Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[Brother MacLaren]

3: I don't even know what it means to say that the DM should adjudicate shapechanging effects. That's like saying that the DM should adjudicate sword effects. If the rules are written well, there's nothing to adjudicate. The player says they shapechange into a wolf, ok, they're a wolf now. I, as DM, do not have to make up rules for how that works. Its in the book.

"If the rules are written well." It's always been the case for polymorph rules that there are some areas of interpretation needed.
Look at the BECMI spell "Polymorph Self," where you get "purely physical" abilities. That asks for a DM judgment call. Look at the threads that 3E polymorph and wildshape spawned here.
What items continue to function? What items can you wear in an alternate form? It's never been an easy issue to fix, and (aside from illusions) it's one of the areas most demanding of adjudication. I think it will be easiest to just restrict it to a few physical changes (attack, damage, AC, movement), give almost no special abilities, and rule that items continue functioning.

How can you stop this from happening? When every PC can buy Monster book at the shop. The cat is already out of the box, don't you see?

Well, I would regard it as poor sportsmanship for a player to buy the MM explicitly for the purpose of meta-gaming and learning the monsters' abilities. I would likely stop gaming with such a player. Now, if I knew that they bought it for their own use in running a game, then to make the game better for them I would make an effort to mix up monster names, descriptions, and abilities. That way they could know that their DM knowledge wouldn't interfere with their ability to have fun discovering the world of my campaign.

As to summoned monsters, I'd be happy to give the PCs the information as they come to be familiar with their creatures. Keep it about as mysterious as that magic sword; after a few battles, tell them "It's a Sword +2," and tell the wizard "The Umber Hulk you can summon has 8+8 HD, THAC0 10, AC 2, 44 HP, and a confusing gaze (save vs. Spells)."

 

[fedelas]

This is true.

Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats. Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.

Brad

I'll think that if a DM don't want to let his player knows what an item is, simply don't tell them exactly the game stats of an item, the fact that the magic item was in the PH isn't a change IMO. In fact, magic items are most than not PC tools so the PH can be the best place to put them.
Regarding the summoning and shapechange thing i'll go with the 3.5 PHII way (x-spell=x-form, same for summmon, like Summon Fire archon) or something like the Astral Construct
Cheers
Fede
P.S. I apologize for my grammar and spelling, but english isn't my first language

 

[Stone Dog]

It is the decision of WHICH enemies to attack that isn't simple.

Yes it is. Very simple. When in doubt, they attack the one that is closest until it is out of the fight, then they go to the next one unless you can tell it not to. they are your opponents. the spell makes the summoned creatures attack your opponents. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Perception has nothing to do with it. The magic tells it what it is going to do.

They aren't NPCs. they are practically robots that are programmed by the spell. the only free will they have is flavor text. "It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability." No arguments. No personality except talking and body language. It can yell and complain all it likes, but it is still going to attack whatever it is that is on the opposing team at the moment.

It blocks physical contact from non-evil summoned creatures.

That is a new reading to me and my crew. Lemme see..."This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from good creatures, and good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject. " Those must be some pretty altruistic dinosaurs.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, I would regard it as poor sportsmanship for a player to buy the MM explicitly for the purpose of meta-gaming and learning the monsters' abilities. I would likely stop gaming with such a player. Now, if I knew that they bought it for their own use in running a game, then to make the game better for them I would make an effort to mix up monster names, descriptions, and abilities. That way they could know that their DM knowledge wouldn't interfere with their ability to have fun discovering the world of my campaign.

One of the essential jobs of a DM is to see to it that a players natural, understandable, and perhaps even necessary desire 'to win' doesn't in fact get in the way of thier enjoyment of the game. Most players recognize that peeking behind the DM's screen is not only unethical, but is also spoiling the game for themselves. They less often understand that this desire to understand everything as it happens and put labels and numbers on everything is part of the same unhealthy impulse as the temptation to read the DM's notes. So, your job as a DM includes making it hard for the players to rely on thier meta-knowledge rather than what they gleaned from in game by narrative or by application of a knowledge skill.

