"Fear of Monsters" back into 4th Edition

[Tony Vargas]

For those of you that have choosen to stay with 4th Edition, what are your thoughts on the topic? Keeping 4th Edition monsters as is, or stealing with pride from 5th Edition?

The Disease Track seems to work quite well. It's something other than just the dailly resource grind (oh, prep a Cure Disease, one slot, problem gone).

In your example, unless you can count on always rolling at least stable (+19 endurance or heal is not easy to come by at 8th level) you're at risk and even if you are somehow +23 endurance @ 8th level, you will be suffering the initial effect for at least the rest of the 'day.'
'Cure Disease' being /necessary/ is arguably a flaw, forcing a 'Cleric' (ritual caster) as a niche-protected must-have-magic in the party, dictating player choice and undermining low-/no-magic themed games.

But, yes, it's easy enough to adjust (exception based design, go!) if you want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Disease Track seems to work quite well. It's something other than just the dailly resource grind (oh, prep a Cure Disease, one slot, problem gone).

In your example, unless you can count on always rolling at least stable (+19 endurance or heal is not easy to come by at 8th level) you're at risk and even if you are somehow +23 endurance @ 8th level, you will be suffering the initial effect for at least the rest of the 'day.'
'Cure Disease' being /necessary/ is arguably a flaw, forcing a 'Cleric' (ritual caster) as a niche-protected must-have-magic in the party, dictating player choice and undermining low-/no-magic themed games.

But, yes, it's easy enough to adjust (exception based design, go!) if you want.

Seems pretty trivial to apply the Cure Disease ritual's effects to something else, a salve being the obvious choice. Beyond that at least any class CAN cast the ritual, it isn't like AD&D where either you have a cleric or its certain death (which is also the case in 3.x it seems, though I'm a bit less savvy on all its possible exceptions).

I like [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s answer, just uplevel the mummy or at least the DC of the disease if you want it to be a really serious hazard. Anyway, as you say, it IS non-trivial even in stock 4e, where CD may or may not be available and there are plenty of 8th level PCs with a 10 CON and no Endurance skill that will need to roll a 16+ just to keep stable (albeit someone will work a Heal on them and probably make things more sane, and your average PC can probably pass on a 10 at that level).

I think its fair to say that diseases (and poisons as well) follow the standard of 4e where an at-level disease is only a middling threat to PCs that aren't in dire straights already. Honestly, the more I think about it, I'd probably use this monster in a scenario with the PCs stumbling around in the desert, already having a hard time. A sandstorm is approaching, and they stumble upon an ancient pyramid, and a dark entrance leading to its interior. The one native guide flees into the storm rather than take shelter within...

Pretty soon the party will be wondering if they should risk going back out in the storm in an attempt to make it back to civilization soon enough to deal with the rot, or try to tough it out and take the mummies, but then be left staggering through the desert with little food or water and a nasty disease eating away at the last of their strength. The rot itself might not be ultra dangerous, but there's always that one last thing that spells doom for the expedition.

 

[Garthanos]

Seems pretty trivial to apply the Cure Disease ritual's effects to something else, a salve being the obvious choice. Beyond that at least any class CAN cast the ritual, it isn't like AD&D where either you have a cleric or its certain death (which is also the case in 3.x it seems, though I'm a bit less savvy on all its possible exceptions).

Hmmm my martial practice for curing disease is blood-rite style one currently letting someone die... and wrestling with death to restore them LOL Hercules ahoy. It seems like a resurection but it has a narrow window for functioning and requires a relatively intact subject so leprosy is probably not on the list.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmm my martial practice for curing disease is blood-rite style one currently letting someone die... and wrestling with death to restore them LOL Hercules ahoy. It seems like a resurection but it has a narrow window for functioning and requires a relatively intact subject so leprosy is probably not on the list.

Eh, yeah, when the body turns to dust it might not seem so thematic...

 

[Myrhdraak]

[MENTION=6694190]Myrhdraak[/MENTION] I played a lot of 4e, and the sorts of debilitating effects you're talking about – rust monsters, mummy rot, carrion crawlers, etc. – absolutely were toned down compared to what I remember of their AD&D versions. My experience with 3e was limited so I don't feel confident commenting there.

In 5e, it depends on the monster. For example, rust monsters & mummies lean far more toward their AD&D versions than 4e did. However, the paralyzation of carrion crawlers is still just as gimped in 5e as it was in 4e (reduced to a round or three compared to minutes in AD&D).

Anyhow, I ran mummies back in AD&D quite a bit – we had an Egyptian themed Planescape campaign – and I came up with some original ways to remove mummy rot that felt more interesting than spells (and because my "party" was 2 PCs – a fighter and a mage – lacking clerical magic). Straining my memory here, but I think...

