4E Stat Block

[Yakk]

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1532.jpg

Stolen from:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=358998

(note that the above image is 4E on top, 3.5E on bottom).

Transcribed stats:


Spined Devil
Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)
Level 6 Skirmisher

AC: 20
Fort: 18
Ref: 18
Will: 18
HP/Bloodied: 47/23

Init: +5
Spd: 5
Fly: 7

Str: +7(19)
Con: +5(14)
Dex: +5(15)
Int: +5(15)
Wis: +5(14)
Cha: +5(15)

Senses: nethersight, Perceiption +5
Resist fire 20

ATTACKS: Melee: 2 claws +9 vs AC each: 2d4+4
Spine Rain Standard; ranged 10; +9 Dex vs Ref;
1d6+2+2d6 fire AND Poisoned 5, Slowed while Poisoned.

[b]SKILLS: Spot +10


"From the D&D miniature released at Game Day, apparently"

Here is the back of the card (with the miniatures rules on it):
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb5/bmouse70/IMG_1531.jpg
which I find less interesting.

...

The stat mods are interesting. I've heard the "stat/3, round up" and the "(stat+level-10)/2, round down" theories for the modifiers. The second lines up with SAGA edition, which lends it credibility -- the first, has the nice property that a stat of 0 has a +0 modifier.

[Matthew]

So, +5 is the new +2 and +7 the new +4...

Attribute | Modifier
1 | -2
2-3 | -1
4-5 | +0
6-7 | +1
8-9 | +2
10-11 | +3
12-13 | +4
14-15 | +5
16-17 | +6
18-19 | +7


Hmmn, doesn't look right. Perhaps they have shifted it down three points to account for Skills.

[Person_Man]

You know, I've never understood why they don't just make a Strength of 6 = a +6 modifier to everything Strength related. What's the big obsession with 3d6 character generation? Yes, we used it in previous editions. But is there a mathematical rationale for it?

[Yakk]

3 dice are needed to produce a normal curve, which matches "reality" when you study analogues of attributes.

The importance of each +1 modifier mostly scales with the standard deviation of the task resolution process used: in d20, rolling the d20.

Imagine if you did:
3d6-10
as your stat and modifier. This would make stats roughly twice as important as they where before, and leave less room for other ways to distinguish characters before the d20 task-resolution system breaks down.

If you rolled 3d4 and subtracted 7, you'd get a -4 to +5 modifier, which is close to the current -4/+4 modifier range. So that could be viable.

Granularity also applies here. With the size of a +1 modifier fixed, the current "and divide by 2" gives us finer grained access to stats. I do understand why it might be a good idea to get rid of it.

...

Matthew, you did see (stat+level-10)/2, rounded down theory, right? This is basically the SAGA system, which was apparently a 4.0 testing ground, and produces the stat modifiers listed.

[TSGames]

You know, I've never understood why they don't just make a Strength of 6 = a +6 modifier to everything Strength related. What's the big obsession with 3d6 character generation? Yes, we used it in previous editions. But is there a mathematical rationale for it?

Umm... It produces about 10 on average, and... uh... 10 is a nice number? *Points dramatically and ducts stage left*

[Person_Man]

3 dice are needed to produce a normal curve, which matches "reality" when you study analogues of attributes.

Yeah, 3 dice are needed to create a bell curve, which approximates the "reality" of human abilities. A small percetace of people are great, a small percentage are great, and most are in the middle.

But obviously D&D is a game, and not an attempt to approximate reality. So why screw a basic game mechanic in a poor attempt to "be more real."



The importance of each +1 modifier mostly scales with the standard deviation of the task resolution process used: in d20, rolling the d20.

Imagine if you did:
3d6-10
as your stat and modifier. This would make stats roughly twice as important as they where before, and leave less room for other ways to distinguish characters before the d20 task-resolution system breaks down.

If you rolled 3d4 and subtracted 7, you'd get a -4 to +5 modifier, which is close to the current -4/+4 modifier range. So that could be viable.

Granularity also applies here. With the size of a +1 modifier fixed, the current "and divide by 2" gives us finer grained access to stats. I do understand why it might be a good idea to get rid of it.

A better way would be to simply remove randomness from character creation. Every player gets X stat points, and the DM is free to increase or decrease this however they like to approximate more or less heroic characters. At first level, every stat can be between -5 and 5, and players may assign their points however they like.

Obviously for this to work, all the stats have to be roughly equal to each other in terms of their usefulness, but that's something they should do in 4th ed anyway.

The larger point is that I'm trying to make is that any granularity/scaling issues can easily be fixed, and that the best way to fix them is to make the base stats and formulas easier and less confusing. If you need special charts to figure out the modifiers for every action, they've failed. There's no need to hang onto confusing math because of historical reasons.

[Mewtarthio]

You know what's always bugged me? That there's no real difference between a Strength of 10 and a Strength of 11.

[Morty]

A better way would be to simply remove randomness from character creation. Every player gets X stat points, and the DM is free to increase or decrease this however they like to approximate more or less heroic characters. At first level, every stat can be between -5 and 5, and players may assign their points however they like.

