DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[webrunner]

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.

There's two more differences too:

You can't know how long the ability is going to last until it ends

Everything might be over in 1 turn or might last virtually forever depending on the rolls.


In 3.5 if you roll 1d4+1 then it'll be either 2,3,4, or 5 rounds, and you can count them down

 

[occam]

If sunlight does radiant damage 0, then vampires will take 10 damage per round in sunlight.

That would be sweet.

 

[eleran]

Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.

He is stating his (and many other's) opinion which is no less valid than your contention that 4e is "unlogical".

 

[Stormtalon]

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

That player has yet to live that day down, though to be fair, she was under the influence of NyQuil.... It didn't end there, tho.

Me: Ummm, they're centaurs?
Druid: Yeah, but what are they riding?
Everyone: They're CENTAURS!
Druid: But what are they riding??
Me: Ummm, themselves?

 

[Green Knight]

That would be sweet.

It would, but I doubt that's the case. After looking over the Vampire Lord's stats, again, it says that he loses Regeneration in direct sunlight. Seems odd that they'd include that and not include that he gets fried in the sunlight. So the situation is probably that they consider Vampire Lords to be powerful enough to be able to survive in direct sunlight, although they're weakened by it. I don't much care for that, but oh well. There's still the regular vampire, which apparently does catch fire in sunlight (if the Vampire Vizier is anything to judge by).

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Well, at the bare minimum, it replaces 3e-style duration:

DM: "Okay Bob, Regdar has been paralyzed and won't be able to act for...(rolls dice) 4 rounds."
Player: "Four rounds? That's about 15 minutes, right? I'm gonna go play Dark Forces on the XBox (or run to the bathroom, or get some pizza, or...). Call me when it's my turn to act again."
(play continues)

with the following:

DM: "Okay Bob, Regdar's been paralyzed. Save ends."
Player: "Shoot...okay...(rolls die)...9...still paralyzed. Maybe I'll get it next round!"
(play continues)

Psychological? Maybe. But it keeps the player involved in the game. And that's a decided benefit.

 

[Professor Phobos]

That player has yet to live that day down, though to be fair, she was under the influence of NyQuil.... It didn't end there, tho.

Me: Ummm, they're centaurs?
Druid: Yeah, but what are they riding?
Everyone: They're CENTAURS!
Druid: But what are they riding??
Me: Ummm, themselves?

I don't think I could have resisted the temptation to say: "Motorcycles!"

 

[Rex Blunder]

I don't think I could have resisted the temptation to say: "Motorcycles!"

Let's get Klaus in here to do some concept art.

 

[occam]

The confusion is from the paragraph that states 8 level ogre savages, with a +1 threshold, receive a +3 to hit and +3 to damage from a +3 greatsword. It seems to defy the rules. Is it a typo, or is there a +1 hit/damage bonus to using 2-handed weapons, or something else?

There is informed speculation (I think it's speculation, I haven't seen it officially confirmed anywhere) that proficiency with more "accurate" weapons, such as blades, grants an attack bonus. And using a weapon two-handed does grant +1 to damage. So that could explain the apparent discrepancy.

 

[occam]

I'm sure the final text in the DMG will be proof-read again and hopefully the inconsistency that people have noticed will be cleared up.

There isn't necessarily any inconsistency; we don't yet have the context of the full rules set, in which everything in the preview may fit together perfectly.