• I incorporated the idea of a mummy's sarcophagus being a sort of shrine to their patron deity, and if the proper prayers/propitiation/sacrifices were offered to that deity at that sarcophagus-shrine, that would remove the mummy rot.
• I came up with a magic ritual puzzle using the mummy's canopic jars that, if merged with alchemical substances in the right combo, would create an unguent which - when painted over the eyelids - would remove the mummy rot (or allow it to be transferred to an incapacitated creature who was painted). However, it posed risk of reanimating the mummy if done incorrectly. EDIT: Actually, now I remember, I had a table I rolled on if the ritual wasn't done right – with results ranging from inflicting blindness, swapping sight of mummy & victim (if both still "alive"), mummy possessing victim, etc.
• I had these "blood murals" in one dungeon which required pricking a finger on a single needle to get them to spin - some revealed secret passages, others cryptograms with clues, others were traps guarding treasure/portals. I think one was curative and would purify the blood/skin of creatures infected with mummy rot at the cost of hit points.

The general principle I tend to fall back on with such long-term debilitating conditions is "Yes you're afflicted with this really nasty thing, BUT...here's what can be done about it that adds to the drama/interest of the game & provides an interesting choice..."

This I really like and will use as inspiration. A much stronger tie to the story, while still keeping its deadliness if you do not do something about it.

 

[Myrhdraak]

Anyway, as you say, it IS non-trivial even in stock 4e, where CD may or may not be available and there are plenty of 8th level PCs with a 10 CON and no Endurance skill that will need to roll a 16+ just to keep stable (albeit someone will work a Heal on them and probably make things more sane, and your average PC can probably pass on a 10 at that level).

As you say, most parties will at least have one character who has training in Heal and high ability in it, which will make the mummy rot quite trivial to the whole party, unless you make a special rule that mummy rot is more of a curse, and the Heal skill will have no effect on it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As you say, most parties will at least have one character who has training in Heal and high ability in it, which will make the mummy rot quite trivial to the whole party, unless you make a special rule that mummy rot is more of a curse, and the Heal skill will have no effect on it.

Yeah, that is often true, and I don't have a real issue with creating more challenging versions, or just higher level ones, etc. I mean, plot devices are always cool! One oddity, IMHO, about 4e design is that it is much more intentional than earlier editions, there's NOTHING in the rules that suggests random monsters or anything like that. So, you'd think every monster would be a plot device, right? At worst that some would be set dressing, but they'd all fit directly into some sort of overall story, as a general rule. Yet the 4e MM, even MM3 and the MV's to a great extent, are written mechanically as if monsters are exactly sort of random stand-alone obstacles. The mummy doesn't inflict a terrible curse that requires some great quest to fix, the medusa doesn't turn (very many) characters to stone and force their buddies to find a way to fix it (or just be a horrible legend that you only meet with great trepidation and after significant planning). In a way its really ODD, the monsters of AD&D, a game that practically hinges on random encounters, are vastly better set up to be plot devices than those presented in a game which clearly eschews randomness and triviality in favor of plot!

 

[Igwilly]

I actually agree with the OP in his point.
Leaving Mummy Rot aside…
I’m reading AD&D 2e right now, and many special nasty effects clearly got a lot weaker with time. Gaze attacks, petrification, monster’s charm effects, rust monsters, anti-magic fields, magic jar, instant death, paralyzing effects, and the almighty energy drain and aging effects, among others. It’s really a shame because I like these nasty things and I think it would make 4e better – it would make it more dangerous, and strategy would matter more, etc.
However, diseases have a chronic problem in D&D: they’re too easy to revert it by just using magic! Seriously, even though PC adventurers are supposed to be top tier people in their field, usually it’s just a minor inconvenience.
The various disease phases in 4e were a great idea, save perhaps being able to heal it fully by yourself. In some cases, it should be possible, but not in many others. However, unless the DC is significantly higher than normal for your level, it’s often easy to just wait, especially with the Heal skill. Cure Disease got more dangerous if you try to solve problems too high for your level, and there’s a cost in this ritual, so I think it’s in the right direction. However, if the disease is more “appropriate” for you level, Cure Disease is safe and even waiting for the disease to pass away is a good option.
Now, I don’t know how 5e handles this, because I don’t like 5e but if it has a solution for the following problem I would listen:
In the end, curing diseases is one of the magical effects D&D has underestimated for far too long time. Another prime example is teleportation (4e actually helped a lot with teleportation).
The problem with difficulty in 4e is not that you cannot make it harder – it’s stupidly easy to make things difficult. The problem is regarding to threats you are supposed to face in level X: they just aren’t difficult enough. An even level encounter usually is too easy, same with even level diseases, same with even level traps. It’s all on easy mode.

