MM excerpt: phane

[WhatGravitas]

(Use the race entry in the MM + apply the class template = Time Duplicate in past). Anyone see anything wrong with my reasoning?

No - that's why I proposed basically the same some pages before:

Fun thing about them: As they're not solo monsters, you can add weaker versions of the PCs as time duplicates. Even more fun: The phane gets a heap of flavour, if it isn't killed on 0 hp, but instead vanishes, just to re-appear later. If one stops to think that flavourful abilities have to be anchored in the statblock, it's easy to "script" fun scenes. 4E already focuses on more linked encounters - a second phane arriving mid-battle (representing a time-stream duplicate) is basically made for the system.

But the main discussion about that part is: It's not a codified ability, it's "DM fiat" to build the encounter that way. Some people have problems with that, some don't have problems with that.

Cheers, LT.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's the design philosophy of 4e: make the monster so simple that even if you open the book to the page with the monster on it for the first time 30 seconds before you roll for init you'll be able to understand how to run it.

The mere existence of templates contradicts the absoluteness of this statement.

I'm saying that you likely won't see published monsters that rely on that as mechanics.

Depends on how soon someone from WotC wants to publish an adventure with an "evil twin" kind of plot, I guess.

Which one of the above powers is his "best"?

He's a Paladin, right? Role: Defender. Use the mark, unless one of your allies needs some hp, defense, or save boost, in which case, use that. Oddly, this will be the same strategy followed by the actual Paladin 90% of the time. Cue weird "he can use my powers!" moment.

Though I guess our mythic Idiot DM could have some problems figuring out what the Paladin he's been running for 26 levels does?

I'm also saying that there is a better way, mechanically, to design a "mirror universe" PC in 4e. Although I can't say how it works and it may not satisfy some people.

Okay, then, you agree with me. The 4e phane could have had the ability to make "evil twin" PC's.

Why didn't it get that ability?

(Use the race entry in the MM + apply the class template = Time Duplicate in past). Anyone see anything wrong with my reasoning?

It's all right, but seems more than a little pointlessly abstract. It's not like it's HARD to make the PC's run their own evil twin (since the numbers are the same, or, rather, the numbers are the same -2). I'd be fairly astonished if 4e was too dumb to handle that.

 

[Lacyon]

The mere existence of templates contradicts the absoluteness of this statement.

This does not hold.

It's well-recognized that DMs will want some helpful guidelines on customizing monsters. It's also well-recognized that DMs will want to be able to run monsters out of the box without customization.

Templates are one way to accomplish both of these goals.

He's a Paladin, right? Role: Defender. Use the mark, unless one of your allies needs some hp, defense, or save boost, in which case, use that. Oddly, this will be the same strategy followed by the actual Paladin 90% of the time. Cue weird "he can use my powers!" moment.

Why is it likely that team monster will need the save boost at the same time as team PC?

Though I guess our mythic Idiot DM could have some problems figuring out what the Paladin he's been running for 26 levels does?

Hey, no need to call the guy an idiot for taking a couple minutes figuring out what to do. I mean, he allotted 2 minutes for each player to figure out what to do, and went on to explain why it's a good idea for the DM to take less than that on something other than a solo monster.

Okay, then, you agree with me. The 4e phane could have had the ability to make "evil twin" PC's.

Why didn't it get that ability?

Because it's fundamentally bad as a monster ability. If you want to perform the "evil twin" plot, make some evil twins. You don't even need to have a full write-up - just 2 or 3 of that paladin's favorite powers works fine for those who don't want 20 options cluttering up their monster stat block. Alternatively, if you do want all the options, you can stat it up. You can even give that "evil twin" some twists, so that not all his powers are the same.

But this is going to require prep time, so the monster can't be played out of the box. The monster also can't have an accurate XP value, because its power level becomes dependent on its opponents.

It's all right, but seems more than a little pointlessly abstract. It's not like it's HARD to make the PC's run their own evil twin (since the numbers are the same, or, rather, the numbers are the same -2). I'd be fairly astonished if 4e was too dumb to handle that.

Go ahead. There's nothing in the system that prevents you from saying "Bob, roll that attack again at -2 and apply the results to Sally". But it's not good design to give a monster that ability out of the box.

 

[Hussar]

If 4e claims that it's too dumb to handle "evil twin" plots, it's a very damning failure on the part of the designers.

But if the designers are pretty good at what they do, 4e will be smart enough to handle "evil twin" plots.

I've got some faith in the team.

