PDA

View Full Version : DnD monsters for dummies? [4E]



Ramos
2008-04-17, 04:52 AM
Nope, that's not a crash-course on learning the secrets of DnD monsters. It is rather about monsters being dumbed down so much that they can be run even by surgically decerebrated dummies under the effects of a confusion spell while at the same time being as interesting to run as a generic commoner with arbitrarily high ability scores. Let's take a look at the new devils for example:


Succubus

Succubi tempt mortals into performing evil deeds, using their shapechanging abilities to appear as attractive men and women. Although seduction and betrayal are their forte, succubi are also practiced spies and assassins. Succubi serve more powerful devils as scouts, advisors, and even concubines. Because of their guile and shapechanging ability, they are frequently chosen to serve as infernal emissaries to important mortals.

Succubus Level 9 Controller
Medium immortal humanoid (devil, shapechanger) XP 400
Initiative +8 Senses Perception +8; darkvision
HP 90; Bloodied 45
AC 23; Fortitude 17, Reflex 21, Will 23
Resist 20 fire
Speed 6, fly 6

(m) Corrupting Touch (standard; at-will)
+14 vs. AC; 1d6 + 6 damage.

(m) Charming Kiss (standard; at-will) * Charm
+14 vs. AC; on a hit, the succubus makes a secondary attack against the same target.
Secondary Attack: +12 vs. Will; the target cannot attack the succubus, and if the target is adjacent to the succubus when the succubus is targeted by a melee or a ranged attack, the target interposes itself and becomes the target of the attack instead. The effects last until the succubus or one of its allies attacks the target or until the succubus dies.

If the target is still under the effect of this power at the end of the encounter, the succubus can sustain the effect indefinitely by kissing the target once per day. The succubus can affect only one target at a time with its charming kiss.

(r) Dominate (standard; at-will) * Charm
Ranged 5; +12 vs. Will; the target is dominated until the end of the succubus’s next turn.

Change Shape (minor; at-will) * Polymorph
The succubus can alter its physical form to take on the appearance of any Medium humanoid, including a unique individual (see Change Shape, page 280).

Alignment Evil Languages Common, Supernal
Skills Bluff +15, Diplomacy +15, Insight +13
Str 11 (+4) Dex 18 (+8) Wis 19 (+8)
Con 10 (+4) Int 15 (+6) Cha 22 (+10)

Nice flavor-a change over the dream-assaulting, soul-eating demon of the past, fits with the new devil theme. Now, let's look at what we lost from the old monster sheet:
Defences: We see the four standard defences everyone has plus fire resistance. That's it. There is no other defence whatsoever. That means we lost 3 resistances and 2 immunities plus Damage Reduction. WTF? Apparently, a bunch of special qualities that made outsiders different than a human with a fire resistance robe which, we must note, were static numbers, required no rolling and thus didn't reduce game speed and just about anyone knew what they did anyway are far too complicated for the average DM to handle. :smallannoyed:
Attack options: Lemme see, one standard attack, a charm effect and a 1-round domination. So, effectively, only three options in combat: attack in meele for an average of 9 damage, force someone for 1 round to attack instead of you from 25 feet away and get a meele bodyguard-which has you stop moving in combat otherwise it is useless. And that is for a devil controller monster. WTF? The 3.5 commoner has more options in combat. He can attack with a club/improvised weapon in meele, throw stones/improvised weapons in ranged, try to trip, grapple, charge, disarm... need I mention more? The stats block for the succubus has no grapple or base attack so she can use combat maneuers or improvised weapons and neither does it have ranged bonus so she can use improvised ranged attacks. All she can use are the three attacks mentioned. This probably means WotC thought 4E DMs would be confused by too many combat options so they neutered their monsters... :smallmad:
Utility options: I can see shapechanging and... yep. Only shapechanging. Gone are the detect thoughts, detect good, ethereal jaunt, all the non-combat uses of the charms, the telepathy, the teleportation ability. At least they kept the tongues ability if the "supernal" note under languages means that-else the succubus wouldn't be able to communicate with 3/4 of the beings out there. WTF? Seems monsters are only good for combat now as they do not have any non-combat options. :smallmad:
Skill set: Three skills-diplomacy, bluff, insight. Yeah, they'll keep up very well with their new emissary/spy/assasin flavor. I mean, being a spy doesn't need any sneaking skills, does it? Nor do they need any athletics-related skills such as escape artist, jump and tumble or utility ones like use rope, disarm, pick lock, disguise and so on. WTF? How are we supposed to use a primarily noncombatant adversary (according to the flavor) if they don't have ANY noncombat skills?
Customisability: You might have noticed that there are no skill points in 4E. You might also have noticed that monsters do not have feats. At all. Nor do they have armor/weapon proficiencies. Nor do they have a treasure entry. Nor do they have HD and thus variable HP. WTF? How are we supposed to customise them? Every monster is identical to every other monster of the same race. :smallmad:



Yeah, seems WotC made all monsters crappy this time around and we will have to homebrew the entire monster manual to make interesting encounters. But at least they didn't miss the CR mark and the balancing... :smallsigh:

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-17, 05:13 AM
Yep. Isn't 4E great?

Sometimes the internet is confusing. So I feel the need to sometimes specify. Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-17, 05:24 AM
Ethereal Jaunt and Greater Teleport shouldn't have been given to the succubus in the first place. Handing Greater Teleport out like hotcakes wasn't very good or the game. Also, the succubus is now worth 400 XP, meaning that one succubus would be a fair fight for 4 PCs with 100 XP each (of course, you're not supposed to fight a solitary succubus). Succubi have apparently been demoted, which explains their lack of fifty different freaking abilities, resistances, etc.
Outsider monsters really did have too many SLAs.
I suspect that everything has had resistances toned down.

4E monsters are meant to come in groups. One succubus? Kinda dull. One succubus, one leader-type monster, and two brutes? Suddenly you've got a whole lot of tactical options.

The basic weapon attacks will be covered by the basic weapon attack rules, not in the succubus' stat block. (Similarily, any special attacks like disarm will be covered in the general combat rules.) The succubus would get a basic attack, half her level plus dex (the already provided +8 beside Dexterity) with a bow. That +8, incidentally, is also her sneaking, her Atheltics (or whatever they replaced Tumble with), and her Thievery.

Charity
2008-04-17, 05:26 AM
Many of the points you make would be cleared up for you if you were to look at this http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221806
and perhaps if you were to wander around here http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=317
you might find some more data to base a view on...
Then again you might wish to simply decide to hate 4e from the onset, in which case pray continue to reiterate WTF in bold text and save yourself some time.

Oh and as Reel says above 1 succubus is an appropriate challenge for a first level party of 4 in 4e, as opposed to a level 7 party in 3e perhaps thats why they made them a tad weaker.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-17, 05:30 AM
None of the above changes the fact that 4E is all about removing options, because options are complicated, and we can't handle complicated. After all, the wizard in 3E was so broken because it had so many options, so we should clearly start playing a game with no options, to remove any possibility of brokenness.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-17, 05:34 AM
None of the above changes the fact that 4E is all about removing options, because options are complicated, and we can't handle complicated. After all, the wizard in 3E was so broken because it had so many options, so we should clearly start playing a game with no options, to remove any possibility of brokenness.

Eyeroll.

No, 4E has a shift from strategic to tactical, and from single monsters to multiple monsters. If you're going to run four monsters instead of one, they have to be simpler. You want to run a succubus, a bone devil, and two babau in a fight against PCs? You want to tell me how long each round takes to resolve, especially if you're really playing tactically?

(Of course, if you're really playing tactically, the demons can do stupid things like teleport away, wait for short-term buffs/debuffs to run out or have the succubus use Charm/Suggestion to get someone to heal them, and teleport back.)

4E removes some options from the succubus... because the succubus is lower-level. An encounter wouldn't have fewer options. It'd have a lot of tactical options (the succubus' abilities suddenly become a lot better when you pair her with a brute monster who can take advantage of succubus-messed-with PCs).

Charity
2008-04-17, 05:34 AM
No one is suggesting you cannot continue to play your broken mages rule 3e.
Feel free.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-17, 05:41 AM
Feel free to play 4E. Please refrain from making assumptions about my playstyle. I don't prefer 3E because mages are broken. I prefer 3E because 4E dumbs down the game, and removes options.

Perhaps I prefer a "strategic" game to a "tactical" one. I can't even begin to describe all the reasons I don't like 4E. In some cases literally.

Kizara
2008-04-17, 05:50 AM
Eyeroll.

No, 4E has a shift from strategic to tactical, and from single monsters to multiple monsters. If you're going to run four monsters instead of one, they have to be simpler. You want to run a succubus, a bone devil, and two babau in a fight against PCs? You want to tell me how long each round takes to resolve, especially if you're really playing tactically?

(Of course, if you're really playing tactically, the demons can do stupid things like teleport away, wait for short-term buffs/debuffs to run out or have the succubus use Charm/Suggestion to get someone to heal them, and teleport back.)

4E removes some options from the succubus... because the succubus is lower-level. An encounter wouldn't have fewer options. It'd have a lot of tactical options (the succubus' abilities suddenly become a lot better when you pair her with a brute monster who can take advantage of succubus-messed-with PCs).

I run games like this, and as a DM would have a field day with the example encounter. I also might throw in a level 8 evil cleric and/or wizard to really spice things up. Managing all of these monsters and abilities at once would be an exciting challenge for me.

I would make extensive use of buffing, crowd-control and have the monsters play strategically and maximise use of their save-or-X SLAs.


I generally don't have monsters run off, but I would certinally have a succubus TP out if injured or overpressed. She isn't willing to risk her life most probably. As for charming a PC to heal her? That sounds like a great idea.


For the record, my PCs love my DMing and I encourage optimization and heavy tactical thinking at my table. If you pick ad-willy abilities and play like a fool you are going to get rolled, and your party won't appreciate the TPK.


Assymetry, options, consistant rules for all aspects of the game (hp, abilities derived from types of HD, DCs determined by set calculations, same combat rules apply to PCs as monsters etc) are some of the main reasons I love DnD. 4E kills much of this.


The only thing I do like here is that succubuses are a bit lower CR, so they can be used a bit earlier in the game. I would like a 'lesser succubus" in my 3.5 games, to use as a non-violent evil outsider that is great for RPing and can progress my plot/provide unique encounter for PCs before level 5-7.

Likewise, I can use the current succubus as a greater, more advanced creature for more important or involving roles.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 06:20 AM
One thing I'd like to point out, the Charming kiss is actually useless.

What does it do? You can't attack her and you have to take hits for her if adjacent.

Solution: Don't be adjacent, especially since it doesn't limit your movement in any way.

Any PC hit by that ability just needs to move away and then the Succubus needs to keep following them around doing what the PC wants, not a good strategy.

And if you have multiple enemies? It doesn't say anything about not attacking the Succubus's allies. Worst ability ever in my mind.

Also, it has rules for keeping it constantly active, that's nice, but if an encounter ends with everyone dead except the charmed player, he just runs away. She can't control him unless she standard actions every round, and you'll overcome it half the time, so you just leave.

Swordguy
2008-04-17, 06:37 AM
Not to mention that a Succubus isn't generally a combat monkey in the first place. It's fairly trivial to have a Shapechanged Succubus use her Kiss ability on a major friendly NPC of the party, and bam! Now the Succubus can funnel information on the party from the NPC to her masters who can use said info against the PCs.

THAT'S how a Succubus should appear in a game. Almost never should they flit around a full-on battlefield, so the lack of battlefield skills isn't all that crippling. Her abilities are for behind-the-scenes seduction, corruption, and information-gathering. Not for combat.

Had you picked an actual combat-heavy critter to complain about it'd be a more reasonable argument. Sorry.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-17, 06:43 AM
Thanks for this post; you are reminding me why I have given up on D&D entirely.

No, no - it isn't 4th Edition which seems kind of cool.

It's people. People who, without seeing the whole picture compain about 4e endlessly.

The same regurgitated talking points over and over, combined with annoying snarkiness creates an atmosphere that has utterly destroyed my enjoyment of D&D, in all forms.

So, thanks again. I will have plenty of free time and money to go play EQ2 (or some other MMO) instead of D&D; which is better because it means I don't have to deal with annoying people as much.

Swordguy
2008-04-17, 06:48 AM
Thanks for this post; you are reminding me why I have given up on D&D entirely.

...truth...

So, thanks again. I will have plenty of free time and money to go play EQ2 (or some other MMO) instead of D&D; which is better because it means I don't have to deal with annoying people as much.

