Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaisoku" data-source="post: 4020229" data-attributes="member: 58447">I agree with Kamikaze Midget... the biggest issue I'm getting from this thread is that 4e isn't taking into account when a Monster might be used as an Ally.I'm fine with building NPCs or Monsters differently to be quicker and better referenced for the DM.I'm not fine with giving NPCs or Monsters world-shaping abilities that would cause campaign issues outside of combat. Not necessarily because I don't want my PC-who-decides-to-play-said-creature to cause problems... but because I don't want to have to come up with metagame reasons "Why X hasn't happened yet if this creature can do Y?"I like to have my world make sense, you know? And looking strictly at NPCs and Monsters stats as "How it acts as an adversary in combat" can have blind spots when it comes to those things.Also, even though WotC might not fumble too badly and has a keen eye on making monster abilities make sense, this leaves the door open for third party makers to really screw with the system.Sure, you can avoid the "crap 3rd party resources", but a system that has it's own checks and balances can prevent a lot of crap being made by accident in the first place. It also helps DMs make up their own stuff too.Hopefully the DMG has some info on this kind of thing too.</blockquote>