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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6039937" data-attributes="member: 42582">This I don't agree with - I'm happy for the art to speak for itself.This I don't really agree with either, as far as attacks are concerned. In 4e the keywords carry the burden of conveying the nature of attacks (eg an aura that does cold damage means the creature is shrouded in cold - the picture clarifies that it is an icy mist). There is no need for extra text.Origin is a bit different, and relates to the mythic history aspect. I think 4e does give me the origins of zombies - they are animated either by necromancers or by the Shadowfell leeching over planar boundaries - but doesn't get any more specific than that. For me, that fits well with the general tone of the 4e mythic history. Whereas being told that a juju zombie comes from an energy drain spell is, for me, the wrong sort of detail - apart from anything else, it has strong implications about the presence of 18th level wizards in the gameworld.For those who like the demography because it enriches there sense of the "objectivity" of the gameworld, then I can see how causal details like those for the juju zombie might play a comparable role. But the converse consequence can be that a GM refrains from using juju zombies when they would make excellent opponents for the PCs because s/he doesn't want to imply that an 18th level magic-user is active in the campaign world. That would be a pity, in my view. Whereas the lighter touch of 4e seems to me to give zombies a context while permitting the GM greater latitude in using them.(To me there's also something weird about zombie lords being easier to create than juju zombies - 5th level vs 9th level magic - but tougher. But that's more a point of detail.)  4e deals with hydra heads OK (though I like the MV method better than the MM method) but doesn't have special rules for roper tentacles, beholder eyestalks etc. These all fall under the jurisdiction of p 42. In the beholder case, I would adjudicate it as making an attack that is weakened (ie half damage), and with a Hard Dungeoneering check, or a Moderate Perception check if you've actually seen the eye ray used, you succeed in hitting and disabling (save ends) the eyestalk you were aiming for. I agree that the way information is broken up in the 4e MM, between intro text and lore entries, is not always ideal. My impression is that some of those who say that 4e has, by any metric, the least monster flavour text of any D&D monster book, haven't actually noticed the lore entries!</blockquote>

Verification