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

[Primal]

Unfortunately having a laundry list of rules doesn't help there either. It simply causes more hesitation because now the unexperienced DM feels like if he doesn't have a rule for everything he can't adjudicate anything outside of those rules. Besides the add bonuses/penalties rule is part of the rules as written now and it covers an immense amount of ground, without being restrictive.

Describe what and when? I don't stop a game in the middle of it to have a dissertation about the mechanics of why a particular monster, that the characters might or might never have met before, has a specific power and whether they can train to have the same power. For all intents, the players are not monsters so the simple answer is no, and the more detailed answer was succinctly put by somebody up thread (you want to train for 20 years, good I'll see your character in 4-5 campaigns) That gamist mentality is the reason 3e tried to have a rule for every case, and it was not very good at it.

Maybe not, but neither do I think that this sort of weird mechanical subsystem which throws some unique "traits" into the mix is any more successful or easier to run than 3E. And "that gamist mentality" is and will probably always be at the heart of D&D, because it *is* a very gamist system that encourages and emphasizes metagaming.

I'm not saying that a PC could learn a Bodak's Death Gaze or Dragon Breath as these are explicitly supernatural abilities -- not to mention that these abilities are inherently shares by all Bodaks and Dragons. And this is actually important, because mostly these special abilities in 3E are clearly defined in MM -- I know exactly how 'Ability Drain' or 'Incorporeality' works in the game. In 4E, however, it seems that each different "subtype" of each creature has only one or two common racial abilities and the rest are pretty much role-related *unique* abilities that might not be possessed any other monster or NPC in the game.

I might laugh at a player that somehow demands all the answers that his character obviously does not have. They want to find answers about a creatures powers, they can attempt to find them in game, not outside.

Which is actually what I meant, at least if we're talking about magical abilities, spells or rituals that might be realistically learned via training or instantly imitated. A good example of the latter might be the Bugbear Strangler's 'Meat Shield'-ability -- since many class attack powers seem include 'shifting' and 'sliding' of both allies and enemies, it'd reasonable to assume that a PC could try it without "20 years of training". Essentially, you just grab your enemy and swing him into the way of an attack, right?

Maybe cause I attempt to temper my rulings within the spirit of the rules, but I don't feel like I need to wear a rules straight jacket to accomplish that. In addition those rules usually permit monsters to do certain things that PC's simply can't do. So what is there to adjudicate unfairly?

I can explain the "magical unique abilities" in multiple ways that prevent the players from having them. For example if the players in my group battled a creature with a supernatural ability, let's say a gaze attack that kills instantly on a failed save, should I let them have it simply because if I don't they are somehow less privileged than the creature? The simple answer is no, and I don't feel in anyway obligated to have a 30 minute or more rules argument on the validity of that ruling with the player asking to have the same power. If that would be considered elitist then I'll wear the shoe proudly.

On your first point I'd say that if your adventures constantly feature NPCs or monsters that can do "unique" stunts, it may occasionally irritate your players if they don't have access to those same abilities. For example, I played in a campaign in which the DM allowed the PCs to pick prestige classes, spells and feats from PHB *only*, while almost every NPC and monster had access to all the 'splat books' -- sure, they had cool stuff that took the other players always by surprise, but it felt maddeningly irritating that our characters didn't have access to those same resources (all of which *could* have been learned by our PCs, too).

As I noted above, it's fine that some monsters have supernatural abilities that the PCs cannot learn (such as Gaze Attacks), but the PCs should be able to imitate some of the "tricks" and talents even without "years of training" (e.g. that previously mentioned 'Meat Shield' ability). If I can't do it, I'd want to know *why* my PC can't imitate it. Just because monsters are not mechanically treated the same way as PCs and vice versa?

 

[hong]

Either way, the composition of Dirk's ogre minions depends on the actions of the party.

Exactly. You have grasped the concept of narrative empowerment.

 

[Primal]

I don't quite see what you mean.

Looking at the kobold slinger statblock, it has a sling. It has special ammo for that sling in defined numbers (3 total, minus however many have been used in the combat). Each type of special ammo has a defined effect in addition to the normal sling damage.

So ... a sling-using PC wants to take the special ammo? He's got it and can use it until it runs out. It has the effects specified in the kobold entry. He attacks with it the same way he normally attacks with a sling.

Somebody wants to take the sling and the special ammo? A sling no doubt has a PHB equipment writeup, so that's no different than looting a weapon off a foe in earlier editions. Ammo, again, works as specified for as long as it lasts.

Somebody wants to pick up the ammo and just throw it? Basic ranged attack, Dex vs. AC, probably lower range than a sling (game should have rules for improvised thrown objects), ammo has the prescribed effects.

How is that difficult just because the kobold is designed differently from a PC?

