MM excerpt: phane

[Spatula]

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

Sure, probably not, as what KM is talking about is more of a "DM trick" to make using the players against themselves easier, rather than actual game rules.

Sure, it's really easy to say "give me your character sheets, I'm now using copies of you as characters." It just is more complicated to run a PC, even a first level one than it is to run a monster.

Well, again, you seem to be missing the point that you're really setting the characters against each other, not running the PCs in their entirety by yourself with 100% opimization of tactics. You know what they can do, broadly, because you've seen them do it for twenty-someodd levels. You know how they setup and knockdown foes, and what kinds of monster abilities disrupt their usual tactics, and how they deal with that, because you've been designing encounters for them for twenty-someodd levels. You don't need copies of their character sheets, you don't need to know every little item they have or special-case powers, you just need to say, "Bob, use that encounter power of yours against Fred. You know, the one that will slide him around. You hit? Great, we're gonna slide him over here into the phane. Mwahahahahah!" I'm having a hard time imagining these DMs that you talk about that have absolutely no idea of what their players are capable of doing.

But coming up with abstract evil twins that have a few of the characters' signature powers is probably very easy... if not nearly as fun.

 

[Lacyon]

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

Why do you even need a template? Build the Evil Twin(s) X levels lower (or higher) out of the PHB.

Or, if you're just going to use your PC's character sheet, photocopy it and make a note of the adjustments.

Either way, it doesn't need to be in the MM.

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."

What? Any DM with a vague awareness of what his PCs are capable of is going to take LESS time to pick among the PCs abilities than the player himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

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

Okay. So now giving the phane the ability to summon these guys in its text means that the phane can't have a written XP value, because it's dependent on the PCs level.

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.

This is based on a total misreading of my statement. Of course you fight more powerful things. But those more powerful things give you more XP. A creature whose power level scales must have a scaling XP value to match.

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.

Then the phane can only actually be a level 26 monster when it faces level 26 PCs (assuming your template balances things that way). Since the PCs could fight one at level 24, or at level 28, its XP value would fluctuate based on the PC level.

Meanwhile, if you build, say, 3 level 26 "evil twins" out of the PHB (or even just the monster creation guidelines and copy over some of the PCs powers) and pair it with the phane, you get a balanced level 26 encounter, but you still have the option of building fewer, higher-level evil twins or more, lower-level evil twins, or whatever combination gets you the encounter balance you want.

You have the tools to do this. They're in the PHB, the DMG, and maybe even the MM. They're just not put in a monster's stat block, because that's not the right place for them.

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).

Then just use the "monster-building guidelines" in the DMG to come up with a monster (or set of monsters) that's an appropriately-level challenge and give them some of the PCs favorite abilities. You still don't need anything in the MM telling you how to do this.

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.

If the system works as advertised, the Pit Fiend should be appropriate for a much wider range than just level 18 PCs. Maybe the system breaks down when you're 10 levels apart, but most of the time it should be worth 18,000 XP no matter who its up against.

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.

Clearly. But a phane which can summon such evil twins has the XP value of a level 26 Elite monster plus some value that's indeterminate until you know what opponents it's facing.

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.

No, I'm telling you that its silly to restate so much information from the PHB and DMG into the MM. I'm telling you that the reason the designers have kept saying that you can stat out NPCs with full PC writeups if you want is because its true. I'm telling you that a creature with a variable-strength summoning spell is itself more like a template than a monster because you can't properly gauge its power level without knowing what it summons.

In short, I'm telling you that the designers are better than that. Everything you want should be available, they just didn't spend pagecount presenting duplicate information and making monsters in their monster book that are harder to run than they need to be.

 

[Professor Phobos]

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.

Not really. If "DM Fiat" was defined so broadly, then virtually anything the DM does is fiat. DM Fiat usually refers to other things, not the creation and use of plot devices.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I'm telling you that its silly to restate so much information from the PHB and DMG into the MM.

....

You really don't get at what I'm saying, here, I guess.

