D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[Storm-Bringer]

If they fought Howdrowf in Castle Doomfist, and he had regular ogre stats then, and they have some way to recognize him when he tracks them down, then no, he's not a solo. His stats remain nebulous until it becomes necessary to figure out what they are, but once they've been established, he doesn't miraculously get tougher when he's by himself--or at least, not so much tougher that the PCs might notice.

Of course, in that case, why the heck is Dirk sending him after the PCs all by himself? Shouldn't Dirk pick someone with a fighting chance?

I understand what you're getting at; it will seem odd if every ogre the PCs meet who's all by himself has bad-ass solo stats, but every ogre they meet as part of a gang has regular-ogre stats. And if the PCs cut some random ogre out of the pack at Castle Doomfist, I'd probably give him regular-ogre stats and let them shred him... just the way I'd let Doomfist himself shred them if they were insane enough to pick a fight in the throne room. That sort of thing adds to verisimilitude; not every fight should be precisely calibrated to the PCs' level.

But if I'm setting up a key fight by having the ogre come after the PCs, then the ogre in question is going to be a special, extra-tough ogre handpicked for the job.

So your view (I'm not being snarky) is a campaign world in quantum flux?

I wouldn't necessarily expect the lone ogre out in the wilderness to be the same as any other ogre. In fact, I would expect that ogre to be rather tougher than average, or they would be part of a pack like other ogres.

This is what I was getting at: Howdrowf specifically is to be the solo encounter Darkfist sends after the players. What is he before he gets sent out? Is he still a solo? This may lead to extra work having to 'stat' out other ogres or creatures at the castle to match, to keep the challenge the same. He could very well be Darkfist's lieutenent, but then you have a pack of ogres and a mini-boss, which means you will have to adjust their numbers accordingly, or add some lower-level creatures to compensate for the fewer ogres (even if Howdrowf is set as a seperate encounter, the pack of ogres and whatnot will have to be adjusted somewhat downward due to resource usage). If the players are diverted before they reach the castle, Dirk can send out Howdrowf and the numbers of ogres at the castle can be increased again. If the players go directly for Castle Darkfist, Dirk won't send out Howdrowf, and the number of ogres is larger, but no leader (maybe). I am pretty sure that if a solo is adequate for a party by itself, a solo and a regular encounter's worth of 'normal' creatures will be nigh impossible.

Either way, the composition of Dirk's ogre minions depends on the actions of the party. Of course, you can always use the magician's greatest trick, where you offer a choice but decide the outcome anyway*. For the most part, the player's probably won't notice. However, that will require you to have the stats for a standard ogre and a solo ogre handy. It may be extremely quick to add the solo template, but either way, you are adding handle time to an encounter.

To summarize, the entire world outside the character's 'sphere of perception' is in a state of flux, only to be determined when the character's act. Is that a fair assessment?

*Quick version for clarity: Magician has a coin in their right fist, offers you to choose between their hands. You choose the right hand: "I will put that one behind my back, and show you the other one!" You choose the left hand: "I will reveal that hand to you!"

 

[ThirdWizard]

To summarize, the entire world outside the character's 'sphere of perception' is in a state of flux, only to be determined when the character's act. Is that a fair assessment?

As far as I am personally concerned, nothing exists in a campaign setting until the players know about it, usually through PC interaction. So, if the PCs don't know about Howdrowf, for all intents and purposes he doesn't actually exist as anything more than a "what if" in the DM's head/notes.

It's interesting that my first thought as an answer to this question...

What if the characters attack Castle Doomfist before Dirk sends Howdrowf out? Is the ogre still a solo?

... was something along the lines of "If the characters attack Castle Doomfist before Dirk sends Howdrowf out, and Howdrowf's purpose was to track down the PCs outside the castle, then why would Howdrowf exist in the game at all?"