Deadstop

I think this was already answered by another poster, but let me illustrate my point further:

First of all, we have two groups of beings that mechanically statted or built in a different fashion in 4E: Group A (PCs) and Group B (NPCs and monsters). All members of Group A are explicitly built along the core rules and have access to a host of class abilities, talents, feats and attack powers from a number of power sources. Members in Group B, however, *may* be built just like members in Group A and they share many mechanical attributes with them. On the other hand, the DM is encouraged to build them using a different and simplified subsystem which relies on role-related abilities and attacks (traits or qualities) that are often mechanically unique to the particular variant of each species. Even if a PC from Group A would try to learn or imitate one of those unique attacks or abilities, it is highly discouraged, because those abilities are meant to emphasize each member's (in Group B) role in the game. Moreover, those abilities are mechanically different from feats, talents, class abilities and attack powers.

Does this help at all? A concrete example would be what I wrote in another post about the Bugbear Strangler's 'Meat Shield' ability -- in all fairness a PC *should* be able to imitate it in some fashion, since it's basically about grabbing your foe and using him as a shield. If an ability or "stunt" exists in the game that might be tried without training, it should be available as a combat option, especially if any NPCs or monsters are using it.

 

[hong]

So you would just tell them that "You can't pick it up... POOF! It vanishes into thin air!" or something like that?

You'd be surprised by how many things go poof into thin air, and how many problems it solves.

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.

Consider the possibility, no matter how remote, that D&D is not meant to be a character-building experience.

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.

Pish tosh. It makes it less complicated to run, because you no longer need to worry about things that only matter to PCs. If you choose to make it more complicated for yourself by worrying about things that don't matter, that's your own lookout.

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.

This is why you are well recommended to stop thinking too hard about fantasy. As has been said before.

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.

This is why your players are also well recommended to stop thinking too hard about fantasy.

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.

You do not balance a PC power (not spell; 4E posits other means besides magic by which characters can gain superpowers, and it's about jolly time. The "magic is a license to print money" meme should have been dead and buried years ago.) by reference to what monsters can do. You balance a PC power by reference to what other PC power can do. This is a basic tenet of power design. Whether an NPC of level X can do something is the least important concern as to whether a PC of level X can do the same thing.

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.

Nonsense. That it is implausible in your imagination for narrative empowerment to sit alongside detailed crunchy bits speaks only to the limits of your imagination.

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.

Arguing over the rules is a symptom of thinking too hard about fantasy. The answer, as has been stated before, is to 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.

It is very easy to have a basic level of consistency and sense of realism. You don't even need to think very hard to achieve it. In fact, not thinking too hard is the key to achieving all the consistency you need.

 

[hong]

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.

Holy motherhood statements, Batman!

 

[Shadeydm]

I seem to remember not so long ago that people were moaning and complaining about having classed monsters in MM4, and now apparantly the same things is being applauded for 4e with classes being replaced by roles. Weird.

Pinotage

I know isn't it amazing put a shiney new coat of paint on what someone thought was poo and suddenly that very same person thinks its pure awsome.

 

[hong]

I know isn't it amazing put a shiney new coat of paint on what someone thought was poo and suddenly that very same person thinks its pure awsome.

I thought the MM4 was great.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The classed monsters were probably my favourite part of MM4, much better than that dragonspawn crap. I think I've used most of them.

 

[BryonD]

I thought the MM4 was great.

Many people did.
Just not enough....

 

[AllisterH]

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?

Why would you change them if you already encountered them?

The PCs though, depending on their final level are looking at a potential TPK but you as a DM should've realized that all the way back when you first statted the slavelords.

re: MM4 vs MM5
I stand by my statement there's a fundamental difference between the two. Classed monsters tend to suck since frankly, WOTC never really optimized them. Take a look at the Goblin Picador which WOTC insured had a STR of 16 whereas many of the classed opponents in MM4 were simply random monster plus random class.

As well, for most creatures, the laundry list of feats/powers that was the statblock was a total waste given how quickly they were overcome.

MM5 I thought was better. You want a creature that's designed to work as a flanker in tandem with another? Just give it the sneak attack ability and NOT the entire laundry list of rogue abilities especially if you *KNOW* what attack value it should have.


re: PC vs NPC ability.
As a player, I can see where it might seem horrible that a PC can't duplicate what he sees the NPCs doing. Personally, as a player, I always hated that aspect of 1e/2e and loved 3E's approach of making everything seamless. Bluntly, I want to use the Harpoon like the Goblin Picador does.


OTOH, as a DM, I hate the fact that I must worry about abilities of NPCs in the hands of PCs. Many abilities in the hands of NPCs aren't game-breaking but put them in the hands of PCs? Example: The Sarrukh.

As a DM, I would never use the Goblin Picador just to forestall any complaints which in a way disadvantages the other players (no, "oh wow, that's cool" moments when using bogstandard creatures)