Living EnWorld owns me. I just steal my body back for the handful of fevered hours I need to eat sleep and otherwise pretend I'm human.

---

To PM someone you go to their page (say mine ) and then you click on "send message" (it's below my name and my "Brevity Challenged" tag).

You'll see a menu, if the person has PMs enabled then you'll be able to click on "sent x private message" and it will take you to the PM screen .
(You can actually just go to the PM screen directly and put in names too).

To turn on PMs go to your options page. (you can also get to it from the "Your control panel" menu that appears on the left hand side of the screen when you're in subscriptions (and other times too).
Scroll down to the Private Messaging section and click the Enable Private Messaging checkbox

Graf

The 4th edition Living EnWorld project has consumed me recently.

It really bangs on a few of my obsessions. One in particular: matching OOC reality with IC game structure -- something about which I should probably actually produce a coherent post.

Anyway, I hate elves. Or rather, I loath the way they're they're presented as near flawless super humans who never do anything. [warning: link to nigh incoherent post containing following spoiler block]



Of all the published settings I've dealt with I think Eberron tends to handle it the best.

Of course I prefer my tack. Keep 'em as superhumans, with very human failings.

Graf

Over time you build up a lexicon of ideas, a collection of concepts that are short hand for ideas that come up again and again.

I used to assume that people just know this stuff, but every so often you're reminded that not everyone actually has been exposed.

So this is a list of essential concepts (I think) everyone ought to be familiar with. I'll add to it as I think of things.

• The Economy of Actions
• MAD

Graf

Best explained by the original economy of actions post on the WotC board.

I think this is -fairly- intuitive for anyone who played 3.0 with the original version of haste.

Graf

When a character class, or a specific build, needs to have high stats in several attributes before they become as viable as a character in other classes.

---

This term first cropped up around the 3.0 psionic system. Each of the six psionic disciplines was linked to a different attribute.

Imagine a situation where a wizard uses all their attributes as their "primary casting attribute" based upon the sort of power it is.

So "movement powers" (teleportation) were based on dexterity, "creative powers" (summoning astral constructs) were based in intelligence, "sensing powers" on wisdom.

It was an innovative idea that really just didn't work in practice.

Most psions were pretty sucky. Specialization in one attribute generally didn't work. Except for a handful of builds which were so awesometacular that it boardered upon mindboggling.

---

An example that's probably more understandable to the average gamer would be the 3.x monk.

You'd need strength the help with your sub-par damage.
You'd need dex to help with your sub-par AC.
You'd need con to help with your sub-par hit points.
You don't really need Int.
You need Wis to help with your sub-par AC (monk class feature).
You don't need Cha.

The key point is "sub-par". The monk naturally does less damage, hits less often, has lower hitpoints and worse armor than basically any other melee class.

You -do- get a bunch of interesting powers, like movement, some resistances, and so forth. But those powers are tricky to leverage to cover up your deficiencies.


So a monk is generally sub-par in every area, and it takes a significant character built up (or extra attribute points) to get yourself into the same league even as a rogue (not really a combat standout).

---

The opposite of a character class with MAD would be the 3.x wizard.

You need Int.
That's it.
Other attributes are nice, but you can play a viable wizard with nothing else.

And, since all you need to buy is an 18 Int to rock sox you have another 16 points (in a 32 point game).
Plenty of space to plump up your defenses.

Graf

I should say that, even by the standards of gamers, I know nothing about kung-fu or martial arts.

So, if this is hideously off base. Well... there you go.

---

The characters, all of whom are martial artists, get together for a big martial arts tournament. They'll fight each other, they'll fight NPCs. There are big personalities.

• The aging grandmaster and his Cabinet of Thunder (a powerful group of warrior brethren)
• The secret cult of anonymous mystic warriors engaged in a shadow battle
• Serpent men looking for easy converts
• The emperors spies (he's concerned about the threat of this martial artists on order in the empire
• The aging grandmaster's failed and evil disciple, rumored to have returned to humiliate his master
• delegations from half a dozen major schools, and individuals from a score more

And the game really runs like a tournament. You can hang out and roleplay at inns with other martial artists, masters and wannabes, get your pocket picked, get approached by one or more interested power groups, watch various fights and make checks to see if you can identify weaknesses you could use in later matches, make alliances with other fighters, and even try to cheat.

The whole shebang.

---

In a PbP game I think you'd want 12 - 18 pcs and you'd probably need a second or even third DM to keep the game going (refereeing PC fights and interactions, getting people involved in sub-plots, etc).

