[4e] DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[illathid]

Here's the link: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a

And here's the text for any who can't access it...

Only a scant few weeks remain until 4th Edition finally hits the shelves! We here at Wizards of the Coast couldn’t be more excited for June 6th to finally arrive (and then to participate with everyone at June 7th’s Worldwide D&D Game Day). For the past several months, we’ve introduced you to many of the concepts, philosophies, and details of 4th Edition, via D&D Insider’s columns and articles. So in the short time we have remaining, we wanted to share with you a little more, publishing excerpts from the three core rulebooks every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, leading up to 4th Edition’s release.

The Monster Manual provides hundreds of enemies for your adventures, but they aren’t all that’s available. You can customize existing monsters to increase their utility, making them stronger, weaker, or just different. In today’s previews, we look at information in the Dungeon Master’s Guide dealing with customizing monsters, as well as two sample templates.

We hope you enjoy, and be sure to return Monday for a look at one more class from the Player's Handbook: the warlord.






Whether you want to bump an ogre up a few levels or turn it into an elite berserker, this section gives you the tools you need to tinker with monsters. You’ll also find rules for adding a class to a monster, mining the Player’s Handbook for combat powers.

You can use several methods to adjust an existing monster: change its level, give it equipment, alter its appearance and behavior, and apply a template. Each of these approaches is discussed below.
Increasing or Decreasing Level

Boosting a monster’s level is easy. Just increase its attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 for every level you add. For every two levels, increase the damage it deals with its attacks by 1. The monster also gains extra hit points at each level, based on its role (see the “Monster Statistics by Role” table on page 184 of the Dungeon Master's Guide).

Decreasing a monster’s level works like increasing it, but in reverse. For each level down, reduce the creature’s attack rolls, defenses, and AC by 1 and drop its hit points based on its role. For every two levels, also reduce its damage by 1.

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

You can add equipment to a monster to make it a little more challenging, or to put treasure into the characters’ hands. Equipment shouldn’t be random but should serve some purpose in the design of an encounter. Make sure to include any such items as part of the overall treasure you’re giving out for the adventure (see “Treasure” on page 124 of the Dungeon Master's Guide).

Armor: When you add armor to a monster, you first need to determine if the armor is good enough to improve the monster’s AC. Start with the monster’s effective armor bonus—a measure of how much of the creature’s AC comes from its armor or from its thick hide. This number is equal to its AC minus 10 minus the higher of its Dexterity or Intelligence ability modifiers. Do not include the Dexterity or Intelligence modifier if the creature wears heavy armor. Subtract the effective armor bonus from the creature’s AC, and then add the bonus from its new armor. If the creature moved from heavy to light armor, you can also add the higher of its Dexterity or Intelligence ability modifier to its AC.

If the creature’s statistics block does not mention any worn armor, use the higher of its original AC or its new AC after adding armor. Most creatures have naturally thick hides that provide an armor bonus to AC. If the armor a creature wears is not as good as its natural armor, it uses the AC bonus provided by its natural armor. Worn armor, such as a suit of chainmail, and natural armor, such as an insect’s carapace or a dragon’s thick scales, do not stack.

For example, an ogre savage normally has an Armor Class of 19 (it’s assumed to be wearing crude hide armor). Its effective armor bonus is +5 (19 – 10 – 4 [Dex]). Giving the ogre chainmail instead would improve its AC by 1 to 20, since the armor’s +6 bonus is 1 higher than this number.

Magic Items: A monster equipped with magic items can use the powers those items grant.

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

A monster’s magic threshold is an abstract representation of its equipment, power, and general effectiveness against characters of its level. If you give the monster a magic item that grants a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls or to defenses, subtract the magic threshold from that bonus before you apply it. For example, if you give that 8th-level ogre savage a +2 magic greatclub, you add only a +1 bonus to its attack rolls and damage rolls, since its magic threshold is +1.
Monster Level Magic Threshold
1st–5th +0
6th–10th +1
11th–15th +2
16th–20th +3
21st–25th +4
26th–30th +5

Remember that a monster’s game statistics are set to be appropriate for its level. Thus, altering a monster’s attack, defense, or damage values is a lot like changing its level (see above). Avoid the temptation simply to give all your monsters better armor and weapons. Giving all your ogre savages plate armor and +3 greatswords may seem like a reasonable change, but now they have the attack, damage, and defense numbers of a higher-level monster—which makes them a tougher challenge than other 8th-level brutes.

If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level. For example, those ogre savages in plate armor and wielding +3 greatswords have AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls three points higher than normal. That’s pretty close to what a monster three levels higher would have (+3 to all defenses, +3 to attack rolls, and +1 damage), so you might as well make those ogre savages into 11th-level monsters and give them the extra hit points to go along with their other benefits.
Cosmetic Changes

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

This technique is useful for keeping players on their toes even when they know the Monster Manual backward and forward. Use the statistics of a given monster but completely alter its appearance when you describe it to the players. You can make minor changes to its powers as well, altering damage types or changing details of weapons (lashing tentacles become a whipping tail, for example).
Templates

A template is like a recipe for changing a monster. Each template provides instructions for modifying hit points and defenses, and adds a number of powers and abilities. Simply pick a monster and a template, follow the directions, and you’re ready to go.

This section provides more than a dozen templates for customizing monsters. Functional templates adapt a monster to a given purpose in an adventure. You can also add a functional template to a nonplayer character. See “Creating NPCs” on page 186 of the Dungeon Master's Guide for more information. Class templates allow you to add features of a specific character class to a monster.

Multiple Templates: Each of these templates is intended for use by itself, making a monster into an elite opponent. However, you can turn a standard monster into a solo creature by adding two templates. Follow the process for adding each template, one at a time, but add just one template’s hit point bonus (your choice which). Then double the creature’s total hit points. Increase the monster’s saving throw bonus to +5.

You can also advance an elite monster to a solo one by adding a template, then doubling its hit points and adjusting its saving throw as above.

This method is quick and easy, but it carries some risks. For example, the adjusted monster’s hit points might be lower than those of a typical solo monster of its level and role. Once you’ve finished the process, be sure to “reality check” the monster by comparing its statistics and abilities to others of similar power.

How to Read a Template
A template lists changes to a monster’s statistics and grants it some new powers and abilities. In general, if a template does not alter a certain statistic, that entry does not appear in the list.

Each template notes any prerequisites for adding it to a monster. Some can be added to any creature, while others work only with particular types or at certain adventuring tiers.

The modified monster retains all its normal powers and abilities except those that overlap or conflict with those bestowed by the template. Every template begins with a brief descriptive passage that explains the essential nature of the template, followed by a paragraph that tells you what types of creatures or classes the template can be applied to.

Prerequisite: This entry appears if the monster must meet certain requirements to gain the template, such as a specific type or a minimum level. The remaining information is presented in monster stat block form, for easy insertion into the monster’s existing statistics.

Role: The monster’s combat role appears in the upper right corner of the stat block header.

Type and Keyword: The left-hand entry of the second line of the stat block header states this information. If the template adds a keyword to the monster, such as undead, it is included here. The monster retains any previous keywords.

Senses: Add the given abilities to the monster’s Senses entry.

Defenses: Adjust the monster’s AC and other defenses as described in this entry.

Immune/Resist/Vulnerable: Add the stated entries and values. If the monster already has one or more of these abilities, use the more beneficial value.

Saving Throws +2: All elite monsters have a +2 bonus to saving throws.

Action Point 1: All elite monsters have 1 action point.

Hit Points: Add the stated number of hit points for the monster’s new role, and then also add its Constitution score to the new hit point total.

Powers: Add the stated powers to the monster’s stat block, calculating attack and damage numbers. The level of an attack power usually depends on the monster’s level and is expressed as “Level + n,” where “Level” is the monster’s level and n is a number you add to that value. Damage is adjusted by the modifier for a given ability score, just as with characters’ attack powers.

Here are two sample templates, the lich and the vampire lord:

Lich
Liches are evil arcane masterminds that pursue the path of undeath to achieve immortality. They are cold, scheming creatures who hunger for ever-greater power, long-forgotten knowledge, and the most terrible of arcane secrets.

Some liches know a ritual that sustains them beyond destruction by tying their essence to a phylactery. When a lich who has performed this ritual is reduced to 0 hit points, its body and possessions crumble into dust, but it is not destroyed. It reappears (along with its possessions) in 1d10 days within 1 square of its phylactery, unless the phylactery is also found and destroyed.

“Lich” is a template you can add to any intelligent creature of 11th level or higher. It best complements an arcane NPC, such as a wizard or warlock, or a monster with arcane powers, such as a beholder or oni. Other highly intelligent creatures might also become liches; for example, mind flayers, who draw on psionic power.

Prerequisite: Level 11, Intelligence 13

Lich Elite Controller or Artillery
(undead) XP Elite

Senses Darkvision
Defenses +2 AC; +4 Fortitude, +4 Will
Immune disease, poison
Resist 5 + 1/2 level necrotic
Saving Throws +2
Action Point 1
Hit Points +8 per level + Constitution score (controller) or
+6 per level + Constitution score (artillery)
Regeneration 10. If the lich takes radiant damage, its regeneration doesn’t function on its next turn.

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

Necromantic Aura (Necrotic) aura 5
Any living creature that enters or starts its turn in the aura takes 5 necrotic damage.

Necrotic Master
The lich can convert any attack power it has to necrotic.
Change a power’s energy keyword to necrotic, or add necrotic energy to an attack power that doesn’t normally deal energy damage.

Vampire Lord
Vampire lords are powerful and dangerous undead villains. Some are former spawn freed by their creators’ deaths, others mortals chosen to receive the “gift” of vampiric immortality. They can create armies of dominated vampire spawn or pass on their powers to chosen mortals.

“Vampire lord” is a template you can apply to any humanoid creature of 11th level or higher. Vampire lords retain their living appearance, although they are paler and their canines somewhat more pronounced, and they are wholly evil.

Prerequisites: Humanoid, level 11

Vampire Lord Elite Controller or Skirmisher
Humanoid (undead) XP Elite

Senses Darkvision
Defenses +2 AC; +2 Fortitude, +2 Reflex, +2 Will
Immune disease, poison
Resist 5 necrotic at 1st level, 10 necrotic at 11th level, 15 necrotic at 21st level
Vulnerable radiant 10
Saving Throws +2
Action Point 1
Hit Points +8 per level + Constitution score
Regeneration 10 (regeneration does not function while the vampire lord is exposed to direct sunlight)

POWERS
MeleeBlood Drain (standard, encounter; recharges when an adjacent creature becomes bloodied) Healing
Requires combat advantage. Level + 2 vs. Fortitude; 2d12 + Charisma modifier damage, and the target is weakened (save ends), and the vampire lord heals hit points equal to one-quarter of its normal total.

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

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

...

Wow, thats a lot of crunch. Now it's time to actually read it! :smallbiggrin:

[Gralamin]

I'm thinking theres an error on the Vampire Lords Resist, as the prerequisites include level 11.

Good article though.

[Keld Denar]

Looks great. Just like I've been saying about 4th Ed, it'll be so easy to customize and create new monsters that you can have a bunch of different and flavorful encounters without doing 3 hours of homework before your gaming session. Hurray for WotC thinking about those of use with jobs!

[Reel On, Love]

But I thought 4E sucked because you can't customize monsters!

[Judge]

Is it any good to start playing D&D with the newest edition (4th here) when it comes out? Any downsides to it?

Otherwise I can read these excerpts and gain knowledge slowly. :smallbiggrin:

[Reinboom]

Is it any good to start playing D&D with the newest edition (4th here) when it comes out? Any downsides to it?

Otherwise I can read these excerpts and gain knowledge slowly. :smallbiggrin:

Downsides? Only ones you make of it.

Please do not marry the edition, and then try to argue with the old 3.5 grognards that it is completely superior. Please remember that everyone has a different sense of interests. Please remember to enjoy your game and generally have fun.

Otherwise, I would say this would be a pleasant place to start - noted especially that if you start now, you don't have to try to scramble to get books that have already been printed for years, but, can actually keep up steadily as the edition evolves.

-edit-
On the article.
Hmmn, nothing about size changes. That'll take a bit of work I guess.

[RTGoodman]

Well, we know how armor works now. (Though I might have just missed that before.)

The Magic Threshold just sounds weird to me. I'm sure it'll make more sense later, but now it just seems complicated.

Also:


Lich
[...]
Hit Points +8 per level + Constitution score (controller) or
+6 per level + Constitution score (artillery)

Vampire
[...]
Hit Points +8 per level + Constitution score

I guess Undead have Con scores now... :smallconfused:

[Rutee]

I guess Undead have Con scores now... :smallconfused:

Which makes total sense if Constitution becomes more akin to durability and the ability to sustain oneself then physical vitality. I mean, you can't claim that the undead and constructs aren't durable..

[CthulhuM]

The advancement rules seem pretty reasonable - the magic threshold is actually a pretty good idea - no more will the DM be tempted to throw on a few pieces of low-power (and thus maximally cost effective) loot just to beef up a monster.

I do hope there will still be rules for advancing monsters via class level, though. Obviously, not everyone has the time for that, but it allows much greater customization than you could get from templates and level advancement alone.

[SofS]

I think I kind of like this take on armour, specifically in regard to how it doesn't stack with natural armour. It somehow seems to fit the style of this new edition to only count the thickest thing between attack and target.

Conversely, I don't think I much like this magic threshold idea. This may be simply due to the fact that there is no in-game explanation provided in this utilitarian article. All I ask for is a reasonably satisfying explanation for this should I ever end up playing this edition. Even a cheesy "their lifeforce does not call the full powers of the blade forth" will do, really.

Keep it in mind, Wizards. You wouldn't want to risk incurring one guy's vague annoyance, would you?

[Bleen]

I do hope there will still be rules for advancing monsters via class level, though.
Seems like Class Templates will be filling that purpose, now.

Magic Threshold seems to mostly exist for the sake of balance when it comes to the monster's "level", sort of like a first-level player would seldom find a +3 Flaming Greatsword. Sort of like a "Monster WBL" in that it's meant to be an arbitrary DMing guideline, not a piece of setting fluff. I never found a fluff justification to why random chance won't lead a first-level fighter to a +5 Flaming Axiomatic Greatsword Of Doom, either.

Most of this seems to follow the standard monster customization/advancement rules from 3.5e, with "adding levels" (hopefully) being an improved version of "advancing HD".

[SofS]

I don't get what utility this magic threshold is really supposed to have. If a DM wants a monster to effectively use a weapon above its level, he or she will just ignore the rule. If not, the rule doesn't apply. If it really is just a vague guideline like wealth by level, why does it have mechanical effects?

All I'm saying is that setting fluff seems pretty important to justify a rule which will probably go largely unremembered after a while otherwise. It's no big issue, really. I just find it a curious thing. Perhaps it's intended more for RPGA stuff and the like?

[Reinboom]

I see it more as an option to allow a DM to give a player much more powerful items without increasing the monster difficulty that much. As stated in the article, really to increase the difficulty of the monster - just increase the level. This provides a medium.

[Bleen]

It's because if a level 1 Orc(Monster level is similar to CR to my understanding) has a +5 Flaming Greatsword, he suddenly becomes way too powerful for a party of the level meant to fight him, so he should be bumped up to the appropriate level and hand out the appropriate XP for a monster with that kind of strength.

So it's meant to be a guideline to avoid handing out gear to monsters that could overpower a party of the level they're meant for.

