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

[Campbell]

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.

It might not be easier for you to run, but I feel it will be easier for people like me to run. I don't want or need a game system to provide answers for every situation that I might come across. What I want is material that functions for its given purpose most of the time and a suite of tools to use when I need to go beyond the rules of the game. This is a fundamental difference we seem to have.

I contend that it is impossible for a game system to completely remove GM judgment from the equation. After all elements like encounter design, creature design, adversary ability use, and situations that require stepping outside the bounds of the rules will always require the exercise of judgment. When you attempt to remove the GM from the equation in this manner and tell GMs to just trust the system without explaining why things are set up in the manner they are you basically tie the GM's hands to the system. I've seen many 3e GMs who feel like their hands are pretty much tied when they can't find an answer in the rules or get frustrated because they put too much trust in the encounter design guidelines that 3e provides (usually due to unrevealed assumptions inherit in 3e's encounter design guidelines). They never improve in their ability to exercise judgment because they don't make judgment calls often enough.

Why have rules then you ask ? Because this isn't a binary issue. You can provide support to make judgment calls easier to make without overloading a GM's plate with a multitude of general rules that can serve to intimidate GMs. You can also ease GMs by starting them off with smaller less important judgment calls. You can also cover typical situations so that new GMs don't have to constantly make judgment calls.

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.

The major differences here are that monster abilities are now clearly defined in each monster's statblock and that martial training can actually result in a monster performing stunts that might not be described in the general body of rules. Monster abilities being defined in each monster's statblock eliminates the need for cross referencing and makes applying exceptions to the general far easier since you no longer have to parse out 'like x but not in y specific ways' passages. You can see this in the differing implementations of Pack Tactics in the Gnoll entry. The martial abilities of various monsters are (like a fighter or ranger's class powers the result of dedicated training. With this training they can learn to do some pretty nifty stuff. I realize that D&D has a long hallowed tradition of not letting martially oriented characters do cool stuff so I can see how cognitive dissonance might settle in. The key element of this exception based approach is that you don't need to limit your design space to martial effects already predefined in the rules. You can come up with new stuff that only applies if certain monsters or class powers come into play. If you don't want to deal with a certain class of exceptions in play you don't have to. Just don't use the relevent class powers and monsters.

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?

It is entirely reasonable for a character to learn how to do these things (by investing resources i.e. powers towards that goal) or to attempt things outside of their predefined abilities. However, that is not the point of a Monster Manual. That is the point of player supplements and GM initiative. This is what I was talking about above when I talked about smaller scale judgments calls. Situations like this can serve as a means to teach new GMs how to make judgment calls. We shouldn't expect all such calls to be perfect of course, and GMs may have to reverse course on previous rulings. That's okay. We shouldn't expect perfection, but if we provide GMs with the proper tools and give them some guidance on how to handle these situations without necessarily providing them with an answer (the right answer might depend on the game in question) they should learn to flex their creative muscles and get better over time. It is important that we place trust in GMs without leaving them in the dark.

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).

I've addressed this somewhat above, but I think your failing to consider that PCs also are capable of doing a number of things that monsters cannot without additional training. Players will have plenty of oppurtunities to get their special on. Exception based design applies just as much to character classes as it does to monsters.

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?

Why are supernatural abilities so different ? Should a wizard not be able to attempt to perform supernatural feats he has seen without learning a new ability by tapping into his resoirvoir of mystical power and experimenting ? Isn't that how new spells are discovered ? Why should supernatural ability be the only way to perform something extraordinary? Why is exception based design fine for some classes of ability, but not others?

 

[Campbell]

I thought the MM4 was great.

I thought I was the only one. Other than the Dragonspawn I loved it.

 

[D'karr]

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?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as this is a tiring circular argument. I think our disagreement stems mostly from having different DMing perspectives.

As a DM I can come up with hundreds of reasons for why a player can or cannot imitate consistently a "power" a creature has. In reality it usually boils down to game balance, some things that monsters can do in one encounter are badly unbalanced when used by players in every encounter. If they want to know, I would explain it to them in game terms, not mechanical terms. If after that explanation they continue to become disruptive because they don't like or agree with the answer, then it is the player's problem and not mine. They are more than welcome to leave the game. Fortunately I make a conscious effort not to game with people like that.

From some of your other posts it seems that you expect / allow something different from your players than I do. Not a problem, that is your play style. If you feel the need to explain everything to your players or allow them to use any option a creature has, that is entirely your prerogative. Have fun and game on.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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?

