Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[Jester of the FoS]

I'm thinking that it's going to be something brand, brand new. From what I've seen, 4th Edition is going to be very different from 3rd Edition. Looking at the new stat blocks, monsters don't have Feats, they have certain "types" such as Brute, etc. I think that there will be some brand new bag of tricks that they will be pulling from.

I think you're mistaken here Ivana. They are categorized for conveniency along such broad concept lines but they also have feats IMO.

Feats will be for PCs but it does look like they're dumping them for monsters, mostly for speed of creation. It's a slow process going though a big list of all possible feats every time you want a classed or advanced monster.

Erg.. I've been keeping a pretty open mind, but the more I hear stuff like that, the less interesting in 4e I become. The fact that monsters and PC's use (mostly) the same streamlined rules was one of the great beauties of 3.x, IMHO.

Agreed about the monsters/ players common rules. I keep my faith, hopes and expectations high though. I believe that while most of the monsters won't be designed to be PC races they will again follow the same rules as players. No more weird saves for them or 5d8+1 hp. That's a thing of the past and it should remain there.

True for playing monsters, but one-shot and non-PCabke monsters shouldn't obey all the same rules. They don't do as much and shouldn't have to have all the same information or rules.

[alhoon]

All right, but check out these 4th Edition monster D&D stats. Here's the site where I got the peek:
http://www.hackslash.net/?p=152

Hmmm... It seems it is a miniature. I still hope monsters will get feats. Thank you for the info though. However it seems too 3rd edition to me (except the lack of feats). Yet, I have to say one thing:

That's a 6th level monster? Quite cool... in itself. I would think it would be a CR 5 monster in 3rd edition. My gripe is that in 4th edition a party of 4 6 lvl players would be able to defeat 4 such monsters in a single encounter... and do so for 6 encounters instead of 4. All in all it is IMO too powerful for a level 6 monster.
In 3rd edition an encounter with 4 such creatures would be a CR 8-9 encounter.

[Ivana_Boritsi]

They've stated outright that they are doing away with CR. I for one, am glad!

One thing that David Noonan and Mike Merles (two lead designers for 4th Edition) was that CR was based on a poor premise. Basically, that you would get into about 4 fights that would take away 25% of your resources (spells, hit points, etc) before you had to rest.

What they didn't figure on was that that play model wasn't very satisfying. Most people like pitched battles where you have to throw everything at the monsters and they throw everything at you. It's more cinematic that way.

So what I hope that means is...if a party of 6th level characters faces monsters who are 6th level in equal numbers, it will come out to be an even battle.

[Jester of the FoS]

All right, but check out these 4th Edition monster D&D stats. Here's the site where I got the peek:
http://www.hackslash.net/?p=152

Hmmm... It seems it is a miniature.

Nope. No mini points, no alignment, and looks very different from the current mini cards (which can be seen on the new set's previews). That's actual monster stats.

That's a 6th level monster? Quite cool... in itself. I would think it would be a CR 5 monster in 3rd edition. My gripe is that in 4th edition a party of 4 6 lvl players would be able to defeat 4 such monsters in a single encounter... and do so for 6 encounters instead of 4. All in all it is IMO too powerful for a level 6 monster.
In 3rd edition an encounter with 4 such creatures would be a CR 8-9 encounter.

Since we don't know how tough 6th level players are hard to judge. Low AC for a CR 5 monster and average hp. But low damage. Really likely no more than CR 3-4. And that's likely only an EL of 6 or 7.

I imagine there'll still be rules for giving monsters classes and related feats, but for one-shot MM beasties and non-Big Bads feats are probably overkill.

[alhoon]

They've stated outright that they are doing away with CR. I for one, am glad!

So what I hope that means is...if a party of 6th level characters faces monsters who are 6th level in equal numbers, it will come out to be an even battle.

Yes, I know about CR. I'm... neutral about it. And about the 6th level party against 4 6th level monsters, it is supposed to be not an even battle, just a challenging one. The PCs could fight trhough 6 such encounters according to the playtest vs monsters in the 4th edition fact thread. Also the Dragon in the playtest example seems to have some feats at least.

Low AC for a CR 5 monster and average hp. But low damage. Really likely no more than CR 3-4. And that's likely only an EL of 6 or 7.

20 AC is not low for CR 5 monsters. It is high. Check the Ettin, the cloaker, the elementals, the dire lion, the djinni etc.

The Spined devil also has +8 to all saves, has 2 claws+9 that deal 2d4+4 damage and its spine rain attack has the equivalent of a reflex DC of 19 and deals 3d6+2 damage +poison that slows except of doing... something.
It has 19 strength and all other abilities at 14-15.

IMO the +X before the brackets are not ability modifiers but racial ability bonuses. I.e the Spined devil gets a +7 to strength and +5 to all other abilities. According to the damage shown, I believe the modifiers for abilities remain the same as in 3rd edition.

[Jester of the FoS]

Annis and green hag both have 20 or 20+ AC. But that's not a solid base for CR as it seldom goes up with level and CR.
2d4+4 damage is nothing at level 6, even for 3.5. A rogue is looking at +3d6 sneak plus weapon and a good power attack fighter is looking at weapon +15.

I think 3.5 has shown that monsters aren't players and shouldn't always be treated as such. Easy preparation and quick creation with less lengthy options as a decent fight is really only likely going to last 3-7 rounds so they don't need a dozen special abilities and unique feats. Treating monsters exactly like PCs just leads to the temptation to have players make them into characters.

