MM excerpt: phane

[Sojorn]

I dunno. But it says under the Pre-Release:



So since each OA is in a separate combatant's turn... It could work.

...oh, ew.

 

[Shadeydm]

In addition to the DMG excerpt about customizing monsters, there's also a Monster Manual excerpt presenting the Phane (Level 26 Elite Controller), an abomination that can manipulate time.

When I first read this I though wow that sounds cool, when I started reading the article I though the same thing. When I read the stat block my only though was Boooring. A very disappointing critter not quite as disappointing as the Pit Fiend but pretty close.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

In addition to the DMG excerpt about customizing monsters, there's also a Monster Manual excerpt presenting the Phane (Level 26 Elite Controller), an abomination that can manipulate time.

When I first read this I though wow that sounds cool, when I started reading the article I though the same thing. When I read the stat block my only though was Boooring. A very disappointing critter not quite as disappointing as the Pit Fiend but pretty close.

I think on paper it may seem boring but, in-game it can be quite different. It is the opposite of 3e, looks good on paper bad in play. To take two examples, I posted previously on this thread:

Could a Phane that is really well played by a DM, attack the whole party while not on its turn?

Could the Phane, use its basic attack (Temporal Touch) to OA one PC when he moves. Then shift nearby second PC.

When second PC moves, thanks to either being close enough or PC moving within range, another OA and another shift.

This could potentially repeat till the end of the PCs turns, and you then have got a bunch of injured and slowed PCs on their own turn.

and (this is entirely in-game):

"The Phane dropped to its knees, its form beginning to flicker and ooze away into nothingness. When it vanished; all that could be seen or heard was the creak or armour and shuffling of feet as the party stood there alone.

What seemed like seconds passed, when the Phane appeared out of thin-air. Its form and shape restored to its previous form; the magical glyphs that were traced over its surface by the Cleric gone.

It swiped out with its shadowy claws, knocking down the Fighter as it seemed like days had passed without rest. It then instantly appeared behind the Wizard where its cloudy form engulfed him. As it settled away the Wizard lay on the ground ashen-faced and withered.

The Phane quickly moved away from the rest of the decimated party, its green eyes studying them; knowing what they will do next."

All that is within the rules of the Phane with using an action point.

 

[Shadeydm]

That is a wonderful little bit you wrote there no doubt, however i'm sure you could write something equally evocative about a 3E kobold or a 1E flump that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That is a wonderful little bit you wrote there no doubt, however i'm sure you could write something equally evocative about a 3E kobold or a 1E flump that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

I think it does, it means the rules can be just as evocative and engrossing in-game as anything in previous games. Without the need for extremely large and complex stat-block.

That is what is important what happens in-game.

If the rules for a 3E kobold or 1E flump can create engaging situations that is also good. However, if it can be done using a simpler and easier to understand stat-block even better.

 

[Andor]

All of D&D so far, even 3e really, has been built from individually defined abilities. The trend has been towards unifying effects so that you don't have odd situations where monster A engulfs you in water save or die, Monster B engulfs you in water hold your breath for x rounds then save or die, and Monster C engulfs you in water save or your armour rusts as tended to happen in earlier editions. Nonetheless monsters could have completely odd effects unlike anything else in the game. Rust monsters, spore pods, green slime, etc. Whenever the players encountered something new there was a real opportunity for novelty and puzzles.

In 4e the trend seems to have reached the end goal and then some however. I'm getting the idea that monsters can produce effects from list 2-3 on page 42 only. These powers will have a range of blah. No exceptions. No "can only be killed by stuffing broccoli in it's mouth while the bard plays a hurdy-gurdy." No funky abilities to taunt you with your own nightmares or take the form of a lost loved one. No implanting young in a PC that will hatch in d4 weeks. Blah.

Sure the GM can put in anything he want. We all know that. So what? If I'm editing every monster to make it fit what I want it to do, why am I bothering to pay wotc for a monster manual?

Perhaps the play will be so sweet that my fears will be moot, but I'm really starting to worry now.

 

[One Horse town]

I think its shift power (along with the getting rid of conditions affecting it) best reflect its time manipulation. 4 squares is nasty, based on what we've seen so far.

What happens is you haven't made a save to shrug off a condition by the end of the encounter? (general question) Do you automatically shrug it off in the subsequent 'down time' between encounters? It could be quite nice if the conditions continued - then you could have a mechanic similar to the recharge rules. Weakened at the end of combat with the Phane? Tough, you're still old when you come up against the Winter Wight. As you were weakened by an epic ability, the 'recharge' is 6 (maybe paragon is 5,6 and heroic 4,5 &6). Roll a d6 at the start of each subsequent encounter - roll a 6 and you're back to normal. Otherwise, tough. This could also explain things like the vampire lords domination giving him an army of dominated souls, when his combat abilities suggest otherwise - although i'm also guessing this could be handled by rituals used to extend durations of abilities or make them permanent.

