D&D 4E Thing I thought 4e did better: Monsters

[Campbell]

I think there is a certain incoherence between using skill challenges as the primary method to deal with non-combat challenges and the discrete and detailed ritual system. My solve for this incoherence is generally to ignore the existence of rituals, and allow supernatural effects to be generated from Arcana, Religion, and Nature used with appropriate fictional positioning to preserve the close scene resolution of skill challenges. In my opinion this is one area where 4e suffered from having too many cooks in the kitchen. In many ways it was afraid to go full indy.

I also would like to point out that while I believe the intent of 4e monster stat blocks was not to necessarily encapsulate the full extent of a creature's ability there are several instances where non-combat abilities are detailed in the stat block such as the Doppelganger's Change Shape ability, The Flameskull's Illumination ability, the Trap Haunt's Trapbound ability, or the Dryad's Deceptive Veil ability. I personally would have liked to see more monsters with such abilities, but I don't think the stat block should have to represent the full extent of it's abilities.

Of course, none of the above has anything to do with desiring more dynamic monsters in 5e, both when it comes to combat and outside of combat. It also has nothing to do with the desire to have better tools for constructing encounters or creating monsters. It has nothing to do with the desire for more mechanical rigor. It also has nothing to do with wanting lore that is focused on being used in play. If you want to discuss where 4e faltered, we can do that. I personally have no desire to go back and have those arguments again. I would much rather focus on what ideas can be taken from the things 4e did well to improve the current edition of the game.

 

[Imaro]

I also would like to point out that while I believe the intent of 4e monster stat blocks was not to necessarily encapsulate the full extent of a creature's ability there are several instances where non-combat abilities are detailed in the stat block such as the Doppelganger's Change Shape ability, The Flameskull's Illumination ability, the Trap Haunt's Trapbound ability, or the Dryad's Deceptive Veil ability. I personally would have liked to see more monsters with such abilities, but I don't think the stat block should have to represent the full extent of it's abilities.

I noticed this same thing with the Rakshasa, the Oni Night Haunter, Chaos Phage for the Slaad, Sphinx's Challenge and so on. This along with the fact that non-combat skills are listed in the stat blocks as well for some monsters is one of the things that made me unconvinced that 4e's design of monsters was predicated on non-combat abilities always being DM created. I honestly am not sure how to take the fact that some have non-combat abilities while others seem to account only for combat... but I don't agree it's as black and white as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be making out to be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tell me - what do you think that ritual is for? What design purpose do you think it serves?

Prettymuch a dumping-ground for non-combat, situational spells that tended never to get memorized back in the day, so sat there, taking up page count but contributing little to the actual game. By breaking them out from combat abilities, the game let casters keep cool, largely theoretical, tricks without having to sacrifice basic viability up-front to /maybe/ actually use one. That it /also/ attached a gp price, and was careful to minimize potential for abuse in doing so perhaps went to far, because...

In practice, IMHO/X, they still didn't see much use.

Anyway, ritual casting (in combination with spontaneous slots) seems to serve a similar purpose in 5e. They take low-priority spells and make them more available (essentially all but free), without forcing the caster to pay much price in basic effectiveness. Those spells are also back up to their historical levels of effectiveness.

I think there is a certain incoherence between using skill challenges as the primary method to deal with non-combat challenges and the discrete and detailed ritual system.

Certainly. 4e moved away from the traditional D&D double-standard that has always emphasized spellcasting and magic items over martial ability and other skills, but it didn't entirely escape it. One later supplement did introduce a detailed system of 'martial practices' that paralleled that of rituals, but were broadly inferior to it, so that inconsistency was addressed, even if the double-standard remained.

My solve for this incoherence is generally to ignore the existence of rituals, and allow supernatural effects to be generated from Arcana, Religion, and Nature used with appropriate fictional positioning to preserve the close scene resolution of skill challenges.

I have certainly seen that done. Especially in skill challenges where a magical trap, curse, or other magical obstacle is featured.

In other instances it can get out of hand, making Arcana, in particular (an already very widely useful skill) all but universally applicable.

Of course, none of the above has anything to do with desiring more dynamic monsters in 5e, both when it comes to combat and outside of combat.

It does get into one solution: Don't take the 5e stat block as a proscription, rather, take it as a starting point and extrapolate more interesting actions & abilities for your monsters.

It also has nothing to do with wanting lore that is focused on being used in play.

It seems like an example of such. Lore can easily serve a double purpose, both in-play, and in world-painting.

 

[Campbell]

I noticed this same thing with the Rakshasa, the Oni Night Haunter, Chaos Phage for the Slaad, Sphinx's Challenge and so on. This along with the fact that non-combat skills are listed in the stat blocks as well for some monsters is one of the things that made me unconvinced that 4e's design of monsters was predicated on non-combat abilities always being DM created. I honestly am not sure how to take the fact that some have non-combat abilities while others seem to account only for combat... but I don't agree it's as black and white as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be making out to be.

