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

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've just thought of another example.

Let's say the PCs are attempting to end the Scourge of the Slavelords.

The DM has set up the adventure so that each of the five Slavelords is designed as a Solo monster, just strong enough to vie with the PCs for a few rounds, but canny enough to retreat when he gets bloodied.

After besting each of the five solo Slavelords in this fashion, and with a few additional levels under their belt, the PCs finally corner them in their stronghold, where there is nowhere else to run. They tackle all five Slavelords at once.

Do the Slavelords' abilities change?

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Um... hell no? If my players want to play kobolds in a humanoid-themed campaign, that's great, and they're welcome to pitch the concept to me, but if I don't want to run that campaign, I ain't running it. I'm in this to have fun too, and my fun comes from creating the sort of world and plot and NPCs that excite me. The players don't get to dictate my world any more than I get to dictate their character concepts.

Now, I do try to keep an open mind to player requests, and if somebody's heart is really set on some particular thing, I'll do my best to accommodate it. And the players can set limits on my world just as I can set limits on their characters--if I want to run a campaign in a world ruled by undead sorceror-kings, but my players all hate that idea, I'll scrap that concept and come up with another one.

But the only way it's "my job" to run whatever campaign my players want is if they're paying me.

 

[Dausuul]

I've just thought of another example.

Let's say the PCs are attempting to end the Scourge of the Slavelords.

The DM has set up the adventure so that each of the five Slavelords is designed as a Solo monster, just strong enough to vie with the PCs for a few rounds, but canny enough to retreat when he gets bloodied.

After besting each of the five solo Slavelords in this fashion, and with a few additional levels under their belt, the PCs finally corner them in their stronghold, where there is nowhere else to run. They tackle all five Slavelords at once.

Do the Slavelords' abilities change?

Not unless there's some in-game reason for them to. Of course, if I were planning for this encounter to be the grand finale of the campaign, I wouldn't stat up the Slavelords as solo monsters to start with.

 

[Grazzt]

Um... hell no? If my players want to play kobolds in a humanoid-themed campaign, that's great, and they're welcome to pitch the concept to me, but if I don't want to run that campaign, I ain't running it. I'm in this to have fun too, and my fun comes from creating the sort of world and plot and NPCs that excite me. The players don't get to dictate my world any more than I get to dictate their character concepts.

Now, I do try to keep an open mind to player requests, and if somebody's heart is really set on some particular thing, I'll do my best to accommodate it. And the players can set limits on my world just as I can set limits on their characters--if I want to run a campaign in a world ruled by undead sorceror-kings, but my players all hate that idea, I'll scrap that concept and come up with another one.

But the only way it's "my job" to run whatever campaign my players want is if they're paying me.

+1.

 

[The Little Raven]

job

I have a job. I don't need a second one.

 

[Campbell]

I've just thought of another example.

Let's say the PCs are attempting to end the Scourge of the Slavelords.

The DM has set up the adventure so that each of the five Slavelords is designed as a Solo monster, just strong enough to vie with the PCs for a few rounds, but canny enough to retreat when he gets bloodied.

After besting each of the five solo Slavelords in this fashion, and with a few additional levels under their belt, the PCs finally corner them in their stronghold, where there is nowhere else to run. They tackle all five Slavelords at once.

Do the Slavelords' abilities change?

At that point it depends on how the DM wants to handle things. While solo monsters are designed to be used in a solo context they need not always be used in that context. From what I understand the new encounter design guidelines are based on XP value with level largely being an indicator of how likely a given creature is of being able to affect PCs of a given level. Of course a given encounter with 5 solo monster of level x would likely be nearly impossible for a party of level x+1. It would probably be doable for a higher level party, but I'd have to see more of the system to verify how that situation would run.

