I am trying to figure this out right:
Are Animates (Undead and Constructs, for instance) affected by Sleep and Psychic Powers?
I see noting in the MM indicating their immunity. Undead and animates do not need to sleep as per the glossary, but it does not say they cannot be forced into it.
Looks wrong, freakish wrong if PCs can put skeletons to snooze.
No, you're not missing anything. Skeletons are completely vulnerable to Sleep, as are Golems and other strange creatures. Sleep is a lot heavier than it used to be though; notice that simply being damaged doesn't wake the target. This is a serious magical compulsion to stop functioning; it can even temporarily disrupt a Golem's programming, or subdue a Skeleton's animating force.
Cheers! :)
I heard of a player using command to get a litch or something to s***.
It tried for a round.
Basicly the creature is acting like it's asleep.
Looked in the players handbook.
Elves and Eladrin are not immune to sleep.
So basically they go into a trance for the spell duration.
OK, I see a big house rule on mind-affecting spells coming up in my games...
OK, I see a big house rule on mind-affecting spells coming up in my games...
Actually making monsters inmune to abilities is a type of gaming the designers tried to avoid. Undead are not inmune to charm nor sleep, so when subject to such spells they are affected by them. Try not think about it as skeletons actually sleeping, but being kept in check by the magic in use or actually severing the conecttion of the spirit animating the skeleton for a short while.
Actually making monsters inmune to abilities is a type of gaming the designers tried to avoid. Undead are not inmune to charm nor sleep, so when subject to such spells they are affected by them. Try not think about it as skeletons actually sleeping, but being kept in check by the magic in use or actually severing the conecttion of the spirit animating the skeleton for a short while.
But they do make them immune to poison and disease, as per the MM, something consequent with their being "not alive". Sleep is a living being's condition as much as any other biological processes. It is clear that leaving sleep open as an effect is a clear game balance mechanism (player character classes may have mind-affecting attacks quite often, but they will rarely use poison or disease, as they are supposed to play the "good guys"), but it makes not much sense in game rationale. I'd rather have monsters with more depth in their backgrounds, weaknesses and powers and players who need to know their enemies and the tactics to be used.
I don't think it takes so much to readjust that kind of stuff in the MM and I am going to do it. If the rulebooks provided a rationale for the new non-immunities, I could go for it, but there is none to be found.
Sort of agree with Andreas Skye on this one. While I like that the designers have tried to make it so no one is out of their element sleep working on an undead just does quite feel right. It would be like trying to suffocate a zombie. You can still cut of the air supply but it wouldn't really need it. I just think that undead should really be unaffected by things that target or utilise normal bodily functions.
Having said that it would probably be quite frustrating to the player if there DM didn't warn them that undead were immune to that particular spell. Might house rule that for my 4e group.
Do you think Undead should be immune to other mind-affecting attacks? What about attacks that deal Psychic damage exclusively?
Personal I've always viewed psychic damage as coming from the mind that created it not really the mind that was subjected to the psychic attack. To use mire of the mind as an example the psychic damage it causes comes from the sheer will and twisted images of the warlock that cast it not the mind of the target. This explination is a bit of a hold over from 3.5 psionics and was how fluff-wise we justified psionic powers being able to work against mindless creatures like vermin.
With fluff though it is all a matter of taste and what you think your group will go for.
Do you think Undead should be immune to other mind-affecting attacks? What about attacks that deal Psychic damage exclusively?Depends on the undead. If it's mindless, a psychic attack probably isn't going to find anything to 'damage.'
A Lich should definitely be affected by a psychic attack.
That's a arguement waiting to happen, basing this sort ofthing on the mental capacity of the undead involved. In a lot of settings, the mindless undead are supposed to be the corpse of a person reanimated by their spirit dragged back to the world of the living through terrible magic.
There's often a soul powering undead, even if the magic used is such that the undead are so stupid as to be effectively mindless. Sometimes it is the soul of the person who died, sometimes it is evil spirits from another world. If you make this house rule, you had better be prepaired for a rules lawyer to argue that Psychic damage is attacking that powering spirit.
In fact, if you're talking about intelligent undead like a vampire or lich, then you're losing ground on the Sleep issue too. These are undead which once did have a sleep cycles, and their mental make up still includes things like that. They might not be sleeping reguarly anymore because their a corpse, but it does make sense that magic could force them mentally back into that state. In the case of vampires, they often sleep during the day in their coffin depending upon the particular world we are talking about.