I'm sure special Big Bads or Boss monsters can be given feats and/or class levels to *oomf* them up, but this should be optional.

[alhoon]

Yes, but as I said, it seems like a CR 5 monster to me.

[alhoon]

About the beholder and what we learn.

I agree with the elimination of "save or die" spells and effects although that doesn't change much in a fashion. I mean OK, the beholder's ray doesn't turn someone to stone instantly... but over time. So it is probably like "3 saves or die" or something similar. Yes, your friends could try to dispel it and then cure you of whatever strange damage you have suffered (dexterity probably) but that takes them actions and time and the beholder still has disintigrate.
About the disintigrate for example. "No save or die! It is now save or get 20d6-30d6 damage!" I guess a 13th-15th level fighter could easily shrug off a couple, but what about the wizard? The Beholder is not an idiot after all.

Not to mention that if the beholder keeps the charm monster and charm person rays... well it is a problem.

[Jester of the FoS]

We know classes are being divided up by role (brute, striker, leader and controller) and power source (martial, divine, arcane). So this makes the classes fairly easily defined.

Brutes
Fighter - martial (likely with trees that simulate the barbarian and monk)
Paladin - divine
Spellsword/spellshield - arcane, according to Rich Baker's blog, but likely in the '09 PHB

Strikers (this is likely the only role with three classes)
Ranger - divine
Rogue - martial
Warlock - arcane

Leaders
Cleric - divine
Warlord - martial
Bard - arcane (I really hope this one makes the PHB but could go either way at this point

Controller (the weakest role as there's only really the one class)
Wizard - arcane
Druid - divine (this is just an educated guess and likely will be in '09 PHB)

Of course, anyone who has looked at the proposed cover to the PHB knows it's subtitled "Martial, Arcane and Divine Heroes", which suggests the PHB2 will be subtitled something like "Psionic Heroes" with four new psionic classes, one for each archetype along with the leftovers (likely psychic warrior, psyblade, some buff-y and leadery, and psion).

[alhoon]

Bards? Out? How we got that?
Warlords? Are you sure it is not a prestige class?

What is the marshal anyway? In which book can I find them?

Elves similar to wood elves? In attitude maybe, certainly not in stats. Yes, they probably get the ranger as the favorite class but they also probably have the traditional -2 con/ +2 dex, the keen elven eyesight and hearing, some abilities with the bow and some nibleness abilities.

[prayer] Oh, Dark Powers please make the "Mystery Race" the Calliban! I'm willing to sacrifice Jester of the FoS for that, and I'm also willing to allow the rest FoS lose a powers check each. [/prayer]

[Ivana_Boritsi]

It has been confirmed that Warlord is a new class in 4th Edition. It's basically going to be a class that can fight and call out special maneuvers that help other people on the battle field.

[The Giamarga]

Marshal

The marshal is a military commander whose abilities are focused on leading others into battle and inspiring them to victory. They project auras that grant a variety of bonuses to nearby allies based on the marshal's Charisma.

3E source: Miniatures Handbook

The Marshal class is available online on WotC

[Jester of the FoS]

Bards? Out? How we got that?
Warlords? Are you sure it is not a prestige class?

Warlords are definitely "in" and they've said they're only releasing 8 base classes at the start.
Now, they're holding back standard monsters for the MM2 so they're also likely holding back common spells and classes and races for the PHB 2. We know gnomes & half-orcs aren't making the cut.
So what classes? Druids are complex and they've said they want to work harder to make sorcerers stand out from wizards.
Now look back at my list. If they have: paladin, fighter, warlord, cleric, warlock, rogue, and wizard, then they have 7 classes and 2 of every archetype except controller. Add an extra controller class and *bam*, that's 8. Which means holding back the extra leader and striker classes (bard and ranger) for the next book.

Still speculation at this point but it makes sense.

Elves similar to wood elves? In attitude maybe, certainly not in stats. Yes, they probably get the ranger as the favorite class but they also probably have the traditional -2 con/ +2 dex, the keen elven eyesight and hearing, some abilities with the bow and some nibleness abilities.

Of course not in stats, because the stats are all changing.
They're giving elves the woodsy, rangery folk role and giving the mysterious arcane folk role to a new race. To avoid the annoying contradiction of elves being the ancient mystical people of great power and wisdom who live in tree huts like Ewoks.

[prayer] Oh, Dark Powers please make the "Mystery Race" the Calliban! I'm willing to sacrifice Jester of the FoS for that, and I'm also willing to allow the rest FoS lose a powers check each. [/prayer]

HEY!
More than likely it's hobgoblin or something...

[Brandi]

They're giving elves the woodsy, rangery folk role and giving the mysterious arcane folk role to a new race.

They're repurposing the name "eladrin" for these High Elves. (Seriously, it's like Warhammer High Elves and Wood Elves.)

[prayer] Oh, Dark Powers please make the "Mystery Race" the Calliban! I'm willing to sacrifice Jester of the FoS for that, and I'm also willing to allow the rest FoS lose a powers check each. [/prayer]

HEY!
More than likely it's hobgoblin or something...

Current buzz at RPG.net is that it's one of the Eberron races-- quite possibly the shifters or changelings.

[JinnTolser]

They're repurposing the name "eladrin" for these High Elves. (Seriously, it's like Warhammer High Elves and Wood Elves.)

Am I the only one who can't hear the term High Elves without thinking of a bunch of Keebler elves sitting around smoking weed?