There would be an understanding that it would be possible for some members to "advance" to a campaign; so the stakes would be that you could keep playing your (presumably awesome) character if you "did well".

The 'catch' is that the campaign would involve another group that had been watching the game from the sidelines; so it wouldn't be based upon winning the tournament. PCs who showed the proper mindset (discipline, manners, grace in defeat) would be selected, not necessarily the guy who did the most damage.



Due to the tournament laws that only one person may challenge another on a given day no-one else may challenge the "renegade" and he becomes the master of the school.

The campaign?
He picks the PCs, or gets help from the hidden mystic brotherhood to pick the PCs, for a mission.
They are honor bound to accept.

The PCs have to work for this person, who, while being a terrible person on a personal level, wants very much to protect and maintain the school and it's area (now that its finally his or hers).

---

In 4e you'd have to take a few liberties.

The monk is due out at some point, so you'd have a non-striker (hopefully a defender) open-handed-warrior type class.

On top of that "monk base" each character they'd get another class that represents the secret techiniques of their school.
In mechanics terms "free multiclassing".

They'd get an improved version of the multi-class benefit (probably sneak attack/quarry whatever as an encounter instead of a daily) as well as a "free" encounter or a daily power from that class list. And more "free" powers from their secondary class as they advanced in level.

These powers would be reflavored as martial arts powers.

You might need to do some tweaking -- handing out a few more attribution points -- to avoid MAD problems.

Graf

So I've never been that interested in Living games. The one I tried to join a few years ago rejected me and I think I figured the sorts of stories I was interested in telling probably weren't the same ones as most other folks were interested in.

But there is a new Living World starting here and I was slightly surprised by the way that it seems to float almost immediately in to some fairly well trod ground.

The leading idea is apparently to do the Caribbean.
Which is a good ideal. Each set of islands would allow for you to have isolated little areas that each creator could work on. But why limit it to that?
You're still fighting to stick all these ideas in one world; that means a lot of editing and arbitration for someone.


But all of that really missed the point. You're never going to get the Caribbean people and the Greek people and the lets-just-run-what-in-the-DMG people to agree on a setting.

You want a pool of players. You want as many DMs as possible to run games for your setting.
Picking a setting that appeals to only one of those groups is just a bad move.

If your going to have a setting with lots of different people creating wild stuff, why not play of that strength and push it someplace where you wouldn't necessarily want to take a normal setting?

Especially if it'd be low maintenance. (Which seems to be a concern)

Obviously there may be some problems with my suggestion; but generally online characters tend to skew strongly toward the odd anyway.

If you're going to have people producing kobold ninjai and and bugbear wizards anyway, why not embrace that.

---

Having said all that this map (from this post) is pretty crazy. Maybe I'll play even if they stick with the Caribbean thing...

If they'll have me of course...

Graf

I love, and play, all sorts of games. But there is one kind of game that I truly love.

In a nutshell I like games that head into the direction of "story games".

Boundaries between the DM and the player blur, players become either, through their characters or just out of character, more than just passive participants. They're co-writers of a story.

And the DM role shifts from being the all-seeing-all-controlling arbiter (AKA "God") to a fast-on-their-feet facilitator.

I don't think this is the default preference really, most people prefer their lines between the DM and the player to be a bit more cut and dried.

But you like what you like, right?

Graf

Given the problems with social skill challenges discussed earlier this is the "best" solution I've seen.

It's basically like the sign at amusement park rides that says "You must be this high..."

The DM only lets people roll if their argument is reasonably compelling. Their argument must be "this good" or better before you can roll. ("This good" being a completely arbitrary measure where the DM thinks "is this a reasonable argument, or not?")

It allows people put forth their arguments in advance, and feel as if it's meant something.
It doesn't really reward a great argument but it does weed out the

King: Why should I help you?
Player: Because I said so!
rolls die.... 20!
King: OK. Sure. That makes sense.

type scenario.

---

In fact, for some groups, this will probably work fine. So long as everyone is into arguing and roleplaying it could actually be a fun way to play. People feel like their effort matters, and everyone people who puts forward some sort of effort will be able get a roll.

The arguments that are accepted will all be convincing. And NPCs not accepting a given argument can be chalked up to some sort of personality disagreement.

Problem solved?

---

The problem, from a game design standpoint, is that this punishes people who aren't into arguing and debating.