To be completely fair, you can substitute ANY talking point on the internet for "D&D" in your post and have the same result.

Charity
2008-04-17, 06:53 AM
Feel free to play 4E. .
Thank you I shall.

Please refrain from making assumptions about my playstyle. Nope I think I shall continue to make assumptions about you and indeed everyone, they are not exclusively bad or wrong. I shall however continue to not post my opinions as if they were fact.

I don't prefer 3E because mages are broken. I prefer 3E because 4E dumbs down the game, and removes options.
I do not agree. The unified mechanics of 3e get in the way, leading to tedious two hour two round battles, making things simple =/= dumbing things down.
It adds options to everyone but the full casters, but they are entitled to be the best at everything after all.

Ramos
2008-04-17, 06:57 AM
On 4E in general:

Non-combat abilities for monsters are gone.

4E has a shift from strategic to tactical, and from single monsters to multiple monsters. If you're going to run four monsters instead of one, they have to be simpler.
Then why remove their out of combat abilities? The in-combat abilities are not the biggest issue here. The biggest issue are the non-combat ones. Not even a single monster stat block has out of combat abilities so far. In addition, the options meant for combat have no or very little out of combat usability whatsoever. Take the succubus' kiss for example. All it does is have the victim shield the succubus from attacks. It doesn't help in social interaction, doesn't make the victim more friendly to the devil, nothing. Only combat functionality. Which bugs me.

You can't customise a monster without homebrewing it.
That is a second very important point. 4E doesn't have skill points and in addition monster skills are fixed-you can't customise a monster's skills. It also doesn't have monster feats so that option of monster customisability is gone. The statblocks are also missing any monster advancement rules. All in all, you can only customise if you homebrew a monster with new abilities because monsters don't have any options. At all.

Combat options for monsters have been removed, combat ability remains the same.
Yeah, this point bears repeating. Monster HP have increased all over. Their standard defences also have increased in most monsters we've seen so far. Special abilities, special qualities and more than a couple combat options have been removed. In the end, monster power is the same overall. It just depends more on static numbers than any kind of combat options-which is bad.






On the succubus:


Succubi have apparently been demoted, which explains their lack of fifty different freaking abilities, resistances, etc.
Not power-wise. Their hit points have been nearly tripled. Their defences have increased. Their ability scores are higher on average. However, they lost all the cool abilities they had. In effect, the new succubus is about as strong as the old one overall but it doesn't have any options. Besides, higher level creatures don't have more abilities either.


4E monsters are meant to come in groups. One succubus? Kinda dull. One succubus, one leader-type monster, and two brutes? Suddenly you've got a whole lot of tactical options.
But it doesn't work like that. Look at the flavor-they are temptresses, spies, assasins, scouts, emissaries. ALL of their roles, flavor-wise, pretty much demand solo appearances. So they won't have four more monsters along.


The succubus would get a basic attack, half her level plus dex (the already provided +8 beside Dexterity) with a bow. That +8, incidentally, is also her sneaking, her Atheltics (or whatever they replaced Tumble with), and her Thievery
That's the point, isn't it? The DM has to spend time to work out the basic numbers for each of those values if he wants to use them. If you have some skills in the stat block, why not all eight of them? Would it fill up too much space or something? As for the combat statistics/base attack thingy, why not put the numbers in the statblock?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 07:34 AM
Not to mention that a Succubus isn't generally a combat monkey in the first place. It's fairly trivial to have a Shapechanged Succubus use her Kiss ability on a major friendly NPC of the party, and bam! Now the Succubus can funnel information on the party from the NPC to her masters who can use said info against the PCs.

Which would be great if the kiss actually did anything. But unlike say, Charm Person in 3.5, the kiss in no way convinces an NPC that he should tell her anything. Or otherwise helps her outside of combat. This kiss is purely a combat disable, and not even a good one.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 07:42 AM
No, the Dominate is for that... you know, that dominate they have at will?

mostlyharmful
2008-04-17, 07:52 AM
I like the move back to standardized XP rewards for monsters. That's it. So much for single antagonists, out of combat encounters, out of combat skill use, out of combat tactics or really much of anything that isn't two teams of guys wailing on each other.:smallannoyed: :smallyuk:

Roderick_BR
2008-04-17, 08:02 AM
Sure, I prefer to read 400+ pages of rules to run a one and a half hour session twice every month :smallsmile:

Hunter Noventa
2008-04-17, 08:05 AM
No, the Dominate is for that... you know, that dominate they have at will?

The Dominate that lasts a single round? And is a standard action?

I have to agree, the relegation monsters to nothing but targets by removing all out of combat abilities is a little irritating. Either they really want to make a tabletop MMO, or they're leaving it to the DM to adjucate out of combat effects.

From the way things seem, it's more likely the former.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 08:06 AM
No, the Dominate is for that... you know, that dominate they have at will?

You mean the one that lasts one round, and is very obvious, and has a chance to fail each time?

Succubus: *Dominate* Tell me about X.
NPC: Blah Blah, hey what are you doing?
Succubus: *Redominate* fails on role
NPC: Guards! Help this lady is trying to control me! *Runs away*
Succubus: Well Crap.

lord_khaine
2008-04-17, 08:08 AM
i think i agree on most of what you are saying Ramos, i really dont like those new stat blocks, and think they are missing most of the things that made 3.5 monsters interesting, like damage reduction and regeneration.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 08:09 AM
It last until the end of the succubus' next turn... if it succeeds, you get them to be adjacent to you and they take the damage for you... I can't image that the will defense of some of the characters is going to be terribly high at 4th level or whatever level it is you fight them, and she attacks +12 vs Will. That's not going to fail too often, I don't think.

She's listed as a controller type... not an OMG I BLOWZ J00 UP type. She won't be alone.

mostlyharmful
2008-04-17, 08:13 AM
She's listed as a controller type... not an OMG I BLOWZ J00 UP type. She won't be alone.

And there in lies at least some of the problem. She's a Succubuss. She should be alone. That's her role and what her fluff says she should be good at. As is she can never go off on her own and do the things a succubuss should be able to. Cause she sucks at it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-17, 08:24 AM
And there in lies at least some of the problem. She's a Succubuss. She should be alone. That's her role and what her fluff says she should be good at. As is she can never go off on her own and do the things a succubuss should be able to. Cause she sucks at it.

So the problem is that this succubus is supposed to be a master manipulator, who sneaks into locations and takes control of people, so that's why she should only show up in a combat situation alone. Instead of, you know, taking control of people and using them to beat the stuffing out of the party, while she takes control of other party members....

Yeah...

The unfailing logic of 4e hate wins again.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 08:26 AM
It last until the end of the succubus' next turn... if it succeeds, you get them to be adjacent to you and they take the damage for you... I can't image that the will defense of some of the characters is going to be terribly high at 4th level or whatever level it is you fight them, and she attacks +12 vs Will. That's not going to fail too often, I don't think.

Heres the problem, she has no way of forcing th charmed creature to be adjacent to her.

So we have:

1) She's alone. Everyone delays actions to go right after the charmed PC, Charmed PC moves away, everyone else attacks succubus without worrying about the charm.

2) She's not alone. Everyone delays actions to go after charmed PC. Charmed PC attacks a different enemy then the Succubus, everyone else attacks the Succubus or other enemies whichever they want, with no worries about hurting the PC.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 08:27 AM
So the problem is that this succubus is supposed to be a master manipulator, who sneaks into locations and takes control of people, so that's why she should only show up in a combat situation alone. Instead of, you know, taking control of people and using them to beat the stuffing out of the party, while she takes control of other party members....

I believe the primary complaint is that:

She has no way of taking control of anybody ever!

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-17, 08:29 AM
Unless of course, there are rules that we haven't seen yet, that might, perhaps, have special rules and definitions of a "charm"-type attack.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 08:35 AM
Heres the problem, she has no way of forcing th charmed creature to be adjacent to her.

So we have:

1) She's alone. Everyone delays actions to go right after the charmed PC, Charmed PC moves away, everyone else attacks succubus without worrying about the charm.

2) She's not alone. Everyone delays actions to go after charmed PC. Charmed PC attacks a different enemy then the Succubus, everyone else attacks the Succubus or other enemies whichever they want, with no worries about hurting the PC.

1) You don't know the mechanics of delay, maybe they don't work that way.
2) You don't know the mechanics of "Charm", maybe it doesnt work that way. Maybe it's not just "charm person" where the person treats her as favorable, but more like dominate and the succubus can make them do whatever she wants. Kiss + Dominate would be a potent combo for a monster in the back, being the controller type and all.

Sure, in the context of 3.5, this succubus probally wouldn't do well. But it's not a 3.5 stat block. Even the "fluff" of the succubus has changed, the stat block says that they serve other devils as scouts, infiltrators and assassins. Not as bodyguards.

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 08:43 AM
but the point remians is that she's lost all her non combat abilites. IF the aim of 4th ed is to streamline and speed things up, why aren't the relevent stats on her sheet? As pointed out, even combat relevent things are missing, like BAB.


THAT'S how a Succubus should appear in a game. Almost never should they flit around a full-on battlefield, so the lack of battlefield skills isn't all that crippling. Her abilities are for behind-the-scenes seduction, corruption, and information-gathering. Not for combat.

but.... she hasn't got any powers that work outside of combat. All she's got is bluff and diplomacy. She can generate a magical complusion with an effect that lasts a mighty 6 seconds, and she can stop a person attacking her and willing to stop melee attacks at her. Neither of those effects actaully help her when she is not on the battlefield. One doesn't last long enough to help and the other doesn't work out of combat.

Now, if thier was a seperate out of combat block added under the combat stuff that included all the skills and abilites that aren't used in combat, I'd be happier. but as far as i can tell, you'd need to cross reference against a generic table every time you want to make a spot roll for her, or a hide roll.

In short, almost none of the infomation that help you when working with her out of combat is located on her sheet, if it even exists. To attempt the sort manipulations she's supposed to do, the DM has to either make stuff up as he goes along or locate the relevent infomation in another location, possibly even another book.

wasn't one of the aims of 4e to reduce the DM's workload?


edit: I'm really arguing for arguments sake here, since I readly admit that I havn't been keeping up to date with the 4th ed teasers.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 08:45 AM
What about the Kiss being made permanent by kissing the subject once per day? Or the shapechange at will? Those both seem to work out of combat...

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 08:49 AM
but the kiss dosn't have any complusion effects outside of combat. I'll admit that the shapchange is useful, but that just means she doesn't need tomake disugise rolls.

Muyten
2008-04-17, 08:50 AM
On 4E in general:


You can't customise a monster without homebrewing it.



I urge you to wait untill friday to make any kind og arguments about that.
That is the day Wizards are revealing an excerpt from the 4E DMG about how to customize monsters...you know the thing you're saying you can't do in 4E.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 08:51 AM
So in other words, unless the ability with a listed description of what it does also does something else way more powerful that isn't included in the description, the Succubus charms are useless.

1) If Charming Kiss is a permanent dominate effect, wouldn't it say that? And why the 1 round dominate?
2) Is Charm (that thing attacked to bother her attacks) more likely to be special descriptor that also adds other effects that aren't referenced in her stat block, or is it just s descriptor to help determine what is immune to it like the Charm descriptor in 3.5?

The fact is, you a stretching because you want to find some way for the kiss to actually be useful out of combat. You want 4E to be perfect and so you are unwilling to admit that maybe they just didn't think about one little ability for one little monster well enough.

I have no complaints about the other creatures presented. I just wish they had a clause in there: "The charmed creature attempts to stay adjacent to the Succubus and does not attack her allies."

Or perhaps: "The Kissed Creature views the Succubus as an ally/friend."

Seriously though, the kiss doesn't do anything. It blocks attacks against her, that's it. She can't even realistically make the kiss permanent because the logical move after combat ends is to run away from her. Hell that's the logical mover during combat. Kissing someone does nothing to stop them from running to the nearest City and begging the guards for protection.


Now, if thier was a seperate out of combat block added under the combat stuff that included all the skills and abilites that aren't used in combat, I'd be happier. but as far as i can tell, you'd need to cross reference against a generic table every time you want to make a spot roll for her, or a hide roll.

I'm not sure about Hide, but I am of the understanding that Spot is merged with Listen under "Perception" and that's at the top of her Statblock.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 08:57 AM
Wrong.

I'm saying that the Dominate she has at will can keep them close to her, so long as she does it every round. And as long as they are close to her, the PC will be taking all the damage, and that PC can't attack the succubus. Sucks for him.

Tactics. Use them.