[Jothki]

The magic threshold seems to be there because since the players are assuming be using +X weapons and such at that level, the innate attacks of the monsters are scaled to match. For example, if a monster's level is between 16 and 20, it's assumed that it's badass enough to have its normal attacks be treated as +3 even if they aren't actually magical. Therefore, the monster will only benefit if it's given a weapon with a modifier of +4 or higher. There's no actual magical dampening, just innate power not stacking with magical bonuses.

[SofS]

If magical equipment bonuses are being treated as functionally on par with additional levels, why wouldn't the power of the treasure the monster uses be part of the XP reward anyway? I thought previous articles had mentioned 4th ed.'s CR system taking things like natural hazards and such into account.

Having studied the system in greater detail, I realize now that the effect is intended mainly to make sure that higher-level monsters have better equipment than lower-level monsters, as they have to beat their threshold to get any benefit out of it. As a reinforcement of wealth by level, I suppose it serves, though it doesn't actually limit lower-level monsters at all in their potential equipment. A DM will have to make the call, of course, so that the low-level monsters don't have hideously powerful equipment, and this brings me back to my initial point: why bother? A DM will have to decide what everyone has anyway. If the system is set up to encourage an upwards curve of treasure power, it will end up being functionally the same as it would have been without the threshold, as the monsters would need to bring better and better weapons to combat the PCs' growing defensive stats anyway.

All that said, I freely admit that this is pure speculation and that I quite possibly just don't see the as-yet-unrevealed big picture. I reserve my opinion for the day I play the thing.

[The Mormegil]

I think that magic threshold is meant for natural attacking monsters, mainly. That would mean that a Leel 26 solo plant actually has magic tenctacles on his side.

[Charity]

I do hope there will still be rules for advancing monsters via class level, though. Obviously, not everyone has the time for that, but it allows much greater customization than you could get from templates and level advancement alone.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that this is still possible, though I'm damned if I can find it now, truth be told it will be fairly easy for them to create such rules from what I've seen of the system so I'd be suprised if they didn't include the possibility.



But I thought 4E sucked because you can't customize monsters!
No no, it sucks because monsters are now one dimensional combat only encounters with all of their exciting abilities like DR removed.

[Reel On, Love]

No no, it sucks because monsters are now one dimensional combat only encounters with all of their exciting abilities like DR removed.

However will they make fights exciting without monsters picking from a golf bag of SLAs, only two of which will see regular use, and having five arbitrary resistances and DR?

[Kurald Galain]

Hm, this is interesting...

you can convert a fighter-type monster to a lich, which means it can use its spell mastery power to recover its melee exploits faster, and that it deals necrotic damage with its battle axe.

[warmachine]

So what happened to the feats? That's an easy way to customise a monster. I remember fighting a Naga in a small room. As the only way out of the room was blocked by the melee fighters, I thought I'd stuff its spellcasting with Silence. Nagas don't normally have Silent Spell but this one did. The game designer simply switched out an existing feat for Silent Spell.

[Kurald Galain]

So what happened to the feats?

Monsters don't have feats.

Besides, 4E feats are designed to give relatively small bonuses to existing abilities, rather than to grant you new abilities (that's in one of WOTC's designer logs). Silent Spell could conceivably be a moderate-level wizard power, as in "(once per day?) you can use a spell power when under the 'silenced' condition", but spell level increase doesn't exist in 4E anyway.

[Mr. Friendly]

{Scrubbed}

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

{Scrubbed}

Has anyone said anything even remotely negative about it yet? No.

Is your incessant posturing about how everyone is an idiot for not worshiping 4E still annoying? Yes.

[Mr. Friendly]

Has anyone said anything even remotely negative about it yet? No.

Is your incessant posturing about how everyone is an idiot for not worshiping 4E still annoying? Yes.

Boo-Hoo; I will cry now that you have scolded me. Since you are one of the people who helped kill all my interest in D&D, I could really care less. So in a way, you have won me over to your cause. I want 4e to fail. I want D&D gone, forever. I will just play MMOs instead of D&D, then I don't have to listen to some of my players gurgle out the same tired talking points that you people get from whatever cesspit on the internet you guys write them up at.

[Rutee]

You need more Hot Blood, to overcome the depression. I suggest some Gao Gai Gar. Or King of Memes, Sage Gai Gar.

Also, you should be less of a cranky pants.

Also, as much as I love MMOs, you will find the exact same stupidity there as you will here. Well, it's different stupidity on WoW boards. There's no feasible rival to WoW in the American Market, so their stupid focuses on their game, rather then a different one..

[kamikasei]

Boo-Hoo; I will cry now that you have scolded me. Since you are one of the people who helped kill all my interest in D&D, I could really care less. So in a way, you have won me over to your cause. I want 4e to fail. I want D&D gone, forever. I will just play MMOs instead of D&D, then I don't have to listen to some of my players gurgle out the same tired talking points that you people get from whatever cesspit on the internet you guys write them up at.

If you really have decided you never want to play D&D again because discussions of it are driving you mad... why are you reading and posting in a discussion of D&D? If some people's reactions to 4e annoy you... couldn't you just avoid 4e threads? If you want information about the new edition, there's always ENWorld or the Wizards' site itself.

Point being, surely participating in this thread can only cause you the irritation you say you want to avoid, while at the same time not scoring you any points for reasonableness against those with whom you argue.

[Mr. Friendly]

You need more Hot Blood. I suggest some Gao Gai Gar. Or King of Memes, Sage Gai Gar.

Also, you should be less of a cranky pants.

Also, as much as I love MMOs, you will find the exact same stupidity there as you will here. Well, it's different stupidity on WoW boards. There's no feasible rival to WoW in the American Market, so their stupid focuses on their game, rather then a different one..

Right, well, WoW sucks - I play EQ2. However it's easier to ignore people in MMOs.

As for being cranky, well, let me see...

Every time a new thread about 4e starts, it starts off with people going "wow, that's cool" then the inevitable same people arrive on the scene to tell everyone how they have dumbed down D&D, ruined everything and that the sky is falling.

So, sure I am cranky. I am also able to guess that it is exactly what would have/will happen in this thread, since it has happened in every other thread. Talking points will include:


Dumbing down D&D
One dimensional monsters
Monsters and PCs are different
Too complicated
Not complicated enough
Just like WoW/MMOs
'Turned it into DDM'


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


If you really have decided you never want to play D&D again because discussions of it are driving you mad... why are you reading and posting in a discussion of D&D? If some people's reactions to 4e annoy you... couldn't you just avoid 4e threads? If you want information about the new edition, there's always ENWorld or the Wizards' site itself.

Point being, surely participating in this thread can only cause you the irritation you say you want to avoid, while at the same time not scoring you any points for reasonableness against those with whom you argue.

I still have a passing interest in D&D. I still would like to see what they are doing with 4e. I can read ENWorld, sure, but the same people that go over there to repeat their diatribes also repeat them here. Essentially there is nowhere to go talk about 4e without the same people trotting out the same dead horse and beating it.

I suppose to be fair, I shouldn't say that I hate D&D, I just hate the people who have effectively destroyed my desire to play it anymore. Through their repeated memetics, they 'infected' a third of my player base who in turn subverted another third by intentionally sabotaging efforts to get the group to convert to 4e.

[Valairn]

I guess my question is, what is your point, and how is it relevant to the conversation that was taking place? There really wasn't any of what you were talking about going on in here.

[Mr. Friendly]

I guess my question is, what is your point, and how is it relevant to the conversation that was taking place? There really wasn't any of what you were talking about going on in here.

It was pre-emptive strike.

[Kurald Galain]

Right, well, WoW sucks - I play EQ2. However it's easier to ignore people in MMOs.

On the contrary, it is very easy to ignore people on these message boards. They are a much better read when putting up a filter against the posts by certain unfriendly people. Much recommended.

Anyway, back on topic, it looks like 4E will still have its lycanthropic half-demon half-troll vampiric fiendish snail. Which I can only surmise will be a good thing. A significant part of board traffic on all D&D-related boards is about optimizing and min-maxing everything, and I'm sure we'll still have enough complex rules to warrant that.

[SamTheCleric]

Was a good read... learned some good stuff.

[Badgerish]

a) thanks for the copy-pasting, i've heard about this but couldn't check it from work

b) some warlord info on monday, should be interesting considering warlords didn't make it into the dungeon delve event

c) the customisation advice looks simple to understand and makes sense. hasn't gone as far as Spycraft2.0 with it's fully modular standard NPCs but it's a step in the right direction and there are more not-at-all-human things to model in D&D

d) i'm swinging by my FLGS tonight for another reason, going to check his pre-order prices and i'll pre-order locally if he can match the Amazon price (yes, i'm a cheapskate)

[hamishspence]

One template to turn standard to elite, 2 to turn standard to solo. Not sure if templates for solo monsters will be an option: they might be, but not get the big hit point boosts, or they might not allow solos to be templated, have to wait and see.

[Charity]

It was pre-emptive strike.

You sure you didn't mean preeminent?

On the contrary, it is very easy to ignore people on these message boards. They are a much better read when putting up a filter against the posts by certain unfriendly people. Much recommended.
What he says.. before 4e I had noone in my ignore list, now, well lets just say there was a new member of that club just today.

Anyway, back on topic, it looks like 4E will still have its lycanthropic half-demon half-troll vampiric fiendish snail. Which I can only surmise will be a good thing. A significant part of board traffic on all D&D-related boards is about optimizing and min-maxing everything, and I'm sure we'll still have enough complex rules to warrant that.

Only two templates max per monster as far as I can see, so crazy template stacking is at least somewhat curtailed.

[Trog]

Hmm... interesting. Somehow I picture the magic threshold thing working something like this:

Monster: A +1 sword?! Mah. I can claw better than this damn thing *tosses over shoulder into treasure pile* :smalltongue:

[AslanCross]

I like how advancing monsters is now uniform (mostly). Having to look up that table in the Monster Manual for each monster I wanted to advance by HD was rather vexing.

[Morty]

A good, surprisingly non-hyped read, but the magic threshold doesn't make much sense for me as of right now. It's not really bad thing, but I don't see much point to it, honestly. But I'm not the one to say "no" for advancement system for non-NPC enemies that doesn't make my brain eat itself.
Also, it looks like PC class abilties will be available to NPCs after all.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Since you are one of the people who helped kill all my interest in D&D,

I'm pretty sure that's impossible given that the first time I ever posted in a 4E thread a week ago you had already posted in that same thread that you had given up on D&D forever.

[Scrubbed]

[Valairn]

I think we will be seeing less hype from the excerpts than previous information from Wizards. After all they are getting very close to the point where their product is going to have to stand on its own separated from any hype and I'm sure they know that. Hype serves the minor purpose of getting people interested in content even if they are not excited about it, so its done its job.

Now its time for the product to either be the true successor to the DnD name, or to fall on its face. /rollsthedice

[Tren]

Whether you want to bump an ogre up a few levels or turn it into an elite berserker, this section gives you the tools you need to tinker with monsters. You’ll also find rules for adding a class to a monster, mining the Player’s Handbook for combat powers.

I'm wondering if that means advancing by monster classes/roles (which is an addition I really like), or adding PC classes?

[Keld Denar]

advancement system for non-NPC enemies that doesn't make my brain eat itself.

Illithid auto-canibalism? This I have to see!

[Hurlbut]

{Scrubbed}

[SpikeFightwicky]

I'm wondering if that means advancing by monster classes/roles (which is an addition I really like), or adding PC classes?

I'm pretty sure they meant PC classes. I don't think that monster roles/classes have any combat powers of their own inherently (though don't quote me on that).

So DR is now a thing of the past? Are they going to do anything like in 2nd ed.? Like how werewolves and vampires could not be damaged at all by non-silver or +3 or better weapons (respectively). Anyone know, or has this not yet been revealed?

[Ruzak]

The idea of magic threshold may be to allow variations in the level of magic items carried by monsters. Two campaigns with different levels of magic will still have monsters of comparable difficulty, and monsters that carry items will not be too overpowered from those who do not. A high level monster may be carrying a +4 ax, or it may not, and the power level is not disrupted too much. In 3.5, level appropriate magic items in the hands of the monsters drastically affect the game. Thus we often had the scenario where high level PCs face monsters with +1 swords, which after the battle were thrown in the bag to be sold later.

Just an idea.

[KIDS]

I'm not sure what to make of this, some things I can easily see fitting and some that I can't make sense of without reading the book (and I have a sense that there will be complaining about easily gained INT to AC), but overall it's ok.

I absolutely adore the artwork though, the Vampire Lord and the Lich look very very nice! I hope that there are other images around done as well as that, and that Mialee never makes a reapparance again (yeah I had to mention... :P )

[SamTheCleric]

This is my favorite part of it. Really shows that they are encouraging DMs to take more freedoms and not use the same old monster over and over again..


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

This technique is useful for keeping players on their toes even when they know the Monster Manual backward and forward. Use the statistics of a given monster but completely alter its appearance when you describe it to the players. You can make minor changes to its powers as well, altering damage types or changing details of weapons (lashing tentacles become a whipping tail, for example).

[Hunter Noventa]

A little of my faith regarding monsters in general has been restored. I'm still vexed about the lack of out-of-combat options, but it is nice to see some of the things that are being taken into consideration.

I'm still on the fence about pre-ordering, I'd like to try the system out of course, simply to see how it works.

[Artanis]

I'm wondering if that means advancing by monster classes/roles (which is an addition I really like), or adding PC classes?
Actually, they've mentioned it before, and it was a guy adding PC classes to a monster.


Edit:

I'm not sure what to make of this, some things I can easily see fitting and some that I can't make sense of without reading the book (and I have a sense that there will be complaining about easily gained INT to AC), but overall it's ok.
Because the English language sucks...do you mean "the easy ability to gain AC via a stat that happens to be INT" or "the easy ability to increase INT just happening to result in higher AC"?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: We now return you to your regularly scheduled speculation.

[ShadowSiege]

A little of my faith regarding monsters in general has been restored. I'm still vexed about the lack of out-of-combat options, but it is nice to see some of the things that are being taken into consideration.

I'm still on the fence about pre-ordering, I'd like to try the system out of course, simply to see how it works.

Considering each monster has at least a full page in the monster manual, there might be some information on out of combat abilities.

I'm pleased with the limit on templates and the different means of advancing monsters. They look to have actually kept it simple so that advancing a monster will take a matter of minutes with no referencing necessary.

[Artanis]

One reason they may not be showing us out-of-combat stuff is because they're VASTLY expanding the social interaction stuff. 4e is actually going to have rules for that sort of stuff, rather than a paragraph and a half of Diplomacy and Bluff (combined). Since that's the case, there's a chance that we may simply not have enough knowledge of the mechanical framework to actually get anything out of it. So if there's no point in releasing info...well, then there's no point releasing info.


But hey, if nothing else, adding PC caster levels will let the monster cast a ritual, which is thoroughly out-of-combat :smallwink:

[wodan46]

Remember, they can only show so much in their excerpts and reveals at a time. They reveal the new and improved combat mechanics, and many complain about the they've nixed non-combat mechanics, whereas in actuality they are reportedly expanding on them (things like actual social encounters), and we simply haven't seen them yet. The core of D&D books before 4th edition were also hack and slash, and its up to the players, the DMs, and the supplement books to provide the flavor and complicated settings.

That said, I like that Monsters get powers like players, and have recharging abilities. Makes them more than just claw claw bite every round until someone drops.

Also, check out this excerpt on a new creature, also released today:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b

[SamTheCleric]

More imporantly... the art preview today is the Tarrasque. It's not D&D without a tarrasque!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/4eTarrasque.jpg

[Bleen]

I have one thing to say to that.

GOJIRAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Also, weren't Phanes epic monsters in 3.5e that could basically travel back in time and kill your great-great-grandfather so that you couldn't be born?

