Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 3985197" data-attributes="member: 1457">Well, yeah, that's why 4E rocks. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It's moving things back in the direction of encouraging (or even requiring) DMs to improvise, and away from requiring everything to use the exact same mechanics. Again: 3E had the rule zero, but the perception was that using that rule was a last resort. DMs were &quot;supposed&quot; to follow the mechanics, and if a 1 HD orc simply cannot have a +20 Craft check because his max rank is +4, then that's the way it's supposed to be. A DM (particularly, a Living Greyhawk DM or module writer) would be required to level up that orc or patch in all sorts of crazy feats if his adventure called for a skilled blacksmith orc.No longer, it seems. I get the strong impression that 4E doesn't use PC the ruleset for generating NPC abilities, or even generally stat up anything but combat stats. And to be clear: I think that's a very good thing.From a mechanical standpoint, I imagine that there are monster combat stats, and then there are general suggestions for monster role. For example, the white dragon is described as a brute. I imagine the white dragon will have hard combat stats, and the brute--a separately-referenced stat block--will have it's own combat ability or two, plus suggestions for noncombat abilities. Something like &quot;Generally, brutes have Intimidate at [party level +4], physical skills such as climb and jump at [party level +1], and knowledge, bluff, and diplomacy social skills at [party level -6].&quot; This way you can have, say, an Orc Brute, Orc Leader, and Orc Sneaker, and be able to quickly generate stats and abilities. One entry for Orc that's specific for that particular monster, and three entries for the monster's role (essentially templates). But even that might be too much rules. However it turns out, I like the direction they're going.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zaruthustran, post: 3985197, member: 1457"] Well, yeah, that's why 4E rocks. :) It's moving things back in the direction of encouraging (or even requiring) DMs to improvise, and away from requiring everything to use the exact same mechanics. Again: 3E had the rule zero, but the perception was that using that rule was a last resort. DMs were "supposed" to follow the mechanics, and if a 1 HD orc simply cannot have a +20 Craft check because his max rank is +4, then that's the way it's supposed to be. A DM (particularly, a Living Greyhawk DM or module writer) would be required to level up that orc or patch in all sorts of crazy feats if his adventure called for a skilled blacksmith orc. No longer, it seems. I get the strong impression that 4E doesn't use PC the ruleset for generating NPC abilities, or even generally stat up anything but combat stats. And to be clear: I think that's a [i]very[/i] good thing. From a mechanical standpoint, I imagine that there are monster combat stats, and then there are general suggestions for monster role. For example, the white dragon is described as a brute. I imagine the white dragon will have hard combat stats, and the brute--a separately-referenced stat block--will have it's own combat ability or two, plus suggestions for noncombat abilities. Something like "Generally, brutes have Intimidate at [party level +4], physical skills such as climb and jump at [party level +1], and knowledge, bluff, and diplomacy social skills at [party level -6]." This way you can have, say, an Orc Brute, Orc Leader, and Orc Sneaker, and be able to quickly generate stats and abilities. One entry for Orc that's specific for that particular monster, and three entries for the monster's role (essentially templates). But even that might be too much rules. However it turns out, I like the direction they're going. [/QUOTE]

Verification