An alternative approach would be to restat the creatures as higher level elite or normal monsters of roughly the same XP value (power level). Of course this requires a slight change in mindset. Instead of looking at a stat block as the sum total of a creature's capabilities we can look at as an expression of how a creature performs in specific situations. For example, when fighting multiple characters a dragon might be able to spread out its attacks and react more readily to shifting battlefield consitions at the cost of exerting itself to the point where its attacks are less effective and it might have more problems defending itself against the concentrated efforts of multiple PCs. When the same dragon fights with allies at its side it might be able to focus on single targets more effectively and need not worry as much about defending itself from multiple PCs. This approach will of course not be entirely satisfying for all folks.

 

[helium3]

No---not at all!

I've been very frustrated with my inability to grok some of the problems people were having with 4e.

Now, with Wulf's example above, I honestly think I see just where the philosophical divison lies. I'll have to give this whole thing a lot more thought, but for now I'm satisfied that I can understand the 'sim' side more than I was able to before.

Honestly, I think a lot of it just boils down to not trusting WotC to put out product of as high a quality as they want. So, they (I should say we as I do this as well) start parsing every bit of info that's available to see where the next "screw up" is.

There's a lot about 4E that sounds cool. There's some that makes me wonder if it's going to be a game that I want to play.

 

[Primal]

Um... hell no? If my players want to play kobolds in a humanoid-themed campaign, that's great, and they're welcome to pitch the concept to me, but if I don't want to run that campaign, I ain't running it. I'm in this to have fun too, and my fun comes from creating the sort of world and plot and NPCs that excite me. The players don't get to dictate my world any more than I get to dictate their character concepts.

Now, I do try to keep an open mind to player requests, and if somebody's heart is really set on some particular thing, I'll do my best to accommodate it. And the players can set limits on my world just as I can set limits on their characters--if I want to run a campaign in a world ruled by undead sorceror-kings, but my players all hate that idea, I'll scrap that concept and come up with another one.

But the only way it's "my job" to run whatever campaign my players want is if they're paying me.

Did I say it's "your job"? I thought I said "my job"? Alright, silliness aside, perhaps "task" would be a better term. I did not mean that you should always let your players dictate which sort of campaigns you are going to run -- however, if they really want to try a certain concept, I'll rewrite whatever I had planned. Here's the thing: if they're willing to spend their spare time at my table, I'll try to make sure that they'll enjoy the game. An important part of it is to cater to their wishes as much as possible in the story, which does not mean that I'm letting them run things or have total control over what happens in the game once the campaign begins. However, I *do* listen to their wishes about which sort of adventures they want to play and make suggestions for what their PCs want to do during the next session. For example, if they want to do spell research or craft magic items, I'll often even postpone pending events in the story to let them do that.

 

[helium3]

I've just thought of another example.

Let's say the PCs are attempting to end the Scourge of the Slavelords.

The DM has set up the adventure so that each of the five Slavelords is designed as a Solo monster, just strong enough to vie with the PCs for a few rounds, but canny enough to retreat when he gets bloodied.

After besting each of the five solo Slavelords in this fashion, and with a few additional levels under their belt, the PCs finally corner them in their stronghold, where there is nowhere else to run. They tackle all five Slavelords at once.

Do the Slavelords' abilities change?

Well duh. The answer's easy! You handle it Kung-Fu Movie style!

Each Slavelord waits patiently for the prior to get his butt kicked, and when the last one's standing he laughs over badly dubbed non-english lines before announcing that he will now finish the part off once and for all. Then he gets his butt kicked.

 

[Lizard]

Well duh. The answer's easy! You handle it Kung-Fu Movie style!

Each Slavelord waits patiently for the prior to get his butt kicked, and when the last one's standing he laughs over badly dubbed non-english lines before announcing that he will now finish the part off once and for all. Then he gets his butt kicked.

Actually, it occurred to me earlier today that if you wanted to just get all dramatic, you could declare an 'encounter refresh' without any actual rest, by pure narrative fiat. So you fight the orc lord's minions, then, when they're all dead, the orc lord himself, deciding you are worthy foes, rises from his throne to engage you. The combat music starts up and you have all your encounter powers refreshed and you can burn off all the healing surges you want to risk.