[SamTheCleric]

I thought he looked like the Cloverfield monster.... :smalltongue:

[kamikasei]

Also, weren't Phanes epic monsters in 3.5e that could basically travel back in time and kill your great-great-grandfather so that you couldn't be born?

They still are level 26. As to their time-traveling abilities, I wonder if this is a further hint that we're just not seeing out-of-combat powers in these entries? Or perhaps the designers thought, "okay, it can travel back in time. But if it does, you'll always have been defeated before you fought it. So we're not going to bother statting that..."

[wodan46]

They've downsized things somewhat. Instead epic level creatures doing things like time travel, they can do 2d8+10 damage and daze you. It does have 478 hp though. Have fun calculating how long it would take for 2 of them to kill each other, given that its defenses are about 10 higher than its attacks.

[JaxGaret]

I have one thing to say to that.

GOJIRAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Blast you for beating me to that!!

[kamikasei]

They've downsized things somewhat. Instead epic level creatures doing things like time travel, they can do 2d8+10 damage and daze you. It does have 478 hp though. Have fun calculating how long it would take for 2 of them to kill each other, given that its defenses are about 10 higher than its attacks.

That means it's got about a 50-50 chance of hitting its own defenses, which is exactly what it should have, surely? And remember, it's a controller, so its job is to apply those slows, dazes, and weakenings from range or in quick in-and-out attacks ("the phane shifts 4 squares before or after making this attack") while its minions/henchcreatures do the job of taking your hitpoints out behind the woodshed.

[Draz74]

This is my favorite part of it. Really shows that they are encouraging DMs to take more freedoms and not use the same old monster over and over again..

Only, it kind of undermines what they've said about, "fighting different kinds of monsters actually feels different, because they have simple special abilities that really define and make a big difference in their specific fighting styles."

[RTGoodman]

Also, check out this excerpt on a new creature, also released today:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418b

It may just be me, but that thing's freakin' awesome. I mean, even if it's just fluff, the target of its abilities appearing elderly while under the effects of its attacks is just cool.

Also, hooray for the Tarrasque looking really cool!

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

On the one hand, I really like that almost every power at higher levels has status conditions attached to damage in ways that look like they could be fun to play.

On the other hand the 400 odd HP, and to hits that look like about half the time are slightly scary. Maybe monsters are just designed to die slowly and do damage slowly. But if that's comparable in both accounts to PCs of that level, fights are going to take a long long time.

I also like that it incorporates time powers into combat without making them a blatant I win button. Maybe they have a ritual that takes ten minutes that allows them to go back in time.

Based on their fluff I see no reason why Phanes, even presented with a combat they might lose, would be able to go back and kill the person attacking them. It seems more like they wander through time then have any concrete direction to go back and kill current threats to them.

[Starsinger]

Hmm. So a controller monster has little chance of killing anything on its own? I like it. It gives them a very strategist feel, as strategists aren't generally competant fighters on their own. (Unless we're talking about Dynasty/Samurai warriors)

And it also presents PCs with the decision "Do we kill the controller because I'm tired of being slowed and weakened, or do we kill the mooks, since the Phane doesn't really hurt on his own?"

[Rutee]

Right, well, WoW sucks - I play EQ2. However it's easier to ignore people in MMOs.
NOt really, but that's not the issue. The issue is that every MMO has lots, and lots, of stupid people. Every place does


Every time a new thread about 4e starts, it starts off with people going "wow, that's cool" then the inevitable same people arrive on the scene to tell everyone how they have dumbed down D&D, ruined everything and that the sky is falling.
THis is why you need more Hot Blood. Just stop paying attention to the stupid complaints. Focus on the interesting comments.


I suppose to be fair, I shouldn't say that I hate D&D, I just hate the people who have effectively destroyed my desire to play it anymore. Through their repeated memetics, they 'infected' a third of my player base who in turn subverted another third by intentionally sabotaging efforts to get the group to convert to 4e.

So fight back. Win them back over with charisma, understanding, and the socratic method. If that doesn't work, attempt to brute force a play at level 1, and say it's a D20 third party supplement :P


Hmm. So a controller monster has little chance of killing anything on its own? I like it. It gives them a very strategist feel, as strategists aren't generally competant fighters on their own. (Unless we're talking about Dynasty/Samurai warriors)
Aw come on, you don't think Bishy Liang should be able to whack people with his fan? :P

The main trouble I ahve with that is if someone plays a game with the PCs in the monster roles, I suppose, which shouldn't be a primary focus of the game in any case. I dislike the idea of Contollers being incapable of acting on their own.

[Bleen]

They still are level 26. As to their time-traveling abilities, I wonder if this is a further hint that we're just not seeing out-of-combat powers in these entries? Or perhaps the designers thought, "okay, it can travel back in time. But if it does, you'll always have been defeated before you fought it. So we're not going to bother statting that..."

Well, yeah, they're still on the same power level. By 'epic' I meant 'Part of that effing retarded and broken post-level-20 system of handling things in 3.5e'.

Not that I hold epic rules against 3.5e. I always considered them a really bad supplement. Like Incarnum.

Old Phanes weren't really playable because they were way too ridiculously powerful, and hard to understand on top of that. Adding time travel to things gets confusing. Really confusing.

[Jerthanis]

Whoa, the Tarasque looks a lot more quadrupedal than I usually envision it. Still pretty cool though. I think tusks would be cooler than those crown horns, but I shouldn't really complain.

Monsters and Traps seem to be shaping up to be my #1 and #2 reasons to make the switch, because they seem to be kind of awesome so far. Of course, in my group one regular DM is going to stubbornly refuse to switch, a second has a track record of making every single villain, villain group and non-one-off encounter consist of Humans with class levels.

[Draz74]

Not that I hold epic rules against 3.5e. I always considered them a really bad supplement. Like Incarnum.

What's wrong with Incarnum?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Hmm. So a controller monster has little chance of killing anything on its own? I like it. It gives them a very strategist feel, as strategists aren't generally competant fighters on their own.

Oh right, Controller types. Totally forgot about the whole types thing. Well then I guess I withdraw my earlier assertion of coolness, and my earlier assertion of way to freaking long combats.

Back to the drawing board.

@Rutee

I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to win people over to 4E. Since the only thing I've ever seen him post here in my entire duration has been condescending and misleading posts about how horrible people are who don't like every aspect of 4E.

[Rutee]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to win people over to 4E. Since the only thing I've ever seen him post here in my entire duration has been condescending and misleading posts about how horrible people are who don't like every aspect of 4E, I think that's all he really wants, is to make other people miserable in peace.

I'm pretty sure he wants to win his players over.

[Bleen]

What's wrong with Incarnum?
It's confusing, mostly.
Though, really, nothing is unplayable or bad when put next to Tome of Magic. At least you can use Incarnum to make characters that are fun to play if you bother learning it.

[Artanis]

taking your hitpoints out behind the woodshed.
This is quite possibly the most awesomest version of this expression ever.






Edit: addendum
I'm gonna have to find a copy of Magic of Incarnum (or whatever the book's called) sometime. It's always looked kinda interesting, and became doubly so after I saw somebody say that it was a loophole in VoP.

[Duke of URL]

Analysis

The article presents four approaches to customizing monsters.

1) Increase or Decrease Level

Very simple, uniform method. Some may find it too simple while others will like the ease with which it can be done. Not altogether different from advancing monsters by HD in 3rd edition, but more straightforward because there's no need to calculate BAB, saves, HP, feats, and skills by type (and/or subtype) based on HD changes.

Most importantly, this makes it significantly easier to reduce the levels of monsters from their default, which really wasn't designed in as a feature for 3rd edition.

2) Add Equipment

I hate to sound rude about it, but honestly... duh. This is nothing peculiar to 4th edition, and the article lacks guidelines for how adding equipment will affect monster level; instead it just warns that it can happen if you go overboard.

The magic threshold doesn't bother me at all, honestly. It's essentially an abstraction that has always existed, they're just making it explicit now.

3) Cosmetic

I'm back to "duh" again. Pretending to be able to make things that function very much the same "look" different is actually one of the concerns I have about 4th edition in general. That aside, what DM doesn't already do this for players who unconsciously or not let their metagame knowledge take over?

4) Templates

On the whole, I see little change from 3rd edition here. They're basically as straightforward to apply, although with somewhat different content. The exception would be templates that change the creature's base type, which always caused a little more work. What's gone are level adjustments and CR adjustments, replaced by 1 template making a common monster "elite" and two making it "solo". Given how screwy the CR system in 3.5 is, this is probably an improvement.

Other Notes

Interesting to note that undead no longer have a higher HD and do have CON scores. Not sure if it really affects anything, but it is something to note.

Armor doesn't stack with natural armor. While this may make sense in the context of the rules, it seems to be counter-intuitive to me.

Edit: Addendum

The article hints at a fifth approach, but doesn't go into detail...

5) Add Class Levels

Specifically, the article says:


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

Weren't we told that we weren't going to be able to add class levels to monsters in 4th edition? This will likely be limited to at-will and encounter-level powers only, based on the existing design philosophy.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I'm pretty sure he wants to win his players over.

I'm pretty sure if he wanted to win his Players back he would tried, and either determined it to be impossible or succeeded. In either case, it's no excuse to spend all his time on this board condescendingly lying about what other people think.

[Starsinger]

Aw come on, you don't think Bishy Liang should be able to whack people with his fan? :P

Oh, quite the contrary, I heart Bishi Liang and his fan and energy blasts of doom.

[RukiTanuki]

Wait, I think I've figured it out. "Magic threshold" is just shorthand for "how much of the PC's defenses and attacks we expect to come from magic items at this level."

"Magic threshold", specifically takes into account the fact that the PCs have magic items and the monster does not. In and of itself, this number doesn't represent any in-game quality to the monster. It's not some superpower they have that lets them imitate magic items. It does, however, serve a very nice purpose in game mechanics: If you take away the magic weapons and armor the PC is expected to have at that level, and subract the "magic threshhold" from the monster's innate abilities, the fight will proceed almost exactly the same. The monster will hit and be hit as often as before.

So, magic threshold is the number you can move up and down for high-magic/low-magic/no-magic campaigns and still expect a roughly equivalent level of difficulty from each monster. If you're handing a monster a +2 flaming greatsword because you specifically want to add +2 to its attacks and nothing else, then proceed; no one's stopping you. If you're adding that item so that the fighter can claim it as his own, then the book's recommending you reduce the bonus (by effectively choosing the better of the magic item's bonus and the magic threshold) so that the impact is lessened. This has a nice side-effect: if the weapon's slightly worse than expected for a PC of this level, it has no impact on combat. If the weapon's slightly better than expected, the PC will face a monster with relatively improved attacks.

Overall, I notice that these rules seem to say "here's changes we recommend, and here's the level/difficulty of the resulting monster, according to the meter we're using in the MM." You're not prevented from doing otherwise, but you won't be taking advantage of 4th Edition's "this is the first time we're actually making sure the numbers work out ahead of time" stat-balancing, so as with changing individual monster stats in previous editions, your mileage may vary. :)

[Jasdoif]

When I saw the magic threshold thing, what came to mind was that it will be totally ineffective to give monsters "cheap" gear that helps them out but isn't of any use for the PCs outside of carting it away and selling it. Now, if you want to give gear to a powerful monster to enhance it, it has to be powerful gear, and thus likely to be valuable for the PCs as well.

[Draz74]

It's confusing, mostly.
Though, really, nothing is unplayable or bad when put next to Tome of Magic. At least you can use Incarnum to make characters that are fun to play if you bother learning it.

Ah. Yes, I can see "high bookkeeping" being a valid complaint about Incarnum. I've just heard good things about it other than that, and wondered if you had a valid dissenting opinion.

As for ToM ... yeah. Definitely takes some work to make those characters play fun, unless you're in a low-powered horror campaign where the Binder is the most powerful allowed class.


Analysis
The article hints at a fifth approach, but doesn't go into detail...

5) Add Class Levels
[snip] Weren't we told that we weren't going to be able to add class levels to monsters in 4th edition? This will likely be limited to at-will and encounter-level powers only, based on the existing design philosophy.

What it sounds like to me is that, for each Class, there will be a special Template. You can't make an "Ogre with 7 Ranger levels," you can just make an "Ogre Ranger" by taking an Ogre and adding the "Ranger Template" to it. Which will probably make it Elite, just like other templates would. So this is really just a subset of Option 4.

... but it actually sounds pretty cool. If they can make monster versions of each class, as templates, that scale well and really give you the flavor of the class in a nutshell, I'll be very impressed. Suddenly, it becomes so easy to make a Beholder Mage, or an Ogre Mage, or a Goblin High Priest of the Dark One, or a Naga Warlock, or a Young Blue Dragon Rogue ... the possibilities are endless and sweeeet.

[Artanis]

that, for each Class, there will be a special Template. You can't make an "Ogre with 7 Ranger levels," you can just make an "Ogre Ranger" by taking an Ogre and adding the "Ranger Template" to it. Which will probably make it Elite, just like other templates would. So this is really just a subset of Option 4.
Like I said before, you can make an "Ogre with 7 Ranger levels".

Now, there might also be a "Ranger Template", but just adding Ranger levels to it IS still an option.



Edit: just saw this bit...

Weren't we told that we weren't going to be able to add class levels to monsters in 4th edition? This will likely be limited to at-will and encounter-level powers only, based on the existing design philosophy.
It's EE and his sycophants who have been saying that, not WotC. In fact, WotC said the OPPOSITE, even giving an example of adding PC class levels to monsters!

[tyckspoon]

Analysis

Weren't we told that we weren't going to be able to add class levels to monsters in 4th edition? This will likely be limited to at-will and encounter-level powers only, based on the existing design philosophy.

No. That was never more than FUD. We have been told that the default way of advancing a monster would not be with class levels, and we have been told that there won't be as many monsters that are set up to be usable as PC races. All that means is that if you want to advance a monster with specific class levels instead of generic levels as detailed in the article, it won't have access to the special racial feats and benefits that PC races can choose.

[Oslecamo]

For those people who keep saying noncombat abilities of the monsters are being kept separate from the combat stats:

Notice that the lich has a phylactry ritual mentioned wich will ressurect him 1d10 days, however this is precisely the kind of thing that falls out of battle powers. The lich having or not used the ritual will not affect in any way the battle itself.

The vampire, on the other hand, can transform itself into a fog up to one hour, but since it can't attack when he does so, I would say it falls on the noncombat power list, giving the DM a way of making the vampire escape from the party(or aproach it stealthly).

Also, the succubus had the self changing power, wich is the kind of thing she wants to use before the battle starts and not during the battle, clearly a noncombat ability.

I think this is proof that if we don't see noncombat powers for a monster, then it's indeed because the monster doesn't have oficial noncombat powers. That or the preview guys decided to randomly censor powers from the monsters, wich I think it's highly unlikely.

On the sugestion of changing monster's apearance

I LOVE IT! And even if I don't play 4e, I will surely use this in 3.X. One of the biggest problems with 3.X is the blatant metagaming going around. Players see a monster, and instead of fighting it they grab their books and jump onto the net in search of it's weack points so they can exploit them.

This way player's will have to rely more on their own skill and guts to win the ecounter than win easily because they know all the monster numbers and powers and how to bypass them.

Just my 2 cents.

[hamishspence]

Paizo suggested appearance alterations in an earlier Dungeon magazine, but a good idea is a good idea no matter who thought of it first.

[JaxGaret]

Like I said before, you can make an "Ogre with 7 Ranger levels".

Now, there might also be a "Ranger Template", but just adding Ranger levels to it IS still an option.

It's EE and his sycophants who have been saying that, not WotC. In fact, WotC said the OPPOSITE, even giving an example of adding PC class levels to monsters!