Out of combat? You shouldnt know she's a succubus. She'll be shapchanged and working as a spy. Blow a kiss to a guard (oops, now he can't attack her) and then Dominate him to let her into the private chambers where state secrets are held.

This is the box:

------
| 3.x |
------

Start thinking outside of the box.

Starsinger
2008-04-17, 09:06 AM
Both Charming Kiss and Dominate have the charm descriptor. There are probably rules for charm effects in general, "A creature under a charm effect considers you as a friend." Sort of like how there is for 3.5
Charm

A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend. Huh. Would you look at that. It's like that's what a descriptor is for. So you can have a whole bunch of abilities with the same effect without reprinting the rule every. single. time.

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 09:06 AM
the stat block says that they serve other devils as scouts, infiltrators and assassins. Not as bodyguards.

just spotted this.

skills that would be useful in these roles:

scouts: spot, listen, hide, move silently

infiltrators (assuming we take this as undercover agent): Spot, listen, hide, move silently, Bluff, Diplomacy, open locks, Shearch. disguise should be here but her ploymorph covers that.

assassins: spot, listen, hide, move silently, Climb, Jump, Open locks, shearch, tumble, balnece.


now, of these skills, she has, listed on her sheet, exactly two of them. some of these skills are trained only, but that may not be true in 4th ed, so we'll discount that.

so, she's not got any skils that would help her in entering a building, she;s not got any skills that allow her to remain unseen, she's not good at detecting anything that people are trying to hide, and she's really got any quick use assasin moves (though that can be combated by extra equipment).


Of coruse, she'll have base abilites in these areas, but is their any reason why these are not listed on the sheet? a line saying 'dex skills: +6' (or whatever it would be), would cover jump, tumble, balence, etc.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:08 AM
I'm saying that the Dominate she has at will can keep them close to her, so long as she does it every round. And as long as they are close to her, the PC will be taking all the damage, and that PC can't attack the succubus. Sucks for him.

So you advocate using your standard action every round to maintain a stalemate as long as you keep succeeding? And when you fail you take damage. And in the mean time, as long as they stand far away, you have to choose between having the dominate attack or stand next to you.

And you still fail the dominate. So what you have is a strategy to drag out her inevitable defeat by a few rounds.


Out of combat? You shouldnt know she's a succubus. She'll be shapchanged and working as a spy. Blow a kiss to a guard (oops, now he can't attack her) and then Dominate him to let her into the private chambers where state secrets are held.

And then one round later, he'll call for more guards (assuming for some reason he was the only guard for something important) because the Dominate effect wore off. And then she gets butchered by the guards.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:09 AM
Couldn't answer that one, Storm. I would guess that she uses other methods (shape change and dominate) to get access to things... not the sneaky rogue type, more the chameleon that kills you in your sleep.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:12 AM
So you advocate using your standard action every round to maintain a stalemate as long as you keep succeeding? And when you fail you take damage. And in the mean time, as long as they stand far away, you have to choose between having the dominate attack or stand next to you.

And you still fail the dominate. So what you have is a strategy to drag out her inevitable defeat by a few rounds.



And then one round later, he'll call for more guards (assuming for some reason he was the only guard for something important) because the Dominate effect wore off. And then she gets butchered by the guards.

It's not a stalemate, as she isnt alone. She takes one person (possibly the big dumb fighter) out of combat while her allies tear into the rest of the forces.

Who says he knows he was dominated? We have nothing indicating that a person knows when a power was used on them.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:14 AM
Both Charming Kiss and Dominate have the charm descriptor. There are probably rules for charm effects in general, "A creature under a charm effect considers you as a friend." Sort of like how there is for 3.5 Huh. Would you look at that. It's like that's what a descriptor is for. So you can have a whole bunch of abilities with the same effect without reprinting the rule every. single. time.

Except that Charm spells in 3.5 only make you see that person as a friend if they say they do, because Typically does X is just an example mechanism. descriptors never add an additional effect to an ability that isn't described in it, because that would be a bad design. Because then you would have to look up something else in a different book every time you wanted to use any ability. Descriptors describe how something is done, not what is done.

EvilElitest
2008-04-17, 09:15 AM
None of the above changes the fact that 4E is all about removing options, because options are complicated, and we can't handle complicated. After all, the wizard in 3E was so broken because it had so many options, so we should clearly start playing a game with no options, to remove any possibility of brokenness.

Hey i protest. 4E is doing what is best for us. Because 4E is right, D&D shouldn't be limited only to smart people. The game should be open to simplicity. You elitists with your big ideas. You want complicated, you should have real life.

from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:18 AM
I'm suprised it took till page 2 to get you to post here with your unbiased opinion on 4E, EE.

That being said, we honestly -don't- know all the mechanics, and basing everything off of a skewed 3rd edition viewpoint is going to make everything seem unfavorable.

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 09:18 AM
indeed, but she would still need to be sharp eyed/eared, in order to spot vital clues/ overhear passwords, some abilty to open locks, to get into safes, etc (I.e. things that are normally kept shut), and prefferably some abiltiy to tell a lie with magical backing that will last long enough for you get off the scene. her dominate person abilty lasts six seconds.

six.

she has to activly devote a lot of time to using it (standard action), and the target has a chance to save agianst it, meaning that the long you need to use it for, the higher the chance you'll fluff the roll and the guard can summon help/foil you're plans, etc.

in short, if the dominate person lasted, for, say, a few minuates or a hour, I'd aggree she's be an effective infiltrator.


edit: that is true enough, sam. but hey, flame wars are FUN!:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:18 AM
It's not a stalemate, as she isnt alone. She takes one person (possibly the big dumb fighter) out of combat while her allies tear into the rest of the forces.

If she isn't alone then they kill her allies, and the Big Dumb Fighter doesn't have to block attacks for her allies.


Who says he knows he was dominated? We have nothing indicating that a person knows when a power was used on them.

He knows when he is dominated because when something takes control of your mind, forces you to do things you would never do, and then fades away, you know that you were mindcontrolled.

@ Stormbringer, you are missing something about 4E, Spot/Listen are blended under Perception, which is in her Statblock up by Init.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:19 AM
He knows when he is dominated because when something takes control of your mind, forces you to do things you would never do, and then fades away, you know that you were mindcontrolled.

Could you show me in a Fourth Edition rule book where it states that, please?

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 09:25 AM
okay then, suggest a mind control system that can leave the target unaware that it's happening/ has happened.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:25 AM
Could you show me in a Fourth Edition rule book where it states that, please?

See this is my point. You'd rather invent crazy rules which make no sense (You don't realize that your actions aren't under your control even after the effect wears off, all Dominates with a duration of one round are actually completely alter your memory to make you a willing slave of whomever dominated you.) Then admit that WotC screwed up.

Given WotC history, that's a bit delusional. Is it more likely that dominates erase your memories? or that WotC didn't plan on Succubuses using their abilities outside of combat?

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:29 AM
See this is my point. You'd rather invent crazy rules which make no sense (You don't realize that your actions aren't under your control even after the effect wears off, all Dominates with a duration of one round are actually completely alter your memory to make you a willing slave of whomever dominated you.) Then admit that WotC screwed up.

Given WotC history, that's a bit delusional. Is it more likely that dominates erase your memories? or that WotC didn't plan on Succubuses using their abilities outside of combat?

I'm not inventing any crazy rules. I'm merely stating that maybe it doesn't work like you're describing it. In fact, I've always viewed mind control as a subtle controlling factor, not forcing someone to do something against their will... it's subtle suggestion that has magic behind it.

Edit: After reading the description of Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm), I see nothing to indicate that a person is aware of the control, unless they are doing something against its nature. Further, the description of a "Compulsion" spell gives no indication that you're aware of the control either.


Compulsion
A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.

Learnedguy
2008-04-17, 09:32 AM
Why are you guys limiting yourself to just the succubus:smallconfused: ?

here, knock yourselves out. (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/Monsters%20&%20More%20(4th%20Edition).pdf)

My favorite is the Balhannoth.

It would seem as 4e has decided to focus on making monsters fight the PC's in groups, and to make it easier to modify or homebrew existing monsters. Sounds like fun in my ears.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:33 AM
I'm not inventing any crazy rules. I'm merely stating that maybe it doesn't work like you're describing it. In fact, I've always viewed mind control as a subtle controlling factor, not forcing someone to do something against their will... it's subtle suggestion that has magic behind it.

They have something for that, it's called Suggestion. Then they have the crass force someone to do X type of magic. It's called Dominate.

Guess which of those two types a "Dominate" ability is going to be more like.

Seriously, Dominate sounds subtle to you? More or less so then Mindrape?

EDIT: So if someone starts ordering you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do (Otherwise why would they bother dominating you) you wouldn't notice anything was up?

Seriously, the presented situation has been, some attractive lady walks up, demands you start telling her stuff the king told you not to tell anyone or tells you to let her into the room the King said no one should enter, and you do, but you don't recognize anything as being different then normal?

I'm just a little bit skeptical about that.

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 09:35 AM
and as soon as the magic stops altering their mind, thier left wondering why they did X,Y or Z and why they thought it was a good idea. Since:

a) you'd dominate someone to do something that they wouldn't do willingly

and

b) they live in a word where magic is real.

they would be mighty supisious.

And, to base a arguement off a 3rd ed arrengement, Charm person is the 'subtle suggestion' spell. Dominate is, well, Dominate. It's the brute force end of mind control.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:37 AM
Again, Suggestion and Dominate may not be different in 4e. And assuming that the guard has spellcraft to identify the spell-like effect. Most people don't have spellcraft, they just know that "it's magic" not, "oh, I opened that door a little bit ago... and I let in someone who looks like my boss, but that couldnt have been my boss at this time of night. That must have been a dominate spell used on me, from a shapechanger!"

Normal people are not as saavy as adventurers.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 09:41 AM
Again, Suggestion and Dominate may not be different in 4e.

Again, you'd rather pretend that Domination is really really subtle, then just admit that her charming abilities are useless out of combat.

EDIT: Except that you don't need spellcraft to know when you did something you weren't supposed to do.

And if she looks like your boss, and you boss is allowed to go in the room, then she doesn't need to dominate you, because once again, dominate is only used when you want someone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 09:45 AM
Again, you'd rather pretend that Domination is really really subtle, then just admit that her charming abilities are useless out of combat.

Rather than being condescending, why don't you come up with some evidence. I've searched the SRD, nothing states a creature is aware of being dominated or knows its actions are being controlled by someone else.

You're basing it off of the word "dominate" in the power. Dominate is just another word control. Not forcible control.

You -do- need a spellcraft check to identify a spell or spell-like effect. You failed your save (or, in this case, your will defense was beaten)... that's your defense against "doing something you're not supposed to". You failed that, so now you do it... because it's a good idea, right?

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 09:52 AM
"oh, I opened that door a little bit ago... and I let in someone who looks like my boss, but that couldnt have been my boss at this time of night. That must have been a dominate spell used on me, from a shapechanger!"

.....

but why would you bother with a dominate spell in that situation? you'd just bluff that one.

guard: boss? what you doing back here at this time?
boss: Turns out that left some paperwork i needed. Could you let me in? (roll)
guard: sure.


the sort of situation where you'd need magical complusion is:

guard: boss? what you doing trying to get into the secure lock up at this hour?
Boss: er.... we need to make copies of the legers, in case of fire.
Guard:but don't we already have copies?
boss: no, that's why I'm making them. Now since you're here, could you open the safe for me?
Guard: don't you have your key?
Boss: er..no, it's in my other coat.
Guard:you came here to make copies of the legers after midnight and didn't bring a key?
Boss: just open the safe (dominate)
Guard:...sure.


see? when the guard snaps out of it, he'll be faced with a person acting supiously, and his actions to help him/her without a clear reason.

Mewtarthio
2008-04-17, 09:54 AM
WotC has already posted their design philosophy on monsters. Namely, they are cutting back on non-combat abilities, because they think monsters exist to be killed and non-combat abilities just confuse DMs. I personally hate this philosophy, but I'm not going to deny its existence.

That being said, the fact that the Charm effect can be extended indefinately suggests that the designers at least considered it having value outside of combat. I'd reccommend houseruling that anyone under the effect of her Charming Kiss is charmed as per charm person.

Ramos
2008-04-17, 10:15 AM
Namely, they are cutting back on non-combat abilities, because they think monsters exist to be killed
Translation: If they're fodder, why should we bother to do a better job.


and non-combat abilities just confuse DMs.
Translation: it takes more playtesting to make those abilities work and we don't want to spend time to do it.

