Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5188179" data-attributes="member: 61155">I'm not sure what the confusion is. I tried to address both scenarios. Inside of combat, there are plenty of tactical options for PCs - as pemerton did a great job of explaining. Outside of combat, the monster's stat block gives them the elements you need to handle most non-combat interactions, whether that is a chase scene, a negotiation, PCs sneaking past monsters or vice versa... In fact, I'm even more confused how this comes across as trolling. If we've successfully demonstrated that stat blocks are versatile both in and out of combat, doesn't that end the debate entirely?  If it doesn't, then... what are you looking for? I'm willing to accept your accusation of trolling was spoken in jest, but you could at least respond to our actual points rather than act like we are somehow trying to change the terms of the debate!   And that's the very point I was making! The discussion should be about which abilities are worth preserving and which are not. I think Detect Thoughts makes a good example of this.  But I also think that there is a tendency here to try and extrapolate more from a single example than is merited. Are you saying that if a compound goes on alert and the monsters are trying to track down the PCs, that the lack of Detect Thoughts means that scenario can never actually happen? Aren't the monsters capable of searching for the PCs in ordinary ways? And don't some monsters still have relevant special features in such a scene, whether it be special sensory abilities (truesight, tremorsense, etc) or various objects or rituals that might aid in revealing PCs?  That's the heart of the debate. Detect Thoughts is an example of something that would very occasionally have a scenario in which it is especially useful. Noonan would, perhaps, feel that these scenarios are rare enough that it is not needed to be preserved in the stat block. Some might agree, some might object. That's one thing.  But the argument your side is making is somehow extrapolating that this means he has, or wants to, "remove all non-combat options from the game". That's just not true. Movement, skills, ability scores, languages, perception abilities - all of these remain in every stat block, and provide all sorts of non-combat options. Most special abilities might not be applicable outside of combat, but there are still some that are - along with many that give pretty good guidance on what a creature can do out of combat. ProfessorCirno had his discussion over how a Paizo statblock was so much more useful than a 4E statblock because of how much insight it gave into the NPC - but we demonstrated that 4E statblocks can provide just as much flavor and insight.  Say you have a monster who can dominate a PC temporarily in combat. The 4E approach is for the DM to then extrapolate what it can do to NPCs out of combat - likely having more extended control of thralls. It doesn't need the exact specifics, because you shouldn't ever need to actually roll out a battle between two NPCs.  So, we both have statblocks that provide complete relevant rules on how an NPC can interact outside of combat, while also providing elements that enhance the flavor and personality of the NPC in question, along with a rules system that supports expanding on a creature's abilities when it comes to off-scene actions.  That does not sound like the removal of all non-combat options to me.  Now, will there still be scenarios in which a 3.5 monster has more options than a 4E one? Sure. But having less options doesn't mean it has no options out of combat, as people are claiming. And in return, we do have easier to use stat blocks that are generally more exciting in actual play. It is a trade-off - but not one nearly as extreme as some seem to believe.  As others have asked, Beginning of the End - how much 4E experience do you have? You've raised some claims that 4E statblocks are 'stale, bland, dull, inflexible', and that they lead to boring repetitive encounters. I'm pretty sure many would disagree - it is considered a strength of 4E that encounters play out in exciting and distinct ways. (As others have mentioned - an encounter that consists of 5 copies of the same monster is completely against standard 4E encounter design.)</blockquote>

Verification