Where exactly is this example? Can you link to it?

[Reinboom]

For those people who keep saying noncombat abilities of the monsters are being kept separate from the combat stats:

Notice that the lich has a phylactry ritual mentioned wich will ressurect him 1d10 days, however this is precisely the kind of thing that falls out of battle powers. The lich having or not used the ritual will not affect in any way the battle itself.

The vampire, on the other hand, can transform itself into a fog up to one hour, but since it can't attack when he does so, I would say it falls on the noncombat power list, giving the DM a way of making the vampire escape from the party(or aproach it stealthly).

Also, the succubus had the self changing power, wich is the kind of thing she wants to use before the battle starts and not during the battle, clearly a noncombat ability.

I think this is proof that if we don't see noncombat powers for a monster, then it's indeed because the monster doesn't have oficial noncombat powers. That or the preview guys decided to randomly censor powers from the monsters, wich I think it's highly unlikely.

I believe you are hanging too much on the 'combat abilities' line. Consider them encounter abilities instead.

The succubus can enter combat shape changed, before -any- interaction with the player's. If a DM goes "Oh, hey, this would be a great place to just throw in a succubus" spontaneously, the fact that the succubus can be something else first is important to the encounter.
Escaping an encounter is something I would even outright declare as a 'combat ability', let alone just for the encounter. It's a defensive mechanism that would need to be brought up 'end' battle. Combat is more than just the middle of it, it's the beginning and the end of it as well. This is also important for an encounter on a whole, it allows you to 'meet a fog' first.

The Lich thing.. I can only think of weak reasons why it would fit this logic however. The phylactery being significant to the encounter itself, that is, if it is to be worn by the lich. It's more or less just a regeneration with a very long delay.

[Artanis]

Where exactly is this example? Can you link to it?
It's in one of the dev's blogs. Give me a little while to poke around and see if I can find a link.

[JaxGaret]

It's in one of the dev's blogs. Give me a little while to poke around and see if I can find a link.

Thanks Artanis :smallsmile:

[Tren]

... but it actually sounds pretty cool. If they can make monster versions of each class, as templates, that scale well and really give you the flavor of the class in a nutshell, I'll be very impressed. Suddenly, it becomes so easy to make a Beholder Mage, or an Ogre Mage, or a Goblin High Priest of the Dark One, or a Naga Warlock, or a Young Blue Dragon Rogue ... the possibilities are endless and sweeeet.

I don't believe the monster "templates" or class options are based that closely on PC options. I was under the impression that there would be monster progressions along role lines like striker and "controller. I remember them mentioning in one developer blog two distinct types of defenders, the Brute which would be like an ogre, big and tough with lots of HP, and another one more focused on higher defenses and being harder to hit.

[Oslecamo]

SweetRein


Ah, but remember the pit fiend. In 3.5 it was loaded with several utility powers like invisibility, persistent image, greater teleport and create undead, wich could be used pre battle or as an escape mean.

The 4e pit fiend, however, has none of those. He flies and he can teleport 10 feet per round. Nothing more. If he meets the party, it will be flying or walking from someplace, no illusions, no invisibility, no appearing from nowhere.

Also, should the pit fiend start losing and need to escape(like said in the description), the only way he could do this would again be by his own feets or wings, while the 3.5 pit fiend would simply disapear in thin air.

Other people replied those kind of things(teleport, invisibility) were noncombat powers and thus would be kept out of the main monster stats.

However, the vampire and sucubus have both powers wich are clearly intended to be used either before the battle for preparation or to escape it, and they're in the main monster stats.

So, I would say that the pit fiend doesn't have any hidden utility powers. Or that new cool monster wich ages down people for the matter, since some people were sugesting maybe he had some rital wich would allow him to travel in time.

[RTGoodman]

What it sounds like to me is that, for each Class, there will be a special Template. You can't make an "Ogre with 7 Ranger levels," you can just make an "Ogre Ranger" by taking an Ogre and adding the "Ranger Template" to it. Which will probably make it Elite, just like other templates would. So this is really just a subset of Option 4.

Yeah, I sort of imagined this, too. I mean, the big difference between classes in 4E, mechanically, is the powers to which they have access. Making a monster into, for instance, an Ogre Ranger, probably entails little more than maybe upping its level and giving it a few powers from the Ranger list. So, it's not really a set template, and instead could allow for a lot of customization even among all Ogre Rangers or whatnot.

[Artanis]

Found one. (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=37096&pagemode=2&blogid=8838) It's not quite the specific one I was looking for, but it still does the same thing by mentioning a Gnoll Warlock NPC :smallwink:

[Oslecamo]

Found one. (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=37096&pagemode=2&blogid=8838) It's not quite the specific one I was looking for, but it still does the same thing by mentioning a Gnoll Warlock NPC :smallwink:

It doesn't say it's a gnoll with 8 warlock levels. It says it's a 8th level gnoll warlock.

We already know that there are gnoll monsters over a big range of levels.

Who says it isn't simply a gnoll improved to level 8 and then tackled with the warlock template?

[Rutee]

The Class Levels comment came from the podcast on monsters in the first place. Also, seriously, Oslecamo, if you want to play that game.

Who said it's an 8th Level Gnoll with the Warlock template? It could be a Gnoll with 8 Class Levels.


Honestly, what is wrong with you people? NPCs and PCs function on the same rules foundations as each other. If it bothers you that much, Use PC Rules for NPCs. This is not the massive paradigm shift you seem to be using it as. It just means NPCs have streamlined advancement.

[Oslecamo]

The Class Levels comment came from the podcast on monsters in the first place. Also, seriously, Oslecamo, if you want to play that game.

Who said it's an 8th Level Gnoll with the Warlock template? It could be a Gnoll with 8 Class Levels.


Honestly, what is wrong with you people? NPCs and PCs function on the same rules foundations as each other. If it bothers you that much, Use PC Rules for NPCs. This is not the massive paradigm shift you seem to be using it as. It just means NPCs have streamlined advancement.

We know the first one is possible. The second is speculation so far.

About using PC rules for NPCs.

PCs are now meant to be much stronger than enemies. So, if you send a NPC with PC rules against the party it will wreck havoc on it

Especially becaue of daily powers. Those things are nasty, and a NPC has little reasons to hold them back.

Also PCs get healing surges, but NPCs with healing surges will have their full supply and again no reason to hold them back during battle, making the battle take quite a lot of time.

Finally, I'm sure certain monster abilities aren't suposed to be combined with certain PC abilities. There is lots of combo potential out there.

A PC is stronger than normal monsters, more or less same power as elites but less HP than those. This would make a NPC with PC rules worth how much exp again?

For someone so worried about balance, you're surely jumping straight ahead wanting to attack the party with his own weapons.

[Rutee]

PCs are now meant to be much stronger than enemies. So, if you send a NPC with PC rules against the party it will wreck havoc on it
/quote]
Wait, /whaaat/? NPCs are meant to come in groups now, like the PCs. The statistical difference is not the vast gulf you seem to paint it as. The big difference is the number of Encounter and Day powers PCs have.

[quote]
Finally, I'm sure certain monster abilities aren't suposed to be combined with certain PC abilities. There is lots of combo potential out there.

So don't, if there's that big a problem. It's no different from a Wizard not playing Batman, even though they know how to do it.


Also PCs get healing surges, but NPCs with healing surges will have their full supply and again no reason to hold them back during battle, making the battle take quite a lot of time.
Don't give them HEaling Surges or Dailies then.

What the hell is this? You can identify problems but can't offer simple solutions? The hardest problem on there to tweak is the exp, and /we don't have the exp guidelines/, so that /should/ be the hardest.

Edit: Oh right,t he Balance kick. Balance only matters between PCs. PCs and NPCs don't have to be balanced, ever. I don't expect them to be. That's like saying DnD is Imba. because the Tarrasque can only die to Wish/Miracle.

[JaxGaret]

Found one. (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=37096&pagemode=2&blogid=8838) It's not quite the specific one I was looking for, but it still does the same thing by mentioning a Gnoll Warlock NPC :smallwink:

They've already stated that gnolls are one of the monsters that will have monster-as-PC stats, so that's not informative.

AFAICT, the vast majority of monsters won't be playable as PCs in 4e. Let me know if you find a link that states otherwise.

[Artanis]

It's still an NPC using PC class levels, which is what the point of contention was.

[JaxGaret]

It's still an NPC using PC class levels, which is what the point of contention was.

I wasn't part of whatever point of contention you are talking about.

AFAIK 4e will not support monsters-as-PCs nearly as much as 3e did. I'm looking for evidence to the contrary, and so far I have found none.

[Rutee]

3e supports monsters as PCs? That's quaint.

[Reinboom]

Oslecamo
(Replying with just bolds, I like it, :smalltongue: )

I wasn't one of those people then. Really not now, either, since I don't care either way. I just enjoy thinking of possible outcomes and situations that WotC might be pulling, not living to them.
Aside..

Skipping everything else.. Greater Teleport. Greater Teleport on nearly every devil annoys me, and I remove it/ignore it. And I believe so do many other DMs.
Greater Teleport does add tactics to the Balor, sure, but in quite a ridiculous manor in that those tactics are too blatant, too easy. The strategy that you can pull from it are trumped by itself. "How should I enter and escape? Greater Teleport, of course." instead of forcing it to make a decision. To me it even breaks the verisimilitude of things slightly, further than what the system already does that is, by creating an effect of "why not?". You can have an incredible amount of wartime superiority by just having a mass of devils greater teleport (note, this is -greater- teleport, no failure, no distance check other than planar ones) in order to surround and remove legions or groups quickly. It would make since for them to.

On the other side of things, the simple fact that it existed at all provides a huge requirement to party structure. You -need- a prime spellcaster that can dimensional anchor or dimensional lock in a lot of cases. Your rogue is going to run out of the scrolls of it. I don't like making something a required if it is for a whole block of monsters. If it's for a single creature, great, but for nearly every devil? That's way too general for such a strict requirement in my opinion.

The rest of the pit fiend? Well, that's a lot of simplification, and quite a bit of a vision change for the pit fiend. It's definitely a different monster. Also, whoever said invisibility is a strictly noncombat power should be thrown nude in a pleasure house that is set up against their interests.

Either way, however, most of the previews are not showing any out of combat abilities, Lich's phylactery aside.
--| Actually, now that I think about it. The Lich isn't a 'monster entry'. Of course it would have the out of combat abilities with it, it's a template entry, all the information about it is presented there.
Since the previews aren't showing any, it is a wise assumption that they are handled elsewhere OR that wizards has royally screwed up (it's bad to assume one or the other is a definite) and that monsters that don't have their 3.5e in combat abilities are simply changed.

[JaxGaret]

3e supports monsters as PCs? That's quaint.

Yes, it does. With a bit of houseruling it works quite well, actually.

AFAICT, it seems like it will take a fair bit more (or maybe even a lot more) houseruling to get to the same point in 4e.

[Reel On, Love]

I wasn't part of whatever point of contention you are talking about.

AFAIK 4e will not support monsters-as-PCs nearly as much as 3e did. I'm looking for evidence to the contrary, and so far I have found none.

Let's go through the MM.

Aboleth? Nope. Achaierai? Nope. Astral Deva? Yes, but at LA +8, who'd play one? Planetar? Nope. Solar? No. Animated Object? No. Ankheg? No. Aranea? Yes. Lantern Archon? No. Hound Archon? Yes. Trumpet Archon? Yes (but at LA +8, etc). Arrowhawk? No. Assassin Vine? No. Athach? Yes. Avoral? No. Azer? Yes. Barghest? No. Greater Barghest? No. Basilisk? No. Abyssal Greater Basilisk? No. Behir? No. Belker? No. Blink Dog? No. Bodak? No. Bralani? No. Bugbear? Yes. Bulette? No. Centaur? Yes. Chaos Beast? No. Chimera? No. Choker? No. Chuul? No. Cloaker? No. Cockatrice? No. Couatl? Yes, but at +7, etc. Darkmantle? No. Delver? No. Babau? No. Balor? No. Bebilith? No. Dretch? Yes. Glabrezu? No. Hezrou? Yes. Marilith? No. Nalfeshnee? No. Quasit? No. Retriever? No. Succubus? Yes. Vrock? Yes. Devourer? No. Digester? No. Any of the dinosaurs? No. Any of the dire animals? No. Doppelgangers? Yes.

Enough of that, it's boring.

Your evidence is that most 3E monsters aren' playable, either. And that's officially--most of the ones that are technically "playable" are just plain impossible to make into *viable* characters... and can't be played at all below a certain (typically high) level. Some just don't get played, period--has anyone EVER made an Athach PC for their ECL 19+ game? Anyone? No, I didn't think so.

Monsters will probably be about as playable in 4E. They weren't playable for the most part in the 3.5 MM, and even the ones that had an official level adjustment were effectively unplayable. Making 4E monsters into viable PCs should be easier, not harder, although it will take up more room if you have to write racial powers for them. What I'd do is give them racial powers of various appropriate levels they could take instead of class powers--they'd be multiclassed Class/[Race], basically. Don't include any powers that would be ridiculous.

[Artanis]

The problem with THAT is the definition of "support". Technically, there will be fewer monsters that can be played as PCs, but effectively there will be more (or the same at the very least) because the 3e system for using monster PCs simply did not work the vast majority of the time. 4e monsters might be officially unplayable, but 3e monsters that were effectively unplayable were still unplayable, like is noted above.


Edit: Ninja'd :smallfrown:


Edit 2:

Yes, it does. With a bit of houseruling it works quite well, actually.

AFAICT, it seems like it will take a fair bit more (or maybe even a lot more) houseruling to get to the same point in 4e.
Houseruling in 3e? Like what, totally ignoring RAW? Good effing luck getting something with 6 racial HD and a +5 LA to work at level 1 using anything even remotely resembling RAW. By the time you shoehorn something like a Hound Archon - one of the more playable "out there" monsters, mind you - into a low-level game, you might as well have created an entirely new creature.

As for 4e, the monsters that you can play as characters are usable instantly. No houseruling, nothing. Just look at the "use as PC" stats and use them like any other race.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Jax is talking about adding class levels to your monsters, which is very easy, not actually playing them as PCs.

As that is the question under discussion: Can you advance monsters by adding PC levels? I believe that is his point. And so far (IE pretty much just based off of this temple and a smattering of design comments) it looks like that may not be an option, replaced by Class templates. Which may or may not be very similar.

[JaxGaret]

Houseruling in 3e? Like what, totally ignoring RAW?

Well, yes, that's what houseruling is :smallsmile:


Good effing luck getting something with 6 racial HD and a +5 LA to work at level 1 using anything even remotely resembling RAW. By the time you shoehorn something like a Hound Archon - one of the more playable "out there" monsters, mind you - into a low-level game, you might as well have created an entirely new creature.

There actually is a savage progression for the Hound Archon in Savage Species, if you really want to play one from level 1.

Many would disagree with having a "level 1 Hound Archon" though, if their fluff is that Hound Archons are created with their abilities fully formed. The same goes for other monsters - playing a Giant from level 1 who isn't a child seems ludicrous to me, yet if Giants are a playable race in 4e, then they must be so.

My guess is that playing a Giant-as-PC just won't be an option in 4e, but I may be wrong.


As for 4e, the monsters that you can play as characters are usable instantly. No houseruling, nothing. Just look at the "use as PC" stats and use them like any other race.

Same goes for 3e; my suggested houseruling is simply to balance races with LA to races without it, as WotC hit monsters-as-PCs with the big bad nerfbat a little too hard, in an attempt to keep the core races as the primary option for players.

Let's see if they do the same thing in 4e.