When I was younger I'd think that was fine. Those people who didn't like arguing, etc. in character "weren't serious" anyway.

Now I recognize that that's just a style of play. My preferred style has a lot of detail oriented arguing and roleplaying.

But other people are there to roll some dice and have fun. It's not a badwrong thing. It's just a style thing.

From that player's standpoint their character isn't even necessarily saying "Because I said so". The player doesn't act out every sword blow, why should they have to say everything their character says?

A system that punishes somebody's style of gameplay isn't a good one. Some people don't want to argue in character for 45 minutes. And they'd be unfairly penalized for playing in a game using this system.

Graf

This is a post about social skill challenges, more than other sorts. Some of the non-social skill challenges I've seen, like the one in the Heathen adventure in Dungeon, seem like they work better to me. But the system doesn't work well for social interactions, nor is it fun.

The problem with social skill challenges is that "the system" that it's replaced what was often a roleplaying system; with all the nuances and fun of arguing with your friends.

The new skill challenge mechanic is almost entirely a roll based system.
vs a flat DC.
and player actions have little effect.

---

There is some evidence that it was developed at the very tail end of the development cycle (it's not really implemented at all in Keep on the Shadowfell... except for one, somewhat forced, encounter).

And that lack of development really shows.

---

Basically, when building a skill challenge, you pick a couple of simple variables and then you roll some dice.

The problem, really, is that this simple system doesn't address what actually happens. There are two, unsatisfactory, choices for groups.

1. People make their arguments in advance, the DM assigns a +2 here or there for particularly good ideas.
And the rolls determine what happens.
The Problem: A terrible idea can get a great roll, and a "duh-nobody-can-possibly-disagree-with-that" argument can get a bad roll and you wind up with an NPC acting, basically, like a moron.

2. Roll first and then roleplay it out. This is, usually, what happens on the PbP boards (because you roll and then complete your post). The advantage of this is that you can roleplay to match the quality of your argument. If you roll a 1, you just have your character say something idiotic.
The Problem: PCs don't have any input.

---

The DMG makes it sound a lot like skill challneges are supposed to be like fights. They compare them several times.

But fighting in DnD is compelling because you get to beat up creatures and take their stuff. because you have a bunch of good choices to make. And the choices you make make a big difference.

Social skill challenges don't include those choices, or those ramifications and that's a big blotch on the system.

Graf

I should probably preface this by saying that I run 4e exclusively. So I'm not a hater. In fact, I find the My system is better than your system posts just a the tiniest bit annnnnoiiiiing.

I thought that 4e was going to replace 3.5. It wasn't a thought out thought. It was just something that I assumed.

I think that, alongside some large percentage of the EnWorld population, I fell into the trap of thinking that history would repeat itself with this edition shift without really thinking about how prior edition shifts were different from this one.

To my mind
3.0 replaced 2nd ed.
3.5 replaced 3.0.

So, in a sense, it's natural to have assumed that there would be some sort of massive wrenching transformation; 3.5 would stop and 4e would begin.

Of course that was never going to happen.

2nd edition was basically dead (along with TSR) when 3.0 came out. I hadn't played the game in years. Nobody I know played it. Even people who did had radically altered the game.

3.0 -> 3.5 also wasn't a no brainer.
Before 3.5 came out I had around 27 house rules for the 3.0 game I ran.

Afterward? Around 7.

Now, I lived on EnWorld, so I was fairly plugged into the consensus. Most of my house rules were related to "known problems"; but that was a feature of the 3.0 -> 3.5 shift. It addressed a lot of known problems. It was, quite litterally, an evolution. Almost like a big patch for WoW.

Unlike 2nd edition 3.5 was alive and kicking when WotC sent out 4e. A -lot- of people are running 3.5 games (or some variation thereof).

And unlike the 3.0 -> 3.5 shift 4e is radically different.

Those changes appeal to me. I'd stopped running 3.5 because I don't have the sort of free time as 30 year old married person than I did as a 20 year old single.

I'd already bought Arkham Horror precisely because it offered something close to an evening of roleplaying without the hours and hours of prep time.
I'd already tried WoW because I wanted to game and couldn't manage to get together with people to do it in real time (and I still can't but that's another problem).

So the evolution of DnD into the 4e space is, in a sense, an evolution into a space that I was already in.

I think I was so happy about 4e because I couldn't run 3.5 anymore and it felt like WotC decided to create a new game for me.