If you think your sneak-peak somehow reveals colossal failure of the game to that degree, I will confess that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

And, for at least the third time, "4e is too dumb to handle evil twins" still doesn't explain the OTHER abilities that the phane looses.

Allister's point addresses that, however.

It's not that you can't do an "Evil Twin" plot, it's that "Evil Twin" plot is NOT easy to run. You can claim that it's the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't make it true. It's going to cause most games to come to a screeching halt. It's not a colossal failure of the game, it's that your plot is too bloody hard for people to run without a great deal of prep work.

Sure, you might have some vague idea about what the other FIVE players at your table can do with their characters, but, come on, at 25th level? You honestly expect to be able to be even average with a 25th level character without any prep work?

If you can, my hats off to you. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can't.

BTW, you state that duplicates don't have equipment. The 3e ones sure do. They come fully equiped. What are the hypothetical 4e duplicates carrying if not magic items and equipment. So, the point that the 8 or 10 magic items also having possible actions is certainly valid.

 

[Lacyon]

It's not that you can't do an "Evil Twin" plot, it's that "Evil Twin" plot is NOT easy to run. You can claim that it's the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't make it true. It's going to cause most games to come to a screeching halt. It's not a colossal failure of the game, it's that your plot is too bloody hard for people to run without a great deal of prep work.

I think actually that the "Evil Twin" plot is fine at the adventure design or even encounter design steps - there are and should be tools for such customizations.

It's just bad monster design, for all the reasons that have been laid out in this thread.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's well-recognized that DMs will want some helpful guidelines on customizing monsters. It's also well-recognized that DMs will want to be able to run monsters out of the box without customization.

Templates are one way to accomplish both of these goals.

Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.

I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that.

Templates make a monster more complicated, and make it so that you won't be running a vampire just by flipping to a random page in the MM.

Regardless of WHY they do that, they provide evidence for the point that 4e isn't exactly terrified of the idea of monsters that are more complex than others.

Why is it likely that team monster will need the save boost at the same time as team PC?

What does that have to do with 4e's ability to run evil twin plots?

Hey, no need to call the guy an idiot for taking a couple minutes figuring out what to do. I mean, he allotted 2 minutes for each player to figure out what to do, and went on to explain why it's a good idea for the DM to take less than that on something other than a solo monster.

Upthread I made the point that assuming the DM is dumb is not a good way to discredit the "evil twin" idea because such a mythically dumb DM would have problems without the evil twins, with just the way that any other monster worked.

Try to keep up, man.

Because it's fundamentally bad as a monster ability.

Thousands of years of human history and storytelling would disagree with you.

If it's bad for 4e, then, in that respect, 4e sucks, because it ain't bad for the game that 4e is trying to be.

If you want to perform the "evil twin" plot, make some evil twins. You don't even need to have a full write-up - just 2 or 3 of that paladin's favorite powers works fine for those who don't want 20 options cluttering up their monster stat block. Alternatively, if you do want all the options, you can stat it up. You can even give that "evil twin" some twists, so that not all his powers are the same.

Is there an echo in here?

But this is going to require prep time, so the monster can't be played out of the box. The monster also can't have an accurate XP value, because its power level becomes dependent on its opponents.

Both of these are rather false.

#1: Because the monster's stats are the player's stats with minor adjustments, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as a lich or vampire.

#2: All encounters' power levels are dependent on their oppoents' power levels. This is the very principle of encounters that challenge you based on your level that has been in every iteration of D&D: the more powerful you are, the bigger challenges you face. The weaker you are, the weaker your enemies. If this stops accurate XP values, then every edition of D&D ever has had wildly inaccurate XP values because that is, essentially, the basis of XP values.

But it's not good design to give a monster that ability out of the box.

Why the heck not? What is there to be afraid of? What kind of unholy 4e kryptonite is an "evil twin" that it cannot be supported in the core rules, but only in that wild west frontier land?

What's 4e so afraid of, if it won't do it?

If you can, my hats off to you. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can't.

You sell yourself short, methinks. As said, you can even TELL THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES to decide what the monster does. If you think they're being too easy on themselves, either remember an effective tactic they used earlier (even earlier that same night!), or look at their character sheet, even before the game begins.

BTW, you state that duplicates don't have equipment. The 3e ones sure do. They come fully equiped. What are the hypothetical 4e duplicates carrying if not magic items and equipment. So, the point that the 8 or 10 magic items also having possible actions is certainly valid.

It's really not. 4e monsters and NPC's have their own ways of accounting for the magic items. So whatever way the phane itself uses, or the NPC rival adventurer uses, or the BBEG uses, these time doubles use.

