[High level monsters and powers] What can Graz'zt actually do?

[evilbob]

Well, first of all, villains have access to the same rituals players do as a default. DMG, p27.

Yes, you're right.

Secondly, you seem to think that D&D is a competition between DMs and Players, where the DM must follow set rules in order for the players to have a shot at defeating him.

No, you're wrong.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, you're wrong.

No, if it were an actual competition, to be fair, the PCs would be assumed to have a 50 percent chance of total loss every time. 50 percent chance of Total Party Wipeout.

The game actually operates under the assumption that players win the majority of all their battles. Hardly a competition, is it?

 

[evilbob]

Look, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be personal, but you have completely misinterpreted what I said. I am, as a matter of fact, completely opposed to GMs who treat D&D like a competition. I really hate that. I never play that way.

Whatever you believe I said, you are wrong. I stopped paying attention to whatever else you said in that same post because you're so off-base in whatever response you had that it didn't seem worthwhile.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, one, vampires have tons of abilities, some of which are from their vampireness, and some are from their class. It being a template and all.

But for me, here's the reason why less is more.

Look at kobolds.

In 3e they can in one variety, add a class if you like, but a lot didn't bother, because it was work.

Compare that to 4e kobolds. GOLLY DAMN they have a -society- of kobolds in there, each with a purpose and skillset that make kobold with spear different then kobold with sling. Kobolds have an identity, and yet have varience. Pages of material that would be wasted on 'use Rope' and 'This guy has the spell contact other plan' are instead used to flesh out monster races and make them into -actual races-.

You might be upset that the vampire's not got a million things that never occur in battle, but I'll trade that in for the fact that he's got multiple types of minions for different purposes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Got it! Thanks. (...I think, )

Agreed.


Still, one of the strengths of the 3.xe system was that the players knew the monsters were playing under the same rules the PCs were. That made it feel more gritty and real, methinks. The fact that 4e so blatantly does away with that (Graz'zt can conjure a glass of elf-blood wine, while you'll never be able to) is what's so jarring to long-time gamers.

It's not bad; just different.

One thing that is important to note is that the paradigm shift to only having rules for what monsters can do in combat and minimal rules for what they can do outside of combat makes it much more difficult to run certain kinds of games. (And, BTW, if anyone thinks for one moment that even 10% of DMs will be satisfied with their bad guys using only the information reasonably available from the crappy and overcosted PHB divination rituals, I have some subprime mortgage backed securities to sell them).

If you are running a scripted/dungeon crawl game where the DM is entirely responsible for the plot then it is enough to know what Orcus can do in combat when the PCs confront him at the end of the module. On the other hand, the more responsibility the players take for the story, the more important it is to have rules for what NPCs can do outside of an immediate combat. If the players are expected to make preparations to defeat Orcus' plans in ways that do not involve direct physical confrontation between them and Orcus, then, while it may not matter whether or not Orcus can summon a glass of elf-blood wine, it certainly will matter how many balors he can gate to the prime material plane in a single day. A game like that described in Sepulchrave's story hour requires information on the non-combat abilities of NPCs.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

1E and even 2E encouraged DMs to "shoot from the hip" for the sake of the story and fun.

3E spoiled a lot of players, because it was so damn insistent on rules governing both players and foes alike. 4E is a return to the 1E/2E design process, and indicating this to your group (players abide by different rules than foes) is extremely important, especially if they're 3E vets.

 

[evilbob]

One thing that is important to note is that the paradigm shift to only having rules for what monsters can do in combat and minimal rules for what they can do outside of combat makes it much more difficult to run certain kinds of games. (And, BTW, if anyone thinks for one moment that even 10% of DMs will be satisfied with their bad guys using only the information reasonably available from the crappy and overcosted PHB divination rituals, I have some subprime mortgage backed securities to sell them).

If you are running a scripted/dungeon crawl game where the DM is entirely responsible for the plot then it is enough to know what Orcus can do in combat when the PCs confront him at the end of the module. On the other hand, the more responsibility the players take for the story, the more important it is to have rules for what NPCs can do outside of an immediate combat. If the players are expected to make preparations to defeat Orcus' plans in ways that do not involve direct physical confrontation between them and Orcus, then, while it may not matter whether or not Orcus can summon a glass of elf-blood wine, it certainly will matter how many balors he can gate to the prime material plane in a single day. A game like that described in Sepulchrave's story hour requires information on the non-combat abilities of NPCs.

Thank you - this is what I was trying to say, only better.

 

[TheLordWinter]

If you are running a scripted/dungeon crawl game where the DM is entirely responsible for the plot then it is enough to know what Orcus can do in combat when the PCs confront him at the end of the module. On the other hand, the more responsibility the players take for the story, the more important it is to have rules for what NPCs can do outside of an immediate combat. If the players are expected to make preparations to defeat Orcus' plans in ways that do not involve direct physical confrontation between them and Orcus, then, while it may not matter whether or not Orcus can summon a glass of elf-blood wine, it certainly will matter how many balors he can gate to the prime material plane in a single day. A game like that described in Sepulchrave's story hour requires information on the non-combat abilities of NPCs.

This doesn't necessarily have to be the same kind of information for everyone though, does it? Isn't it up to the DM how many Balors Orcus can send in, if any at all? Why have this be one exact given value, and not malleable and something different for each group? It just seems to me that it's not necessary to say "Orcus may teleport three, and no more, Balors to Waterdeep today." I think that, particularly in 4th edition, what the monsters can do outside of combat falls into the purview of what makes a good story - and the DM and Players need to roll off of one another for how to respond. If you have a plot about destroying the magical seals which prevent Orcus from reaching the Prime Material Plane, does it matter if he can gate a dozen Balors in to stop you? From my perspective, only if the story demands the party needs to fight those Balors and it'd be interesting. If they reach a level where Balors can't even touch them, then isn't the entire question of gating in Balors kind of moot? Equally, if that is the plot you want to do, and your PCs are at such a level that Balors would trounce the characters, couldn't you just safely ignore that ability of Orcus, for the purposes of telling the interesting story?

 

[Nail]

.... the more responsibility the players take for the story, the more important it is to have rules for what NPCs can do outside of an immediate combat.

Right.

I think you can do some of this in 4e: rituals, ability & skill checks, and simply adding-in non combat utility powers.

But the question that this "ad hoc" treatment could give rise to will be "Is the DM jus' making this up on the fly, or is this planned and intentional?" As a player I'd feel much better knowing that my PC's plans worked (or didn't) on their merit, not because the DM had a bad burrito for lunch.

 

[Tale]

Right.

I think you can do some of this in 4e: rituals, ability & skill checks, and simply adding-in non combat utility powers.

But the question that this "ad hoc" treatment could give rise to will be "Is the DM jus' making this up on the fly, or is this planned and intentional?" As a player I'd feel much better knowing that my PC's plans worked (or didn't) on their merit, not because the DM had a bad burrito for lunch.

That sounds more like a desire for published adventures, not more extensive stat blocks.

Needing to make up plans of that nature to defeat a bad guy isn't the bad guy per se, but the entire adventure that surrounds him.

It's the age old question. Did I step in that hidden pit trap because the DM pre-planned for it to be there? Or did the DM make it up because he knows I'm twinking his girlfriend.