A few other posters do, so I don't think I'm really being THAT obtuse.

And I *really* don't want to bother re-hashing this point and working out where you're wrong about what I really want out of this. It's, effectively, a tangent of a tangent. I noticed that the 4e phane is less "interesting" than the 3e version, and wondered, broadly, why. I reject the notion that 4e is inherently incapable of handling "interesting" monsters (stolen time, death by aging, or evil twins are all interesting things). I accept that the 4e phane needs to fill a different role in a battle than the 3e phane did, and that 'evil twins,' at least, aren't so much monsters as DM tricks. I still think it's kind of sad that the phane is loosing these powers, but I accept that it's filling a different void. I still think it's rather unneccessarily bland, but at least I can kind of see where the designers might have been coming from.

You'll honestly never get me to accept that the 'evil twins' plotline is something that 4e D&D should not support. If, for some reason, it DOESN'T support that play (and support is quite different from 'allow'), I might go with something that DOES (True 20? Pathfinder?) when I need a game to play, and I'll mock 4e until such a time as it realizes that it SHOULD support that play.

So, if you work out what I'm actually trying to say, maybe we can continue the discussion, but I'm far too lazy to bother spelling out the last 4 pages of discussion for ya. If you have to think that I'm an idiot for that, so be it, I think I'll be able to sleep comfortably still.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

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.

Grab the Basic Stats of the NPC Stats by level/role on the DM Screen, pop on the good encounter powers, amybe the dailies, go to town.

 

[Lacyon]

....

You really don't get at what I'm saying, here, I guess.

Maybe so.

Maybe it's also true that you don't get what I'm saying?

You'll honestly never get me to accept that the 'evil twins' plotline is something that 4e D&D should not support. If, for some reason, it DOESN'T support that play (and support is quite different from 'allow'), I might go with something that DOES (True 20? Pathfinder?) when I need a game to play, and I'll mock 4e until such a time as it realizes that it SHOULD support that play.

I'm not trying to get you to accept that D&D should not support that. I also don't think (correct me if I'm wrong, Majoru) that Majoru Oakheart wants you to accept that D&D shouldn't support that.

I just want you to accept that you may well have what you want without the hoops you seem eager to jump through in order to get it, and that the MM is not necessarily the best place to put those hoops if they have to be there.

So, if you work out what I'm actually trying to say, maybe we can continue the discussion, but I'm far too lazy to bother spelling out the last 4 pages of discussion for ya. If you have to think that I'm an idiot for that, so be it, I think I'll be able to sleep comfortably still.

I don't think you're an idiot. And it is possible that I missed a page of the discussion by accident before jumping in. I'll go check it out.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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.

I don't really understand what "handle evil twins in the RAW" actually means. It's obvious how to handle twins. You ask all your players to give you copies of thier character sheets and you put in the skull sweat to figure out how to run their characters. If you want to make them slightly weaker evil duplicates, you knock off their top few levels.

A solid DM with a lot of confidence could probably run something off the cuff, using only the characters' signature abilities and a quick notation of their appropraite attacks/defenses. It would be a far from perfect emulation, but it would be doable.

However, 4E certainly isn't going to put something in a monster's stat block requiring the DM to handle evil twins. That's best left in the realm of encounter design.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just want you to accept that you may well have what you want without the hoops you seem eager to jump through in order to get it, and that the MM is not necessarily the best place to put those hoops if they have to be there.

What hoops? When did I say it had to be in the MM?

No, I'm disappointed that the 4e phane doesn't have a nod to the ability that the 3e phane had to create time duplicates AKA 'evil twins' (amongst other things). If the 4e phane had such an ability, such a nod, such a ritual, such a description in its flavor text, such a note in its "encounter" text, I wouldn't have (as much) of a feeling of disappointment. Alternately, if the 4e phane were to bring some evocative coolness of its own, I wouldn't really care, but the 4e phane seems rather dull (if effective) with the "damage + status ailment" formula.