It's just bad monster design, for all the reasons that have been laid out in this thread.

Any game that can't handle "evil twin" without freaking out and crying about it really isn't giving me what I need out of a game. It's a failure.

I have more faith in the 4e team than that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.

I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that.

Templates make a monster more complicated, and make it so that you won't be running a vampire just by flipping to a random page in the MM.

Regardless of WHY they do that, they provide evidence for the point that 4e isn't exactly terrified of the idea of monsters that are more complex than others.

What I think is very notable in comparing 3E and 4E is that templates are now in the DMG, not in the monster manual. Basically everything that requires a special effort is part of the DMG. Creating NPCs, using templates, rituals and so on.
So, at best you get a mention in the phanes fluff that they sometimes create temporal duplicates. If you actually want to use this, you'll look into the DMG for advice. (Though I reserve some doubts that there is something specifically for this situation. But I won't discount the possibility, either.)

The Monster Manual is the book where you pick monsters and look to find out how they work in combat. The DMG is for your plot abilities (and evil twins of yourself belong more to plot or storytelling then running combat).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Monster Manual is the book where you pick monsters and look to find out how they work in combat. The DMG is for your plot abilities (and evil twins of yourself belong more to plot or storytelling then running combat).

Sure, I'm down with that. Templates in the DMG is fine, and, yes, evil twins (like vampires and liches) are more in the plot zone than in the direct combat zone. The "evil twin" plotline is even useful for more than just the phane -- the doppelganger, the magic gem style soul-stealing, the necromancer who animates you with all your memories of your skills intact, all those can use the same basic "evil twin" thread.

I am still rather disappointed that the 4e phane doesn't make express use of that idea (just like it abandons the "stolen time" idea and the "age you until you die" idea), though I can understand it in the context of Allister's point about needing some rank-and-file enemies for epic level.

And I *still* think the idea that 4e is too dumb to handle evil twins in the RAW is either way off-base, or a really deep criticism of what 4e is actually capable of doing.

 

[Lacyon]

Sure, but that's not what MO implied with his statement. What MO implied is that 4e can't or won't do "evil twins" because 4e design mandates that all monsters be simple enough to run upon opening the MM.

How are you going to put "Evil Twin" in the MM, and why? The PHB already serves as a mechanism for creating Evil Twins.

I pointed out that the existence of templates means that 4e obviously recognizes the viability of monsters that are a bit more work than that.

Yes. But no monster in the MM should come with instructions requiring you to apply a template before running it. They need to be playable out of the box.

Templates make a monster more complicated, and make it so that you won't be running a vampire just by flipping to a random page in the MM.

Adding a template to a creature bumps it up to Elite or Solo. You have to know more abilities for one creature, but have fewer creatures overall, so complexity level doesn't have to increase dramatically.

Regardless of WHY they do that, they provide evidence for the point that 4e isn't exactly terrified of the idea of monsters that are more complex than others.

Yes. Monsters the GM makes up himself are going to be as complicated as he wants them to be. Templates are one tool for doing that, though they don't increase overall encounter complexity.

Monster books are for GMs who either don't want to do that work, or want some baseline creature abilities to build from. In either case, the monsters in the monster book (such as the phane) should be playable out of the box.

What does that have to do with 4e's ability to run evil twin plots?

Perhaps I misread you. I interpreted your statement to be an indication that running an evil twin was "easy" because you could just copy what the PC was doing. If you can't, then you have to spend more time figuring out what the Evil Twin should be doing this round, which leads to more time spent on the GM's turn, which has some negatives that the designers want to avoid.

Upthread I made the point that assuming the DM is dumb is not a good way to discredit the "evil twin" idea because such a mythically dumb DM would have problems without the evil twins, with just the way that any other monster worked.

Try to keep up, man.

I don't need to assume that the DM is dumb, just that he's going to take the same 2-3 minutes (probably a bit more, since he doesn't know all the nuances) that the PC would per action, and he's going to take that for *each* "evil twin" instead of 2-3 minutes total for team monster. This nearly doubles the RL time of the combat.

Thousands of years of human history and storytelling would disagree with you.

If it's bad for 4e, then, in that respect, 4e sucks, because it ain't bad for the game that 4e is trying to be.

It's fine to create "evil twin" characters and use them in a game. It's fine to flavor them as having been summoned by the phane. It's fine to use that as a plot device or even stand-alone encounter.

It's bad when you have to say that the phane is worth ___ XP (or ___ CR), because his actual power level varies according to his opponents. It's bad when you put a monster in the monster book that can't be run out of that monster book without getting into PC-level complexity.