But 3.5 isn't going to go anywhere. I'm not really sure that Pathfinder is going to "replace" it (even more weird little rules and powers?) but maybe that's what the space is looking for...

Graf

I looked at old (3.5) artificer a bit ago in preparation for this article about the new 4e version wizards just released.

The 3.5 design was inspired crazy stuff for the time. It was also tightly integrated into the existing 3.5 systems. But the complexity of those systems meant that the artificer was also an extremely complex class. And unbalanced as heck.

Of course 4e doesn't have a crafting system. Or rather, it does, but it's basically just a "spend gold to acquire item" system.
Gold is carefully doled out by level.
Magical items are -much- more restrained in what they can do: they generally just provide a simple daily power.

So unlike the 3.5 system there is no pre-existing system that the artificer must correspond to/interact with.
So how does the "new artificer" look?

Personally I think it looks fantastic.

• In story (AKA fluff) terms their powers position them much more as "crazy alchemist and tinkerer" than "magic item producer".
  • Healing people by blowing magical vapor at them? Check!
  • Chucking barbed wire and caltrops made of crazy magical energy? Check!
  • Crazy walls of acid made out of a mixture of reagents? Check!
  • Even weirder stuff (magical trampolines...sliding allies around on the battle field by spilling magical goo under them...)? Check!!!
• The new artificer is a leader; which is to say that they heal and buff.
  • They get healing word twice an encounter, just like a cleric
  • Their heals are extra effective vs constructs (i.e. warforged) oops. The article includes a magic item that offers this but it's not a function in the class itself
  • Unlike the (rather poorly conceived) cleric class they do that in the right order, so they buff (or create a buffing artifice) first and then they make an attack roll.
    If you miss? You still get the buff. Say goodbye to wasting round after round of actions without even giving out a +2 to hit.
    RP reasons aside, if the artificer is available I can't imagine anyone playing a cleric.
• The new artificer actually makes things, often on the spot. Freed from the magical item creation rules they make crazy nutso stuff you never saw in 3.5.
  • One sixth level utility power lets you create a temporary stairs or bridge. Just a fantastic idea.
  • Another innovation is "dailies" that take the form of items (that either the artificer or someone else can use). So instead of having a daily that gives someone +5 to one roll they make a luck charm that lets you do that once a day. It's mechanically similar to the dailies in the PhB, but you actually create an item. I love it.

Obviously I haven't played one. So I'm not in a position to comment on the mechanics the way I'd like to.

But the flavor is fantastic.

They seem to have made nods to the old artificer (extra healing to warforged (available from an item but still...); enhancing allies weaponry and/or armor) while heading off in a completely new direction (the healing word* thing was a shock the first time I saw it)

But 4e made no bones about the fact that each class would have a role, and the artificer steps up and delivers the leader/healer role in spades.

Did I mention that their buffs work even if they miss?
I'm never going to play a cleric again.

Graf

I've been looking at the new artificer, but I figured it'd be good to look at the old one first.

The artificer had some unique traits mostly because it was constructed to connect to a lot of existing systems in 3.5, specifically the crafting system (including both magic items and all the feats you needed to build them) and the Use Magic Device system, which allowed characters to use magic items they weren't technically supposed to be able to use. Originally the UMD system was really just for rogues but later a whole range of classes from Warlocks to Artificers would wind up tapping into it.

Connections to those two systems, which dated back to the original 3.0 core and had been added to in dozens of books since then, gave the class a lot of depth.

And they also offered something sorta new: infusions, which were a effectively spells with a longer casting time (sort of like pre-fight only buffs) -- except the artificer could spend an action point, another thing that Eberron introduced*, to cast them like normal spells (i.e. as a normal action).



All these systems made for a complex class; it was the first time I had to use a spreadsheet for my character. You couldn't deal with the class, especially with the crafting reserve, without some serious note taking.

Some specific little subroutines

• The magic item creation system included feats; which the artificer got for free and which did extra things (gave them a bonus to Use Magic Device checks) when the artificer got them.
• The magic item creation system is powered by XP and gold*. The artificer got a bunch of "fake" XP (their craft reserve) which had a restriction on it to make sure it didn't get out of hand.
• Tthey often made skill rolls (Use Magic Device) to determine how awesome they were in any given round.
• With their infusions they could create temporary magical weapons (and also to "spoof" spells).

The last two bullet points are where balance goes to all to heck.

