MM excerpt: phane

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I really don't understand where that vibe could come from. It's pretty evident that encounter design is in the hands of the DM, this is just one suggestion, a tendancy, a "default," maybe, for encounters with the phane.

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.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's an entirely different debate. WotC isn't, by all appareances, even giving us the option of having that debate, since the phane has no noted ability, propensity, desire, or proclivity to make or interest in making time duplicates. That little bit of evocative interest is sucked right out.

So arguing about how it should be done is fairly pointless -- the phane thus far has told us that it won't be done, period. Which robs some of the evocative interest out of the 4e phane that the 3e phane had.

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.

I'm not sure it's ever really possible to use a monster wrong, as long as the players enjoy beating the crud out of it and accomplishing whatever goal that lets them accomplish.

Time duplicates, stolen time, and death by rapid old-ization are all interesting things the 3e phane could do that the 4e phane cannot do, and given that 4e should have no inherent problems with the very principles of 'evil twin', 'stolen time,' and 'death by magically accellerated old age,' it's hard to understand why the phane lost these qualities that made it such an interesting possibility (even if the implementation fell short) in 3e.

 

[Lacyon]

I really don't understand where that vibe could come from. It's pretty evident that encounter design is in the hands of the DM, this is just one suggestion, a tendancy, a "default," maybe, for encounters with the phane.

If that's where you're going, I feel strongly that the "default" of any monster in the MM should be "play this guy out of the box along with other monsters out of the box".

If the fluff says they usually travel with time duplicates of the PCs, that creates dissonance by making the default suggested in the book not the default of their actual use.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's an entirely different debate. WotC isn't, by all appareances, even giving us the option of having that debate, since the phane has no noted ability, propensity, desire, or proclivity to make or interest in making time duplicates. That little bit of evocative interest is sucked right out.

Who cares about WOTCs permission? If they have a propensity, desire, or interest in making time duplicates, you send the "this monster needs to have time duplicates or else come up with a reason why this particular specimine doesn't" vibe.

So arguing about how it should be done is fairly pointless -- the phane thus far has told us that it won't be done, period. Which robs some of the evocative interest out of the 4e phane that the 3e phane had.

Except that the way you want to do it sounds simple, but isn't (apply a template to the PCs). The way I want to do it takes more words (and thus more page space), but is probably a lot simpler/better for actual "evil twin" combats. Devoting that much wordcount to describing how to do it sends even more of a "this is something that the phane should really be doing" vibe.

I'm not sure it's ever really possible to use a monster wrong, as long as the players enjoy beating the crud out of it and accomplishing whatever goal that lets them accomplish.

Sure. But there's a reason you're using creature X instead of creature Y. Frequently this has to do with its fluff text. So if the fluff text leaves heavy implications that a creature does A and B, using that creature without doing A and B will seem silly.

Time duplicates, stolen time, and death by rapid old-ization are all interesting things the 3e phane could do that the 4e phane cannot do, and given that 4e should have no inherent problems with the very principles of 'evil twin', 'stolen time,' and 'death by magically accellerated old age,' it's hard to understand why the phane lost these qualities that made it such an interesting possibility (even if the implementation fell short) in 3e.

Of course the 4E phane can do all these things:

He can make time duplicates. The DM represents these however he wants, (I prefer the simpler way more).
He can steal time with a touch - this causes you to suffer some HP damage from aging as well as being slowed. He uses the stolen time to reposition himself on the battlefield.
He can kill you by aging - his wizening ray causes you HP damage from aging as well as weakening you due to infirmity. Anything that causes HP damage can kill you.

He's got all of it. You seem only to be upset that they're represented more generically (and less permanently?) than they used to be.

 

[Sojorn]

I think it's more that this is the extent of the given Phane fluff in 4th edition:

Phanes can manipulate time, which they use to sow chaos among mortals. Occasionally they form pacts with powerful beings that share their destructive propensities.

Now, they go on to spend two sentences to describe the Phane itself, but I think one of those sentences would have been much better spent in describing ways in which the Phane might "manipulate time" to "sow chaos among mortals".

As it stands, it feels like a level 26 displacer beast that can do time tricks instead of being displaced. Especially with the lore entry!

Phanes are native to the Astral Sea, but they are found throughout the cosmos, walking the space between moments, ever on the hunt for prey.

I can just snatch lore from the old version of the Phane for cool encounter ideas, but none of that is here in the 4th fluff. Even the War Devil is more evocative, and he's non-elite.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If that's where you're going, I feel strongly that the "default" of any monster in the MM should be "play this guy out of the box along with other monsters out of the box".

If the fluff says they usually travel with time duplicates of the PCs, that creates dissonance by making the default suggested in the book not the default of their actual use.

I think that's overly simplistic and absolutist. For some monsters (and the phane might be one of 'em), using other monsters with templates might make sense. The vampire and the lich are both typically BBEG's, but even then, the vampire spawn entry in the MM, I bet, references the vampire lord template in the DMG.

