D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I'm sure this was discussed earlier, probably around the time 4e came out, but I couldn't find it in any of the nearby threads in this forum. I didn't see these mentioned in the collected errata thread, or in the Wizards errata list.
I was reading through Keep of the Shadowfell and the Monster Manual, and was having some difficulty in understanding how the kobold stats work out. I wasn't sure if they were just pervaded with errors, or if I was missing something.
For example, a majority of the stat blocks in Shadowfell have wrong stat modifiers. Some of these were fixed in the MM, but in the Wyrmpriest entry it still says that a 9 stat is a +0 modifier, and 17 is a +4. I'm assuming these are just errors, as the slinger has the right values, but they're not mentioned in the errata lists.
I'm having a tougher time trying to see where they came up with the kobold attack values. Minions, for example, throw javelins with a +5 attack. But in the Player's Handbook, it says that javelins are "heavy thrown," which AFAICT means that they use strength and not dexterity for the attack and damage modifier. Shouldn't the attack value be -1 (Str) +2 (Prof) +0 (Level) for a total of +1?
Similar questions for the skirmisher. I assume it's using the spear in melee (i.e. not throwing away its only weapon). The attack value given is +6, but shouldn't it be +1 also? And the damage 1d8-1?
And for the dragonshield, it gets a +7 and 1d6+3 damage, but with 14 Str shouldn't it be +2 (Str) +3 (Prof) +1 (Level*1/2) for +6, 1d6+2?
It looks like the Slyblade's basic attack is also off by a lot.
I'm wondering if it just says somewhere that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs in this edition and I just missed it. hanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.
For a level 3 monster, a 9 ability score is, in fact, a +0 modifier to d20 rolls.
Secondly, it is correct that monsters' attacks are not based on stats they have. Check the DMG on how to create a monster for a better insight in how a monster's stats are derived. It comes more from their role and purpose in the game than any arbitrary stats. In 3rd edition design, you started with the ability scores and feats and then figured everything out from there. In 4th edition design, instead you think 'This monster needs a 1d6+4 ranged attack' and you just go ahead and give it one.
Monsters and NPCs don't -need- the same rules for creation as players because they're not the same thing. They are there to challenge players for a quick fight and then go away. Do you -need- to know what their Nature check is? Most of the time no. Do you -need- to give a monster a gazillion feats? No. It's a lot of unnecessary work for something that'll be in your game for 4 combat rounds tops.
It's only if the beastie or NPC needs to stick around for quite a few sessions that you might start caring about their full stat blocks.
For example, a majority of the stat blocks in Shadowfell have wrong stat modifiers. Some of these were fixed in the MM, but in the Wyrmpriest entry it still says that a 9 stat is a +0 modifier, and 17 is a +4. I'm assuming these are just errors, as the slinger has the right values, but they're not mentioned in the errata lists.
I think I can explain this one (along with getting ninjad in the process): the Wyrmpriest is level 3 and gets +1 to a lot of rolls because of it. So a strength check is +0 (-1 from the 9 strength and +1 from level).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazybones
I'm having a tougher time trying to see where they came up with the kobold attack values.
They are arbitrarily assigned. There are some charts on pages 184 and 185 of the DMG that tell you how hard a level X monster of type Y should hit. The monsters in the DMG don't always follow that chart perfectly, but it's a pretty good fit.
Last edited by GoLu; 3rd August 2008 at 07:22 PM..
Reason: ninjad and fixed quote
Thanks for the replies. After I posted I did see in the intro to the MM how they added the (level*1/2) to the stat blocks. That makes sense now.
I'm not sure I agree about the arbitrary bonuses, but that's more of a philosophical gripe with 4e. Much of it seems like the way that Oblivion would automatically scale creatures and loot to match your level, such that a giant rat you encounter with 20th level would be as tough as a dragon.
But it's clear, at least. I remember the days of arbitrary monsters from 1e and 2e and I guess I got a bit spoiled with 3e where everything could be constructed from the same set of rules. I did read the linked article and I see where they're coming from but I guess the 3e system never seemed to be that complicated to me.
Given the number of new monsters they've come out with -already- with the new statblock system, more efficient monster creation is a -good- thing. Cause if it's -really- easy for most DMs, those DMs can then make crazy new beasties for their players. It's -good- when players don't hold -all- the cards.
Given the number of new monsters they've come out with -already- with the new statblock system, more efficient monster creation is a -good- thing. Cause if it's -really- easy for most DMs, those DMs can then make crazy new beasties for their players. It's -good- when players don't hold -all- the cards.
I agree. Admittedly, so far I'm prepping for 1-2 level PCs, and admittedly I've introduced no classed creatures yet; however, I'm finding combat prep to be MUCH easier now than it was in 3e. I think the tremendous amount of time it took to create a new monster in 3e is part of what made me burn out on DMing.
Daniel
__________________ Everything's better with monkeys!
-Hypersmurf
Given the number of new monsters they've come out with -already- with the new statblock system, more efficient monster creation is a -good- thing. Cause if it's -really- easy for most DMs, those DMs can then make crazy new beasties for their players. It's -good- when players don't hold -all- the cards.
Agreed. I've made some pretty cool, and really complex, monsters very, very quickly. Of course, it helps to have tools that take care of the tedious stuff so all you need to do is come up with powers...
Wow, "spoiled" by 3e because all monsters had to follow elaborate PC rules. That's a new one.
The good thing about that, IMO, was that it was very easy to quickly double-check a monster's stat block for perceived errors and even easier to correct them on the spot, because the method of designing them was so standardized. At one glance, you can quickly tell if the creature has the incorrect number of feats, or if its AC was calculated incorrectly, it has the wrong DCs for it special attacks, or if its attack/damage values are too high or too low.
