4th Edition and the Immortals Handbook

[Fieari]

Been a while since I've stopped by, but after seeing the previews of 4e mechanics, I've thrown in my lot there. My criticisms of 4e are simply in the fluff they've suggested so far (the notorious golden wyvern debate) and in hints at how they're going to handle multiclassing, but I'm willing to wait and see how that actually works out. I'm also wary of separating PC and NPC mechanics, but as long as it is mechanically viable to play a monster as a PC, even if it doesn't work exactly like PC classes, I'll be okay with it.

I think the Demi/Lesser/Greater = Heroic/Paragon/Epic basis is definitely the way to go, and I think Prophet=Paragon, Hero=Epic method is dead on. In fact, as far as I can tell, this is likely to be in the core rules anyway, what with "paths" and "destinies". Isn't one of the destinies "working towards ascension" anyway? That sounds like a hero deity to me!

The separation of minion/normal/elite/boss looks like it'll throw a monkey wrench into design. From my understanding, I don't think a level 30 boss will be the same as a level 31 (+whatever number) minion. On the other hand, if 5 level 30 minions is = 1 boss monster, would 10 level 30 minions = a level 31 (+whatever) monster? 20 minions? 40? If the design works out, so that minions support each other, and the mechanic is that you're basically slowly weakening an equivalent bigger guy, minions might be the most flexible, expandable monster type around... and it might be a good idea to base a lot of things on their mechanics, even at immortal/cosmic/eternal levels.

But even normals and elites are based on having more than one around, so maybe it'll work out anyway. But boss monsters are unlikely to be very functional at higher levels, in my estimation, except as jokes. "Hey, Mr. Sandalphon, there's a couple hundred Balors guarding the Death Gate you want to close." "Haha! Now that that's taken care of, what's the real problem?" "The Elder Void Dragon coming through." "There we go...."

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Been a while since I've stopped by, but after seeing the previews of 4e mechanics, I've thrown in my lot there. My criticisms of 4e are simply in the fluff they've suggested so far (the notorious golden wyvern debate) and in hints at how they're going to handle multiclassing, but I'm willing to wait and see how that actually works out. I'm also wary of separating PC and NPC mechanics, but as long as it is mechanically viable to play a monster as a PC, even if it doesn't work exactly like PC classes, I'll be okay with it.

I actually like the flowery ability names, more evocative.

I think the Demi/Lesser/Greater = Heroic/Paragon/Epic basis is definitely the way to go, and I think Prophet=Paragon, Hero=Epic method is dead on. In fact, as far as I can tell, this is likely to be in the core rules anyway, what with "paths" and "destinies". Isn't one of the destinies "working towards ascension" anyway? That sounds like a hero deity to me!

If it isn't it probably should be.

The separation of minion/normal/elite/boss looks like it'll throw a monkey wrench into design. From my understanding, I don't think a level 30 boss will be the same as a level 31 (+whatever number) minion. On the other hand, if 5 level 30 minions is = 1 boss monster, would 10 level 30 minions = a level 31 (+whatever) monster? 20 minions? 40?

My guess at this stage is that Solo monsters will be effectively 10 levels higher than normal, while minions will be 10 levels lower. But that could be a spread of +5 or -5 rather than tens.

Thus a Level 20 monster might make a good Solo Level 10 monster or a good Minion Level 30. But thats just pure speculation.

If the design works out, so that minions support each other, and the mechanic is that you're basically slowly weakening an equivalent bigger guy, minions might be the most flexible, expandable monster type around... and it might be a good idea to base a lot of things on their mechanics, even at immortal/cosmic/eternal levels.

But even normals and elites are based on having more than one around, so maybe it'll work out anyway. But boss monsters are unlikely to be very functional at higher levels, in my estimation, except as jokes. "Hey, Mr. Sandalphon, there's a couple hundred Balors guarding the Death Gate you want to close." "Haha! Now that that's taken care of, what's the real problem?" "The Elder Void Dragon coming through." "There we go...."

As far as solo monsters are concerned I think you have to look at the ecology of the thing.

For instance I see the Amilictli as a Solo Monster, but not necessarily many of the other Abominations. Dragons are generally considered Solo monsters. The Tarrasque is almost certainly a solo monster.

 

[Anabstercorian]

It's not just about power level. Minion monsters are built for groups, so they'll probably be mechanically simple. Running a horde of solo monsters would probably be an accounting nightmare.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

It's not just about power level. Minion monsters are built for groups, so they'll probably be mechanically simple. Running a horde of solo monsters would probably be an accounting nightmare.

Exactly, but I think thats the point. You don't run multiple solo monsters. Monsters in general will have a shorter shelf life. Ergo, we will actually need more monsters of a given level to give people more options (fortunately creating monsters seems a lot quicker for designers).

A rough breakdown could be as follows...

Epic Dragons and certain Magical Beasts can cover the solo monsters.

Immortals, Dimensional Guardians and certain Epic Undead can cover the elite monsters.

Abominations (for the most part), Elementals and Golems will cover the standard monster type.

With each Elite type having its own Minion type.

e.g. Thanatos will be guarded by Necroloths, while Sandalphon would be encircled by Angelic Musicians, the Cogent might be served by Akishra and a Demilich might have Lunar Shadows in its domain...and so forth.

 

[Pssthpok]

edit: nm

 

[Ajoxer]

Let me just say that I hate each and every one of you, for keeping me up hours past when I should've gotten to sleep reading through a fascinating discussion. A curse on you, like a radish falling on your head at an uncomfortable moment or something.

