[High level monsters and powers] What can Graz'zt actually do?

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Runestar

And I gave up on editing it halfway...

Holy &#%^@@! Where in the 9 Hells did that come from, Runestar?


Why, by all that is unholy, would you need to know that Asmodeus' "Use Rope" skill was +31?

[Regicide]

They could have given a general sense of his abilities outside of combat, a summary of the long writeups from previous editions but they don't. It's not because it's "storyteller", unless thats another word for lazy. The reason they don't mention anything outside of combat is because he doesn't exist outside of combat.

Worlds and Monsters pg 66: "The goal of 4E is to encourage the use of boss monsters, make them part of the core DnD experience, and wrap thrilling adventures around them so that years from now, players can regale each other with tales of heroism and woe and count on their fingers and toes the number of demon lord heads mounted on castle walls."

"Whats new about demon lords in 4E is that they're playable monsters, high-level to be sure, but not so complicated that you need an expert dungeon master to run them."

So the reason they don't have much more on them than other monsters? Because they aren't supposed to be all that different from other monsthers. Other than being the final baddy in the dungeon, they're just meant to be trophy kills you wrack up and mount, in large numbers.

[DracoSuave]

Originally Posted by Regicide

They could have given a general sense of his abilities outside of combat, a summary of the long writeups from previous editions but they don't. It's not because it's "storyteller", unless thats another word for lazy. The reason they don't mention anything outside of combat is because he doesn't exist outside of combat.

Worlds and Monsters pg 66: "The goal of 4E is to encourage the use of boss monsters, make them part of the core DnD experience, and wrap thrilling adventures around them so that years from now, players can regale each other with tales of heroism and woe and count on their fingers and toes the number of demon lord heads mounted on castle walls."

"Whats new about demon lords in 4E is that they're playable monsters, high-level to be sure, but not so complicated that you need an expert dungeon master to run them."

So the reason they don't have much more on them than other monsters? Because they aren't supposed to be all that different from other monsthers. Other than being the final baddy in the dungeon, they're just meant to be trophy kills you wrack up and mount, in large numbers.

The thing is, looking at what was done above, that +31 to Use Rope isn't memorable. Players -just don't care-. It's -not important.-

You don't need a million abilities to make a boss memorable. A handful of powerful and synergistic abilities will be -far more- memorable.

Look at it this way.... how does 'Cast spells as an 16th level sorcerer' differentiate that monster from the next monster that 'casts spells as a 17th level sorcerer'?

Strangely, you usually end up doing the exact same stuff with them. Use the best spells against the party, and the party goes 'Oh, he's a sorcerer.' But, if instead, you give a bunch of abilities that -only that monster has-, they're going to remember it.

If the players never see it, it's not going to be memorable. If the players see it, and handwave it as the same crap they've seen the last big bad use, or worse, the same stuff as on their wizard or cleric's character sheet, they're not going to remember.

Grazzt is memorable because he does things ONLY Grazzt can do in combat. Tiamat is memorable because she does things ONLY Tiamat can do.

'Xth level caster' is neither memorable nor even special.

[dammitbiscuit]

I, for one, welcome our new concise-stat-block overlords.

I really, really, really can't be arsed to care how many 3.5 fey can use ghost sound and dancing lights. It's safe to assume that they all can do so, but that never stopped the blasted spells from showing up in every monster entry, taking up page space and lengthening the time required for the DM to skim the entry and get an overall idea of what the little monster's all about.

My NPCs can do things that are thematic, within appropriate boundaries for their type, class, and level, but they only do it when it's worth mentioning. When the action could possibly have an effect on the players, page 42 of the DMG has everything I need.

[Runestar]

Holy &#%^@@! Where in the 9 Hells did that come from, Runestar?

Why, by all that is unholy, would you need to know that Asmodeus' "Use Rope" skill was +31?