Skill checks correlating to power level creates a lot of problems for D20. Between races (granting direct and indirect bonuses -- think the githzerai +6 to dex), feats, class features and magical items (again both direct and indirect) the bonus to your roll varies to an extreme degree.
And that means you can't balance it. If a 'normal' character can make the checks an optimized character will nail them and leave balance in the dust; but if you balance toward the optimized character? The normal player loses out.

Magic items->There are a lot of magical items in DnD. And balance in 3.5 was fairly loose. Certain spells (true strike) were originally conceived as only being available to a specific class; certain item properties (bane) were "balanced" by the fact that they didn't come up often.



(I could talk about spell spoofing being unbalanced but I think I'll stop here. Mostly we used it to cover for powers that we need for plot reasons (change self to get into a noble's ball or what have you. I'm not so sure all artificer players were so restrained but I lack direct evidence.)

---

There was also a weapon property, which I'm having difficulty digging up online, that let you summon fire elementals once a day. Probably not too unbalancing if that's your permanent weapon bonus.

But when you could drop a 3rd level infusion a few times a day an gussy up a large fire elemental (or two mediums?).

Lets just say that we romped through Age of Worms.

---

I played an artificer* through the first two/thirds of the Eberron adventure path and I was a player in another game (the Age of Worms adventure path) with another artificer character. So I've seen it in action.



And having seen it in action I can say with reasonable confidence that you it was the only class where you could "pick your power level".

Did you want to be nice to your DM?
You stick a flaming or frost your crossbow and play skill monkey/support.

If you wanted to whip out the hurt?
Bane weaponry, and large fire elementals were the order of the day for our group, though I'm sure there were other combinations.

As an aside I should say that the artificer was, even without all the spell and magic item spoofing, a very versatile class.

• They could find and disarm traps almost as well as a thief (a skill that was almost a requirement in 3.x).
• If you had a melee-oriented warforged -- fairly common in eberron games -- they could heal as well as a cleric.
• Sometimes they could even act as "face". (You needed a high charisma for Use Magic Device)
• Decent hit points and could wear good armor, and infusions didn't trigger AoOs; you weren't leaping into combat by any stretch, but they didn't requiring the kind of careful tending that a traditional arcanist would.

So even if you weren't whipping out the most powerful (some might say abusive) item enhancements you were still usually a contributor.

Given the existing 3.5 framework the Artificer was a solid class; flexible and fun to play provided you could tolerate the bookkeeping (!!) and had a good understanding with the DM about how powerful you were supposed to be.

Graf

I don't know if this properly qualifies as a blog post. But it's something that I think applies somewhat frequently in RPGs and, rather than type it out over and over again I thought I'd just make a post to link to whenever I want to refer to it.

If you can use a power/ability/etc when you need it does it really matter that you can't use it most (or much) of the time?
No, it doesn't.

Why?
Because there are two kinds of fights in DnD "normal" fights and "serious" fights.

Most fights in DnD are normal (level X party vs CR X monster in 3.x | standard XP budget of monsters vs 5 person party in 4e).
Unless something goes hideously wrong the party is going to win. Even if they get a bunch of bad die rolls and make a bad tactical choice or two the group is going to get through the fight having expended ~ 20% of their resources (in 3.x terminology) and be none the worse for wear.

That's how the game works. That's why people consistently get to second (5th, 10th) level.

You can be a bit weaker in those fights and it isn't a big deal. Heck, the fight is constructed so that you don't have to be using your best spells/daily powers/action points whatever. That's why it's a normal fight.

But every so often a fight is challenging. Maybe you've finally caught up with the BBEG's lieutenant, or the BBEG itself.
Maybe you've been ambushed by a really evil noble in your skivvies.
Maybe you've caught up to the legendary beast the elf king has asked you to subdue before he'll grant your wish and lift the curse.

Whatever the set up it's the nail-biting down-to-the-wire type fight we all play DnD for.

You know it, the DM knows it and you reach for the big guns...

If you have a really good power that you can use your powers in every one of those fights?

Then, basically, you've got it all the time. Sure you can't whip out your BFG against a the goblin door guards. But if it's sitting at your hip, fully loaded, every time you need it then that's what counts.

---

The artificer in 3.5 is an excellent example of when a use limitation isn't really a use limitation.

Most of the good artificer infusions (spells really) require you to spend a minute casting them. Unless you spend an action point. Then you can whip it out in a round.

Cool, cinematic, exciting.
But you get a lot of action points in Eberron (5 at first level more as you go up) and you get them a block each level (in 3.5).