Addendum: I don’t know if this was clear, but going back to “nasty stuff” issue:
This was a great reason why some enemies were so feared. Together with the overall state of things, this fear has – with reason – diminished. For example: While I was looking at 4e’s stats for the Beholder, I just felt “it’s not that strong. I mean, it’s high level, but not impressive”. However, looking at 2e’s version, I thought, “this guy is a monster!” Really, it’s very powerful and much more dreadful than posterior versions.
I used the beholder because back in 2009-2010 or so, a previous 4e supporter just got maddened because he introduced a beholder in his adventure for his novice players, and the encounter was a cakewalk. They did not have this impression of power and fear. Nope, just another monster for the day.
However, it isn’t the only one: the monsters who had those nasty effects simply weren’t so much of a challenge in 4e and, in turn, were not that dreadful.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I actually agree with the OP in his point.
Leaving Mummy Rot aside…
I’m reading AD&D 2e right now, and many special nasty effects clearly got a lot weaker with time. Gaze attacks, petrification, monster’s charm effects, rust monsters, anti-magic fields, magic jar, instant death, paralyzing effects, and the almighty energy drain and aging effects, among others. It’s really a shame because I like these nasty things and I think it would make 4e better – it would make it more dangerous, and strategy would matter more, etc.

I hear this again and again about how this or that edition is 'more dangerous', but this is ENTIRELY up to the GM and the table! You can play with as much or as little character mortality and as much or as little adversarial challenge type of play as you wish in any rule set of D&D. Even given the basic standard conditions and expectations of, let us say, 4e the variation can be huge (IE there is no hard and fast rule about how much difficulty a party has to face in a day, and mechanically you can impose harsher or less harsh DCs and whatnot within a broad range and still live within the guidelines in the DMG).

However, diseases have a chronic problem in D&D: they’re too easy to revert it by just using magic! Seriously, even though PC adventurers are supposed to be top tier people in their field, usually it’s just a minor inconvenience.
The various disease phases in 4e were a great idea, save perhaps being able to heal it fully by yourself. In some cases, it should be possible, but not in many others. However, unless the DC is significantly higher than normal for your level, it’s often easy to just wait, especially with the Heal skill. Cure Disease got more dangerous if you try to solve problems too high for your level, and there’s a cost in this ritual, so I think it’s in the right direction. However, if the disease is more “appropriate” for you level, Cure Disease is safe and even waiting for the disease to pass away is a good option.
Now, I don’t know how 5e handles this, because I don’t like 5e but if it has a solution for the following problem I would listen:

I agree, everything seems to be solved with magic by default assumption in D&D. I think this is simply a dimension of the D&D fantasy genre where wizards and priests can do pretty much anything. Obviously it could be made harder, AD&D tended to have things like curses/diseases that required high level clerics to fix, etc. but that wasn't a really good answer IMHO. These things need to be more plot-driven, which D&D is not good at by default.

In the end, curing diseases is one of the magical effects D&D has underestimated for far too long time. Another prime example is teleportation (4e actually helped a lot with teleportation).
The problem with difficulty in 4e is not that you cannot make it harder – it’s stupidly easy to make things difficult. The problem is regarding to threats you are supposed to face in level X: they just aren’t difficult enough. An even level encounter usually is too easy, same with even level diseases, same with even level traps. It’s all on easy mode.

I just don't think that 4e is built to be generate nothing but even-level challenges. This is a bit different from the 'old days' where in 1e a 1HD monster was roughly a challenge for a 1st level PC. However, this was NOT universally true AT ALL, and most monsters had special abilities that made them FAR more deadly than a PC of the same nominal 'level'. All 4e ACTUALLY did was make level have a well-established and reliable MEANING. You want hard 4e? Use level+3 encounters stock everywhere and you're very close to what you'd probably run into in most 1e adventures.

Addendum: I don’t know if this was clear, but going back to “nasty stuff” issue:
This was a great reason why some enemies were so feared. Together with the overall state of things, this fear has – with reason – diminished. For example: While I was looking at 4e’s stats for the Beholder, I just felt “it’s not that strong. I mean, it’s high level, but not impressive”. However, looking at 2e’s version, I thought, “this guy is a monster!” Really, it’s very powerful and much more dreadful than posterior versions.
I used the beholder because back in 2009-2010 or so, a previous 4e supporter just got maddened because he introduced a beholder in his adventure for his novice players, and the encounter was a cakewalk. They did not have this impression of power and fear. Nope, just another monster for the day.
However, it isn’t the only one: the monsters who had those nasty effects simply weren’t so much of a challenge in 4e and, in turn, were not that dreadful.