Also, the percentage of monsters that will be playable in 4e seems like it will be far smaller than the same percentage in 3e. We shall see if I am correct when the books actually start coming out, but it sure seems that way right now.

[JaxGaret]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Jax is talking about adding class levels to your monsters, which is very easy, not actually playing them as PCs.

As that is the question under discussion: Can you advance monsters by adding PC levels? I believe that is his point. And so far (IE pretty much just based off of this temple and a smattering of design comments) it looks like that may not be an option, replaced by Class templates. Which may or may not be very similar.

No, I meant as PCs.

[Artanis]

Well, yes, that's what houseruling is :smallsmile:
I meant thoroughly, as it tossing it out wholesale rather than just tweaking it to taste :smallwink:



There actually is a savage progression for the Hound Archon in Savage Species, if you really want to play one from level 1.

Many would disagree with having a "level 1 Hound Archon" though, if their fluff is that Hound Archons are created with their abilities fully formed. The same goes for other monsters - playing a Giant from level 1 who isn't a child seems ludicrous to me, yet if Giants are a playable race in 4e, then they must be so.

My guess is that playing a Giant-as-PC just won't be an option in 4e, but I may be wrong.
Of course playing a level 1 Hound Archon is absurd...that's my point. If you want to play a Hound Archon, you need to be at least level 11, meaning that somebody can't use a Hound Archon in anything even remotely resembling a low-level game. For literally half the levels, a Hound Archon is just as unplayable as if it had no "monster-as-PC" rules at all. So in order for playing a Hound Archon to work anywhere near as well as something using 4e's "monster-as-PC" system would require incredibly drastic house-ruling to try to stuff an ECL 11 creature into an ECL 1 shell.

And Hound Archons are one of the least drastic offenders. Plenty of monsters out there start with even higher LA, even higher ECL, making them literally unplayable for the vast majority of the game and effectively unplayable for what's left. Hound Archons barely count as playable...something like an Athach might as well not have "monster-as-PC" rules because it's utterly worthless as a PC anyways. So the vast majority of the "monster-as-PC" choices in 3e might as well not be choices.

Of those that CAN be used, many still don't work as well as they would in 4e. Drow have a +2 LA in 3e, Gnolls start at ECL 3 in 3e, etc.

tl;dr version:

3e has more options, but most of them might as well not exist, and most of what's left is gimped in one way or another. 4e's "monster-as-PC" options work, and work well, but there's less of them.


Same goes for 3e; my suggested houseruling is simply to balance races with LA to races without it, as WotC hit monsters-as-PCs with the big bad nerfbat a little too hard, in an attempt to keep the core races as the primary option for players.

Let's see if they do the same thing in 4e.

Also, the percentage of monsters that will be playable in 4e seems like it will be far smaller than the same percentage in 3e. We shall see if I am correct when the books actually start coming out, but it sure seems that way right now.
I'm just trying to point out that the difference in those percentages is smaller than it seems at first glance. As an analogy:

4e is like being thirsty and being able to choose between Soda and Beer.
3e is like being thirsty and being able to choose between Soda, Milk, Water, Bleach, Drano, and Sewage.

3e has three times as many options, but half of them are options that might as well not exist.

[Rutee]

Yeah that was pretty much my point. 3e has /rules/ for using Monsters, but they /suck/. It'd be like claiming that 3e has support for social encounters based on there being rules for Diplomacy. Awful rules really aren't better support then none whatsoever.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

4e's "monster-as-PC" options work, and work well

I don't think you have any kind of real evidence for anything after the comma. For all we know, Monster as PC races could be just as gimped as LA races in 3E.

[Rutee]

I don't think you have any kind of real evidence for anything after the comma. For all we know, Monster as PC races could be just as gimped as LA races in 3E.

It is possible. But they now have the tools to level monsters /down/, and they've made a lot of racial abilities workable as feats and the like, or some such. With the two largest killers of Monster playability (Monster Hit Dice, and weak-ass SLAs unfairly curving LA up), they shouldn't be that unpossible. *Shouldn't* be. Of course, this is WotC. They can screw up anything.

[JaxGaret]

I meant thoroughly, as it tossing it out wholesale rather than just tweaking it to taste :smallwink:

Nah, the system is a bit off, but it's definitely usable.


Of course playing a level 1 Hound Archon is absurd...that's my point. If you want to play a Hound Archon, you need to be at least level 11, meaning that somebody can't use a Hound Archon in anything even remotely resembling a low-level game. For literally half the levels, a Hound Archon is just as unplayable as if it had no "monster-as-PC" rules at all. So in order for playing a Hound Archon to work anywhere near as well as something using 4e's "monster-as-PC" system would require incredibly drastic house-ruling to try to stuff an ECL 11 creature into an ECL 1 shell.

I see what you're saying... that because a Hound Archon starts at ECL11, it is effectively worth much less than a LA +1 race, because it's only usable in a smaller portion of games. That makes sense.

However, many of the monsters are way overnerfed when it comes to LA and starting ECL, so reducing that makes a lot of them more playable.


And Hound Archons are one of the least drastic offenders. Plenty of monsters out there start with even higher LA, even higher ECL, making them literally unplayable for the vast majority of the game and effectively unplayable for what's left. Hound Archons barely count as playable...something like an Athach might as well not have "monster-as-PC" rules because it's utterly worthless as a PC anyways. So the vast majority of the "monster-as-PC" choices in 3e might as well not be choices.

Yes, but the choice is still there. The option is available. 4e seems like it will shut that door. I've thought about running a campaign where all the PCs are Giants - you can do that in 3e, but you may not be able to in 4e.


Of those that CAN be used, many still don't work as well as they would in 4e. Drow have a +2 LA in 3e, Gnolls start at ECL 3 in 3e, etc.

Drow work quite well as an LA +1 race, and Gnolls work well if you drop them to LA +0, keeping the two racial HD.


3e has more options, but most of them might as well not exist, and most of what's left is gimped in one way or another. 4e's "monster-as-PC" options work, and work well, but there's less of them.

I'm just trying to point out that the difference in those percentages is smaller than it seems at first glance. As an analogy:

4e is like being thirsty and being able to choose between Soda and Beer.
3e is like being thirsty and being able to choose between Soda, Milk, Water, Bleach, Drano, and Sewage.

3e has three times as many options, but half of them are options that might as well not exist.

I see your point, but as I stated, you can fix a lot of the bad options so that they are usable, simply by fixing the LA and RHD to a reasonable amount.

It just seems to me that 3e is going to have a lot more effectively usable monsters-as-PCs options, percentage-wise.

[Vortling]

Pardon the interruption, but what's the source on the "use as PC" stats? This discussion is the first I've heard of it.

[Artanis]

Pardon the interruption, but what's the source on the "use as PC" stats? This discussion is the first I've heard of it.
You can probably find most (if not all) of it at ENWorld.


The long and the short of it is that in 4e, rather than trying to use a typical monster as a PC with an adjustment or two, they'll instead give some monsters entirely different stat blocks that are tailor-made for usage as a PC.

[Kurald Galain]

Also PCs get healing surges, but NPCs with healing surges will have their full supply and again no reason to hold them back during battle, making the battle take quite a lot of time.

Actually they do, given that you can only use one healing surge per encounter.

But I second the notion that "giving monsters equipment" and "changing the appearance of monsters" fall into the big DUH category. Not that they're bad ideas, but claiming they're the innovations of 4E is ludicrous.

[Rockphed]

Actually they do, given that you can only use one healing surge per encounter.

But I second the notion that "giving monsters equipment" and "changing the appearance of monsters" fall into the big DUH category. Not that they're bad ideas, but claiming they're the innovations of 4E is ludicrous.

I think most of that Article was actually an excerpt from the DMG. Or it was a digest of an excerpt from the DMG. Either way, if they left those two out, there would be people who would have decried them for doing so, even if they are DUH worthy. After all, if you don't explain it properly you end up with DMs who never do that because they never thought of it.

Also, they do give rules for how effective equipment is. Plus that those rules are in the DMG will make it easier to have the DMG open to that page and the MM open to whatever monster you are fiddling with, rather than having to flip back and forth between two sections of the MM.

[obliged_salmon]

Concerning monsters as PC's: maybe it's just me, but...I feel like the idea of giving you a thousand options is fairly superfluous. There's so much to be had from just the base classes and races alone. I've been playing 3e for five years now, and I've never even played a human, or a dwarf (though I did play an aasimar once). I've been a gnome twice now, but other than that, no repeats. Everybody has their thing of course, but there's a lot of variegated stuff in the basics, if you keep looking.

[Yahzi]

It's EE and his sycophants
That's Mr. Sycophant to you, bub. :smallbiggrin:

I'm a huge fan of cleaning up the mechanics. It's the best part of 3e. But I have to say my gut feeling from reading that article was not good. I think my complaint is that it all seems to focused on the encounter and not on the world.

I suppose, since we're only seeing excerpts, that could be a false impression. We'll see; or rather, you all will. I'm still playing 3.0. :smalltongue:

[Rutee]

Concerning monsters as PC's: maybe it's just me, but...I feel like the idea of giving you a thousand options is fairly superfluous. There's so much to be had from just the base classes and races alone. I've been playing 3e for five years now, and I've never even played a human, or a dwarf (though I did play an aasimar once). I've been a gnome twice now, but other than that, no repeats. Everybody has their thing of course, but there's a lot of variegated stuff in the basics, if you keep looking.

I think it's that when you slap an antagonist only label, people's interest is inherently piqued. If they have the rules up front, fewer people will probably care. About the stuff with rules at least..

[KIDS]

Because the English language sucks...do you mean "the easy ability to gain AC via a stat that happens to be INT" or "the easy ability to increase INT just happening to result in higher AC"?

Oh wooops; no I just meant that since AC seems to be Base + Armor + Shield + Dex OR Int there could be trouble adjusting to that change. For example, we all used to have Dex as armor stat, and Int as armor stat only through tough PrCs and it's a bit of a shock to have Int suddenly so much involved (to the point that you simply choose what you use for AC) in the calculation. I hope that made sense...

[Oslecamo]

What the hell is this? You can identify problems but can't offer simple solutions? The hardest problem on there to tweak is the exp, and /we don't have the exp guidelines/, so that /should/ be the hardest.

Edit: Oh right,t he Balance kick. Balance only matters between PCs. PCs and NPCs don't have to be balanced, ever. I don't expect them to be. That's like saying DnD is Imba. because the Tarrasque can only die to Wish/Miracle.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that I could use houseruling in this discussion. I tought we were discussing what wotc previewed of 4e, not what rules you could change to improve 4e to your liking(do you plan to play the game anyway?).

And we have the exp guidelines. A monster of level X is worth Y experience. Minions 1/4 of that, elites double and solos 5x. PCs don't fall on any of these categories.

And that goes against 4e ecounter philosophy, that a balanced ecounter of level Z shoulde give out W experience.


Finnally, it's precisely that kind of houseruling that is hard to make right. How much worth is a PC whitout healing surges and dailies? What about equipment? PCs are expected to have more and more equipment as the game goes on after all. How "evil" can you be with the monster-PC combinations that the ecounter is challenging but not a TPK?

Those are all answers I can only give when I see the whole material(altough we could try to do some draft with the 1st level PCs and monsters we have).

Like you said, throwing a couple batman wizards at the party can easily turn in a TPK despite being an ecounter of correct CR.

[KIDS]

More imporantly... the art preview today is the Tarrasque. It's not D&D without a tarrasque!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/4eTarrasque.jpg

I think that the Tarrasque looks incredibly awesome :smallsmile:

[EvilElitest]

Boo-Hoo; I will cry now that you have scolded me. Since you are one of the people who helped kill all my interest in D&D, I could really care less. So in a way, you have won me over to your cause. I want 4e to fail. I want D&D gone, forever. I will just play MMOs instead of D&D, then I don't have to listen to some of my players gurgle out the same tired talking points that you people get from whatever cesspit on the internet you guys write them up at.

So wait, let me get this straight

You make insulting comment, he scolds you by pointing out that it has no bearing, and now you claim to be the oppressed one.

1) Why would anyone want to convert you to their side? All you do is whine about a vast Anti 4E conspiracy, people who have nothing better to do than piss you off instead of having actual points
2) also, if you read the points it isn't irrational hatred of 4E, because the critics (at least most of them, i for one) generally have admitted both the good and the bad, just that the bad outnumbers the good
3) You can't claim whining rights when you make the first negative statement, nobody had said anything bad about 4E as of yet.
4) It isn't irrational and certainly doesn't come from a cesspool, criticism can be perfectly rational and have a real purpose. Close mindedness, fabrication of evidence, strawmen and random attacks on people border irrational far more than disliking the new direction 4E is going in
5) If people criticizing the system is enough to make you not play anymore, well then good for you. Don't make the rest of us suffer putting up with this however




Every time a new thread about 4e starts, it starts off with people going "wow, that's cool" then the inevitable same people arrive on the scene to tell everyone how they have dumbed down D&D, ruined everything and that the sky is falling.
actually, i've noticed that certain people claim of a vast anti 4E conspiracy and that everybody who disagrees with their pro 4E options are ether trolls, flamers, liars, or morons who are obviously unsuited to voicing their options.



The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
like your constant whining and attacks and expecting people to actually change their options based upon that


I suppose to be fair, I shouldn't say that I hate D&D, I just hate the people who have effectively destroyed my desire to play it anymore. Through their repeated memetics, they 'infected' a third of my player base who in turn subverted another third by intentionally sabotaging efforts to get the group to convert to 4e.
so you dislike people with different options. Well that certainly is close minded


On the subject of the post, it seems interesting, still going along with the general theme, but a slight improvement at least


It's EE and his sycophants who have been saying that, not WotC. In fact, WotC said the OPPOSITE, even giving an example of adding PC class levels to monsters!

good show, bringing me into a thread that i haven't even posted yet.
1) Sycophants? I'm not so arrogant to think that i'm running some sort of cult here. I express my option and people agree. That isn't sycophants, just people who agree with me, just like people who agree with you.
2) Exactly, on the thread where you actually made the claim about the PC classes, i countered you and you never responded. Don't use false information as evidence
3) I rather resent the claim that i am subtly controlling the massive amount of 4E hate for some sort of sick plan to destroy all good on the planent and kill babies. Don't use lies to try to prove a point. Spreading misinfomation is simply bad form

For the record the claim in question is that NPCs and PCs are inherently different.



Honestly, what is wrong with you people? NPCs and PCs function on the same rules foundations as each other. If it bothers you that much, Use PC Rules for NPCs. This is not the massive paradigm shift you seem to be using it as. It just means NPCs have streamlined advancement.
Because it is a sign of inconsistency when by default you have a bunch of NPCs who pretty much exist for scenery and combat and half a dozen guys who are super and special awesome for no given reason. Consistency should be the default, with inconsistency being the choice of the specific DM



3e supports monsters as PCs? That's quaint.

um, yeah, it is pretty evident, i mean even the MM does it. More splat book you get, more evidence of it



Yeah that was pretty much my point. 3e has /rules/ for using Monsters, but they /suck/. It'd be like claiming that 3e has support for social encounters based on there being rules for Diplomacy. Awful rules really aren't better support then none whatsoever.
Wait a second, they aren't great but they certainly aren't as bad as diplomacy. If you want to make Monester with PC classes and advance as PCs it works fine. The only problem comes with non combat classes like expert


will admire the art of the tarrasquse, but it doesn't seem to resemble the old picture. Maybe it is the angle
from
EE

[SamTheCleric]

will admire the art of the tarrasquse, but it doesn't seem to resemble the old picture. Maybe it is the angle
from
EE

Well, it shouldn't resemble the old picture... seeing as it's a new edition. New tarrasque... not old tarrasque. Just like 4e isn't 3e+, it's a new edition.