Obviously for this to work, all the stats have to be roughly equal to each other in terms of their usefulness, but that's something they should do in 4th ed anyway.

The larger point is that I'm trying to make is that any granularity/scaling issues can easily be fixed, and that the best way to fix them is to make the base stats and formulas easier and less confusing. If you need special charts to figure out the modifiers for every action, they've failed. There's no need to hang onto confusing math because of historical reasons.

That's actually something I did in my homebrewed system, except the range is from 1-10 while 10 is unobtainable without racial bonuses or magical means. Modifier is 10 - stat, so for example 8 means +3 modifier. So far, it's working.

[TSGames]

Interestingly, it looks like the mechanical impact of STR and/or DEX might have changed slightly. The monster has a +9 to hit with both its ranged and melee attacks, despite having different STR and DEX scores.

Not sure what this means exactly... but it should be interesting(unless it just has some bonus to its ranged attack that isn't shown, that would be lame, in every way).

[SpikeFightwicky]

You know what's always bugged me? That there's no real difference between a Strength of 10 and a Strength of 11.

Except for carrying capacities and carrying loads.

[Dausuul]

You know, I've never understood why they don't just make a Strength of 6 = a +6 modifier to everything Strength related. What's the big obsession with 3d6 character generation? Yes, we used it in previous editions. But is there a mathematical rationale for it?

Only if you persist in using a dice-based creation system. I suspect 4E will have some version of point buy as the standard method, with dice as an optional one.

I really hope they do away with negative modifiers. Mathematically, there's no difference between "ability score of 8 gives a -1 modifier" and "ability score of 8 gives a +4 modifier, but all DCs are 5 higher than they were in 3E." And conceptually, there are many areas where it's easier to work with all-positive modifiers. For instance, in 3E, being flat-footed doesn't hurt your AC at all if you've got a Dexterity of 11 or less. Even a guy who's not particularly graceful should be somewhat easier to hit if you catch him off guard.

[Thinker]

Interestingly, it looks like the mechanical impact of STR and/or DEX might have changed slightly. The monster has a +9 to hit with both its ranged and melee attacks, despite having different STR and DEX scores.

Not sure what this means exactly... but it should be interesting(unless it just has some bonus to its ranged attack that isn't shown, that would be lame, in every way).

If they continue with the trend of poor, medium, and good BAB it suggests that the creature has +4 BAB and then +5 from Dex. This could mean they shifted accuracy to be under Dex, Weapon Finesse is automatic for natural and/or regular attacks (when beneficial), or the creature just has Weapon Finesse or its equivalent.

[TSGames]

...Weapon Finesse is automatic for natural and/or regular attacks (when beneficial), or the creature just has Weapon Finesse or its equivalent.

But its STR is higher than it's DEX...

[Thinker]

But its STR is higher than it's DEX...

That's a good point. Oh well, maybe its just automatic for light weapons or something. We won't really know until its released so it doesn't matter that much.

[psychoticbarber]

At the very least, I'm intrigued by the relative simplicity of the new statblock. Simple doesn't necessarily = better, but I'm all for making things the simplest they can be.

Don't say anything about T.W.E.R.P.S. I will smack you. With great respect and love, but I will smack you all the same. :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

Matthew, you did see (stat+level-10)/2, rounded down theory, right? This is basically the SAGA system, which was apparently a 4.0 testing ground, and produces the stat modifiers listed.

Yeah, I was just looking for another possibility. Looks like Saving Throws are going to be 10 + 1/2 Level + Attribute Modifier. I'm not happy about that. Actually, I'm none too happy about this method of determining stat bonuses. Oh well, whatever, another reason to keep playing previous editions, Castles & Crusades, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord.

[Starsinger]

Yeah, I was just looking for another possibility. Looks like Saving Throws are going to be 10 + 1/2 Level + Attribute Modifier. I'm not happy about that. Actually, I'm none too happy about this method of determining stat bonuses. Oh well, whatever, another reason to keep playing previous editions, Castles & Crusades, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord.

Except they're not saving throws, they're static defenses. Instead of you rolling a will save to resist my Color Spray, I have to roll to beat your will AC. Same basic thing, but it shifts who rolls the dice..

[Matthew]

Except they're not saving throws, they're static defenses. Instead of you rolling a will save to resist my Color Spray, I have to roll to beat your will AC. Same basic thing, but it shifts who rolls the dice..

Hah! You say tomayto, I say tomato... yeah, I mean the fact that it's not simply [10 + Heroic Level + Attribute]. This 1/2 Level stuff is beginning to irritate me.

[Starsinger]

Hah! You say tomayto, I say tomato... yeah, I mean the fact that it's not simply [10 + Heroic Level + Attribute]. This 1/2 Level stuff is beginning to irritate me.

Actually, I do say it tomayto... of course I pronounce the other potato.. cuz it irks people when they aren't pronounced the same.. But anyways.. I think it's 1/2 for stuff like BAB/whatever.

[Matthew]

Actually, that's an interesting point. How did they come up with +9 AB for the Attack? I can't really see the correlation from Strength or Dexterity, unless it's the average of the two + 1/2 Hit Die.

