D&D 4E 4e Monster Manual excerpt

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Also, as far as flavour goes, that's up to the DM. You could say 'the War Devil slides the Wizard round to square B6 and uses Fiendish Tactics so the two Legion Devils can attack you' or you could say 'The War Devil catches you between the prongs of his massive trident and, with a roar, throws you over his head, and onto the ground between the two legion devils behind him. He turns and barks a command, and both the Legion Devils, fearing the Malebranche's wrath, they quickly stab at you'. Yes, the power descriptions are a bit vanilla, but there's nothing to stop the DM adding to that.

Bravo! And double bravo!

I only wish that they had an animated clapping smiley, because that would best express my admiration for the superb job you've done in illustrating how the DM should use his imagination and descriptive talents to bring the game world to life -- something that no set of rules is, has been, or ever will be, capable of doing in itself.

 

[DandD]

D&D stands for Dungeonanime & Dragonballs.

 

[pawsplay]

Is it the new meme? 4E is too Dragonball Z-ish?

That ain't new.

 

[tomtill]

Nope. She's making the charming kiss last. So the only things being sustained are 'can't attack' and 'take the hit if adjacent', because thats what the power does.

Keeping them nearby over the course of days is where the diplomacy and bluff checks come in.

That is a reasonable interpretation.

My point was that because of the way the power is worded, and especially because of the way the tactics section is worded, other interpretations are also reasonable.

Hence the discussion on this board.

My point is that the showcased power is ambiguous.

I am aware that it was not unusual for 3e stat blocks to be inconsistent with textual descriptions, to the point where WotC provided the blanket ruling establishing a hierarchy over what rules had precedence depending on where you found them.

I was hoping that in 4e, especially in the 3 core books initially released, there would be no need to do the same. After all, why bother to give tactics or other types of descriptions that are not supported by the ruleset? It's worse than useless, it's misleading.

The tactical description of charming kiss "making them slavishly loyal to it with a mere kiss" does not fit the description of the victim finding itself unable to attack the succubus, protecting it like a puppet if adjacent, but determined not to be adjacent, and determined to ensure the death of the succubus if possible. That would also be an interesting effect, but I wouldn't describe it as "slavishly loyal".

Some will do the 3e thing of adhering tightly to the precise language of the stat block, while interpreting very loosely the language of the descriptive text. That may indeed be what is required of 4e. If true, that is because it is ambiguously written (and hopefully not downright contradictory).

That is my point. It is ambiguously written. Certainly no editor, without game knowledge, would argue otherwise.

This ambiguity in the new freshly written edition is unfortunate.

Especially given that the stat block description of powers is concise (and I applaud that), it is important that any clarifying text closely adheres to the intended ruleset.

But, it's all at the printers already, so who cares?????


I guess that's what DDI is for.

 

[HeinorNY]

Um, that's not true at all. You're possibly confusing the lack of "NPC classes" in 4e (classes designed to fill in the world with non-heroic characters) with a lack of classed NPCs, which most certainly do exist.

I would not put much faith on that.

 

[Dragonblade]

This ambiguity in the new freshly written edition is unfortunate.

Perhaps it only seems ambiguous because we only have the stat block. Perhaps Charm is a keyword that is precisely defined.

After all we already know that monsters have abilities like healing surges which do not appear in their stat block at all.

 

[Derren]

Perhaps it only seems ambiguous because we only have the stat block. Perhaps Charm is a keyword that is precisely defined.

After all we already know that monsters have abilities like healing surges which do not appear in their stat block at all.

Even if it is, it is very unlikely that this keyword means that the target becomes "slavishly loyal" to the caster as otherwise level 1 Warlocks could gather a huge crowd of loyal slaves by using Eyebite over and over again as this power also has the Charm keyword.

 

[HeinorNY]

Perhaps it only seems ambiguous because we only have the stat block. Perhaps Charm is a keyword that is precisely defined.

I think Charm is the new keyword for all Enchantment spells.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Um, that's not true at all. You're possibly confusing the lack of "NPC classes" in 4e (classes designed to fill in the world with non-heroic characters) with a lack of classed NPCs, which most certainly do exist.

They can exist. Whether they will in published form is another matter.

 

[Voss]

The tactical description of charming kiss "making them slavishly loyal to it with a mere kiss" does not fit the description of the victim finding itself unable to attack the succubus, protecting it like a puppet if adjacent, but determined not to be adjacent, and determined to ensure the death of the succubus if possible. That would also be an interesting effect, but I wouldn't describe it as "slavishly loyal".

And thats the problem. You don't think the flavor text fits. Which is fine.
But that does not mean the power is ambiguous- it specifies exactly what the target can't do, and what it must do. In every other circumstance, it behaves normally.
The victim can't attack the succubus, and if the victim happens to be standing next to her, attacks go from her to the victim. Done.
I don't know how it can be any less ambiguous, really.