Charity
2008-04-17, 10:17 AM
Rather than being condescending, why don't you come up with some evidence. I've searched the SRD, nothing states a creature is aware of being dominated or knows its actions are being controlled by someone else.

You're basing it off of the word "dominate" in the power. Dominate is just another word control. Not forcible control.

You -do- need a spellcraft check to identify a spell or spell-like effect. You failed your save (or, in this case, your will defense was beaten)... that's your defense against "doing something you're not supposed to". You failed that, so now you do it... because it's a good idea, right?

You know what Sam, leave em to it mate, if they want to be negative about something they've yet to see fine. We'll all play 4e when it comes out and wave em all a fond farewell.
For those of you with an open enough mind to bother to look at the preview material before you pile hate onto something because it is new
looky here someone has kindly done the leg work for you http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221806
For the rest of you


"Good-bye-ee, good-bye-ee,
Wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eye-ee,
Tho' it's hard to part I know,
I'll be tickl-ed to death to go.
Don't cry-ee, don't sigh-ee,
There's a silver lining in the sky-ee,
Bonsoir, old thing, cheer-i-o, chin, chin,
Nap-poo, too-dle-oo,
Good-bye-ee."

and now back to you regular scheduled neophobia and book burning.

Torebo
2008-04-17, 10:20 AM
now, of these skills, she has, listed on her sheet, exactly two of them. some of these skills are trained only, but that may not be true in 4th ed, so we'll discount that.

so, she's not got any skils that would help her in entering a building, she;s not got any skills that allow her to remain unseen, she's not good at detecting anything that people are trying to hide, and she's really got any quick use assasin moves (though that can be combated by extra equipment).


Of coruse, she'll have base abilites in these areas, but is their any reason why these are not listed on the sheet? a line saying 'dex skills: +6' (or whatever it would be), would cover jump, tumble, balence, etc.

I think what you're looking for is located at the bottom of her Stat Block, where it lists all her stats and the mods next to them. Every other 4E monster stat block I've seen has these numbers at the bottom with mods (1/2 level + mod) calculated next to them, and sometimes a few skills with different (always higher, I think, not that I've examined them closely) bonuses above. I would presume these represent "trained" skills or racial bonuses, something to that effect.

Sure, it's not right up front at the top like 3.X's BAB/Grapple/etc was, but this is the same sort of thing, no? They lay out specific things that the monster is better at than the base numbers provide, and the base numbers account for something else. Someone earlier in the thread was complaining about having to cross-reference a table every time their monster did something outside their proscribed attacks, but I don't think that's actually the case.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-17, 10:21 AM
Symptom: Irrational hatred of 4e
Probable Cause: Depression and feelings of loss, caused by the end of the 3e Era
Defense Mechanism: Displacement

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 10:49 AM
and now back to you regular scheduled neophobia and book burning.

Neophobia... is that how Agent Smith feels by the end of the Matrix?

SpikeFightwicky
2008-04-17, 11:16 AM
Neophobia... is that how Agent Smith feels by the end of the Matrix?

No, I bet he just feels cheapened by the sequels like the rest of us...(nevertheless, awesome pun!)

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 11:31 AM
I think what you're looking for is located at the bottom of her Stat Block, where it lists all her stats and the mods next to them. Every other 4E monster stat block I've seen has these numbers at the bottom with mods (1/2 level + mod) calculated next to them, and sometimes a few skills with different (always higher, I think, not that I've examined them closely) bonuses above. I would presume these represent "trained" skills or racial bonuses, something to that effect.

Sure, it's not right up front at the top like 3.X's BAB/Grapple/etc was, but this is the same sort of thing, no? They lay out specific things that the monster is better at than the base numbers provide, and the base numbers account for something else. Someone earlier in the thread was complaining about having to cross-reference a table every time their monster did something outside their proscribed attacks, but I don't think that's actually the case.



you know, i think you're right about the skill bonuses being thier. my bad, I Apologise. Thier even in a logical place. That'll teach me to open me mouth without thinking.


and now back to you regular scheduled neophobia and book burning.

we're not neophobic, we're.....er, my greek fails me, what's the word for unknown?

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 11:35 AM
Xenophobic? :smallwink:

Keld Denar
2008-04-17, 11:36 AM
What makes anyone think that is a completed stat block? Most of what we've seen of 4th ed include primarily combat mechanics. Why? Because combat mechanics are the things that require the most effort, and are the primary difference between the old and the new.

As far as skills, I'm under the impression that the difference between trained and untrained skills is simply an additional modifier. They can't go giving every monster every skill, just like in 3.5 fighters don't have balance, tumble, or spot, even though there are clearly fighter archtypes that are very proficient. If they give everything to everyone, its like giving nothing to everyone.

I'm still waiting for the sky to fall from back when 2nd ed came out and everyone complained about the loss of monks, assassins, and half orcs (OH NO, THEY BE STEALIN MAH OPTIONS!). If it hasn't fallen yet, I'm not gonna keep holding my breath for it.

(thankfully there wasn't quite the medium then for a few paranoid individuals to spread panic accross the masses!)

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 11:43 AM
Xenophobic? :smallwink:

does that actaully mean unknown, and was hijacked to mean 'foringers'?

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-17, 11:49 AM
Tetraphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia) perhaps?

Torebo
2008-04-17, 11:52 AM
you know, i think you're right about the skill bonuses being thier. my bad, I Apologise. Thier even in a logical place. That'll teach me to open me mouth without thinking.

Eh, don't feel bad, it didn't occur to me that you could extrapolate attacks/skill checks out of that block of numbers until someone else outright stated "a ranged attack at the +x, listed above" it earlier in the thread.

...as a side note, it seems like I'm in the minority on the internet (yet again) who just looked at the succubus preview and said "hey, cool, succubi are Neat".

Morty
2008-04-17, 12:01 PM
...as a side note, it seems like I'm in the minority on the internet (yet again) who just looked at the succubus preview and said "hey, cool, succubi are Neat".

Well, this is the Internet, which means the place where people debate endlessly about seemingly minor things.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 12:01 PM
does that actaully mean unknown, and was hijacked to mean 'foringers'?

I actually meant it as fear of things "Strange" and "different" ... not fear of foreigners. My apologies if it caused offense.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 12:03 PM
Because combat mechanics are the things that require the most effort, and are the primary difference between the old and the new.

Yes, because the world settings, such as the Forgotten Realms, racial fluff, and planar geography haven't changed a bit. Oh, wait a minute... :smallbiggrin:

Storm Bringer
2008-04-17, 12:16 PM
Oh, GOD, no. thier was no offence.
i was just questioning the roots of the word, i.e. "what does 'xeno' actaully mean?". My apologies to you for the bad phrasing.

Mewtarthio
2008-04-17, 12:27 PM
What makes anyone think that is a completed stat block? Most of what we've seen of 4th ed include primarily combat mechanics. Why? Because combat mechanics are the things that require the most effort, and are the primary difference between the old and the new.

I'd like to believe that. I really would. Unfortunately, they've already laid out their new design philosophy of ignoring out-of-combat stuff. See here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a):


Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done.

Keld Denar
2008-04-17, 12:30 PM
Yes, because the world settings, such as the Forgotten Realms, racial fluff, and planar geography haven't changed a bit. Oh, wait a minute... :smallbiggrin:

Setting and flavor are all mutable and malliable. One DM in the Realms may want his orcs to wield falcheons, one DM in Ebberon may also want his orcs to wield falcheons, while a 3rd DM also in Ebberon may want his orcs to wield Katanananananas. What difference does it make? A point of damage vs a point of crit threat either way. Mechanically minor changes for hugely modified flavor. No body is pigeonholing you into using new cosmology. I personlly like the Great Wheel system, and as such would probably keep it in a game I run, where-as another DM might choose to go with a simple bi-axial system and another HAS no cosomology, and things that cease to be forever cease to be, and outsiders are more aspect of natury. All very mutable at the whim of the DM.

That's one of the things I actually REALLY like about 4e from a DMs PoV. Creating new monsters will be fun and easy. Just pick a couple abilities from Column A, a couple from Column B, and one or two from Column C, slap on a name and a discription and BAM, new monster. Advance up or down in power (attack rolls, hp, etc) to suite your party and you have a new and interesting adventure concept as your players first encounter these new foes, determine their motives and capabilities, and eventually save the world from being over run by something you threw together with 30-40 minutes of planning, the majority of which was spent coming up with a cool enough NAME to call these things. No more convoluted monster creation system with bogus challenge rating system giving a false pretense to what's "fair" or not. Trust me, I play Living Greyhawk, I KNOW what kind of nasty stuff people have come up with that's nearly impossible, yet completely CR appropriate.

I do have some reservations, but I'm confident that my skill and experience as a player and DM will allow me to adapt and create characters and encounters that are fun for all involved.

PS...The sky is falling, pass it on!

Artanis
2008-04-17, 12:31 PM
I think "Xeno" means different or alien (NOT ET "alien"). Like, it's not unknown so much as it's different from you.

So people who are xenophobic about 4e aren't afraid of what we don't know about it, but rather they're irrationally afraid of what we do know about it. Some of them are rational about it, but many are not.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 12:33 PM
I think "Xeno" means different or alien (NOT ET "alien"). Like, it's not unknown so much as it's different from you.

So people who are xenophobic about 4e aren't afraid of what we don't know about it, but rather they're irrationally afraid of what we do know about it. Some of them are rational about it, but many are not.

That does apply to some people around here, but not what I was intending. Thanks for clearing that up.

What -is- the fear of the unknown?

Wikipedia, here I come.

Starsinger
2008-04-17, 12:39 PM
I'd like to believe that. I really would. Unfortunately, they've already laid out their new design philosophy of ignoring out-of-combat stuff. See here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a):

Too often, we designers want to give our intelligent, high-level monsters a bunch of spell-like abilities—if not a bunch of actual spellcaster levels. Giving a monster detect thoughts or telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done.

Am I the only one who sees this as the designers saying to DMs "You're a big boy/girl/warforged you don't need us to hold your hand and tell you that pit fiends can telepathically communicate with their minions. If you want that to happen, go for it!"?

Like for the Succubus, if you want her charm to have out of combat applications give it to her. I mean do you actually roll in 3.5 to see if the King fails his will save vs. her charm person? If you want the king to be charmed, he's charmed.

Artanis
2008-04-17, 12:50 PM
Am I the only one who sees this as the designers saying to DMs "You're a big boy/girl/warforged you don't need us to hold your hand and tell you that pit fiends can telepathically communicate with their minions. If you want that to happen, go for it!"?
That's the way I see it too.

The quoted stuff will have absolutely zero effect on experienced DMs, but it will help new DMs by not forcing them to wade through stuff that will literally never get used.


Like for the Succubus, if you want her charm to have out of combat applications give it to her. I mean do you actually roll in 3.5 to see if the King fails his will save vs. her charm person? If you want the king to be charmed, he's charmed.
Agreed again. Many of the complaints regarding monster/NPC changes are people deliberately ignoring the fact that you can still use the "old-fashioned way" - which NOBODY actually used in practice - if you really want to.

Morty
2008-04-17, 12:56 PM
That's true, but the attitude remains annoying. I'd be cool with it if they said "we don't give those monsters or NPCs abilities players won't see using so that we save space in books" but instead they say "monsters don't exist until PCs get to them". Sure, PCs are the focus of the story, but geez, draw a line somewhere.

Artanis
2008-04-17, 01:06 PM
That's true, but the attitude remains annoying. I'd be cool with it if they said "we don't give those monsters or NPCs abilities players won't see using so that we save space in books" but instead they say "monsters don't exist until PCs get to them". Sure, PCs are the focus of the story, but geez, draw a line somewhere.
Not quite. It already works that way in 3e for mooks whose only purpose is to die anyways. Now be honest, do YOU really go out of your way to describe what the Third Goblin from the Left had for lunch? It works that way, it HAS worked that way, it will still work that way, and WotC is merely acknowledging it.

For important NPCs, on the other hand, they said nothing of the sort. They said, in fact, that important NPCs would work - gasp! shock! - the same way they did in 3e: they exist and are doing stuff when the PCs aren't around to see them.


tl;dr version:

NPCs work the exact same effing way they always have, WotC is just going ahead and acknowledging it this time around.

Trog
2008-04-17, 01:24 PM
Hmm... well being that she is a Controller it might be possible that her abilities can be sustained with a minor action like a lot of other wizard spells in 4e.

Bleen
2008-04-17, 01:32 PM
It isn't what they're saying.
It's how they're saying it. It comes off as flipping and uncaring, which is bad when you're explaining how you chose to design something.

