Monsters are more than their stats

[Lacyon]

That really wasn't my point though - I didn't think anyone was making that case about tree climbing in 4E. Maybe I've misunderstood this issue. I'm using the example of a ranger climbing a tree because it seemed to be a standard example back in the "1E vs. 3E" days and I thought folks would recognize it. The point was - what is the significant difference between the rules not telling you what a ranger's chance is for climbing a tree, and the rules not indicating the significant parameters (duration, level of effect, etc.) for a succubus' seduction ability?

Do you frequently roll dice behind the screen to determine if an NPC succeeds in seducing someone? Do you roll it 6 months before you expect the PCs to discover that it's happened? If the roll goes badly, do you just throw away your seduction plot?

The ranger example, granted, is a case of a PC using a power. But is it really there really that much of a difference with a seduction power? As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there are circumstances where the PCs might be very much interested in the particulars of how a given monster power works - in the case where the monster is working for them, for example.

Yes. Monsters-as-PCs (or assistant PCs, or hirelings, or whatever) need something much closer to full-PC writeup than monsters-as-enemies.

We also know that some monsters get Monster-as-PC writeup, and others don't. I don't see much need for the Succubus to get one, and would rather have the time, energy, and pagecount that could have been spent there devoted instead to a new monster, or a Monster-as-PC writeup that's more likely to see use than the Succubus.

I'm also perfectly fine with the idea that kings aren't immune to ordinary seduction attempts, so I don't see the need to make anything special for the succubus - she can use the ordinary rules for it and be better at it than the average barmaid simply by virtue of her higher skill modifiers.

 

[gizmo33]

There is an enormous difference between the DM just deciding that an NPC ranger has +5 to climb instead of +8, and the DM just deciding that a PC ranger succeeds or fails at climbing the tree. The difference is so enormous that its hard for me to see why there is confusion on this score.

I don't think my issue has anything to do with that. As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text. It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is". It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.

This, then, becomes analagous to the DM deciding whether the ranger succeeds or fails, rather that what the rangers chance should be. Because if the DM decides on every parameter of the ability, then it's pretty simple to encourage/nerf the ability. So fine then: take a +8 instead of a +5 climb - but then I as a DM decide that you have to make the check every foot that you climb, and that your climbing movement rate is 1/100 your base speed. So enjoy your +8 bonus.

My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure. Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.

 

[Lacyon]

My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure. Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.

It's a good thing when you don't need to look up rules to determine what happens off-stage.

If it's happening on-stage, I recommend trying to use the skill challenge rules, the combat rules, or the basic skill rules to adjudicate the PCs' interaction with it.

I'm not sure I see where the actual problem is, except that some people want kings to be immune to nonmagical seduction, which implies that succubi need a magical seduction power, which further implies that since one isn't written there, you have to make it up.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think my issue has anything to do with that. As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text. It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is". It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.

I misunderstood what you were responding to. The most recent debate in this thread involves Lizard, who believes that giving a succubus +18 to acrobatics because you think its a good idea is somehow sinful or cheating or too easy, in comparison to his preferred methods of extrapolating skill points from a base hit die, ability score, relevant feats, and then a racial bonus to make up the difference. The rest of us think it would be a lot easier to just say "A succubus has a +18 acrobatics check" and be done with it, since you get to the same place in the same way, you had to do the same amount of "making stuff up" when you create the racial bonus anyways, and this way saves you a bunch of intermediate steps that produced no value. I assumed you were responding to this because you immediately used an example that involved the allocation of skill ranks.

You, instead, are discussing some sort of assumed magical supernatural seduction power, and whether or not it has rules.

It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is". It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.

Its worse than that. The rules don't provide any framework for believing that the succubus' long term magical supernatural seduction powers even exist at all.

Otherwise Lacyon handled this well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think my issue has anything to do with that. As I understood the "succubus seduction" example, the rules were going to propose a complete lack of rule framework for that ability - anything beyond flavor text. It wasn't a matter of the rules saying "you (the DM) decide on what the Will DC is to resist the seduction and what it's duration is". It's the matter of the rules not outlining *any* of the significant parameters of the ability.

This, then, becomes analagous to the DM deciding whether the ranger succeeds or fails, rather that what the rangers chance should be. Because if the DM decides on every parameter of the ability, then it's pretty simple to encourage/nerf the ability. So fine then: take a +8 instead of a +5 climb - but then I as a DM decide that you have to make the check every foot that you climb, and that your climbing movement rate is 1/100 your base speed. So enjoy your +8 bonus.

My point here is that completely open-ended determination of parameters is not a whole lot different from arbitrarily deciding on success/failure. Whether or not actual climbing rules exist is sort of beside the point, the fact that sections of the game will be governed with this sort of "nebulous non-rule" design philosophy means the problem will arise somewhere.

Well, what you describe would probably be bad, but - it doesn't seem to relate much to 4E. That's the deal. 4E has rules that a DM can follow. It gives monsters skill modifiers, ability scores, hit points, levels, attack bonus, defenses, saving throws and what-you-want.

