Orcs preview

[Scribble]

It clearly says they have 4 handaxes at the bottom of their stat-block.

Thank you for pointing this out. I was about to abandon 4e for ever.

This is why I said, "I know that's not what they mean"

 

[frankthedm]

And there you go, a first level orc as per the rules for customizing monsters. Remember, the name of the game for the MM and DMG is usability. Its better to have a base that you can scale then either a) having too many stat blocks, or b) making the DM have to make up their own.

I like it, though I'd suspect 1d12 might be just too much damage to be the weapon of a level one foe.

Say, what would the minions look like at level 1?

 

[Dausuul]

6) Never before in the games history have 1st level characters been so far beneath the assumed average power level of other beings in the world. Alot of people touted 4e as making the players heroes from 1st level. Quite the contrary, we see that 1st level PC's are extremely subpar individuals in terms of just about everything. There are whole armies of 9th level characters out there with base to hit scores well above 1st level PC levels.

No, there are armies of 9th-level minions. Very different matter. A 9th-level minion is one-fourth as powerful as a regular 9th-level monster or character... and based on the XP tables, a regular 9th-level monster or character is 4 times as powerful as a 1st-level monster or character. So the orc warrior is actually the rough equivalent of a 1st-level PC.

And the warrior minion is clearly a bad-ass orc; they're Uruk-Hai, not random grunts. For random grunts, we have drudge minions.

A party of 5 elite NPC's - and it seems the world will never lack for these - is pretty much always going to be more capable in a fight than the PC party is. Never before in the games history has there been quite the oppurtunity for PC's to actually let the cool uber-NPC do the heavy lifting, nor has the game quite as endorsed the concept of uber-PC since the days of the 2nd edition rules for 'Chosen of Mystra'.

Bwah? This makes no sense. Why would you assume the world is crawling with elite NPCs who are way more powerful than the PCs? The bloodrager and the chieftain are top-of-the-line orcs; they should be tough customers.

The chieftain may have the hit points of a 20th-level PC, but he doesn't have the defenses, the attack and skill bonuses, or the special abilities of one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not sure how I feel about the "no misses damage them" thing. Kinda seems like it might blow away my disbelief when I damage the BBEG with a whiff, but not his 300 spawnlings.

You can still narrate this as the minion(s) having been injured (scorched by a fireball, a minor flesh wound from a sword). In fact, I plan on doing exactly that, to prevent my players from being able to easily distinguish minions from regular mobs (at least until the mobs attack). It's simply that, mechanically speaking, they haven't been damaged(and it is a lot simpler to track that, of the 30 minion zombie horde you started with, 15 are still alive, than it is to track that 12 are uninjured, 1 has 1 hp left, and 2 have 4 hp left). IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

Are not all leveled rpgs this way?...This is also why games like WoW can get soul-deadeningly boring once you realize that if you can kill a level 1 boar in 5 hits at level 1 then killing a level 50 boar at level 50 in 5 hits is exactly the same.

Ah. Irony always cheers me up. Facing life would be so much harder without it.

So yeah I really don't think tis is a negative at all...

Double irony!! Even better!!!

 

[Dragonblade]

2) I love the new emphasis on gamist design in terms of what it means in play. These are fun monsters, and I'm starting to lean toward buying the 4e MM just to mine ideas from it.

Gooooood. Gooooood. Take your 4e Monster Manual and strike your players down. Then your journey towards the dark side will be complete.

 

[drjones]

Your definition of irony seems to be anything that does not exactly match your worldview. This is not the generally accepted definition.

But anyway, if RPGs with levels are problematic, why are you interested in dnd?

 

[MindWanderer]

Is the Eye of Gruumsh's initiative correct? I'm getting +2 (Dexterity) plus +2 (Level) for +4. Where is the +6 coming from?

The level 2 elf archer has +11 initiative. No way in hell that can be derived from anything.

I doubt it. It seems like a simple rewording of the earlier minion hp rules to eliminate confusion.

The kobold minion's hp line said:
A minion dies when hit by an attack that deals damage

This could easily mean "no damage on a miss", which I suspect was the designer's original intent. And it plays better--without this rule, the minions automatically die when hit with a half-on-miss attack (not quite as common as in 3e, but it makes undead minions useless vs. parties with a cleric).

The new phrasing makes things clearer, while eliminating ambiguities in regards to things like Cleave.

It's a little different. The old phrasing made them immune to damage from auras or Divine Challenge; the new one does not.

First off, what's with no 1st level orcs? Dammit, YOU FIGHT ORCS AT FIRST LEVEL. Sheesh.

I actually really like that. Kobolds start at level 1, goblins at level 2, hobgoblins at level 3, and orcs at level 4. It's beautiful, really.

And if you really want level 1 orcs, we've been given rules about how to adjust monster level by up to +/- 5. Lower their stats according to the simple formula and voila.

 

[malraux]

The level 2 elf archer has +11 initiative. No way in hell that can be derived from anything.

Without looking at anything, 18 Dex + 2 Racial gives a 20 in Dex (reasonable for an elf archer). So +5 from stat, +1 for level, then +5 for the equivalent of training in initiative. Several creatures have had an unclassified +5 in init, at least by my reckoning. And certainly it fits the creature to specialize in init over other skills.

 

[Celebrim]

Your definition of irony seems to be anything that does not exactly match your worldview.

No, that's your definition of my definition. It has nothing to do with what I actually said or was thinking.

This is not the generally accepted definition.

The charitable principle would suggest then that you should not attribute it to me.

The reason I found it ironic was that while apparantly arguing against my position, you nonetheless restated one of my major complaints with the new edition. It was like saying, "Your totally wrong but I agree with your claim." That's irony.

And then it was doubly ironic because after making a claim that play of this sort was "soul deadingly boring" you proceeded to claim that you didn't see it as a negative. That's irony.

But anyway, if RPGs with levels are problematic, why are you interested in dnd?

Excuse me, but you are the one that asked the rhetorical question "Are not all leveled rpgs this way?" You are the one claiming then that all RPGs with levels are problematic, and you are the one who is admitting you find 'fixed math' to be "soul deadingly boring". Those are your positions. They don't match mine, and its precisely in the ways that they don't match my position that I am interested in D&D. If you think all RPGs with levels are problimatic and lead to 'soul deadingly boring' play, then I could just as easily ask you why you are interested in D&D?