D&D 4E Stephen Radney-MacFarland on Conversions and Adventures in 4e

[Lanefan]

I don't mind that the monsters aren't given every skill and ability, as long as all the relevant ones are hit and there's some general guidelines provided for those that aren't. For example, if there's a set-piece encounter with an Ogre and he's all statted up for the design-expected brawl, will there be guidelines to handle the Ogre if a party decides to try talking to him or maybe even recruiting him instead of fighting him? If yes, then fine. If no, there's a problem.

What concerns me far more in that article is the statement to the effect that rules will not represent physics of the world. First, what does that mean? Second, to use the example given, if PCs use one set of rules and monsters/opponents use another, where's the consistency? How do you handle converting one to the other e.g. recruiting what was supposed to be an opponent, or having a previous PC turn against the party? And, to what extent does this statement relate to physical physics - you know; gravity, energy, motion - that sort of thing? This is something the rules *should* touch on, even if only to say something like "unless magically altered, use real-world gravity effects where relevant"; even if only to handle things like the old standby of dropping a coin down a well and timing how long it takes to hit bottom, to estimate depth. (never mind the effect of gravity on ranged weapons!)

Lanefan

 

[Dausuul]

No the only thing that is consistent is the end result. There isn't any rule to create it no underpinning to work from it's just an arbitrary range where the end results are created out of nothing. At a rules level there's a void you can't back-engineer and tweak because the table is the rule and there's no unifying mechanic behind it.

3E stats are exactly the same, just pushed back a level.

A 3E pit fiend has an AC of 40. That number, as you say, comes from a formula... but the inputs to the formula are just as arbitrary as in 4E. Why does the pit fiend have +23 natural armor? Why does it have a 26 Dexterity, or a Large size? No reason, it just does. Those are the numbers the game designers decided to give it. The natural armor in particular is a totally arbitrary fudge factor, which can be used to give the pit fiend any damn armor class you please.

The pit fiend has an attack bonus of +30. That's -1 size, +18 from Hit Dice, and +13 from Strength. Why does it have 18 Hit Dice and 37 Strength? No reason, it just does. If the designers wanted the fiend to have a better attack bonus without changing its damage or hit points, they could have given it Weapon Focus as a bonus racial feat, or a special "Infernal Rage" ability that gives it a +X profane bonus to its attacks. That sort of thing shows up all the time in 3E monster stat blocks.

The only difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E requires designers to go through a big song and dance to give their arbitrary numbers the illusion of coming from somewhere other than the designer's rear end. 4E dispenses with that.

You no longer have an orc with it's own set of universal traits altered via classes templates etc. Now you have an orc brute or an orc leader, and they're characteristics will be derived from the tables rather than being an independent base of Orc to build from via differing methods.

Mike Mearls has specifically said that we will still have the ability to give class levels to monsters.

 

[FourthBear]

What concerns me far more in that article is the statement to the effect that rules will not represent physics of the world. First, what does that mean? Second, to use the example given, if PCs use one set of rules and monsters/opponents use another, where's the consistency?

From what we've seen of the Pit Fiend stats, it appears that monsters, NPCs and PCs will indeed be using the same rules, in the sense that they will be represented by the same statistics that determine how they interact with the game mechanics. The Pit Fiend has ability scores, skills, AC, hit points, defenses, Action Points, special abilities and all of the other things that a PC would have. From this, we can surmise that the difference is not in how they run in the game, it is in how their statistics are generated. PCs are generated by the system given in the Player's Handbook, which involves a process that is intended to generate PCs that have their own niches, are roughly balanced against each other inside and outside of combat and who progress at a certain pace in power per level.

In 4e, as in all editions of D&D, monsters are generated by a different process. In 1e and 2e, this process was not particularly systematic or well presented in the three core books. In 3e, this process involved a system that roughly resembled a PC-like process presented in the MM. This process took a fair amount of time and produced questionable results (uncalled for feats, inappropriate skill points and high hit dice undead, anyone?). What makes for a "good" monster, mechanically? To a first approximation, it is the range of numbers in its stats. We all know that a monster can have "too low" or "too high" an AC or attack bonus for a given CR/level. In 4e, there has been some effort in the game design to figure out what range of numbers should be there. If they are correct, then given these numbers as targets, we can use them to generate monsters without having to go through all the rigamarole of the previous monster generation system. Exceptions to the general rules can, of course, be made when the designer wished to make an exceptional monster. However, these occur in the primary design step: the conception. Not in the secondary step: the generation system.

With such a method for monsters, it can be used for quick NPC creation as well. However, some DMs and players apparently feel that using this would somehow be unfair or cheating. That NPCs should be generated the same way as PCs only. For these, the generation system in the Player's Handbook should be fine.

 

[Benimoto]

You're mixing variability with arbitrariness and while the two have overlap they aren't the same. What I'm trying to get at is the underlying hd/attack bonus/skills/saves system. The various monster types were essentially built like classes with a formula of attributes you could reverse engineer and use for other things or rebalance as needed via a global change. In 4e there isn't any of this the monsters are essentially built on an arbitrary framework from the table so it's difficult if impossible to separate the monster from the role as an independent entity. You no longer have an orc with it's own set of universal traits altered via classes templates etc. Now you have an orc brute or an orc leader, and they're characteristics will be derived from the tables rather than being an independent base of Orc to build from via differing methods.

I think I see what you mean.

As a response, I would say that while classed monsters were consistent, or at least offered the illusion of consistency, they offered their own set of problems. I seem to remember people mentioning for years that classed NPCs were typically the weakest enemies at their CR, and that if geared properly, they dropped a huge amount of lower-level magical stuff in the PCs' arms. You often had to be very careful in your builds to reach acceptable levels of AC, damage, or +tohit or your enemies became irrelevant. And then, in 3rd edition if you were carefully building to reach acceptable levels, you already have a sort of a table for monster statistics, so the difference is that in 4th edition it's actually written out and acknowledged.

