Monsters are more than their stats

[D_E]

I agree with the OP, 4th Ed monster design seems to have followed this rount. Like many here, though, I would prefer some form of rules (or at least guidlines) that cover a monster's noncombat shticks.

Reasons include allowing the monsters to interact with the world in a non-arbitrary way, ensuring that the PCs get an apropriate challenge*, reducing prep time, and wanting the team to come up with new and exciting ideas for non-combat scenarios.

Random thought: They may be planning offer advice and rules on various noncombat roles and abilities in a seprate section of the MM or DMG, since they are almost indepentent of a monster's combat stats (kind of like the Demonic roles section of the Fiend Codex I).

*failing to take into account PC abilities is a recipy for disaster, just ask any who got burned because they failed to take Speak with Dead or Raise Dead into account.

 

[DandD]

Sure.

But the magic means the players can't just point out that the beloved courtesan is causing trouble, strife, and the destruction of the kingdom. Nor does Twue Wuv (or eeven ramapnt lust) excuse radical and *rapid* changes in personality.

"Hey, King Benevolus The Just has ordered the mass slaughter of orphans."
"Oh, it's just cause he's in love with some wench. He'll get over it."

Or even:
"Hey, isn't the king's impending marriage to Mariana of Koldersburg the only thing stopping the kingdom from plunging into war? Why is he cancelling it just because he met some strumpet? He's never been that stupid and irresponsible."

Magic foils the PCs attempts to use simple reason (or just a wench with a higher charisma) to solve the problem.

Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.

 

[Rex Blunder]

When Benevolus the Just makes his saving throw, shaking off the 6-second Dominate effect, and realizes he has just proposed to Succubina, what will he do? This sort of ties into my question above about what happens when Charm wears off.

He might just decide it was a rash, impulsive decision, but now he is honor bound to marry Succubina. Besides, she is sooooooooo hot. The political alliance with Mariana of Koldersberg be damned! Why can't the king have what HE wants for a change? Besides, there is his honor pledged to Succubina! What's more important than honor?

Or he could lop off her head. "Why are you controlling my body, you sorcerous witch?"

 

[Lizard]

When Benevolus the Just makes his saving throw, shaking off the 6-second Dominate effect, and realizes he has just proposed to Succubina, what will he do? This sort of ties into my question above about what happens when Charm wears off.

That's if the only power the succubus has is their combat-based dominate -- which was sort of the point of this thread. Details on long-term control are needed, but the 4e focus is entirely on "Things which occur in a combat round". Out of combat==just doesn't matter.

(Except for Rituals, of course, which will solve all problems, slice bread, and clean the litterbox.)

If the kiss/charm is the only long-term control power the succubus has, it makes her job harder, as she has to keep working on one person a day, and has to a master of (mundane) seduction to keep others from figuring out her game. This is fine, if it's the case, and it's a good example of what I'm talking about -- by setting limits on what the creature can do in a long-term, out of combat sense, the DM is aided in building plots. ("OK, so she's going to charm the king magically...but she'll also use her Diplomacy on the High Chancellor to help control the court in general, and less...ah...subtle means on a few palace guards to get them to ambush the court magician so he can't figure out what she is.")

On the other hand if, as the OP seems to wish, the only relevant text was "Succubi seduce people, mmmkay?", the DMs job becomes a lot harder, as he has to basically design the rules for succubi before designing a plot centering on them.

 

[Hussar]

Simply deciding that your plot requires the king to be magically ensnared by a succubus without detailing how the magic ensnaring him works in the general case invites trouble when the player start assuming that this is a capacity, not a plot point, and try to have the succubus do it to other people.

And you think this isn't a corner case?

Show me then. Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive. EVER. I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.

Lizard - How is this different though? Just about every module out there has new rules in it to cover the plot of the module. Whether it's a new monster ability, a new magic item, or whatever, the adventure has it. So, how is this different?

Even your example of the Aboleth above has new rules that allow you to use a monster that goes beyond RAW. So, if you're simply going to change the rules anyway, what difference does it make if you actually have the rules in the first place?

 

[MerricB]

Magic is countered by boring Detect Magic and Dispel Magic-tricks. Heck, the Court Wizard and the High Holy Priest would see through the magic charm right in a second, and to counter that, you would once again need special spells that disguise the magical charm effects, but because that's not fair, you once again need higher-level detect magic effects, and a higher-level dispel magic, and so on.
That's what leads to those huge assinine statblocks, where in order to function effective in a magical way, you need too much magic, where in the end, it's just magic that matters, and not the skills.

So true.

 

[Kzach]

At least, that's my impression of 4e. What do you think?

Mine too. And thank all the Gods that do and don't exist and may or may not have had an influence on that 'cause hallelujah, free-form DM'ing is back!

 

[Celebrim]

And you think this isn't a corner case?

Show me then. Poll the collective posters here at En World and ask how many times they've attempted to take a succubus alive. EVER. I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 5% of respondents say yes.

It's certainly a corner case, but then again I've never had a gamist reason to do so (and really, succubi haunted worlds aren't games I seek out anyway). That is, there wasn't a huge profit margin on not killing succubus, so why would you do it? Anything for which there isn't alot of profit in doing it is a corner case, and that's the sort of corner case that is safely ignorable.

If however not killing succubus had a large profit margin, that is to say that if I thought that by doing so I could obtain powers others difficult or impossible to acquire through other means, then sure I'd consider it.

After all, who has played Nethack without engaging in a bit of Succubus abuse? If the DM presents me with an NPC that has seemingly arbitrary power, then I'm going to start thinking along the lines of 'Helm of Opposite Alignment' or some other means of subverting said NPC and making them a tool - if only to embarass said DM for being an idiot with his DM PC's and pet NPC's.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where I disagree is with Kamikaze Midget's idea that it will all be based on "make stuff up".

Actually, I made no predictions whatsoever on what the 4e succubus entry will include.

Not. A. One.

Merric kind of did, saying that it is his impression that a "seduce the king" kind of thing will be left open-ended because of some notion of DM freedom and flexibility.

I pointed out that it was absolutely wrong to assume that all a DM needs are combat stats.

I will stand by that point.

I think 4e will stand with me, more or less.

 

[MerricB]

Mine too. And thank all the Gods that do and don't exist and may or may not have had an influence on that 'cause hallelujah, free-form DM'ing is back!

Personally, I don't think it's free-form DMing, although you could play it like that.

Instead, I believe guidelines for handling plot elements will be in the DMG, and then you can use those to construct solutions for things like "seduced king syndrome", without the result always being as banal as "I cast break enchantment"... which works for everything!