Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4524867" data-attributes="member: 63272">There is no rule #278: Monsters are more than their stat blocks.  But their is ample evidence, from the MM and the DMG that this is so.  Page 7 of the MM says monsters have healing surges, but very few monsters have a way to spend them in battle, so they are not included in the stat blocks.  That right there shows that monsters have attributes outside of the stat block.  Many of the creatures are Outsiders, yet their stat blocks don't detail how they came to this place.  The Aboleth hails from the Far Realm but on the Prime they live in the Underdark.  Imps often serve human masters, but no details or ritual is listed as to how that comes about.  The most devout Deathpriests of Orcus can summon Aspects of Orcus, but the Deathpriest stat block contains no mention of this ability.  Well, let's be clear here, 4e provides rules for encounter resolution not just combat.  This includes the mechanical side of social encounters, skill challenges, terrain hazards, stand alone traps...   Some interesting points.  I agree that some of the critics that are heavy 3e champions could well be objecting over the rejection of that 3e mentality by the new edition.  Hence the cries of "4e doesn't allow roleplaying" and "4e is only about combat", which they have to know is simply not the case (unless they haven't read the books at all and only listened to others, much like how the anti-D&D hysteria of the 80s spread).The review is an interesting piece.  I don't agree with the reviewer at all that 4e is "not any D&D you know".  I think it's very much D&D, with a healthy dose of the old school, an infusion of modern RPG development, and a rejection of what I see as the failed experiment of 3e's PCs/Monsters/NPCs-same thing.  I do agree it is markedly different from every other edition.The author is right that 4e is a combination of a more free form style of RP mixed with a more codified tactical combat system.  But the two are not seperate.  4e's grand experiment is to combine the two into a seamless RPG.  In my games, thus far, it's been successful.  We'll have to see how it plays out over the course of the edition for final judgment, but I think that is clearly the attempt.  The hard rules in the core books exist to service encounter resolution and the guidelines exist to aid building the game world, encounters, adventures... the usual suspects.  I think the DMG does an excellent job of encouraging the DM to "take flight" and embrace the traditional role of the DM, and this is where much of its old school flavor comes from.  I'm not sure if it does such a good job of taking a completely new RPG player, picking up D&D for the first time, and conveying all this to that person.  It would be a difficult task, as no one qualified to do that can see from the perspective of the new player.  Maybe the DMG or MM should state more explicitly that a stat block is not the extent of the monster, it is just his combat stats.  Again, I think this is heavily implied, if not ever clearly stated. As I mentioned above, I don't they are seperated.  I think the goal is integration.  This is seen in things like pg.42, skill challenges, 'the DMs friend' mechanic and other elements present in the books.  Now, with a heavy dose of free form, they certainly could be seperate, but that is really a group design, a playstyle thing.  Groups that enjoy heavy RP will find it easier to integrate with the system, the DM quietly running a skill challenge during a tense negotiation played out through RP, for example; while groups that don't want to RP much at all will be left with a solid tactical combat game, with a mechanical substitution for RP in skills and skill challenges.I hope not.  I know myself and many others here have found it remarkably freeing.  To me, that's what DMing is about.  The freeness, combined with how easy and quick prepping encounters and adventures have become has resurged the joy I get from DMing.We disagree about what the RAW is.  I think the clear implication is that monsters can do things outside of their stat blocks.  I'm not talking RAI, either.  The books may not state it outright, in a concise, clear statement (and I agree perhaps they should have), but the reality of that position is everywhere.  And, conversely, no statement exists to contradict the stated notion that such things are the DMs responsibility.Interesting and productive discussion, sir.  This is a much more productive means to wage edition war  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification