The Sunless Citadel 4.5 Edition Conversion

[Jhaelen]

Designwise it seems to be either or - limit character attacks, or limit monster HP. Have been considering to use Healing Surges to fuel these creations as another option, in order to have creations with both decent damage and HP, and extra actions. Has anybody seen any House Rules in this area that have been tried out in real play?

I haven't tried anything like that in my games, but I agree with your basic conclusion. I think you'd either have to model it as a 'swarm' of undead, controlled using minor actions or similar to a shaman's spirit or a beastmaster ranger's pet, or you'd have to model them as minions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

CREATE UNDEAD RITUAL

Are looking at converting the Night Caller magic item into a 4th Edition version. Problem is that the classic Animate Dead spell do not easily convert to 4th Edition. Either you have to use the summoning rules but then limit the characters action economy. The other option is to look at Figurine of Wonderous Power-kind of magic, which instead limits the Hit Points so they can barely take one hit before disappearing. Designwise it seems to be either or - limit character attacks, or limit monster HP. Have been considering to use Healing Surges to fuel these creations as another option, in order to have creations with both decent damage and HP, and extra actions. Has anybody seen any House Rules in this area that have been tried out in real play? Both as rituals or magic items for monster creation. The Create Scarecrow or Summon Gargoyle rituals seems the closest, but maybe someone have tried other stuff.

I guess I was never sure I understood what the objection to either of those options was. With the limited action economy option you simply need to insure that the summoned/animated/whatever creature is a reasonable substitute for the action economy it takes up, and provides an engaging option for the player involved. The only tricky part here is that such creatures have many obvious OO combat uses, which means designers are tempted to balance them by making them a bit weak in combat.

I do note that there are actually a few variations in 4e. There's the full summons which uses up actions 1:1, there's the ranger's beast companion and familiars which share a move action, and then you have figurines and a few other similar options. You also have the summoning 'instinctive actions' option.

 

[Garthanos]

You also have the summoning 'instinctive actions' option.

For me that was always the most interesting...

instinctive actions ie you summon a undead or demon and its likely to have an ally unfriendly instinctive actions ie it attacks any nearby creature but useful if you plop em in the middle of enemies.

But some might usually be...

If you summon a wolf seems likely you are the Akela and if you are attacking he aids the attack (tries to flank / harry the enemy - considers it your kill) For roleplay fun it might growl at your allies if they loot something you obviously took down.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me that was always the most interesting...

instinctive actions ie you summon a undead or demon and its likely to have an ally unfriendly instinctive actions ie it attacks any nearby creature but useful if you plop em in the middle of enemies.

But some might usually be...

If you summon a wolf seems likely you are the Akela and if you are attacking he aids the attack (tries to flank / harry the enemy - considers it your kill) For roleplay fun it might growl at your allies if they loot something you obviously took down.

Right. I think basically all summons going forward should have instinctive actions, and all old ones should be retrofitted to have them as well (though that may require some other tweaks). I think its fair to say that summons ARE generally a little weak in pure combat situations. As I said before, its kind of a catch-22 as a designer because, unlike most other dailies, they have substantial OO combat uses (what those are should be pretty obvious). Now, in many/most cases some of those other uses might logically be ruled impossible (IE animals cannot manipulate things, mindless undead can only follow VERY simple commands, etc). Still, they can clear traps, draw attacks, etc. Its a bit unclear what exactly the limits are, if they can scout ahead (within LoS/LoE/Range) and report what they see, use active Perception to search for stuff, etc. IMHO this kind of thing is possible with intelligent summons. Its even an open question just how willing they are as servants, but even the narrowest interpretations of their capabilities still leaves substantial non-combat options open, more so than with all but a few other attack powers.

 

[Garthanos]

Right. I think basically all summons going forward should have instinctive actions, and all old ones should be retrofitted to have them as well (though that may require some other tweaks).

Agreed

Its a bit unclear what exactly the limits are, if they can scout ahead (within LoS/LoE/Range) and report what they see, use active Perception to search for stuff, etc. IMHO this kind of thing is possible with intelligent summons.

Even my wolf example if can it track an enemy for you?... Especially if you picked the language skill canine.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Even my wolf example if can it track an enemy for you?... Especially if you picked the language skill canine.

I'm just saying, the RAW on summons is VERY unclear, and geared only towards their combat uses. In fact, if you are really very literalistic in your reading of the rules then most summons can do nothing but move and make attacks. There are definitely some utility summons that can do other things instead, and a few of the attack power based ones that have a skill or something that's called out. So, you should clearly spell out other functions so that GMs know what they are. That or else rewrite the summoning rules in less ambiguous language. Frankly I don't think much of WotC's rules writing foo. The INTENT and general structure of 4e's rules are good, and the particulars, when you sift through them and establish what you think they actually mean, work reasonably well, the RAW is maybe a 4 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of clarity and thoroughness. Someone needed to spend a few years at the Avalon Hill School of Rules Writing.

 

[Garthanos]

D&D erring on the side of being vague rules is that new? [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]

 

[Garthanos]

Picturing attempts at nailing things down... and a little nick named guy pun pun...

growing in the cracks

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

D&D erring on the side of being vague rules is that new? [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]

I firmly believe that one of 4e's principles and goals was rules which are categorical and canonical, clear, understandable, and as free of corner cases and ambiguity as is feasible in an open-ended refereed game where the action could clearly go some arbitrary distance removed from what the authors anticipated.

Equally clearly it wasn't as clear and concise as it was intended. If you are a wargamer, as I am, and an engineer, as I am, and thus used to very precisely worded systems of rules and such, then you don't find 4e's attempt to be particularly stunningly well-written. Honestly, its not bad for a 2nd draft of a set of rules that still needs to be gone over by someone who actually writes such things as board games with 50 pages of rules or something like that. My couple of years on the Q&A thread definitely showed that 4e was not there, nor even that close really.

I mean, just answer me this simple question, what in 4e does the term 'attack' mean? Given that its central to the way the rules work, you should be able to do this. Good luck...

 

[Garthanos]

I mean, just answer me this simple question, what in 4e does the term 'attack' mean? Given that its central to the way the rules work, you should be able to do this. Good luck...

I know better than to bite at that.