I think this is why Sleep affects everything, but things like poison don't. Every creature, be they a construct or undead, have a state which can be considered 'off' or asleep. constructs go dormant, undead just look like corpses on the floor, waiting until an adventurer comes along.
The magic used in a Sleep spell forces them into that state, but poison or suffication actually requires living processes and so undead are still granted immunity. The undead, constructs, and the various demons and devils in the game woudl not normally go thru a sleep cycle, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to think they could be forced into one by magic.
I agree with you Teiren, but wow, the same avatar as the person you're quoting thing really threw me for a loop. I thought you were talking to yourself for a moment.
Would you allow Fire damage to harm a Red Dragon or Fire Giant? (by rules I'd assume they're resistant now, not invulnerable, but I'm trying to help you feel out in which directions you'd want to house rule monsters, if you wonder at my intent)
Cheers! :)
Zombies and skelitons in 4th edition are not mindless.
They range in intelligence from 1-4.
Mind affecting spells should work on them.
|
This is 4.0 guys. Everything can be hit with a sneak attack. Magic works on all targets. This is the sort of stuff that labels 4.0 as gamist. The goal is equal playing field without a focus on "reality" or alternate physics.
3.5/3.0/2.0/1.0 wer much more focused on rules set as simulation with its own internally consistent logic. Didin't always handle this well, but this was the focus of the design.
I say let it be and go with it. Starting to classify more and more stuff by it's realistic and potentially logical effects is not central to the design pinciples of 4.0. Quick. Simple. Fast. Equal.
Perhaps sleeps allows the spirit of the undead to enter a brief moment of respite by calming it?
Zombies and skelitons in 4th edition are not mindless.
They range in intelligence from 1-4.
Mind affecting spells should work on them.
Still hard to explain IMO. A couple of ideas I have been juggling with:
1) Why do we make sleep (a physiological function) different from the physiological functions which make undead immune to disease and poison? Would it also affect, for instance, a clockwork creature (like a juggernaut)?
2) Checking the PHB, Sleep is a keyword in itself. So it seems that the designers differentiate Psychic at large from sleep powers, which could indicate that the spell creates "natural" sleep.
3) I don't know what direction the official expansions of the game are taking, but I wonder if there's going to be a role for Necromancers with this kind of generalizations: if your average Wizard with a couple controlling spells can put to sleep, confuse and charm undead as easily as goblins or humans, the role (and the scariness) of a class (even a prevalently villain one) specialized in the creation and control of undead is going to be diminished. Same for clerics. Once your wizard gets some powerful mind-control spells, clerical powers against undead become pretty less unique.
4) Immunity to mind effects and charm is not solely based on the absence of a mind, but on the alienness of the mind process (I still think that sleep is not only a mind process, but a markedly biological one). Trying to produce a fear effect in a being which does not know fear (like a golem which has not been programmed to feel emotions) or to induce love in a demon would be similar to trying to use a visual effect on a creature without sight. If you create a visual illusion, a blind cave bat is going to walk through it. I don't see it different from stinking clouds not affecting creatures without sense of smell.
5) All in all, I am ready to create a couple listings of alternate immunities. Most of them are not caused by 3.5 nostalgia (I also play 3.5, so no nostalgia involved), but by 4e disfiguring (in this area) most conventions on "general fantasy" fiction at large, when the game is supposed to be a vehicle for role-playing in those fantasy milieus:
a) immaterial creatures can be hit by anything, but they get 1/2 damage. I can see a dwarf fighter bashing at a spectre with a tavern stool. I would give this guys pretty hefty regeneration and/or immunity to non-magical non-energy effects.
b) creatures based on an energy type should be highly resistant to that energy. At Paragon and Epic tiers, they should be actually immune.
c) even if psychic damage could damage animates (by hurting their "link" with their controller / spark of intellect), they should get a modicum of resistance to it, as their "minds" are not "open" in the same way than those of a living being are.
d) creatures which are clear above or inimical to a given emotion or attitude (like fear, love, confusion) should be immune or resistant to it. Maybe you can charm a vampire, but it's ludicrous to think that it's easier than charming a human. If you allow it, give the vamp a bonus to its Will defense.
e) Spell Resistance is gone. Still, it feels quite insane to have 1st level spells affecting powerful beings as readily as a 29th level one (which is how it comes to pass when effectiveness of powers progresses with levels). Making some beings (like powerful demons and dragons) immune to low-level magic powers would be an interesting choice to try.
