D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Goobermunch]

I always wanted to have a go at a regional module for Living Greyhawk. I had some good ideas for Onnwal regionals, but I never got around to it, and eventually fell out of playing LG. What put me off, was having to do stat-blocks, and work out CRs and ELs etc. I have never DM'd 3.0 or 3.5 (though I've run WFRP, CoC, Vampire etc), and I have no interest whatsoever in the 'crunch'. I could definitely see myself writing scenarios for 4e, where I could get away with minimal stats etc, whereas I'd never touch it in 3.5.

The only way I ever felt like DMing 3.5 edition was with e-Tools.

None of the monsters in my mind fit precisely into the stat blocks in the MM, so I'd have to stat them up individually. Now sure, I used the dodge of (generic orc raider x10), but even so, it got tedious. It was most frustrating when dealing with humanoid monsters, as I did in my long running Ghostwalk campaign. The campaign involved a mass migration of humanoid tribes into the area around Manifest as a result of an incursion from the Far Realm (led by a pseudonatural black dragon and a cohort of kaorti and dromites). For a while, the PCs wondered why the "troops" guarding the orcish and gnollish refugees were so weak. It turned out that their best warriors were fighting a staged retreat from their homelands.

I could not have managed married life, graduate school, and work if I had to hand write all of those monsters. eTools made it bearable, but still, my prep time was absurd. Hopefully, 4e will make that process easier.

--G

 

[Mephistopheles]

...the final rules will say "Minions are walking soap bubbles that burst on contact with anything more solid than air."

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Keith Baker talking about minions at EN World last night. He said they're walking soap bubbles that burst on contact with, like, anything. I guess it's pretty serious.

 

[Psion]

If the structure doesn't really serve anyone, than what is lost by blowing it away

I was ribbing, and don't think it's necessarily a universally bad move. But I think that the assumption that nobody is served by the structure is less than universally true.

For example, spycraft is my current beau among games, with a different, looser system to define NPCs. But when making NPCs, I often refer back to the classes because they are prepackaged concepts. And sometimes I decide to use the full PC rules. The structure still serves me.

 

[Lizard]

Yup. This is one area where 4E makes me REALLY REALLY happy.

Anyone remember Runequest 2 & 3? Where every monster and NPC was statted out with nearly a full list of skills and hit locations like a PC? Nightmare. And Chaosium knew it and made several "book o' generic monsters and npc stats" because people griped and it was alot of unneccessary work. Big books of computer generated stats. It wasted so much space in Runequest boxed sets and adventures having all those full or nearly full stat write-ups. There would be one encounter with 12 trollkin and 8 trolls, and they'd all be written up. Now add up multiple encounters per adventure...yeesh

I'm clearly a freak, because I've always preferred games like that, even if I fudged things in actual play if it was taking too long. Even when Aftermath! suggested that uniportant NPCs be marked as '1 hit' or '2 hit' characters, I always had them statted out.

 

[Psion]

Assuming you think I mean what I think you think I mean, then you are right

Monster Manual 3 has a lot of stat block errors. John Cooper points out hundreds of them in his review; there might be more.

Its one of my favourite monster books, and I run all of the monsters straight from the book just fine.

From things WotC designers have said since the 4th edition announcement (but never prior to it) they got a bit exasperated with people pointing out trivial errors in stat blocks that had minimal game impact - or even not quite so trivial errors; does it really matter if sometimes a monster makes a save when "strictly" it should have failed by one or two or vice versa?

I see we agree then.

See, I'm an old Champions/Hero player. Some champs GMs have a saying: points are for players. In other words, the GM has an unlimited budget, so there is little point in trying to deny him a point.

By the same token, if I give a creature more points than the D&D accounting accounts for... I could have just as easily called it a racial bonus. Nitpicking that sort of thing seems rather pointless to me.

But some folks loves John's reviews and think they are the ultimate.

So, take in this post and my prior, I think it's safe to say I see both sides of this issue.

 

[Lizard]

Getting back to the pathological view of the bugbear strangler as PC ally: If one wants a long-term PC ally, then use the monster accordingly. Do you want the monster to survive? Then give it a healing surge or two. Do you worry about the long-term use of the monster's special ability? Then take it away once the monster becomes an ally of the PC. The strangler is a perfect example: it has a dramatic action that it can do, and continued use of this action is not as dramatic, so move on to something else.