Which is, honestly, been my main qualm with 4e. They've done a terrible job of explaining why/how they made the material, despite the material itself being at least decent, if not exceptional in quality.

Rutee
2008-04-17, 01:38 PM
but the point remians is that she's lost all her non combat abilites. IF the aim of 4th ed is to streamline and speed things up, why aren't the relevent stats on her sheet? As pointed out, even combat relevent things are missing, like BAB.

I'll agree this is problematic, but it's not for the reason you're thinking. The loss of non-combat mechanics is bad because they're /adding social mechanics/. That's one place that it''d be /fun/ to contest a Succubus over, I should think. The lack of non-combat is only bad given this. Really, how likely are you to need the non-combat abilities codified? Make it up!

Artanis
2008-04-17, 01:39 PM
It always came off to me as being said in an excited, "hey, this is pretty cool!" sort of way, and not flippant or uncaring.


Edit: addendum

Also IMO, they've done a good job of explaining why they're doing things. Normally, it comes down to the fact that the way something worked in 3e sucked hardcore, so they made (or tried to make) it work well in 4e...just not said that way, but rather in the "hey, this is pretty cool!" attitude I mentioned above.

Bleen
2008-04-17, 01:56 PM
Well, I was more referring to the monster design philosophy.
"Monsters do not have out of combat abilities because those do not matter" is a bad way to say things to your customer who previously had those things; "Monsters do not have out of combat abilities because we feel the DM should be able to rule in those things as he or she sees fit without the need for hard-coded rules" is a good way to say things.

But that's not what they're saying.
As much as I like how 4e is turning out, it helps to take what they say at face value, and not contrive hidden, more "positive" meanings from them. Occam's Razor and all that. If anything, one should be looking beyond the "positive-sounding" statements to see what those are really trying to say behind the "This is cool" hype.

Morty
2008-04-17, 01:58 PM
NPCs work the exact same effing way they always have, WotC is just going ahead and acknowledging it this time around.

Yep, preety much. But why did they have to put it in a way that makes D&D look like designed for mindless hack'n'slash?
And they "hey, it's preety cool" attitude annoys me as well. I don't want 4ed to be "cool", I want it to work and make sense. It looks like it more or less will, but WoTC are losing me in their adversiting material. Come to think about it, good deal of my compliants about 4ed come less from material itself, but from WoTC's way of presenting it.

Artanis
2008-04-17, 02:08 PM
Well, I was more referring to the monster design philosophy.
"Monsters do not have out of combat abilities because those do not matter" is a bad way to say things to your customer who previously had those things; "Monsters do not have out of combat abilities because we feel the DM should be able to rule in those things as he or she sees fit without the need for hard-coded rules" is a good way to say things.

But that's not what they're saying.
As much as I like how 4e is turning out, it helps to take what they say at face value, and not contrive hidden, more "positive" meanings from them. Occam's Razor and all that. If anything, one should be looking beyond the "positive-sounding" statements to see what those are really trying to say behind the "This is cool" hype.


Yep, preety much. But why did they have to put it in a way that makes 4ed look like designed for mindless hack'n'slash?
And they "hey, it's preety cool" attitude annoys me as well. I don't want 4ed to be "cool", I want it to work and make sense. It looks like it more or less will, but WoTC are losing me in their adversiting material. Come to think about it, good deal of my compliants about 4ed come less from material itself, but from WoTC's way of presenting it.
I guess we're all going to have to agree to disagree then, because I'm not getting ANY of this stuff from what they're saying.


I see them saying that they're removing irrelevant stuff, not that they're removing out-of-combat stuff.

I see them saying positive things, not lying through their teeth with the intention of bending us over and shoving a running chainsaw up our rears.

I see them saying that they're making it easier for new DMs to learn to DM, rather than making vast experience a prerequisite to a non-craptacular campaign.

I see them saying that they're going to make classes equally useful in all phases of the game and thus letting everybody have fun the whole time - which means making everybody at least slightly useful in combat - rather than sticking to the tried-and-true formula of balancing around EVERYBODY being bored silly half the time, but at different times.


Neither of you see it this way, so I guess we aren't going to find any middle ground, are we?

Morty
2008-04-17, 02:15 PM
Neither of you see it this way, so I guess we aren't going to find any middle ground, are we?

Not if you accuse us of not seeing good stuff they do. As I mentioned above, many of 4ed design decisions are actually good, it's just that WoTC presents them in an often stupid way. If you want to see me as deluded hater instead, though, go right ahead.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-17, 02:20 PM
Does no one remember rituals? The out of combat spells mentioned before?

Remember, the Balor's Wish ritual isn't in his statblock: more than likely listed after it. Since it won't be possible to use in combat.

Artanis
2008-04-17, 02:33 PM
Not if you accuse us of not seeing good stuff they do. As I mentioned above, many of 4ed design decisions are actually good, it's just that WoTC presents them in an often stupid way. If you want to see me as deluded hater instead, though, go right ahead.
Yeah, I definitely got carried away there :smalleek: . I don't see you as a deluded hater, and I apologize.


To try the statement again...

All of WotC's statements you're seeing as bad, I'm not seeing that way, and all of WotC's statements I'm seeing as good, you're not seeing that way.

Morty
2008-04-17, 02:42 PM
I don't see you as a deluded hater, and I apologize.

No problem.



All of WotC's statements you're seeing as bad, I'm not seeing that way, and all of WotC's statements I'm seeing as good, you're not seeing that way.

Still not quite true. The first half of the sentence is correct, but I'm not seeing all the statements you find positive negative. The statements themselves have often very positive meaning for reasons you mentioned, but their form often drives me away. And even sometimes WoTC manages to produce a statement that not only means a positive thing in 4ed, but also isn't presented in an overhyped way.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 03:22 PM
NPCs work the exact same effing way they always have, WotC is just going ahead and acknowledging it this time around.

Not exactly. What you describe is one particular style of DM'ing, and there are others. However, WOTC's writing is asserting that this is the only style of DM'ing. Not that this is a bad thing per se, but it strikes me that 4E is heavily aimed towards one particular playstyle, and not very enabling to other styles. People who use this style will never notice that, and it's a popular style. The result is, however, that people who do not use this style will likely not be satisfied with 4E.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 03:26 PM
if they want to be negative about something they've yet to see fine. We'll all play 4e when it comes out and wave em all a fond farewell.

This ****ing pisses me off. Every time I come into a 4E thread, pointing out even the slightest problem (IE the Succubus has no real non-combat abilities) automatically makes me a reactionary evil horrible person. I wish you 4E is the greatest harpers would just once in your lives admit that maybe someone else thinks before they talk, probably more then you.

Am I looking forward to 4E, somewhat. Can I see some of it's advantages, Yes. Am I going to play it and enjoy doing so, of course. So why is it that pointing out that Domination is evident to the dominated party after it wears off automatically makes me a hidebound 3.5 gronard? It doesn't. Stop accusing everyone with a damn problem of being an idiot who hasn't read the material presented.

Artanis
2008-04-17, 03:30 PM
Not exactly. What you describe is one particular style of DM'ing, and there are others. However, WOTC's writing is asserting that this is the only style of DM'ing. Not that this is a bad thing per se, but it strikes me that 4E is heavily aimed towards one particular playstyle, and not very enabling to other styles. People who use this style will never notice that, and it's a popular style. The result is, however, that people who do not use this style will likely not be satisfied with 4E.
The thing of it is, they aren't removing any of the old options. The most commonly-quoted one I see is NPCs now using different rules than PCs, but 4e will still have rules in place for using PC rules for monsters (seemingly working even better, actually).

Do you have a particular complaint about playstyle? They might not've put in something like the NPC-using-PC-rules thing, but on the other hand, they might have.

Rutee
2008-04-17, 03:30 PM
Not exactly. What you describe is one particular style of DM'ing, and there are others. However, WOTC's writing is asserting that this is the only style of DM'ing. Not that this is a bad thing per se, but it strikes me that 4E is heavily aimed towards one particular playstyle, and not very enabling to other styles. People who use this style will never notice that, and it's a popular style. The result is, however, that people who do not use this style will likely not be satisfied with 4E.

What would this playstyle difference be, exactly? Because I'm someone who doesn't think antagonists by default exist just to be killed (Overcome, but not killed) and this is just ducky with me.

Morty
2008-04-17, 03:42 PM
This ****ing pisses me off. Every time I come into a 4E thread, pointing out even the slightest problem (IE the Succubus has no real non-combat abilities) automatically makes me a reactionary evil horrible person. I wish you 4E is the greatest harpers would just once in your lives admit that maybe someone else thinks before they talk, probably more then you.

Am I looking forward to 4E, somewhat. Can I see some of it's advantages, Yes. Am I going to play it and enjoy doing so, of course. So why is it that pointing out that Domination is evident to the dominated party after it wears off automatically makes me a hidebound 3.5 gronard? It doesn't. Stop accusing everyone with a damn problem of being an idiot who hasn't read the material presented.

Amen to that.

purepolarpanzer
2008-04-17, 04:04 PM
I think we can all agree on one thing.

We're tired of arguing.

Let's all jsut continue to play our respective games, and in a bit over a month we'll be able to argue with the facts.

Knowledge is power.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 04:14 PM
This ****ing pisses me off. Every time I come into a 4E thread, pointing out even the slightest problem (IE the Succubus has no real non-combat abilities) automatically makes me a reactionary evil horrible person. I wish you 4E is the greatest harpers would just once in your lives admit that maybe someone else thinks before they talk, probably more then you.

Am I looking forward to 4E, somewhat. Can I see some of it's advantages, Yes. Am I going to play it and enjoy doing so, of course. So why is it that pointing out that Domination is evident to the dominated party after it wears off automatically makes me a hidebound 3.5 gronard? It doesn't. Stop accusing everyone with a damn problem of being an idiot who hasn't read the material presented.

Quoted for truth.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 04:16 PM
I think we can all agree on one thing.

We're tired of arguing.

Let's all jsut continue to play our respective games, and in a bit over a month we'll be able to argue with the facts.

Knowledge is power.

I think if we were tired of arguing we wouldn't be arguing. So clearly we aren't.

Bleen
2008-04-17, 04:42 PM
This ****ing pisses me off. Every time I come into a 4E thread, pointing out even the slightest problem (IE the Succubus has no real non-combat abilities) automatically makes me a reactionary evil horrible person. I wish you 4E is the greatest harpers would just once in your lives admit that maybe someone else thinks before they talk, probably more then you.

Am I looking forward to 4E, somewhat. Can I see some of it's advantages, Yes. Am I going to play it and enjoy doing so, of course. So why is it that pointing out that Domination is evident to the dominated party after it wears off automatically makes me a hidebound 3.5 gronard? It doesn't. Stop accusing everyone with a damn problem of being an idiot who hasn't read the material presented.
Yes, YES. Thank you. Not every criticism is a mindless bash, and I dislike it when people who express legitimate concerns with the product we're getting get filed into the same camp as the people who cannot do anything but mindlessly hate.

On the subject of using DM Fiat to let monsters do things not listed in their statblock behind the scenes: I don't think anyone here is that stiff, but I do acknowledge the existence of a certain breed of player who would cry foul when the DM does that sort of thing. Not an argument for or against, just noting. :smallamused:

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:01 PM
That's all well and good, Chosen, but I still have not found a single thing that indicates the dominated party is immediately aware that they were subject to mind control in -any- 3.x book. Other people can determine that you're under control using a sense motive check. That's the -only- thing listed.

If, in your game, domination works that way, fine. But in other people's games they don't. I'm not calling you any names or accusing you of anything, but if you come in here playing the victim when you were obviously calling me out for "making things up", I'm going to call you on it.

Now, if you can find a source stating otherwise, I will concede the point, but as it stands, neither of us are wrong. Or right.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:05 PM
Now, if you can find a source stating otherwise, I will concede the point, but as it stands, neither of us are wrong. Or right.

How about this: IF YOU DO SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEVER DO, YOU WILL KNOW THAT SOMETHING WEIRD HAPPENED. Which is more likely:

"Man killing all those friends of mine was really weird after this total stranger told me to. But I did it, so it must have made sense, go about your business mam." Or "WTF, Guards!"

Starsinger
2008-04-17, 05:09 PM
How about this: IF YOU DO SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEVER DO, YOU WILL KNOW THAT SOMETHING WEIRD HAPPENED. Which is more likely:

"Man killing all those friends of mine was really weird after this total stranger told me to. But I did it, so it must have made sense, go about your business mam." Or "WTF, Guards!"

Y'mean...
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it. Like that?

