Monsters are more than their stats

[D'karr]

It had better damn well end in six weeks.

6 Weeks 4 days, but who's counting?

 

[DandD]

Which also applies to a Succubus charming the king the non-magical way. It's also their job to see through her alter self.

Yes, which is why she'll as long as possible try not to be too near those two guys, and try to keep her relationship with the king a secret as long as possible. But whenever the king needs to deal with state affairs, there will be some routine magic checks on the king himself, and may it just be for his annual health examination, and then the Magic Charm Effect will be discovered. Succubi now have to be a lot more intelligent. It might be okay that there's some kind of shape-changing magic upon the woman, perhaps to hide some physical imperfection, like some kind of magical surgery, if she gets seen by both Court Mage and High Holy Priest at all (everybody's using magic to become a little bit more beautifull, that's not forbidden). But mind-altering spells upon the regent? That's more than suspicious. That's an attack upon the king himself.

Don't forget, D&D-Succubi are Mata Haris serving some Devil Overlord. They're not gender-changing inseminators who swap sperm around so that some peasants now have to provide for a child without mother and father having been married together (Nope, no adultery was involved, it was an evil Succubus, sir, I would never sleep with your daughter before the wedding ceremony, even if I were allowed to marry her at all ).

 

[Sojorn]

Is it my imagination or is this thread repeating itself?

Is it time to start looking for the temporal loophole?

 

[Victim]

Is it my imagination or is this thread repeating itself?

Is it time to start looking for the temporal loophole?

A phane is attacking!

 

[robertliguori]

A phane is attacking!

No it isn't. They don't have that ability in their stat block, so they can't do it.

And yes, as pointed out, given that detect magic is known to be trivial (a function of a skill), and given that elites/heroes are not incredibly rare (top percentiles, but not one-in-a-million), we still get the question of how detect magic will work, and permit things like secret enchantments.

 

[rob626]

3.x set up the expectation- rightly or wrongly- that what was in the Book was gospel and to deviate at all was some form of cheating. Horse pucky. The more rules there are the more restricted actions/responses become for player and dm alike.

quite possibly my biggest beef with 3.x ...and the single largest reason why I look forward to 4ed was having to tell players "yeah, I don't care that you memorized the MM. THIS creature is special!"

Having to explain that for every stinking npc to walk down the road is just annoying. When everyone is "special" then noone is. And my rules-junkie players would kvetch and whine whenever their vaunted player knowledge worked against them. "But that's not possible! It says right here on page 89 what the powers are!"

I understand why the players were upset. Their expectations were not being met. Their anticipation was that what was printed was the complete rule set and unchangeable.

I have become very disenchanted with having to jump through hoops to justify plotlines. I guess the succubus has 7 levels of rogue so her skill points can be high enough to bluff the royal mage. And then create a magic item that allows X to happen.

Yes, dm's modify creatures and say "This one's different". But how is that different from the 4ed approach of skipping past the 1st layer of rules to a philosophy of use something suitable? If the only succubus my players meet is a one-off from the basic creature does it matter what the original statblock said? And more importantly, isn't the fact that the players approaching said one-off succubus have fewer expectations about the encounter and thus have more options available more entertaining?

The rigidity of the 3.x system was stifling and the nattering of rules-obsessed (as opposed to story-obsessed) players is something I greatly look forward to chucking into the nearest bonfire. And oh! how I will dance.

As long as I am consistent behind the scenes with rough numbers and plot reasoning the rules on how that consistency came about are irrelevant and in my way. And having the players sit down with a script of possible outcomes based on those rules is counter to what I find enjoyable in a role playing game.

 

[MerricB]

If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.

Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.

Indeed, but the MM has basic out-of-combat informations (skills, defences, etc.) for monsters. What it doesn't seem to have - and we may still be proven wrong on this - is an abundance of adventure plot resolution material.

For most monsters, you just don't need this information. Indeed, about the only time it becomes relevant is when you elevate a monster to BBEG status, and at that point you're talking about adventure design which follows different rules.

 

[robertliguori]

3.x set up the expectation- rightly or wrongly- that what was in the Book was gospel and to deviate at all was some form of cheating. Horse pucky. The more rules there are the more restricted actions/responses become for player and dm alike.

quite possibly my biggest beef with 3.x ...and the single largest reason why I look forward to 4ed was having to tell players "yeah, I don't care that you memorized the MM. THIS creature is special!"

Having to explain that for every stinking npc to walk down the road is just annoying. When everyone is "special" then noone is. And my rules-junkie players would kvetch and whine whenever their vaunted player knowledge worked against them. "But that's not possible! It says right here on page 89 what the powers are!"

I understand why the players were upset. Their expectations were not being met. Their anticipation was that what was printed was the complete rule set and unchangeable.

I have become very disenchanted with having to jump through hoops to justify plotlines. I guess the succubus has 7 levels of rogue so her skill points can be high enough to bluff the royal mage. And then create a magic item that allows X to happen.

Yes, dm's modify creatures and say "This one's different". But how is that different from the 4ed approach of skipping past the 1st layer of rules to a philosophy of use something suitable? If the only succubus my players meet is a one-off from the basic creature does it matter what the original statblock said? And more importantly, isn't the fact that the players approaching said one-off succubus have fewer expectations about the encounter and thus have more options available more entertaining?

The rigidity of the 3.x system was stifling and the nattering of rules-obsessed (as opposed to story-obsessed) players is something I greatly look forward to chucking into the nearest bonfire. And oh! how I will dance.

As long as I am consistent behind the scenes with rough numbers and plot reasoning the rules on how that consistency came about are irrelevant and in my way. And having the players sit down with a script of possible outcomes based on those rules is counter to what I find enjoyable in a role playing game.

There was nothing in the 3.XE rules against making up a monster, or against copy-pasting arbitrary bonuses and penalties. You can make up a Favored of the Abyss (Ex) power that gives a succubus +10 to Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy, and permanent Mind Blank in 3.XE; more to your point, you can create a creature with the DM Fiat (Ex) ability and simply treat it as a walking story device, if you so choose. I should point out that players disinclined to look favorably upon such an entity will not be likely to appreciate it in another system.

I think that you will rapidly find that if you rely solely on story and genre expectations to communicate the world, you will run into problems when discrepancies between what the players expect to be possible and what you consider normal crop up. Should clerics be able to turn demons? On one hand, it's a fairly classical use of a holy symbol and true faith; on the other hand, turning is positive energy channeled through the cleric, as opposed to divine energy, and positive energy doesn't harm demons. If one player has an expectation that turning is radiant, and another that it's sacred, and you don't feel the need to clarify it up front with detailed rules as to what it does, then the first time a demon interacts with a turn attempt, you'll have irritated players.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. The power can of course differ (by a reasonable amount) but the abilities the monsters have should stay the same.

That is of course not inconsistent because you created a rule which is valid for all Succubus. Created is the important word here, meaning that you as DM had to create the ritual itself, check if for loopholes and make sure that it is balanced. If the MM would include out of combat information for monsters this work wouldn't have been necessary.
Sure, its not much work for a single monster, but do it for all monsters and it quickly adds up.

Eh? No, I created a ritual which the Succubus employed. It isn't specific to anything. It could very well be that she is the only being in existence to know this ritual. AND, it is very possible (since I'm the DM) that the next succubus you meet won't know this ritual.

 

[webrunner]

This has become one devil of an argument.