 

[prototype00]

The Rogue ability only increases from 1[W] tp 2[W] at 21st level. That's rather insignificant.

Also, the part about monsters not adding 1/2 level is not speculation at all, it's blatantly obvious looking at their stats. I really doubt that players will add 1/2 level to damage when monsters don't, as that would really unbalance things in the PC's favor. The Phane is a 26th level monster and it's most powerful ability does 2d8 + 10 damage. That's only an average of 19 damage, which is merely double what a 1st level Wizard does with magic missile, despite the fact that a 26th level Wizard will have several times as many HP as he did at level 1.

Well, actually according to the new monster development article, for every two levels you add to a monster, you also add +1 damage to it. Now it seems to me like the wotc team used a bit of handwavium to generate the original phane (it has other advantages that compensate for its low damage output, not taking damage, for example) but if it was a brute monster with no striking secondary abilities, (like the Tarrasque, who's primary and only ability is Nom! Nom! Nom!), I'd think that it would get the +1/2 levels damage.

Also, I'd like to take the chance to state once again that it looks like PCs will get half their level added to damage, based on two observations (that may or may not be right),

1.) The aforementioned monster advancement rules
2.) Look at how many hitpoints the Phane has! Just look at it! Its unreasonable to expect PCs at that level to kill that in a reasonable time, unless they got the damage boost, or so I think.

prototype00

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All of D&D so far, even 3e really, has been built from individually defined abilities. The trend has been towards unifying effects so that you don't have odd situations where monster A engulfs you in water save or die, Monster B engulfs you in water hold your breath for x rounds then save or die, and Monster C engulfs you in water save or your armour rusts as tended to happen in earlier editions. Nonetheless monsters could have completely odd effects unlike anything else in the game. Rust monsters, spore pods, green slime, etc. Whenever the players encountered something new there was a real opportunity for novelty and puzzles.

In 4e the trend seems to have reached the end goal and then some however. I'm getting the idea that monsters can produce effects from list 2-3 on page 42 only. These powers will have a range of blah. No exceptions. No "can only be killed by stuffing broccoli in it's mouth while the bard plays a hurdy-gurdy." No funky abilities to taunt you with your own nightmares or take the form of a lost loved one. No implanting young in a PC that will hatch in d4 weeks. Blah.

Sure the GM can put in anything he want. We all know that. So what? If I'm editing every monster to make it fit what I want it to do, why am I bothering to pay wotc for a monster manual?

Perhaps the play will be so sweet that my fears will be moot, but I'm really starting to worry now.

Actually, "no exceptions" is exactly not the approach they are using. It's exception-based design, so when you think of an odd-ball ability, you can create.
There are still building blocks you will implement these abilities with. This will give a certain degree of familiarity to anyone, but it still makes new monsters very unpredictable - if you don't know which "blocks" is used, you don't know which of your abilities will prove useful and how you can approach it.
The end result is that the resolution of its abilities is easy understandable, because you use common terms, but that the feel of the encounter is still unique, since you have to adapt your tactics to the abilities. If you add some good "fluff" to your description of the monster, its ability and the flow of the encounter, it will get even better.

 

[Zweischneid]

Well it is not really their job to give such fluff; your DM is supposed to do it.

Um, no.

First, it is IMO opinion not the DMs job to give the fluff, but the job of every single person sitting on the table. I may be the DM, but that certainly doesn't mean I don't want to be entertained as well on my RPG-nights and listen to one or more of the players going wild with their imagination.

Second, there are both DMs and Players out there who are able to add interesting fluff to the rules, but they are in my experience few and far inbetween. Good fiction is not an easy thing to do and it is thrice as hard if you'll need to make it up on the fly (which in turn makes in harder again for players who don't know ahead what is coming than for the DM who could potentially prep).

By consequence, this means that I can use an RPG that gives only the crunch and turn it into an enjoyable evening with only a selected number of creative people who can draw on their imagination to bring a world (or a character) alive at the table.

If, however, an RPG comes with the flavour attached, the potential base of people I can create an entertaining game with becomes much, much wider. The 'creative' people can easily ignore the 'official' fluff and still spin their own thing, the less gifted ones however have something to fall back on and use as inspiration (or straight out of the book if necessary) once it's their turn to do things.

So, the more official fluff there is, the more good games you'll play, because there's more people to play with. It's that simple really. The less official fluff there is, the harder and fewer inbetween the games will be you can look back at and not despair at having wasted yet another day of you're life at a table with some ...... who just doesn't make the effort to translate rules into story.

[edit]
By the same reason, I think fluff is so much more important than crunch.

If the crunch is bad or missing, it takes one guy (i.e. the DM) to sit down and fix it.

If the fluff is bad or missing, it takes everyone at the table to cover it, with the final result depending on the weakest link. And if the weakest link is 'official' fluff in the book, I know ahead of time that this is the safty net my game will not fall below.