D&D 4E 4e Monster Manual excerpt

[AZRogue]

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.

It's clearly ambiguous, Voss. You dirty little blue pill.

edit: Also, as further evidence of the Great Succubus Scandal of 2008, no designer or WotC employee has come in to put the matter to rest, which they easily could do and have done in the past. WHY?!? Because ... <wait for it> ... they don't KNOW! They are consulting, as we speak, wondering how the Tactic they listed could possibly be viable when the power they listed doesn't allow for it? An email has been sent to Skip Williams, who is not available for comment.

 

[occam]

To top it all off, the 4E stat-blocks read like minis cards, not a true stat-block for a villian.

If you're fixed in the 3e mindset, sure. But I can recall menacing and impressive villains from earlier iterations of D&D that had positively minuscule stat blocks by 3e standards.

 

[TwoSix]

I also think it's a case of Heucuva / Huecuva.

What's Heucuva to me, or me to Huecuva?

 

[Spatula]

I would not put much faith on that.

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

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=37096&pagemode=2&blogid=8838

Total time it took to create a level 8 gnoll warlock and level 11 human wizard NPCs, both with templates applied: 40 minutes.

If I had access to physical books and wasn't writing these guys for an adventure (necessitating a lot of extra writing; for a home game I might just note the what page I could find a spell or whatever), I think it would've taken me 20, 25 minutes tops.

 

[AZRogue]

Class levels can be added to a creature, sure thing, but I don't think it's the norm. As a matter of fact, a lot of what they're trying to do is to remove the NEED for NPCs with as much complexity as PCs. If the guy doesn't need that level of detail, he won't get it, and that's pretty much going to be the default.

A DM can, however, always go the extra mile and make full NPCs with as much complexity as a PC, should that be how he gets his kicks.

 

[Wolfspider]

What's Heucuva to me, or me to Huecuva?

HA!

HA HA!

HAHA HAHA HA HAHA HA!

Ahem.

Good one.

 

[tomtill]

And thats the problem. You don't think the flavor text fits. Which is fine.
But that does not mean the power is ambiguous

Actually that's the problem.

With 3e, WotC managed to pull off the dubious feat of getting its audience to accept the idea that the "flavor" text (although technically, this is tactics, not flavor) doesn't have to be consistent with the rules.

Other than the fact that there's a lot of conflicting published material, why should this be? What possible use could flavor text that introduces misunderstanding have in a rpg? How do you know what the intent of the designer was? Did they forget to add "The victim is charmed," in the powers section or were they waxing poetic when they said "slavishly loyal" in the tactics section? I understand that 3.5 had a system to resolve these kind of sourcebook conflicts, in lieu of publishing errata. But that seemed like a band-aid more than a desirable design goal.

With 4e, they have a chance to start with a clean slate.

I hope this is an isolated case.

But to start out a new edition with tactics text that conflicts with powers description?

Do you really think that's a design goal?

It is only unambiguous if you discard the tactics section. Even then, the second paragraph of the powers description becomes almost comic--the PC being stalked by a succubus who he can't harm. If she could teleport into his bedroom whenever he is alone, this is a fun plot device. I might even use it. But, the second paragraph becomes more obvious if the victim is also charmed by the charming kiss. It is also consistent with the succubus' traditional role.

I'm not arguing whether or not the intent of the designer was to make the victim charmed. I'm arguing that the designer did not make his intent clear. He clearly made a mistake somewhere, either in the powers description or in the tactics description. You are using the 3e RAW to discard everything that is not consistent with the stat block. That is the rule in 3e. You are correct that by RAW, that is how it should be played (in 3e). However, even in 3e that was not necessarily the designer's intent.

It is silliness.

I was hoping that in 4e, every effort would be made to put in enough editing that we did not have to discard inconsistent data. I was hoping that every effort would be made to make the rules consistent across stat block, tactics, description, etc.

I am still hoping that DDI will allow real corrections and clarifications to be made, not just a blanket "ignore the text, in this order..."

 

[DandD]

There is "flavor" text in the entry of the Pit Fiend that they wear ornated armour and have many different weapons. What we got was a naked scaly dude with wings and big fangs and one mace.

It's quite possible that "flavor"-text really is just meant to be "flavor".

 

[Spatula]

But to start out a new edition with tactics text that conflicts with powers description?

Do you really think that's a design goal?

Of course it's not a design goal, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. More than likely one or more of the relevant succubus powers was changed during playtesting/editing and the tactics section wasn't properly updated. Just a natural consequence of the design process.

 

[The_Fan]

With the sample encounter for the succubus, my first thought was From Dusk 'Till Dawn. The encounter would be a sneak attack in a bar/tavern/whatever, with the succubus being a snake dancer and the assassins being her backup dancers. She doesn't have to hit AC if the PC accepts the kiss...