Dicefreaks' "The Gates of Hell" publication, an article put up for free download on their forum some time back (not sure if it is available now though), which details (really an understatement here) the 9 layers of hell (heck, they statted out paragon pit fiend advanced to 54HD, and even had their own custom ability progression). Their emphasis has mainly been on epic (as in really epic) gameplay. You really have to see it to believe it - words cannot do it justice, IMO.

I will try to rapidshare it in a while.

Strangely, you usually end up doing the exact same stuff with them. Use the best spells against the party, and the party goes 'Oh, he's a sorcerer.' But, if instead, you give a bunch of abilities that -only that monster has-, they're going to remember it.

Bingo.

If you had pitted your party against a balor or pit fiend in 3e, that is exactly the impression your players will likely acquire - powerful spellcasters with more hp than the norm. There was nothing about pelting the PCs with high lv spells such as meteor swarm, power word stun, mass hold monster or implosion that sufficiently differentiates a powerful denizon of the abyss from say, a lv17 wizard or cleric. Sure, the balor came equipped with a vorpal longsword and a flaming whip, but it was severely underpowered in melee, and so to make it worth anywhere near the cr20 its stat block lists it as, you are forced to shun melee altogether and assume the role of artillery - hit and run using its high fly speed and myriad of SLAs.

In 4e, the balor returns to its LoTR roots by whacking the PCs with its lightning sword and flaming whip. Now that is memorable, simple because no other monster even comes close to replicating its capabilities in this aspect.

[Runestar]

Ah, found it. Google is a godsend.

Dicefreaks d20 Community • View topic - The Gates of Hell

All 9 chapters available for your perusal.

Edit: I am not sure if this is on topic, so don't hesitate to report and have this removed/shifted to an appropriate section.

[DracoSuave]

Here's a perfect example of how to make a fight memorable.

Safer (Seraph) Sephiroth.

What do you remember? The fact he could use Shadow Flare, Flare, and a couple -aga spells? Stuff you had available on Materia?

No. That's not what you remember, what made that fight memorable.

What made it memorable was the O Fortuna-homage theme in the background, chanting latin, the epic music of the fight....


....And the fact he summoned the destruction of the entire solar system just to hurt you.

You don't remember the minor mundane stuff... you remember the epic and unique stuff, and -that- is what sold the Seraph Sephiroth fight to everyone.

[TheLordWinter]

Originally Posted by Regicide

They could have given a general sense of his abilities outside of combat, a summary of the long writeups from previous editions but they don't. It's not because it's "storyteller", unless thats another word for lazy. The reason they don't mention anything outside of combat is because he doesn't exist outside of combat.

[snip]

So the reason they don't have much more on them than other monsters? Because they aren't supposed to be all that different from other monsthers. Other than being the final baddy in the dungeon, they're just meant to be trophy kills you wrack up and mount, in large numbers.

This is how I felt about the 4th edition stat blocks when I first saw them - where did all my stuff go!? How can you cut out EVERYTHING a monster can do? I must admit, I've gotten more used to things now. Outside of combat? Yeah, Graz'zt, Orcus and Asmodeus can do ANYTHING. I think what I was initially missing (and if I might be so bold, you're missing as well) is that when the PCs aren't around, monsters don't use stats or make checks. Things just happen for the sake of the story.

If Graz'zt wants to seduce the local priestess and begin corrupting the local faith from the inside out, will you roll his charisma check versus her insight check in 3rd edition, or will you just say that she's fallen under his charms? Now if the PCs arrive in town and find the local psalms are being said very differently, will you have Graz'zt make a bluff check to maintain his innocence? Of course. Same in 3rd as in 4th. The difference is, if you want to have Graz'zt looking like a harmless peasant, he doesn't need to rely on his "Disguise Self as a 16th level Caster" spell-like ability. Once more, it just happens. It won't make any difference to the players if Graz'zt has an unperceivable illusion cast on him or if he has a "Disguise Self" spell-like ability which cannot be pierced by true-seeing - it amounts to the same thing.

[James McMurray]

Originally Posted by Regicide

The reason they don't mention anything outside of combat is because he doesn't exist outside of combat.