[Starsinger]

Actually, that's an interesting point. How did they come up with +9 AB for the Attack? I can't really see the correlation from Strength or Dexterity, unless it's the average of the two + 1/2 Hit Die.

2 claws ya? 1/2 HD +7 is 10. -2 for attacking with two claws is 8. +1 for weapon focus or something is +9! Of amusement however, is that I can't figure out it's spine attack. Unless.. it has two BABs, one for melee one for ranged...

[Matthew]

Well, I suppose Two Claws might be -2 in 4e, but it's not in 3e. I guess it could even be -1 in 4e, which would also make sense.

[Thinker]

Actually, that's an interesting point. How did they come up with +9 AB for the Attack? I can't really see the correlation from Strength or Dexterity, unless it's the average of the two + 1/2 Hit Die.

I was thinking 3/4 attack bonus plus Dex, but your guess is as good as mine.

[fendrin]

Interestingly, it looks like the mechanical impact of STR and/or DEX might have changed slightly. The monster has a +9 to hit with both its ranged and melee attacks, despite having different STR and DEX scores.

Not sure what this means exactly... but it should be interesting(unless it just has some bonus to its ranged attack that isn't shown, that would be lame, in every way).

The math works out if the creature has a +2 BAB and the spines count as +2 weapons.
2(bab)+7(str) = +9 claw
+2(bab)+5(dex)+2(enhancement) = +9 spines
this also fits with the 1d6+2 base damage of the spines.

I find it more interesting that the claws apparently have a damage bonus of HALF str round UP.

[....]

Medium Immortal Humanoid

CUT OFF IT'S HEAD!

[Kurald Galain]

Well, the new version does look neater and cleaner, BUT notice that the old version has several skills and spells that the newer version lacks. Of course it's easier to clean things up if you first remove half of their abilities.

[lordsigmund]

Well, the new version does look neater and cleaner, BUT notice that the old version has several skills and spells that the newer version lacks. Of course it's easier to clean things up if you first remove half of their abilities.

Half its abilities that will never get used when the thing is killed in 2-3 rounds. Can you really see it spending a round trying to Bluff its enemies? :)

The dev diaries for 4e state theyre trying to give all monsters one or two key abilities/mechanics that wont be lost among a sea of nonsense in the stat block when the monsters come to be used.

[Dhavaer]

It looks like AC and Reflex aren't the same thing; this makes me a little happy for some reason.
'Poisoned 5' interests me, I'm not really fond of the current poison rules.

[Mr. Friendly]

It also seems to have lost it's DR.

...

Maybe instead of rolling stats everyone just gets 100's down the line and instead of rolling stuff you just decide how you win.

[Ramos]

I'll just keep giving many abilities to my monsters, thank you very much. If those at WotC are incapable of effectively designing, balancing, playing or DMing a complex monster, it is their problem.

BTW, this is a monster sheet. A monster sheet in 4E, unlike in 3.5 edition, probably won't have the same extensive analysis of statistics as a character sheet. That, however, proves problematic when someone tries to make NPCs instead of just random encounters or monsters with class levels. For example, the monster totally lacks feats. :smallfurious:

[Matthew]

The math works out if the creature has a +2 BAB and the spines count as +2 weapons.
2(bab)+7(str) = +9 claw
+2(bab)+5(dex)+2(enhancement) = +9 spines
this also fits with the 1d6+2 base damage of the spines.

I find it more interesting that the claws apparently have a damage bonus of HALF str round UP.

That sounds possible, even if a bit convoluted. Basically, the creature is getting less BAB because every two levels grants +1 to a stat? So, overall, this Level 6 Skirmisher is getting +5 to Hit from it's 6 Hit Dice. It's interesting to note that it's melee damage is 2D4+4, a bonus which appears to correspond to nothing.

Another oddity is that the Hit Points are 47. That doesn't accord well with the Constitution Modifier and Hit Dice.

[(6 x 1D6) + 30] = 51
[(6 x 1D8) + 30] = 57

I suppose they could have just mistyped 47 when they meant 57. Otherwise, it's hard to say what's going on with the Constitution Bonus.

So much for any hopes of backwards compatability!

[fendrin]

That sounds possible, even if a bit convoluted. Basically, the creature is getting less BAB because every two levels grants +1 to a stat?
That's the first I've heard the +1 every two levels, but I am new to the 4e rumors. Do you have a reference?

I would be as inclined to believe that they lowered the BAB rates to correspond to having an additional 10 levels standard.

They also may be moving away from 1 monster level = 1 class level.
I hope not, but it's hard to tell. Actually, they have to because they are balancing 4 level 6 characters against 4 level 6 enemies. That means that unless you want the characters to be slaughtered often, a monster level has to be weaker than a class level.

It's interesting to note that it's melee damage is 2D4+4, a bonus which appears to correspond to nothing.
Or, as i said, half str round up.

Another oddity is that the Hit Points are 47. That doesn't accord well with the Constitution Modifier and Hit Dice.