If it makes a more interesting and rewarding game experience, why NOT pull in related rules that might not be absolutely contained within the statblock?

Who cares about WOTCs permission? If they have a propensity, desire, or interest in making time duplicates, you send the "this monster needs to have time duplicates or else come up with a reason why this particular specimine doesn't" vibe.

Because the monster is loosing something in its 4e translation. Other peoples' games won't be quite as interesting as they could be because they'll never know that a phane could use the 'evil twin' idea to great effect. It diminishes, in some slight way, the overall quality of the published rules, if they're not attentive to the interesting things that they could do.

Except that the way you want to do it sounds simple, but isn't (apply a template to the PCs). The way I want to do it takes more words (and thus more page space), but is probably a lot simpler/better for actual "evil twin" combats. Devoting that much wordcount to describing how to do it sends even more of a "this is something that the phane should really be doing" vibe.

At the moment, I don't really care HOW its done, I care THAT its done. The idea of 'evil twin' combats is something that pops up in more than just the phane (doppelgangers, shadow doubles, necromancers with magic jar). I think it's erroneous to assume that the wordy way you have in mind is the only possible approach that 4e could take. It's their JOB to come up with easy speedy ways for me to do this, and they're pretty good at their jobs. I'm pretty sure they could think of a better way than you or I could, if for no other reason than that they're paid to think about it more often than you or I are.

Sure. But there's a reason you're using creature X instead of creature Y. Frequently this has to do with its fluff text. So if the fluff text leaves heavy implications that a creature does A and B, using that creature without doing A and B will seem silly.

This is almost approaching the mythical territory of the Idiot DM. Any DM who can't use a monster for what he wants to get out of the monster has bigger problems than any specific monster.

He can make time duplicates. The DM represents these however he wants, (I prefer the simpler way more).

Really? Where does the RAW reference time duplicates?

He can steal time with a touch - this causes you to suffer some HP damage from aging as well as being slowed.

Stealing time generally implies that the phane gets the time that it stole from you. Does the phane heal hp or become hasted? Where do the rules say that?

He uses the stolen time to reposition himself on the battlefield.

Well, since he can move before he steals your time, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

He can kill you by aging - his wizening ray causes you HP damage from aging as well as weakening you due to infirmity. Anything that causes HP damage can kill you.

It is stated that such effects go away when the effect ends, so it really just seems cosmetic to me.

He's got all of it. You seem only to be upset that they're represented more generically (and less permanently?) than they used to be.

I'm disappointed that several interesting opportunities have been lost in the shift between editions for the phane, and I don't see why they would have to be.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think the basic problem is this.

Even at epic levels, not every monster can be the big, bad terror of the cosmos. As horrible as it sounds, you've got to have your epic goblins that the PCs can fight through on their way to the actual threat to all reality. All the old 3E epic level monsters were terrifying singular figures that would define the legends of a generation. If you're going to turn some of them into epic goblins, you have to tone down the fluff/flavor a bit. The 4E Phane are a speedbump in the adventure. Epic footsoldiers.

 

[LordArchaon]

Kamikaze Midget, have you read the Phane tactics discovered (uncovered, maybe) by Fallen Seraph? Because speaking of "Evil Twins", they actually show us that the PCs will have to fight as if there were more than one Phane. Like twins of the Phane. Because the chain-triggered Opportunity Attacks actually allow the Phane to act at what would be contemporary time-frames. It's like it has the gift of ubiquity...
Don't you think this is at least interesting?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even at epic levels, not every monster can be the big, bad terror of the cosmos. As horrible as it sounds, you've got to have your epic goblins that the PCs can fight through on their way to the actual threat to all reality. All the old 3E epic level monsters were terrifying singular figures that would define the legends of a generation. If you're going to turn some of them into epic goblins, you have to tone down the fluff/flavor a bit. The 4E Phane are a speedbump in the adventure. Epic footsoldiers.

I really can accept that.

It's a little disappointing, still, but anything moved out of the territory of "BATTLE ROYALE!" to "Epic-level dung-farmer" will be.

That explains or even justifies the mundanity, but it's STILL a bland monster, whatever the reason.

And I would still point out that, with regards to the fluff text, this bad boy is rocking the "It kills because it likes to kill!" a little too much. It could *still* be better, even if we're resigned to having it be fairly bland because it's supposed to be epic-level cannon fodder.

Kamikaze Midget, have you read the Phane tactics discovered (uncovered, maybe) by Fallen Seraph? Because speaking of "Evil Twins", they actually show us that the PCs will have to fight as if there were more than one Phane. Like twins of the Phane. Because the chain-triggered Opportunity Attacks actually allow the Phane to act at what would be contemporary time-frames. It's like it has the gift of ubiquity...
Don't you think this is at least interesting?