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:12 PM
That would be an in-combat use.

If I dominate you to drink from your goblet, after I've covertly slipped poison into it... you still do it, and (assuming you don't die), did not do anything you wouldn't have done already.

What if I dominate you to stand and watch the sunset, you do so.. Meanwhile, all my ninjas are sneaking behind you because you're looking the other way.

Both are perfectly legal uses of Dominate. You follow the standard course of action, communicated to you telepathically. I don't even have to -say- it out loud.

You're using dominate like a blunt instrument, I'm using it like a surgeon's scalpel. Both can be effective, but a succubus is going to use it more like the scalpel.

But you still have not pointed to any rules that state it.

SRD, under the Skill of Sense Motive, specifically mentioning Dominate


Sense Enchantment

You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities.

And, yes, you get another saving throw if you do something against your nature. THAT is your attempt to "come to your senses". You don't automatically know you were manipulated.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 05:13 PM
Now, if you can find a source stating otherwise, I will concede the point, but as it stands, neither of us are wrong. Or right.

In second edition, most charm-related spells explicitly spelled out that people would remember what they were doing, and would likely resent the caster afterwards. However, in third edition, WOTC has made a point of explicitly removing any and all drawbacks and adverse results from spell effects, which would seem to include this; hence, it is no longer part of the spell description. Fourth edition does not appear to deviate from the philosophy that "abilities may never have drawbacks".

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:15 PM
Y'mean... Like that?

I mean that there is no compelling argument that after the effect wears off, you would somehow not realize that you performed actions you would not do unless magically compelled.

Why would someone who slaughtered their family, not realize after the effect ended that they were magically compelled. Replace slaughtering family with any other action that they would never do in real life.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:16 PM
In second edition, most charm-related spells explicitly spelled out that people would remember what they were doing, and would likely resent the caster afterwards. However, in third edition, WOTC has made a point of explicitly removing any and all drawbacks and adverse results from spell effects, which would seem to include this; hence, it is no longer part of the spell description. Fourth edition does not appear to deviate from the philosophy that "abilities may never have drawbacks".

Oh, I'm not saying you won't remember doing it. But, you don't have to be dominated into doing something completely against your nature... you could just be dominated to sit down and relax... Does that mean that you immediately know you've been dominated and must kill the caster?! No. Because you don't even know who the caster is, unless you have spellcraft.

EDIT - Again, chosen, you do not have to be dominated to do such obvious things. Dominate does not have to be hostile.

Starsinger
2008-04-17, 05:19 PM
Why would someone who slaughtered their family, not realize after the effect ended that they were magically compelled. Replace slaughtering family with any other action that they would never do in real life.

Ah! Now this, this I can see. If it's something grossly out of character then I can definately see it. But it if it's something like, "I should take an arrow for that pretty lady over there." then I can't really see that. Although, amusingly, the Succubus' "You, be my meatshield, dahling." ability falls under self destructive, yet works.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:21 PM
Dominate - You should go home and go to bed, you don't feel well.

Dominate - Those men just stole something, arrest them.

Dominate - Your shoes are untied, kneel down and tie them.

All three are valid telepathic dominate commands, assuming the target uses a similar language as you.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:22 PM
You follow the standard course of action, communicated to you telepathically. I don't even have to -say- it out loud.

Yes you do. You specifically have to say it aloud. As an instruction, with words.


And, yes, you get another saving throw if you do something against your nature. THAT is your attempt to "come to your senses". You don't automatically know you were manipulated.

That's if the dominate is still in effect. After it wears off, you don't have to make a saving throw to remember what actions you performed. You just remember them.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:24 PM
Yes you do. You specifically have to say it aloud. As an instruction, with words.


Wrong. You must speak for suggestion. Dominate is telepathic.

From the SRD, Dominate Person


You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:27 PM
Dominate - You should go home and go to bed, you don't feel well.

And six seconds later: "What was I thinking, I really need to stand guard."


Dominate - Those men just stole something, arrest them.

And six seconds later: "You don't have any stolen goods, my bad, go on your way."


Dominate - Your shoes are untied, kneel down and tie them.

And six seconds later: "Hey what are you doing trying to sneak past me?"


All three are valid telepathic dominate commands, assuming the target uses a similar language as you.

Too bad you can't use telepathic commands when you aren't telepathic.

EDIT: I misread the Common language part, that still doesn't help you when six seconds later he stops doing whatever it is you wanted and you have accomplished nothing.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:30 PM
Will you make up your mind? Are you arguing the 3e Dominate or the 4e dominate? Cause we don't know how the 4e dominate works yet, so you're just talkin out your rear.

Maybe you just need to maintain concentration, like the wizard's control spells. Or maybe you could just keep using it while the -other- succubus is accomplishing the mission.

But again, we don't know how the 4e dominate works, we only have the 3e as precedent, which goes against everything you have said about the target knowing they were dominated.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:32 PM
Will you make up your mind? Are you arguing the 3e Dominate or the 4e dominate? Cause we don't know how the 4e dominate works yet, so you're just talkin out your rear.

No, we do know how the 4E dominate works. It gives you control for one round. After which they know exactly what they did, and they won't continue to do something that they wouldn't do normally. That's why it has a duration of: 1 round instead of: Until the commanded action is completed.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:36 PM
No, we do know how the 4E dominate works. It gives you control for one round. After which they know exactly what they did, and they won't continue to do something that they wouldn't do normally. That's why it has a duration of: 1 round instead of: Until the commanded action is completed.

Here is the power:



(r) Dominate (standard; at-will) * Charm
Ranged 5; +12 vs. Will; the target is dominated until the end of the succubus’s next turn.

Until we know what "Dominated" means in 4e, we can only guess. As I said before, neither of us are wrong and neither of us are right.

As far as 3e dominate is concerned, you're playing it wrong and using it too bluntly. Subtle telepathic commands that nudge you in the right direction, and you have no idea you're being controlled... and unless you do something against your nature, you do not get another saving throw to throw off the effect. Sure, you still remember what happened, but the dominate commands can just make you do something completely inane that you wouldn't think a second thought about it.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:45 PM
As far as 3e dominate is concerned, you're playing it wrong and using it too bluntly. Subtle telepathic commands that nudge you in the right direction, and you have no idea you're being controlled... and unless you do something against your nature, you do not get another saving throw to throw off the effect. Sure, you still remember what happened, but the dominate commands can just make you do something completely inane that you wouldn't think a second thought about it.

3E dominate is useful, because it has a duration greater then one round. One round makes dominate crappy as hell for non-combat uses, because you can't force anyone to do much of anything, since they would stop doing it after 6 seconds.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 05:49 PM
3E dominate is useful, because it has a duration greater then one round. One round makes dominate crappy as hell for non-combat uses, because you can't force anyone to do much of anything, since they would stop doing it after 6 seconds.

Unless of course the entry for "dominate" says something like "Can be maintained as a move action" or whatever. It could just be that her attack only lasts one round cause it's in combat.

Who knows?

:smallsmile:

hamishspence
2008-04-17, 05:52 PM
if it can be done unobtrusively, somhow, it makes a handing trick for turning victims into criminals. Ones victim has commited crime, has no idea why, a little social manipulation could lead to person getting nastier.

However this would only work if spell can be cast without anyone noticing the caster.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 05:53 PM
Unless of course the entry for "dominate" says something like "Can be maintained as a move action" or whatever. It could just be that her attack only lasts one round cause it's in combat.

Or it could just be that it lasts as long as it says it lasts, which is one round.


Who knows?

Anyone who thinks with their brain instead of wishing things where true because they really really want the dominate to be useful Outside of Combat even though WotC has specifically stated that they'd removed most Out of Combat abilities.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-17, 06:00 PM
Anyone who thinks with their brain instead of wishing things where true because they really really want the dominate to be useful Outside of Combat even though WotC has specifically stated that they'd removed most Out of Combat abilities.

You know, I've been trying to be civil and have not resorted to name calling... That was uncalled for and I believe I'm done attempting to debate with someone who uses those tactics to "win" his side.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-17, 07:00 PM
Until we know what "Dominated" means in 4e, we can only guess. As I said before, neither of us are wrong and neither of us are right.


I think I'll fall over if we find out that "Dominated" means "PWNED!" in 4e.

Mewtarthio
2008-04-17, 07:10 PM
if it can be done unobtrusively, somhow, it makes a handing trick for turning victims into criminals. Ones victim has commited crime, has no idea why, a little social manipulation could lead to person getting nastier.

However this would only work if spell can be cast without anyone noticing the caster.

You see, this is exactly why telepaths rock. Psionic suggestion, with the display suppressed, can transform you into an untraceable manipulative demigod. Okay, that's actually such a hideous exaggeration that it's an outright falsehood, but it's still pretty good.

Note that WotC has previously stated that psions will appear in a later sourcebook, and they will specialize in mind control effects. Thus, I'm guessing that psions will have access to "utility powers" which are similar to 3e enchantment abilities. Wizards may be stuck with the 1-round dominate, but telepaths could still be able to perform some useful tricks.

Bleen
2008-04-17, 07:55 PM
Me, I think it's silly that Dominate, Charm, and Suggestion are all being filed into the same category in this discussion, given that I've seen the means by which they achieve their ends to make them all have far different natures and uses.

EvilElitest
2008-04-17, 09:21 PM
First point, i don't think domination makes you aware of being dominated actually. I think that would ruin the point of the spell.



Nope, that's not a crash-course on learning the secrets of DnD monsters. It is rather about monsters being dumbed down so much that they can be run even by surgically decerebrated dummies under the effects of a confusion spell while at the same time being as interesting to run as a generic commoner with arbitrarily high ability scores. Let's take a look at the new devils for example:

Call it opening out for the masses. Through it is rather depressing actually. because if the monsters are nothing more than random encounters (which is not hte case in 3E or even 2E) it seems much less interested. however 4E might change



Nice flavor-a change over the dream-assaulting, soul-eating demon of the past, fits with the new devil theme. Now, let's look at what we lost from the old monster sheet:
Defences: We see the four standard defences everyone has plus fire resistance. That's it. There is no other defence whatsoever. That means we lost 3 resistances and 2 immunities plus Damage Reduction. WTF? Apparently, a bunch of special qualities that made outsiders different than a human with a fire resistance robe which, we must note, were static numbers, required no rolling and thus didn't reduce game speed and just about anyone knew what they did anyway are far too complicated for the average DM to handle. :smallannoyed:
Attack options: Lemme see, one standard attack, a charm effect and a 1-round domination. So, effectively, only three options in combat: attack in meele for an average of 9 damage, force someone for 1 round to attack instead of you from 25 feet away and get a meele bodyguard-which has you stop moving in combat otherwise it is useless. And that is for a devil controller monster. WTF? The 3.5 commoner has more options in combat. He can attack with a club/improvised weapon in meele, throw stones/improvised weapons in ranged, try to trip, grapple, charge, disarm... need I mention more? The stats block for the succubus has no grapple or base attack so she can use combat maneuers or improvised weapons and neither does it have ranged bonus so she can use improvised ranged attacks. All she can use are the three attacks mentioned. This probably means WotC thought 4E DMs would be confused by too many combat options so they neutered their monsters... :smallmad:
Utility options: I can see shapechanging and... yep. Only shapechanging. Gone are the detect thoughts, detect good, ethereal jaunt, all the non-combat uses of the charms, the telepathy, the teleportation ability. At least they kept the tongues ability if the "supernal" note under languages means that-else the succubus wouldn't be able to communicate with 3/4 of the beings out there. WTF? Seems monsters are only good for combat now as they do not have any non-combat options. :smallmad:
Skill set: Three skills-diplomacy, bluff, insight. Yeah, they'll keep up very well with their new emissary/spy/assasin flavor. I mean, being a spy doesn't need any sneaking skills, does it? Nor do they need any athletics-related skills such as escape artist, jump and tumble or utility ones like use rope, disarm, pick lock, disguise and so on. WTF? How are we supposed to use a primarily noncombatant adversary (according to the flavor) if they don't have ANY noncombat skills?
Nice note. It seems to be the same for the dragons in Worlds and Monsters



Customisability: You might have noticed that there are no skill points in 4E. You might also have noticed that monsters do not have feats. At all. Nor do they have armor/weapon proficiencies. Nor do they have a treasure entry. Nor do they have HD and thus variable HP. WTF? How are we supposed to customise them? Every monster is identical to every other monster of the same race. :smallmad:
Hey everybody, who was the person who predicted this six months ago. Oh wait, that was me. I'm not bitter



Ethereal Jaunt and Greater Teleport shouldn't have been given to the succubus in the first place. Handing Greater Teleport out like hotcakes wasn't very good or the game. Also, the succubus is now worth 400 XP, meaning that one succubus would be a fair fight for 4 PCs with 100 XP each (of course, you're not supposed to fight a solitary succubus). Succubi have apparently been demoted, which explains their lack of fifty different freaking abilities, resistances, etc.
Outsider monsters really did have too many SLAs.
I suspect that everything has had resistances toned down.