[(6 x 1D6) + 30] = 51
[(6 x 1D8) + 30] = 57

I suppose they could have just mistyped 47 when they meant 57. Otherwise, it's hard to say what's going on with the Constitution Bonus.[/QUOTE]

Again, given the weakening of "monster levels" may mean they don't get 1 hit die per level...


So much for any hopes of backwards compatability!

Well, it was pretty impossible to mix 2ed and 3ed, so why should it be any different going from 3e to 4e? 3e to 3.5e had problems enough too!

My big concern here is how easy/effective it's going to be to improve or weaken monsters. On the other hand, I've never had a problem with just changing the 'appearance' and 'fluff' of a monster to turn it into something else.

[Thinker]

The lack of abilities may be attributed to it being for the miniatures game. Look at the 3e card; it doesn't give as much as an MM entry. This particular monster may have fewer abilities, but that is not representative of all monsters, or even most monsters. It is also not indicative of anything besides what the miniatures game's stat block will look like.

[Matthew]

That's the first I've heard the +1 every two levels, but I am new to the 4e rumors. Do you have a reference?

I would be as inclined to believe that they lowered the BAB rates to correspond to having an additional 10 levels standard.

They also may be moving away from 1 monster level = 1 class level.
I hope not, but it's hard to tell. Actually, they have to because they are balancing 4 level 6 characters against 4 level 6 enemies. That means that unless you want the characters to be slaughtered often, a monster level has to be weaker than a class level.

It's because Attribute Bonuses appear to be going up at a rate of 1 for every 2 levels. The formula being [(Attribute + Level - 10) / 2]. Therefore, every two levels a Creature/Character gains +1 to his Attribute Bonus.


Or, as i said, half str round up.

I meant nothing from 3e. 1/2 Strength Rounded Up strikes me as very unlikely, but it's possible. That said, it's also possible (but unlikely) that it's [(Strength - 10)/2, rounded down] or something equally convoluted. There's no evidence either way.


Again, given the weakening of "monster levels" may mean they don't get 1 hit die per level...

It might do, it might not. Coming up with a formula to arrive at 47 is what we're looking for.


Well, it was pretty impossible to mix 2ed and 3ed, so why should it be any different going from 3e to 4e? 3e to 3.5e had problems enough too!

Er, because 1e and 2e are backwards compatable and some people were hoping for the change from 3e to 4e to be similar?


My big concern here is how easy/effective it's going to be to improve or weaken monsters. On the other hand, I've never had a problem with just changing the 'appearance' and 'fluff' of a monster to turn it into something else.

That's the problem with complex formulas, they're complex.

[Fixer]

Looking over the front and back of the card they have two different sets of attack stats. One has melee at +11 and the other has it at +9. One has ranged at +8 and the other has it at +9. Perhaps the +9 is for BAB?

[Reinboom]

(1d8+1)*6 + 14 (con as is) = 47

Or there's... (6 [level] * 7 [???]) + 5 (con mod) = 47...

47 doesn't divide evenly with any number around 6 (evenly meaning, it must produce either a whole number, or a whole number + 0.5) - so in no way is it using the old method of generating hp.

[Yakk]

Honestly, if your demons need to summon other demons or disguise themselves as humans for plot reasons -- might as well fiat it.

Or, instead of fiat, have some pre-generated rules for "disguised monster", and just apply it to your creature.

Monsters don't need feats to do their job. It matters less if an individual monster is a unique flower with lots of interesting options when that monster will live for a few rounds before dieing and never being seen again. I can't see D&D not having rules about making a Monster into an important reoccuring NPC -- but that can use different rules than just a throw-away Monster for fighting.

[Fixer]

I like your second one. Not because it has more merit but simply because I want hit points to become static numbers instead of randomly determined for both NPCs and PCs.

The Melee damage is simple enough. Because this creature has 2 claw attacks it is only being granted half its strength bonus to both attacks. Ranged damage is half the Dex bonus to damage.

[fendrin]

It's because Attribute Bonuses appear to be going up at a rate of 1 for every 2 levels. The formula being [(Attribute + Level - 10) / 2]. Therefore, every two levels a Creature/Character gains +1 to his Attribute Bonus.

Oh I see, it was derived from the fact that this creature gets a +7 for a 19 str instead of a +4, and all the other attributes are 3 above where they were in 3e? I interpreted that as a simple re-centering of the bonus chart. being a linear system, the 0 point doesn't matter.

Considering that the standard adventurer (given the point by system and the 'elite array' of 3e) will have no less than an 8 in an attribute. Now, the simplest way to do bonus system would be to always have the bonus be positive (for multiplicative effects such as 2-handed or off-hand weapons). Combine this with the idea of rounding halves up (which is the standard mathematical way of rounding), and you get the logical starting bonus of +1 (so that multiplying by 1.5 or 0.5 always has an effect). Now to get from an 8 being a -2 in 3e to a +1 in 4e you simply add 3.

A linear adjust of adding a flat +3 makes the system much more consistent. Additionally, adding [level/2] to all of your stat bonuses
1) is unnecessarily complex
2) makes the bonuses get WAY out of hand at upper levels. You would essentially be adding 1 to all of your attributes every level (not exactly the same, but it averages out). that's WAY more than adding +1 to ONE of your attrubutes every 4 levels.


