Something Awful leak.

[KarinsDad]

Tovec nailed it. Vampires don't cast a charm person spell, they stare into the maiden's eyes with a supernatural ability.

But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.

The moment every supernatural monster ability is unique is the moment that causes DM headaches at the table. I cannot tell you the number of times that as a DM, I missed some small nuance of a monster's ability that weakened the overall encounter. As an example, I went through half of an adventure forgetting Lycanthrope Fury for Frenzied Werewolves because it was lower down on the stat writeup and some of my other werewolves did not have it. It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wizards are usually using spells to try and replicate - if not improve upon - supernatural abilities from the "monster power source."

 

[keterys]

But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.

This does not match my own experience playing... every edition of D&D .

A lot of the things you're objecting to are frankly because they made some racial abilities (ex: hobgoblin) that ended up being _bad_ so they experimented with trying new ones (Ex: phalanx movement). Disparity, sure, but better monsters yes.

And I'm sorry but having to refer to many different spells instead of actual abilities is _far_ harder to DM. Lessee, a beholder could have 10 lines of eye rays that just reference a spell, and you get to look them all up, maybe copy down relevant bits in a note after... or it could have 20 lines for 10 eye rays that tell you what they do. And maybe differ from the spell when it's appropriate for the monster.

Not interested in 3e's "attach spells to everything" methodology. I'm fine with any other edition's treatment, though I think it'd be a shame to throw out all of the innovations of 4e instead of just adding the things that were excluded (ex: rituals, plot abilities, guidance for how to just add extra spells and abilities, etc).

Anyhow, I'm with Piratecat. Lich's can have spells. Vampire wizards (or mummy clerics, or human wizards for that matter) can have spells - vampire rogues don't need them. If they really want, spells can duplicate monster abilities instead of the other way around. ("Gaze of the Basilisk", et al)

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.

The moment every supernatural monster ability is unique is the moment that causes DM headaches at the table. I cannot tell you the number of times that as a DM, I missed some small nuance of a monster's ability that weakened the overall encounter. As an example, I went through half of an adventure forgetting Lycanthrope Fury for Frenzied Werewolves because it was lower down on the stat writeup and some of my other werewolves did not have it. It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.

If the game was other than d&d it would be true, but d&d spell are full of useless fluff the be used as generic powers. In savage words or muttants and masterminds it is true, but d&d? Like the big area damage effect is a fireball, so if I want a cold monster with a big area damage effec? You can say "it is like fireball but with cold damage" but reading the 3e fireball descriotion it says that if burn things.... the cold fireball burn things too?

 

[Klaus]

Specifically, I want Demons, Devils, and Dragons to be casting spells (and nasty ones at that), not just using abilities/powers.

And in 3.5, the whole point of the Xorvinthaal template for Dragons was to make them feel like... well, dragons, instead of just being high-level sorcerors that happen to be shaped like dragons. And demons/devils had enormous spell lists with many spells that were simply never used because the creature's time in the "spotlight" is very limited.

You said that 4e is bad because you have to remember which goblins have Goblin Tactics, and which don't (the vast majority does). But you don't have to. You just pick the stat block and it's all there. You don't have to list a Goblin Hexer's spell list of "feeblemind x2, curse x3", and then refer back to whichever book has the spell to know what it does. It's all there, in the stat block.

And in the end, 4e monster design/customization is so easy, you can just say "this dragon is trained in Arcana and can cast rituals" and be done with it.

 

[Truename]

And in the end, 4e monster design/customization is so easy, you can just say "this dragon is trained in Arcana and can cast rituals" and be done with it.

Exactly. 4e monster design is awesome. Monsters are surprising, interesting, and incredibly easy to DM. If I want all my goblins to feel similar, I just do it. And if I want to stat up the world's most powerful goblin mage (and I did; he's riding a worg named Fluffy and tagging along with my high-paragon PCs), I just do that, too. Easy. Look up appropriate damage, call it "fireball," and done. Thank you very much, Wizards, that one you got right.