1.
2. The Exp thing can be handled without killing the flavor
3. I liked that outsiders were more unique had niffty powers, it was like older legends, each monsters has specific powers and abilities and it is hard to fight them. I think it is really cool that you need to silver to fight vampires, or that medusa's can turn the target to stone, or that ghosts can't be hurt by non magical weapons and what not. Ect. Is it rather unfair? Meh, yeah, i mean a rust monster can ruin a party, but it is rather unique.
4. Demoted doesn't mean it can't be unique


No one is suggesting you cannot continue to play your broken mages rule 3e.
Feel free.
So what? 3E's flaws doesn't make 4E' any less



It's people. People who, without seeing the whole picture compain about 4e endlessly
No its people who without seeing the whole picture support 4e like it was gift from heaven.


The same regurgitated talking points over and over, combined with annoying snarkiness creates an atmosphere that has utterly destroyed my enjoyment of D&D, in all forms.
this coming from man who started what, 4 sarcastic 4E threads?



You can't customise a monster without homebrewing it.
That is a second very important point. 4E doesn't have skill points and in addition monster skills are fixed-you can't customise a monster's skills. It also doesn't have monster feats so that option of monster customisability is gone. The statblocks are also missing any monster advancement rules. All in all, you can only customise if you homebrew a monster with new abilities because monsters don't have any options. At all.

Combat options for monsters have been removed, combat ability remains the same.
Yeah, this point bears repeating. Monster HP have increased all over. Their standard defences also have increased in most monsters we've seen so far. Special abilities, special qualities and more than a couple combat options have been removed. In the end, monster power is the same overall. It just depends more on static numbers than any kind of combat options-which is bad
exactly. 4E monsters are just a bunch of combat statistics. To be fair, 4E has mentioned more fluff ideas, but the idea is still the same, mechanically hte monsters are no more than random encounter. Which is an attatude that i don't think is very good for the game (see below)



So the problem is that this succubus is supposed to be a master manipulator, who sneaks into locations and takes control of people, so that's why she should only show up in a combat situation alone. Instead of, you know, taking control of people and using them to beat the stuffing out of the party, while she takes control of other party members....

Yeah...

The unfailing logic of 4e hate wins again
Wait, didn't you just say that you were opposed to snark and nasty sarcasm. Open minded there eh

The succubus working with a group isn't 100% likely. Possible yes, but not absolute. Lacking, you know, charm it might be difficult.



Unless of course, there are rules that we haven't seen yet, that might, perhaps, have special rules and definitions of a "charm"-type attack.

that is the thing, we don't. We can assume but we don't have any knowledge. They might, or they might not. For example, people said that the stats of the monsters wouldn't be in said fashion when it was predicted following the readings of the advertisiment books




This is the box:

------
| 3.x |
------

Start thinking outside of the box.
If 4E is out of box thinking, why are all of the monsters made to be exactly the same? Kinda, contradictory isn't it?



I'm suprised it took till page 2 to get you to post here with your unbiased opinion on 4E, EE
Mr. Friendly beat me to it with snark and totally unbiased options. True he is on your side so...

Anyways, m point remains, 4E is generally be equalized and simplified, which is the general complaint of it. Monsters exist to be killed by adventures, they are basically random encounters. As said


WotC has already posted their design philosophy on monsters. Namely, they are cutting back on non-combat abilities, because they think monsters exist to be killed and non-combat abilities just confuse DMs. I personally hate this philosophy, but I'm not going to deny its existence.


You know what Sam, leave em to it mate, if they want to be negative about something they've yet to see fine. We'll all play 4e when it comes out and wave em all a fond farewell.
For those of you with an open enough mind to bother to look at the preview material before you pile hate onto something because it is new
looky here someone has kindly done the leg work for you
Charity, your double standard has been made clear by this point. People don't dislike 4E because it is different, but because they don't like the changes. As i doubt you'll remember, when 4E was announced, i was arguing on your side. Your manner of arrogance that you use to reflect your ideals, is similar to White Wolf's advertising industry.


and now back to you regular scheduled neophobia and book burning.
Why does disagreeing with you automatically make anti 4E people bigoted anti intellectuals, when
1) the whole basis of our complaint is that 4E is too simple
2) your attitude generates far more hate than even mine, and that is saying something.
3) The fact taht you are so bent on not even trying to understand the complaints shows far more demostration of hatred of other options


Symptom: Irrational hatred of 4e
Probable Cause: Depression and feelings of loss, caused by the end of the 3e Era
Defense Mechanism: Displacement
Has it ever occured to you their is an actual reason for these complaints. I mean, pretty much you could simply go with
Symptom: Irrational devotion of 4E
Probable Cause: Arrogence brought about by having their interests appaled to
Defense Mechanism- General ruddness and refusal to understand other options

However, that isn't true. 4E supporters actually do have a valid option and reason. I disagree with it, but i understand it and don't simply call them all bigoted arrogant gits. Some of them do act in rude manners, but that doesn't make their options irrelvant

If you have to resort to calling people's options wrong simply because you don't agree, then that says far worst about your self

yes i disagree and yes i'm a rude bastard, but i do understand why 4E people are arguing. However i do disagree greatly with these options, but they aren't (all) irrational.

how is my dislike of 4E irrational? Or the OPs. You might disagree, however it certainly isn't irrational


So Mr. Friendly, Charity, according to your ideals, all criticism is irrational. Chosen of Venca is quite correct, complaining doesn't mean it is irrational. What would be irrational would be me complaining that 4E doesn't have enough pictures, or if it is only an excuse


on the note



Anyone who thinks with their brain instead of wishing things where true because they really really want the dominate to be useful Outside of Combat even though WotC has specifically stated that they'd removed most Out of Combat abilities.

Wait a second, he was generally civil. Don't ruin it



Xenophobic?
no that is hatred of other cultures


4E is sacrificing quality for mechanical balance. The game is becoming like a video game. Oh gods, i know you've heard this before, but think about it. The game is not nothing more than a series of mechanics. The basic ideals of 4E are

1) PC centrism. Far more than in prior editions PCs are the very center of the world They are unique, they are special, the game is designed not to create another world that reacts in a logical consistent manner but instead a world that caters to the PCs. By that i don't mean "everything they want happens" but more taht things exist based upon their relation to PCs. Monsters aren't so much diverse races as exactly teh same creatures who fight the PCs (remember, good creatures aren't stated)
2) Simplifying the system
This is generally self explanatory
Monsters are simpler, stats are standardized completely (3E had hints of this with recent books, with monsters given specific "new" stats based upon their profession. In older books you could have "Goblins level 1 Warrior and you made special dudes on your own, however in books like Complete Drow every different bugbear acted like it was a different damn species when there were in fact the same race just with different classes. but i am rambling), NPC and PCs being different, no good monsters generally, simpler alignment system, smaller world/cosmology, and "Points of light" as the ideal.
3. Flashier. D&D is unrealistic of course., but it has tried to put up the appearance of realism. In that magic breaks rules, but non magic users generally don't and thinks need to be explained by magic to work. 4E seems (if the pictures and the new fighter are any indication) to be embracing the anime/video game mechanical ideal of "It doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as it is cool" ideal.

All three of these things are styles of play. Styles which are ok generally, but 4E is generally only aiming for these styles
from
EE

Tough_Tonka
2008-04-17, 09:38 PM
Feel free to play 4E. Please refrain from making assumptions about my playstyle. I don't prefer 3E because mages are broken. I prefer 3E because 4E dumbs down the game, and removes options.

Perhaps I prefer a "strategic" game to a "tactical" one. I can't even begin to describe all the reasons I don't like 4E. In some cases literally.

From what I've seen 4th Ed only removes options if your last character was a wizard and you a GM that let you use the Spell Compendium and Complete Mage.

Keld Denar
2008-04-17, 09:54 PM
Well, if the succy dominate is anything like one of the warlocks daily powers, then it DOES only last for one round, however the warlock may spend his minor action to make it last another round, and then another round, and then another, until the target saves. The way it was written up in the character sheets we got at DDXP, it wasn't actually in the main part of the ability, but rather in a special section under the section that said what the ability does.

Who's to say that there isn't something similar in the succy's finished stat block that the just didn't post here? Something like that would be on the power level with the things I saw playing the play tests at. It would be a strong power, but nothing out of line with the mages sleep spell or the warlocks dream curse that allows the warlock to move the target 3 squares per turn, as long as they don't save.

I for one choose to reserve judgement until I hold the paper copy of the book in my hands. The sky still hasn't fallen, and I don't predict it will soon.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-04-17, 10:32 PM
Defences:Apparently, a bunch of special qualities that made outsiders different than a human with a fire resistance robe which, we must note, were static numbers, required no rolling and thus didn't reduce game speed and just about anyone knew what they did anyway are far too complicated for the average DM to handle. :smallannoyed:Gratuitous defenses don't make monsters more interesting, and they certainly don't make the person running the game any more intelligent. I don't see any reason for the Succubus to immune to electricity or poison. I definitely don't see damage reduction as a fitting on a primarily non-combatant monster.

Taking away unnecessary and out-of-theme traits from the succubus (and other monsters) makes them that much more appropriate and noticeable on monsters where they are appropriate.
The stats block for the succubus has no grapple or base attack so she can use combat maneuers or improvised weapons and neither does it have ranged bonus so she can use improvised ranged attacks. All she can use are the three attacks mentioned.
This is borderline ridiculous. No, I take that back. This is ridiculous.

If I have a PC, and I write only his attack bonus when wielding a +1 longsword, it does not prevent him from attacking with a +2 longsword. Or a quarterstaff. Or a pool cue. Or a beer mug. Or a steel chair. Or a rock. Or a bow. If we had to write this out in every stat block, the Monster Manual would be 1800 pages long and the PHB wouldn't include a "Combat" section.

We know that Grapple works differently. This was covered at... DDXP, I think? At any rate, it doesn't require a specific "Grapple" stat like 3E, but it's most definitely an option.

To tie this into the comment on Customization, as well... If you want the Succubus to use a bow, give her a bow. We know that you don't need proficiency to wield one anyway, but if you want her to be great at archery, fine, give her proficiency. How do you customize a monster without feats? By not asking permission to change the monster by flipping through books. Note also that this isn't that different from 3E; a lot of the monster types and subtypes say that monsters are proficient with "any weapon in their entry."

Also, on the subject of "Every monster is identical to every other monster of the same race..." again, we already know that isn't true, because it's something that a lot of people were complaining about when we got 80 different kinds of kobold with different (but similar) traits. This isn't to say that we'll have multiple succubi, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me, either.
Utility options:Gone are the detect thoughts, detect good, ethereal jaunt, all the non-combat uses of the charms, the telepathy, the teleportation ability. At least they kept the tongues ability if the "supernal" note under languages means that-else the succubus wouldn't be able to communicate with 3/4 of the beings out there.Supernal is likely an extraplanar language. I don't see that as a problem though... Never in my life have I seen a succubus and said "Aha, I'll use her to seduce that Xorn, thanks to her ability to speak Terran."

I'd put forth again that the spread of SLAs does more harm than good to the succubus as a concept. Why seduce people to learn their secrets if you can just read their minds? How convincing is this seduction if I know she's just using Charm Person all the time, anyway? The succubus that earns someone's trust enough to be given his keys is way more interesting to me than the ninja-succubus that etheral jaunts through his locked doors and greater teleports out the chimney to escape, and it fits succubus lore better as well. She's simply more interesting to use when she doesn't need "Spell: Instantly Win" to accomplish any of her archetypal goals.
Skill set:I mean, being a spy doesn't need any sneaking skills, does it? Nor do they need any athletics-related skills such as escape artist, jump and tumble or utility ones like use rope, disarm, pick lock, disguise and so on.Uh, no, they don't. Who are you using for reference here? James Bond? John McClane? The succubus infiltrates through disguise -- which she still has in spades thanks to her shapeshifting -- and guile. Pole vaulting is typically not included in those.
If 4E is out of box thinking, why are all of the monsters made to be exactly the same? Kinda, contradictory isn't it? You have a justification for this? Literally every single playtest report I've read -- be it positive or negative -- has mentioned that monsters feel more different than ever. A battle with Kobolds is massively different from a battle with Hobgoblins, rather than just involving uglies with slightly less HP and damage output.