Anyway, that's just stuff for my campaigns. Nevertheless, it would be funny if in a year or so we got similar options implemented in an "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" supplement, or "4e Unearthed Arcana". Time will say.
Note that even in 3E (and earlier, in fact) magic resistance was based on the power of the caster, not the power of the spell he was throwing. Just FYI.
Have you given thought to areas where you would give creatures vulnerabilities that they currently do not have? Your list exclusively seems to be giving resistances and such. Just curious. :)
Note that even in 3E (and earlier, in fact) magic resistance was based on the power of the caster, not the power of the spell he was throwing. Just FYI.
in most cases, but not all... a few creatures in AD&D (and several in BECMI D&D) were simply immune to spells below a certain level threshold (The Rakshasa springs to mind as an example from AD&D).
There are no pure elementals yet.
They are either 2 elements mixed or half human things.
A pure elemental such as Fire or Ice would be immune to it's element.
It would take double damage from the opposite element.
Note that water, earth, and air do not have a damage associated with them.
An acid, lightning, or sonic elementals will be immune to their type of damage. There are no opposites.
Note that a clockwork creature is treated like a golem.
It's immune to disease, poison, and sleep like the Stone Golem.
The Flesh Golem has some slight memory of sleep, and can fake it.
in most cases, but not all... a few creatures in AD&D (and several in BECMI D&D) were simply immune to spells below a certain level threshold (The Rakshasa springs to mind as an example from AD&D).Note that even in 3E (and earlier, in fact) magic resistance was based on the power of the caster, not the power of the spell he was throwing. Just FYI.
Yep, I was thinking of the 1st ed Nycadameon and Mezzodaemon, plus a plethora of Basic D&D, where Anti-magic was in fact pretty rare and spell resistance was based on absolute spell levels.
In the light of 4e's "taste", that option would be feasible and keep with the game's spirit: some monsters are just "too big and too bad" for the simplest spells to work against them, regardless of the magician's power.
Clearly, one would have to leave the at-wills out of this, as they are basic attacks, but I think I am going to try implementing it with things like greater demons and big dragons: "Immune to Arcane lvl 1-3" does not sound that bad.
Have you given thought to areas where you would give creatures vulnerabilities that they currently do not have? Your list exclusively seems to be giving resistances and such. Just curious. :)
I am still gauging the new "regeneration instead of DR system" to try and figure out vulnerabilities. I had a couple ideas to try:
1) Re-introduce a very basic notion of weapon damage types (like skeletons having vuln. 1 or 2 to maces and hammers) as an experiment to give an edge to players who don't just choose weapon to maximize bonuses.
2) Working with the opposites, angelic creatures should be vulnerable to necrotic stuff or to powers with an infernal origin.
3) Mineral / crystalline creatures should definitely be vulnerable to Sonic (are there any in the MM, the Galeb Duhr sounds more "rocky"?)
4) Lycanthropes seem to have been taken care of with silver cancelling regeneration per round. I like that system as a substitute for DR.
5) It would be a good twist to have immaterial undead vulnerable to psychic damage (as they are pure spirits, psychic powers may attack them more directly).
6) It would not seem out of order to make the more exotic demons and devils vulnerable to exotic substances, like basic metals (the old favorites cold iron and silver). If anything, it is good encouragemente for having PCs look for concrete magic weapons (instead of just buying at random)
Just some ideas
|
Just throwing in my change into the well, but I think of the name for the spell sleep to be more like what it looks like the victim's doing when they get hit by it. I mean, it's a short, concise explanation for what the spell does, so I could see a wizard unscrupulously trying out his new spells on an apprentice, noticing him slump to the floor unconscious, and just roll with it. A wizard's a busy man, after all; he can't spend his time naming all of his spells (Wizard's Name)'s innoportune inoperation or bodily shutdown or something.
And yeah, I know sleep as a spell goes way back. I'm just tryin' to look at it in a new light, s'all.
