D&D 4E 4e Monster Manual excerpt

[mmu1]

But does it really matter? Unless you are going to run an encounter with creatures larger than the devil, then the problem is moot.

If you are...well you are the GM, just do what makes sense.

I understand your frustration but I don't want to see a bunch of text explaining how the effect won't work on a creature that is 2 size categories or larger. Its a waste of text since this monster is for fighting medium sized people.

IIRC, it's actually an Epic tier monster, so assuming that the PCs (and their allies) are all going to be Medium sized is a bit of a stretch.

And if I had a dime for every time I either played in a game or read about a game that had some kind of three-way conflict with monsters fighting other monsters I'd... well, I'd probably be able to pay for lunch, anyway.

Finally, it's not just this one demon that's the issue here - it's the fact that the whole game has been designed using the same philosophy, and I constantly find myself looking at stuff that makes me go "this doesn't remotely make sense". The only time I'm ok with being asked to turn my brain off to this degree is when I watch action movies.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Interesting how you guys have managed to sow the seeds of serious doubt about 4th edition in my mind over the weeks. From being a gung-ho supporter, I'm gradually turning into someone who's "meh" about the whole thing.

I still like the basic concepts -- for example, all character classes having maneuvers/powers that they can use at all levels. But after reading all the comments on the message boards here, I'm beginning to doubt that these excellent concepts have been implemented well. In short, you've persuaded me that the theory is sound, but WotC has flubbed carrying it over into practice.

 

[Tuft]

Finally, it's not just this one demon that's the issue here - it's the fact that the whole game has been designed using the same philosophy, and I constantly find myself looking at stuff that makes me go "this doesn't remotely make sense". The only time I'm ok with being asked to turn my brain off to this degree is when I watch action movies.

Well, "exception-based design" seems to do the same thing to the rules as "points of light" does to the setting...

You have a few well-lit, well-defined areas, the points of light. They basically tell "when player A plays card B effect C happens", and not much more. All the wilderness around - the "why?":s, the "how?":s, how everything is connected by cause and effect, what happens with non-standard play, is an unknown dark that the DM has to populate as necessary.

I guess that wilderness is something that some DMs will ignore, some will thrive in, and some will flounder in.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Summon Monster. Wildshape. Dominate.

Bringing up abilities that we dont know players will ever receive isnt exactly a good basis for argument.

IF players ever get these abilities, which is by no means certain quite yet, I will be very suprised if they allow them to bring into play anything but medium (possibly large), solid creatures, not the type of creatures that would cause severe discrepency with the stats as written here.

 

[Rex Blunder]

nteresting how you guys have managed to sow the seeds of serious doubt about 4th edition in my mind over the weeks. From being a gung-ho supporter, I'm gradually turning into someone who's "meh" about the whole thing.

Ah, the danger of message boards.

They have a number of perils, including making a lot of problems seem important that might not come up in actual play. Also making you angry at strangers, which can't be good for your chi.

 

[Dragonblade]

Interesting how you guys have managed to sow the seeds of serious doubt about 4th edition in my mind over the weeks. From being a gung-ho supporter, I'm gradually turning into someone who's "meh" about the whole thing.

Vocal message board critics have a way of making their concerns seem incredibly significant far out of proportion to reality.

4e detractors have had the opposite effect on me. I find their criticisms increasingly irrational and irrelevant. And when my standards of good game design are held up to 3.5, I find that game's flaws and failings ever more impossible to ignore.

 

[AZRogue]

Interesting how you guys have managed to sow the seeds of serious doubt about 4th edition in my mind over the weeks. From being a gung-ho supporter, I'm gradually turning into someone who's "meh" about the whole thing.

I still like the basic concepts -- for example, all character classes having maneuvers/powers that they can use at all levels. But after reading all the comments on the message boards here, I'm beginning to doubt that these excellent concepts have been implemented well. In short, you've persuaded me that the theory is sound, but WotC has flubbed carrying it over into practice.

Sometimes I'm a critic because I see something that I either don't fully understand or because it wasn't properly implemented (as far as we can tell) from my own perspective. I still trust in the system and the designers, who have produced a wealth of powerfully useful material, even if there is the occasional hiccup.

What I'm trying to say is, don't let critics get you down. Hell, I don't let my OWN criticism get me down. Why? Because I haven't seen the finished books yet so I don't know if my concerns are groundless and, even if they aren't, I shouldn't judge a complete work by a few entries.

And, if there are some problems that just means we have a reason to Ask the Sage, right?

 

[occam]

But after reading all the comments on the message boards here, I'm beginning to doubt that these excellent concepts have been implemented well. In short, you've persuaded me that the theory is sound, but WotC has flubbed carrying it over into practice.

That's a premature assessment. We have no reason to believe that these seemingly gaping holes aren't fully covered by rules we haven't seen yet. In fact, given that these are basically the same game designers that worked on 3e, we have good reason to believe that they are. I say, chill out, and wait until the full ruleset is released before judging it a dismal failure (or the greatest thing evah).

 

[zoroaster100]

One of the things I find really annoying about the fluff changes to demons and devils is that the 4E designers seem to have gone out of their way to make it hard for people to continue to use the D&D hitorical approach to these monsters. For example, why couldn't they create a "pleasure devil" or "persuasion devil" and leave the word succubus alone, to be used by those who want to keep succubus demons in their world?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The fact that there is a secondary attack at all makes me think that the primary attack does something that we don't know about.

what about:

+x vs AC: you run around with a broad grin (save ends). AND any females courrently engaed with you break up the relationship.