Of course, this relates to how I build adventures, session to session for the most part. If the PCs declare in a session "We're going to attack Castle Doomfist next week," then I will begin preparation for the defenses and such. If they don't say that, I might ask myself if the Duke will hound them or not. What I won't be doing is statting out or deciding anything as concrete until it has a chance to influence the game. I run a fairly ad hoc game in that way (one step removed from winging it).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... What this really comes down to actually is this:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Grog]

If they fought Howdrowf in Castle Doomfist, and he had regular ogre stats then, and they have some way to recognize him when he tracks them down, then no, he's not a solo. His stats remain nebulous until it becomes necessary to figure out what they are, but once they've been established, he doesn't miraculously get tougher when he's by himself--or at least, not so much tougher that the PCs might notice.

Or, alternatively, you do have Howdrowf get tougher. This is perfectly explainable in-game; just give him a short speech before he attacks the PCs like: "You beat Howdrowf last time. But after, Howdrowf train. Howdrowf get stronger. Howdrowf win fight this time!"

No problems with verisimilitude there.

 

[TwinBahamut]

To summarize, the entire world outside the character's 'sphere of perception' is in a state of flux, only to be determined when the character's act. Is that a fair assessment?

I can't speak for the person you addressed the question to, but it is in my games. Only the events which directly relate to the PC matter. Things may happen off screen, but only in vague terms, and without stats or specified numbers and names.

 

[Dausuul]

As far as I am personally concerned, nothing exists in a campaign setting until the players know about it, usually through PC interaction. So, if the PCs don't know about Howdrowf, for all intents and purposes he doesn't actually exist as anything more than a "what if" in the DM's head/notes.

It's interesting that my first thought as an answer to this question...

... was something along the lines of "If the characters attack Castle Doomfist before Dirk sends Howdrowf out, and Howdrowf's purpose was to track down the PCs outside the castle, then why would Howdrowf exist in the game at all?"

Of course, this relates to how I build adventures, session to session for the most part. If the PCs declare in a session "We're going to attack Castle Doomfist next week," then I will begin preparation for the defenses and such. If they don't say that, I might ask myself if the Duke will hound them or not. What I won't be doing is statting out or deciding anything as concrete until it has a chance to influence the game. I run a fairly ad hoc game in that way (one step removed from winging it).

This pretty much sums up my attitude.

Basically, when the players learn a given piece of information--be it Doomfist's secret plan to take over the world, or just how many attacks per round Howdrowf gets--then that information becomes concrete. It may change thereafter, but only in a way that it could logically change within the world; Doomfist revises his plan in light of recent events, or Howdrowf goes away to train with the legendary Ogre Swordmagi.

Until the players learn that information, however, it remains in flux to some extent. Until the PCs are approaching Castle Doomfist, for example, I probably haven't statted out Dirk Doomfist's minions; in fact I probably haven't statted out Dirk himself, except to the extent that I need to in order to figure out how his secret plan works.

I have a general idea of what his secret plan is, but the details are apt to be hazy, and I may well add fillips and flourishes as I think of them. If I get hit by a really brilliant idea, I might rework the entire plan from scratch... but that's risky, because the more extensive the changes you make to stuff that's still in flux, the more you risk accidentally changing something that has become concrete. Then the players say, "Wait, three weeks ago you said it was this way!" and you have to put on your "it's all part of the plan" face, and say enigmatically, "Yes, I did. Curious, isn't it?" while racking your brains for a way to explain the discrepancy. Hence, I usually stick with the broad outlines and just fiddle with the details.

 

[Campbell]

My issue with writing up monster abilities as racially restricted feats and then noting that in the monster's statblock is that the resultant statblock is not in a game useable format. I can't just open up the monster and use it without looking stuff up. Instead I have to do prep work for monsters that are meant to be used straight out of the book if I don't want to delay the game during play and I don't want to delay the game during play.

It would of course be nice if every monster ability that wasn't a natural feature of the monster's race was written up as a feat or class power ready for player's to use. Of course the expense of doing so means additional development time for each monster since these abilities need to be tested in various combinations instead of just the discrete combinations found on the monsters in the Monster Manual, and space devoted to monsters now being devoted to other crunch.