On a side note, someone on ENWorld ran a sample combat of a solo Succubus versus a team of the DDXP pre-gens to see how it stood up. Anecdotal evidence (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4166267&postcount=432) of course, but she certainly seems effective enough.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 10:36 PM
As regards BAB, I do believe that everything uses the same "BAB" progression. So you should be able to know what that is just by looking at her HD? Or whatever signifies level.

Rutee
2008-04-17, 10:47 PM
As regards BAB, I do believe that everything uses the same "BAB" progression. So you should be able to know what that is just by looking at her HD? Or whatever signifies level.

Level, but yes, you should be able to get "BAB" easily enough. I think classes get a particular one time bonus as well, so figure that too.

Roland St. Jude
2008-04-17, 10:48 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: If you can discuss this issue civilly with respect for all others, regardless of their point of view, please do so. Some of the comments above really push the limits of what we allow here, and hopefully any comments that follow back off that line at least a bit.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-18, 04:36 AM
From what I've seen 4th Ed only removes options if your last character was a wizard and you a GM that let you use the Spell Compendium and Complete Mage.

Well, no. At level 10 and 20, in 4E, you will have eleven and fifteen different "powers", or options, available to you in combat, some of which are either static or utility, and thus don't really count. I'm sure that every single 3E caster, as well as any decent Tome of Battle character, has more than that. Not counting magical items, in both cases. Of course, every single 3E fighter, rogue or barbarian has significantly less than that.

Unless you refer to "build options", in which case I must reiterate that "3E plus 100 sourcebooks" obviously has more options than "4E with just the PHB", but that's not really a fair comparison.

Muyten
2008-04-18, 06:13 AM
Well, no. At level 10 and 20, in 4E, you will have eleven and fifteen different "powers", or options, available to you in combat, some of which are either static or utility, and thus don't really count. I'm sure that every single 3E caster, as well as any decent Tome of Battle character, has more than that. Not counting magical items, in both cases. Of course, every single 3E fighter, rogue or barbarian has significantly less than that.


Well of the ToB-classes only the swordsage is above that number of options but the two other classes are not. I think they are going for a number of 'powers' close to the ToB-classes which in my opinion seems fine.



Unless you refer to "build options", in which case I must reiterate that "3E plus 100 sourcebooks" obviously has more options than "4E with just the PHB", but that's not really a fair comparison.

True enough it is hard to compete with that to begin with but time should take care of that.

EvilElitest
2008-04-18, 09:49 PM
Gratuitous defenses don't make monsters more interesting, and they certainly don't make the person running the game any more intelligent. I don't see any reason for the Succubus to immune to electricity or poison. I definitely don't see damage reduction as a fitting on a primarily non-combatant monster.

Monsters being unique is interesting and engaging, adding more richness to the monster. The monster is immune to electricity or poison comes from the unique nature of outsiders. They aren't truly moral beings and are immune to the things that trouble morals. part of being immune to magic does this



Taking away unnecessary and out-of-theme traits from the succubus (and other monsters) makes them that much more appropriate and noticeable on monsters where they are appropriate.This is borderline ridiculous. No, I take that back. This is ridiculous.

It is. It is like making a ghost being able to be hurt by any weapon, or the medusa's stone powers only working for a few seconds. It is part of its unique nature that make the creature special in its own way. This is being sacrificed for the sake of combat convenience


If I have a PC, and I write only his attack bonus when wielding a +1 longsword, it does not prevent him from attacking with a +2 longsword. Or a quarterstaff. Or a pool cue. Or a beer mug. Or a steel chair. Or a rock. Or a bow. If we had to write this out in every stat block, the Monster Manual would be 1800 pages long and the PHB wouldn't include a "Combat" section.
Different example. What is going on here seems to be a lack of options for the monster, even those that are unique and fit in with her role





Also, on the subject of "Every monster is identical to every other monster of the same race..." again, we already know that isn't true, because it's something that a lot of people were complaining about when we got 80 different kinds of kobold with different (but similar) traits. This isn't to say that we'll have multiple succubi, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me, either.Supernal is likely an extraplanar language. I don't see that as a problem though... Never in my life have I seen a succubus and said "Aha, I'll use her to seduce that Xorn, thanks to her ability to speak Terran."
However it is harking back to one of bad things about 2E, that monsters weren't so much races as generic creatures. A better example would be goblins. I liked that in 3E it was Goblin level 3 Fighter or level 5 wizard, however it seems to now simply "Goblin" as a type


I'd put forth again that the spread of SLAs does more harm than good to the succubus as a concept. Why seduce people to learn their secrets if you can just read their minds? How convincing is this seduction if I know she's just using Charm Person all the time, anyway? The succubus that earns someone's trust enough to be given his keys is way more interesting to me than the ninja-succubus that etheral jaunts through his locked doors and greater teleports out the chimney to escape, and it fits succubus lore better as well. She's simply more interesting to use when she doesn't need "Spell: Instantly Win" to accomplish any of her archetypal goals.Uh, no, they don't. Who are you using for reference here? James Bond? John McClane? The succubus infiltrates through disguise -- which she still has in spades thanks to her shapeshifting -- and guile. Pole vaulting is typically not included in those.

Fair enough, i'll agree with that.



Literally every single playtest report I've read -- be it positive or negative -- has mentioned that monsters feel more different than ever. A battle with Kobolds is massively different from a battle with Hobgoblins, rather than just involving uglies with slightly less HP and damage output.

Misunderstanding, i was referring to how monsters of each type seems to be grouped together as one unit. I have always applauded making each type of monester (trogs and orcs for example) different

from
EE

obliged_salmon
2008-04-18, 10:37 PM
Concerning chosen of vecna's apt point about 6 second duration of dominate not being effective, I would say that if I were DM'ing a succubus, I would make the rule that she could make the dominated creature fail its save if she uses it before the ability expires. That way, she could control one creature indefinitely, but wouldn't be able to make any other standard actions while doing it. Whether or not the target realizes they were dominated, I feel, is largely a fluff issue. No hard and fast rule would work for every possible case.

Bleen
2008-04-18, 10:57 PM
I did find one single complaint about the new succubus:

Needs moar energy drain.

..But that's about it.

Caewil
2008-04-18, 11:31 PM
I think I'll just wait unti I see a completed statblock, with fluff, (and maybe some advice on how to use it). I suspect many problems will disappear once the entire ruleset is revealed.

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2008-04-18, 11:31 PM
On 4E in general:Combat options for monsters have been removed, combat ability remains the same.
Yeah, this point bears repeating. Monster HP have increased all over. Their standard defences also have increased in most monsters we've seen so far. Special abilities, special qualities and more than a couple combat options have been removed. In the end, monster power is the same overall.

So basically, it's okay if the monsters lost their abilities to hurt characters if it takes longer for the characters to kill them?

All the fun of fighting a brick wall.

wodan46
2008-04-18, 11:34 PM
The Succubus isn't supposed to be as powerful as she was in the past, given that she is supposed to match the power level of 1 level 9 pc, not 4 of them. In the link provided earlier*, you can see what happens if 4 level 1 pcs try and go for the succulent 400 exp the Succubus is worth.

If I understand things correctly, the domination lasts until you make a save against it and grants full control, and the Shapeshift is a minor action. The ease of which you can wreak havoc with that is quite substantial.

FOR EXAMPLE:
You could use shapeshifting to get close, then shapeshift into a party member, then start casting dominate. Hilarity ensures.

To make it even more fun, you could kiss one party member before combat really begins, shapeshift away and back, mimick a party member, then dominate the party member you are mimicking to attack you while standing next to the party member you kissed. It will now look like one of the players has gone nuts from the perspective of the other.

Also, you can use kiss a player, then dominate them and command them to stand near you while using projectile attacks on allies. Recast dominate when it stops working, and keep the party member near you as you manuver about the battlefield.

*(http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4166267&postcount=432)

Reel On, Love
2008-04-19, 01:08 AM
;4212432']So basically, it's okay if the monsters lost their abilities to hurt characters if it takes longer for the characters to kill them?

All the fun of fighting a brick wall.

Funny how that isn't at all reflected in anything anyone running a 4E character has said about the combats they had.

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2008-04-19, 08:57 AM
Funny how that isn't at all reflected in anything anyone running a 4E character has said about the combats they had.

I probably should have made it more clear that my post wasn't really meant to be taken seriously; I just thought it sounded funny based on the way Ramos phrased his post.

horseboy
2008-04-20, 12:27 AM
How are we supposed to use a primarily noncombatant adversary (according to the flavor) if they don't have ANY noncombat skills?
There are no non-combat skills in 4th. If it takes place outside of combat you just write "Can do it" on your character sheet, remember their whole "can cook" references at the beginning of the whole 4th edition? They're going back to prior editions style story telling.
But it doesn't work like that. Look at the flavor-they are temptresses, spies, assasins, scouts, emissaries. ALL of their roles, flavor-wise, pretty much demand solo appearances. So they won't have four more monsters along.Harems?

Except that Charm spells in 3.5 only make you see that person as a friend if they say they do, because Typically does X is just an example mechanism. descriptors never add an additional effect to an ability that isn't described in it, because that would be a bad design. Because then you would have to look up something else in a different book every time you wanted to use any ability. Descriptors describe how something is done, not what is done.Yet GW gets it to work somehow.
Yep, preety much. But why did they have to put it in a way that makes D&D look like designed for mindless hack'n'slash? Because it's always been?

Not exactly. What you describe is one particular style of DM'ing, and there are others. However, WOTC's writing is asserting that this is the only style of DM'ing. Not that this is a bad thing per se, but it strikes me that 4E is heavily aimed towards one particular playstyle, and not very enabling to other styles. People who use this style will never notice that, and it's a popular style. The result is, however, that people who do not use this style will likely not be satisfied with 4E.I agree with this.

Why would someone who slaughtered their family, not realize after the effect ended that they were magically compelled. Replace slaughtering family with any other action that they would never do in real life.Because ultimately there is very little most people would "never" do.
And six seconds later: "You don't have any stolen goods, my bad, go on your way."You can search two people for stolen good in under six seconds? Cop of the Year there. Not to mention them actually stopping and letting you preform said unwarranted search of their persons without bitching and arguing with you for the next 5 minutes.

And six seconds later: "Hey what are you doing trying to sneak past me?"Well, that depends on how they rolled.

The succubus that earns someone's trust enough to be given his keys is way more interesting to me than the ninja-succubus that etheral jaunts through his locked doors and greater teleports out the chimney to escape, and it fits succubus lore better as well. She's simply more interesting to use when she doesn't need "Spell: Instantly Win" to accomplish any of her archetypal goals.Funny and true.

KIDS
2008-04-20, 05:03 AM
Originally Posted by Merlin the Tuna
The succubus that earns someone's trust enough to be given his keys is way more interesting to me than the ninja-succubus that etheral jaunts through his locked doors and greater teleports out the chimney to escape, and it fits succubus lore better as well. She's simply more interesting to use when she doesn't need "Spell: Instantly Win" to accomplish any of her archetypal goals.

I completely agree.

wodan46
2008-04-20, 10:32 AM
People keep forgetting that the D&D handbooks are more or less pure hack and slash. While the supplementary materials provide some starting fluff, it is ultimately the responsibility of the players and DM to do the actual roleplaying.

Just as players are expected to roleplay well, and use their character's abilities in clever ways, the DM should do the same for the monster. The description for the Succubus doesn't have anything for social encounters, but the DM can easily wing it with charisma/dexterity bonuses and shapeshifting. Does the Bard statblock include any descriptions for how to deal with social encounters? Even though it is easily the most socially oriented class, it also expects you to wing it with your charisma, dexterity, skills, and illusions. While the Succubus doesn't have many skills, her charisma and dexterity boosts are good enough not to need them.

I also concur with others in saying that a low powered succubus that relies on subterfuge and manipulation is a more interesting and flavorful entity then some teleporting soul-sucking nightmare that is more like a high level wizard than a low level bard.

Nikolai_II
2008-04-20, 03:05 PM
On 4E in general:
You can't customise a monster without homebrewing it.
That is a second very important point. 4E doesn't have skill points and in addition monster skills are fixed-you can't customise a monster's skills. It also doesn't have monster feats so that option of monster customisability is gone. The statblocks are also missing any monster advancement rules. All in all, you can only customise if you homebrew a monster with new abilities because monsters don't have any options. At all.


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a <- Customization