounters can have just as much variety they need for an encounter or a story, not what the designer thinks you have to have each and every time. Having cooler devils of a type is always neat, it’s another reason to start monsters simply, it makes it easier and more fun the run the better ones. 

In the end, I think that you can have a simple, very thematic monsters fulfilling legacy and story roles without being slaves to out-dated or just plain bad legacy mechanics. It’s the theme that makes the monster interesting on the narrative side of the game. In short, the rules should serve theme in the best possible way, not the other way around.

Just say'n ;-)


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2007)

Adso said:
			
		

> The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.
> 
> So, what is the spined devil missing?
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine...

This seems counter to your argunment as I've understood it.  You're advocating replacing rules (whether good or bad is subjective and not really my point)...with handwaving.  Now instead of the summon ability (which yes does throw an unexpected, but not wholly uninteresting loop for the players or DM depending on what the roll is) the rules are serving theme in the best possibe way by saying esentially...just make it up.  Not sure if this is actual streamlining for actual play or just foisting off responsibility for making a monster interesting onto the DM.  Is this really easier for new DM's to do without causing problems in their campaigns?  Not sure I would agree.

Personally I was hoping that the abilities would not be so much taken away as their mechanics streamlined for easier mechanical implementation.  The vibe I'm getting is if it isn't combat based it doesn't belong on a monster.  Yet I would argue this is where new DM's probably need the most support.    

This seems to be taking the game in a purely combat-focused direction as far as monsters are concerned...yet with the sparse info we've recieved about a new social system...some of these abilities that are being dismissed could actually have more importance if this new social system pans out.  Especially with devils supposedly being corrupters.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 16, 2007)

Adso said:
			
		

> The goal is not to take away toys, but rather to make toy both simpler for the new or casual DM and more dynamic for the experienced DM.



Fine.

It doesn't sound like you are doing that.  

And I didn't see anything in your post to make me think so.  And , imo, the "novel approach" you suggested could also be called "how good DMs already do things in 3X".  You can't take credit for giving me something I already have.

And I'm not just talking about the spined devil.  I'm talking about the big picture.

I apologize if that sounds terse.  Maybe someone else can say it better.  But I am concerned.  And obviously I don't expect you to change the slightest thing for my personal sake.  But I can hope that the point I am making will resonate somewhere.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This seems to be taking the game in a purely combat-focused direction as far as monsters are concerned...yet with the sparse info we've recieved about a new social system...some of these abilities that are being dismissed could actually have more importance if this new social system pans out.  Especially with devils supposedly being corrupters.




Don't forget, however, that this particular monster is designed to be a skirmisher.

His abilities and options should emphasize that role. He and a few of his pals, swoop in and harass the PCs while a squad of Brutes waits up the hill.

He's not designed to be a corrupter of men. He's just part of Hell's army. 

My guess is that the Devils designed as masterminds, and leaders will have much more interesting abilities related to more then combat.


----------



## Adso (Oct 16, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine...
> 
> This seems counter to your argunment as I've understood it.  You're advocating replacing rules (whether good or bad is subjective and not really my point)...with handwaving.  Now instead of the summon ability (which yes does throw an unexpected, but not wholly uninteresting loop for the players or DM depending on what the roll is) the rules are serving theme in the best possibe way by saying esentially...just make it up.  Not sure if this is actual streamlining for actual play or just foisting off responsibility for making a monster interesting onto the DM.  Is this really easier for new DM's to do without causing problems in their campaigns?  Not sure I would agree.
> 
> ...




No, what I am saying is D&D (and just about any other roleplaying game) is ultimately a game of two masters. 

First and foremost, as the rules go, it is a game of combat. Much of any D&D game, and arguably the most interactive parts, take place within the scope of the combat encounter. You can deny this fact, but I personally think it is an exercise of just that…denial. 

Secondly it is a narrative exercise, a way for a DM to make a story with decision points (both obvious and obtuse). I think 3rd Edition may have erred too much for the benefit of the first master. 2nd Edition may have erred to much on the side of the other. I think we can have a good balance between the two.    

Monsters have to work consistently in the first part of the game. And they need to work well in the second instance as well, but to figure you can always kill a bird with one stone (i.e. the stat block) is fallacy. 

Here's how I split it.

Combat: Spined devils attack with 2 claw attacks +9 vs. AC each 2d4+4 and have a special Spike Rain attack. They fly, are skirmishers, and have 47 hp (bloodied 23)

Story: Devils tend to be organized, when you fight one, you can bet more are close by. Sometimes they are gated into the fray by a variety of diabolical means. Devils tend to be skilled in the arcane arts. In particular, spine devils are wicked, take joy in the suffering of others, and laugh at pleas of mercy.

Combat stats are about the minimum of absolutes, story deals with encounter, adventure, and campaign desig and gives the DM ideas and tools to make a well-themed encounter that gives tools for creating a D&D encounter that feels like a D&D encounter. I would not call that part handwaving…I would call it focused creativity. Handwaving is something more arbitrary...and I don't recommend it. Players will know (or can find out in the course of the game) what these creature are about, but can still be surprised (and thrilled, hopefully challenged) by each encounter with the creature in questions.


----------



## Adso (Oct 16, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> nd I didn't see anything in your post to make me think so.  And , imo, the "novel approach" you suggested could also be called "how good DMs already do things in 3X".  You can't take credit for giving me something I already have.




I am not trying to. You are absolutely right, good DMs are already doing this (and should), but we are not helping create good DMs when we make rules that a DM has to work around to make a good and interesting game.