How many big fights to you see per level? Usually one or two. So you know they're coming, and you've got your stock.

Sometimes the DM'll telegraph and you don't even need the action points (you just prep the bane weapon before you enter the dragons lair)

But when you don't get the chance? You're getting enouch action points to whip it out.

---

It's not really fair to pull this out, since this is just a rough draft, but here's another 4e example from a feat Firelance built for his Holy Specialization Paladin.

Divine Grace
Prerequisites: Holy Paladin, Cha 15+
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to all defences against attacks made by Evil or Chaotic Evil creatures.

Now on the face of this it seemed pretty good to me. 4e has lots and lots of unaligned creatures. Its not like every goblin is going to be evil anymore.

But then I got to thinking about my games (which may be very different from the games that Firelance runs)...

Which sorts of goblins are evil? The mean ones. The ones that are a serious threat.

There are powerful unaligned creatures floating around. But, generally speaking, those are optional fights.

And most of the unaligned or good fights they run into are "normal" fights. Hungry wild animals, greedy mercenaries, town guards ()? If they get a good rolling streak they may do some damage, but the party isn't in any danger if they mind their tactical 'P's and 'Q's.

To a certain degree their non-evil-ness is a signal to the PCs that this is a "normal" fight. Non-evil says:

You're heroes, you've earned the right to knock around a few bad guys (small 'b' small 'g') without having too much trouble. The BFG stays in its holster, and they'll go down pretty quick anyway.

If you haven't you should check out FL's ideas for specialized classes btw. Very good stuff. If he can come through with a series a lot of people who're struggling with converting their campaigns should have a lot of help.

---

So, if a power is available to PCs during all (or virtually all) of the "serious fights" then you've given it to them "all the times that it matters".

Which is really just giving it to them all the time.

Graf

We've been building some monsters over at Wolfgang Baur's Open Design for the (now closed) Wrath of the River King project.



And I realized I have a difference -- in some senses a fairly minor one -- with some other people on the importance of monster shticks.

Of course, I should talk about what I mean about monster shticks first, right?

---

Shtick -- noun: A characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention. [Original]


In retrospect I think I got whole monster shtick thing from the idea that Mike Mearls was hired by WotC to do 4e because of Iron Heroes.

I don't own, nor have I read, Iron Heroes. My impression is the real innovation in Iron Heroes was in monster design; not the "you are strong-like-Conan, Conan no need stupid magic items" stuff.

My understanding is that IH Monsters were built as an encounter. So you might have a big monster with (for instance) an indestructible shell plate, so attacking it didn't directly do anything, but if you made a cinematic leap onto the plate you could get at it's vulnerable weak spot.
It's not just a bunch of stats, it's actually an encounter, like a like a good scene in a monster movie or a boss fight in a video game.

A player who assesses the situation, and makes some good tactical judgments can turn an unwinable fight into a thrilling victory by exploiting the monster's shtick (which may be a weakness or may just be a tactic it uses).

I think the fact that Mike was redesigning 3.5 monsters for WotC (which, in retrospect, looks a -lot- like developing 4.0 monsters) helped cement my opinion on the subject.

And when I look at the monsters in the MM the trend seems clear. (Sure there are orcs, which are boring, but they've been boring in every edition, it's like a tradition). Each monster-type has a sort of trick (=waza) they use.

• goblins shift away when you miss with an attack
• kobolds can shift twice a round
• green dragons poison you and use psychic attacks to pull you out of position
• bugbears will, basically, try to mug you
• and so on

Individual monster examples take this to an even greater extreme:

• Kobold Dragonshields shift even more than regular kobolds
• Ancient green dragons dump psychic attacks on any creature that is taking poison damage
• Bugbear Stranglers mug you and then use your body as a shield

Now, of course, it'd be stupid of me to argue that monsters before 4e didn't have shticks. Most of the favorites (dragons/mindflayers/beholders) did.

But many didn't.

Mechanically the differentiation between gnolls, orcs, hobgoblins and half a dozen other monster races was mostly a matter of a +x to hit and a few hit points here or there.


The 4e baseline assumption is that each monster will have a shtick; something to distinguish it mechanically from other monsters above and beyond the particular combination of attack and defensive stats that the average member of the race has.

So how did this lead to my (honestly fairly minor) difference of opinion with some people on the OD project?

Well, it's got to do with how shticky you think a monster ought to be...

Graf