Sure, but I don't revolve a plot around "it's terribly fast in combat." That's not the kind of thing that inspires you to tell much of a story beyond "It does some horrible things to mundane people," which is very generic as far as monster stories go.

Meanwhile, "Your double from the past wants to kill you, and children who get lost in the woods are turning up dead as incredibly old people" inspire a pretty unique and pretty interesting plot. "Lots of Opportunity Attacks" really doesn't.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Meanwhile, "Your double from the past wants to kill you, and children who get lost in the woods are turning up dead as incredibly old people" inspire a pretty unique and pretty interesting plot. "Lots of Opportunity Attacks" really doesn't.

Doesn't that sorta go beyond the means of just a combat stat-box? You could easily do that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in the stat-box.

I say we should wait and see what kind of rituals or extra abilities it could gain access to outside of the stat-box to judge.

 

[Lacyon]

I think that's overly simplistic and absolutist. For some monsters (and the phane might be one of 'em), using other monsters with templates might make sense. The vampire and the lich are both typically BBEG's, but even then, the vampire spawn entry in the MM, I bet, references the vampire lord template in the DMG.

If it makes a more interesting and rewarding game experience, why NOT pull in related rules that might not be absolutely contained within the statblock?

Because the default suggested in the fluff should be something that makes a good default. Fighting your evil twin is really evocative once.

At the moment, I don't really care HOW its done, I care THAT its done. The idea of 'evil twin' combats is something that pops up in more than just the phane (doppelgangers, shadow doubles, necromancers with magic jar). I think it's erroneous to assume that the wordy way you have in mind is the only possible approach that 4e could take. It's their JOB to come up with easy speedy ways for me to do this, and they're pretty good at their jobs. I'm pretty sure they could think of a better way than you or I could, if for no other reason than that they're paid to think about it more often than you or I are.

Poof. It's done.

This is almost approaching the mythical territory of the Idiot DM. Any DM who can't use a monster for what he wants to get out of the monster has bigger problems than any specific monster.

He can use whatever monster he wants. But now the fluff text is giving him the suggestion of "put a whole lot more work into this monster" instead of "use this monster out of the box with maybe these other monsters here". I think the second suggestion is more helpful, and more worthy of the space.

Really? Where does the RAW reference time duplicates?

If you need it to be RAW, you need more than just fluff text.

Once you need more than just fluff text, you need a lot more complicated of a monster page.

Stealing time generally implies that the phane gets the time that it stole from you. Does the phane heal hp or become hasted? Where do the rules say that?

No - he just shifts four squares. Since slowed is just a movement decrease, it seems fair to give the phane a movement increase.

Well, since he can move before he steals your time, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

It makes at least as much sense as summoning evil-twin alternate dimension time duplicates.

If he shifts prior to the attack, its because after the attack he sends the stolen time back through time to his prior self.

It is stated that such effects go away when the effect ends, so it really just seems cosmetic to me.

Yes, they end on their own. You think save-or-die was going to leave, but save-or-be-aged-permanently was going to stay? Meanwhile, death by aging is still a possibilty, well within the RAW.

I'm disappointed that several interesting opportunities have been lost in the shift between editions for the phane, and I don't see why they would have to be.

So don't lose them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Doesn't that sorta go beyond the means of just a combat stat-box? You could easily do that, and it certainly doesn't have to be in the stat-box.

I say we should wait and see what kind of rituals or extra abilities it could gain access to outside of the stat-box to judge.

It goes outside of the statblock, but we've got the entry outside of the statblock, where it's still not mentioned.

Because the default suggested in the fluff should be something that makes a good default. Fighting your evil twin is really evocative once.

What makes a "good default" is an assortment inspirational tidbits about the monster. The 3e phane had that. The 4e phane has...well, "less" is being kind of generous.

He can use whatever monster he wants. But now the fluff text is giving him the suggestion of "put a whole lot more work into this monster" instead of "use this monster out of the box with maybe these other monsters here". I think the second suggestion is more helpful, and more worthy of the space.

Again, pointless to discuss, sine 4e isn't choosing to support that option.

If you need it to be RAW, you need more than just fluff text.

Once you need more than just fluff text, you need a lot more complicated of a monster page.

*shrug* Maybe monsters need more complexity than a statblock and an excuse to kill PC's?

I mean, look at the 3e offenders in this regard. Critters like the Phantom Fungus or the Ythrak or the Digester. Critters that weren't much more than stat blocks and an excuse to kill PC's. Frequently, these are the critters that make the roundup for rather useless monsters.

I'd really prefer if the 4e MM was all killer no filler. The phane looks like killer that got its gun taken away and was turned into filler.

Yes, they end on their own. You think save-or-die was going to leave, but save-or-be-aged-permanently was going to stay? Meanwhile, death by aging is still a possibilty, well within the RAW.

No, but it doesn't need to be a combat power.

So don't lose them.

4e has lost them. What I do with my own games really isn't relevant when talking about what I'd like Wizards to do with 4e.