Having the *option* of PC-level complexity, on the other hand, is a good thing.

Both of these are rather false.

#1: Because the monster's stats are the player's stats with minor adjustments, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as a lich or vampire.

#2: All encounters' power levels are dependent on their oppoents' power levels. This is the very principle of encounters that challenge you based on your level that has been in every iteration of D&D: the more powerful you are, the bigger challenges you face. The weaker you are, the weaker your enemies. If this stops accurate XP values, then every edition of D&D ever has had wildly inaccurate XP values because that is, essentially, the basis of XP values.

1) No, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as N vampire lords with full PC writeup. Plus a phane.

2) So very wrong. No matter how strong you are, an 18,000 XP Pit Fiend is supposed to be 18,000 XP worth of challenge. Its abilities are constant. The evil twin's abilities scale with the party level, and thus the XP value must scale with the party level or the system breaks - it can't be assigned an XP value in the book.

Why the heck not? What is there to be afraid of? What kind of unholy 4e kryptonite is an "evil twin" that it cannot be supported in the core rules, but only in that wild west frontier land?

What's 4e so afraid of, if it won't do it?

It IS in the core rules. It's called the PHB.

Any game that can't handle "evil twin" without freaking out and crying about it really isn't giving me what I need out of a game. It's a failure.

I have more faith in the 4e team than that.

The game CAN handle it. It's in the PHB. It doesn't belong in a monster book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How are you going to put "Evil Twin" in the MM, and why? The PHB already serves as a mechanism for creating Evil Twins.

Put it with the rest of the templates, because it's an interesting and classic story to tell.

Yes. But no monster in the MM should come with instructions requiring you to apply a template before running it. They need to be playable out of the box.

Put it alongside the vampire and the lich. The phane would just need to note that these 'time duplicates' often feature as allies.

Adding a template to a creature bumps it up to Elite or Solo. You have to know more abilities for one creature, but have fewer creatures overall, so complexity level doesn't have to increase dramatically.

This has been covered above. The phane in 3e was obviously a solo creature. Part of the reason for the change is that it is no longer a solo creature. I've agreed with this observation completely, and merely pointed out that it means that some old high-level monsters are going to be greatly simplistic.

A phane accompanied by an "evil twin" time duplicate of a PC or two is fine.

I don't need to assume that the DM is dumb, just that he's going to take the same 2-3 minutes (probably a bit more, since he doesn't know all the nuances) that the PC would per action, and he's going to take that for *each* "evil twin" instead of 2-3 minutes total for team monster. This nearly doubles the RL time of the combat.

Any DM with a vague awareness of what his PC's are capable of won't have this problem. And DM without that vague awereness will have more problems that are completely independent of "evil twins."

It's bad when you have to say that the phane is worth ___ XP (or ___ CR), because his actual power level varies according to his opponents. It's bad when you put a monster in the monster book that can't be run out of that monster book without getting into PC-level complexity.

"An 'evil twin' is equal in level to the PC it is created from" will give you an XP value for it.

Power level ALWAYS varies with the PC's. At 1st level they fight goblins, at 30th level, they fight Orcus. At 1st through 30th level, they can fight their evil twins.

The phane, at level 26, could specifically use the evil twins. Perhaps the doppelganger, at level 14, could do it, too. Perhaps some ethereal mimic, at level 7, could do it even earlier.

1) No, it can be played at least as out-of-the-box as N vampire lords with full PC writeup. Plus a phane.

A full PC write up still won't be extraordinarily complex, especially given that you are under no compulsion to make absolutely ideal and prime use of every one of a PC's miscellaneous abilities, or even know what they are or specifically what they do (a general sense is good enough).

No matter how strong you are, an 18,000 XP Pit Fiend is supposed to be 18,000 XP worth of challenge. Its abilities are constant. The evil twin's abilities scale with the party level, and thus the XP value must scale with the party level or the system breaks - it can't be assigned an XP value in the book.

But that 18,000 XP pit fiend is only a challenge for level 18 characters. By level 28, they're on to other things. At level 8, they're not yet there.

An evil twin is tied to the level of the PC's. At level 8, it's a level 8 challenge. At level 30, it's a level 30 challenge. Just as the rest of the monsters scale.

The game CAN handle it. It's in the PHB. It doesn't belong in a monster book.

Then you're telling me the game can't handle it being an adversary?

So a the game can't handle you fighting your evil twin?

So the game fails to deliver?

Yeah, I don't buy it. The designers are, I think, better than that.