Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sorites" data-source="post: 4177328" data-attributes="member: 64431">I think you're wrong that out of combat doesn't matter to the 4e rules set. Maybe you're not completely serious, but I'd revise your statement like this:"Monster Manual Out of combat==just doesn't matter"Which is why we probably won't see rituals or other long-term powers detailed in the MM. Instead, the monsters described in the MM will just have rules for combat. Monsters are made to kill, after all. But wait! What about monsters that are captured or interrogated? What about monsters that are more than their stats? I'm betting the DMG will talk about how to use monsters out of combat, in social challenges, as recurring villains, as "puppet masters", etc. The DMG will give advice on creating an internally consistent reason for the monster's position in the plot. That could involve making up an artifact, creating a new long-term power or ritual, or rationalizing that the succubus's Bluff and Perform skills are sufficiently higher than the king's sense motive that she has flat-out seduced him (i.e. without magic). Here's an interesting quote from Keith Baker's blog (also discussed on WotC's 4e forums):Based on this, I don't think rituals will just be a list with no rules, and I don't think they will be overly vague. Keith even points out, and I think Lizard agrees, the rules for how the Raise Dead Ritual works set boundaries for what to expect in the world. In this case, when people die, they usually stay dead because bringing someone back to life is rare. But beyond that, we also see the DM is given some handwaving powers. This is very different from 3E where the DM and the players were bound to obey the same set of rules. Here, the DM is given the authority to say, "Yes, this NPC can be brought back to life, but that one can't."I think you're seeing things backwards, which isn't really surprising because what you say makes perfect sense from a 3E perspective. But if you're just given some text that says, "Succubi seduce people," and that is all, you can decide *how* the seduction works _after_ you decide the who and why. Reverse engineer it. And I really think the DMG is going to provide hard and fast guidelines <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> for helping the DM define situations like this with a framework of rules. 3E is sooo rules-oriented, I can't imagine 4E supporting the notion that whatever the DM says goes. The party will be allowed to interact with NPCs and plots in ways that are supported by the rules, not mere handwaving. Some handwaving might be involved, but it won't be 100% DM fiat.</blockquote>

Verification