Plot Monsters: Give Dragons & Devils Rituals!

[Roman]

About 3 weeks ago, I started a thread on Gleemax/WotC boards, suggesting giving iconic/plot monsters rituals. You can find the thread here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14756765#post14756765

With new information further confirming the paring down of monster abilities and spellcasting, I think the issue could stand some discussion on ENWorld too.

Here is my take on the matter:

The simplification of some iconic D&D monsters in 4E has me miffed. It may make them easier to run in combat, which I admit may be a good thing, but it also makes them far worse NPCs, so the change is an overall negative from my perspective.

I think the solution could, however, be found in creating a category of 'plot monsters' and giving these types of iconic monsters, such as dragons or devils, access to rituals. We already know a system for rituals is going to be in the game and doing the above would still make the above-mentioned monsters easy to run in combat, yet would satisfy the desires of those of us who like to use them as NPCs. I suppose I could just give them rituals myself, but it would be nice if the rules for monsters getting rituals were already worked out in the Monster Manual, so that I don't have to design them myself.

 

[Incenjucar]

...Why do they have to come with these -standard-...?

The whole point of being a DM is doing little things like noting why Monster X is not Monster Y.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If the plot requires a monster to know rituals then give it ritual, there is no need for rituals to come 'out of the box' for dragons but it the dragon's lair is warded against scrying or teleport then there is no reason that the dragon does not know rituals that can ward against these effects.

Depending on what rituals actually turn out to be, and how the skills system work I would be inclined to allow rituals to anyone with the necessary knowledge arcana and spell craft provided they also out in the research time and resources to offset their lack of innate talent.

 

[LostSoul]

The simplification of some iconic D&D monsters in 4E has me miffed. It may make them easier to run in combat, which I admit may be a good thing, but it also makes them far worse NPCs, so the change is an overall negative from my perspective.

Why does it make them far worse NPCs?

Not challenging your statement, just want to see where you're coming from.

 

[frankthedm]

Why does it make them far worse NPCs?

Less defendable from attacks and assualts. Harder to make them a mover and shaker when other movers and shakers could get at them.

 

[Wormwood]

The only ritual I really want for powerful NPCs is "create plot device" . . . which is useful for making everything from powerful artifacts to interactive encounter zones.

 

[frankthedm]

I'd rather dragons be elements of rituals rather than performers of rituals. A cabal of mages bribing a dragon to provide dragonflame at the appointed hour rather than a dragon warding his lair against Scry and Fry.

Thankfully wotc probably has seen enough of scry and fry so that trick will not work in 4E.

 

[FourthBear]

I think the solution could, however, be found in creating a category of 'plot monsters' and giving these types of iconic monsters, such as dragons or devils, access to rituals. We already know a system for rituals is going to be in the game and doing the above would still make the above-mentioned monsters easy to run in combat, yet would satisfy the desires of those of us who like to use them as NPCs. I suppose I could just give them rituals myself, but it would be nice if the rules for monsters getting rituals were already worked out in the Monster Manual, so that I don't have to design them myself.

I'm of the opinion that such plot-point abilities should just be added on a per case basis. There are just far too many possible rituals that could be put in that I don't think it would be a good use of the Monster Manual pages. And for the most part, they don't really need to be detailed. Perhaps the Dragon of Fear and Flame has a chamber that slowly petrifies whomever enters. Do we *really* need to detail a ritual that allows this to happen? Would having "Create Chamber of Petrification" be a good use of page space in the MM? If there is a necessary warding that you feel is needed for all lairs, isn't that an issue for the game? If a player asks how such a chamber came about, do you need anything more than noting it's the result of foul magic? Just create cool, interesting encounters and work out how it all came about as appropriate for your playstyle.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I agree with OP. But I want more. I like the 4E idea to par down stat blocks and abilities etc of monsters. But I also want rules to help me increase the options available to major plot bad guys (and I suppose good guy, as well) monsters- without having to eyeball their 4E equiv of challenge rating. Maybe working a bit like a template or a bit like the 'wizard training feat' of 4E that PCs have. So if I want to add spells, rogue skills, or fighter abilities as well as extra special abilities (element based or planar based or whatever) i can just add the appropriate bits from the MM to give my BBEG the style I want.
I know you can give class levels but if it works anything like 3E you have to give them heaps (ie no good giving a 10th level monster 3 levels of wiz, needs to be at least 7 to make a difference, and that +7 levels of wiz is NOT worth the +7CR) it won't work.
What I am specifically and rambling towards is this: being able to give a small selection of appropriate spells/skills/abilities etc to a certain level of monster and what that changes his challenge to. e.g. giving a 9th level monster wizard training (at a cost of +1 level to the challenge) gives 2 spells per encounter of 3rd 4th and 1 of 5th level (ie a lot less than a 10th level wizard but still useful) and 1 spell per day of 4th and 5th level and the ability to use blah rituals.....A table of what is appropriate for each level of monster for each area of extra expertise would work (I hope!)
I don't know what the terms for monster level or CR et al for 4E are but I hope you get the idea. It is not a total conversion of the monster but, a taste of different powers for a monster at an appropriate level to make them more complex AND no need to guesstimate what is appropriate
M1.9P

 

[Zamkaizer]

Didn't the Eberron Campaign Setting book literally have rules for 'plot devices'? And when I say rules, I mean something to the effect 'design whichever machine will make an encounter or adventure more exciting and use your discretion to determine how it will effect the difficulty and rewards'. I think they were called Eldritch Machines, or something to that effect.

This is what 4E should do with plot-relevant characters. It should give recommendations about plo-relevant abilities - not codify them.