I meant nothing from 3e. 1/2 Strength Rounded Up strikes me as very unlikely, but it's possible. That said, it's also possible (but unlikely) that it's [(Strength - 10)/2, rounded down] or something equally convoluted. There's no evidence either way.
I'm guessing that either natural weapons all do 1/2 str or the claws are considered light weapons and all light weapons do 1/2 str. A third possibility that I doubt is that the claws may be considered a secondary attack (maybe the spines are primary?). I can only see this if they dump attacks of opportunity for making ranged attacks.


It might do, it might not. Coming up with a formula to arrive at 47 is what we're looking for.
er, how about 1d4, max hp first, every level? that gets us:
4+(5*2.5)+30
4+12.5+30
46.5

using my theory of rounding up that gets us 47 exact.

Alternatively, 1d8 every other level, max first also gets 47 exact if you get con to HP every level.

I vote for the d4, as it is much simpler, and they seem to be going for simplicity in this version.


Er, because 1e and 2e are backwards compatable and some people were hoping for the change from 3e to 4e to be similar? To be honest I started playing only a few years before 3e came out (actually, it's been exactly 10 years since I started), so I did not experience the 1e to 2e transition. I don't think the transition is going to be nearly as bad now that I've started to actually crunch numbers.


That's the problem with complex formulas, they're complex. So far, I have yet to see any formulas that are any more complex than the ones in 3e, and nothing even remotely as complex as 2e.

The shift that I think might make some of the formulas seem more complex is the rounding up that seems to be prevalent. Really though, that's a simplification, because almost every kid gets taught to round 3.5 to 4, not to 3. Why go against a mathematical fundamental? I doubt that extra +1 is going to make anything fall apart...

[Matthew]

Oh I see, it was derived from the fact that this creature gets a +7 for a 19 str instead of a +4, and all the other attributes are 3 above where they were in 3e? I interpreted that as a simple re-centering of the bonus chart. being a linear system, the 0 point doesn't matter.

Considering that the standard adventurer (given the point by system and the 'elite array' of 3e) will have no less than an 8 in an attribute. Now, the simplest way to do bonus system would be to always have the bonus be positive (for multiplicative effects such as 2-handed or off-hand weapons). Combine this with the idea of rounding halves up (which is the standard mathematical way of rounding), and you get the logical starting bonus of +1 (so that multiplying by 1.5 or 0.5 always has an effect). Now to get from an 8 being a -2 in 3e to a +1 in 4e you simply add 3.

A linear adjust of adding a flat +3 makes the system much more consistent. Additionally, adding [level/2] to all of your stat bonuses
1) is unnecessarily complex
2) makes the bonuses get WAY out of hand at upper levels. You would essentially be adding 1 to all of your attributes every level (not exactly the same, but it averages out). that's WAY more than adding +1 to ONE of your attrubutes every 4 levels.

Indeed, that's what I thought on first looking at it, but Yakk pointed out that the Star Wars Saga way of doing it, which I think is considerably more likely than just shifting the Bonus down three points.


I'm guessing that either natural weapons all do 1/2 str or the claws are considered light weapons and all light weapons do 1/2 str. A third possibility that I doubt is that the claws may be considered a secondary attack (maybe the spines are primary?). I can only see this if they dump attacks of opportunity for making ranged attacks.

As I said, it all sounds possible, the point is not that we can come up with new ways of doing it, just that it doesn't accord with any of the previous maths of 3e. That is to say, it could be just about anything.


er, how about 1d4, max hp first, every level? that gets us:
4+(5*2.5)+30
4+12.5+30
46.5

using my theory of rounding up that gets us 47 exact.

Alternatively, 1d8 every other level, max first also gets 47 exact if you get con to HP every level.

I vote for the d4, as it is much simpler, and they seem to be going for simplicity in this version.

Anything's possible. If they are looking to minimise the variability Hit Points, smaller Hit Dice are the way to go.


To be honest I started playing only a few years before 3e came out (actually, it's been exactly 10 years since I started), so I did not experience the 1e to 2e transition. I don't think the transition is going to be nearly as bad now that I've started to actually crunch numbers.

So far, I have yet to see any formulas that are any more complex than the ones in 3e, and nothing even remotely as complex as 2e.

Eh? 2e is nowhere near as complex as 3e (unless you add on all the Player's Option Series, at which point you're almost playing 3e). Creating an NPC or Monster was a breeze comparatively.


The shift that I think might make some of the formulas seem more complex is the rounding up that seems to be prevalent. Really though, that's a simplification, because almost every kid gets taught to round 3.5 to 4, not to 3. Why go against a mathematical fundamental? I doubt that extra +1 is going to make anything fall apart...

I don't know. It doesn't strike me as wise to reverse a decision ingrained in your player pool. Consistancy is desirable, but then it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The reason it was always round down was because things were measured in percentages. If you have a 65.5% chance of an outcome, then you effectively have a 65% chance when rolling a D100. Same goes when using a D20, if you have a 7.5% chance, you effectively have a 5% chance on a D20. The methodology was just kept. Anyway, the fact that 'bloodied' is 23 and not 24 suggests some things (and more probably all things) are still rounded down.