You don't find abilities which come and go with the needs of drama to be immersion-breaking; I do. This is a matter of taste. 4e is to your taste; while I agree with most of the design goals and like some of the mechanical improvements, the overarching design model is not to mine. Whether I can still use the rules while ignoring the model is yet to be determined. I will not, for example, have bugbears magically forget how to to strangle just because their relationship with the PCs has changed. Hopefully, this won't be game breaking, because I can guarantee that my players will find ways to ally with the damnedest things, and if the entire game is balanced precariously around the assumption that monsters don't exist outside of encounters, it won't work for me in any kind of extended play. My hobgoblin diplomats, silver dragon society matrons and loveably stupid bugbear bodyguards will not go peaceably wait backstage until they're called on to get butchered and looted by the PCs.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm clearly a freak, because I've always preferred games like that, even if I fudged things in actual play if it was taking too long. Even when Aftermath! suggested that uniportant NPCs be marked as '1 hit' or '2 hit' characters, I always had them statted out.

I'm just greedy -- I like having the stats available, even if I decide not to bother using 'em.

I'm an oldschool Champions/HERO System GM myself, long used to just giving the NPCs whatever skills the plot needed them to have and ignoring the rest. However, HERO has a much smaller "range of power" than D&D does! In HERO, power scales like this:

LAME: Dex 8, Spd 2, OCV 3, damage 1.5d6, skills 8-
NORMAL: Dex 10, Spd 2, OCV 3, damage 2d6, skills 11-
DECENT: Dex 13, Spd 3, OCV 5, damage 4d6, skills 12-
GOOD: Dex 18, Spd 3, OCV 7, damage 5d6, skills 13-
GREAT: Dex 20, Spd 4, OCV 9, damage 6d6, skills 14-
AMAZING: Dex 23, Spd 4, OCV 11, damage 8d6, skills 15-
SUPERHUMAN: Dex 30, Spd 5, OCV 13, damage 10d6, skills 16-

That's the entire run from zero to HERO, so to speak. If you wanted to make a mook, a master, or anything in between, that was all you really needed.

D&D has a much wider (and much more granular) range of ability -- with bigger implications for encounter difficulty and survivability, XP gain, treasure awarded, and so on -- and as such, I would expect it to have a much more precise toolset.

-The Gneech

 

[Hellcow]

It also implies that a minion may transform into a different creature the instant it becomes important to the plot -- suddenly, the same kobold that would die from a sword stroke has 30 hit points and Cool Special Powers.

Just as a note, this wouldn't happen. A weaker creature doesn't suddenly become STRONGER. The situation I described is the reverse - a creature that previously had hit points becoming a minion. The reason to make it a minion is simple: it no longer poses a tactically interested addition to the fight. At first level, the 30 hit point kobold warrior is tough and challenging. At 20th level, that kobold is just going to be an annoyance, despite his 30 hit points and special powers. He's going to have a difficult time hitting you. You may not do 30 hit points per attack, but you probably do in that range - and you'll certainly take him down in two hits at the most. And while he's not a challenging foe at your level, the logic of the scenario holds that the kobold king should have an army of 100 of these guys guarding his castle.

The answer? Make him a minion. Keep his AC and chance to hit. But if you hit him, don't worry about the damage. We know you're doing about thirty hit points of damage now.

The KOBOLD hasn't changed. The mechanics used to interact with him have changed, as a reflection of your level and way to speed up combat with foes that won't prove challenging. Looking back to Buffy, it's not that the turok-han were losing hit points each time they fought; it's that the good guys were in theory becoming tougher, more capable, and more used to dealing with these opponents.

You could leave the kobold at 30 hit points instead of making him a minion. He MIGHT go down on a single hit every time. Or a few might survive to two hits, leaving you to track the mob. Making him a minion is just cutting down on book-keeping with minor threats.

(Mandatory Disclaimer: I haven't actually run a game for characters over 3rd level. I have no personal experience with 20th level play. My statements should not be taken as evidence that 20th level characters inflict 30 damage on an average attack, or that the kobold king has an army of 100 kobold minions. Ask your doctor if Lipitor is right for you.)

 

[Hellcow]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Keith Baker talking about minions at EN World last night. He said they're walking soap bubbles that burst on contact with, like, anything. I guess it's pretty serious.

I know! It's all over the WotC 4E boards.

 

[Lizard]

Just as a note, this wouldn't happen. A weaker creature doesn't suddenly become STRONGER. The situation I described is the reverse - a creature that previously had hit points becoming a minion.

Sorry, I was being unclear. I was referring to situations where something intended to be a disposable speedbump gets a name and a personality. If we go by the Dramatic Effect paradigm, he needs to become bigger, badder, better -- he has to be a Real Live Boy. In TV show terms, this is when the character written for a one-off guest appearance or as Background Thug #1 becomes a series regular. He was minion in his first appearence; when you see him again, he's fully statted out.

IOW, if I'm going to use Dramatic Importance==Power Level, I'm going to go all the way.