To me, the main argument in getting away from the classed/hit die system of monster generation lies in the 4th edition minion/regular/elite/solo monster idea. I think it offers a better way to create the kinds of encounters I want, and it would be difficult to achieve those kinds of encounters in 3rd edition. As they have explained it, solo monsters have the kind of HP, damage output, and variety of actions necessary to challenge the party by themselves. As a contrast, minion monsters have lower damage or HP, yet in both of these extremes both solo monsters and the minions have to-hit values that are relevant against the party's ACs. In a system where hit dice/class are intrinsically linked to the to-hit values, a monster that has the HP to last 4-5 rounds against the entire party will hit them every time. The equivalent of a minion will often need a 20 to hit.

Saves, and some other values have similar problems. "Tough" monsters in 3rd edition were notorious for making all of their fortitude saves, since they almost invariably had a lot of hit dice and a high constitution. Monsters that had a lot of hit dice also had a zillion feats, most of which weren't needed for its core role, and also made nearly all of their spot/listen/other opposed skill checks except in the case where they didn't take that skill in which case they made almost none. There was no specific rule to how many hit dice a DM-made monster should have at a certain CR. When advancing an existing monster, there was a rule for the CR, except that as has been noted countlessly, the rules didn't work all that well.

While I value consistency, it's also important to realize that it's all part of a game. In my mind, a game that offers a greater variety of adventures and opponents is more important that one that offers less variety but more consistency.

Anyways, don't get me wrong. I'm a tremendous fan of 3rd edition, I've had and am having a great deal of fun with the system. I just think that at this point, I'm ready for a breath of fresh air and I think 4th edition looks like it will offer it.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think the interaction of NPCs with the new statistic generation system is one of the best aspects. NPCs will be able to have appropriate statistics without necessarily having magical equipment beyond what the DM wants to hand out. High level campaigns in 3E felt like Baldur's gate: Throne of Bhaal were you would kill endless armies of drow with +3 longswords and +5 armor. This above all was what forced the Olde Magick Shop effect in that the players were often flooded with items that were slightly below their needs (pretty much items they had updated from a couple of levels ago) which had no use other than being sold (unless you had an artificer with retain essence!).

 

[Mephistopheles]

One of my main rules running games in 1E and 2E was that if I wanted something random and didn't know what the chance of it should be just make it 50% and roll. Nobody knows different and the game doesn't miss a beat.

For a while after starting with 3E I had the impression that I had to have full stats for everything, which turned my game prep time into a stat block production line. Eventually I got sick of it and only generated the stats I knew I would need and if something came up I hadn't generated the stats for it was 50%.

It's nice to have everything "official" but when it blows out game preparation time and begins to sap your enthusiasm for the game you either adapt to make it workable or quit. I like that 3E lets me get down into the details when I want to, but the majority of the time when I don't there's nothing forcing me to have it. One thing I'll be looking for when I get my hands on a 4E rulebook in the store is whether or not I'll have that same kind of flexibility.

 

[mach1.9pants]

.....
If the Cleric has an encounter healing power, the DM needs to explain to the player why his character can't pick a fight with a wounded friend, heal him and just stop fighting. If he can't come up with an in-game explanation, verisimilitude is hurt.......
But the "it's just a game" doesn't work for every DM and player. Some people need to believe, they need verisimilitude to be immersed, to have fun. I need it. We don't need realism, we don't need rules simulating real world physics, but we DO need an in-game explanation for everything that happens in the game, actually our characters need it, otherwise the gameworld starts falling appart. It can be even a poor one like "your god knows you are trying to cheat, so your encounter healing power doesn't work". I'll be satisfied with just that, and I can continue to have my fun.

I am (pretty) sure that WotC will have an in game/non-metagame explanation for all the powers/surges etc. There might be an option of a few different ones, like HPs meaning lots of things- physical toughness, fitness, luck, skill, etc etc. Nothing I have seen so far implies that this will not be the case. IIRC mearls and the rouse have given lots of non-metagame reason for things such as the healing surge/second wind etc. A lot of people don't like those explanations but they are there.
So hopefully you will be happy, and so will I 'cos I dislike metagame explanations as well
Rings only 11th plus? I don't care as long as there is a non-metagame explanation.

Edit: speeling

 

[Nymrohd]

I am (pretty) sure that WotC will have an in game/non-metagame explanation for all the powers/surges etc. There might be an option of a few different ones, like HPs meaning lots of things- physical toughness, fitness, luck, skill, etc etc. Nothing I have seen so far implies that this will not be the case. IIRC mearls and the rouse have given lots of non-metagame reason for things such as the healing surge/second wind etc. A lot of people don't like those explanations but they are there.
So hopefully you will be happy, and so will I 'cos I dislike metagame explanations as well
Rings only 11th plus? I don't care as long as there is a non-metagame explanation.

Edit: speeling

And considering R&C implies such explanations at least for the fighter I think we can be reasonably hopefully

 

[The Little Raven]

Rings only 11th plus? I don't care as long as there is a non-metagame explanation.

Irda Ranger still holds the prize (in my eyes) for the best in-world explanation for why magical rings are 11th-level and above, only.

Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

I just like reposting it because everyone time I read it, I go "Damn, that's cool."

 

[JohnSnow]

(Post snipped)

Edit: speeling

Emphasis mine.

Okay, I really do not mean to be snarky, but I had to point this out as one of those ironic funny things that makes me laugh out loud.



Thanks. That made me feel better.