If I'm not smoking crack, I think you can take the gnoll archer, remove the pack attack feature, add the orc healing attack and faster charges and you have a solid orc archer. He is a unique orc in that he is an archer but he still got the orc schtick going.Wulf Ratbane said:
D&D 4E 4e Playtesters revealed!
- Thread starter cdrcjsn
- Start date
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
med stud said:
If I'm not smoking the same crack, you can take a demon succubus, remove the demon features, add the devil features, and you have a solid devil subtle manipulator.
Or... Perhaps you are suggesting that WotC was smoking crack when they decided to make the succubus a devil instead of leaving her as a demon and just filing off the serial numbers if you needed to make her fit in a devil encounter.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
AllisterH said:
Contracts signed in blood?
ThirdWizard
First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
I think there's still a place for unique creatures that break out of the normal mold. I think its just that your average orc isn't an archer and your average demon isn't a devious manipulator. It's kind of like how my campaign has an morally ambiguous planetar pulling some strings behind the curtains. That's not normal for them, but when using sparingly it makes for an interesting encounter/plot/etc.
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
Nope.
Hands. Very small hands.
Hands. Very small hands.
Wulf Ratbane said:
It isn't quite that simple. We still want to map all the humanoid types to the different roles, but we'd like to express that flavor in those roles. Here's an example:
Gnoll Controller: This guy throws bolas to bring down the pack's prey. He's good at tripping people with ranged attacks, and he can also throw nets that restrict movement. These tactics work well with the rest of the gnolls who want to crowd around a target. He might also have an encounter power that lets gnolls shift 2 or 3 squares as an immediate action, to help pile on a downed foe.
Orc Artillery: This guy carries a huge crossbow, heavy throwing hammers, or maybe those orc shot puts from Sword & First, a weapon that's inaccurate but delivers a devastating shot, maybe with a push 1 to allow the orcs room for manuever. The captures the brute feel of orcs. He carries a two-handed weapon and, compared to typical artillery monster, is pretty good in melee and has more HP but a lower AC.
The concept is that we want every role to exist within a creature type, but we want to flavor those roles to match that type. The danger of the role system is that it could lead to bland design, with all artillery looking alike, and so on. To push monsters apart, we create "tent pole" mechanics and flavor and then design around that.
With respect to devils and demons, the succubus's MO fits devils better. A similar creature cast as a demon might use more brutal, direct methods to achieve a similar end. For example, a demon that uses illusions to appear beautiful or horrid, depending on its goals. In beauty mode, it can prevent others from attacking it, and use mind control to turn enemies into its puppets. In horrid mode, it creates an aura that drives enemies away and causes them to attack creatures at random.
We have to accept that sometimes people won't like our classifications, but I think they're important for creating a design blueprint going forward. The game is a lot more fun if gnolls, orcs, demons, devils, and goblins all have significant differences, especially since the design structure could facilitate lazy design that lets monsters blur into each other. You could plug in baseline numbers by role and level and the game functions fine, but fine isn't good enough. We want something evocative and flavorful.
Beckett
Explorer
mearls said:
And kudos for this. One problem with 3.5 is that, mechanically, a fight against hobgoblins is going to feel a lot like a fight against orcs or gnolls or kobolds. I was very happy when I read the humanoid stats that have been leaked and saw each creature had something to make them unique.