Some people would counter by saying that the additional development time would be well worth the benefit of player ready feats, that they don't give a crap about development time, and that space consideratons could be solved by simply noting what feats and powers a creature posseses in the stat block. I would counter back by saying that player ready material is beneficial but design time devoted to a monster oriented book should focus on making monsters the best monsters that they can be, that additional development time matters because all projects have a budget to keep and deadlines to be met and wishing it were different doesn't change anything, and that I hate cross-referencing stuff while I'm running a game. Mileage will vary.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The 4e Monster Manual contains only one creature:

Shroedinger's Cat.

The question remains as to whether it can take out a 1st level PC.

 

[Dragonblade]

The 4e Monster Manual contains only one creature:

Shroedinger's Cat.

The question remains as to whether it can take out a 1st level PC.

Indeed....

 

[Primal]

Then he can play a monster. Whoops, that option isn't in the rules. Oh well. Back to killing the monsters and taking their stuff, as opposed to trying to be a monster!

It doesn't work. Why, I hear you ask. Because that isn't an activity I'm particularly interested in catering for as DM, just the same as I'm not interested in catering for players who like backstabbing each other.

So you would just tell them that "You can't pick it up... POOF! It vanishes into thin air!" or something like that? And really, in my opinion the DM *always* tries to cater to his players, at least to some extent. You run the game *for* them, right? If my players want to play kobolds in a humanoid-themed campaign, it's my job to provide it to them. If they want to play black-hearted, backstabbing villains, I'll do it. I'm not writing all that stuff just to amuse myself or prove how creative I can be -- I'm writing so that at least the guys are having a good time.

Which has no bearing on how easy the game is to DM.

In fact, it does. You have to be able to run the game on two levels: the rules which concern the players and the exceptions which concern the NPCs and monsters (unless you choose to stat them with the same options the PCs have). IMO that tends to make it more complicated to run, especially if you stat some NPCs with PC classes and some as "monsters" and both operate in the same envinronment.

Nonsense. Being confident in one's ability to handle unanticipated situations has precious little to do with having mechanical support, especially if that involves having to stat things up beforehand.

Which is not what I said. Look, it’s enough if the rules are written so explicitly well that you can stat or define things on the fly – that’s what I think is the fundamental requirement for any decent RPG system. So if I come up with an idea for a neat and unique 4th level fire spell in the middle of an encounter, I know how it should mechanically function. Or the same with an improvised magic item. If it’s all just general and vague guidelines/options, I’ll get a headache and need a break in the game to think how the item or spell should work along.

Who cares?



Who cares?

Uh, my players do. They're usually interested in pretty much every strange phenomenon they encounter. Usually they use spells and skills to investigate them. So I just *have* to think about these things on a mechanical level, which is why I want to have the option to describe them mechanically.

What the PCs need to do to emulate the ability has nothing to do with the ability itself.

But it does. If they wish to create a spell which mirrors a weird unique monster ability, you need to have some sort of mechanical reference to define what's needed to research that spell (or 'attack power'). You also need a mechanical reference to make sure that it's in balance with the other spells or powers that exist in the game. Of course, you may just "swing" it, but in that case you may end up with a broken spell or power.

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of the rules is not just to act as a backup system for improvisation.

Did I say that? No, I don’t think I did. The rules exist to support game play and to resolve any potential conflicts and/or situations in which the outcome is uncertain. All I did was note that implementing elements from a narrativist system into a gamist system is not a very good idea. And that if the rules are vaguely written or open to interpretation (and if this becomes a problem in your group) you *might* have more fun with free-form storytelling than constantly arguing over the rules.

This is because you are thinking too hard about fantasy. Stop thinking.

Thanks for the tip, but I like to analyze things and try to have at least a basic level of consistency and sense of realism in my game. If you don't, that's just as fine as long as it works for your own group.