There's an awful lot of information on him, his realm, and his goals if he's not meant to exist outside of combat. Just because he's lacking noncombat stats doesn't mean he only exists to fight and die. It means the designers wised up and realized that enemies don't need numbers except when they matter (i.e. when they oppose someone else's numbers).

Worlds and Monsters pg 66: "The goal of 4E is to encourage the use of boss monsters, make them part of the core DnD experience, and wrap thrilling adventures around them so that years from now, players can regale each other with tales of heroism and woe and count on their fingers and toes the number of demon lord heads mounted on castle walls."

"Whats new about demon lords in 4E is that they're playable monsters, high-level to be sure, but not so complicated that you need an expert dungeon master to run them."

So the reason they don't have much more on them than other monsters? Because they aren't supposed to be all that different from other monsthers. Other than being the final baddy in the dungeon, they're just meant to be trophy kills you wrack up and mount, in large numbers.

Sounds like you've got some prejudices coloring your perceptions here. "No noncombat stats" != "doesn't exist outside of combat." If that's the case, then no monsters are meant to exist outside of combat. One need only read the adventures being released and the advice in the DMG to know that's not the case.

[Dracorat]

Originally Posted by DracoSuave

Here's a perfect example of how to make a fight memorable.

Safer (Seraph) Sephiroth.

What do you remember? The fact he could use Shadow Flare, Flare, and a couple -aga spells? Stuff you had available on Materia?

No. That's not what you remember, what made that fight memorable.

What made it memorable was the O Fortuna-homage theme in the background, chanting latin, the epic music of the fight....


....And the fact he summoned the destruction of the entire solar system just to hurt you.

You don't remember the minor mundane stuff... you remember the epic and unique stuff, and -that- is what sold the Seraph Sephiroth fight to everyone.

For the record, the moment anyone says "Sephiroth" I immediately think of "LIMIT BREAK ==> Ominslash!" - as in what you do when you've finally defeated him.

It's Jenovah that I associate all the rest with. Sephiroth was only a tool.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Runestar

Dicefreaks' "The Gates of Hell" publication, ...

Got it! Thanks. (...I think, )

Originally Posted by Runestar

In 4e, the balor returns to its LoTR roots by whacking the PCs with its lightning sword and flaming whip. Now that is memorable, simple because no other monster even comes close to replicating its capabilities in this aspect.

Agreed.


Still, one of the strengths of the 3.xe system was that the players knew the monsters were playing under the same rules the PCs were. That made it feel more gritty and real, methinks. The fact that 4e so blatantly does away with that (Graz'zt can conjure a glass of elf-blood wine, while you'll never be able to) is what's so jarring to long-time gamers.

It's not bad; just different.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Nail

Still, one of the strengths of the 3.xe system was that the players knew the monsters were playing under the same rules the PCs were. That made it feel more gritty and real, methinks. The fact that 4e so blatantly does away with that (Graz'zt can conjure a glass of elf-blood wine, while you'll never be able to) is what's so jarring to long-time gamers..

1) Graz'zt is also a quasi-god. I expect him to be able to do things that PCs just can't. Especially in his own domain.

2) Long term gamers compared to what? 2e monsters weren't treated the same as PCs. I fully expect the same was for 1e too.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Long term gamers compared to what? 2e monsters weren't treated the same as PCs. I fully expect the same was for 1e too.

1e was like that, true. Of course, us 1e DMs just made stuff up all the time, rules or no.

But 3.xe has been around for over EIGHT years. That's a lot of game time. How many "internet years" is that?

[knasser]

Don't forget all of us who play non-DnD games! I primarily play Shadowrun and the idea of the DM just making up arbitrary powers for creatures can easily seem to players like "cheating." It's an odd notion that the rules do *not* actually reflect the reality of the game world, but that the physics of the world are based around what will challenge the players.

[DracoSuave]

Shadowrun uses the same rules for antagonists? I'll remember -that- next time I'm hacking ice.

Shadowrun has elegant blocks for its antagonists tho, Shadowrun monsters aren't exactly complicated, compared to D&D Monsters.