[EvilElitest]

Well, it shouldn't resemble the old picture... seeing as it's a new edition. New tarrasque... not old tarrasque. Just like 4e isn't 3e+, it's a new edition.

I don't like that attitude actually. I think a new edition shouldn't always be a totally new game, it should just bring about major changes that couldn't be done in an old edition. I'm a big fan of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Yes 3E was very broken, but i see not need to unneeded change.

The 4E ideal seems to be "New edition, change everything"
That picture is cool, but it isn't a tarrasque. It is some other cool monster. I would say ether make the old tarrasque something else, or make a new monester that look like this
from
EE

[Starsinger]

I don't like that attitude actually. I think a new edition shouldn't always be a totally new game, it should just bring about major changes that couldn't be done in an old edition.
They had one of those, pumpkin. It was called 3.5 and it still sucked, in a big way.

[EvilElitest]

They had one of those, pumpkin. It was called 3.5 and it still sucked, in a big way.

3.5 was nice in theory, it just didn't change enough. A badly handled method doesn't mean the method is bad.
from
EE

[SamTheCleric]

I don't like that attitude actually. I think a new edition shouldn't always be a totally new game, it should just bring about major changes that couldn't be done in an old edition. I'm a big fan of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Yes 3E was very broken, but i see not need to unneeded change.

The 4E ideal seems to be "New edition, change everything"
That picture is cool, but it isn't a tarrasque. It is some other cool monster. I would say ether make the old tarrasque something else, or make a new monester that look like this
from
EE

Like the attitude or not, it's the cold hard fact. Fourth Edition is a different game. It is not compatible with third edition, just like first and second edition weren't compatible with each other... or third edition. It's a remake, redone into new rules and system.

EDIT: That came off as a little jerk-y. That wasn't my intention.

[EvilElitest]

Like the attitude or not, it's the cold hard fact. Fourth Edition is a different game. It is not compatible with third edition, just like first and second edition weren't compatible with each other... or third edition. It's a remake, redone into new rules and system.

They are simply redefining things. I disagree with this method however.
from
EE

[Mewtarthio]

The 4E ideal seems to be "New edition, change everything"
That picture is cool, but it isn't a tarrasque. It is some other cool monster. I would say ether make the old tarrasque something else, or make a new monester that look like this

Are you sure? I went ahead and did a side-by-side comparison of the two:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4257/tarrasquestv1.th.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarrasquestv1.jpg)

It looks pretty much like the same monster to me. The only differences are the arrangement of the teeth (4e tarrasque has them closer to the front), the loss of that cheek spike (meh, it never looked that good anyway), the eye color (which might just be a trick of the light), the size of the jaw, the coloration of the back, and the fact that the hands have been replaced with somewhat prehensile feet (and a good thing, too: 3e tarrasque doesn't seem like he could stand up straight).

Aside from the forelimb issue, it's just a few minor cosmetic differences. Everything else is caused by the angle and lighting. To be honest, the one problem with 4e tarrasque is that, if you look at him the right way, he's vageuely reminiscent of American Godzilla. That, and he doesn't have little people at his feet running away.

[EvilElitest]

Are you sure? I went ahead and did a side-by-side comparison of the two:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4257/tarrasquestv1.th.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tarrasquestv1.jpg)

It looks pretty much like the same monster to me. The only differences are the arrangement of the teeth (4e tarrasque has them closer to the front), the loss of that cheek spike (meh, it never looked that good anyway), the eye color (which might just be a trick of the light), the size of the jaw, the coloration of the back, and the fact that the hands have been replaced with somewhat prehensile feet (and a good thing, too: 3e tarrasque doesn't seem like he could stand up straight).

Aside from the forelimb issue, it's just a few minor cosmetic differences. Everything else is caused by the angle and lighting. To be honest, the one problem with 4e tarrasque is that, if you look at him the right way, he's vageuely reminiscent of American Godzilla. That, and he doesn't have little people at his feet running away.

I did mention that the angle is a possibilty for the difference in the picture above
from
EE

[SamTheCleric]

Nice comparison. Thanks :)

[Xefas]

I miss the old 2nd edition semi-bipedal Tarrasque. Does anyone have a picture of that to show for comparison?

The semi-bipedalness of it made it seem a lot more like a badass unstoppable engine of destruction, in my opinion, whereas the more quadrupedal 3rd and 4th edition versions gave me the impression of a big scaly lizard-animal-thing; no more threatening than a Titanic (template) Lizard or Bear.

[Reinboom]

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

Marketing would love to the change the back of Magic the Gathering cards.

---

A lot of the visual representations were "broken", marketing is a huge aspect about the game. If it doesn't market well, it doesn't sell. That simple.

3.5E's tarrasque picture didn't catch my eye very much. It had a stale use of colors, and only those in the know would know to understand that it's something to fear. The only significant thing about the image is the pictures of the people below it - giving it a size representation.

For one of the more 'beloved' monsters in the books that is almost as strong as a full IP creature (beholder, etc.) for potential of delivery... that is not a good thing.
This image is an obvious collaborative effort between a skilled artist and a marketing artist (though, they may be the same person, who knows.).
The use of coloring specifically, notably the high amounts of contrast and the use of eyes as a point of interest instead of something neutral against the rest of the image makes a striking attempt at an image that would grasp at a person more so than the older image.
The image has more than just potential for being used as a visual representation.

[Starbuck_II]

PCs don't fall on any of these categories.

Player class using monsters would lagically be worth their level's worth ala Dwarf Warlord in Monster Manual.



And that goes against 4e ecounter philosophy, that a balanced ecounter of level Z shoulde give out W experience.

What?


How much worth is a PC whitout healing surges and dailies? What about equipment? PCs are expected to have more and more equipment as the game goes on after all. How "evil" can you be with the monster-PC combinations that the ecounter is challenging but not a TPK?

What? The PC can't even used his healing surges more than 1/encounter without others unless they are a Paladin/Cleric anyway.



Those are all answers I can only give when I see the whole material(altough we could try to do some draft with the 1st level PCs and monsters we have).

Like you said, throwing a couple batman wizards at the party can easily turn in a TPK despite being an ecounter of correct CR.

Batman is no longer as good as Wizard as before. His utility belt has shrunken.

[Rutee]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that I could use houseruling in this discussion. I tought we were discussing what wotc previewed of 4e, not what rules you could change to improve 4e to your liking(do you plan to play the game anyway?).
Of course. 4e /actually looks well designed/. I see no reason at this time to keep out. But it's not really using House Rules. IT's just not playing the NPCs to their full potential, which is something almost every player on these boards who DMs will do /anyway/.


And we have the exp guidelines. A monster of level X is worth Y experience. Minions 1/4 of that, elites double and solos 5x. PCs don't fall on any of these categories.[quote]
Do you know how much a monster of level 5 is worth exactly?

[quote]Those are all answers I can only give when I see the whole material(altough we could try to do some draft with the 1st level PCs and monsters we have).
Particularly since it very well could have such guidelines in the full DMG.

[Starbuck_II]

Of course. 4e /actually looks well designed/. I see no reason at this time to keep out. But it's not really using House Rules. IT's just not playing the NPCs to their full potential, which is something almost every player on these boards who DMs will do /anyway/.


And we have the exp guidelines. A monster of level X is worth Y experience. Minions 1/4 of that, elites double and solos 5x. PCs don't fall on any of these categories.
Do you know how much a monster of level 5 is worth exactly?


Particularly since it very well could have such guidelines in the full DMG.
Normal (PC?) 200
Minion 50
Elite 400
Solo 1000

So a Level 5 Warlord (non-elite) would be worth should be worth 200 Xp. Where did he get the information that PCs don't fit these categories? Obviously, PCs are not minions, EWlites, or Solos (usually): thus they are normal for Xp per level.

The XP Chart is in the PHB Lite Demo on EnWorld. It appears accurate for every monster given so far give or take 5 XP (Which is a very accurate percentage). Basically 99.0% Give or take 1 %.

[Oslecamo]

So a Level 5 Warlord (non-elite) would be worth should be worth 200 Xp. Where did he get the information that PCs don't fit these categories? Obviously, PCs are not minions, EWlites, or Solos (usually): thus they are normal for Xp per level.

No they're not. Compare the level 1 human soldier with the dwarf fighter. The dwarf fighter is considerably stronger, more versatile, tougher and best at blocking

In 4e, if you throw 4 lv 1 monsters at the party, the party is suposed to beat them whitout much sweat.

If you throw a 4 enemies with PC rules at the party, then it will be a bloodbath.

So certainly a lv1 fighter/wizard/warlock/whatever other class won't surely be worth the same exp of a single monster.

And I was talking about throwing batman wizards against the party in 3e. Of course I noticed wizards in 4e lost a lot of versatility(not that it is a bad thing).

Rutee: Notice however that normal monsters of the same level of the party are suposed to be used at their full potential and still don't pose a serious risk of TPK if the party plays well. This won't happen with NPCs

Monsters and PCs are two diferent breeds now. You don't take a kobold and give it class levels like in 3e. You have a dozen of diferent kobolds with already built in powers to fill diferent monster roles. Tank kobold, shooter kobold, skirmisher kobold, fodder kobold, mage kobold, etc, etc.

[EvilElitest]

Marketing would love to the change the back of Magic the Gathering cards.

---

A lot of the visual representations were "broken", marketing is a huge aspect about the game. If it doesn't market well, it doesn't sell. That simple.

3.5E's tarrasque picture didn't catch my eye very much. It had a stale use of colors, and only those in the know would know to understand that it's something to fear. The only significant thing about the image is the pictures of the people below it - giving it a size representation.

For one of the more 'beloved' monsters in the books that is almost as strong as a full IP creature (beholder, etc.) for potential of delivery... that is not a good thing.
This image is an obvious collaborative effort between a skilled artist and a marketing artist (though, they may be the same person, who knows.).
The use of coloring specifically, notably the high amounts of contrast and the use of eyes as a point of interest instead of something neutral against the rest of the image makes a striking attempt at an image that would grasp at a person more so than the older image.
The image has more than just potential for being used as a visual representation.
I have no problem against updating an picture of a creature, and as demonstrated, it is an update, not a total revision (I was wrong, it was the angle)

However should a creature in fact be totally different, i say nay. For example, lets look at Tielfings and Dragon born. They are just totally different creatures. If they made new creatures with different names i'd be perfectly fine, but it seems like they are simply trying to sell the common name

or if they made the art of the mindflayer to have an exoskeletons or something like that, i ceases to be what hte old creature and becomes something totally different



Monsters and PCs are two diferent breeds now. You don't take a kobold and give it class levels like in 3e. You have a dozen of diferent kobolds with already built in powers to fill diferent monster roles. Tank kobold, shooter kobold, skirmisher kobold, fodder kobold, mage kobold, etc, etc.

Which reminds me very much of a video game, monesters aren't part of the world, they exist to fight and die, even more so than 3E
from
EE

[Mewtarthio]

However should a creature in fact be totally different, i say nay. For example, lets look at Tielfings and Dragon born. They are just totally different creatures. If they made new creatures with different names i'd be perfectly fine, but it seems like they are simply trying to sell the common name

Wait, there were "Dragon Born" before 4e? I recall a few templates to represent dragon-blooded people, but not a proper race.

Regardless, I do agree with you to a certain extent. However, we have to bear in mind that the rules are completely different now, and so there's bound to be a few differences in how creatures are interpreted. What's really important is that the essential idea of the monster is perserved, and that's fairly subjective.

For instance, if 4e illithids had no psychic powers, didn't eat brains, and lived on the surface in harmony with Good-aligned humanoids, we'd all agree that something is very wrong. However, what if everything about them was unchannged, except they could no longer extract brains in combat (ie they'd have to spend, say, five uninterrupted minutes to extract a brain)? Would they still be illithids? Is the illithid a monster that can pull out your brain in the middle of combat, or just a race of psionically-empowered slavers that worship an Elder Brain?

It's the same with tieflings. Do you consider tieflings to just be people with some connection to the lower planes, people with explicit feindish heritage, or people born roughly 2-6 generations removed from a feind who possess the ability cast darkness once per day as a spell-like ability?

NB I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I'm not sure I like the whole "people with ugly weapons, red skin, horns, and short tempers" route they've gone. Mostly because it's far too un-subtle for any feind except a demon, and 4e demons don't seem the type to spawn entire races of humanoids. Still, I wouldn't say they're explicitly trying to draw people in with "name brand race recognition," since I didn't know 3e tieflings were all that popular.

[EvilElitest]

Wait, there were "Dragon Born" before 4e? I recall a few templates to represent dragon-blooded people, but not a proper race.


In 3E (races of dragon) dragon born was when a person was reborn as a dragonic version of their old race (I think after death) as part of dedication to the dragon gods.
The new guys are just a dragon race. Why not just call them Dragon Folk, or something like that.


Regardless, I do agree with you to a certain extent. However, we have to bear in mind that the rules are completely different now, and so there's bound to be a few differences in how creatures are interpreted. What's really important is that the essential idea of the monster is perserved, and that's fairly subjective.

For instance, if 4e illithids had no psychic powers, didn't eat brains, and lived on the surface in harmony with Good-aligned humanoids, we'd all agree that something is very wrong. However, what if everything about them was unchannged, except they could no longer extract brains in combat (ie they'd have to spend, say, five uninterrupted minutes to extract a brain)? Would they still be illithids? Is the illithid a monster that can pull out your brain in the middle of combat, or just a race of psionically-empowered slavers that worship an Elder Brain?
But in both the general concept is the same, just the specifics are different. For example, if Drow's darkness abilty became 5 times per day, the general them is still hte same. However if Mind Flayers are now creaturse who are spawned out people's dreams and are totally mindless, then the entire concept is something different.



It's the same with tieflings. Do you consider tieflings to just be people with some connection to the lower planes, people with explicit feindish heritage, or people born roughly 2-6 generations removed from a feind who possess the ability cast darkness once per day as a spell-like ability?

But they didn't simply slightly alter or update tielflings, they've changed everything about them. They are no longer cross breeds, they part of some ancient pact and are a proper race. They look different, act different, and inspire different feelings. Not tieflings except in name



NB I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I'm not sure I like the whole "people with ugly weapons, red skin, horns, and short tempers" route they've gone. Mostly because it's far too un-subtle for any feind except a demon, and 4e demons don't seem the type to spawn entire races of humanoids. Still, I wouldn't say they're explicitly trying to draw people in with "name brand race recognition," since I didn't know 3e tieflings were all that popular.

1. Fair enough, i found the idea of having subtle minor demonic powers really cool and niffty
2. you'd be surprised, they certainly were used in enough material to make the appearence of being very popular
from
EE

[Roderick_BR]

I don't get what utility this magic threshold is really supposed to have. If a DM wants a monster to effectively use a weapon above its level, he or she will just ignore the rule. If not, the rule doesn't apply. If it really is just a vague guideline like wealth by level, why does it have mechanical effects?
The magic threshold is actually one of the few things I'm disliking on 4e thus far. I think magic itens should have a suggested level, like MiC had, not go on a "my sword doesn't shot flames yet because I need to level up first."

Interesting take on monster customization, though. I can't wait to mess with it for a bit.

[Mewtarthio]

As far as I can tell, the threshold is just there to keep the treasure appropriate. If you give 20th-level brute a +1 sword, odds are the PCs won't have much use for the sword, but the monster will be stronger. Giving him a +5 sword, on the other hand, makes him a whole lot stronger, but it might boost his strength too much for the reward available.

