Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 3984927" data-attributes="member: 1457">I've looked at the same information and come to the opposite conclusion.I *prefer* monster stats to be limited solely to combat stats. That way, I can--within the rules--give my monsters whatever noncombat abilities I wish.If I want a standard orc to also be a master craftsman with a +20 Blacksmith check, I can. If I want a Dragon to be a dullard bully with a zero ranks in any social skills, I can.In 3E, neither of those would be possible. In order to "earn" the required skill points, that blacksmith would have to be advanced with HD and class levels, which would add unwanted HP, BAB, Saves, and other nonsense. The Dragon would have to have a humongous penalty to Int and Cha, or suffer some kind of curse, of something. It seems like 4E is going toward giving monsters what they *need*--combat stats--and leaving the noncombat bits intentionally vague, for DMs to fill in as the adventure warrants.I realize that 3E had rule zero, and certainly DMs can (and have) been improvising since the dawn of time. My point is that 4E seems like it's going to explicitly encourage such improvisation. The tone seems to be "This monster has these combat stats, but it fills whatever noncombat story role you as DM require."-z</blockquote>