I like your second one. Not because it has more merit but simply because I want hit points to become static numbers instead of randomly determined for both NPCs and PCs.

They are static, though, aren't they? The only ones that don't use the Average are Player Characters.


The Melee damage is simple enough. Because this creature has 2 claw attacks it is only being granted half its strength bonus to both attacks. Ranged damage is half the Dex bonus to damage.

Only if we're rounding up for one but not the other - +7/2 = +3.5, +5/2 = 2.5.


(1d8+1)*6 + 14 (con as is) = 47

Or there's... (6 [level] * 7 [???]) + 5 (con mod) = 47...

47 doesn't divide evenly with any number around 6 (evenly meaning, it must produce either a whole number, or a whole number + 0.5) - so in no way is it using the old method of generating hp.

Here's another thought. What if the overall total is 70, with 'Bloodied' added onto Hit Points for the total? With each Hit Dice after the first rounded up, as Fledrin suggests, and the first yielding maximum Hit Points, it could be [10 + 5D10 + 30]

23 is 1/2 of 47, rounded down
23 is 1/3 of 70, rounded down

The more I look at it, the more I think this Monster has been chosen for it's potential for ambiguity.

[Vilehelm]

Personally I think the +7/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5 are it's racial bonuses and the stats behind it are the effective stats for this particular creature (using whatever array).

Str == 12+7 = 19
Dex == 9+5 = 14
...

[Matthew]

Could be, but it would be fairly pointless information on a stat card and 12, 9, 10, 10, 9, 10, is a pretty odd baseline.

Huh, I just noticed they reordered the Attribute list:

Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

Talk about change for the sake of change!

[Yakk]

Adding level/2 to all of your attribute bonuses does an interesting thing.

It makes lower level challenges easy, and has absolutely no effect on challenges aimed at your character level.

A L 11 character doing a L 1 challenge has an effective +5.

A L 10 character doing a L 10 challenge -- well, the +5 is already known about, and will be factored into the DC.

In effect, you get a penalty equal to half of the level difference between you and your opponent (be it a monster, NPC or trap) applied to your d20 rolls.

[Draz74]

Yeah ...

All attribute bonuses increasing with level has its upsides and downsides. On the upside, it makes a lot of rules simpler. (I have to admit, the simplicity of this devil's stat card is pretty elegant.)

On the downside, it decreases character/monster variety in the way that all high-level characters are fairly good at everything. Which I personally find unaesthetic; having weaknesses is what makes characters complex and teamwork important.

... Saga ... *sigh*

[Yakk]

But the legendary hero will be weak -- but only in comparison to his buddy, and the challenges he faces.

With well crafted DCs, a -2 vs a +6 is the same as a +12 vs a +20.

In 3.5, DCs and modifiers went crazy -- so you had a situation where you had to, and could, boost your modifier to huge heights. "Standard" DCs get blown away with "I win on a 1", meanwhile your buddy cannot even succeed on a 20, by the time you hid high levels.

Now, for this to work, we need fewer modifiers to rolls, and more "new options" opened up by specialization.

[Matthew]

Yeah, but since Attributes are helping to boost the Modifiers by going upwards, it seems like they are rowing against the tide they set in motion. If Attributes remained in the 3-18 (or -4 to +4) Range, things would presumably be a bit easier, as they wouldn't be competing with Levels. The current hybrid of 1/2 Level + [(Attribute + Level - 10) / 2)] is almost practically the same as Level + (lower) Attribute Modifier. It seems kind of convoluted.

For instance, the Saving Throws (or Defences) in this example are all 18, which is basically equivalent to [10 + Level + (3e) Attribute].

[Mike_G]

Yeah, I was just looking for another possibility. Looks like Saving Throws are going to be 10 + 1/2 Level + Attribute Modifier. I'm not happy about that.


I'm thrilled.

I hate the way Good saves and Bad saves diverge so much at high levels. It only gets worse once you add in attribute bonuses, feats, gear and so on. I had a high level Rogue who was incapable of failing a Reflex save, or of making a Will save at the normal DC's we faced. Dex is the obvious stat to boost for a Rogue, and Wis the obvious dump stat, and increases and gear tend to shift that way as well.

Using a base save value for all of them and then adding your attribute bonus will still mean the Rogue is better at Reflex than Will, but it won't be a forgone conclusion. Especially as a failed Reflex save just means some damage, and a failed Will save means you are out of the combat, be it charmed, controlled or incapacitated, and a failed Fortitude save generally means you're dead or drained of stats.



Actually, I'm none too happy about this method of determining stat bonuses. Oh well, whatever, another reason to keep playing previous editions, Castles & Crusades, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord.

I will wait to see the actual calculations. I know people have tried to reverse engineer the system from seeing the results here, but I want to see how the actual calculations work before passing judgment. I still say that if they looked much at the later D20 systems and supplements, like SW, Iron Heroes and ToB, I'm optimistic.

