DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[Derren]

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.

Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?

 

[malraux]

Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?

He might not have a magical aura, but perhaps he has an enhancement bonus to his attack. Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs. And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.

 

[FadedC]

I remember when I used to play Torg, which was a game that often had to deal with adjudicating multiple bonuses from different sources much like D&D (Though in Torg you had to worry about what happened if somebody enchanted the armor of a sherman tank). Torg had the concept that because each + and each power increase was slightly exponential eventually you reached a point where a minor boost just wasn't significant enough to increase something's power anymore. The example they gave was that wrapping a battleship in leather armor would not make it significantly harder to destroy.

That's kind of how I view the stacking in 4e....that 20th level creature is hitting so hard that it takes more then a minor sharpening enchantment to significantly increase it's power. The key thing to remember is that +1 on a D20 represents an exponential increase in power, not a static increase in power. At some point things are so powerful that it requires more and more to give them that exponential increase.

 

[Derren]

Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs.

Thats a good point. Its not perfect but it does reduces the number of headaches.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Well, this discussion has convinced me of two things. One, I'm going to get rid of magical plusses in my game, most likely. I really dislike the feel that instead of being something "extra," they're a crutch that the PCs have to have because they're not as awesome as the NPCs and Monsters (which is what the underlying math does to the game world.) Essentially a member of a PC class needs a ton of equipment to make up a shortfall vs. some filthy NPC who gets everything he needs from his role. Thats unacceptable to me, the PCs are supposed to be badasses. (And if the high level NPC does have all that equipment, then, well, the PCs are probably just going to take it. Also probably bad.)

Secondly, it makes way more sense why they don't like disarm. Disarming a 27th level fighter and grabbing his sword and hitting him with it will mess up the whole damned game, apparently.

 

[Ingolf]

Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs. And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.

That's a really good way to think about it. Thanks.

 

[KidSnide]

Thats the thing. It doesn't make much sense in a in game point of view.
I don't even have a problem with powerful monsters transferring some of their power to the weapons they wield, the problem is that not only monsters use this system but also NPCs like the level 6 veteran who suddenly doesn't benefit from having a superior weapon compared to a run of the mill sword. Does he also have a magical aura which imbues the weapon he wields?

I think the trouble is that you're thinking of the NPC as a "level 6 veteran". He's not a level 6 veteran. He's a guy with a +9 melee attack that does 1d8+4 damage who can use the "veteran's gambit" power once per encounter. Those abilities are not computed from class levels. They are just a set of modifiers that are appropriate for a level 6 challenge.

The challenge here is that, if you give him a +3 blade, he only gets a +2 benefit and you want to know why. If he starts out the encounter with the +3 blade, then maybe he never really did have a +9 melee attack with an ordinary sword. Maybe his "natural" ability is really +8? Or maybe, that warcaster behind him cast a buff on his sword? Or maybe, he really does have a featureless +1 sword, which is a particularly sucky magic item in 4E?

Personally, I might say that more powerful folks can get more out of a non-magical sword once they sharpen it themselves and have a bit of practice. So, IMG, if a 7th level character loses all his equipment, he can probably find a sword and squeeze a +1 (no special bump) bonus out of it. I'd figure that poor NPC soldiers use this as their bread-and-butter and that PCs could use it too, if they found themselves in a bad spot. Think of it as a martial ritual...

Of course, you may say, "that's all fine and good, but it's not RAW". To which all I can say is (A) we haven't seen the whole RAW and (B) even if it isn't (which to be fair, does seem likely), it's not a core scenario of 4E, so we'll have to look towards the commentaries, not towards the text of the RAW itself.

 

[DangerAbe]

Hi, I'm new to these boards but I've been playing D&D since the start of 2nd Edition.

First off, the preview is lacking in a lot of areas. There should be rules for creating vampire spawn. However, just because the rules aren't in the Vampire Lord template, that doesn't mean they won't be in the Monstrous Manual under the vampire/vampire spawn entry.

I firmly believe that there will be rules for creating vampire spawn somewhere in 4E. It would be a gross oversight if there weren't. Heck, it could also be a ritual, as many have speculated.

As far as the orc breeding argument. I think it's safe to say that orcs breed at a similiar rate to humans, so... that's silly... Hmmm, unless they don't...but then it would be worth mentioning.

Second, the magic item thing seems weird. My immediate reaction was: Gee, there's a chart I'll never use. But many people have made excellent points concerning play balance and the abstract nature of "pluses". I don't know if i'll adopt that system when DMing. But honestly, my players probably won't notice either way. I don't let them look at monster stats during fights.

Third, I'd like there to be more information on the lich's creation process (since I've had PC wizards who actually want to become liches); that will undoubtably be a ritual though, so I'm not worried about if it not being in the preview.

Finally, I've been reading these boards for a little while now without posting. Some people here just seem like hardcore haters who disagree with everything WotC does. Why hate people? Really? Don't hate. D&D is awesome. Your old books aren't going to explode when 4e hits the shelves. And if you're upset because you know everyone else is going to start playing 4e and you'll look like one of those fools who kept saying 2nd Edition was better (like my brother, he wanted to get the word: THAC0 tattooed on his arm), well guess what? You've already lost. The future is coming people.

Don't hate it. You look silly when you hate.

 

[Kraydak]

Before I complain, I would like to say that this is just about as good an approach to monster customization as you can get given the theoretical approach WotC took in 4e. I am not happy by their fundamental ideas, but the execution appears decent. Except for some gaping holes.

Some monster-equipment wierdness: all high level (non-pc classed) NPCs have insane natural armor. Why? Their effective armor bonus is AC-10-(sometimes) dex/int. This means that high level, their effective armor bonus will be rapidly rising above *anything* armor can provide. Remember, this number is scaling at 1/level (and if you reverse-scale the pit fiend, say, that 1/level scaling seems to work all the way), which armor enhancement bonuses appear to be scaling at about 1/5 levels. Another question: shields. Shields tend to stack with armor... which makes them functionally incompatible with the listed equipment changing rules.

In short, the armor changing instructions will not work outside of the Heroic tier. Also note that the DDXP kobold slinger with AC<Reflex, previously tagged as odd, does appear to be suffering from wearing leather armor of AC *-1*.

Lastly, *why* did they have to include

monster’s magic threshold is an abstract representation of its equipment ...

in the text. It is just asking for trouble. NPCs should either explicitly have magic gear, or not. Anything else *will* cause problems, especially for newer DMs who can have a hard time separating fluff from crunch appropriately. I can just see the Sage Advice questions now...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

He might not have a magical aura, but perhaps he has an enhancement bonus to his attack. Really, within this system, the ones breaking the rules are the PCs, not the NPCs. And that is likely done for gamist reasons; players like to add pluses to their attacks.

yes, that´s it...

no npc needs to boil up an anthill, just to be able to swing a sword right... NPCs actually learn their trades by training... not by stumbling into fights