Think of it like charm person. You didn't actually charm the bejeezus out of the guy with words, you used magic to make his brain think of you as a buddy for a while. Not the best example when we're talking undead here, but you get the picture, I think. Magic does stuff we can't rightly explain, so we come up with a decent analogy for what it seems to do based on the information our crude sensory organs pick up. Cast spell, guys falls down, call it sleep. Cast spell, room fills with fire, call it fireball. Redraw own eyebrows and call it a day. :)
Just throwing in my change into the well, but I think of the name for the spell sleep to be more like what it looks like the victim's doing when they get hit by it. I mean, it's a short, concise explanation for what the spell does
That would make sense as a way of interpreting the spell, sure, if it works for you it's great. But Sleep is also a rules keyword, not just a spell name. Even if "it's 4e and stuff", keywords and damage types are supposed to mean something. As pointed above, a stone golem is immune to sleep, so the designers took that into account. What I fail to see is their being coherent (or at least their explaining why some animates are immune to sleep and some not).
Think of it like charm person. You didn't actually charm the bejeezus out of the guy with words, you used magic to make his brain think of you as a buddy for a while.
Not to sound like a know-it-all, but actually the original meaning of charm is magic spell (from French Chant and that from Latin Carmen, incantation, spell). "Charming with words, as in persuading" is a derivative meaning, though more frequent in modern English.
Cast spell, guys falls down, call it sleep. Cast spell, room fills with fire, call it fireball. Redraw own eyebrows and call it a day. :)
But a fireball's stuff is fire indeed. Try using it against a red dragon and he's going to burn very little. There are "fancy names" (like Acid Arrow, it is just a projectile of magical stuff, not an "arrow"), but wizards are academics. Some of their labels have bearing on their usefulness and limitations (and are reflected by keywords in the rules).
I agree with Tadkil. This is 4E - love it or....
Seriously though, you are coming at this from the wrong direction. You want things to be like you remember them... and changing the rules like that, hmmmm. Refer to the DMG guide on houserules. It makes a few valid points. Here I think you have to realize the effect such a change would have (if you ruled undead immune to sleep). Because in that vein, there is a slew of other "logical" changes that you would make. Before you know it, you have changed the balance.
My advice is, to forget about it. Accept the way things work in 4E, or go back to playing 3.5.
I agree with Tadkil. This is 4E - love it or....
Seriously though, you are coming at this from the wrong direction. You want things to be like you remember them... and changing the rules like that, hmmmm. Refer to the DMG guide on houserules. It makes a few valid points. Here I think you have to realize the effect such a change would have (if you ruled undead immune to sleep). Because in that vein, there is a slew of other "logical" changes that you would make. Before you know it, you have changed the balance.
My advice is, to forget about it. Accept the way things work in 4E, or go back to playing 3.5.
And that's such a nice way of putting it down. Take it or leave it. I have to say, the 1-page section on "house rules" in the DMG is pretty ridiculous when compared to 20-odd years of role-playing with more rules systems than I can remember. If a RPG rules system is not flexible enough to encompass different tastes of playing and different campaign options taken by a gaming group, it has a problem.
But then, I do think 4e is flexible enough (in being simpler and less book-keeping oriented, it can actually be more flexible than 3.5).I don't really care that much about "balance", at least I don't it let in the way of the kind of campaign I want to create with my players. If we want to play in a world where non-intelligent undead are relentless machines which cannot be affected by mental spells, no rule is going to stop us. If we want to play in a setting where specters are true menaces which cannot be harmed by normal weapons, well, we are. I don't let a not-so-deep rule (particular immunities of a particular subset of monsters) get in the way of role-playing.
I am not "going back to playing 3.5", I am playing both, it's not an "upgrade thing", they're different games, like Basic D&D and AD&D (which I still play, BTW).
And, finally, I don't want "things to be as I remember them". I kinda like playing fantasy worlds which are connected to a centuries-old tradition of fantasy cliches (at times with a twist or spin). Undead, constructs, devils and demons DO have a long mythology which predates D&D. Even with concrete originality in some instances, that mythology is a reference point for me and my players (like, vampires burn in the sun, demons scoffed at man-made weapons, etc) and probably by some people out there. 4e has gotten rid of many mythological elements for "game balance's" sake. That would be fine if they had provided some "alternative mythology"; they haven't, probably because that would have given monsters a "non-traditional fantasy spin". In some cases they have done a good job, like the 4e lamia vs. the mythology lamia, but, at large, they just ride along the staple fantasy cliche, but change the rules without further ado. I do like playing in settings where things make more sense (to me and my players, anyway). We worry more about the story feeling rational and engaging (in a fantasy sense) than about "encounter balance". Sorry, but if my players waltz their characters into an undead warren with the same spells, equipment and expectations than when cleaning an orc lair, it's not about the game being "balanced", it's about the fantasy world getting flat.
|
|
...(b)ut Sleep is also a rules keyword, not just a spell name. Even if "it's 4e and stuff", keywords and damage types are supposed to mean something. As pointed above, a stone golem is immune to sleep, so the designers took that into account. What I fail to see is their being coherent (or at least their explaining why some animates are immune to sleep and some not).