 

[catastrophic]

4E's method of "maybe the designer remembered that Hobgoblins have this ability, maybe the designer forgot" is lacking in flavor and consistency.

This is not a fair description of 4e. In my experience 4e has characterful and consistant design of monsters, particularly types of monsters, who are distinctive in ways that are unmatched in previous editions.

I compare this to the approach of previous editions, which rarely gave most monsters much of anything to do, and the ones that it did, were weighed down with skills, spellbooks and more which didn't serve any gameplay purpose.

I find that simulationist dogma doesn't make for good or evocative battles, and that's why it makes sense to me that every giant doesn't have the same powers as every other giant.

5e monster design should stick to 4e's approach, especially if they (as some people suggested earlier) want a monster sheet to include everything the DM needs to run them.

I don't need codified quasi-story on the monster sheet in my games. I need a combat sheet.

I can make my own fluff, or read the fluff in a context better suited to it (such as knolwdge checks, or a general lore section), which can be written more evocativly as a result, as well.

I certainly don't want dragons-as-sorcerors, in fact i'm flat out finding room for Devils-As-Spellcasters. I remember one of the more powerful fiends in 3e had a sword, and a flaming whip- but their best move by far, was to, inexplicably make people Implode. Why? Because implode is a high level spell they can cast.

Sure, a spellcaster like a lich should be built around spellcasting, but even here, monster design must be unbound by dogma.

When my PCs fought a solo lich, he had a power for each shool of specialization- (including a seeming evocation spelll wich was actually an illusion!)- but doing that wasn't a process of poring over spell lists and trying to shoe-horn existing spells into the monster design- it was based on creating unique powers which FELT and PLAYED like like a powerful, undead spellcaster.

But, this complicates the game system. It's not so much that the Vampire is casting a Charm, but the game system is a LOT more simple if the Vampire Charm and the Charm spell are identical or nearly identical.

This is an argument for common conditions, not common powers. Likewise, having spells instead of powers isn't going to make things more simple, especially if PC-style spells come with a bunch of additional features like interruption of casting, and how often they can be cast in a day.

It makes no sense in a balanced and hence functional 4e approach to tie monster abilities into spells just because that's how they did it in the old days.

It's not a simple claw, claw, bite, it's a specific ability that some werewolves have and others do not and when running different ones together, I as a DM sometimes miss this stuff.

Anything you can miss in a monster power, can be missed just as much if not more in a spell list that carries a bunch of legacy issues.

Exception based power design is a huge asset to the game, and rejecting it is going to cost WOTC customers.

 

[JonWake]

Exception based power design is a huge asset to the game, and rejecting it is going to cost WOTC customers.

Oh, I'm sure they're not that worried about it.

 

[Kzach]

Tovec nailed it. Vampires don't cast a charm person spell, they stare into the maiden's eyes with a supernatural ability. Sirens didn't cast a "come hither" spell when luring sailors to their doom. I'm talking actual, honest to gosh class ability to cast.

I was just listing these off the top of my head but I'm positive many of the ones I listed DID have caster levels in 1e or 2e

 

[Szatany]

Everything you said here (in slightly different terms) is the problem with 4e-style conditions.

In 4e, a monster does something, and the PC is shaken. The power doesn't say what shaken means, so you have to dig up the PHB and look it up.

I think what the designer was saying about the hypothetical "power word stun" is that it would say "stun," and then it would describe what being stunned means. So you would still have the keyword, and there would still be a list of them somewhere, but you don't have to look it up every time, as the definition would be right there.

Hopefully.

If there are only 20 or less status effects, why not have them on cards? That'd be super-useful.
You don't have to bloat MM with them.
You don't need to flip a book to recall them.
You don't even need to write them somewhere or remember that your character is under the effect. You just take a card. And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.