The problem is more that some people need even more stuff to define a monster (skill points, additional powers that don't affect its combat abilities, but its story purpose). There is a range between "make everything up as you see fit, you're the DM" and "to give the Succubus spells, add Sorceror levels, including HD, skill points, BAB and Saves.".
4E is trying to find something in between, and from what I see, it's still a little more closer to the second then to the first. The parts where monsters "interface" with the PCs (typically combat, but also social encounters), they are still well-defined. The part where they just affect the story-line is mostly up to the DM.

 

[gizmo33]

Do you frequently roll dice behind the screen to determine if an NPC succeeds in seducing someone? Do you roll it 6 months before you expect the PCs to discover that it's happened? If the roll goes badly, do you just throw away your seduction plot?

Perhaps as a tangent - I don't "throw away" plots or keep plots. I'm of the "the plot is what happens in the game" game philosophy.

The issue for me is not whether or not I roll behind the screen. The issue is whether the parameters and chance of success are well defined. If, for example, we were in a rule system that allowed you to specifically determine that the succubus has a 5% chance of seducing the king, that "seduction" means what it means in the "charm person" spell, and that the effect takes a week to create, then that tells me what I need to know as a DM. It means somewhere in my narration of the event should probably be the recognition that the chance of success by the succubus was pretty remote. Whether or not I'm actually rolling dice is a different issue for me. If the rules are there, then I can give a plausible and consistent description of the action, regardless of the method I use to generate the random numbers (including, for example, just picking the numbers). If the powers are well-defined, the capabilities of the monster won't suddenly change when they're "on screen".

 

[evilbob]

No it didn't...

I guess we've had different experiences then, because I disagree with this completely.

(Please note that I do not mean my statements in an absolute way; I mean that in general, codified rules make it harder for DMs to abuse players and in general, non-codified rules make it easier. There are always exceptions in both directions.)

 

[gizmo33]

I assumed you were responding to this because you immediately used an example that involved the allocation of skill ranks.

Ok, I think I see - the example I used was misleading then because I don't have a strong opinion about what specific bonuses should be. I like the idea of some general guidelines about monster design that mimic player design, but having the guidelines and being forced to use them are two different things.

For example, one case that I've seen (and forgive me for not researching the details) is that of a deva who can remove disease at will. Had the deva, as a monster, been designed according to "PC-esque" design parameters, then it would not have such an unlimited power. It has the unlimited power because the designer assumed that the deva's remove disease ability would be sufficiently limited by DM-fiat. The problem immediately arises when the players summon the deva, and then ask it to use it's power. The DM then has to immediately concoct excuses for why the deva doesn't use it's unlimited remove disease power to eliminate disease on the Prime Material. There are other examples of problems that arise due to an arbitrary division between PC and NPC that's not really warranted.

And this is an example of a general problem that I have in that the various boundaries that are being argued to exist really don't IMO. People say when something is "plot-related" then it should use one set of (virtually non-existent) rules, whereas if it's "combat-related" then another set of rules should apply. It very well may be the parameters of a succubus' seduction power have a direct bearing on the PCs successes in an adventure - in fact it's likely considering that 99% of "plot" stuff hopefully has to do with the adventure.

So if there's a PC who is a bard-type, and he tries talk the king out of being enamored with the succubus, then basically I'm back to the situation that we had in the 1E days where I'm making it up off the top of my head.

Its worse than that. The rules don't provide any framework for believing that the succubus' long term magical supernatural seduction powers even exist at all.

I was assuming, based on an earlier example given of some lich's ritual, that the power would at least be mentioned in some flavor text for the module. Whether or not that counts as a "rule providing a framework for belief in existence" I guess is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not sure myself.

 

[Cadfan]

gizmo33- That's a perfectly reasonable and logical point to make. However, it is completely 100% misapplied when you use it on the ability of a succubus to seduce someone.

If we were debating something like how a dragon breathes fire, and I was arguing that a dragon doesn't need rules on how to breathe fire because, honestly, most of the time a dragon breathes fire a PC isn't around to see it anyways so you can just fudge it, well, then I'd be dumb. Because a dragon breathing fire is something that a dragon often does to PCs, and to which PCs respond by using abilities and defenses, so it needs rules.

Seducing someone is NOT an analogous ability. If we were talking about a magical "seduce man" spell with a range of 30'+3 per level and a duration of 1 day per caster level, that would be different. But we're not. We're talking about a beautiful woman trying to use sex to manipulate a man. That doesn't need a die roll.

 

[Cadfan]

So if there's a PC who is a bard-type, and he tries talk the king out of being enamored with the succubus, then basically I'm back to the situation that we had in the 1E days where I'm making it up off the top of my head.

Except that now you have a robust framework for player characters using social skills, including guidelines on how to set DCs based on how difficult you want the task to be. And in 4e you even have a framework for using combinations of multiple skills of varying DCs.

And no, the rules don't need DCs written out to tell us specifically how difficult it is or isn't to convince a man to mistrust his mistress. 3e got by without that just fine.