Yeah, sleeping is sort of a keyword, attached to extended rests and such, despite elves, eladrin, and warforged not actually "sleeping". In fact, it only seems to come up as the name of that spell, or in regards to extended rests, or that bit about animates not "needing" to sleep as a biological function (since, as animates, they have no "biology"). Lemme know if you've found it coming up otherwise.
Not to sound like a know-it-all, but actually the original meaning of charm is magic spell (from French Chant and that from Latin Carmen, incantation, spell). "Charming with words, as in persuading" is a derivative meaning, though more frequent in modern English.
Ya gotta point there, too. And I shoulda picked up on that, having studied Latin for a few years back in high school. :(
As you point out, the word obviously has evolved since then. In colloquial use, if I won a girl over with my (nonexistent) charm, I didn't actually "magically" seduce her, and that's the way we use the word today. Plus, in most campaigns, there is no Rome or France, and we only use English because that's what most of the game designers/players seem to speak. Just mentioning it.And I will admit, it was a bad example. :)
QUOTE="Andreas Skye"]But a fireball's stuff is fire indeed. Try using it against a red dragon and he's going to burn very little. There are "fancy names" (like Acid Arrow, it is just a projectile of magical stuff, not an "arrow"), but wizards are academics. Some of their labels have bearing on their usefulness and limitations (and are reflected by keywords in the rules).
Again, bad example. It was late, and I was tired. My bad. Basically, I was trying to come up with some examples of wizards just naming stuff off of what it looked like it was doing. Fireball does do fire damage, in an evocation sort of way. It's not conjuring fire, it's manipulating the world to make fire out of pure magic energy. Now, there was a line drawn betwixt the two in 3.X, but not in 4E, so it's probably still the remnants of my 3rd Edition experience popping up.
And honestly, if wizards are scholars, on par with our scientists, then they are figuring things out based on human experiences, either directly obseved or through man-made devices. What, honestly, makes Europe and Asia different continents? Or Pluto a planet or a planetoid? There are no hard-and-fast rules to physics or magic, other than the ones we make up to explain the universe.
I think, honestly, it really is a sort of 3.X/4E semantics issue, and I understand it sticking in anyone's craw. But that's the crux of it. If it doesn't make sense for a spell called sleep, despite how magic, by its nature, breaks our physical rules, to make skeletons fall down and not move for a while, then by all means house-rule that stuff.
As I say (too much), "I'm only sayin', is all."
Or Pluto a planet or a planetoid?
Enough mass and gravity to force it into a sphere. If it does not look like a ball its not a planet - its a rock.
|
|
And that's such a nice way of putting it down. Take it or leave it. I have to say, the 1-page section on "house rules" in the DMG is pretty ridiculous when compared to 20-odd years of role-playing with more rules systems than I can remember. If a RPG rules system is not flexible enough to encompass different tastes of playing and different campaign options taken by a gaming group, it has a problem.
But then, I do think 4e is flexible enough (in being simpler and less book-keeping oriented, it can actually be more flexible than 3.5).
I don't really care that much about "balance", at least I don't it let in the way of the kind of campaign I want to create with my players. If we want to play in a world where non-intelligent undead are relentless machines which cannot be affected by mental spells, no rule is going to stop us. If we want to play in a setting where specters are true menaces which cannot be harmed by normal weapons, well, we are. I don't let a not-so-deep rule (particular immunities of a particular subset of monsters) get in the way of role-playing.
Sorry if that was terse. It's what I get for posting quickly at work.
I had made a case for going creature by creature and determining which could be harmed by snaek attack and who couldn't. Someone on this list talked me out of it, and the basis of the argument was "this way lies madness." It's kind of like asking, "How many angels dance on the head of a pin?" It can send you in a tail spin of logical if.. then connections that are only as self-contained as the initial premise.