Basically, think of it this way: A +5 sword is ridiculously strong at first level but only a nifty bonus at twenty-fifth. Therefore, an encounter that yeilds a +5 sword at first level should be significantly tougher (compared to one that yeilds mundane goods), while one at twenty-fifth should only be subtly harder. The weapon threshold scales the difficulty of the encounter to match the reward.

You still won't lose your ability to shoot flames. I think it's just talking about enhancement bonuses.

[HoopyFrood]

I have no problem against updating an picture of a creature, and as demonstrated, it is an update, not a total revision (I was wrong, it was the angle)

However should a creature in fact be totally different, i say nay. For example, lets look at Tieflings and Dragonborn. They are just totally different creatures. If they made new creatures with different names I'd be perfectly fine, but it seems like they are simply trying to sell the common name.


Perhaps. However, "Tieflings" and "Dragonborn" weren't well defined before. Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I'd never even heard of tiefling before the 4e buzz.
Also, when you're dealing with fantasy, the same name can mean different things. LotR Halflings are way different from their D&D counterparts. I think we should allow WotC the flexibility needed to draw the elements they need from different sources (including their own ideas) to make the best game possible.
However, I do agree with you that they can't go about changing things willy-nilly. Names should match up with common perceptions so that the system can be intuitive. That being said, I don't believe WotC are doing anything counter-intuitive with your examples.

[EvilElitest]

Perhaps. However, "Tieflings" and "Dragonborn" weren't well defined before. Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I'd never even heard of tiefling before the 4e buzz.

Tieflings are in

the MM
MMII
PLanar Handbook
Manual of the planes
MMVI
Both Fiendish Codex
Races of Destiny
That adventure book involving Loth, Demon web pits i think?

Just off the top of my head

Tieflings- Fourth through sixth generation evil outsider
Dragon born- an original race that was actually quite cool, creatures reborn as dragons.

Both of them were cool in their own way. They should have made their own new races.



Also, when you're dealing with fantasy, the same name can mean different things. LotR Halflings are way different from their D&D counterparts. I think we should allow WotC the flexibility needed to draw the elements they need from different sources (including their own ideas) to make the best game possible.
LOTRS has hobbits, very different. Also WotC can change stuff, but the source material can be similiar. Nothing annoys me more than something that doesn't resemble what it use to be




However, I do agree with you that they can't go about changing things willy-nilly. Names should match up with common perceptions so that the system can be intuitive. That being said, I don't believe WotC are doing anything counter-intuitive with your examples.

The've changed the fundementals of the races themselves into something totally new. Now if they had new names for these races, i'd be fine, Hell Folk and Dragonfolk are the most simplistic
from
EE

[Reinboom]

As far as I can tell, the threshold is just there to keep the treasure appropriate. If you give 20th-level brute a +1 sword, odds are the PCs won't have much use for the sword, but the monster will be stronger. Giving him a +5 sword, on the other hand, makes him a whole lot stronger, but it might boost his strength too much for the reward available.

Basically, think of it this way: A +5 sword is ridiculously strong at first level but only a nifty bonus at twenty-fifth. Therefore, an encounter that yeilds a +5 sword at first level should be significantly tougher (compared to one that yeilds mundane goods), while one at twenty-fifth should only be subtly harder. The weapon threshold scales the difficulty of the encounter to match the reward.

You still won't lose your ability to shoot flames. I think it's just talking about enhancement bonuses.

I don't think so at all, otherwise if it was just to keep the treasure appropriate, it would be a guideline, not a rule.
I think it's more of a tool to allow you to let the treasure be the opposite, inappropriate.
Letting you give the monty haul without increasing monster power much to a lower level.

OR, if it does effect players...
Then it allows a different scenario of letting items grow with you, perhaps.

[Rutee]

No, the Magic Threshold means that all monsters past level X are powerful enough to get a +Y bonus to attack, damage, etc, just like PCs.

Mind, I'm /pretty sure/ they've got a limit to what a character of level X can do with sword Z, where you /do/ grow into your gear, but I don't think that's the term "Magic Threshold."

[Oslecamo]

No, the Magic Threshold means that all monsters past level X are powerful enough to get a +Y bonus to attack, damage, etc, just like PCs.

Mind, I'm /pretty sure/ they've got a limit to what a character of level X can do with sword Z, where you /do/ grow into your gear, but I don't think that's the term "Magic Threshold."

It isn't only that. Magic treshold also shows the power of the equipment of the monster. It would be pretty silly if the monsters carried magic equipment everyqhere with them but never used it.

We already saw 4e magic items, and they don't have any level based abilities. The usual +X to something, and daily powers, but nothing level dependant.

EDIT:Actually, notice that we didn't see a single level dependant ability so far. They want to simplify the game, and removing level dependant effects seems to be a part of that.

[Rutee]

Last I saw, characters were incapable of using a +X item to its full potential if they weren't high enough level. If they've alterred that, so be it.

[Charity]

I have definately seen it said that rings cannot be used until paragon levels, and the magic items are each described as x level this and thats, I'd imagine the two things are related.

[Sebastrd]

...while its minions/henchcreatures do the job of taking your hitpoints out behind the woodshed.

ROFLMAO!!!

[Oslecamo]

Yes, rings can't be used untill paragon levels.

But they don't grow in power. When you reach paragon level, pop, you can use them, but they won't become more powerfull just because you reached epic level. It's no diferent from a 3e character being unable to use a scroll/wand because it's caster level isn't high enough.

Magic item levels are a diferent thing. They're guidelines to help the DM give treasure. If an item it of too low level compared to the party, probably the party has no use for it. If the item is too high level compared to the party, the DM shouldn't give it to the party or risk making them too powerfull.

[HoopyFrood]

The've changed the fundementals of the races themselves into something totally new. Now if they had new names for these races, i'd be fine, Hell Folk and Dragonfolk are the most simplistic
from
EE

I think our basic arguments agree with each other, but we have different views on what the unchangeable fundamentals of the races are.

[horseboy]

just like first and second edition weren't compatible with each other...The hardest part of converting from 1st to 2nd was deciding which 10 magic items my paladin kept. Third edition........

I miss the old 2nd edition semi-bipedal Tarrasque. Does anyone have a picture of that to show for comparison?
Here's the top of his head .http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=33164653214%208
http://mitidnd.altervista.org/Immagini/Mostri/Dsci0010.jpg Here's the statue in France. Not seeing a good pic on the net, and I gave away those books, so best I can find.

As far as the article goes, it's interesting.

[EvilElitest]

I think our basic arguments agree with each other, but we have different views on what the unchangeable fundamentals of the races are.

Alright, well lets break down what made each unique and what was the a real part of their defination as a race

Old Tielfings- Their main thing is that they are the descendants, who's great great grandfathers had relationships with demons. As of such, they are often not directly influenced by demonic powers, but are naturally inclined to evil, and have small subtle demonic traits. slightly red skin, cat eyes, filed teeth, nothing major. The point is taht they are all somewhat different and very subtle in their apperence

New Tieflings are a full blown race that were formed by a demonic pact, As a true race, they are all uniform, they all have red skin, horns, red eyes, fangs, claws and big tails with scales (along with really crappy weapons)
Apart from both being related to demons, not much in common

Dragonborn-Humans reborn as draconic beings. They vary in shapes and sizes because of what race they use to be. They old person in order to embrace their new life enters an egg and is reborn as a new being. SOme ahve breath weapons, some have wings, adn some have magic. Very cool unique people

New Dragonborn- They are dragon folk

Apart from the bare basic inspiration, they don't have anything in common and the things that made the old races unique is gone.
from
EE

[RukiTanuki]

Did anyone ever actually use the Races of the Dragon dragonborn in their campaign?

---

I don't possess the degree of "everything must be as it ever was" necessary to insist that the most important element of a tiefling is an ancestor's fiendish unlawful carnal knowledge. I'd say the important part is the whole "demon-tainted" thing, and that seems to be sticking around. Just like dragonborn (having never been used in my campaign or any campaign I've seen) stick in my mind as "dragon face, humanoid body," like every other half-dragon or dragonkin or draconian. My players think of Orcs as green, feral-looking, and prone to aggression; it's not central to their perception that Orcs are demon-blooded, or former Elves, etc., and I can tweak those elements without clashing with their expectations.

But then, I've noticed a pretty big swath of opinions around here about which elements of D&D are important and must never change, and which can be flexible lest the game get stagnant. As they're all just that (opinions) I'm not about to get in an unnecessary grapple about which is better. :)

[Wolfwood2]

Old Tielfings- Their main thing is that they are the descendants, who's great great grandfathers had relationships with demons. As of such, they are often not directly influenced by demonic powers, but are naturally inclined to evil, and have small subtle demonic traits. slightly red skin, cat eyes, filed teeth, nothing major. The point is taht they are all somewhat different and very subtle in their apperence

New Tieflings are a full blown race that were formed by a demonic pact, As a true race, they are all uniform, they all have red skin, horns, red eyes, fangs, claws and big tails with scales (along with really crappy weapons)
Apart from both being related to demons, not much in common

Looks about the same to me. In both cases, they are people whose ancestors had relationships were fiends. That the relationship was business rather than sexual doesn't seem that relevant. It's still passed on by heredity. (And even in 3E, a lot of people interrupted tieflings as people whose ancestors had been in some way corrupted by fiendish power, rather than necessarily literal crossbreeds.)

As for appearance, the biggest thing is the addition of the tail. Everything else is a matter of degree and interpretation.


Dragonborn-Humans reborn as draconic beings. They vary in shapes and sizes because of what race they use to be. They old person in order to embrace their new life enters an egg and is reborn as a new being. SOme ahve breath weapons, some have wings, adn some have magic. Very cool unique people

New Dragonborn- They are dragon folk

Admittedly, here they just ripped off the name. But oldschool Dragonborn were just one of literally hundreds of obscure PC races introduced in one supplement or another. Why not rip off the name?

[obliged_salmon]

I guess if you don't want DnD to turn into a video game, then Final Fantasy is a bad comparison here, but all FF games have a Bahamut, Leviathan, Cid, etc. Each game uses them in different contexts, different art, different backgrounds.

If DnD changed the way vampires worked, would it be problematic? There are so many different sources of vampire mythos that you probably wouldn't even notice a drastic change from one paradigm to another within a given series of fantasy works.

That being said, tieflings and dragonborn are supposed to be different in 4.0. That doesn't mean they have to be, in your campaign, and it doesn't mean that they're less interesting now. It's an expansion of the races' mythos, not a limitation.

[EvilElitest]

Looks about the same to me. In both cases, they are people whose ancestors had relationships were fiends. That the relationship was business rather than sexual doesn't seem that relevant. It's still passed on by heredity. (And even in 3E, a lot of people interrupted tieflings as people whose ancestors had been in some way corrupted by fiendish power, rather than necessarily literal crossbreeds.)

What, no

3E tieflings aren't a true race so much as cross breeds, or rather the product of cross breeds. new tieflings are an actually race, like Drow more than anything else. tainted creatures by a long past event, they are not a proper race that isn't exactly tied to their heritage any more. They have demonic roots, but that is it, the thing that makes tieflings unique is gone.


As for appearance, the biggest thing is the addition of the tail. Everything else is a matter of degree and interpretation.
What? I'm confused. 3E tieflings were basically normal humans with minor subtle differences, often one or two demonic traits. All of them were different

one might have fangs, and cat eyes

Another might have scales, and a small uselss tail

One might have cloven feet

One might have a forked tongue and pointed eyes

What made cool were at first glance they were human, they could blend with humans, they have subtle minor inhuman traits

These new guys are uniform and totally different. There is no way they can be mistaken for human beings and they lack the subtly of their 3E counterparts. Thats fine, but they are something totally different and should share teh same name


Admittedly, here they just ripped off the name. But oldschool Dragonborn were just one of literally hundreds of obscure PC races introduced in one supplement or another. Why not rip off the name?
Because you are showing disrepect for the material when you rip of the name. What if they made dwarves a racek of ghosts, but called them all dwarves? What if Vampires weren't the creatures we know and love, but instead mindless monesters with fangs that happen to drink blood, but have no other qualities. Dragon born were a unique race that could easily be updated as a an interesting PC race or monester in the next edition, ether by WotC or some other group. Why rip of the name, make a new one. It isn't very hard. It is like them calling this group draconians, even through they have nothing to do with the dragon lance race, they just have the same race. It is confusing and badly done change where we don't need any
I generally like the new races, i have some misgivings with tieflings, but generally i like these races. Why not just change their names to something orginal? Then i can use these races and the old ones exist as separate entities that i can update into my world or they can use as monsters


What if Fluffs were brought back and were now giant one eyed sharks, with lazer beams attached to their heads. Cooler, yes, but they aren't fluffs, they are something else

What if kolbolds were giant ninja bears in the next game?

What if orcs had scales and wings?

What if Bugbears were now like their old legions and more like phantom/boogie monster creatures instead of goblinoids?


WHat if hobgoblins were like fairy tale goblins?

What if elves were treents were the spirits of the dead that used trees as vessals
And Ruki, i use dragon born that way and enjoy them


And Salmon, i disilke FF for that reason, but at least the've made it clear each game is just that, a totally different game. 4E is a new edition, but they have made it goal, or at least claimed they won't change what isn't broken (Worlds and monsters under mind flayers) and this is exactly what they shouldn't be doing
from
EE

[Mewtarthio]

What if kolbolds were giant ninja bears in the next game?

The irony here is that kobolds were originally furry, dog-like goblinoids.

[EvilElitest]

The irony here is that kobolds were originally furry, dog-like goblinoids.

yeah, i know actually. In my game i call the old ones Koblins
from
EE

[Rutee]

The irony here is that kobolds were originally furry, dog-like goblinoids.

I knew I thought Suikoden stole it from DnD for a reason. The name disconnect was vast, and it'd been a long while since I'd seen DnD kobolds from older editions in forever

[Mewtarthio]

yeah, i know actually. In my game i call the old ones Koblins

Ah. Problem solved, then. Refer to any of the old-fashioned Dragonborn as, say, "Draconic Reincarnates," and any old-fashioned Tieflings as "Fiend-Blooded." The Fiend-Blooded can be represented by a homebrew feat, though you'll have to make the Draconic Reincarnates from scratch--Shouldn't be too bad, as stat blocks look to be a lot simpler in 4e (if you've already created homebrew Koblins, these guys shouldn't be much trouble). That way you can keep the flavor of the old races even though their names have been appropriated for other projects.

[EvilElitest]

Ah. Problem solved, then. Refer to any of the old-fashioned Dragonborn as, say, "Draconic Reincarnates," and any old-fashioned Tieflings as "Fiend-Blooded." The Fiend-Blooded can be represented by a homebrew feat, though you'll have to make the Draconic Reincarnates from scratch--Shouldn't be too bad, as stat blocks look to be a lot simpler in 4e (if you've already created homebrew Koblins, these guys shouldn't be much trouble). That way you can keep the flavor of the old races even though their names have been appropriated for other projects.

Not quite, because kobolds were only bears for one edtion (first). If i was around back then i'd argue for it possible, but that is over now sadly. I know I can change these races and fully intend to do so, however it doesn't change the fact that WotC is going against their creed of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" and changing the fundementals of the races.

D&D already has a legacy for these races, particularly tielfings in their setting, and now they are just pulling a recon
I can and will fix almost every problem i find in 4E. It doesn't make that not a problem

For the record, in my world it is the new races that have different names.

Dragon folk and Pact born
from
EE

[JaxGaret]

Just wanted to correct a few misconceptions here.

Tieflings in 4e are not the same as Tieflings in 3e. 4e Tieflings are humans with an infernal pact dating back thousands of years. They're actually much more similar to Hellbred (from FCII) Humans than they are to 3e Tieflings.