Now, it is just one giant block of stats, with little/no means of double-checking for inconsistencies. Until the errata was released, I bet that no one even knew or realized that the ogre in the MM was dealing much less damage than it should, or that the angel had twice has much hp as it ought to possess.
I wouldn't say that it is better or worse. We just traded one set of problems for another.
At one glance, you can quickly tell if the creature has the incorrect number of feats, or if its AC was calculated incorrectly, it has the wrong DCs for it special attacks, or if its attack/damage values are too high or too low.
Wow, you must have like a 30 intelligence or something if you can do that all at one glance.
Basically, this system takes the approach that the specifics don't matter... Just ballpark it. Because, really, so what if the monster's ac is a point too high or low? bfd.
Basically, this system takes the approach that the specifics don't matter... Just ballpark it. Because, really, so what if the monster's ac is a point too high or low? bfd.
Oh, one point of AC disparity I can stomach (though it still does not excuse their apparent oversight). But let us be honest here. Would you have known or realized that the angel of valor had twice as much hp as it was supposed to have if the errata had not been released?
Wotc's streamlined stat block system is fine so long as it is correct, and that we believe it to be accurate. Only problem is that I can't really trust it to be correct, not with wotc's longstanding history of printing errors or worse. To cite an example, one of their FR adventure modules, "Tearing of the Weave" was riddled with stat-block inconsistencies/errors. It was thanks to the "rigid" npc creation system that allowed these flaws to be spotted quickly and corrected just as promptly. For example, the blackguard npc was missing all of his ex-paladin abilities, while some crs were inaccurate. This clearly goes beyond "just one missing/extra point of AC"
If on another day, wotc releases a stat block which has a monster dealing much more damage than what other monsters of its lv typically do, it can be boiled down to 1 of 2 conclusions. This higher damage output is intentional and balanced by some other shortcoming (be it real or perceived) of the monster to differentiate it from its peers, or wotc screwed up (again) and printed the wrong damage values (be it accidental or due to lack of sufficient playtesting). The problem then comes in trying to determine which is which. Are they wrong or am I mistaken? There just is no easy way of telling.
Basically, for me at least, it seems to defeat the purpose if they released a simplified stat-block, intending for the DM to just "take and use", but I actually spend more time vetting over said stats to make sure everything is in order than if they had just released all the pertintent information for me to digest (and I would have all the relevant info I need to make an informed decision).
Don't get me wrong. The new 4e statblock has its perks, that I admit, but I just can't shake that nagging feeling at the back of my head that something may be amiss, but I have no way of confirming or denying it. But it is probably just me and too much 3e.
Oh, one point of AC disparity I can stomach (though it still does not excuse their apparent oversight). But let us be honest here. Would you have known or realized that the angel of valor had twice as much hp as it was supposed to have if the errata had not been released?
Wotc's streamlined stat block system is fine so long as it is correct, and that we believe it to be accurate. Only problem is that I can't really trust it to be correct, not with wotc's longstanding history of printing errors or worse. To cite an example, one of their FR adventure modules, "Tearing of the Weave" was riddled with stat-block inconsistencies/errors. It was thanks to the "rigid" npc creation system that allowed these flaws to be spotted quickly and corrected just as promptly. For example, the blackguard npc was missing all of his ex-paladin abilities, while some crs were inaccurate. This clearly goes beyond "just one missing/extra point of AC"
If on another day, wotc releases a stat block which has a monster dealing much more damage than what other monsters of its lv typically do, it can be boiled down to 1 of 2 conclusions. This higher damage output is intentional and balanced by some other shortcoming (be it real or perceived) of the monster to differentiate it from its peers, or wotc screwed up (again) and printed the wrong damage values (be it accidental or due to lack of sufficient playtesting). The problem then comes in trying to determine which is which. Are they wrong or am I mistaken? There just is no easy way of telling.
Basically, for me at least, it seems to defeat the purpose if they released a simplified stat-block, intending for the DM to just "take and use", but I actually spend more time vetting over said stats to make sure everything is in order than if they had just released all the pertintent information for me to digest (and I would have all the relevant info I need to make an informed decision).
Don't get me wrong. The new 4e statblock has its perks, that I admit, but I just can't shake that nagging feeling at the back of my head that something may be amiss, but I have no way of confirming or denying it. But it is probably just me and too much 3e.
Actually it's pretty easy to confirm. Compare values for hit and damage against expected values for that level. If different, look for mitigating factors and abilities.
Oh, one point of AC disparity I can stomach (though it still does not excuse their apparent oversight). But let us be honest here. Would you have known or realized that the angel of valor had twice as much hp as it was supposed to have if the errata had not been released?
Yes, actually, I would have. In fact, there have been a few occasions when I was reading adventures or stuff when I noticed a strange amount of HP or XP and verified that it was incorrect.
I suppose I'm probably in the minority, though, having spent a lot of academic time fiddling with the monster creation guidelines and rules as I wrote my math cruncher tool. Incidentally, HP is one of the few values for which there are explicit rules and which should always be calculable based on level, role, minion/normal/elite/solo status and constitution score.
The damage values, on the other hand, would be much more difficult to see were wrong, especially since the monsters in the MM clearly weren't made using the guidelines in the DMG, so even if you do notice the discrepency there's no way to tell if it was intentional or not.
At the end of the day, all I can say is just don't sweat it. Yeah, the monsters may be too tough. Yeah, they may be too weak. But ultimately, it really doesn't matter. 4e characters are pretty resilient, and it ain't easy to kill them unless you purposefully stack the odds against 'em. Personally, I have no intention of using the MM errata just because it would be a huge PITA to double check every monster I ever use.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