In my case, this means that virtually every monster or magic item is either difficult to identify or else completely out of my own head. They'll find out where mewlips come from in due time. That sort of campaign secret is not one I want spoiled because finding out in game is so much more compelling than if I simply told you where they come from. They'll find out about crag fiends, the secret lives of griffins, what a gnome is, what a crypt knight is, what the spawn of ugopoth are, who the crypt children are, what an air elemental really looks like, and so forth by experience, and not from a stat block. And its more fun for everyone this way, because you never have the same sense of wonder reading a stat block that you have finding out things in a story.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In our group the players run summoned creatures, animal companions and cohorts in combat. The DM plays the part of cohorts and companions out of combat. So the players have to know the stats and in 3e this means they have to have access to the Monster Manual.

If 4e is moving away from this requirement then it means there will be more 'sense of wonder', not less.

I get the impression the magic items in the PHB will be limited to the 'Charlie Brown Xmas tree' the system assumes as a default. I don't see anything wrong with that. A DM who is deviating from this default should mention it to his players. If he isn't then there was no mystery to be crushed in the first place.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Unless, of course, one likes the PCs to not know that they have a +1 sword, even after three weeks and 20 combats. Why someone would like this, I really have no idea, but I'm sure there are some people who do.

I'm certainly not one of those. I'd let my player know it was a +1 sword after maybe 2-3 combats. But after 3 weeks and 20 combats, they might not know that it is a dragon-bane sword that gives a 2/day reroll on saving throws vs. dragon-caused effects. Or they might not know the sword gives the Practiced Spellcaster feat and forces the wielder to make a DC 30 Will save or be Dominated by his intended victim if he ever attacks an elf.

I prefer DM-given items, especially with secret benefits or drawbacks.

 

[FadedC]

With regards to summoning spells, according to the rules no speech or communication is necesary for the monster to "attack your enemies". I would assume by this that they are summoned with some innate knowledge of who is friend and who is foe. With that said I think it's also reasonable that the player would not have perfect control over them without the ability to communicate. Most of the time though it's easier to give the player control fo the monster and just have the DM step in when necesary. I'd expect an animal intelligence creature like a T-Rex to usually attack whoever attacked him rather showing strategic planning. But I might also expect even an animal to realize if it can't effect a target due to pro-good at least after the first attempt. In either case a player should certainly know the abilities of the creature they can summon.

I've played in lots of games where the players don't know what their magic items do. There were fun parts, but I really don't miss players having to say "well my ac is 25 plus any magic item bonuses" or "I hite AC21....but presumably actually 22 or 23 depending on the bonus of my sword". The current version of identify tells you all item properties which I don't really have a problem with. Either way having rules for the players on the items they are expected to have seems like a good thing.

 

[Wormwood]

If 4e is moving away from this requirement then it means there will be more 'sense of wonder', not less.

Excellent point.

 

[Thyrwyn]

But IMO, I'm for the arguments that the less the DM has on his mind, the more he can focus on running his game.

This. Why take on extra work when you don't have to?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Yes it is. Very simple. When in doubt, they attack the one that is closest until it is out of the fight, then they go to the next one unless you can tell it not to. they are your opponents.

So they go by proximity? Doesn't matter if certain of the enemies have attacked them and other haven't? Okay, it sounds like your gaming group has agreed on a house rule for how summoned creatures will act. That's your perogative. At least you have some definition rather than "they do whatever the PC wants them to do regardless of ability to communicate."

That is a new reading to me and my crew. Lemme see..."This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from good creatures, and good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject. " Those must be some pretty altruistic dinosaurs.

This has been debated before on the rules boards. Look it up. "Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature."

Prot Evil keeps both neutral and evil creatures from making bodily contact.
Prot Good is "like protection from evil... and good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject."
Does that mean it protects from neutral, evil, AND good creatures? Or is the "neutral and evil" of Prot Evil replaced with just plain "good" in Prot Good, which would make it a less powerful spell than Prot Evil? Which is your reading?
If so, that dragon would be wise to use Prot Evil, since that will keep the neutral creatures at bay.
I go with an "apparent intent of the rules despite the poor wording" and interpret it as "Neutral and Good creatures cannot touch the subject."