I am running 3.P and also 4.0. I am playing 4.0 also. I would have better served both you and this conversation by saying, the methodology of design in 3.5 serves this conversation better than the methodoogy and design of 4.0.
There are mechanics of monster design in 4.0, and there is ntohgin to stop you form giving every class of creature immunity to a specfic type of power. Just keep in mind that in doing so, you undercut the efficicincy of specific classes, and diminish their role in relationship to the other classes. 3.5 revels in difference and embraces it. 4.0 has worked just as hard to develop equality and balance of class.
So, when I have someone at my 4.0 table begin to develop a causal argument based on physics, I say, "Dude it's a game." This works for 4.0. When my 3.5 table does the same, we begin taking inventory on said angels dancing on the pin that I mentioned above, and discuss their various merits. To me, these are different games and different aesthetics of play.
You however, should run your game the way you want. It's gotta be fun for you, or why bother.
Hope this was less pithy and more informative.
And honestly, if wizards are scholars, on par with our scientists, then they are figuring things out based on human experiences, either directly obseved or through man-made devices. What, honestly, makes Europe and Asia different continents? Or Pluto a planet or a planetoid? There are no hard-and-fast rules to physics or magic, other than the ones we make up to explain the universe.
I think, honestly, it really is a sort of 3.X/4E semantics issue, and I understand it sticking in anyone's craw. But that's the crux of it. If it doesn't make sense for a spell called sleep, despite how magic, by its nature, breaks our physical rules, to make skeletons fall down and not move for a while, then by all means house-rule that stuff.
Fine with that, problem is not in the naming of the spell, but of the rules having an effect keyword called "Sleep" (check the MM Glossary); the keyword describes effects which cause "unconsciousness". I wonder if you can really render an animate unconscious. Then some observations in the MM are also a bit murky, like why Stone Golems are immune to sleep but skeletons not when the description fluff qualifies them as "mindless and soulless". The Flesh Golem not being immune to sleep is a nice touch, as (in my interpretation) its having a brain implies some memories of human emotion, a la Frankenstein.
I also have some trouble with Immortal-type creatures not dying of natural causes, but their not being marked as immune to non-magical diseases (nobody just dies of "nature", people die of conditions and afflictions which cause damage to organs, age just catalyzes those conditions).I am fine with latitude in the definitions, as the DM can personalize and interpret things in his campaign, I just feel that this area of the MM could do with a little revision, more for internal coherence than for "continuity" with other editions of D&D. I don't suffer about it, as the system is open enough to adjudicate those decisions, I was just scanning for some feedback on the whole issue.
So your telling me if the spell had been called I don't know Lockdown, or Coma or Cease it wouldn't be a problem but sleep is misleading?
Again, I am not thinking 3.5 here, what I find misleading is the keyword label. What I have trouble with is that I see inconsistency within the 4e MM or at least the designers have been really scarce when explaining what lies behind monsters' immunities. Why some Animates are immune to Sleep and others are not (by 4e MM) is my issue. The manual does not bother about explaining the difference. If you carried the argument to the extreme, one could rule that if skeletons can be put "unconscious" (unconscious is not the same as paralyzed or deactivated), they may as well be knocked down in melee. Can they? That kinda breaks the "relentless" feeling of mindless undead in the fluff text.
An example I've been checking on: take the Purple Worm, it's immune to Gaze and Illusion. The first makes total sense because the thing is blind (has Blindsense and Tremorsense); the second I don't know how to figure out, so I thought maybe the designers were assuming that illusions have a basic visual component, therefore blind critters are immune to them. Then I checked the Grimlock, another blind creature. It has Blindsense and Immunity to Gaze powers, all right, but no immunity to Illusion. Why is the Purple Worm immune to Illusion then? Maybe because it is a very stupid vermin? Perhaps, but some Spiders have lower Int than the Worm and they are not immune to Illusion. Perhaps because he has no senses whatsoever (hearing, smell, sight, etc, just blindsight and tremorsense) and therefore no illusion can affect it, because illusions affect the 5 senses? Maybe the designers have a great rationale behind them, but their principle is not transparent when reading the MM. At times, in fact, the fluff seems to contradict the statblock: going back to skeletons, if they're "emotionless", why aren't they immune to fear effect? If a Fear spell works, can be they Intimidated with Skill usage? This imprecision is also annoying because it affects the capacity of getting a good idea of what keywords do when creating new monsters by using MM ones as analogues.
