Monsters are more than their stats

[Lizard]

But you're going to keep complaining about it, right?

I'm still pissed at Fox for taking off Firefly. So, yes.

I was born a grumpy old man...

To bring up another point -- yes, I require a rigid framework for monster abilities. Either I define them myself, or I use a published definition, or somewhere in between, but when the game begins, I want to know "This can do X at a range of Y". If I'm forced to make something up on the spot, I can, but it gets written down and becomes the new law of the land from then on.

I've never been comfortable with plot dependent power levels in any media. If Spiderman can beat Firebrand (or Firelord, can't remember, Galactus' least-interesting herald) in one issue, he shouldn't have trouble fighting Stilt-Man in another. Gives me agita.

 

[Lizard]

However, I notice that you still failed to answer my earlier question. What is the difference between "Oh, the bad guy has a magic item that lets him do X" and "The bad guy has a ritual that lets him do X"? And, how is one good and another bad?

It's not bad if the rituals have rules defining them; it's bad if it's a simple handwave excuse.

But this is a different topic. I don't mind thinking "Succubi can only use that charm once a day, but this one needs more for the plot I have in mind; let me see if I can build a ritual to do it that she's qualified to use". I do mind "Well, no one bothered setting a baseline for succubi, so, I guess the entire castle are her slaves by now."

Or as I noted earlier, I'd much rather make up world fluff than monster fluff. If they're reading people's minds at WOTC, they've clearly decided that the main design goal of 4e is "annoy Lizard". Even so, there's a lot of ideas I really like, I just dislike their implementation of them.

 

[Hussar]

1. The PCs want to break the control the Succubus has over the country.
2. The PCs have allied/bargained with a Succubus to gain control of a country
3. The PCs dominate/blackmail/force the Succubus to gain control over a country and do what they tell her.
4. The PCs suspect that the country is under the control of a Succubus and want to investigate.

If you want to keep the game consistent (for example when the PCs had previous encounters with Succubi) its important that the DM knows how this works.

I just want to look at that last bit.

Derren, are you claiming that every monster must work in exactly the same way as every other monster of its type or the game is no longer consistent? That if one succubus has an ability, all succubi must have the identical abililty?

How do you justify advanced monsters then?

As far as 1-4 goes, isn't that what the DM should be doing? Shouldn't the DM be dropping hooks and reacting to what the players attempt to do? Again, is it important that not only does the DM know exactly, mechanically how the succubus achieved its goals, but also, he must be able to present this to the players as well?

I already crafted a trial ritual above that answers all 4 of your points. How is this a failing? And, how is this inconsistent?

 

[DandD]

I've never been comfortable with plot dependent power levels in any media. If Spiderman can beat Firebrand (or Firelord, can't remember, Galactus' least-interesting herald) in one issue, he shouldn't have trouble fighting Stilt-Man in another. Gives me agita.

That, my friend, Marvel's stagnant story-telling, which is on par with that of DC.
After you've beaten gods and cosmic beings from other dimensions, stories should simply end. But comic book superheroes being, well, comic book superheroes, they will fight on and on and on and on and on, and their enemies will just use even more ludicrous plots, and things will just get more inane... till the multi/universe implodes, literally.
Then it's time for a reboot, new rules, new restrictions, and new creative licenses to let your imagination run free.
Holds true for comic book superhero-stories, and for Pen&Paper-RPGs.

 

[sorites]

Details on long-term control are needed, but the 4e focus is entirely on "Things which occur in a combat round". Out of combat==just doesn't matter.

I think you're wrong that out of combat doesn't matter to the 4e rules set. Maybe you're not completely serious, but I'd revise your statement like this:

"Monster Manual Out of combat==just doesn't matter"

Which is why we probably won't see rituals or other long-term powers detailed in the MM. Instead, the monsters described in the MM will just have rules for combat. Monsters are made to kill, after all. But wait! What about monsters that are captured or interrogated? What about monsters that are more than their stats? I'm betting the DMG will talk about how to use monsters out of combat, in social challenges, as recurring villains, as "puppet masters", etc.

The DMG will give advice on creating an internally consistent reason for the monster's position in the plot. That could involve making up an artifact, creating a new long-term power or ritual, or rationalizing that the succubus's Bluff and Perform skills are sufficiently higher than the king's sense motive that she has flat-out seduced him (i.e. without magic).

You'd think, but it could simply be a listing of rituals by level with no idea how they were built.

Or it could be exactly what it should be, a set of detailed rules and guidelines. We'll see.