[fendrin]

Indeed, that's what I thought on first looking at it, but Yakk pointed out that the Star Wars Saga way of doing it, which I think is considerably more likely than just shifting the Bonus down three points.
I didn't even know they released a new version of Starwars d20.... still, I can't see them going with the '+1 to all attribute scores', especially with the 30 level standard. more on this below...


As I said, it all sounds possible, the point is not that we can come up with new ways of doing it, just that it doesn't accord with any of the previous maths of 3e. That is to say, it could be just about anything.
I disagree, but it may just be semantic. There are lots of formulas that it equates to. The difficulty is figuring out WHY a particular formula was used. In fact, so far, it seems like the formulas are all fairly similar, just with slight variations. (add +3 to attribute bonuses, round mathematically instead of always down).

Anything's possible. If they are looking to minimise the variability Hit Points, smaller Hit Dice are the way to go.
And minimizing hit points does seem to be a goal. Reading the playtest reports, it seems like they are trying to make wizards viable blasters again. Hooray for the return of direct damage as an effective choice!


Eh? 2e is nowhere near as complex as 3e (unless you add on all the Player's Option Series, at which point you're almost playing 3e). Creating an NPC or Monster was a breeze comparatively.
I'm sorry, that made me laugh. Literally. I remember one time about a year after 3.0 was released, I decided to make a 2e character, for comparison. It made NO sense whatsoever to me anymore. The only thing that was 'easier' is that you had fewer choices to make. That, and the formulas were so complex (and numerous) that it was easier to look the results up on a table than to even THINK about memorizing them. I memorized the 3e formulas out of sheer use, and the laziness of not wanting to look up the tables (especially when 3 or four people were sharing a phb). In fact, I can create a playable first level core 3.5 character without even opening a book (or looking at any references). I might have a few details wrong (omissions in racial abilities, incorrect class skills, things like that), but it would mostly be accurate. I don't know anyone who could do that in 2e.


I don't know. It doesn't strike me as wise to reverse a decision ingrained in your player pool. Consistancy is desirable, but then it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The reason it was always round down was because things were measured in percentages. If you have a 65.5% chance of an outcome, then you effectively have a 65% chance when rolling a D100. Same goes when using a D20, if you have a 7.5% chance, you effectively have a 5% chance on a D20. The methodology was just kept. Anyway, the fact that 'bloodied' is 23 and not 24 suggests some things (and more probably all things) are still rounded down.
I would suggest that 'round to the nearest number' is the new rule, not 'always up' or 'always down'.
46.5 -> 47
46.5/2 = 23.25 -> 23


Here's another thought. What if the overall total is 70, with 'Bloodied' added onto Hit Points for the total? With each Hit Dice after the first rounded up, as Fledrin suggests, and the first yielding maximum Hit Points, it could be [10 + 5D10 + 30]

23 is 1/2 of 47, rounded down
23 is 1/3 of 70, rounded down
I won't say it can't be that way, but it seems that hey would notate the total hp somewhere...


Huh, I just noticed they reordered the Attribute list: I so hope that is a mistake... preview and playtest materials aren't typically given the same 'rigorous' editing the final product receives (and editing errors abound in the finished products anyway)


Adding level/2 to all of your attribute bonuses does an interesting thing.

It makes lower level challenges easy, and has absolutely no effect on challenges aimed at your character level.

A L 11 character doing a L 1 challenge has an effective +5.

A L 10 character doing a L 10 challenge -- well, the +5 is already known about, and will be factored into the DC.

In effect, you get a penalty equal to half of the level difference between you and your opponent (be it a monster, NPC or trap) applied to your d20 rolls.

Of course, given that 4 level 6 monsters is supposed to be a standard encounter for 4 level 6 PCs, a monster shouldn't be getting the same scaling as a pc. So how do you balance that? Do pcs get +1 every level? but then a lvl 30 pc will wipe the floor with a lvl 30 monster...


But the legendary hero will be weak -- but only in comparison to his buddy, and the challenges he faces.

With well crafted DCs, a -2 vs a +6 is the same as a +12 vs a +20.

ick. you are correct, but that means that a level 8 character can jump WAY further than a level 1. I mean if jumping a 5' stream is a dc 5(for instance), we're talking leaping football fields by lvl 30. Unless they drop skill points, or drop the max ranks significantly.. no, it just doesn't add up to me.

[Matthew]

I'm thrilled.

I think you misunderstand me. I was hoping it was going to be exactly like Saga (or, indeed, Castles & Crusades) where Saves are just 1:1 by Level.


I will wait to see the actual calculations. I know people have tried to reverse engineer the system from seeing the results here, but I want to see how the actual calculations work before passing judgment. I still say that if they looked much at the later D20 systems and supplements, like SW, Iron Heroes and ToB, I'm optimistic.

It's just speculation and it's fun to speculate. Obviously, if 4e turns out to be the best thing since sliced bread, then things will progress accordingly.


I didn't even know they released a new version of Starwars d20.... still, I can't see them going with the '+1 to all attribute scores', especially with the 30 level standard. more on this below...

