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

[Lizard]

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-.

See, I have the exact opposite reaction.

In 3.5, I had a kobold race, and I could easily create kobold wizards, kobold fighters, kobold rogue/barbarians, kobold whatevers, give them whatever items they needed, give them the skills that made them seem "real". The kobold chief had a high charisma, diplomacy, and bluff, because he needed them to be a leader. It's what a leader would logically have.

In 4e, I don't feel there's a kobold race. There's a kobold hive with kobold being born into castes from birth -- he's a slinger, he's a dragonshield. They feel as if they exist only for the fight; there is no society, no culture, no baby kobolds and old kobolds. There's just kobolds who spawn into the encounter and despawn when the encounter ends.

Now, this can be mitigated. The rules make it easy enough to build kobold NPCs. You, the DM, can tinker with trained skills and modify equipment and attributes -- give the Dragonshield more charisma and make him Trained in Bluff if you want him to seem more leaderly, etc. But the rules as written do not actively encourage this. Instead of a kobold race, you have a box of miniatures. Pick the ones you want for the fight, and get on with it. Fights over, put them back in the box.

4e CAN be used to create a world as deep and believable as any 3e world, but it requires a lot more effort, as you're fighting the encounter-centric design paradigm all the way. (Even your kobold NPCs will lack feats and have a much smaller selection of powers)

Maybe it's because I always used programs like PCgen and Herolab, but all of my humanoids are classed, which meant I could use them across all levels pretty easily, and they never felt boring of 'same old', because any kobold (or orc or hobgoblin or whatever) could have any of the abilities a PC could -- magic, psionics, incarnum, whatever. You couldn't say, "Oh, it's a kobold, it has X". You could have kobold merchants who were shrewd bargainers, kobold sages with kick-ass knowledge skills, and so on. With 4e, for most monsters, you quickly learn its "shtick", then you optimize to deal with it. "OK, this one does X if you get within Y. That other one has a one-shot burst power, once it's used it, it's harmless." Again, this can be avoided by making NPCs or "reskinning" monsters, but that's not the presumed default behavior.

4e is not nearly as bad as I feared it would be, and I am even contemplating switching my current campaign over to it once PHB2 comes out (as it will add in the classes my current PCs are using), but it really lacks a lot in detail and creating the feel of a "real" world. The "Gaminess" of it is constantly in your face and requires constant effort to overcome -- it's more work to describe game effects in dramatic terms, or to design interesting non-combat NPCs.

Someone else commented that the 4e system for monsters is great because they're more unique in that they have custom abilities, not spells -- but then goes on to say that, off stage, monsters can do "whatever the DM wants" -- which means they all have the SAME powers. I'd like to see Grazzt have very different "plot powers" than Orcus -- he should be forced, by his nature, to use different means to further his aims. Reading those massive stat blocks full of non-combat powers often inspired plot ideas in me. The current crop of demons, devils, and what-not, as described, can't do basic domination/control type plots, because those abilities in 4e only really work in combat and are very limited. There's no (official) long-term domination rituals, no way other than handwaving to say "The demon has total control over the king". (And if your argument is "Well, handwave it, then! Who cares?" the problem is that without any mechanics, you're left to be completely arbitrary when determining how the control can be BROKEN, and if such methods succeed or fail. Players do not like to feel their actions are limited by the DMs whims. They want know "OK, we do THIS, and then we roll THAT, and then we see if we break the control." It might be a skill challenge (research the ritual, perform the ritual, keep the demons agents from disturbing the ritual), it might be an attack, it could be anything -- but it should be quantified BEFORE the players try it.)

 

[Nail]

That sounds more like a desire for published adventures, ....

<shudder> No thanks. I prefer plots in my adventures.

It's the age old question.

<chuckle> Ain't it th' truth.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

For my part, at least, this is most definitely NOT a desire for published adventures. It is a desire for information about the non-combat abilities of various monsters.

Published adventures work fairly well but they have a definite play style. You go to room A2, listen at the door, kick it open, and find the evil NPC in the middle of a ritual. It is all there, all written down, and the story is entirely the responsibility of the DM. What is the ritual? What can be done to stop it? What happens if the PCs fail? Etc.

On the other hand, some players prefer a freer style of play. Rather than being handed a mission by an NPC that says "Orcus is gating in balors; go to dungeon A and retrieve Mcguffin B to stop his fiendish plot", they would rather conduct their own investigations and come up with their own plan. And they want to be responsible for warding their plans from the bad guys too. Is Orcus going to have his minions scry on them to determine their plans? Ward their base against scrying. (And then counterattack, kill the minions and take worthwhile scrying rituals off their corpses so that they are no longer stuck with the crap that was in the PHB). In this style of play, the contest between the PCs and the NPCs explicitly includes much more than is present in the individual combat encounter--their divinations, wards, plans, and what they can do if left unchecked. You cannot play that kind of a game without information on a creature's non-combat abilities. Published modules can be used for this style of play, but they are for shortening the prep time when the PCs plans call on them to go in a particular direction rather than for determining the story itself.