Firstly, that's not what you're asking, since you know someone's going to rip into anyone who says "yes", what you're asking is "how do I set this up without changing their stats" to which the answer is fairly obviously make them Elites, not Solos in the first place . The first time players fight them they'll be higher level, but only Elites (maybe with some goons), so they'll do high burst damage, but get overwhelmed, then when they meet them again, they'll be a group of 5 Elites, very tough, but not necessarily unwinable.

 

[AndrewRogue]

I have a question for the people talking about the Bugbear Strangler/Picador Harpoon/etc abilities and the PCs learning them.

What did you do when the PCs witnessed an NPC with a high level ability, feat, extraordinary ability, etc and wanted to learn/use it right there? Just for the sake of simplicity, let us say a level 12 Rogue witnessing a Swordsage using Time Stands Still.

What did you tell them?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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?

That is a very general problem, isn't it?
In 3E, I might have statted the 5 Slavelords as NPCs with a CR equal to the partys level +4, since I originally might have expected them to attack each Slavelord alone. What do I do if the Pcs have to encounter all 5? That's an ecnounter Level 8-9 points above the party's level? Do I change their statistics now, to avoid a Total Party Kill?

On the other hand, you could have statted the Slavelords with a lower CR, assuming they would either be encountered when the PC were lower level, or that they were never encountered alone.
The 4E equivalent might be having them as Elites instead of Solos, or having them at a lower level then the PCs.

Basically, you have to consider: "Under what circumstances do I expect the player characters encounter this monster?" If your guess was wrong, that means you have to react - either you ignore it (risking a TPK or a cakewalk), or you adapt the monster.

If your simulationist training makes you unwilling to change a monster (especially if it was actually encountered before by the party) just because of the narrative needs, you might have to come up with another off-screen explanations (the monster trained/it lasts defeat costs him some of his precious powers due to resurrections/deal with the devil/superior punishing him), or just face the changed situation.

The whole scenario boils down to this:
A Gamist strives for a satisfying game experience, which means he engineeres situations that are "fair" challenges for the players. If that means readjusting statistics, he will do the work.
A simulationist strive for a consistent game experience, which means he is willing to risk a unfair challenge for the players. His work will come in "repairing" the damage - like introducing replacement player characters into the game.

 

[Lizard]

I thought the MM4 was great.

Some people think Battlefield Earth is a great novel.

 

[Lizard]

I have a question for the people talking about the Bugbear Strangler/Picador Harpoon/etc abilities and the PCs learning them.

What did you do when the PCs witnessed an NPC with a high level ability, feat, extraordinary ability, etc and wanted to learn/use it right there? Just for the sake of simplicity, let us say a level 12 Rogue witnessing a Swordsage using Time Stands Still.

What did you tell them?

Multiclass to Swordsage.

In the case of the others, I'd like to be able to say:"If I ever run a humanoids campaign, you can learn those things as Exploits" or even, "Well, if you make an effort to win the trust and respect of the bugbears -- good luck with that -- I will allow you to learn it if you meet all the other prerequisites."

Both of which require a more formal system of power allocation than, it seems, 4e provides.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I have a question for the people talking about the Bugbear Strangler/Picador Harpoon/etc abilities and the PCs learning them.

What did you do when the PCs witnessed an NPC with a high level ability, feat, extraordinary ability, etc and wanted to learn/use it right there?

There's a difference between witnessing a magical power or feat and witnessing a (rather mundane) creature using a (mostly mundane) weapon to great effect.

In 3e, you can pick up the garrote, the harpoon, or the kobold stinkpot, and have varying levels of success depending on how the weapon was used. It might be an exotic weapon (harpoon), and it might require a feat to activate certain uses (garrote), or you might just be able to pick it up and use it (stinkpot).

 

[small pumpkin man]

The whole scenario boils down to this:
A Gamist strives for a satisfying game experience, which means he engineeres situations that are "fair" challenges for the players. If that means readjusting statistics, he will do the work.
A simulationist strive for a consistent game experience, which means he is willing to risk a unfair challenge for the players. His work will come in "repairing" the damage - like introducing replacement player characters into the game.

That's not a great description of simulationist and gamist. Gamism is about fairness only in the sense that it's about overcoming challenges, if there was prior warning, a gamist GM might decide that by attempting to fight the Slavelords together too early, the players have committed a mistake, thus it is only "fair" to penalise them for it, and it's completely simulationist to decide that it's innapropriate to the Heroic Fantasy genre you're trying to create for the PCs to get completely killed by the Slavelords, and to throw in dues ex machina in to fix that.

Not that your examples didn't sum up the positions or anything, I just get anal retentive when the GNS terms get thrown around too much.