You may want to familiarise yourself with Saga, then. The designers have pointed to it as a test subject, apparently. Skills, for instance, look like they might be going the Saga way (which is to say no more Skill Points).


I disagree, but it may just be semantic. There are lots of formulas that it equates to. The difficulty is figuring out WHY a particular formula was used. In fact, so far, it seems like the formulas are all fairly similar, just with slight variations. (add +3 to attribute bonuses, round mathematically instead of always down).

It's definitely semantic.


And minimizing hit points does seem to be a goal. Reading the playtest reports, it seems like they are trying to make wizards viable blasters again. Hooray for the return of direct damage as an effective choice!

We'll see. I have my doubts.


I'm sorry, that made me laugh. Literally. I remember one time about a year after 3.0 was released, I decided to make a 2e character, for comparison. It made NO sense whatsoever to me anymore. The only thing that was 'easier' is that you had fewer choices to make. That, and the formulas were so complex (and numerous) that it was easier to look the results up on a table than to even THINK about memorizing them. I memorized the 3e formulas out of sheer use, and the laziness of not wanting to look up the tables (especially when 3 or four people were sharing a phb). In fact, I can create a playable first level core 3.5 character without even opening a book (or looking at any references). I might have a few details wrong (omissions in racial abilities, incorrect class skills, things like that), but it would mostly be accurate. I don't know anyone who could do that in 2e.

Well, I could do it very easily (and I'm hardly alone, just pop over to Dragonsfoot). You're really talking to the wrong person here, but I don't want to turn this into an edition war. Honestly, if you only played AD&D a couple of years and have been playing 3e ever since, it's no surprise that you find 3e easier. I find it significantly more complex and I'm very familiar with 3e (indeed, you're hardly alone in being able to recall the formulas and many of the details of the game).
However, weren't we talking about Monster modification? 2e is like Savage Worlds with respect to creating NPCs and Monsters, you just give them whatever they need to be what you imagine. No calculating Skill Points, checking templates, types, subtypes, BAB, Spell Like and Extraordinary Abilities, Feats, Racial Attribute Modifiers, etc... The 2e system wasn't perfect, but it was absolutely simple by comparison.


I would suggest that 'round to the nearest number' is the new rule, not 'always up' or 'always down'.
46.5 -> 47
46.5/2 = 23.25 -> 23

Maybe, maybe not.


I won't say it can't be that way, but it seems that hey would notate the total hp somewhere...

What for? If they are seeking to reduce the stat block it would be counter productive. I'm not saying it is this way, just that it's a mathematical possibility. That said, the Article discussing the 4e Dragon suggested that new effects take place below half Hit Points, so the former interpretation is more likely.


I so hope that is a mistake... preview and playtest materials aren't typically given the same 'rigorous' editing the final product receives (and editing errors abound in the finished products anyway)

I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, the transition from 1e to 2e resulted in a different ordering of Attributes. I think it was something like Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma in 1e, but I don't recall off the top of my head.

[Ivius]

The 4E PHB better come with a calculator :smallamused:.

[Charity]

I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, the transition from 1e to 2e resulted in a different ordering of Attributes. I think it was something like Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma in 1e, but I don't recall off the top of my head.

Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma.

I'm fairly sure, in fact I still write em in that order.

Oh, I know you value intelligence Matthew, but...

[Yakk]

Of course, given that 4 level 6 monsters is supposed to be a standard encounter for 4 level 6 PCs, a monster shouldn't be getting the same scaling as a pc. So how do you balance that? Do pcs get +1 every level? but then a lvl 30 pc will wipe the floor with a lvl 30 monster...

The level 6 monsters need to have about the same save difficulty, to-hit modifiers, and AC as a PC. We want actions to succeed about half of the time, and that means each side needs about the same modifiers.

On the other hand, the standard level 6 monster should have less HP, fewer resources, longer cooldowns, and their save-or-suck abilities should make the target suck less than PC abilities.

(this doesn't include a dragon: dragons are supposed to be encounters in and of themselves).



ick. you are correct, but that means that a level 8 character can jump WAY further than a level 1. I mean if jumping a 5' stream is a dc 5(for instance), we're talking leaping football fields by lvl 30. Unless they drop skill points, or drop the max ranks significantly.. no, it just doesn't add up to me.

Currently, skills scale faster than 1 per level, especially with magical items, spells, attribute buffs, etc.

[Matthew]

Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma.

I'm fairly sure, in fact I still write em in that order.

Oh, I know you value intelligence Matthew, but...

Hey! I value all Attributes equally... even Charisma... It's just ingrained in me that Intelligence comes after Constitution and before Wisdom.

Yeah, that's right. Apparently, the reason for that order was that it was the order the Classes were created in... Fighter (Strength), Magic User (Intelligence), Cleric (Wisdom), Thief (Dexterity)... then add another two... just a rumour I heard.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Word on the street is that the ability re-ordering might be to try to draw parallels between the mental and physical stats. Strength is to Intelligence as Constitution is to Wisdom as Dexterity is to Charisma?

Or maybe they're just keeping with tradition and futzing around with the order since it's a new edition. <Shrug>

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Sort of like nWoD, yah, i see it.