I was not thinking 3.5 at any time. I have my 3.5 games and do not need mixing things up if I don't want to. I do really find monster keywords (in issues like immunities and vulnerabilities) confusing and the fluff which explains the stats too scant, something quite annoying when:
1) many monsters have been given a big spin in the new "base mythology" of 4e
2) the spirit of the game is "1 rule - many exceptions". A good breakthrough of monster keywords would have been nice.
Moral of the story, no it doesn't work the way it used to, and its a good thing.
TO summarize the longish post above: fine, does not work the way it used to, but can they at least explain how it works? You may thing the rules are a big improvement from 3.x (and in some instances they are), but I kinda appreciate the 3.x tendency of explaining things better, even if redundantly.
In the monster issue, it seems quite hard to me to create new creatures using the 4e MM as a source of inspiration. This pre-packed format kills me and I don't blame the rules, but the design options for the books.
Death is the big sleep.
It's etenal rest.
The sleep spell is allowed to send undead and Flesh Golems back to that rest. This adds the problem of the expression "Sleep like a rock". Vampires sleep during the day, in their coffins.
Note that The Frankenstein Monster slept between movies. He died till repaired by a member of the Frankenstein family.
Pluto is a planetoid. It has the orbit, but not the mass.
Death is the big sleep.
It's etenal rest.
I would not advise to try dying and then making saving throws each round to come back.
MM 282: Sleep [Keyword]: Powers and effects that render a creature
unconscious have this keyword.
MM 284: Undead [Keyword]: Undead are not living creatures; spells
and effects that specifically target living creatures do not
work against them. Most undead have resistance to necrotic
damage, are immune to poison, and are vulnerable to
radiant damage. Undead do not need to breathe or sleep.
MM 281: Construct [Keyword]: Constructs are not living creatures;
spells and effects that specifically target living creatures do
not work against them.
Most constructs have resistance or immunity to disease
and poison. Constructs do not need to breathe, eat, or sleep
MM 282: Demon [Keyword]: Demons are evil elemental creatures
native to the Abyss. They breathe and eat, but do not sleep.
They are not immune to sleep effects, however.
Devil [Keyword]: Devils are evil immortal creatures native to
the Nine Hells. They breathe and eat, but do not sleep. They
are not immune to sleep effects, however.
"unconscious" is quite more precise than "disabled", "deactivated", whatever. Also, it's noteworthy that demons, devils (also angels) are explicitly marked as not needing sleep but not being immune to sleep effects. That line is missing for undead and constructs. Lazy editor? Maybe. Meanwhile I won't stop thinking that the monster rationale is ambiguous in the MM. I thought the game was about running a fantasy world using rules, not about defining the fantasy world by a set of rules. My mistake.
well it goes something like this , the sleep spell makes creatures stop moving and go prone, its what it does. Honestly I think the name is something of a proud nail, if this spell was called cease their would be no problem.
Just ignoring my previous post. It's not a spell name, Sleep is a keyword too, and it is explained as effect which causes unconsciousness. That's not stopping moving and going prone. Unconscious, immobilized and prone are different conditions (PHB 277). If you guys interpret the spell that way, you're actually modifying the 4e material.
I mean does the 3.x version of the spell use some form an magical anthesia? if so why not elfs they can go unconcious after all? Is it a compulsion or charm (check the keywords no)
I guess you mean anesthesia. I was not considering 3.5 in my discussion, but, in fact, it is quite well-explained: Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-affecting]... Area: One or more living creatures...
"A sleep spell causes a magical slumber... Slapping or wounding awakens a sleeping creature..."It appears that sleep is just as unexplained in 3.x some enchantment that makes creatures go asleep, so why can't the undead be put to sleep in 3.x well because of some internally consistant feature.
My point: the spell effect is explained: it creates a "strong" version of natural slumber in the targets (which must be able to sleep to begin with). The consistent feature is that undead are not living, hence no sleep.
I have an easy time creating new monsters, I either pick an existing monster or think of something shiny and new (lets say 3 headed giraffe). I then check the MM if i want to see if something simular exists already (yes or no) Yes -> is the creature the role/level i want ? then use it. If no for either --> I look at the formulas for a creature of the level and role i want. (you can use a handy dandy calculator for this one such as...