4e Dragonborn are not the offspring of dragons. They are their own race. They aren't even dragons, really, they're a completely separate race that was created to be servants to the dragons. AFAIK there is no interbreeding between Dragons and Dragonborn, or if there was, it would be a half-breed itself, like any other Half-Dragon.

[nagora]

Not quite, because kobolds were only bears for one edtion (first).

1ed kobolds were described as being basically small HAIRLESS goblins but (for no obvious reason) illustrated as scaly lizard/dog things with long tails. Either way, not very bear-like.

Of course, back then you customised a monster by writing down what changes you wanted and started playing. How much things have progressed - now you have to wade through pages of rules to do the same thing.

[Reinboom]

1ed kobolds were described as being basically small HAIRLESS goblins but (for no obvious reason) illustrated as scaly lizard/dog things with long tails. Either way, not very bear-like.

Of course, back then you customised a monster by writing down what changes you wanted and started playing. How much things have progressed - now you have to wade through pages of rules to do the same thing.

You still had to wade through pages of rules, it just wasn't stated before.
Silly stats having non consistent bonuses to random things.

=edit=
Of course, 1e was still less rule intensive and faster. No denying that. :smalltongue:
But I like my rules. *hugs rules*

[Trog]

I believe the reason they changed the tiefling was the same reason they nixed the half-orc from the upcoming PHB. A question of HOW a character like that could come about. (hint: may have overtones of rape.) Having a main race that was the product of the union of a human and beastie of any sort seems to be something DnD is distancing themselves from. Thus the change. Personally I'm fine with this. The less DnD angst the better.

[Charity]

Of course, 1e was still less rule intensive and faster. No denying that.
But I like my rules. *hugs rules*

I likes my time saving, *hugs freetime*
Bring back the original dogsoldier kobolds of old wooo.

[Morty]

I believe the reason they changed the tiefling was the same reason they nixed the half-orc from the upcoming PHB. A question of HOW a character like that could come about. (hint: may have overtones of rape.) Having a main race that was the product of the union of a human and beastie of any sort seems to be something DnD is distancing themselves from. Thus the change. Personally I'm fine with this. The less DnD angst the better.

The other way to solve this would be not to make Tiefling a core race. Just like they weren't core in 3ed and how half-orcs aren't core in 4ed. Instead we have a race that shares the name with 3ed Tiefling but in my eyes, lost all that made them fun.

[nagora]

The other way to solve this would be not to make Tiefling a core race. Just like they weren't core in 3ed and how half-orcs aren't core in 4ed. Instead we have a race that shares the name with 3ed Tiefling but in my eyes, lost all that made them fun.

What's all this "we have"? Who's making you move to 4e? You are allowed to vote with your feet if you're unhappy with it. That is, you know, once it actually comes out.

[Morty]

What's all this "we have"? Who's making you move to 4e? You are allowed to vote with your feet if you're unhappy with it. That is, you know, once it actually comes out.

:eyeroll: Yeah, because I'm a petty idiot who will scratch the whole system just because one race(two, in fact, but that's not the point here) doesn't appeal to him.

[nagora]

:eyeroll: Yeah, because I'm a petty idiot who will scratch the whole system just because one race(two, in fact, but that's not the point here) doesn't appeal to him.

All right, then just ignore the 4e version of the race and modify the 3e one, which is even on topic for the thread!

Plus, you're not the one scratching the whole system here, Hasbro is.

[Morty]

All right, then just ignore the 4e version of the race and modify the 3e one, which is even on topic for the thread!


It doesn't change the fact that I find both Tieflings and Dragonborn stupid. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion on this?

[nagora]

It doesn't change the fact that I find both Tieflings and Dragonborn stupid. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion on this?

Sure, I just didn't think that was the opinion you were expressing. Well, problem solved then - just drop both from your gameworld. Easy!

[RukiTanuki]

These new guys are uniform and totally different. There is no way they can be mistaken for human beings and they lack the subtly of their 3E counterparts.

I came to the conclusion that the art isn't subtle because if it were, that would emphasize the idea idea that they're just funny-looking humans. Maybe they are too funny-looking for humans, and that's what some people don't like about them. Maybe all the PHB races are funny-looking humans. I lack the inclination for philosophizing today, and I certainly lack the art training. :)



Why not just change their names to something orginal? Then i can use these races and the old ones exist as separate entities that i can update into my world or they can use as monsters


I suspect people like my players (who enjoy playing but don't read a handbook start to finish) recognize Tieflings, but would have to form new impressions of, say, the Pactkin. A player of mine playing one might make a new character if "tiefling" isn't in the PHB. If it is, but the story's different, he might keep the character, either changing the backstory ("I lied to you guys before because, face it, it sounded better,") ... or maybe he actually is the product of fiendish unlawful carnal knowledge, hiding amongst an existing cursed populace to avoid further discrimination.

It can go either way; they picked one, and I don't mind it. Others probably do mind, your mileage may vary, and the dance continues. :)



What if they made dwarves a racek of ghosts, but called them all dwarves?
What if Vampires weren't the creatures we know and love, but instead mindless monesters with fangs that happen to drink blood, but have no other qualities.
What if Fluffs were brought back and were now giant one eyed sharks, with lazer beams attached to their heads.
What if kolbolds were giant ninja bears in the next game?
What if orcs had scales and wings?
What if Bugbears were now like their old legions and more like phantom/boogie monster creatures instead of goblinoids?
WHat if hobgoblins were like fairy tale goblins?
What if elves were treents were the spirits of the dead that used trees as vessals


I'm tempted to run this game. :)


And Ruki, i use dragon born that way and enjoy them

I figured someone did, and I thought there was a likely reason why it was something that troubled you in particular. I was expecting to see at least one other mention; I guess either they're less numerous than I thought, or they stayed away from a 4e thread to avoid splash damage ... or I'm just not very visible (I'm still breaking the rules of the Internet by trying not to rile up anybody).


And Salmon, i disilke FF for that reason, but at least the've made it clear each game is just that, a totally different game. 4E is a new edition, but they have made it goal, or at least claimed they won't change what isn't broken (Worlds and monsters under mind flayers) and this is exactly what they shouldn't be doing

I'm confused. Is the problem that they're changing things, or keeping them the same? It seems like your thoughts up to this point were things that were different, but this last comment seems to say that something staying the same because it didn't feel like it needed change (mind flayers) is what's really wrong. Can you clarify?

[Fhaolan]

1ed kobolds were described as being basically small HAIRLESS goblins but (for no obvious reason) illustrated as scaly lizard/dog things with long tails. Either way, not very bear-like.

Of course, back then you customised a monster by writing down what changes you wanted and started playing. How much things have progressed - now you have to wade through pages of rules to do the same thing.

I have been told that there was a Japanese-language version of the AD&D Monster Manual (or the D&D Basic Game, I can't remember which), that due to translation and different illustrations emphasized the dog-like qualities of the Kobold to the point that the lizard-parts were dropped. There were several manga and anime produced based on this version, as they were 'replays' based on actual D&D sessions.

[JaxGaret]

Tieflings are called Tieflings in 4e because a certain subsection of D&Ders liked Tieflings in 3e, so WotC of course wanted to pander to that demographic give their customer base what they wanted.

4e Tieflings have a completely different origin from 3e Tieflings because WotC didn't think the 3e origin was as "cool" as this new 4e origin, or didn't fit in with their new base campaign setting, or is just part of the whole 4e motto of "this is a new edition, let's change lots of the fluff so it seems like things are different, even it wasn't broke to begin with or if we haven't really changed it."

The 3e Dragonborn, now that I think of it, may really just have been an art experiment so that WotC could refine how Dragonborn in 4e look (like how ToB was a mechanics experiment for 4e). The 3e Dragonborn fluff was pretty nonsensical (people go into dragon eggs and come out these weird dragon hybrid things? what?), but it makes sense for WotC to have made the fluff bad so that people wouldn't get too attached to 3e Dragonborn, thus allowing them to port it to 4e without too much trouble.

[Rutee]

Why do people keep pretending that changing race fluff is exclusive to 4e again?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Why do people keep pretending that changing race fluff is exclusive to 4e again?

No one is. Just because you comment on something that is happening doesn't mean you are making a positive statement that it's the only time that it ever happened.

You Champions of 4E need to calm down. Everytime someone says anything about 4E it's: "3.0 did the same thing!" We know. We are just making comments about what is happening right now. We don't care what happened 8 years ago, because it happened 8 years ago. We aren't claiming the end is nigh, we aren't declaring the universal and unquestioned suckitude of 4E, we are just making comments about 4e.

[Rutee]

"Just making comments" is a pretty liberal interpretation of "This game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff", which is the nicest thing that's been said on those lines.

[JaxGaret]

"Just making comments" is a pretty liberal interpretation of "This game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff", which is the nicest thing that's been said on those lines.

Did I say anything even remotely like "this game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff"?

Did you even read what I said? Where did I make any value judgment on 3e vs. 4e fluff? I actually happen to like 4e fluff as a 4e FR update, it's way better than the old Faerun.

I was explaining the reasons for the differentiation between 3e Tieflings and 4e Tieflings, which some people were not too clear on.

[Artanis]

Did I say anything even remotely like "this game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff"?

Did you even read what I said? Where did I make any value judgment on 3e vs. 4e fluff?

I was explaining the reasons for the differentiation between 3e Tieflings and 4e Tieflings, which some people were not too clear on.
She was probably referring to Chosen_of_Vecna

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

She was probably referring to Chosen_of_Vecna

I seriously doubt it since I have never once commented on 4E fluff.

[Rutee]

Did I say anything even remotely like "this game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff"?

Did you even read what I said? Where did I make any value judgment on 3e vs. 4e fluff? I actually happen to like 4e fluff as a 4e FR update, it's way better than the old Faerun.

I was explaining the reasons for the differentiation between 3e Tieflings and 4e Tieflings, which some people were not too clear on.



Tieflings are called Tieflings in 4e because a certain subsection of D&Ders liked Tieflings in 3e, so WotC of course wanted to pander to that demographic give their customer base what they wanted.

4e Tieflings have a completely different origin from 3e Tieflings because WotC didn't think the 3e origin was as "cool" as this new 4e origin, or didn't fit in with their new base campaign setting, or is just part of the whole 4e motto of "this is a new edition, let's change lots of the fluff so it seems like things are different, even it wasn't broke to begin with or if we haven't really changed it."
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I did read what you wrote. That's pretty clearly a negative/disparaging tone for the exact same thing that 3e did!

[JaxGaret]

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I did read what you wrote. That's pretty clearly a negative/disparaging tone for the exact same thing that 3e did!

Stating neutral truths without invective is negative/disparaging? What are you talking about? WotC is a company, I expect them to try and make money. There is nothing negative or disparaging about referring to a company as something other than some deific entity out only to please me.

I wasn't bashing 4e. The only thing I quasi-bashed was people who like 3e Tieflings [particularly the ones who like them a little too much], and that was half-hearted at best.

Don't take economics personally, my friend.

[Rutee]

If you have not yet learned the difference between the words "Connotation" and "Definition", I strongly suggest an English Comp course. Your words carry a strong negative values judgement due to the former, and I'm frankly not convinced by you simply saying "No no, I was laughing at the 3e fans.."

[JaxGaret]

If you have not yet learned the difference between the words "Connotation" and "Definition", I strongly suggest an English Comp course.

Thanks for the thinly veiled barb. I shall cherish it always.


Your words carry a strong negative values judgement due to the former, and I'm frankly not convinced by you simply saying "No no, I was laughing at the 3e fans.."

You can read whatever you want into it. Might I suggest you take a step back and let your clouded vision clear up a bit? You seem to be under the impression that anything that's said about 4e that isn't positive by definition has to be negative. That is not so, it's not a zero sum situation, there can be neutral comments, such as mine.

Let's try and clear something up - perhaps you think that the statement "WotC is a company that would like to make a large profit, and takes steps to attempt to ensure such a result" is negative or disparaging. You are sorely mistaken if you think so.

Alternatively, could you point out specific things that I said that you find negative or disparaging? I am curious as to your thought process here.

[EvilElitest]

Just wanted to correct a few misconceptions here.

Tieflings in 4e are not the same as Tieflings in 3e. 4e Tieflings are humans with an infernal pact dating back thousands of years. They're actually much more similar to Hellbred (from FCII) Humans than they are to 3e Tieflings.

4e Dragonborn are not the offspring of dragons. They are their own race. They aren't even dragons, really, they're a completely separate race that was created to be servants to the dragons. AFAIK there is no interbreeding between Dragons and Dragonborn, or if there was, it would be a half-breed itself, like any other Half-Dragon.

But that directly goes against WotC stated policy of "If isn't broken don't fix it" as established in Worlds and monsters. If they want to make new creatures that are similar thats fine, but they are ditching cool races and stealing their names for new ones. I don't think that hold Dragon born were simply an art experiment, liked their fluff more than normal it seemed uniqued.
Also Hellbred are only a few rare creatures


Why do people keep pretending that changing race fluff is exclusive to 4e again?
I never made that claim, i also never said it was a good thing in any edition




You Champions of 4E need to calm down. Everytime someone says anything about 4E it's: "3.0 did the same thing!" We know. We are just making comments about what is happening right now. We don't care what happened 8 years ago, because it happened 8 years ago. We aren't claiming the end is nigh, we aren't declaring the universal and unquestioned suckitude of 4E, we are just making comments about 4e.

Thank you. I don't like any changes to fluff in any edition


"Just making comments" is a pretty liberal interpretation of "This game needs to stay the hell away from our fluff", which is the nicest thing that's been said on those lines.
Changing fluff is an annoyence. In any edition


Did you even read what I said? Where did I make any value judgment on 3e vs. 4e fluff? I actually happen to like 4e fluff as a 4e FR update, it's way better than the old Faerun.
Ug, the intercrite and complex history of 4E reconned into some illogical abomination to suit the points of light theory.
from
EE

[JaxGaret]

Ug, the intercrite and complex history of 4E reconned into some illogical abomination to suit the points of light theory.
from
EE

It's still better than 3e FR.

Btw, it's "retconned", short for retroactive continuity. I've seen you spell it reconned a fair few times.

[EvilElitest]

It's still better than 3e FR.

Btw, it's "retconned", short for retroactive continuity. I've seen you spell it reconned a fair few times.

thanks for the spelling correction, but i liked 3E FR. It was consistent, in depth, complex and well thought out. Now everything that made the game good has been literally wiped out in a giant explosion of death. Bad form
from
EE

[JBento]

I may have an idea on WHY WotC changed the tiefling fluff, and it's summed up in one word:

Cambions. Say it with me:

Cambions. Oh yeh baby, they're baaaaack...

For those among you who are wondering what cambions are, they're the original human-fiend offspring (unless a succubus was involved - in that case you got alu-fiends)

[EvilElitest]

I may have an idea on WHY WotC changed the tiefling fluff, and it's summed up in one word:

Cambions. Say it with me:

Cambions. Oh yeh baby, they're baaaaack...

For those among you who are wondering what cambions are, they're the original human-fiend offspring (unless a succubus was involved - in that case you got alu-fiends)

actually Cambions came back in a splat book in 3E. Why not make them a race. They too are different from Tielflings
from
EE

[JBento]

They might be a race. I think the cambions will appear in the 4E MM, in which case they may very well be given the same treatment as gnomes and warforged.

[EvilElitest]

They might be a race. I think the cambions will appear in the 4E MM, in which case they may very well be given the same treatment as gnomes and warforged.

We can only hope. I loved them oh so much. I hope they aren't changed fundementally and keep their old cool fluff:smallamused:
from
EE