The entry for the phane should be interesting and evocative of the phane's "plot potential." That's not 'the stat block,' but rather the entire entry in the MM. Yes, even if it's just a note that says "The phanes have learned a ritual to summon a creature's past self into the present, bound into their slavery. Use the 'Evil Twin' template on PG XX of the DMG to represent these time duplicates." Or something along those lines.

Most of this conversation has been various parties telling me that "evil twin" encounters are so horribly complex that they have no place in a game of such beautiful simplicity as 4e, and that such a creature would be horrible, if it were to exist, and thus should only exist, if at all, in the strange realm of my own house rules, never violating the sacrosanct territory of a core book.

Forgive the hyperbole.

However, 4E certainly isn't going to put something in a monster's stat block requiring the DM to handle evil twins. That's best left in the realm of encounter design.

Sure, but we're getting more than a stat block, here. For instance, when it's talking about designing encounters with the phane, instead of (just) an assorted list of other creatures from the MM, it could talk about time duplicates as evil twins and races against time to liberate people caught in a flow of time that the phane is feeding off of, aging them unnaturally fast, stealing their time from them.

Viola! It retains the encounter coolness of the 3e phane largely intact.

It doesn't expressly need any summoning ability or whatever, what it needs is to incorporate the old neat ideas into the new form so that the neat ideas can be retained.

It doesn't really do that, and that's disappointing.

 

[Spatula]

Grab the Basic Stats of the NPC Stats by level/role on the DM Screen, pop on the good encounter powers, amybe the dailies, go to town.

Yeah, if creating monsters is as easy as people keep saying it is, abstracting out the combat stats should work just fine.

 

[Lacyon]

The entry for the phane should be interesting and evocative of the phane's "plot potential." That's not 'the stat block,' but rather the entire entry in the MM. Yes, even if it's just a note that says "The phanes have learned a ritual to summon a creature's past self into the present, bound into their slavery. Use the 'Evil Twin' template on PG XX of the DMG to represent these time duplicates." Or something along those lines.

Then you're back to the implication that without putting that template into motion the DM is "doing it wrong". I mean, there can definitely be some phrasing that makes it clear, and I don't object too strongly to that, but you've got to be careful with wording there.

Most of this conversation has been various parties telling me that "evil twin" encounters are so horribly complex that they have no place in a game of such beautiful simplicity as 4e, and that such a creature would be horrible, if it were to exist, and thus should only exist, if at all, in the strange realm of my own house rules, never violating the sacrosanct territory of a core book.

Forgive the hyperbole.

Evil twin encounters as you're describing them are significantly more complex than they need to be. Applying templates to PCs can get pretty hairy. "He can use each of the PCs abilities but at a -2 penalty" - oh wait, except dailies, that's right. And his encounter powers get to recharge? Better remember to roll those. And how many healing surges does he get? How many HP?

The PC started out more complicated than a monster. You're adding a template to make him even more complicated. And the result you end up with still needs to be balanced against the encounter rules. The better DM trick (IMO) is to just use a level-appropriate behind-the-scenes generic stat block flavored with some of the PC's powers. It's pre-balanced, and way less complicated than applying a template-form to his HP and attacks and powers and expecting that the result is going to be fully balanced.

I mean, he's going to have a smaller attack bonus, lower defenses, and less HP anyway, right? Are the PCs going to be counting it all to make sure you applied the template correctly? Shorthanding this kind of thing is better.

Sure, but we're getting more than a stat block, here. For instance, when it's talking about designing encounters with the phane, instead of (just) an assorted list of other creatures from the MM, it could talk about time duplicates as evil twins and races against time to liberate people caught in a flow of time that the phane is feeding off of, aging them unnaturally fast, stealing their time from them.

Viola! It retains the encounter coolness of the 3e phane largely intact.

It doesn't expressly need any summoning ability or whatever, what it needs is to incorporate the old neat ideas into the new form so that the neat ideas can be retained.

It doesn't really do that, and that's disappointing.

I wouldn't mind having some suggestions on that, but be wary of the possibility of sending the "you aren't really using this monster right" vibe.