DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[Lizard]

I thought the consensus was that the 4E saving throw was the 3E version of "X lasts for 1d4 rounds".

True. It's an interesting psychological quirk. By making it a player-rolled save, instead of a DM-rolled time, the implication is that the character is somehow actively doing something, as opposed to a passive agent working its way through the system. This is also exacerbated by the fact elite monsters get +2 on all saves.

 

[StarFyre]

hmmm

Is it just me, or does anyone else see experienced DMs spending just as much time creating custom creatures? Not less...since so many things may have been removed that DMs want back, they have to spend time adding the extra crunch as someone mentioned (the vampire example), back?

Me, the vampire example, I agree with the argument but I don't personally care since I mess around with monsters so much, it doesn't really matter what the MM says in that regard

Sanjay

 

[Derren]

The "threshold" is meant to specify the weapon (be them natural, mundane, or magical) that the monster already has. Think of that unarmed Orc as having a +5 Orc Fist of Punching. The threshold rule is therefore just saying that you can't replace their +5 Orc Fist of Punching with a +4 Sword of Sharpitude since it's worse.

That is of course a solution, and a rather good one, but it requires the DM to know what magical weapons and armor each monster has in the case that the PCs pick it up. It would be easier if that would be written in the statblock.

That is certainly not my argument and you well know it. 3.5 sucks from a simulationist perspective, and so complaining that 4e does too is a lousy argument.

If you say so, but do you want to dispute that 4E is less simulationist than 3E?

Your original complaint about "unlogical" rules is still invalid. The rule you complain about is perfectly logical within the framework of 4e, you just don't like the rule because you don't like the conceits on which 4e is built. You're well aware that "simulationism" is not really a design goal for 4e

So 4E is not build to be logical/simulationist and people who, because of this change, get forced to search another game system or, when continue to play D&D, will have less fun complain about it. What a surprise. And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.

You're trolling and it's tiresome.

Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.

 

[Benimoto]

Except that magical weapons don't tend to summon small paper clips which tell you where to strike but improve the quality of the weapon like making them sharper and I fail to see how a experienced fighter suddenly stops benefiting from having a better weapon.

Right, but there's a threshold there. In the examples with the ogres, you can't give them a +1 weapon and expect it to make +1 worth of difference. The ogres are already so powerful that it won't. If you give them a +2 weapon it will help them, but only as much as a +1 weapon helps a lesser monster.

The stronger the monster is, the stronger the weapons need to be for them to make a difference. No doubt the rule was instituted at least partly for "gamist" reasons, like you said. But that doesn't mean it makes no sense from a simulationist perspective.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.

We can decide you are trolling and tiresome all we like.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I find the Magic Threshold to be very simulationist. Why you may ask?

I image a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 monster for the the same
reason a +1 sword to be not helpful to a level 15 adventurer.

Give a level 15 adventurer a +1 sword and they'll go, "A +1 sword? And this is useful treasure how? I already have a +5 and +4 sword. This item is useless to me. Guess I can sell it later or something."

I imagine a level 15 monster to react the same way to a +1 sword too.

 

[Stormtalon]

And I would like you to explain how magic items loosing their power when hold by strong NPCs is logical in the conceit of 4E.

I can't speak for Ingolf, but I would point you to this excellent extension of the same concept to PCs by Irda Ranger by way of example: Threshold Extended to PCs.

For a more slimmed-down explanation, WotC has trimmed down the number of types of bonuses, and thus the number of types which stack. Thus, monsters of a certain level have an inherent +x Enhancement bonus to attack & damage; any magic items with an equivalent Enhancement bonus don't stack; if it's greater, only the amount by which the item exceeds the monster's inherent bonus is added on. QED.

 

[eleran]

And I like the idea of rituals just fine. I just think an awful lot of stuff is seemingly being dumped into the ritual bucket. 4e, in general, is asking a small number of mechanics to do an awful lot of things. (Saving throws, for example...poison? Being on fire? Hit by an aging ray? One roll to rule them all...)

But please keep in mind it is being dumped in there by a bunch of people who are trying to answer you and Derrens questions of why the holes exist in the leaked info without having any more info than you do. We just don't believe as you do that because EVERY single tidbit of info is not leaked that that info will not EVER appear anywhere in the game.

 

[eleran]

Ah the familiar "3E was not perfect, so 4E can suck as much as it wants" approach. Guess what, 3E was obviously simulationist enough for me and a couple of other people and 4E isn't.

Actually that is a trollish misrepresentation of what he said. What he was sayign is that maybe you're playing the wrong game. And, I might add, if 3.xe is so hunky dory with you, whay are you wasting everyone's time (including your own) on here arguing?

 

[D'karr]

Me: You see a group of centaurs approaching at high speed.
Druid: What are they riding?

Stormtalon, that part of your sig just cost me a keyboard.