 

[Runestar]

For 3e at least, I felt that boundaries were still fairly important to an extent.

For example, protection from evil prevents someone from exercising mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject.

Seems straightforward enough. Until the time comes when you need to determine just what spells "involve ongoing control" and which don't. If you go with the 3.0 FAQ, spells such as suggestion, irresistible dance and insanity evidently don't, and thus are not blocked by PfE. So depending on how you rule, mindflayers are either neutered completely or can still pose a decent challenge (since it can still fall back on suggestion instead of charm monster). I feel that players are entitled to know just how well or badly their abilities interact with the world around them, before the actual scenario comes up, all the better to make informed decisions.

Phantasmal horror kills its target on a failed save (well, 2 actually), but is not a death effect because it lacks the death descriptor, and thus ignores death ward. It however, has the fear descriptor, and hence cannot affect a paladin, or anyone under the effects of a Hero's Feast spell.

Blasphemy and wail of the banshee have the sonic descriptor, and so can be negated by the silence spell.

The limitations needed to be spelled out precisely so that the players know just how effective their own abilities are when interacting with them. For example, my fighter may have silence cast on himself based on the assumption that it would ward against the pit fiend's blasphemy SLA (and by RAW, he would be right), and I would be very annoyed if my DM just bypassed this without first informing me of this change.

And if you are thinking of accusing him of metagaming, bear in mind that what SLAs a pit fiend has can be readily discerned with a DC35 knowledge: planes check. So it is really no secret.

In 4e, this seems less important, since the various descriptors seem to have minimal mechanical impacts on the game.

 

[Regicide]

4e CAN be used to create a world as deep and believable as any 3e world, but it requires a lot more effort, as you're fighting the encounter-centric design paradigm all the way. (Even your kobold NPCs will lack feats and have a much smaller selection of powers)

To further what you said, 4E lacks the ability to say "why" which to me kills a lot of the role-playing. A party has some members die, some corpses require 500 gold pieces sprinkled over the bodies, some require 5000 gold pieces. The characters ask themselves *why* and the only answer is "because some are 8-9th level and some are 10-11th level, but what is this level thing anyway?"

Likewise when Grazz't foils the player's cunning plan by knowing about it ahead of time by spying on them and the player's say "we want to be able to do that too" and you as a DM so "no, you can't" and the player's ask "why" your answer is... because despite being demi-gods, you just can't. All your powers are in-combat powers, if you want to beat Grazz't, you need to use in-combat powers.

 

[evilbob]

Re: Nail's response, and

Re: everything Lizard said, especially the last paragraph:

Yes, yes, yes! I completely agree. 3.5 monsters may have had too much information, but that extra information lead to a real personality - a feel for the monster that you could get to know as you learned more about it and what it could do. There was real creativity and design ideas built into those stat blocks - even if they were generally unnecessary half the time and took up lots of room and made battles take an hour (like fighting Orcus wouldn't take an hour anyway). 4.0 pits you against various bags of hit points. Sure, this one can do X and that one can do Y, but you could reskin the thing and no one would ever know. Yes, you gain modularity, ease of use, and speed of play - and all of those are good - but you lose so much flavor, that they all taste the same.

 

[Lizard]

To further what you said, 4E lacks the ability to say "why" which to me kills a lot of the role-playing. A party has some members die, some corpses require 500 gold pieces sprinkled over the bodies, some require 5000 gold pieces. The characters ask themselves *why* and the only answer is "because some are 8-9th level and some are 10-11th level, but what is this level thing anyway?"

Likewise when Grazz't foils the player's cunning plan by knowing about it ahead of time by spying on them and the player's say "we want to be able to do that too" and you as a DM so "no, you can't" and the player's ask "why" your answer is... because despite being demi-gods, you just can't. All your powers are in-combat powers, if you want to beat Grazz't, you need to use in-combat powers.

Well, to be fair...

Level-based costs were in 3e as well -- magic items, etc. There was, however, nothing I can think of which cost more per character level: It cost as much to Raise a 1st level Commoner as an Epic level Wizard. I can accept, though, that The Powers That Be value the souls of the powerful more than the lowly, and need more bribes to let them go back.

For the second case, the answer to both is "Rituals". I don't mind saying, "Graz'zt has a ritual you haven't learned". I do object to the idea I don't need to work out the ritual's level, limits, cost, and so on, so I can be fair about it, and, more importantly, give the players the chance to FIND those limits and overcome them. Saying, "It's a demon ritual, you can't cast it nyeah" is borderline acceptable, if handled right. Saying, "It can do anything I want it to, screw you!" is not. Rather, it should go like this.

