DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[Ingolf]

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

4e is less simulationist that 3e to the exact same extent it's less like Hero System than 3e is.

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.

I don't blame you for complaining, I'm just sick and tired of the same tired old gripes being trotted out again and again. We get it - 4e is not your cup of tea. Presumably you are disappointed that WotC went the route with it they did - no amount of complaining is going to change that, however.

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.

That would be illogical. But as that's not what happens, I fail to see the problem.

All monsters have a built-in bonus that is intended to level the playing field between them and the PCs. It doesn't come from a specific magic item, it comes from the design conceits of 4e. If a monster with an assumed +3 enhancement bonus picks up a +5 weapon, his assumed +3 bonus goes away and is replaced by the bonus of the +5 weapon for a net gain of 2.

Any other result would be illogical.

Thats for the moderators to decide, not you.

No, I've pretty much decided, I'm just not in a position to do anything about it.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Just for you Derren, i quote AllisterH again. Maybe you didn't read it, maybe you don't care, but this should clear up your missunderstanding.
Emphasis mine.

Magic items don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures however, if you want a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to lose power.

Basically, Cadfan explained it beautifully.

It seems the DEFAULT situation is that no creature in the MM actually has the EQUIVALENT to the 4E's Big three. )Namely, magic weapon/armour/defenses. The math for them is factored into their original equation.

However, if you want to have a creature with a magical item, the exercept talks about HOW you would balance it so that in effect, the creature is equal to what it would be WITHOUT the magical item.

So in the scenario where for example, a monster picks up a +5 sword, the monster of course is going to have an attack +5 higher but presumably, if you design a monster with a +5 sword, you don't WANT the monster to be stronger than before.

 

[occam]

No amount of complaining or arguing about it will change it, especially when the majority of ppl are in favor of DnD 4E's current announced style.

We don't really know that. The majority of posters to this forum may support the changes in 4e, but forum-posters are by no means representative of "ppl" as a whole. We'll see how it goes after the game's released.

 

[spuppett]

Y'know, this is a tempest in a teapot. I'd rather have a D&D standard for how vampires spawn, since it's the sort of thing I might not realize isn't in there until it comes up. So, I might not have an answer prepared.

Seriously, could some WotC guy just tell us whether the info is in there somewhere or not?

I don't know. That seems like something that 'Ask Wizards' or something in that vein is for. If you need to know right now, make it up, then get an 'official' reading when the session is over.

 

[occam]

The idea is that as you level, your opponents change. You know you are 15th level because you aren't fighting goblins anymore, you are fighting giants. Instead of sneak attacks and moving around, you are being crushed beneath giant fists.

I wouldn't expect to see extremely high level versions of low level races, is what I'm saying.

Legion Devil: Hey Boss, what do you about all these do-gooder adventurers that keep showing up? They're really annoying.

Pit Fiend: You know, when I started off as a despicable lemure, I faced opponents like that, and I was lucky to survive. As an imp, I was in a better position to influence humanoids than to fight them, but it still happened. After being promoted to bearded devil, it was non-stop adventurer-fighting action. Same when I reached your status.

Legion Devil: So what did you do then? How do you get out of that?

Pit Fiend: Well, that's the thing... I don't know. Now that I'm one of the most powerful beings in the multiverse, I still have to deal with those pesky humanoids. I mean... What in the Nine Hells??! I thought by now I'd be facing dragons, or the tarrasque! But NO! More humans, more elves, more dwarves... Is this what I get for scaling the heights of infernal power?!!

Legion Devil: ...

Pit Fiend: ...

Legion Devil: Sorry, Boss.

Pit Fiend: No, no, forget about it. I just get so frustrated when I think about all the cool monsters those so-called "heroes" get to fight... I let my emotions get out of hand a bit. Pay it no mind.

Legion Devil: Thanks, Boss!

Pit Fiend: Besides, I need you to blow up the next time some of those adventurers drop by.

Legion Devil: ...

 

[Spatula]

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.

Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all. If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature. The level 15 monster has the bonuses it does, and gets less benefit from whatever items you give it, because that's what it's required to have to challenge the players. It's not 100% gamist (wherein the items would have no effect at all, perhaps), but it's certainly not simulationist.

 

[Umbran]

There are a number of folks in here bickering in here about accusations of trolling. All of you, stop it.

If an accusation of trolling is accurate, it feeds the troll. If inaccurate, it is insulting. Continuing to engage in back-and-forth about such accusation disrupts the thread, and overall makes this look like an argumentative, unpleasant place. Good work, people!

So, cut it out, please. If you don't like what someone has to say, you are free to ignore it, or report it. Getting argumentative helps nobody. So don't do it. Thank you.

 

[Kishin]

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.

I think the question is here is why they choose to repeat their already well known complaints ad nauseam, when its really not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful form.

 

[Serensius]

I noticed that. Another reason why the lich template is bland.
The 4E Lich lost nearly everything which made it unique. Its not caster only anymore, it doesn't need to have a phylactery and their powers are also rather generic. (Does necrotic damage and can recharge powers. Imo thats rather boring compared to things like paralyzes things with a touch).
Its just another guy turned undead for power.

This is something that concerns me too, about 4E. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the new changes as much as the next guy; but it seems that, because everything is going to get hooked into the the same system of level-appropriate damage etc (PCs too, everyone basically gets the same things), everything seems kind of generic. I'm really hoping to see some awesome fluff with monsters and powers at release.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Except that the base level 15 monster doesn't actually have a + weapon at all. If it did, the PCs could take it and use it / sell it after defeating the creature.

It's not actually that it doesn't have a + weapon, it's that it doesn't matter if it has a + weapon.

After the battle, when the players are looting the corpses, the DM can say, "It, uh... has a +2 sword." Or he can decide to give that same treasure value in coins instead. At level 15, both approaches probably come out to the same thing, since everyone probably has +2 or better weapons.

It really means that only loot that will be important to the PCs will be important in the battle.