In serious statements, I admit I have a certain nervousness about 4e, but this comes from my internal miserliness which has driven me to never want to spend more money than necessary. I think that there's always a room for the editions you most care for, and that especially in cases like these, where the different editions would be played very differently, they can be considered quite different.

We had a lot of unhappiness when 3.5 came out for similar reasons, though there were less severe differences between 3.0 and 3.5 and what appears to be coming in 4e, though I suppose we'll have to see.

I think that on my part, having only known about the Immortals Handbook for about a week and already being tormented by the wait in seeing a playable copy of Ascension, there's a definite fear that your time spent on finishing your current 3.5 projects may be consumed by preparing for 4.0- PnP RPGs tend to breed a great deal of paranoia.

Dante, Wardragon I understand your thoughts, but... you could be a little less condescending.

I may not buy 4.0, but I may play a bit of it, we'll have to see if I've paid off my student loans.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ajoxer and welcome to the boards!

Let me just say that I hate each and every one of you, for keeping me up hours past when I should've gotten to sleep reading through a fascinating discussion. A curse on you, like a radish falling on your head at an uncomfortable moment or something.

That could actually happen to me, as I work part time in a supermarket.

In serious statements, I admit I have a certain nervousness about 4e, but this comes from my internal miserliness which has driven me to never want to spend more money than necessary. I think that there's always a room for the editions you most care for, and that especially in cases like these, where the different editions would be played very differently, they can be considered quite different.

I have come to the conclusion that epic/immortal level 3.0/3.5 is too complex for the casual gamer. Fortunately most of the people that follow this stuff ain't yer typical gamers, but its a narrow niche. I do think there is an unecessary level of sophistication that I think 4E will do away with.

We had a lot of unhappiness when 3.5 came out for similar reasons, though there were less severe differences between 3.0 and 3.5 and what appears to be coming in 4e, though I suppose we'll have to see.

To me 3.5 was a fix to 3.0, whereas 4.0 is a fix for all D&D.

I think that on my part, having only known about the Immortals Handbook for about a week and already being tormented by the wait in seeing a playable copy of Ascension,

there's a definite fear that your time spent on finishing your current 3.5 projects may be consumed by preparing for 4.0- PnP RPGs tend to breed a great deal of paranoia.

Theres not really much I can do at this stage though (other than possibly the art I suppose) towards any such endeavour.

Once 4E is launched I'll be going through it to reverse engineer the mechanics. Until I get a handle on that any preparation could be a waste of time.

Dante, Wardragon I understand your thoughts, but... you could be a little less condescending.

These guys have carte blanche to be condescending to me, and only me.

I may not buy 4.0, but I may play a bit of it, we'll have to see if I've paid off my student loans.

I'll try to keep my own pdf costs down as much as possible, but the dollar is rapidly becoming more and more worthless. Theres no way I could do another Bestiary for $8.95 for instance.

 

[WarDragon]

I don't think I was condescending, so much as... pessimistic. And unwilling to be swayed by anything but a final product that just bowls me over with its brilliance.

And please don't lump me in with Dante.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Just wondering what you guys thought of the 4th Edition Pit Fiend?

On the plus side I really like the simplicity of it, no spell-like abilities and only a few iconic special abilities which helps to really define the monster rather than giving it everything plus the kitchen sink like 3E. Also Irresistible Command is pretty cool.

Standard Action Options: Frenzy (Mace + Tail attack), Infernal Summons (1/encounter), Tactical Teleport.

Minor Action Options: Point of Terror, Irresistible Command.

Automatic Options: Aura of Fear, Aura of Fire.

It looks like the Pit Fiend will get 1 standard action, 1 move action (which can be swopped for an additional minor action) and 1 minor action each round.

On the downside it looks fairly weak for a Level 26 Elite monster...or at least for what I assumed a Level 26 Elite monster would look like. Taking into account 4E characters and monsters get less physical attacks each round, I thought the damage on individual attacks would give PCs something to worry about. Also its Mace seems to have no enhancement bonus. I was thinking something like 2d10+23 plus 5 ongoing fire would be more apropros.

Normal Great Mace 1d10, large Great Mace 2d10 base +11 strength +50% for wielded 2-handed (so +16), +7 for enhancement bonus (Level divided by 4 rounded down then subtracted 1).

Also the damage for Irresistible Command seems a bit rubbish. Sacrifice one of your minions for an average 16 (2d10+5) fire damage! What the heck!

 

[Alzrius]

I really hate how simplistic they made the monster. Seriously, it's very neutered now.

High-level monsters should have myriad options; they should have a lot of spell-like abilities and/or integrated spellcaster levels. Monsters at that level are brilliant and tactical and have many, many different things they can do in regards to almost any situation. They should have at least a few non-combat powers that are useful for purposes of verisimilitude (e.g. unhallow, etc).

More options are not inherently confusing. More options just give you more choices, and while that can be a little paralyzing to consider, it's still ultimately more beneficial. The DM has plenty of things he can do, built right into the monster, letting him pick and choose easily. The new pit fiend has apparently only five abilities, one of which can be used once per encounter (I'd love to see an in-game explanation of how often "once per encounter" powers work). This is actually more work for an experienced DM, because he'll have to artificially build in extra powers he wants his pit fiend to have beyond what's listed.

"Options, not restrictions" was a great credo, and this is the reversal of it. Pigeonholing every monster into a specific combat niche weakens the monster on an overall level.