My personal take is that monster entries were meant to be representative, but not exhaustive. What you see in the stat block is supposed to encapsulate a monster's most crucial features. I don't really have any specific passage to back this up, but I feel the advice to only prep the details of an NPC that are likely to come up in play in the DMG suggests that they took a similar approach with monsters. There is also the likely possibility that different designers approached monster design differently.

 

[Imaro]

My personal take is that monster entries were meant to be representative, but not exhaustive. What you see in the stat block is supposed to encapsulate a monster's most crucial features. I don't really have any specific passage to back this up, but I feel the advice to only prep the details of an NPC that are likely to come up in play in the DMG suggests that they took a similar approach with monsters. There is also the likely possibility that different designers approached monster design differently.

I think your first sentence is how I view monster stat blocks across all editions. I guess my point of contention is that I just don't see that, or the adding on of desired non-combat abilities to monsters, as something unique to 4e... I feel as if it's been a part of all editions of D&D even if some editions had a culture grow up around them that didn't necessarily take it to heart....

 

[Darkness]

Pemerton, these people are just trolling you. ...

Please don't accuse your fellow posters of trolling. If you're wrong, you insulted an innocent poster. If you're right, you're just giving the troll what he wants - attention. So either way, nothing good comes of it.

 

[Campbell]

I think your first sentence is how I view monster stat blocks across all editions. I guess my point of contention is that I just don't see that, or the adding on of desired non-combat abilities to monsters, as something unique to 4e... I feel as if it's been a part of all editions of D&D even if some editions had a culture grow up around them that didn't necessarily take it to heart....

I don't view it as unique to 4e. 4e provided me with a set of tools that I feel eases handling of new fictional elements. Features like skill challenges, the condition track, the healing surge economy, result oriented monster and NPC creation, and the DC by level chart helped me to frame the fiction into mechanics much easier than other games. The mental framework I found in 4e worked a lot better for me than other editions.

I also don't think we should discredit the culture that arises from a given game. A Pathfinder monster gives the impression of being much more exhaustive than a 4e monster because there is a process in place to encourage a much more exhaustive view of a monster. It's similar to how I feel more creative freedom running a Nentir Vale or Folio Grayhawk game than when I attempted to run a game using the 3e FRCS. I could run a character focused Vampire: The Masquerade game that mostly focuses on the personal horror of being a vampire, but Requiem 2e feels more comfortable because the culture of the games is entirely different and it provides tools Masquerade lacks.

At the end of the day when I get involved in 5e discussions it's not because I want to see 4e ideas implemented in a carbon copy of the 4e experience. When it comes to monster design, I don't expect to see monster roles, balancing via the encounter, or embrace of the heroic recovery narrative. I want to see lore that cares more about underlying themes than minutia. I want more dynamic monster abilities that don't require me to cross reference some other book. I also would like to see more links between monsters. Some clear templating couldn't hurt either. Mostly, I would like to see more creative risks taken.

 

[pemerton]

My personal take is that monster entries were meant to be representative, but not exhaustive. What you see in the stat block is supposed to encapsulate a monster's most crucial features.

I think there is an element of truth to this, but I don't think this was the only guiding consideration. Eg the stuff about devils and souls, or about glabrezu and corruption, stunted crops etc, was clearly meant to be significant, but wasn't something that anyone thought needed expressing in a stat block.

there are several instances where non-combat abilities are detailed in the stat block such as the Doppelganger's Change Shape ability, The Flameskull's Illumination ability, the Trap Haunt's Trapbound ability, or the Dryad's Deceptive Veil ability.

The illumination and trapbound abiliites are both relevant to combat resolution (because combat cares about lighting, and cares about positioning; the flameskull ability looks like an exception to the general rule about fire creatures and illumination on p 67 of the DMG).

The shapechange/disguise self abilities are more marginal, but can still arise in the combat context (eg if a doppelganger disguised as an innocent NPC is moving into a better position to launch its attack, does a PC notice its true nature?).

The most significant instances I can think of, of NPC/monster stats that have no in-combat use and hence do nothing but convey flavour, are Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses.

 

[pemerton]

Torment... ability? Tormenting someone is to inflict severe physical or mental suffering. That's pretty much covered in their stat block.

<snip>

Souls are used to Construct and in Invocations by being consumed... How a Devil constructs something... well he would use the smae skills a PC would. Invocations on the other hand is murky because there is no invocation keyword for 4e... so I'm assuming they are using the one of the natural definitions for invocation, I would think given how much souls are valued it would be the act of invoking someone or something for aid... which is simply bartering.

