D&D 4E I've nailed down why 4e makes me apprehensive

I love 3.x and have ever since the first beholder stats came out months before the first 3.0 PHB. It brought me back to DnD. I've played and DMed it so much that all the formulae of creatures, items and effects are transparent to me. I can completely gut an NPC or monster and rebuild it at my whim because of how formulaic and math-y 3.x is. But 4e isn't looking like this. Now, I know it's quite probably too early for such transparncy as the rules haven't even been decided on, let alone codified, but it seems as if 4e is not going to be so transparent. Sure, there will be customizeability( a la adjusting monster levels) but it almost seems as if the changeable parts will be surface parameters, not the deep-down guts of the creature.

I don't know how solid such thoughts are, and likely 4e will become as familiar and thus malleable to me as 3.x; I'm just glad that I figured out why I was apprehensive about it.

I don't know, if the system works like they say it does, then it has to have a strong math underpinning, it just seems to be different math than 3.x. That said, I'm sure people will figure out the algebraic equations behind all the rules soon enough.

I liked how, in 3.x, monsters used rules similar to that for characters. However, this meant the math was often messed up. It was a worthwhile goal, messed up by the math. That's why we have so many monsters with amazingly high grapple checks, for instance; if you follow the rules (BAB + size mod + Strength mod), said monster ends up with a high grapple check (something only really high level PCs can face) even though everything else says it should have a more moderate CR. By the same token, you might face a giant that mathematically has decent saves for its level (just average the three saves; the math might work out properly) but in fact has such a lame Will save that any party with a wizard can beat it handily. I always thought that you should be allowed to give a monster an SQ that basically nerfs an overpowered stat (or cranks an underpowered stat). In fact, in 3.5 they did that with a few monsters. The Eldritch Giant, for instance, has "superhuman willpower" or something similar that gives it a +6 bonus to Will saves; this was an obvious attempt to fix the "spread in saving throws" rules that results in high CR giants being Hold Monster bait.

We haven't seen any of the new monster rules yet, but I heard that sample vampires are going to be released at some point; maybe the rules changes won't be so huge.

Yeah, I thought the one system for all idea was a good one, but Psi points out a good example of how badly it worked out in practice.

If the 4E monster system is as simple as picking a role, picking a level and then adding flavor-appropriate approaches to things, it might be even simpler to make new monsters.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

Yeah, I thought the one system for all idea was a good one, but Psi points out a good example of how badly it worked out in practice.

If the 4E monster system is as simple as picking a role, picking a level and then adding flavor-appropriate approaches to things, it might be even simpler to make new monsters.

Click to expand...

This new approach seems as solid idea as the last, as long as the designers think to quantify abilities. I think that is why it worked out so badly in practice, why CR is sometimes so difficult to do, why LA is ... just ... horrible.

This gives me an idea. An idea that I think is likely similar to that behind Upper_Krust's CR calculator. Huge task, to be sure, but since the 3.5 system is(or will soon be) 'complete', a quantifiable one:

instead of CR, the only measure of anything, be it PC, NPC, monster, trap, item, etc. is level. Like character level. This may require certain abilities and qualities to be worth ".1 levels" or somesuch, but if in 4e this quantification was done right from the start it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

wait ... am I rambling and meandering?

Goblyn said:

instead of CR, the only measure of anything, be it PC, NPC, monster, trap, item, etc. is level. Like character level. This may require certain abilities and qualities to be worth ".1 levels" or somesuch, but if in 4e this quantification was done right from the start it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

Click to expand...

Just give monsters "classes" (really a measure of power, trained or natural) and "races" (just the core properties of the creature type) that are each balanced against each other and PCs, and you can be balanced right there. Monsters wouldn't have the same breadth of options, for simplicities sake, but passive qualities and stat bonuses can take their place.

wait ... am I rambling and meandering?

Click to expand...

Divagating, I think.

Given how much emphasis in previews and developer comments has been placed on ensuring us that the game's math is more rigorous and robust, I think its safe to say that you'll learn to work 4e just as well as you currently work 3.5.

Cadfan said:

Given how much emphasis in previews and developer comments has been placed on ensuring us that the game's math is more rigorous and robust, I think its safe to say that you'll learn to work 4e just as well as you currently work 3.5.

Click to expand...

I'm optimistic that that is the case, but there's always the lingering pessimistic "What if ..?" part of me. I think it's in that lump on my ear.

Goblyn said:

instead of CR, the only measure of anything, be it PC, NPC, monster, trap, item, etc. is level. Like character level. This may require certain abilities and qualities to be worth ".1 levels" or somesuch, but if in 4e this quantification was done right from the start it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

wait ... am I rambling and meandering?

Click to expand...

Grim Tales and 1E AD&D did this (although I don't think there were rules for non-creatures). It looks like this is exactly the way 4E is going: the educated speculation is that all monsters, traps, hazards, etc. are worth a set number of xp, which is the determinant for the difficulty of an encounter.