You did not get my point at all. Yes, creating the stat blocks and math for monsters (and balancing them for encounter levels) with 4e is a very easy ride. My issue is with the mythology/rationale/coherence behind the monster types. As the designers announced, they reinvented a good deal of the "classical" D&D mythology. E.G.:
1) elementals are, as seen, admixtures of 2 elemental principles from the Elemental Chaos, not just a pure element.2) lamias are a strange insectoid swarm
3) vampires can walk around in daylight, they just don't regenerate in it (funny, that goes all the way back to the Stoker novel, where Dracula walked during the day in human form; the "sun as a bane" was introduced by the W. Murnau Nosferatu movie).
That's really fine (and fun) for me. But the MM is really fluff-scant. What I am missing are details in how undead, elementals, demons, etc work as a creature type, beyond the 3-liners in the Glossary. I don't have trouble brewing up stat blocks, the issue is with getting the gist on the mythology, figuring out why some angels are immune to disease and others not; why Maruts are immune to sleep, etc.
If that does not worry you, fine, you've made clear that the most important thing about a monster is the stat block. In your, oh, so funny I'm laughing "monster creation example", you did not write any monster type keywords, not to speak of description or Lore info. I guess those are irrelevant. Hey, we might as well play Tunnels and Trolls, you just need the Monster Level, its HP and the attack modifiers, you give it a name and let the dice roll!!!
If you care about mythological and background coherence within a campaign world, well, it is still hard to piece it out from the MM. But to each one its own...
I'm quoting from the 4th edition Monster Manual glossery.
"Sleep [Keyword]: Powers and effects that render a creature unconscious have this keyword."
This is very different from 3.5 sleep.
Undead and Flesh Golems can be unconscious in 4th edition, apparently.
Andreas Skye, I do not try to kill myself any more because I failed.
Lots of times.
In a fantasy game you can come back from death.
I know the difference.
Your joke died like in the real world causing a horrible mess.
I am sorry I cannot put you on ignore.
If you delete the offensive joke from your post, I will delete my response from mine.
If you delete the offensive joke from your post, I will delete my response from mine. [/QUOTEIf you read my post (where I already quoted your quote), everything there within game-term mechanics, most of it are quotes from the MM. You made allusions to the real world and eternal blah. Death in 4e is not a saving thrown condition (dying is) so your analogy of the "eternal sleep" did not work in terms of 4e, as much as other proposals for 4e unconsciousness affecting undead sound closer to stun or immobilize do.
If you read it other way, well, to each one his/her own.
I cannot edit my last 2 posts in this topic.
If someone who works here could just delete them for me.
I really don't care for this argument.
I don't know how I got into it.
If I ever start playing 4th edition,
I will have no problem with this particular vunerability.
...Maybe the designers have a great rationale behind them, but their principle is not transparent when reading the MM. At times, in fact, the fluff seems to contradict the statblock...
I think your getting to some of the contradictions that cropped up with some design goals in 4E that did not work perfectly. Basically they have said, I think in the monster design article, that they really wanted to have it so that the stat blocks were very reasonably sized and yet included everything you needed to run the monster.
A laudable goal but one they soon realized was essentially impossible. If you had no key words and types then you'd have to go through all the trouble of telling us that every construct was immune to X and Y and Z.
Since that was not really what they wanted but was needed they opted to use key words and type but to go at them with a hack saw. They only include actual rules were they could not avoid it - and they were willing to go a really long way to avoid it. In some cases they have stretched things far past the point of believability in a desperate attempt to avoid having lots of extraneous rules about monsters that were not in the monster stat block.
I'm of the opinion that they took the idea that monsters should have reasonable sized stat blocks and be self contained, which is a good 'rule of thumb', and damaged things by trying to hard to follow the design goal 100% instead of acknowledging that it was a good idea that they'd try and follow when possible.
If the rules for stuff like monster type were tyranny in 3.5 then what we have in 4E is anarchy. There is a happy medium - though it does mean that one has to get used to the idea that all undead get a laundry list of immunities and such, but 4E failed to implement it going from one bad extreme to the other. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways when 4.2 comes out with DMG II and MM II - but I doubt it.
Personally I think your best option is to tie some more house rules back to type - that way you don't have to change the rules for every monster - its just that all creatures that are animates are immune to anything with the keyword sleep in your campaign.