The stat block does not explain how a devil "torments and consumes captured souls to fuel the mightiest of their infernal works, including evil constructs and terrible invocations". And saying "the same as PCs" is no answer. There are no rules for fuelling works with souls. (Contrast eg the 3E Book of Vile Darkness, which has such rules in the 3E context.)

Can the devil fuel his/her construct with the power of souls before the PCs navigate from Avernus into the lower reaches of the Nine Hells? The only rules framework for answering this question is a skill challenge, which by definition is an exclusively player-side mechanic.

Before a combat encounter begins, you should have some information at hand. . . . [including s]tatistics for the opponents in the encounter.

It says statistics... not combat focused statistics... in fact looking at the passage it makes no type of distinction whatsoever, and this is in a section titled "Combat Fundamentals".

That's my point. It doesn't need to say combat focused statistics, because that's what the stat block is: it's combat focused.

Whereas, to run the skill challenge of negotiating with a Duke, one doesn't need the Duke's stat block.

the ritual takes time, are the dragon's minions just standing around for 10 minutes while you complete it. The size of the pool could demand simultaneous castings by multiple PC's... with a single failure requiring ti to be cast again... and so on. So no the only thing at stake is not necessarily components consumed.

It's well-known that a skill challenge might take place within combat or overlapping with it (see eg DMG pp 72, 80). But nothing you have identified here says anything about corrupting water needing to be an ability called out in the dragon statblock.

Why wouldn't the extent of his powers matter? Especially in and adventure where greater time spent stopping the dragon gives the dragon greater time to more fully corrupt the water? Or are you saying time wouldn't matter in your game? the water will always be the same no matter if they took a half day or 3 months to reach the dragon?

<snip>

wouldn't his rate determine how hard it is tio decontaminate or even if it's necessary

The notion of "fully corrupted" or "degree of corruption" has no mechanical meaning. The Purify Water ritual doesn't rely on any such notion: it has the following flavour text - "The lake, tainted by a now-dead demon that laired in its depths, becomes crystal clear and refreshing to drink" - and the following salient rules text - "You purify a volume of water."

So as far as the ritual is concerned, either the water is tainted/impure or it is not. Either the dragon has corrupted it, or has not. More generally, I think you are missing the point of the significance of skill challenges to this topic: skill challenges are an abstract, closed-scene resolution system. Within such a system, questions like "Can the PCs do it in time?", or "Are they working fast/hard enough?", or "Will the dragon, devil or whomever get some friends to help with the building/corruption before the PCs get there?" are all answered via narrating outcomes of player skill checks (which may include auto-successes or failure removal, eg in the sorts of circumstances the DMG and DMG2 talk about). From the mechanical point of view, therefore, there's simply no such thing as the dragon having greater time to "fully corrupt the water". That's all just colour.

II just don't see that, or the adding on of desired non-combat abilities to monsters, as something unique to 4e

I am not saying that the "adding on of desired non-combat abilities to monsters is unique to 4e". I'm saying that monsters in 4e don't have non-combat abilities (like corrupting water, or building infernal constructs fuelled by souls, or training their followers in sword play, or organising village festivals) in the sense in which some AD&D and 3E monsters do have such abilities in their stat blocks.

For instance, the GM deciding that a pond is corrupted because a black dragon has laired in it, or that crops are failing and animals dying because a Glabrezu has taken up residence nearby, is not adding an ability to any monster; any more than narrating that the villagers are having a festival is adding an ability (what would it be? Party: provided the villager is within 3 sq of at least one other villager, the villager may sing, dance and/or consume beverages). It's all just narrating fiction.

I didn't need a stat block to tell me how to narrate a barren apple grove. I just narrated it. And when the PCs went to undo it, I didn't need a stat block for that either; I used the DC-by-level chart in accordance with the standard skill challenge procedures.

you rule zeroed it, like anyone in any edition could do.

Maybe this is the fundamental confusion. In 4e, the GM describing a situation in the fiction (eg a polluted pond, a barren apple grove) and then the PCs responding to or resolving that situation by means of a skill challenge, isn't "rule zero". It's one of two core resolution mechanics for the system (the other being combat).

 

[Tallifer]

The biggest thing 4E did for me was opening my eyes to how to run monsters easily. I used to be daunted by all the stats and abilities and juggling of details. 4E took the first step of liberating monsters from detailed character generation mechanics.

Now I just arbitrarily set the hit points, attacks, defenses and abilities; furthermore I spontaneously adjust them according to the size and power of the party or the narrative situation. Combat and interaction are smooth and effortless. The players still feel accomplishment in victory and trepidation in near defeat.

Everything is hidden and revealed through a screen of narration and images. I simply ported the same system over to 5E. A few of my players have preferred the more transparent system of published monsters and consistent monster rules from earlier editions (which 5E also uses) but my current 8 players are happy with their exciting adventures.