We want to give you the freedom to create a good game without having to fix or sidestep the rules. We want to give new DMs the freedom to create good games without them having to figure out they have to sidestep bad rules.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 16, 2007)

Adso said:
			
		

> No, what I am saying is D&D (and just about any other roleplaying game) is ultimately a game of two masters.
> 
> First and foremost, as the rules go, it is a game of combat. Much of any D&D game, and arguably the most interactive parts, take place within the scope of the combat encounter. You can deny this fact, but I personally think it is an exercise of just that…denial.
> 
> ...





And this design concept is what i have been hoping for in 4e. Well done - you´re designing my game.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 16, 2007)

See, I feel that taking away monster options makes all encounters with said monster the same. Giving them options means that the PCs won't always know what to expect. Making monsters 1 trick ponies sounds kind of boring to me.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> See, I feel that taking away monster options makes all encounters with said monster the same. Giving them options means that the PCs won't always know what to expect. Making monsters 1 trick ponies sounds kind of boring to me.




The problem is, they already were one trick ponies... But the trick tended to be hidden inside a bunch of stuff that didn't really do much.


----------



## blargney the second (Oct 16, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> I think the Ogre Mage issue was more of a problem with the Role Mearls chose.  He designed it more as a bruiser.  I suspect that if he chose a Leader role or a Social role for it, we'd end up with a much different beastie.



That's a great point.  Leader or Controller would probably fit its traditional role better than bruiser.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 16, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> See, I feel that taking away monster options makes all encounters with said monster the same. Giving them options means that the PCs won't always know what to expect. Making monsters 1 trick ponies sounds kind of boring to me.




I hope that 4e is stripping extraneous information from Monster stat blocks WHILE providing greater options for building interesting/unusual _encounters _(unexpected effects, variable landscapes, social and intellectual encounters, etc).

This way, encounters would not have to rely solely a monster's 'bag of tricks' in order to be memorable.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 16, 2007)

Adso...
If you are still around (and at liberty to say), can you say if the 4E Spined Devil will have something that reflects the Spine Shield DDM side of the new stat card.

If not, can you explain the reasoning behind the creature having abilities in one rule set but not the other?
Thanks!


----------



## BryonD (Oct 16, 2007)

Adso said:
			
		

> We want to give you the freedom to create a good game without having to fix or sidestep the rules. We want to give new DMs the freedom to create good games without them having to figure out they have to sidestep bad rules.



And again, that sounds very good.
But hearing you say "this is our goal", is one thing.  Seeing you say "this is what we are doing" is another.  The treatment sounds possibly worse than the disease. (Note that 3X still rocks, so it isn't much of a "disease")


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 19, 2007)

I've just noticed that the Spined Devil seems to be a rename of the Spinagon from Fiendish Codex II


----------



## Klaus (Oct 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've just noticed that the Spined Devil seems to be a rename of the Spinagon from Fiendish Codex II



 ... back to its original, pre-baatezu name. (spined devil, horned devil, bone devil, ice devil, barbed devil, bearded devil, etc, etc)


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 19, 2007)

Is this thread suggesting that the MM will have separate entries for combat and story/monster design?

Is this based on scoops? 

I would love to see this, each monsters entry had the combat stats and fluff/mechanics provide hooks, customisations, etc...


----------



## tomtill (Oct 20, 2007)

jodyjohnson said:
			
		

> So why list Skirmisher in the creature type area if it has no statistical effect?
> 
> To me, the roles are there to focus combat decisions (




Given various comments by the developers emphasizing easy of creation and play, and the lack of a need to fill up stat blocks with feats and whatnot, this makes sense to me.

Level 6 skirmisher seems likely to define the BAB (in 3e this would be +4 for a skirmisher type class, like rogue, and is consistent with the SWSE classes and monsters). 

The Str mod is listed right on the card as +7. Adding the BAB + Str mod gives the melee attack. Very simple.

However, all level 6 skirmishers, fulfilling the same role, need to be roughly equivalent, with different abilities and exceptions based flavor added to distinguish encounters. Remember the goal is to be able to readily mix and match level 6 skirmishers on the fly, as illustrated in the last podcast. I'm guessing that primary/secondary attacks, like iterative attacks, are minimized, to prevent having to track too many different bonuses in a single round. If true, then to distinguish level 6 skirmishers with a single attack from those with multiple attacks it would make sense to impose a -2 penalty for each attack in the case of a monster with 2 attacks. In this case then, the melee attack drops from 4+7=+11 to +9. Note that this is completely unlike SWSE, but then again, they weren't focused on making mix and match role based monster parties when they wrote that.

Likewise, the ranged attack in this case is the Level 6 skirmisher BAB + Dex mod, listed on the card as +5, for a total of +9. However, the fact that Dex is explicitly mentioned suggests that there might be ranged attacks based on other abilities. For example, perhaps the appropriate ability modifier is used to determine the effectiveness of other attacks, since static saves represent a target. For example, an arcane spell or ability might be cast as a ranged attack, Int vs. appropriate Defense. This might be why the modifiers (presumable old bonuses + half level) are listed directly on the card. In addition to untrained skill bonuses, they are there for quick calculation of other attack bonuses in case the monster is given class levels on the fly. If this were really true though, I'd expect the BAB to be explicitly listed.

As far as damage is concerned, the melee and thrown ranged damage bonuses are not at all what I expected. Totally unlike 3e rules or SWSE. I really expected half the level would be added as damage, in keeping with SWSE and the stated goal of avoiding the christmas-tree effect necessary to make a 3e high level character viable. Instead we get what looks like the raw Str bonus for melee, and half that for the thrown range attack. Maybe this is role based (keep those skirmishers moving)? Maybe alternate means to increase damage at higher levels (power sources, maneuvers)? More data needed!


----------