In any event, we KNOW for an absolute fact that there are at least guidelines which will detail the relative power levels of rituals (raise dead ritual) and that monsters will have access to rituals (lich phylactery). So, that's two things that we know right off the bat.

Here's an interesting quote from Keith Baker's blog (also discussed on WotC's 4e forums):

Raise Dead. In 4E, it's specifically called out that you can't raise most people from the dead. By and large, when the fates cut your thread, it's over - you are sent to whatever your final fate may be. You can only be raised if you still have an unfulfilled destiny - and as it turns out, that's something most PCs (and presumably, many major villains) happen to have. This is a HUGE thing for me in terms of dealing with the logical impact of raise dead on a civilization.

Based on this, I don't think rituals will just be a list with no rules, and I don't think they will be overly vague. Keith even points out, and I think Lizard agrees, the rules for how the Raise Dead Ritual works set boundaries for what to expect in the world. In this case, when people die, they usually stay dead because bringing someone back to life is rare.

But beyond that, we also see the DM is given some handwaving powers. This is very different from 3E where the DM and the players were bound to obey the same set of rules. Here, the DM is given the authority to say, "Yes, this NPC can be brought back to life, but that one can't."

On the other hand if, as the OP seems to wish, the only relevant text was "Succubi seduce people, mmmkay?", the DMs job becomes a lot harder, as he has to basically design the rules for succubi before designing a plot centering on them.

I think you're seeing things backwards, which isn't really surprising because what you say makes perfect sense from a 3E perspective. But if you're just given some text that says, "Succubi seduce people," and that is all, you can decide *how* the seduction works _after_ you decide the who and why. Reverse engineer it.

And I really think the DMG is going to provide hard and fast guidelines for helping the DM define situations like this with a framework of rules. 3E is sooo rules-oriented, I can't imagine 4E supporting the notion that whatever the DM says goes. The party will be allowed to interact with NPCs and plots in ways that are supported by the rules, not mere handwaving. Some handwaving might be involved, but it won't be 100% DM fiat.

 

[Derren]

Derren, are you claiming that every monster must work in exactly the same way as every other monster of its type or the game is no longer consistent? That if one succubus has an ability, all succubi must have the identical abililty?

Yes. The power can of course differ (by a reasonable amount) but the abilities the monsters have should stay the same.

I already crafted a trial ritual above that answers all 4 of your points. How is this a failing? And, how is this inconsistent?

That is of course not inconsistent because you created a rule which is valid for all Succubus. Created is the important word here, meaning that you as DM had to create the ritual itself, check if for loopholes and make sure that it is balanced. If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.
Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.

 

[Wormwood]

It's not bad if the rituals have rules defining them; it's bad if it's a simple handwave excuse.

If that's the case, then what rules did you use when you invented the 'artifact of increased aboleth power range'?

Because from where I'm sittin', artifacts and rituals both look a lot like plot devices.

 

[Anaxander]

Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.

I don't agree at all with this statement.

1) Using dispel magic to dispel the charm effect requires you to cast a spell on the king. Now why would he (and his guards) allow that? Before you can earn the trust of the court, you will have to use a lot of other skills. So it's not all magic that matters.

2) Using spells to counter magical effects drains the daily resources of the party's spellcaster. Using dispel magic means a spell less to blow things up, to gain information, to buff, to heal, etc. As probably not all characters in the party are spellcasters, in the end you will have to use a combination of skills, magic and martial arts to succeed.
Magic is a scarce resource, both for players and NPCs. When played right, it is never "boring".

3) In the final confrontation between the succubus, the king and the party, why would the use of dispel magic (which also depends on a roll) be more "boring" than an attack roll or skill check?

4) About the inflation of magic... The same arms race happens between attack bonus and AC, skills and DCs. It's not a consequence of the magic system, but of level advancement.

 

[DandD]

Look, the Court Wizard and/or the High Holy Priest will simply see it instantly. Heck, it's their very job to ensure the magical and spiritual safety of the king in the first place. No need for any adventurer to cast Dispel and Detect Magic at all, because the Succubus would have been instantly been slain by these two guys with their own retinue.

Magic inflation is boring. It's simple as that. Better use the mundane skills of the Succubus, and let her use her devilish brain instead of her arcane brawn.

Or else, we might as well just return to the rulership of magocracy in D&D, where anybody who doesn't use magic simply sucks, especially at higher level.

 

[jasin]

Magic inflation is boring. It's simple as that. Better use the mundane skills of the Succubus, and let her use her devilish brain instead of her arcane brawn.

Any particular reason why it needs to be a Succubus, then, rather than a Really Hot Chick?