Player: How does he keep knowing where to send his cultists?
DM: Good question. Why don't you try to find the answer!
Player: Arcana check 35!
DM: Well, you're not sure, but you know who is.. the old Sage so-and-so, who lives in the Tower Of Certain Doom.
Players: We're off!
(Much later)
DM: OK, the sage tells you of the ritual Graz'zt uses. It can be blocked only be walls made with mortar mixed with ground dragonbone... from a freshly killed dragon. Fortunately, there's one a few miles down the road...
Players: We're off! Again!

And so, finally, they've built a spy-prood citadel. Or at least proof against Graz'zts ritual, and probably all those of other Devils, just to be fair. Demons, though...

"He can 'cause he can, OK?" is just poor storytelling in my opinion. No matter the game, no matter the version, the world must have rules which the players can identify and use.

 

[Kordeth]

To further what you said, 4E lacks the ability to say "why" which to me kills a lot of the role-playing. A party has some members die, some corpses require 500 gold pieces sprinkled over the bodies, some require 5000 gold pieces. The characters ask themselves *why* and the only answer is "because some are 8-9th level and some are 10-11th level, but what is this level thing anyway?"

"The gods are selfish masters, and when a soul that burns as bright as that of the greatest heroes comes to their halls, they don't want to let them go. The grander a hero's destiny, the harder the gods will fight to keep them in the afterlife, and thus the more potent the ritual required to bribe the gods into sending them back."

"The mortal realm has been steadily drifting away from the realms where the dead go for a while now--it has nothing to do with you, kid, it's just the inevitable progression of things. Hey, you look like a hero, maybe you oughta do something about that."

"The Raven Queen hates letting souls pass through her realm, and she sets her shadowy hounds to range across the Shadowfell, seeking to devour those who would try to cheat her. The brighter-burning the soul, the easier time the hounds have finding them on those gray and blasted plains. The offerings of the resurrection ritual act as a sort of mystical smokescreen, hiding the soul on its journey."

Likewise when Grazz't foils the player's cunning plan by knowing about it ahead of time by spying on them and the player's say "we want to be able to do that too" and you as a DM so "no, you can't" and the player's ask "why" your answer is... because despite being demi-gods, you just can't. All your powers are in-combat powers, if you want to beat Grazz't, you need to use in-combat powers.

"Well, you could have had you spent your gold on the scrying rituals available in the PHB instead of buying raise dead and spending the whole session pestering me about why it costs more."

Seriously, nothing in 4E prevents you from asking or answering the question of "why." There are game-y elements that might require a little bit more creative thinking to explain them "in-world," but it's no worse than any other edition's game-rules peculiarities.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

"Well, you could have had you spent your gold on the scrying rituals available in the PHB instead of buying raise dead and spending the whole session pestering me about why it costs more."

Heh. PHB scrying rituals are barely any cheaper than raise dead and all have such ridiculously short durations that you are highly unlikely to learn anything worthwhile anyway. Seriously. They are utter and complete garbage and the only use they have is sucking resources out of any players who are stupid enough to put them in their ritual books. NPCplotdevicescryingrituals, now that's more like it. I haven't run into any of them yet, but sooner or later an NPC will want to be able to get useful information from scrying and may actually come up with a worthwhile ritual.

Seriously, nothing in 4E prevents you from asking or answering the question of "why." There are game-y elements that might require a little bit more creative thinking to explain them "in-world," but it's no worse than any other edition's game-rules peculiarities.

There is also very very little in the game or the rules that helps you answer the question, "why?" In fact, the designers very nearly said that "why?" is a bad question, that the answer to it is never fun and that anyone who thinks it is an important question is not their target audience and should go to hell. (In short, the design philosophy of 4e is, "it's just a game, there is no why. Now roll your d20 and do d6+stat mod+enhancement." At least that's what I thought the whole point of their "the rules are not the physics of the game world" design philosophy was.

 

[FireLance]

To further what you said, 4E lacks the ability to say "why" which to me kills a lot of the role-playing. A party has some members die, some corpses require 500 gold pieces sprinkled over the bodies, some require 5000 gold pieces. The characters ask themselves *why* and the only answer is "because some are 8-9th level and some are 10-11th level, but what is this level thing anyway?"

Slight tangent, but this bugs me too, and I am considering house-ruling raise dead to cost 500 gp the first time it is used on a character, 5,000 gp the second time it is used on a character, and 50,000 gp thereafter. The theory being, the more times a character has died, the more difficult it's going to be to retrieve him from death (to a point).