The problem is it is the wrong kind of dread. I mean, its a fine thing, there are beholders that are just something you never ever face, because they're stupid deadly. However, things you don't ever face aren't really part of the game... OTOH if you make a creature that has effects that are plot relevant, curses that make you seek out widgets that cure them, or whatever, then you have something that is still terrifying (the curse can have all sorts of terrible effects) but its a LOT more interesting than all the 1e monsters that just poison you to death instantly as soon as they hit unless you save. I never understood what was fun about that. 4e didn't exactly get it right, but it laid a lot more of the groundwork for that possibility (though certainly you can do the same in any edition, I'm not really criticizing one more than another).

 

[Igwilly]

Answer:

I hear this again and again about how this or that edition is 'more dangerous', but this is ENTIRELY up to the GM and the table! You can play with as much or as little character mortality and as much or as little adversarial challenge type of play as you wish in any rule set of D&D. Even given the basic standard conditions and expectations of, let us say, 4e the variation can be huge (IE there is no hard and fast rule about how much difficulty a party has to face in a day, and mechanically you can impose harsher or less harsh DCs and whatnot within a broad range and still live within the guidelines in the DMG).

Not so quite.
As I’ve said, you can raise or lower difficulty as you want, but default expectations matter. The very book suggests that most of the encounters should be at even level. That’s not the problem. The problem is even-level challenges are too easy. The game just assumes even-level challenges are median mode (as they should be), but they’re not. I order to get even a median mode game, you need to go outside the expectations. This can be very confusing to new DMs, or people simply picking up the new edition, or a system they’ve never seen.
Yes, DMs in all editions have a lot of space to change things. I’m just dealing with default expectations because, if one expectation is more common above all others, is the default one. So yes, it is perfectly possible to have a difficult 4e. It just that this is not apparent and every encounter must be level +3 or so (and this tends to get worse in high level).

I agree, everything seems to be solved with magic by default assumption in D&D. I think this is simply a dimension of the D&D fantasy genre where wizards and priests can do pretty much anything. Obviously it could be made harder, AD&D tended to have things like curses/diseases that required high level clerics to fix, etc. but that wasn't a really good answer IMHO. These things need to be more plot-driven, which D&D is not good at by default.

It’s not even about magic: magic can be quite hard to do, even in D&D. These solutions are too easy and accessible, that’s the problem.

I just don't think that 4e is built to be generate nothing but even-level challenges. This is a bit different from the 'old days' where in 1e a 1HD monster was roughly a challenge for a 1st level PC. However, this was NOT universally true AT ALL, and most monsters had special abilities that made them FAR more deadly than a PC of the same nominal 'level'. All 4e ACTUALLY did was make level have a well-established and reliable MEANING. You want hard 4e? Use level+3 encounters stock everywhere and you're very close to what you'd probably run into in most 1e adventures.

I did not said that. What I’m saying is that even-level challenges in 4e are too easy.
True, in 4e you can predict very accurately if a giving encounter will be easy or difficult. This is tremendously useful. However: 1) You have to adjust the metric. Even-level is not median. 2) It was not without cost.

The problem is it is the wrong kind of dread. I mean, its a fine thing, there are beholders that are just something you never ever face, because they're stupid deadly. However, things you don't ever face aren't really part of the game... OTOH if you make a creature that has effects that are plot relevant, curses that make you seek out widgets that cure them, or whatever, then you have something that is still terrifying (the curse can have all sorts of terrible effects) but its a LOT more interesting than all the 1e monsters that just poison you to death instantly as soon as they hit unless you save. I never understood what was fun about that. 4e didn't exactly get it right, but it laid a lot more of the groundwork for that possibility (though certainly you can do the same in any edition, I'm not really criticizing one more than another).

The fear of being killed. This is the most important and powerful of all fears. Monsters in folklore, myth and such usually are feared because of that or something equivalent (being turned to stone, being stuck in a bottle forever…) I would say it’s the most legit fear.
Moreover, you seen to misunderstand these difficult monsters. The goal is not to always run, but to face these monsters as a bigger, risky thing to do. What I (well, my PC) would do if I know I must kill this beholder/big bad monster or otherwise (insert plot reason here)? Prepare my group and myself, investigate its weaknesses, optimize (in game-term here) our efficiency to deal with those weaknesses, and come up with a plan.
I know many people think it’s heresy to bring stuff from video-games, but here I go: In the electronic RPG field, in at least some fandoms, an well-known term is the Superboss. An optional, stupidly difficult encounter created just to be a huge challenge to players with end game characters. Those who defeat them gain cause for bragging rights. Moreover, in some games but not in others, normal bosses are already hard to defeat, and optional bosses, even more so. This is popular among video-game players, especially the more “hard-core” ones. This thing should happen with nasty monsters in D&D.
Although I do think that 1e went too overboard with all poisons being Save or Die. I prefer other methods of dealing with poison.